HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/22/2004 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
9 --------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
January 22 , 2004
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Joseph and
Danielle Helinski on Route 48 postponing that
3 until we have further information from the
Transportation Committee .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are
you doing on that?
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She is taking a
petition around the whole neighborhood just to
6 see if the right turn she feels that would be
some help, and the long term the
7 Transportation Commission is meeting with DPW
to see if when they have enough money, it is
8 not 'in the budget this year, then to see if we
can' t make that into one lane before it gets
9 to Tucker' s Lane .
MS . KOWALSKI : Mrs . Helinski
10 called and said she had an amount of names on
the petition.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She' ll take
that to the Transportation Commission.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t
think that' s DPW. That' s a state road.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s county.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: County.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re going
to do a whole project from the end of the four
15 lane coming up and do the drainage and
everything else all the way up to Greenport `
16 actually, but they don' t have the money in the
budget . They' re going to do home by Soundview
17 Restaurant and the motel moving some of the
poles further south. Bring a median in and
18 putting curbing in so you' re not backing out
into the road, make it far less dangerous, but
19 I think that' s at least two years away. No
money in the budget .
20 Our first hearing is at 9 : 30 a.m.
with Debra Victoroff and that has been
21 postponed to April 22nd.
The next one is 9 : 35 , which is
22 Joseph Gulmi and Susan Braver Gulmi, and we' re
delighted to see them here again today. Would
23 you like to have any comments on your
proposal? We did receive your new amended and
24 a good survey going there . We did it finally.
Do you have any comments that you would like
25 to tell us?
MS . BRAVER GULMI : Just good
January 22 , 2004
3
1
2 morning and I hope the papers speak for
themselves this time .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Finally a good
survey here, so we know what we' re doing.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need
to ask a question.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sure . Go
ahead.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could
you tell us -- by the way, I like your plan,
8 and it' s very nice, and thank you for doing
it, it' s very cohesive . But could you tell us
9 what' s going to go in the cabana storage
building again?
10 MS . BRAVER GULMI : Place for me to
change and a little section to put my pool
11 toys in if my kids and guests come out, and I
might put in a sink. I haven' t decided to do
12 that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the
13 question is, is it going to be seasonal?
MS . BRAVER GULMI : Yes .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
not going to be any heat in it? It will be
15 shut down during the winter?
MS . BRAVER GULMI : That' s right .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We toy
with the words "pool house/cabana" and it goes
17 back and forth, not in your particular
situation but with the applications we have
18 before us . So this very simply is a pool
storage building with a changing room.
19 MS . BRAVER GULMI : Correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the
20 water will be shut off in the winter so
there' s no need for heat?
21 MS . BRAVER GULMI : Right .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So can
22 we say it' s going to have hot and cold water,
or is it just going to have cold water, or
23 what?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if you
24 want a shower, you might want a little warm
water in there .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not
going to make the grandkids have a cold
January 22 , 2004
4
1
2 shower.
MS . BRAVER GULMI : I wanted a
3 shower outside and I assume if my husband
wants a shower- inside, it' s going to be hot
4 water.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will
5 be some sort of hot and cold water, either
inside or --
6 MS . BRAVER GULMI : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
7 to tell you that that clears the whole issue
when you get your building permit or you
8 attempt to get the C.O. all we' re trying to do
is clear that issue .
9 MS . BRAVER GULMI : I didn' t know
where you were coming from, but thank you very
10 much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some
11 people consider it a grilling, it' s not a
grilling I assure you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just that
some people before you know it they have hot
13 and cold water and suddenly a kitchen appears
and some bedrooms appear, and they' re renting
14 it out .
MS . BRAVER GULMI : Don' t want any
15 family.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do
16 you have anything?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
18 questions . You've done everything we've asked
in the past and everything looks fine .
19 MS . BRAVER GULMI : Thank you,
Mr. Orlando. I'm sorry if there was some
20 misunderstanding here whatever the
communications were they somehow didn' t pass
21 between you and I the way they should have .
So I'm hoping there won' t be any further
22 problems .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: _ It' s good for
23 your own sake when you go to the Building
Department that you have the survey so
24 everybody knows where everything is so then
when the Building Inspector comes out and you
25 start something, all of a sudden they won' t
say, well, that' s not where it is . Well, I
January 22 , 2004
5
1
2 just gave a kind of a thing. Well, they don' t
go by that, they want an actual survey. It' s
t 3 just to your benefit really.
MS . BRAVER GULMI : Thank you.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to
close .the hearing and reserve decision.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
6 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
7
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
8 hearing is Wilbur Osler, and this is on
Peconic Bay Boulevard for a porch addition of
9 4 X 34 feet by 45 feet from the retaining
wall; is there somebody here to represent
10 Mr. Osler?
MR. LARK: Good morning, Richard
11 Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the
applicant .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning,
Mr. Lark.
13 MR. LARK: I want to hand up the
affidavit of posting to the clerk so the
14 jurisdiction now is complete on this,
(handing) .
15 The application before you is
fairly straightforward. I think you have all
16 the exhibits and the map. I just have a
couple of comments . The notice of disapproval
17 by the Building Department, although the
section they quote is accurate, some of the
18 facts in there are not . As you will note, the
ordinance requires that any buildings be 75
19 feet from the bulkhead under that 239-4B . The
Building Inspector there in the notice of
20 disapproval that the porch extension is 45
feet from the retaining wall . That' s true, it
21 is 45 feet from the retaining wall, but again,
the retaining walls have no significance
22 because under the zoning ordinance it' s from
the bulkhead and retaining wall by definition
23 is two sides of earth on either side, which is
the case here; whereas, a bulkhead is water on
24 one side and earth on the other, earth and
materials I think the section says . So I just
25 wanted to point that out . The applicant does
have Trustees approval and has relocated then,
January 22 , 2004
6
1
2 it will be then 61 feet from the bulkhead at
its closest point . So when you do all the
3 mathematics like a lot of times that you like
to do, the variance request is five point
4 three-fourths percent of the requirement of 75
feet, just so you have that for the record.
5 Mr. Osler is here, if you have any
questions . As I said I think you have
6 everything there . You have the Trustees
permission to do that because they did some
7 renovations on the bulkhead; then he wants
to -- can extend this out as you have in your
8 application, so if you have any questions .
One last comment, I was able to
9 obtain a 1947 survey of the property, and the
survey you have is exactly the same . There is
10 no difference in either location of the
building, the garage or the bulkhead. It' s 65
11 feet in 147 and it' s 65 feet today.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No erosion?
12 MR. LARK: It' s amazing to see
everything exactly the same .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A lot of the
those homes down there, they' re very old.
14 MR. LARK: Right . This home, I
was told by Mr. Osler, where he' s living in
15 now, the original part of it was started right
after the turn of the century. It was built,
16 and he' s lived on the premises or his family
since ' 47 when they bought it from Dr. Wright,
17 and a lot of them have stayed in the family
names over the years down there, and there' s
18 been little or no change, that' s true . So if
there are any questions . He' s here .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you
have any questions?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree
with you, Mr. Lark, it is a retaining wall,
22 not a bulkhead and also, by New York State
Zoning Board to give minimal relief, and a
23 four foot deck I think is pretty minimal . So
I have no other questions .
24 MR. LARK: It will be an enclosed
porch actually. They' re just going to push
25 out four feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Enclose the
January 22 , 2004
7
1
2 porch?
MR. LARK: Yes .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heat?
MR. LARK: I don' t know about
4 heat; are you going to have heat on the porch?
MR. OSLER: No heat .
5 MR. LARK: No heat on the porch.
It' s screened right now. It' s just moving
6 everything out four feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it' s only
7 going to remain a screened porch, or are you
going to glass it in?
8 MR. LARK: Wilbur Osler, for the
records .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you come
to the mike so Florence can pick up your name?
10 MR. OSLER: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning.
11 MR. LARK: What is this going to
look like when it' s done, the porch area?
12 MR. OSLER: Good morning. At the
present time the porch seven and-a-half feet
13 wide extending to the south towards the water,
and it' s the full width of the house, which is
14 about 32 feet maybe, and when we extend the
porch we' ll go out four feet . The northeast
15 corner, which is where the bad weather comes
from -- excuse me, southeast corner, has been
16 glassed-in just to protect the furniture and
keep the weather out . We will do that on the
17 east side and on the south side through the
door, and we' ll probably stop there, and the
18 rest will be screened in.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Mr.
19 Goehringer?
MR. OSLER: You' re welcome .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
answers all my questions . I have to write
21 this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
22 there anybody in the audience?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One more
23 quick question. This is not going to be a
two-story, I mean it' s going to be the exact
24 same height that it reaches now?
MR. OSLER: Do you have the
25 photographs?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes .
January 22 , 2004
8
1
2 MR. LARK: That was the reason why
they had to extend the porch, there was no
3 room to do it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Without the
4 other?
MR. LARK: Right . They have to
5 put the foundation on it, but the porch will
remain the same, but on top of it will be the
6 extension of the master bedroom. I think you
have that on the plan?
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes, thank
you.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody else in the audience that would like
9 to speak on this application? If not, I' ll
close the hearing and reserve decision until
10 later. Thank you.
MR. LARK: Thank you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor.
(Whereupon, all Board Members
12 responded in favor. )
----------------------------------------
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next
application is for Gillooly for a garage .
14 that has been placed in a yard other than a
rear yard. Good morning, Mr. Smith, how are
15 you?
MR. SMITH: I'm fine, thank you.
16 Madam Chairman, Members of the Board, my name
is Allen Smith, I'm an attorney. I practice
17 law in Riverhead. My street address is 737
Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead. I represent the
18 applicant this morning.
If I may submit the following for
19 your consideration, I will pass copies of the
same up. On the Southold Board of Appeals
20 letterhead dated May 3 , 1985 correspondence
addressed to William Gillooly, signed by Mr.
21 Goehringer. Reads as follows : "Board
reviewed and discussed your proposal for an
22 accessory building (garage) to be located west
of the most westerly end of the existing
23 dwelling. It is the opinion of the Board that
the premises as a whole 13 . 421 acres contains
24 two front yard areas sits and front on the
east side of Village Lane and the west side
25 Taber Road. Therefore, locating the accessory
garage in the location mentioned above would
January 22 , 2004
9
1
2 require a variance since it' s not a rear
yard. " The application then for the building
3 permit is dated 5/13/85 . A building permit
was issued June 3 , 1985 . Inspection report is
4 dated 11/7/85 . Okay to continue?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s for the
5 house, correct?
MR. SMITH: This is for the
6 garage, ma' am. And the inspection certificate
for 7/98 referenced accessory garage, okay for
7 C.O. (Handing. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it also
8 said on that report that it was refused
because the garage was supposed to be attached
9 to the house . We have that in our file .
MR. SMITH: Okay. I' ll bring
10 forward Mr. Gillooly relative to those matters
in a moment . I' ll have him sworn. And you do
11 have, ma' am, hopefully, a copy of
Mr. Angegno' s survey, showing existing
12 conditions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm looking at
13 it right now.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, ma' am.
14 That' s the part of the presentation that I can
make . What I would like, please, is for
15 Mr. Gillooly to be sworn and/or him to testify
as to the construction of the garage, and its
16 history.
Mr. Gillooly, please .
17 MR. GILLOOLY: For the record, my
name is William, I'm the applicant 605-645
18 Village Lane, Orient, 11957 .
A little history, I purchased the
19 property in 1983 , my brother and I did, and it
was a piece of property that stretched as
20 noted from Taber Road to Village Lane . It was
15 acres .
21 I came into the Building
Department and I wanted to build a house, and
22 we with, vic Lazard and the rest of the Board,
decided that the front elevation of my house
23 would be exactly as it is in the permit, and
as in the CO, that it would face north. We
24 built the house . We applied for the CO and we
got the CO. During that summer Swim King
25 Pools was contracted with me to build a
swimming pool . They came in and requested a
January 22 , 2004
10
1
2 building permit for the swimming pool, which
they received. They built the swimming pool
3 and they requested a CO, and they got the CO.
As I discussed with some of the members of the
4 Zoning Board, it was our understanding along
with Vic LaZard at that point in time that the
5 locating of the pool and the locating of the
front facade of the house, front door of the
6 house, established my backyard. The swimming
pool had to be in the backyard; it was, in
7 fact, in the backyard. The next year I came
in and I applied for a building permit for the
8 garage, and they gave me a building permit for
the garage . And they said at that point in
9 time, Vic, and Ed said, you can build a
trellis, you can build a six inch raised deck
10 connecting the garage to the house, not a
problem. Okay, we proceeded to build the
11 garage exactly as was the permit required,
built the garage, they inspected it on a
12 number of occasions, told me to continue
building it, which we did, and applied for a
13 CO and, if you look at the thing, it said okay
for CO on a number of their correspondence . I
14 subsequently, during ' 85, called Vic on a
number of occasions and said, I need my CO, I
15 need my CO; yeah, yeah, we' ll get around to
it, we' ll issue it . It never came . When my
16 ex-wife and I were preparing to sell the
house, I came up and wanted a copy of the CO
17 and the Building Department said, oh, you
can' t have a CO, that' s in your front
18 yard. You' ll have to go to the ZBA. It was
very much established that the front yard of
19 my house was the front elevation; the swimming
pool and the garage were built behind the
20 house and another thing that is not
unimportant, but when my brother and I decided
21 to get a setoff and have my property setoff
from the rest of the property, which we did
22 and we came before the ZBA and had it setoff,
we made sure that -- two things : We made sure
23 that the frontage on Village Lane, which was
50 feet, we cut that in half; we made two 25
24 foot pieces, and we did that because there had
been considerable concern before we bought the
25 property on
Village Lane that a road might go through
January 22 , 2004
11
1
2 there . And when we bought the property one of
the reasons we bought it was we wanted to
3 prevent a road from ever going through there .
And we felt, along with the powers that be at
4 that point that by dividing that 50 foot
frontage on Village Lane and making it two 25
5 foot pieces, it would preclude any chance of
ever having a road because it would be two
6 separate owners, and as it is now, it could
not be put back again. We very much with the
7 Building Department established that my front
yard was the front elevation of the house . I
8 built everything according to their permits .
I built it in a professional and workman-like
9 manner and they had no complaints about any of
the construction, and the only question before
10 you is twofold. One is I would like a CO for
my as-built 20 year old garage that' s been
11 there for 20 years and has been used strictly
as a garage for 20 years . There' s been no
12 modifications to the garage; there' s no
bathroom in the garage, there' s no heat . It' s
13 a completely open --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For storage
14 only and for cars?
MR. GILLOOLY: Exactly. I mean,
15 when I say a loft, there' s plywood down and a
set of stairs going up there . There' s no
16 facilities for domestic use in the thing. And
you know, as I say, it' s been there for 20
17 years without incident, and I ' d like to have a
CO for that garage as I built it and given to
18 a permit 20 years ago, and I' d like to have it
established that the front of the house is, in
19 fact, the front of the house, and the backyard
is, in fact, the backyard of the house .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically your
driveway is right on the right of way going
21 through it . The Building Department changed
its opinion as to the front yard, I would take
22 it . In other words, the old one would have
been your front yard would have been Village
23 Lane, and then with your right of way, that
would have been your front yard?
24 MR. GILLOOLY: Right, Ruth, but
the question I had always with the two pieces
25 and the split was, it was always -- I always
relied on the Building Department since it was
January 22 , 2004
12
1
. 2 15 acres in an area of 50 by 100 foot lots, we
had this 15 acre property, and I always relied
3 on the Building Department . I came and said,
I need a permit, they said face the house this
4 way, this is your front . I said, okay, we' ll
do that . On another part of that whole thing
5 was that if we ever wanted to build anything
on the other property, they mentioned that a
6 road would have to come in from Taber Road, if
we ever did that -- which we don' t want to do
7 that, we never wanted to do that -- and that a
road coming from Taber Road would establish
8 the fact that the front yard was facing north
as it was . I think it' s a simple
9 situation. As I say, the building' s been
there for 20 years . I did it exactly as I was
10 told to do it as far as the Building
Department was concerned. I got all permits
11 and the only thing that I didn' t do was, I
didn' t put a trellis up because they told me
12 when we did that it' s not important,
everything' s fine, it' s okay for a CO. If you
13 have any questions, I' d be happy to answer
them.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What kind
15 of trellis?
MR. GILLOOLY: What they really
16 said, if you looked at the plans they talked
about having a three foot wide wooden platform
17 that would attach between the house and the
garage .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That looks
to be how long?
