Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/26/2004 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 U" p.� 44AR 2 6 2004 February 26, 2004 12 11 ICY �DIV/ Q 9 :3 0 a.m. !! SOAR® ®f APPALS 13 14 Board Members Present 15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 17 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member 18 GERARD P . GOEHRINGER, Board Member 19 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first public hearing is one that was carried over 3 from January 22nd, that is Martha Cassidy, who wishes to build a tennis court on an 4 undeveloped piece of land. Miss Wickham. MS . WICKHAM: Good morning. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you this morning? 6 MS . WICKHAM: Very good, thank you. My name is Abigail Wickham, representing 7 the applicant . I have Susan Gardner here, who is the owner of two of the adjoining lots and 8 has been working with me on this application as well as Mr. Cybulski from Sea Breeze 9 Tennis . I' d like to start by emphasizing, 10 I think more than I did at the last hearing, that we believe this is an Area Variance, it 11 is not a Use Variance . The distinction is quite specific and an Area Variance does not 12 involve a use, which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance and does not seek a change in 13 the essential use of the land. A tennis court is clearly a permitted use in this district 14 and on this property. The variance is merely as to whether or not a residence or principal 15 use needs to be established in order to maintain it and that is an Area Variance . 16 It' s a little bit confusing because we' re talking about whether you can use it for a 17 tennis court but it' s not a Use Variance, and I think quite clearly the criteria of an Area 18 Variance applies . As to those criteria, we do not 19 believe there will be an undesirable change because the applicant and her partner, Susan 20 Gardner, own the property immediately to the south on which there is a residence located, 21 and it is occupied by a family member, and the residence immediately to the east, which is 22 owned jointly by both of them. We would be willing to covenant that should -- first, two 23 things, first of all that they would not sell the lot in question with only the tennis court 24 on it outside of the family; and, secondly, that if they sold both of the houses, the one 25 adjoining and the one across the street, that the tennis court use would be discontinued or February 26 , 2004 3 1 2 a residence added in order to comply with the code, and that could be the basis of a 3 covenant on all three properties which would be clearly marked and enforceable . 4 The impact of that is that you don' t have the concern that was expressed 5 previously, which is an isolated court that nobody lives nearby, nobody is supervising and 6 no one has to listen to . So I think that' s very important . 7 The benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method other 8 than merging the lot, and as I described before that would have a severe financial 9 consequence, which I think would be far outweighed by balancing of the equities in 10 terms of what the downside here is to the neighborhood. The amount of relief is not 11 substantial because they do have adjoining and adjacent property, which are going to be as 12 impacted by this as the neighbors . And for that reason it would not have a significant 13 adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 14 It is a permitted use in the zoning district . The variance I think has been 15 self-created. That does not in and of itself require you to deny the variance and the 16 construction is not existing, something that we' re here to do with safeguards that you 17 might impose . The applicant does have the option 18 and has seriously considered if this variance is denied just going ahead and building a 19 small house for rental and putting the court on it, and she obviously doesn' t want to have 20 to go to that financial expense either, but that is an option, and I think that that would 21 have a significantly more adverse impact on the neighborhood than the granting. of the 22 relief that' s requested. I' d like to address two other 23 things briefly. The first is the issue of drainage . Obviously, that' s going to be 24 discussed and Mr. Cybulski can talk about that . The work that was done on the property 25 was merely to punch through the top layer of soil to get to the sand in order to alleviate February 26 , 2004 4 1 2 an accumulation of water. In the summer that' s a concern. The tennis court regrading 3 will eliminate the concern for the entire neighborhood, which would be to their benefit . 4 And there was no fill added on that as far as that pile of dirt that is there, it will be 5 graded out as part of the construction. It was what was in the hole that was removed, and 6 they put sand back in. So the sand that was added is under the ground, it' s not the pile . 7 That pile is not added. It was merely to alleviate a minor drainage issue, and we did 8 speak to the Building Department and Mr. Forester before proceeding to make sure it 9 was allowed. I did have quite an effort trying 10 to find a comparable precedent . I know that there are several tennis courts in the Town 11 that I believe are preexisting on vacant lots, and those have been there for years without 12 incident . One is the one on New Suffolk, on New Suffolk Avenue on Kimogenar Point, that' s 13 been there many, many years . The other I 'm aware of is the Braut' s tennis court on 14 Vanston Road in Nassau Point in a very densely populated residential neighborhood that has 15 been privately used for many, many years without consequence . 16 There was, interestingly enough, a variance granted by your Board in 1977 to 17 Mr. Lamorte, Appeal Number 2313 for a tennis court . The variance was for a fence but that 18 variance did allow a tennis court on a lot that didn' t have a principal building on it . 19 It happened to have a swimming pool on it, but the house is on a separate lot . For some 20 reason the accessory nature of the use -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham, 21 that was 30 years ago, times have changed. MS . WICKHAM: Yes, that was 22 another instance of when a court existed. I spoke to the neighbor, Mr. Cope, who has lived 23 next to that for many years, and he has never had a problem with it . So I think that while 24 the Board has not granted that type of precedent that I have been able to ascertain, 25 certainly those situations do exist in the town without, as far as I've been able to February 26, 2004 5 1 2 tell, adverse consequence, and we would be able to understand that the condition of the 3 approval be that the court not be used for commercial purposes, in other words, that a 4 commercial instructor could not come in and give lessons to people who are not related to 5 the family because I think Mr. Dinizio had concern about that or perhaps Mr. Orlando. 6 The only other precedent that I can ascertain, and I have it here, I' ll get it 7 when I sit down, is the granting of an accessory use permit down in Pine Neck Road. 8 If you recall, some time ago that Mr. Berger asked for your permission to split an 9 undersized lot, and that left a garage on the property. The concern there was the condition 10 of the property and there were covenants put on that relating to screening condition, et 11 cetera. I don' t recall if there were conditions as to ownership, but I think we 12 discussed that as well, and I have that appeal number for your reference . 13 Screening is something that we would be willing to do. I think given a 14 tennis court' s seasonal nature, the putting of shrubbery that grows up high, natural looking 15 shrubbery like forsythia, which is in the neighborhood at this time, might be something 16 appropriate, or if you have other suggestions, we' d be glad to consider them. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you refresh my memory, how far from the road would 18 this tennis court be? MS . WICKHAM: From the road the 19 court is setback, if you' d let me get my map out, quite a number of feet because we had 20 projected a full residence setback without variance, and then with the residence it is 21 67 . 6 -- 67 . 5 feet from the property line to the fence, and so right inside the fencing is 22 the court . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also 23 there' s a natural grade going downhill to the west from the road. 24 MS . WICKHAM: That' s correct . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s going to 25 have to be filled in? MS . WICKHAM: I' ll have February 26 , 2004 6 1 2 Mr. Cybulski address that . That leaves the tennis court 47 . 5 feet from the rear line, so 3 it could be moved back further, if need be, that was the proposal . 4 Can I have Mr. Cybulski answer your questions about the amount of fill and 5 grading? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . Good 6 morning. MR. Cybulski : Good morning. Bud 7 Cybulski . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? 8 MR. Cybulski : I guess just to answer your questions, if you built the court 9 at the grade that' s there right now, you' d end up with a swimming pool rather than the tennis 10 court . So it will have to be raised approximately a foot from the existing grade, 11 which would still leave it about a foot above the road, drainage will be necessary if there 12 is a layer of clay in there, which we found when we made the drainage there now. 13 It was not a problem, it wasn' t that deep, and it should work out all right . 14 The topsoil and clay that is removed would be left on the property and then graded back up 15 to the tennis court when it' s finished, so it really wouldn' t look out of place . 16 One other concern I've heard is there' s noise from a tennis court when people 17 play. This is proposed to be a clay court and a lot less noise from a clay court than from 18 an asphalt court . Any other questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizic? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Maybe with 21 Gail, not with Mr. Cybulski . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would be the negative effect, Mr. Cybulski, if 23 you lowered the court and you actually built walls around three sides of it? 24 MR. Cybulski : Drainage problems I think would be the negative effect, but could 25 it be resolved, I 'm sure, it' s done all the time, but you get quite involved with drainage February 26, 2004 7 1 2 then and it gets quite expensive . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you 3 said this is a clay court, you were saying it' s a composition of clay, or is it that new 4 material? MR. Cybulski : It' s the new 5 material the Hard True court, which is the improved clay court . I think you've each got 6 a handout in your folders that I presented to the Board. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is this court now that we can look at it again? 8 MR. Cybulski : This type of court? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . 9 MR. CYBULSKI : Derek Seefus in Orient . We built one last year that you 10 approved in Southold for Copala. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 11 MR. CYBULSKI : That' s that type of court . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s off of Town Hall, right by the 7-Eleven? 13 MR. CYBULSKI : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we 14 can check the boing factor out on that, not that we don' t believe you. 15 MR. CYBULSKI : North Fork Country Club has halfway clay, halfway Hard True . 16 It' s not a full Hard True court, but they are the same, basically the same court . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was happy to hear from the attorney in reference 18 to the possibility of screening. In reality if there' s a situation where you have this 19 huge, massive thing -- please, in no way am I degrading this court because a court is a very 20 nice thing -- but I think screening is an effective tool if the Board is so inclined to 21 grant this . MR. CYBULSKI : Derek Seefus' court 22 in Orient, you cannot see it from the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s got 15 23 foot high privet there . MR. CYBULSKI : Ruth, you can see 24 it all the time, I'm sure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can hear it 25 too. MR. CYBULSKI : You can hear it? February 26, 2004 8 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . I can hear it when they play. I don' t mind it, I 'm 3 saying if the wind' s right . MR. CYBULSKI : It would be louder 4 if it was a hard court . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not 5 objectionable. Mrs . Tortora, do you have any 6 questions for Mr. Cybulski? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I would 7 like to address counsel . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Miss 8 Wickham, Mrs . Tortora. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You stated 9 this is the Area Variance because the area is in question. I don' t necessarily agree with 10 the way that the notice of disapproval was written. It appears to me that what you are 11 requesting is to put an accessory use on a vacant lot that has no principal use on it . 12 The code clearly permits tennis courts as an accessory. There is no principal use on the 13 property at this time . The property is vacant . 14 MS . WICKHAM: Right . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have had 15 other cases similar to this, and I was trying to recall it, and I just did recall it . It 16 was a case involving a cell tower out in Orient where the applicants wished to place a 17 cell tower on a vacant lot- and there was no principal use on the lot . I'm pretty sure we 18 could dig up those records that it was denied. As far as it being an Area 19 Variance, it could only be an Area Variance if the area in question was insufficient . In 20 this case, the area is not really -- I don' t agree with you. I don' t think it' s a question 21 that the area is insufficient, there' s no principal use on it, and the code simply does 22 not permit an accessory use on a lot where there' s no principal use. So in my mind, that 23 is the issue . The only question I have is that 24 you say it would create an extreme financial hardship if the lot was merged, but you are 25 willing to covenant and restrict it so it would be sold to family members . Why not just February 26, 2004 9 1 2 go ahead and merge the lots? MS . WICKHAM: Because then they 3 could never at any point in the future sell it separately. They would lose incredible value, 4 and she has children, you know, some day she' s going to want to use that for her family or 5 pass that down. Saying that you' re going to covenant against lack of common ownership is a 6 lot different than saying you can never have a separate lot . It' s a lot different . 7 Could I go back to the Area/Use Variance use issue? Area Variance is a 8 confusing term because it doesn' t just mean area consideration. It' s the nature of the 9 variance that' s being addressed. There' s a case I can give you a copy of, Boyagen versus 10 the Village of East Hills, that had the definition that I cited earlier as to the 11 distinction between an Area and Use Variance . But an Area Variance has to do with building 12 heights, setbacks, all different types of things that are not specifically area. Use 13 Variances have to do with something that' s just not permitted at all . A cell tower is a 14 commercial use, I think that' s a distinction. A tennis court is a residential use that is 15 permitted as an accessory. All we' re asking is that the principal use not be required at 16 this time . And that is an Area Variance, although it doesn' t sound right because it' s 17 not addressing the area, but it is an Area Variance not a Use Variance . 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know that we also did have a similar case, and would 19 have to pull up the files on this, about a year ago involving the same argument, and at 20 that time a lot of court cases were submitted as to whether it was an Area Variance or 21 Use . I think the real point here is not that a tennis court is not permitted, a tennis 22 court is a permitted use; it' s a permitted use as an accessory to a principal use . There is 23 no principal use on this property. MS . WICKHAM: Correct, that is the 24 nature of the application. I agree with you, but I don' t think it' s a Use Variance . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Miss Wickham, you've said if we denied it, that February 26, 2004 10 1 2' they would possibly build a small house -- MS . WICKHAM: Yes . They have 3 that right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- on the 4 property and then put in the tennis court . MS . WICKHAM: Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That was my only thought . Perhaps, as I say, I don' t 6 agree with the way the notice of disapproval was written because I do agree with you that, 7 yes, it is a permitted use, but it is not permitted as a principal use; it' s permitted 8 as an accessory use, and there is no principal on the property. 9 MS . WICKHAM: That' s correct . But it' s an Area Variance request, it' s not a Use 10 Variance request . Because a Use Variance is when you want to take a piece of property 11 that' s zoned residential, for instance, or let' s say, residential office or something, 12 and make it something different in terms of the use that' s allowed on that property per 13 se . For instance, there was a case that had to do with -- let me go back while I 'm 14 researching that to give you the citation that I have on the accessory use that you 15 determined previously, 5058, and that appeal number did have the common ownership 16 conditions that I talked about previously. Do you have other questions? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One 18 question I wanted to clarify, the adjoining lots on the west side of Young' s Avenue, 19 you' re saying both lots surrounding the tennis court are by family members? 20 MS . WICKHAM: No. On the west side of Young' s Avenue the southern lot is 21 owned by them. The northern lot, I believe the owner of that lot was here last time and 22 spoke in favor of the application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have 23 copies of case law, Miss Wickham, would you submit? 24 MS . WICKHAM: I will submit it . I don' t have seven copies, so I' ll submit them 25 later today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? February 26 , 2004 11 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No further comment at this time . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . I 4 can' t get by this principal and accessory structure, Gail . I don' t know where the 5 Zoning Board has the power to grant a variance of the law. 6 MS . WICKHAM: That' s your charge . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I'm 7 sorry. If it says in our code it' s not permitted, we can' t say it' s permitted. 8 MS . WICKHAM: You' re not permitted to put a house closer than ten feet to a line, 9 but you can grant that variance . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s so . 10 That' s under nonconforming uses, and our code specifically -- 11 MS . WICKHAM: You granted the variance in 5058, you granted that variance . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What I'm saying to you is -- it' s only me personally -- 13 that this particular application wouldn' t even be before us if this were on a lot that had a 14 house . MS . WICKHAM: Right . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' d have it and it would be wonderful, but our code 16 says, you don' t have a house, you can' t have a tennis court . 17 MS . WICKHAM: We want you to say it' s okay to defer the building of that house 18 so we don' t have to go through the extraordinary expense of adding another house 19 to the neighborhood so that we can have a tennis next to and across the street from a 20 house that we already own. I think it ' s clearly -- 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where in our code does it say that we can do that, that 22 it says we can defer? We defer the code to say you cannot have -- you can have a building 23 permit for an accessory without principal; where does it say that I can do that? 24 MS . WICKHAM: It doesn' t say that specifically. It charges you as the Zoning 25 Board of Appeals with authority to vary the provisions of the code where you feel the February 26 , 2004 12 1 2 criteria we talked about are met . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . 3 One of the criteria in our code is if you want to build on a lot, you have to have a 4 principal structure . That' s one of our criteria. 5 MS . WICKHAM: That' s the one we' re asking to you vary. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t see how you can grant a variance on that 7 particular part of the law. I don' t know how we can say, Oh, you just go ahead and do it . 8 MS . WICKHAM: How do you decide what you can grant a variance on and what you 9 can' t? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because 10 there is a part in our code that says, if you have a nonconforming use, you may do this, 11 this and this, you can grant relief . MS . WICKHAM: That' s not a 12 nonconforming. I don' t think that' s related to this argument . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We deal mostly with that . I don' t know that someone 14 can come in to us and say, unless you' re asking for what Mr. Hughes -- unless you' re 15 asking for a Use Variance that you want to put this particular use in this piece of property, 16 I'm having a hard time getting past the fact that a principal structure is required on this 17 piece of property before you put a -- MS . WICKHAM: The use is a tennis 18 court . The character of use is principal versus accessory. And that' s what we' re 19 asking you to vary here . But the use of a tennis court is permitted. It' s not like 20 we' re asking you to put up a shopping center, or a sign, or something that' s not allowed 21 here in the code . It' s something that' s acknowledged to be appropriate in a 22 residential neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As an accessory 23 use . MS . WICKHAM: As an accessory use, 24 that is correct . And we are saying that we have the types of situations -- circumstances 25 here that ameliorate the reason that law was enacted, so that you don' t have an isolated February 26 , 2004 13 1 2 accessory use away from somebody' s residence where they' re not going to supervise it, 3 they' re not going to take care of it . That was the basis when I objected in that other 4 case, 5058, that was my concern that there be a presence immediately there in the 5 neighborhood to address the reason that law was passed. 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Wait a minute . You' re making a lot of assumptions . 7 You' re assuming that is why the legislative body enacted this . And that' s a big jump. 8 You' re assuming that the legislative body said, we do not want to have accessory uses 9 sitting on lots by themselves because they' d be unattended. I don' t know that for a fact, 10 and I don' t know how you would possibly know that as a fact . 11 MS . WICKHAM: I can' t imagine any other reason it would be . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s speculation. 13 MS . WICKHAM: No, but that' s the reason. I mean, if you look at why would 14 somebody pass a law that says that, there' s got to be a rational basis . I 'm suggesting to 15 you that that' s the rational basis for that provision, and that we have addressed that 16 concern. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right . 17 Let' s get to the meat of this thing. MS . WICKHAM: Okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the reason why you want to put an accessory 19 structure on this piece of property without a principal is to save your equity. 20 MS . WICKHAM: Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How does 21 the Town get involved in that? Why should we? MS . WICKHAM: Because you' re a 22 Zoning Board of Appeals, and you' re balancing the equities . Wrong. You' re balancing the 23 benefits and the detriments . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, I 24 agree . MS . WICKHAM: The detriment to the 25 applicant if -this is not allowed, is that they have to lose a significant amount of equity. February 26 , 2004 14 1 2 The benefit -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s only 3 if they choose to build the tennis court . MS . WICKHAM: That' s right . 4 That' s why we' re here . We want to build a tennis court, and if we do it without a house, 5 we have to lose equity or we've got to add another house to the neighborhood, which we 6 don' t want to have to do . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Wait, what 7 I see here, they don' t want to put it on the piece of property they have a house on, why? 8 MS . WICKHAM: There' s not enough sufficient room. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I pretty much assumed that . Now they went out and got 10 another lot to give them enough room. It' s another lot . 11 MS . WICKHAM: Well, they have had that in the family for years . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Why don' t they enlarge their property to the point where 13 they can afford to actually put this on a piece of property that they own, that has a 14 principal structure and meets the code? MS . WICKHAM: Why should the Town 15 force them to do that if the consequence of that is going to be a severe financial 16 hardship without creating a significant detriment to the neighborhood? And they can 17 build the house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Their 18 hardship is self-imposed. The Town has nothing at all to do with their hardship. 19 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, it is . Many variances are self-imposed. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I can tell you, no, they' re not . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio and Miss Wickham, why don' t you supply us with 22 your memorandums of law and we will discuss it . And I want to see if anybody else in the 23 audience has any questions . MS . WICKHAM: Thank you, fine . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir. MR. GIANELLI : Good morning, I'm 25 Frank Gianelli, and I'm a neighbor. I don' t know why I'm nervous, I get nervous at these February 26 , 2004 15 1 2 things . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Don' t be, we' re 3 nice people . We don' t bite . MR. GIANELLI : I have had 4 conversations, and thank you for letting me come, because I couldn' t make last month' s 5 meeting. I.-actually came to say that I was 6 semi-in favor of putting the tennis court where it is, but after hearing some 7 inconsistencies, I'm actually -- my dander is up. There was a point where there was a 8 bulldozer across the street regrading things, taking trees down, that I thought it was part 9 of a Building Department process that I just assumed was okay to do. Then I hear, again, 10 inconsistencies about the pile of dirt that was across the street . I am still in favor of 11 a tennis court, but I don' t know what' s real anymore . I don' t know if, in fact, when 12 people say allow them to put a tennis court, then when they go to sell the property that 13 the tennis court will not be sold with the property. You know, we all know that the 14 Building Department is overworked and certainly doesn' t have the staff to see that . 15 Again, I don' t know the laws, but there has to be a more definitive way of, if, in fact, you 16 do allow the tennis court that, in fact, if it' s sold that the tennis court is removed. I 17 could imagine if the tennis court was allowed to stay and a house put in front of it, then 18 somebody' s going to come here and say, well, the tennis court is preexisting, allow us to 19 build a bigger house, then again getting closer to the street . Another inconsistency, 20 that again upsets me, there was no acknowledgment that I live directly across .the 21 street . My property -- again, I don' t have a full survey -- is at least half of where the 22 tennis court is going to be, if not more . So I' d like to look into that . So I am east, 23 directly east, and I'm the person that' s going to be at 7 : 00 -- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have the new house or the brown house? 25 MR. GIANELLI : Susan' s is the brown house, mine is the renovated house . We February 26 , 2004 16 1 2 moved to Orient in hopes that I would retire here and the thought of -- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know where you are . . 4 MR. GIANELLI : So I believe there' s an inconsistency about the fact where 5 the tennis court is going to be . So these inconsistencies make me very apprehensive to 6 say, go ahead and put a tennis court in. For those reasons that, my wife feels, some of the 7 neighbors feel, some of the neighbors who did not attend here today, maybe it is better to 8 have a house so that we can sort of police, let' s say somebody can pull up in a car, park 9 across the street from my house and play tennis, and I have no way of knowing if it is 10 a stranger, kids can come across . We talked about the advantage too for Susan to have the 11 property next door and she would be able to monitor. Obviously, you can' t be there 24-7, 12 and there are times in the year, especially in the fall, where a child can come and play on 13 the courts . I just have lots of questions and 14 if maybe we would find out a little bit more about what we talked about in terms of putting 15 something to buffer the noise, the sound. Keep it consistent with one of the things that 16 the neighbors asked me to say, the Bartinos, just remember it is a residential area without 17 providing parking for the tennis courts, where are the people going to park to get to the 18 tennis courts . At last month' s hearing Robert Hughes had mentioned that someone had stood up 19 saying that they were given permission to play tennis, again, not a family member, not 20 someone else . Again, how do we stop that tennis court -- which we can' t -- from being 21 used from sun up to sundown. So I guess if there aren' t any 22 other questions that you guys have of me, I would be certainly glad to just say, I'm just 23 not happy about issues like things where people said the dirt -- that dirt was not out 24 of that hole . That dirt came -- in fact, the Lathams had told me they had seen a very large 25 dump truck dropping the soil there . MS . GARDNER: The dirt that was in February 26 , 2004 17 1 2 that pile came from the hole, the sand. MR. GIANELLI : Can I sit down 3 please? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, thank you. 4 MS . KOWALSKI : You have to use the mike and. state your name, please, before you 5 speak. MS . GARDNER: Susan Gardner. And 6 I have the house across the street, and I'm co-owner of the house across the street, 7 co-owner of the house to the south. The dirt that' s piled there came from the test hole . I 8 was there when they did it . He, Gary Taber came, dug a hole, took that dirt out and then 9 came and dumped sand in. I asked him to spread dirt around. He said it' s just got 10 junk and rocks in it . It would be worse to spread around in there, and they would reuse 11 it when they were digging up to put fill underneath the tennis court, which is why it 12 was there . The tennis court will be locked. There will be no issue of parking, since we 13 are the people using the tennis court, and we have our house and our car right there . We' re 14 going to walk right across the street and play tennis . There will be no parking on that lot . 15 If you do not grant the variance, I am an architect, I am prepared and have 16 submitted plans to show a house and I will build a house there . All right . With the 17 house, there will be a rental tenant, a driveway, cars and whoever the rental tenant 18 wants to use the tennis court, will be permitted to use it . I don' t see where 19 there' s any question here that we' re trying to do something that' s better for the 20 neighborhood, not worse . We've owned this lot, my partner 21 has owned this lot before we bought the house next door, right . We purchased the house next 22 door from my mother. It' s vacant most of the year. No use, no tenants, we own four lots on 23 that block. The lot next to us is a buildable lot, we could build a house on it . We have no 24 intention of doing that . We have a vacant piece of property that we would like to get 25 some benefit out of for my kids . Let' s build a tennis court on it . But if you deny it, I February 26, 2004 18 1 2 will build a house with a tennis court . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 3 Any questions? If not I' ll move close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 5 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. Thank you for coming in. 7 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 8 application is Trencheny at South Lane in East Marion. And they have submitted other plans 9 because the neighbor had requested, I believe, a 21 foot setback rather than the one that was 10 submitted. And is Aggie here? MR. NOTARO: Actually, I'm here 11 today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, how are 12 you? MR. NOTARO: . My name is Frank 13 Notaro. I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs . Trencheny. 14 After last month' s meeting and a letter that was received by Mr. Trencheny, he 15 requested us to look at various options and questions that you had also. We have showed 16 the second floor setback now at 716" . You had requested a little bit less than that but it 17 works out and the client is happy with that solution. The client asked us to explore 18 possibly a compromise between his original request and the request by his neighbor, 19 Mr. Thorpe, and we came up with a number of 17' 611 , which is splitting the difference 20 between the two. My client feels that that is a workable solution to what they' re looking 21 for. This will be a permanent house at one point in the future . Right now my client 22 cannot be here, they just gave birth to a baby and they' re kind of involved at this point . 23 By the way, we have not received any feedback from Mr. Trencheny regarding Mr. Thorpe, so I 24 don' t think he got any additional feedback on that . Perhaps you have received a letter 25 subsequently. So basically, that' s what we have done since the last meeting. February 26, 2004 19 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that is a fairly good compromise, 4 Mr. Notaro. The only question I have, is there going to be the ability to make a turn 5 to utilize the south part or the southeast part of the lot? That 10 feet looks kind of 6 tight . There, are you going to be able to utilize that? 7 MR. NOTARO: We believe so. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From a 8 fire and emergency point of view, since it' s on that angle, that may be a little difficult . 9 I don' t know if you could round it, if you could clip it, whatever the case might be, but 10 you really need like 12 feet . That' s just my opinion. 