Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/15/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD MAY 15,2003 Pa odes /-135- (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent Orlando Member Gerard P. Goehringer Member George Horning(until 3:16) BOARD SECRETARY Absent was: Member Ruth D. Oliva PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:39 a.m. Melissa Corwin Clark #5305. Based on the Building Department's November 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, this is a request for a Variance under Section 100-242A for a second-floor addition and alteration to an existing single-family dwelling with a setback on a single side yard at less than 10 feet and less than 25 feet for both side yards, at 375 Brown Street, Greenport; Parcel 1000-48-3-22. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Is there someone here who could get a little information for the record for us? MELISSA CORWIN CLARK: Melissa Corwin Clark. CHAIRWOMAN: Just tell us a little bit about what you'd like. MS. CLARK: We want to get a second story on our house in Greenport. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. And let me go over a couple of things with you. The second story addition is going to be about 2400. MS. CLARK: Yes. 2 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: And right now you have an existing 4'6 east side yard at the closest point and it's about 15' on the west side of the closest point, which is a total of 19.6, so there not going to be really any expansion.. You're just... MS. CLARK: Going straight up. CHAIRWOMAN: Going straight up. Okay let'ssee if the board members have any questions. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: I'll pass on that for a minute. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have there been any overhangs that could encroach into those side 'I yard areas? MS. CLARK: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Ok, so the only overhang would then be in the front and the back of the house? MS. CLARK: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I stopped by to see, it's a cute little house, but I can see the reasoning for expansion. I'm sure it's getting quite tight there with quarters. MS. CLARK: It's very small. Page 2 of 136 3 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ok, 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 9:41 a.m. John and Kathleen Ahearn #5359. Based on the Building Department's April 29, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicants request Variances under Sections 100-242A and 100- 244B, for a proposed porch addition which will not meet the code's required setbacks on one side yard of 10 feet and 15 feet on the other side, and which will exceed the 20 percent lot coverage limitation of the code. Location of Property: 480 Dawn Drive, Greenport; 35-5-13. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? JOHN AHEARN: Yes, I'm John Ahearn, we'd like to clarify a request for variance, we're trying to expand an existing deck which we are now going to call a porch. Because we expect to put a cover on it. The problem was that both coverage and side yard setbacks require a variance. Currently the existing coverage is at, lot coverage is at 20.2% of our property. And our expectation was that we, the last time we went the variance board, was that we wanted to put up 26%. And we, and that was reduced to 23.8 back in May of'02. The side yard setbacks on one side of the house, the south side is 9.6 today. And what we need is to get the north side of the property at 10'. And we would expect to do that. Our, I guess our major issue at this point is that we are calling this a porch. And we wanted to put a roof on this, on this addition. CHAIRWOMAN: It was my understanding, I did speak with your wife about this. It's my understanding that this is merely for a covered porch. It's not for any expansion, the lot coverage, it's not for anything other than what we had approved before as far as the side yards. Page 3 of 136 4 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing MR. AHEARN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Because we had approved, I believe, prior to this you had requested 26%, but we had approved the maximum lot coverage of 26.8. MR. AHEARN: And that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. And so I just want to make it clear that we are not going back and re- doing the old application as far as the setbacks, or as far as lot coverage. MR. AHEARN: We are not re-doing them, no. CHAIRWOMAN: Right. Now, let's go over the area of the covered porch so we know exactly what we are talking about. And perhaps you can tell us? l MR. AHEARN: In the back, in the back of the house, there's an existing deck, which we had intended to expand to the north, but within the setback guidelines. And that piece back there which gets the afternoon and evening sun, we wanted to put a porch over that particular piece. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the old portion plus the new portion? CHAIRWOMAN: All of it? MR. AHEARN: Yes, yes. The old portion is 17x16. And the, the new porch is 17x24, 23. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't seethe... MEMBER ORLANDO: What's in front of where it says brick? I can't read what it says, proposed something below the brick. Page 4 of 136 5 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. AHEARN: Deck. MEMBER ORLANDO: On the survey. MR. AHEARN: It says deck. MEMBER ORLANDO: So that won't be covered then? CHAIRWOMAN: It's very important, at this point, that we really know what's supposed to be covered, and what's not. MEMBER ORLANDO: On the south side of wooden deck... BOARD SECRETARY: The shaded areas, Mr. Ahearn, that's covered? f! MR. AHEARN: No. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The diagonal area? MEMBER ORLANDO: The one that says "wood deck", and north of that. CHAIRWOMAN: And north of that. I think we're going to have to mark it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, I see the shaded... CHAIRWOMAN: If we have a yellow marker, I think we need to put some kind of indication in the file exactly what is being sought. We asked the Building Department (BD) to confirm the lot coverage for you. And they are in the process of doing that now. So that we can ensure that you comply with the 23.8% lot coverage. Page 5 of 136 6 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Under the 23... MR. AHEARN: It goes from 3248 to 3724. Yes,that's... CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, and this proposed deck addition on the north is going to remain a deck. MR. AHEARN: Yes, that's not covered. It's just to CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, tell you what, we're going to recess this for a little while, just to confirm, the building, let the Building Department confirm that all of your calculations are correct. So that we, you don't have to come back in the future. MEMBER ORLANDO: They are doing that now, as we speak. CHAIRWOMAN: As we speak. So I'm going to mark the map. MEMBER ORLANDO: As we speak, it just arrived. Hot off the press. BOARD SECRETARY: Amended disapproval from the Building Department. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is it actually over the rear steps (before marking the map)? MR. AHEARN: No. The steps go down to a walkway around the pool there. CHAIRWOMAN: Ok. . BOARD SECRETARY: Mr. Ahearn, this is the corrected Notice of Disapproval (NOD) from the BD, which there were a couple of figures that were off. Page 6 of 136 7 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Ok, so he has calculated that the lot coverage is now going to be 23.5, which brings you under that 23.8 that we approved before. MR. AHEARN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just going to mark our copy here. It's very hard to... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So, what that is telling us, that this is then, very simply, a side yard variance. MR. AHEARN: Side yard and lot coverage. Because the initial lot coverage was at 20, or the current, is 20.2. And it's going up about 400 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: We had approved that prior. So, the only thing really before us right now, in looking at this, is just the question of the deck being covered. MR. AHEARN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: So there's no longer a deck. It is now a porch. MR. AHEARN: We'll call it a porch. CHAIRWOMAN: Ok. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, could you tell us, in your original plans, what were you originally attempting to construct? Page 7 of 136 8 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. AHEARN: Exactly what I'm asking you today. MEMBER HORNING: And yet you referred to it as a deck all the time. MR. AHEARN: We refer to it as an existing deck, because it is a deck. Now we are putting a roof on it, and I'm unfortunately, didn't know enough to change the term from deck to porch. MEMBER HORNING: Right from the beginning then, you're saying your original plans had... MR. AHEARN: We have the drawings that we had expected approval of. And we thought we got approval,but that's another story. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any questions. Do you have any questions, Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I just finished mine. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Other than the fact that, that what we approved is basically what we're approving now. CHAIRWOMAN: Except the covered porch. MR. AHEARN: Yes, with the exception of the open sky. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fact that it wasn't open to the sky. It's now covered. MR. AHEARN: Right. Page 8 of 136 9 May 159 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: And your covered porch is not to be enclosed with glass or screen in the future, you're just going to leave it open? MRS. AHEARN: That was not our plan at this time. MEMBER ORLANDO: Not closed. MRS. AHEARN: However we were told that if we applied for everything, it's possible you can do that down the road. We don't have any intention to do that. MEMBER ORLANDO: To make it a screened porch, or enclosed. MRS. AHEARN: Originally, we have one child who's allergic to the sun. So, we need some protection. We have a roll-out awning now, which is not adequate. So, we came up with this idea after meeting with an architect. And to make it fit, and it would offer better protection. And it would be a permanent structure in this particular area. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I expand on that? MEMBER ORLANDO: So, we don't have a problem putting on that, not to be enclosed? MEMBER HORNING: I don't see the point of that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the issue here is not the issue of not being enclosed. I think the issue is that it's not made part of the permanent, habitable structure. In other words, it's an open, summer type of porch. Okay, am I correct in that? Page 9 of 136 10 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Well, not to be enclosed would virtually, it, it says the same thin that's what Y Y g, our customary language is with it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the point in question today is, for everybody that has an open deck... CHAIRWOMAN: This is going to be a covered porch. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean a covered porch. Is that sometimes if you want to utilize it, you may have to put screening in. MEMBER HORNING: I would agree with that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn't really matter. I know you're creating one situation, but you also live near the water, and you have a susceptibility to gnats and flies, and all the rest of it. I'm just trying to clear this up here, so you don't have to come back. CHAIRWOMAN: What do you want to do so it's not made part of this. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not made part of the, it remains as a seasonal accessory structure, and not made a part of the habitable living space. MEMBER ORLANDO: Not to be enclosed with glass. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. Is that all right? MEMBER ORLANDO: I feel comfortable saying not to be enclosed with glass. Screens would be acceptable. Page 10 of 136 11 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MRS. AHEARN: Why does it have to be limited to, I mean, is that, why does it have to be limited to that? MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you're just progressing into livable space now. MRS. AHEARN: But we would have to come back and get permission to put glass in it. Is that correct? MEMBER ORLANDO: The honest person would. I'm not saying you're not honest, I'm just saying the honest person would come back here. MRS. AHEARN: Right. And to try to undo what is done here is a problem, as we have seen before,because we were ill advised. u MEMBER ORLANDO: That's why we are trying to rectify this now. And if you have reservations, well you're thinking down the road of maybe enclosing it, then, if you are having reservations on it. CHAIRWOMAN: Then we are going from a deck to a porch, to an addition, and those are three. MRS. AHEARN: No, that's not our intention. We were going to put tracks down, I mean... MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. And if you screened it, it seems to me, there's not a problem. If you put glass, and enclose it with glass, we seem to have a problem with that. So we'll be saying in our statement not to be enclosed with glass. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that okay? Are we all on the same page? MRS. AHEARN: It's kind of limiting, but you know, down the road, after talking with people in your office and the BD, that's fine. Page 11 of 136 12 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Because you're. going from, it's strictly definitions in the code, a deck is defined as `open to the sky.' A porch is open. Once you enclose it, that's no longer a porch. It becomes an addition to the house. MRS. AHEARN: Even though it doesn't have heat, or anything else? CHAIRWOMAN: It may not be living space,but it's still an addition. MRS. AHEARN: We don't intend to put glass in, but I just don't like to be limited. If I can take care of things today, after we spent this amount of money to get this far, I think it's foolish to limit ourselves. But if that's what you do, if that's part of the code, then we'll go along with that. CHAIRWOMAN: What we do is we act on the application that's before us. And the application is for a porch,just like the application prior to this was for a deck. If you want an addition, that's I a different application. And you'd have to go back to the BD. And say "look we want" (interrupted). MRS. AHEARN: No, we don't want that. We are just batting it around. CHAIRWOMAN: We just, we want to try to solve your problem so that you are able to go forward. Are there any further questions from the board members? (None) CHAIRWOMAN: Does anyone in the audience have any questions or comments regarding this application? Seeing no hands, I'll snake a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Page 12 of 136 13 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 9:56 a.m. Kenneth Cerreta #5282. Based on the Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, this is a request for Variances under Section 100-244B for a garage addition at less than 10 feet for a single side yard, less than 25 feet for total side yards, and less than 35 feet from the front lot line, at 1655 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Parcel 1000-53-4-6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? KENNETH CERRETA: Good morning. I'm Ken Cerreta. I would like to put a garage addition to my house. There is no garage presently. I would like a small area upstairs for some storage, because it is a small house. I already have the Trustees approval and DEC. CHAIRWOMAN: This is out of the Trustee jurisdiction? MR. CERRETA: Yes, and the DEC has approved it. CHAIRWOMAN: I think there's a letter of non jurisdiction from them as well. t MR. CERRETA: No, they wanted me to remove the existing driveway for the lot coverage. So I'm going to put you know, stone down there. They were happy with stone instead of asphalt, so there's drainage. And that will reduce the lot coverage down from what it is now actually. If I remove the driveway, and put the garage, the lot coverage will be less than it is presently. For their purposes, you know purposes of drainage. CHAIRWOMAN: I realize you have a very long lot, but I did not see any other houses along that road on the area that had a 10' front yard setback. MR. CERRETA: Down further there is, on Bayshore, there's somewhat with less, I believe. MEMBER ORLANDO: I looked as well, I couldn't find one either. MR. CERRETA: Did you drive all the way down to the end of Bayshore? CHAIRWOMAN: In the immediate area within 300' on either side of the street. MEMBER ORLANDO: The closest one I could find was across the street almost. That little Page 13 of 136 14 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing white house with a garage was the closest. Otherwise, I didn't see any. CHAIRWOMAN: The real problem on this is that, what you'are proposing is 10' from the road. And the house, as it exists, is already 70' long. And with the garage addition, it would be almost 100' long. And it would, it essentially requires, an encroachment into that one sideyard, that, you know, the plan shows that, it's, you're going to be going down to a setback of 4.8' on that one side, which is very, very close. .We usually don't look very positively on a front yard setback of 10', or creating a non-conforming setback of 4.8'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question, Lydia, when you get a chance? CHAIRWOMAN: Sure. Maybe there's some other option there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a possibility that you could cut this garage down and possibly come up with a garage and a half? And enter that garage from the opposite side? In other words, coming into the garage this way? MR. CERRETA: No, the property's long and narrow. I couldn't figure another way to do it. I asked a couple of architects also. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the only way that I could see that it could be done, and, without impacting the addition with the 2nd story cutting into the existing house. And put half of the addition on the 2nd floor over the existing house. And half of it over the garage, thereby not impacting it to the point where it's impacted in this particular application. But I honestly believe that. I paced it off. I think you could possibly get, I mean you're not going to get, you're certainly not going to put a SUV on that situation. But I think you could make the turn if you lessened the setback, I'm sorry increased the setback off the road, and put the garage doors on the side. I think it could be done. I've seen it done before. And I.understand your problem. I just think you need to, to look at it a little. And I'm not, please, I'm not taking away anything that you are proposing, and your opinions regarding this. Okay? But there's a possibility you might not have gone to the right architect to do this. And we work, this is almost confined space, the way it is, with the way you're asking us to impact this property. Page 14 of 136 15 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, but there's absolutely no prior, the minute you're going to put the garage where you are going to put it, down to 4' from the property line, you're not going to be able to get a fire truck down there. Because the other side is already closed off. But you have an existing front yard of 347, which is almost 35, and you want 10'. So, so the variances you are asking for are very, very, substantial. MR. CERRETA: The 10' is from, from the survey marker to what, the line... CHAIRWOMAN: That's your property line. Yes, right. MR. CERRETA: Because I paced off from where the front of the garage would be to where the actual street is. And I have 20'. CHAIRWOMAN: But that's that street could be improved at any time. And it would be improved right to that 10'mark. MEMBER ORLANDO: They could take it away from you. MR. CERRETA: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: It's town property. It's not your property. I have the same thing. It's still not my property. MEMBER ORLANDO: You'll maintain them, but they're not... MR CERRETA: Right, right. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. CERRETA: I really don't think I could get in the side way. I would like to do that. It's... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's another way of doing it. MR. CERRETA: I only have like 15, what do I have, 15' or I T to the property line. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other way to do it is come in on a little bit of an angle and Page 15 of 136 16 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing build the building 'u mg on a little bit on an angle to favor that situation. Okay, and that I've seen done also. And actually taking away some of the actual rectangular nature of everything you have there actually is very refreshing in an architectural point of view. I'm not an architect, okay, and I'm not the chairperson. But I'm going to suggest to you that you go back to another architect and maybe we can hold this thing in abeyance for a while and see if you can work something out. CHAIRWOMAN: Vinny? MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll throw in my opinion. My opinion would be, yes, you have limited space here. And you have tight tolerances on this lot, but you did buy the house with no garage. I was wondering if maybe you could do a one-car garage, and make it flush with the house, and maybe put a 2nd above that so you'd maintain your 34.7 setback. And, you know, it's a tight sideyard, but I think it's a compromise. MR. CERRETA: And stick it back... MEMBER ORLANDO: Flush with the house, make a one-car garage, with your 2nd storage. Because all the houses on your street, sir, I looked as well as the chairwoman. And I didn't see any 10'. MR. CERRETA: All the way down there, but they've got to be within 300', then it doesn't count. CHAIRWOMAN: It does you know that was done years ago. From a safety point of view, it's not safe to have any structure 10' from the road. Period. MR. CERRETA: I was a fireman for 38 years in the city and I wouldn't bring a fire truck in between the buildings. You know, whatever you guys do here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depends on how intense the fire is, and if we have to go overboard. Sometimes we got to run a suction line overboard. Or else we'll collapse everything down that block. And I'm not speaking for the Greenport Fire Dept. But I've been a fireman in Mattituck for 34, 35 years. You know, it's different when you have 16" mains, and you have 8" mains, and you have houses this close together. I'm not you would know. Page 16 of 136 17 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. CERRETA: No, no, no. I don't think you can get a truck down there. But that's whatever. CHAIRWOMAN: You've been given a couple of options. We'll leave this hearing open. The bottom line is the board simply would not even entertain this. Considering a 1050. You're at 34.7 now,but to go to 10', and then to go from a, down to a 4' sideyard, with this. MR. CERRETA: Well, if I go flush, I'll still end up with a 4' sideyard. MEMBER ORLANDO: I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I... CHAIRWOMAN: There's a couple of options. And the options are what Mr. Goehringer suggested, and what Mr. Orlando suggested. The idea is to get it as minimum as possible. Because the house, not including the deck, is already 70' long. With the deck, it's over 100' long. With the garage, it's going, you're talking about 130'long house on a 15' wide lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just show you what I'm talking about, with Mr. Orlando? MR. CERRETA: I'd appreciate it. MEMBER ORLANDO: The other problem, sir, is if we do this, we set a precedent. All your neighbors will be 10' off the road. We can't say no to them and say yes to you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is what I suggest. That you come in like this, on a little bit of an angle. And you cut it back like this. Okay? Thereby getting whatever you need here, okay? So, in other words, so you have the favoritism of going right into the garage this way. In other words, you're cutting off this. It can even be slighter than that. Something like that. MEMBER ORLANDO: But then you'll have no front yard. You'll lose your... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I doubt seriously if they use much of their front yard anyway. CHAIRWOMAN: It still would give you a 20' front yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It depends upon how wide, how deep the thing is. Because he's Page 17 of 136 18 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ` encroaching into this area here. So this is all g .storage he's been using here Oka you know, g Y� Y , ouY could even come down a little bit more, like this. And use this for storage. Impact the 2nd story over an existing portion of the house. Don't impact it just over the addition. And it will give you more depth than what you have. CHAIRWOMAN: That one, and the one Mr. Orlando suggested where you would keep if flush. MEMBER ORLANDO: Preferred? MEMBER ORLANDO: Flush. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. That's why I said to come back with 2 different plans,because you have 2 different opinions. And the majority will rule on both of those plans. We are looking for the minimum. MR. CERRETA: Is 15'better than 10', or? CHAIRWOMAN: 15' would not happen. MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe, if my memory is correct, your house is one of the closer houses to the street to begin with. A lot of them are deep on the water, where you are closer to the street than the majority was. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that okay? We'll come back with 2 plans... MEMBER ORLANDO: What's your opinion, George,before this gentleman runs back, and... MEMBER HORNING: Well, my basic opinion on the front yard setback as he proposed, is way out of whack with what we would allow. Sometimes people want to do something they can't do. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is flush better than what Jerry has sitting right next to you? MEMBER HORNING: You mean maintaining the 34'? Page 18 of 136 19 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: And put a 2"d MEMBER HORNING: Yes, absolutely. I'd be more inclined to do that. Reducing the front yard is not acceptable to me to the extent that he has there. Even 25' setback would... CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, well, we... MR. CERRETA: We're basically only flush is what I'm hearing. CHAIRWOMAN: At least 2 of the board members feel that way. As I said, I'd like to see both plans,but the board members feel that way. As I said, I'd like to see both plans,but... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But, we're missing a board member, too. CHAIRWOMAN: We're missing a board member, but I'm not, personally, I'm not inclined to reduce that. As Mr. Orlando said, there's a lot of other houses on that block further setback from you. This is brand new construction. And let's try to minimize it as much as possible. We're ` just not going to end up with a 130'long building on that lot. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just make one statement before we close, or we recess? This gentlemen claimed that his neighbor's garage is forward of his house. Find out how far forward it is. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, but we don't, get, we can do that Jerry, but that's not, that is, we have no idea when the house was built. When the garage was built, there's a CO or anything else, and that's still not going to end up with the average setback of the principal dwelling. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I understand that. But I'm just saying that, that may be an area where you may allow him to approach a little a bit. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, do we want to make a motion to recess this, and if so, to, to adjourn this to when? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: June's date. Page 19 of 136 20 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: What's our calendar? MEMBER ORLANDO: If that's enough time for the gentleman. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was thinking the regular meeting. MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want to give you enough time, not to put you on a calendar, and you're not prepared. MR. CERRETA: I'm not in a big hurry, you know, to build it. CHAIRWOMAN: When can you have the plans? When can you have a couple of alternate plans? MEMBER ORLANDO: He said he's not in a big hurry. MR. CERRETA: I guess it would take him a week maybe. I really don't know, 2 weeks? z CHAIRWOMAN: Well, I don't want to put you on the spot. I want to give you plenty of time. Why don't we recess this to, adjourn it to, June. What do we have on the calendar for June 51h9 MEMBER ORLANDO: Two weeks. It should be fine. CHAIRWOMAN: If it's not, we'll recess it to the night. MR. CERRETA: If not, I'll call. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll, we'll, if it's better to, if you need more time, do you need to go to the 19th of June? That way you know it's going to be done. BOARD SECRETARY: July lst would be the next special meeting. MR. CERRETA: The 19th of June sounds good. It's almost a month. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, let's go to June 19th 9:30am. Thank you very much. I'll make a motion to adjourn it. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 20 of 136 21 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing 10:10 a.m. Joseph A. and Monique Robin #5314. Based on the Building Department's February 19, 2003 amended Notice of Disapproval, this is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3 to raise the roof to second-story height at the existing single-family dwelling, at less than 35 feet from the front property line. Location of Property: 380 Wicks Road, New Suffolk; Parcel 1000-110-8-17. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Joan and Monica Robin? Does the secretary of the board know whether Mr. and Mrs. Robin plan to appear on behalf of this application? This is a fairly simple application if the board wants to open it. MEMBER ORLANDO: I stopped by, actually, the house, and spoke to a neighbor. And they said they were coming out Friday. I said well, I hope they are coming out Thursday. Because the meeting is on Thursday. _ 1 CHAIRWOMAN: This is a fairly simple application. If the board would like to review it, I'm going to open the hearing. Let's take a quick review of it. She has an existing setback to the porch, 15' to the house. To the actual house it's 22'. And the new construction's going to mean that 22' setback, what she's doing is she's raising the roof. If you look at the plans, it's actually pretty simple, what she's doing. Simply raising the roof on the existing. It's like a half story now. So she's raising it. You can see? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can see. CHAIRWOMAN: Yup, see it, see the plans. And if you look at the plans, you'll see that she's only raising it over that part. That's existing one and a half stories. You look on page two, you can see. It's fairly easy. MEMBER ORLANDO: My question for them was, with-the Notice of Disapproval (NOD), it says it currently has a front yard setback of 15. Proposed is 22. Page 21 of 136 22 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. The NOD, what they are doing, and I questioned that too, is they are raising the porch. On the survey is 15. The house is 22. So the NOD in that, is what it's actually saying, is that the... MEMBER ORLANDO: That's not part of the construction. CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly. The construction is going to be with the house and not where the porch is. Is everybody clear on that? George, you have any questions on this? MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been down there twice. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. It's really kind of simple. So I will open it up to questions from the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. Motion carried. PLEASE SEE.MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:16 a.m. Edward and Roberta Trippe #5300 and #5308. Based on the Building Department's January 21, 2003 amended Notice of Disapproval, applicants request Variances under Sections 100-33, Section 100-31A, to construct an accessory swimming pool and garage/accessory structure in a front yard area. The accessory building was disapproved also as a second dwelling construction, by design. Location of Property: Central Avenue, Fishers Island; Parcel 1000-6-3-6.1. 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 applicants. CHAIRWOMAN: Good morning, Mr. Ham. Page 22 of 136 23 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: Good morning. I hoped to have the architect here. But he had a conflict, and to the extent that I can't answer design-type questions, I will submit in writing, or we can hold the hearing open. We've been disapproved for two reasons. The first relates to an area, the location of the pool, and proposed garage pool house. And the second relates to the Building Department (BD) determining that, be design, the proposed structure constitutes a second residence. The first issue, well both issues, are addressed to some extent in my memorandum. I just want to, on the first issue, the area variance issue, point out that we have a true practical difficulty here in that the rear yard consists of about 4 or 5'. It's not shown on the survey that the, the site plan that was submitted with the application. But attached to my memorandum is a 1980 survey, which shows a 4.8' setback from the then existing dwelling. I'm told that when that dwelling was re- furbished, the rear wall was kept in the same location. So, we can either not build at all, or put these structures in the front yard. In terms of, and the other issue concerning the area variance would be the neighborhood. There are accessory structures in front yards in this neighborhood. Not a lot, but there are some which I point out in the memorandum. You'll recall the Lynch z application. The pool is right down the street. Around the corner on Central Avenue, the Rug r boathouse. Patterson has a pre-existing garage that's nearby. So it's not unprecedented to have structures in a front yard. The location is away from the nearest neighbor, who's represented here today. It's closer to a neighbor who's property, as I mentioned in the memorandum, who's house is at least 150 or so feet from the common boundary with the Trippe's. So, from the standards of an area variance, I think we clearly satisfy the, standards under the town law for the granting of an area variance. As far as the "use variance" is concerned, we are not asking for a use variance. We are asking for a determination that, overruling the BD that the structure, as proposed, does not constitute a 2nd residence. It contains no kitchen, no bedrooms, no living room. It's an exercise room with a changing room and a bathroom. And, of course, there's a garage and an office on the Is' floor. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham, I don't have a survey on file. Did you submit one? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Want to borrow mine? Want a survey or a site plan? CHAIRWOMAN: Survey. Oh, okay, then I assume that is_? Page 23 of 136 24 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: On the survey we have CHAIRWOMAN: These are floor plans. Let me just ask, Linda, this document is not in this file. BOARD SECRETARY: I can locate it if you like. MR. HAM: The neighbor over here is at least 100' BOARD SECRETARY: When you have two files like that, we would need duplicate maps for both files. He needs an amendment. MR. HAM: All because of an amendment, I should re-submit the maps, even though it hasn't changed? BOARD SECRETARY: We have one in the other file. MR. HAM: Just to wrap up on the use of the proposed garage pool house. My clients don't want more than what you would normally give, but they don't want less either. And I point out a case that you had several years ago where you did permit, with appropriate safeguards, affidavits, and restrictions on the CO about conversion or renting, or use as a second dwelling. So, your board has approved accessory structures with a bathroom in them. And the Trippes are willing to submit to a similar affidavit, restrictions, or any reasonable restrictions that you would like to put in your determination. MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious, Mr. Ham, do you know when the applicant was drawing their plans whether they had considered trying to attach the garage to the existing house somehow on one side or the other. And have the pool sound side of that, rather than the reverse of that? MR. HAM: I think they, I don't know this for sure, and I will get back to you on it, but they are taking advantage of a slope here. And I think it's less obtrusive to build into the slope. That's part of the design that the architect told me yesterday. I had a conversation with him, but I did Page 24 of 136 25 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing not ask him that question. Were this, however, and I mentioned this in the memorandum, were this attached to the house, if they put structures connecting this to the main dwelling, it would be conforming under zoning. They are entitled for a lot this size... MEMBER HORNING: I wonder why they don't do that. MR. HAM: Well, it would be a great expense, I think to add it to the house. MEMBER HORNING: You're talking about a great expense here already. This is a very elaborate, expensive project from what I can ascertain. And our goal is to determine if there's a way to do it without need of a variance. MR. HAM: Again, that's why I say I wish I could have had the architect here, but he had a problem. So I mean I have to... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you just have him write us a letter regarding the E topography and the reasoning for that. MR. HAM: Sure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham, could you just tell me what this is? I mean if you don't know it, I mean, it's not a sarcastic statement. Could you tell me what this is here? I have no idea. MR. HAM: Fireplace. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a fireplace open to both sides, you know, outside fireplace and... MR. HAM: I have one copy of the elevation. They have been, if this is not scaled to the 18', we are not asking for a variance for that. We want to make it clear to theirs what the... CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham, could you use the microphone so we can get this on the record, please. Page 25 of 136 26 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: I've just given Mr. Goehrin er a co of some elevations. Which the architect I've g PY v made it clear to them. And I've sent them the rules about height definitions and the height requirement for accessory structures. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have copies? MR. HAM: No, that's the only one they've given me. CHAIRWOMAN: Please get them six copies of this. I have a couple of questions. You've given us the floor plans, the floor plans for the pool garage, pool house. Um, they don't include the covered porch? Because what you are showing on the site plan, and what you are showing on the floor plan, the footprint of the covered porch doesn't appear to be the same. Are we going, which way are we going, it's kind of confusing—what is the total square footage? MR. HAM: The footprint, about over 1000 sq. ft. of the construction. CHAIRWOMAN: The pool house, let me just try to get some facts here. The so-called pool house garage is 30x34, roughly? MR. HAM: Roughly, it's about 1020 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: Does that include the covered porch? MR. HAM: I had the architect's assistant give me these numbers yesterday. And that's what she told me. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. The proposed pool is 13' from the front side yard? MR. HAM: Yes, from the side yard. CHAIRWOMAN: And the garage pool house and porch to the closest, this is also front, front yard, would be 15'? MR. HAM: 15 side and 40 front. And that's the side that the neighbors house is about 150' away. Page 26 of 136 27 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals ..Y9 Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things. I personally would like to see you get it off the property line. This is a front yard. If you are going to locate either the pool or the garage accessory building, which is yet to be determined, we'd like to see you try to get it as far off the property line as possible. MR. HAM: Both structures are you saying? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, that's number one. Number two, the BD has determined that this is livable area and not an accessory structure. MR. HAM: I think they are concerned as the town generally is, and towns out here are about conversion, but they are not proposing bedrooms, a kitchen. It's a bathroom and changing room for summertime use, when they are using the pool or going to the beach, and coming back and pulling into the garage and so forth. CHAIRWOMAN: It can be very simple. Why, I can see that you would have a small garage 3 i' that would have a, you know, a changing room in it. And you could call this a garage accessory. But the garage has an office in it. It has a huge, huge, exercise room in it with a fireplace. These are not customary and incidental to the principal use in my opinion. MEMBER HORNING: Could I ask a question, Lydia? Mr. Ham, and I didn't completely read the memorandum, but you eluded to, or mentioned some neighborhood things like Lynch, strictly a pool. Patterson came before us with a request to build an office in a detached garage. MR. HAM: I understand. I'm not using him. MEMBER HORNING: They withdrew that application, and haven't been before us since then. So there is a concern here for this dual use, or secondary use. MR. HAM: Certainly, I was using Patterson just as an example of a pre-existing structure in a front yard. To say that the neighborhood has some accessory structures in front yards. I was not using him as an example. Page 27 of 136 28 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Well, they no longer have that, as you know. They have an extension. They went that route. Yes, they were able to conform with that. But your board has granted bathrooms and study and so forth. And, at least in one example that I'm aware of, that I place there, as far as the fireplace is concerned. I think they want it to look nice. I don't... CHAIRWOMAN: But this is, wait, let's back up a minute. MEMBER HORNING: That could be a master bedroom, very easily. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's read what you said, you said it's a proposed garage and pool house. We are not going to be using the pool in the wintertime that would require a fireplace. MR. HAM: I would have to ask the architect why he put it there,but we are willing... CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham, it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and I'm afraid, it's quacking like one. MR. HAM: Well. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because most pool houses have outside showers, not necessary inside. Because as the (interrupted) MR. HAM: Well, it's true. As of right, I was told by the BD that this would have passed muster had it been, without even coming before your board with a half bath and a shower. However, your board, however, has in the past, approved, with conditions and so forth, and I point out in the memorandum. And we would like some consideration of whether the fireplace has to go or what, I'd have to ask the architect why that particular design is there. Maybe they want it to look, you know, to look from the outside, I don't know. I don't know what his design is. MEMBER HORNING: He could put a condition, not to be used as living space. Or whatever. And how are we supposed to know that this massive exercise room does not become the master bedroom? MR. HAM: Well, in the Chatpar case, how would you know then? You took an affidavit from Page 28 of 136 29 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the owners. You put restrictions in your determination. You, I believe that the CO probably, if we have an observant neighbor here who has sent a representative who will speak in a moment who is objecting to the same sort of possible conversion. Do you have eyes and ears? CHAIRWOMAN: We don't want to, we don't want to encourage it. And what the board has done in the past in 1957, or 1949, or 1989, is irrelevant at this point. We are trying to discourage the conversion of accessory structures into single-family dwellings. It's a problem. When we see a 1000 sq. ft. 2 story accessory so-called garage pool house that has a fireplace in it that defies the imagination as to why we would need a fireplace in a pool house in the summer. And we see the design and layout this, we agree with the,BD. It appears to be designed for a 2"d principal use. So, before we get to any more comments, what we are saying to you is, if it's going to be an accessory structure, it's going to have to be designed as an accessory structure. And I think that the board would like that, to see that. MR. HAM: The 1000 sq. ft. is the footprint. The actual square footage of the area, the exercise 1 room, the changing room and the bathroom is 630 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a two-story structure. That is almost 2000 sq. ft. of space. MR. HAM: Yes, it's two-stories, I'm not denying that, but it's on a slope, it's designed to, in a way that it would not, at least from the street, I believe, appear. MEMBER HORNING: I would encourage the applicant to reconsider their design and consider the idea of attaching this to the existing structure requiring less of a variance, if any variance at all. Maybe a variance for a pool in the front yard with what would be necessary at that point. CHAIRWOMAN: Something minimal. Okay, thank you, George. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? HELEN ROSENBLUM, ESQ: Helen Rosenblum, 1287 East Main St. in Riverhead for the neighbor, Mrs. Opalenski. Mr. Ham and I both have the same feeling just now. Thank you for doing my job. I'm here, anyway, because I feel that I'm here, so I do want to add a couple of things. Page 29 of 136 30 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals — Regular Meeting Public Bearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Just send us your check(jokingly). MS. ROSENBLUM: You know, I will respond directly to a couple of things that he said. First of all, Mrs. Opalenski really doesn't want, she wants to be a neighbor to these people. She's not looking to be a vigilante. And I know that in all towns, you depend upon input from the neighbors. And that's a practical reality particularly, I would guess in Fishers Island. But if this could be avoided, it's going to impact on her relationship with them. And she really doesn't want that. They are immediate neighbors. And she is sympathetic to the idea that she realizes the house takes up the rear yard. That is a self-created hardship. That whoever built that house, whether it's them or previous owners, put it in that location. But I think she is very concerned about the size of the structure and while there may be other garages, and there may be other pool houses. There are not 2-car garages, is what she's telling me, in her neighborhood. They are one car. And they are not 2-car garages, or one car garages, and pool houses, in the neighborhood. And I think what's concerning her is what you said. You have an office, a changing room, a full i bathroom, a good size exercise room, a fireplace. You know, it just doesn't seem like this is what would be needed for just a room that you're going to walk on a treadmill. It just doesn't add up. Also, it should be remembered that this is a substandard lot by more 50%. Because not only is it not 2 acres, it's not 1 acre. And I think that's something that should not be ignored either. I think she's concerned about, again, the enforceability of it, and what her role would have to be. She's not looking, she's looking to live there and not ratting on her neighbors. And, of course, what was mentioned to you before by one of your members, I don't know who it was. One of your neighbors mentioned that if you can do something without a variance, a variance is not, you're not entitled to that relief. And apparently, she can do this without a variance. I would ask to be informed if this matter is held over. If you have any questions of my client, I'll be happy to relate them to her. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the naive of your client? MS. ROSENBLUM: Janice Opalenski. She is in Rhode Island. CHAIRWOMAN: Could you spell it for the record? Page 30 of 136 31 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. ROSENBLUM: O-P-A-L-E-N-S-K-I. CHAIRWOMAN: And, her property is, her property is 6.2. It is to the west of the subject premises. The proposed structures do not, border between the 2 properties. They are on the opposite side. She acknowledges that the house is behind her, the existing house. These structures would be in front of the house, but they are not-going to impact her view. That's not what this is all about. It's just simply that it looks like a very elaborate structure, apparently an unprecedented structure, as to size and use, in the immediate neighborhood, on a lot that's pretty small. And her concern is she doesn't want it used as a second dwelling. And thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING: I'd like to enter into the record, too, a personal observation that in that neighborhood, there are no detached garage any more. The last detached garage was converted into an addition to the main house, and that the only other case we've had on an adjacent street, we did allow for a boathouse in the front yard. The garage in that property is attached to the house also. MR. HAM: May I say something else? What about, just to answer Mr. Homing's comment, I did a little research at the assessors office on this. Mayer, which is down Cresent Ave. past Meginni, isn't there an exercise room garage in the back on that? According to the assessors, it's in the rear,I believe. MEMBER HORNING: If we ruled on that... MR. HAM: No, it's not, no, nothing that you've granted a variance for... MEMBER HORNING: Pre-existing... MR. HAM: Well either pre-existing or confonning, but I'm just to point out there are detached... CHAIRWOMAN: As pre-existing, nonconfonning, or illegal. Page 31 of 136 32 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals _ Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: And in a different neighborhood, adjacent neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: I think you've kind of heard all the comments from the board. MR. HAM: May I, then request that this be held over so I can get architect, or consult with the architect at least and see if it's worthwhile to bring him back in terms of... CHAIRWOMAN: Would you like to adjourn this to a specific date? Or would like to consider withdrawing the application? What would you like to do? MR. HAM: Adjourned to a specific date if I can, another daytime date? MEMBER HORNING: A regular meeting would be best for me. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we adjourn this to June 19, at 9:40 am? Is that convenient for you? MR. HAM: That's fine, I'll have to check with the architect. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. Mrs. Robin, we actually had your hearing earlier. MRS. ROBIN: I came too late. Do I need to speak? CHAIRWOMAN: We did, we did have the hearing, the board members did discuss it and we closed it and reserved decision. So you'll be hearing from us in the next 3-4 weeks. MRS. ROBIN: Thank you. Page 32 of 136 33 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. I just didn't want you to sit here wondering what had happened. A decision would be just up to 4 weeks, it could be sooner. MRS. ROBIN: Is there anything that I have to do? CHAIRWOMAN: No, you don't have to do anything. We'll notify you when the board has made a decision. Okay, thank you. Have a nice day. s Page 33 of 136 34 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 10:43 a.m. Anthony Palumbo #5310. Based on the Building Department's January 15, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-244 to construct a new dwelling at less than 50 feet from the rear lot line, at 3550 Grathwohl Rd., New Suffolk; Parcel 110-8-3. CHAIRWOMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Anthony Palumbo. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ANTHONY PALUMBO: Good morning, I'm Anthony Palumbo. How are you? With respect to the sign. Just by way of introduction, this is my wife, Tracy. And Tracy and I were married about a year ago. We bought this property. And, of course, we're looking to build. We're essentially the applicants looking for the rear setback variance. My wife works in Riverhead. She works for a law firm. We met in law school. And, in fact, I worked in Riverhead in the DA's office up to about a month ago when I was transferred out here as a trial supervisor of our east end bureau. I'm just offering this to let you know we are not necessarily transplants. Our office is right here in the Feather Hill complex as a matter of fact. So, that being said, if I may provide, with respect to this setback, some information. The relief we are looking for is the 32.7 setback variance. And I've provided to the board copies of some surveys regarding the immediate neighbors to the north. We made freedom of information requests to the Building Department (BD) and we didn't receive any others. That was about two months ago. So, we don't have any with, from the Majeski or Simchik properties. But that is two that are directly adjacent. And one to the north. So, our relief that we are seeking is 17.3'. And you can see from the handout that I just provided, that the setbacks and sideyards, and I should say front and rear yards are all within about 44'. So with respect to the character of the neighborhood, I would just suggest that this wouldn't change substantially by any means. And we've also provided a narrative, a rider to our application. That essentially is the basis of our application. That the structure is reasonable and moderately sized, that, our lot is the only undeveloped lot on the entire block. And, I believe, all down Grathwohl Road, there are a few, I believe there are two Page 34 of 136 35 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing vacant lots, which, I believe, have merged with other owners. So, the adjacent land owner is essentially the same owner. And they have just decided not to build on it. Now with respect to some mitigation, if you wouldn't mind turning to the, the survey that we have provided. As you can see along the rear lot line, there's a bit of jagged corner. And, this, essentially what we are looking for, at the closest point, the 32.7 you can that on the survey. BOARD SECRETARY: Is this a new survey? Because we have several maps in front of us right now. MR. PALUMBO: Oh, I'm sorry, it's a survey of our property, specifically. BOARD SECRETARY: The new survey done by John Ehlers? MR. PALUMBO: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY: I just want to note that for the record. Thank you. MR. PALUMBO: Thank you. That it's for a span of about 10' is where, is the shortest point, that's 32.7'. And then it immediately jumps about 11, I think it said, 11.17' toward the rear lot line. So, essentially, we are looking for, after that short little span on that kind of strange corner, that bizarre corner along the back there. It immediately jumps now to about 44'. So, then we are only looking for about a 6' variance. And, as the lot line runs diagonally away the home, essentially when you get to the southernmost tip of the structure itself, the proposed structure, you have in excess of 50', so we've met that. And there's also a letter that I saw from Teresa and John Simchick, and have had a number of conversations with them. They are very lovely people. Their concern was, as you could see, they mention in their letter that they don't object to the rear setback. They're just concern was they were hoping to have the house as close the center as possible, and they ask that, at a minimum, we maintain the 22' sideyard. And that was Page 35 of 136 36 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing contemplated when we originally did this design that we were looking to keep the house as far away from, although we could have squeezed it into 15'. And they are concerned. Theresa, as you may know, works for a surveyor, and she thought that just an offer by the board as some mitigation, would be to squeeze the house in that southern corner and then our variance would only be, like I indicated earlier, probably around 6' because we'd be in that upper corner around that jagged edge. And we could, I guess, argue that the gagged edge area would be a side yard so that wouldn't effect us. And that we now, just be looking for the setback in the larger area. So, that,just addressing that specifically, that's why we ultimately put, thought that this would be the most practical area to put the house in. We did reduce the size when we designed it. In fact it's probably about the same size as the garage on that last applicant that was here. The whole house is,but... MEMBER ORLANDO: Plus, you get an established garden in the back yard. A free garden you get there as well. MR. PALUMBO: Yes, from our neighbors. I met, there's a new owner, actually. And I believe I may have indicated that. Terrence Higgins, it used to be James Bythe. And actually it's a woman. Rosanne Burns, who I had met when I was poking around a few weeks ago on the property. So... CHAIRWOMAN: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Palumbo. MR. PALUMBO: Certainly. CHAIRWOMAN: The Ehlers survey indicates that the NY tidal wetlands were flagged, in December, and I assumed that's what's shown on this snap. Then it shows that the wetlands flags were located on 1-14-03. Page 36 of 136 37 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PALUMBO: I actually have, if I may interrupt, I'm sorry, but I do have a newest survey on the DEC has granted us a permit with respect to that. The issue was, that Mr. Ehlers had designated the wetlands. I guess on his own. And then the DEC had sent one of their engineers out who officially flagged it as wetlands. And they said "we want verbatim on the new survey, you could put exactly this language and, and the exact markings as indicated by our people, not your surveyor". So, we went out and we did ultimately do that, and they have granted us a permit. I do have that with me as a matter of fact. CHAIRWOMAN: Now, do you have required Trustee approval? MR. PALUMBO: In light of the moratorium,no,not yet. The wetlands are across the street. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's back that up. Do you require... MR. PALUMBO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: You do require Trustee approval. MR. PALUMBO: I believe so. We think we do. CHAIRWOMAN: The reason I'm concerned here is because, we do not have a map showing the, the state's jurisdiction, as far as the flagging. If it is within the jurisdiction of the Trustees, usually they are looking for a 50' buffer zone there. But I don't have that information in front of me. Did you, have you contacted the Trustee's office at all? To at least determine whether they are going to require permit or not? MR. PALUMBO: I did make some inquiry actually over in the annex there. And they indicated that since they are revamping the code, we don't know whether or not we would need one. That Page 37 of 136 38 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing it may actually be a no jurisdiction situation since we have the paved road between us and the wetlands. I believe it's about 87, or 83' that we are from the wetlands. 83'. So, ultimately we may, the DEC is requiring a 20' buffer and that we re-vegetate with certain types of plants and trees. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have, do you have a map showing, that you can give us, showing exactly what the DEC has required? MR. PALUMBO: Yes I do. MRS. PALUMBO: We actually, if I may, the day that we went to file our application in the Town Trustees was the day that the moratorium (inaudible)And that's why. CHAIRWOMAN: Oh, I see. MR. PALUMBO: This is the one that was approved by the DEC. The permit was rendered based upon that. CHAIRWOMAN: Oh, I see. MEMBER ORLANDO: Even if you got it in the day before, you still would have been in the moratorium. MR. PALUMBO: That's why we were hoping to have all of our ducks in a row, and the last agency we have to deal with would be the Trustees. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, with regards to the proposed placement of your house, am I correct in distilling what you had told us into saying that you could have situated the house more Page 38 of 136 39 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing jproperly on the property with a 15' side yard? And required less of a variance for the rear yard on the whole, but to accommodate some input from your neighbors, you decided to shift the house to greater than 15' on the side yard, which requires slightly more of a variance in the rear yard. Is that correct? MR. PALUMBO: That is correct, sir. I don't know if we would make it all the way past the corner if we were to move it T to the south. We still would probably need one. And it would be right around I'm assuming 34', another foot or two variance based upon the peculiar shape of that corner there. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things here, your application is showing a 63x42'house. MR. PALUMBO: That's including the deck, which is, I guess, accessory. And the garage. That includes the entire structure itself. I don't know if it would be considered necessarily living 3 t' space. CHAIRWOMAN: The footprint, it's about a 2600 sq. ft. footprint. And the real question I'm asking because, when you look at this map, they have, the DEC has already indicated this natural vegetation buffer. I'm just wondering why you couldn't either delete the porch, pick up extra space, so that you can, or replace it in another location so that you do not require the degree of variance that you are asking for. MR. PALUMBO: I believe that the shape of the house, the way it's architecturally designed, is that those porches are load-bearing walls. So that would completely alter the, I think, the integrity of the structure. CHAIRWOMAN: Of the porch? Page 39 of 136 40 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PALUMBO: Of the, yes, because the porch, there are overhangs, and ultimately the, some areas of the upper floor actually are supported by the porch. So, you'd have to redesign the entire structure. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know, but, I, we, historically, this is a brand new lot. And the setback is 50', you're asking for 32. And historically what we would ask you to do is to reduce the degree of the variance. It's a brand new lot. It's a brand new lot. And can a house be built on this lot without a variance? Yes, it can. This is the house you want. The question is, can it be built without a variance? Can you build a house with a 50'? Yes, you could. There's no question about that. MR. PALUMBO: If I could, regarding the overall area of the lot as well, it's 23,025 sq. ft. And my wife and I had somewhat joked about it, that we were hoping to, maybe we could deed to the town. 3026 sq. ft. would get us into the lower requirements of a 35' rear yard and a 35' front yard. And this particular structure would be well within the conforming limits. CHAIRWOMAN: That's not what the code says. That's not what the law is. And we get a little sensitive when we are looking at a brand new house on a brand new lot, and you are requesting a variance of this degree. And we say, "wait, can a house be built on this lot without a variance?" Yes. Is it the house that you would want to build? No. So, we're looking for a compromise. MR. PALUMBO: I understand, so, is it practical, though, to put the structure, a proposed structure that would fit in this very strange building envelope, and if I could maybe dig out a survey to show you, with that corner, we'd be looking at a 200 sq. ft. home. Basically a garage with a room and a bathroom, is what it would ultimately be. CHAIRWOMAN: It's the width of the house that's creating the variance. The width of the house and the porch is creating the variance. Page 40 of 136 41 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. PALUMBO: Right. But the width, as I indicated earlier, on the most southern, I would suggest, half, it's completely conforming. That house, just the fact that it shrinks down. The building envelope shrinks down so quickly toward that gagged corner that just to keep a square house, that is where the variance comes into play. And the living space in this home is around 2300 sq. ft. It's three bedrooms. We certainly intend to raise a family. So, we would like to have a fairly decent sized home. Not much bigger than that. And we did reduce... CHAIRWOMAN: Let's hear from the other board members because we do have to get going here. Mr. Orlando? MEMBER ORLANDO: I particularly don't have a problem with this setup. I visited the lot and I know, I can see the reservations on the neighbor with the 22'. Because there's not really much natural screening there once you get rid of all that scrub clearing, they'll be not much there, so I can understand her point. I agree the majority of the house is probably in compliance with that. A small part is. My only big reservation is this is new, and we've seen it many times before, you know, if we did give a 32.7' variance, and the foundation is off 2', 3', they are going to red stamp your plan. And we've seen it. CHAIRWOMAN: Is it 32' from here too? MR. PALUMBO: The variance would actually be 17.3. MEMBER ORLANDO: So, that's my reservation. We've seen theirs come 10' off, 2' off. So, you're putting yourself in an awkward position that they are not rocket scientists, they are off plus or minus a foot. MR. PALUMBO: Right, it's heavy work, so. And 6" is the amount of wiggle room that you're allowed? Is that typically, it has to be within 6" of the proposed? Is that... Page 41 of 136 42 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, but see the other thing is 32' at the closest point in this location, but that 32' wouldn't mean that we could go 32' from that little nook there. And then we can have a deck that comes 32' from where it juts out. That's why you're cutting yourself real short. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, existing septic system, why don't you tell us about that? MR. PALUMBO: The previous owner, Mr. Norman Marino had owned the lot since the early 80's. And in fact, he had a building permit, as my understanding, for a home, and put down the well, you can see, you may be able to see in the front corner, there is, it looks like a monument. But it is in fact a well that was put in. He had the septic, the leeching pools, and the well put in, and he said something personal had come up. He never began construction on the building itself. In the year 2000, he reapplied. And the code had completely changed, really, with respect to the well and the septic system. And he ultimately just threw his hands up in the air and sold it to us. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, we have got to get moving here. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally don't have a particular problem with the house and the location you are proposing. I just wanted to know, Mr. Palumbo, if you could give us the depth of the porch, at it's closest point, from the house to the edge of the porch. Nothing you have to get right now. In case we want to play, we want some area to increase that 30, 32.7. Okay? MR. PALUMBO: That would be along the front, where we could maybe move the house forward. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which is basically the southwest side, right in that area where it says 40' on the survey. Just tell us where that is because if that could be reduced to just a walkway at that point, still creating the same porch, you could give that increase to the 32.7. Page 42 of 136 43 May 15;2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing You understand what I'm saying? CHAIRWOMAN: That's what we, you know when I said we could cut that back a little bit. Okay, so, if, let's see if anyone in the audience has any comments on this application. Okay Mr. Palumbo if you could, we'll close the hearing, and then you will submit that little cut, showing the cut to the board. With the, how many days would you like? MR. PALUMBO: Could we have maybe 2 weeks? CHAIRWOMAN: Is that sufficient? MR. PALUMBO: It's up to but we'll get on. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that sufficient time? J MR. PALUMBO: Yes it is. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: To the board within 2 weeks. MEMBER ORLANDO: I know that good surveying company. MR. PALUMBO: I think I met his brother once or twice in the DA's office in Riverhead. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to close the hearing, and Mr. Palumbo will submit an amendment showing the cutback on the deck within 2 weeks. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. Page 43 of 136 44 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 11:05 a.m. John Severini#5303. Based on the Building Department's January 10, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-239.4B to construct addition(s) to the dwelling at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead, at 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport; Parcel 1000-35-46-28.27. CHAIRWOMAN: We have a request from the applicant to adjourn this hearing. We had called the applicant and confirmed that the applicant would be available for this date, and then unfortunately right after the legal notice had gone out, the applicant had sent us a letter asking for an adjournment on this. So, yes it was advertised for this date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to suggest that you skip the next regular meeting, and you go on to July, since we've already taken two, and placed them on that June calendar from this meeting. Oh, you have it worked out already? I think it should be a jump when you have a situation like this. CHAIRWOMAN: So I think what we are going to do is we are going to recess this without a date. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN: So, I'm going to open it, recess it without a date, and then if we get written confirmation, when we get written confirmation, we'll go back on the calendar, and not until then. So the hearing for John Severini, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application? CATHY MESIANO: I'm Mr. Severini's agent, but I'll reserve anything until the hearing is rescheduled. I had no control. He notified me after everything was set, and his architect was unavailable, so it was out of my hands. Page 44 of 136 45 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing _ CHAIRWOMAN: I understand that, but the real problem is that we have, right now, almost 80 people who are waiting to get on this calendar, and... MS. MESIANO: As you know, I am very careful about how I use the board's time. And I don't like to waste your time. So, I apologize I tried to leave it on the calendar, but he did not want to do it. So, I can only do what I can do. CHAIRWOMAN: That's true. That was Cathy Mesiano. So, I'm going to make a motion to recess this hearing without a date until the board receives written confirmation from the applicant that he will be able to attend either a July or August hearing. MS. MESIANO: What are the dates of the July and August hearings? CHAIRWOMAN: You can get that information from the secretary afterwards. I really don't have it in front of me. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 11:08 a.m. Matthew R. Mauro #5276. Based on the Building Department's November 12, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100- 244B for "as built" additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with a single side yard at less than 10 feet. Location of Property: 300 Bartley Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-144-3-29. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? MATTHEW MAURO: I'm Matthew Mauro. Page 45 of 136 46 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: What can you tell us, Mr. Mauro? MR. MAURO: I have an as-built extension on the right side of my house by 8 feet. CHAIRWOMAN: Now, you know I looked at this Mr. Mauro, and it is, I'm not quite clear what you're planning. I thought originally it was just for the bathroom, and... MR. MAURO: Yes, that's what it is. CHAIRWOMAN: Oh, it is? It's just for the as-built bathroom? MR. MAURO: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN: Because the as-built bathroom, you know the new survey that you had r handed us on May 81n? MR. MAURO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not sure that I know where that as-built bathroom is. MR. MAURO: The surveyor didn't put it in when he didn't it. So I went back to him and I said to him "you didn't put it into the new survey". So I went back to them and they put it in. I had given you a 2nd survey. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's tell you what. Let's put it on the surveys right now. So that, right now, the original survey. Page 46 of 136 47 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MAURO: Originally it went this way. This was 14'. So what, we just extended it 8'. CHAIRWOMAN: So the bathroom is _ . If it's all right with you, what I'm going to do, is I'll just mark this in here, is that accurate? MEMBER ORLANDO: 8 '/Z x 6 %z the bathroom is. CHAIRWOMAN: Ok, I think we're in business. Just use the mike. And I have a couple of other questions. Now the deck, this is a new deck? MR. MAURO: No, it's an old deck and there is.a CO for the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: So you have a CO for the deck? 'i MR. MAURO: Yes, that's all done. CHAIRWOMAN: So all you're here for is the bathroom? MR. MAURO: For the bathroom I put on. CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't show up on this survey, but really exists. MEMBER ORLANDO: They incorporate it into the final plan. MR. MAURO: I also put a pergola up, and I'm just finishing up clearing that out. As of today, I had gotten the engineers okay on it, and I had given it to the Building Department(BD). Page 47 of 136 48 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any questions, Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Sure. How did it get to be built without a building permit? MR. MAURO: I have no excuse. It's something that we needed, so we just had it done. MEMBER HORNING: You hired a contractor? MR. MAURO: A very good friend of mine is a contractor. MEMBER HORNING: I see. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer? MEMBER HORNING: And how did you get cited then afterwards? You went for a CO on that or something? MR. MAURO: I put up a pergola. I kind of got hit with a wide brush. They were looking at the person next door, and I saw some banging. I put up the pergola. And I didn't think I needed a permit for a pergola, but I found out since then I do need a permit for a pergola, which I'm just finishing taking care of now. MEMBER HORNING: When was the bathroom built, sir? Page 48 of 136 49 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MAURO: About 8-9 years ago. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions. 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 11:22 a.m. S. Sachman and A. Quadrani#5302. Based on the Building Department's October 1, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, applicants request a Variance under Sections 100-33C and 100- 32 to locate an accessory swimming pool as an accessory structure at less than 50 feet from the front lot line, at 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-111-9-9. CATHY MESIANO: ... We don't have area adequate on the south side. The lawn area on the north side landward of the house was a consideration. But due to the topography of that area, we felt that there would be retaining walls necessary. There would probably be a situation. A potential for an erosion situation down onto carpenter road, which is not a road. It's a thoroughfare, a walkway, to the beach for the residents in the area. CHAIRWOMAN: If you put... MS. MESIANO: The north, and off the northwest corner of the house. The terrain in that area slopes would require substantial disturbance to the ground. The shrubbery that exists would have to be disturbed. The overall disturbance to the land would be significant. Also, it doesn't Page 49 of 136 50 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing show but I do know that the septic system is in that area. That's a minor consideration. The area to the south, off the southwest corner of the house, was a little tight. And also you may not recall, but we were before you for a minor variance a year or so ago for the overhang of the second story addition. And at that time, the Salmons, the neighbors to the south came and expressed their concern that they're not intruding into their "space". And we thought by going down in the northwest corner of the property we were as far as any other properties. We are not visible from any properties. There's not a property owner to our north. The area is level. It's, it. has an established landscape. It's not visible from anywhere. So, we don't really think there's a better alternative. The pool has been scaled back. You can see it's an irregular dimension. It's 15x45. So, it's more along the lines of a lap pool than a... I'm sorry. I can't talk and chew bubble gum at the same time, so I thought I'd give you a chance to. CHAIRWOMAN: I just, no, I wondered, because you had said that you had talked about alternatives, and I wondered if we could get this pool closer to the one-frame garage. f MS. MESIANO: There's only 10'. It's only 10' off the garage. CHAIRWOMAN: There's only 10' off the garage. Is that to the patio, or to the pool, or what? MS. MESIANO: That's, I believe I measured it. Let me do it again. Excuse me, we've got 10', from, we've got 15 max, 14' off of the south corner to the edge of the pool. And we've got 16' off of the north. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that the pool, or the patio? MS. MESIANO: That's the pool. The pool proper. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. It's very, very, close to Nassau Pt. Road. Particularly when you're Page 50 of 136 51 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing viewing the required setback. It's a large piece of property. The required setback is 50'. So you're(interrupted). MS. MESIANO: It is a large piece of property. You know, a quarter of it is taken up by bluff and bank. And we didn't want to come for a variance seaward of the house, which is why we're back. We thought this was the most minimally invasive location on the site because it's landscaped all around it. It's level. There's no requirement for any retaining structures. It shouldn't create any erosion problems off into this Carpenter Road area. And the closer you bring the pool to the garage, the more shadowing you get from the garage. So, you know, with as many trees as you've got on the north and west side. They'd like to retain some of that southern and eastern exposure to be able to get some sunlight in there. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand that. The board rarely grants a pool in the front yard at 26'. We just, we would not do that for the road. And the fact of the matter is the patio where people, is going to be only I from the property line. MS. MESIANO: That's just block, that will be block at grade. And there is landscaping with some berming along the front. So it's, you know, it's not out on the road. It's not visible from the road because it's screened entirely in evergreen. CHAIRWOMAN: As we know, there's all kinds of different sizes and shapes of pools. And you have a number of options when you want to put in a pool. Different, you know, rectangular, irregular shapes, and everything else. MS. MESIANO: We've gone with 15x45 because 15 is really a minimal width. CHAIRWOMAN: Would it be possible to put in a regular shaped pool, like we've seen many of them in the area that would be eased between the house and garage? Page 51 of 136 52 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MESIANO: Again, if we o between the house and the garage, we're dealing with that g g g g , g a area where there's quite a bit of terrain. You're going from 62' down to 52'. There's going to need to be retaining structures. A lot more... CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not talking about up there, I'm talking about between the north section, between the garage and the house where you're showing elevations of 65 to 61'. You're not talking, there's no elevation shown between 65 and 61'. MS. MESIANO: You're talking off the northwest corner of the house? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. MESIANO: That's the area that we felt there, it was too much of a slope and we didn't want 1 to get into the erosion problem that may occur having to disturb that area. _ �, l MEMBER ORLANDO: I think there's an erosion problem there already that I would visualize. In my opinion, if I could make a comment? If this were my house, I'd prefer it there. Well, I have girls, and I'd like them to be down. There's a lot of privacy down there. As opposed to having them sunbathing right on the road. You'd have the southern exposure. And it would be nice and tranquil down there. And quiet, you wouldn't hear the cars. I think it's the ideal spot. CHAIRWOMAN: A regular shaped pool in there with no problems. MEMBER ORLANDO: More privacy. I'd want that for a pool. MS. MESIANO: Also the fact that the septic system is in that area. And the water supply line comes in that area is a problem as well. Page 52 of 136 53 May.15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make another suggestion? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you just swap the garage for the pool. In other words, just move the garage over where the pool is, and move the pool where the garage is? MS. MESIANO: Won't you still have the same problem? A setback is a setback. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We understand that, but from a safety situation, if somebody intends to go into the property, they would then have to go through the garage before they went to the pool. The garage itself is something that would easily be picked up and moved over. Break up the slab and build a pool where the garage is. M1 MS. MESIANO: I'll take it back to them and ask them. CHAIRWOMAN: To physically move the garage, Jerry? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's a cinch to pick up. MS. MESIANO: I'll certainly propose that to them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that I looked long and hard at this. And I'm not trying to eat up time here. And I personally of the pools that we've granted in these areas, one of which was extremely offensive to me. And that was on the corner of Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. Because of the turning radius and the degree of the fact that somebody could go through the bushes into the pool. Page 53 of 136 54 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing MS. MESIANO: I recall that situation. That was on the Main Road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn't vote in favor of that because there was no guard rail. MS. MESIANO: That was the Main Road, and I agreed with you on that because that was the Main Road. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is the Main Road, too. CHAIRWOMAN: This is a main road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the jogs in the road, in Nassau Pt. Road, Mr. Corazzini, who's in the audience, knows that better because he happens to live farther down the road than t this. Okay? There's always that possibility. But from an aesthetic point of view, what better to have closer to the road than a garage, then a pool? MS. MESIANO: I'll take it back to him. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think that's a really expensive issue. MS. MESIANO: I'll take it back to him and see what kind of alternatives he wants to come back with. CHAIRWOMAN: I think there are two things we are saying to you. Ideally, the pool can be located in that little area next to the driveway... MEMBER ORLANDO: East of the garage. And maybe it won't be this design pool, but there are a number of pools that could fit in there. Page 54 of 136 55 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MESIANO: In all due respect, there are a number of pools that could. But when a person has a specific use in mind, you know, they might not want a free formed kidney shaped pool, they might want a lap pool because they are not building a gym, an extensive gym in their garage. CHAIRWOMAN: It's also true that you are asking for a variance. And they have to recognize that, you know, this is what they want. This is what the code says. If they don't want to design something that's going to require less of a variance then what you're requesting, then our hands are tied and it will be a flat out denial. MS. MESIANO: As I said, I'll go back to him, and we'll discuss alternatives. And we'll bring some alternatives to the board. CHAIRWOMAN: George? MEMBER HORNING: Technical question to the chairperson here. Carpenter Road, is that going to be considered a front yard also or not? CHAIRWOMAN: It may be, but it will be treated like we usually treat, you know, a right-of- way. MEMBER HORNING: We'll call it the 2"d front yard, if it is a front yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last comment, if you flip the garage for the pool, and you made the garage a little more conforming, basically what you're proposing the pool to be, and setbacks from Carpenter Road, it would also create a greater area for you to build in with lesser elevation. MS. MESIANO: That is the flatter area of the property. Page 55 of 136 56 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: George, do you have any preference on where we should give the applicant direction? MEMBER HORNING: I believe the pool should be looked at in terms of either being in- between the garage and the house. Or possibly in conjunction with the idea of moving the garage and creating a little more room. MS. MESIANO: Can I have a date? CHAIRWOMAN: What date would you be able to get this to the deadline? MS. MESIANO: I'd like to do it as soon as possible. They'd like to get this in this year. I started this in January, so it's not unreasonable. CHAIRWOMAN: If we adjourn this to, what's the special meeting? Would June 5th give you enough time? MS. MESIANO: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: May I make another suggestion, in terms of alternatives? If the garage were to be moved, perhaps it could be moved to that rectangular sort of shape in the driveway. And put it right in front of that brick wall, walkway area. And then you would be opening up a lot of room for a pool on the northern area. Maybe, by eliminating that pad going to the garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Good point, George. MS. MESIANO: Then we're eliminating some driveway parking area. Because you don't want to park on Nassau Point Road. If we were going to do that, I'd rather see the pool with the Page 56 of 136 57 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing garage at the westerly limit of this proposed pool area. And the pool is going to, again, all this driveway is all new and fully established, so we'd have to dig this all up because they'd need to provide adequate, you know, off street parking. MEMBER HORNING: It does seem odd that they would do all of this work, and not consider, and then very soon afterwards, propose something else. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think the logistics are getting very high tech just for a pool. I mean I'm sure they're better off just leaving the garage as is, and just relocating the pool. MS. MESIANO: Well, I'll go back to them and see what alternatives we can come up with. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because once you move the garage, now you move the driveway l pattern, you're just snowballing the situation. CHAIRWOMAN: I'd prefer to see it relocated between the two buildings. MS. MESIANO: I'll go back to him and come back with something that's... 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 to adjourn this to June 51h. Is that sufficient time for you? MS. MESIANO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Then you get the plan to us beforehand, Cathy, by the Friday the 291h, so all the board members can study it. We'd appreciate that. Page 57 of 136 58 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing 7 BOARD SECRETARY: What time would you like to schedule that for? CHAIRWOMAN: How about 7:10? Is that good? MS. MESIANO: Fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, 7:10 p.m. June 51n MS. MESIANO: Will this need to be re-noticed? CHAIRWOMAN: No, it won't. MS. MESIANO: Okay, and prior hearing, Severini, will that need to be re-noticed? N CHAIRWOMAN: Yes it will. MS. MESIANO: Thank you. MEMBER ORLANDO: Feel better, Cathy. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion then. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 11:42 a.m. D. and V. Sonnenborn #5315. Based on the Building Department's January 9, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicants request a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100- 244, to construct additions/alterations to an existing dwelling at less than 20 feet on a single side Page 58 of 136 59 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing yard and less than 45 feet, at 690 Old Woods Path, Southold; Parcel 1000-87-1- 20 CHAIRWOMAN: We have a request for an adjournment, they also did not comply with chapter 58. This was also advertised, and we got a request from them to adjourn it. Would the board like to handle this in the same manner that we handled Mr. Severini? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, give them a date. MEMBER ORLANDO: No date. BOARD SECRETARY: It didn't comply originally with the notice requirements. So it would have to be re-noticed. CHAIRWOMAN: It does have to be re-advertised. F BOARD SECRETARY: It's defective right now. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to open the hearing. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to recess this hearing without a date until the board receives confirmation in writing from the applicant that he will be available at either the July or August meeting. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 11:43 a.m. Richard W. Corazzini, Jr. #5304. Based on the Building Department's January 23, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-244 to locate a new dwelling at less than 35 feet from the rear lot line and less than 25 feet for both side yard setbacks, at 2925 C. R. 48, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-141-2-13. Page 59 of 136 60 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? You're going to replace the trailer with a modular house? RICHARD CORAZZINI: Yes. Originally I bought this property, I don't know, approximately 3-4 years ago. And it had a trailer on it. I believe I gave you pictures of the trailer that was there. And I obtained a building permit to demo the trailer and replace it with another house trailer, within the same building footprint, or the same building envelope. And since that time, I've looked into some modular homes. And modular homes look, most of them you need more space than you would need for a house trailer. So that's why I'm applying for a variance. CHAIRWOMAN: The garage building, that's not on your property. That's on the adjacent property owner. MR. CORAZZINI: The garage building? There was a garage attached to the house trailer. And there was also a build-out on the front of the trailer because the trailer didn't meet code as far as the size. CHAIRWOMAN: What's happening with the garage? MR. CORAZZINI: Everything is gone off the site. CHAIRWOMAN: So there's nothing... MR. CORAZZINI: There's nothing there now. CHAIRWOMAN: What we see on the survey is what's going to end up there. In other words, Page 60 of 136 61 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing on the Dick Ehlers survey, we're not going to see the garage or the, the... MR. CORAZZINI: Oh, no. I'm requesting, I guess, the building envelope to be the proposed house to be that size. That's the normal size of most modulars that I've looked into. MEMBER ORLANDO: One-story ranch? MR. CORAZZINI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The only question I have is you've got, you've got lot coverage on this front, rear, and side. So it's a total of 4 variances, right? No, it's just a rear yard and a side yard. CHAIRWOMAN: Not on the Notice of Disapproval (NOD). MEMBER HORNING: Rear yard also. MEMBER ORLANDO: Front, rear, total, and lot. CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking lot coverage 21 total sides 24. Rear and front at 32 and 32. Is there any chance that you could, we could, get, do away with one of those variances by simply, I know where you've got the house. We may be able to, is there any chance that we could just take a jog with the house and move it just a tad more flush to the street line? And I think that would get rid of your variance on... MR. CORAZZINI: You mean move the envelope, just keep the envelope the same size, or the proposed house the same size? Page 61 of 136 62 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, if, right now, here's the road, and you're slightly slanted towards it, so that, that's north. MR. CORAZZINI: I see what you mean. CHAIRWOMAN: See that little corner juts out where that's 14', but if you turn it just a tad, you're going to be home free on that variance. You wouldn't need that variance. MR. CORAZZINI: Yes. I see what you mean. CHAIRWOMAN: See where I'm coming from? MR. CORAZZINI: I'd have to have the surveyor change that on the survey? CHAIRWOMAN: It's really, just, we're just going, instead of going like this, we're just going like this. MR. CORAZZINI: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: And I think we could wipe out that variance. MR. CORAZZINI: Right. And then which one of those variances would I wipe out? The one on the east side or west side? CHAIRWOMAN: Where it's 14'. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the total side yard variance. MR. CORAZZINI: 15 you're looking for on that? CHAIRWOMAN: And you'd meet it. There's no question about it. I mean you can do it with a little scrap piece of paper and just take the, what you've got here, and turn it around. And you're home free on that variance. MEMBER HORNING: We're proposing to position the house relatively parallel to the side yard boundary. CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly. Because that will take care of one of the, he's in for 4 variances. We are trying to wipe out one of them. And that will take care of that in one shot. MR. CORAZZINI: Okay. That will be fine. But will I have to have the surveyor change that, or come back for another date, or how would that work? CHAIRWOMAN: You wouldn't have to come back to us, but what you'd have to do is when he Page 62 of 136 63 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing changes it, he's just going to, you know, when you go to build a house,put it in there. There's no existing foundation that you're going to lay it into? Or... MR. CORAZZINI: No. There's nothing there now. CHAIRWOMAN: Are you going to lay it into an existing foundation? MR. CORAZZINI: I'm going to make the foundation. CHAIRWOMAN: All you have to just make sure that when he lays it, that your setbacks the 10' 32 and 32, are all in. MEMBER HORNING: May I make another suggestion? Possibly we could get a 35' front yard by moving it to the rear yard, reducing the rear yard to maybe 29' or something. Gaining the 3 feet. MR. CORAZZINI: He's got his cesspools there. I don't know how... MEMBER HORNING: Okay, well, they are not that close. MR. CORAZZINI: I'm going through, also the Dept. of Health (DOH) is involved in this. I've had to put in a test well, and go through, it wasn't any problem to replace it with a house trailer. As soon as I wanted to change the building envelope, then, you know, I'm a little sorry now that I didn't just put another trailer there. To be honest with you. But, I don't, I'm not necessarily saying I have'any problem with that as long as that wouldn't affect everything I've already got going with the DOH. MEMBER HORNING: See if you can gain us 3' in the front yard. You could eliminate that one, too. And if you tilt it to make it parallel to the side yards. CHAIRWOMAN: You mean go 30, 30' ... MR. CORAZZINI: 29' rear yard, 35' front yard. I see what you mean, maybe one of you would know if that would affect my DOH application. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. MR. CORAZZINI: No? CHAIRWOMAN: What do you think, Jerry? Page 63 of 136 64 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Their application, they just need setoffs from the closest well. MR. CORAZZINI: They want to know how many feet between all the wells and all the septic systems. MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of else you have to go to the Board of Review. MR. CORAZZINI: That's what I'm in the process of. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that means you don't have it. MR. CORAZZINI: The DOH? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I mean if you have to go to the Board of Review you may not have exactly the footage they want. MR. CORAZZINI: No, I don't. MEMBER ORLANDO: He has to go for a variance for the DOH. CHAIRWOMAN: So, you have to go anyway. r MR. CORAZZINI: Right. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should write it as it exists, at that, but say within the decision, that if the applicant so chooses to conform to the front yard setback, the board would be willing to grant alternate relief at 29'. MR. CORAZZINI: I'd much rather have it further back on the property, if I could get it. The further away from 48, the better. CHAIRWOMAN: We can't do that, Jerry. If you'd rather have it back, we will give you 29. Then you have actually more ammunition with the DOH. MR. CORAZZINI: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN: That's going to help you, not hurt you. MEMBER ORLANDO: 29 rear or front? CHAIRWOMAN: 29 rear, 35 front, 15 and 10. MEMBER HORNING: Right, that will make it. That will work. Page 64 of 136 65 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: 15 and 10. MEMBER HORNING: As long as you can position it that way on a parcel, I think you're doing yourself a favor. CHAIRWOMAN: So, that's what we'll do. Then you'll go ahead and draw up a map because you've got to go to the Board of Health Review anyway. MR. CORAZZINI: Right. So what is then go back to the surveyor and have him redraw the survey. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go over it again. 29 rear, 35 front, 15 east, 10 west. Just the opposite. And I think we are home free. And the lot coverage is 21%, and I think given the small lot, you're really not asking for anything excessive. There's no decks, pools, patios, cabanas, or anything else. I personally don't have a problem with it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, this is a vast improvement. We wish everybody would do the similar type of situation, Mr. Corazzini. 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. MR. CORAZZIN: Okay, so change the survey,just get the survey back to... CHAIRWOMAN: 29 rear, 35 front, 15... MR. CORAZZINI: Submit it back to you? Submit it to the ZBA, then Planning? CHAIRWOMAN: You can put a copy for us that we can keep as part of the record. That would be nice, we can have an extra copy. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The decision will embody what we just said. CHAIRWOMAN: It will help us for the file. MEMBER ORLANDO: And Mr. Corazzini, you have tight space, you know, the concrete guys, plus we don't want to see you back here when they mess it up in the BD. Page 65 of 136 66 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. CORAZZINI: I know what you mean. MEMBER ORLANDO: They're always plus or minus something. MR. CORAZZINI: I don't want to have any problem with it either. As long as the neighbors don't have a problem, I don't see any problems. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:53 a.m. Nick Bruno#5309 Based on the Building Department's November 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-242A and 100-239.4B to construct an addition at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and less than 35 feet from the front and rear property lines, at 115 Sun Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-76-1-2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is Mr. Bruno in the audience? �. MICHAEL LEIGHY (Contractor): No, he's not. I'm representing him. My name is Mike d' Leighy. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have in my packet, but I'll look through this. Does anybody have a survey showing the setbacks to the bulkhead? MEMBER ORLANDO: Oh, yes, where was that a minute ago? It show's... MR. LEIGHY: 37.7, yes, to the house. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's the one. BOARD SECRETARY: Is that to the new deck? MR. LEIGHY: No, it's to the house, the existing house. So the deck would be another 12'. So, it would be 25 to the corner of the deck. CHAIRWOMAN: So it would be 25' to the edge of the deck, to the water. So, at 25 that's Page 66 of 136 67 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing setback to the bulkhead? MR. LEIGHY: To the bulkhead, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And this addition is for that deck that we see on the survey which is 12x26.9? MR. LEIGHY: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN: And you've got also I P from the ROW? MR. LEIGHY: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN: And 4.8. Mr. Orlando, do you have any questions? MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this Mr. Bruno's primary residence? MR. LEIGHY: No, it's not, he actually rents it right now,but he's planning on moving out. MEMBER ORLANDO: He's a renter? MR.:LEIGHY: It's a rental right now. It has been. MEMBER ORLANDO: Need any Trustee approval? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's a bulkhead. They'll give you a letter of no jurisdiction probably. MEMBER ORLANDO: Actually it looks like a lot of space on the survey, but when you go there... MR. LEIGHY: There's not a lot of space. And those other houses that are on both sides that have little decks going out the back of them too. Page 67 of 136 68 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should propose 10', given it's 27. CHAIRWOMAN: T is going to make a big difference. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Oh yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: I like a patio. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very, very, tight. And 25', even 27'is very, very, tiny. MEMBER HORNING: When was this building built? MR. LEIGHY: That I'm not sure of. It's an old structure though. I would think it's at least 50 years. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have a wetland permit. But it's not to construct the deck that you're before us for. MR. LEIGHY: You're saying from the Trustees? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. LEIGHY: That was a typo, but I have a, another letter from the Trustees approving for this size deck. CHAIRWOMAN: This size deck? MR. LEIGHY: Yes. Do you need a copy? CHAIRWOMAN: Do we have it in our file? Page 68 of 136 69 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing BOARD SECRETARY: We need that, yes. MR. LEIGHY: Should I bring it up to you now? CHAIRWOMAN: So, originally they had approved a smaller deck, and then what did you do? MR. LEIGHY: It was a typo. It was always drawn to be the width of the building. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No questions, other than if he could reduce the deck to 10' depth. And give us 27 on the distance to the bulkhead to the nearest corner. MR. LEIGHY: I'm sure we could work something like that out. Does that effect anything with any other permits that are already issued? As far the DEC or anything? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: More is never. CHAIRWOMAN: Right. So if you go from, right now you're at 12, correct? So if you reduce it to 10? MR. LEIGHY: 10, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: By 26.9, that would be more acceptable to the board. We'd like an update on the survey showing the, for our files, because it's not 37'. It's going to be about 27 plus or minus feet. Please provide us with an updated survey showing the exact setback of a 10' wide deck to the closest point of the bulkhead. Okay? MR. LEIGHY: Okay. So that's before anything is done, right? Decision, okay. I CHAIRWOMAN: How long do you think it will take you to get, get that changed? MR. LEIGHY: Does this, it has to be surveyed by a surveyor? Okay. Yes, 2 or 3 weeks. Page 69 of 136 70 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we say you'll submit it within a month. Okay? MR. LEIGHY: All right. Thank you. 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 11:59 a.m. Claire L. Copersino #5306. Based on the Building Department's January 2, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-244 to construct a second-story addition located with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet, at 580 L'Hommedieu Lane, Southold; Parcel 1000-64-2-53. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? IRA HASPEL, ARCH: My name is Ira Haspel, Architect. 1 reside at 59945 Main Rd. in Southold. We come before you to maintain an existing 14.F front yard setback. The intent is to increase the volume of an existing 2"d floor. There's 2 bedrooms there with very low headroom. In order to get that usable space is to raise the roof. Any other means would decrease any of the other setbacks. It's a nonconforming lot. CHAIRWOMAN: I looked at this and I really don't have any questions. Let's see what happens with the board members. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I really don't have a problem with this application. And I just want to put for the record, actually I paced it off myself. It's actually more like 20' to the actual road. The property line is probably closer to that weeping cherry or something. So it's actually, because when I got there I thought I was at the wrong spot, because it's a little bit too far back. But then I just, tried to find survey stakes, but it's probably more like 20', actual 20'. MR. HASPEL: That's good. We went by the survey. Page 70 of 136 71 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: For the record, it's visual more of 20'. MR. HASPEL: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: It seems like a very reasonable proposal. Mr. Goehrigner. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Same question we had similar to this in the morning, Mr. Haspel. Overhangs on the house itself will not increase to any significant degree that would then infringe on zoning setbacks in any way, front or rear? MR. HASPEL: Minimum roof overhangs. We don't believe that to be a problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The difference in the roof line, will it impact the neighbors in any way because of the nature of the size of the lot? Are they planning gutters and some sort of holding tank or something to put the water in? MR. HASPEL: No, we plan to redirect the gutters where they were previously going. So that won't change. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're not increasing any more surface area? MR. HASPEL: No lot coverage is 18%. It will maintain at 18%. Not covering any more ground. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The roof will be approximately the same the pitch? MR. HASPEL: Same pitch,just raised up so there's a 8'headroom on the 2°d floor. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? What a crowd. What a crowd. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. Page 71 of 136 72 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals �} Regular Meeting Public Hearing .J 1:00 p.m. Duryea Trust#5202 (hearing continued from 3/20/03) Applicant requests a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's July 18, 2002 and August 20, 2002 Notices of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct anew dwelling with front and rear setbacks at less than 35 feet, at Mansion House Drive, Fishers Island; Parcel 6-5-10. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? SUSAN YOUNG, Architect: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Tortora, and board members. MS. YOUNG: My name is Susan Young, and I'm speaking on behalf of Duryea Trust who are requesting a side yard variance. In the last meeting, the board requested that I visit the site with George Horning to discuss the siting of the house. It was suggested that the house be at least 13' from the property line. The Mansion House Drive side, and the site plan has been updated to comply with that request. The back deck has been narrowed, and the house has been slightly turned on the lot to accomplish this. I would like to show you some photographs to show the relationship of the house to Mansion House Drive. It is separated by a dense arborvitae hedge and also Mansion House Drive is actually, maybe, about 15' even farther from the property line. Here is the hedge again on the side yard. This photograph shows the great memories of last winter. This is the hedge again, and the side yard. > CHAIRWOMAN: Susan, from the top photo, not that photo, but the photo with the porch, is i this, would this be the correct angling to look at this? MS. YOUNG: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia, can I see that when you are done? CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, if you're looking, see the photo where the porch is? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the diagonal is going down. CHAIRWOMAN: The deck's going to be kind of... MS. YOUNG: The deck's going to be kind of like the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to ask Mr. Horning to give us kind of an update. Because he visited the site with you. And that's where the proposed addition on that side would be. MS. YOUNG: Let's see, on the issue of the, oh, the point I'd like to snake about Mansion House Drive is that it is a dead end street. And it serves, correct me if I'm wrong, George, but maybe 6 houses or so. MEMBER HORNING: A little more than that. 10 or 12. Page 72 of 136 73 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. YOUNG: Maybe more, but it's not a heavily traveled through road. So another issue came up of why we didn't move the house back from the Main Road, or turn it on the lot. And there are some other photographs to illustrate that point. Basically on FI, on some properties, it's almost rude to put up a fence or to divide your property off. This area is generally used as kind of a play area, for a the children of both houses, and one family kind of owns one half of this soccer field and the other owns the other half. And the family likes to look out through this corridor. And the way we have it designed, the corridor isn't blocked and that's basically what we were thinking of in why we sided the house the way we did. This is a Voss house over here, and this is the property line. And this is where the Duryea house would be here. The Voss's look down the corridor. And, let's see... MS. YOUNG: This is the property line. And on this one, it's harder to see. I can hardly find it although I staked it. I think it's about here, and about here is the house. And this is a property line. You can't actually see the rest tape because it's behind that tree. This is actually standing at the Voss's window. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is the famous tree in the front of the house? MS. YOUNG: It's right here. And there's also a utility pole, we can, you know, move the little bit forward on the lot on the lot, but we kind of rather not. Because the tree and the utility pole are in close proximity. And if it turned out, you know, if there was any problem, we can move it forward just a little bit. When we come to laying it out, you know, with a surveyor, there's a couple of extra feet of play in there. So we're not measured down to the inch. CHAIRWOMAN: Essentially, you know, what we said the first time around is this is a major renovation that you're going from a 35' rear yard setback to a 15' setback, rear yard setback. MS. YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Which is substantial, and I think you and Mr. Horning were going to get together and try to come up with something that would not require much of a variance, or could reduce the size of a variance. There really hasn't been a significant change from what was proposed before. MS. YOUNG: I'd like to just finish. I had a comment about the square footage of the building. The ground floor is 1898, almost 1900 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: Existing or proposed? MS. YOUNG: Proposed. And it's 1752 on the 2nd floor. The 2nd floor is not built full. It has an area that has a skylight down to below. And also many of the walls are knee walls. So it's a house of much lesser size than it could be. It's not, you know, really a full second floor. Page 73 of 136 74 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: We realize it's a very odd shaped lot. And a big historical tree in the middle of it. MS. YOUNG: This is, you know, the room taken up by the design of the house is not about, you know, creating something to make money or anything. It's basically to have a bedroom for both of their daughters and the daughter's children. The grandchildren, the daughter and grandchildren on the upper floor, and those bedrooms are just big enough if you can see from the model to fit 2 twin beds in any room you want to put it in, or a queen bed. So it's not, it's not overly luxurious. We didn't try to make it huge or anything. We tried to make it fairly conservative in size. 667 sq. ft. of the lot coverage is the deck, which is an open deck with no roof. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the sq. footage on the deck? MS. YOUNG: 667. So that is a substantial, and it is a very close to ground level. It's very close to being a walk-on, walk-off platform. And the open porch on the front accounts for 445 sq. ft. of the lot coverage. So a lot of what appears to be, you know, a large amount of lot coverage is open area and not taken up by an enclosed house. As far as the size of the house, we were just concerned with having a bedroom for each person so they could kind of grow old in this house and each kid could have their own room. And they would have their own room downstairs. And they would be encouraged to visit because what happens now is everyone wants to come at the same time. And they have to tell one of them or the other they can't come. So we are basically trying to have a bedroom for everybody. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to try to move this along because we have so many this afternoon. MS. YOUNG: I'm finished. CHAIRWOMAN: That's okay. Mr. Horning, I just wanted, you had gone over and visited the site. And I wanted to get your input first on this. MEMBER HORNING: Ms. Young, to wrap up what you were saying then in the revised proposal, you are now proposing a front yard setback of 13' vs. the 10' that was existing? MS. YOUNG: That's right. And now we have 13. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask, does that impact the 13 to this point of the house? MS. YOUNG: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in effect, if there was any give and take, it would not be on the house, it would be on the deck. Page 74 of 136 75 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. YOUNG: I would not like give and take on the house because it would hurt MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it right to here, or is it right to here? MS. YOUNG: It's right to the corner of the house. And the deck is built that way because the deck is a northern exposure so that the platform out there is so you can sit in front of, on the deck, and still have some sun on you. Because there'll be a shadow cast by the house. So that's why it kind of sticks out in the middle, we hope there will be kind of a stone edge effect with the sun coming through. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you call on me? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, I did. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, you did, thank you. We are still figuring north here. MEMBER HORNING: I have another question. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George has another question. 'd CHAIRWOMAN: The original plan, George, was 12 3/, now it's 13. MEMBER HORNING: No, the original plan was 10, 1 believe. CHAIRWOMAN: 10 at the closest. That's from the old point of the house. The original plan for the addition was 12'4 3/". Now it's 13'. MEMBER HORNING: So they've gained a little bit. Slightly. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually a quarter of an inch difference. MEMBER HORNING: My concerns have been screening. And I communicated with the applicant's representative on this, and I believe the applicant is agreeing the condition of extending the hedgerow on Mansion House Drive for let's say, 20' adding about 6-10 evergreen arborvitaes or something to that effect. Through communicating with the applicant's representative, we have determined in fact since there is no written opposition from the neighbor and apparently kind of a verbal agreement that the adjacent neighbor does not want any screening on the, what would be the rear yard property, adjoining the Voss property. Otherwise, you know, that's one thing we look at and request is the screening on the property line. But the applicant apparently has an agreement with the neighbor. They do not want any screening at all. Correct? Page 75 of 136 76 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. YOUNG: They do not want any screening. And I would have to go back to them and make them write a formal letter because I know they would not like that at all. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happened to me? MEMBER ORLANDO: You were still figuring north and south. CHAIRWOMAN: We left you somewhere in the map, Gerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Assuming there is some minor agreement for a foot or two here or there,where did you say the fudge factor was? MS. YOUNG: The fudge factor would be toward the front, toward the tree. And also a little bit in the rear yard. There's probably about, probably almost a foot, you know, of fudging so the front yard could definitely be no more than 13'. And then I want a surveyor to lay it out. You know, so the rear yard can be, that probably measures if you actually measure it on autocat, probably 16'to the house. But I didn't want to get that close. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a front and rear, I don't know what it's going, what good it's going to do us to pull in the porch, because they are okay on their lot coverage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 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. 1:24 p.m. AT & T Wireless #5311. This is a request for a Special Exception under Section 100-162 for a public utility wireless telecommunication facility with antennas at the site of Our Lady of Grace Church, Oriental Avenue, Fishers Island; Parcel 1000-9-7-11.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? LAWRENCE RE, ESQ: Yes Chairperson Tortora, members of the board, appearing for the applicant. Lawrence Re, 36 North NY Ave. in Huntington. This is an application being brought by the cellular telephone doing business as AT&T Wireless for a special exception permit to Page 76 of 136 77 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing install antennas and equipment inside the church, Our Lady of Grace Church, on Fishers Island. As the board is aware, AT&T Wireless is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to construct, maintain, and operate a cellular telephone system here in Suffolk County and throughout much of the US. And is recognized as a public utility for zoning purposes in the state of NY. It's services benefit the community, particularly in times of emergency. In fact, last year 45% of all calls to 911 were placed from mobile telephones. As the board is aware, AT&T Wireless strives to provide reliable service throughout it's license coverage area. And at the present time is unable to provide reliable service on Fisher's Island. Now we've appeared here on a number of occasions during the past year on applications where we've tried to be mindful of the dictates of the code that the Town of Southold has enacted. In particular, I've tried to design sites to be as unobtrusive as possible. This is another site where our proposal is to install the antennas and the equipment entirely within the church so that nothing would be visible on the outside. The antennas will be enclosed inside the steeple and the equipment is going to be in the basement. And the cable run will run from the antennas to the steeple, all within the church. CHAIRWOMAN: There won't be any outside equipment building? MR. RE: Nothing at all. So the site will not only be unobtrusive, it will be invisible to the outside world. At the same time, it will enable AT&T Wireless to provide reliable service just about all over Fisher's Island. The board has heard a number of applications similar to this. So, I tried to streamline our presentation. I have a number of witnesses here and I have a number of exhibits. If the board would allow me, I'd like to hand up some of the exhibits. The first is an affidavit of Ramone Zamora, the radio frequency engineer for AT&T Wireless who describes why the site is needed. The second is a report of Lynch Appraisal Ltd., which indicates that based on Michael Lynch's opinion the site will not have an effect on property values in the surrounding area. The third is a planning study prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz. And the fourth is a report prepared by Scienetics, which confirms the site will comply with FCC limits as to radio frequency emissions. With the board's permission, I'll hand these up. I'd like to call 2 witnesses, and I'll indicate who else is present should you have any questions. The witnesses I'll be calling are Neil MacDonald of William Collins. Mr. MacDonald is a licensed architect, and he'll describe in greater detail than I the layout of the site. And the second would be Ginny Wachel the planner from Freudenthal & Elkowitz. I also have present here today should the board have questions. Ramon Zamora, who is the radio frequency engineer. And if you have questions about coverage and propagation, he would be the person to ask. We also have Michael Lynch the appraiser. And Lou Cornacchia, he is the health expert who did the study to show that the site would comply with the FCC requirements. We also have plans that have been revised. And the revision which we will be described by Neil MacDonald is simply that an additional antenna has been added inside the steeple. Originally there were 5 shown and now there is 6 inside the steeple. CHAIRWOMAN: Has the size changed? Page 77 of 136 78 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. RE: The new antenna has different dimensions, but it would be concealed within the steeple so that it will not be visible. And Mr. MacDonald will describe it in a little greater detail. I'll call Mr. MacDonald in. At the same time I'll hand in these plans for the board. Mr. MacDonald could you state your name and address for the record? NEIL MACDONALD, ARCH: Sure,Neil MacDonald, Williams Collins, architects. CHAIRWOMAN: Are these the plans you just submitted to the board? MR. MACDONALD: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you give us an opportunity to hand them out so the board can be reviewing what you are discussing? Okay. I think we are ready now. MR. MACDONALD: Neil MacDonald with William Collins Architects, 10-1 Technology Drive, Setauket, NY. MR. RE: Mr. MacDonald could you describe the layout of the site? And in particular describe the change that was made in the plans to add the additional antenna. MR. MACDONALD: Sure. I'd like to direct your attention to it's basically essentially the site is composed of to be located in the basement of the steeple, related coaxial cables up through the inside of the steeple. 5' tall by 6" wide. The new application includes a antenna to be placed within the steeple. BOARD SECRETARY: We're not picking you up too well. I'm not hearing you. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, if you could tell us the approximate weight of the total of all of the equipment and cabling and support brackets in the steeple. MR. MACDONALD: Sure. At the steeple, there are five antennas that are panel antennas. Those are 15 lbs. each. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are these rigid louvers or they'll be opening and closing? Page 78 of 136 79 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MACDONALD: Those are fixed rigid louvers. The sixth antenna is the parabolic shaped antenna. That is 371bs. MEMBER HORNING: We're up to 60 or 70 lbs. now? MR. MACDONALD: And the cabling itself is about 12 lbs. MEMBER HORNING: Are you suggesting that the total additional weight in the steeple will be approximately 100-150 lbs.? MR. MACDONALD: Certainly less than 2001bs. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any questions. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. MEMBER HORNING: I have one more. On the elevation, curious, the church itself is about a 50' elevation? MR. MACDONALD: Approximately 49' to the base of the steeple. MEMBER HORNING: Is that why you can put it in the steeple quite nicely then? MR. MACDONALD: It is one of the higher points on the island, yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think you were here for the other application we had for the steeple. But it was at that one that one of your colleagues mentioned that the steeple itself, the shingles will be taken off the steeple and a certain type of shingles were to be put back on. Is there any change of the exterior of the steeple at all? MR. MACDONALD: I'm not familiar with the application you are referring to. But this particular one, there will be no change to the cladding on the building, the shingles or the clapboard. This will be contained entirely behind what are existing louvers. I have some photographs to show you as well. Basically it's about 6.6' by 6.6' wide louver structure that will be physically removed and replaced in kind with a structure matching it in outward appearance. Page 79 of 136 80 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. And those will be entirely in back of the louvers? There will be no other area structurally that they will be in back of? MR. MACDONALD: No. Strictly, SP4 you can kind of plan and see the layout, and how they fall relative to the louvers themselves. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the mechanical equipment that's in the basement, is that heat sensitive equipment? MR. MACDONALD: It's heat generating equipment. The fact that you're located in a basement helps in this case because the average temperature tends to be about 50 degrees throughout the course of the year. We do have a small exhaust fan to relieve some of the heat in the hotter months. And that will be exhausted out through an existing basement window. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are not in any insulated cabinet or anything? MR. MACDONALD: The radios themselves are contained in a cabinet, which has fans that cool the radios themselves. MEMBER HORNING: The question of routing of the coolness and outside construction, once the coils hit the tower, are you going to have any outside construction to tie into anything else? How are you going to deliver these coils to move them? I understand you need a backhaul them to somehow to some existing Telco operation maybe? MR. MACDONALD: Typically anyway, this network has to be connected to a landmine system. It just horizons landmine network. MEMBER HORNING: There's a small local Telco out there. MR. MACDONALD: That's actually one of the difficulties in designing the site, and one of the reasons for the revision to the plans. That's the 61h antenna, which will provide that landline connection back to CT. MEMBER HORNING: That will, so you will not be using the local Telco's facilities in any way? You will not require any kind of outside construction connections to their facilities? Page 80 of 136 81 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing structural steeple will hold the additional 2001bs.? MR. MACDONALD: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: I actually don't have a problem with this. I think it's fantastic the way they hide these now instead of putting them outside. And it's... MR. MACDONALD: It's very clean. MEMBER ORLANDO: Some type of revenue, I'm sure, for the church. How long is the lease for the church? MR. MACDONALD: I believe the lease is a 20-year lease. { MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: The town really encourages this type of structure and location, and is very receptive to it. MR. RE: The last witness I will be calling is Ginny Watral. And then, as I indicated, we do have others, should you have other questions that relate to their expertise. G1NNY WATRAL: Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and members of the Board. My name is Ginny Watral W-A-T-R-A-L. I'm with Fruedenthal & Elkowitz. Our offices are located at... MS. WATRAL: Our offices are located at 368 Veterans Memorial Hwy., Commack, NY 11725. Our firm prepared the planning study that Mr. Re submitted to you previously. We were asked to look at the proposal from a planning perspective and from an environmental perspective. From an environmental perspective, this is an unmanned facility. It does not generate sewage. It does not require potable water. Thus there are no significant impacts to groundwater quantity or quality. Because the installation is completely within the existing church, there are no impacts to soils topography or ecology of the area. The proposed installation has been reviewed by the NYS office of parks recreation and historic preservation. And a copy of their letter is included in Page 81 of 136 82 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing my report in appendix B. And I would like to just quote briefly from their letter. "Based upon this review, it is the Shippo's opinion that the project will have no adverse effect upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the national register of historic places, provided that the proposed RF transparent louvers match the visual appearance of the existing louvers." And as Mr. MacDonald explained, that will be the case. That whole fixed louvered structure will be replaced with RF transparent material, which will resemble what is actually there now. And actually provide an enhanced benefit because it won't require the maintenance that the existing louvers do, which are in a little bit of disrepair at the moment. The paint is peeling off of them. From a planning perspective, the use of an existing structure and the installation for the installation of this facility is optimal. The area in which the facility is to be located is primarily a residential area. And the installation of the equipment within the existing structure such that it won't be visible from the outside at all means that the use is appropriate and harmonious with the existing conditions in the area. I just wanted to say, in conclusion, that this proposed facility will not result in substantial adverse changes to the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, nor will it result in significant adverse impacts to neighborhood character, or the environmental conditions of the area. MEMBER HORNING: Question. When the parishioners are attending church, there is no imminent danger to them from anything there? Is that correct? MR. RE: That would be Mr. Cornacchia's specialty. And I can call him up to answer. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MR. RE: Mr. Cornacchia has prepared the FCC compliance health report that I've handed up, and he is familiar with the health effects of the antenna. If you could give your name and address and a little bit of your background. LOU CORNACCHIA: My name is Lou Cornacchia, that's C-O-R-N-A-C-C-H-I-A. I'm a electronic engineer. Graduated from Manhattan College School of Engineering. I worked in the defense industry on microwave systems for about 20 some odd years. And worked with the industry for about 12 years. What we did do was examine the, I did not visit the site, but I did examine the drawings, and I did review the location of the church, and the proposed location of the antenna. And the proximity of the antennas to the steeple base floor, and the lower floor, so that we can analyze the impact, not only for someone standing on that steeple base where the antennas are located, but also the baseline, or floor just below. The total emissions that would occur from the rear of the antennas, of all the antennas assuming that someone standing sort of in the center point of where all the three sectors would be, including the telephone linking antenna, all transmitting simultaneously. The emissions would be somewhere in the order of about .62% or less than 1% of the permitted exposure level. So they are way Page 82 of 136 83 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing down there, well below the permanent exposure levels by factor of 160. The highest emissions that we encounter in a community will be approximately 150' away. That's the 2-story brick building rooftop. That emission level will be a total of about 1.6% or thereabouts, 1.2%, I'm sorry. MEMBER HORNING: And from what location is that, sir? MR. CORNACCHIA: That's approximately a radio distance of about 150' away. MEMBER HORNING: And you're referring to a brick building of some kind? MR. CORNACCHIA: It seems to be a 2-story brick building shown there. MEMBER HORNING: Within 200' of the steeple. MR. CORNACCHIA: That's correct. And an elevation of 30'. And the emissions, and because that building was the nearest building. The nearest framed homes, for example, which are about 205' away, the total emissions are about less than half of 1%. MEMBER HORNING: So they're a parsonage? MR. CORNACCHIA: That's correct. MEMBER HORNING: So you're saying the highest level of emissions would be right in the immediate vicinity of... MR. CORNACCHIA: At the rooftop, yes. MEMBER HORNING: The roof of the brick building? MR. CORNACCHIA: That's correct. We assume someone being up there potentially doing some maintenance. We did apply the general public standard, which is the more restrictive FCC standard. And even at that level, or at that point in the building, the emissions would be far below the more restrictive standards. Less than 1%. Page 83 of 136 84 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MR. RE: As I indicated before, this site will provide reliable coverage to Fishers Island. Mr. Samora is here if the board has questions about the propagation, and what areas would be covered. And he has a map. If the board would like, I can call him up. CHAIRWOMAN: Do we have that information? MR. RE: It's contained in the affidavit that I submitted. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think that's going to be necessary. If we have that in the affidavit, that's fine. MR. RE: If the board has no other questions, in conclusion, the section 100-160 speaks of the purpose of article 16, which address's wireless communications facilities, and encourages facilities to be located on existing buildings or towers. And then section 100-163 sets forth the standards and matters to be considered in these applications. In quickly reviewing them, you'll see that an application such as this is certainly within compliance of all of the standards set forth in the code. I believe, from an engineering standpoint, the site is ideal because it will provide coverage. And from a planning standpoint, it's also ideal, because it's going to be invisible to the public. So if the board has any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN: Lets' see if anybody in the audience has any questions or comments. MR. RE: I know this board is burdened with a tremendous calendar. We're hoping to try to get this site on the air for the summer season. So if there's any way that the board could try to expedite the decision. Keeping in mind, we are certainly mindful of the fact that you're heavy caseload. It would be appreciated. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll see what we can do. MEMBER ORLANDO: So this will be up and running this summer? MR. RE: As soon as we get the building permit, we'll put it up. Page 84 of 136 85 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: We usually have the public hearing therein August. So I'd like to come visit. Put that on the list, Jerry. MEMBER HORNING: You won't be able to see the antennas. MEMBER ORLANDO: We'll go in the basement and do a visual. I'd like to see it. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 1:49 p.m. VIHOLD CORP. and J & C Holdings, Contract Vendee #5313. Based on the Building Department's February 6, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicants request a Variance under Section 100-239.4A.1 to construct a new dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the bank or bluff of the Long Island Sound, after removal of the existing dwelling. Location of Property: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold; Parcel 1000-51-1-22.2. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Good afternoon, my name is Abigail Wickham. I represent J&C Holding, which is a contract vendee of this property. You have before you a proposal to essentially replace a very tiny, pre-existing, one-story frame dwelling, with a 33x39.8' residence, which is located at the same line as the existing dwelling, back from the bluff. It is located quite a bit, or several feet behind the two existing residences on either side. And in fact, I have a map. I will show you most of the residences on this area of the bluff are closer than this proposed dwelling. And I believe there are very few unimproved lots in this area. So this is not going to be setting a precedent other than to make the setback better than what exists now. It is setback 84' from the high water mark. And it is a fairly stable bluff. It looks like, from the tire tracks in the lawn, some board members may have been out there. There are two wood bulkheadings, which are in decent shape, which help maintain a fully vegetated bluff. And the bluff is at a higher elevation than the proposed dwelling location. So there is a gradient back from the bluff, rather than down off the bluff, which will help with drainage. CHAIRWOMAN: Has the top of the bluff, is the top of the bluff been determined right where that wood wall is? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. And if you look at the property, that's consistent. Because it does drop Page 85 of 136 86 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing off below that. It does not, the lawn area rises gradually from where the house is now up to that wood wall. And it is at the level of the top of the wood wall. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the 84' is measured to the lower wall. MS. WICKHAM: The 84' is measured down, yes, to the lower wall. It's actually 39.7' from the bluff, at the closest point. And as you can see, it does run at an angle. I have a map here dated March 3rd, 2003. I don't know if it's the one you have because proposed drywells were added to contain roof runoff. MEMBER ORLANDO: We have July 27. MS. WICKHAM: Okay, since then septic and wells were added. Let me... CHAIRWOMAN: I have an amended map dated January 13, 2003 showing the wells and septic. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mine says December 30"i... MS. WICKHAM: The only thing added was drywells. So you can see that. I don't have my requisite 7,but I have enough for all the board members. CHAIRWOMAN: No, we have this map. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we have it. BOARD SECRETARY: We need little numbers on there. MS. WICKHAM: The size of the house is proposed to be a 2-story house. The first floor, or the footprint is shown. And the actual first floor, if you just give me a minute, is proposed at 1314 sq. ft. The second floor, the same, for a total of 2628. So it's not a, what we would consider, an overbearing sized house. There would potentially be a covered front porch on the, not on the water side, on the landward side. Covered, but not enclosed, of approximately 250 sq. Page 86 of 136 87 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ft. The neighbor to the west, Mr. Lacey is here. And I had some discussions with him earlier. Mr. Lacey's house is shown on the survey. It's located approximately 13' from the west line. And there is a row of existing and long standing trees and other vegetation within this property's boundary. Because his lot is cleared pretty much right up to the boundary, and he was concerned about maintaining that line of vegetation for privacy purposes. And he was also concerned about the height of the house. We are willing to include in your approval conditions, should you approve this application, that the applicant would reduce the maximum height from the 35' standard, that the code permits, to no more than 32'. CHAIRWOMAN: To the ridge, to the top of... MS. WICKHAM: To the height, the 35' requirement, however that's defined in the code, to 32. They determine that. And more, oops, sorry. CHAIRWOMAN: I just said to him that we need to clarify this. That would be the mean average as opposed to the top of the ridge, 32. MS. WICKHAM: I honestly can't tell you how the code figures that out, but I know 35' is the maximum, so we would reduce that to 32. However you'd like to word that. PAUL LANCEY: Actually to the peak of the house, that's 32'. BOARD SECRETARY: Can I have your name please for the record? MR. LANCEY: I'm sorry, my name is Paul Lancey, not Lacey. I'm the neighbor to the west. It would be 32' to the peak of the house. MS. WICKHAM: 32', that's not what he told me, I'm sorry. I'd have to leave that to the board. MR. LANCEY: No, actually, that's what he said to me. So, and that's what we agreed upon. MS. WICKHAM: If you could give me a couple of minutes. Let me go to the next issue that they had that I thought was equally, if not more, important. I was discussing the buffer along, Mr. Lancey is concerned, as you see there is a driveway proposed along the west side of the proposed dwelling. And the driveway edge comes towards the west boundary of this property. We are willing to agree to alleviate his concerns about the privacy to maintain a 12 and one half Page 87 of 136 88 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing T foot buffer opposite the driveway portion of the side entrance of the garage. And if vegetation that is now existing in that 12 %2 section is removed, screening shrubs will be planted within that area. Specifically, arborvitae of an 8... MR. LANCEY: Actually we said it would be planted no less than 10'. MS. WICKHAM: Within the 10-12' area. MR. LANCEY: Screening shrubbery, whatever he chooses, and he said he would pick up the cost. MS. WICKHAM: So I can give you that in writing. I just want to tell you that we are agreeable to a buffer in that area. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of questions. How are we going to reduce this to writing, at this point? So that we have something in writing... MS. WICKHAM: I would be willing to submit that. This just came up, right before the hearing, or I would have had it in writing. But I can either specify the language, or just so we don't have issues,perhaps submit it to you within the next few days after discussion with Mr. Lancey. CHAIRWOMAN: That probably would be best, that,particularly with respect to the buffer area. MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I want that to be very clear. CHAIRWOMAN: So you may both kind of sign off on that before you give it back to us. MS. WICKHAM: But the general idea is 12 ''/z' opposite the driveway on the side entry as it, as it abuts the side entry garage. And the vegetation would be replaced with screening shrubs within the 10-12' portion of the buffer. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there someway we can identify that area? MS. WICKHAM: I think a map might be a good idea. Page 88 of 136 89 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ' CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. MS. WICKHAM: Thank you. MR. LANCEY: Madam Chairman, I'd just like to... CHAIRWOMAN: Would the board members like to, Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Sure. I would want to verify this with Ms. Wickham then. In this proposal, if the existing structure is demolished, and a new structure is built, not on the same footprint, then in fact, you will be eliminating a nonconforming sideyard situation that exists right now. Is that correct? MS. WICKHAM: That is correct. The sideyard, I meant to mention that. Thank you. The sideyard will be conforming, 15'. It's now, I can't read it,but it's very small. Maybe 2 or 3'. MEMBER HORNING: Is there any way of pulling the house south, toward Soundview, at all? Since you know, you're adequately meeting all of these setbacks except with the bulkhead. Should that occur, 2 things happen adversely. And that's why the proposal was to keep it at the same line. The first is, as I mentioned, the bluff does slope downward. I'm sorry the land slopes downward from the bluff towards the road. So the further back you go, the lower the house will be, impacting the view. Secondly, the 2 residences on either side are already considerable forward of the proposed location. And that view would therefore further be impacted. And given the stable nature of that front area there on the sound side, we would ask that you consider where it is. Again, it's not a huge house, 2600 sq. ft. It's not anywhere near pushing the sideyard envelopes. CHAIRWOMAN: I just had one question to clarify this. Because the Trustee, you, permit that you had given was to add a, that 39x33 addition to the existing 20x26 residence. Correct? MS. WICKHAM: That was originally what the plan was, and my understanding, I didn't submit the application to your board, but my understanding was, based on the way your advertisement read, after removal of the existing dwelling, that that would be consistent with what the board would want to see. And certainly if we take away something the Trustees granted, I don't think they'll have a problem with that. CHAIRWOMAN: No, I just wanted to make it clear that you are going to be removing the 1- Page 89 of 136 90 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing story frame... MS. WICKHAM: Yes, yes, and that's a condition if you want to put that in. That's on the map, and that is the intention. I think it would happen simultaneously so we don't lose any rights, but yes, it would come down as part of the construction. CHAIRWOMAN: That's more palatable. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the record, this lot is in single and separate ownership? Because it looks like it's over the other property. MS. WICKHAM: No it is not. I was, I checked that myself. We have a title search that illustrates that. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. I agree with Mr. Horning. That I would like to see 50'. No closer than that bluff. It's a very steep bluff. And in this particular situation, I think it's an ideal house setup, with the grade, to have a 10' basement with the garage underneath, might be a suggestion for your client. You know, the houses that have the 10' basement, and the garage underneath it, because of the topographical setup with this. You can just drive underneath the house for a garage. MS. WICKHAM: The garage will be underneath. MEMBER ORLANDO: Great minds think alike, then. MS. WICKHAM: Up to a point. On the garages. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's very close, it's very steep. And we are moving the house. And now's an opportunity to make it more confonning than it was. MS. WICKHAM: I think, if I could, given the fact that he is totally eliminating a very extreme sideyard encroachment, he is building off an existing residence, we would ask, and to bring it back even 10' effects the height of the house, as well as puts well behind, particularly the house Page 90 of 136 91 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing to the east. Your impact is complicated by the fact that, as you've seen often on the sound lots, the angle of the lot does not, is not perpendicular to the bluff. And so, when you have that type of angle there, what your view of, what would be the northeast could be considerably hampered by any neighbor who decided to put up a hedge or screening there. And so, the further back you are, you're going to be impacted, not only by an existing residence, but whatever they do over there. And when your, basically, your view is looking across what is actually someone else's property going down the bluff, it does have a much bigger impact than it might look on the map. So we would ask that you please at least allow us to maintain the distance. Right now, the frontage of the house that exists is 26.4'. The frontage of the house that we are proposing is 33'. So that's less than 7' more frontage at that level. MEMBER ORLANDO: But you're looking more than a 50% greater reduction than the code, but further back. MS. WICKHAM: But further back, yes, everything else is further back. MEMBER ORLANDO: 100' setback is required from the bluff. MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. I'd like to give the board, again, I apologize I don't have 7 prints, but I can get them, a copy of the coastal erosion map, which shows in pink this property, and the other existing dwellings. And you can see, very clearly, what how far all of those houses are. This particular portion of the bluff actually projects into the sound further than properties further east. They cut back in. While it doesn't show on the map, we've submitted, the house immediately to the east, again, is a brick house. I'm sorry, I don't remember the lady's name. Her house is considerably bigger than what's proposed. And considerably closer to the bluff because of the way it cuts back. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes I can see that some are, and some are not. And one that recently just fell off the bluff a couple of weeks ago, I guess there was a big blow out, not in this particular section, but another section. So, yes, it's true, there are houses that are closer to the bluff than this one. But when you start to look at the number of blowouts that we've had during this last winter, then you begin to recognize that there is some logic behind this. MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. The blowouts... CHAIRWOMAN: We'll have to wait for Soil & Water (S&W) on this. We did not get any response from S&... Page 91 of 136 92 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: I wondered if you had, okay, so that has been requested. CHAIRWOMAN: We simply haven't got the letter back yet. MS. WICKHAM: Again, I know blowouts are more common when you have the gradient going the other way, and certainly I'm not aware of a problem in this particular area. MR. LANCEY: The existing bulkhead is in disrepair. I think it was stated up front that it was in good condition,but there are pieces of it already that have fallen over a, close to a 45% angle. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, before, let's, because we do have to move this along. We have Mr. Horning that does have to get back to Fishers Island. Let's see if anyone else in the audience has any questions or comments. MR. LANCEY: My name is Paul Lancey. I am the neighbor to the west of the property. And I concur with the buyers proposal to create the buffer. That makes me comfortable. I think it preserves the natural beauty. I concur with dropping the height to the peak of 32', which we > discussed, which she'll review just to get the wording again. But I assure you the seller and I had no idea about average heights. We just thought, peak of the house. But we'll concur and get that cleared up. And the only other issue is that the bulkhead, I think the meeting is generally about preserving the beauty, the natural beauty of the bluff. And if the bulkhead is in disrepair, if it could be repaired, I think that will preserve the bluff. And those are my concerns. Dropping the house back, that's for you and your judgment. I'm not knowledgeable in that CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, what would the board like to do? We do have to get S&W back on this as well. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Close the hearing pending receipt of S&W. And give them 3 weeks. CHAIRWOMAN: We've got to get written comments from both of you, so let's set a date for that at... MS. WICKHAM: I was going Mrs. Tortora if I could also have the opportunity, if necessary, to respond to what S&W has to say. So, I don't know when that's coming. Page 92 of 136 93 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing l.� BOARD SECRETARY: When we get that in writing, we send it to you, then you reply in writing. MS. WICKHAM: Right, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually what we can do is, if you want to, we'll just recess it, the entire meeting until the June 6th meeting. BOARD SECRETARY: June 5. CHAIRWOMAN: Excuse me, June 5th MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that enough time? BOARD SECRETARY: If we get S&W, could you respond like within 5 or 6 days? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, we could May 29th provided the S&W comes. CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, do you want to have an opportunity to present oral testimony again or not? MS. WICKHAM: I think I would be satisfied with presenting written testimony based on the S&W, and based on Mr. Lancey and me coming up with language on those 2 issues of setback, of buffer and height. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, why don't we set a deadline of May 29th for written comments? MS. WICKHAM: All right, then if S&W comes in on the 28th, I'll request that you extend it. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to close the hearing to oral testimony and written testimony including in response to May 29th. Page 93 of 136 94 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 2:12 p.m. George Giannaris, John Giannaris, and Others/Hellenic Cabins #5019. Based on the Building Department's March 13, 2003 amended Notice of Disapproval, applicants request Variances under Section 100-244B to construct hotel units in this Limited Business (LB) Zone District, after removal of the existing cabin structures. The new hotel units are.proposed to be located at less than 20 feet on a single side yard, less than 45 feet for both side yards (total), and less than 75 ft.'rear yard, at 5145 Main Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-35-2-14. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Thank you. You have, in your file, a preliminary layout with respect to location of the proposed cabins. I know you are familiar with this application. We have existing cabins there that range in setbacks to the property line anywhere from 5-15' in setback to the property line. And you can see on the plan, and in your file, you've received, in the past, the location of the pre-existing structures. We are, actually, we reduced the scale of this plan and we've taken the 20 cottages, and reduced it down to 10. The Planning Board (PB) reviewed it through the SEQRA process. They are in agreement. MS. MOORE: The location of the cabins is proposed at 20' in order to try to make it as conforming as possible. I spoke to Mr. Giannaris, who's here, the son, and his mother are here today. We have room to move the cottages towards the property line, but we try to establish a conforming setback of 20', and let's see 20', at least on the north end. And, I believe, it's 10' on the side yard. We could move closer to the property line, and that would certainly alleviate some of the site plan issues of, for the driveways and the parking. But this is that plan that we're certainly interested in. CHAIRWOMAN: Are we talking about the plan that's last amended June 19, 2002? MS. MOORE: Do you have one last dated March 3, 2003? CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, good. It's the one I remember you getting. MS. MOORE: This project started in '96. It's hard to believe it's been that long. And they are very anxious to demolish what's there. And for obvious reasons, because they are pre-existing, we have pre-existing setbacks, and the cottages could be, you know, improved with aesthetics, significant aesthetics. But certainly they could be improved. They have not been demolished. They are very anxious to demolish them. The place looks, certainly they admit it, it looks terrible. They received nasty letters, you know, unsigned, very critical, very nasty letters calling them all kinds of things. Because these cottages remain looking the way they do, to the extent that they felt compelled to put up a sign to explain that, listen they are in the process of getting a permit, that's why they haven't been demolished. So they are really anxious to get this resolved. CHAIRWOMAN: We did a site inspection on this. I don't even remember how many years ago it was. Page 94 of 136 95 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: I know we did a site inspection in '96 when the application first came in. There was an effort to coordinate, and actually, Mr. Goehririger, very kindly, with the PB, we did a site inspection. We walked through the entire site. CHAIRWOMAN: I was there, I remember. MS. MOORE: You were there, on the board at the time? CHAIRWOMAN: Since 1995, yes. MS. MOORE: Okay, good. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was a cold, snowy, day. MS. MOORE: No. CHAIRWOMAN: No, it was a spring day. MS. MOORE: It was a nice, spring day. 1� CHAIRWOMAN: And we were walking around in the mud. r MS. MOORE: It was really awful, but, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of questions. You did get the letter from the PB that they do not have any objections to the variances. They do have other issues, such as certain slopes and things like that. But none of them have too much to do with us. MS. MOORE: That's why we said "well listen, if you want us to move the cottages closer to the property line because we are surrounded by the golf course". We don't need as much, certainly, the property line along the north end, which abuts the golf course. We could go much closer, it's all open space, and that's really what it is now. It's all grass, and with some shrubbery. There's a fence, the chain link fence along the property line of the golf course. But aside from that, there's really no reason not to push it closer. We could do that, and that would certainly give more room and flexibility to the site plan for parking. But we can work with this plan. And really just tweaking the plan with the PB addressing, you know, making it work with respect to the grading of the property. CHAIRWOMAN: So the sideyards on the, next to the golf course, you're looking at 12.5... MS. MOORE: Yes, the north property... CHAIRWOMAN: 12.5-10.9, is that right? Page 95 of 136 96 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: No. MEMBER ORLANDO: On the west side, west side. MS. MOORE: Oh, west side, yes 12, I think they've got 12.5 there and 10.99. Yes. And that's just because of not really the frame of the building,but the stairways or other structural elements. CHAIRWOMAN: It's also the angle. MS. MOORE: Yes we have them angled obviously... CHAIRWOMAN: You've got them, you've got them around little circles around that circle way. And the, it's, the angles, that angle that is jutting into the sideyard so far. I'll ask you the proverbial question. What can you give us? MS. MOORE: We've given 10 units. CHAIRWOMAN: Don't ask us, we're going to ask you. MS. MOORE: No, we've given up 10 units. That was a significant gift. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm talking in terms of the variance. MS. MOORE: Well the variance, we have existing, pre-existing setbacks as I mentioned first sentence I said was at 2', 5' from the property line. We haven't pushed that. We haven't pushed the pre-existing setbacks. We've actually tried to make the, the cottages as conforming as possible. And we pushed them away 20' from the property line. So, we've given in, already by walking in here with this plan. And rather than wasting any more time with the, you know, back and forth. CHAIRWOMAN: Here's what we have. We have the amended Notice of Disapproval (NOD) from March 13. And on that disapproval, the Building Department (BD) is saying hotel unit 4.3, sideyard 10.99. That's and so the hotel unit 6.5, single side 12.05, hotel unit 7.8, shows rearyard of 20. MS. MOORE: Well they had this plan, as I recall. Or something, I think this is more detailed because it has a sanitary on it. It was for the Health Department (HD). CHAIRWOMAN: So if we go, let's just take a look at it. MS. MOORE: I can pull out the old plans,but... Page 96 of 136 97 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: In other words, are you suggesting that they are looking at the, the amended one was based on the old plans? MS. MOORE: This plan has not changed in it's placement of the structures. And I can go back to the original. It's been like this for, well, since it was reduced down to 10 units. Look at January 7, I think since January 7. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, so if we go to 4.3, let's go to that unit, the 4.3 unit. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, oh, 4.3, yes, got it. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's take them one by one. 4.3 has a 10.99, can we get 15' minimum on that? MS. MOORE: Well, you're going to start, instead of a circle. You're going to start jagging them around. I mean, aesthetically... CHAIRWOMAN: Either, I, I, know that, or... MS. MOORE: If we are going to alternate the locations of them, then in that case, why don't we push 9.10, 8.7 closer to, the property line on the north. You know, you can cluster them and, right, why don't you come up? Because it's really your design, not mine. So I don't want to overstep my boundaries. If we move these, right now it has a nice circular, it's a courtyard effect. So I think that's why Young & Young proposed it this way. With some thought, I guess, from you when you were discussing it. Could we move these up, back a little bit? And these forward a little bit? GEORGE GIANNARIS: My name is George Giannaris. How are you? I thought going closer was an issue. We have no problem going closer. We were trying to avoid that. MS. MOORE: To the ones in the north. MR. GIANNARIS: To the ones in the north. We figured we're trying to minimize, I mean maximize the distance we have to the property line. So this wouldn't be an issue. CHAIRWOMAN: No, I really don't have an issue with the circular. It looks like a very nice design to me. The only thing I'm concerned about is, you know, what happens with the golf course there. And frankly, I wouldn't have any problems leaving it there because the golf course is there. MS. MOORE: Well, on the other side, I think you have parking, right? MR. GIANNARIS: That's the whole parking lot. Page 97 of 136 98 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: That's the golf course parking lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: What's on back of those apartments? Those aren't decks, those are patios.: MS. MOORE: Yes, patios. MEMBER ORLANDO: So, on the west side, the patios, you know, 2' from the line. MS. MOORE: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,but they back up and this is all golf course here. MS. MOORE: No, it's the parking lot of the golf course. CHAIRWOMAN: Put it this way, if we went to larger side yards, on the west side, then we'd be pushing it to,up on the north side, which wouldn't... MS. MOORE: Instead of a courtyard effect, it's going to look like, a little awkward. I think what we are also trying to do is keep the traffic flow separate and apart from the restaurant use. So that's why it's been somewhat segregated. r CHAIRWOMAN: It's a significant difference than what we looked at in 1996. MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing house that's up there, 1 %2 story, 2 story, that will be removed? MR. GIANNARIS: Yes. You're talking about he main house that was... MS. MOORE: It used to be the office. MEMBER ORLANDO: That's being removed, not to be rebuilt? MR. GIANNARIS: Yes. Not to be rebuilt. MEMBER ORLANDO: And all those cottages, you're saying, on record, will be removed and cleaned, and... MS. MOORE: Well, we want to remove, actually, we will rely on your oral approval if we could. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I walked outside the other day, and I was trying to count them, I was amazed. This is a tremendous improvement to what is there now. Page 98 of 136 99 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing MS. MOORE: And they've been dying to do it. And they just can't. Obviously, they can't demolish what's there for obvious pre-existing status reasons. They want to, if they could do it immediately, particularly beginning of this season, it will really improve the area significantly by removing those... CHAIRWOMAN: So, you have all your other approvals? MS. MOORE: Yes, yes, HD is in place. The only thing we need your variances on the setback in order to go back to Planning, finalize the site plan. And then we are done. Then we can go... MEMBER ORLANDO: If I may have one little input on this that I would like to see, is maybe a little bit screening on the south side, on 1.2. MS. MOORE: 1.2, oh, along the front? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, you have one little tree or something. But in front in front of that patio, maybe another one. MS. MOORE: I think I see an existing tree. This doesn't show the landscape plan. MEMBER ORLANDO: You have a landscape for maybe some... { CHAIRWOMAN: PB. MS. MOORE: Do you have it yet? MR. GIANNARIS: I don't but, for the record, I'm more for landscaping. I'll beautify the place tremendously. No problem. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to kind of conceal 1, 2, and 3 right there. MS. MOORE: Exactly. MR. GIANNARIS: Not a problem. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the people sitting on the back patio can enjoy... MS. MOORE: Oh, absolutely. MR. GIANNARIS: Of course. MEMBER HORNING: What about the buffer to the parking lot, too? MS. MOORE: The parking lot, the golf course parking lot you're talking about? Page 99 of 136 100 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Yes, landscaping... MS. MOORE: That's why the space we have is, what are you going to do, fence? MR. GIANNARIS: No, the fence is, I believe, I'm not sure if they have a fence there, but the whole line is vegetation. They have shrubbery on their side. But whatever you feel is an opening, we have no problem... MEMBER HORNING: I'm just inquiring if you're going to show that on your... MS. MOORE: I mean, if you want to leave it open... MEMBER HORNING: I think it's a good plan. MS. MOORE: If you want to come and inspect after it's constructed and landscaped, and suggest additional landscaping... CHAIRWOMAN: Hasn't the PB already done landscaping on this? MS. MOORE: Not yet, because we have to get the location of the buildings. We are stymied. We can't go over there and finish up. CHAIRWOMAN: Oh, I see. MS. MOORE: So... CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you've come a long way in the past 6, 7, 8 years. And I like the plan. MS. MOORE: Let's hope his children aren't adults before we get this final approval. MEMBER HORNING: One further question. Are these proposed units open year round or seasonal? CHAIRWOMAN: They're hotels. MR. GIANNARIS: Well, our intention is to keep them open year round. Whether or not we will because of the seasonal nature of the area is a completely different issue. MEMBER HORNING: Okay,just asking. Thank you. Page 100 of 136 101 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I don't really have any other questions. Let's see. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Any questions? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. MS. MOORE: And as I said, if you communicate a verbal approval, whether it's to us or the BD, that way we can go and demolish what's there. It's crucial. We have a pile of dirt right now because of the sanitary system. And they are just waiting for, the cottages are just waiting for that bulldozer. MEMBER HORNING: So Pat, if we approve this, you fell confident the PB will fall right in with whatever... MS. MOORE: Yes, because the PB has no jurisdiction with respect to the setbacks. Once we've gotten the variance from you, it's as if it's in the book. And now it's just a question of driveways, paving, lighting, that kind of site plan issues alone. So, I feel confident that he could proceed. Thank you. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 2:27 p.m. Warren Melhado #5287. Based on the Building Department's December 13, 2002 amended Notice of Disapproval, applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-30A.4 (ref. 100-33) to construct an amateur radio tower in a front yard at a height exceeding the code limitation of 18 feet as an accessory structure. Location of Property: 165 Wood Lane, Southold; 1000-86-6-2.3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? WARREN MELHADO: Afternoon. My name is Warren Melhado. I reside at 165 Wood Lane in Peconic. I hold an amateur extra class, amateur radio license issued by the FCC, pursuant to chapter 47 of the code of federal regulations part 97. My call sign is WM2Z. And I have submitted a copy of my license with my application. A number of radio organizations, including the Amateur Radio Relay League, the Amateur Radio Emergency Services, SC Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services, and the National Weather Service Sky One Spotter Program. I'm the assistant emergency coordinator for Peconic and Southold. Excuse me, that's Peconic and Cutchogue. And I am the secretary of the Peconic Amateur Radio Club. I'm a very active amateur radio operator, and very committed to serving my community for emergency services. I received emergency training from the American Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Weather Service. Hams, typically, are called to service for emergency reasons, for things like the avionic crash, the LI wildfires, the TWA flight 800, and the World Trade Center attacks. In addition, we serve the community at things like foot races, you know, the Shelter Island IOK, and stuff like that, by providing emergency communications. All at our own, our time, obviously, is donated. Hams are not allowed to receive any compensation in any form whatsoever. We use our equipment, and our time to serve Page 101 of 136 102 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the community. I'm seeking to erect a 54' self-supporting tower that will enhance the range and reliability from my home, amateur radio station. My package to you includes all the details of the tower itself. CHAIRWOMAN: It was a very thorough package. MR. MELHADO: Thank you. Hopefully that's my engineering background. The tower I seek to erect will be used exclusively to support the amateur radio station and my home. No other reason. Elevating antennas that I use for emergency communications is essential because the radio propagation at the frequency used is very high frequency and ultra high frequencies are basically limited by line of sight. Actually you get away with a little bit more because of the atmospheric conditions, but the strong signals are really, basically by line of sight. At 60', the radio horizon is 11 miles away. The other station that you are trying to communicate, of course, has a radio horizon as a function of his antenna. The proposed location for my tower is on the side of my house between the garage and Indian Neck Lane, setback about 50' from the property line. The entire south side of my house, and the rear yard, the distance of about 345', are considered as a front yard by the rules you set forth because of the boundary along Indian Neck Lane. Basically, I don't have a rear yard, which is where accessory structures belong. The surrounding area of the proposed location is heavily wooded. And the tall trees and evergreen shrubbery in that area will help obscure the view of the tower from outside my property. The proposed tower is 54' high when fully erected. And it's 24' when collapsed. It's 3 sections that F telescope and are raised with a winch. The Building Department has determined that the height J is exempt by article 14 section 100-161 and article 23 section 100-30D. The requirement there is that the distance of the antenna needs to be at least as far away as any high tension power lines. The distance from the base of the tower proposed is 68' from the nearest overhead power transmission line carrying more than 220 volts. So I'm well within the distance of that. CHAIRWOMAN: The total height of it with a mask is 54? MR. MELHADO: Oh about 6-8' more. 60-62'. CHAIRWOMAN: 60-62', and it's a 6' poured concrete base? MR. MELHADO: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Which would be about 6" above grade? MR. MELHADO: Right. It's 3' square above ground, about 6"high. CHAIRWOMAN: You made a very thorough informative presentation. So if we could just see if the board members, what questions we have at this point. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, the height to the tower you are proposing is due to the fact that you're trying to get a clear line of sight. Page 102 of 136 103 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MELHADO: The higher the better. There's no question about it. If you could make it 200', it would be even better. MEMBER HORNING: Tell us approximately how high above the tree line this would be? MR. MELHADO: Actually I think it'll be below the tree line. The trees there are very tall. I submitted some photographs that I took back in the fall, I guess, when I submitted my application. You can see the trees there are quite tall. I think I'll be right around the tree line, if not above it by a very slight amount. MEMBER HORNING: Just enough to have it be able to be functional. MR. MELHADO: It turns out that 90% of the operations take place in the wintertime, anyway. When there are no leaves on the trees. This time of the year, regular communications are kind of quiet because of the summer. It's an atmospheric thing with the ionosphere above the earth changes quite a bit in the summertime. MEMBER HORNING: Are you going to be required to install any kind of warning lighting or anything like that? MR. MELHADO: No, as long as it's under 200', and not near any airports. That's not necessary. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fall back, are there any guide wires on this? MR MELHADO: No. This is a self-supporting tower. The substantial concrete base that goes down in the ground 6', and it's 3', there's 2 cubic yards of concrete, quite heavy. And it will be, the hole for that, will be hand excavated to minimize any disturbances of other areas, but also to keep the area around it undisturbed. So that you get the firm soil, and not a bunch of loose soil that has been backfilled. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happens in a fault? Either through wind or some other type of situation? MR. MELHADO: Most likely, a tower like this, if it were to fail, this is quite a substantial structure. If it were to fail, most likely, they don't just fall down like that. They collapse somehow in the middle and, you know, kind of like fall down in a big pile. Any ones that I've ever seen that have come down. Never seen one of this type come down. This is quite a substantial structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would it pancake very similar to what the WTC did. • Page 103 of 136 104 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals { Regular Meeting Public Hearing _ l MR. MELHADO: I don't imagine it'd be quite that compact,but, you know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I didn't mean that. Would the top section fall into the 2nd section, or would it actually do that jagged... MR. MELHADO: If it ever fell apart like that, I can't imagine, it would probably cover some small area around that. MEMBER HORNING: All twisted up and bent. MR. MELHADO: I would imagine, exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: The design in there, Jerry, it's not self-collapsing. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, and I understand that, but I had to ask the question anyway. And, of course, that would only happen if some freak storm came up because if something was occurring, like a hurricane, would probably bring it down anyway. MR. MELHADO: Oh absolutely, I'm sorry, I didn't mention that. It would be fully my intent, if I know a storm is coming, and I am a spotter, so I'm watching for stuff like that. It's very easy to lower this thing down to 21'. We're, probably would be well within the tree structure, and the wind is all broken up by the trees. MEMBER HORNING: Does this have a stopping winch? MR. MELHADO: It has a winch, it's erected by, it's telescoping, the largest section is at the bottom, and it gets successively smaller as it goes up. And it's erected with a 3.161h inch aircraft cable, and a winch, hand winch. MEMBER HORNING: Approximately how long would it take you to ratchet it down, winch it down? MR. MELHADO: It goes down a lot easier than it comes up. Several minutes, maybe but... MEMBER HORNING: In an emergency? MR. MELHADO: 10 minutes, maybe something like that, or less. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last issue is interference to neighbors, TV's, radios, I know most everybody has cable today. Does it mean that... MR. MELHADO: It makes a big difference. I should point out that I have been operating a radio station in my home since September of 1995 when we moved in there. And I've had only Page 104 of 136 105 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing one instance, in that time, of interference with a neighbor's electronics. The situation was immediately corrected, and has not re-occurred. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, how do you correct a situation like that? MR. MELHADO: I used a different antenna and reduced the power. It was on one particular band, at one particular time, and I was running about 500 at the time on a particular band. That her equipment, for some reason, picked up. It was a stereo system, and'I immediately stopped doing that. And have done it again since then, and no complaints. Now I should also point out that the higher you make an antenna like this, the less likely it is to interfere with anyone. Mostly because the ground way signal will go right over them, the lower, you could be aiming this thing essentially right at the house. RFI is an interesting problem. It usually results from a deficiency at the receiving end as opposed to the transmitting end. Older electronics tend to be more susceptible to this stuff. Years ago, hams got in a lot of trouble with interference with television. The widespread use of cable has eliminated a lot of that. And also I generally, though I'm allowed to, I generally don't operate on a frequency that is particularly in the television bands. I do, once in awhile, but not very often. So, as I say, in the 8 years that I've been doing this, I've had only one complaint, and it was immediately resolved. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the height of your existing antenna? _ MR. MELHADO: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN: The height of your existing antenna. MR. MELHADO: I have a wire antenna that's from between 2 trees, that's up about 50'. It's just a piece of wire. CHAIRWOMAN: So, it's strung between two trees? MR. MELHADO: It's strung between two trees. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with you, sir, that your trees around there are very large. I believe they were oaks. And they're probably 60'. Easy 60'. They are pretty big. And I want to just confine the mechanical winch to lower it. It's not electrical, so there was a storm. You could do it mechanical, or is it both? MR. MELHADO: Electrical winches are expensive, and I was not going to buy one. I thought about it for awhile. It cost about$1000 just to buy a winch. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's mechanical, and doesn't matter if you lost power. Page 105 of 136 106 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ` MR. MELHADO: It's a worm drive winch that doesn't require any ratcheting down, and because of the worm mechanism, the, you don't need the locket. It's naturally locked because of the mechanical advantage of the worm drive. MEMBER HORNING: And you unlock it, and it will just telescopically... MR. MELHADO: Just turn the handle and it will go down by itself. It's own weight will bring it down. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: The only, only, this could be operated at anywhere between 24' and 54'? MR. MELHADO: Oh yes. CHAIRWOMAN: So that would be totally flexible for you to operate it? MR. MELHADO: In general, I would seek to operate it at it's full, extended height. Because that's where I get the advantage of it. But in an emergency, it could be lowered, and CHAIRWOMAN: Any further questions? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. 2:52 p.m. East Enders/11160 Main Road, Inc. (formerly Cifarelli) #5211. Based on the Building Department's August 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended February 26, 2003, applicants request Variances under Sections 100-101, 100-242A, and 100-243A: (1) to add a second use on a nonconforming lot, and (2) to construct additions and alterations to an existing building located in the B-General Business Zone District, at 4.4 feet to the front lot lines at its closest point. The second use is proposed on a lot containing less than 60,000 sq. ft. (30,000 sq. ft. for each use), at 11160 Main Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-122-3-9. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Rd., Southold. And I have with me the owners of the property, and owners of the business, which would be Michael Racz, and Gail Dessimoz. They are here. I also, very kindly, Tom Luniewski is the owner of the road, who I know very well because he's a client. He offered to come to put on the record his support for the application. But most importantly, the fact that he is the owner of the road, and consents to any improvements that are to be made on this road. Page 106 of 13( 107 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Can we have the spelling on that name please? MS. MOORE: Come on up. MR. LUNIEWSKI: L-U-N-I-E-W-S-K-I CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. MS. MOORE: Tom, for the record, are you the owner of the road? MR. LUNIEWSKI: Yes, I am. MS. MOORE: And you've reviewed this proposal? MR. LUNIEWSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: And are you in support of it? MR. LUNIEWSKI: Yes I am. MS. MOORE: Later on, as we go through, well I'll do it right now. We have a proposal from ^' Corazzini Asphalt with respect to two alternatives. One is an asphalt mix. And the other is a crushed stone mix with respect to the improvements to the road for a dimension of 15 and by 210'. So the whole length of the road that is adjacent to East Enders property will be improved to the extent that the Planning Board, or the town, or you felt appropriate. We have two proposals, and we submit them both. And I've shown them to Mr. Luniewski. He is amenable to either proposal. And, certainly, I think, you might want to state, for the record that, are you happy that we're doing this? MR. LUNIEWSKI: I'm very happy. I was going to do it anyway. MS. MOORE: He's building a house behind, down John's Road, and, because he's the owner of the road, it's considered a long access road, long driveway for him. But recognizing the condition of the road the way it is, he knew he was going to have to make improvements for himself, for his own personal access. And certainly the fact that East Enders is going to do it is a plus for him. So, I'll put this on the record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we just hold this hearing up for one second, Lydia? We need to address the one special exception in Fisher's Island, because George is going to be leaving in the very near future. BOARD SECRETARY: We have a few minutes. CHAIRWOMAN: At 3:15, George? Page 107 of 136. 108 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: I've got to be out of here at 3:15. CHAIRWOMAN: So we'll continue. MS. MOORE: Keep going? You just tell me when you want us to stop. MR. LUNIEWSKI: I've got to make some phone calls. MS. MOORE: I think we're done. Do you have any questions of Mr. Luniewski? Because he's heading back to a job, and I don't want to hold him up. I took him completely out of order of what I was, my presentation. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a copy of that either or situation? MS. MOORE: I just put it on the record. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just put it on the record. MS. MOORE: Yes, Corazzini, I have another one if you want it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'd just like to study it. MS. MOORE: To make sure I got the right one. BOARD SECRETARY: Do you have any extras, Pat, for the other members? MS. MOORE: Let me see how many I have, yes. As I said, do you have any questions for Tom, before I hold him up? I was pleasantly surprised he was here in person. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one question I have is that you own the last lot on the right hand side? MR. LUNIEWSKI: Going down the road 400' from the Main Road, I own the last lot on the water over there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the water. So that's at the dead end? MR. LUNIEWSKI: It's a dead end past my house. The road goes another 600' past my house. MS. MOORE: If you just hold off for a second. I have, I don't know if this is the last version, but, I'll need this back, but I have my notes on it from Trustee's meeting, but I'll submit it. Just make a copy of it, and call me to pick it up. Page 108 of 13$,.. 109 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to see it one second. So this is the lot that's right after the bend. Is that correct? MR. LUNIEWSKI: It's on the bend, it's adjacent to Village Marina. Village Marina where they end is where my property begins. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're going to improve,just to that site? MS. MOORE: Well, they are going to improve 210' of it. He's going to improve up to the end of his property, or where his driveway... MR. LUNIEWSKI: If my neighbors want to improve more, I'll do the whole road. If everybody wants to chip in, or whatever... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what got my thoughts going when you were talking 400' or something of that nature. MS. MOORE: Well he's about 400' away. MR. LUNIEWSKI: I'm 400' away, they want to improve 200', halfway to my property. So I'm up for that,because it saves me a few thousand. MR. MOORE: And then to the extent that the rest of the neighbors, particularly the ones down at the end, if they want to contribute towards whatever difference it would be for Corazzini to do the balance. It would seem to me that's the appropriate time. But we obviously can't force anybody to make improvements to the road. CHAIRWOMAN: One thing we would like you to do is just stake that ROW. MR. LUNIEWSKI: I think it's staked right now. CHAIRWOMAN: Is it staked right now? Because when I was down there on Thursday it wasn't. Unless something happened, and I missed something. MS. MOORE: I will check. Either through you or East Enders, we can do it. Young &Young is the surveyor on both projects. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who did you buy the property from? MR. LUNIEWSKI: I bought it from Cardinale. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Continue. MS. MOORE: Can Mr. Luniewski be excused? or- Page 109 of 136._ 110 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. LUNIEWSKI: Cell phone, 455-9721. MS. MOORE: Why don't you put it on the record? MR. LUNIEWSKI: (631... MS. MOORE: Is anybody writing this down? CHAIRWOMAN: The tape is rolling. MR. LUNIEWSKI: (631) 455-9721. MS. MOORE: Okay. Sorry, I kind of went out of turn because of the way,his showing up. We have an application before you for the area variances to make renovations to the existing building. And you have, in your, in your file the dimensions of the existing building. Certain issues,just so you know, the timing of this, we made the application to this board. And I also submitted an application to the Planning Board (PB). The PB site plan application is in the process of preliminary review, in order to resolve issues before their time frames begin to run. Because from the time that a formal submission is made, they have to undertake a review within strict time frames. During that process, I met with the PB, and they were not very receptive, to say the least, and then after that, we received a copy of a letter that came as a memorandum to this board which raised certain questions or issues. I'd like to discuss those issues because it makes sense to go through. It will touch most of the points that I want to make with respect to this application. And what I've done is I put a memorandum together, which has the points numbered in my response in accordance with the numbered points that the PB makes. And I have some exhibits to support my position. The first point that they raise is the zoning of this parcel. As far as the town, the Building Department(BD), is concerned, this parcel is BI zoning. My client, I'll refer back to a pre-CO that was issued back 1985, back in 1985 the zoning has, to my knowledge, has not changed in this area. It referred to this property as BI. So when my client approached the BD before buying this property, did some due diligence,he was advised that it was a B zoning, B zoned, parcel. There was a pre-CO from '85 that reflected a B zoned parcel. And that's the position that the BD has taken in review of our application. And we concur with that. So, as to the first issue they raise. They then discuss the issue before this board about whether the use is permitted. What I did was I reviewed the definitions in the code. And the BD has taken the position for the past, to my knowledge, at least 12-15 years... CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to stop you right here. Because we are going to, the PB has indicated that they are going to request a formal interpretation of a deli take out. So we will conduct a hearing on that application. We are not going to do an ad hoc, though. You are free to say whatever you want. I'm just giving you a heads up that there will be a separate, a separate hearing on that issue, at the request of the PB. Page 110 of 136, 111 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: That's their prerogative to make that request. I would hope that's made in writing and given in due course. Because in all fairness to my client, they are coming up with this, really, they do not like, there have been numerous delis that have opened up in business zoning. This is the first time they raised this issue before this board. I find it in bad faith to begin with, and certainly objectionable. It's a delay tactic and the prior owner, Cifarelli, was put through the mill. This piece of property is a difficult piece of property, it's a small piece of property,but a pre-existing piece of property. And they've make every effort to sterilize this property through every owner/applicant that's come before this board or their board. So I find it very objectionable. But... CHAIRWOMAN: I understand your objections, they're noted. However, as you know, if a, any board or body, or official of the town would request and apply for an interpretation of this board,we're... MS. MOORE: That's fine, but you should propose the time restrictions on them so that we are not left 6 months waiting for, certainly they have the prerogative to make the application. They, they sent a memo back April 22 requesting it. To what extent you're asking of them a formal application so be it. But get it in right away. Because it's just unconscionable to punish a applicant based on a theoretical disagreement with the way the BD has chosen to interpret the code for the past 15 years. I just point out the position, pardon me? Okay. The position we take is that, if you look at the clear language of retail store, it specifically includes, it includes take out —' items, food and beverages. So what, I don't believe the BD has been in error with respect to the point because that's precisely what a food establishment, a deli, a deli is very broad definition. In Europe, you have delis that are anywhere from high-end to, to a sandwich on the street. There's a wide range of definitions for delis. That also applies, for the most part, in Southold. You've got a wide range of food retailers. I think that the code specifically addresses restaurants. This is not a restaurant. We obviously don't have room to make this a restaurant. That's where the difference falls in whether or not this is a special exception take out restaurant. I think you have to start with the basic definition in the code, which is take our restaurant. If you don't have a restaurant, you don't have a take out restaurant. That's what we have here. That's why the BD has been consistent and accurate in their interpretation. We'll go on the next point, because if I have to argue this all over again at a secondary hearing, I'll come in with additional paperwork, but you have my arguments here. And, in particular, in the `90's, I believe, the code was revised. It was to address the applications that were coming in, Wendy's and McDonalds. And that was the target, they couldn't, they wanted to avoid equal protection problems by targeting just those franchises. But, for the most part, that was the take out restaurant. Again, a restaurant is what was focused on. The third point is the fact that we need Health Department (HD). But we know that, we made an application, and the HD is about 6-8 weeks behind in just processing intakes. So, we have an application there, and it will be reviewed in due course. The access is certainly something that we are trying very hard to address. John's road, they question whether we had legal right. Well, I gave them a copy of a deed. It clearly stated that we had a ROW. It appears both in my client's title. It comes, I gave a copy of the deed. I think it's just intentionally trying not to read language to imply that we don't have a ROW. We have a ROW. Mr. Luniewski was here, fortunately, and he's in agreement, he's the owner, and he has no Page 111 of 136 112 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing objection to the proposed improvements. The issue of the access of, onto, excuse me, let me make sure, the access off of the ROW. That's an old road. There are certain homes that are there. I don't know, to be precise,how many, I don't want to question whether it's 7 or 4, you know, 7 residences and 4 vacant lots. It doesn't look that many,but we can look into that more carefully. Nonetheless, it's an existing road. And we have a right over it. And I makes sense to use it, to mitigate some of the traffic patterns that are created through a commercial use. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me understand something. Access to the parking lot to the rear then is proposed via John's Road? MS. MOORE: We have a plan that has a one-way ingress, egress. The choice is up to, if the PB wanted to be helpful, they would look at this plan and say, "given our expertise, we believe that you should go in through John's Road, and go out through the access on this property". That is one suggestion that was a possibility that we had internally. That could be the traffic flow. Could it go the other way? And I've spoken to two neighbors now that say, you know it seems that their experience living on that road, that they thought it would make more sense to come in on the property through the access of the property on the property itself, and go out John's Road. My client is amenable to either traffic pattern. It's really a question of site plan. And maybe the DOT may tell us which they think is the more appropriate through their engineering. So we are providing the access, the best possible access, given the nature of the size of the property. Let's see, the access onto Rt. 25 is, I'm sorry the 34' wide ROW, I think it's 35',but more or less, we t are willing to improve the 15' or more, whatever is appropriate, to get John's Road to a certain level of access and specifications. Then we get into some of the technical issues. One point they make is the proposed non-conforming building setbacks will preclude patrons for parking in front of the building, and eliminate any use of patron parking on the property along the ROW. We have no problem, we will put signage. The reason we have got as much parking in the back as we do, is we want to make our customers be comfortable to come in and find it inconvenient to park anywhere else. The layout of the building right now, takes all pedestrian traffic, all the traffic from the parking area into the building right from the entrance on the side. We are, I don't think you have a door on the front. No, there is no door on the front of the building. And it's possible we'll have some fencing along John's Road. So if anybody parks on Main Road, they are going to have to walk all the way down the driveway to come in. Or if they park on John's Road, they are going to have to walk either to the front, or all the way in the back, it's going to be very inconvenient. You are only going to do it once, and find out that's it's better to park in the parking lot than it is to park anywhere else. And that's all you can ask whereas to train your clientele and teach theirs that the way you set it up is the best way. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia, excuse us, George has got to leave. CHAIRWOMAN: We are going to have to take a break for 2 seconds. Going back to the AT&T wireless application. Everybody comfortable with what we heard today on the entire file and presentation? Okay George, I'll second that motion. Mr. Horning, have a wonderful trip back on the ferry, and I wish we were all going with you. Page 112 of 13f, 113 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's going to rain tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN: Well, we could fly back tonight. Thank you, George. I'm sorry to interrupt you? MS. MOORE: Do you want me to continue? CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. MS. MOORE: We're going to get to some of the issues with respect to the site plan. They make a point that the access off of, I'm sorry. They make a point that with respect to the access out of Hess gas station, and the fact they are making a change of zone application, somehow impacts us. I think quite the contrary. If, in fact, there's a change of zone application that they consider a Hess, a change to the Hess site plan, it would be the opportune time to correct what was obviously not considered. Because we have and have had a road cut on this property. I mean it's there now, you can see it. It's a pre-existing curb cut. If Hess is a problem, deal with Hess. We have a certain size property, we can't move it anywhere else. And we have a pre-existing curb cut. I hope that Hess does come in and get sit plan review so that they can address some of the traffic circulation that is from Hess gas station. Now as far as the parking and the aisle width. This made me because the aisle width supposedly has to be 22' in size. n CHAIRWOMAN: The aisle width in parking? MS. MOORE: The aisle width is the distance that is when a car backs out, there's a concern in the code, and it's codified, that when you back out you have sufficient, you have 22'. So there's room for another car. So it doesn't get hit obviously when you are backing out. We have the abilities to provide for a 22' aisle width if we just merely push the parking area closer to the property line. And we left a buffer area that could be vegetated. But given the design of John's road, you could put up a fence. And actually it would be better because it blocks the light even for car vehicles, excuse me, vehicle lights. It might work with a nice, you know, it doesn't have to be a tall fence, 4' high fence, something just to block the light from the vehicle. And we can push as close to the property line as you or the PB would like us to go. That is to comply with a 22' aisle width. There is a second paragraph under that same provision. And what I did is I attached it as exhibit C to the documents. And it says "unless reduced for a 60 degree angle parking, in which case the aisle space should be not less than 16' wide". Well, all it is, is we have a I-way access. All we have to do is angle the parking in whichever direction the town decides we should go, whether it's through John's or through the Main Road. I'll set the parking on an angle and you've got more than 16'. You've got 22 probably if not somewhere inbetween. So we could meet the code again if there was an effort here to assist the applicant in providing a good site plan, not to obstruct the development of the property. And I'm not directing this to Bruno, because Bruno and I get along really well. And this has nothing to do with him personally. So... CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. You were kind of focusing on the site plan issues. S- Page 113 of 136, 114 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Site plan issues, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And that's fine. I would like to go over the variance issues. MS. MOORE: The area variance? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, the variance issues. Let's take them one by one. MS. MOORE: Well, we've got... CHAIRWOMAN: There's some confusion between the board members and myself, so let's get right to that. MS. MOORE: Let's get to the questions, then... CHAIRWOMAN: Pardon me? MS. MOORE: Did you want to ask me specific questions? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. As far as the second use on the property? R MS. MOORE: What we are doing here is, and I attached, again, that the pre-CO that was attached for multiple reasons of the zoning,but also to establish that we have a mixed use here. It's been, prior to zoning, it's been both residential and commercial use. The trailer is primarily a residential use. And what we have tried to do is to make one for privacy so you don't have the commercial and residential so close together. You move the same square footage, and the square footage was like 3, I'm sorry, 407, I think it was. Whatever the square footage of the trailer, 360, pardon me, 360. We move the 360 sq. ft. from the trailer, and just put it onto the 2"d story of the building. So we're not changing, we're not adding uses. We are merely relocating the uses, which the board has, on numerous occasions, looked at and considered given the circumstances and appropriateness. CHAIRWOMAN: Why not just have it as an accessory apartment? MS. MOORE: Well, because for one, it's a permitted existing use. So, an accessory apartment I think is a special pertnit, right Al? In this zoning district? I think it might be. Off the top of my head, I'd have to look. But the accessory apartment law has, has some caveats and conditions to it. CHAIRWOMAN: Minimum size. MS. MOORE: Yes, minimum size. Now, we have no problem enlarging the apartment to meet the minimum size requirements. But we were trying to do a like kind exchange, a like for like. Page 114 of 136 115 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Taking the same square footage without an increase,because we thought maybe we could persuade the BD that, you know, we're not increasing the size of the nonconforming, and therefore just moving it. But since we were here anyway, they prefer to include it all in one. BOARD SECRETARY: Excuse me, there's no special exception to that, right? MS. MOORE: No, no, no, no. She asked me the question, why wouldn't we make it as an accessory apartment. We actually waited, we waited to resubmit until the Town Board thought about the accessory apartment law. Because they had a public hearing on it, they thought about it. But because of the master plan, the study that's going on,they didn't want to approve it, separate and distinct from the planning study that's being undertaken. CHAIRWOMAN: I thought it was approved. MS. MOORE: No, it didn't get approved. You have an accessory apartment law on the books. No, I mean I know, for sure, it was tabled. Because I waited to see if they approved it that night, I was going to come into the BD. They had no problem with it. But because it wasn't approved, they tabled it. I had to proceed with a nonconforming, you know,the relocation of the nonconforming use to the 2r'd floor. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things, as far as the second use on the property, you're looking for a quick pro quo. And what I'm saying is you have a couple of options in handling that. You can handle that as an area variance to the area of special exception. In that you don't need it, it's 450', what's the minimum requirement? I don't know. MS. MOORE: 450' is the minimum. What I'm saying is there is no special permit, there is no need for an application if you have a pre-existing non-conforming. The use itself is... CHAIRWOMAN: Those are a couple of the options. MS. MOORE: Sure, if we did not have a pre-existing non-confonning, we could have made an application separate and distinct. Pretend that the mixed use wasn't there. We could have come in on a special exception application for an accessory apartment. Did I answer your question, then? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. I understand. The other thing is we do have the maps that you had presented, you know, the original survey. What is very difficult to see though, because I have these little maps. These little blueprints. Excuse me, the little 8 %2 x 11 maps, showing the proposed construction and the existing construction, but it's kind of rough to see that in, I know on the engineers whether on the survey. The survey does not show us what's existing. I wish we could just see something that shows us... MS. MOORE: I might be able to explain it very simply because it is very simple here. You have, existing, along the front property line, 15.2. If you add the 8., or the, I'm sorry, 6.8, I'm c- Page 115 of 136 116 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing looking at it upside down. 6.8, that jog behind the front, there's like a front box, then there's a middle box, then a side box. The front, what they did is, for purposes of, they said for purposes of, they said, well, if I have to come in for a variance,why don't I square it off and just square off where the existing front box is 15, we're asking for 22.2. It's the, tell me if I'm right, 6.8 plus 15.2, what's that add up to? 22 something. CHAIRWOMAN: I have 9.7 and 12.5 on this plan. MS. MOORE: Which plan are you looking at? Because I'm looking at the architect original. I'm sorry, I just didn't have the other one open. Okay, 12.5 was the existing Q section, right? CHAIRWOMAN: Correct. Then you're showing a new section that is 9.7. MS. MOORE: Right, right, what they did is they boxed in the 6.8. These numbers don't match What it is, I have an architect that did Christopher Stress. I don't know if it's accurate. I'm going to stick to the one that we know, Mr. Pike... CHAIRWOMAN: The one, the architects the 8 '/z x 11, architects plans are showing... MS. MOORE: Right. That's the one I have in front of me. CHAIRWOMAN: It's showing anew section that measures 9.7xl2.6. MS. MOORE: Correct. That would be a squaring off of the front of the building. CHAIRWOMAN: That also brings you closer to the front yard. Because you're doing that. MS. MOORE: Because the building is on an angle. That's the only addition to the structure itself, but then the stairway to the second floor, the architect recommended an exterior staircase because you have a kitchen in the building. You want to try to keep a separate and clear access pass, that's why the stairway goes and it pushes all the way to 1' off the property line,because it's just the stairway, an exterior stairway to the 2nd floor. And the exterior staircase actually does not show on the plan by Mr. Pike. It's shown by the surveyor. And what it does is the stairway just, the 3.4, it's 3', the stairway is 3'. The 3' stairway with a platform up at the top so it gives the chance for the door opening out and clearance for the open door. CHAIRWOMAN: Let me ask you a question on all the proposed additions, why not put everything to the back. Why encroach on the 5 which are practically at 0 lot lines and in toward the road? MS. MOORE: Well, to begin with the kitchen is in the back. And we can't mix, we have to segregate the kitchen with fire-rated materials around it. So the way that this has been designed is the retail portion is in the front, and that kind of pushes, kind of forces the situation a bit because it makes the retail area, trying to square off the retail area. To make it, because it's a Page 116 of 136 117 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing f very small building. Obviously it's a very small building. What we thought, I mean we did try to think on our feet as far as how we could improve upon this. And the reason we have the existing setback to the front is because we are trying to take the pre-existing structure expanding upon that, and that's what creates the greater encroachment to the front. I asked my client, even though it's, would cost more in construction. Could we move the building back some? We have some 5', certainly less than 10',but we certainly have 5'. We could push'the building back 5', but it would require your kind of, as alternate relief,because the variance, you know, we've got existing setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's get to another point. When I went down and looked at the building, and I'm definitely no engineer, it really does look like it does need a lot of work. And structurally, I have to say that if it was my own house, or if I was thinking of buying it, I would have to, I would want to get an engineers certification that the existing structure could support... MS. MOORE: Well, we have the architect here. You're, you're right. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm talking about engineer's certification. Because what I don't want to see here, and what the board doesn't want to see here, is construction going on, and oh my gosh, look, it's not structurally sound down to the foundation. Oh gee,we have our footprint, and it's going up again. It's not. Period. So, a couple of things, ideas, it's a very tough spot. It's a very though spot. It's very small. I think everyone would like to see it improved. It's right on the road. How do we get it off the road? First of all, we can knock off that 12' existing section. The i first thing to do, and I'm very serious, the first thing to do is get engineers certification that the existing structure, the integrity of the existing structure is strong enough to support a second floor. That's the first thing I want to say. MS. MOORE: Right. It's essentially going to be renovated. So to the extent that it needs foundation work. It needs additional structural supports. It needs, you know, fire rated materials around the kitchen. So you're going to see, to the extent that you keep the walls up, there's going to be a lot of construction to bolster everything that's there. So it's not going to be a bulldozer tear down. But it is going to be the way that we preserve pre-existing setbacks here is to retain, to the extent you can,with structural elements to add to the existing wall. And we are definitely... CHAIRWOMAN: That's what I'm saying, we're not going to preserve a pre-existing setback because right now, you need a variance for it. Right now there's a lot of concern about the location in terms of long term planning, in terms of the PB. You said it yourself. It's going to be a long hoe. So rather than trying to preserve the existing setback, why not think about moving the whole darn thing back? You know a lot of that work is going to come down. You know a lot of the structure is going to come down. So let's talk about that. MS. MOORE: That's fine. We can talk about, let me show you a different, we looked at that, we looked at a rectangular plan. And I have it just as a working drawing because it's just... s Page 117 of 136,, 118 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, this is the time to do it. This is the time to... MS. MOORE: That's why we are here. We are here for that reason as well. CHAIRWOMAN: The board secretary, having a better memory than me on something, the local law with respect to apparent apartments, accessory apartments has been adopted. BOARD SECRETARY: It was adopted on May 6th and it was certified to us on resolution number 277 of the Town Board. MS. MOORE: Accessory apartment law? BOARD SECRETARY: Yes. For the B zone. MS. MOORE: Oh, got that far back on the table. Okay, sorry, that's good. We still have, it's still the same conditions here because... BOARD SECRETARY: There are different conditions. It's a little different. MS. MOORE: Can I get a copy of that? \E� BOARD SECRETARY: It is also with the Town Clerk's office. MS. MOORE: It doesn't change the fact that we have a pre-existing here. So, is it as of right? Or is it by special permit? BOARD SECRETARY: Subject to conditions and BD review. MS. MOORE: Okay,but it's not a special permit. BOARD SECRETARY: It's not a special permit. MS. MOORE: I knew that was coming in, that it was an improvement on what was there. So okay. BOARD SECRETARY: But it also says it can't be more than 40% of the principal building. So there are other limitations on it. CHAIRWOMAN: Well you can review that. MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll, I'll look at that. Okay. What we have is Young &Young trying to come up with an alternative here that takes kind of the same square footage,but in this instance, obviously, we have not pushed the building back. We could. We agreed that it was not a problem. We didn't want to push, I mean you have Hess right there. You've got Hess's sign. Page 118 of 136,,, 119 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing You've got the best place for the parking is the back. Wouldn't you agree? You wouldn't want to have all the parking in the front. It's just, the traffic circulation makes sense to have the parking the way it is. Whether we demolish and rebuild, either way. But certainly, we could push the building back. CHAIRWOMAN: You could push the building back, get rid of the stairs on the landing, incorporate that into, so that it's not so close from the property line. Instead of trying to have the building... MS. MOORE: Well we were kind of hamstrung, I agree we were hamstrung by the fact that the pre-existing structure is where it is,but there is still a recognition of a pre-existing structure. CHAIRWOMAN: It's recognized,but so what? MS. MOORE: Well... CHAIRWOMAN: In practical terms... MS. MOORE: Well put it this way... CHAIRWOMAN: In practical terms if you can't get approvals for it, or if you're not going to get approvals for it, an expansion in the existing footprint... . y MS. MOORE: Well we try to be reasonable as well. Certainly business zoning requires 100' setback. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think you're going to make it. MS. MOORE: No, we wouldn't do that anyway. It wouldn't make sense. You'd be cutting the property in half and the parking would be bisected. You also have a nonconfonning lot provision that is applicable here, and you have a front yard setback of 35'. So that's... CHAIRWOMAN: What's the nearest setback on the, you have Hess on, what's the nearest on the east? MS. MOORE: East? On the other side of John's road is a house, the brown house with a stairway that goes up to the second floor. The owner is right here as a matter of fact. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the setback on that? MS. MOORE: How far are you from the road? ROBERT MILLER: Front edge? 6- Page 119 of 136-1-1 120 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Yes, it's pretty far back. Yes, it's very far back. But your property is very big. BOARD SECRETARY: I can't hear, and we don't have a name. MS. MOORE: Sorry. LUCK MILLER: My name is Luck Miller. MS. MOORE: Luck Miller is the owner of the brown house. BOARD SECRETARY: What was your answer? MS. MOORE: It's very far back. MS. MILLER: 40? MS. MOORE: It's more than that. No, it's at least 60' back. BOARD SECRETARY: Sorry, I didn't want to forget you either. What's your name,please? ROBERT MILLER: Oh, I'm Robert. CHAIRWOMAN: I think what we really need to think about here is creating a building envelope. Not how can we tack on to something that, quite frankly,unless you can prove it to me through an engineers report that says we're not going down to every wall, or let's look at a building envelope that's going to give a very reasonable setback from 25. Wipe out that angle that creates the 2' setback. MS. MOORE: Well, to a certain extent,because it should parallel the Main Road. I mean visually... CHAIRWOMAN: Pat, some of the most beautiful designed buildings, architects are very creative. MS. MOORE: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's look at that. It looks like a long-range plan that will be workable, and won't severely impact traffic, or the neighbors, or something else. MS. MOORE: Okay. Well... CHAIRWOMAN: That's pretty much where I'm coming from. Page 120 of 13k 121 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: We will listen to whatever recommendations, again, I'm frustrated because the Planning Department could be so helpful here. And they're not, no offense, Bruno. Young& Young is a very good engineering firm. They have come up with, I think a site plan that looks good. The placement of the building obviously is up to us. And we have room to push it back. It's at least 20', I think. If I'm reading the, if 24 is the width of this, that's got to be at least 20. So, not pushing it back to the first parking lot. CHAIRWOMAN: If you look at the space, I don't have a ruler with me but I think you can come back to get a setback on that property of at least 40'. MS. MOORE: You're going to eliminate parking. You don't want to do that. CHAIRWOMAN: Take a look at where, I don't have a scale with me. I wish I had. MS. MOORE: That's why, no, I was looking, look at the size, the width of the building is 24. If you just... CHAIRWOMAN: Look behind the building. Directly behind the building. On the new plan that you just showed me. MS. MOORE: Yes, it has a handicapped parking space there. `7 CHAIRWOMAN: That's quite a distance back. MS. MOORE: Right, and that measurement is about 20'. That's what I'm saying. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that what you're saying? MS. MOORE: Yes, that's what I'm saying. And we have no problem pushing it back as far as possible so we still retain that parking space that should be close to the building anyway. That's the area we could push back. .CHAIRWOMAN: And the parking spaces that you are showing would be for retail, or take-out restaurant, or under what? MS. MOORE: Pardon me? It's retail. I mean you see the inside, the layout of the unit. It's not a restaurant. That's, no, we could work out that. Now do we, well we'll talk to Planning about maybe it's appropriate to put parking in the front so that people on the Main Road are not. I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: Jerry, do you have any thoughts on this? You and I are usually on the same page on stuff like that. s Page 121 of 131G` 122 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No I actuallywant to stud the idea of another building. But I have Y g big problems with the use of John's Road as either ingress or egress. I'd like to see you use the same existing driveway as ingress and egress, and push the building over as close to possible. If it's utilized at all. I just think that road impacted is a heck of a problem. But that's my opinion. MS. MOORE: We would obviously respectfully disagree that one-way traffic might work best here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I couldn't agree with you more,but the availability of that driveway... MS. MOORE: What driveway, I'm sorry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Johns Road. I suggest it only be used for emergence access for particular reasons. Similar to what we did with McDonalds. MS. MOORE: What? No, the use of Johns Road was crucial to the purchase of this property. Without the easement, they wouldn't have bought this property. Because they knew that circulation is important to have it the way it's been designed. Plus also their agreement to improve Johns Road is to use Johns Road. If you're only going to use it for emergency access, well, one it's going to create a problem because people aren't going to realize it's just for ri emergency access. And secondly, you know, you're not going to improve a road to be used as a primary access just for emergency vehicles. That's just not reasonable.to expect of anyone. Plus you'd have to have a circulation. A turning, turning with inside the property that is going to just create traffic problems inside the property as well. Let me go into what this,because maybe we're getting an idea of what the use is here that's going to be much more intensive than, respectfully, to my client,which they'll actually have. They have, they have, their idea, their dream child here is to do something like Citerella's or a very high end, very, I'm not going to say limited in it's menu,because it's a very diverse menu. But it's not standard fare. And what I asked them to do, and they did a beautiful job of a menu. Now this menu has everything they could possibly make, obviously. So on a particular day, they'll have a selection of items from this menu. But when you look at this, you will see that it is not, not Wayside Market, it's not Grateful Deli, it's not Apple Tree, whatever deli. It's very exclusive. It's very different. They think there is a need for it in Southold. Obviously they wouldn't invest... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, you've got to give that to Linda. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I didn't give you enough. I only have a few. I think what we are visualizing is much more traffic than what I think would actually be at the site. CHAIRWOMAN: How many seats were you planning? Page 122 of 136 123 May 15, 2003 j Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing t MS. MOORE: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN: How miny seats were you planning? MS. MOORE: Seats? There are no seats. Counter, a couple, like 4 or 5, counter, maybe like stools. Maybe if there's room. CHAIRWOMAN: We were talking about if we were to do something similar to what we did with Dickerson, which was to create a, say here's the property, and let's look at a reasonable building envelope on the property. Because there's a possibility that the whole building may not be there, or whatever. MEMBER ORLANDO: Relocation. CHAIRWOMAN: So, we're talking about... MS. MOORE: I gave you a plan that Young&Young prepared. MEMBER ORLANDO: The rectangle. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I didn't know... MEMBER ORLANDO: But the rectangle's kind of just boxing off the whole thing existing. We already addressed that. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. Taking that, let's assume we take that or something close to it, yes, straighten and push back. There is about 20' of green area behind the building that is before you get to the handicapped parking space that gives us room to push back. That would snake certainly a lot of sense. MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the"minimum width of the asphalt driveway? MS. MOORE: Which side, I'm sorry. MEMBER ORLANDO: West side. MS. MOORE: Well, we have here, it varies, I mean, you have, from the ramp... MEMBER ORLANDO: Is 10' the minimum required? MS. MOORE: For a driveway? MEMBER ORLANDO: On that side of the building. s Page 123 of 136,,_ 124 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: I don't know if there is a minimum to be honest. We have 12, it's a variance from 13, almost 14 to 12 to 14.6. CHAIRWOMAN: But that's what's existing. That's not to the property line. In other words, to the property line... MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. There might be a few feet more to go right to the property line. Yes, if you straighten it out and you blacktop right to the property line. You could actually squeeze a lot more out of it. CHAIRWOMAN: You can also turn that around. MS. MOORE: Turn what around, I'm sorry. Yes, straighten the building. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because now when the person comes down the stairs, they don't trespass off, I mean you come down those stairs basically on the ROW. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The stairs should be in the back of the building. MS. MOORE: We tried that, but it's right where the kitchen is. And you can't put egress for an apartment over a kitchen. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then put it internally into the building. MS. MOORE: That's a consideration, sure. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, what I think we'd like to do then is to look at some other plans. Get the engineers report... MS. MOORE: What engineers report? CHAIRWOMAN: The engineers certification so that we all know what's there and what's coming down. MS. MOORE: We'll concede that we'll take it down and build back. I don't want to waste their time or money on getting reports when we will orally amend our application to rebuild in an area within the original footprint,but pushed back. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's start from this. Let's really think about getting this as far back from Rt. 25 as possible. That's the first priority. Look at, think about this in terms of it being a brand new, virgin piece of property. And here's what you want to do. And here's what we can do that S Page 124 of 136-__ 125 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing will work in the neighborhood that will respect the setbacks,the guidelines, the concerns of the neighbors, concerns of the PB, and look in that direction. Does that sound reasonable? MS. MOORE: If I knew, yes, I'll work on it. But we'd like to keep, I think, the parking and the layout the way it is. Because, again, it's a very narrow property. And Young &Young took an awful long time to squeeze what they got here. Could we push the asphalt over? If you don't have curbing on the asphalt, you could go right to the property line. Or maybe even curve up to the property line. You have Hess that's kind of sloppy over there anyway. So we could certainly take the asphalt... CHAIRWOMAN: It kind of drops, is what it does. The parking lot is like this. MS. MOORE: Yes,there's a grade change, right. CHAIRWOMAN: And then this property... MS. MOORE: So we might actually have a small retaining, it's really a curb, partial retaining wall, curve that goes along your property line that opens up the access as much as we can. Also straightening out the building to a certain extent will expand that area, the entrance by, certainly, I think, a good foot. We'll look at the stairway, eliminating it as an exterior staircase, okay. CHAIRWOMAN: What's shown on the ROW now, on the Johns Road? Is that the actual way i� it appears on the... MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: It is. It's irregular like this? MS. MOORE: Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN: It's irregular shaped? MS. MOORE: Yup. It kind of meanders back and forth because there are some trees. So I think that, you know, we asked Corazzini to improve 15',blacktop 15'. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the total width of the ROW? MS. MOORE: 35, 1 think. CHAIRWOMAN: And when they improve the ROW, are they improving it? Are they going to improve it in the middle of the ROW to one side of the property line, ever? Is that something that's been discussed? MEMBER ORLANDO: The real property line east, probably. Page 125 of 4 126 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Yes, I mean if there's a large tree, and you don't want to remove the tree. You may want to, you know, respect some of the vegetation that's there to the extent that it gets pushed in one direction another. As long as you're within the 30' ROW, there's flexibility there. Corazzini, I think, to a great extent,uses kind of intuition as he goes through and paves. We can have Young&Young try to draw it in,but I don't want to delay it. We will improve it within that area and we can agree that's it's going to be improved to a width of,well we'll have to double check, if we can improve it to a width of 15'. But that's what we're paying for Corazzini to do. So, to the extent that there isn't any obstruction on the road that would be an impediment. CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we give people in the audience a chance to voice their concerns. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? FRANK MILOWSKI: My name is Frank Milowski. I own 2 properties on John Road. I've lived there a little over 35 years. And as far as the width and getting out on that roadway in the summertime is quite awesome. The width of that ROW is 25'. And it runs back another 100'. And then it opens to 33'. Like I say, I've lived there over 35 years. Mr. Luniewski, or whatever his name is, claims to, all of a sudden, own this. He's bought a piece of property there. He doesn't have a home there. I have 2 pieces of property, and 2 homes there. And I think whatever a deli would do would impede, god forbid my house was on fire, and there's traffic from the deli holding up the emergency vehicles. And basically that's it. I don't see how Mr. Luniewski can claim the ownership of the ROW, and say"it's okay, go and do what you want with it". CHAIRWOMAN: We will ask for proof of fee title. MS. MOORE: Fine. I can do it. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll ask for proof. MS. MOORE: You have a survey also that the surveyor actually, he takes a description of the property based on title. So that's why I gave you the survey, the Luniewski survey that includes the fee title. MR. MILOWSKI: He's gonna, he'll probably benefit from this also with the paving of the road because he bought the property. The property, from my estimation, is unbuildable, that he purchased. And he also took an excess road 33', which went to the rear lots, to put his house setting on, so he could pass with the DEC. And his sewer lines would run on this ROW, his waterway, or his fresh water system would be across from the 33' ROW, which is, to me, it's taking a lot of advantage of something, I don't know what. So, if you can show me, or the attorney can show me how all of a sudden he owns all this stuff by buying the last lot in the area from Cardinale who couldn't build on it himself. And the lot's been existing for quite a few years. S Page 126 of 1316: 127 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking about his lot, not... MR. MILOWSKI: Mr. Luniewski's lot,yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Not the lot in question. MR. MILOWSKI: It's not the lot in question,but the idea is, you know,he's saying"the ROW is mine". "I don't live there, I don't care, go ahead,pave it, do whatever you want, you know, that'll help me." I've lived there for 35 years. I've done well without having a paved road. And the traffic is horrendous in the summertime. So to add to the impact of the traffic with a deli being right in my driveway. And, certainly, with these people saying they bought that with the idea that they had the ROW also which I believe is false. That's why the previous owner put up a hedge. CHAIRWOMAN: They do have a deed saying they have the right to use the ROW. We do have that in the file. MR. MILOWSKI: I'd like to have a look at that, please. CHAIRWOMAN: You're more than welcome, sir, anytime you want to come and look. MR. MILOWSKI: Okay because I was just there with some other. I haven't seen it. Thank YOU. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else? Yes sir. JOHN SAWICKI: Ladies and gentlemen,board of appeals, Ms. Moore. John Sawicki, I own the property right across the street from this gentleman's proposed whatever he's going to make here. I wish you all the luck. However, I don't see how this man is going to survive in business. We have so much traffic in this little area. It's probably the most congested area in Mattituck. You know, you have one of the main arteries for the east end. You have Bay Avenue, Legion Avenue. You've got a bank on one side, Hess gas on the other side. You have my office, which I've been there for 35 years. And if there's not an accident a week in the summer, you know, there's 2. Most of your deli traffic, unless you're going to have a special clientele that comes in at not peak hours, are going to be coming from the east. And coining from the east early in the morning, coming from the west, All right. You're going to have to stop, make a left turn, get into his place, Johns Road. No matter how he cuts the cake up front and the back, they still have to cross the road. You're going to back up traffic either way. You are going to have people coming out of the Hess gas station. You are going to have people, Legion Avenue, all over the place. And what his restaurant, or whatever he's going to have, is going to do, is going to congest the traffic on the Main Road more and more. Now you can't extend the size of the road to accommodate him or anyone else in that area. This is a core building area. And, I guess, local people look to outsiders to sell something off in hope that they are going to make a success out of it. I wish you well,but I'm telling you it's going to cause more of a major problem then we Page 127 of 13�;_ 128 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing already have. It's not even summer yet, and you can't make a left turn any place down there. I wish him luck. I've seen businesses come and go. And mostly they go. So, my concern and my neighbors concern, you might have a couple of written statements, it's not a good thing. It might be a very nice thing, the best thing in the world for Mattituck. But the location, I don't think is proper, for the people of Southold Town,not just us local people. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Yes, Bruno. BRUNO SEMON, TOWN SITE PLANNER: On behalf of the Planning Board, I'm Bruno Semon. I'm a Site Planner. And I want to submit something to the ZBA. Good afternoon ZBA. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. MR. SEMON: This is just, I was asked by the PB to address the use of a restaurant, take-out. And I realize you are going to have a public meeting, so it's not necessary to go. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you find out when that's going to happen, Bruno? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes,because the real tricky kind of issue we are getting into here is that if there's, you know, if we are going to do an interpretation, we have to advertise it. So there is no public notice(at this time). BOARD SECRETARY: You'll need to submit a form, and then there's a hearing procedure that follows. CHAIRWOMAN: We will take this from you, but to take testimony from you, at this point. MR. SEMON: I figured it was premature. I was requested to come down, so I'm doing that. CHAIRWOMAN: What we would ask is that if, you know, you comedown, and just,file an application with the board. The minute you file the application, we can get you calendared for a hearing. MR. SEMON: I'll address that tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN: And what we will do is we'll keep this, and put this as part of the hearing record. At which point you can come back and testify. But we have to advertise it. Okay? MR. SEMON: And just on behalf of the board, I think the PB would like to see this property develop. I think the concern is just safety in a general sense, and making sure that what is finally accomplished is something that's going to be long term and beneficial to the neighborhood environment and so forth. There's no roadblock on behalf of the PB. We have an incomplete application. It is going to be incomplete. It could take on some other submittals if the building Page 128 of 13(Y, 129 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing changes and the site plan is submitted. So we can review it, and hopefully come up with some input. CHAIRWOMAN: Maybe that's a good direction for you to head in,because I think we are on the same track that we've tried to create a building envelop and flow pattern that makes sense. --Rather than just saying, there's what's there, let's try to tack on. So, I think that would be good. MR. SEMON: It sounds like a great idea based on what Pat had testified. It seems like the majority of the building may have to be taken down and rebuilt, or structurally rehabbed. So it makes sense to reconfigure it for the best of the property. Thank you. MS. MOORE: I just have a couple more things that I haven't yet put on the record. It will be quick. Mattituck Chamber of Commerce(MCC) looked at this, and they have a letter in support of the application. Can I read it or, do you want to? It's very short, do you mind? CHAIRWOMAN: Go ahead. MS. MOORE: I know because not everyone's had a chance to hear it. I'm writing this letter on behalf of Board of Directors, MCC. Ms. Gail Dessimoz, and, Mr. Micheal Racz the principals of East Enders, Inc. are about to open a high-end food establishment in Mattituck. The business that they plan to open is both a needed entity and a plus for the community. East Enders, Inc. has informed us that for the convenience of their customers they are building a parking lot and planning on paving the ROW, John Street, so their customers will have an easy in and out traffic flow to the Main Road. Their plans also include the redesign of the building's frontage on the Main Road, which is what is needed in that part of town. As you are well aware of the eyesore directly across the street. East Enders, Inc. will be hiring local people, enhancing the local economy. It is the opinion of the Board of Directors of the MCC, that this business would be a welcome establishment to the hamlet of Mattituck and we sincerely hope that you will work with them to achieve their goal of opening their business. So that was signed by George Solomon, President. I'll put that on the record. I also wanted to give you an idea, the building that they do plan to propose, and that's why I suggested that it would make sense pushing it back a little bit. The architect designed this. It obviously has to go to architectural review, but they are really putting an enormous amount into this building, so just to give you, here's the letter. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very nice. MS. MOORE: It is an enonnous community development project for this area. Yes, and, that was really all of our reactions, imagine pushing it back 10', you know whatever we can accomplish. Pardon me? CHAIRWOMAN: (inaudible) MS. MOOORE: Well; we have only 20. So to the extent we can massage it into there, again, not losing parking spaces, that's crucial. But pushing it back some. S Page 129 of 13, 130 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is this the minimum parking spaces that are required, Bruno? MR. SEMON: Excuse me? CHAIRWOMAN: Bruno? MS. MOORE: Does it meet the parking,Bruno? CHAIRWOMAN: The parking spaces that are on this plan, is that what would be required under retail, the retail category they are under now? MR. SEMON: Depending on the configuration, it's going to meet most of the requirements. It's slightly shy, so that would have to be a waiver because of the accessory apartment, and possibly where housing. So depending on the way the space is configured, it could be under, it may just make it as retail only. Definitely not anywhere near restaurant. MS. MOORE: Right. It's not a restaurant. But for sanitary reasons too, the Health Department (HD),we're not making this a restaurant. So consistent with all our applications,we are doing it as a... MR. SEMON: Actually, Mr. Orlando, you had asked about a question about access. It's in the Town Code, you need 15' for access. That is the town requirement. MS. MOORE: For the roadway? MR. SEMON: Well, the driveway, this driveway coming in. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the driveway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's ingress or egress. MR. SEMON: Either or, it's minimum access, 15' wide is what's required, so we're shy on that, as... MS. MOORE: But keep.in mind, we have a pre-existing curb cut that doesn't meet it now. CHAIRWOMAN: But what they are showing now doesn't go MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's ingress and egress? MS. MOORE: One... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One in or one out? Page 130 of 13� 131 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: 15' in or out. It's one way, it's ingress, egress. One road, 15'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask you, you know, Mr. Milowski, is a friend of mine in the back. I've known him for 35 years myself, okay? And I have to say that the only way this is going to work, the only,physical way this is going to work is if you widen Johns road, and you move this building over closer to Hess. And you create an ingress and egress on the mouth of Johns Road. You raise the elevation of the property, you don't have this downward slope going in, and it's the only way it's-going to work. So that you immediately make a right into their parking lot from Johns Road. And you improve the entire situation of what you have. This in and out on the same situation of a circular motion is definitely not going to work. It can't work. MS. MOORE: Okay, so your opinion would be to actually pick up the building,move it over towards Hess, a little bit back,not too much. Take the parking area, make it merge to the Johns Road access. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As only single, after... MS. MOORE: Parking, where does your parking,your parking goes in. You come in from Johns Road... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You make an immediate right in back of the building, and you go into their parking lot. That's the only way it could work. At the end of that, at the end of their property, a sign has to be posted that this is private property, and that no one is to go any farther than this. Because regardless of who owns it, it's a housing development. Okay, it doesn't house businesses. And that's the situation. MS. MOORE: Why don't you draw it right here? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no, no. The PB is much better versed in doing that, and I get in all kinds of trouble in doing these things. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is Johns Road a private road? MS. MOORE: Yes. MS. MOORE: It's privately owned. MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have to dedicate that road if you improve it like this? MS. MOORE: No. It remains private. Lumewski will own the road. We have ROW. So to the extent our ROW uses, you know, any part of that, we're allowed to. In and out of Johns Road. f Page 131 of 13¢C 132 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would come in and out on Johns Road,they would go in and out of your parking lot at the same point. It would be an in and out. None of this circular stuff. And the problem we have is we have a very nice lady who's lived there also for 25 or 35 years, so I've known her son for I don't know how long. And the same situation. MS. MOORE: You're essentially reversing, you're reversing the parking, moving, the building could be centered, or where ever because you're eliminating the access on the Main Road. CHAIRWOMAN: But you're accomplishing two things. You're getting it back, and you're getting it so you don't have to worry about the two accesses. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only problem you have is an impact on the neighbors. CHAIRWOMAN: The real issue here is... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've studied this... CHAIRWOMAN: You've got a lot of options. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've studied this access for as long as I've been a fireperson, and I have to tell you the access is a problem. And that's the problem. MS. MOORE: Okay. MR. SEMON: It's possible with the configuration,just mention that there will be additional parking, which would also make more sense by moving it. CHAIRWOMAN: You've come up with some creative ideas. MS. MOORE: I'll give you one of these. You red line it. MS. SEMON: You'll have to come in, and we'll address it. MS. MOORE: Oh we can do it together. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes why don't you do that. MS. MOORE: We just don't want this to be an inordinately long process because unfortunately, not your fault,but the original application was withdrawn and threw us months back. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, it's all predicated on the PB filing this interpretation. MS. MOORE: Maybe you withdraw your interpretation request, and we move forward. It's up to you. c Page 132 of 13q. 133 May 15,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SEMON: I think with respect to actually doing the site plan, a design professional, your design professional should configure it and come up with some ideas. And we can just do preliminary stuff. Bring it in, real sketchy,preliminary, and we can address it from that point. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, sounds good. MS. MOORE: Do we have a time frame on this application for the interpretation? CHAIRWOMAN: We really need to get that application in from you. MR. SEMON: It's beyond my control,but I'll my best to start it tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN: All you have to do is come down and,because it's the PB, we'll only charge you double. MS. MOORE: Put it this way, if they do not get it in, then you have to proceed with our application, and we'll, I don't see how they can come to a different interpretation. MS. SEMON: It would be a good idea to, the PB would prefer it be town wide and just deal with this issue at hand. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, time frame wise, what are we looking at here? MS. MOORE: What we are going to try to do, to move this along, Lydia, excuse me. What we are going to try to do is Pike, Mr. Pike is the architect. He could probably take this and since we are in the preliminary stages of the layout, do it relatively quickly for us. Because obviously Young&Young takes much longer time. So we can work with the configuration and then give it to Young&Young for site plan details, you know, the tweaking that the PB will then need. CHAIRWOMAN: I think the problem is that we are not going to be able to go too much further with anything until we get the interpretation. Because that has to do with... MS. MOORE: Well I have the BD that hasn't given an interpretation. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand that. But until the board looks at that, that will determine the number of parking spaces, correct, Bruno? MS. MOORE: Well you'd be overturning what the BD has been doing for at least 15 years. CHAIRWOMAN: We're not having a hearing now. MS. MOORE: No, I understand that. Page 133 of 13&-, 134 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: We're not having the hearing... MS. MOORE: I understand that, but if there's disagreement, there's a legislative branch. CHAIRWOMAN: It's late in the day. MS. MOORE: There's a legislative branch. CHAIRWOMAN: We will ask you to get that to us so we can calendar it. MR. SEMON: Certainly, I will ask about it. MS. MOORE: I would hope expedite a review for the PB, otherwise I end up waiting 4 months for my hearing. CHAIRWOMAN: Actually since it's going to be the PB application, I think we'll delay it for 10 or 15 years. What's a reasonable date to look at for a public hearing, Linda? BOARD SECRETARY: I would say if the PB application is filed tomorrow, we can advertise that Interrupted) CHAIRWOMAN: As part of this packet? For June? BOARD SECRETARY: No it's a separate application. MS. MOORE: It's a continuation of our hearing. BOARD SECRETARY: Actually, my thought is to get that done first. Because you need to have that finished before you can really respond to this application. CHAIRWOMAN: But we could have the PB's hearing in June, and then... BOARD SECRETARY: July 1" at the special meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: Want to carry it to July Ist9 BOARD SECRETARY: You wouldn't have a determination in writing until July anyway. MS. MOORE: For us, July is not, you know, it's a delay, but it's not too inordinate. CHAIRWOMAN: By July, we wouldn't even have a decision on it. BOARD SECRETARY: July 241h we could. Page 134 of 131� 135 May 15, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: July 241h, because by that time we will have had the hearing on the interpretation, and rendered a decision on it. But it's not going to happen before that because we don't even have an application yet from them, to calendar it. MS. MOORE: We appreciate you trying to move it along. But let's put a time frame on them. Because if they don't put it on;then they can ask for an interpretation until they are blue in the face,but we want to proceed under the BD's analysis. If you overturn the BD, that's, we'll deal with that later. CHAIRWOMAN: Bruno, I'd really appreciate it if you'd come down and get that application tomorrow. We go out for legal notices to the paper, Tuesday. We are going to do a resolution to adjourn this hearing until July 241h at 1pm. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION. (Prepared by Jessica Boger from tape recordings) Page 135 of 1