19 MR. GILLOOLY: It' s like about 40
feet long. Let me say, I said to the Building
20 Department, should I put the trellis up or
should I put a deck up or something like that?
21 They said, oh, no, now you' d have to build a
whole legal addition, that was heated and all
22 that stuff . Again, I don' t want to cite the
fact that it' s a hardship. I feel like I did
23 everything that was appropriate at the time .
I built it well, and it would be a
24 considerable hardship for me at this time for
me to tear down the 44 by 24 foot garage . The
25 property is three and-a-half acres . Our
nearest neighbor is I think it' s 125 feet
January 22 , 2004
13
1
2 away, it' s not like I 'm crowding anybody, and,
like I say, the building has been there for
3 almost 20 years at this point .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks to
4 me like it' s well within the principal
building if anything you could probably turn
5 it around make the house a garage and the
garage a house, and certainly 150 feet away
6 from that property line . I have no objection
to that . The trellis thing sounds to me like
7 way back when you put a 2 by 6 and --
MR. GILLOOLY: I didn' t want to
8 mention that, but that' s exactly what they
told me, they said nail a 2 by 6 from the
9 house to the garage and you' re okay. Then
when I went down there, I said should I nail
10 my 2 by 6 up now? And they said, no, don' t
worry about it, you' re fine . And I relied on
11 that . And as I said, I called that summer
probably six or seven times -- this is my
12 fault, I didn' t follow up on it -- and every
time I called they said we' re booked up and
13 we' ll get you a CO, and after awhile, by that
time I had been in the garage for over a year
14 and it never dawned on me to do it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s a
long two by six. I feel for your pain. I
16 read through this and I can see there' s
confusion there or interpretation. I have no
17 problem with that .
MR. GILLOOLY: Thank you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No
19 objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the
20 audience that would like to speak to this?
MS . BRAZIL: Yes, ma' am. Hi, my
21 name is Carrie Brazil . And I live in 640
Village Lane, right across from the Gillooly' s
22 property and driveway. Their driveway comes
right into my -- the lights from any cars from
23 that driveway come right into my parlor
window. It' s a fine thing to have a garage
24 there . It all makes perfect sense, it' s not a
problem. But I'm mindful of the fact that
25 things are changing on Village Lane and the
whole of Southold town and Bill is selling his
January 22 , 2004
14
1
2 house, and this is a question to you. If the
C of 0 is granted, the variance granted, what
3 other rights does this allow a new owner? For
example, could the garage suddenly be turned
4 into another little separate dwelling? Can it
become a workshop? Is there anything else
5 that could happen to this? Because I 've been
in the town for about ten years, and slowly it
6 has dawned on me that one thing morphed into
another. That variances are given, you can do
7 something the wrong way against the Building
Department, and as long as it' s there for 20
8 years somehow it' s suddenly allowed. And
while not -- I don' t know, the garage, as I
9 say, I'm not objecting to this garage, but I
would like to find out and hopefully prevent
10 it from changing into anything else, and
that' s my question for you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can make it
a condition of approval that the garage is
12 only be used as storage only, no water, no
heat, no nothing, and that would be with the
13 land, so people could not legally do anything.
Then you' d have something if you saw something
14 going on, that you could call the enforcement
officer and have him come and look at the
15 property?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I
16 comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to
warn you, looking at the survey, if this
18 gentleman, or the person who buys it wants to
take the house and extend it to the garage,
19 make it a square, he' s perfectly entitled to
do that . Just so you know, if you do see
20 construction, if that guy decides to build a
mansion he still can do that .
21 MS . BRAZIL: Sure . There' s plenty
of land back there, and I know you could have
22 a much bigger house; that' s not my concern.
Thank you for clarifying.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bill, just one
more question, is that a three car garage or
24 two car garage?
MR. GILLOOLY: It' s a four car
25 garage, Ruth. It' s 44 feet by 22 feet, and
it' s got two 16 foot doors on it .
January 22 , 2004
15
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Four small
ones .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Four cars or put
boats in there too?
4 MR. GILLOOLY: Over the years I
have had a lot of Boston Whalers . Yes, I've
5 kept one side as a hobby shop and kept my
boats in there and the other side I've got the
6 two cars .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
7 there anybody else in the audience that would
like to comment on this application? Anybody
8 else on the Board? If not, I' d like to make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve
9 decision.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
11 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So
12 carried.
MR. GILLOOLY: Thank you for your
13 consideration.
-----------------------------------------------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
hearing is Martha Cassidy. This is an
15 application for the building of a tennis court
on a vacant piece of property on Youngs Road
16 in Orient; is there anybody that would like to
speak to this application?
17 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham.
18 MS . WICKHAM: I have an affidavit
of posting which I will give to you at the
19 conclusion of this talk. I am Abigail
Wickham. I represent the owner, Martha
20 Cassidy. She is unfortunately away on
business, but her business partner Susan
21 Gardner is here and has been working with me
on the application if you have any
22 questions .
We have applied for what we think
23 is a fairly simple application merely to build
a tennis court with conforming setbacks on a
24 parcel which does not yet have a principal
residence . The intention would be to build a
25 principal residence at some time but there are
no current plans so I can' t tell you when that
January 22 , 2004
16
1
2 might happen. But the location of the court
has been designed to accommodate the location
3 of a residence as well . And being that Miss
Cassidy owns a residence almost immediately
4 across the street, I think that one of the
concerns that this particular statute was
5 enacted to prevent was having an accessory
structure that' s not going to be supervised or
6 maintained properly when it' s not a principal
residence, and being that her residence is
7 immediately across the street I would think
that that concern would be alleviated. As far
8 as that fence height goes it' s fairly typical
for a tennis court and I know this Board has
9 considered those things before but this is the
way the Code is so we do have to come in, but
10 it certainly does make playing tennis a lot
easier to have a fence of that height and it
11 would be constructed of a material that would
not be egregiously unattractive and the court
12 will not be lighted.
So other than that, I ' d like to
13 ask if the Board has any particular questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just feel it
14 is not a permitted use in that zone on an
empty lot . If you wish to put up an 850
15 square foot building on that, liveable
building, and a permitted use, it is not a
16 permitted use on there to put a tennis court .
MS . WICKHAM: That' s correct . And
17 that' s why we are here for a variance in that
the applicant owns the property across the
18 street which takes it out of the norm. It
seems excessive or practically difficult to
19 have to build a house structure in order to
get a tennis court, and I don' t think a tennis
20 court is a noxious type of use .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm not saying
21 that, Mrs . Wickham, but if the Code, if you
follow the Code, it' s not a permitted use .
22 That' s where our jurisdiction is, but then
again, let the members of the Board say
23 anything. Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree
24 with you, Ruth, it' s not in the Code .
MS . WICKHAM: I do believe the
25 Board has granted this relief in the past . I
would like to research that if that would
January 22 , 2004
17
1
2 help, but whether they have or haven' t it just
doesn' t strike me that the burden of adjoining
3 owners or the Town is any way exceeding the
practical difficulties of not being able to
4 utilize a lot that they have been paying taxes
on, been maintaining and would like to use for
5 recreational purposes short of having to build
a house. You know, we don' t want to have to
6 build more houses in the neighborhood if we
don' t have to right away. I would ask that
7 you to consider that that is this is not an
application that would cause a great deal of
8 difficulty in terms of the detriment .
I will mention that Miss Gardner
9 did try to reach her neighbor --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you' re
10 a little bit late sending out your notices .
MS . WICKHAM: They were served
11 timely, there was a mix-up in one of the tax
numbers and two or three of the notices went
12 out after the notice that we originally sent,
but certainly if the Board feels, and I think
13 from your agenda you intend to put it over,
that' s fine . She wanted you to know she did
14 try to reach him ahead of time and discuss his
concerns and will hopefully do that before the
15 next hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very
unique situation, and it would be interesting
17 for you to research this to see where we are .
And it would be interesting if Counsel would
18 allow us to consider it if there was a time
limit placed when the house was going to be
19 constructed.
MS . WICKHAM: I' ll have to talk to
20 Miss Cassidy about that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean
21 our Counsel .
MS . WICKHAM: Oh.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We would
have to discuss that with our Counsel, and I
23 don' t know if you ever discussed that with our
Counsel .
24 MS . WICKHAM: No. But the
practical difficulty is having to spend
25 hundreds thousands of dollars to construct a
residence just so the applicant can. have a
January 22 , 2004
18
1
2 tennis court on a piece of property that she
owns immediately across the street from her
3 house . I don' t see it as an insurmountable
difficulty. Apparently the Board is concerned
4 about it . I don' t think overriding Town
policy is going to be affected by this .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Could I
comment on that?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know,
7 Gail, I'm new to this Board
MS . WICKHAM: I know.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Over the
years tennis courts in particular, we have
9 heard tennis courts in particular, we have
heard neighbors come in and complain about the
10 noise from the tennis court . I always
thought, well, if it' s on that person' s
11 property they got to live with it too, and now
I thought now this is not on this person' s
12 property, and it' s on another piece of
property that this person happens to own.
13 That' s just one more -- they remove themselves
from any annoyance and put that onto the
14 neighbors . So I would like to hear, and
certainly if there are cases in the town, I
15 don' t know of if there are, but if there are,
that' s what I'm looking for. It' s been
16 already discussed and it seems to work out .
MS . WICKHAM: I would agree with
17 what you said except that she does live there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not on that
18 piece of property.
MS . WICKHAM: No. But about as
19 close as you can get .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree .
20 But what about the next guy that wants to put
it somewhere .
21 MS . WICKHAM: Well, that' s a
different question, that' s a different factor.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it
may be, that' s what I' d like to see you
23 investigate whatever we did in the past or
whatever, even other towns .
24 MS . WICKHAM: I' d like to ask my
client . Miss Cassidy and Miss Gardner own the
25 house immediately to the south of this . Mrs .
Gardner' s mother lives there . So that would
January 22 , 2004
19
1
2 be another factor that would mean that they
are, in fact, affected as much as another
3 neighbor, and the only other immediate
neighbor is to the north, and this court would
4 be more towards the south end, actually, more
towards the house her mother lives in than
5 towards that neighbor. So if there' s going to
be annoyance from noise, they' re going to be
6 affected by it also, and would I presume not
want to have that occur.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about
merging your lots?
8 MS . WICKHAM: If that can be
another distinguishing factor to --
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What about
merging the lots?
10 MS . WICKHAM: Having to merge a
buildable lot just so you can put up a tennis
11 court without a principal residence that would
fit on that property would be horrendous .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How about
tying it to that lot ; in other words, that lot
13 could be sold tomorrow.
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then we' re
back to Square One, which is a tennis court
15 not on the property with the principal
residence .
16 MS . WICKHAM: I think this is
where you were going, but if they would not
17 leave the tennis court on the vacant lot
without a residence if they sold it . We have
18 to come up with better language, but they
would be willing to say as long as they would
19 not sell to a third party.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
20 would be construed as a conditional C of O.
MS . WICKHAM: All right, yes . Not
21 precluding them from building a house there .
But precluding them from doing what
22 Mr. Dinizio said, which is selling to a third
party, somebody who didn' t have a vested
23 interest in the neighborhood could come and
make a racket -- no pun intended.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all
I have .
25 MS . WICKHAM: That' s a good
suggestion.
January 22 , 2004
20
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have two
3 reservations besides the one that was brought
up already. The first one is elevation. The
4 elevation would have to be brought up, you' re
kind of in a valley.
5 MS . WICKHAM: There would have to
be some leveling, yes .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a
matter of the drainage .
7 MS . WICKHAM: So you' re not going
to be bringing it up to the point where the
8 drainage from the lot is coming onto the
road. You would merely regrade to accommodate
9 a proper base .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The
10 elevation is at least below the road.
MS . WICKHAM: Below.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The second
reservation I have the most is if I saw a
12 tennis court on a vacant lot, it would become
a community tennis court .
13 MS . WICKHAM: Not if you live
across the street .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I
would be kind of afraid of or shy to ask
15 someone if I could play tennis in their
backyard, but if you put a tennis court on a
16 vacant lot, I wouldn' t be afraid to go ask a
person to go play tennis on your tennis court,
17 because that wouldn' t be intruding. I ' d feel
more apt to do that and I feel the potential' s
18 there to become a community tennis court .
MS . WICKHAM: That' s true, but
19 again, they have the residence next door and
the residence across the street, and if it
20 became an annoyance by having them do that,
they would stop it . So I think their presence
21 there would mitigate that concern, otherwise I
would agree with you.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Full time
residence across the street or summer
23 residence?
MS . WICKHAM: They are here year
24 round but not full time . Your mother lives
there full time?
25 MS . GARDNER: No. My mother lives
there from May to October.
January 22 , 2004
21
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: Tennis season.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And across
3 the street?
MS . GARDNER: And we' re there from
4 June through September full time, then
weekends the rest of .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s mainly
a summer --
6 MS . WICKHAM: The mother' s house
to the south they' re there during tennis
7 season May to October full time; and across
the street full time June to September and
8 weekends during the rest of the tennis season.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, I ' d like
9 to see if there' s anybody else in the audience
that would like to comment on this
10 application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just
11 need to ask one more question later.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
12 Mr. Hughes .
MR. HUGHES : Good morning, my name
13 is Robert Hughes, and I am an adjoining
neighbor to the property. And I 've got a
14 bunch of points I' d like to bring up . My
address is 1025 Peaks Hill Road in Orient .
15 First of all this is a use variance and we
need to maintain that point of view by the
16 definition in the Town Law, Section 267 . And
that of course, imposes a burden of proof on
17 the applicant to show that the Zoning Code has
imposed an unnecessary hardship.
18 There are four criteria,
reasonable return on your investment, the
19 uniqueness of this piece of property, what it
will do to the character of the neighborhood
20 and whether this is a self-created hardship.
Then also, apart from the issue of the use
21 variance, I have certain concerns about the
environmental impact . This concept of this
22 tennis court being accessory to the owner' s or
the applicant' s other pieces of property, and
23 then whether actually a tennis court is
appropriate on this piece of property. And
24 then, as we have now been discussing, I think
there are probably a couple of alternatives
25 such as merging the lot with the one to the
south and/or building the house first .
January 22 , 2004
22
1
2 Now, the definition of a use
variance is that it shall mean the
3 authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals
for the use of the land for a purpose which is
4 otherwise not allowed or is prohibited by the
applicant by zoning regulations . I think that
5 pretty well nails what we' re talking about
here . And then it is the burden of the
6 applicant to show that the zoning has -- the
Zoning Code has caused an unnecessary hardship
7 to the applicant . The various criteria,
reasonable return on their investment at this
8 point, apparently the biggest burden that they
have, they have a $432 . 92 a year tax bill . If
9 this has caused an economic hardship to them,
have they tried other options for ameliorating
10 their economic hardship, such as selling their
property if the tax burden is too high on
11 them. I don' t think that the values in that
neighborhood have gone down so that this is
12 the only use you can use for the property for.
They bought the property in 1998 and according
13 to the assessors tax card, they paid $80 , 000
for it . At this point from what I 've heard
14 from Miss Wickham, I've heard no dollars and
cents proof that they are in really any sort
15 of economic hardship .
Secondly, there' s the issue of
16 whether this lot is unique in the
neighborhood, and in their application they
17 say that there' s few or any vacant lots that
are owned by adjoining homeowners . Well,
18 you' re looking at one . I live just to the
west, and with my sister I own a vacant lot
19 which is adjoining to this piece of property.
So it isn' t totally unique . I would admit
20 that it' s rare and most of the lots have been
built on and developed.
21 The character of the neighborhood
on Youngs Road is basically as one acre zoning
22 mostly, and the lots there are pre-existing
nonconforming. They' re smaller than one acre,
23 such as this lot . This lot is less than an
acre, so it is nonconforming. And this area
24 abuts two acre zoning, and I thought of two
other areas in Orient which are very similar,
25 and I wonder whether the neighbors there would
want a tennis court on the vacant lot . One of
January 22 , 2004
23
1
2 those areas, I think Miss Oliva' s very
familiar with, which is the end of Narrow
3 River Road, which is one acre zoning abutting
two acre zoning, and the one acre zoning lots
4 are all pre-existing non-conforming small
lots . The area between Narrow River Road and
5 Kings Street and Douglas Road. Putting in a
tennis court in a vacant lot in that area I
6 don' t think would be appropriate . The other
area that I thought of was Village Lane,
7 Oyster Pond Road, one acre zoning abutting two
acre zoning with pre-existing nonconforming,
8 and there are a couple vacant lots on Oyster
Pond Road. Having an absentee owner putting
9 up a tennis court on a vacant lot would be not
desirable -- that was Oyster Pond Road.