11 MR. NOTARO : Sure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s split right down the middle . No questions at this 13 time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . The only thing that I would share is the concern 15 for fire access, because I think that corner, that 10 foot, particularly at that angle, you 16 could really run into some problems with trying to navigate a fire truck. And I'm not 17 even sure that you could because of the sharp angle of the property line . What is along 18 that property line, Mr. Notaro? MR. NOTARO: I believe from my 19 recollection is like hedging there . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is 20 hedging? MR. NOTARO: I'm not 100 percent 21 sure . It' s been a while since I looked at the property. We could look into that, and I feel 22 we could take that into consideration, and I feel we could probably modify the plans to 23 accommodate that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It may 24 even look architecturally nice . Excuse me, Lydia. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s all . MR. NOTARO : It would give me a February 26, 2004 20 1 2 good excuse to use angles again. We would definitely look into that . That is a 3 consideration. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree 4 too because we' re kind of concerned about being able to get fire equipment around our 5 houses . It' s important . Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . I 6 have a note here that says you' re going to remove the house; you' re going to take the 7 house down and build a new one; is that right? MR. NOTARO: Well, no, they' re 8 going to take it down to the first floor deck. It' s really not structurally stable to build a 9 new second floor on the existing walls . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : All the 10 walls are going to come down, just the foundation and the deck on the foundation. So 11 essentially you' re tearing the house down? MR. NOTARO: We' re reutilizing 12 the foundation and the first floor deck and probably some of the walls if it' s possible to 13 use them. We haven' t opened everything up to see the full extent . Just by judging by what 14 we could see, the structure is not up to today' s code, so to speak. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you did a nice job on compromise . And as far as 16 the driveway' s concerned, the fire department' s going to get in there whether you 17 have a curb in there or not, believe me . It' s not going to make that much difference . Thank 18 you. MR. NOTARO: Thank you. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Thorpe? MR. THORPE : Good morning, I 'm 20 Frank Thorpe . I live at 180 South Lane, the property to the east, and this morning I'm 21 also representing my brother and his wife, Edward Thorpe and Virginia Thorpe, who live at 22 80 South Lane, the property immediately to the west . This word compromise has just come up. 23 No one has ever talked to me about this at all, from Mr. Trencheny or his architects . I 24 apologize to you people for not having this testimony in writing, but this was only 25 submitted on Monday; I became aware of it on Tuesday, and I was not able to communicate February 26 , 2004 21 1 2 with my brother until last night . We both strongly request that the westerly setback be 3 established at 20 feet . This would give a combined east/west setback of 23 . 4 feet, which 4 would be in conformity with all the other setbacks required in the community. 5 We thank you for consideration in this matter. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have anything else you would like to say? 7 MR. NOTARO: If I can just respond to that . I can give you for the 8 record a copy of the letter by Mr. Trencheny sent to Mr. Thorpe. He asked us to review it . 9 We looked at it, we agreed with it, and he supposedly sent it, we' re not 100 percent 10 sure, but I can give you a copy. That was sent on January 26th. 11 MS . KOWALSKI : Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a 12 question? MR. THORPE : Just to respond to 13 that, if you look at the last paragraph of Mr. Trencheny' s letter, it says, "As we get closer 14 to finalizing the plans, my intention it is to set up a meeting with you at your convenience 15 and review the options the architects have come up with. " 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that didn' t happen? 17 MR. THORPE : No. Since they were only submitted on Monday. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you would be happy with 20 feet of side yard? 19 1 MR. THORPE : Yes . It would conform with the 3 . 4 from my side to just a 20 little under the 25 feet combined sideyard, and it' s required of everybody else since the 21 code went into effect . And which also has been required for the property two doors away, 22 the Walzes, which you spent a great deal of time on. Questions? Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaro, do you have anything to add? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' d like to ask Mr. Notaro a question. What would be 25 involved in making that a 20 foot setback? MR. NOTARO : It' s kind of February 26 , 2004 22 1 2 difficult to explain that . We did explore that issue . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What would be involved? I'm talking about dollars and 4 cents; what would you have to do to make a 20 foot setback on that side that you' re not 5 willing to do? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Which is a 6 new construction, by the way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t 7 know. I'm asking him, how would you come to that 20 foot setback if we required it? 8 MR. NOTARO: Either the client would have to be satisfied with a smaller 9 footprint and second floor, or they would go out further towards the water side . Those are 10 the two possibilities . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It doesn' t 11 mean digging up the foundation and that kind of stuff? 12 MR. NOTARO: No, not of the present house, that would remain. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaro, your lot to the south is very narrow going 14 down to the harbor, would it be difficult to extend the house in that direction without 15 coming back for another variance? MR. NOTARO: I really would have 16 it look at that, I couldn' t answer you right now. It' s all how the layout works inside . 17 As it is, we've compressed it a little bit now. We' d have to look into that . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the Board' s pleasure, to keep this open or to 19 close the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 20 want to say before, if you go to the southeast, it' s going to further exacerbate 21 that -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is the 10 22 foot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 10 23 foot . I was thinking, Mr. Notaro, what if you held 20 feet to the garage, okay, and the 24 garage would be 17' 611 , and then put a small addition on the front of the house . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Cut it in? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . February 26 , 2004 23 1 2 You know, to make up the difference of what you lost on the 17' 6" . That' s the only real 3 I think genuine compromise that could exist . I mean, South Drive is a private road and 4 there are buildings closer to this than this house is, not that it makes any difference . 5 MR. NOTARO : There is an infinite amount of possibilities that can be done . The 6 only thing, again, in defense of what we' re proposing is, it' s not an overwhelming scale 7 of a home, and I can show you two cases that I think are extraordinary in terms of how they 8 present themselves to the road right in the neighborhood to this home . Again, they didn' t 9 intend to make a McMansion there . This is a home that they feel will be liveable in the 10 future for them. There' s an infinite amount of possibilities for everything. They felt, 11 and they directed us to compromise with the request of the neighbor. That was the 12 direction we had from the client . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the 13 meeting never took place as addressed in the letter? 14 MR. NOTARO : I don' t know that . In other words, our client added that in the 15 end of his letter. I don' t know what went on after the letter was sent, but that was sent 16 on the 24th. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Stating by 17 the neighbor, it didn' t happen. MR. NOTARO: Obviously it didn' t 18 go on, but we had no knowledge of this, and the client did not contact us . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think we can close the hearing if you agree to the 20 20 foot setback, otherwise, we' ll have to keep it open. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we ought to keep it open in deference to the 22 gentleman that got up before, and let them work out a compromise . 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe the meeting should happen. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? MR. NOTARO: I can' t honestly 25 speak for the Trenchenys at this point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we' ll February 26, 2004 24 1 2 keep the meeting open, and have that meeting with the Trenchenys and come back again next 3 month. MR. NOTARO: Okay. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The date will be March 18th at 9 : 30 . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 6 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 7 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 8 application is for Patricia Zanaboni for a new single family dwelling at less than 35 feet, 9 after demolishing the existing building. Is there anybody here to represent? 10 MS . ZANABONI : Hello, I'm Patricia Zanaboni, I think it' s misspelled, it' s 11 Z-A-N-A-B-O-N-I . I wish I was part of the ice machine family, but I'm not . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, MS . ZANABONI : As you will be able 13 to tell from the documents you have, Architect Notaro and his staff have set the house back 14 another 10 feet, as you requested, to 23 feet . That said, I am still requesting a compromise, 15 a couple of extra feet . The house has been there since the 140s . It' s been in my family 16 since 1954 . This is 50 years we have had a lot of good years . It' s been a summer home . 17 Unfortunately, we can' t live there permanently especially if we want to have children. There 18 isn' t enough room. If we were to renovate, we could probably keep the same footprint and 19 stay exactly the way we are, but the construction is not stable enough to add a 20 second story. We could expand and stay in one story, that would be adding another 1, 500 21 square feet or so to our lot coverage, requiring us to take down several trees and 22 becoming closer to our neighbors . I don' t think the elevation that we' re requesting is 23 substantial . We' re really looking at one and-a-half stories . So what I ' m asking for is 24 another five feet . If you look, we were measuring the south stake of our house, 25 Minnehaha and Opeache, that set in about 10 feet from the road per se . So the 13 feet, February 26, 2004 25 1 2 starting from that stake, that pretty much gives you visually about 23 feet from the 3 road, not 13 feet . I measured or looked at the files for a neighbor of mine two streets 4 down that built two years ago . Eileen Gallagher, her setback is 23 . 8 . I'm just 5 requesting a couple extra feet . The house has been there . Our neighbors are used to seeing 6 a home . It won' t be that much higher. I don' t think it will have a negative impact on 7 Minnehaha. Pat Loane has just built a huge house just around the corner, and that is 8 towering over all our neighbors . It' s very high. I'm not looking at anything like that . 9 I'm looking for a small home . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high will 10 your home be to the ridge, to the top? MR. NOTARO: It' s a story 11 and-a-half . I would guesstimate maybe around 26, 27 feet . There' s nothing peaking out 12 beyond the ridge . MS . ZANABONI : I like the 13 location. I understand it' s nonconforming, but most of the houses in that area currently 14 are nonconforming. I enjoy the backyard. I want to leave as many trees as I can. We have 15 dogs; we want to keep the area open for dogs and children. We have Noonacoma waters right 16 facing onto us, I really can' t have children running around the front yard with the four 17 intersecting roads . So I request, I guess, setback of 18 maybe 19 feet with the additional visually, I mean, there' s about eight feet because of 19 where our stakes are in relation to the road. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which road, Minnehaha? 21 MS . ZANABONI : Minnehaha. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm 22 confused. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . I'm 23 confused too. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm 24 confused because the amended plan shows a revised setback of 22 ' 911 , and 2217" . 25 MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t think Mrs . Zanaboni has seen this . We just got it . February 26, 2004 26 1 2 MS . ZANABONI : I saw the one corner, I guess of the 23 . 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Well, what are we proposing? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Notaro, maybe you would like to clarify? 5 MR. NOTARO: I think what she' s referring to is not the lot line, she' s 6 actually measuring off of the road to the lot line, then you have the additional 13 . 7 feet . 7 So we' re talking about basically the same thing, but we basically took what was on the 8 original survey, the 13 . 9, I believe it is, and added 10 feet to that per your request . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So that' s 22 . 9 . So what you' re requesting is what has 10 been submitted to us? MR. NOTARO : Yes . But actually, 11 subsequently, my client investigated other projects in the neighborhood and found that 12 they were a little bit closer to the front lot line . 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So what you' re requesting is not what you submitted to 14 us; is that correct? MR. NOTARO: Correct . 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: My opinion, is only my opinion, this is now a continued 16 hearing. It' s been the subject of four notices of disapproval . I' d like to know what 17 you' re requesting. Have that information before us before the public hearing. 18 Because -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re wasting 19 your time and our time . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We' re going 20 around in circles here . This was -- you know, we were led to believe in your letter that 21 this is, in fact, what you' re requesting. The letter is only dated February 23rd. In 22 fairness on your client as well as the Board, please let us know what you' re requesting, 23 come into the hearing and we' ll hear that . But as you can imagine at this point, it' s 24 very confusing for the Board because we have a set of plans that we received on the 23rd, and 25 now we' re told, no, that' s not what we' re requesting, now we want something else . This February 26 , 2004 27 1 2 is my opinion, not necessarily the Board' s . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? I 3 feel the same way, really. We can' t move on something like this when you' re still not 4 clear on what you want . MR. NOTARO : Actually, if I just 5 may ask my client is she willing to go with this number. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 22 . 9 . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please do. 7 MR. NOTARO: She is willing then to go with what the Board suggested last week, 8 and that' s what the drawings -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s your 9 final answer? MR. NOTARO: That' s my client' s 10 final answer, yes . MS . KOWALSKI : You' d have to 11 reapply if you change it again. MR. NOTARO: Correct . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, do you have any other further questions? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I was trying to think if there was any other 14 option, and I can' t see one at this point . I think the difference of what Mrs . Gallagher 15 has and what these nice people have are virtually about a foot . And in their 16 particular case, Mrs . Gallagher' s property, which has turned out absolutely beautifully 17 down below as I'm sure this one will, has a garage, which is to that point . I realize 18 there' s another story on top of it, which is an accessory apartment, but I don' t think a 19 foot makes that much difference . A foot on a house is really that much more plentiful in my 20 opinion. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora, 21 are you satisfied? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to make an explanation maybe to the applicant . 23 We can only make decisions based on the notice of disapproval . Whatever the Building 24 Department says to us is what you asked for, and that notice of disapproval comes to us, 25 those dimensions come to us . And we can' t vary, we can make it less, in other words, if February 26, 2004 28 1 2 you wanted 30 feet, we could do that, actually, but we can' t give you 26 feet, 3 because you didn' t ask for it . It wasn' t published. Everybody didn' t have a chance to 4 understand what you' re working on. You have to understand that . You know, we look at 5 these applications, and we' re trying to prepare ourselves for what you' re going to 6 say, and if it' s not on this one sheet of paper that I go by, then, if I have to 7 consider it again, you' re back to the Building Department, and you've got to ask them, again, 8 you have to tell them exactly what you want, go through that whole nine yards again, or you 9 let us make a decision based on this and live with it . I for one, I don' t mind if you come 10 back. If you feel strongly about 19 feet, I don' t mind if you come back, but I think we've 11 gone through the discussion once already that what you wanted to do last month wasn' t going 12 to fly, and you came and you compromised. I think that trying to come back again, I think 13 you may have a problem with that . So I think you' re going to have a really nice house . I 14 think Mr. Notaro did a really wonderful job on explaining what it' s going to be . I just want 15 you to be clear that it' s not the Board that' s really fed up with it . It' s just we can' t 16 make a decision based on that . We have to listen to what the Building Inspector says . 17 He' s the one that tells us what the code is . Thank you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 19 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 21 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 22 moved. ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Mr. Gordon, who wishes to put an 24 accessory apartment onto his house . Mr. Gordon? 25 MR. GORDON: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you February 26, 2004 29 1 2 today? Give your name and address, please . MR. GORDON: Joseph Gordon, 485 3 Gardiners Lane, Southold. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like 4 to tell us what you want to do? MR. NEWMAN: 485 Gardiners Lane, 5 Southold. We want to put an addition on his home for myself and my wife to live . 6 MR. GORDON: My grandson. MR. NEWMAN: Grandson. It' s just 7 an accessory apartment on his house, right there. There' s a couple setback problems, or 8 whatever, on the front . I didn' t bring the plans with me . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You also have problems, it' s a second dwelling unit on top 10 of a garage, which is not permitted. MR. NEWMAN: Why not? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' re less than 40 feet from the frontline, which I know 12 already. MR. NEWMAN: From the 38 feet from 13 the property line, I'm 50 feet from the street . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm a 15 little confused by the notice of disapproval in that I always thought that you were allowed 16 to have an accessory apartment . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the house 17 but not above the garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks 18 like it' s attached. MR. NEWMAN: The garage is 19 attached to the house . I understand what you' re saying but there' s fifty million houses 20 down the road that have structures over the garage . I don' t understand that . 21 MS . KOWALSKI : I think I can explain what happened on the disapproval by 22 the Building Inspector. When they applied, they applied to the Building Department 23 knowing they needed a variance, so they applied for an apartment, and it was denied on 24 that basis but when they applied to us, they were not aware that there' s a special 25 exception procedure for accessory apartments also. So that' s why they filed both, and the February 26 , 2004 30 1 2 Building Department does not usually address the special exceptions of the code . So that' s 3 why they' re both there and they left it up to the Board to decide . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I just could see, it sounded to me you were 5 building an apartment above the garage . You' re not . You' re building an apartment in 6 the house . It' s adjoined. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s an 7 apartment . It just happens to have a garage underneath it . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s neither here nor there . Our code doesn' t 9 address that . So you know that part of the notice of disapproval we don' t need to 10 address, I think BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. He 11 has applied -- may I speak, Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have applied for an accessory apartment, a special 13 exception directly to us . Now, I was a little confused too, because the notice of 14 disapproval -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is confusing. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- is confusing, but you have gone ahead and applied 16 for an accessory apartment to us and filled out all the applicable information. So I' d 17 just like to go through a couple of basic things on the size of the accessory apartment 18 with you if that' s okay. MR. NEWMAN: Go ahead. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can you give me the size of the accessory apartment? 20 MR. NEWMAN: 1, 181 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 1, 181 21 square feet? MR. NEWMAN: Uh-huh. 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the size of the existing dwelling? 23 MR. NEWMAN: 2 , 480 , total square foot of 3 , 661 . 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Total square footage of 3 , 661 combined. 25 MR. GORDON: With the garage it' s 27 . 5 percent . February 26 , 2004 31 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm going through the criteria and it just has accessory 3 apartment shall not be 40 percent of the livable floor area of the existing dwelling. 4 So that' s what I'm looking at . MR. NEWMAN: 32 percent . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What' s the percentage? 6 MR. NEWMAN: 32 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Parking, 7 exterior parking for the accessory apartment . MR. NEWMAN: Existing garage and 8 existing driveway that' s there . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In looking 9 at the parking is there sufficient room to park without backing into the road? 10 MS . KOWALSKI : You need an area for three cars . How big is the garage, one 11 car or two cars? MR. NEWMAN: It' s two now. I'm 12 putting a third in. It' s going above that . It' s getting setback four feet, as you can see 13 on the plans . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do we have 14 sufficient area so that we' re not going to be parking? 15 MR. NEWMAN: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And you 16 would have no objections to a condition on the special exception that there be no backing out 17 of cars from the accessory apartment into the road? 18 MR. NEWMAN: Yes . MR. GORDON: Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The existing building, it was created prior to 20 1984; it was built prior to 1984 , sir? MR. GORDON: 1971 . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And we have a CO that indicates that it was? 22 MR. GORDON: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think 23 I've covered all the questions that I have, and thank you very much. 24 MR. GORDON: I hope I gave you all the answers . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think you did. February 26, 2004 32 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: To follow 3 up a little bit with Board Member Tortora, the driveway will be as wide as the three car 4 garage then? MR. NEWMAN: Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Plenty of room. The other question, the lot behind you 6 on the east side, is that owned by a family member or -- 7 MR. GORDON: It' s a vacant lot . No, no family member owns that . 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Would there be a problem putting a condition in our 9 decision about no outside rentals outside your family? 10 MR. NEWMAN: Oh, definitely. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would 11 object to that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Renting 12 outside immediate family? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would 13 object to that . MR. GORDON: I object to that . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They didn' t have a problem with it . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, the problem with it is that the Town says you can 16 have an accessory apartment, why are you restricting them to just family when everybody 17 else in the town can have someone else living in there? Our accessory apartment law doesn' t 18 say it has to be a relative . It just says you have to meet a certain criteria, you can have 19 an accessory apartment . You can rent it to anybody you choose . Why would we restrict 20 these gentlemen to that? What are they doing that' s so egregious that we have to restrict 21 them to just family members? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It was my 22 opinion to the applicant . MR. NEWMAN: I'm not going 23 anywhere any time because real estate' s ridiculous around here, so don' t worry. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm sorry? MR. NEWMAN: I said, I'm not going 25 anywhere anytime soon, so you don' t have to worry about that . The real estate here is February 26, 2004 33 1 2 ridiculous . MS . KOWALSKI : What would happen 3 to the apartment after you left? MR. NEWMAN: If I die tomorrow, 4 then he' s going to have to deal with it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not getting in the middle of this, and I have no 6 comment . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Like I said, I don' t think the applicant does not 8 have to certify this by having that restriction on it . I think he should not 9 agree with it . No one in the town has to agree with that . 10 MR. GORDON: Then I don' t agree with it . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then my statement on this, my notes on this, you 12 wouldn' t even be before us if you had built the house the other way. 13 MR. NEWMAN: If it was twisted a little bit, it was fine . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Way back then who thought that kids couldn' t afford to 15 live here . MR. GORDON: That' s exactly the 16 situation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I offer 17 that as part of the explanation as to the reason why you' re doing it . And I wish you 18 luck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, 19 Mr. Dinizio, if it was an accessory apartment, it would still have to come before us . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not worried about them coming before us, I'm 21 worried about you restricting them more than you restrict anyone else . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand your point . I' d like to make a motion closing 23 the hearing and reserving decision until later. 24 MR. NEWMAN: How much later? MR. GORDON: Excuse me, if it' s at 25 all possible, could you please act on this today? The reason I'm saying this is it' s February 26 , 2004 34 1 2 been eight months, and we have a three month old baby living in my house . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, we are having a meeting a week from today and you' ll 4 have your decision then. MS . KOWALSKI : Verbally. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At least verbally, we' re moving very quickly these 6 days . It will be written up as soon as possible . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 8 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll take a short recess now. 10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 12 hearing is for Mr. Cornwell, on West Cove Road. I believe Mr. Strang is here for us for 13 a single side yard setback of 9 . 5 feet; is there proposed or existing? 14 MR. STRANG: I 'm sorry, I missed your question. Would you mind repeating it? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That 9 . 5 setback, is that existing or that it will be 16 proposed? MR. STRANG: The 9 . 5 setback is 17 existing to the retaining wall . It is our intention to build this addition on top of the 18 existing retaining wall . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So then you' re 19 not really increasing the degree of nonconformity -- 20 MR. STRANG: No, with the exception -- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- of going up? MR. STRANG: -- of going vertical, 22 yes, which years ago we wouldn' t be before you but now we are . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. We did have a letter from Mr. Slattery asking us to 24 postpone this hearing until June because he is in Florida, I believe . 25 MR. STRANG: I am aware of that letter. I have had several conversations with February 26 , 2004 35 1 2 Mr. Slattery trying to enlighten him as to the nature of what we' re proposing to do there and 3 the minimal scope of it . I sent him a copy of the drawing that you have in addition to the 4 site plan. He also has the very rudimentary, three dimensional overview on the photograph, 5 so that he can see again that we' re not doing some sort of monstrous addition here . It' s 6 something very small scale . I can appreciate his concerns of not being able to see it 7 firsthand because he' s in Florida at the time, but I also look at it from the point of view 8 that what we' re proposing is quite minimal as far as the encroachment, we' re building over 9 the existing retaining wall, not getting any closer than that . The side of the house that 10 it -- the side of his house that is being impacted is a garage, which is approximately 11 28, 30 feet off the property line because he' s got a side-loaded garage . So he has a 12 driveway area and he backs out into Lee . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not 13 against his house? MR. STRANG: It' s not against his 14 house . There' s a stockade fence that exists . It' s been there for some time . There' s also 15 heavy vegetation that' s established, that' s going to remain. In fact, if we were to take 16 that retaining wall out, it might compromise that vegetation. So we don' t want to do that . 17 So that' s a reason we want to build right up on top of what' s there . So, again, I can 18 appreciate what he says, and we made every effort, and my client has spoken with him also 19 to tray and allay any concerns with respect to this, and I think putting it off to June is 20 quite a hardship to my client . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did 21 Mr. Slattery seem agreeable in your discussions with him for the 9 . 5 and what you 22 proposed to do? MR. STRANG: His only comment to 23 me that I had is well, I can' t visualize this, I' d really like to come out and walk it and 24 see it firsthand. He didn' t say he' d object to it or that he' d be in favor of it . He just 25 wanted to see it firsthand. Again, I did try to make it perfectly clear that, he is February 26, 2004 36 1 2 familiar I believe with the property and he knows the existence of the retaining wall, and 3 I tried to explain to him that we' re not getting any closer than that existing 4 retaining wall and that we' re only going up one story on that in a relatively small area, 5 so that the peak of the addition isn' t even as high as the peak of the main house, which is 6 quite clearly depicted on that little -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Schematic that 7 you gave us . MR. STRANG: Exactly. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There was a significant amount of snow over there 10 when I was over, but I don' t actually see any problem with the application. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My quick 12 question, I did some pacing while I was there, the hole, we' ll call it the void, which is 13 down to grade, the first level, or the basement, that' s the void you' re filling, 14 correct? MR. STRANG: We' re not going to 15 fill it . That is going to be a basement . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Filling to 16 create a living space in that area? MR. STRANG: That will become a 17 basement area, which they plan to use for storage . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : There' s a concrete retaining wall in there, and that' s 19 where the foundation, we' ll call it -- MR. STRANG: That will be the 20 foundation. Except we' re only going to come out -- bear with me a moment while I look at 21 the plan to refresh my recollection. We' ll come out into that area by 14 and-a-half feet . 22 That retaining wall does extend toward the bay further than that, but with the actual 23 structure, we' re coming out 14 feet, and then we' re putting a deck, which is open, 24 unenclosed, just a deck with a rail . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 25 problem with this, but, Madam Chairman, I think you may want to at least give that February 26, 2004 37 1 2 gentleman a right to come and speak before we close the hearing. 3 MS . KOWALSKI : He can' t be here before June . He left no telephone number. We 4 tried to contact him. MR. STRANG: I do have . a number 5 for him. If the Board were to entertain holding the hearing open, my client did speak 6 with his neighbor, Mr. Slattery, as recently as yesterday afternoon. And Mr. Slattery did 7 indicate that he may be up sooner than June, so, if you were to -- although we prefer you 8 didn' t -- if you were to keep this open, we' d ask that maybe you could put it on the April 9 calendar, and we' d see if that would work for Mr. Slattery. Because, again, we' re trying 10 not to have this delayed unnecessarily. Again, my client would prefer to have this 11 action taken at this time on this, given the fact that we believe it' s a minimal situation, 12 and it shouldn' t have any impact at all on Mr. Slattery, given the nature of his offset 13 and his garage . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t 14 have any particular problem. I don' t see any concerns . I don' t know what his concerns may 15 be . MR. STRANG: He seemed to make 16 reference to landscaping in his letter which we' re not touching or disturbing. He hasn' t 17 been clear with me what his concerns are other than the fact that he can' t physically stand 18 there and say, oh, now I see what you' re doing. I thought the diagram was relatively 19 clear, the minimal aspect of what we were proposing, but -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Slattery said you didn' t provide him with elevations or 21 a landscape plan. So I continue to feel disadvantaged in terms of my ability to 22 visualize the impact of this addition. MR. STRANG: I did give him the 23 diagram that you have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which was 24 helpful . MS . KOWALSKI : Was there a height 25 to the top of the ridge? MR. STRANG: There probably wasn' t February 26 , 2004 38 1 2 a calculated height to that . It' s not as high as the ridge . What did I say, the building' s 3 14 feet, it' s at worse case, it would be -- I'm just trying to mentally calculate that 4 real quick -- the building were 9 feet above grade, plus the roof, which would be at worst 5 case another 7, so 16 feet . MS . KOWALSKI : He' s trying to 6 visualize that so I can explain that to him on the phone when we call him. Sixteen feet from 7 the ground? MR. STRANG: From the existing 8 front grade, of course the grade slopes as it goes to the bay. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam Chair. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora first . 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would like to make a suggestion. I would suggest 12 that the Board write Mr. Slattery a certified letter, sending him a complete packet of this 13 and advising him that, while we understand that he is physically in Florida, we cannot 14 leave the hearing open indefinitely, and that a reasonable time for him to make comments or 15 be present at the hearing, and give him until April as suggested. But I don' t think it is 16 reasonable to hold this until June . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But I would make sure that the packet and information is 18 sent certified. As to whether Mr. Slattery said this or that, it' s all hearsay. So he 19 has to either appear ,here or put his comments in writing because anything else is hearsay 20 about what he said to who, and then that would include yourself, your client, and our Board. 21 MR. STRANG: I appreciate your position on that . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 23 going to suggest something quicker than that, do a telephone call . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be better to have a paper trail . And I think 25 Mrs . Tortora is correct and he would have the ability to write back and we would have his February 26, 2004 39 1 2 answer in writing. MR. STRANG: Can we move it until 3 the March then, give him until the March hearing to respond? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It wouldn' t be enough time . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We' re trying to protect your interest as well as 6 protect the Board' s interest . We are obligated to entertain, and should entertain 7 the concerns of the community. On the other hand, it can' t just be an open door 8 MR. STRANG: I understand and I appreciate your considering that . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, are you agreeable? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it' s reasonable to give him another month, but 11 I think we should be prepared to give this man an answer that day. I have some questions, 12 because I'm unclear. I went to this piece of property and I still can' t quite figure out 13 why you' re here . MR. STRANG: Okay. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at your survey, and I see that it' s a proposed 15 two-story addition. Now, are you extending the corner of that house? I mean, are you 16 extending, or are you building up above that second -- I don' t quite -- 17 MR. STRANG: Okay. The reason is it says two story is by definition the fact 18 that there is a lower level, if you will, which is the patio down below, the retaining 19 wall encloses, is open to grade, is accessible from the lower grade . It would be by 20 definition considered a story. Then, we' re putting on top of the retaining wall that' s 21 there a one story, which the house is a cape, a Cape Cod design, so it' s the one story plus 22 the roof above it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm looking 23 at that picture . It doesn' t look like there' s a retaining wall there . 24 MR. STRANG: You can' t see it from the vantage point of that picture, but that 25 was the best picture I could use to depict the massing of the element that we' re adding. February 26 , 2004 40 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically you' re not adding, you' re not building onto 3 the house, you' re putting this over a patio. MR. STRANG: We' re putting it over 4 a patio that' s already there . The retaining wall -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Indentation of it, you' re just going up? 6 MR. STRANG: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s not 7 like you' re adding a second story to the house . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . MR. STRANG: No. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, I' d like to make a motion -- 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I finish, please? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. 12 So you got rejected basically for that reason, that you' re putting a structure on -- 13 MR. STRANG: On top of the retaining wall . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Your comment before about this pertaining to 15 something that' s changed recently -- MR. STRANG: Well, years ago the 16 established setback would have been grandfathered, but under recent interpretation 17 of the Zoning Board, anything that is built vertically above an established setback, above 18 the height of that requires a variance . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does a 19 patio necessarily establish a setback? MR. STRANG: Well, the retaining 20 wall is the structure, I believe, that would establish the setback. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The patio is a grade level and the patio is existing at 22 15 feet; is that correct? MR. STRANG: The patio is -- the 23 lower patio is existing at the lower grade . The retaining wall comes up to the forward, 24 the front grade and the retaining wall, in fact, creates a structure . It is by 25 definition a structure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re February 26, 2004 41 1 2 saying that that' s your established setback? MR. STRANG: I believe that it is 3 but the fact that the Building Department says that anything above that point would require a 4 variance is the reason we' re here . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask 5 you this question. You were definitely then, you were definitely -- there' s not a 6 nonconforming setback according to this notice of disapproval . This notice of disapproval 7 says you' re going to build a nonconforming. MR. STRANG: We' re going to 8 build on top of -- by the nature of the fact that we' re building on a conforming setback, 9 the fact that we' re building an addition to that or going vertical means that what we' re 10 adding is not conforming, and that' s what requires the variance . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm not getting that . I know you' re an architect . 12 But to me, you' re not increasing the degree of the nonconformity. You have an established 13 setback of 9 . 5 feet; am I correct? MR. STRANG: I'm not going to 14 debate that with you because I agree with you it' s an interpretation that' s come down in the 15 last few years . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : All I want 16 is, Garrett, is to get on the record. You can disagree with me, if you want, but I need to 17 be clear on this . You were sent to us because you' re going to put a second story on an 18 existing nonconforming setback? MR. STRANG: Well, we' re going to 19 put a one-story addition on an existing nonconforming setback. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : An established setback 9 and-a-half feet and the 21 degree of that nonconformity is what, what is it supposed to be, 15 feet, 10 feet? 22 MR. STRANG: 15 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So that' s 23 what, 30 percent degree of nonconformity; am I correct? 24 MR. STRANG: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How are 25 you increasing that? MR. STRANG: I'm not, other than February 26, 2004 42 1 2 the fact that we' re going vertical . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn' t 3 ask you that question. I said you have a side yard, how do you intend to increase that side 4 yard degree of nonconformity? MR. STRANG: I'm not . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Have you been denied for the height of this? In other 6 words, does this exceed 35 feet, which is what our code says you can have a building be, 7 principal structure? MR. STRANG: No, it does not . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you weren' t denied for height, but that' s the 9 nonconformity you' re here for, even though this notice of disapproval doesn' t say that . 10 MR. STRANG: The way the disapproval was interpreted by the Building 11 Department is because there was a preexisting nonconforming setback to the existing 12 structure, i . e . , the retaining wall, and we proposed to put an additional structure on top 13 of that vertically, that in their interpretation we are increasing the 14 nonconformity by building over that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. 15 Garrett; you' re a friend of mine, so I don' t want you to think that I am trying to hound 16 you, but I am trying to grapple with the fact that you are denied for a side yard setback, 17 the degree of that nonconformity is what it will be, yet you' re here before us, and I'm 18 not understanding that . You' re not the only applicant today that' s going to hear this 19 question, and by all means, I have absolutely no problem with what you intend to do here, 20 just the fact that I just can' t quite understand why you' re here and not down there 21 putting your finishing touching on this addition. 22 MR. STRANG: I've posed the same questions in the past, but, again, there has 23 been an interpretation made . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 24 interpretation was done by the Waltz decision and the Building Department going along with 25 that . Mr. Dinizio did not approve of that decision and that is why he is adding this February 26 , 2004 43 1 2 into the record, to prove his point again. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think 3 what I'm trying to do is get a decent notice of disapproval, one that tells me exactly why 4 the applicant is before us . I think if we ignore that we' re not doing the public any 5 justice, that' s what I think. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I will go down 6 and discuss that with Michael when he gets back on March lst . 7 MR. STRANG: Before the close, I just want to make a submittal to the Board, if 8 I may. We do have in our possession at this point in time, a copy of which I' ll give you, 9 is a determination of no jurisdiction from the Trustees and a permit from the DEC. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Great, okay. Otherwise -- 11 MS . KOWALSKI : In the future if you would give us seven sets, we would really 12 appreciate it . MR. STRANG: Okay, I will get 13 them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to 14 make a motion adjourning this hearing until. April 22nd at 9 : 30 a.m. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 16 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All opposed? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Strang. 18 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 19 hearing is for an as-built deck that was constructed by a pool that the Building 20 Department decided was a side yard, which they thought was the rear yard. Mr. Hinton, are 21 you here? MR. HINTON: Yes, good morning. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why don' t you give us your name and address? 23 MR. HINTON: John Hinton, 515 Horseview Drive, Cutchogue . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much, would you like to tell us what happened? 25 MR. HINTON: We had the okay for the pool . The pool was built in the back February 26 , 2004 44 1 2 yard, and I got paperwork to build the deck, and when we built the deck we were told later 3 on by the Town that the pool is now considered in the side yard. I have it coming out off 4 the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . I saw that now that you attached 6 it, just became a little gray area in the code. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No 8 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 11 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in 12 this room that would like to speak on behalf of this application? If not, I move to. close 13 the hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 15 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 16 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 17 hearing is Scott and Tuffy on Main Road in Cutchogue for a proposed addition less than 50 18 feet from the lot line . Yes . MS . TUFFY: I'm Sandra Tuffy. I'm 19 trying to put two additions onto my home, one on each side, and because of the house is 20 closer to the road than the current building codes allow, my additions, even though they -- 21 when you back them up to the back line of the house, are still -- and they' re setback from 22 the frontline of the house, they' re still closer than the 50 feet . And that' s why I was 23 disapproved by the Building Department in the first place . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the houses along the. road are not 50 feet from the 25 road? MS . TUFFY: One addition will be February 26 , 2004 45 1 2 49 feet from the road, and the other side it will be only 28 feet from the road because the 3 house is in two parts . I 've sent certified letters out to the neighbors . I got all the 4 return receipts back except one . It went to New York City, and I think it' s the Peconic 5 Bay Vineyards address, and I didn' t get that back today. But I have the other ones with me 6 today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Give them to 7 Linda. MS . TUFFY: Yes . I also have two 8 letters, one from each of the people I sent to saying that they have no objections, if they 9 need to respond in a letter. I didn' t make copies yet . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : Could you just enter the two names? 11 MS . TUFFY: One is from the Cutchogue Methodist Church, and the other is 12* from Starky Brothers Nursery, who is in the back. And I have the other of these, and I 13 didn' t make copies of these yet . MS . KOWALSKI : They will be in the 14 record. MS . TUFFY: Do you want me to 15 leave these here? MS . KOWALSKI : Unless you want to 16 take them into the office and have copies . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do 17 you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I 18 think the applicant is as confused as I am about the notice of disapproval . I don' t see 19 anywhere where your notice of disapproval pertains to your addition. You' re not 20 increasing it and you' re not adding any setbacks . 21 MS . TUFFY: Well, at the time they said they had to disapprove because it is 22 closer than 50 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But that' s 23 existing, and it' s always been there, and it' s quite a beautiful house actually, and our code 24 does make provisions for the fact that you can have that house there in that setback and you 25 could even add to that by putting an addition on the back, and we' re not policing anything February 26, 2004 46 1 2 anymore . I don' t know why you' re here, and in deference to you, I think that you should just 3 take what we give you, which is probably hopefully the whole thing, and I just 4 appreciate your not -- I don' t know how you could fight this, and I don' t know how we 5 could say no to you because there' s no reason why. 6 MS . TUFFY: That' s good news . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don' t have any questions . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want 9 to say, two nice little additions putting on the side, are very nice and should complement 10 the house . The reason why you' re here is that the current code requires a 50 foot setback, 11 even though you' re preexisting nonconforming, that' s the reason why you' re here . I don' t 12 have a problem with your nice little additions there . Good luck. 13 MS . TUFFY: I think it will be nice because it' s a very high house . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Also, I wanted to put on the record, they are single 15 story, correct? MS . TUFFY: Yes, both additions 16 are single story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Tuffy, the addition on the west side is the 18 one that will be 28 feet from the Main Road; is that correct, which is addition A? 19 MS . TUFFY: Right . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 20 other one will be 49 feet? MS . TUFFY: Yeah. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any questions . I think it' s a lovely house 22 and I wish you lots of luck with it . It' s a beautiful place . 23 MS . TUFFY: Thank you. MS . KOWALSKI : Did you want to 24 take these so you can get copies? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 25 anybody else in the audience that would like to comment on this application? If not I' d February 26, 2004 47 1 2 like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 4 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. Thank you very much for coming in. Next 6 Thursday we' ll make our decision and then after that we' ll have our decision in writing. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have a nice day. 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 9 hearing is for Mr. Skrezec, the interpretation for a landscaping business is permitted to 10 stockpile landscape materials as an accessory use without the need for a special exception, 11 or special exception for a contractor yard. An interpretation I should say at that point . 12 Mr. McCarthy? MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning, Tom 13 McCarthy, McCarthy Management, representing Mr. Skrezec . I have an affidavit of posting 14 I ' d like to give to you (handing) . I think the reason we' re in front 15 of you today is because of our code, and what we seem to see is some really very poorly 16 written language within the code specifically in this case within the LB District . A little 17 bit of history on the property, Mr. Skrezec purchased this site back in 2000 . The parcel 18 was split zoned. The area on Route 48 was R40, and the rear portion was towards the Long 19 Island Railroad, was Hamlet Business . He looked at this and said that this would be a 20 good spot for his landscaping business . At that point he went through all the appropriate 21 channels and approached the Town Board and was successful in getting a zone change to Limited 22 Business and Residential Office . The parcel is still one piece of property at this point . 23 He has not subdivided the Residential Office section off of the Limited Business section, 24 that you can see on your site plan, so it is again a split zone parcel, but the intention 25 will be to carve out what will be a conforming one acre lot in the RO Zone, and have that as February 26, 2004 48 1 2 a separate entity here . The funny part of the matter is 3 that going to the Town Board and asking for permission for limited business, we' re all 4 under the interpretation that he' s a permitted use within that LB zone . Just, I guess for 5 the record, the language within the code that we were looking at when he applied for limited 6 business is in the permitted uses, 100-81 A6, which at the bottom of the paragraph permits 7 landscape and other service businesses . However, going down to Section B Number 2 , it 8 speaks of contractor' s businesses or yards as a special exception use . And I don' t know 9 what litmus test the building inspector uses to determine what is a landscaping service 10 business and when does someone become a landscaping contractor. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: May I ask a question? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So I don' t 13 get too confused. Did the building inspector review this? Because I don' t have anything 14 from him. MR. MCCARTHY: He would not give 15 us anything. We' re presently in the Planning Board awaiting site plan approval . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For this? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, for this . 17 We' re with the Health Department, we' re with Suffolk County DPW, we' re with the 18 Planning Board for the approval for a 5 , 000 square foot building on this property. 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Why did you -- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because -- go ahead. 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Why are we here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . MR. MCCARTHY: We' d like to know. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Who sent you here? 24 MR. MCCARTHY: The Planning Department sent us here . The Building 25 Department has determined, although they would not give anything in writing, that we' re February 26 , 2004 49 1 2 similar to, I believe your other application of Reflecting Nature which was a landscaper in 3 an LB zone . We have not gotten anything in writing from them, and the Planning Board 4 would not proceed to set our final hearing for site plan approval until we got an 5 interpretation from your Board as to his use on this property. 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have had no request from the Planning Board or Building 7 Department for interpretation on this matter. We have had nothing from either the Building 8 Department or the Planning Board -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the use of this property 9 or as a permitted use is not permitted, period. So I personally fail to see where our 10 jurisdiction is without -- you' re here because somebody told you to be here . 11 MR. MCCARTHY: And they said it would not proceed with site plan. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have nothing in writing to substantiate what you' re 13 saying. I don' t question you. I 'm just saying, it' s like somebody walking in off the 14 street and saying well, Joe Schmo told me I had to come to you to get XYZ . 15 MR. MCCARTHY: We' re caught between planning and building. We've been 16 told that our application is akin to Reflecting Nature . 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman, I think that the Board has to 18 require a letter. If this is what the Planning Board wants, they've got to put that 19 in writing with us . I'm not willing to go any further with this until I see something from 20 them. MS . KOWALSKI : Excuse me, I don' t 21 know if you had spoken about this or not, but I understand you were sent here because there 22 was no outside stockpiling proposed. MR. MCCARTHY: There are two 23 issues, one is the use, and the second is stockpiling materials . 24 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s not what we were told. But it' s also my understanding 25 that Darrin Skrezec wanted to apply for a contractor' s yard to move his applications February 26, 2004 50 1 2 along quickly and get approvals from the planning office? 3 MR. MCCARTHY: That' s correct . MS . KOWALSKI : That' s why you' re 4 here. Which is the priority for you? MR. MCCARTHY: The second issue is 5 he has put on his site plan that he is stockpiling materials, a small amount of 6 materials that he uses in bins, be it mulch, be it topsoil, or whatever he needs within his 7 landscaping business, and that was listed as a special exception use within the code . 8 There' s been a lot of things that procedurally perhaps are not correct, but the Town engineer 9 came along and not the building inspector and said that we' re not allowed to have those 10 material storage bins within 20 feet of the property line, and declared them to be a 11 structure, although they are a movable, concrete piece of equipment, temporary walls 12 that he puts up in order to store his materials and keep them segregated from one 13 another. So we've been bouncing between the Building Department, Town engineer and the 14 Planning Board was unwilling to proceed without direction from your Board. And we' re 15 here kind of with our hat in our hands saying we' d really like to proceed with the Planning 16 Board. We've been in this process for a long time, and we' re looking for your intervention 17 either to give direction to the Building Department that the use is fine within the 18 zone and to address the issue of the stockpiling of materials . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. McCarthy, do you want to just ask us for an 20 interpretation of that saying that contractor' s yards, whether it means 21 landscaping contractors or what? MR. MCCARTHY: I would like to 22 know -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want 23 just a separate interpretation? MR. MCCARTHY: I would like to 24 have a special exception if that moves us along through the process . Actually, if we 25 could move forward with the special exception then address the code issues with the Building February 26 , 2004 51 1 2 Department and with the code committee and clean up some of the language that' s here, so 3 that other applicants don' t have to go through the same thing, I think the applicant would be 4 better served and anyone else coming down the line would be better served if we could clean 5 up the code language . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No one will 6 give this gentleman something in writing, so I think we need to start to put something in 7 writing so at least they can bounce something around. 8 MR. MCCARTHY: If you don' t want him in the LB Zone where do you want him? 9 Maybe in the Ag zone? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Personally 10 speaking, to be a contractor' s yard it can mean a landscaping, as long as you' re storing 11 materials and have it properly screened as Carpet Green has done down the road from 12 you. I just don' t see a big problem with this, frankly. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I said ask a question, Mr. McCarthy? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 15 a general question to both you and the Board. Is the Planning Board still meeting on 16 their Monday afternoon situations? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . But they 17 did not have a quorum this past Monday. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the 18 question is I think we should put this on and at least two members of this Board should go 19 along with Mr. McCarthy and find out exactly what they want . Then after we determine what 20 they want, then they can put it in writing to us, and then we can fully proceed with the 21 application. I've done that before . MS . KOWALSKI : We've asked the 22 Planning Board for a letter, and we didn' t get -- 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm very sympathetic to the application. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you are, but you just want something in writing. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But you' re here based on so and so told me this, so and February 26, 2004 52 1 2 so told me that, so and so told me this, and that' s not your fault . But now I think this 3 Board has to go back and demand that they put those concerns in writing. Otherwise, I'm 4 going to say you don' t have to be here, period. 5 MR. MCCARTHY: Can you say that in writing? 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think the proper thing to do is to write a letter to the 7 Planning Board, to the Town engineer, to the Building Department saying we have an 8 application that is before us pursuant to your request . Please confirm this . If you don' t 9 respond within 10 days, we will assume that this application is null and void. This is 10 nonsense . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I 11 speak? MR. MCCARTHY: It came as a 12 surprise to me that the Town engineer is reviewing the plans with regard to setbacks 13 and other things that are the Building Department and Planning Department' s purview. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why don' t we grant the guy the special exception and let 15 him be on his way. MR. MCCARTHY: We would love it . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree that, you know, he' s entitled to ask us for a 17 special exception. He doesn' t need any writing for anybody. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He wants an interpretation of the regulation. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Grant him the special exception. It' s allowed by the 20 special exception in that property; am I right, Tom? 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Landscape contractor is allowed by special exception, as 22 is the stockpiling of materials . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right now 23 we could do it . Just make a motion, give him his special exception. My feeling is, you 24 might have other problems, but that' s not our thing. You' re going to have to deal with 25 them, but at least then we say, this is what we want; this is what he' s asking for; let him February 26, 2004 53 1 2 have it . I see no reason why he shouldn' t have . I agree with you 100 percent, Ruth, the 3 Planning Board' s going to take care of the screening, and the things that are necessary 4 for this contractor' s yard. Why are we even arguing? Just give him the special exception, 5 if we need to do it in code committee, then some other time -- let' s have it some other 6 time . Let this applicant go on with his thing. I think that' s the way we should act, 7 and we can act, and we can do that soon. Then we don' t have to worry about what the Planning 8 Board says, or what they don' t say, because this is an application that he' s entitled to 9 make without any comment from any other board in this town. 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re entitled to make it, whether you have to make 11 it, that' s another story. That' s what my point is . 12 MR. MCCARTHY: It comes down to, there are several factors in here, not the 13 most important of which is timing, the Planning Board would not move forward to set 14 the public hearing for the final approval of his plan without this from the Building 15 Department, and I think it' s an administrative problem within the town and how things are 16 reviewed when you get the certification of your site plan, to be honest with you. And I 17 think that' s some of the things that code committee is looking at right now. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have a landscaping business, obviously, just like 19 Landings by the Sea, you have to stockpile some things in the back. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: Absolutely. We' re here asking for in an honest fashion 21 everything we' re looking to do. We' re not sitting here saying, look, we' re only looking 22 to put up a building and then we' re going to be doing other things later. We' re here, 23 everything on top of the table and Mr. Skrezec would like to get his approvals for exactly 24 what he intends to do on this piece of property. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is surrounded by a stone and gravel yard. February 26, 2004 54 1 2 MR. MCCARTHY: Railroad tracks . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And he' ll 3 probably screen it in there and probably make it look a heck of a lot nicer. 4 MR. MCCARTHY: It' s going to look nicer than it does now. But we've been 5 through the Architectural Review Board. We've consented to some of their suggestions 6 regarding the elevation of the building, and we have been everywhere except for the Town 7 Clerk' s office to get a permit for a dog run or something. We have been in every other 8 department in this town, and everybody' s had their little shot at us, and we' re just 9 looking to move forward and set a final public hearing and get a building permit . 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I also agree with Mr. Dinizio, if we could go do the 11 special exception, we could get the ball rolling. 12 MR. MCCARTHY: We would appreciate your help. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no objection to that . I have no objection to it . 14 I do feel that after we do that we should still fire off a letter in bold in the future 15 if they want to require an applicant to do something, they need to put that in writing to 16 us . MR. MCCARTHY: And I don' t know 17 why the Planning Board hasn' t responded to the Zoning Board' s requests for comments prior to 18 this public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, they just 19 asked us for our comments . MS . KOWALSKI : We sent them a 20 letter, and they came over and said, we would like another letter requesting comments . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d like to repeat that he did follow the rules . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s no question about it . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So even if the Planning Board just suggests that it 24 really doesn' t make too much difference in this case because he followed the law. He 25 applied for what he thought needed to be, and he' s right by a special exception he has the February 26, 2004 55 1 2 opportunity to use this property for his business, and if we just grant that I think 3 that move on down the road. Certainly you can have your disputes with the Building 4 Department and the Planning Board. They thought something. They may have legitimately 5 thought something. They thought maybe we can' t give you this, so they wanted some 6 clarification, but it' s not their responsibility to ask that . It' s his 7 responsibility. He has to convince them what he has is a good use there . I understand that 8 the Planning Board and Building Inspector, there' s a blur there, but I still think 9 prevalent in this town any board seems to be able to ask any question, whether they are 10 expertise in it anyway, and when that happens, even if they have the right to do so, what 11 happens is you have an applicant out here that' s spending money monthly, and all he 12 wants to do is get it over with. So I say let' s get this one over with. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 14 prepared to go through the special exception criteria that you' re looking for at this time, 15 or would you like to spend about twenty minutes reviewing it? 16 MR. MCCARTHY: I' d like to review my file on the application and I' d be happy to 17 come back in front of you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, do that . 18 All agreed? (Whereupon, all Board Members 19 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to 20 move that we will wait 20 minutes for Mr.. McCarthy to review. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 23 responded in favor. ) ------------------------------------------------- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mr. Sampieri, who' s down on 25 Bayberry Road in Cutchogue for an existing dwelling at less than 15 feet on single yard February 26 , 2004 56 1 2 setback. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Good morning, 3 Kevin McLoughlin, Winds Way Professional Center, Southold. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: How are you? I 5 would like to hand up seven copies of a letter I have prepared for the Board basically 6 outlining the application and the legal criteria for granting an area variance . Like 7 many of the people that apparently have appeared before the Board so far today, we are 8 here basically going. up a second story on an existing seven to eight foot side yard setback 9 on a property that requires a 15 foot side yard setback. We are also adding a very small 10 first floor addition also within setback at that same seven to eight foot as the existing 11 residence . So none of these structures that are proposed under our application will be 12 nearer to the property line than the existing one story dwelling currently is . I do have 13 with me -- I don' t want to spend a lot of time going over what' s contained in my letter, but 14 we do have both Mr. and Mrs . Sampieri here today and we also have representatives of Bush 15 Associates, they are the architect/engineering firm. They' re in charge of this project . But 16 basically what this is, we' re demolishing part of the first floor of the existing dwelling. 17 We' re putting a second floor on and some small first story additions . There is also a 18 currently existing shed with a concrete pad underneath it that is actually much closer to 19 the easterly neighbor' s property line than the house is, that will be removed as part of this 20 project . So, in fact the closest structure to that property line is going to be removed and 21 everything else is in line with existing buildings . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there . I don' t have any problem with it . Mr. 23 Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fortunately 24 Mr. McLoughlin, this is the only one I didn' t see out of the repertoire for February, but I 25 will be up on Saturday to look at it . So I don' t have any comments at this time . February 26 , 2004 57 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I walked 3 the property, I don' t have a particular problem, but you get the illusion that the 4 side yards aren' t as tight because of the major encroachments of your clients on the 5 east side of the property, you know, the fence. 6 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I'm not sure what you mean by encoachments, into the side yard 7 area? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Into the 8 side yards . They've kind of borrowed some property and cleared it and vegetated it on 9 the east side . It gives the illusion it' s a big side yard. 10 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: It' s approximately an eight foot setback from the 11 property line to the existing structure . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just 12 wanted to put .on the record that it gives the illusion of a larger side yard there because 13 they have a fence that runs perpendicular on the corner over into the neighbor' s side yard, 14 and it' s kind of cleared and maintained there . I was confused, I couldn' t find the seven feet 15 until I found the markers and paced it off, because the side yard looks probably close to 16 15 or 20 by the maintenance, but I just wanted to put that in there . 17 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: For the record, the distance between the closest point of my 18 client' s house and the neighboring house to the east is going to be almost 40 feet . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Right . But the gate on the east side is almost on the 20 property line, that' s what I was getting at . It' s an illusion right there . I don' t have 21 any particular problems with the additions . No other questions . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t 23 have any questions . The setback to the top of the bluff is what? 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: 61' 2 " I believe . We do have Town Trustees approval on this file 25 already. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was just February 26 , 2004 58 1 2 trying to see from the top of the bluff as far as our jurisdiction is concerned, I don' t see 3 that on here, but I guess it must meet it because it' s not indicated. Was that 4 indicated; do you know? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What was the 5 question again? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The 6 question is our jurisdiction was 100 feet to the top of the bluff . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is 61 . 2 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is the 8 proposed addition within that 100 foot or not? MS . KOWALSKI : That hasn' t been 9 addressed by the Building Department in their disapproval . 10 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: It' s just going straight up, it' s not any new. 11 MS . KOWALSKI : If it' s straight up, then it' s landward of the existing 12 footprint . MR. MCLOUGHLIN: We' re coming no 13 closer to the water. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. That 14 answers my question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . According to your notice of disapproval, you 16 were denied for a seven foot setback from the side yard; am I correct? 17 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You have an 18 existing seven foot setback, and they cited 100-242-A and I think B too or C, no? And 19 also 100-30-A-3 on your notice of disapproval? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That' s correct . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, what was the reason that they told you that you 21 couldn' t build, that you needed a variance? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: As in all 22 applications similar to these, their position of the Building Department is even if you are 23 not in any way reducing an existing side yard setback, if you go up on a second story, that 24 is considered grounds for denying and requiring an area variance, because they deem 25 it, I guess some kind of an additional encroachment on that required 15 foot setback, February 26 , 2004 59 1 2 even though the line has been established by previous structures . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you didn' t find that anywhere in the code, though? 4 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: I have never bothered to thoroughly search the code for it . 5 I know that up until fairly recently that was not the position of the Town and that you 6 could go up along an existing established setback, but it' s no longer the Town Building 7 Department' s position and that' s why we ended up here . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, could we just ask -- 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I 'm trying to find out the reason why this 10 gentleman' s here . I think I have the right to ask those questions . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to move this along. You have already stated your 12 objection to things like this . We could just say refer back. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. Ruth, we' re here for a hearing. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Before, 15 when you had this problem, wasn' t it just because they would just assume that if you had 16 seven feet that you could always have seven feet and going up didn' t make a difference 17 because going up wasn' t your nonconformity, your nonconformity was the seven feet, right? 18 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Historically that was true until fairly recently. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . So you don' t have a nonconforming height problem 20 here . You weren' t denied for height? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: No . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You were denied for a side yard setback of seven feet? 22 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you' re 23 not increasing the degree of that nonconformity, are you? 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Not in the least . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all 25 I have, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d also like February 26, 2004 60 1 2 to remark that Mr. Dinizio previously, when the Board enacted the Walz decision, voted 3 against it, and I guess on every application he is going to ask the applicant to explain 4 exactly what is the degree of nonconformance specifically. Thank you. 5 Does anybody in the audience like to comment? 6 MR. DOWNING: Good morning, I'm the neighbor to the west on Lot 119, Richard 7 Downing, at 1280 Bayberry Road. We have no problems with their proposals . I guess we' re 8 unusual . We' re asking to increase, if they could have a variance that extends further 9 down the property line to possibly allow them to move their garage, which is down at the 10 lower portion of the site, the northern part, which is going to take the removal of a number 11 of trees . It' s also where the migratory path of all the deer are . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, I ran across eight of them. 13 MR. DOWNING: Right . So we' re hoping maybe it would allow them where they 14 have the existing area, which is asphalt now possibly they could bring the property line 15 down so they could construct the garage on the property line, preserving the trees, 16 preserving the deer path, that' s our only concern. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Where was this, by the garage? 18 MR. DOWNING: Where the current proposed garage is trees, that' s where all the 19 deers move, and up where they have an existing asphalt parking lot, they have right now. 20 It' s almost right on the property line, and you know, possibly if we could extend the 21 variance that would allow them to construct their garage where there' s already the 22 existing asphalt area, we' re looking to preserve the trees, preserve the wildlife . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not before US . 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Legally speaking, that' s not part of the application before the 25 Zoning Board. We don' t need any variances to site the garage where we propose . It' s up February 26, 2004 61 1 2 near the front of the property near the road, setback, oh, I don' t know maybe 20 -- I mean 3 65 feet or so from the road. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 4 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: In fact, again, it' s not before this Board, but if we were to 5 move the garage to the east, we would actually have to end up taking out larger, more 6 substantial trees over there and the applicant does not wish to do that . But, again, it' s 7 really not an issue before this Board in any event because we don' t need a variance in 8 order to site the garage at the proposed location. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You two can discuss that in private . 10 MR. DOWNING: In order for them to construct the garage, we' d have to come back 11 here . If they wanted to put it right on the property line, they have to come back here for 12 another variance . MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If that' s what 13 they wanted to do, but that' s not what they want to do. They want to put it where they've 14 got it on the plan, and that doesn' t require any variances before this Board. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of 16 this hearing? If not, I' d like to close this 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: Opposed? So moved. 20 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next 21 hearing is Steven Pisacano, and he' s proposing additions and alterations at less than 40 feet 22 from lot line on County Route 48 in Cutchogue . You' re the one with the nice big hedge in 23 front . MR. PISACANO: Yes . Stephen 24 Pisacano, 16405 Route 48, Cutchogue . Like you said, I'm just trying to put an addition to 25 the west of the house, 12 feet, and I am too close to the North Road. Continuing the house February 26, 2004 62 1 2 line, no closer, I didn' t come any closer, I'm just going west . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That house has been there I 'm presuming for a long time . 4 MR. PISACANO: Probably than the North Road. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Definitely longer than the North Road. 6 MR. PISACANO: And I think they even chopped it off . Just if it means 7 anything or not, I actually tried to go out the back because I didn' t want -- I' d rather 8 be away from the North Road, but I couldn' t afford new stairs, it was like building a 9 whole other house instead of an addition. It was three times the cost, and I actually got 10 through the plans, and went through that cost and that trouble, so the only way to make 11 sense of any addition, you know, ' cause the kids got bigger, 14 and 12, it' s the only way 12 to do it . When Penny Lumber did draw the plans, they didn' t know. They weren' t even 13 aware that they drew the plans wrong. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm going to ask you the same questions I've been asking 15 every applicant . It' s not you, Steve, it' s the way that this is being handled. You have 16 a degree of nonconformity, that' s 26 feet . That exists there; that' s what our Town 17 code says you can have that as that house is built . I want you to tell me how you' re going 18 to increase that 26 feet . MR. PISACANO: I'm not . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going to? 20 MR. PISACANO: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not 21 going to be 25 feet, right, it' s going to be 26 feet? 22 MR. PISACANO : That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the 23 way it was and that' s the way it' s going to be . You' re not going to increase that . So 24 that' s all I have to ask you. The house is just basically going to be extended. 25 MR. PISACANO: And what I learned earlier from what you said to somebody about a February 26, 2004 63 1 2 patio, there is a patio that continues west also, it' s just a slab but if that matters . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s no vertical retaining wall . 4 MR. PISACANO: So that one had it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yours is at 5 grade, different application. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to 6 be sure you' re not going to increase that 26 feet . 7 MR. PISACANO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any questions . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I have no 10 particular problem. This will be a one and-a-half to match the existing one 11 and-a-half? MR. PISACANO: Yes, same ridge, 12 same . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to do this decision but it' s my understanding 14 that the ridge line of the existing house will be the same as this addition or will it be 15 lower or higher? MR. PISACANO: I think it' s the 16 same . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same? 17 MR. PISACANO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you 18 see any change in that would you let us know? MR. PISACANO : Okay. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 20 comment on this application? If not, I' d like to close the hearing and reserve decision 21 until later. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 23 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 24 moved. Good luck. ------------------------------------------------- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Mr. Licalzi for a pool February 26, 2004 64 1 2 house that is shown as a barbecue pit and a swimming- pool . 3 MR. LICALZI : Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you 4 this morning? MR. LICALZI : Fine, thank you. 5 I'm Luke Licalzi at 2105 Calves Neck Road. I guess this application has two parts . The 6 first part started with the pool setback and I' d like to handle it with two separate, when 7 we discuss it here . I' ll give you a little history. We purchased the property in 1996 . 8 In 1998 we did a lot of construction. We remodeled the primary residence . We 9 constructed the pool, and we also remodeled the pool house . Now, in 1999, I was issued a 10 CO. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For what, sir? 11 MR. LICALZI : As it turns out it was for the permit for the primary residence . 12 The pool was constructed by a pool contractor, and it had a separate permit application with 13 a separate number. When I received the C of 0 in February of ' 99, I didn' t even look at it 14 twice . I received the CO, I 've never gotten two COs for a property I ever owned, I assumed 15 it was for the entire job tha-t had been done . In fact, when the building inspector had 16 inspected the property for the C of 0, the pool was completely constructed, it was 17 fenced; it wasn' t landscaped because it was February, but even the remodeling job had been 18 completed. Everything had been completed in the late fall of 1998 . So I didn' t think 19 twice about it until I received a letter from the Building Department about three years 20 later asking me if I wanted to renew my permit for building my pool . I didn' t know what that 21 was all about but I investigated it, and I found out my building contractor, apparently 22 had applied for the C of 0 for his permit and I guess the pool contractor had never done 23 that . In any event, then I had to have them come back and they inspected the property. 24 There was a little bit of a delay because the latches on the fence that surrounds the pool 25 were not in compliance, and it took me about almost a year to get the fence company, which February 26, 2004 65 1 2 is in Ridge, to come and change the latches . I had to finally threaten them before they 3 would do that effectively. And then, of course, I had the survey, which showed that 4 the one corner of the pool was 49 feet from the road -- from the property line that abuts 5 the road. And that' s why this began with the Zoning Board appeal for the variance . 6 The pool contractor had used a survey which was done in 1996 by a 7 Mr. VanTyle, and that was a survey that was arranged by the seller, and that was in 8 preparation for the sale and it was also in preparation for the pre C of O which was given 9 to the seller, which was given in 1996 and that' s germane too because it comes up about 10 this pool house . The pool contractor used that survey to measure, and I think I 11 indicated in some of the things I gave you, 52 feet he had measured and staked from the 12 property line . Then when it was remeasured by a new surveyor Mr. Ingegno in 2000 , and that 13 survey actually was done because we had to do some revetment work down by the waterfront, it 14 measured 49 feet, and that' s why we' re here today. 15 I supplied some photographs of that corner of the pool that' s the 49 feet 16 between that and the road. It' s heavily landscaped, even in winter you can' t see the 17 pool from the road. And that' s pretty much the story behind the pool . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the pool house? 19 MR. LICALZI : All right . The pool house is I think interesting in that that was 20 amended to this application a couple weeks ago, in February. Now, the Building 21 Department inspectors have been at that house numerous times over the course of the 22 construction, the remodeling, the pool, and the reason it was added to this is when 23 somebody looked at the survey as was told, previously where there' s a pool house now on 24 the previous survey it said barbecue, and in addition, on the pre C of O it says barbecue 25 with shed. That pre C of O, I don' t look at that . I got that at the sale of the house and February 26 , 2004 66 1 2 filed it away, never looked at it again, never looked at it twice . In fact, the information 3 that I provided to you, that structure, the exact footprint, that structure' s been there 4 since 1946 . The original owner of that property, the single owner of that property 5 prior to the time we purchased it, that was the first structure he built on the property. 6 He was an avid sailor, so he built himself a structure that had cabinets and a sink. It 7 had a bathroom, half a bath, and he had built a brick fireplace, a barbecue, which was on 8 one wall on the exterior, so he could barbecue and he had his picnic table out there . So it 9 had plumbing, it had a bathroom and it' s been there for many, many years . When we remodeled 10 the property in 198, the contractor discussed it with the Building Department who said, we 11 don' t care what you do with the place as long as you don' t make it bigger, as long as nobody 12 can sleep in there, and as long as you don' t put in heat . So what we did was, as I 13 indicated in the letter, is that we remodeled it, but we kept the entire -- as you walk in 14 there' s a knotty pine kitchenette . There' s no appliances in there . There' s a sink. We 15 remodeled the bathroom, which was very old, and made a changing room. We left the roof . 16 We left all the original doors . We remodeled the closet because we use that for storage and 17 there' s also the electrical boxes in there . I also indicated that I sent some information 18 from when we purchased the house, a description from the realtor about what was 19 there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I saw 20 that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Most of 21 what you' re saying we have before us in the record. Is there anything that we do not 22 have? MR. LICALZI : I have some 23 photographs, if you' re interested in them. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Certainly. 24 MR. LICALZI : Just to show you what was there . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Licalzi, have you gone to the Building Department to February 26 , 2004 67 1 2 have at least a pre CO of that shed, which is now the half bath and the plumbing and that, 3 because that' s something I think you would need. 4 MR. LICALZI : It was preexisting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you need a 5 pre C of 0. Because on that old survey all we see is a barbecue pit . 6 MR. LICALZI : Yes . But the Building Department will take all this 7 information, and they would issue me a pre C of 0 based on the information I can provide . 8 You see, the problem with this is Number 1, the Building Department never brought this up 9 because they have had these surveys; they have been at the property; they never questioned 10 this structure . This only came up after the survey was reviewed here because the surveyor 11 labeled it pool house . It' s only labeled pool house because we have a pool . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you still have to go back to the Building 13 Department . We can' t certify that it has a CO or is proper unless we have something from the 14 Building Department . MR. LICALZI : But I'm showing you 15 that it' s preexisting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To show that it 16 was preexisting? MR. LICALZI : They can make that 17 determination. It was my understanding, I spoke to Damon, he said that they could not 18 make that, that I had to present it here that it was preexisting. 19 MS . KOWALSKI : If you apply to them for a pre CO and they deny you, then you 20 can apply here separately. You haven' t gone that far. 21 MR. LICALZI : Okay, so can we leave this with the setback on the pool then, 22 okay? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You may have to 23 come back again, but sure . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then he' s 24 going to have to make a whole new application. MR. LICALZI : That was the reason 25 we added this on. I sent in another $150 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is February 26 , 2004 68 1 2 what I suggest you do, does it fall within the limitations of the advertising? 3 MS . KOWALSKI : No, it' s not properly before the Board on the preexisting 4 nature of the building. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then we 5 don' t have a choice . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why 6 don' t we just hold it up and add to it . MR. LICALZI : I indicated that in 7 my letter to the neighbors, my discussions, it' s indicated to them that, I mean, they' re 8 all aware of it obviously but this is part of the application. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t believe the Zoning Board can say it' s preexisting. It' s 10 up to the Building Department to do that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we delay 11 you until say the April meeting? Do we have any room in March? Maybe he can do it by 12 March. MS . KOWALSKI : It will be more 13 than that . MR. LICALZI : Can we just separate 14 out the two separate checks? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then it means 15 you just have to come back before us and pay again; do you want to do that? 16 MR. LICALZI : It' s difficult for me to take another day to do this . 17 MS . KOWALSKI : I would recommend that they rule on the pool, if they want, to 18 do that, but do the pool house separately, come back in March or April . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . Can I say something? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think 21 you' d be better off just marching down there today and getting an amended disapproval, and 22 letting us put you on for the next month. Because if you don' t, and we grant this, then 23 you've got to go through this process all over again. You could be June . It' s up to you, 24 but -- MS . KOWALSKI : Part of the problem 25 is it' s amended for setback, Jim, but it hasn' t been reviewed for the design of it with February 26, 2004 69 1 2 the bathroom and everything. So it may be here for another issue which would be the 3 design from the living area, and they haven' t addressed that . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see this as built survey has been added on to. 5 MS . KOWALSKI : Yes, for the location of it . 6 MR. LICALZI : If you remodel, you don' t need permission to remodel something if 7 you' re not going to change the footprint . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If depends 8 on what you' re putting in there, if you' re putting in a fireplace, three bedrooms and two 9 baths, then they' re going to say it' s not a pool house . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it two stories . 11 MR. LICALZI : Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:, I think we 12 have the information to give him what he needs . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the pool . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Even for 14 the structures . MS . KOWALSKI : But he' s saying 15 he' s preexisting, and the Building Department gave a letter explaining why it' s not 16 preexisting. MR. LICALZI : I gave you an 17 explanation of why that' s incorrect . It' s incorrect for a couple of reasons . 18 MS . KOWALSKI : He' s not asking for a variance . He' s asking the Board to issue a 19 pre CO. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can' t do 20 that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, to 21 acquiesce that it exists and it has existed, basically, which is exactly what we' re going 22 to say. But, Doctor, we really do have to inspect that building. I mean, we have to 23 make an appointment with you regardless of whenever we do this, to at least go through 24 the building, and it' s not that we in any way object to it . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Object to it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I've February 26, 2004 70 1 2 already looked at it, Jerry, through the windows when I visited the site, and there are 3 appliances in. There' s a refrigerator, I think that classifies as an appliance, and 4 there' s a shower. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And there' s 5 the Building Department is saying that it' s not a pool house, that it was a cottage, 6 that' s what they' re essentially saying. MR. LICALZI : But I can argue this 7 in front of the Building Department; they have a mechanism where I can argue that it was 8 preexisting even though the pre C of O says it wasn' t and they' re in error, obviously. 9 That' s the problem here, is that the inspection for the pre C of O is not adequate . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s what I'm saying, it' s not before the Board before those 11 issues . They haven' t denied it for that reason and you need to get a denial from them 12 saying why they can' t issue a, pre CO. They haven' t done that yet . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think according to this they have, Linda. I haven' t 14 seen that one . MS . KOWALSKI : But they haven' t 15 given the section of the code that they are basing that on. They only denied it for the 16 location and the side yard. They didn' t deny the use . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn' t deny the use . Linda' s right . 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, this article, which is not submitted, 19 100-33 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does not 20 meet the front yard setbacks, three buildings and structures . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think the problem is he' s asking us for the use . 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : With the amenities in that building, you have basically 23 three dwellings on that property. You have a shower, a bathroom, a refrigerator, a little 24 kitchenette . MR. LICALZI : There was electric 25 in there previously. There was a bathroom in there previously, there is a toilet in there February 26 , 2004 71 1 2 previously, . the kitchenette was in there previously. There' s nothing new in there . 3 The only thing we remodeled is the bathroom. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is there a 4 plan before the building inspector on that? MS . 'KOWALSKI : No, not for the 5 design of it . MR. LICALZI : What do you mean? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : At some point in time, did someone apply for a 7 building permit to build that structure? MR. LICALZI : No. It was 1946 , 8 the photograph, that' s when it was built . I have a picture of the bathroom, the original 9 bathroom from the structure . The original toilet I have a picture of . I was faced with 10 a structure that existed that we decided to place the pool in a certain location, and this 11 was a natural structure to remodel . It already had a bathroom in it . It already had 12 electricity. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It almost 13 made a dwelling it could be interpreted as . MR. LICALZI : There' s no place to 14 sleep and there' s no heat in there . That was the comment the Building Department had at the 15 time . We didn' t need to do any special -- we didn' t need to get a permit . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What did you put, new siding? 17 MR. LICALZI : We put new siding and a couple of new windows, the little 18 windows the contractor had left over in his garage. We preserved a door, which is a dutch 19 door. We preserved the door which goes to the closet, which used to be the door to the 20 bathroom, and we store our pool stuff in there, and has the transfer box. But the 21 footprint is exactly the same . See, that' s why, I mean, the Building Department didn' t 22 really question this . MS . KOWALSKI : But they' re 23 questioning it now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re 24 questioning it now, and you' re just going to have to go back and show them the plan that 25 you have the bathroom in there and whatever amenities you have, and if they deny it, February 26 , 2004 72 1 2 you' ll have to come back to us . Legally speaking, that' s all we can do . We have no 3 authority at this point to grant a pre CO to your pool house . They' re the only ones that 4 can grant that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But we can 5 address the pool today. MR. LICALZI : That would be fine . 6 I' d appreciate that . That would be great . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you 7 have any trouble with the setback of the pool? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, one 8 foot . But I still am a little confused about why we can' t address that building. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Linda says you cannot do it because of the use, and it says 10 the as-built pool house . MS . KOWALSKI : It hasn' t been 11 denied under the code section for the use of the building; it was denied for the setback 12 location, 100-33 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The 13 building was . I thought it was the pool . MS . KOWALSKI : The pool house . 14 The pool' s okay to go ahead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The pool house 15 you can' t do it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 16 building did preexist . MS . KOWALSKI : We don' t know that . 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We don' t have documents . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It only says the old survey is a barbecue pit and a shed, 19 and it says it on the property card, but it' s not as a pool house that has a bathroom, a 20 shower and whatever else it has in it . MS . KOWALSKI : And I also did not 21 advertise to say that the Board is considering the issue of whether or not this building is 22 preexisting, so I' d like to be able to advertise it properly. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn' t see that second, that updated -- I mean, I'm 24 dealing with just the pool . So this is all new to me . 25 MR. LICALZI : But the Building Department can make that determination? If February 26, 2004 73 1 2 they say that they can' t, and it comes back here, are you going to base it on the same 3 information I provided today? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . You' re 4 going to provide them with information to make the decision. They' re going to ask you for 5 this, they' re going to ask you for that, titles, surveys, all this stuff . Then they' re 6 going to say, either it preexisted and you don' t need it, or they' re going to disapprove 7 it, and you' re going to be before us with their explanation as to the reason why it' s 8 not allowed in the town. You have to make an application to them. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Do I have a motion to close the hearing and reserve 10 decision until later for the pool? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll be making 12 that determination in a week. Then you' ll have to go back to the Building Department . 13 All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 14 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So 15 moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 16 to tell you, Doctor, it is a magnificent location. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think -- what would be a convenient time for you to 18 come back, March or April, for the Building Department? 19 MR. LICALZI : Can I let you know? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have to 20 wait for the Building Department . MR. LICALZI : Maybe they will say 21 it' s no problem. ------------------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. McCarthy? MR. MCCARTHY: I'm happy to speak 23 to the special exception criteria that you need to address . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you start that, this is my file . We are 25 only -- this is everybody, we are only discussing the special exception, and that is February 26 , 2004 74 1 2 the only thing that this Board will be granting when we have a special meeting; is 3 that correct? MS . KOWALSKI : This is on the 4 Skrezec hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that 5 correct everybody? (Whereupon, all Board Members 6 responded in favor. ) BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The floor 7 is yours . MR. MCCARTHY: I understand 8 there' s been new correspondence from the Planning Department, but they would not make 9 that available to us . MS . KOWALSKI : They gave a letter 10 and they came back in and took it back. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you 11 make a copy quick? MS . KOWALSKI : I tried and the 12 machine was jammed. MR. MCCARTHY: I went to try and 13 get records out of the Planning Board this morning, and they told me I had to file a FOIL 14 request . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On your own 15 application? MR. MCCARTHY: On our own 16 application. Then I went back to speak with our Planning director said, well, we can' t 17 officially release it because I haven' t polled all the members yet . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go through your special exception. 19 MR. MCCARTHY: As I read your criteria, we feel that our use will not 20 prevent an orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties and properties in the 21 adjacent use districts as they are more intense . We are backed up to the railroad 22 tracks and we' re backed up to light industrial zoned properties . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you go farther with that . Again, my 24 application, these pits that you' re going to put in, will be in that rear portion of the 25 property? MR. MCCARTHY: That' s correct, February 26 , 2004 75 1 2 they' re designated on the site plan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the whole 3 front is going to be nicely screened so we don' t see any of it . 4 MR. MCCARTHY: It' s going to be beautiful . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a vast amount of woodland on this property, 6 that woodland will be carved out to allow those pits to be in, so virtually clearing the 7 entire piece? MR. MCCARTHY: The materials that 8 may be stored here, maybe five, ten, 20 yards of material . We' re not talking about bringing 9 in 20 tractor trailer loads of goods and stockpiling them. The site plan shows that 10 the bins may be 10 or 12 feet wide, and they' re just pre-cast concrete blocks just to 11 keep the topsoil separate from the sand and from the mulch. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Proceed. MR. MCCARTHY: The use will not 13 prevent the orderly and reasonable uses, the use of permitted or legally established uses 14 in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or permitted or legally established 15 uses in the adjacent use districts . When the Town Board looked at rezoning this to LB, they 16 saw it as under the guise of it being a transitional zone from a more intense use to 17 the west to a less intense use of RO to the east, and this fits in within that transfer of 18 intensity. The safety, health and welfare, the comfort and convenience and the order of 19 the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. The use has 20 been in the front of the Planning Board and all of the site planning concerns have been 21 addressed by the Planning Board as well as the DOT for curb cut permit and the Health 22 Department, and we have addressed all of the concerns with anyone that has raised them. 23 The use will be in harmony and will promote the general purposes intent of this chapter, 24 and this chapter, by the virtue of the fact that it is a listed special exception use, is 25 telling us that, yes, this is an area where we want to have your use in the LB Zone, however, February 26, 2004 76 1 2 you need to come forward and ask us for permission. That' s why we' re here, because 3 you have told us this is the zone you want us to be in. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 5 no questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have none . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t either. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' ll 9 finally get something in writing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a 10 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That will be next week, right? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That will be next Thursday night 15 MR. MCCARTHY: We will let the Planning Board know and hopefully they will be 16 able to schedule the public hearing for the site plan. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wish you luck. 18 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you very much. 19 ------------------------------------------------- (Whereupon, a lunch recess was 20 taken from 12 : 00 p.m. to 1 : 05 p.m. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reconvene the 21 meeting this afternoon. Our first resolution to be a request from Osprey Dominion and LIPA 22 KeySpan to adjourn the meeting until March 18th at 11 :45 a .m. I' ll move that resolution. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 24 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. February 26, 2004 77 1 2 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first 3 application this afternoon is for the Bakelaars . They wish to propose an addition 4 to their house which will exceed the 20 percent and go to about 24 percent . Would 5 they like to stand up and tell us what they want to do? 6 MR. BAKELAAR: I'm John Bakelaar, and I'm representing my mother and father, and 7 basically they are in need of care, residential care for somebody to be there . My 8 daughter and grandson and son-in-law intend to move in. We need to add on two bedrooms and 9 two baths to the residence in order for them to be in residence and take care of my mother 10 and dad. That' s it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, do 11 you have any questions of Mr. Bakelaar? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No 12 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you could wait just a minute . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, I 15 spoke to the applicant briefly when I was there, and he briefed me on the scenario. I 16 believe because the logistics, layout of the property being so close to one side, it really 17 doesn' t look out of place even though it is a little bit larger than the average house, but 18 we had spoke about it . If you look at the face of the house there' s a reverse gable on 19 the left side and have the matching reverse gable on the other side . So there will be 20 symmetry, and I think it will look pretty nice right there . I just didn' t know what was the 21 largest percentage of over 20 we've given, Linda, or, Jerry, do you recall in the past? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 27 . 9 percent, Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. I think it 23 will be a nice little addition there and I understand your concerns there . 24 MR. BAKELAAR: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t really 25 have a problem knowing you' re there to take care of the folks, and it' s better to have February 26, 2004 78 1 2 them there at home than to send them off some other place . Jerry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no other questions . 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just have one question. What' s going to be in the new 5 addition? MR. BAKELAAR: Two bedrooms and 6 two bathrooms . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will 7 also stay a one story structure? MR. BAKELAAR: That' s right . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any other questions . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this 10 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to reserve decision and close the hearing. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 12 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Bakelaar. 14 MR. BAKELAAR: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have a good 15 day. ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Gary Mangus down at Island View 17 Lane; would you like to tell us what you wish to do? 18 MR. MANGUS : Good afternoon. We want to be able to stay out here more, and we 19 have a really small cottage, and so we want to add another bedroom and two baths to it . It' s 20 marginally considered a two bedroom, but the one bedroom is seven and-a-half feet by 21 something. So we' re proposing to put an addition that goes back away from the water, 22 toward the road. The house is set back quite a ways from the road. And we were going to go 23 up to a second floor over part of the existing house, and the addition would have two floors . 24 There is a roof bulkhead and stair that goes up to the roof, and a small mechanical room up 25 there that' s a half story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you February 26 , 2004 79 1 2 explain to us what the mechanical room entails? 3 MR. MANGUS : We' re pretty low elevation there . We can' t have a basement or 4 anything like that . So I was putting the mechanical, instead of putting it on the first 5 or second floor, I was setting it on the top floor, and that gives us potential in the 6 future, to add air conditioning if we want to do that . I can put air handler and stuff . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want central air conditioning? 8 MR. MANGUS : We' re not going to do it now, but maybe down the road we will . So I 9 was allocating space, and instead of having a condensing unit other places, the condensing 10 unit will probably have to be out in the yard, but the air handler and stuff in the package 11 system is usually set on the roof, and it can look -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it makes your structure quite high. 13 MR. MANGUS : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And I think 14 your neighbors -- MR. MANGUS : Yes, it' s about 30 15 feet . Basically it' s just enough -- what I tried to do was keep the roof eve the same as 16 that proposed for the garage, and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see . It' s a 17 little bit higher. MR. MANGUS : No, it' s higher. But 18 it was the same proportions and same line . But I could flatten that out . All I need is 19 enough room for head room at the top of the stairs to get out . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There would be no living space up there? 21 MR. MANGUS : No. Ceiling height inside is 715" right now. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer, do you have some questions? 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to raise this entire structure, sir, to do 24 this addition or is this very simply -- MR. MANGUS : I was just talking to 25 John Metzgar and the elevation above the flood plain finished floor is 7 . 6 feet . So we' re February 26 , 2004 80 1 2 going to have to lift the house, you know, to get it up to eight foot, which is the zone 3 that' s required. These were done on shaky foundations, and there' s been a significant 4 amount of termite damage . I have a feeling we' re going to have to rebuild most of it . I 5 was hoping initially to maintain a lot of it, but there are a lot of materials like asbestos 6 shingles and other things that I think are environmentally wrong to have, and I want to 7 get them out and do natural materials . And we' re doing a lot of things to try and work 8 around it really to site . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 9 not a rip-down, though, why you' re not ripping the house down. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically he' s going to have to. 11 MR. MANGUS : I'm pretty much going to have to. The walls are in the same place, 12 but I don' t know how much termite damage and other things and whether it' s even going to be 13 worth salvaging. I doubt if it will . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As' long as 14 you' re going to have to raise the house anyway for FEMA. 15 MR. MANGUS : I think it makes sense to do it . I've been considering some 16 alternate foundation systems that I think might be more environmentally friendly. We' re 17 trying not to take any trees out and there are a lot of big trees on the site . And I 've 18 worked around that, and I've worked around -- if I can show you on some diagrams . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Glover, could I ask you to close that back 20 door, or front door? Thank you. MR. MANGUS : There are big trees 21 here, here, here, here, another one here, big trees here (indicating) . And we' re trying not 22 to take any of them out . There' s another one here . So what we' re proposing is a second 23 story over this area. This is the existing house, and there are existing sheds here . We 24 would rip those out, get rid of .them. Go through this corner, essentially going through 25 that corner but paralleling the property line, but the existing setback with stuff that' s February 26 , 2004 81 1 2 there is seven for the shed, six for the porch, and the house is at just about eight, 3 and that' s what we want to try and maintain is that eight foot . So we' re not taking any 4 trees out . We've got an accessory garage, which is probably not part of the variance, 5 but it' s required to be 35 foot back from the road. We' re setting back to 39 . So we could 6 do two things, be able to get our two vehicles in without having to necessarily pull into the 7 garage every time; and to get a service truck around in here (indicating) . If I went 8 forward I couldn' t get past here . The additional dilemma is going to be septic and 9 because of the elevations, we have to go to the eight foot, diameter, two foot deep 10 precast rings . They have to be set back 10 feet from the buildings and five feet from the 11 property lines . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, do 12 you have public water down there? MR. MANGUS : Yes, we do . And I 13 have a proposal in to the health board just put it in for this septic . Water is Town 14 water, comes in here . There is an exception in there, if you do certain things you can 15 actually run water below those, but it has to be done appropriately. 16 So, given these constraints, given the trees, there isn' t any area to accomplish 17 the space things that we need. The house right now is 700 and some square feet, and 18 with the additions and stuff, we' re going to be about 1, 935 I think outside walls and 19 everything in it . So, that' s that part of it . There is one other aspect and 20 that' s there were questions about sunlight and neighbors and views . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MR. MANGUS : The other thing that 22 we did was this neighbor is two and-a-half, under three feet from our property line, and 23 if we were to have gone in that direction, we would have been close to them. So as it is 24 we' ll be 19 . 8 from the property line on that side, and the neighbor here the closest point 25 it splays out is 23 . 4, and that' s from the property line here . To the corner of the February 26, 2004 82 1 2 house, corner of their house is 38 feet . We had an earlier proposal that was to the 3 Trustees and the garage was up; there were questions about that and the septic . I 4 shifted the garage back. I think it addresses some of those concerns for proximity, and I 5 have no windows in the garages on this side . I have some on this side for natural light . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How far are you setback from the bulkhead, I don' t seem to 7 see this among the drawings? MR. MANGUS : I believe it' s 54 8 feet from the foundation, and according to Damon and I'm not sure if he took it here 9 because these are on wood piers, or he took it to the house, but it' s somewhere in the 60 10 foot range . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe 11 we need an accurate measure, if we need to write a decision on that . 12 MR. MANGUS : VanTyle had done a survey earlier, it' s not . But I have these to 13 scale, and I can tell you right now. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I didn' t 14 mean to jump in there, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s quite 15 all right . Wait, I think I do have it on one . It' s 38 to the one porch and 51 feet to 16 the corner of the house . MR. MANGUS : That' s about right . 17 ' Cause I 'm measuring five plus inches so that' s accurate . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you have to get a Trustees permit for this? 19 MR. MANGUS : Yes . And Trustees, the two dangling issues were septic and we had 20 also submitted to rebuild or repair the bulkhead. I'm not sure we' ll continue with 21 that, but I want to see where I am with DEC. I think that' s going to be the stringent test . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One never knows, the Trustees can be pretty tough. 23 MR. MANGUS : It' s true . The other question that seemed to 24 come up was impact on neighbors . Setbacks here, our next door neighbor just got a 25 variance . She' s 7 . 3 feet from the property line and total of 12 foot 3 , that' s window -- February 26 , 2004 83 1 2 to bedroom window. This is 2 and-a-half and the next property is on this side of Frank 3 it' s 6, and then the property line to the house is 4 and-a-half on the next one, and the 4 next one is 5 feet . So it' s pretty typical in this area. - 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right there . Off of Private Road it' s quite close . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But those other houses -- not to interrupt, I'm sorry, 7 sir -- were first floor additions . MR. MANGUS : There were three in 8 the neighborhood, not looking at Heffernans or other -- 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . Because your closest neighbor we gave a 10 various to was only a single story addition, but that' s irregardless . 11 Since I jumped in, I' d like to ask a quick question. By the evidence you've 12 submitted here, it almost looks like you' re demolishing and starting over, which I don' t 13 have a problem with. But I was just curious, if you didn' t want to turn your house and face 14 the beautiful view that you have and really expand on that . It' s on an angle there . But 15 I thought maybe if you' d want to turn it and enjoy the beautiful site you have there, you 16 might get a better side yard and a better view. 17 MR. MANGUS : The good view is here, but we actually have good views out 18 these windows and these and here . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re 19 trying to share it amongst the people in your house there . You' re a nice father. 20 MR. MANGUS : I probably could have rotated it . I think it works pretty well 21 there, but I've got problems with trees . I have problems of big tree here . I have a big 22 tree here . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was just 23 throwing it out there . Take advantage of the view you have . 24 MR. MANGUS : Initially we started by trying to keep it as a cottage look, and 25 realized that there' s no way we could begin to get anywhere near three bedrooms and the space February 26 , 2004 84 1 2 that we needed to retire . I'm an architect, licensed architect in New York State . My 3 wife' s a psychologist, and we do work out of our house . 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have thought through this . 5 MR. MANGUS : I have gone through this many, many, many iterations . I really 6 was trying not to touch any of the trees because I think it' s a tough environment for 7 them to grow in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They make a 8 shade in the summer, too . MR. MANGUS : Yes, they do. It' s a 9 rather special environment . This is coming in from sort of north, and that' s the house and 10 this is the house, and there' s trees here . And there was a concern by our next door 11 neighbor for sunlight . But this is her house and these are the trees between her and the 12 sun. So she doesn' t get sun until later in the day, and we have privet in here and 13 there' s some evergreen trees in here . And in the summer I don' t think there' s any view in 14 there . Maybe right now you could get a winter view, but I believe she' s a summer resident 15 only. Yeah, I've been agonizing over the impact and the mass on it . One of the reasons 16 I stepped it back in the front was I take the primary place that the house is seen, because 17 almost everything else is buried in the trees, the trees are well over that height . So the 18 primary massing, the place it will be seen is from the water. I tried to step that back and 19 massage that on the elevations, and we looked pretty hard at the other elevations, feeling 20 of the mass on it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The only 21 thing I can see is we' d need an official drawing showing the setback to the bulkhead. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm sorry 23 she did say she had that . I have no further questions . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just note 25 that you' re planning on demolishing the existing foundation. February 26, 2004 85 1 2 MR. MANGUS : Yeah. I may try to go to a point foundation so the land can run 3 through and under the house . It will be more expensive, but if environmentally it works 4 better, and we' re looking ,at some alternate water retention methods . Beyond what will be 5 required by DEC, and we' re trying to bring those back up away from the house so they will 6 have better seepage into the ground. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The other 7 thing I see is there are two sets of the breakdown of the plans, and one set you are 8 proposing 16 feet, 16 percent lot coverage, which is on the notice of disapproval but on 9 the handwritten note that I have here it says 19 percent and the dimensions are different . 10 MR. MANGUS : I'm not sure which the two are . I know when I was doing zoning 11 calcs, I had someone in the office doing, I didn' t catch some that went out that were 12 later, but I think there are some incorrect numbers in the latter one . Damon projected 13 the lot coverage at I think 16 , and he did a take off on it . 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is not from Damon, this is from you? 15 MR. MANGUS : Right . That' s probably the one that went out . This went out 16 later, I didn' t catch the zoning calcs on it . They will be corrected. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They really need to be correct for us so that when we 18 approve a plan, when we send a plan over to the Building Department, we can cite that we 19 are approving are XYZ plan. MR. MANGUS : Okay. 20 MS . KOWALSKI : If you could just confirm by letter, confirm what the percentage 21 is and which plan we' re supposed to be relying on. 22 MR. MANGUS : Okay. The eight foot setback that we' re trying to maintain is for 23 the bulk of the house . There is a side porch that comes into -- it' s an entrance to a 24 bathroom, so that when we' re muddy working in the yard, we can come in and use the bathroom, 25 so it will function like a bathroom/mudroom. All I really need is a room to get up and get February 26, 2004 86 1 2 in there . It' s low and I'm confident I can do that in the porch with one tread. I was just 3 looking out there, so I don' t need the second tread, which will bring it back to four feet . 4 It' s not possible to see that porch. There' s a six foot high stockade fence just beyond it 5 that belongs to our neighbor. So it' s not going to be visible . I just need it to get 6 into the house, but if I had to lose it, I could lose that . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm just a 9 little concerned about your tearing the house down, and I'm not so sure that another law 10 doesn' t kick in once you do that . MR. MANGUS : That' s the only 11 reason I have not made a final decision, but from my conversations with people, it used to 12 be you had to maintain one wall, and another friend in Montauk said that was the case . I'm 13 used to working in the city, so I'm not as familiar with the laws . But I will make sure 14 that that' s not the case or if it is the case, then I will work around. I think it' s 15 advantageous in many respects to actually take it down and rebuild, but I don' t want to not 16 be able to build on the site . If that' s the case I' ll work around it . I' ll leave it in 17 place . But I do want to get rid of the red asbestos shingles, and there were termites in 18 it before we bought it, and we've had termites come right through the side of the kitchen 19 cabinets, so there' s more damage, and there was a lot of rot . Insulation, there was no 20 air space, what insulation there is . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm just 21 concerned that you' re not going to be back here before us when you take that house down. 22 I would be careful about that one wall so-called room because I don' t -- 23 MR. MANGUS : Yeah. I heard that it' s not something that is required now, but 24 that was told to me by Ron Hermann, En-Consultants, but I will sit down. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything else? February 26, 2004 87 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to 3 make -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm sorry, 4 two other popped up in my head. The first was is there a square footage of your non-third 5 floor, or third floor non-living space, how you want to address that, the mechanical room? 6 MR. MANGUS : I can tell you probably what the mechanical room is easily -- 7 I don' t see it here, right in front of me, and it' s probably there and I'm not -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t remember seeing the dimensions of it . 9 MR. MANGUS : I don' t know see it . I can look it up and tell you. I don' t have 10 it in front of me. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could you, 11 when you address the letter and also just out of curiosity, the mechanical upstairs, are you 12 going to be using natural gas, propane, oil? MR. MANGUS : I'm going to sit down 13 with some consultants and look. I want something environmentally friendly. Initially 14 I was thinking why we don' t have natural gas out there, so it would be either propane or 15 oil . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was just 16 curious about the pumping of the oil from the ground up. 17 MR. MANGUS : I talked to with a mechanical engineer last week about it, and 18 there is another pump, we might have to put a second pump in near the tank to boost it up. 19 But he didn' t think there would be a problem with it . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It has nothing to do with the application, I was just 21 curious . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s big on oil 22 spills . MR. MANGUS : One of my best 23 friends is a mechanical engineer, so I' ll review it with him. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak 25 on behalf or against this application? Yes, Mr. McLoughlin. February 26 , 2004 i 88 1 2 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Good afternoon, Kevin McLoughlin, Windsway Professional 3 Center, Southold, on behalf of the adjoining neighbor, Rita Jones . I would like to hand up 4 a letter and some photographs for the Board' s consideration. 5 My client' s property borders the applicant' s property basically to .the west . 6 The proposal before this Board sounds like it basically triples the size of the existing 7 building. It' s going to raise the house as it exists now, and add another living story and 8 then more space on top that to handle a mechanical room, all within eight feet of the 9 property line . Then there is a garage that runs along 26 feet of the common property -- 10 I'm sorry, runs along 26 of the common property line within three feet of the line . 11 Initially I assumed that this variance application included that and then with 12 further review, much to my dismay, I discovered that that is an allowable three 13 foot setback for a detached garage which -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: With this 14 lot size they change so much. MR. MCLOUGHLIN: -- frankly 15 horrified me . My client has no problem with the 16 applicants trying to make this into a more liveable year ' round residence . The problem 17 though, is the height of the proposed addition. What they have right now, if you 18 haven' t been there, is a one story, small cottage, which frankly, with a 35 foot width 19 lot is probably what was intended to be put on these parcels . She has a one story house . 20 The neighbor on the other side has a one story house, and now we' re basically tripling the 21 size of the house and making much, much larger and taller than it was . I 'm also hearing that 22 perhaps the entire building is basically being torn down, in which event, again, as 23 Mr. Dinizio points out, maybe some other problems . But assuming that doesn' t end up 24 being the case, we have a very substantial portion of the common property line being 25 drastically affected by this proposal . It seems to me by looking at the site plan, that February 26 , 2004 89 1 2 a lot of my client' s concerns could be greatly alleviated by simply moving the proposed 3 addition on the house a couple of feet basically to the east . It would get it off 4 her property line, would do away with the necessity of a variance and would not 5 drastically affect the house to the east . It would center basically what this addition 6 would be . We would also like to request that the applicants consider moving the. proposed 7 garage more towards the center of the property so as to ameliorate any impacts on a very 8 substantial building, the 26 foot length of which is right on top of the property line . I 9 have outlined in my letter all of my concerns from a legal point of view. 10 We' re also very concerned, there are overhead wires that run across this 11 property and service my client' s property as well that obviously are going to have to be 12 dealt with because they virtually go right next to the existing one story dwelling. I 13 don' t know what the applicant' s plan is for addressing that, what affect that will have on 14 my client' s service or any interruption thereof . But I think with a little bit of 15 tweaking, we could move this project somewhat to the east . They could still accomplish 16 getting a substantially increased residence and lessen the impact on my client . Thank 17 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any questions? 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is this something that you would want to consider? 19 MR. MANGUS : If we look at right now there' s a 10 foot setback here . It would 20 mean I've only got four foot away from these trees now, and I'm quite close actually to the 21 neighbor on the opposite side, much closer than I am to the neighbor on the other side . 22 On the other side this person would be 38 feet, as finished this would be between 24 and 23 25, 24 and change in this distance, and coming this way, I'm eight here and 10 there . 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The way the house is designed? 25 MR. MANGUS : The way the house is now sitting, yes . . February 26 , 2004 90 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And there' s no other way you can design it? You' re an 3 architect . MR. MANGUS : I think unless I go 4 off the same footprint, I'm going to have some problems . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Your concern, just to clarify this, is to maintain 6 the same footprint for what reason? MR. MANGUS : I don' t think 7 currently we would be able to build in this location on that footprint if this was new, if 8 we were just coming in because of the distance from the water. And there used to be 9 something in the code that you had to maintain one wall, I'm not sure whether that' s still -- 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t think there was ever anything in the code to 11 that effect, and, correct me if I'm wrong, anyone that' s here . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, that was an interpretation made by a prior 13 building inspector in the 1980s and it left with him in the 1980s . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is no 15 quid pro quo. MR. MANGUS : The main reason is 16 the trees . This is the house now. It would mean taking out quite a number of trees there, 17 probably three are four big trees . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: From grade 18 to the ridge of the top of the mechanical room, do you have a height for that? 19 MR. MANGUS : I believe it' s at 30 or 31 feet . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you go up the other four feet, it' s going to come out 21 about 37 feet . MR. MANGUS : We' re probably going 22 to need to lift the house six inches . It' s at 7 . 6 feet, so it' s -- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It has to be eight? 24 MR. MANGUS : Has to be eight . So five-tenths of a foot . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is an old lot neighborhood, and there are a lot of February 26, 2004 91 1 2 smaller older cottages and obviously as the years go by everyone is going to want to 3 improve their homes and should be able to improve their homes, hopefully with concern 4 for their neighbor in mind. And that' s kind of where I'm coming from here . It is going to 5 be a large house, and it is going to be close to the property line . So, if it' s a question 6 of preserving the trees or preserving the privacy between the two houses, it' s my 7 preference I would try to preserve the space between the two properties . 8 MR. MANGUS : Right now with the foliage in the summer, I can' t really see 9 Rita' s property, the neighbor on that side . And if I take the foliage out they' re going to 10 be still seeing the houses . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no 11 compromise, in other words? MR. MANGUS : I think it' s tough, 12 and what' s particularly tough is this neighbor moving in that ,direction (indicating) . 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you left that design. 