Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/20/2003 HEAR T SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD FEBRUARY 20, 2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member George Horning Member Ruth D. Oliva Board Secretary Linda Kowalski Absent:- Member Vincent Orlando PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:41 am No. 5243—RORY and JENNIE FORRESTAL. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the October 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 9, 2002, regarding a proposed second-story and porch addition to the existing dwelling. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that the additions and alterations will not meet the code requirement for a side yard total of 35 feet, or the minimum 15 ft. side minimum. Location of Property: 1065 Saltaire Way, Mattituck; Parcel 100-1-23. CHAIRWOMAN: We are sorry to be running a little late here but we had a cancellation that kind of bumped everything off a little bit. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Seeing no hands I'd like to offer the board a resolution to consider the applicant's February 1 oth request to adjourn the hearing until April 3'd. All in favor? 9:42 am No. 5192—DAVID BELL AND RICHARD BUCKHEIT. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244,based on the Building Department's June 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose a deck addition at the rear of the existing dwelling with a single side yard of less than 10 feet, and minimum total side yards of less than 25 feet. 1375 Island View Lane, Greenport; Parcel 57-2-14. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? DAVID BELL: I'm David Bell. I bought this house 3 years ago in Greenport and at the time I looked at the house and up until the day before the closing the house had a deck that went along the whole length of the back of the house. The day of the closing an attorney called me and said you can't close on this because only half the deck is legal so they said we are tearing down the whole deck and I said don't do that can't we just do half of it the half that's illegal. They said no we have to tear the whole thing down. f, Page 2 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: This is the owner? MR. BELL: The attorney for the owner. I said I'll go and tear it down myself so it's within code. They said I couldn't because of insurance. Anyway to make a long story short I went out there tore it down. When I tore it down there were French doors that opened up onto part of the deck that was missing and part of the deck that was open. So we started the process to legalize the deck then and it's been almost 2 1/2 years. I had to go to the Trustees, to the DEC, the army core of engineers, then I went to the Building Dept. and said I'm ready and they said no you're not, you need to go to the Zoning Board. Before all of this I went to an agent to see if they could do all of this because I'm not a builder, I don't know all this stuff and it was almost blackmail to get somebody do that and it was almost$4,000 to have somebody do the permitting for me and said I can't do that so I started the process myself and the way that and I don't mean to landbast you or anybody around here but the way the agencies work together has been very difficult as someone who doesn't know the process because I was ready to build that. It was September this year I was going to the building permit I had everything ready to go and they said no you need to go to the zoning board and it might be because I don't know the variances and the laws need to happen but as a tax payer and somebody who just lives in the county it's a very difficult process to get this done and it's been 21h years now. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry it's been 2 %2 years and let's just get a clear record of what's happening. It's my understanding and you just stop me anywhere along the line the former deck was located 5' from the east property line that is gone? MR. BELL: Gone. On September 2nd the new deck was completed. CHAIRWOMAN: Now we have an "as built" deck. There was no CO for that it. This is the deck on the east side but that is the deck that was there was no CO for that when you purchased it. The other deck which connects to it on the west side is the legal deck. I think we are getting somewhere. Let's keep going along so the deck on the west side the legal deck is set 3.5'from the side property line and there is a CO on it. MR. BELL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to say it's an as built deck at this point. Let's try to firm up some other numbers. We have a setback 5' on the east property line and 3.5 on the west so that would give us a total side yard of 5 and 3 is 8.5'. That's what we need to firm up. I'm going to see if the board members have any further questions or any questions. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Could you go into a little more detail as to you submitted a photograph with your application there were some pilings there minus that portion of the deck and now there is another deck there. How did that all take place? Was there a deck originally on those pilings? _I. t Page 2 of 63 P,age'„3 February 20,2003;. Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. BELL: Yes I had to tear it down before the closing: The deck was one long piece with 4 pilings right before the closing I had to go cut off theAeck and there were 2 pilings that were that I just left there. MEMBER HORNING: And you did this last September. MR. BELL: That was 2 '/2 years ago. MEMBER HORNING: 2 %years ago you took that deck off, left the pilings and then this past September you re-established the deck there without a permit. Why? MR. BELL: Partly out of frustration also because I have 2 doors on the back of the house that I couldn't even use because they opened up to a 4'drop off the back of the house. MEMBER HORNING: You could have put a temporary stairwell or something. I was just curious how it got build again. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Normally if the house Mr. Bell didn't extend out to that point I would not be so inclined to grant this application because of the fact that I think 5'is a little tight to get to your rear yard but I guess the neighbors all get along down there and somewhere along the line you'll have to use somebody else's. MR. BELL: Actually my neighbors were telling me as I was tearing it down they kept telling me just build it back up no one will ever know and I said we are just trying to go through the right process. One other thing is this deck that I had to tear down had been there since at least 1967, but I couldn't find aerial photos to go back that far but we did have not documentation but we had the neighbors that lived there that long and had been there since 1967 but I couldn't find anything that documented that said that except my neighbor said he bought his house in 1967 and it was there then. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have no intentions of enclosing this deck in any way? MR. BELL: No, it's going to remain open. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that respect I have no further questions. MEMBER OLIVA: You have the whole deck the across the whole way or just half the deck? MR. BELL: Now it's the whole back of the house. CHAIRWOMAN: Did you replace the part that was illegal did you marry that or is all new? MR. BELL: The whole thing has been replaced but it's been replaced in the footprints of the old plus the new part that I'm applying for. Page 3 of 63 Y Page 4 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: What was the size of the former deck do you happen to know? MR. BELL: It might be on the survey. CHAIRWOMAN: I actually did look, I couldn't get the footage off of there. The west side of •the deck is the part that was legal. What was the width of the one that didn't have the CO? You don't know. If you could just give us that measurement would it be possible to do that within the next 10 days? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want the elevation of it? CHAIRWOMAN: If you do that's fine Jerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's about 48" high. MR. BELL: It's not that high. It depends on where you're standing. On the east side it might be 54"but at the other end it's only- CHAIRWOMAN: If you could get that other information, it doesn't have to be right this minute, but if you could get that information so when we address this we are going to say permission to replace an XYZ size deck. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision,pending the applicants providing us the size of the replaced as built deck. 10:10am-BELL CONT. MR. BELL: The additional deck is 8x12'. I had it on one of the other plans. CHAIRWOMAN: He has confirmed the deck without the CO is 8xl2'. Thank you very much. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 4 of 63 Page.5 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing �4 9:55 am No. 5271 —A. and B. DWORKOWITZ. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B,based on the Building Department's October 28, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for a total side yard setback of 22.9'. Applicants propose construction of additions and alterations to an existing dwelling. Location of Property: 4225 Pequash Ave., Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-137- : =s 2-17. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ALAN DWORKOWITZ: We've owned this house,for 15 years. It's a modest house not too large about 20x40' and we'd like to make an addition in the back. We are applying for a variance to continue the line of the house on the side. We'd also like to get a variance for the portico in the front which is about 2'. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just referencing the Notice of Disapproval I need to do that because maybe it's an oversight but I'm not sure. That was not noticed in the NOD. Is that something you added after you presented your plans to the Building Dept.? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No, I think it's in your copies. CHAIRWOMAN: Quite honestly the BD did not find•any fault with that to us. We can't address that. That's not to say they won't in the future but for your own information. The addition, what you are replacing, was a.former deck. MR. DWORKOWITZ: No, the addition is right next to the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm talking about on the east side where you have existing proposed porch. MR. DWORKOWITZ: That's already there. MEMBER OLIVA: You just want to enclose that and make a room out of it as I understood your plans, correct? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No that's already enclosed. MEMBER OLIVA: I know it's enclosed,but I'm saying I think you are going to make a kitchen or something in there? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No, it's already like a den. CHAIRWOMAN: So that's what we are seeing on the survey existing enclosed porch is an existing dining room and den and the setback on that is 10.4 is that correct? MR. DWORKOWITZ: Yes. Page 5 of 63 Page 6 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Now on the west side that proposed addition that's for the master bedroom? i MR. DWORKOWITZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And it's a 1-story addition and I have according to your plans I have-please Z$, confirm this for me that it's 20.3"x20' and it's one-story. MR. DWORKOWITZ: Yes, that's right. CHAIRWOMAN: The existing setback of the house which you are going to continue that line against on the west side you have an existing setback of 12.2'because the property is slightly angled even though you will be following the line of the house that's going to give you the new setback of 11.9'. Have we got all the facts here? MR. DWORKOWITZ: Yes. MEMBER OLIVA: I was down there and looked at it and didn't see any problem with it and you're more or less in compliance with the rest of the houses on that block. MR. DWORKOWITZ: In fact the neighbor to the west, his house is set back about 75-80' we have a letter from him saying the addition would be fine. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dworkowitz I just want you to be put on notice that I would not be in favor of any further reductions after the construction of that northerly property line which was I guess northwesterly property line because of the need at times to get into your rear yard area possibly with heavier construction so in this particular case it's no problem, you're in line with the house,but I just think you have steps on the opposite side and you have 10.4'but I think we are getting to that reduction situation where I think you need to keep those property lines open on at least that side of the house. MR. DWORKOWITZ: This definitely would be it. CHAIRWOMAN: I just wanted to clear one thing up because it did say the survey shows a porch and the plans show an existing dining room and den and there's also talks about demolishing that has that already been done? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No that wouldn't be demolished at all, that's actually part of the house. It was originally a carport when they first built it in the 50's. Then they enclosed it and we bought it as it was enclosed. CHAIRWOMAN: And you put the den in? MR. DWORKOWITZ: No it was already there. Page 6 of 63 Page,7 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: There was no plans to demolish any part of that. As far as the total side yards, if you're going to have 11.9 on the west and 10.4 on the east, what would our total side yards be? It's 22.3, not 22.9 as the NOD states. Just want to confirm that. I agree with Mr. Goehringer that we would not like to see any further reductions on that side or any further ] reductions in terms of bringing the side yards in and just to make it very clear, we are approving a 1-story addition in that area. If you decide you want a 2-story addition then you would be required to come back to us and seek additional relief. MR. DWORKOWITZ: This is all we can afford,this is all we'd like to do. This is it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 7 of 63 Page 8 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 10:05 am No. 5269—JOSEPH BASANI. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100- 30A.3,based on the Building Department's November 13, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended November 15, 2002. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that additions and alterations are proposed which do,not meet the minimum-front setback of 50 feet. Location of Property: 1672 0 Rocky Point Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-31-2-10.2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JOSEPH BASANI: Good morning, I'm Joseph Basani. I've owned the property since 1995- 1996. It was an accessory structure that I've converted to a single family dwelling. My family has increased in size so we decided we needed to put an addition on. Now because of certain conditions around the home we felt that building in an easterly direction was the way to go so my wife and I designed this addition ourselves we called the Building Dept. and asked for a front yard setback they told us 50'. We designed it 52'back from our property line and after we got our drawings approved by an engineer we found out there's a ROW on the property. I should have been from the ROW. Now we already incurred these costs so we felt comfortable with the size of the addition to be the minimum that we require for adequate bedrooms for the children so we thought we would try to go ahead with the addition as drawn and see if there was any problems with it. CHAIRWOMAN: The ROW would bring it we are looking at a,24'ROW correct? MR. BASANI: It's a 24'ROW which is a by-road that I live on. CHAIRWOMAN: That's about 6'into your property line? MR. BASANI: There's an additional 6'which makes it a 30'ROW overall. CHAIRWOMAN: The BD measured that from the ROW rather than your property line so when you designed it at 52' it came in 6' short which knocks it down to 46. Is that the long and short of it? MR. BASANI: Now the 4' I'm encroaching I'd like to say that 2' of it is chimney space so it's only 2' of living space and since it's 2 stories, it's about 88 sq. ft. of living space we are talking. CHAIRWOMAN: The size of the addition on your plans I have the survey says 24x22, the plans say 25.8x22. Should we go off that? MR. BASANI: 24x22 is the foundation. The 25.8 is to the outside of the chimney. 25.8 becomes 46'from the ROW. CHAIRWOMAN: We should take the 25.8. 1 don't have any questions. It appears this is unpaved ROW that comes off of the east side of Rocky Point Road and has prior approval from Page 8 of 63 q .4 i Page,9 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board,of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the Zoning Board of Appeals for access. The property across the street from the ROW on the west is owned by SCWA. MR. BASANI: The east side of the property is 35 acres SCWA. CHAIRWOMAN: It's all open right now. MR. BASANI: They are currently servicing I believe Orient and East Marion from the wells in existence right now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 6' ROW, what is that for actually? MR. BASANI: I don't know what it's for. I asked the surveyor I was down at Peconic Surveyors I was talking to John I said what is this for. The only thing they could tell me was that if that road was ever paved I guess a 6'ROW on my property would be for sidewalk or utilities or I don't really know what it would be for. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We see these all the time,unfortunately it cropped up on you. I have no objection.' MEMBER HORNING: I have no objections or questions. , MEMBER OLIVA: I went to look at it and I did not see a big problem with it and with that extra 6' you are really stuck. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 9 of 63 Page 10 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 10:10 am No. 5270—PAUL DAVIS. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Department's October 2, 2002,Notice of Disapproval amended October 28, 2002 for a proposed a reduction in lot area of Lot 1000-48-2-31.1 from 20,168 sq. ft. to 18,557 sq. ft. and proposed reduction in lot depth from 159.97 feo 174.97 feet. The remaining Lot 1000=48-2-33 will increase in area from 5,625 sq. ft. to 7313.55 sq. ft. and will increase in width from 50 feet to 65 feet. Location of Property: 1025 Ninth Street and 235 Linnett St., Greenport CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Davis has asked for an adjournment to April 3rd he is in the process of getting permission from the property owners to merge 2 lots and then he's going to ask us for a lot line change. Right now he's in the process of that,he stated that he would not be able to have that ready until April 3rd at 6:50. I'm going to grant the applicants request to adjourn the hearing to adjourn this hearing until 6:50pm April 3, 2003. 10:30 am No. 5273 -AMELIA.MENDOZA. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-31A.1,based on the Building Department's November 4, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that the proposed accessory building is design for habitable living area in addition to the existing principal dwelling, and that only one dwelling is permitted on a lot. Location: 38015 Main Rd., Orient; Parcel 15-2-15.