10 Then the other issue on the use
variance is whether this is a self-created
11 hardship. Well, even the applicant admitted
that in their application. There are, I read
12 a nice little quote out of a Clark versus the
Board of Zoning Appeals, that was a variance
13 on the grounds of special hardship . I don' t
think the applicant has met the burden of
14 proof on the use variance .
There are a couple of other things
15 that I am concerned about . As a neighbor I 've
seen -- I'm environmentally a little
16 concerned, and Mr. Orlando I think you had a
valid point, the topography of that land. I
17 actually have a survey here from 1920 that was
done by VanTyle, which shows that that
18 property back then had the same elevation
above sea level as the land that' s a little
19 farther to the north about where Miss
Cassidy' s mother lives now. And where Miss
20 Cassidy' s mother lives now it says pond -- I
can show you a copy of this . What has
21 happened since they cleared the land, they
have had fill brought in, and they have raised
22 the level of the land. I'm concerned about
drainage when there' s heavy rain. We have
23 just to the west of the applicant' s property,
we have a right of way that serves seven
24 building lots, that goes from the Main Road to
the Sound. And I'm worried about if they
25 raise the level of the land there enough that
I'm going to have a drainage problem on my
January 22 , 2004
24
1
2 right of way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There is a
3 drainage problem in that whole area.
MR. HUGHES : Exactly. They have
4 already brought in some fill and anything done
as an approval here, they said in their
5 application, there would be minimal regrading.
I think we've already had more than that, and
6 I have no idea whether this is true or not but
I have had people in the village tell me that
7 they have plans to put in 1, 100 yards of fill
for the tennis court, whether that' s true or
8 not, I don' t know.
Now the concept of this -- and
9 you've already discussed this a bit about this
idea that the tennis court would be across the
10 street from the applicant' s house, and they' re
not going to want to be disturbed by the
11 tennis court because it' s accessory to their
house, quote/unquote . Well, you have
12 addressed this issue, what about somebody that
buys that lot with the tennis court on there
13 but they live someplace else? They don' t care
if their kids go up and play tennis all day,
14 all night or -- not all night obviously, but
the fact of the matter is there' s no guarantee
15 that this -- that the applicants aren' t going
to sell their houses and leave town, and we' re
16 going to end up with a tennis court that isn' t
attached to it, or isn' t physically. attached
17 to another piece of property that has a house
on it .
18 As far as whether a tennis court' s
appropriate in a parcel, I understand what the
19 zoning code says that if you' re in one acre
zoning you can have a tennis court . These are
20 undersized lots already, and I understand that
if it was just an area variance, then, you
21 know, it would probably go through with
certain strings attached, but the tennis
22 courts that I know are -- the private tennis
courts that I know of in the area, along to
23 the west before you get to the causeway, have
been there for way before there was zoning.
24 I'm thinking of the one up on Steven Sons
Hill, the one on Sterns and Dormans those are
25 all on one acre zoning. Even though they' re
pre-existing, they conform with the zoning as
January 22 , 2004
25
1
2 far as not being nonconforming small lots .
The other thing, the last thing
3 really is -- oh, yeah, there is a public
tennis court at the school, okay, which is a
4 quarter-mile from the applicant' s house, and I
can hear that tennis court, the ball hitting
5 the net or hitting the racket and it is
hitting the ground from my house . So it' s not
6 actually not a noxious activity, not a noxious
act . So the two alternatives -- because I
7 don' t want to be a negative person on that
one -- is that they merge the lot with the lot
8 to the south where the applicant' s mother
lives, then have a tennis court in a side
9 yard, okay. That could be worked out, you can
buffer it or whatever; and the other thing is
10 you build the house first, then you put the
tennis court in. Thank you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
Mr. Hughes .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr.
Hughes, I have to disagree with you that this
13 is the use variance . The use of this tennis
court is residential . This Board would not
14 entertain -- we have to entertain the
application, but we would not make this a
15 community tennis court on a residential lot
unless it was owned by the community itself .
16 And that is not the case . It' s owned by two
individual people . So I'm just saying to you
17 I'm not an attorney, but the use is
residential . Okay. The issue here is --
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to
interrupt you. The Board hasn' t decided
19 whether it' s a use variance .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
20 my opinion only. Whenever I express my
opinion, it' s my opinion only, and I'm just
21 mentioning it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
22 Mr. Hughes . Anybody else in the audience that
wishes to comment? Yes, sir.
23 MR. ESPOSITO: My name is Ed
Esposito. I live north, adjacent to where
24 they' re talking about .
MS . KOWALSKI : I'm sorry, your
25 name?
MR. ESPOSITO: Edward Esposito.
January 22 , 2004
26
1
2 My family and I are full time there . We just
moved about a year ago.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You live in the
old Horton house?
4 MR. ESPOSITO: Yes, we do. And
his concern right there with the drainage
5 because I'm in the same position, and I know
that they' re talking about elevating, and
6 putting in material for drainage and stuff
like that . My biggest concern was
7 environmental because we had an empty lot next
to us . I had to worry about -- I have a four
8 year old and a nine year old, worried about
these kids with . the ticks, the mosquitos .
9 They have cleaned up the land. The only thing
I can see out of this, it can only be good
10 even if it' s how you word it, either make next
to her mother' s house or whatever. They' re
11 cleaning up the land. They' re going to put
grass . It' s open now. I don' t have to worry
12 about my children with the West Nile, the deer
ticks . I can only say it' s good for it,
13 because noise-wise, they' re only there a
certain part of the year. They' re only there
14 certain hours of the day. It' s not going to
be lit . Our biggest concern is drainage and
15 the noise . I live next door. I have no
complaints about it and whatever. All we have
16 to do is discuss what kind of drainage they
need to do. To me it' s only going to beautify
17 the area, and my kids can run back and forth
and play on it . I don' t know environmentally
18 I just think it' s going to be better. I don' t
feel I need another house next to us, if
19 that' s what we' re all trying to do. I moved
out from Queens and Hicksville to get away
20 from all the building house next to house and
that' s why I'm out here for my kids, making it
21 better. That' s just my opinion, I hope it
helps .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very
much. Is there anybody else that would like
23 to speak on this application?
Seeing as there' s other people
24 that do have concerns, I' d like to keep it
open, Gail, to our February meeting.
25 MS . KOWALSKI : February 26th.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Either 9 : 30 or
January 22 , 2004
27
1
2 9 : 35, okay?
MS . WICKHAM: Okay. And I think
3 we will come in with more information about
the drainage and the fill figures . I do want
4 to just -- I think I addressed most of
Mr. Hughes' comments, I 'm not going to do it
5 again now. But the work that was done on the
lot was after consulting with the Building
6 Department, merely to punch a small hole
through a small level of clay, and there was a
7 little bit of sand to put there to effectuate
better drainage because there was a mosquito
8 problem, but there was not fill added to
elevate the lot at all . But I will give you
9 more information on what that is going to
entail . Also regarding the Oyster Pond court,
10 that' s a hard court, makes a lot more noise
than this, which would be a soft court .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Make
a motion to recess this hearing and keep it
12 open until February 26th.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
13 moved.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
15 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
16 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
17 application is for Joseph Trencheny -- I hope
I'm pronouncing that right? -- On South Lane
18 in East Marion.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: My name is
19 Agnieszka Drozdowska from Architecnologies .
Mr. Trencheny is apologizing he is
20 not able to be present . His wife is having a
tough pregnancy. So hopefully, next month
21 will be better, we would like to postpone it,
and I would also like to tell you that we will
22 add information on we have received a letter
from Mr. Thorp, our next door neighbor, and
23 his concern is with the side yard setback.
It' s a non-conforming lot and East Marion is a
24 very tricky area, as we all know. He
especially has a very tough situation with the
25 setback. One side is a 3 foot 6 setback and
the opposite side, which is neighboring with a
January 22 , 2004
28
1
2 neighbor' s driveway, is a total setback of 34
feet . His existing house is 20 feet wide by
3 40 feet deep . Mr. Trencheny would like to
expand on the size of the house . He has five
4 kids, his fifth one is on the way, and he
would like to enjoy the neighborhood and stay
5 within a reasonable impact of the environment,
which wouldn' t be so great . We' d like to keep
6 the house as friendly and as neighborhood
friendly I guess I should say as possible .
7 We are proposing a house with a
four bedroom living space . One bedroom
8 downstairs and another three up above . It is
existing one and-a-half story, about eight
9 year old house . It is falling apart . We are
planning to restore as much as we can of the
10 existing with an addition to the side of it to
the west side of the existing house . As you
11 can see, the property splays out . It is a
flat lot . We are proposing a 15 foot setback.
12 Mr. Thorpe in his letter proposed 20 foot
setback, 23 foot 6 . Mr. Trencheny has not had
13 a chance to review the letter. He' s
apologizing again. He is not having a good
14 time right now. It' s something we can look
into. It' s something that I would ask if we
15 can look for some feedback in seeing what we
can do to accomplish a reasonable size house .
16 He is looking for a one car garage . We are
trying to fit that within the house . We are
17 doing our best to accommodate his wishes and
Mr. Thorpe' s wishes . Before we go along with
18 anything we do have to take care of --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you want to
19 postpone this hearing?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We would like to
20 postpone until next month. I'm sure the Board
has received a letter as well . Mr. Trencheny
21 has received it on Saturday. We will have a
meeting with Mr. Trencheny, the owner, next
22 week possibly to speak any further on. Would
it be feasible for our office to submit
23 revised plans to what we can do to accommodate
Mr. Thorpe, and I'm asking if at all possible
24 for us to do that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if
25 the Board has any questions of you the way
it' s presented in the notice . Mr. Orlando?
January 22 , 2004
29
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . Right
now you' re looking for a 50 percent reduction
3 in the current code, so I'm speaking for
myself, I would be more favorable to the
4 neighbor' s request of a 20 percent setback.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Everything is
5 doable obviously. But if that would be the
only way out, I think if that' s what the Board
6 would decide on.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s just
7 my opinion to your neighbor' s request .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We don' t want to
8 stretch this . They want to start building
soon, obviously, and move in possibly at the
9 end of the summer. So any way that we can.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s tight
10 quarters there, and it' s five foot makes the
neighbor happy then it' s continuity amongst
11 neighbors .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: The neighbor has
12 mentioned that if we had come up with the 20
foot setback, it would be as equal to all the
13 other neighboring lots . We have not done
research on it . We don' t feel, we ourselves,
14 our office has constructed a few homes in that
area, and we don' t believe that that' s the
15 case . And we would like to look into it and
come up with that and come present possibly --
16 I mean, this letter just jumped on us .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You know my
17 feelings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly
any research you do in that regard would be
19 helpful for the Board, and it' s difficult for
us to drive through the neighborhood. You
20 certainly have a compelling reason to do
that .
21 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Mr. Trencheny
would not like to compromise so much because
22 as he quoted me on the phone yesterday, why
should I? I would like to see if I can do
23 something and come up with a nice house and
still accommodate the neighbors, but why
24 should I be losing out when the lots -- we all
know they' re very tight lots . They all have
25 very tight setbacks, and we like to research
it a little more .
January 22 , 2004
30
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree
with Mr. Orlando, you' re asking an awful lot .
3 The way it is right now --
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We realize
4 that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I for one,
5 if it were just me you probably wouldn' t even
be here. But there are laws in the Town and
6 we can' t -- I' ll encourage you to do that .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: So the next
7 meeting is on the 26th?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' d like
8 to know the height of the roof on the
left-hand side, the east/northeast side of the
9 house where you have a 3 .4 foot setback. We
have had numerous discussions with neighbors
10 and applications on that particular side where
the setbacks are so substandard that I have a
11 specific concern on that side .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: This is on the
12 east side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s still --
13 that' s the one-story existing house?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
14 really two-story one.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: To be honest with
15 you, everything is a non-conforming house
basically.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
we, have to establish one thing, that this
17 house is going to be a complete tear down?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We' re trying to
18 save it, but in the long run it' s a lot of
money we believe . It' s not efficient to just
19 tear the whole thing down, besides the fact
that there is these old features in the
20 house . It' s a lot of money, it' s a very nice
cottage; it' s beautiful . We' re afraid of rot,
21 I mean, we haven' t opened the house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm
22 looking at the limitation of that story on
that side where you have the greatest
23 non-conforming setback.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We' re looking at
24 about 22 . 6 . We' re looking no more than that,
that' s the top of the ridge . It could be less
25 with the different heights and different roof
pitches .
January 22 , 2004
31
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has
always been my opinion that a homeowner should
3 have to place a ladder on his or her own
property and not be on the neighbor' s property
4 so as to work on the house, and that' s what
I 'm concerned about .
5 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s the tough
setback that we are dealing with
6 unfortunately.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree
7 with most all of them that you really should
look to see if you can compromise with your
8 neighbor, do research to see the other
facilities in the neighborhood, if they' re
9 very close, and also Mr. Goehringer' s concern
about the height of the house with the ridge .
10 MS . DROZDOWSKA: So would you like
us to look in to lessening the house?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So to
one-story on that side, even if you cut it
12 four feet in.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s no
13 other questions, I will keep this hearing open
and postpone it until February 26th at --
14 MS . KOWALSKI : 9 : 35 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- 9 : 35 .
15 MS . KOWALSKI : Aggie, if you have
amended plans --
16 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We actually have
come up with plans since we got the letter.
17 That does help. We did not do the elevation
change . We' ll look into that, and we' ll
18 submit the plans into the next hearing. I
should just stay up here .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need
to vote .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I have a
vote, I move that we postpone to the 26th.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in .favor?
22 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
-----------------------------------------------
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next
application is Isabelle and Samuel Distasi for
25 additions and alterations to the existing
single family dwelling with a front yard
January 22 , 2004
32
1
2 setback at less than 35 feet, at 125 Youngs
Avenue in Southold.
3 MR. STRANG: Good morning, Garret
Strang representing the applicant, Mr. and
4 Mrs . Distasi .
What we have proposed here' s is a
5 brief history, the house is an older home,
original home that dates back probably to
6 somewhere around the late 1800s when the
original house was built, and at some time and
7 possibly originally there was a front porch on
that house . We do have a survey which I
8 believe is part of the application that we
presented that isn' t that old, but the survey
9 is dated in 157 -- 157 or ' 59, I can' t tell
from the copy we have, and it shows an
10 existence of a porch on the east side of the
road, Youngs Avenue side, which wraps around
11 the north side of the house . Over the years,
that porch disappeared as well as many of the
12 other architectural features of the house .
It' s kind of a big box now. My client would
13 like to restore some of the architectural
character of the house, bring it back
14 somewhat . And part of that is to reinstate
that porch on the Youngs Avenue side of the
15 house, and wrap it around the opposite side
from the way it originally was; wrap it around
16 the south side as opposed to the north
side . He' s also seeking to enhance that porch
17 somewhat by the addition of an octagonal
corner where it makes the wrap, and what
18 happens in that case is that the porch that
was originally there had a setback of 24 feet,
19 which we' re looking to reinstate . It was
nonconforming originally, obviously, it' s
20 nonconforming now and the octagonal corner
would reduces it to 20 feet . The impact, in
21 my opinion, is really not that great . It' s an
open porch, it' s roofed over. But it' s
22 unenclosed; it' s open. The one corner sort of
overlooks the community park and marina,
23 across the street is a very large lot with a
house that' s set way back, and immediately to
24 the west the house is on the corner of
Mechanic and -- sorry, I'm forgetting the name
25 of the street, Petty and that setback, it
wouldn' t even have a view of the porch. So I
January 22 , 2004
33
1
2 believe that the impact of the neighborhood --
there is one house sort of across Youngs and a
3 little bit up, I don' t know if they have an
objection, I haven' t seen anything in the
4 file . But that' s pretty much what we' re
attempting to accomplish here . I ' ll be happy
5 to answer any questions the Board may have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at
this time, thank you.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s thinking.
I can smell the wood burning. Mr. Dinizio?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. It
looks like mostly you' re squaring off the
9 house except for that little piece that sticks
out . I have no objections, no questions .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The
11 hexagon, is that going to have a turret-type
roof on that corner?