14 MR. MANGUS : If I left that design. I guess I'm maybe being 15 overprotective of these trees, but they' re trees that are over 100 years old and I have a 16 hard time taking them out . Because I think it' s tough to get them there, and if you look 17 at it, everybody else has sort of taken them out in this area and we' re in this clump here, 18 and they have been thinned over here, another neighbor just took another one out . And they 19 have been thinned over here . And so I think it' s a major part of the natural, sort of, 20 environment and I also think they' re pretty good for the soil and holding, protecting it 21 from erosion, from storm damage . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I get the 22 impression by looking at your drawing that the top of your second floor, we' ll call the flat 23 roof, almost looks like an open deck. It' s a very large -- 24 MR. MANGUS : We probably will be able to use it as a deck. I'm not planning on 25 doing that initially, but I also want to be able to get up to it to work on it or do other February 26, 2004 92 1 2 things or get up to the mechanical area. But, yeah, I wanted to run the stair up so I can go 3 up, watch fireworks, if that kind of stuff should happen over Crescent Beach and 4 sometimes to sit up there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 5 ask a question? Are you done, Vince? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jerry. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you will be trying to utilize that flat roof as an 7 entertainment-type area? MR. MANGUS : Right . I don' t know, 8 I find that people don' t tend to use other levels, when you' re on one level, you kind of 9 forget about it . So, I have had a lot of clients have had me do roof decks that require 10 them going up the stairs, even in the city where it' s harder to get to, and they' re not 11 well used. So I want to be able to do that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can 12 envision it, not that I' d like to next to my house, but a beautiful cocktail party on top 13 of there, which could be, you know -- MR. MANGUS : Yeah. We had the 14 deck on the second level, and I think day to day, but I do think occasionally we will, 15 especially for fireworks . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So it' s 16 like a third level deck area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you 17 have -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've 18 always, and I've passed this in the discussion before, this is the first application I have 19 ever seen in 24 years where we have had a mechanical area above the second story. And 20 maybe we have to start learning about this, but I really don' t understand since you don' t 21 exceed the lot coverage already, why the mechanical area can' t be on the first story, 22 even if you put a smaller addition on to accommodate that . 23 MR. MANGUS : We' re virtually out of lot space . By the time I do the 10 foot 24 setbacks for the septic and I get this in and have to do five rings with two optional, and 25 the garage, I couldn' t find any spot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure you February 26, 2004 93 1 2 can. You can wrap it around right' at the end of the proposed new addition. And that' s 3 really where it should be because I have never seen a mechanical area on a third story. 4 Again, maybe it' s something new for us . We' re treading on new water, because not only are we 5 reconstructing this entire area, we' re reconstructing an area called Sound Beach Road 6 in Mattituck, which is on the Long Island Sound, right long the Long Island Sound. And 7 we just started with the second reconstruction on that situation. But that' s Number 1, 8 because I think that would lessen the height of the roof; it would lessen some of the 9 impact on the neighbors, and I think it' s really something you really need to reconsider 10 to redraw. MR. MANGUS : Okay. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRIINGER: That' s my distinct opinion. And I don' t see any real 12 merit for adding another foot on the neighbor' s side because I don' t think a foot 13 is going to make that much difference one way or another. I think the tree situation has a 14 valid understanding, I just don' t know how successful you' re going to be . But the other 15 issue that I am deeply concerned about is the complete tear down about this house . This 16 house really can' t be torn down. It has to be reconstructed in its original site . In the 17 past, we have been relatively standard about that in these really significant nonconforming 18 areas, and I'm speaking for myself at this point as an observer of this Board. And I 19 think that' s something you have to consider. MR. MANGUS : I would be happy to 20 do that . It' s not a problem. I can just work around it, and I may redo the foundation below 21 and maintain, I may set the wall aside and set it back up, _ but I don' t have a problem doing 22 that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I 23 think you need to redraw that third story. I don' t think we can accommodate any decks on 24 the third story. I don' t think we can accommodate any overhangs on the third story 25 that would be -- excuse me, Ruth. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm just February 26 , 2004 94 1 2 agreeing with you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- or 3 any mechanical areas on that third story. MR. MANGUS : And in terms of 4 access to it, you just use a ladder I guess . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or a 5 pull down stair. MR. MANGUS : Okay, so I can have a 6 hatch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you think you' re going to have to raise it, and then by 8 the time you get finished with the mechanical it' s going to be almost 37 feet . 9 MR. MANGUS : It probably won' t go over 31 . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even 31 . That' s a fair height when everything' s so 11 flat . If you could move that mechanical house someplace . 12 MR. MANGUS : I' ll find a place for it . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I can just 14 address this Board briefly. I don' t know whether all of you have had an opportunity to 15 visit this site -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 16 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: -- because things look a lot different on the site plan then 17 they do when you get down there . It' s extremely tight down there . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I couldn' t agree with you more . 19 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: Again, I think the idea of this was always these lots were 20 set up for small summer cottages or bungalows . What is being asked for here, again, is 21 basically tripling of the size of the dwelling on here . I haven' t really heard the Board 22 address too much the porch addition that further intrudes upon the already 23 nonconforming side yard setback. It appears to be at less than four feet away from the 24 property line . Again, we would ask the applicant and this Board to give consideration 25 to the moving of the entire proposed extension addition two feet basically to the east and February 26 , 2004 95 1 2 thereby do away with the necessity of this side yard variance because the 10 feet is 3 what' s required here . Again, all that will end up doing is basically moving it more 4 toward the middle of the lot . Again, we' re requesting that the applicant look at the 5 proposed garage and see if that cannot be moved somewhat to the south. Again, we' re 6 talking about taking a one-story building and going up at least another story apparently. 7 And it goes right along that property line for a long distance . When you take the 26 feet of 8 the proposed garage and you take whatever distance that turns out to be, and I don' t see 9 it marked clearly on the plan, from the corner of the existing -- I guess it would be the 10 southwest corner of the existing house to the end of the proposed addition, that' s a long 11 span of building that' s going to basically be imposing upon my client' s house . We would ask 12 for some possible accommodation in moving both of those structures somewhat further south and 13 away -- I'm sorry, somewhat further east and away from my client' s property line . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The new porch is very simply a single level . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I heard the applicant say he didn' t have a problem with 16 that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not 17 covered is it? MR. MANGUS : I had a cover over 18 it, but I don' t need to have a cover of it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 19 3 ' 3 " by 8' 511 . MR. MANGUS : It' s under the 30 20 foot limit . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 21 So where do we go from here? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have a 22 problem with what we had suggested to Mr. Magnus . 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? MS . KOWALSKI : Do you want a 25 diagram or just place conditions? Excuse me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we can February 26, 2004 96 1 2 just place conditions as far as the mechanical room and that, but give us some extra 3 information about that because we do make decisions next week, can you get them in 4 there? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry, do 5 you want to sum up again exactly our requirements? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think he has to give us something by next week so we 7 know exactly where the mechanical area is going. That' s Number 1 . 8 MR. MANGUS : It' s what' s as proposed or in lieu of what' s there in the 9 bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 10 reduction of the height of the roof . No third story deck area and basically indicating 11 where, again, not being redundant, but indicating where the mechanical area is going 12 to be . MS . KOWALSKI : Are you going to 13 adjourn the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 14 we can accept it by the special meeting next week, can' t we? 15 MS . KOWALSKI : We have to know now whether to adjourn the verbal portion of the 16 hearing, the verbatim portion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can adjourn the verbal and have written testimony. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can have written testimony from either person. 19 MR. MAGNUS : We' re on Thursday. I can find it on tomorrow. Certainly if I FedEx 20 it Monday and you can have it Tuesday, would that be -- 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s fine . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. McLoughlin, if you wish to comment in writing to anything, 23 we' d be happy to have your written notification or written objection. 24 MR. MCLOUGHLIN: If I could be notified when you receive those plans . 25 MS . KOWALSKI : It would be easier if Mr. Mangus could send you a copy directly. February 26, 2004 97 1 2 MR. MANGUS : Sure, if you want to, I' ll have it for you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Send a copy to Mr. McLoughlin. 4 MR. MANGUS : Sure, if you give me your address, no problem. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: In regards to the accessory garage, proposed garage, it' s 6 as per our code, so it' s fine . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To 7 answer your question, Mr. McLoughlin, I think in the future in these applications we are 8 going to require models so we can understand the models and take those models apart, which 9 we have received in the past, and have them placed up here and have the ability to take 10 the roof off and see exactly what you have . And that' s one of the things that have been 11 very helpful in understanding these projects . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Little 12 pop-up books -- just kidding -- that was a joke . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have to pass a resolution depending on the 14 size of the property. I think we may have to require them. 15 MR. MANGUS : With the 3-D drawing stuff that we' re using these days, I have it 16 in 3-D. I put all the trees in in 3-D, but when I got the trees in, I couldn' t see 17 anything, and I was going to send stuff to show that . But that is another way to do it, 18 it' s interactive, and you can project it onto a screen. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what we have had, and it' s been unbelievably 20 helpful . MR. MANGUS : Yeah, I have it so 21 you can pop the roof off . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do anything. 22 MS . KOWALSKI : The only thing is you can' t require it on every application. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'm saying for these type situations . We had it 24 all projected on a screen. We had two hearings like that in Southold. It worked out 25 wonderful . They rotated the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move this February 26 , 2004 98 1 2 along. I' d like to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 4 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All opposed? So moved. 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 7 for the Mattituck Fire District . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are 8 outside . I have to make a public statement 9 prior to. I just want them to come in because I may need John Harrison to substantiate my 10 statement . I make a motion withdrawing Steel, 11 making a motion withdrawing Steel, Number 5478, make a motion. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second. All in favor? 13 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. 15 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll open the 16 hearing for Mattituck Fire District . They wish to make a new radio room and a storage 17 and garage area in the rear. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam 18 Chairman, I have been a member of the Mattituck Fire Department for 34 , almost 35 19 years . This application before us is with the Mattituck Fire District of which I am not a 20 member or an elected official of the Mattituck Fire District . I see no particular reason why 21 I have to recuse myself from this application. I'm just telling you I find no conflict at 22 all . In the audience is a gentleman I just spoke to outside; he is a past chief . He is a 23 representative of the Mattituck Fire District, and that is John Harrison. He knows for a 24 fact that I am not a member of the Mattituck Fire District; is that correct, Mr. Harrison? 25 MR. HARRISON: That' s true . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would February 26 , 2004 99 1 2 like to participate . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody have an 3 objection to Mr. Goehringer participating? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, you can participate . Miss Moore? 6 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon. I have with me today, as Mr. Goehringer pointed 7 out, John Harrison, who is both, he' s involved in this project as a project manager, and I 8 also have Frank Ralph, who is the architect that hopefully will answer any kind of 9 technical questions that you might have . I know you've had a very long day. 10 What I' d like to do is have Mr. Harrison put on the record the reasons why it' s been 11 designed the way it has been. John, would you mind coming forward? 12 MR. HARRISON: Thank you very much and good afternoon. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon. MR. HARRISON: As of right now the 14 Mattituck Fire District radio room is inside the interior of the building in the front of a 15 unit built in 1962 addition. There is no vision for the radio operator of the doors 16 since we added the other addition to the west, the radio operator has no vision of the doors 17 to the west side of him and a limited view of the doors to the east side of him. As the 18 fire trucks pull out, they come out in soldier form, and the drivers have limited viability. 19 By putting our radio room extension out, we are giving the radio operator an opportunity 20 to see oncoming traffic . As you all know exactly where we are, we also have a lot of 21 school traffic coming down the street for lunch times and things like this . So we 22 wanted to make sure our radio operator would have the opportunity to tell our drivers if 23 there was a situation that they should be aware of as they pull out . We also, in 1962 24 when they built the existing radio room, there was a radio. Today we have computers, we have 25 radios we have to deal with with the county, radios we have to deal with ambulance February 26 , 2004 100 1 2 companies, radios we have to deal with with all kinds of things, plus a lot of security 3 systems that didn' t even exist in 1962 . The physical space that is in the radio room now 4 is unable to hold that . The radio operator will be 5 elevated out as he protrudes out there and be able to see to both sides, east and west, so 6 we will be able to have better control . He also will have the opportunity to view all 7 portions of the building around him, all entrances through cameras and security systems 8 so you can tell even people entering the building and where other vehicles are moving 9 around him as he sits . This is truly for the safety of our community, safety of our fire 10 fighters and safety of our responding vehicles . 11 In 1962 , the Mattituck Fire District probably responded to all of about 40 12 calls a year; last year Mattituck responded to over 500 calls . The world is changing and 13 this time we have to move up with it . The annex building, and this is part of a project 14 that is ongoing. The radio room was one of many projects we've been here for the Zoning 15 Board before for other projects we have had to do. The building to the rear of the property, 16 the annex building, garage/storage area that you mention is presently a wood structure 17 almost right on the property line . We are going to move that in. The doors that are 18 existing in the existing wood frame building are not large for any of our material, for any 19 of our trucks . It' s an old structure that was built, add on, add on, add on. It was built 20 when we acquired the property next to us from the original firehouse . We have now equipment 21 being stored outside that should be stored inside . It' s time that we moved on and added 22 it on. Plus, the district office that we have converted from a house to keep it in 23 community-type setting instead of another building, we gutted a house and put the 24 district office in that . It doesn' t have an emergency generation system. The emergency 25 generation system is going to be put into the annex building in the back, will supply both February 26, 2004 101 1 2 the annex building and the district offices . I don' t know what other questions 3 you might have for me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you 4 going to put in the storage building in the back, not trucks, but -- 5 MR. HARRISON: I'm not going to say when in the future, what it is right now. 6 But as of right now it' s not planned to be trucks . It' s more boats, trailer storage, 7 ` things like this, that we are presently storing outside or seasonal equipment . What 8 the chiefs in the Fire District choose to do in the future, I don' t know. We constantly 9 change . If we would have stood here in the 1970s and said how many ambulance are we going 10 to have, we would have said we' re never going to have an ambulance . Now we have two . I 11 don' t know what the world' s going to bring for the fire district, but at this time it' s for 12 storage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the 13 doors on that storage building? MR. HARRISON: The doors on the 14 storage building will face east . MS . MOORE : Facing Wickham 15 Avenue . MR. HARRISON: Facing Wickham 16 Avenue . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I want to talk about the annex building, is that a 18 single story structure? MR. HARRISON: Single story. 19 MS . MOORE: Height of it, no, I think it exceeds, I think it' s more than 18 . 20 MR. RUSSO: Michael Russo from Frank Ralph Architects . It is actually a 21 single story use building. The reason for the height of the building has to do with the 22 height of apparatus doors themselves . There isn' t a second floor, structurally it could 23 not hold a second floor, nor does it have a mezzanine . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Next question, maybe the architect may want to 25 answer this one as well . If you didn' t put the planters in front of the radio room, would February 26, 2004 102 1 2 you have to relocate the telephone pole? MR. RUSSO: Actually the 3 relocation for the telephone pole has to do with line of sight more than anything else . 4 The electrical service is also being moved to underground. We' re going to move -- 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Oh, actually the planter was actually something 6 that the district wanted to do to soften the edge of the -- 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I appreciate that . I was just curious if it had 8 any implication on why you had to move the pole. 9 MR. RUSSO: No, none whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The pole is 10 being moved irregardless of the planter, no planter. 11 MR. RUSSO: Right, line of sight . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the 12 radio room, every time a call goes out, is there someone in the radio room? 13 MR. RUSSO: I just copy on to him. They don' t have a 24 hour dispatcher, the 14 first man to the house is the man in the radio room. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He becomes the radio person. 16 MR. RUSSO: He becomes the radio person. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They don' t have a dispatcher. 18 MR. RUSSO: They don' t have a dispatcher. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So every call has a radio person in there . 20 MR. HARRISON: Every . call, first man in the house, he becomes radio operator. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The new 23 annex is going to be, from what it looks like, 200 feet back from Wickham Avenue, it' s going 24 to be substantially back, metal frame with the cement block around it? 25 MR. RUSSO: Correct . It' s going to have a decorative block water table that February 26 , 2004 103 1 2 goes about five feet or so, from there it will have a barn red ribbed panel insulated, from 3 there around. Fire districts, when they look to design a building they try to design 4 buildings that are going to last them for 20 plus years . So we wanted to make sure that 5 the building was fully noncombustible to 'be construction as well as something that' s going 6 to last a long time with little to no maintenance . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm familiar with the area and when I drove by 8 there I drove by there trying to imagine what the annex was going to look like, and I said 9 it' s going to look like it' s snuggled in the back of the property, and I have no other 10 comments . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 13 want to say, Mr. Harrison, that it' s my understanding, that because the doors are 14 facing Wickham Avenue, you would be restricted to the size of the vehicles you would be able 15 to put in there anyway; is that correct? MR. HARRISON: Yes, that' s 16 correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just 17 want the Board to be aware of that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody 18 else in the audience have any comments? MS . MOORE: One more point that 19 hasn' t been raised that really should be on the record, the location of the annex building 20 is in the corner, and it' s in place there because we had the sanitary system that is in 21 this area for the district offices, is just north I guess toward Pike Street, that 22 portion, so it' s tucked in as close as it can be without affecting the sanitary system. And 23 then -- is there anything on this side? No, just that clearance area. 24 MR. HARRISON: No . You need some kind of clearance to get the trucks in and 25 out . MS . MOORE : Right . And it' s been February 26, 2004 104 1 2 tucked in from the corner of that little cut into the property in order to maintain the 3 clearance for the doors . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to 4 make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 6 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. 8 --------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next is 9 Christopher Durkin in Mattituck. He wants to build a garage . 10 MS . DURKIN: Hi, I ' m Danielle Durkin. We' re going for an accessory garage, 11 and the variance we want is a height variance . There are a few reasons we need this extensive 12 storage . The first is when we built our house, we built it with the long term 13 thinking, knowing that both of our mothers are single and not healthy. My mother suffers 14 from Maneers disease, which is debilitating vertigo, and she' s slowly going deaf . My 15 husband' s mother is diabetic, and we know they will be living with us eventually. So all of 16 our house space will be used for our family to live in. We' re looking for the garage to be 17 used as storage space, not only for our things but for the things that our mothers will be 18 bringing with them. The second reason is I am an 19 educational consultant, I work for myself out of the home, and one of the things that I do 20 is motivational speaking and workshops for teachers . And every workshop that I teach, 21 and every session that I go to requires two or three or four boxes worth of supplies and I 22 keep that for the next time I'm going to teach that workshop, and we' re just already filled 23 with boxes of things that I need a space for. The other reason we' re looking for a height 24 variance is that the garage we' re proposing goes along with the height of the house . I 25 only have one picture . I can give it to you. But the angles of which the roof of our house February 26, 2004 105 1 2 and the pitch is the same, so we' re also, we have a lot of tree cover. We've spoken to -- 3 we have a nursery behind us . In front of us is Suffolk County parkland that' s -- what is 4 that called? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it 5 Strawberry Fields? MS . DURKIN: Strawberry Fields . 6 Then there' s also a four acre lot that' s preserved land, that' s never going to be built 7 on. So really we have the two neighbors on ` either side . The one neighbor on the other 8 side already has an accessory garage, and the other neighbor hasn' t even built yet, and has 9 been offered $256, 000 for his piece of property, which he' s turned down. He lives in 10 Florida and doesn' t want to build on the property. So that' s all . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 12 to tell you that this Board, Mrs . Durkin, I should say this -- I have never seen this 13 Board grant a garage of this height . And although I understand you' re trying -- first 14 of all, I have to tell you it' s an extremely unique spot that you live in -- I live in 15 Mattituck also, but more up by the old mill in the woods also -- and because of the 16 topography of your land it even makes it more interesting when you go down there and look at 17 it . I have to tell you the height is really up there . Is there any particular reason why 18 the roof line can' t be lessened? I realize you' re trying to match the house in that new 19 modern Tudor style, but, I mean, you have a ten foot, 918" ceiling in the garage, there' s 20 got to be a reason why you need something that high. I mean, you can store stuff in 7 21 and-a-half feet . MS . DURKIN: In the garage area or 22 above it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Above 23 the garage . MS . DURKIN: Just really to have 24 easy access . I mean, we' re going to have three houses worth of stuff, basically. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but it' s usually not February 26 , 2004 106 1 2 something that we see or I see . MS . DURKIN: Right . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I just don' t know how you' re going to do it . By 4 the way, this garage will contain utilities of what, just electricity? 5 MS . DURKIN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 6 insulation? MS . DURKIN: No, we' re not 7 insulating it, right? MR. DURKIN: Unless the code tells 8 us to insulate it . The plans show insulation, but it' s just going to be a storage garage . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No heat? MR. DURKIN: No heat . 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 1, 200 square feet footprint? 11 MR. DURKIN: Yes, this way everything can be inside too. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I agree 13 with Mr. Goehringer, maybe how to resolve it, you have plenty of space, maybe make it a 14 little bit wider and then bring the ridge down, still keep your space . 15 MR. DURKIN: I' d have to take down more trees too. I' d have to take down one 16 large tree and the rest are small, and I ' d rather not take down more trees, then my 20 17 foot setback I have to keep, and also the LILCO right of way behind us, we have to keep 18 also. MS . DURKIN: And we have a lot of 19 the Beech trees that are growing in there and we wanted to preserve as many of those as we 20 possibly could. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Coming 21 before us, you look like very sincere and honest people, but if you sold the house five 22 years from now, someone could build the inside, put another dwelling in there, not 23 saying you would do that . MR. DURKIN: You probably could. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s the size of a small ranch that' s our reservation. 25 MS . DURKIN: But we' re not going anywhere . I already told him I'm going out of February 26, 2004 107 1 2 that house in a body bag. We' re looking at long term. We' re looking at the fact that our 3 son also is not going to be able to afford to buy a house on Long Island, and if he wants to 4 stay, this is going to be his house, and we' re going to become the grandparents living in 5 this house . This was such a long term, longsighted project for us that we feel this 6 is what we need for our family. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 7 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? Jim? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When I first looked at it, I just thought you could 9 put the garage doors closer together and bring the ridge down. 10 MR. DURKIN: I'm not an architect . This is what -- I told the guy what I wanted, 11 this is what he drew up . He told me the mean height was going to be too high, and that I 12 would have to go for a variance . He said with the span this is what you have to do to get 13 that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you took 14 a garage door, two car garage door, then four feet, then you've got another two car garage 15 door. If you put a three car garage door in there, what does that do? Why couldn' t you do 16 that? MR. DURKIN: Actually, I wanted it 17 to represent the house a little bit like it' s offset like that, so it looks architecturally 18 the same almost . ' Cause it' s offsetting the house . I could probably do that, something 19 like that . I didn' t think of that, to be honest with you. I don' t know how much that 20 would bring the roof line down. I 'm not an architect either. This is what they came up 21 with. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you need 22 square footage, you've got so much land you can put square footage on. 23 MR. DURKIN: Yeah. But I like to have room, a yard for playing and stuff like 24 that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I can tell 25 you what Mr. Orlando says is what most of the town is concerned about . If you have February 26 , 2004 108 1 2 something over seven and-a-half feet above this, it can very easily be turned into a 3 liveable area. I personally have no objection to that, but that' s the thought process . 4 That' s why we have the height law for accessory structures . I 'm thinking of a way 5 you wouldn' t even need a variance if you just did it my way. 6 MR. DURKIN: I have a problem visualizing -- 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you made it narrower, you wouldn' t change the roof 8 line, you would just lower the roof line . You could still keep the same architectural look 9 of the house, but you would just be lowering that roof line, you could put this jog on the 10 other side of the building if you felt you needed a jog to make it look a little more not 11 like a box. MR. DURKIN: I didn' t want a box. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I mean, it' s four feet there . I don' t know what you 13 gain. Maybe you make a separate door but only maybe a foot, so you pull it in three feet, 14 you put your little dog shed on there, whatever you want, maybe that brings you down 15 and you' re not even before us . MR. DURKIN: Yeah. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a thought . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or could you reduce the attic area, instead of 918" down to 18 at least to eight foot . You could stand and it would still shorten it, wouldn' t that be 19 able to bring the roof line down too? MS . DURKIN: It would also change 20 the pitch. We were like going for the pitch that matches the angle of the house . 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think the consensus of the Board is it' s a little too 22 high. Mr. Dinizio had some good ideas, not to put you on the spot now, think about how you 23 could lower it and also keep your pitch. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Keep it open 24 until next month. Are you willing to do something or what? 25 MR. DURKIN: If I brought this over back to the guy at Penny Lumber who drew February 26, 2004 109 1 2 it, and say I need that -- I probably won' t make the 18 feet, but what would the highest 3 be? MS . DURKIN: What would be a 4 compromise that you would accept? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is 5 acceptable for us? MR. DURKIN: Yes . What would you 6 pass, basically if I needed a variance? The highest I could go, basically. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To me, in my opinion, if you bought those doors within a 8 foot of each other, whatever that turned out to be, that would probably be acceptable to 9 me . That' s not speaking for the rest of the Board. It' s going to come real close to 10 that -- I think it' s going to come close to 18 feet . 11 MR. DURKIN: So if it was 19 feet -- I don' t want to come back again, and say 12 I'm a foot over and you' re going to say the same thing. We were made aware of this last 13 week, not that we wouldn' t need a variance, everybody just told us, oh, just go for a 14 variance. Then, when we handed in the last of the paperwork, the lady in the variance office 15 says this never passes . MS . DURKIN: It never passed, I 16 wish somebody told us in the beginning before we paid $400 . We could have fixed it before 17 we were here . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, 18 unfortunately, we can' t make judgments on your application until you' re here . 19 MR. DURKIN: We understand that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think 20 you' ll come real close to it but -- MR. DURKIN: I'm not a builder 21 either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you do 18 at 22 the mean average, then you won' t have to come to us at all . You don' t need us . 