Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/12/2002 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Member Lydia A. Tortora Member George Horning Member Ruth D. Oliva Member Vincent Orlando Board Secretary Linda Kowalski Secretary Paula Quintieri PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:15 pm Appl. No. 5199 -ADRIANNE GREENBERG AND MARY C. GABRIEL. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's July 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for a proposed deck addition t the existing dwelling with a setback at less than 35' from the rear lot line. 1115 Sound Drive, Greenport; Parcel 33-4-74. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to welcome everyone to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals, we wish everyone a happy holiday season and I'd like to say the pledge of allegiance. ADRIANNE GREENBERG: Hello, my name is Adrianne Greenberg. CHAIRMAN: Good evening, what would you like to tell us? MS. GREENBERG: Well, we just moved to Greenport. We had a house for 2 years,we are now full time here, and we love it and we want to be able to put a deck on out backyard. CHAIRMAN: I was over there and I looked at it. Is there any reason why you choose 12' as opposed to 10' or any of that nature? MS. GREENBERG: Contractor said that would be a good size to be able to put the tables and people without people bumping into anybody.. CHAIRMAN: Because of the size of the lot, I know you are limited of course that's the reason you are here so let's see how it goes. This deck will be open, there's no enclosures on it, there's no roof, there's no- MS. GREENBERG: The whole piece of property is nonconforming, so nothing about the house is conforming. Page 2 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: We'll start with Mr. Horning, any questions of this nice lady? MEMBER HORNING: Have you considered any other variations on the deck plan, or do you have just one firm plan? MS. GREENBERG: Well the depth of the deck as I said we were told we could put a table and chairs around it and people around it, it was recommended to us. The length we built 2 sliding doors one on one side of the house and the other on the other and we'd like to be able to go out on the deck from the sliding doors rather than having to go up and down steps. So we'd like to be able to have it from one end to the other. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Are there any additions or decks on that block that are as close to the property line as you're planning to be? MS. GREENBERG: Well the people right across the street, Maryann Dinizio, her deck is probably as close, I can't see,nobody will be able to see the deck because there's a great big fence between my property and the people in the back,no one on the side could see it, no one will see the deck other than anyone who is in my house or on the deck. So I have no idea. MEMBER TORTORA: Please answer the question. MS. GREENBERG: I really don't know. MEMBER OLIVA: I just wonder too, if you couldn't cut the deck to 10' across. I have a deck too, and it's about 10' across and you can get a fair amount on that with tables and chairs and so forth. MS. GREENBERG: Well, I don't doubt it, I just felt that if we're going to build it, we might as well build it to start with a size that would be very comfortable instead of worrying after the fact, why didn't we ask for another 2'? The idea was to do it once and do it right. MEMBER OLIVA: I understand. MS. GREENBERG: That was the size that was recommended to us. CHAIRMAN: Surely. The way the hearing works very simply, we now open it up to the audience. If no one speaks we close the hearing. We do not necessarily make a decision at this moment. Just so you are aware of the situation. We thank you for coming in and we thank you for presenting it. And we will do the best we can to get you a decision. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 2 of 56 Page 3 December 12;2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 6:20 pm Appl.No. 5209 -DIANE DANEK. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's May 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for approval of the nonconforming setback of an "as built" deck located at less that 35' from the front lot line. 290 Great Pond Way, Southold; Parcel 59-9-10.3. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? You are the lady that we granted a B&B to are you not? MS. DANEK: Yes I am. CHAIRMAN: Now you are looking for an addition on the east side of your house. Standing in front of it, it's on the right hand side. Do you want to tell us why? MS. DANEK: Actually I'm here for a variance on an "as built" without the proper setback. That's why so that everything will be permanent. CHAIRMAN: Tell us about the "as built" -how did that happen? MS. DANEK: I just thought it would be nice improvement on the house compared to what was on the house when I bought it. It was 6'out,before I think it was 6'platform to the front door and 17 wide, so it's a small porch front area. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: You have on here,proposed family room addition? MS..DANEK: That's for the Building Department,that's not what I need a variance for. MEMBER OLIVA: You just want the variance for the as built deck. Okay, did you just build that deck or was it there when we looked at it? MS. DANEK: It was there. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The closest point is 35.5. What's the size of the deck,just one more time? MS. DANEK: Just 6' out from the house, and 17'. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: It's roofed,because you have porch that's why I was curious. MS. DANEK: I call it a porch,but it's really a deck. Page 3 of 56 Page 4 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing -MEMBER-TORTORA: -It's--open-now,.yo-.0 don't.-i.ntend.to MS. DANEK: No I don't intend to. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: The deck was built after you bought your house? MS. DANEK: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you basically didn't get any permits, you just kind of built it on there. So you're here for forgiveness? MS. DANEK: So be it. MEMBER ORLANDO: On the one side of the house, are you going to rail it against the rest of the house, are you going to continue it with the rest of the house- it doesn't show on the plans. MS. DANEK: I won't continue it on. It will stay as is with the railing on the side now because they took the lattice down that was there to build the addition. So the railing piece will have to be installed on the side. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN: We thank you. Please don't leave until this hearing is closed, and we'll see what develops. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 6:25 pm Appl. No. 5212- FRANK SCAVONE. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's August 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for a proposed accessory building at less than 5' from the side yard line. 1615 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 137-4-35. CHAIRMAN: Good evening, sir. FRANK SCAVONE: I'm proposing a tool shed be put in the southwest corner of the property, the purpose of the shed is to be a woodworking shop. I do woodworking as a hobby. I'm not a contractor, and in no way do I intend to use this for any sort of commercial application. Page 4 of 56 . Page 5 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing -CH ANM-H-o-w-Eg is-this-hullding_six?-...-_--------.._.._..... .----.__._ MR. SCAVONE: 16x22, and my intention when I originally applied was to fit it into that southwest corner of the property up against my neighbors garage that was up against my neighbors garage which is zero lot line structure. It's that green structure in the photo. And my goal is to kind of put it in there in between some trees that are marked in the photos and the edge of his property in a way that would have a minimal impact to anybody. When I made the proposal to go zero lot line or within 6" of the property line on both sides, I was under the impression that my neighbors would be okay with it. Since then I have learned that my neighbor to the south has a concern that I'm sure he'll voice, and I guess,the only other thing I have to mention was that my intention was to do this in a manner that-was consistent with the architectural integrity of my house, the same cedar shakes, white trim, kind of make it nice. I have to look at it as well, so obviously I want it to be a good looking structure, and I guess the final point is that I didn't realize it when I made the application. I thought the required setback was 5'per your code, I've been advised- actually I think someone on the board pointed it out that it's actually 3' setback because of the size of the lot. So there is that mistake in the application and that's it. CHAIRMAN: It's not a mistake, we can modify it. MEMBER TORTORA: Actually in the case of a waterfront lot, it says you can put accessory structures in the front yard provided they meet the front yard setback requirement on the front yard. So neither one of us is right. Front yard requirements would be whatever the setback is. It wouldn't be 3' and it wouldn't be 5'. CHAIRMAN: He already has that, he has a garage which pretty much meets those setbacks. Or even greater than. MR. SCAVONE: If you notice,the plot is notched. I guess when they did the subdivision, there's actually a garage in front of me and the street. I was under the impression I was being dealt with kind of like a side yard, not necessarily off the street line. CHAIRMAN: Let me just tell you something. This board does not grant 6" or 8" or whatever. You have to be able to work on the building on your own property. We're talking a minimum of 5, 6 something of that nature. MR. SCAVONE: What is the allowable setback now? CHAIRMAN: The Notice of Disapproval reads 5, I believe. MR. SCAVONE: So T is the number? CHAIRMAN: Right. Page 5 of 56 Page 6 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SCAVONE: And that's despite the fact that my lot size is less than 20,000 sq. ft.? MEMBER TORTORA: It's in a front yard location. MR. SCAVONE: Right, but that's kind of a strange thing because it's a waterfront lot. My back yard is my front yard. It's a very difficult for me. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a problem with 5'? MR. SCAVONE: At this point, if I take anything less, I need a certain amount of room to put my tools in place. So to take it over any distance, I have to take those trees out. So really I'm actually indifferent between 3' and 5', what I would like to do is get closer to the green structure going west on the property so I don't have to come 5' down the property. It just actually creates more of an obtuse structure from everyone's vantage point. MEMBER TORTORA: There's no way, you can attach it to- MR. SCAVONE: I proposed that. Oh to my neighbors garage, or my existing garage? MEMBER TORTORA: You have a detached garage in the front yard now. MR. SCAVONE: I can't. The reason is at some point and time, if we decide to have more children, the way I would expand the house is in that direction, and I would incur a wrath greater than that of the variance board if my wood shop is in the way. MEMBER TORTORA: Enough said. CHAIRMAN: The cement block wall or the wall that's holding this garage up- MR. SCAVONE: My neighbor's garage. CHAIRMAN: Yes, is just off the properly line. MR. SCAVONE: I believe it's 6" off. He's basically zero lot line to me on 2 sides that notched corner. CHAIRMAN: The question I have is - you can't even build it. I mean 3' is the minimum someone could go to build it. To get in there and work on it. If you built it out of cement block I guess you could build it. MR. SCAVONE: What you do is basically build a wall and then tilt it up into place. That's the way-I always wondered that- it's kind of funny that you asked,but I lived in San Francisco for a number of years and all the houses are built right next to each other with maybe an inch in between. I always wondered how they did it. What they do is build the wall on the floor tilt it up and attach it in place. So they are tilting up a finished wall up against the structure. My goal Page 6 of 56 ;Page 7 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing originally was to build it directly against my neighbors.and seal it off so we wouldn't have moisture.and debris.and things_like thatjbut..that'.s.not..going,to happen. CHAIRMAN: Alright, let's start with Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I went to see it too, and I wondered too why he couldn't pull it out and away from everything too,just a bit to give yourself some space to get around? MR. SCAVONE: The direction that I would pull it, can I approach you guys and show you on the picture? CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Danek, you can go I just wanted to make sure no one spoke when we went to the audience, that you couldn't reflect upon it. Excuse me, sir. MR. SCAVONE: Here's where the structure is and those 2 trees are right there, so I'm pulling it that way 5' and I can pull it that way 5', but essentially, it's going to line up even with my neighbors garage, and then their will be a 5' walkway and a 5'walkway there. The problem is I need to have-this is going to sound kind of crazy- I have a table saw, the minimum length of the wood is 8', so you need 8' on each side of the blade. That's why I need a 24' structure so I could have room to pass the wood through. CHAIRMAN: Makes sense. MR. SCAVONE: I could do that 5' and 5',but then it really begins to becomes much more visible from here as you are passing by. When I renovated my house originally, I kept this open for my neighbor, they were very appreciative of that. Actually,by trying to retain the 5' setback, you're actually creating more of a visual impairment than if you just tucked it in. MEMBER OLIVA: From the street though,that garage is so big, I don't think you'd even see yours. The thing is you're going to lose the 2 trees. MR. SCAVONE: I didn't want to lose the trees,but I'm going to have to take them down to put it in place. Coming off of his property on the south line, if you make me go to the 5' line, I understand that, I'm not sitting here in stone. Making me come 5' off the back of his garage, you make the point, that he needs enough room to maintain his own thing,my neighbor would have to come on my property to fix his own siding or whatever the case may be. You know, a 2 or 3' channel is plenty of room for me to construct it, keep the area clean, and for him to access my property of access his own structure if he needs to, and it's 2 or 3'less and I have to come down my property and kind of into my view channel of my yard. I have a picture here,just one more approach. This is looking from the street, looking down. We are proposing-potentially you see the edge of this structure over here. CHAIRMAN: What I would do is put some arborvitae up, this way it would break it up a little. Page 7 of 56 Page 8 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SCAVONE: I can do that, like I said, I would like to see it a little bit closer to try and cut --- ....-off that-obstruction-a little-bi-t,-butt---real-l-y.what-I-need..to-do is get it.done.---l-was hoping-to-get it-in _. this year and the frost is coming. CHAIRMAN: Lydia, you have any other questions for this gentleman? Vince, questions? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. First of all, I personally don't have a problem if you moved it 3' from all sides. My second question is how deep - you putting a 3' footing in, or you putting in a crawl space? MR. SCAVONE: I'm putting a 3' footing, and whether I poured a slab or a footing with a wood floor, I haven't decided yet. But it will be a 3' footing, and it will be digging it in, as you notice, the slope of the ground slightly goes up. I'm actually cutting it in a little bit, so from my neighbors perspective it's going to look lower because his properties higher. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think 3'is the bare minimum because otherwise you lose the integrity of your neighbors wall if you try to get any closer than that. MR. SCAVONE: If the board went with 3' 1 still have to take the trees out, but I would greatly appreciative. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for another note for yourself in the future, as I do, I line my table saw up with my door, and I just open the door, so you don't need to have that big a width. That was my way of curing it. MR. SCAVONE: That would let the heat out in the winter. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have to cut fast, it's a guy thing. I don't know if you have to do arborvitaes because you have a.very pretty built house and it's going to match that. It wouldn't be unpleasant at all. MR. SCAVONE: It's going to be beautiful. Thank you very much. We worked hard at it. MEMBER HORNING: Do you have any idea when your neighbor's garage was constructed? MR. SCAVONE: I do not. It was there when I moved in, so I certainly knew what I was getting into and this is unfortunate,this situation with him opposing it because we've had a great relationship up until now as neighbors. I've cleaned his roof, he stuccoed the side to make it more visually appealing to me so it's funny how these things work. But to answer your question I do not know when it was built,but I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property if that's where you're headed. MEMBER HORNING: I was just commenting that you're sort of creating an additional hazard fire hazard potential if your garage caught fire and his was a foot or less away. Page 8 of 56 ..,Page 9 December 12, 2002 Southold'Town Board of Appeals Re6ular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SCAVONE: It doesn't sound like it's a foot or so away, and I'm not sure what the clear -- zone is,.but..I_assure.you,.L'-1l..be using-materials._that..are_.as_least-conducive-to-that..as...possible. . .. .: . Given it appears as though you have adequate space to have the proper setbacks, I think you are getting the sentiment from the board that perhaps we're not inclined to give you the variance for what you are asking, like I said, I'd be very pleased with the 3' decision. What I really need to do at this point is get it going. Had I known that I was even able to do it at 3 or 5', the way it was just discussed, I would have just applied and done it in August when I started the process. CHAIRMAN: We are now going to go to the audience, so we thank you for your presentation. I just want to ask you one more question, this is a one story building? MR. SCAVONE: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN: Not to exceed 12' in height, is that correct? MR. SCAVONE: No, it's just 16 in total to the ridge of the roof,but it's going to be a moderate slope on the roof. It's pretty much matching the architectural design of my neighbors garage, but lower. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against the application? Good evening, sir can you state your name for the record? BOB GRISSEL: My name is Bob Grissel, I'm his neighbor, and I'm against this entirely. Ladies and gentlemen, it's good to be here. If he puts up his building, it's going to be 22xl6x16'high, when I step out of my house, all I will see is the back of a building. My trees will be cut down. It will take away from the character of the neighborhood because there isn't one building like this on the entire block. Nothing. It will also block the water view for the people across the street, who are not here right now, they are in Florida. I don't think they know about this. Even if you walk on the street, on Fleetwood, you just won't get a water view. Frank has made a beautiful building. I mean he's really done a great job. It's sensational,but to put up a building,22, that's half the size of this room. This is a massive, massive building.. It is possible that he could it as commercial too,it's possible,but I doubt it. I hope not anyway. There's also water drainage. Now this is a hill. You have 2 garages maybe 6' apart or 3', whatever it's going to be. There's going to be runoff and it may damage my side of the wall. I also have a very beautiful goldfish pond out there and I will not get any sunlight into the pond which the fish need. I also have plantings which this massive structure will blot out. I'm opposed to this entirely, in every possible way. You mention 5' away, I think there was an ordinance on this where it was more than 6'because it's a front road structure. I also have pictures here if you want to see them. CHAIRMAN: I was over there last week when the snow was on the ground. MR. GRISSEL: It's beautiful,but it will cause damage to- CHAIRMAN: I do want to see the pictures you have because I did not study the back wall of your garage. Page 9 of 56 Page 10 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. GRISSEL: This is Frank's house. .Here's the wall over here, you see it's a hill. Here is a ---...... ...........gara-p,-These--trees-will-be-cut-down-.-J-1-ove-tree&-_Here-is-the_view_.fr©m..my_place..You-kno.w_._..__ ..-.-- the wall is over here. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you're saying the shade from the trees is different from the shade from the shed? MR. GRISSEL: Well it's going to be a big shed, it's going to be 60'high, by 22. MEMBER ORLANDO: But these oak trees are mammoth. MR. GRISSEL: They are big trees. But that will be the first thing I see when I come out of my door. One big building 16x22. CHAIRMAN: That's massive, that's %Z the size of this room. MR. GRISSEL: There's more, there's my garage over there and the pond is over here, now you've got a big rain storm, that water's got to go somewhere. CHAIRMAN: We'll pass these down gentlemen and ladies. MEMBER ORLANDO: The of that property really drains on the applicants property. I mean initial rain will come off the shed but that's going to come right back. MEMBER OLIVA: Why don't you require him to put gutters on. MR. GRISSEL: I just don't want to look at the back of a building. CHAIRMAN: 1 understand. I also want to address the issue of water view. We cannot protect anybody else's water view unless they have a scenic easement over someone's property and we understand that in a very scenic area where you live, the water view is very important thing. But I just want you to be aware of that. It's an issue that you are certainly welcome to bring up,but it's not something we can protect so to speak. Is there anything else you would like to say? MR. GRISSEL: I'm just against the building entirely. When I spoke to Frank first,he mentioned a little tool shed. This is not a tool shed. This is a big, big building. It will take away my view from the north, it's just not good. It just won't look good in the neighborhood. MEMBER HORNING: When was your garage constructed? MR. GRISSEL: I don't know. I bought the house 10 years ago and the house was built in 1920. So it's been there a long, long time. MEMBER HORNING: Do you think the garage was built around that time? MR. GRISSEL: I guess so. Page 10 of 56 Page 11 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing _._.....---.__1VIE1vIBEB�iORNING: ..What.are the dimensions_of your..gaarage? MR. GRISSEL: It's a normal 2-car garage. It looks to be the same size. MEMBER HORNING: What do you do for drainage on your garage? MR. GRISSEL: I have gutters. MEMBER HORNING: And that's adequate? CHAIRMAN: I guess we'll ask you another question, Mr. Applicant. Any reason why you have to build it 16'high? MR. SCAVONE: Yes. Usually when you are cutting an 8'piece of wood, even if you're cutting it straight down the middle you need 4' on either side, so then you have 8' and then a 16' you have an additional 8' and assuming you have tool benches,on the side, you need a 2' walkway. So 16' is really the minimum width for the long structure. CHAIRMAN: Let's talk about height. MR. SCAVONE: The height, I'm just trying to get enough clearance on the inside of the structure itself so I can turn things over without hitting the ceiling. So I was going to have a 10, wall and then from the top of wall to the top of the ridge was an additional 6'. I can cut down the slope of the roof and make it 15'. CHAIRMAN: The reason why is ask that question is whenever we create a 1-story building, there's really no.reason to put a really steep roof on a 1-story building. We always say it's between 12 and 13'. You know a 2-story building is 16'. That's-why I found it a little different when you mentioned it was 16'high. MR. SCAVONE: That was just my estimate. My neighbor made a point that there's no other structure like it. Well his garage is the closest structure like it and I actually modeled the roof line up with his roof. From the top of the wall to the ridge is approximately 6'. He mentioned a few other things, can I respond to those. CHAIRMAN: As long as they are not counterproductive. MR. SCAVONE: No, not at all. The trees that he's talking about cutting down, he referred to them as his trees. They are not his trees, they are my trees, that's obvious. The runoff that comes off of his building drains across my property as it is. If you look at the topography of the land, my wall is a concrete wall which we talked about and then my property drops down approximately 3' from that, so any water that comes either off his roof or off my roof from my new shed will in no way impact his property. It can only possibly land on mine because it is lower. As for his goldfish pond and his flowers,he is southern to my lot, so the sunlight is not blocked in any way by anything on my parcel, it actually goes in an arc across his property in Page 11 of 56 Page 12 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing front of mine. I tried to explain that to him, and obviously he feels strongly about it. As far as the view goes, if you look at the plot maps,his property and mine, as it is now, there's very little visibility that he has, and really the only view I'm blocking is an additional angular 9 or 10' through some bushes at the back of his own garage. His garage is a very nice garage and I enjoy looking at it, however I'm not cutting off any northern view whatsoever. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question?, In reference to a 5', 6', T side yard to the property line that this board may or may not grant are those bushes that are on your property line, those green bushes, those evergreens, are they going to be removed in any way? MR. SCAVONE: Yes, they are in the way. If we pull it 5' over, yeah, they are in the way. I would have to take those out and replant others. MEMBER ORLANDO: The height of your structure, will that exceed the height of your neighbor's garage? MR. SCAVONE: No, not at all. It will probably be almost 10' lower. His is built probably off my ground line, close to- MEMBER ORLANDO: Exactly and you have 2 stories. The first story which is the structure itself,holding up the garage and the surface of the garage, then 16-18' after that. It will be about 10' lower, my ridge to his ridge. I have no problem at all if you want to say my roof has to be 14' high, what I'm going to do is just decrease the slope of the roof. As far as the uncertainty as to what the required setback is whether it's 5, 6, or 7'. If it's 5', I can build it and I can put it still even with the edge of that garage and make it look aesthetically pleasing, if it's any further'than that, I can't it becomes this obtrusive thing that comes out further down and beyond the side of my neighbors garage itself. And at that point, I'll have a problem I will not be able to build a structure in a way that it looks good: CHAIRMAN: We have screened many things. One of the most extensive screenings that we have done are 140'in both directions of a tennis court with arborvitae. I have to tell you that must have cost 25-30K over in Mattituck by Wolf Pit Lake. The way this works, Mr. Scavone, whatever we garner the 3 votes out of the 5 people and that's what we refer to as alternate relief and that's how we come up with a decision, so it's a deliberation process. Just so you are aware of that. So we are going to take your concerns, we are going to take your neighbors concerns, and we may also place in there that we reserve the right to review the screening aspect. The screening of greenery after the building is completed and prior to a CO being issued. Those are some of the issues that we deal with. I just want you to be aware of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else like to speak? Yes sir, kindly state your name for the record. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ: Good evening, I'm Benjamin Schwartz. I wish you happy holidays. I live adjacent to Bob, Frank's house and Bob's house in the middle of mine. CHAIRMAN: You spoke at the last hearing about the people across the street. Page 12 of 56 Page 13 December 12'i 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes I was opposing that, this one I'm supporting to some extent. I've. written a 2 page statement which I can read very rapidly if the board will permit. It would probably be easier and make more sense than being extraneous. CHAIRMAN: You can submit it. MR. SCHWARTZ: Basically I have some comments that the NYS town law really is misleading and talks about this board the zoning board considering the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted and the detriment to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. It shouldn't be assumed that granting a variance is going to be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare. I think the NYS law should be re-written to require consideration of the impact rather than the detrimental impact. Such an impact is not necessarily in the negative as the language of the law assumes. For example in this case, I feel that granting a variance from the required setbacks will not only benefit the applicant but it will benefit the neighborhood. Similarly the town law continues by requiring this board to consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby communities will be created. And I can't see why this board shouldn't consider whether a desirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a benefit to nearby properties will be created by creating by granting an area variance. I think again,in this case, granting a variance Will produce a desirable change in the neighborhood and a benefit to the nearby properties. And you all know what the other considerations in the town board are so I'll just jump to my comments on them. In this case, I believe in area variance as the only feasible method by which this applicant can maximize the continuity of open space on his property and to minimize the fragmentation of open space in the neighborhood. In substance consideration of whether this is a substantial variance or not and in substance this is a granting of an area variance in this case would permit a clustering of the new accessory building on the subject property with the existing accessory building on the adjacent property. That building, the garage on Bob's property was built on an area which was leveled by retaining walls built right on the property lines. The garage is 20 'h'wide in front and 22' long. It's 20'high in the center of the backside facing the applicant's house. It's 15'high on the northeast corner I P high on the southeast corner which are both in the back. So it goes from 11 to 20 to 15 in the back. If he built a 15'high building, it would be below the lowest corner of the building behind there, especially if he set it into the ground so that the front of the building would be at ground level. The back of the building would be below ground level. Bob is here objecting,but the garage which he didn't build, but is on his property actually hangs over the property line in the front. Considering the site lines from Fleetwood Rd. the closer the proposed wood shop is built to the southwest corner of the property the less impact the building would have on the view of the water from the road. Considering that the wood shop will be built on the north side of the adjoining property, it will provide enhanced privacy and shelter for the level area in the adjoining property owners yard and will not block any sunlight. Granting an area variance will have a positive effect on the physical environment conditions of the neighborhood. It says there should be a minimum setback this board should consider granting the minimum necessary setback. The requested variance would reduce the setbacks on the south and west sides of the building to 6". This would create difficulty in accessing the south and west sides of the building, and create an impassible narrow space between the new property and the adjoining property owners retaining wall and garage. On the other hand, a variance reducing the required setbacks to 2' would alleviate those difficulties and Page 13 of 56 Page 14 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing avoid the creation of such an impassibly narrow space. Denial of an area variance would require the