12 MR. STRANG: I haven' t gotten into
the actual architectural design. Obviously,
13 we haven' t done the design yet subject to what
this Board has to say, but if the Board had an
14 objection to -- what we' re seeing a lot of
these days and we could do it flatter.
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because of
the topography, because it' s up on the hill --
16 MR. STRANG: That' s true .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t
17 have a problem even extending it .. It just
gets real close on that one corner. What do
18 you believe of the client' s interpretation of
this standard wraparound and will cut back a
19 couple feet?
MR. STRANG: As opposed to the
20 octagonal corner and directly but that was one
of their desires, if you tell, right from the
21 get-go would be to have this nice feature on
the corner, again, help embellish and bring
22 back some of the character. It tends to dress
it up a little more, but I can defer to
23 Mr. and Mrs . Distasi .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You
24 think it would make that much difference in
reference to footage?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Only --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s so many
January 22 , 2004
34
1
2 trees down and I hardly even noticed that that
house was even there, to be honest .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re
going to end up setting it back maybe a foot
4 and-a-half more, it doesn' t look like it
sticks out that much more .
5 MR. STRANG: If we squared it off
we' d be going from a 20 foot at the octagon
6 back to the 24, would make it a little more
bland, I' ll say, at least the octagon does add
7 a little more interest and character in
keeping with reflected that detail at that
8 time.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do your clients
9 have anything they would like to say?
MR. STRANG: Do you want to share
10 your thoughts on the octagon on the corner?
MR. DISTASI : I'm trying to
11 remember the footage there is from the road.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you give
12 your name, sir?
MR. DISTASI : Sam Distasi .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MR. DISTASI : I've been
14 maintaining that property all these years . I
maintain about 25 feet all around my house .
15 Even my driveway that I maintain belongs to
the Town, is larger than most driveways, you
16 know. And it' s really -- on the map it looks
like it' s close, but it' s really setback very
17 far from the road because the way the
property' s cut . The road goes straight and
18 the property cuts in on an angle .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As I say, I
19 didn' t know your house was there .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm
20 actually on the fence . I would actually go
with whatever the Board favors on this one .
21 My heels aren' t dug in.
MR. DISTASI : My grandchildren are
22 talking about it already, how they' re going to
be sitting out on that porch.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
there anybody else in the audience that would
24 like to speak on this application? If not --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One
25 question, Mr. Strang. You' re going to give us
a plan showing the height of the roof lowered
January 22 , 2004
35
1
2 a little bit?
MR. STRANG: We can give you an
3 elevation view of this subject to approval --
I mean, I don' t know how the Board might want
4 to word that, approval with this .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Subject
5 to your plan.
MS . KOWALSKI : You want to see it
6 before you vote on it?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
7 MS . KOWALSKI : February 26th, it
will have to be in before that .
8 MR. STRANG: Okay. And your
preference, if I understand correctly, is to
9 have a lower pitch -- the same pitch on the
octagon that would be on the porch roof, which
10 is the shallow pitch, as opposed to one of
these tall "witches hats" so to speak. Is
11 that correct?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
12 MR. DISTASI : That' s no problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
13 that' s a very good point . We haven' t had a
chance to discuss it, and I didn' t want to
14 prejudice any discussions we would have . I
tend to agree with you, I think a lower pitch
15 on the octagon would be more -- I mean if it
was a true Victorian and had another turret in
16 it, it would blend it .
MR. STRANG: Good point .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to
make a motion to close this hearing and
18 reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
20 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pending
the receipt of the elevation.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pending receipt
of the elevation.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Going to take a
five minute break.
24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken
from 10 : 55 a.m. to 11 : 15 a.m. )
25 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
January 22 , 2004
36
1
2 hearing is for Patrizia Zanboni . This is
concerning a new single-family dwelling on
3 Minnehaha Boulevard in Southold; is there
somebody here who would like to speak on
4 behalf of this application?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Agnieszka
5 Drozdowska, Architechnologies . It is a corner
lot, both setbacks are nonconforming.
6 Minnehaha Boulevard has a 13-1 foot setback
and Apeache Avenue is a 23 . 1 setback. We are
7 asking to keep the existing porch intact .
There' s an existing sun room on the corner of
8 Apeache and Minnehaha. We are asking to
construct a new two-story house in place,
9 following the same footprint off of Minnehaha
Boulevard. With an attached two car garage .
10 So in place of existing, we' d like to put a
new structure .
11 MS . KOWALSKI : I'm sorry, I
couldn' t hear.
12 MS . DROZDOWSKA: In place of
existing a two car garage and a two story
13 house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: After
14 demolition what' s left standing?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We wouldn' t want
15 to move the house.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically the
16 same footprint that' s there now?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We' re expanding
17 into -- the depth of the house currently is 22
feet . We are proposing a depth of 26 feet .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two front
yards .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
ask a question?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead,
Jerry.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
a 30 foot road. I saw where the property
22 lines were, I think you' re going to have to,
in my particular opinion, this is not the
23 opinion of the Board, to push it back a little
bit off of Minnehaha Boulevard. I don' t
24 have -- my personal opinion I have no problems
with the setback off the side road, but it is
25 just entirely too close to Minnehaha
Boulevard.
January 22 , 2004
37
1
2 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Including the
existing porch and sun room, you mean?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have enough
room as long as you' re knocking the whole
4 thing down you could move it back.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That
5 measurement' s 12-9 from Minnehaha. It' s 12-9
to Minnehaha. It doesn' t mention that in the
6 notice of disapproval .
MS . ZANBONI : Hello, my name' s
7 Patrizia Zanboni, the owner of the house . The
reason I ' d like to leave it where it is is
8 there' s woods in our front yard and coming
through the house through the front door, we
9 enjoy our backyard. We' re going to be going
to the two story, there' s the advantage to the
10 neighbors in the back. We' re not going to go
higher than the two story right behind us and
11 there is the road that goes into Nonacoma
Waters right across from me, so I don' t see a
12 problem, or I' d rather leave it where it is, I
can move it back, I guess . But it' s just a
13 there' s woods in front of me and there' s a
road that goes into Nonacoma water, but we
14 enjoy the back and we like to put it in its
current location, and we' re not bringing it
15 any closer to our neighbor behind us .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is
16 your house going to be to the ridge?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: One second.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 23-9 .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: 23-9, yes . We
18 didn' t take the plans . Where we had a
construction document created because we
19 wanted to know what we can and can' t do.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Point of
20 clarification, 22-9 to the mean or 22 foot 9
to the ridge?
21 DS . DROZDOWSKA: To the ridge .
MS . KOWALSKI : 23 .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23 .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: 23 .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite
24 honest, I'm a little confused by the
disapproval and going through all the
25 different measurements, and I was wondering if
you could clear that up about the size of the
January 22 , 2004
38
1
2 house . Say you take the house down except for
the porch, you' re going to build on that very
3 same foundation?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: There is no
4 existing basement . So we would create a
footprint, about 2 , 000 square feet, and we are
5 proposing a total -- that' s lot coverage -- we
are proposing a total of 2 , 800 square feet
6 thereabouts . I don' t have an exact, about an
800 foot addition that' s including the two
7 foot addition to the rear -- to the side of
the house and the two car garage .
8 MS . KOWALSKI : 1, 800 square feet
plus the porch and the two car garage .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So the lot
overage is still well under what' s allowed.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15 percent .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : 15 percent .
11 So you' re not going any closer to either road?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: No, we' re not
12 touching either of those . It' s perfectly
aligned. Actually, the width of the house
13 when you' re standing in Minnehaha Boulevard is
the exact same one . It has not changed. The
14 sun room is as-is . The only thing being added
to that is the two car garage, that' s
15 basically all that' s happening to the house .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess,
16 let me be honest with you, okay, your
argument' s a little weak when you say you want
17 to save your backyard, when you' re tearing
down the entire house . Then you have the
18 opportunity to remedy this nonconformity.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: The location' s
19 been the location for the past numerous years,
and we felt that it would be best not to
20 disturb that and keep it the same way it is
now.
21 MS . ZANBONI : I don' t understand
why the argument' s weak. We' re always in our
22 backyard. We have doings . I would like to
not tear down. It' s a summer cottage . If I
23 make any additions to it, it' s like wasting
money.
24 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s wasting
money to try to keep the existing house
25 standing while adding to the new.
MS . ZANBONI : We just enjoy the
January 22 , 2004
39
1
2 back. We' re always back there . We' re never
in the front . Most people are never in the
3 their front yard, we just walk around. You
rarely see anybody.
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You
understand that and you have a nonconformity
5 there, and we' re supposed to as a Board grant
the minimum amount, you know, myself
6 personally if you just kept the house there
you would never have to be here . And so what
7 you' re asking now is basically to tear it
down, build the same thing that the Town
8 considers nonconforming, and I 'm just being
honest with you, that if there' s any other way
9 you think you could maybe do something may be
helpful .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The new
11 proposed addition would that have a full
basement?
12 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It will have a
crawl space plan for the garage and the
13 foundation work will be redone if necessary.
MS . ZANBONI : Full foundation.
14 MS . DROZDOWSKA: And then the --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Full basement?
15 MS . ZANBONI : Full basement .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Now you' re
16 coming to a construction factor that you' re
going to have to dig this out and keep this
17 porch from falling in the hole, which only has
a crawl space footing.
18 MS . DROZDOWSKA: If we were to
keep the existing house, keep the whole
19 structure up and standing. We've done it a
lot of times . It' s not undoable .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Unless you
plan on picking up the porch and moving it and
21 doing it and then putting it back on.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: No, it' s not at
22 all .
MS . ZANBONI : Right now it' s a
23 slab.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: By digging
24 down next to it, you' re going to lose the
integrity of that whole structure . You' re
25 going to end up with nothing. By the time
you' re done digging that hole the whole
January 22 , 2004
40
1
2 thing' s going to fall in the hole .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s something
3 that could be argued. I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then you' ll
4 have the whole thing to move, so --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move it now.
5 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s something
that can support you.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re
going to have to put down timbers . Trying to
7 connect the two, you' re compounding problems
with compounding costs .
8 MS . DROZDOWSKA: The whole idea is
to basically keep the house in the same
9 setback.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm trying
10 to -- then there' s no argument at all . I'm
agreeing with my Board members here .
11 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Pushing it all
the way to 35?
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Walk out to
your front door right onto Minnehaha, which is
13 close .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I may, I think
14 we have to speak about it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s just
15 two members speaking.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I may ask what
16 would be a feasible compromise on the setback?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Another ten
17 feet .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Another ten feet
18 creating a 23 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23 --
what you just said 23?
20 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Keeping the 23
feet .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the
impact of the second story that is my concern.
22 If you were merely rebuilding the existing
house on the existing footprint, then there
23 may not be as much of a contest . But it' s
that impact .
24 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That could be
something to consider, maybe . What' s the
25 point? You have only a one story house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What' s
January 22 , 2004
41
1
2 so interesting about this is the lot you have
down there happens to be a larger lot than
3 most of the lots in the area; so the impact --
and I' ll use that phrase again -- the impact
4 of moving it back ten feet is almost
insignificant because you have a nice rear
5 yard, and you' re still going to be able to
utilize a nice rear yard with a ten foot --
6 MS . DROZDOWSKA: So I think it' s
something that we should consider and look
7 more into. We would like to come back next
month for a meeting, if possible, to present a
8 new plan.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe even
9 think of turning the whole house and have your
front and garage off Apeache, which is more of
10 a very secondary road than Minnehaha.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Minnehaha is
11 more traveled.
MS . ZANBONI : It' s my favorite
12 spot, and I got the view of the water. If I
put the garage there, then I don' t .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come back on
the 26th at 9 :40 .
14 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We will again
submit plans prior to that .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion
to recess this hearing until February 26th.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
17 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. Is
there anybody else in the audience that would
19 like to speak to this? I'm sorry. No . Okay.
-----------------------------------------------
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
application is for Reid Mahaffy concerning an
21 addition to a house on North Bayview Road; is
there anybody here to speak to that
22 application?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: I am.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a busy
day.
24 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s Aggie from
Architechnologies . We' re representing
25 Mr. Mahaffy. Mr. Mahaffy' s not present here .
It is an existing two story frame
January 22 , 2004
42
1
2 house, again it' s a corner lot, one setback is
nonconforming. There is the house is located
3 North Bayview Road. The setback directly off
of that, which is the south side of North
4 Bayview, is 22 feet . The second setback,
which is a proposed road, is there . I have a
5 site plan which has not operated yet, it has
been a proposed road is a 37 foot setback
6 which meets the setback of the code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Briggs Road is
7 there already?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes . We are
8 asking for the 22 foot setback. It is an
existing two story house . We are proposing an
9 addition west to the house following the same
lines, will following the same angle of the
10 house of additional two bedrooms, one
and-a-half story height with a third bedroom
11 up above . It' s basically just an expansion to
an existing house . The existing house has a
12 very low pitched roof . We are not altering
that . We are following, that' s why one
13 bedroom following the other two of the
addition. The rooms are very small, they' re
14 unfeasible for the client . That' s basically
what' s happening to the house .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Couple
16 things . When I looked at the notice of
disapproval it says basically that you' re
17 going to have the same setbacks you had
before, non-conforming.
18 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Just in the
front, but once we actually get to the
19 addition part it will be in more conforming
than that .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The part
where you' re putting the addition, is there no
21 way increasing the nonconforming?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: No . We' re just
22 basically asking for the existing
nonconforming approval .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: More than the
24 addition. We got this approval with the 22
foot setback.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This has a 29
foot setback.
January 22 , 2004
43
1
2 MS . DROZDOWSKA: 22 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 22 and
3 31?
MS . DROZDOWSKA.: 22 and 37
4 actually.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You didn' t get
5 back a new disapproval?
MS . KOWALSKI : This disapproval
6 was dated September 5th, and your plans are
dated October 7th. What they' re saying your
7 disapproval says doesn' t show --
MS . DROZDOWSKA: But the Building
8 Department reviewed -- yeah, we' re asking for
a 22, that' s the existing.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me
just, I'm still a little confused, that 22
10 foot is there?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That 22
foot has been there since the house was built
12 and you' re not increasing that 22?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Not at all .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The
addition that you' re putting on, how that
14 increases the nonconforming.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reaffirming the
15 nonconformity.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
16 going to have to address that change with the
Building Department .
17 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s something
that -- yeah, when I went down to the Building
18 Department for the existing setback and they
told me that was something and they
19 disapproved us .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. I'm
20 not going to put you in the middle of it . To
me it doesn' t make any sense what variance are
21 we going to grant that hasn' t already been
given to you.
22 MS . DROZDOWSKA: They will not
issue us a building permit without the Board
23 issuing us a variance on this nonconforming 22
construction.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you' re
entitled to it as a preexisting.
25 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s what they
quote the law.
January 22 , 2004
44
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We need to
clear that up.
3 MS . DROZDOWSKA: They told me
once .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You didn' t
give me other explanation than they gave you
5 the reason why you' re here other than the fact
you have a preexisting nonconforming setback.
6 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s basically
what it is, and that' s what they told us . We
7 know that it' s obvious, it' s not 35 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Our law
8 does say that you can have that, and still be
within the law.
9 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I like your
10 plan. It looks good. Expedite it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s the
11 logical spot to put it . The 22 feet that' s
actually still not habitable . It' s the front
12 deck out there?
MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yeah, it' s just
13 the deck coming out . I mean the house you
can' t even see the house .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We
understand, no other questions .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, you
don' t have any problems?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I
have a question. This is not a tear down,
17 it' s very simply an addition which matches the
other portion of the house . I just want that
18 for the record.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: It actually
19 matches the roof line we' re following so that
when you do happen to see the house if they
20 clear up the --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm
21 going to give you this reasoning why you were
denied, because we made an interpretation two
22 years ago which indicated there were certain
issues that were before us that we wanted to
23 look at . So those situations have now been
expanded to all issues, okay, and that is the
24 reason why you have been denied in a couple of
these situations, all right . We would hope
25 that in the future that the Code Committee
would meet and limit those to specific issues
January 22 , 2004
45
1
2 so that you don' t have to come back.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: I understand.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm
speaking particularly to the notice of
4 disapproval . That' s my --
MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s the
5 incorrect version.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In that
6 it' s not specific . If you read this and you
look at the plan, there' s nothing in our code
7 that says you need to be here . I'm reading
this, and it' s saying you' re doing exactly
8 what you intended to do.