23 MR. DURKIN: He was telling me when I was having him draw it up, he says he 24 couldn' t get the 18 with the roof pitch like that . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Give us a little bit more then, see if it' s -- February 26, 2004 110 1 2 MR. DURKIN: If it' s like 19 or somewhere around there, if I put those two 3 doors together. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Never 4 have I seen -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You' re here 5 now. MS . KOWALSKI : Plus you might need 6 to have the Building Inspector take a look at it and have him confirm what the new height is 7 on that for you. See how much of a variance you' ll need, because you' re amending your 8 application. Originally it was denied at 25 feet, was it? 26 feet? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 2211" and three-quarters . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : If he confirms how much of a variance you' re going to need, so if 11 it' s 18 and a half feet, you' re only looking for a six inch variance . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Could they do that before we meet? 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would have to be for a month. 14 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s going to be for a month anyway. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We could just deny that and grant them relief . If we 16 know that number by next week -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we could 17 grant them alternate relief . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm not 18 saying we can agree with it, I'm just saying we can look at it -- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Deny and give -- 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re not waiting. 21 MS . DURKIN: If we have a new plan in by next week. 22 MR. DURKIN: They basically go in their computer, as long as I can get in there 23 with them. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You heard 24 correctly about never granting, but there is ways to do relief . You want to build this 25 structure that looks like the house . I'm willing to consider that but -- February 26, 2004 111 1 2 MR. DURKIN: Not at that scale . Okay. If I knew that because it was also hard 3 for me to go to an architect because every architect I said I just want to build a 4 garage, they said why don' t you go to a lumberyard and have them draw it up because it 5 really isn' t worth my -- I 'm going to charge you an enormous amount of money for something 6 that' s very simple, and then when I went to him, his options were I guess more limited 7 than an architect . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There may 8 be problems with holding the building up, I don' t know. 9 MR. DURKIN: Well, the length of the beams . I wanted open space in there too. 10 I didn' t want the columns in the middle . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You 11 understand what we' re looking for to help you expedite this? 12 MR. DURKIN: Right . Get you another set of plans with the mean height 13 down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We can deny 14 this at our next meeting and then grant you alternate relief at what you've submitted when 15 you submit it to us next week. MS . DURKIN: Okay. Do we just 16 need to bring it in by next week, or we need to be here next week? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You need to submit it . 18 MS . KOWALSKI : You need to give us six sets, six copies, if you can reduce them. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: By what day? 20 MS . KOWALSKI : It would have been by tomorrow, but Tuesday' s okay. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember, in any case, that any decision that 22 I'm going to make is going to be for an accessory structure only, nothing else . 23 MS . DURKIN: Okay. MS . KOWALSKI : No sleeping 24 quarters or anything like that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 25 insulation, no heat, nothing like that . MR. DURKIN: No . I think on the February 26, 2004 112 1 2 plans it shows insulation and everything else, it' s just on there ' cause that' s the way he 3 draws it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I move that we 4 close the hearing and reserve decision until later pending receipt of new plans . 5 MS . DURKIN: All right . MR. DURKIN: This afternoon. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 7 responded in favor. ) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next one is 9 Stanley Malon. Mrs . Moore, this is for the commercial building fairly adjacent to Cox' s 10 Lane . MS . MOORE : I'm sorry. I thought 11 we were done and you reopened us . Maybe you can tell me what you would like to discuss 12 before I start . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . We 13 were trying to do this really in cooperation with the Planning Board so that we both get 14 our acts together, that we don' t give you something then they go back and say why did 15 the Zoning Board give you what have you. MS . MOORE: Right . I just 16 happened to be at the Planning Board meeting yesterday. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As you know your parking in the front of the buildings is 18 not allowed. MS . MOORE : No. I would 19 respectively disagree . I have here the subdivision map that was approved by the 20 Planning Board and is the one that we have to follow. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the three lots? 22 MS . MOORE : For the three lots and I have one for each of you. Let' s start -- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: According to the subdivision regulations I believe you have 24 to have some sort of landscaping in front . MS . MOORE: Let me back you up . 25 This property was created back in the 180s, looks like 182 may have been the final February 26, 2004 113 1 2 approval on it, 180 to ' 82 . The Suffolk County Planning Commission came up with a 3 recommendation of cross-easements and the Town agreed that that was a suitable way to treat 4 multiple properties that were all going to be developed as commercial properties . So what 5 the Town did is, through the county as well, they required a covenant to record a 6 cross-easement, that the cross-easement begins, only 10 feet -- there' s a landscape 7 area of 10 feet, and if you notice the commercial building next to us, the wine 8 building, I call it the wine retail building, we followed the pattern, we followed the 9 design of that building because we wanted to create a building that was in character with 10 the area, which is the issue, the sole issue before this Board is the 60 foot rule, may we 11 have a variance to deviate from the rule that says linear feet of -- 60 feet linear feet 12 across the road. Keep in mind that that same section of the code deals with multiple 13 buildings, that if you have multiple buildings you push back to 75 feet, and you can do this 14 and that . It' s the worst drafted -- and I apologize if any of you were involved in that 15 drafting -- that is the worst drafted code I have ever seen. The first part -- obviously 16 you understand. The second part I cannot understand what they were trying to get . The 17 bottom line is there is 10 feet of landscaping then there has to be 25 foot easement area, or 18 cross-easement, driveway area. Then we will deal with whatever landscaping, whatever 19 parking is suitable . But all of these issues are issues we are addressing with the Planning 20 Board through the site plan. And every single one of these issues the Planning Board can 21 choose to waive based on the design of the surrounding properties, and in this instance 22 we are somewhat constrained by what the Planning Board did initially with this 23 cross-easement . So quite frankly, all of the questions about landscaping and parking and so 24 on, I respectively disagree with you. It does not belong here . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm only bringing that up because you had parking in February 26, 2004 114 1 2 the front, and I don' t know how you' re going to get parking and landscaping and the 3 building in the front . I don' t think you have enough room. You have a much shorter lot than 4 the other two lots in question. MS . MOORE: No, not at all . Our 5 lot is identical, in fact, it' s exactly identical . It' s the one that has a house on 6 it . If you look at Lot Number 4 , see Lot Number 4, that is our property. That house is 7 obviously being removed; that lot is the exact same dimensions as the lot next door with the 8 wine building that we followed. Gary Olsen' s building, and Gary Olsen' s property is 9 constrained by a 25 foot right of way along the westerly side . So that is the only lot 10 that is narrower, but as far as width, and it' s 249, almost 250 on one side, 360 on the 11 other. It' s minimal . We also have dealt with the Planning Board already. This is our third 12 time before the Planning Board with redesign -- I take it back, second time . The 13 first time we came in� with a proposal . The Planning Board said, you know, we like this 14 but we would recommend that you change the parking in the front slightly, and we moved 15 some parking back, that' s the plan that you have . It' s actually been pushed back towards 16 the building. We eliminated some parking that was in some areas of the front . We also -- 17 what else did we do? I'm trying to remember how far back it was . Let me pull out my site 18 plan. It will trigger my memory of what we did. We went to the Architectural Review 19 Board. They suggested some trellis in the front, which we added and gave back to the 20 Planning Board. This design with the parking is what the Planning Board originally looked 21 at and liked. We actually have land banking of parking in the back because there is too 22 many parking spaces . We are required 61, we are offering 60, and we' re land banking 23 actually 13 because there' s a recognition that this type of use you have, it' s not 100 24 percent occupancy; it' s not 100 percent in and out . The code overdoes it on the parking. 25 We also, if you look at the adjacent and I only did one because it' s very difficult to February 26, 2004 115 1 2 copy and piecemeal from the Planning Board records, but I took the site plan from next 3 door that was approved and the building next door has eight tenancies, eight occupancies . 4 Again, instead of what we have, which is the two buildings with the large opening in the 5 center, they have three sets of buildings with two passageways, openings . The only comment 6 that the neighbors have, that the tenants have had is that the openings next door are too 7 narrow, and you end up with a wind tunnel effect, and they suggested to our architect 8 keep the pathway larger so you have less -- you have better air flow, you have less of a 9 wind tunnel, which is why our architect designed it the way he did. 10 I have a full copy of the site plan for your records and you can see., from 11 the site plan you can see that you have a building next door that from end to end is 94 12 feet in width, again, with the two alleys instead of the one that we have, and narrower 13 alleys . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a point, 14 but their contours of their property are very different from yours . Yours goes from a 15 height of 16 feet down to 10 feet on the east and north. You' re going to have a great deal 16 of fill to put in to get parking in the rear; how are you going to get the drainage? 17 MS . MOORE : Madam Chairman, precisely why we are at site plan and are with 18 the Town engineer. We should not be discussing these issues here . Your issue is 19 the 60 foot in character with the area . If you say no, we are not going to give it to 20 you. Well, all right, we take out the mezzanine and we have a conforming building. 21 We have two 38 foot wide buildings . This is a much nicer design. The site plan issues we 22 have dealt with. We actually created, and Mr. Glover showed me some pictures that he 23 has, there is a tremendous amount of water runoff that is coming off of the Town road, 24 not his property, not our property, but it' s coming off of the Town road that the Town is 25 refusing to correct, and it is pooling on Mr. Glover' s property, but he' s trying to get February 26, 2004 116 1 2 us to fix it . I don' t think it' s possible . We can fix all the grading, all the drainage 3 so that we take care of all the water runoff that occurs on our property and maybe off of 4 the Main Road. We have far exceeded the drainage that even the neighboring piece has 5 had to do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Moore, in 6 order to get a completely unbiased opinion, we have hired Chick Voorhis to do a drainage 7 study of this whole piece of property because depending upon what he says with the drainage 8 to me relates to the size of your building and the parking that will be required. Because I 9 do feel responsible for having any drainage running off into Mr. Kaelin' s or Mr. Glover' s 10 property and to that whole corner, which is a very bad corner to begin with. 11 MS . MOORE : I appreciate that, I understand that, and we' ll see -- Chick hasn' t 12 provided you with a report, has he? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he' ll be 13 coming in about a week. MS . MOORE: The report or he will 14 be coming? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The report will 15 be with us in a week. MS . MOORE : Has he been given our 16 version of the site plan? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 17 MS . MOORE : I have no objection to having Chick Voorhis look at the site plan. 18 It' s certainly within your rights, and our architect would love to speak with Chick and 19 see how to make this better. We would love to make it better. But if your purpose is using 20 drainage issues to deal with the size of this building, I do have an objection to that 21 because, again, the 60 foot rule, the only reason we' re here is because of that mezzanine 22 that puts the two buildings together. Otherwise, the identical building would be 23 built -- excuse me, the identical main structures would be built . We are conforming 24 to the parking. We could eliminate some parking. We have no problem with reducing the 25 amount of parking. We are obligated to show the required parking based on the square February 26 , 2004 117 1 2 footages that we have . It is certainly in everybody' s best interest, including you and I 3 as residents of the town, not to see a sea of parking. Next door they have their parking, 4 they provided 44 spaces . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That will be up 5 to the Planning Board specifically. MS . MOORE: Exactly. But you' re 6 using -- . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm not saying 7 specifically how many. I'm just saying with the contour of the rear and the fill that 8 you' re going to have to put in, I just fear for the drainage that' s going to be going, not 9 maybe now, but in the future will be going on to Mr. Glover' s and Mr. Kaelin' s property. 10 MS . MOORE : What can I tell you. You made up your mind before as far as not 11 wanting this size building, and you've put it on the record. That' s fine, certainly every 12 Board member is entitled to their opinion. I think we' re being penalized for drainage that 13 is occurring off site . And this building is going to be an asset to this town and a major 14 contributor to the tax base . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Moore, I'm 15 not trying .to stop the building per se . I 'm just saying I don' t think it should be as 16 large as it . I won' t give a definite opinion until I get some sort of drainage report . I 17 don' t want to stop it, and I don' t want to hold you. up any longer. 18 MS . MOORE : Understand as large as you suggest it is . We' re talking about the 19 width of the building, two 38 foot . The size of the building, you' re looking at the depth 20 as far as size; that is not -- again, that' s not part of your appeal . Your appeal is the 21 linear footage along the road and whether or not it' s in conformity with the character of 22 the area. I don' t know how to show to you any -- you look around the neighborhood and 23 you can see that we' re designing identical to the building next door in a subdivision that 24 was intended to have development that way. You could end up, I think John Nickles 25 and I were discussing, you could end up with CVS come in with a large building. You have February 26, 2004 118 1 2 one tenant with maybe a little bit smaller building, but it' s going to put the next guy 3 out of business . At least the small mom and pop shop out of business . We have an owner 4 here who wants to put multiple tenancies for small mom- and pop-type of operations, whether 5 it' s a doctor or sole practitioner or one retailer. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no 7 questions . MS . MOORE : For the record, I 'm 8 going to give you the site plan for next door. I had given you before the layout, the site 9 plan in a very simplified format so you could see what the dimensions are of the building 10 for your file . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 11 Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . We' re 12 just kind of back where we were three months ago. I personally would like to see this 13 thing moved along. MS . MOORE : I don' t know what you 14 want from us, that' s the problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I don' t know. I don' t recall ever discussing 16 hiring anybody to do a study on this, but, I don' t know that that' s within our purview, in 17 all honesty. I didn' t witness the rest of the hearings, but I 'm sitting here looking at the 18 notice of disapproval right now, and the discussion that I'm hearing right now I can' t 19 see it in the notice of disapproval . MS . MOORE : Site plan issues? 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . I see nothing in this notice of disapproval that 21 says anything about we' re going to discuss drainage today. And I'm just wondering -- I 22 don' t know how we got here honestly, and I would really like to hear some discussion on 23 the Board as to just what it is, what we are looking at here . If we' re going to start 24 making decisions based on what one piece of property has to take care of the drainage for 25 all of the surrounding pieces of property, I have never, ever seen us make a decision on February 26, 2004 119 1 2 that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, 3 it' s only this piece of property, not other pieces of property. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jim, you may have read the passages, but the two 5 gentlemen sitting in the back own the properties on both sides in the east, and we 6 have taken significant testimony from them. And we viewed their problems . We know them, 7 and they, of course, have been businessmen in this town for many, many, many, many years . 8 And we understand your problem, Mrs . Moore, and we accept the fact -- I accept the fact 9 that you are going to take care of the drainage . We just have certain feelings about 10 the drainage, and the Chairperson took it upon herself to do this . So that was it . 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The testimony, Jim, the last time I heard this was 12 probably three months ago. There was considerable concern by Mr. Glover and the 13 adjoining neighbors about drainage on the property, and how that would be addressed to 14 insure that it would not be exacerbated. And that' s kind of what the concern of the 15 neighbors was at that time. And I think everything else has been very well hashed out . 16 MS . MOORE : May I also add for the benefit of Mr. Dinizio that last time I had 17 the benefit of the architect here . It takes him three hours to get out here . In all 18 fairness, this would have been his third time, so he didn' t come . He' s redesigned this site 19 plan with respect to the complaints or the concerns that were raised by Mr. Glover. He 20 went out on Mr. Glover' s property, on this property, they must have spent a good hour, 21 hour and-a-half there, and really he redesigned -- this site plan is the redesigned 22 version, the engineering behind it has been done based on Mr. Glover' s concerns . And they 23 were taken seriously. We haven' t blown him off; we haven' t ignored him. We are cognizant 24 of the issues that he raised that were legitimate issues . We recognize that . But I 25 also have to state that we do not want to exacerbate his situation, but, on the other February 26, 2004 120 1 2 hand, we may not have the ability to correct his situation because his drainage problem is 3 coming from an outside source . Maybe there' s some that' s occurring from our site because 4 it' s undeveloped right now. That will be corrected and some by the development of this 5 property. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: When are we 6 supposed to get this report? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: About a week. 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the report is a drainage report on the property? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . He has to take a look at what would be the proper 9 drainage, and the problems with it because the contours of the land are so high, one 16 foot, 10 then go down to 10 foot . So you' re going to have to have, in order to get the parking in 11 you have to put a considerable amount of fill to level that thing off . 12 MS . MOORE : Regrading. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Regrade it 13 considerably. Because the lowest I think in the front it' s either 14 or 15, and then it 14 goes up to 16, then drops all the way down to 10 foot . And it' s always wet back in there . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Or he may accept the drainage plan submitted. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MS . KOWALSKI : This is the first 17 time he' s seeing it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm just 18 wondering how the Zoning Board of Appeals comes to the conclusion that they can base 19 anything based on drainage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is just a 20 consideration to the neighboring properties . And, Jim, I really have a real problem, just 21 in general of developing properties with no regard to drainage and keeping drainage on 22 your own property and not bothering somebody else . 23 MS . MOORE : Absolutely, I agree 100 percent with that . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think they' re required by our Town code to do that . 25 I don' t think that' s our purview. MS . MOORE : And the Town engineer February 26, 2004 121 1 2 reviews this plan for that purpose . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t 3 think that' s our purview. We don' t make that decision. 4 MS . MOORE : No . We spend thousands of dollars for a site plan for that 5 purpose alone, to deal with drainage because obviously residences are problems, farms are 6 problems, when a commercial property gets developed, they have to deal with drainage, 7 certainly with their legal obligations to take care of drainage that is occurring from their 8 property. My concern is that we have surrounding properties that are having 9 drainage problems that are being used -- or, that problem is being used to limit the 10 development on this piece when one has no relation with the other. 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: May I ask a question? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as 13 the parking and the access to the building, you said this was part of a Suffolk County 14 Planning Board approval when the subdivision was created? 15 MS . MOORE : When the subdivision -- I think it' s Minor is the name 16 of the subdivision, Minor, I looked at the Planning Board' s records -- Minor subdivision 17 went to Suffolk County Planning Commission for a recommendation. Suffolk County Planning 18 Commission letter, and I can look for it I made a copy of it . The letter referred to the 19 fact that this is going to be several commercially developed properties, and they 20 recommended that there be a cross-easement between the properties . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We don' t have a copy of that letter so we can kind of 22 clean up many of these points -- MS . MOORE : That' s the survey. 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you can, please, submit that into evidence so we can 24 get that cleared up right now, Number 1 . Number 2 , traffic and pedestrian concerns, is 25 there an environmental assessment done by the Planning Board at this time? February 26 , 2004 122 1 2 MS . MOORE : I would presume so. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There is 3 not or there is? MS . MOORE : I submitted an 4 environmental assessment form with the site plan application so generally they do SEQRA 5 through the site plan process . Also DOT -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We haven' t 6 received anything. MS . KOWALSKI : It hasn' t been 7 coordinated. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it 8 hasn' t been coordinated yet . Would those concerns not be coordinated through the SEQRA 9 process? MS . KOWALSKI : They should. 10 MS . MOORE : Excuse me, but isn' t pedestrian and vehicular access on the state 11' route a State DOT issue? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Whether it 12 is or not it should be addressed through the SEQRA process and we are not an involved 13 agency as far as I know. MS . MOORE : You are a Type 2 14 action because it' s an area variance so I don' t believe you would get involved in a 15 SEQRA review aside from the area variance . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm really 16 trying focus on what we' re here for. MS . MOORE : I know. I just don' t 17 want to create issues that don' t -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Exist . 18 MS . MOORE : -- exist . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm looking 19 at the agenda here . As far as traffic and pedestrian concerns that would be addressed by 20 them as far as relating to the variance . The variance goes to the width. 21 MS . KOWALSKI : I understand the Planning office was going to send a letter 22 over and we were supposed to get it so we could give it to the applicant last week. As 23 of this moment it has not been submitted to US . 24 MS . MOORE: My understanding from being at the meeting. I'm relying on what was 25 said verbally, but they took -- they understood the questions you were asking but February 26 , 2004 123 1 2 those issues are site plan issues . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let' s get 3 this straight . I'm not asking these questions, I'm merely reading what' s on an 4 agenda that I have seen for the first time today. 5 MS . MOORE : No. There was a letter that went out, an internal 6 communication from the Zoning Board to the Planning Board was give us your comments on 7 five items, five elements, drainage, parking and things like that . 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' m merely looking for the first time today since I was 9 sick for the last hearing, looking at it saying where are we at so we can move forward. 10 That' s all . MS . MOORE : I'm trying to give you 11 the information I have . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only 12 thought that I have on this is this is a variance; it' s a request for an 13 interpretation. If the variance, which is the width of. the building, is going to affect the 14 drainage or the parking or any of those things, then we can rightfully say it' s within 15 our purview because we can make a nexus between the two of them. However, if the 16 width of the building is not going to in any way be affected by those things, I'm not too 17 sure how far we should be venturing along those lines . That' s my opinion. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm just waiting for a report to come back. If he 19 comes back and says this is fine, this is what should be done, we' ll take care of it, then be 20 that as it may. I just want confirmation from an independent source . 21 MS . MOORE : Thank you. I'm going to submit for the record the Suffolk County 22 Planning Commission recommendation that was made October 15, 1982 to Henry Raynor, who was 23 the chairman of the Planning Board at the time the subdivision was created, two items which 24 are an obligation on the subdivision. One is all storm water runoff resulting from the 25 development, an improvement of this subdivision or any of its lots shall be February 26, 2004 124 1 2 retained on the site by adequate drainage structures so that it will not flow out into 3 the right of way of Main State Road. That is a condition; that is one that' s accepted; 4 that' s what the site plan' s all the about, and we understand it . And the width of the 5 building, because it' s not really a width, we have two 38 foot wide structures connected by 6 a mezzanine, the mezzanine being 10 feet extra setback, these issues have nothing do with the 7 linear footage on the road. Then finally, the other condition is that since Lots 2 through 4 8 inclusive will eventually be used for business it is necessary that a plan be developed 9 showing how the parking areas on these lots will be coordinated with the two proposed 10 points of access shown on the map . The layout of the parking area should also ensure that 11 the vehicle can move from one lot to another lot without having to reenter the state road. 12 So again, the landscaping can' t be put in such a way that it interferes with the 13 ingress/egress that' s intended and it was a condition of the subdivision between the 14 properties . So we' re balancing several balls, but these are balls that are balanced at the 15 planning level not at your level . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Miss Moore, 16 they can vary those, right? MS . MOORE : Absolutely, these 17 conditions are part of the subdivision. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, but 18 I'm talking about the landscaping can be changed. 19 MS . MOORE: Yes . The rules in the code are as a guideline but because of other, 20 factors, they have a right to waive any or all of these site plan issues . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, do you mind, I ' d like -- we've heard your case . I 22 don' t want to cut you off, you can come back, but we' d like to hear what Mr. Glover or 23 anybody else has to say. MS . MOORE : Sure . Thanks, I won' t 24 take offense . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope not . 25 MR. GLOVER: Good afternoon, I'm Leonard Glover, and I 'm the one that has the February 26 , 2004 125 1 2 problem with the drainage because originally there was a big pipe went under 25, and then 3 with all the building that' s cut off, and the water used to keep right on going down the 4 crick. But I just, instead of holding things up, I brought pictures on February 7th of what 5 it looked like, and I' d like to leave them with the Board so you can look at them. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Kaelin, do you have anything to add? 8 MR. KAELIN: Yeah, Dan Kaelin. I have the property on the corner of Cox' s Lane, 9 on the northwest corner. The only question I would like to 10 direct to Pat is, you' re talking about an easement, does that effect me at all? 11 MS . MOORE : No, not at all . MR. KAELIN: Because I heard again 12 hearsay they were going to break through my west line so they could swing out to the lot . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : We have a map here, if you want to take a look at it . It goes 14 right through your property. MR. KAELIN: Okay. I think the 15 water issue has already been addressed by the pictures . I think they speak for themselves . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Nickles have anything to 17 say? MR. MCCARTHY: Good afternoon, Tom 18 McCarthy, Southold. My comments because of the advertisement of reopening the entire 19 hearing, I don' t want to necessarily go back over all the old things . I don' t have any 20 comments on the drainage or the length of the building, other than the fact that 21 architecturally it looked good when I saw the plans . I'm here to talk about the number of 22 uses on the property, and one of the disapprovals that was given at that point in 23 time . I was here to speak at the last public hearing, and just want to reiterate my 24 comments . I don' t know if you' re going to speak about any of that today, but I feel as a 25 resident of the town and a local business person and knowing a lot of other small local February 26, 2004 126 1 2 businesses, that the strict interpretation that the Building Department has given and the 3 reason why Miss Moore is here on the number of uses, that strict interpretation under the 4 Zoning code will hurt a lot of the local businesses if they all had to have the minimum 5 lot size per use on the property, not just in the B Zone, which is advertised, but I ask 6 when you come out with your interpretation however that goes, that it' s far reaching and 7 goes across all the business zoning categories . It doesn' t just address the B 8 Zone with the number of uses that are allowed on a piece of property with the bulk schedule . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we' ll take that very seriously. 10 MR. MCCARTHY: I think that will make a tremendous impact . The way that the 11 building inspector is interpreting is definitely in contrast with having a 12 change in code to the way it' s been interpreted previously with other multiple 13 tenant facilities around town, namely, Jim Gray' s industrial park, the buildings on the 14 North Road, Feather Hill . If it was to be interpreted that strictly, the Town probably 15 wouldn' t have been able to occupy Feather Hill with three different departments in town and 16 you wouldn' t have all the little small spaces within that complex if that the zoning code 17 had been interpreted that way at that point in time . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask Mr. McCarthy a question? Fill me in then 20 Mr. McCarthy about this 30, 000 square feet . I'm assuming that the discussion went toward 21 each particular business that they wanted to put in there to require that? 22 MS . MOORE : Maybe I can help on that . The building inspector interpreted that 23 here we have, for example, eight tenancies . They wanted to show the extreme when they did 24 it because they could have said three uses given the fact that we have retail, office and 25 maybe restaurant use at the time . But they went to the extreme, eight uses, every tenancy February 26 , 2004 127 1 2 being a different use . They look at the code and they say one use per -- whatever the bulk 3 schedule says, and in business zoning it is 30 , 000 square feet so one use per 30, 000, if 4 you were in a zoning district, one use per 40 , 000 . So they' re, I believe, 5 inappropriately using the bulk schedule for a minimum lot size that' s used for minimum lot 6 size and setbacks and things 1-ike that to apply to the use schedule that' s at the 7 beginning of each code, what uses are permitted in that zoning district . And the 8 last time I was here I explained in statutory construction, when you have a code that 9 says -- for example, RO, it says, specific language, one use per 40, 000 square foot . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I read that . You wrote that -- 11 MS . MOORE: Right . It' s very, very specific . So therefore the fact that 12 it' s specific in one area and left out of the rest of the code implies as a matter of law 13 that it was never intended to be read that way. And so far people have come in for 14 variances rather than challenge that decision and say, Zoning Board, this is wrong, it' s 15 undermining the zoning code . And finally, I just didn' t think that was right so we' re 16 here. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That would 17 seem to me that all you could be able to do is put one deli in that building, right? 18 MS . MOORE : One use, exactly. And funny thing is though, I have to say, there' s 19 another project that' s being reviewed and the Planning Board thought this is ironic, there' s 20 another project that' s a medical arts building. The medical arts building is 21 probably the same size as ours, same number of doctors -- let' s assume it is -- because it' s 22 one use, a medical arts building, doctors office, it can proceed without any variance . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you can be a surgeon or podiatrist, 14 separate 24 doctors . MS . MOORE: I don' t want to 25 ruin -- John, you had a very good example -- I don' t want to ruin John' s thunder, but he had February 26, 2004 128 1 2 an excellent example of how it would not make sense . You could have CVS and in with one use 3 and build the same building and wouldn' t be here . They would proceed with the Planning 4 Board. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm trying 5 to go the other way. If they had a deli there to occupy a building this size and that' s all 6 you could have in there, and then you wanted to have seven other uses in this town, you' d 7 have to go 30 , 000 square feet for each one of those . 8 MS . MOORE : You' d have to have a property that was eight times 30 , 000 , 240 , 000 9 square feet there . It' s impossible . There aren' t any properties that size . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re saying that the code doesn' t say that . 11 MS . MOORE : The code doesn' t say that and I think it' s a misapplication of the 12 code . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Not in this 13 district . I think there' s two districts that it does specify. 14 MS . MOORE : Correct . Marine business district, 1 or 2 and an RO. I know 15 RO because it' s my office . If I have all offices I'm okay, but if I want to put 16 something different, I have to come to you guys . 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we need to do is, we need to wait for the report . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just ask them to come back March 18th at 2 : 00 p.m. 19 MS . MOORE : You want us back? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 20 Mr. Nickles, did you wish to say something? MR. NICKLES : Yes, thank you. 21 John Nickles, Junior, Southold. The president of the Southold Business Alliance couldn' t be 22 here so I'm speaking for him today. Namely on that last point that 23 Mr. McCarthy and Pat Moore spoke about, thank you, I really don' t have any thunder though. 24 I think that that is a crucial point here in the Town of Southold especially for, I think 25 that the residents, and the business community in general have the same mutual goals . We February 26, 2004 129 1 2 would like to have the small businesses survive out here, and I think that that 3 interpretation, particular interpretation regarding the bulk schedule by the Building 4 Inspector is really going to send the town in the wrong direction. And I would hope that 5 the Zoning Board of Appeals straightens that out . Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, John. If there' s no one else to speak, I 7 would like to adjourn this hearing until March 18th at 2 : 15 p.m. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 10 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we take a four minute recess? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes.. (Whereupon, a brief recess was 13 taken. ) ------------------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call our next hearing, which is J and C 15 Holdings . It' s for a piece of property North View Drive in Orient for a home less than 50 16 feet from the property line, less than 100 feet from the top of the Sound bluff . 17 MS . WICKHAM: I just want to quickly bring you up to date since you closed 18 the last hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have 19 reopened it . MS . WICKHAM: You have reopened it 20 because my client was sensitive to the discussion about size of retaining walls, 21 drainage and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Size of the 22 house . MS . WICKHAM: -- size of the 23 house . Looked at the plan again, went back to the engineer and the surveyor and was able to 24 redesign it so that there was one three foot retaining wall, and by putting the garage 25 underneath a smaller house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the size February 26, 2004 130 1 2 of the house now? MS . WICKHAM: One and-a-half 3 story, 59 by 32 foot house and the garage under and a partial second floor, which is 4 about 300 square feet smaller than the upstairs than the prior one because they have 5 shortened the house by six feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it' s 2 , 000 6 square feet or under 2000 square feet for the total? 7 MS . 'WICKHAM: I ' ll get you the total . Let me compute that out . There are a 8 number of drainage questions . If the Board has any questions about that Mr. Fischetti is 9 here, and he can probably answer them better than I can. Let me look at my notes on the 10 square footage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: By the way, 11 Miss Wickham, did you get the report or letter from Miss Summers, from her engineer' s report? 12 MS . WICKHAM: I did. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Joe has it? 13 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . MR. FISCHETTI : Joseph Fischetti . 14 As you know, after that last meeting, I did work with John Hertado to redo the house and 15 to redo the drainage . I submitted the drainage to you. We used the drainage 16 calculations required by the Town, which is two inch rainfall . The calculations were 17 to -- the calculations that were sent to you were for the roof runoff completely, the 18 driveways and all the upper surface areas were retained, that was the question as to what it 19 retained, but it was retaining all the grass areas, the driveways and the roof areas . That 20 was into two drainage structures because one was going to be in the driveway because now 21 there was four, because the house was now at one level and usually you put the dry wells 22 around; and two, because we were picking up part of the roof area and the driveway area 23 was now very important . So we think we have addressed all the drainage issues . The 24 retaining walls now are only three feet . A lot of the problems with the view and the 25 massiveness of the two walls are now taken up by having the garage under. I ' ll take any February 26, 2004 131 1 2 questions for the Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought eight foot was pretty high. I think you did a 4 nice job bringing it down. MR. FISCHETTI : Yeah. We' re down 5 to only three foot, and three foot is less . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you address 6 the concerns that Miss Summers had in her letter to you? 7 MR. FISCHETTI : Some of them I don' t understand. So I think -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t understand them either. 9 MS . WICKHAM: So the answer is yes . 10 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes . I addressed what was in that letter. I felt consistently 11 she' s talked about five inch rainfall, but we don' t use that in the town. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know we don' t . 13 MR. FISCHETTI : We are containing -- there was a question about a 14 little depression and runoff, in essence -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . And 15 going down for that ravine that is on her property. 16 MR. FISCHETTI : We are retaining all the water on the site; so that' s really a 17 moot point in that we are retaining everything on the site . So that shouldn' t really enter 18 into the analysis . Again, I think everything has been addressed with the change in the site 19 plan. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I did notice, I don' t recall why, but the natural 21 screening on the west side was removed; was it necessary now that -- 22 MR. FISCHETTI : Well, we only have a three foot retaining wall now, so we felt 23 that we were changing our grade . We didn' t need that screening anymore . If it' s required 24 we would be glad to put screening back again. But I don' t think it' s needed. We only have a 25 three foot retaining wall . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Correct . February 26, 2004 132 1 2 No other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said the garage is under on the west side, is that 4 Belgian block that' s retaining that water into that center drain, or is that some sort of 5 poured concrete edging; what is that? MR. FISCHETTI : The driveway would 6 be asphalt because it has to contain that . So there' s really no need to have an edging. I 7 think if he wanted it for that purpose, but you can see it will just naturally go in that 8 direction because of the way we placed it . So you don' t have to contain anything because 9 that' s the lowest point, and that' s where the water wants to go. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there will be no water runoff from the road onto 11 that driveway? MR. FISCHETTI : Say the question 12 again. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No water 13 runoff from the road onto the driveway? MR. FISCHETTI : No, you mean North 14 View Drive? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 15 MR. FISCHETTI : No . Again, what we' ll do is you put a very slight hump at the 16 beginning and bring it down. We don' t want water, we don' t want water from there, no, not 17 at all . We don' t want to pick up their water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of 18 course not . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s no 19 chance of making that a pervious surface of a driveway? 20 MR. FISCHETTI : We' re trying to contain the water. We don' t really want 21 erosion. If I did it as a gravel driveway, I think we would have a little more of a 22 problem -- pervious, if it was bigger, I would concern myself . We' re taking it all and 23 putting it in the ground anyway, Ruth. So it' s all going in there . So having it 24 pervious . or impervious, I've taken into consideration that it' s impervious, so 25 whatever water doesn' t go into that drain, it' s going to go down. February 26 , 2004 133 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t know why is 'she asking about moving that retaining 3 wall 35 feet further back? MR. FISCHETTI : She asks for some 4 more buffer. I'm only 20 feet from the retaining wall right now. I'm trying to keep 5 a buffer from the coastal zone erosion line, and I'm only giving myself maybe a little less 6 than 20 feet from the edge of that retaining wall to the house . So, all it would do is 7 force the house to come closer to the property. I don' t think it protects anything. 8 Her question is not of any protection, we've addressed all that . We have, in a number of 9 letters that I have written, that we have addressed that . She asks about the wood is 10 not a maintenance issue . It' s a lifetime issue . I mean, again, this wood block, the 11 wood crib will last probably 40 years, and it' s not that it will -- if the retaining wall 12 was much higher and much more massive, there would be a concern of maintenance, but, again, 13 a three foot retaining wall doesn' t require any maintenance . It would require repairs 14 over the lifetime . I know John and I have talked about that, and John is willing, if 15 it' s a concern, to go with a Nicoloc, I think if you understand walls, which is an 16 interlocking block wall, and we' d be glad to do that . That' s much nicer looking than that 17 and it' s lifetime. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And also 18 if you get any water, it just seeps right through. 19 MR. FISCHETTI : So we would be willing to do that as a Nicoloc on the 20 retaining wall, gives it a little more flexibility. It' s easier to install instead 21 of the massive cribbing, which is a little harder to install . As you' re laying it, you 22 lay it a little easier and less equipment, so we would be willing to do that . We talked 23 about that this afternoon as a response to her. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions for Mr. Fischetti? I don' t have any 25 questions . So what is the square footage of February 26 , 2004 134 1 2 the house? MS . WICKHAM: This is again a 3 conceptual plan. We gave you a rendition last time of what it would look like . The only 4 change would be to reduce this side by about six feet and replace the garage door with a 5 window. So it will have the appearance on the front of the property as basically a one story 6 house . In the back there will be a cape making it a one and-a-half story. The first 7 floor will be approximately 1, 888 square feet, which is 59 by 32 . The second floor, I don' t 8 have the exact dimension, it' s going to be somewhere between 900 and 1, 000 square feet, 9 and then the garage under. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s still over 10 2 , 000 square feet . MS . WICKHAM: The house would be, 11 yeah. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does that 12 include the garage too? MS . WICKHAM: Yeah. The first 13 floor about 1, 900 square feet; the second floor about 1, 000, and the garage I guess 14 they' re about 600 square feet, but that will be underneath. And from the road side, as I 15 say, it will basically look like a ranch from the road. Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Miss Wickham, one quick question, refresh my 17 memory. The lot directly to the west -- MS . WICKHAM: To the west, YES . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They own this lot and they' re selling it? 19 MS . WICKHAM: That' s not correct . Mrs . Doll did own a number of properties in 20 the neighborhood and sold them years ago, I think. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The neighbor to the west doesn' t own this right 22 now? MS . WICKHAM: No. She owned the 23 one on the west or the east at one point . I can look that up. But it' s years ago. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The west, Mrs . Doll . Is there anybody that would like to 25 speak on this application? Yes, ma' am? MS . MORGAN: Hello, my name is February 26, 2004 135 1 2 Mary Morgan. I live in Brown' s Hills I think you probably answered the questions, Heidi 3 Hilde, who is my neighbor, asked me to submit her letter of February 24th. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have that . MS . MORGAN: You all have that and 5 you' re answering the questions that she has? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 6 MS . MORGAN: In what form will the questions be answered; will she get a letter 7 back or how do the answers come to her? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, it' s 8 more in the decision. MS . KOWALSKI : Actually, the 9 answers in this letter would be addressed by the attorney for the applicant . If the 10 chairman wanted to do them one by one . MS . WICKHAM: Well, the engineer. 11 MS . KOWALSKI : Or the engineer. MS . WICKHAM: He just did. 12 MS . MORGAN: So the -- MS . KOWALSKI : Each individual 13 question? MS . MORGAN: So at this hearing is 14 when the questions get responded to? MS . KOWALSKI : Yes . It' s been 15 responded to and the court stenographer will transcribe it . That' s how it' s entered in the 16 record. MS . MORGAN: And then she can get 17 a copy of the record? MS . KOWALSKI : Yes . 18 MS . MORGAN: If she has further questions or if we haven' t covered everything 19 that concerns her, should she send another letter? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we' re going to keep the hearing open any 21 longer. It' s gone on long enough that we' re just going to have to close it . 22 MS . MORGAN: All right, thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else would like to speak? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to clarify one thing, Miss Wickham. You 25 said that the total square footage of the house is somewhere in the area of 2 , 000 ; is February 26, 2004 136 1 2 that correct? MS . WICKHAM: No . I said -- Miss 3 Oliva asked if it was, and I said it' s more than that . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that' s with the garage that' s underneath the 5 house . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Living 6 space is closer to 3 , 000 square feet it sounded like . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s why I wanted the clarification. 8 MS . WICKHAM: First floor is 59 by 32 , which is 1, 888 square feet . 9 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s living area. And the second floor is a half story? 10 MS . WICKHAM: It' s a half story, and I'm guessing about 1, 000 square feet if 11 you took off the end of it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 12 about 2 , 800 . MS . WICKHAM: The plan is right in 13 your file . MS . KOWALSKI : How big is the 14 garage again? MS . WICKHAM: I'm assuming it' s 24 15 by 24 . Plus a hallway, maybe, not more than 600 square foot, really. 16 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s about 3 , 300 altogether. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And how high to the ridge? 18 MS . WICKHAM: The height to the ridge -- sorry, just put that map away. 19 MR. FISCHETTI : We' re 23 feet from the first floor. Now, we lowered the house 20 one foot when we redid the grading. So the first floor elevation was lowered from 93 to 21 92 . So it' s 92 plus whatever 23 feet is . Now, 23 feet is in essence a real ranch 22 height . It' s not a two story house . It' s just that it' s a two story with a cape in the 23 back. If you looked at a ranch in the front, that' s the elevation you would have . From the 24 first floor to the peak of the ridge is 23 feet . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you this question as an engineer. As an February 26, 2004 137 1 2 engineer, in square footage you do not take a garage and add it to the square footage of the 3 house? MR. FISCHETTI : No. I didn' t want 4 to add to that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 5 why I just want you to be aware of the situation. We are talking about a 2 , 800 , 6 2 , 900 square foot house here . We' re not talking 3 , 600 . 7 MR. FISCHETTI : You don' t add the garage because the garage would have been a 8 basement before, it just happens to be, we' re using that are now because we moved it from 9 the upper level now to the bottom. It would have been a basement area before . So it' s not 10 usually added. MS . WICKHAM: I wanted you to make 11 sure you understood that the garage is also there . And maybe I should give you this, 12 which is a mark-up of the plan we submitted before, showing the reduced size of the front . 13 But this might more specifically answer your questions in terms of height . Twenty-three 14 feet above the first floor is the actual top of the house, which is not how you measure 15 height under the code . This is the midpoint, but to go to the ridge is 23 feet . So that 16 might help you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We 17 shouldn' t lose focus on the notice of disapproval which is based on the setback of 18 the bluff . That' s what we' re addressing, but I don' t think it was ever talked about here 19 again, but we've lost site of, went off on tangents . 20 MS . WICKHAM: Bluff in the south side yard, yes . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have to go to the Trustees? 22 MS . WICKHAM: Mr. Hertado has spoken to the Trustees, and when I saw the 23 note on the agenda today, I had him go down and see them. And Lauren said that we could 24 advise you that she will give them a letter tomorrow to sign. There was no one there 25 today. She didn' t see a problem with it, but didn' t have an authorization to sign it . So February 26, 2004 138 1 2 if we may get you that after the hearing, I'm expecting that any day. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else would like to speak. Yes, sir? 4 MR. MORGAN: Tom Morgan. I also live at Brown' s Hills . We just built a house 5 2 , 300 square feet, which is big, on a perfectly approved building lot . And we 6 needed no variances . This is a negative building envelope, that' s something else that 7 shouldn' t be overlooked. So basically it' s a bigger house on a negative space than we built 8 a couple years ago. That' s all I have to say. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree with Mr. Morgan, it is a big house . There' s 10 no way we can -- MS . WICKHAM: That' s why we've 11 tried to come back -- we' re not supposed to be using height -- a number of times and 12 redesigned it and narrowed it down and limited to the one and-a-half stories rather than two 13 story. And that' s the type of house that he feels with the great room and the layout is 14 really what he would need to have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other 15 comments from the audience? MR. KEELER: Yes, my name is Brett 16 Keeler. Since when does everyone have to say what size a person' s house can be? If you 17 meet all the standards, you get a variance, whatever, whether you' re 1, 500 square feet on 18 the first floor and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just that 19 because of the fragility of the site . MR. KEELER: Price -- the 20 neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of the site and 21 the dwelling, and the setbacks from the road, and the bluff' s right there, they' re not back 22 100 foot - from the bluff as they should be, they' re much closer, and the bluff is very 23 fragile in that area, that we are concerned that we don' t have a big, heavy house sitting 24 on something, on that because the weight of that plus all the driveways . 25 MR. KEELER: Well, the weight of a one and-a-half story house versus a ranch February 26, 2004 139 1 2 house is very equal . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm not saying 3 not to make it one and-a-half . I'm just saying a 2, 800 square foot house is a good 4 size house . MR. KEELER: Right . But if a 5 person needs it, and you have a building lot that' s an acceptable building lot, then you 6 say you can' t build a house to live in, but then you paid for this lot . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm not saying you can' t build a house . 8 MR. KEELER: Yeah, but if it doesn' t meet a person' s needs . 9 MS . KOWALSKI : There' s no person yet . It' s for sale . 10 MS . WICKHAM: To more specifically answer your questions, that' s why we have the 11 engineering to the extent that we did to make sure that it wouldn' t be a problem. Because 12 ultimately you don' t want your house to be a problem. 13 MR. KEELER: You go through hiring professionals to tell you it' s not going to be 14 a problem, then you make a decision saying we don' t feel it' s going to be that big. There' s 15 got to be other grounds . I mean, why do we have professionals? 16 MS . KOWALSKI : Major setbacks, major variances they need, so they' re trying 17 to get it down to the minimum relief necessary. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is our directive from the Town law is to give the 19 minimum relief necessary. MS . KOWALSKI : Not the maximum, 20 but the minimum, and can you build a 1, 200 square foot house . 21 MR. KEELER: If it was a 1, 200 square foot house on the first floor and went 22 two stories, it' s 2 , 400 square feet . MS . KOWALSKI : The Board hasn' t 23 made a decision yet . This is what they came down to. That' s a revised plan. 24 MR. KEELER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No other 25 comments from the Board? Make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until February 26, 2004 140 1 2 later. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members 4 responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. 5 MS . WICKHAM: Hopefully that' s the final closed meeting. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope so too. ------------------------------------------------- 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Towbee, and it' s because of a 8 building they' re using for storage, which had two tenants instead of just being owned by one 9 tenant . Am I correct? Okay. CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: It' s owned 10 by one person. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you have a 11 tenant in there . CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: Correct . 12 MS . WICKHAM: Since we were here quite a number of months ago for the setback 13 variances, we have been waiting for the Building Department to certify to the Planning 14 Board the site plan. And apparently Mr. Verity had an issue with the multiple uses 15 on the property since last summer, and I gave him the hearing testimony from our last 16 hearing, where we discussed what those uses were . He was still uncomfortable with it and 17 finally issued a notice of disapproval based on the multiple uses, and your Board was kind 18 enough to get us in very quickly to address it . We feel quite strongly that the variance 19 really isn' t necessary because this property has historically had multiple uses and 20 Mr. Rich and I did spend a tremendous amount of time researching that, and we' d like to ask 21 you to recognize that . If for some reason you can' t, then I would go on to the variance 22 nature of the application. But I do think we've established a preexisting use of 23 multiple uses, which I would like you to recognize . 24 This is one of the really most interesting projects I've had in a long time, 25 and my client' s going to be glad that I'm not going to be billing him for literally hours I February 26, 2004 141 1 2 spent on the phone with Mr. Rich and some of the other old timers in town including Howard 3 Terry, Donald Tuthill, Pep Cochran, a lot of people who know a lot about the history of 4 this town and what went on. Mr. Terry' s comment was after 5 quite a while of getting him to remember these things, he said, oh, yes, I remember that was 6 a very, very busy street, and that was back into the ' 40s and into the 150s when the small 7 produce businesses were getting started, and there were a lot of fellows over that did have 8 businesses over there, and they were all different business, all in the different 9 buildings there, but most of which are still there . 10 Specifically, on the building which Sea Tow will not be operating its 11 business in, which we' re calling the Bohn building, there were a number of different 12 businesses detailed in the affidavit, sometimes as many as two or three different 13 businesses in that building. I think Mr. Verity recollected, 14 and it' s understandable that when you' re young and you' re trying to recall something when you 15 were young, he had recalled that Southold Lumber was in that building with its cabinet 16 shop, and that' s why he felt uncomfortable issuing the multiple use . We've since 17 discovered based on the tax records that that cabinet shop was actually on the other side of 18 the shop, and it was not a Southold Lumber building, it was a different cabinet shop. 19 But that' s probably why he felt uncomfortable at the time, and, unfortunately, he has been 20 on vacation and was unable to review this affidavit prior to the hearing today in order 21 to determine whether we needed to go forward. So we' re asking you to do that instead. 22 Rather than going on at length about anything else, I' d like to see if you 23 have anything specific . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Having lived out here most of my life summers, then 25 living since 1964, there' s no doubt in my mind that there were several businesses on that February 26 , 2004 142 1 2 piece of property, and, of course, to date Mr. Bohn, having been there and occupying that 3 property. So I really don' t have a problem with this application. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would agree . I've seen over the years going back and forth 5 there' s been many different businesses in there . Mr. Orlando? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I knew this was coming back up, I thought for sure I 7 addressed every single building and what their uses were . So I grabbed the old transcript 8 and I spoke specifically about every building except that one because I assumed that was 9 your headquarters now, and it would stay a Sea Tow thing. But I did not address that 10 building, so I cannot -- MS . WICKHAM: I 'm not sure -- 11 yeah, you were here . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I asked 12 specifically, what was Building 1 and what were you using it for 2 and 3 . I heard this 13 was coming back, and I asked them every building what they were using for, I can' t 14 believe that . I didn' t ask Building E, I asked 1, 2 , 3 but not E. 15 MS . WICKHAM: No. But I did address E in your hearing. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I see E, but I don' t have a problem. No other 17 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm wondering if you could fill me in on those 19 uses because I was not here for the last hearing. I've got to write this decision. I 20 want to make sure I get enough just information. So, what is the current use on 21 that property? MS . WICKHAM: First of all, 22 because I don' t think you were here for the initial hearings . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I read some of this . You' re here now for something 24 specifically -- MS . WICKHAM: Different, yes . And 25 I want to make sure we' re only on the one tax map parcel on the east half of the block, and February 26, 2004 143 1 2 that is divide into the east side and the west side . The east side, which is where the 3 office building, Building 1, the office building, Building 2 , which is the existing 4 warehouse being renovated and Building 3 , the new warehouse, will all be utilized by the Sea 5 Tow operations . So that the Buildings 2 and 3 will be accessory to Building 1 . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Building 1 is -- 7 MS . WICKHAM: The principal use on that east side -- 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is an office . 9 CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: Office communications and dispatch. 10 MS . WICKHAM: With Building 2 and 3 , warehouse storage accessory to that 11 business . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Those are 12 the established uses that are on this property that have been there for some time . 13 MS . WICKHAM: That' s going to be the new use, but previously there were other 14 uses detailed in Paragraph 2 of my affidavit . CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: There was 15 Digate, there was a wood shop, there was fertilizer, there was -- 16 MS . WICKHAM: Long Island Cauliflower. 17 MR. FROENHOFFER: That' s right, that was Gagen and Karon. It goes back to the 18 140s . MS . WICKHAM: Most recently a 19 landscaper. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What about 20 Mr. Bohn? MS . WICKHAM: And most recently a 21 landscaper. Now, on what we call the west side of the building, which is the Bohn 22 Building, that has been potato storage, the small produce dealers and business, the 23 grange, which later became Agway, Mr. Comshums repair appliances, the Telstar Electronics 24 business, which was run by Mr. Marsden, who Mr. Tuthill told me was really too old to 25 call . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How old February 26 , 2004 144 1 2 is he? MS . WICKHAM: How old is 3 Mr. Tuthill? MS . WICKHAM: Mr. McCarville was 4 there, Mr. Marsales was there prior to him and then Southold -- oh, no, and then Richard 5 Greenfield had a garage equipment business, then Mr. Bohn went in. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What is Mr. Bohn' s principal business? 7 MS . WICKHAM: Contractor storage yard. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what the Town says he is . 9 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, that' s correct . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Building E 10 is strictly? MS . WICKHAM: Contractor' s storage 11 warehouse yard, for that type of use . He' s a tenant now. I understand he' s got another 12 location, whether he' ll be a tenant there, that would be the use . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I get that list that you were reading off of? 14 MS . WICKHAM: I submitted it . but I can give you another one . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not necessary. If it' s there, it' s there . I 16 think that' s all I have, thank you. MS . WICKHAM: And I can also tell 17 you about most of the buildings nearby which some of these guys thought I was talking about 18 but wasn' t . It was an interesting experience . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there 19 anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on behalf or against this 20 application? Seeing no one, I ' ll close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? 22 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: Captain Joe 24 Froenhoffer. As this is a continuation of basically, I feel, of the first hearing, we 25 submitted basically two checks, $400 , I think in the beginning, and a second check for $400 . February 26, 2004 145 1 2 I feel that the second check was unnecessary, and I would respectfully request a refund. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to request that from the Town Board. 4 MS . KOWALSKI : That will be up to the Board. The Zoning Board didn' t require 5 the variance . The Building Department did. But it' s up to the Board if they want to 6 refund that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The Town 7 Board approves those . CAPTAIN FROENHOFFER: I don' t know 8 how that works . (Time ended 3 :45 p .m. ) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 February 26, 2004 146 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 6 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 7 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 8 THAT the within transcript is a true 9 record of the testimony given. 10 I further certify that I am not related by 11 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to 12 this action; and 13 THAT I am in no way interested in the 14 outcome of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 16 hand this 26th day of February, 2004 . 17 18 19 20 Florence V. Wiles 21 22 23 24 25 February 26 , 2004