applicant to build the woodshop further out into the open space and deny benefit to the applicant and cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. The smaller building would proportionately reduce the value of the wood shop. Power tools, work benches and material storage take up room and a wood shop requires room to be left over for working. As far as imposition for any possible conditions or screening, in my estimation what I know of the neighborhood any required landscaping whether it be trees plants, fences or a wall would actually just add to the congestion to the subject property and also the neighborhood. I think Frank has done an admirable job of landscaping his property and he'll do what he needs to without any direction on the part of the board. I thank you very much and I just have a little thing here I'd like to add in conclusion. I'd like to share a few ideas from the writings and talks of Wendelberry. I don't know if the board is familiar with him - he's a conservationist, a farmer, an essayist- MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this applicable to the application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes it is, absolutely. He was referred to once in the NY Times as the prophet of rural America. This is a paraphrase of his words; a man ought to study the wildness of a place the land is too varied in it's kinds, climates and conditions aspects and histories to conform to any generalized understanding or prosper under generalized treatment treating every field or every part of every field with the same consideration is not farming,but industry. Farmers must tend to farms small enough to know and love use tools and methods that they know and love in the company of neighbors that they know and love. Well, it might not be directly applicable,but I'm asking that the board consider a variance and I feel that Tin the back, Ton the side would be more than enough for people to pass by. It would avoid wasting space and it would tuck the building in out of the site of the road. CHAIRMAN: We are ready for you sir. We need to wrap this thing up. MR. GRISSEL: Ladies and gentlemen I've know Ben for 10 years. He doesn't own the house, he owns no property at all there. Nothing. His parents let him live there, and that's it. He has turned the north side of my building into a garbage dump which I have pictures of debris, garbage, everything else. MEMBER HORNING: Can you talk about the applicant and not someone else? MR. GRISSEL: As far as credibility, he doesn't own anything. CHAIRMAN: We understand that,but he did speak at the last hearing and he is a resident of the town, and he does live in the neighborhood. I understand what you are saying,but you know we have to deal with stuff that's not counterproductive. MR. GRISSEL: The other people before had the same complaint that I have. That he has created a garbage pit. He's talking about beauty and trees and environment, and it's incredible. I have a picture of the garbage dump too if you want to see it. Page 14 of 56 Page 15 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:00 pm Appl. No. 5215-RONALD CASSARA. This is a Variance under Sections 100-33 and 100-239.4,based on the Building Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed additions at less than 100' from the top of the bluff or bank at it's closest points, and a request to demolish and build a garage building at less than 20' from the side lot line and less than 100' from the top of the bluff or bank at it's closest point. Location of Property: 30185 Cabot Woods Road, Peconic; Parcel 73-4-1. TOM SAMUELS: I'm Tom Samuels, the architect for the applicant. CHAIRMAN: I spent some time trying to find the driveway, and I did get down there. I visited one neighbor who is adjacent to this, dog didn't eat me up alive. I was happy about that. And we found this lot very nice with an older house on this. Would you tell us what you're demolishing, what you're not demolishing, what you are doing at this point,just for the record. Then we'll talk about CZM lines. MR. SAMUELS: Right. We are proposing to maintain the foundation and I"floor framing only of the existing house which as you know is nonconforming in it's setback to the sound and also in reference to the coastal erosion hazard line. We are proposing to add to that structure an addition into the footprint none of which is in the coastal erosion hazard zone but which is all within 100' of the tidal wetlands. For that house to be constructed would be a 2-story house together with the existing basement. In regard to the accessory building, we are proposing to pretty much demolish it complete and reconstruct a 2-car garage in that site. Also nonconforming relative to the side yard setback in that case. The reason that we're proposing both of these actions is that to comply, in that case Dr. Cassava's.case would have to push the house because of the unusual contour of the top of the bluff which is indented if you set back from that the closest 100'back pushes in more in fact than a 100'back from where he is currently because of this indentation and the fact that the property is an unusual shape. So it seemed appropriate to us to propose to save that foundation and grandfather if you will, it's not a grandfather anymore but grandfather that location. Adding to it in a way which is further from the bluff than the existing house. CHAIRMAN: What about the building again for the record the CZM line cuts right through? MR. SAMUELS: There are 2 little storage buildings which we'll probably use over time as cottages, whatever that means. We are not touching those or we don't propose to touch those. We just are leaving them they are really not used. They are just little buildings, maybe he uses one for gardening. CHAIRMAN: This is not a sarcastic statement. As you may or may not know, we have sent this off to soil and water to evaluate the bluff. We know that the bluff looks good it is extremely Page 15 of 56 Page 16 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing steep and so we'll see what they say when they come back. It looks as if it's goose run, I don't know. MR. SAMUELS: It's an un-hardened shore line and seemingly even though it's oriented towards the north and east, it seems to be stable. I have no reason to think otherwise. Obviously along the sound there are places that are completely unstable,but this one appears to be stable. There are some rocks. I don't think they are placed there artificially. It is vegetated. I think I would appreciate their input I'm sure. The Trustees have endorsed this, they also had that concern. CHAIRMAN: I walked around the foundation. I didn't see any significant cracks in the foundation. I deduced that there probably is no topside movement at this point. Mr. Horning, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Sure. For one, on the plot map there is an existing wood deck to be removed. What can you tell us about that? MR. SAMUELS: It's kind of on grade, I guess you saw it Gerry, it's like a dock almost, but it's built on grade platform. I don't even know if it's on footings or anything,but it's just sitting there and it showed up on the survey and we don't want it. In a sense, that is the closest encroachment and I don't believe that one showed up in the CO. Everything else showed up in the CO,but I don't think that did and we propose to remove it setback further from the bluff. MEMBER HORNING: How does that fit into the plan? MR. SAMUELS: We don't need it. MEMBER HORNING: So are you saying you're going to move it regardless? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. He doesn't use it now. If we have no relief from the ZBA, I'm not sure what would happen,but I'm telling you we don't need that deck, and he doesn't intend to maintain or preserve it. CHAIRMAN: Do you know, without the deck Tom what the actual setback would be? The closest point would be 22' 10", is that correct? MR. SAMUELS: That is correct. MEMBER TORTORA: There are 2 decks, I'm not sure, there's a wood deck that is almost plush with the top of bluff, and then there's the wood deck that- MR. SAMUELS: Is connected to the house. MEMBER TORTORA: Well it puts you 14' from the top of the bluff that you want to replace. CHAIRMAN: That's the one you're removing. Page 16 of 56 Page 17 December 12; 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMUELS: We are removing the one that's closest to the bluff. The one that as Mrs. Tortora says is almost flush with the grade. The other deck,we-which has a CO - are considering that as existing that footprint to be retained. We are replacing that deck with a covered porch. The same location. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the deck they have you at 14'. MR. SAMUELS: Okay I don't have the drawing with me at the moment. Whatever that dimension is, it's close. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning, are you done? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have it in my packet here, do you have a permit from the Trustees yet? MR. SAMUELS: Yes I do. MEMBER ORLANDO: I mean it could have just missed my packet. I don't have it in mine. I just wanted to make sure you got that. Now the deck in question, not the platform, but the other deck that's elevated from grade, it's up on posts. Is that going to be a foundation built or are you going to leave it on posts like that? MR. SAMUELS: I'm not really sure. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's kind of scary looking up there. MR. SAMUELS: We haven't done any construction drawings,but seeing as it's a porch, it could very well be on posts. MEMBER ORLANDO: How much of the existing residence house are you going to leave up as you do the demolition? MR. SAMUELS: Not much. It's a funny little house. There's not much in value there. MEMBER ORLANDO: The structural integrity, I wouldn't think you'd want to invest- MR. SAMUELS: We want to keep the foundation and- MEMBER ORLANDO: And the foundation is your life ring to stay close as opposed to moving it, since you're going to demolish it,moving it back. Page 17 of 56 Page 18 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMUELS: That's correct. If we're considered a grandfather situation, that is what we're saving, that is our foot in the door. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I just have great concerns about having things that close to the bluff. Having been through the local waterfront revitalization program and been involved with the erosion studies and walked a lot of this whole area. It scares me half to death that the people themselves when they build - it just takes the right storm, the right wave action and if it's too heavy on the top and runoff down there, you're down the bottom of the drink, and is there any way you want to move that hole back? But you want to use that same foundation. MR. SAMUELS: Well we'd like to use that same foundation. MEMBER OLIVA: What if we said you'd have to move it back? MR. SAMUELS: I mean obviously if you give us a number, we'll have to consider that, but I mean right now, we'd like you to consider letting us use the foundation. But the 100' is what pushes us to conform is pushes them way back into the woods. It's a considerable distance, I think my drawing shows it. MEMBER ORLANDO: It puts you back almost into the septic system. MR. SAMUELS: Well the septic system is 100'. It's all the way across the lawn and up a hill, and he loses much the sense of sweep of a view that he has now that's he's quite attached to obviously. MEMBER OLIVA: I can understand, but I really am concerned about it. I got almost up there- to where the other house is,but I started to slip and I didn't have a cell phone with me, and I didn't want to get stuck there- I'll go back up again. MR. SAMUELS: Good. CHAIRMAN: Be careful because it is mushy now. MEMBER OLIVA: I'll wait until it dries out. MR. SAMUELS: That long washboard road is just- MEMBER OLIVA: I know. MR. SAMUELS: Awful. Page 18 of 56 Page 19 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: Thank you Tom, don't leave please because we may have other questions. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to ask him about the garage. You're going to demolish the entire structure and use the existing foundation because it is going to be an expanded structure correct? MR. SAMUELS: The garage no, we were not planning to use, I'm sorry, which building? MEMBER TORTORA: The garage. MR. SAMUELS: We are not proposing to use anything of that structure. MEMBER TORTORA: So it will not-you're not going to be using the foundation, nothing. You just want to maintain the same 4' 6 setback, why? MR. SAMUELS: That side yard is less important to us. The side yard is far-less important to us there than the.100' setback. We can conform if it's 5 or 10 or whatever it is in that zone, it's probably 10 actually because we're talking 2 acre zoning. I'm sure we could probably make something work like that,but the 100' again, it pushes us back in the driveway. MEMBER TORTORA: The 100' again is a problem. The ultimate question is can you make it r conform? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The only other question I had is the extension because the way the bluff comes in and kind of loops around that extension that you've got on the east side. It looks like you're probably at the closest point of the east side of the house now is well over 40'and you would be coming into about 24'on that east side with that new.extension on the rear of the house. MR. SAMUELS: If you wouldn't mind just showing me that because I don't understand. CHAIRMAN: It shows 24' 11". MEMBER TORTORA: This will be 24 11,but the existing house looks to be about 40. MR. SAMUELS: I'd say 30 myself, but it is coming closer that- MEMBER TORTORA: I don't think this board has ever granted a variance of 14' from the top of the bluff. What could you do to kind of take things back that would be reasonable? I know you can't,it doesn't look like you can comply,but what can you do? MR. SAMUELS: I can't commit,but I can advocate with my client for a modest increased setback if that's what you are suggesting. Page 19 of 56 Page 20 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: In the interim, why don't you discuss that? MEMBER TORTORA: Why don't you discuss that because I'm searching my memory bank, and I really don't remember 14' anywhere. MR. SAMUELS: I would say that it's only been a year or so that pre-existing structures have not been grandfathered too, so there's probably many instances where such things have been done and the Town only recently would you have been seeing these applications because up until this point, I don't think you would have. MEMBER TORTORA: We've seen them where there were 60' from the bluff and they wanted 55 or 50 or something like that. MEMBER OLIVA: That blue horizon all had to be moved back, and I know one up in Brown's Hills that it took one storm back in the 70's and it took half the porch into the sound. You're just hanging over at this point, and you never know when another storm is coming Tom. It may never come, and then it may come tomorrow. CHAIRMAN: We have a new application before us ladies and gentlemen just west of new horizon and the person just bulkheaded and actually re-nurtured the cliff, so that's a significantly undersized setback. You're going to get back to us after you discuss it with your client, we're going to forward you the decision from when we get it. MEMBER HORNING: Gerry, I just want to ask another question. Regarding the foundation of the existing residence, can you give us some detail on that,how it's constructed? MR. SAMUELS: It's constructed of concrete block on a footing. It actually does have a footing which is nice, it doesn't seem to be cracked as Gerry has alluded. It seems to be in reasonably . good shape. There's a slab on top of the footing,below grade, it's approximately 6' down MEMBER HORNING: It's a full basement? MR. SAMUELS: It's a full basement, yes. MEMBER HORNING: And that would all be retained? MR. SAMUELS: That's all going to be retained, yes. MEMBER HORNING: Are you actually proposing to increase the foundation? MR. SAMUELS: That's correct, but not necessarily as a full basement. He really doesn't need a full basement, doesn't want a full basement. He doesn't need a full basement,just a crawl space. If we were moving the whole thing back,probably we would a full basement under the whole thing,but we don't need that extra space. Page 20 of 56 Page 21 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Chairman do you want to suggest to Mr. Samuels the dimensions before he goes back and we go back and forth four or five times? CHAIRMAN: 32'. MR. SAMUELS: That's a suggestion - 32' that you're saying from top of bluff back to the house? CHAIRMAN: 22+10. MR. SAMUELS: 10' in addition to what's there. I will propose that. It sounds fair to me. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Tom. MEMBER TORTORA: We denied a 40- CHAIRMAN: We denied an accessory building at 40, this is a pre-existing house at 22' 11" with a full nurtured bluff. MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, I'm just- CHAIRMAN: Vince? MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with Lydia that we don't want to start a precedent. MEMBER OLIVA: I agree too. CHAIRMAN: Then it's 40. George? MEMBER HORNING: I can agree to the 40. It's a practically new construction,really considering what you're proposing to demolish etc. I think the applicant should really consider the town zoning board in it's modern light and not just think that because they have a foundation that may or may not remain significant in terms of grandfathering in. I think the board would much rather see.the applicant pull away from the bluff, even if it meant making an entirely new foundation. MR. SAMUELS: In this instance where there's a big S curve in the top of the bluff,how does that affect, are you saying 40' from that as well? CHAIRMAN: I have to tell you one of the unique aspects of going over to the neighbors property and visualizing the neighbor to the east was to see that cut from down below, or at least off to the side, and I didn't see any particular problems over there, so possibly a little movement to the west. Page 21 of 56 Page 22 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: That's gradual,but the coastal erosion hazard line is actual. I'm not sure if you're saying 40' from that as it goes around. I'm saying 40' from the top of the bluff on the sound side. CHAIRMAN: I guess the issue here is that we close the hearing pending the receipt of the letter from Soil and Water- is that correct? MEMBER TORTORA: For our own sake, maybe it's easier just to adjourn it because if we have questions and we've closed it, then we're to have to re-open it and re-advertise it and I think it's a lot safer for the applicant and the board just to leave it, adjourn it to January 161h. So we can close it on the 161h,but if the applicant- CHAIRMAN: January 161h, Tom, is going to be a day meeting. First time in the history of the Zoning Board. This marathon 9:30 in the morning. We don't know exactly when you'll be on, but that's what we are doing. I'll make a motion recessing it until January 161h 7:21 pm Appl. No. 5216 -E. SHEEHAN. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100- 242A and 100-33,based on the Building Department's July 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing an expansion and increased height of the existing accessory structure located at less than 10' from the rear lot line, and at less than 75' from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 640 Park Ave, Mattituck; Parcel 123-7-11.1. CHAIRMAN: I was out and looked at ibis I walked up and down beautiful piece of property, _ nice view. As you know I'm not too enthused about these types of construction,but we'll see what the board has to say, so Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: I did look and I went down to the I didn't see any structures to the west so I drove back down.and went way down there and is one right off there and frankly it's not terribly attractive. My suggestion is why don't they do one of those tent structures that you could remove in the wintertime I think the visual effect is much nicer than having just that wooded roof over the darn thing. MR. SAMUELS: I think that might be considered a structure too, or if you're talking about kind of a pipe rail kind of awning structure? MEMBER OLIVA: The things they take down, because I see them going up on the North Road unattached and they put them out on their decks and it looks attractive, and I found it nicer than frankly putting a roof over the darn thing and sticking out over there. MR. SAMUELS: First off I think the one to the west is all the way to Nora's so it's a ways. It's a little bit around the bend. MEMBER OLIVA: Even to the east I had to go down to the right of way. Page 22 of 56 Page 23 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMUELS: As far as a flexible structure would be concerned,my only concern there would be wind,because it does blow right off the bay. MEMBER OLIVA: I know, it would just be for a seasonal thing. And that's what they really want it for- would be a seasonal thing. That was my only comment. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The Trustees call this a 2 level deck that we are now putting over and I couldn't figure that out and I realized, yes, one of the levels is at a right angle to the bluff. We had done other applications similar to this a couple of years ago where virtually the gazebo is kind of hanging over the bluff like this. I would hope that you'd be able to pull it back. MR. SAMUELS: Well 75' is -you're in their front porch at that point. MEMBER TORTORA: I'll see what my colleagues think. CHAIRMAN: The immediate thought on this one, and I have no idea how the neighbors feel, okay, would be this is the structure, pull it back to where the other structure starts up on top so that- MR. SAMUELS: Fully behind the existing. CHAIRMAN: Right behind. MR. SAMUELS: It's about 16 or 20'. CHAIRMAN: There's no real need to de-stabilize anything that's there. I mean it's sand. MR. SAMUELS: And bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: That would be my suggestion. Vince? MEMBER ORLANDO: The speculation, you might even know, the bulkhead that's been replaced,how old do you think that is? MR. SAMUELS: The existing bulkhead? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. MR. SAMUELS: It's in pretty good shape. Less than 10 years. Although they have owned the house 10 years, and I don't think they bulkheaded, so I would say no more than 10 years. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's in good shape, in the bay you are kind of sheltered there. Down below there's going to be doors and lockers built down below? Page 23 of 56 Page 24 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMUELS: Right, that was the proposal. MEMBER ORLANDO: And in your drawings up here, you're going to sister up any of the floor joints for the other structures up there? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. It's essentially to remain and we would need to tie the posts together at the very least. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because it's very weathered, so structurally to put something else vertically- MR. SAMUELS: It's CCA, but I'm sure we would do what was necessary to keep- MEMBER ORLANDO: To secure it in the middle 10' span. MR. SAMUELS: Like I say, sister it up and through bolt it and make sure that it was secure. Jim Reeve would be doing the construction and he would do a thorough job I'm sure. MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing structure there if it's 10 years, it's in great shape, so it tells you right there that's there's shelter there. MR. SAMUELS: Actually they take the brunt of the south west right there-wide open bay front. MEMBER ORLANDO: Different extremities that you were just here 5 minutes ago talking about. No other questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN: So why don't you do this? Why don't you give us some plans and site plan showing exactly that situation-pulling it back and what it would look like from the side profile and we'll see if we can work something like that out. MEMBER TORTORA: What distance would it be? CHAIRMAN: It would be directly in back of the other one or- MR. SAMUELS: I think the existing deck is 16x20, we are proposing 16 square. MEMBER TORTORA: So the setback for the bulkhead would be roughly- you'll let us know. CHAIRMAN: So you'll give us that. Again, don't leave, we don't know what the neighbors are going to say. Anybody who would like to speak for or against the application? Would you submit that to us by-what do you want to do ladies and gentlemen, leave it open? We are going Page 24 of 56 Page 25 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to do a special meeting on January 7th, so why don't we have it by January 51h or thereabouts, so we can look at it on January 7th. I make a motion closing the hearing pending of receipt from the architect on 1-5. Thank you. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:30 pm Appl. No. 5219 -JEREMY &JEAN GOELL. This a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerned proposed additions and alterations to an existing building with setbacks closer than 35' from each the front lot line and the rear lot line. Location of Property: Main Street (New Suffolk Avenue), New Suffolk; Parcel 1.17-9-16.2. CHAIRMAN: Good evening please state your name for the record. ROBERT LEONARD: Robert Leonard, architect for the owner. This project, basically we are looking to build approximately 400 sq. ft. 2 story addition with an extension of a covered porch in the front of the house. We are extending the front of the house and the rear of the house along it's existing lines. We are not asking for any more relief than currently exists for the house it stands. Currently the front yard setback is a 35'required we are at 27.5. We are proposing to retain that. The rear yard is again 35'we are at 33.7 we are proposing to retain that. The sections of this project that we really need relief for are the extension of the covered porch in the front and in the rear of the house, approximately 15 sq. ft. of the rear addition that falls outside the setback line. CHAIRMAN: The part that's x'd? MR. LEONARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Alright. I've been to the sight. I've visualized it and I'll turn it over to Mrs. Olivia. MEMBER OLIVA: It's 2 stories? MR. LEONARD: Yes. MEMBER OLIVA: How high is that going to be? MR. LEONARD: It's going to match the height of the existing house. We are carrying the existing roof over. Exactly the same. MEMBER OLIVA: How much larger is it 400 sq. ft.? MR. LEONARD: It's the 2 story addition section. That's first,and second floor. MEMBER OLIVA: It's a 2 story house now? Page 25 of 56 Page 26 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. LEONARD: So we are doing a 2 story addition to it. We are extending it. MEMBER OLIVA: Using the same setbacks? MR. LEONARD: The same exact setbacks that we have now. The porch is going to remain and the rear of the house is going to remain. It's a lateral move over. To the southeast. CHAIRMAN: Standing in front of the house to the left. MR. LEONARD: To the left of the house, yes. MEMBER OLIVA: No more questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Will this be footings or foundation? MR. LEONARD: This is going to be a full basement. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Did the applicant consider reducing the size of the addition so that it would confonn to the town setbacks. MR. LEONARD: There is a little bit of history to this application prior to this board seeing it. Prior to this owner owning a house approximately he's owned it about a year. The prior owner had a building permit for a very, very similar addition that was before the board changed their interpretation of the rules with the grandfathering. What we've done is we added approximately 3' to the project when the new owner bought it which brought us now in front of the board. So we've actually taken back the old building permit, got a new denial and now we're here in front of you again. MEMBER HORNING: You've decided to make it even larger. MR. LEONARD: We've extended the project but like I said we are staying within the existing lines of the house. MEMBER HORNING: What I'd like to ask is would you consider making a reduced size addition that would- Page 26 of 56 Page 27 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. LEONARD: The only way to make it even close to aesthetically pleasing would be to move the porch back at that point, and the character of the house at the porch it's a farmhouse with the hip roof and the front porch. We'd like to keep that. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:34 pm Appl. No. 5225 - ROBERT & CELIA SWING. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning the nonconforming setback location of"as built" additions and alterations at less than 10' on a single side yard and less than the minimum requirement of 25' for the total side yards. Location of Property: 445 Island View Drive, Greenport; 57-2-27. CHAIRMAN: How are you tonight? FRANK NOTARO: Good. My name is Frank Notaro. I'm the architect representing Mr. & Mrs. Swing who are present this evening if you have any additional questions. CHAIRMAN: Would you for the record like to tell us what you are doing? MR. NOTARO: Yes basically what we are doing is we are proposing to add a minimal amount of front area on the house and we are taking an existing one story house that the Swings have owned for about 32 years and on the left hand side we'd like to create a 1 % story structure and on the right hand side a 2 story structure. We are staying within all the existing side yard setbacks at this point and we are just proposing to take it up higher. We are pretty new sanitary systems up to the existing the new codes and we are taking out the old cesspools. That's what we are proposing to do. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to excuse me on this one this is one of the first ones I looked at and it's all coming back after the visual. MR. NOTARO: I have a couple of sets here with the existing elevations and plans. MEMBER OLIVA: That would be fine. Your one side yard setback is 6.5 on the west as it is now that little jog there. MR. NOTARO: Yes correct and we're not altering that, we're just going up at that point - if I may? CHAIRMAN: Sure. I just want to see the existing house. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the-this is a little confusing to me-what is the permit for the as built? Page 27 of 56 Page 28 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. NOTARO: Meaning what is-what we actually have a CO on at this point and time in other words on the existing structure? MEMBER TORTORA: Why are you here? MR.NOTARO: I think when the Building Department looked at it and saw how close the existing house was it's nonconforming and I think they just were concerned and that's why we are here. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have a CO for it. MR.NOTARO: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN: But he's doing a second story on based upon section 242. MEMBER OLIVA: It's been there what was as built? MEMBER TORTORA: Then they're not making any reference, they are talking about the single side yard setback of 6.5, well you're not proposing any change to that. MR.NOTARO: Correct. MEMBER OLIVA: No it's going to stay the same. MEMBER TORTORA: Then I'm still as confused as I was, why are you here? MR.NOTARO: I'm here because they requested us to come here. MEMBER HORNING: Again,what do you have the CO for? MR. NOTARO: If I may, Mr. Swing would probably answer those questions better, he's lived in the house for 32 years. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have a Notice of Disapproval dated August regarding a porch addition on the house in an as built section of the house and the plans that you are giving to the board right now are dated in December. They are different than what the Building Department- CHAIRMAN: You didn't get another Notice of Disapproval did you Mr. Notaro? MR. NOTARO: No I did not. MEMBER TORTORA: Because the plans that you are submitting to us, have they been submitted to the Building Department, if so, when? Page 28 of 56 Page 29 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mr. Notaro this is what was disapproved by the Building _ Department in August. And that's what put you on the calendar; the plans you are showing now are different than in the disapproval. MR. NOTARO: Okay,basically there was a clarification- in other words on John Metzger's survey. It looked as though this building exceeded that line. It then went to the Board of Trustees and we got approval from that because we maintained that same lot. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But it doesn't say proposed second story on the plan when they disapproved it. MEMBER TORTORA: It says as built alterations which is why I have no idea why you are here. MR. NOTARO: I gave them a full set of drawings when I submitted it. CHAIRMAN: I don't think they reviewed these is what we're just saying to you. But don't worry about it, we are having a meeting in a couple of weeks we'll get this thing all squared away so don't worry about it. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not even sure we're approving as built because whatever's as built has nothing to do with what's on these plans. So- CHAIRMAN: What we are asking you to do, Mr.Notaro is go back to the Building Department, show them the plans and ask them to update that Notice of Disapproval from August 22. Because if we made a decision based on that old Notice of Disapproval they wouldn't give you a building permit, they'd give you a stop work order. If you would do that for us and we'll put this on for the January meeting and we'll take care of the whole situation. MR. NOTARO: Subsequently it was changed by John Metzger which was an error on the survey and then we went to the Board of Trustees and they approved it. CHAIRMAN: Remember they are only doing setbacks from the water. They are not doing the whole- MEMBER TORTORA: Are these for the board? CHAIRMAN: Let me take these, you have copies you'll refer to because we want them to say in there, four second story dwelling. MEMBER TORTORA: When you go to the building department could you, you don't have to give this large of one, could you reduce this a little bit and give us 4 more copies so each of the board members could have it so the next time we see you we can say, oh that's what we are looking at. Page 29 of 56 Page 30 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. NOTARO: The Building Department has this. We understand that but they didn't update the Notice of Disapproval. That's the reason why we need that. And again, trust me, these meetings are not that far apart, you're being made a part of the marathon meeting unfortunately but- MRS. SWING: Would you mind, I don't understand it. CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Notaro explain it to you outside. We are going to go on with the next one. If you have anything that you'd like to address the board with, we'd be happy to explain. Pending the receipt of a new Notice of Disapproval, we will recess this until January 16cn 7:44 pm Appl. No. 5226- KATHY & JOHN CHESKA. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's August 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning proposed second-story additions and alterations with a front yard setback at less than 35'. Location of Property: 1300 Minnehaha, Southold; Parcel 87-2-2.11 CHAIRMAN: Good evening, could you state your name for the record? DARIO AGARABI: Good evening, I'm Dario Agarabi. I'm with the DA Architecture for John and Kathy Cheska. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to tell us about this application? MR. AGARABI: It's an existing nonconforming lot, smaller lot 7500 sq. ft. in a R-40 neighborhood the house itself a quarter to a third is within the front yard setback as it stands now. CHAIRMAN: 20' 5", or something like that? MR. AGARABI: 20' 6" actually. The first floor again is an existing condition. What they would like to do is add a 2"d floor to the existing footprint of the house. No new foundations, no new extensions, basically just to take the existing roof, rip that off and create a new roof structure with a higher peak allowing them to use the space within what would be considered a 2nd floor space. The front of the house has small porch, a three seasoned covered area, non- heated space my guess that at some point in the past it was a porch. We'd like to create that as a new porch in essence removing the structure that's there and creating a covered porch, front porch way access. CHAIRMAN: In the Notice of Disapproval when they say 20' 6" to the right-of-way they are referring to Minnehaha Blvd. is that correct? MR. AGARABI: That's correct. Page 30 of 56 Page 31 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of A006als Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: I was looking for a driveway. It was in the back of the house. I found no other driveway. We are going to have to have a talk with those boys. Mrs. Oliva, any questions? MEMBER OLIVA: All the houses are so close to the road there anyway and you're just trying to make it a little bit bigger and give more moveable space to a tiny little house. It's kind of cute really. I think the addition will be nice, I don't have any problem with it. MR. AGARABI: That's exactly our impression. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing footprint is being expanded or is it the same? MR. AGARABI: No sir it's exactly the same. MEMBER ORLANDO: Including the front porch then? MR. AGARABI: Exactly. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I don't have a survey. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could give us one of those? MR. AGARABI: As far as- CHAIRMAN: Not tonight,just, we'd like to have it. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the front yard setback now is 20' 6"? MR. AGARABI: Correct. MEMBER ORLANDO: The new one will be 20' 6"? MR. AGARABI: Exactly. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's it. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me for barging in. Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: The applicant is providing a survey? MR. AGARABI: Yes we'll get you,a survey. CHAIRMAN: Please don't leave until the hearing is over. Were you going to show us some pictures? Page 31 of 56 Page 32 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. AGARABI: Well these are before and afters. Basically it's the same information we talked about. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who wants to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending a receipt of a survey or site plan indicating the placement of this house on this piece of property. Are you going to give us a survey or a site plan? MR. AGARABI: I'm going to see if we can get you a survey. I know we have an older survey that the owners have given me. I can give you a copy of that. CHAIRMAN: That would be helpful. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's nice to have a certified, stamped survey saying that's the spot. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure nothing has changed drastically there except for that little fence on the one side. MR. AGARABI: We have every intention of giving you that. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:45 pm Appl. No. 5234- GUSMAR REALTY. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244 based on the Building Department's September 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, concerning "as-built foundation (under BP #28558-Z for new construction) with a front yard setback at less than 40'. Location of Property: 610 Chois Lane, East Marion; Parcel 35-8-5.19. CHAIRMAN: Good evening. DONNA GEHRITY: Good evening, Donna Gehrity for Gusmar Realty. This is a new construction and we presently own the lots the both sides. The situation here is that we gave a set of plans for this particular house to Young and Young. He then cited it on the survey and as of July 3`d, the building code had changed so we had to go back with the plan to a new architect that we hired and he re-drew the plan. In the interim he ended up making the house slightly larger. In the garage area, pushed it forward a little bit. When we had hired the foundation the cement guy to come and put the foundation in it turned out we gave him the new plan and not realizing that the foundation was larger than what was staked out it was an oversight there so in fact the foundation is 3' closer to the road than the code allows. So we are asking for a variance to allow us to keep that foundation there. It is the garage and so it's not actually the front of the house, it's the garage portion that's close to the home. There's not that many homes in the subdivision yet so anyone coming in thereafter would certainly see the location of the house. I really don't think it has any negative effect at all to the subdivision. Any questions? Page 32 of 56 Page 33 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: No this is the second application you had before us because we had the other house on the opposite corner? MS. GEHRITY: On that one we were off by 2" the corner, right. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, can you describe the change that you're referring to that took place over the summer? MS. GEHRITY: Exactly what happened was we had 1 set of plans that had been drawn up originally by Penny Lumber. Then the building code had changed as of July P and when we went to re-submit there were some changes insulation factors, things such as that so we gave all of our plans to a new architect and in fact he re-drew all of the plans. I was under the impression that he was re-drawing exactly what we had, but apparently he had made some changes here and there and in fact the people who are purchasing the house are aware of this. They saw the original plan and now they've seen the plan that was revised and it really was an oversight I can say that on my part. MEMBER HORNING: Was the original plan buildings on the foundation? MS. GEHRITY: It was exactly the same house,but it was off by a few inches here and there. MEMBER HORNING: Just because the foundation was placed incorrectly? MS. GEHRITY: The plan-we revised the plan and then let me step back for a second. I submitted a plan the first plan to Young&Young who placed it on the survey and then they came out and staked, they staked according to that first survey. In the interim, when there had been some changes we had revised the plans we had hired a new architect to come in and instead of re-building the house, I'm sorry re-mapping the house the way that we had given it to him, he actually enlarged it slightly and by doing so, I handed that set of plans to the concrete person who didn't necessarily go off the stakes but he went off of the plan that he had which in essence made the foundation slightly larger than what was on the original survey. MEMBER HORNING: By how much? MS. GEHRITY: 3'. MEMBER HORNING: That's what I was trying to ask if Penny Lumber had designed a certain dimensional house, how would it fit on this larger foundation? MS. GEHRITY: It wouldn't. MEMBER HORNING: The whole structure is larger. Page 33 of 56 Page 34 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GEHRITY: That's correct. When you look at it aesthetically unless you go through every dimension everything looks the same, but in fact, dimensions are slightly larger. CHAIRMAN: The question I have is before I go on to the next gentleman, was there a foundation plan submitted prior to construction? MS. GEHRITY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Did you know that is was 37' 6" at that time? MS. GEHRITY: No actually we had submitted a survey and we had to have them re-locate it to the detail exactly how it happened I can't say that I was present when it happened, but this is the way that I- I'm trying to assume that this is the way the mistake happened. I could go back and say the surveyor staked it wrong. I can say that the concrete guy poured it wrong I can say a number of things, the fact is that it is too close to the road. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN: Yes we go down the line. Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: What made you change surveyors? MS. GEHRITY: We didn't change surveyors, we changed architects. MEMBER ORLANDO: What made you change architects which changed surveyors? MS. GEHRITY: We didn't change surveyors. MEMBER ORLANDO: You said Young&Young did the survey, the other survey was done by who -Young&Young? MS. GEHRITY: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: You said you changed- MS. GEHRITY: We changed architects. MEMBER ORLANDO: The original foundation that's submitted in this packet? MS. GEHRITY: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: There are a lot of changes in that it's not pencil mistake here. This is total reconstruction if you can bear the 2 surveys the house is turned, it's twisted. MS. GEHRITY: The first survey we submitted we had to keep going back and forth with the survey. Page 34 of 56 Page 35 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: There's another one in the packet that shows the original if you have the 41' setback. That survey- MS. GEHRITY: That's the one that was approved originally by the Building Department. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which doesn't match the one that you were rejected by- not just the 3' - there's other jogs in the foundation that are totally different. MS. GEHRITY: I have to assume that the 3'- MEMBER ORLANDO: Not just that, there's other jogs in the footprint of the foundation that are different so the whole house is changed. MS. GEHRITY: Can I just take a look because I don't have it in front of me? MEMBER ORLANDO: You certainly may. It's twisted because you end up with this cornerstone. You have a jog on the side of that. You have no jog here. You have another jog by the front door which comes in 4 %' you don't have that jog you have the opposite jog out- so what I'm saying is that house would not fit on that foundation not even close beyond your 3'. MS. GEHRITY: This particular survey was submitted prior to July 3`d because we had to go back to the building spot because there had been changes we re-drew the plan. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the code changes? MS. GEHRITY: There might have been information and hurricane factors and things such as that. So now let me explain to you this is what's there currently. There is a new house plan- MEMBER ORLANDO: To match this? MS. GEHRITY: And that was submitted to the Planning Committee. There are differences because this is just the foundation. This shows a porch prior to - MEMBER ORLANO: This is apples and oranges you have going here. MS. GEHRITY: One thing we have now As the Chairman stated this was the 2"d variance for a new subdivision already. This would be the 2nd variance for a new subdivision. I think it's time to hire a new project manager, sharpen the pencil, stick with one architect- MS. GEHRITY: I agree with you. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because like they say in baseball, 2 strikes and the next one you're out. MS. GEHRITY: I couldn't agree with you more. Page 35 of 56 Page 36 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing -MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. MRS. TORTORA: I think my colleagues have covered it. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Oliva? MEMBER OLIVA: I was just going to reiterate what Mr. Orlando said. Three strikes and you're out, I hope you get it right the next time. MS. GEHRITY: I hope I'm not here ever again. MEMBER OLIVA: As much as we like seeing you. CHAIRMAN: Please don't leave until this hearing is over. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak. Are you the purchaser of the house? Would you state your name for the record please? WILLIAM DINISI: Yes. I would just like to say I would like it passed, I would like my house built, I've been waiting a long time. CHAIRMAN: We'll do the best we can. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:00 pm Appl. No. 5229 -HILLER ESTATE. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-26, to unmerge 2 merged parcels, one being the northerly(vacant 1000-123-3-2) portion containing 18,447 sq. ft. of land area proposed for a future dwelling, and the other-being the southerly 31,031 sq. ft. portion(improved) (1000-123-3-4.1). The Building Department's July 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval determined that both former lots have merged due to common ownership after July 1, 1983 (May 1, 1983). Location of Property: 125 and 165 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck(described land). CHAIRMAN: This hearing is cancelled. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it cancelled or is it- CHAIRMAN: It's going to be reconvened. 8:00 pm Appl. No. 5214 -ROBERT & LEONA WHITE. This is a request for Variances under Sections 100-26 to unmerge a parcel containing 14,000 sq. ft. of land area, from the adjacent land area also with an area of 14,000 sq. ft. Based on the Building Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, Lot 28 merged with Lot 27 due to common ownership for a Page 36 of 56 Page 37 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing period of time after May 1983. Location of Property: 2290 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, Parcel Nos. 103-1-27 &28. CHAIRMAN: I have to excuse myself from this hearing because my wife is very distantly related to Mrs. White. I will turn it over to Mrs. Tortora. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Patricia Moore, Main Rd. Southold. This application-before I start I have Mr. &Mrs. White and their daughter the lot is intended for the daughter so she's here an active participant in the process. This is one of the typical scenarios out in Southold where the merger law affects people unwittingly. Mr. White owns the house, the improved property. Mr. White's father had owned the lot next door. The lot was purchased in November of'67 the house was purchased on a different day in November of'67. They bought it independently of each other separate deeds different days. At one point in time in'78 Mr. White the father conveyed the property to the son and from '78 to '87 the 2 properties were owned in the same name. Unwittingly the parcels were merged at that time when we did a single and separate search we found that that period of time had been a merger. You can see from the dimensions of the property the area of Harbor Lane Harbor Lane was developed in '67 as a small lot off a farm field and they are very consistent the neighborhood is the same size if anything this lot is slightly larger than many of the lots in the neighborhood. The wife actually got from the Assessors records a list of all the tax maps in the area where the size of the parcels acreage of the parcels and when you look at this list and I'll submit it for the record we have the vacant lot highlighted in yellow it's .23 acres almost every lot in this area is at least slightly more or less .3 to .35 acres and then as you go down the road a bit you get lots that are.14 acres so the area was developed very similarly at this time in the 60's this area was developed surrounding the roads the farm i- fields in the back with the road frontage with the lots very similar to this property. They continue to receive separate tax bills. In fact Mrs. White came over with a notice of a sewer district, excuse me not sewer, sanitary district they just sent out notices town wide regarding the land fill and the costs they received 2 of those notices so the town has still recognized this property as a separate parcel, taxable they have been paying taxed since'67 separate tax bills since'67. Mr. White is a recently retired Southold police officer. Mrs. White is a hairdresser locally. Their daughter who is 31 years old is a teacher in the Mattituck School District a science teacher there. They are a local family that has always intended to preserve their property for their future generations. The grandfather,Mr. White's father bought the property with that intention conveyed that to his son and to keep it in the family and now they wish to have their daughter have the lot that was reserved and that's precisely why the code was changed to allow for the waiver of merger. These types of scenarios certainly by death were unintended as it was here for a period of time that for all intents and purposes they tried to keep them separate just in that short period of time it didn't occur. Let me submit at this point the tax map numbers. If you have any questions at this point, I've submitted my presentation. MEMBER TORTORA: I think the key question would be was this one lot prior to the adoption of the merger law? MS. MOORE: No. What do you mean one lot? Page 37 of 56 Page 38 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: Was it recognized as 2 separate lots or was it one lot prior to the adoption of the merger law? MS. MOORE; When? MEMBER TORTORA: 1996. MS. MOORE: In '96 they were 2 separate lots because at that point they were, one was in Mrs. White's name and one was in Mr. White's name as it is presently. It was only a period of time between'78 and '87 that the properties were in the same name. The son Mr. White owned both because he got the one from his father that's always been in the same naive. They purposefully not put the house in both their names so that in the event of death god forbid they end up with a merger so they were wise enough to keep the separation but unfortunately there was a short period of time when they couldn't anticipate. MEMBER TORTORA: If they went for example in- MS. MOORE: Prior to actually- MEMBER TORTORA: If they had gone in 1988 and sought a Building Permit that's what I'm not sure about because at that time our law said that in the case of a single and separate lot a lot that's in single and separate ownership prior to 1971 and held their after- MS. MOORE: However the town never asked for single and separates. It always appeared to be in single and separate names because Mr. White had one, Mrs. White had the other. So in fact the procedures were such that you could get a Building Permit. It's only when we created- MEMBER TORTORA: You could get a Building Permit because nobody checked on it? MS. MOORE: Because nobody asked for single and separates to do the search. MEMBER TORTORA: But that's not what the law says. MS. MOORE. The fact is they were never made aware that there was any merger in fact the taxes were coming in separately. The assessors office often times would take the two properties and would merge them when they would notice a merger occur but they had already split it in anticipation of you know we don't want to have these 2 properties merged. The merger law was not quite understood, we understand it better today through case law and application. But all this period of time there wasn't an understanding that merger through upzoning if you had 2 properties in the same name that they would merge. You had to actually have in the books a merger law that was understood and that's when merger would occur not an automatic upzoning there had to be a legislative act. MEMBER TORTORA: There was legislation in the code and the legislation has been in the code a long time and we had a discussion with legal council the other night and the point was Page 38 of 56 Page 39 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing very simple. Was it a legal lot or did this lot become merged as a result of the merger law? The answer is no it didn't. It was one lot prior to the merger law. MS. MOORE: It was created as a separate lot. MEMBER TORTORA: It was one lot there was no- MS. MOORE: Maybe I'm just not following you. Each was a separate lot. MEMBER TORTORA: They were merged prior to the merger law. They were merged to common ownership. MS. MOORE: They were in common ownership after the when did the upzoning occur? MEMBER TORTORA: They were in common ownership from 1978 until today because in 1987- MS. MOORE: In 1971 they were in 2 separate names. MEMBER TORTORA: In 1987 even though it was deeded out it didn't make any difference because they were merged as a matter of law. MS. MOORE: I understand,but the reality is in'71 when the upzoning occurred it had been in a separate name. The father didn't realize when he was taking the property and saying here I want my son and his children, his daughter who's here to have it there was never an intention to oh yes I want to make this a super size lot bigger than every lot in the neighborhood. If you look around the property owners all around many of them are Doroski family. Doroski's are very sophisticated they knew right from the beginning checkerboard every lot around them has been retained as single and separate because somebody had good advice and said hey don't put them in the same name unwittingly families that never intended it without good advice ended up . getting hurt and I think when the waiver of merger law was put in the book I think that that was the intention to recognize those situations particularly when you have a neighborhood where this is we're not talking about little tiny strips of property of old subdivisions that are being put you know added 5 to make one quarter acre parcel. We're talking about a '/ acre parcel that was created that way actually as an oversize parcel in'67 and retained that way intended to be left as a buildable lot. MEMBER TORTORA: That's a second question-is it your contention that a merger law and the provisions for waiver of merger were meant to recognize lots that were not merged as a result of the law. MS. MOORE: Not merged? MEMBER TORTORA: Correct. MS. MOORE: I'm not sure if I understand your question. Page 39 of 56 Page 40 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: Real simple. MS. MOORE: I don't want to answer the wrong way because I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. MEMBER TORTORA: Is it your contention very simply if these lots were merged in 1990 is it your contention that the merger law of 1996-97 and the waiver of merger provision would allow an applicant to go back an unmerge lots that were not merged that were in fact one lot prior to the merger law. MS. MOORE: Maybe I should say what I think the waiver of merger law applies. It applies retroactively to any lot at whatever point in time it may have merged. MEMBER TORTORA: Whether it was a result of the merger law or not. MS. MOORE: Whether it was a result of the merger law or not. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the answer no more questions. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No you asked the question. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: So Mr. White's daughter is going to build a house on this property hopefully. MS. MOORE: Yes, Ms. White is here she's the teacher in Mattituck and wants to build her house next to her parents and there's certainly nothing to bring her back here to-try.to buy a lot, it's cost prohibitive at this point. MEMBER ORLANDO: Has this lot been maintained by Mr. White? MS. MOORE: There's a wood fence that separates it when the swimming pool was put in there was a wood fence that was splitting the two properties a little off the line I see that on people that have one lot. The only thing he had there was a concrete pad that he used to put his wood on so it wouldn't get moisture from the ground. So that was the only use of this property. It's an old farm field so there aren't any trees there. It's a nice manicured lawn from one end to the other just as every other parcel is along the street everybody has nicely manicured lawns not many trees except for the trees that are put in over the years by the individual home owners. MEMBER TORTORA: Any additional comments? MS. MOORE: No we just hope that you will consider this favorably. We are always talking about affordable housing and providing housing to our community and here you have a family Page 40 of 56 Page 41 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that has tried to care for themselves to provide for the future generations and we don't want to prevent that from occurring. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against the applicant? Hearing no comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 8:40 pm App. No. 5255 - HOMES ANEW I, LTD. This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Department's November 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for certain interior alterations and/or renovations in a pre-existing nonconforming multi-family dwelling, existing with a nonconforming front yard setback. Under Sections 31A and 31A.3, a multi-family dwelling is not a permitted use in the R-40 Residential Zone District and a setback is required at 50'. In the alternative, a variance is requested under Section 243 to allow.certain interior alterations and/or renovations within the existing residential building in its present setback location. Location of Property: 9625 Main Bayview Road, Southold; Parcel 88-3-23.1 CHAIRMAN: Evening sir. LOU MELTZER: My name is Lou Meltzer. Frank Ristituto a representative of Homes Anew is here also. CHAIRMAN: I just want to clear up one particular issue. Somewhere along the line I had sent a letter that you were using as an exhibit. That letter was generated by me and that letter is only my particular opinion. It has been done only because that is exactly the way we had been . working. That letter was from me it was not from anybody else on this board. That does not pre judge anybody else on this board on my opinion. Very simply I'm telling you very generically over the period the 20+years that I've been on this board that we've been dealing with these things in a similar fashion and again it's my opinion. MR. MELTZER: What I would like to do if I might is tell you first what is not being done to this property. What's not being done is there's no enlargement,of the building in any way, front, back, side. There's no height being raised there's absolutely nothing being done to the outside of the building. 'It is exactly as an application before you for doing some work inside the footprint is unaltered. Nothing outside, nothing height, nothing width, nothing length. Why are we here? It's a nonconforming building and a nonconforming use. So when an application was submitted to the Building Department the Building Department I presume felt that in the ordinance where it used the word reconstruction it certainly wasn't being enlarged so I can only conclude where it uses the word reconstruction we felt that it might fall within that. In fact they issued a building permit for most of the work that was going to be done as part of this interior alteration. They only exclude the taking down of I believe it was 1 or 2 walls and moving some doorways so that an existing room could be enlarged taking part of another room and adding it to one room and that's it. They issued a building permit for most of the work that was being sought and the purpose of this application is to get permission to just do those items of work which they identified as they felt was not in their purview to issue the full building permit. Page 41 of 56 Page 42 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: And those particular issues are the ones that you have highlighted? MR. MELTZER: Highlighted on those plans we try to 'identify them for you. CHAIRMAN: During the although not part of this hearing we like to delve into the purpose of these renovations number one would you like to tell us why you are requesting the renovations? MR. MELTZER: The renovations that have been permative or the ones- CHAIRMAN: The ones that are here before us. MR. MELTZER: Just to make the interior better. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to tell us what Homes Anew is? MR. MELTZER: Yes, Homes Anew is a non-profit agency and Christine Werner if I say anything that is incorrect come up and tell me is a non-profit agency that has many functions that in this case that would allow developmentally disadvantaged residents to live in this building. It's a 5 family building that's why it was nonconforming as to use and so there would be four people who are somewhat disadvantaged living there. CHAIRMAN: Are they supervised in any way? MR. MELTZER: Yes they are. CHAIRMAN: Let me be perfectly clear on this and I hate to bring old precedents/cliches in we are here not necessarily to discuss the use of this building. We have 5 separate CO's on each one of these units is that correct? We have one CO which tells us it's a 5 family dwelling-it's one pre-CO for 5 units however you want to interpret that. Is there something you'd like the young lady to discuss with us? MR. MELTZER: No. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to say anything for the record for us? MR. MELTZER: I think I said it correctly. It's a CO for 5 permanent occupancy apartments. CHAIRMAN: What is the date on that? MR. MELTZER: December 1972. CHAIRMAN: Before you continue, we have some people in the audience who want to review this. You are welcome to review the plans that are before us. We'll even make you a copy of the CO that is before us. Please remember that we are not here to discuss the use of this building. The Town of Southold in 1972 issued this CO for these units. That is not the issue before us Page 42 of 56 Page 43 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing now. The issue that is before us now is on this highlighted set.of plans some changes that the Building Department,moving of doors, changing of walls whatever the case might be. Is that correct Mr. Meltzer? MR. MELTZER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: What I suggest we do now is copy that CO lay these plans out in front of us here and let everybody review them and if there are any questions regarding those plans we can address that issue so that everybody is on track with what we are doing here. Is that alright? MR. MELTZER: Yes fine. CHAIRMAN: Is that alright with the board? TOM STORM: Good evening, my name it Tom Storm,my wife and I own the property immediately east of the apartment in question. I was wondering if you could explain to me exactly what is meant by nonconforming as opposed to illegal? CHAIRMAN: Nonconforming means it pre-existed zoning, well this is my opinion and I'm not going to voice my opinion. It either pre-existed zoning or at some point it became part of a somewhat conforming aspect,but it is still referred to as nonconforming. That doesn't mean it is illegal. Over the years there have been several owners of this property. And over the years it has been my understanding that things have been done to the property some of it has some structural things have been done and I can remember applications I can remember reviewing them with building inspectors and so on and so forth. I have to tell you that the position that the Building Department has placed us in at this particular time is very simply to review those changes which we are going to share with you right now are internal changes within the building itself. MR. STORM: When you made the decision on these were they based on the fact that were talking about changing this fora home for the disabled? Because we were wondering whether or not you would have approved this and if this did become a home for the disabled I would be it's greatest advocate compared to what I've had it would be a blessing. But I'm wondering if I don't see this going to a successful completion in that regard. I tend,to think at some point it will probably end up being just transient apartments again and I am concerned as to whether or not. should it not reach the conclusion that they are now stating that they are going to get to is permission to be withdrawn. CHAIRMAN: What I would like to do is if I had everybody's,permission would be to recess this hearing for about 20 minutes and speak to these people out in the hall because this maybe the first time that you've had to speak to them. And you can address any issues that you would like to. I have a job that represents 10 towns in Suffolk County. It is by far a very difficult job. This is not my full-time job. This is a part-time job. One of the greatest aspects of this position of this board of this town is that's it's still a small town even though we are still growing in leaps and bounds and we have the ability to do this at this forum right now if that's alright for everybody. This way we don't have a discourse of give and take back and forth. This way you can come back and ask any questions that you may have or you can re-cap what exactly you have Page 43 of 56 Page 44 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing told these people we have it on the record and so on and so forth. I hope that will help you Mr. Storm. We will take a 5 minute recess at this time just to review these plans anybody in the public and then we'll go on with the hearing and in about 15-20 minutes we'll have you back in and we'll continue with this hearing. (TO BE CONTINUED - AFTER APPL. NO. 5179) 9:00 pm Appl. No. 5179 - CHARLES & CHARLIE SIDOROWICZ. (This is a continued hearing, carried from the October 17, 2002 calendar) Proposed is a new accessory garage building in an area other than the required rear yard, at 3300 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck: Parcel 113-8-4. CHAIRMAN: We're not getting them back yet they are still talking, we are going on to Sidorowicz. Mr. Sidorowicz how are you sir? MR. SIDOROWICZ: Good. CHAIRMAN: As you know we granted one postponement, so we'll let the other side present their case and then we'll have you back up here. Thank you sir. Mr. Arnoff we are ready for you sir. HARVEY ARNOFF, ESQ: For the record,Harvey Arnoff my office is in Riverhead, I reside in Mattituck. CHAIRMAN: I forgot to tell you one thing sir that is that all of these hearings are restricted to a strict 20 minutes. MR: ARNOFF: I'll keep this well under 20 minutes. As far as history I think it.can best be characterized as an acrimonious relationship between these two parties. They've been involved in litigation a decision was rendered by Justice Underwood. I'm not sure what it means. I'm not sure Justice Underwood knows what it means because it certainly didn't set up any metes and bounds description to what he claims Mr. Sidorowicz may have obtained by adverse possession. I wasn't a party to that so I certainly can't comment but there's an existing slab of which Mr. Sidorowicz has historically parked 2 vehicles. One was his car the other was in a carport. We have,photographs to show you if you like of him having parked 2 vehicles on that particular spot. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me for jumping in here was the carport directly south of the garage? MR. ARNOFF: I'll show you a photograph. As a matter of fact there are probably three photographs. CHAIRMAN: You know what the carport looks like. MR. ARNOFF: It is my impression that variances are discretionary acts by this board the mere fact that any citizen comes to you and asks doesn't mean they get it just because they want it. 1 Page 44 of 56 Page 45 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing There has to some criteria,there's got to be some articulable reason if you will for this board to grant the relief being requested. In this case, Mr. Sidorowicz has plenty of room the other direction rather than encroach further upon his neighbors property. He chooses not to. He could move the building back,he chooses not to. All he wants to do is move it closer. Now at the present moment for example he wants to bring it closer to the offending property line in other words the building itself is going to come closer to the line than our code permits now why would he do that? Because he wants to. There's no other logical reason. He can go closer to the house in fact he can attach the garage to the house if he wanted to. He doesn't want to he wants to expand the slab because he wants to. Now you gave him one variance back in I think it was 1980 or something like that when there was a fire and you gave him a variance to rebuild the garage. And he did,but since then there's been a trial. In 1999-1 think there was a decision, but there was the carport it's now been torn down. There's no reason why he just can't build a garage on the existing slab other than the fact that he doesn't want to. Now there's been some problems with the driveway. The driveway where Mr. Sidorowicz encroaching upon and turning around now on Mrs. Sivernich's property. That's not really your concern. But what you're doing is exacerbating a pre-existing mess I think that's a particular piece of art in this particular case because if you make-them closer they are going to fight more and I think that's going to happen if that happens. Just to let you know there's some other encroachments involved. Mr. Sidorwicz has planted bushes on the property of my client she has a shed on her property a retaining wall that may or may not encroach he has viable alternatives that don't need the approval of this board. If that's the case then I think this board must deny the application. It's very simple if there's an alternative that's viable, he should have to pursue it. He shouldn't be relegated to saying I just don't feel like doing it or maybe it will cost me a little more money to do it so give me a variance which will further encroach upon the neighbor. We problegate laws in this jurisdiction at least it's my understanding from having served as a Town Attorney here is that when we pass legislation in this particular municipality we like to see it enforced unless there's a good reason to vary from it. In this case there is none. I have brought my client here tonight in case you have any questions of her and I think that's basically it and I think I've done it in about 7 minutes, Mr. Goehringer. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnoff I could bring your client up who we know because we had a subdivision of property and I could swear her in, however, I don't see any reason to do that because you are an officer of the court we don't have to swear you in. We assume the information you give us is the most correct information of Mrs. Sievernich would get up and tell you as such if there was any difference. Before you leave we have to do the rounds. Mrs. Tortora you've got to have a question, I can hear one coming. MEMBER TORTORA: Along the lines of an alternative if he attached the existing garage where it is you're saying he could put a new garage where? MR. ARNOFF: He could extend the garage right toward the house. There's a space between the existing garage and the house. MEMBER TORTORA: I see that, what is it about 34? MR. ARNOFF: Sure. Page 45 of 56 Page 46 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER TORTORA: Then you're saying you don't want any garage in the side yard attached to that existing garage at all is that what you're saying? MR. ARNOFF: We can't really complain-be heard to complain- if in fact he's going to build on the existing slab, but if he's looking to expand we'd like to complain about the existing slab but I don't think we'd - I think I'd be wasting a lot of people's time by doing that. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the size of the existing slab? MR. ARNOFF: 24x24. MEMBER TORTORA: And the proposed? MR. ARNOFF: I believe it's 26 by- MEMBER TORTORA: So it's Ton each? MR. ARNOFF: 2' all around-that's correct. My math is wrong. MEMBER TORTORA: So the existing slab is what? MR. ARNOFF: 24x24. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's the difference between 24 &24 and 24 &26? MR. ARNOFF: It's the enlargement of the variance that was previously granted this individual that we oppose. There is no justiciable articulable reason why. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Sidorowicz, is that lot adjacent right next to you vacant or improved? MR. SIDOROWICZ: The lot that we are talking about is vacant. It's the lot between, it's part of the subdivision that you people granted. CHAIRMAN: We created like a flag lot subdivision. MR. ARNOFF: That's the lot the house is on- it's the same lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's an improved lot. MR. ARNOFF: Yes. I apologize, I had it backwards. CHAIRMAN: I remember the Page 46 of 56 Page 47 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. ARNOFF: I'm sure you do, it dates back to when I was a town attorney. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask Mr. Sidorowicz a question? CHAIRMAN: I'm sure he's going to want to say something. MEMBER TORTORA: The existing slab is 24x24, what's the size of the existing garage? MR. SIDOROWICZ: 12x24. MEMBER TORTORA: Playing devil's advocate, why not just continue you've got the 24 this way right? MR. SIDOROWICZ: Lengthwise. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, why come T more out? MR. SIDOROWICZ: The slab that the garage is on existing is a slab that was poured and poured over again to try to level it out over the years and it's so thick that to take it out it was easier to put a 3' footing around the outside of it because that's what the Building Department wants is a 3' footing to start cutting the slab up between the garage and the house I still have to go down there and cut the concrete out to go down to put a footing in. And that's my reason for just going around the slab if I can rather than breaking up 2 or 3' of concrete to put a footing in to make it 24x24. That's why I went with 26x26. Just to make a few comments, I've been accused of a few things which I don't know if I should rebut them or not- CHAIRMAN: Only if they are germane to this hearing. MR. SIDOROWICZ: Well they actually do because we went to court in Riverhead with Judge Underwood granted us a judgment on our behalf we went to Suffolk County Supreme Court and they granted us our judgment and we also went to the appellate division, they also granted us our decision that we own that property. And as for us planting bushes and encroaching- if you have pictures, fine, if not, I don't believe we planted shrubs on somebody else's property. And I'd just like to look at those photos to see if that is- CHAIRMAN: They are over here. Any questions of Mr. Sidorowicz before we close the hearing? MEMBER HORNING: I have a question. MR. SIDOROWICZ: These were old photos, 10 years ago, I don't own that one anymore. CHAIRMAN: It is your property though? Page 47 of 56 Page 48 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SIDOROWICZ: It is our property, it's all here in court documents. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horning has a question. MEMBER HORNING: You did get a variance a while back for a 24x24' garage? MR. SIDOROWICZ: The original garage burned. And the property was in litigation. The Board granted me a variance to put up a 12x24'- MEMBER ORLANDO: Which exists now. MR. SIDOROWICZ: Which does exist now. MEMBER HORNING: Did you ever have any consideration for making an attached garage? MR. SIDOROWICZ: Well the problem there is between the garage and the house is probably 4'. It's a walkway to get from the front of the house to the back of the house. You have a rear entrance and that's where the kitchen area is -right on that wall. You put a garage up, you're knocking out a view of the waterfront and we also have you look out a window and that's our kitchen you look outside toward the garage. We have to make that wall plain, there'd be no sunlight or visibility. You'd have to walk around the garage to get into the back door. MEMBER HORNING: In other words, on that side of the house is your kitchen? MR. SIDOROWICZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Amoff? MR. ARNOFF: I'm not being presumptuous but I'd like to remind the board that designated hearing in 1980 when Mr. Sidorowicz obtained a variance here. He sought to reduce the side yard to 2 I/2'which is even less than what he's asking for now and the Board denied it, the Board gave him 3'then. There's no greater reason today to shorten that distance than there was then. And I remind the Board that was he's really seeking now is to appeal a decision that he doesn't like today that he got earlier and that's not permitted. There is a determination by this Board on this type of exact application before and it reads the attached garage be constructed not closer than T to the east side yard line. Period. He doesn't like it anymore. If that's the way the town is going to work, fine, but I think we should let everyone know that if you don't like the decision keep coming back and you keep changing them. But that was the decision of this Board in 1980. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have a copy of that for the- MR. ARNOFF: I have a copy, it's my only copy but I'll hand it up and I'll ask if the clerk could return it to me. MEMBER HORNING: I have a question of Mr. Sidorowicz. Page 48 of 56 Page 49 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: Back to Mr. Sidorowicz. You guys are getting a lot of exercise this evening. MEMBER HORNING: Sir you testified in a written submission that it would be a hardship for you to remove the slab and start anew with something confonning, what is your cost estimate for the removal of the slab? MR. SIDOROWICZ: I didn't do that- I haven't had a cost removal of the cement slab. MEMBER HORNING: Then you can't show that it would be a hardship. MR. SIDOROWICZ: You'd have to get a bulldozer and break it all up. I'm assuming it's 2-3' thick. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the distance that this garage would bring you to the side yard the closest point it's very hard to see on the survey? MR. SIDOROWICZ: What is the question? MEMBER TORTORA: What is the closest distance that would be to the side yard to the Sievernich property line? MR. SIDOROWICZ: That I'm proposing now? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. SIDOROWICZ: 6'. MEMBER TORTORA: It's further back than the prior decision. MR. SIDOROWICZ: Right. Originally they allowed me 2'because of the litigation. CHAIRMAN: There was a boundary line disagreement. MEMBER TORTORA: The prior decision said 3' and you're proposing 6, 6.7 on this survey at the closest point, Vinny can you read that down there on the survey? MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have it in front of me. MR. ARNOFF: 6.7, I think that's it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's the side yard location that causes the variance, not the setbacks. MEMBER ORLANDO: And your boundary line has changed after 1980? Page 49 of 56 Page 50 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was a different property line in 1980. MR. ARNOFF: The problem with that Mr. Goehringer is that there are no metes and bounds description by anybody anywhere to indicate what the property line is. So in reality we are speculating. MR. SIDOROWICZ: We are not speculating at all, we have it all here in court documents. MEMBER TORTORA: Harvey, it would not be barred as a matter of res judicata because the metes and bounds were different and even though it's still contested that the property lines are contested the described survey indicates a setback of 6.7'. So I don't really see this- MR. ARNOFF: I didn't see that as 6.7' on the survey. CHAIRMAN: Res judicata, Mr. Sidorowicz,means already decided. MR. ARNOFF: That's providing that line on here is an accurate line in accordance with the decision of Judge Underwood. It is my position that Judge Underwood's decision does not in fact set forth any I unfortunately left a copy of Judge Underwood's decision back in my office but I would be glad to forward a copy to your Board and your Board could read it yourself. It sets forth no metes and bounds at all. CHAIRMAN: Remember we are only discussing here the fact of the accessory building in the side yard area. MR. ARNOFF: That is correct. In fact the line doesn't move the way they see it. It wouldn't be 6.7 it would be substantially less. CHAIRMAN: So we are dealing with an imaginary line. MEMBER TORTORA: Are you saying we are going to go through another 10 years with you folks? CHAIRMAN: Use the mike over there dear. And I have no problem with you saying whatever you need to say. You need to state your name for the record. CHARLIE SIDOROWICZ: I am Charles' wife. As my husband stated, we've gone through the judicial process of probably 4 courts. Mr. Underwood's decision was not the final decision. I don't see how Mr. Arnoff can say it's an'imaginary line when the courts have already decided upon- have made a decision that we own the property and you have a survey here. CHAIRMAN: What he's doing very simply is questioning the survey. I'm not taking anything away from what you are saying and I'm not adding credence to what Mr. Arnoff is saying in both situations. There is some validity to the fact that(tape change) Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and I'll make a motion closing the hearing for verbatim Page 50 of 56 Page 51 December 12,2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing testimony and closing the hearing on January 161h pending the receipt of these documents. This is your decision back from 1980 because we have it. Thank you very much. HOMES ANEW—(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are going back to reconvene Homes Anew, did everyone vote on that one? Seeing sir that you have no one around, makes me believe that you have been successful. MR. MELTZER: Your idea was a good one. CHAIRMAN: But I have to tell you one night we had a fistfight out there. For about 5 years we didn't do that again. I have to tell you in all true candor I had a discussion with the Town Attorney tonight on his cell phone on his way home and he had told me twice that you are an extremely nice man and you are. We really appreciate that. MR. MELTZER: I have to say that coming from the other end of the island I was treated so politely here- it was really very,nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: What else would you like to tell us? Anything you'd like to re-cap or clearly state? I just had to clearly state to these people that the issue here is not use. MR. MELTZER: It was incomprehensible to me that this had to go this route,but thank you for your understanding. MEMBER HORNING: When did your organization purchase this property for the record? MR. MELTZER: About 2 years ago. MEMBER HORNING: And were familiar with what it was prior to your purchase? MR. MELTZER: 6-12-01. I think the history of it was it was a building that had been used by various occupants, tenants and it was not in the best shape it was not something the community was proud of. It had numerous violations and problems. MEMBER HORNING: It was residential? MR. MELTZER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: So when you purchased it you have inherited the pre-existing nonconforming use status? CHAIRMAN: It's been residential all along. Page 51 of 56 Page 52 December 12,2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MELTZER: I wouldn't say inherited it. I mean knew that it was there and acquired it with that in mind. MEMBER HORNING: You came into the area seeking such a- CHAIRMAN: Vincent? MEMBER ORLANDO: Right now you have 1 CO and you have 5 families living there correct? MR. MELTZER: I will. MEMBER ORLANDO: What do you have in there now? MR. MELTZER: It's undergoing renovation. MEMBER ORLANDO: Prior to construction, how many people or families were living there? MR. MELTZER: Christine, can you answer that? CHRISTINE WERNER: There's 5 apartments in there. My name is Christine Werner. They were occupied by individual people living in the apartments. MEMBER ORLANDO: Right now you are under construction, so they are not there anymore? MS. WERNER: Most of the apartments are empty. They will be emptied by January 1"so that we can do the renovations. MEMBER ORLANDO: After the renovations will they be coming back? MS. WERNER: No, this project is for people who - senior people-who have some developmental disabilities and they will be.placed in their apartments permanently. It will not be a transient situation. MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be 5- MS. WERNER: It will be 4 apartments with 2 individuals in each apartment and the 5`h apartment will have a staff person living in there. So there will be 5 apartments occupied on a permanent basis. MEMBER HORNING: Approximately 10 people, 2 in each apartment? MS. WERNER: There's two bedrooms in each apartment. MEMBER HORNING: 8 residents and then some staff. MS. WERNER: Yes. ' Page 52 of 56 Page 53 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: And if you didn't do these improvements, you'd still have the same 5 families eligible to live there,just with less conditions? MS. WERNER: Less comfort, less adequate space. MEMBER ORLANDO: No more questions. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll snake a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 9:31 pm Appl. No. 5278 -RICHARD & ANN VANDENBURGH. This is a request for a Variance under Section 244 &242A, based on the Building Inspector's November 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for a new construction as amended, (after demolition) of the existing dwelling, at less than 35'-from the front property line, at 1405 Oak Drive, Southold; 80-1-42. CHAIRMAN: You needed something from Mr. Vandenburgh? MEMBER OLIVA: I don't have the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN: Where did we leave off on this Mr. Vandenburgh? RICHARD VANDENBURGH: I just want to say thank you very much because I know the Board has been very kind in trying to help me resolve this problem. I am somewhat embarrassed to be back here because had perhaps in my excitement about getting the project done, looked a little bit more-closely at the amended permit application that I submitted to the Building Department I would have perhaps been.able to avoid the confusion that developed with regard to our permit application. I appreciate the Board taking the time to put me on the calendar, I know it's only an hour and on behalf of my wife who is home with our boys she wanted to make sure I said thank you as well. I did submit the package along with the application that kind of I think summarizes I don't want to keep you here any later than you need to be. I would be glad to re- summarize if anyone would like me to- CHAIRMAN: Just give us a quick synopsis. MR. VANDENBURGH: We originally started this process - we bought the house in Reydon Shores back in 1996 and at first we didn't have any children and our family has grown. The house was small and we began to look at doing something to enlarge the space because our house was a small cottage. It was one of the first ones built in Reydon Shores it was actually the rental office. Actually the main part of the structure was only 600 sq. ft. was the actual rental office and they added rooms to that. It was basic cabin construction so it wasn't really built to any specific code. We began to look at what we could do to enlarge the space to accommodate our family. Page 53 of 56 Page 54 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRMAN: We subsequently gave you a variance. MR. VANDENBURGH: That's correct, we submitted our application to the Building Department hoping and expecting we'd be able to go up in a slight bump out off the back and in keeping with the kind of style that we were hoping to follow we were going to put a front porch on and that's when we appeared before the board because we had 3/ front porch proposed that was going to create more of a problem with a setback with a nonconforming existence of the house. Our setback would have only been 18' whereas the original front part of the house was about 25' over from our property line. In that decision, the board recognized that because we are in this private community and they had recently repaved the road when they put public water in that there wasn't any likelihood that the road was going to be widened any so we took a picture that I will just show you it wasn't part of the original application. That's kind of a view looking up and down my side of Oak Drive. My property line technically on the survey actually is more or less right in the middle of my front yard. In any event the additional 18'was kind of looked at as in a practical sense really the front yard, the setback from the edge of the street was somewhat greater than what the survey shows. As we began to pursue the project we realized that the problem was the perimeter of the foundation was a cinderblock foundation that only went down one or two block depth and really wasn't going to support the 2nd story structure. The more we spoke with the builder that we had secured after we had gone through the initial process, he said we would wind up spending an extremely greater sum of money to try and salvage what was there. So we had the plans redrawn completely appropriately submitted our amended application for the new construction and in the confusion between the Building Department and what we then subsequently did which was tear the house down, we then called for our foundation inspection thinking all was in order and the Building Department was shocked and dismayed at the fact that we had removed the house then we uncovered all of the miscommunication that occurred. They sent us back here and hopefully you'll help us solve the problem. What we are really doing now is we have the plans that we submitted even with our addition/alteration are exactly the same as what we are intending to do. It's just the fact that the foundation that was there before is now a brand new foundation and it is in fact again into that setback requirement for a new construction. That's essentially a recap of what has happened so far. CHAIRMAN: How much is it into it by? MR. VANDENBURGH: The new survey,under the package that I submitted which is the 3rd exhibit down it shows that it's actually 25.F from the lot line. So it's technically I guess 10' into the required setback for a lot of this size. My understanding is that the front yard setback should by 35'. Again I know I speak in terms of practicality but there is an additional 18' from the lot line to the edge of the street and when you take a look at the photo that shows - in fact the photos of the foundation that are part of the application,you see that the new foundation actually lines up exactly if not slightly back further from the other houses on either side of us. MEMBER TORTORA: I understand your problem but we have to take the measurement from the right-of-way and not from how much grass is growing- CHAIRMAN: From the property line. Page 54 of 56 Page 55 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of'Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. VANDENBURGH: I understand that's the true application of the request. I understand that. I'm aware of that. Again the, in hindsight had we been able to address this and had there been discussion in terms of the fact that if the Board where we were intending to position the new house was too close, absolutely, we could have perhaps looked at moving the foundation back slightly. The only concern that we had in trying to keep it where it is now is to move it back we would have lost, there's only a small section that you can see the water. There's a partial water view. MEMBER TORTORA: I remember this application very well. Essentially the setback that you're at right now, on the survey which one is this? MR. VANDENBURGH: The survey is the 2nd survey down. I think the first survey was the original existing survey. MEMBER TORTORA: What is actual setback to the property line? MR. VANDENBURGH: 25.1' to the front lot line. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's 25 instead of 35. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is typical of the neighborhood? MR. VANDENBURGH: Absolutely typical. MEMBER TORTORA: What we really have to do,Vinny, is make sure this decision replaces and negates decision 5049 because you'll see a different number on that one and it could be very confusing and then we'll see you for a 3Td time this year and we really don't want that. MEMBER HORNING: There's a big difference here. In our previous decision we approved a variance for a front porch and a 2nd story. Then all of a sudden the house is gone the foundation's gone. When you get that far, when you're ripping out your foundation, you might want to consider, why can't we conform now? MR. VANDENBURGH: Absolutely. Some of the background and connection with I agree, when I submitted my amended building permit application I had checked off what I believe to be the appropriate boxes there was miscommunication between the Building Department and myself where they changed my application without letting me know and then told me your permit's okay. And I thought great and we went ahead and did what I thought we could do and then we they came out to physically inspect the foundation. They said wait a minute you tore the house down. I said yes, that's what I was planning to do. CHAIRMAN: We've had this before. MEMBER OLIVA: You can actually see where they went over the building permit and marked out what he intended to do. It's kind of a comedy of errors. Page 55 of 56 Page 56 December 12, 2002 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: This seems to be a totally new application now. MR. VANDENBURGH: A new application,you are absolutely correct. I kind of had to start over. MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the application, your rental is up in May. MR. VANDENBURGH: We made arrangements, our neighbors have been great, we are actually in the property next door and it's a winter rental they have regular summer tenants the rent goes from what we are paying now to $5,000 a month. MEMBER ORLANDO: And you'll be tight to finish it by May anyway. MR. VANDENBURGH: It's going to be very tight. We're probably going to have to move in with my mother-in-law, which is not so much a problem with me, more a problem with my wife. MEMBER HORNING: We have a fellow who wanted to get all of these things done because his baby was due in January. Sometimes things don't work out. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion to approve this application. MEMBER ORLANDO: You want to make a motion to approve application 5278? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's replacing the other one. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vandenburgh this is on the record it's your Christmas present. MR. VANDENBURGH: I really appreciate this very much. You comments earlier that one of the greatest assets of this town is that we are still a small town.. That you can help somebody out when they are in need this way is true to my heart. Thank you very much. Prepared by Jessica Boger from tape recordings for ZBA. Page 56 of 56