MS . DROZDOWSKA: We' re following
9 the rules .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : To me
10 you' re not disapproved for anything because
you had it .
11 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I 'm as confused
as you are .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a
reconfirmation of an existing.
13 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s something we
waited the four months for.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see no
law in Town that says we need to reconfirm a
15 nonconforming.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with
16 you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And there' s
17 too many of these applications before us .
MS . DROZDOWSKA: I concur.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very
much. We' re going to close the hearing and
19 reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
21 responded in favor. )
-----------------------------------------------
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
addition is Cathy Stankewicz for a proposed
23 addition.
MR. STANKEWICZ : I ' m George
24 Stankewicz . We basically want to put a little
addition on the side of the house . There' s a
25 small paper road which leads to an area behind
our house which cannot be developed because I
January 22 , 2004
46
1
2 gave up developmental rights years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, the
3 development rights?
MR. STANKEWICZ : Yes . It' s
4 basically a 25 acre parcel of land they gave
up development rights years ago . For either
5 farm or game preserve . The owner has it game
preserve, and we' re a couple feet too close .
6 Probably if I had known about it at the time,
we probably would have made the house a little
7 shorter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I notice you
8 have the chain link fence into the paper road?
MR. STANKEWICZ : Yes .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you don' t
own the paper road?
10 MR. STANKEWICZ : No . We didn' t
even realize it was a paper road when bought
11 the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm concerned
12 about your legality. If you decide to sell
it, I don' t know if it should extend into the
13 paper road.
MR. STANKEWICZ : It was
14 pre-existing when we purchased the house .
Basically it was swamp land. We cleaned it up
15 and graded all brush off, and now it' s a nice
yard. That would be an issue for hopefully 30
16 years from now if we' re living to worry about,
but I'm not really, it was just always there .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do
you have any questions?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
questions .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No,
21 absolutely not .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have
22 any questions either.
MR. STANKEWICZ : Okay.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just wondered
about the chain link fence .
24 MR. STANKEWICZ : It was just there
when we did the title search on the house that
25 was the first time we --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a
January 22 , 2004
47
1
2 point in question regarding the property in
the rear, it was connected all the way with
3 all those cottages on the Sound --
MR. STANKEWICZ : Yes .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- and
CPF Grand Corporation came in and said to the
5 Planning Board we want the cottages to exist,
and they said you will covenant this as one
6 lot . That' s what happened. That' s why the
land is not divisible at this time .
7 MR. STANKEWICZ : Right . That' s
when Ken Branch bought the property.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else
like to speak on this application? If not,
9 I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
11 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You should hear
in a couple of weeks .
13 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
14 application is for Daniel and Tina Finne for a
waiver of merger at 970 and 1020 Greenport
15 Driving Park; do you know how it ever got the
name Greenport Driving Park?
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I do.
It used to be a racetrack there, horse
17 racetrack.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, really?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
Turned into a subdivision.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Finne .
MR. FINNE: I purchased the
20 property not knowing that it had been merged
with the piece of property next to it . And
21 when I applied for a building permit, that' s
how I found out it was merged. And what I
22 want to do is the house that is there now is I
guess nonconforming square footage-wise, and I
23 would like to build something there that meets
today' s, you know, the side requirements, and
24 something that will fit in with the
neighborhood because of the houses in that
25 neighborhood are to a smaller scale, and
that' s what I want to. And right now I can' t
January 22 , 2004
48
1
2 do it because the two lots are merged.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What lot
3 is it merged to?
MR. FINNE : The one to the right
4 of it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it 19?
5 MR. FINNE : 19, yes . I guess
Frank Field owned that piece of property.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
a structure on 19, right?
7 MR. FINNE : There' s a structure on
both pieces .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one
on 19, though, is really --
9 MR. FINNE : The one on 19 , I mean
someone' s been there woods shingling, it' s
10 being all wood shingled. Both of them have
been lived in for the last few years . When I
11 bought the piece of property, the day that I
closed on it I went in there and water was
12 spewing all over the place . It was flooded,
so I gutted some of the walls and thinking I
13 was going to put it back the way it was .
Because I had a couple people who I had in
14 mind who wanted it . It was a single man who
wanted to live in the place, but when I went
15 down to file a permit to do the work I was
told I couldn' t, and, actually, somebody who
16 was doing an inspection around that time, and
they saw the house had been torn apart
17 somewhat and they gave me a stop work order.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do
18 you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You
19 purchased a lot, and that' s the lot that' s
here today?
20 MR. FINNE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And someone
21 else owns the lot that' s merged with your lot;
is that right?
22 MR. FINNE : Somebody else owns it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Somebody
23 else owns it . You' re here today to get those
two lots unmerged so that you can do on your
24 lot what you would like to do, which is
improve the house that' s there?
25 MR. FINNE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Are you
January 22 , 2004
49
1
2 tearing down the house?
MR. STANKEWICZ : The way that it
3 is, due to the nonconforming, I'm going to
have to get a guy to move it back a little
4 bit . Mike Verity told me to take the averages
on the house on the block and use that as my
5 setback.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Front yard
6 setback, that' s fine . Does that house that
you own, your lot, does that house in any way
7 straddle that line, on that line, over the
line on the next property?
8 MR. FINNE : No, not at all .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s no
9 other buildings that you think you own on that
other piece of property?
10 MR. FINNE : Not at all .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Cesspools?
11 MR. FINNE : No.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Water?
12 MR. FINNE : No.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Everything' s
13 separate?
MR. FINNE : They both have their
14 own separate utilities .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your tax
15 bill?
MR. FINNE : Separate tax bill .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn' t do
a single and separate in the title search?
17 MR. FINNE : I guess they' re not
required to do a single and separate
18 search. Something I would have requested.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Being that
19 Mr. Field owned both lots .
MR. FINNE: Actually, 19 has been
20 sold I think about two years ago, and since
then he has sold it again.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He was in. He
had applied to merge them and --
22 MR. FINNE : Yeah, Millennium Homes
knew they were merged and he sold the piece .
23 MS . KOWALSKI : He sold it as two
separate lots, right?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He must have
because they both have it .
25 MR. FINNE : Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s stuck in
January 22 , 2004
50
1
2 the middle . Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Who did you
3 purchase the lot from?
MR. FINNE : I bought it from Frank
4 Fields . He owned it back in 1993 , he sold it
to George Foreman -- George Friedman. George
5 Friedman didn' t make good on the mortgage and
it got foreclosed on and at the foreclosure
6 sale Millennium Homes bought it and since they
have sold it again.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Frank
probably held the mortgage on that for
8 Mr. Friedman. It never had to go to a bank,
he never had to have a title search.
9 MR. FINNE : As a matter of fact,
he' s holding the mortgage for me on the piece
10 that I owned.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not
11 code that they --
MR. FINNE : I was told I couldn' t
12 get a permit after 1983 , and clearly on the
books it was issued a permit in 1986 and it
13 was also issued a CO. I mean, I asked them
and they said it was a mistake on their part .
14 It was a mistake but you guys did it . I
can' t --
15 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s because the
code added a minimum, 850 square foot minimum
16 for each house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Single and
17 separate, are you building this as a spec
house for someone else or building it for
18 yourself?
MR. FINNE : Actually I'm
19 building -- I have in-laws, my wife' s sister
who have two small children, what I 'm trying
20 to do is build them a house so they can stay
in the house .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll probably
have to come back to us for variances anyway
22 because the lot' s so small .
MR. FINNE : Actually, I had plans
23 drawn up already, and I meet the side yard
setback. The house I'm going to put there is
24 only 20 feet wide, just need the ten and the
15 . Backyard wasn' t a problem. And the front
25 yard I went through the expense of having John
Ellis do a survey which included all the other
January 22 , 2004
51
1
2 properties on the block, and my average is
only like between 17 and 18 feet .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Which is
more than enough. You have no objection to
4 that front yard?
MR. FINNE : No, not at all .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You won' t
be back in front of us if we unmerge the lots?
6 MR. FINNE : Hopefully, if you guys
unmerge the lots it will be free sailing.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There
will be no regrading of the lot?
8 MR. FINNE: No .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
9 not going to change the topography of the lot
in any way?
10 MR. FINNE : Not at all .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the
11 only nonconforming setback will be that front
yard setback?
12 MR. FINNE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There
13 will be no change of any lot lines, they will
stay?
14 MR. FINNE: No . Stay exactly as
they are .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
to ask you those questions . Those are some of
16 the questions within a merger.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone on the
17 Board have any questions? Anyone in the
audience have any questions? If not, I' ll
18 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
20 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for
coming in.
22 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was
taken. )
23 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to
24 reconvene our ZBA hearing and have our 1 : 00
p.m. Public Hearing, John McGuire on North Sea
25 Drive in Orient; is there someone here to
represent the applicant?
January 22 , 2004
52
1
2 MS . RIVERA: Yes, I am.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you?
3 MS . RIVERA: Madam Chairman, my
name is Christine Rivera. I'm here to
4 represent Monseigneur McGuire for the
application before you regarding a second
5 story addition on 3630 North Sea Drive .
It' s pretty simple . The existing
6 structure, as I'm sure you've seen, is going
to be built over with a bedroom and handicap
7 bathroom. There' s no extension beyond the
existing footprint of the property.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are single
yard now of 12 feet and total of 31 and the
9 new one will be you' re having a better one .
MS . RIVERA: Pardon me?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The existing
single-family dwelling it says single side
11 yard setback of 12 feet .
MS . RIVERA: Correct .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the other
with total of 31 feet . And your new
13 construction will have a minimum side yard of
15 feet and total side yard of 35 feet?
14 MS . RIVERA: No . It' s exactly the
same . The code requirement' s 35 , and now
15 we' re 31 plus or minus .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine .
16 Mr. Dinizio, do you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s the
18 same thing as this morning by the way. You
are putting an addition on this house?
19 MS . RIVERA: Putting an addition
on the existing dwelling, yes .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your side
yard setbacks are total is 31 both of which
21 are nonconforming?
MS . RIVERA: Correct .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not
increasing that?
23 MS . RIVERA: No, I 'm not .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So, how
24 high are you going?
MS . RIVERA: It will definitely be
25 below the 35 mean. You can see from the
elevation, this structure .
January 22 , 2004
53
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s rather
high now, isn' t it?
3 MS . RIVERA: The proposed second
story addition, there is structure there
4 already. We' re just taking the roof line off
and building out over the existing porch
5 that' s there, and there is a bathroom there
now, we' re going to extend it .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just
continuing the roof line?
7 MS . RIVERA: Exactly. It will be
less than the 35 to the mean ridge as
8 required.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else,
9 Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t
10 have anything.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
going to raise the roof line from the existing
12 house, so you' re going to have that step down
as it goes down?
13 MS . RIVERA: Correct . We' re
trying to keep it in continuous .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
house sits fairly low on the property anyway.
15 So you should really be well be under that 35?
MS . RIVERA: Yes, it will be .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
it looks very nice .
17 MS . RIVERA: The property to the
west is 30 acres of non-developable land.
18 It' s been sold to the Town of Southold. Its
development rights have been sold and Father
19 McGuire owns the property directly behind him
and the Sound is in front of him. So . . .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No problem.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Did you
21 have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want
22 to confirm the findings, the extension is
going to be beyond the existing foundation?
23 MS . RIVERA: No, it' s not . It' s
going over the existing structure and over the
24 existing foundation.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I thought
25 you said you were covering over a patio .
MS . RIVERA: No, no, no, no .
January 22 , 2004
54
1
2 There' s a old sun porch there now. If you
have a copy of the site plan.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I do . Maybe
it was old survey which shows that notch
4 filled in just yet . Got a survey from 179,
doesn' t show it going all the way to the back
5 of the house .
MS . RIVERA: I don' t have the
6 dimensions on that . Well, it doesn' t --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Look at
7 the new site plan.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The new
8 site plan shows the back is flush. But the
179 site plan shows a slight jog. I. just want
9 to verify it' s still a jog.
MS . RIVERA: I believe that
10 extension there is probably a patio on the
existing house now, that jog-out . If I
11 remember correctly I think that' s a patio
there . But from the existing foundation, if
12 you go to the building plans, is 23-10 is the
existing -- is going to be the new structure
13 and the overall structure is 29 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it' s 12
14 by 23 the new extension?.
MS . RIVERA: Is 23-10 and it' s
15 15 -- almost 16 feet, 16-2 on the second
story.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm asking
these particular questions because I'm writing
17 the decision. So I need to be accurate on
it .
18 MS . RIVERA: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Thank you.
19 MS . RIVERA: You' re quite welcome .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
20 anybody in the audience that would like to
speak to this application? If not, I ' ll make
21 a motion closing the hearing and reserve
decision.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor.
23 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
-----------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
application is for Dolores Ullmann on
January 22 , 2004
55
1
2 Minnehaha Boulevard, for additions/alterations
at less than 35 feet from the front . Yes, sir
3 what can you tell us?
MR. MUROLE : I'm Dolores Ullmann' s
4 son. ' I'm putting an extension on. We hired
an architect to draw those plans, and I hired
5 a mason to put in the foundation, and he put
the foundation in a foot and a half too far
6 out . The extension is designed for a 20 by
22 , and that' s what' s there, a 20 by 22 . He
7 should have started at the house five feet in,
instead he started three and a half feet
8 in. When I was there, I was there the day he
put in his marks, I never thought, this is not
9 what I do for a living, so I never even
thought to check where it started on the
10 house . I just checked to make sure the size
of the room was correct .
11 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you David
Murole?
12 MR. MUROLE : I am.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No
questions . I visited the site, and I saw the
14 structure does exist there, and it does say
they documented it correctly on the original
15 survey, but they' re not rocket scientists so
site tolerance is sometimes --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No
17 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No
questions at all .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think I
do either. Live and be well .
20 MR. MUROLE : Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion
21 to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
23 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. We
won' t make a decision now; we usually have
25 make a decision in two weeks . We usually
review the decisions, and then it will be
January 22 , 2004
56
1
2 written up, and then you will have your
papers .
3 MR. MUROLE : Thank you. I do have
one question, I do have an affidavit of signed
4 postings .
MS . KOWALSKI : Thank you very
5 much.
-----------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
hearing is Helen Stratigos down on Sound Beach
7 Drive in Mattituck.
MS . RIVERA: I'm Christine Rivera
8 representing Mrs . Stratigos on this
application before the ZBA. I just want to
9 make a correction on the drawing, it shows
31-6 . It' s actually 34-6 to the mean, as the
10 plans right now. The reason being is that
this house has to be raised on pilings .
11 Because we' re in the flood zone, we' re in
50-13 . It' s going to be 34-6 to the mean.
12 This is a preliminary drawing before you right
now because we haven' t finalized the actual
13 structure, and it may be a slight setback on
the roof lines on the gable end. Again, the
14 reason being it has to be raised on pilings,
the existing foundation. She has a full
15 basement that' s going to be filled in, drive
the piles, screw the piles and then drive the
16 piles, and then elevate the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much does
17 she have to elevate the house?
MS . RIVERA: Well, her first floor
18 elevation is missing, now it comes to 12-6, so
it could be technically she only has to raise
19 it 13-6 because we' re in a 13 foot flood zone;
however, in order to obtain storage space in
20 the garage we' re going to elevate it more than
that just to raise it a foot . What FEMA' s
21 making us do -- actually I went down and saw
Eric Starr before I even put the application
22 in, and she does have a full basement and
they' re making her fill it in completely with
23 sand.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not filled
24 with water?
MS . RIVERA: No. It' s amazing.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That is
amazing.
January 22 , 2004
57
1
2 MS . RIVERA: I live on the same
block, and I've done about nine houses there
3 already and the, ones on the end are dry as can
be, and they were built long after the
4 original bungalows were built . They' re making
us fill it in with sand we' re going to be able
5 to possibly cut the two feet of foundation
act as a breakaway wall, and either fill it in
6 with cinder blocks or plywood breakaway walls .
We have to elevate it in order to put the
7 mechanicals above the floods plain, et
cetera.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
MS . RIVERA: The setbacks are
9 existing. We' re not changing those at all as
you were discussing.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
11 questions at all .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No
questions . You' re staying on the existing
13 footprint, going straight up?
MS . RIVERA: Straight up on
14 pilings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs .
Rivera, as you know I know you and, of course,
16 I've toured your house, and I assume you' re
doing somewhat similar to this house as you' re
17 doing, but the important part of this analysis
is this is the first house on that end of
18 Soundview Road that this is going to he done
to. So we' re going to use this as a model
19 because I suspect there' s going to be a domino
effect in years to come going west to east .