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to seak on behalf of the application? seeing no hands I'll consider the applicant's February 10 request to adjourn the hearing to April 3rd at 7pm. Page 10 of 63 5 Page 11 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing _ 10:31 am No. 5275—NANCY IANNONE AND HELEN MARSHUT,LIFE TENANTS. This is a request for a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment under Section 100-31B(13) in conjunction with the owner/applicant's residence in the existing single-family dwelling located at 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold; Parcel 51-1-17_ CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ARTHUR ZALESKI: My name is Arthur Zaleski and I live at 19215 Soundview Ave. and I'm east my propertyss east of Marshut. I have received a notice here that she wants to have an accessory apartment. Now that accessory apartment in 1984 was a garage and Mr. Marshut at that time he changed the garage to a room and right after that Mr. Marshut passed away and Mrs. Marshut and their daughter Nancy have been living there since. Then I received a letter from her council Patricia Moore and she states that they want to have it converted to an accessory apartment and she also states in her letter that they are 2 older people and they are having their problems and this and that. Well as far as that goes with older people I'm a step away from 90 and my wife just got through a very bad spinal operation so we have our problems too if Patricia Moore wanted to work that angle. Why are we against it? In,that entire strip Soundview Ave. from Horton's Point lighthouse to 48 there is not one accessory apartment. These are all individual homeowners, they all have their own driveways. Never a car is parked on the road. Marshut is a very short driveway if that was ever occupied as-an apartment where the people would park the cars I don't know. On the west side of Marshut the neighbor Condorus owns the property his wife called me up and incidentally Mr. Condorus is paralyzed and he's in a wheelchair and she told me that she was unable to make the meeting because of the fact that he gets at this state around this morning time he gets a special medical procedure so I told her exactly that the Town Board would like some kind of response from her a letter and I believe she faxed in. On the west of me is Mr. Rook. He's a NYC lawyer and has his own staff and all and he called me about it and he says to me Artie you go ahead and you can have my proxy. He says a proxy is no good. I says you have to send a letter or something else to the town board. I said this doesn't work here the proxy so I believe he sent you a fax letter. I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: He did. We have that in the record. MR. ZIELINSKI: What we are concerned about is a case like I'm a resident here for 36 years. 25/26 years ago when I come out of the navy we built our home and we love it there if we open that up we don't want this to happen here that happened in Southampton when they get these here summer groups that rent out a room and they raise holy hell and I think it would degrade an area and beside Mr. Roth who is east of me he just finished he bought 300'of waterfront property opposite Chardonnay Estates and he built a palatial home beautiful grounds and I think anything like that would interfere with the pleasant mode of living we have. I know maybe Nancy and her mother Helen has the problem financially we all have it we are all struggling. I'm on a one crummy navy pension and I'm struggling along but I could turn around my garage is a double garage I could convert that easily it's all insulated because the town hall when I was building my home was willing to let me store the stuff in there and spend my weekends there at the time 27 years ago. But the point is we could do it too,that's a problem we all have but we are against it Page 11 of 63 Page 12 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing because of the fact that we think it would downgrade the property and it would cause a problem with summer people coming here especially these young turks from the city that really raise hell over in Southampton and this would be an ideal spot because it's right on the water and that's our problem so folks I hope you give it some real good thought because we are very proud of our strip, our property and. _are very proud of the situation we have in-.'Southold that you are trying to maintain a high standard. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Zaleski we appreciate your comments. There are questions that we do need to ask the applicant. I have some notes right here and one of them is parking so that is one of the concerns I have. We also have questions about the CO issued prior to 1984. The applicant's attorney is not here available today to answer those questions so it makes it kind of difficult for both of us. A little background here accessory apartments are permitted by Special Exception that is why they are before our board if they meet a whole set of criteria and the criteria is quite extensive and those are the criteria we are going to address including your concerns which are very valid. The applicant has requested yesterday requested that we leave this hearing open and the board will consider that. Right now I'd like to hear some comments from the board members. MEMBER HORNING: Can we request a better survey? CHAIRWOMAN: That's one of the things. I do not have a parking plan. I was looking through it I thought perhaps it was an oversight but I do not have a parking plan in the file showing off street parking that would permit this without backing on to the street. I do need to know the size of the apartment and the size of the existing dwelling with a CO or proof of occupancy prior to 1984. These are just some notes that I made George because I don't see a parking plan on this. There's a number of things we need on this. JIM LIEBEL: I live west 100' from property line to property line and I condone this in the area we live in. It's just not called for to bring up an example this apartment is being occupied at this time for years. There is someone living there. We've had problems with their dogs down on the beach pit bulls what have you my wife and I also a gal friend was topless on the beach isn't that nice. We don't need this here. This is one of the prime areas of Southold. CHAIRWOMAN: The mother and daughter are living there in the main house. MR. LIEBEL: There is constant police action there. There are ambulances the daughter has had 3 major accidents one 3 weeks ago when the car was totaled again. Evidently she's under the influence of drugs for her ailments and it's a sorry situation. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you saying the apartment is already rented? MR. LIEBEL: Arthur lives right next door. I have no idea who the tenant is. I have no idea what the circumstances are maybe he's there to help out with their case. I don't know. There's a van parked there. What about the septic systems? You are going to add more pollutants to the ground and I'm having an extension built on my home right now. It's a small home but I could Page 12 of 63 Page:13 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular'Meeting Public Hearing do the same thing. And my mom's 90 on Soundview Ave. lives alone 50 years and she could convert a big 2-car garage to financially she's on social security and lives as best you can under the circumstances. The area just doesn't call for it. You have beautiful Chardonnay Estates across the street, Mt. Beulla around the corner, the Booth estate;it's just beautiful down there. I thought accessory apartments were just going to be limited to con:mercial areas above store fronts. There are no guidelines in the paper on what accessory apartments are. CHAIRWOMAN: There is in the code. What she's applying for has been in the code a long, long time allowing accessory apartments in residential areas providing the principal dwelling is owner occupied and providing that the living area does not exceed 40% of the house providing there is sufficient off street parking, I'm just naming a few.providing that there is a CO for the dwelling prior to 1984 or proof of occupancy and there are a number of other things. I've just highlighted a few of those things and when we look at a special exception we also look a number of criteria written in the code. That includes how it's going to affect the community. And we will be looking at those. MR. LIEBEL: I could see if it were an elderly person. The mother is quite old now needs this fine I'm not against that to take care of somebody but if it's going to be used for income influx of rentals in and out no way. That area does not call for it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MR. ZIELINSKI: On that accessory apartment just a number of years ago when he put that room in I think he has a toilet in the back some sort of a nook. His cesspool from that is about 20-25' from that and also from my house that cesspool with the allowance on the sideyard I would say it's about 45' or 48' all totaled and a few years ago that cesspool caved in. CHAIRWOMAN: The applicant has requested that we leave this hearing open and we are very definitely going to do that. The board would like to do an inspection of this property and we are going to set up a time it won't be for the public. We will go through and do an inspection and then we will continue the hearing. The question I have at this point is do we want to set to continue this hearing because if we set this for March 6th, it's not going to give us sufficient time to schedule the inspection so I think the next date we would be able to have this is March 201n that would put them at a long time. Why don't we put them at March 20t" at 1pm. i Page 13 of 63 Page 14 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 10:49 am No. 5268—GERALD LEMMON. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-242A based on the Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that the proposed second-story addition to the existing dwelling will be less tha a5 feet from the front lot line and less than"u35--feet from the rear lot line. Location of Property: 6427 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic; Parcel 86-6-22. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? PETER STOUTENBURG: Good morning, I'm here just to answer any questions you may have or to supply additional information you may need. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me get the survey our,just a moment. I have a copy of the survey and floor plan and I just want to go over some what you are requesting appears to be a very small lot 5000 sq. ft. and the ROW that goes through the lot could you give me the width of the ROW? MR. STOUTENBURG: I believe it's 15' on the survey in the lower left hand corner. CHAIRWOMAN: The'ROW goes right through your lot and that is what is leaving you with a 2' setback to the ROW. Is everyone following? That leaves you with+or- Ton the ROW which would be on the east side right? Excuse me west side which is actually 17' to the front property line. The 2°d story addition that you are proposing-that addition is for a bedroom,bath and a small office. But that does not go over the entire cottage, it just goes over the northerly part of the cottage to where the entryway is. The 16x4x26'portion of the- MR. STOUTENBURG: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: And you have 3.8 which you'll be maintaining on the east side. MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes that actually changed. There was a previous survey that had that at 4',but there was an old survey that did show it at 4. MEMBER OLIVA: It's basically almost like a 1 %2 story house then. MR. STOUTENBURG: They didn't want to impact the lot any more than they had. They are planning on moving out here and they just, it's not a weekend home for the 2 of them anymore. MEMBER OLIVA: They are limited with that ROW certainly going through the front yard. MR. STOUTENBURG: I believe it services 2 houses directly in front on the water. North and to the west and then the property to the east runs all the way from the road to the water. MEMBER OLIVA: Was that an original subdivision Peter? Page 14 of 63 Page:15 February.20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STOUTENBURG: I don't know the history of it. It's been that way for quite a few years. r Most of the houses to the west on the water are small lots on the water that they cut. Stuff to the east runs the length. CHAIRWOMAN: Whatie height on the 2nd story going to be? MR. STOUTENBURG: I don't have that on my plans. I can get it for you. Basically following the same pitch that's on the house it's not going to be anything new or temporary. CHAIRWOMAN: You are not extending outside the existing footprint and you're not in essence the part that's a screen porch is still going to remain 1-story and the southerly part of the house is still going to remain 1-story what is indicated on the survey is I8'xl9.8' - that's all 1-story. MR. STOUTENBURG: Yes there may be slight roof change for the stairway. CHAIRWOMAN: Going up I saw that in the plans. MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This addition does not encroach over the porch situation or what they refer to as the 1-story addition on the north side. Very simply in the center of the house like this. Over what is now the kitchen and living room area and,there's no decks out there. There's no anything that they are going to gain any access except through an internal stairwell. MR. STOUTENBURG: No. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any further questions. It's an extremely small lot. It looks like the footprint of the existing cottage couldn't be more than what 800 or 900' so you are extremely limited would not like to see any further encroachment into either the rear yard or the front yard. Try to keep that footprint although I see you are extremely limited. Let's see if there is anyone in the audience who would like to comment. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 15 of 63 Page 16 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 10:55 am No. 5274 -LYONS BROWN, III. This is a request for a Variance under Sections 100-239 and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's November'7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is.proposing to construct a additions and alterations that do not meet the minimum rear yard setbacLu f 50 feet and does not meet the minimum 75=ft. setback from the bulkhead. Location of Property: Hedge St., Fishers Island; Parcel 1000=10.-7-12. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? STEPHEN HAM, ESQ: Stephen Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton for the Browns. My clients have a 1940's type house and they want to open up for light and air. They are renovating the I"floor and expanding the sunroom which you see on the survey will be conforming under zoning however to square off the building lines they would like to extend the porch and that results in a problem with both the rear yard setback and the setback from the concrete retaining wall which is on the photographs you can see. The arguments I make under the town law are in the written memorandum. I just want to stress a couple of things. The expansion of the porch which is why the Brown's need a variance will not diminish the views of any neighboring properties. That's point#1. The encroachment to the rear yard is toward a body of water anyway there's no residents back there that would be effected. Point#2 the area that they will be expanding into and you'll see that from the photographs which were fortunately taken before last Monday indicate that it is a maintained lawn and what they are going to be building on is not a pristine wetland or meadow it's an area that would be mowed and disturbed in any event so those are the 2 key elements here from an architectural point of view as well I'm told this will actually improve the views from the water. To that memorandum I've attached an exhibit which is the north elevation. The view from the water that shows on the right hand side would be the new screened porch which balances the appearance of the dwelling from an architectural point of view and what we are asking for essentially-is a few feet from the already existing setbacks in either case so from weighing the benefit to the applicant as opposed to the detriment to the public whether from an environmental or neighborhood point of view I think the balance would certainly tend toward the applicant in this case. The other point of disturbance. The only point of disturbance, the sunroom itself which will be conforming will have a foundation that's required however the only disturbance for the porch for which we need the variance for the soil will be a one foot concrete piling which will support that part of the porch. There will be no grading no removal of fill or any other type of disturbance. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham what is the existing because I don't have this on our survey. What is the setback of the existing porch. MR. HAM: He didn't put it for the rear yard, he has it for the retaining wall. It's 39' and I would add to scale that off it should be slightly over 40' the existing rear yard setback is that what you are? CHAIRWOMAN: What I'm having trouble figuring out on the plans you gave us is where is the existing porch that you want to replace or expand toward the water. Right now this is existing Page 16 of 63 Page 17 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing this does not exist there is nothing here. I think we need to mark that clear. This is all-because what we were talking about before the porch here it was unclear. MR. HAM: If you look at my memo the last page is north elevation;that's the view from the water. That's how if you jus4ut your right hand over the right handkportion of that you'll see- MEMBER OLIVA: I see this one sticks out on this side and this kind of balances on the other side. MR. HAM: This actually improves the view from the water and that's the only view that will really be effected here. CHAIRWOMAN: Does everyone understand that the little dots don't exist now? MEMBERS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Were the neighbors noticed? MR. HAM: Yes. ` MEMBER HORNING: I noticed on the proposed sunroom which you said doesn't require a variance anyway they have it situated on the north side of the house and going down there it struck me that there isn't going to be any sun going into that sunroom because of the location of it. MR. HAM: That sunroom is the term that has been used. It's actually going to be used as a dining room area what I'm told by Skip Broom who's the builder. That's a dining area and they are moving their kitchen which is tucked away in a corner. They are trying to make it 21" century house out of a 1940's house opening it up to light and air. Apparently there are some views there if not sun there are better views on that side which is part of the reason. MEMBER HORNING: The whole property is on waterfront so I don't think there's a question of not having a view from any place on the property looking at it in terms of my opinion as to can this applicant do something without a variance and I'd have to say they could. For example the sun room you're calling it something else now but if that wasn't there and the proposed porch started at the very edge of the building in the existing line with the rest of the residents then you wouldn't be calling anything closer to the bulkhead because you're making a new distance to the bulkhead at 32-38'you're lessening the distance to the bulkhead which I found odd because I'm saying that looking at this and looking at the site the proposed "sunroom" in my mind as a practical measure doesn't even fit in that space and if I was going to- MR. HAM: They are redoing the entire I" floor. This might be helpful. MEMBER HORNING: Why do they need to encroach closer to the bulkhead? Page 17 of 63 Page 18 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: The reason is they are putting in the sunroom which conforms in this place and they i need to square it would look odd if they did not put this porch on. It already looks odd if they did not put this porch on if you look at the last page of the memo if you put your hand over the proposed porch which is on the right it's an unbalanced look already it looks as if something were chopped off at that endizaFrom the water I'm talking about. If they did;nothing that required a variance just built a sun room that would look very odd from an architectural point of view. The point is to square off the building lines by extending that existing porch and put it in a line with a sun room to square off that corner that's the reason. Now could they do something else? Well you could theoretically redesign it and possibly put it on the other side but there's an interior stairway on thattside if you like I will show you the floorplan in fact I'll put it in the record. Truthfully they could possibly put it on that side but it would involve much more effort and expense than it does now. MEMBER HORNING: The kitchen's on the south side of the house so I don't consider that a dark side. MR. HAM: From a building point of view it makes it more problematic. The point here is we are just asking you to weigh what's the detriment to the public here and there's very little because there's very little disturbance. We are building in a lawn which is going to have to be mowed, fertilized whatever that will be covered. The disturbance to the soil is minimal it will be- MEMBER HORNING: The detriment is the fact that it's moving closer to the bulkhead when in fact if you asked the question can the applicant do something without a variance and achieve similar goal I would say the answer is yes so it makes me wonder why they would have to locate that right there requiring a variance when in fact they could easily do something else and not have a variance. MR. HAM: They would like to expand their dwelling they are entitled to 20%they are asking for 12%which is what it will be after the if this were granted and completed. So they are entitled to some expansion here. What you are suggesting here is that they would put it entirely on the other side and I'm saying there are currently some problems with that according to the builder and the by squaring off the porch has a benefit without much detriment is the point and it's a balancing act here this is an area variance. I'm asking you to make a judgment based on balancing who is harmed based on who or what if they do this and there are a number of criteria under the town law the main one being balance the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the public and I go through each of the various criteria below that including any change to the character of the neighborhood the substantiality of it the impact on environmental conditions these issues are address so is it possible that they could do something else I'm not going to say it's not I'm saying this is a plan which is well thought out which will improve the value of this and neighboring properties without much harm to the public in a situation where this house was put there in the 40's without zoning before anything was thought about distances from property lines and so forth. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would be the possibility similar to what Mr. Horning had to say but not pushing the sunroom all the way out into the existing porch in other words squaring Page 18 of 63 Page,19 . February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the house off with porch all the way across the front and then opening the doorway which we are looking at and then opening the doorway which we are looking at onto the open porch thereby balancing the house as you had suggested you would have the same setback, but we would have to do an open porch you understand? MR. HAM: No I don't. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Retarding the open porch back to the existing front of the house. MR. HAM: We've got a-setback line here. Are you saying staying within the setback line? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm saying keeping the setback at 387' however- MR. HAM: 38.7 is the rearyard setback not the concrete wall setback. We have 2 issues here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, I'm sorry. But retarding the existing sunroom back to the existing front of the house or the rear of the house and the house in question part of the house overlooks the water and therefore the actual reduction would be the same but it would be to an open porch. In other words riot making it inclusive of an entire room and pushing that room all the way out but you know balancing the house off in that respect. There is some merit to the fact of balancing the house off because I understand that but there is also some merit to what Mr. Horning had said. What if this was just cut off here. This was the porch supposedly proposed porch on the side of the house and bringing the existing porch all the way across. The actual balancing test is the fact that all you are doing is balancing the house off but leaving an existing porch to balance the house off. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't get it this is what they are proposing. MR. HAM: According to the plan this is open. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is completely open? CHAIRWOMAN: That's why there's no change in what you are saying. MR. HAM: There is a discrepancy between what the elevation is on there and what it's stated to be. Doesn't it say open? MEMBER OLIVA: It's going to be a wrap around screened in porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn't see that and that's where the problems came in. When you gave me this Mr. Ham, I got the impression this porch was all the way out to the end and then looking at the existing plan like this in the crosscheck area I understand that's the new portion of it but I had thought that was all inclusive. Page 19 of 63 Page 20 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham I just want to go over few things with you very briefly. Page 4 of your memorandum the degree of the variance. The degree of the variance does not go to what is existing. It goes to the code. I would take issue with you on the degree of the variance with respect to 32.8' to the retaining wall in relation to the 75'required it's substantial. I recognize what you are saying I recognize the issue you are trying to address I just wanted that- MR. HAM: If you look at my paragraph on the next page I say if you consider all the circumstances here namely it's a few feet from what's already there it's not like we are building this anew and asking for 32'. .j CHAIRWOMAN: After we look at this Mr. Horning and Mr. Goehringer now that he has clearly explained what is and what's proposed is there any other alternatives that you see that are viable for the applicant at this point in view of everything he has said and brought forth to us. MEMBER HORNING: I see alternatives sure but the applicant is requesting what they want and that's it. CHAIRWOMAN: I think Mr. Ham what you are hearing is there is concern among the board members that they might not be able to grant you what you are applying for and they would like to see a reduction there. Is that accurate? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We always go to the board member who's in the geographic area and in this case it's an island 17 miles from here. MR. HAM: When you say a reduction this is an open area. To not have a variance at all is the alternative. We don't need it at all to put a sunroom there and we can build up to the existing setback for both the well I guess we couldn't do it for the rear yard unless we interpret that well from the concrete wall we are entitled to stay landward from the existing setback well as of right it's true the building department does take the position that if we are within 50' even though we are closer in one place if were still need less than 50'then they are going to say we need a variance but you routinely grant variances when we're not getting closer than an existing setback so I'm trying to- CHAIRWOMAN: I'm trying to help you out here of deferring to the experience and the first hand knowledge of the Fishers Island Board Member who is really our eyes and ears on FI. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We go over there and actually look at these after the fact or you know of course if we have pending applications we look at them before the fact. MR. HAM: To get an idea of the alternative is to conform if that's the only alternative that I see and I don't know that he would even build that. Mr. Brown told me when I first asked him about this I said would you like to proceed with just building a sunroom now because you are entitled to get a building permit for that and he said no it would stick out like a car bunker. I need to do that under this plan so if he needs more living space on the first floor he's not going to put it on that side they would have to alter their plan completely and put it on the southeasterly side where Page 20 of 63 Page 21 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing there is ample room you know and there is still going to be a problem with the unbalanced look of this house but there's nothing we can do about that. CHAIRWOMAN: How far can you cut that back the proposed porch with it being reasonable? MR. HAM: I'd have to go back to the builder. The sunroom or the dining room I didn't know until this week that that's what it was when I asked them for the plans,but it's a dining room I think they need the space they are asking for there and therefore I don't think it does any good. I think either this plan goes as is or it doesn't go but if there's I don't see it would be a different plan I think they would use- MEMBER HORNING: My only comments are with respect to the bulkhead and whatnot we run a number of applicants dealing with bulkheads and I have detected over the years a reluctance of this board to grant applicants further encroachments into bulkhead,areas which is why I have some concerns with this when one of our questions is can the applicant accomplish something on the parcel they have without a variance when this case I would have to maintain a personal opinion I believe they could. MR. HAM: They couldn't to maintain the views that they would like to get from this sunroom/dining room area I understand that's not a legal- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I mention something as a compromise-that would be to take this existing drawing and again I'll go back to the chairperson and I'm not an architect but if you 45 this right over here that would take your same access out and create almost the same setback I think you would achieve the same thing. You would get a pretty good balance and I think you'd have it there. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's make sure we are all on the same page. We are talking about taking this point here and doing straight across. MEMBER HORNING: That's a reasonable approach. CHAIRWOMAN: I could see it this is easier because this is the setback line. MR. HAM: I think you have to come back here, draw this line. It's not on here what Jerry is doing. CHAIRWOMAN: What we are suggesting is that you take a line even with the existing residence draw a line parallel to that and then take a line to the corner of the existing porch and then diagram. Now without you coming back here in 3 years- MR.HAM: I'll send you a new survey. MEMBER HORNING: That's a much more reasonable alternative to dealing with the bulkhead. Page 21 of 63 Page 22 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: How long do you think it would take you to do this? MR. HAM: 2 weeks. CHAIRWOMAN: Do we want ;close this hearing pending receipt of the revised map as instructed? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We close the hearing to verbatim pending the receipt of a map to be received by March 61h at which point we'll close the hearing. I just have to reiterate again, it's so important to bring that. MEMBER HORNING: I'm not trying to give the attorney a hard time,but we come over here we give - we're in a no win situation all the time. If we grant whatever the applicant wants under all conditions the public says we are giving away the town. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm making a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of a revised map by March 61h PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 22 of 63 Page 23 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 11:26 a.m. Appl No. 5267-ELLEN HINSCH. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.4 based on the March 4, 2002 Building Department's Notice of Disapproval for construction of an accessory garage in the front yard. Location of Property:;6925 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel; Parcel 1000-126-10-16. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ELIZABETH THOMPSON, ARCH: I'm Elizabeth Thompson the architect and I have proposed to Ellen Hinsch the locatiomof the garage which is in the front yard that we need a variance for it's a rear lot and I thought site plan wise and considering the neighbors and the locations of their garages that this was the best place to cluster her garage with the neighbors garages and it's a heavily wooded lot that you can hardly see from the road this time of the year and there's a golf course back there her view are around the back of the house that's where the privacy is and to the south and east there's garages and other lots,houses right in there. CHAIRWOMAN: There's a couple of things - a survey that we have does not show the garage in the front yard it shows maybe it depends on how you measure it could be partially in the front and partially in the side. But it definitely looks like part of it is in the side yard. Obvious question here is you have a huge piece of property and I looked at it and I saw that you are almost trying to use the proposed garage to block a view from your neighbor's property of this house. MS. THOMPSON: Yes I didn't want to have a driveway that wraps around the back of the lot. Yes the garage is large but the buildable part back in this key is not that large. CHAIRWOMAN: We are now at 18.3 off the property line and I see where you have the sanitary system and everything else I'm just wondering if you're able to move that off the property line as I say it is quite a large piece of property. MS. THOMPSON: The sanitary system is taking up all that space we are trying to allow some room around that and have the shed located that actually belongs to the neighbor and once the lot was surveyed and we are trying to- CHAIRWOMAN: The reason I'm saying that is it's a 1-car garage and in the future you may want to have a 2-car garage and rather than placing you closer to the property line in the future which I doubt if we'd be inclined to do we'd like to get you off the property line to begin with. MS. THOMPSON: We are not interested in expansion the house is very small it's a cottage it's for 1 retiring person. She's not interested in accommodating future uses for future owners and- MEMBER OLIVA: How large is the house? MS. THOMPSON: It's 2500 sq. ft. it's really a 1 and %2 story there's some bedrooms upstairs but they are in the roof. Page 23 of 63 Page 24 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is not a particularly large house particularly the way the roofline comes down and cuts into the bedrooms upstairs. == MS. THOMPSON: The master bedroom is on the first floor. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The upstairs bedrooms are extremely prohibitive in reference to the way the roofline is. MS. THOMPSON: They are small. She is going to shut the upstairs off in the wintertime we would be able to drain the pipes. It's really a 1-story house with some summer guest rooms upstairs. CHAIRWOMAN: So you really don't think it's possible to move it off the property line because of the location of the sanitary system? MS. THOMPSON: Yes and isn't a side yard for a garage something like 3 or 5' anyway? CHAIRWOMAN: If it's in the rear yard it is. MS. THOMPSON: To me this is kind of keeping it in the rear yard because everyone else's rear yards are there. I didn't want to pave a whole lot to run a driveway around the back. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just think if you square it off at exactly 20'would that make any difference to you? 18 to 20' CHAIRWOMAN: You'd have to re-do the survey. MS. THOMPSON: We did take when the foundation was poured for the house we poured some footings for the garage there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Utilities in this garage will be what, electricity only? No water, no heat, no anything. It's a one story approximately 12'to the ridge? MS. THOMPSON: I believe you have drawings in your package. It's very small 14x20. MEMBER HORNING: Point of interest question for the applicant have they considered the alternative of putting the garage to the building in some fashion and alleviating the necessity to have a variance? MS. THOMPSON: As a designer I often try to separate them unless the client specifically requests it because it keeps the scale of the building down particularly on a small house often a garage can be the largest room in the whole house. The idea was to make this be a little cottage in the woods modest scale size and often you can create a better site plan with some out buildings you have to give some context to it and yes it provides a little bit of a private yard from Page 24 of 63 Page 25 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the other garages. The other houses have detached garages too. It's a neighborhood of small cottages so I feel it's a matter of scale actually keeps the building down. Actually the roof might have been higher on the house that sort of thing,have longer spreads. CHAIRWOMAN: Any further qu ions? I would ask if there's anyone elseti114he audience who would like to speak,but I just don't see anyone in the audience to raise a-hand. I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 25 of 63 Page 26 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1:00 p.m. App.No. 5264—MICHAEL PISACANO. The applicant has filed a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-24A based on the November 7, 2002 (amended 11-8-02) Building Department's Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single family dwelling. The basis of - the Notice of Disapproval is that tbis.73,616 sq. ft. parcel is not permitted in the R=80 District because it is not a recognized lot by any of the four code standards,under: 1) The identical lot shall be created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on or before 6-30-83, and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule; 2) Lot was approved by the Southold Town Planning Board, or 3)Lot is shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board prior to 6-30-83, or 4) Lot is approved/recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to 6-30-83. Location of Property: 1457 Cox Neck Rd., Mattituck; Parcel 113-07-19.11. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MICHAEL PISACANO: I'm just going to read this. My name is Michael Pisacano. I reside on Nakomis Road in Southold. I'm requesting a variance for a building permit be issued for property located on Cox Neck Lane in Mattituck 113-7-19.11 which I purchased on August 27, 2002 from William Chudiak. The property consists of 1.7 acres which is larger than 4 of the 7 surrounding parcels attached to the property. I have in my possession a deed, a variance search, a survey, a tax map also prior to purchasing the property I had a water test done which proved water a test hole dug which proves the property has sufficient drainage. When I applied for the Health Dept. approvals they had indicated to me that I would need to submit C&R's for a well and also a hookup to public water when it became available which I have complied with. The property was sold to me by a realtor who is well respected in the area and indicated that it was a buildable lot. Due to extended research and compliance with various issues with health department and SCWA my time to obtain health department permits could not be extended. I was faced with a decision to close on the property immediately or chance losing it. Since it appeared clear at the time and my single and separate search did not indicate the property was merged with any surrounding parcels I decided to close title. However, shortly after closing I received word the department of health would not grant my approvals due to the property being the subject of a town planning board decision which indicated that the property had been merged with adjacent properties and was not to be built upon due to lot line modifications. I feel this decision was not sufficiently researched and prematurely enforced seeing two of the lot line changes never took place. In an effort to rectify the situation I approach the building and planning departments as well as the town attorney where I felt they indicated some optimism. However this is where I began to be bounced back and forth from dept. to dept. for about 8 weeks without any straight or clear answers. I've put my life savings into the property and it has cost me well over$1 OK in interest without being able to get a straight answer. I have many unpaid bills and I am 4 months behind in my rent. My family members have helped me financially and I have made promises to them and others hoping that the decisions of the health dept. and the ZBA would be in my favor and I might be able to pay them back. If I cannot rectify the situation to my benefit I must start to consider the possibility of filing for chapter 7. 1 really don't want it to come to that. I'm awaiting decision in writing from the health dept. and I am told that it will be arriving shortly in the mail and I did get a heads up from them that it looks Page 26 of 63 Page 27 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing like it's going to go through. I would greatly appreciate a decision from the board today if at all possible. I really can't afford for this to go on any longer. Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need.to make a public statement. It was brought to my attention that it appears that Mr. Pisacano I drat know if you know me, I'm Gerry Goehringer I'd spoken to you on the phone that the firm that you bought the lot from my license is held by them. I have to tell you that I have no interest in this one way or another. I just don't know at this time if I should continue on this hearing or not I have not discussed it with council. What I may do at this point is get up from the dais go sit in the audience and I'll be part but I will discuss this with council. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not, let's start off at the beginning and try to make sense of this because it is confusing. I read through the file and I have to admit I haven't got a clue as to what's going on. Let's try to follow me. You filled out an application for a waiver of merger, correct? MR. PISACANO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: And then in your opening statement you said this is for a variance. MR. PISACANO: No there was a variance search which was done showing that the lot was single and separate according to the title search I had done. Basically the Planning Dept. had created this lot. They are saying it's an R80 zone well this lot is larger than like I said, it's the 4ct, largest lot in the area out of 7 lots so it's not like it to me I would consider it a pre-existing lot because it was basically made by the Planning Dept. who pretty much created this. CHAIRWOMAN: When was the lot created? MR. PISACANO: By deed or? CHAIRWOMAN: By the Planning Board. MR. PISICANO: Well the Chudiak's own a large piece of property which they you know shaved off pieces of property throughout the years but for this to become under the R80 which I guess is the reason for this I mean the Planning Dept. created it. The Planning Dept. also decided these lots would not be built upon if they merged with the lots in front of them which they never did. CHAIRWOMAN: When was the lot created by the Planning Board? MR. PISACANO: I'm not sure when this all took place. I mean I have it I just have to look. CHAIRWOMAN: You are - this is a lot that was created by the Planning Board with conditions on the lot which were never fulfilled? MR. PISACANO: Right. Well there was 4 lots on Cox Neck Lane behind that was a large piece of property 2 of them took title to the pieces behind them 2 of them never did. So the Planning Page 27 of 63 Page 28 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Board making their decision I thought was premature because they didn't think it out if these people never acquired the parcels behind them. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me try to verbalize it first. They created - there were 4 lots that were created by the Planning Board. aft-. MR. PISACANO: Two of them were never created. Can I just show you on here? CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. We have the maps we just don't have any reference as to what they are. That's our problem. Let's start to identify these by the tax map numbers because throughout the file there's reference to Wannits and Milowskis and people that doesn't tell us what the tax numbers are and when you are reading through this you're saying well which lot is that? I have a tax map here. Do you have a copy of the tax map so we can both follow the same things here? You are the owner of lot 19.11, correct? MR. PISACANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Now the Planning Board and I believe we are talking about what is labeled as in the file has been identified as a lot'line change and the date on this is November 18'h I don't have the rest of map there. Does anyone have reference it's the Rodrick VanTyle map. Do you have a date on that sir? Because it's not showing up it says Nov 18 but the rest of the date is not on here so we don't know when that occurred. MR. PISACANO: The splits for Mr. Wells and Wannit were done in March of 1985. CHAIRWOMAN: If this is the Planning Board map that was the subject of a lot line change, it's very difficult to read but the most important thing is the date which is not on the map. We really need that date on the Van Tyle map that the so called Planning Board- MR. PISACANO: I see the map you have but I don't have the date. Would it be on the tax card? I mean the property the bulk of the property they've owned for 30 years or more. CHAIRWOMAN: There are a couple of dates on here November 19 we don't know what and then map amended it's very faded it could be December 3, 1985. So what I'm trying to find out is when did the Planning Board create these lots? MR. PISACANO: I don't have the answer to that in front of me. I'm probably going to go back to the 50's which this lot was part of. CHAIRWOMAN: I know but the it's difficult because the lots that we see on and it's very difficult to read this copy of don't the lot numbers on the map of this so called lot line change or approval of the Planning Board- MR. PISACANO: December 16, 1985. Page 28 of 63 Page 29 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of-Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Don't give numbers of the lots we have nothing to match them up with what �. we have now and apparently from what this map shows lot 16 was supposed to be part of lot 19 and lot 15 am I calling it so far? »- MR. PISACANO: Right, which neveok place. CHAIRWOMAN: So that never took place. And after that time how did the lot get sold if the Planning Board had already made a determination that your lot would be merged with these other 2 lots? ra � MR. PISACANO: That was done back in 1985 and it's been I don't know how many years since and the owners of the homes in front of it never did acquire it that's why I'm saying their decision seemed a little premature to make a decision like that when they weren't sure the properties were merged. CHAIRWOMAN: When did this lot 19.11,when was it first a described lot with meets and bounds that we see now. When was the first date of that? In other words I want to go to a deed that shows me meets and bounds of a described parcel 19.11 when would be the,first date of that? MR. PISICANO: This one William Chudiak to William Chudiak 10-19-99 recorded liber page I guess that's I don't know when it went back to - I don't know what I'm trying to find out. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know either, if you don't know, I don't know. MR. PISACANO: As far as I'm concerned it's a pre-existing lot. It's been there forever since they've owned it, Planning Board carved pieces off it and that's how it was left. How they can determine it's in an R-80 zone after they shrunk it down to 1.7 acres I don't have the answer to that. That's why I'm saying I don't think they did the right thing by making this decision because now Chudiak did not sell the 2 parcels that this would have been at one time and got the money for it, therefore they shouldn't get stuck with an un-buildable lot. If it's in a R-80 zone,that's basically what we are trying to decide? CHAIRWOMAN: Let me try to follow it because it's very confusing. MR. PISACANO: It's not as confusing as it looks. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go back to the Planning Board created these lots in 1985. Half of your lot was supposed to be - let's go to the tax map the northern half of your lot when they created this subdivision was to be merged with lot 15. MR. PISACANO: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The southern part of your lot was to be merged with lot 16. Right? Page 29 of 63 Page 30 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PISACANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: That never took place. That's a big blank. That never happened but that was the conditions of their approval and so at that time, I don't know whether there were described -, parcels for lot 15 going back to your for and lot 16 going back to your lot or not. MR. PISACANO: They never took titles of them, they never purchased them for whatever reason. CHAIRWOMAN: Then you come along in 1998 or was it 1999? MR. PISACANO: That's just when the variance search went back. I bought it in October or September I believe I closed on it. CHAIRWOMAN: And that's the first time a deed describing a-that's the first time that this lot was described in a deed would be 1999? MR. PISACANO: No, I would say it went back to 1957 or that's my opinion it went back to when they originally owned the parcel. CHAIRWOMAN: Here's what we have to do because it's right now in order to make a decision we need some facts here and they are missing. We will contact the Planning Board and get more information from them. I don't think we have enough information from the Planning Board. We will ask them for their complete records as to when the lot was created,how it was created everything else like we have something in the file. It's not sufficient. MR. PISACANO: I did have 2 attorneys that were supposed to be here,but they are both away. CHAIRWOMAN: What I need from you or your attorney I need to see when that lot the lot that you have was first a described lot in a deed. MR. PISACANO: Wouldn't this variance search show that? CHAIRWOMAN: No in fact with the variance search after I read the variance search it shows that everybody's lot was part of everybody else's lot- MR. PISACANO: They all have homes on them. CHAIRWOMAN: It does not give me a described parcel so it's very difficult to read and the easiest way to find out, I know you have a deed describing the meets and bounds prior to yourself, when was the first deed on that? When was the first deed recorded with the meets and bounds that are described on the lot that you have? Then we can take it from there. I don't want to send you around in circles anymore but we don't have any facts to start and the board members don't know what the lots are. We need a lot more facts. Page 30 of 63 Page 31 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PISACANO: Is there any way this doesn't have to be extended for another 30 days? Is there a special meeting? CHAIRWOMAN: The problem is I went through this file twice and we've done a lot of waivers of merger but I don't even know where tuibegin because I don't have a record. We-don't have a clean record to be able to look at this and know what is in front of us. MR. PISACANO: That's what I've been doing for the last 8 months trying to get this together and that's what I thought I presented and that's pretty much everything that I could get on paper and that's what I handed in Planning Board decisions,planning board the way things were created it should all be in that paperwork. CHAIRWOMAN: I think your attorneys will be able to help you with this. They are far more experienced in this and they know what the board has to have to make a decision. Right now we don't even have,we have references to lots that don't exist on any of these maps- MR. PISACANO: You mean lots that already have houses on them that don't exist- CHAIRWOMAN: I don't even know which ones have homes on them, that's the problem. If this was a condition of the Planning Board's approval, was it a condition? If it was a condition, then why didn't it occur? I don't know why it didn't occur. MR. PISACANO: Well they can't force people to purchase property that they are not ready to purchase. It was a choice. That's why I thought the decision was premature. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have 2 attorneys? MR. PISACANO: They said if I could keep it open they will be back next week. But for a couple more months I can't. This is killing me. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand,but please understand us we have nothing here to even begin with. MR. PISACANO: If they are back shortly and if there's some kind of clarification, is there any way I can get this sooner? CHAIRWOMAN: We are booked right now all the way until April so the next hearing date would be April. But your attorneys are going to know what we need to see. We need a described lot, your lot. After the lot line change was made or prior to the lot line change being made so we can say yes this is the lot that was created either before the Planning Board approval, with the Planning Board approval,but one of the things we can't do is we can't undo Planning Board approval. If the Planning Board approves something, this board can't come back and undo it. MR. PISACANO: But they approved something that didn't happen, that's what I'm trying to say. Page 31 of 63 Page 32 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Try to get the information, try to get the tax maps, even if you simply with the attorneys write a letter to us tax map number blah, b]ah, etc. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER OLIVA: I'm in the same predicament and the chairlady is. I don't know because according to the Planning Board they say your lot was merged with the other 2 lots right on the road and yet I understand because I was down there that there are 2 houses on those lots. But your lot was supposed to have merged with those other 2 lots. MR. PISACANO: But they didn't. CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing that's really difficult is the Planning Board says your lot was never supposed to be built on. MR. PISACANO: If they merged. CHAIRWOMAN: The letter we got says they weren't supposed to be built on. MR. PISACANO: They presented this today? CHAIRWOMAN: We will request more information, the entire file. We will do that. Let's adjourn this to April 3rd at 7:10, is that going to give you sufficient time? MR. PISACANO: Next week would be sufficient. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? MALCOLM DOUBLEDAY: I'm Malcolm Doubleday, I'm here on behalf of Ted Wells who is in Florida right now. He would like to approach the board himself. He may get the chance in April. Did you receive a copy of a petition signed by- CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. DOUBLEDAY: Ted is very emotional about this and I can't be because I'm not familiar enough but he is involved with the Chudiaks when all this happened and at one time he had considered on that piece of property for his daughter but he and a couple of other people have thought about it and after going through the wealth of paperwork on the subject realized it was impossible. I'm sorry Mr. Pisacano bought the property but it's -his problem is sort of self inflicted right now. Everybody else did enough research to walk away from it and realized that they couldn't build on it. As I said, Teddy would be up here for hours telling you the history of it but I just wanted to make sure I got his point across that it was un-buildable for anybody else so it should remain that way. All those divisions were for lot line changes originally. I guess Page 32 of 63 Page 33 February 20,:2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing somebody didn't but their piece for their lot line change, but I don't think that makes it a buildable lot in 2-acre zoning. That's really it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in:the audience who would like to speak for or against - the application? CHRIS HILLIKER: I'm Chris Hilliker, my property abuts this particular piece of property in question and just a couple of things. There is a long paper history on file with the Planning Board apparently and in there is a letter dated August 13, 2001 from Valerie Scopaz, the Town Planner and she highlights that she discussed the matter with the Planning Board and 2 of the members present were on the board during the 1985 time period. They emphasize that the intent of the lot line applications were to merge land, expand the size of existing lots not to create new building lots. The record indicates that the subject lot of this memo 19.111 believe is what it is was intended to be merged with 2 adjoining lots and not to be retained for sale as a building lot at some future date so that's one thing that's on file. I don't have that particular map that showed the numbers that you were talking about but Mr. Chudiak's parcel was quite large and at several points in time he did divvy up several pieces of property. One of which was sold to the Milowskis which was larger than the 2-acre zoning which was required at that point in time. I think that was 1985. CHAIRWOMAN: Which parcel? MS. HILLIKER: If you have the map I'd be able to point it out to you. There were 2 parcels in question, one being Michaels lot and the other being the Milowski property that was sold. 19.8 is the number. That was the original parcel and it also abutted the property in question so at that point in time if the owner had changed his mind he could have done some changes at that time. Also at that time his attorney filed information regarding original covenants and this was also on the file and this was dated November 6th 1985. CHAIRWOMAN: This is for what lot? MS. HILLIKER: Once again I don't have that. It says proposed lot line changes, William Chudia the following is the language of a covenant which we intent to insert in any deed made by the Chudiak's to the owner of the adjacent parcel and we understand that any approval of by the planning board of the lot line changes will be subject to the requirement of the deeds which convey the Chudiak property contain this particular covenant and that's this particular parcel in question. Then lastly,my particular property got subdivided - I don't know the total acreage but it's now considered Tallwood Lane there were 4 parcels. CHAIRWOMAN: Your lot is what number? MS. HILLIKER: Don't know again. Hilliker. CHAIRWOMAN: You're north of this parcel? Page 33 of 63 Page 34 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. HILLIKER: Where am I- west. Once again this abuts the particular piece of property in question and if indeed knowing what the zoning and new building construction requirements were this could have been part of this particular subdivision. It was not done at that point and time. My husband along with the other 3 people were mandated into the new 2-acre zoning new construction log. That leaves me to show you,-.that this is really a substandard remaining lot and with the paper trail that it has, really should not be able to be built upon. With the letter regarding today the Building Department Notice of Disapproval for construction of a single family dwelling the basis of this NOD is that 73616 sq. ft.parcel is not permitted. With that and one final note as far as the property terrain itself I think someone should walk it if this is being considered at all. CHAIRWOMAN: I've done a site inspection on the property. MS. HILLIKER: It's several feet below it provides a natural drainage basis for the surrounding existing unchanged topoghophy and I think that altering the elevation in any way would result in destructive deversion of runoff to not only the surrounding residential area but also it would end up in Cox Neck Road. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? CAROL BECKER SWITOCHIA: Hello, Carol Becker Switochia. One of the parcels that my father's house was on and they did the lot line change he's the one who didn't buy his piece . because he died before- CHAIRWOMAN: Do you happen to know what lot and tax map number? I've got a little map here and I'm trying to find it. Let's put it this way, are you on Cox Neck Road? MS. SWITOCHIA: Yes. I'm next to Wells and Sidorock which is on the other side and he didn't buy his parcel either. CHAIRWOMAN: You're the southerly- MS. SWITOCHIA: Easterly. CHAIRWOMAN: Half of Mr. Pisacano's lot. MS. SWITOCHIA: So my neighbor said yes. That's what happened that's why it wasn't bought. Also Wannit and Wells did the lot line change it was the understanding that you could not build on that property. When my father died, I didn't buy it because you couldn't build on it. I understood it to be that it could only be offered to the people in the front so like nobody could really buy it except if I did and then if Sidorock's bought their piece. You know we were the only ones that were entitled to buy it. Is that what I understand to be so? Also there's a letter and I don't know if you have this but it was from the Planning Board and everything stating that the Page 34 of 63 Page 35 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing lot line changed and it was not a buildable lot. They weren't going to that was the idea of why the neighbors really bought there because they didn't want anybody building behind them. CHAIRWOMAN: Throughout the years what happened after the lots weren't bought what - happened with the lot? -� - MS. SWITOCHIA: Nothing it was just there it was just like an extension of our property. It's just like a piece that's behind our property nothing, it's vacant. I don't understand the law and whatever it was my understanding that nobody could buy it to build on it. So who would buy it if they couldn't build on it. (MALE IN AUDIENCE)You had to have property adjoining it if you wanted to buy it. CHAIRWOMAN: It's like a ball of yarn every time you open it, it continues to drop little pieces. I think we have a little bit more understanding. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until April P at 7:10 pm and Mr. Pisacano we will try to get everything we can, all the information we can from the Planning Board. In the mean time I'm sure both of your attorneys could assist you in helping to identify all of these lots in terms of meets and bounds, numbers as opposed to names, what the tax lot so we can see immediately what you are talking about and a deed description for an exact deed description for when it was first created. I'll make the motion. Page 35 of 63 Page 36 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1:38 p.m. Appl.No. 5224- SPRINT SPECTRUM,LLP. This is a request for a Special Exception under Section 100-162A.1 regarding the proposed installation of telecommunications antennas inside the existing(church) steeple/building, located at 23045 Main Road, Orient; -Parcel 1000-18-2-22.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? LAWRENCE RE, ESQ: Good afternoon. Appearing for the applicant, Lawrence Re, Mundley, Meade,Neilson and Re 36 North NY Ave., Huntington. May I proceed? CHAIRWOMAN: Certainly. MR. RE: In this application Sprit Spectrum LP is seeking a special use permit to enable it to install small wireless panel antennas in the steeple of the congregational church in Orient and to install related equipment in there and an accessory building on the premises. As the board is aware, Sprint is licensed by the FCC to construct, maintain, and operate a wireless communication system here in Suffolk County and throughout the US and it's services are a benefit to the community particularly when in an.emergency for placing calls to 911 when conventional phones are not available or operating. I think the statistics most recently show that about 45% of all calls placed to 911 are made from mobile telephones. So they have become part of safety network of the community. At the present time, Sprint does not have reliable service in the Orient area. In order to provide reliable service we must establish an antenna site and as the board is aware, Sprint has been going out of it's way to try to utilize existing structures rather than to come before this board seeking a permit to build a new tower. In this case we've done one better,we've found not only an existing structure but we found a way to make the entire site invisible to the outside world. The antennas will be completely enclosed within the steeple and the related equipment will be in an accessory building on the grounds near the church. The site would be unmanned monitored remotely on a continuous basis 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and the site will operate at such a low power level that we will be at 125 times less than the FCC standard. I have a number of exhibits that I can submit and I have a number of witnesses here. Rather than go through a lengthy procedure, what I can do if the board would prefer is to submit a report from each witness and then I have them here if you'd like to ask questions or hear anything further. And also rather than go back and forth with these exhibits, I can list them and then bring them up all at once. The first is an affidavit of James McConnell, he is here today he is a radio frequency engineer for Sprint and in his affidavit he explains how the system works, why this site is needed and then with accompanying maps,he shows where the existing coverage is and what coverage this site would provide. I also have a planning study prepared by Frudenhal and Elkowicz and Terry Elkowicz the principal planner is also here. I have a report by Sianetics that comprehensively analyzes the radio frequency emissions from this site and concludes that the site will be within the FCC limits and it's principal Lou Cornoccia is here should you have any questions. and we have the affidavit of Michael Lynch, licensed RE appraiser that attests that this proposed site would not have a negative effect on property values of the surrounding area. And Mr. Lynch is here. I also have letter from the State Historic Preservation office that conditionally approves our application with the conditions and we can Page 36 of 63 Page'37 February.20, 20.03 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing abide by the conditions listed so we do have approval of SHIPO and lastly Ms. Kowalski was kind enough to provide me with a copy of a correspondence from Ann Hopkins that was sent by e-mail today was one Ann Hopskins that expresses her support for this application and I'd like to submit that as well. CHAIRWOMAN: We have that in the record. MR. RE: Having said that, if the board has any questions with respect to the layout we have the architect here and we have the planner here with regard to planning issues with regard to propagation we have the radio frequency engineer here the appraiser and we also have the health expert. CHAIRWOMAN: I went through the plans quite carefully I just- the existing church steeple is 76' tall? MR. RE: Yes it's 76. The center line of the antennas will be 62'10" inside the steeple. CHAIRWOMAN: How many antennas is this going to be? MR. RE: There are 6 panel antennas. They measure 30" in length and 8" in width and 2.75" in depth. I think they are shown on ZO5. The steeple itself was erected in 1940 following the hurricane of'38 and we are going to preserve and restore the shingles that are removed in the church building. CHAIRWOMAN: From the exterior of the building when I go by,what am I going to see other than a church steeple? MR. RE: It's going to look identical. The shingles that are removed will be replaced with shingles that are transparent for radio frequency transmissions,but will have the same appearance as the existing shingles and then the church steeple will be re-painted so you will see the-it will be identical in appearance. CHAIRWOMAN: When I drive by, I'm not going to in any way,there won't be any hint that there is a- MR. RE: None whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to turn it over to the board members. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to ask Terry Elkowicz a question if I could. Terry you've been before this board many times how many of these situations do you see from a planning aspect placed in steeples and this is not an undisclosed location it's the public hearing,but prior to this public hearing how would we know if anything was placed in dome of a school or steeple of a church? Page 37 of 63 Page 38 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. ELKOWICZ: I can't speak for the radio engineers but I can speak for my own experience representing 6 cellular companies. What we try to do is we do try, the carriers do try to design these things so they can be more as invisible or as unobtrusive as possible and the reason for that is'obvious. We don't enjoy coming before boards like this with an application that's difficult for you-for me. Now if you're asking me could someone go and put something in this steeple and never come to you and you wouldn't know it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No I'm just saying in your past experience as a planning expert how many of these have you seen? MS. ELKOWICZ: These particular ones, I've probably worked on 4 but you have to also remember this is a difficult process for a carrier because a carrier is confined to various parameters like where is your service deficiency. And the first thing they look for is I have a service deficiency gap and I can only put the site in one particular area to address this gap. The first thing they look for is are there any tall structures and then they immediately go to try to lease that tall structure because believe me none of us enjoy coming to you to try to erect new structures. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Interesting. In the past when you have come before us in difficult hearings we were talking about silos, we were talking about trees, we were talking about all types of other disguised types of structures. The steeple aspect although new to me is an interesting form of hiding these types of antennas. Where the antenna is in effect the only thing that's really hidden all the mechanical aspect of it is in the building. MS. ELKOWICZ: In the basement in the building immediately to the north and all of the conduit is underground so you will not see the wiring,you won't see the equipment and you will not see the antenna. And the steeple will look as it does today. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From a planning perspective,you find absolutely no change at all as this gentleman spoke to the chairperson was addressing us we will see absolutely nothing except possibly a minor change in the color of shingles for a certain period of time. MS. ELKOWICZ: Until it gets painted yes and that is echoed by the letter that Mr. Re submitted to the board from the NYS office of parks recreation historic preservation because you read their opinion and the reason why they issued a letter of no effect is that this will not in any way effect the visual or historic integrity of that steeple or the building. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any loading, I know this is not a question for you,but is there any loading thing that we have to worry about. MR. RE: I can the simple answer is no. I have the architect here who answered the same question when we appeared before the planning boards. Mr. Rifaat, why don't you come up. MR. RIFAAT.ARCH: My name is Rifaat, I'm with &Mesiano, 240 Cedar Knolls Rd. in Cedar Knolls,NJ. I'm a licensed architect in NY. Page 38 of 63 Page 39 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The approximate weight of the antennas? MR. RIFAAT: They are 9 lbs. Each. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Times 4? CHAIRWOMAN: 6. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Times 6, I'm sorry. MR. RIFAAT: Roughly 60 pounds with mounting brackets. 60-70 pounds maximum I would say. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the cable is insignificant in your opinion? MR. RIFAAT: I would say so yes, 7" cable for that run until it's supported so add another 10 pounds if you like which would be a lot probably. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in your opinion the structural integrity of the steeple would not be compromised in any way? MR. RIFAAT: No way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In no way am I asking these questions saying that I'm in favor of this, I'm very simply asking them as a matter of education and I thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Your current coverage extends through the village of Greenport area I see on the map? MR. RE: Yes the map shows that we have coverage in Greenport approaching Orient, it doesn't make it to Orient and this would provide the coverage in Orient. We have a larger blow up map that Mr. McConnell could show the board that I think would be helpful here. The smaller map that we submitted, this would be a little clearer. MEMBER HORNING: Can you tell us for the record how many Sprint subscribers you have for the township of Southold? MR. RE: Because this is a mobile technology, many users of the service in Southold are coming from elsewhere and in Orient I guess in particular on the way to the ferry, so I don't know whether the statistic is - if you were to look at the along Rt. 25 there is a significant amount of traffic of users partaking of the service. MEMBER HORNING: Is your motivation to pick up new subscribers? Page 39 of 63 Page 40 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. RE: We are licensed throughout Suffolk County and throughout much of the US. Our motivation is to provide the service our customers expect when they sign up. It's like a washing machine when you turn it on you expect it to work. The customers expect reliable service throughout the license coverage area and we simply can't provide service to areas in Orient. MEMBER HORNING: Is there any maximum number of subscribers that you can handle at any given time? I hear tales of people not being able to make calls at certain times of the day because it's busy and such. .JAMES MCCONNELL: James McConnell;,Sprint PCS, 1 International Blvd., Mahwah NJ.. You are absolutely correct in that there is a maximum capacity on any type of wireless system be it GSN technology,TDA technology or CDMA technology which is what we employ. That's what you're referring to when people complain about not being able to make calls at certain times those are what we call our peak hour times. In those instances when our blocking rates that's known as blocking when a call can't go through. When our blocking rates start getting significant, we've got options to address that one being adding additional carriers which is not necessarily any equipment change the modular cabinets equipment that our radios fit in we can handle up to six carriers. In other words we can employ additional frequencies which make no physical change to the existing system. Each cabinet can handle up to 6 maximum radio frequencies at a time. In the rare event that we had to, we are licensed to go up to 11 which would entail adding another mod cell. But for point of reference right now, Manhattan is only at 3, so the odds of Orient ever getting to that stage are pretty minimal I think. Does that answer your question? MEMBER HORNING: What I'm trying to get at is the proposal is to lease some in the basement of a pre-existing accessory building to hold the telecommunications equipment associated with the antenna. Is that correct? MR. RE: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Is there adequate space in that basement, that adequate space exists within that building to handle all your future needs? MR. RE: We always build in a margin of comfort in anticipating future needs and the answer is yes. MEMBER HORNING: To increase your capacities at this particular proposed site what are you saying that you would have to do in addition to what you are proposing? MR. RE: The site is designed to handle certain margin of increased capacity for the future. MEMBER HORNING: And you feel 6 antennas and the equipment storage space is adequate? MR. RE: Yes. Page 40 of 63 Page 41 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: I just had one question. Being that the Orient Congregational Church is a historic building, what are the ramifications if by some chance the steeple was hit by lightening? MR. RE: James, would you be able to handle that question? MR. MCCONNELL: I'm not an expert in that but I can testify that our systems are fully grounded. They are grounded at various points for the very reason you're talking about. Understand most of our sites across the US are up on towers which are still structures anyway, lightening magnets. The odds are much greater of a structure like that being hit by lightening than say possibly the steeple but even as such-swe do the systems are fully grounded there's breakers, there's the whole host of safety built in to not only the system being blown out but our investment too. This equipment costs a lot of money so we build in as much safety as we can. As far as causing any additional, is that your question, is it more likely to be hit by lightening? MEMBER OLIVA: I don't think so, it's one of the tallest structures in the neighborhood, I'm just concerned about fire. If there's anything there that could explode or do something that would cause a fire. MR. MCCONNELL: Oh no, not in my opinion. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay Mr. Re I'm going to see-if there are any questions from the audience. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? If you could bring that map to the side and face it to the audience so they can see it. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Mr. Re I'm going to note that there is a letter in the file from the Planning Board in support of this as it is in keeping with the Town's goals of pole location and designs and to minimize the number of new structures and sites. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 41 of 63 Page 42 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1:58 p.m. Appl.No. 5218—J. and J.WOODHOUSE. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3 based on the Building Department's August 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended December 16, 2002 and December 24, 2002, for lot area and width of Lots 1 and 2, as shown-on the lot line change map revised 11-4-02. .Location of Property: 2395 Village Lane and T y; 255 Navy St., Orient; Parcel 1000-26-1-12. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JENNIFER GOULD, ESQ: Good afternoon my name is Jennifer Gould. I'm here today representing John and Jerry Woodhouse who are also here with me. Prior to the opening up of this hearing I handed up to Linda Kowalski a supplemental submission that I'd like to be made part of the record and I've made copies for all of you and they are tabbed. There are 6 exhibits if you want to follow along. CHAIRWOMAN: Just one moment if you don't mind, I'd like to give them to each board member. MS. GOULD: Briefly what the pack includes is fifst the Southold Town Code sections 124, 125, 126 and the bulk AA schedule a certified title search and Linda has the originals of all these documents. This is a search by commonwealth. It's certified the record owners of the parcels and how the parcels were created started back in 1918 through the Woodhouse's title at present. Behind that certification are actual copies of all the deeds. The third thing I'm giving you is a letter from Southold Town Assessor Scott Russell dated February 12th with copies of assessors cards of the two houses,the one at 2395 Village Lane and the 255 Navy St. houses are both assessed as single family residences. The fourth thing in the pack is sort of a history of the parcel. There's a 1909 map showing that at one time there were 4 houses on the current parcel later there were 3 Mr. Knobloch who acquired all the property knocked down the two houses on Village Lane and constructed the current house which is 2395 Village Lane. What's referred to as 255 Navy Street in our application is known as the parent chief cottage and the records on that building go back to 1873 and in the record is a book by the historic orient village and the members packets I've just copied excerpts showing that 255 Navy St. is on the register of historic places and then I have old surveys that 3 of the parcels are in this whole parcel and also the SPLIA Society for the preservation of LI antiquities did inventories of the property in 1973 recognizing them both as separate residences. The 5th item in the pack is the RE appraisal that Pat Costaldi prepared for us. She appraises the property as it is 1 property. She appraises the property as if it is 2 properties with the existing lot line which is exhibit 6. 1 just have a smaller survey you'll note that the lot line for 255 Navy Street separating the 2 houses cuts through the garage and makes the garage part of 255 Navy St. as a portion of the barn as well which is really why we are here to straighten that out. That's what I want to add into the record and you've received a letter that I got a copy from the Planning Board today. We have been working with the Planning Board since June of last year on this application and what we agreed to do in August was go for a lot line change and they asked us of course to go to the building dept. get our NOD. At that time they thought we'd be going for a waiver of merger but the BD picked up on something that we all picked up on was this parcel comes under an exception which keeps the Page 42 of 63 Page,43 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2 houses from merging and that's the exception 100-25 C5 if you have 2 houses and they are 850 sq. ft 2 single family dwellings and they are at least.1850 sq. ft. and they either have CO's or they would qualify for CO's they haven't merged. That's why the BD in their NOD back in August didn't even address the merger issue because in their opinion, I'm speaking for them obviously, they-,didn't think it had merged all they saw was that we had 2 pre-existing nonconforming lots and what we were asking the PB to do was reconfigure those lots and as far as the BD was concerned, they were still pre-existing nonconforming. That's why we are here. As you know in December they issued an amended NOD where they said the merger law did not apply and also we changed our map to try to make it as conforming as possible. Originally what we tried to do was draw a new line making both lots exactly equal in size and what we did was we put a line 3.2'west of the garage well that creates a nonconformity. It has to be at least 5'. We moved the line to 5' on the final map so the size of one lot is 22,250 sq. ft. and the Navy St. lot would be 19,904 sq. ft. so each lot would be approximately a %2 acre which in this neighborhood you know is large. Most of the houses in this neighborhood are probably on % acre like our 909 map that we have that shows the whole area in that book of the historic district everybody's on probably a '/ acre or less in this immediate vicinity of Village Lane Navy St. and so forth. Do you have questions? CHAIRWOMAN: This has been a long haul with this, it's been back and forth and back and forth. The NOD I have on the 24`h says the merger law does not apply to this property in question. For your information we did meet with legal council about this and the reading that we have of this in one sentence is the merger law does not apply to here because if it was 1 lot before the merger law cannot subdivide it now essentially in other words you don't get to the exemptions, you don't get to any of the exemptions. This has been one described lot. I'm just looking at the deeds you handed up since 1958 or before? MS. GOULD: I think the first time it was conveyed out that was to Mr. Dorman in 1958. CHAIRWOMAN: Since the critical question this was 1 lot in 1958. It was not 2 lots. It was a little described parcel on a little strip of land please bear with me originally he bought the lot that we see on the tax map as lot 12, then there was a little 10' strip of land that went from Navy Street up to the end there and he added that on in 1970 but at the time that Mr. Dorman bought it, it was 1 lot and it has been 1 lot since that time as far as I know. MS. GOULD: I cannot argue with you that it has been conveyed as 1 lot from '58 on. However the code is what's giving us protection here. The code says in Section 124 Al they will recognize the lot. The code says we recognize the lot if you can show a deed that created it. Well we showed the deed for the 1919 lot and that has a house on it and that has been forever that deed was even before 1919 and then we're conceding that everything else merged. Now yes we did have people treat the property as one and pass it on because they didn't care. Frankly until 1997 we didn't have an exception to the merger law that we would fall under. We would be here for a waiver of merger. Page 43 of 63 Page 44 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the merger law in 1997 was amended and that amendment allowed you to take a lot that was created in 1919 as 1 lot was held as 1 lot for 60 years and then allows you to subdivide it. MS. GOULD: We are not subdividing it. CHAIRWOMAN: A lot line change under an exemption would be a subdivision. MS. GOULD: We are saying that we had 2 lots each lot is currently developed with a one- family dwelling. CHAIRWOMAN: You had 4 lots actually? MS. GOULD: We had 6 lots some were vacant land we can't say that those- CHAIRWOMAN: But the basic principal is that what you are saying and this is what's very important here is that somehow in 1997 that a change in the merger law would allow you to take a lot one lot that's been a single tax lot for almost 50 years and what amounts to create a subdivision on it because it had a cottage on the part of the lot through a lot line change. Is that the short and the long of it? MS. GOULD: I think you're describing it in very technical terms to carry on from what the Sprint people said. What we are proposing today no one there's not going to be a single change in the Village of Orient. CHAIRWOMAN: Why not go for a minor subdivision? MS. GOULD: Because there's a moratorium. That was the problem when we started. CHAIRWOMAN: In a normal course of things if there wasn't a moratorium wouldn't you go for a minor subdivision? MS. GOULD: We would have tried for a setoff because we conform to what a setoff is,but not according the PB has it's own set of rules about setoffs that aren't codified. Maybe they want them to be codified,but they're not. CHAIRWOMAN: In my book they would be probably a minor subdivision and you would say yes the lot is in keeping with all the other lots sizes of all the lots in the neighborhood and it would be a standard area variance. MS. GOULD: But look at it this way, we are talking about property that the BD recognizes as 2 separate homes they give them separate addresses. This isn't a this is one house on Village Lane which is called 2395 and one house that's 255 Navy St. Prior to this you know how the address is always switched we had 25 Navy St. and 95 Navy St. Page 44 of 63 Page 45 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Actually the old deed on this property when Mr. Dorman bought it there was no mention of Village Lane, it was called something else. It was called Navy St. MS. GOULD: At one time it was 25 and 95 Navy St.but as long as the assessors have kept cards_on them they have been separate. They assess them as 2 separate single family residences to make us go for a subdivision because something has existed one house has been there for 130 years, the other one has been there for 83 years to make us go through the subdivision process is really cruel and unusual punishment. CHAIRWOMAN: We've never had one like thisi in all the years that we've dealt with waivers.of merger I can honestly say we have never taken a single tax lot and said okay this is a single tax lot that's been held in common ownership for 50 years under one tax name and said okay well there's a deed in 1919 that says there were 6 lots there and therefore the merger law applies. We've never applied the merger law on a case like this. MS. GOULD: Well one thing about this single tax lot parcel thing. I talked to Jack Sherwood about this because I wanted to get clear in my mind and maybe this will help you get over some of this about the single tax map number. I said Jack if I'm fortunate enough to be able to _ purchase 3 houses on Village Lane in my name and Thave 100%ownership in each of these houses what does the county do and I take a deed you know I take 3 separate deeds just like Mr. Knobloch did and I go to record them he goes if it's 1.00%ownership they get assigned 1 tax map. number. As long as it's 100% ownership if you own parcels all in a row it's going to be 100% ownership. That's what the county does. What's the protection for this parcel? Somebody when they made this exception in 1997 this must have come up at some time. People either had deeds right next to each other or houses next to each other that they didn't want merging and were actual houses and were used as actual houses. I think I've given you a lot in this supplemental package to show that these were in fact 2 houses. This isn't a situation like we see in Orient and throughout the town where we have garages and barns blossoming into residences. That's not what's happening here and you have pictures you have documentation of houses the 255 Navy St. house it says when dormers were added on in 1906. The SPLIA inventory shows us it's not like you are going to be setting a precedent where somebody comes in here and says well I had a deed for my house and then I had a deed for my garage which is now a studio and I want to split it because that's not going to happen. CHAIRWOMAN: One question because that was a little confusing to us and that was in the original there were inspection reports on the cottage and it said it was the one on Navy St. and at the time it said it was an accessory building. The CO was for an accessory building. It was a dwelling an accessory- MS. GOULD: They called it a cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes but the CO- . MS. GOULD: There was only one CO. Remember that CO was issued in 1995. First of all the people who bought it from Dorman probably didn't care,but at that time there wasn't this Page 45 of 63 Page 46 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing exception to the merger law so no one was thinking of splitting it or asking for 2 separate CO's. Now if I take my deed to Michael Verity in the BD and ask for a CO if I split this off the way it is now with a dotted line, according to the code, he's got to give me a CO for that house because the house is totally within the 1990 parcel and that's why he didn't raise merger because he saw that. I gaveshim the deed he could measure it out he ha(kthe survey. The problem for us and why we are here at all is we have how marketable is the house and the problem for the Woodhouses is a hardship and I'll let them talk to you about it because they can no longer afford to keep 2 houses. If they could we wouldn't be here to begin with it's a hardship situation. So who is going to buy the house on Navy St. when the line includes the garage when the garage rationally goes with the house on Village La. and then it cuts through the barn a little bit too. We've got to straighten it out, it's irrational. If you could just look at it as a straight variance is there going to be any undesirable change to the neighborhood, no it's been like this for 83 and 130 years, it's not going to change. Anything that had to be done to the house if anybody tried to change the nature of the houses, they'd be back in here for variances. They'd have to be because of setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: You've given us a lot to look at. In the meantime, let me see if any of the board members have other questions. MEMBER HORNING: On the survey that we have the dotted line that you're referring to that partially cuts through garage and also another accessory building tell us again what- MS. GOULD: That references those dotted lines reference the 1919 deed and what that is -is the transfer in from Adela and Annie Parachess his wife to Henry Knobloch the deed was dated 7/1/1919 recorded 7/12/1919. That parcel as far as our code is concerned is protected because it's got a single family residence, it's greater than 850 sq. ft. I think the assessors figures show 1486 sq. ft the barn being 897 and the assessor I might add has the Navy St. property and the barn on one card and the Village Lane which is 2479 sq. ft. and the garage 504 on the other card as does the SPLIA inventory. MEMBER HORNING: Is there a CO on one of the- MS. GOULD: On all as an entire parcel. What we want to do is make a more rational lot line and get a CO for each parcel, a separate CO. MEMBER HORNING: And you are maintaining that you are entitled to 2 separate CO's because without straightening our the lot line MS. GOULD: Absolutely, the code protects us and I think any reading because it was in one tax lot for 60 years, we can't even be considered because never mind exception to merger but waiver to merger is just awful. I don't know how else to describe it, it's so harsh given the situation. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the way it's been interpreted for 7 years. It's not singly cause of a tax map,it's because of the deed. The deed describes one lot. The deed has described one lot for 50 years. When we consider a waiver of merger even with a house on it we have 2 described lots as f -- Page 46 of 63 Page 47 February 20; 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing of 1982.we can see 2 described lots in a deed. The merger law makes reference it goes right _ back to 1983 and if the lots have not merged since 1983. So to take a flashlight view of everything in 1983 when the merger law was passed what does this look like in terms of the deed? ;The deed description is one lot. Yes the tax map is one lot, but it's still one lot and if the town has-been foolish in it's interpretation of it's been fogyish since 1995 because that's the way W _ the code has been interpreted and that's the way it's been applied. Now you've given us something else to think about and we will. MS. GOULD: You told me before this situation has not come up before. CHAIRWOMAN: Right because our reading when they say to us this is not the subject of the merger when we see that, that says to us it's not eligible for any of the criteria under the merger law. That's the way we would interpret that. MS. GOULD: If that's the way the BD had meant that they would have said go back to go get a subdivision. They knew where I was going. CHAIRWOMAN: We very may well have to get them to come in and testify to get that cleared up because I can only speak to what is on a piece of paper. But they are not here. If it takes them to come in here and explain what they meant to help you, to help us we will do it. MS. GOULD: I mean I have seen back to this thing of the one deed if you want to go talk about waiver of mergers, I've seen plenty of waiver of mergers where you do this deed certification and originally they take them all on one deed and say lot 5, 6, 7, and 8 and then they realize they have a problem and they start conveying out to make them separate but there's hundreds of them that all started on one deed and then they started doing the deeds out so I just don't think that given our situation and the existence of these houses for so long, they are not made up houses as I said they are not garage conversions it's not a barn conversion that if you take this kind of hard line with us they are going to have to sell the house and I'll let them talk about it because we can't wait for the moratorium. CHAIRWOMAN: It's not even taking a hard line with you the question is whether or not we can look at this after the building department's determination in terms of the merger law. That's the question. It's not a question of a hardship or a merger or any of those other issues at this point. I'm being as candid as I can because I don't want you to go around in circles for the next 6 months. The critical question is can we address this under the merger law? That's the question. MS. GOULD: Back to this thing about the one deed again. I don't see any reference in the code about the deed it having to be one deed, 2 deeds, 3 deeds if you're because what you're telling me is that because it was carried for 60 years on one deed you're out, go back to go. I don't see that in the code. I really don't and I'm not trying to just be combative, I don't see that and I don't think that's what they meant in the code and I don't think that's what they meant when they put this exception in under C-5. That was there for a reason and it doesn't say and by the way you have separate deeds now showing that they are separate deeds as of 1983 or 1997,but I would like Woodhouse to be able to testify too. Page 47 of 63 Page 48 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: Frankly Jenny there's so much material here and there's so many legalisms involved I don%want to make some sort of rash pronouneement until we really have time to sit ,, t down and digest it. It really wouldn't be fair to me or to you. You have everything here I'm intelligent enough to read it and understand it and ask for legal council. MS. GOULD: It just seems really unfair when there's two houses on one tax parcel to make somebody go through the whole subdivision process, We already have separate septic, separate water, the water's tested every year because Jerry runs a business out of the house so SC Health Dept. comes every year. If you look what you're supposed to be doing on the ZBA aren't you supposed to give relief on situations like this where there's a problem? Isn't that what this is all about? MEMBER OLIVA: Then again Jenny we are confined by the code and what the interpretation of the code has been in the past. Therefore that's why I'm saying we have to go back and look at all the information once again, speak to our town attorney and then get back to you. MS. GOULD: I just can't believe that people who have 3 and 4 houses on a lot have to go through this subdivision process or that they've been made to do that in the past. CHAIRWOMAN: You'd still need a variance. MS. GOULD: No matter what we need a variance for the lot. MEMBER HORNING: Did the applicant go to the Planning Board with the proposed lot line change? MS. GOULD: They've been copied on everything we did and as you can see the Planning Board is in favor of what we are here to do. MEMBER HORNING: I can see that via their letter. MS. GOULD: This was unsolicited too, I had no idea they were going to do this and I asked the Woodhouses. They haven't talked to the Planning Board. We haven't asked for this. MEMBER HORNING: It's been my casual impression that the Planning Board has some domain over lot line changes. MS. GOULD: We have to go back to them after we are here. MEMBER HORNING: What happened, you went to the PB with a proposed lot line change and what happened? Page 48 of 63 Page 49 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GOULD: Originally Mark Terry and I discussed how this was going to proceed. I wanted to go lot line change because I thought that's what it was and he said no it's a setoff. To me the extra step was going to the health dept. which I wasn't too happy about but I said I've got pre- existing everything so we'll do it. We wanted to get this done so we started in June. Well we went to Q y_,first conference and they were all confused be se of 2 houses being on one tax parcel. I-mean they had an issue with it too but we said you know you really have to consider the merger law in this and they said yes you are right but we don't know anything about the merger law, we're just going to have to look into this. Two months later I received a letter saying you're not a setoff because a setoff to us means that if you set a piece off the piece you have left is big enough to further subdivide now I haven't found that in the code but that's their policy you know I look at page A106 and the criteria for a setoff are pretty much the criteria for what a variance is you know what's it going to do to the neighborhood but they also said there was a light at the end of the tunnel they said in their letter go to the ZBA and get a waiver of merger because we think that maybe some of your lots have merged and you should get a waiver of merger because we think that some of your lots have merged you should get a waiver of merger so- MEMBER HORNING: Buy you're not here for that. MS. GOULD: No,but I'd be happy to go through the criteria for waiver of merger because we fit all of it's criteria. MEMBER HORNING: One final question on this mechanism of a procedure lets' assume that in fact you have the agreement of this board for a proposed lot line change you mentioned going back to the PB. How does that work? MS. GOULD: We go back with this map and a variance from you saying okay we agreed to give you an area variance for these lots. This is kind of a side issue at this point. I'm kind of confused in my own mind when I have 2 pre-existing nonconforming lots why we need a variance. MEMBER HORNING: Because they are only one lot. MS. GOULD: That's not what the BD said. They say you have 2 lots that are nonconforming you're still creating 2 nonconforming lots so go get a variance. That's what the PB wanted us to do. We go back to them we say we have this variance now and they say it's okay with us. So it's just then we have a public hearing. MEMBER HORNING: You need the PB's approval? MS. GOULD: Because we've discussed it all along. I know that I had to go back to them. I said to Mark is the board happy with the division line yes it's equal as possible. I said then we are going to make them a little unequal because we don't want to create another variance issue with a side yard issue with an accessory building that's why we moved the line from 3.2' to 5' so we get rid of that problem and they were okay with that too but they wanted us to come here because Page 49 of 63 Page 50 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing they thought there was a merger. They wanted us to get a waiver of merger. But the BD said go get an area variance. MEMBER HORNING: On paper the proposed lot line change looks fairly reasonable. I don't know if this board can come to the conclusion that we can Grove it because we don't have cn enough information at this time. But off hand it looks reasonable. I want to make sure the PB thinks it's going to be reasonable too if this did happen based on this letter it seems to be okay. MS. GOULD: They've reviewed all this. MEMBER HORNING: I appreciate how you set the line so you have 5' clearance from that one garage, etc. I personally don't have a problem with this I think our board has a problem with the mechanics and the technicalities and straightening out the paperwork to make sure everything is in order because we hardly recognize this critter in terms of sorting through the fact that it was never merged, there is only one deed and we'll proceed from there. MS. GOULD: We could make 2 deeds,but I don't want to do that. For one reason, we have mortgages on this property. MEMBER HORNING: I was wondering if you could go to the BD and get a separate CO for that other building, that would help us. MS. GOULD: The reason I can't do that is I have 2 mortgages on the property and the bank would have to release part of the mortgage premises and they are not going to do that. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to have to cut this short because we are running over and we have more people here. Give us an opportunity to read what you've presented to digest it,to discuss it with legal council as I said the issue is which door are we coming in? Merger or lot line change or subdivision. It isn't whether what you want to do is right or wrong. As the member from Fisher's Island said if this was a straight application for a minor subdivision I think you would have been in and out of here 7 months ago quite frankly because the lot is very much conforming with all the other lots in the neighborhood we could go right down the criteria under 267 which would be a lot easier than this as you know I mean come on. This is like a long haul which should have been a very short trip MS. GOULD: Can my client say a couple of words? You notice no one from Orient is here complaining because they don't have a problem with this and you know Orient likes to complain. CHAIRWOMAN: That's your comment not ours. MS. GOULD: I know, I live in East Marion. JERRY WOODHOUSE: I'm Jerry Woodhouse, I'm the owner of this property. I appreciate saying a few things to you. I know we are.running late but for us you know it's been months and months of getting to this point and we are really here at this point for 2 very different reasons, Page 50 of 63 Page 51 February 20, 2003. Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing one of them that Jenny didn't bring up. We moved to Orient because we wanted to live in a historic community and as soon as we moved there we were both very active in the historical society and we've done a lot of research. It was our intention that we would live here for the rest of our lives. My husband retired here. This is our second home in Orient. We bought this house because of-the:historic nature of it. It was a real financial stmteh for us to buy it. The only reason we were able to do it is because my husband had a self funded retirement plan that enabled us to have some sort of a backup if our financial situation changed and so 6 years ago we bought it. Surprisingly to us we were only in the house a couple of weeks when someone came in and.made us a ridiculous offer to buy it for 2 %times the amount of money we had just paid for it and we were like what's going on here? After talking to this person, it was clear that this was someone who was not interested in historic preservation but recognized from the size of the lot and the property that we had and because we have a wonderful waterview it would be very easy to tear down the houses that existed and build a big Mcmansion. In fact he pursued us for quite a long time and showed us on paper how he would do that and it wouldn't require any of these kinds of procedures to get those kinds of applications because he had enough square footage. We lived in a house where 2 houses had been torn down to build it. Our barn was the creation of 2 barns put together and he could do it and that was really frightening to us. And I began to do some research at that time to see what we could do to protect our property in case we were not there forever. Many of you know I was involved with the Orient Historic Preservation Association and we tried to figure out everything we could to protect properties because we don't have the kind of legal protection we have in the town nor do we have a certified local government though I hope that would come someday. The only thing we could do is try to put on our houses with separate deeds historic fagade easements to try to protect them in the future so nobody else could build them. That's really how we started out thinking what could we do to protect it so after we're gone these 2 beautiful buildings with a historic barn and historic garage could stay exactly the way they were far into the future,but somewhere along the line things changed. Two years ago my husband was diagnosed with cancer. My husband is approaching 80. The amount of work required to take care of that property for me became a really difficult prospect for the future. The amount of money that it would take for us to continue to restore the property particularly the barn and the cottage were beyond what we had and like many other people,retirement plan which we thought would protect us forever evaporated and so at . this point and time we have very difficult decisions we can make. We hope we can figure out a way with your help or whoever can help us to protect this property forever because we think it's an important part of Southold Town that should be preserved and protected forever but most importantly we hope that we can afford to stay there forever and live here because this is where we want to spend the rest of our lives and we can't frankly afford 7 more months to figure out what we are going to do and if we have to sell the whole parcel there is nothing that could protect that property in the future and we would have to go somewhere else and we don't want to have to do that so anything you can do to help us we would appreciate. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Gould, one quick question. If this board cannot go through the route of the merger law but the board was very willing to look at an area variance for the creation of 2 lots and I think the board generally is amenable to that will that be okay? I have to ask you that because we have to talk to legal council on this and we have to be able to have some options here. Page 51 of 63 Page 52 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. GOULD: It has to be okay with the Planning Board. Do you see what I'm saying because if it's going to be interpreted as a subdivision- CHAIRWOMAN -You said lot line change before, what is thaQ MS. GOULD: I think we can live with an area variance because then we can go back and you've avoided merger. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't you let us talk to legal council on this and let us see if there is a "f way we can handle this because council advises that we cannot address this under 124 then we'll have some options there. MRS. WOODHOUSE: We spoke to all of our neighbors and they are in favor of, they actually signed something that they were in favor of it. CHAIRWOMAN: We're leaving this hearing open. We will leave this open until what's our next date? I don't think March 61h is going to give us enough•time. MS. GOULD: I know Linda will let me know. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm afraid March 20`h is the earliest. I'm going to adjourn this to April 3ra I'll make a motion adjourning this until April 3rd at 7:10 pm. Page 52 of 63 Page 53 February 20,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:52 p.m. Appl.No. 5217—LINDA S. SANFORD. This is an application based on the Building Department's August 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 22, 2003, in a proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling: (1) at less than 75 feet from the rearjot;line and bulkhead. Also requested is a new snming pool structure at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, and Variances under Section 100-235A(1) and Town Law Section 280-A, for a determination regarding improvements over an existing private right-of-way for sufficient access by fire and emergency vehicles. The right-of-way extends over privately owned lands now or formerly of Kaytis, and land of McDonald, from a point starting along the east side of Paradise Point Road, Southold, to the applicant's lot,referred to as 780 Private Road 17, Southold,Parcel#81-3-27.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you Linda Sanford? LINDA SANFORD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a very complete file from you. We also have some additional information that was handed in on February 131h letter 2 of 2 and this is a paperwork matter. I want to note that in the letter of February 13th there's a request for interpretation is that something you want us to address before the variance? MS. SANFORD: What we are asking is for an interpretation against the code that we have been referring to here and depending on what that interpretation is we may need to go forward on the variance, we are prepared to do that as well. What we would like is to have the interpretation first based on the data we have presented here. CHAIRWOMAN: There is a legal technicality that's going to gum up the works here. A, you didn't apply for an interpretation before the legal notice was posted so the legal notice does not give notice for an interpretation. B, there's no compliance with Chapter 58 which is neighborhood notification, board interpretation. C,you did not pay the requisite fees. So to put it bluntly we- MS. SANFORD: Skip the interpretation. CHAIRWOMAN: You can certainly apply. We can accept this as an application with just filling out the rest of it,but you would have to very definitely describe it looks to me like just reviewing this it looks like you are asking for an interpretation for 3 different positions of the code, then you really have to -we could use part of this fill out an application, fill out a little mark interpretation and say here's this area, this area an this area,just as you have here and then we would advertise it for a public hearing and give neighborhood notices and the whole 9 yards. That's why I didn't want you to go forward with this until we- so if you want a couple of minutes to talk you your please go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia I have a pressing issue I need to discuss with you. George has to leave at 3:15. I have to leave at 3:30. Page 53 of 63 Page 54 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: We have some people here who have been waiting over an hour so if you wouldn't mind we are going to take a temporary recess so you can discuss this and make a decision as to how)you wish us to proceed and in the meantime we are going to proceed right along until the next-hearing. We are taking are recess for the S €ord's to decide what they would like to do with their interpretation request and we are going to move to the next hearing. 3:08 pm SANFORD (CONT.) MS. SANFORD: We have conferenced and what we would like to proceed with is the request for a variance however and this is my first time through this so please help me. What I would like to do at the end we'd like to go through a short presentation and then poll the board to get a sense of what your thoughts might be and then reserve the option to perhaps adjourn if we need to adjourn on that if that's alright. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a major problem. Mr. Horning is leaving at 3:15 and I have struggled through an eye appointment all day. I have an appointment on the other side of Southold at exactly 3:45. I'm going to leave at 3:35. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a very complete record in front of us. I went through everything, what the nature of the variances are, I just there are 2 alternative site plans that you have submitted. The first site plan is the August 261h one and that includes the pool. Essentially the dimensions are the same there's no change in the setback dimensions. The site plan that was prepared January 20`h you've eliminated the pool and increased the distance to the bulkhead by 2'. The distance to the tie line, property line is almost identical. Have I got it? CHARLES NAPOLI, ARCH: One thing, we are landward of the bulkhead. MS. SANFORD: We had moved landward T further away from the bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things here. There is reference in here to other lots in the area. Mr. Anderson went through a very lengthy dissertation about the other lots along the beach 20 some odd lots and one of the things he talked about in here is that there are and there's no page number but I'm sure you'll find it it's under variance criteria number 1 Flagsgraf. He says among those parcels containing nonconforming buildings in structure the average setback principal buildings from the real lot line was found to be 57'. The average setback for structure for the rear lot line was found to be 38'. What's that based on? MR. NAPOLI: Based on the aerial. We gauged it all going off the aerial. Here's the high water mark which is the rear lot line and we basically measured them all right here. We took an average of each structure. CHAIRWOMAN: And the lot next to it on the east is vacant? MR. NAPOLI: No, it's improved. I believe there's only 2 unimproved out of the 20. Page 54 of 63 Page 55 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The average setback is based on- CHAIRWOMAN: It's very tough to see this you'd really have to look at it. Because when people use the aerial is very difficult. Usually what we see is a rope and then a survey marks back and then this-.is- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's confusing Jerry because some of it references accessory structures and other reference principal structures. MS. SANFORD: We've got it both ways so it's the average setback of principal structures from the rear lot line is 571 . MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's normally where the high water mark would be. MS. SANFORD: Then the average setback from the bulkhead is 36'. We've looked at both high water mark and bulkhead and setbacks from there. CHAIRWOMAN: The neighborhood average is 36 and you're asking for 27. MS. SANFORD: From the bulkhead. MR. NAPOLI: 9' exists now with the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: The average setback in the neighborhood is 36' according to this aerial. The proposed setback on the January 301h plan is 2765. You're proposing 59 to the tie line which is the property line. Your deed goes to the tie line? MS. SANFORD: Yes. MR.NAPOLI: That's a pictorial definition of the rear yard setback in blue 75'back from the tie line. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to ask you the proverbial question. If it's brand new construction, why can't you move the principal structure back further from the bulkhead. You know Bruce Anderson your consultant talked about a number of very valuable trees that are going to be destroyed. MS. SANFORD: Let me ask Irwin Potter. Irwin is the environmental landscape designer. Irwin you may want to use the microphone. I was trying to preserve very much the current wooded area the environmental properties of the land. IRWIN POTTER: I was asked to look at the property from several perspectives but most importantly from the perspective of putting a new house on the property with as little destruction to the existing forest cover to the existing tree line as possible. The reason for that and I'll be very quick and if you choose to cut me off do so is that in looking at this property both across the Page 55 of 63 Page 56 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing bay or from the water and from the neighbors that little corner you see cut out to the left there the neighbors house is a few feet over in that direction. In looking at this property from that is was my consideration that one of the important environmental features in terms of visual and in terms of putting a new house in there was to try to maintain the tree cover line because when you look at this shore line along,-here I don't have to tell you about your ow Reighborhood but when you look at this shoreline what you see is a wooded shoreline. Now what happens is this. This building occupies a portion of the existing structure and a portion of the property immediately behind it. As a consequence that building and the revised driveway takes out only 8 or 9 trees does not interrupt the canopy, doesn't break the canopy. So in my opinion it protects the larger neighborhood that is the neighborhood across the bay and it impacts the near neighborhood that _ is the people living around it. Keep in mind the people who live around it have the forest cover. As you can see from the plans we have shown, we remove very few trees,we are trying to maintain the canopy so what you have is in essence the same kind of structure you have now that is a building sitting under the canopy or within the forest and that is very similar if not exactly the same as most of the houses along here. That is these houses are houses that are tucked beneath the canopy. From my perspective that was an important constituent of the visual effect of what this neighborhood is like. MS. SANFORD: And in maintaining the spirit of the environment. CHAIRWOMAN: On the map what is the blue? MR. NAPOLI: The blue is 75'back from the tie line. CHAIRWOMAN: If we go to the last map the most recent map would take us MR.NAPOLI: The purple in this most recent diagram is the existing house and deck. Here's the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: The white is the proposed deck and house. MR. NAPOLI: It's not a house it's an open porch. And I what I'd like to do is take off the old house. If you see the size of the old house and deck I'd like to remove that it's the only piece that's into the setback line and as you can see it's almost all porch. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm looking for that map. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The purpose for placing the house on that skewed position is I assume one based upon what Mr. Potter said and two probably commands a better view that way. MR. NAPOLI: No as a matter of fact the best view would be to have it along the setback line. This happens to be the direction of morning sun. You can see this arrow right down here these are the sun angles. Linda came tome and said I want a beach house and a formal house. My job is to make one out of both of those requests. The other thing she said when we were interviewing how she wants to use this place. She loves morning sunlight so her bedroom Page 56 of 63 Page 57 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing happens to be right here on the 2°d floor. In addition directly underneath that is the informal living summer room also in the morning sun. MR. POTTER: I:want to add one thing that make my job a bit easier as you can see all the trees that remain to the-right the only one that is likely to be lost is the one-- CHAIRWOMAN: You know the autocat that showed the porch area and the intrusion I just want Member Horning to see this. This is the only area of the variance. MR.NAPOLI: As you can see it's quite less in mass and of course you can see in volume it's considerably less in volume everything else is open porch. CHAIRWOMAN: On that map it almost cuts a diagonal right through the porch and then this way maybe a tiny little piece. The porch is a total of 276 sq. ft. MR. NAPOLI: No the entire area in the setback is 276 sq. ft. including the piece of the kitchen. CHAIRWOMAN: So the total area of the variance is 276'. Is that correct? MR.NAPOLI: Yes. And of that 250' is open porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You will covet that porch to remain open? And allow us to restrict that if we are so inclined? MR.NAPOLI: She wants to be under cover in the rain. MS. SANFORD: I want a wrap around porch. CHAIRWOMAN: I have no problems with this at all. Let's go to the 280A access. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you I spent a great deal of time on that property walking around and looking at the treeline and getting the feeling that your landscape architect has devised for us. This is a wonderful device in allowing us to analyze this and I was so enamored with the property and the trees and with the destruction of the existing house I don't mean destruction I mean in it's physical obsolescence that I spent very little time on the 280A and I have to admit to that. CHAIRWOMAN: Basically what we would be requiring Jerry is a simply access for fire and emergency vehicles. MS. SANFORD: And the fact that the ROW is also where several neighbors also enter to their property so it's been in use for many years. MEMBER OLIVA: Which ROW do you use the one going through McDonalds or the one that's just to the east of it? Page 57 of 63 Page 58 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. SANFORD: It goes through McDonald's on one side, Kaytis's are on the other and then through to ours. CHAIRWOMAN: What's on the ROW now? Any gravel bed? MS. SANFORD: Yes. MR. NAPOLI: We have photos and we have staked it. CHAIRWOMAN: We could leave it open until March 61h MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll submit a brief report on what my analysis is in reference to the ROW. Remember we are not evaluating it into the property only the tangent of the property line. So whatever you intend to do from your property line in is your business. We are only interested in getting from Paradise Pt. Rd to your property. If I have a problem getting to your property, paint it, stake it so I can see the monument coming in. MS. SANFORD: It has been staked. We can uncover them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just uncover one so I can understand. MS. SANFORD: On March 61h I won't be here but I think my colleagues can represent me here if that's okay with you. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think we have any more questions. I think I can safely say the board is fairly comfortable with the January plan I think it's a clean record you presented us with. The only other issue is the 280A access that Mr. Goehringer is going to go look at and we should have that wrapped up by the 6ch MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that having these graphics are invaluable in evaluating an evaluation of this nature. ` MS. SANFORD: It is very difficult for me to look at a 2 dimensional drawing and it really came to light with the 3D. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very, very, well done. We appreciate it especially since the existing house is in the center of what you want to make with fresh new construction. MS. SANFORD: We staked out the new home but that was very hard for me to visualize walking the property line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you a contract vendee or did you buy the property? MS. SANFORD: I'm from Laurel. I grew up here on the north fork and I bought the property. Page 58 of 63 Page 59 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: 7pm March 61h. This was so easy and clear I want to compliment you. Great job and we'll see you March 61h 7pm. Page 59 of 63 Page 60 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:58 p.m. Appl. No. 5307-MAINTREE CORPORATION. This,is an Application requesting a Special Exception under Section 100-31B for an Accessory Bed and Breakfast in the owner's dwelling for renting of up to five (5) guest rooms, and up,to ten (10) guests, with breakfast. Location: 2500-Main Road, Orient; Parcel 18-6-10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue,NY for the applicant. The application is fairly complete. As part of the B&B thing I included everything which met all of the requirements and on further request I brought a person who is going to be a principal owner. As you know from the history of the application before you and the history of the property from the prior application and having visited the property right now for liability purposes and tax purposes it's held in a corporate name. You have a copy of the deed that was in foreclosure the %Z owner of the shares of stock in that corporation , Karen Voss who's with me today is in the process of relocating and making this her principal residence. She hopes to have this accomplished within the next 30 days where she will be changing her principal residence from where she presently is in Massachusetts to Orient NY. It's more a formality of moving it up because she was going to do it with retirement and everything this summer so she says what's the difference, I'll just move it up ahead of time and get all the accouterments that you need the voter the driver's license and all the other stuff. She does intend to occupy it in fact it's fine with the other owner she says I'm going to be living here which is really what I've always wanted to do because as you know the back bedroom on the l s` floor is going to be her quarters for the time being because it's handy and you've got all the parts of a normal residence right next door to you, you know the living room the kitchen and so on. They are going to use the 2nd floor they are going to use 5 of those bedrooms and they are going to just use those 5 that are set up the only thing they need to get done is to put a half shower in one and get rid of the combination showers for the other 2. The see through operation that they want to do right away. It's really the only major renovation they are going to do now. I've been pushing them also just so you know to apply for a permit also just so you know to apply for a permit also to get the handicap ramp and all that done especially on the side I think that's just going to be in the long run a good thing. That's all basically that's going to be done for now. As you know to move further we're going to have to get the zone thing changed for the Country Inn interpretation and then they are going to have to get squared away with the Health Dept. because once we go over the 10 they have a classification from 10-14 which is not as stringent but if you go over 14 then it's really stringent with the wastewater management and all that other business. So they've got a lot of planning to do but they want to renovate that portion of it which is the bathrooms that will probably the only thing done this Spring and later this summer I'll get them to do the handicap ramp because- CHAIRWOMAN: The board has done an inspection on this and met with the owners and we're all familiar with the first floor layout and we're all familiar with the 2nd floor layout and we're familiar with the see through bathroom that you will need to close up and the reasons why. That's room to room that is. We're also familiar with the parking situation there and we have a parking indicated on the survey. Page 60 of 63 Page 61 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing • MR. LARK: I gave you a parking plan you know what is existing and what they are going to do there immediately there. CHAIRWOMAN: I personally don't have any questions of you at this.time and I'm going to move this right along.,t:--,,z,, -. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to let us know exactly when Mrs. Voss is a resident of that so we can vote on this at that point? MR. LARK: You,can make a contingent on that. I would say it would definitely be done in the month of March.. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you give us copies of the requisite papers within - what's a reasonable time? We can close the hearing and make it contingent upon- MR. LARK: Or you could even grant it and make it contingent that the building permit that she's got to go because you know the renovations have got to be done. That's another way of handling it. She's going to do it, it's a matter of the formality now. She's got to do it during the business week. CHAIRWOMAN: How would the board like to handle this? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Close the hearing pending the receipt of the proper information. The only difference would be if we don't have it by March 201n CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of the proof of residency and renovation of the bathrooms. MR. LARK: Then they have to do the B&B application. The BD is waiting for this so they can do the bathroom renovations. It's a$100 fee with the inspection. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 61 of 63 Page 62 February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 3:05 p.m. Appl. No. 5239—JAMES AND KAREN HOEG. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-33,based on the Building Department's September 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval to locate an in-ground pool and as built accessory shed in an area other than the required rear yard, at 350 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-11.5-17-17.10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JAMES HOEG: I'm James Hoeg. I'm trying to get a pool and a barn put in and the BD denied it saying they that they don't consider it to be in the rear yard. However because of the wetlands it's pushed as far back as I can. The pool actually is if you measured it from the front property line is completely behind any structure of the house. They determined it that way because if you draw a line from the corner of the furthest rear corner of my house all the way not just to where the wetland starts but to my back property line they'll measure the distance and if you see my back property line which is under water curves therefore bringing that line to where it would be in the wetlands almost. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Hoeg, that could be a long haul to undo that configuration there. The shorter way is just to look at the variance. What we are looking at is an "as built" 18x18 shed and a proposed 20x40 inground pool with a grade level patio and that's all according to the January 2-01 survey. You've already received Trustee approval on this June 7? MR. HOEG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: I have no problems with this. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I was down there and your wife explained with all those kids running around you want it a little bit away. I have no problems. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At no time you're anticipating any enclosures around this swimming pool. Is that correct? MR. HOEG: Just a fence. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No intentions of closing it up in any way? MR. HOEG: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to point out to you these were acre lots and by the nature of the barn on the opposite side the only way you are really going to get to your rear yard is between the barn and the house so I would not look favorably on any future construction over on that side. Page 62 of 63 Page 63 . February 20, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HOEG: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seein&no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. , PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION y Page 63 of 63