20 MS . RIVERA: I have done two
garages .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like
this?
22 MS . RIVERA: Detached garages on
pilings on Sound Beach Drive, and I know I 'm
23 going to be doing -- I've already been
contacted about some others . This is really
24 the first house that' s on a really narrow
lot .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
what I mean. So we may come down and look at
January 22 , 2004
58
1
2 this one through the progress so we understand
the whole situation.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are there
houses across the street?
4 MS . RIVERA: No . The property
goes right up the bluff . It goes down to
5 Sound Beach Drive . The house has to be jacked
up and screw piles and fill in the foundation
6 in the existing basement .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
7 going to hold the house in that position while
you' re doing it?
8 MS . RIVERA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
9 not going to move the house off the property?
MS . RIVERA: There' s no room,
10 actually, to move it off .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s a house
11 next door to me, it had to be lifted about
four or five inches . Okay, no further
12 questions on the Board. Is there anybody else
in the audience who wishes to comment on this
13 application? If not, I make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
15 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
MS . RIVERA: Thank you. Madam
17 Chairman, I am just so delighted that you are
having daytime meetings .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So are we .
MS . RIVERA: The quality has
19 improved 1000 percent from previously. The
night meetings staying here until 12 : 00 , 1 : 00 ,
20 it just makes it more convenient .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody is
21 more sparky.
MS . RIVERA: Thank you.
22 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
23 hearing is for Edwin Reeves for a garage in a
yard other than the required rear yard. Mr.
24 Reeves, do you wish to comment?
MS . REEVES : My name is Laurie
25 Reeves . I'm the spouse of the applicant, and
I picked the short straw.
January 22 , 2004
59
1
2 The request is for an accessory
building. The unusual planning of the
3 neighborhood has our lot encompassed by three
roads or rights of way, consequently the
4 proposed site is defined as a front yard; and
the additional request, because it' s defined
5 as a front yard, the additional request is for
a relief from the 50 foot setback for a front
6 yard. The survey shows 40 feet from the
proposed site to the --
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right of way?
MS . REEVES : -- to the right of
8 way I believe, and in the request it says not
less than 30 feet, and that' s because this
9 isn' t rocket science, as we have discussed
earlier, we wanted to be sure that we didn' t
10 encroach on a restriction. We' re not asking
for 40 feet because we don' t know exactly
11 where that concrete will be put . So the
request is for not less than 30 feet setback
12 and an accessory building in the front yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I ask why
13 that garage is as big as it is?
MS . REEVES : The hobby use for the
14 building is to house a fishing boat in the
winter time when it' s out of water. The
15 fishing boat is 25 feet long on the trailer.
It needs 30-some feet of flat space to pull in
16 undercover, and the winter hobby is ice
boating, and there are five ice boats in
17 possession, three of which are historic ice
boats built in the 1880s, 1850s .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have
one out now?
19 MS . REEVES : Yes . It' s on the
trailer in the yard. And the hobby use is
20 extended also to the maintenance and repair of
those boats, and so the garage houses the
21 fishing boat, the pick-up truck that tows the
boat, the ice boats and a work bench.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did have a
letter from the Historical Society about any
23 drainage that would come from the garage . Is
there going to be water and heat in the
24 garage?
MS . REEVES : No water. Heat is
25 propane, possibly a propane space heater.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But no wash
January 22 , 2004
60
1
2 basin or water?
MS . REEVES : No.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are they
concerned about any drainage from the
4 construction of that accessory building to the
old cemetery there?
5 MS . REEVES : We did the survey
additionally with the topographical features
6 in order to show the steep hill . The proposed
site is in a spot adjacent to the existing
7 driveway, which is already a flat spot . If
the concrete slab were put on a spot that' s
8 already flat, it should not change the
drainage .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You could put
in gutters and leaders and put dry wells in
10 there too to catch any rainwater coming off
the garage just to relieve anybody' s
11 concern.
MS . REEVES : Yes .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess as
13 long as you' re willing to put the gutters in
and dry wells, that would help, I have no
14 objection to it, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I feel for
your dilemma. You' re logistically challenged
16 with the topography of your property. I
actually made it up your driveway with a
17 jeep.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So my only
concern was habitable space up top; it' s not
19 going to be open attic space?
MS . REEVES : The fishing boat will
20 be in the eastern bay of the building, and
above that it will be open. So the loft will
21 only be 24 feet of the depth of the building
and over two-thirds of the width of the
22 building. The back 12 feet is lean-to, so it
would have no loft above it .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also you' re
surrounded by three front yards?
24 MS . REEVES : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
January 22 , 2004
61
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You may
have answered this question. It' s built into
3 a hill?
MS . REEVES : No. The topography
4 there is the only remaining flat spot .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
5 picture, photograph?
MS . REEVES : The survey?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
survey and the picture, yes .
7 MS . REEVES : Oh, that, yeah, it' s
in essentially the center of the two acre site
8 and surrounded by trees . It begins in the
upper left corner of the photograph you can
9 see the end of the switchback for the existing
driveway, and then to the upper right is where
10 the embankment falls off in the area adjacent
or overlooking the cemetery property.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
no issue on height on this?
12 MS . REEVES : The blueprint is
designed to meet the restriction of the 18
13 feet average mean height .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many feet
14 to the ridge?
MS . REEVES : 22 .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 22 .
MS . REEVES : If I measured
16 correctly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
17 utility, you have electricity only?
MS . REEVES : Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No heat?
MS . REEVES : We have a propane
19 space heater.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I heard
20 that . Is that a fixed unit?
MS . REEVES : No.
21 MR. REEVES : No.
MS . KOWALSKI : Could I have your
22 name who gave the answer?
MR. REEVES : Edwin Reeves .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you very much. I have to write this decision,
24 that' s why I 'm asking all these questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the old
25 Stern house?
MS . REEVES : There are two Stern
January 22 , 2004
62
1
2 houses .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One is the
3 barn.
MS . REEVES : Joe and Jack.
4 MR. REEVES : Joe and Dorothea.
MS . REEVES : Joe and Dorothea
5 Stern in the property in question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no
6 further questions . Jerry, I 'm sorry, did you?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just one
7 other thing, do we have all the distances on
here, all the property lines?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I do .
MS . KOWALSKI : There' s no distance
9 to the property line on that one north side .
It looks like it' s a contour line .
10 MS . REEVES : It' s the edge of the
right of way. The dashed line is the edge of
11 the 25 foot right of way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
12 the only one we have, right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the house .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
thought I had one from the house .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have one
from the house, it' s 7 . 7 .
15 MS . REEVES : The setbacks that are
shown are for the closest corner of any
16 existing structure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
17 Maybe if it' s not an imposition, Mrs . Reeves,
maybe within the next couple of days you could
18 plot out what the distance is from the house,
what the distance is from the lower right of
19 way, it' s so we can get a distance in the
decision. It' s only to your benefit anyway.
20 MS . REEVES : I 'm not sure I
understand.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A
distance from the proposed garage to the
22 house, which would be west, a distance from
the garage to the lower right of way or
23 property line, and I know these all have
names . The south is Maple and whatever the
24 one is on the east and you can express them in
a plus or minus situation, but at least it
25 gives us great credibility in the decision to
be able to tell us, tell any future people
January 22 , 2004
63
1
2 reading this .
MS . REEVES : I can tell you in
3 about two minutes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why
4 don' t you let us go on. You can just give it
to us .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. You can
go look it up. We' ll ask if anybody else --
6 is there anybody else in the audience that
would like to address this application? Yes,
7 sir.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes . My name is Jay
8 Kennedy, and I have the property immediately
to the south of the Reeves' house, and I have
9 struggled with this request for the variance
because on the one hand at the same time, I
10 would like to have a living situation that I
would like, which is the neighborhood that I
11 bought into, that I moved into . It' s a mature
neighborhood, meaning there are no vacant,
12 unbuilt lots; there are no subdividable lots
and there are zoning restrictions, residential
13 ones that limit future building. I think this
request is excessive at 1, 225 square feet and
14 22 feet in height, that' s a house, and I
didn' t expect to see a house when I bought my
15 house. I thought I had reason not to expect
to see another house when I built my house --
16 when I bought my house . I came here in the
spirit of compromise with a suggestion. I
17 understand that the primary reason for this
variance request is so that Mr. Reeves can
18 work on his boat . I understand that' s a
hobby. I asked how tall the boat was and I
19 saw it was 12 feet tall, yet the building is
23 feet in height . I asked why there was an
20 additional bay to the garage, and I was told
that was to store a pick-up truck. Well,
21 there are two garages in the basement of the
house, and there' s also an existing separate
22 large garage, I think it' s 21 by 23 square
feet . I would hope that there would be room
23 for the pick-up truck to be stored in either
one of the two garages in the house or the
24 large stand alone garage . I would hope that
the proposed building could be lower than the
25 23 feet in height, and still accommodate the
12 foot boat . If that were the case, I would
January 22 , 2004
64
1
2 have no objection to the variance . So my
suggestion is that the variance request be
3 resubmitted for a lower structure and a
smaller structure . Again, I would have no
4 problem with this .
It' s awkward to do this . I hope
5 it' s doesn' t cause any friction with
neighbors . Thank you for hearing me .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
Ma' am.
7 MS . SMITH: Hi, my name is Rona
Smith, and I live in the house to the east of
8 the Reeves' property. I feel the way Jay
does . We really want to be cooperative with
9 the neighbor' s use of their property. I think
part of the problem, as you mentioned earlier,
10 is that it' s a very hilly property, and so
that this garage is going to be placed at
11 about 48 feet above the surrounding rights of
way. So before a single thing is built, it' s
12 already 48 feet above the roadways . When you
put something that at its peak is somewhere
13 between 22 and 28 feet, that' s really, really
tall . As it is to the person walking on those
14 roads, those are unpaved roads, they' re single
car roads, they' re maintained by the people
15 who live in this area; they are frequently --
everybody walks or jogs on those paths .
16 People who don' t live right in that area do
because they' re so pleasant, country-like .
17 This is a very, very large structure, and it' s
being placed at almost the highest point on
18 the hill . So the fact that it' s 36 feet by 34
feet with a 1, 224 foot footprint makes it, as
19 Jay says, as large as a house, and I think
that' s a problem. I think it' s really a
20 two-story tall garage, and I would hope that
again, in the spirit of compromise maybe
21 making it one story would really help, and
then possibly reducing some of the bulk in
22 addition to that so that maybe not everything
single thing that you would like to do in it
23 is possible, but at least the main function of
working on the boat and the ice boats is
24 possible without having too much space
because, as Jay also pointed out, there' s a
25 double bay garage under their house and plus a
free-standing garage on the property. So it' s
January 22 , 2004
65
1
2 a question, I think, of how many garages and
how much storage is appropriate on a
3 residential property, even though I don' t
think zoning addresses that issue, I think
4 that' s an issue also .
Also, the adjacent old cemetery
5 that' s maintained by the Historical Society in
Orient is really just below this structure,
6 and while I know they raised the issue of
water runoff, which probably isn' t an issue
7 because there' s no running water in the
structure, I think perhaps they haven' t
8 thought about the fact that it looms over that
cemetery. The cemetery is really quite, quite
9 old. It' s the sort of area that you would
walk to rather than drive to, and I just if
10 you look at the survey you can see point at
which this is being built on almost of the
11 crest of the hill is directly above the
cemetery. It' s closer to the cemetery than it
12 is to my house . So I have some real concerns
of it just changing the character of the
13 neighborhood as it' s currently being proposed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
14 there anybody else in the audience who would
like to address this application?
15 Mrs . Reeves, do you have anything else?
MS . REEVES : The framed garage
16 that was mentioned is original to the
property, which is 1940s vintage when vehicles
17 were smaller. The pick-up truck is too small
to fit in that garage or the garage in the
18 house . The garage under the house isn' t even
large enough to accommodate an SUV. We've had
19 a house guest dent the roof of an SUV making
an attempt to try to get under the house . So
20 those are both our facilities which will not
accommodate the truck.
21 In addition, the framed garage
houses the pressure holding tank associated
22 with the well, which on the survey is shown
just to the south of the existing framed
23 garage and encompasses a good deal of that
lower corner, southwestern corner of the
24 garage . The framed garage is adequate to
house landscape equipment and tools and
25 gardening projects . The proposed garage has a
small loft, with a roof line that' s already
January 22 , 2004
66
1
2 shallow to meet the zoning requirements, and a
knee wall of only three feet, so that it' s not
3 likely to be adaptable to any purpose other
than storage .
4 For one of the earlier questions,
the distance from the proposed garage to the
5 nearest corner of the house, approximately 75
feet to the south to the norther border of the
6 Maple Lane right of way, is approximately 120
feet . The right of the way to the east is a
7 circular path; the closest point is
approximately 120 feet .
8 One of the comments about the
topography, the lower portion of the hill is
9 not at zero sea level, understandably the
proposed garage is at 58 foot elevation. The
10 building does not sit 40 feet above the road.
The road is at 40 feet, the garage is placed
11 18 feet above the road bed and one of the
drawings that I turned in this morning, and
12 may have been added to your package, is my
geometry class rendition of what it would
13 appear in line of site from the 40 foot road
bed up abreast the 60 foot high pool and the
14 house that sits at a 68 foot elevation and a
full one and-a-half story at that elevation is
15 not visible . The garage is only visible at a
very small corner of the peak of the roof from
16 the road bed on the southeastern corner. I 've
lost track of what the other questions were .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need
to ask two other questions if it' s all
18 right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you for that information, by the way, that you
20 just presented. Is there any other intention
at all at any time, Mrs . Reeves, to try and
21 build this into a hill situation without
taking down a lot of trees?
22 MS . REEVES : There are more trees
elsewhere on the property than there are --
23 elsewhere on the flat portion. The original
thought was to put the building in the
24 southeastern corner of the property so that it
would be closest to the access of Munn Lane,
25 which is the roadway that we use, and the
excavation would be extensive with the depth
January 22 , 2004
67
1
2 of the building to accommodate the length of
the boat, the excavation into the hill side
3 would be extensive . The front of the building
would be even with the road bed, the back of
4 the building would essentially be buried in
the hillside, and we thought that would
5 execute a bigger drainage problem because of
the removal of the top soil . The central
6 location of the garage in the lot, which is
two acres, is surrounded by trees in the
7 summer time . It' s probably not highly
visible . The amount of square footage R40
8 Zoning, as I recall from the rejection letter
from the Building Department stating less than
9 20 percent, I believe that would be the
restriction. The percentage of lot covered
10 with the proposed garage at 1, 224 square foot
footprint is . 0438 percent of lot coverage .
11 The zoning permits up to 20 percent and this
proposal is for total lot coverage of under
12 five percent .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know
13 the ground is frozen, is there any other way
that you could have your neighbors
14 understand . -- this is just a rhetorical
question -- how the impact of this would be
15 since they pose certain concerns at this time?
MR. REEVES : Yes . This morning we
16 went out and put a piece of cardboard painted
white so that it would be highly visible and
17 nailed it on a tree which is on the eastern
border of the property at the height that we
18 estimate to be the peek of the roof . As we
drove around the property, we could see it in
19 from only the southern road and from the
northern road, not from the east .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other
questions from the Board?
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One
question you' re not open to negotiation with
23 your neighbors?
MS . REEVES : The size the building
24 is that was the smallest that we thought would
support that hobby use .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And the
size of the boat is?
January 22 , 2004
68
1
2 MS . REEVES : It' s 30 . Which boat
are you talking about?
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The larger
boat?
4 MR. REEVES : It' s 35 feet long on
the trailer. The boat itself is 26 feet long.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You can
back it up the driveway?
6 MR. REEVES : I can drive it up the
driveway. That' s why I bought an F-3 pick-up.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have to
jack it in?
8 MR. REEVES : No, back right next
to the house and back into the garage .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the
garage doors are going to face the garage
10 doors on your existing house?
MS . REEVES : The garage doors
11 facing south, 34 feet is the front of the
building and that has two garage doors .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pull in and
then back it in.
13 MR. REEVES : One other thing on
the ice boats now, the ice boats are stuffed
14 into the lower garage up into the rafters and
there' s absolutely no way in the world of
15 working on them.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have you
16 tried to pull your boat up and put it in
position where the garages are now?
17 MR. REEVES : Yes . But there' s a
trailer with two ice boats on it, and that' s
18 the same position.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: In this
19 place?
MR. REEVES : Yes .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why
I didn' t notice it . You can' t shorten this
21 up?
MS . REEVES : We tried drawing it
22 both, north, south, east, west, just about any
way that we could, and one of the items that
23 we attempted to make --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the
24 average person doesn' t house a large vessel
like that .
25 MR. REEVES : No . The average
person doesn' t work on it himself either.
January 22 , 2004
69
1
2 What we did to reduce the impact of the
structure was to have the back portion of the
3 building in a lean-to shape so that the roof
structure is only 24 by 34 , then the back 12
4 feet is a lean-to portion and this photograph,
this drawing was part of the original
5 application whether it' s still in the file, I
don' t know because the original drawing in
6 July was not accepted.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
7 questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
8 just ask one more question? Mr. Reeves, was
there any attempt to attach the garage to the
9 house at any time, basically in the same
position that the garage is in but moving the
10 garage and attach it to the house and actually
the lowering the garage area?
11 MR. REEVES : The only way to do
that would be to put it on the northern end of
12 the house, and we had discussed that, but the
width of the building would run out onto the
13 area of the topography that drops off steeply,
and that would require a retaining wall to
14 house the northwest corner of the new
structure .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
would be primarily cement block anyway, the
16 lower section of it?
MS . REEVES : And it would still
17 encroach on the front yard setback.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
18 going to do that anyway because of the three
front yard situation. This is a typical
19 Fishers Island house in Southold in Orient and
it' s unique because it' s close to Fishers
20 Island.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sort of .
21 Mr. Kenny, you had another comment on this?
MR. KENNY: Yes . The garage doors
22 would face the south road, which is where my
house is . We have a deck on my house which is
23 where finally we can spend outdoors when the
weather permits, and that would be directly
24 facing to the garage doors . And because it' s
farther back, if you do your geometry, you see
25 more of the garage . So I think this is
excessive . I would like to see a compromise
January 22 , 2004
70
1
2 where it' s a smaller building, a lower height
and less square footage the depth of the
3 garage, 35 feet of the garage doesn' t affect
my view. Because I'm just seeing the front,
4 the width and the height of it . I would ask
that the variance be denied and be resubmitted
5 with plans for a smaller building, thank
you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
Anybody else in the audience? Any other
7 questions from the Board? I' ll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision
8 until later.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
10 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
11 Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
Seth and Barbara Eichler who wish to propose a
13 swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the
top of the bank or bluff, in fact, it' s about
14 ten foot; is someone here to represent the
Eichlers? Hi, how are you?
15 MS . MOORE: Sorry, we didn' t want
to talk in here, so we were out there .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you
like to tell us?
17 MS . MOORE : We thank you for
forwarding to us the report from the soil
18 conservation I think it was .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct .
19 MS . MOORE : We took a look at the
report and I wasn' t sure if they were
20 looking -- because we were -- they were
talking about trees, and we don' t have any
21 trees on this property. There' s a property to
the west of this property that has lots of
22 trees, so we don' t know if they went beyond
the property line when they were looking at
23 the conditions of the bluff . Just so you
know, we don' t have any trees .
24 This project has gone through the
Trustees and the Trustees have us removing
25 some decking on the bluff and bulkheading.
We' re talking actually going to be improving
January 22 , 2004
71
1
2 the conditions of the bluff and stabilizing
the bluff because, obviously, the owners want
3 to make sure that their bluff is protected and
the house will stand there for another 50 or
4 100 years . What they are here requesting is
the removal of the above-ground pool and the
5 construction of the in-ground pool . And we
have an original proposal, which is ten feet
6 off the retaining wall with the fact that the
soil conservation raised some concerns between
7 Tom Samuels and I and the client, who' s here
today, we came up with an alternative plan
8 that actually increases the setback even more
so to give assurances that we' re going to
9 protect the bluff . I have an alternative plan
and it pushes the pool to 20 feet from the
10 retaining wall . We kind of squeeze to the
extent we could the pool and the terrace,
11 moving everything toward the house . So I' d
like to submit that as an alternative plan
12 that I would like you to consider. Here' s one
good one, one original one . Tom, do you have
13 both the old and the new here?
MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Moore, you
are aware that we like this information a
15 little bit before?
MS . MOORE : Had we had it we would
16 have given it to you. Something we' re trying
to respond to the soil conservation letter
17 that came in. Certainly we would prefer the
proposal that' s been submitted to you. This
18 is actually to try to address the concerns of
the soil conservation., That' s why rather than
19 dickering back and forth, we just present it
to you right off the bat .
20 MS . KOWALSKI : Excuse me, the
plan' s dated November 12th.
21 MS . MOORE : I don' t know when did
you do it? Could have been November 12th.
22 MS . KOWALSKI : The original one?
That would have been done a couple months ago.
23 MR. SAMUELS : The original was
dated 11/12 . Are you saying this one you just
24 gave us?
MS . MOORE : Oh, no, no, I don' t
25 think you changed the date .
MS . KOWALSKI : Okay, I' ll write on
January 22 , 2004
72
1
2 here revised on today' s date .
MS . MOORE : Actually, it' s been
3 done by fax. So it' s hot off the press . You
can see here that we have an existing house
4 that the family' s going to renovate, and then
the pool is in poor condition, it needs to
5 either be replaced or reconstructed. And the
plan is to remove the above-ground pool and
6 push back and build an in-ground pool, which I
have Tom here to testify with respect to the
7 gunite pool system, which is actually a
self-contained structural element so that we
8 don' t have pressure, the equivalent pressure
of a house on the bluff . You have the
9 accessory structure . Tom, why don' t you put
in the basis for the gunite pool?
10 MR. SAMUELS : You want me to
explain now?
11 MS . MOORE : Yes, please .
MR. SAMUELS : My name is Tom
12 Samuels and I spoke to the soil conservation
folks about pressure on the retaining wall on
13 the top of the bluff . In fact, this would be
a gunite which is self-contained. There
14 should be no outward pressure, just downward
pressure . And as long as the retaining wall
15 at the top of the bluff is secure and we are
going out now to patch that up and make sure
16 that it is secure, there should be no
structural issue .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm going to be
honest with you right from the outset . There
18 is no way I'm going to grant a pool on the top
of a bluff even 20 foot away. I will not
19 grant it . I have always been extremely
concerned about putting anything near a bluff
20 on Long Island Sound or on the bay. I will
not do it under no uncertain terms . I am too
21 worried about the bluff up there, and we have
one Nor' easter and your bluff is gone or very
22 severely eroded.
MS . MOORE : Okay.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do my
other members, Jim, speak to that .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I could
understand, Ruth, what you said, the fact that
25 the pool was there caused the erosion, I think
we' re getting testimony and have heard
January 22 , 2004
73
1
2 testimony before that that' s not a fact . You
know the erosion is erosion, and it' s caused
3 by factors other than the gunite pool .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hate to
4 interrupt you, but also the hole from the
house down to the bluff slopes down to the
5 bluff . The bluff sometimes is higher and
slopes down towards the house .
6 MS . MOORE : Just so you know,
we' ll put in any kind of dry well system
7 certainly landward of the bluff to make sure
that there' s no water runoff that goes down to
8 the bluff . In fact, the renovations, all of
these improvements are going to actually
9 enhance the conditions of the property that is
presently there because right now I don' t know
10 that there are any dry wells, there' s probably
just standard gutters and the renovations are
11 all recognizing the need to retain water and
keep the water from running down into the
12 bluff area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do need a
13 new retaining wall in the first place . You
have all this room down here . I see no need
14 for a pool up there . I know the view is
lovely up there, and it' s very nice, and to me
15 it' s very dangerous .
MS . MOORE : I appreciate that . I
16 know that waterfront property owners don' t
want to have pools in their front yard. It
17 will affect the character of the area because
all the homes there they don' t want to see
18 families playing in pools in their front yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have plenty
19 of room if you want put a pool in front .
MS . MOORE: That' s not the
20 request .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think
21 that would require a variance also .
MR. SAMUELS : Why would that
22 require a variance?
MS . MOORE : Our request is not for
23 a pool in the front . I know my client does
not want a pool in the front .
24 MS . KOWALSKI : We do need a
variance for a pool in the front yard.
25 MR. SAMUELS : Because it' s a
variance.
January 22 , 2004
74
1
2 MS . KOWALSKI : You don' t need a
variance .
3 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, I haven' t
had any pools in the front yard requested.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s it?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Like
5 everyone else, the bulkhead is failing so is
the deck, and I believe just by glancing at
6 the pool, the pool failed., I believe the pool
failed, I think it' s shifting up there . The
7 house has some cracks on the side of the
concrete, which indicates that the whole thing
8 has kind of shifted a little up there . Maybe
stabilization with a new bulkhead may reassure
9 that the bulkhead is shifted, the pool tilted.
MS . MOORE : You know, we are
10 replacing the bulkhead. We actually have a
Trustees permit in place ready to start the
11 work. And, I mean, the Trustees looked at
this plan including where the pool is and that
12 was fine .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That may
13 sway soil and water which has downward
pressure, not outward pressure, that may
14 satisfy the Chairwoman.
MS . MOORE: I don' t know what to
15 tell you, soil and water, and they made
recommendations and some of which are
16 observations that there is deer tracks going
through, and so on, and eating vegetation and
17 some things you can control and some things
you can' t . We can keep the deer out .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
questions .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can
20 suggest two things . One thing I can suggest
is we hold this in abeyance until the bluff is
21 reconstructed, so we understand exactly what
we have after the bulkheads are reconstructed,
22 and that sleuth slay effect that everybody' s
talking about is done . The second issue is
23 should this area, because of the size of the
area seaward of the house really accommodate a
24 swimming pool? This is a very similar
application that I did not vote on because my
25 father-in-law had C and Rs on property
adjacent to it in Mattituck on a much larger
January 22 , 2004
75
1
2 piece of property, not larger in reference to
size but larger in reference to depth to the
3 top of the bluff so to speak, and what the
neighbors ended up doing was taking a deck
4 away, putting stick fittings underneath and
driving pilings underneath a pool and putting
5 a quasi-lap pool in which was the maximum
depth of a regular pool . And I have to tell
6 you from an architectural point of view, Tom,
it worked out wonderfully. And that would be
7 probably my recommendation after the bluff or
the bulkheads were reconstructed. They also
8 -- these are extremely nice
people -- they may allow you to go up and take
9 a look at this project . So what I 'm saying
is, in effect, let' s wait and see when it' s
10 reconstructed. Hold in abeyance . Let' s see
how much we can really fit one in, if we can
11 fit one in at all . To my knowledge, their
pool is a gunite pool, and it is extremely
12 close to the house, which gives you maximum
depth to the top of the bluff .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To a lap pool
right next to the house?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
actually, it' s almost triangular. It' s
15 probably one of the magnificent architectural
feats I've seen. I suspect it was not cheap .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do like
Mr. Goehringer' s idea. Stabilize that bluff
17 first and correct that bluff first and correct
all that sleuthing that we' re seeing coming
18 down to the house to the back.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
19 just very difficult to visualize it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It scares me,
20 frankly, I'm thinking of the homeowner
himself . When is the proposed reconstruction?
21 MR. SAMUELS : I suppose it could
be within that time frame .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You would
be doing the bulkhead before the pool anyway?
23 MR. SAMUELS : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it
24 had to be done no matter what, pool or no
pool .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it had
to be done .
January 22 , 2004
76
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What about
turning the pool sideways?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like Jerry' s
saying put it up against the house and do a
4 lap pool .
MS . MOORE : I'm not sure that they
5 want a lap pool, I mean, they have children.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please
6 excuse me, this is not a lap pool that this
gentleman built . It fits the uniqueness of
7 the situation. It does have maximum depth and
that' s exactly what this lady and gentleman
8 did.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO.: The way you
9 turn it around it may need a kidney shape
instead, but keep it larger than a lap .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lap only
means it has a maximum depth of four feet .
11 MS . MOORE : What I know is lap
pools are ten by ten.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They
architecturally constructed this pool that the
13 deepest end was at the worst possible
situation, and they did that by driving
14 pilings underneath it and putting spread
footings in and believe it or not, your father
15 did the job?
MR. SAMUELS : I think it' s
16 sticking up in the air.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
17 truly magnificent .
MS . MOORE : Do we want to leave
18 the hearing open?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leave it open
19 until we get new plans in for the
reconstruction of the retaining wall .
20 MS . MOORE : That' s the Trustees
permit is it reconstruction or is that your
21 dad?
MR. SAMUELS : The DEC was the ones
22 that wanted the most specific . The Trustees
did not require detail .
23 MS . MOORE : We' ll give you copies
for the plans, we assume they were approved as
24 they were submitted.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not
25 clear on that, we' re going to hold it, until
you come back with some plans approved by
January 22 , 2004
77
1
2 somebody, right, they' re going to be approved
by for this bulkhead?
3 MS . MOORE : I think the way I
understand it, and correct me if I 'm wrong,
4 hold me in abeyance . You' re going to have the
plans for the reconstruction. Once the DEC
5 has approved it, then we know it' s an approved
plan and then we can tell you what our
6 construction schedule is . At that point then
we can have a better idea and --
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll have an
engineer' s report too?
8 MS . MOORE : We have an architect .
MR. SAMUELS : I would probably
9 want to back it up for my own sake .
MS . MOORE : Okay, fine . We could
10 certainly provide the documentation that
you' re comfortable with that the pool would
11 not undermine or further erode or affect the
bluff in any way. I'm hopeful that that' s the
12 kind of response that we should get .
And then if we can even further
13 design this pool, one possibility is the
possibility that the pool could actually come
14 closer to the side property line to ten feet,
which would give us a little more room on --
15 it' s still, unfortunately, one of the
triangles of the pool is going to be parallel
16 to the bank, but we might be able to squeeze a
little bit .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good.
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the
18 audience that would like to speak on this
application?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One more
thing, the pool on the alternative plan is 18
20 by what is it?
MR. SAMUELS : 28 .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can' t
read it on my copy.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a
motion to hold this hearing in abeyance until
23 we receive the proper documentation.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
25 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
January 22 , 2004
78
1
2 Thank you very much.
------------------------------------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
application is for Mark Stufano by Camp
4 Mineola Road in Mattituck?
MS . MOORE : That' s mine,
5 Stufano .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was a
6 prior on that?
MS . MOORE : Yes . Thank you very
7 much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you wanted
8 to amend that to conform with the prior?
MS . MOORE : Two things, one, thank
9 you, Linda, for conforming that prior and
Southold has certainly been agreeable to that
10 prior decision. The prior decision had a 27
foot front yard setback and a 30 foot rear
11 yard setback. The only thing if you could
amend the decision of the no enclosure of
12 whatever deck, whatever the plan was, we don' t
have a copy of the plan of the house that was
13 submitted. So my only concern in reading the
decision was that we have a design that has a
14 covered porch, a roofed-over porch, and as
long as you don' t consider that to be
15 inconsistent with your decision, I won' t
submit it to the Building Department with that
16 decision and have the Building Department
reject it and say, did you mean this or did
17 you not mean this; or is this plan okay under
your prior decision. So in order to do some
18 housekeeping, I want to make sure that since
we already had the filing fee, the notices
19 we' re here, we just want to be sure that our
plan with a roofed-over covered porch would be
20 an acceptable plan within the parameters of
the 27 that you had established.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Closest
point from the rear yard to the covered deck
22 is 27 feet?
MS . MOORE : Right -- no, the front
23 yard. Did you say rear or front?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Rear. To
24 the edge of the deck.
MS . MOORE : To the deck or
25 whatever they've got and the front is 27 . The
only issue I guess you guys said no stoops .
January 22 , 2004
79
1
2 It said something about stoops included, and I
was like stoops are usually setback issues .
3 And so maybe you want to double check your
decision to make sure .
4 MS . KOWALSKI : Still need a map.
MS . MOORE : I had the surveyor
5 take out the stoop based on what I read from
the decision, I thought, oh, I can' t have a
6 stoop.
MS . KOWALSKI : There was a
7 question at one time what they would allow a
5 . 6 foot stoop area and the applicant agreed
8 to include the stoop area in that footprint .
MS . MOORE : Now they' re specific
9 in the codes it says that stoops aren' t
included in the setbacks .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long
as it' s not a stoop that' s seven or ten feet
11 wide .
MS . KOWALSKI : Five by six?
12 MS . MOORE: Five by six is the
maximum that' s permissible without affecting
13 the setback.
MS . KOWALSKI : Yes .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do
you have any questions?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re
17 going to what, withdraw this?
MS . MOORE : I don' t know how you
18 want to do it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a past
19 decision they made in ' 97 . We' re just
following it, just going back to it .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I had it
down as granted for the same reason?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine .
MS . MOORE : Just read through the
22 decision since the stoop is no longer an
issue.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Copy the
decision, white out that .
24 MS . MOORE : No enclosure, we have
the plans today, but I don' t know what the
25 plans were .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Covered
January 22 , 2004
80
1
2 porch not to be enclosed.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We' re not
3 going to say, hey, you abide by the decision
of such and such.
4 MS . MOORE : I don' t know how you
write it .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Since you
spent the dime .
6 MS . MOORE : Since you spent the
money already, just clean it up.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess
you' re offering proof of the fact they already
8 had the variance; why shouldn' t you just get
the variance .
9 MS . MOORE: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
10 anybody in the audience that would like to
speak on this application? If not, I ' d like
11 to close the hearing and reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
13 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
14 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
15 hearing is Thomas DeWolf, who would like to
put an addition on his roof on Sterling Place;
16 is that correct?
MR. DeWOLF : Yes . I don' t have
17 much to add to what I submitted in writing.
At the moment there' s a large living room with
18 a small bedroom to the south of it, an
addition very small . And upstairs there are
19 two attic rooms whose floor area is basically
equivalent to the main room on the downstairs .
20 So I want to convert the two little attic
rooms upstairs for a bedroom for myself and
21 add a small, I think it' s about seven foot
area or square or something, bathroom to
22 accompany the bedroom. It' s really that
simple .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer,
do you have any questions?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've
been there, no, I don' t have any questions .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No.
January 22 , 2004
81
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want
3 to verify what I think I see there . You've
added on to the existing structure, not going
4 beyond the existing footprint, including a
little section on the second floor over that
5 south side over there?
MR. DEWOLF : Exactly.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tell us
how big that square footage is .
7 MR. DEWOLF: 125 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again,
8 we' re only putting 125 square foot on?
MR. DEWOLF : Yes .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody else in the audience that would like
10 to speak on this application? If not, I' ll
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
11 decision until later.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO': Second.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
13 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
14 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next
15 application is Richard and Dorothy Poggi, they
wish to put a window out on their second
16 floor, six foot setback up high.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir.
17 MR. ULLENDAHL: Yes, my name is
Frank Ullendahl, I'm the architect . I was
18 approached by Mrs . Poggi actually. She feels
that the wall facing the driveway is just too
19 bland, and she would like to give it some more
life. In addition, she needs a little more
20 air, actually more light in the bedroom. I 'm
suggesting -- I proposed to cantilever the
21 existing dormer that' s there out above the
driveway by 36 inches . But this, of course, I
22 need a variance for this . The combined side
yards already the existing condition is less
23 than 25 feet so we would be encroaching by two
and-a-half feet into this .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizic?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
January 22 , 2004
82
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The dormer
ridge is going to be straight out continuous?
3 MR. ULLENDAHL: Correct . I think
I did a little sketch. What I would have to
4 do is we would have to demolish part of the
dormer because I have to project the dormer
5 out and then suspend the three foot cantilever
from the roof structure because, you know, we
6 don' t want any columns underneath.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
7 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've
been there . It' s a beautiful house . I have
9 no specific objection. It does elongate the
house, of course, but it is a cantilever and
10 it' s suspended in the air. So it' s got to be
20 feet in that general range . I don' t have
11 any objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
12 anybody in the audience that would like to
speak on this application? I' d like to make a
13 motion closing the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
15 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
16 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
17 application is a stone' s throw from Mr. Finne .
Todd Jensen 819 Linnet Street, Greenport .
18 MS . BISHOP : Stacey Bishop from
Future Surroundings representing Mr. and Mrs .
19 Jensen. Mrs . Jensen is here, Mr. Jensen is at
work.
20 What they propose to do is replace
an existing structure nonconforming with a new
21 one that conforms to Town Code as far as
setbacks and lot coverage . They have received
22 Department of Health permits for the project
and in the course of obtaining the building
23 permits we discovered this property was merged
with the Purcell property next door. Each
24 property is owned by a separate family. It
has separate dwellings, separate facilities,
25 separate tax bills, no encroachments, no need
to change any lot definition. We' re just
January 22 , 2004
83
1
2 asking that this be unmerged so they can
proceed with their building project . Pat had
3 found from Building Department lot creation
71 . We have submitted the subdivision maps
4 and the plans and this lot should stand on its
own. I would ask the Board to expedite a
5 decision in this matter because presently the
Jensens are residing in a rented room at the
6 Blue Dolphin in East Marion, which they have
and which they have until the first . I have
7 spoken with the vice-president of the modular
manufacturer who can jump their production
8 ahead, and I have local trades on standby. So
pending approval of this unmerger, I can get
9 the house in and get them in before they lose
their lease on that . Otherwise they' re
10 essentially homeless .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, if the
11 Board agrees we usually have our meeting in
two weeks, and after that they will be written
12 up and you can wait another week, so you
should have it in early March.
13 MS . BISHOP: Okay, because I do
have the Building Permit approved pending the
14 outcome of this hearing, everything else is in
order.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if
anybody else has any questions . Mr. Dinizio?
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. I
think you said everything that I want you to
17 say. You received separate tax bills . When
they purchased the lot, did it belong to the
18 person next door?
MS . BISHOP: No. Frank Fields .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The lot
next door, who does that belong to?
20 MS . BISHOP : The Purcells . At the
time that the Jensens purchased it, they did
21 receive clear title .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The title
22 company really screwed up .
MS . BISHOP: They have another
23 clear title search. They have a clear title,
again, they have approval for septic issues
24 and the Building Department . It' s a single
and separate search which I don' t believe the
25 mortgage companies typically do .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It depends
January 22 , 2004
84
1
2 on who' s doing the loan. They were not aware
of anything until --
3 MS . BISHOP : Just until we went to
the Building Department . He' s applied for and
4 received for additions to the home and COs to
the home through this whole process .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Two
properties don' t share anything?
6 MS . BISHOP : Nothing, nothing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No wells,
7 no nothing?
MS . BISHOP : No .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Glancing
9 through here, there was a CO issued to this
parcel in 1967; is that correct?
10 MS . BISHOP : No . On the property
card?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : . Or 169 .
MS . BISHOP : ' 69 yes, yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is that the
original house?
13 MS . BISHOP: We weren' t able to
find that out . The closest we could find in
14 1970, and this made it a single and separate
property but that' s --
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The house
is long gone since . I drove by. No other
16 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same as
the questions this morning. No additional
18 change in topography, no extensive fill to
this property for the construction of the new
19 house?
MS . BISHOP : No. The proposed
20 structure conforms to everything with respect
to lot coverage, no change in topography
21 whatsoever and --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was
22 the question this morning?
MS . KOWALSKI : Lot lines .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No
change in lot lines?
24 MS . BISHOP : No change in lot
line.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One other
question. Were people living in that home?
January 22 , 2004
85
1
2 MS . BISHOP : Yes . The Jensens
moved in when the purchased it in 1991, but
3 were done with it in preparation of this
project .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So they
have lived there since 1991?
5 MS . BISHOP : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Paid taxes,
6 separate tax bill you have, went for building
permit and they didn' t own the property.
7 MS . BISHOP : What happened was the
existing structure had extensive termite
8 damage . They just welcomed their newborn son
and the cold weather, you don' t want a little
9 baby around the demolition.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Right . So
10 they demolished it, and they found out when
the went for the building permit?
11 MS . BISHOP : This is a new
process . They have been contemplating this
12 for a number of years . I think Mr. Jensen had
the opportunity with regard to his friend to
13 demolish the house at that time so he took
advantage of that .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t
have anything else .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else
who would like to comment on this? If not,
16 I ' d like to make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
18 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for
coming.
20 -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
21 hearing is Mr. Grim' s request, his famous
horse barn. Mr. Grim, you need ten acres,
22 right?
MR. GRIM: Yes .
23 MS . KOWALSKI . You submitted a new
map, right?
24 MR. GRIM: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garrett kind of
25 etched out for your tillable acres, I believe .
MR. GRIM: Right . I think that
January 22 , 2004
86
1
2 was a question you had, yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What else do
3 you want to tell us?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
4 ask a question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Grim,
you have told us that this is primarily for
6 use of your family?
MR. GRIM: Yes .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have
three girls?
8 MR. GRIM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many
9 horses do you anticipate on this property?
MR. GRIM: Probably just two . But
10 I have three girls and if one gets upset .
I've been through too many battles with the
11 three of them where they go, Dad, she gets
treated better than me, so we have to try to
12 go equal .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This may
13 sound redundant . What do you think the max
would be, one for each girl?
14 MR. GRIM: Yes . Strictly family,
strictly my girls .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So there' s
16 no boarding of other horses?
MR. GRIM: No, sir.
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think
Garrett Strang is fairly clear. I don' t even
18 know why this is here, that' s all I know.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s here
19 because he' s needs ten acres .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
21 questions . I give Mr. Grim my reservations
the last time with the roads and the rifle
22 range . So there was no qualms later that that
didn' t exist .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the berm,
you' re going to keep the berm or --
24 MR. GRIM: Whatever you guys want,
whatever you want . I' ll do whatever you want .
25 You want it to go, it goes; you want it to
stay, it stays; you want the bushes to stay,
January 22 , 2004
87
1
2 whatever you want .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going
3 to keep the trailer there, Don, or what?
MR. GRIM: The security trailer?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MR. GRIM: I' d like to ' cause when
5 the horse comes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've got that
6 already?
MR. GRIM: Yes, I got that and
7 that should be numbered with a Town Board
number.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s good for
what, six months?
9 MR. GRIM: And a Town Board
resolution. Ed Forester was looking all along
10 the north fork and Southold Town, and he had
to give them to a lady in the Town Clerk' s
11 office, and she' s been out with a bad hip .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Joyce .
12 MR. GRIM: Okay, I spoke to Joyce .
It' s on ones they give me.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Grim,
you don' t have set plans for the barn, you
14 just want to get through this stage first?
MR. GRIM: I know everything takes
15 time .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, true .
16 MR. GRIM: Something with the
doors facing south for the sun, the barn
17 doors .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
18 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in
19 the audience that would like to speak on this
application? Mr. Heinrich?
20 MR. HEINRICH: The name is Bernard
Heinrich. I live on County Road 48 . I think
21 you have to consider what Mr. Strang has done
is just an estimated not actual. Your
22 particular application calls for a survey,
which is not in the file, an accurate survey.
23 According to the latest document he has 4 . 89
acres, which is less than five tillable
24 acres .
My only concern in this particular
25 property is, number one, it' s been used mostly
as an industrial lot . Second of all in this
January 22 , 2004
88
1
2 town we have a me too, living on 48 it keeps
creeping up . Adjacent to him is also a
3 security trailer. What they need security for
I don' t know. We have a police department .
4 There' s no local vandalism on a local lot .
Thank you.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Grim?
MR. GRIM: We went in front of the
6 Town Board for the security trailer because we
were getting not vandalism, but a lot of
7 things dumped on the property; I guess ' cause
it is an industrial area.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also you' re
zoned AC?
9 MR. GRIM: No, I mean, pretty much
everything around it . I mean, if you want to
10 give me an industrial zone I' ll take it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That wasn' t my
11 question.
MR. GRIM: But at night because
12 the areas from workers that are there from
8 : 00 to 5 : 00 , there' s not many residents in
13 the area and every morning you come and people
have dumped things all over. The security
14 guard trailer was just so people wouldn' t dump
things, and because on that easement there was
15 a lot of dumping going on.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How does
16 the security trailer benefit you; what is the
purpose of it being there is; how is it used
17 to deter people?
MR. GRIM: Well, if they see at
18 night -- if they see a light on or movement .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s kind
19 of a working movement?
MR. GRIM: Yeah. There' s a little
20 action. Let' s not pull down there, I see
something. That' s what I'm trying to say at
21 night most of the people leave . At night on
Cox Lane most of the people go home . It' s
22 busy during the day but at night when
everybody goes home that' s when people drive
23 down there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam
24 Chairman, I think I alluded to the fact that I
sat in on the hearing because I had a Town
25 Board appointment when I was chairperson on
this Board on Mr. Thomas' property, which is
January 22 , 2004
89
1
2 next door. Mr. Thomas is a landscaper. At
that hearing, he told the Town Board and was
3 granted a similar permit to what Mr. Grim has .
He told the Town Board that he had a lot of
4 gasoline and diesel fuel stolen from his
vehicles, and that it was extremely costly to
5 him, and I suspect that that was probably one
of the reasons why the Town Board granted him
6 a security trailer.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also Rich
7 Corzini had one put in last year also.
MR. GRIM: That' s what happens .
8 That' s what I'm trying to say, at night when
everybody goes home .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not
unusual for Cox Road from what I know of it .
10 But maybe to mitigate some of the problems of
the neighbor and you need one for a building
11 permit anyway, can we do a real survey from a
licensed surveyor?
12 MR. GRIM: Yeah, Garret .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He just
13 sketched.
MR. GRIM: I can' t answer for
14 Garret . We' ll get you whatever you want .
MS . KOWALSKI : Because the Board
15 had asked for a survey. Just make me a punch
list, but I think actually it says there' s
16 five tillable acres .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He just
17 sketched it out . He sketched out around the
edges . He didn' t make it clear.
18 MR. GRIM: I know but I think he
does show.
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' ll put
everyone' s mind at ease .
20 MR. GRIM: Whatever you want, I' ll
get you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the berms
be shown on the survey?
22 MR. GRIM: If you want them
they' ll be there .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leave them
there .
24 MR. GRIM: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we know
25 where they are .
MR. GRIM: You want to give me a
January 22 , 2004
90
1
2 punch list . Whatever you guys want .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I think
3 it' s just the one thing, it' s just the survey.
MR. GRIM: You want seven copies
4 of the survey showing the five tillable
acres .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO. And all its
structures .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: ' All the berms
and --
7 MS . KOWALSKI : We' ll give you a
letter.
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is
stamped by an architect not a surveyor.
9 MR. GRIM: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the
10 Building Department will want that as well .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll need
11 that anyway.
MR. GRIM: Whatever you want .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any
anything further to say, Mr. Heinrich?
13 MR. HEINRICH: If I may, I' d like
to add something else . If you look at the map
14 you' ll see the location of the so-called
security trailer. There' s no way in this
15 world anybody in that trailer on the west --
north end of the property blocked by a large
16 industrial building can look over the
property. Thank you.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other
questions from the Board?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Grim,
is that where the trailer' s going to stay or
19 are you going to move it to a more visible
trailer?
20 MR. GRIM: Wherever you want . I
was just trying to not have it visible . I was
21 trying to do the right thing ' cause I know --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Town Board
22 doesn' t like to see visible trailers . They
try to screen them in so they' re not obtrusive
23 right out on 48 , I ' ll put it there .
MR. GRIM: That' s what I was
24 trying to do, but if you want it out by 48 ,
I' ll put it there . Put it in the letter.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t
think that we should get in the business of
January 22 , 2004
91
1
2 telling Mr. Grim how to do security on his
property. That' s not our -- he got approval
3 for a security trailer. As long as he meets
the setbacks . It' s his property, as far as
4 I'm concerned. And he' s got it for security,
and we don' t know what his problems are .
5 MS . KOWALSKI : Garret' s coming in
now.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the
record, I just want to tell the Board that I
7 toured the building in the rear of the
property at Mr. Grim' s, okay, and in that
8 building I found four historical tractors, and
a couple historical trucks . I saw no other
9 use of that building other than for storage of
these vehicles, of which are hobby vehicles
10 for Mr. Grim and whomever; is that correct,
Mr. Grim?
11 MR. GRIM: Yes, okay. Thank you
very much.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MR. STRANG: Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving
14 decision until later pending receipt of the
new site survey.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
16 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
17 (Time ended: 2 :45 p.m. )
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 22 , 2004
92
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4 I, Florence V.' Wiles, Notary Public for
the State of New York, do hereby certify:
5 THAT the within transcript is a true
record of the testimony given.
6 I further certify that I am not related by
blood or marriage, to any of the parties to
7 this action; and
THAT I am in no way interested in the
8 outcome of this matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
9 hand this 22nd day of January, 2004 .
10
11
12
Florence V. Wiles
13
t"
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 22 , 2004