Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/19/2003 HEAR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS HELD JUNE 19,2003 (Prepared by Jessica Boger) Present were: Chairwoman Lydia A. Tortora Member Vincent Orlando Member Gerard P. Goehringer .. Member George Horning(until 4:15) Member Ruth D. Oliva Board Secretary Kowalski PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9:38 am KENNETH CERRETA#5282 (carryover from 5115). 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' for a single side yard,less than 25' for total side yards, and less than 35' from the front lot line, at 1655 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Parcel 53-4-6 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? KEN CERRETA: I'm in favor of the application. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm shocked. MEMBER OLIVA: I wonder why. MR. CERRETA: They did away with the 2-car garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Could you speak into the microphone? It may be a little hard to pick YOU up. MEMBER OLIVA: Just turn the microphone around. That's right. MR. CERRETA: Eliminated the 2-car garage, made it a one car. And put it back almost even with the house. But the garage next door is like 5' past my house, so we tried to make a little porch there,just for aesthetics, more than anything else. And I hope that's okay. " CHAIRWOMAN: I see that you brought it back, you did not bring it back level with the house as we had discussed. What was the reason for that? 2 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. CERRETA: The garage next door sticks out 5' past the front of my house, so we thought that would be alright, you know. It's even with that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What's the setback then, Mr. Cerreta? What's the proposed setback? MR. CERRETA: 30' MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 30' from.Bay Shore Road? MR. CERRETA: Right, it's now 35. CHAIRWOMAN: If it's coming out 5', your survey is showing 34.7. So, 34.7 minus 5 would be 29.7. The real problem is, as we said, the house right now is almost 100' long on the property. And the board was not in favor of extending anything out beyond the... MR. CERRETA: The house isn't 100' long, Miss. CHAIRWOMAN: What is it? MR. CERRETA: It's about 70'. - CHAIRWOMAN: 70' long. And the addition is still going to bring you 4' from the property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: We had said we didn't have a problem with that last time, though. CHAIRWOMAN: If he came all the way back. MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what the board's comments are, Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I'll hold off for a minute. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have absolutely no objection to it. I do concur with the applicant that breaking that up a little bit is a very good idea, not only aesthetically. And the difference between 29.7' and 34.7' doesn't bother me. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. Page 2 of 125 3 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Bearing MEMBER ORLANDO: I concur. I know we spoke last time about making it even with the house because no other garage was forward. I don't recall off the top of my head, but I believe you if your garage is even with your neighbors garage, that's fine. We had a problem last time being so close to the only one in the neighborhood. Now if you are typical in your neighborhood, that's fine by me as well. MR. CERRETA: Well I was mislead to believe that what I proposed the first time was okay. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I would agree with Mr. Orlando. CHAIRWOMAN: So this would be 29.7, right? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: 29.7 to Bay Shore. And this is per the revised site plan of June? MEMBER ORLANDO: And you're accurate with 4' off the northeast property line, is that correct? MR. CERRETA: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The survey, was the survey amended here? I'm trying to figure out how we can identify it on the survey. Because the new plan... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The new plan submitted on June 41h, received by us on June 4th CHAIRWOMAN: Yeah, but it doesn't show anything. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can write it in. CHAIRWOMAN: So it's 4' to the adjoining property for the June 41h ZBA stamped plan. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: 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 Page 3 of 125 4 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 9:41 am E. and R. TRIPPE #5300 & 5308 (carryover from 5115). Based on the Building Department's January 21, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, applicants request Variances under Sections 100-33, Section 100-31A, to construct 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: 6-3-6.1. (Amended floor plans may be submitted by attorney 6/19) CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Good morning Mr. Ham. STEVEN HAM, ESQ: Good morning. When I left last month we had a number of open issues, which I've addressed in a supplemental memorandum, which I trust you received yesterday, along with revised plans. Those issues concern first was the design. The Trippe's have gone back to the drawing board. Their architect has eliminated the full bath. Cut the size of the bath in half, eliminated the interior fire place, and put the shower outside. That should be sufficient to avoid the violation of code section 100-31A. I'm told by the Building Department(BD)that, that would, if the location were acceptable, that would not be a problem. So I think that issue has been eliminated. So we are left with the issue of the size of this structure, it's location and proximity to lot lines, and whether it should be a separate structure, or attached to the main dwelling. Insofar as the size of the structure, I discussed with the Trippe's, after our last hearing, I'm advised that they keep two vehicles, a number of kayaks, and other equipment on the island, and really need a 2-car garage. Otherwise the cars would be in full sight. Also they propose to put a ping-pong table in that exercise room. So it does need to be of sufficient size for that reason. I also point out, in the memorandum, that the increase in lot coverage, leaving the footprint as it is, is relatively minor, and still well below the 20%maximum. As far as the location near the side lot line, I've done an analysis in that memorandum, and I've since spoken to the real property tax service agency who concurs with my conclusion that the easterly Trippe property line is not the same as the westerly Howard property line. And they have revised a tax map. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham, we just got this yesterday, your memorandum. And that's why, in the future, the board is not going to be able to review your submissions if you submit them the day before a public hearing. So that is going to further delay any action on this because we simply haven't had an opportunity the review the submission. MR. HAM: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: That's only going to delay the hearing because we won't be able to close it today because we haven't had an opportunity to look at it, nor has opposing legal council, which is standard operating procedure with us. Page 4 of 125 5 June 19; 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: I have the architect here, if you had any questions to present to him. Why the structure is... MEMBER ORLANDO: What lot number are we looking at on the tax map? MR. HAM: 6.1 is the Trippe lot. Current tax map shows what's now that little piece 9, that right triangular piece as part of lot 7. It's, they've changed it now to show, to change what Howard actually owns which is 7.1. And there's a little piece in there, which my research indicates is now owned by the utility company. So that although we appear to be 15' off of the easterly property line, there is additional area in there that would indicate that we're about 30' from Howard. I'm going to recommend to my client that they purchase that little piece from the utility company too, so that not only is there a lot increase, but the distance from the lot line, the Howard property line is much farther than it otherwise appears in the site plan that we have. MEMBER ORLANDO: Since the utility company owns that, do they have anything on that? MR. HAM: No, they probably don't know they own it. I'm fairly certain they don't know they own it because the tax map has never shown this until 2 days ago when I presented this evidence to Dennis Gates at the, at real property tax service agency. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just tell you that you must tell them that they own it. Because if not the county will end up taking it for non-payment of taxes. MR. HAM: Well, I think, it may be included. I'm going to see Mr. Scott after this. It may be included in the Howard assessment. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, so it's a double assessment. MR. HAM: There is a deed, west end land company owned all this land at one point. And prior to the 1960's and conveyed it out to Oaks, which is Howard's predecessor, and to Opalenski. And the, well, you'll see when you get a chance to review my memorandum,but the point of giving you this today is that the real property also agrees with my analysis of this. So we are not as close to the Howard property line as it otherwise may appear. The final issue related to the location of the structure as a separate, or the construction of it as a separate structure as opposed to trying to attach it to the main dwelling. And that, I had, Mr. Horning had raised that issue at the last hearing and I suggested, well the expense of doing that might be great. I also point out, there are two other reasons why that would be not a feasible solution. One relates to a utility line easement, which goes through the area where that structure would have to be attached. The site plan, which the surveyor prepared, indicates that the easement is to be abandoned. And I was told that initially by Mr. Wahl of the utility company. I did call him back after- the Trippe's told me"no, that was an active easement". He checked with Page 5 of 125 6 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the telephone company that advised him that"yes, it does serve several properties to the east, so we have an easement in the middle of the area where the structure would have to be attached, an active easement". So that makes that impractical. Secondly, that is an area of the Trippe's property where they have done a fair amount of lawn maintenance, and landscaping. So while that's not as good a reason not to put it there, it's another reason, in addition to the easement, and the expense of attaching it. Sam Mitchell, who's the architect, is here. There are several questions, which I could not answer at the last meeting. Probably primarily the topography and why this is designed the way it is to fit into the side of a hill. If you have any questions of me, I'm happy to take them now, or if I can introduce Mr. Mitchell if you have questions of him. Again I apologize for the late delivery of those documents. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question of Mr. Ham? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes, Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham I have to tell you that, of course, we were discussing the size and the magnificence of the structure. And we were not necessarily looking at the placement of it other than the fact of where it was. I know that sounds a little redundant, at the last hearing. But now that you raise this issue and Mr. Horning just pointed out to me that the Trippe house really does crowd the rear property line. And because of the issue of that easement that you were discussing, I can see the reason for placing it in this proper position, in the proposed position I should say. CHAIRWOMAN: I can't hear you Jerry. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I said that the last time we were actually discussing the size of the structure, not really the issue of true location. I mean, we knew that the location was where it was,but... CHAIRWOMAN: The central thing was that it looked like a second dwelling, that it's designed as a second dwelling, that it's clearly not, as the BD said, is not an accessory, customary and incidental accessory structure as defined in our code. MR. HAM: And as you will see from the plans, and I'm again, I'm sorry for the late delivery of those. But the plans have been changed now. So we don't need relief from your board in terms of the design of it. It contains a half bath now. It contains no interior fireplace. And the shower has been placed outside as it would be with a traditional poolhouse. So, we would ask for variances for the location of the swimming pool and the detached accessory structure in the front yard. And that's all the relief that we need at this point. CHAIRWOMAN: Have you been back to the BD? That they have reviewed these plans, and they've made that determination? Or is that your opinion? Page 6 of 125 7 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. HAM: It was discussed with the BD at the time of the initial submission as to what it would take to not have them not issue a NOD as to design. No, I have not taken this specific plan back to them. However, it is my opinion based on their opinion and experience in reviewing these designs that, that would pass muster with them in terms of and as of right structure so long as it's location were proper under zoning. CHAIRWOMAN: Without having the benefit of the BD's review, we could not make that determination. I think there are a number of things that they base that determination on. And I, I simply could not take that without... MR. HAM: Right, I would, I can provide you with a determination from them if you need it,but the relief I would ask for would be merely if you could focus on the location, size and so forth of the structure in the front yard. I could even, I'd feel comfortable even withdrawing that aspect of the application. However, I will leave it on hold until I get a determination from them if that's what you would like. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes we would like you to take these plans back to the BD and get a determination if their original detennination still holds. Okay? You have someone you would like to testify? MR. HAM: Yes, I would like to introduce Sam Mitchell, who's the architect involved with the Trippe's. He's come here from Connecticut. SAM MITCHELL: I'm, excuse me, I'm Sam Mitchell, I was, I just want to discuss a couple of things about the design. One is the position relating to the topography of the site. As you can see from the side elevations, the structure is recessed into an existing grade so that on the garage level, the doors are exposed,but only visible is one story on the backside of the structure to decrease the apparent bulk. The other issue that I wanted to address was the possibility of attaching it. In addition to the interference of the easement, attaching this structure to the primary residence, would, in my opinion, increase the bulk and visual impact of this structure on all of the neighboring properties. By detaching it, we avoid a cumbersome connection to the structure, and that would increase the bulk, or the, or from the street, and impact the neighbors adversely for that reason. If there are any other questions about the architecture of the building that I can answer? CHAIRWOMAN: No, not at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? HELEN ROSENBLUM: Good morning, Helen Rosenblum 1287 E. Main St., Riverhead on behalf of the Opalenski's. If you're going to adjourn this, maybe I'll just reseive my comments until the next date. Page 7 of 125 8 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: You have no comments at this time? MS. ROSENBLUM: Well, you know, last time I was here, I said a lot of what you know, my clients felt. A lot of it hasn't really changed. The fact that the bathroom and stuff has been modified and the fireplace has been removed does not allay their fears concerning the size of the structure and that the structure, in their mind, is inevitably and definitely going to be converted for living space. They just don't see, you know, that issue as having gone away due to the size. I do, you know, I think the issue of the easement is a significant one. And Mr. Ham is going to furnish me with information concerning that. But as far as the need for a structure like this on a lot that is apparently substandard by a great deal on which there is no similar structure on any parcel in the immediate neighborhood concerns my clients very much. So really my comments have not really changed. I am going to get a copy of the memorandum and I'd like to review that too. And then the next time we are here if there's something additional that I think I can add I will. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Ham, what's the actual distance on a rear yard setback to the existing building? MR. HAM: 4.8' based on what was in the memorandum that I submitted last month using an old survey. They had done some renovation on the house but kept the rear line. MEMBER HORNING: I notice on the revised plans, there's still identification of an office in this proposed accessory building. What is the purpose of the office? MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Trippe owns his own business. When he's there on weekends or vacations, he brings significant work with him and wants a place outside of the main house where he can focus his attention. MEMBER HORNING: Will he be having clients and such at the office? MR. MITCHELL: No, his business is offshore. MEMBER HORNING: I have a concern for an office space in an accessory building in a residential... MR. MITCHELL: I think you can call it study more than office. It's not, as you asked, it's not a place where clients would come to meet him. It's a place where he would have a desk and a fax machine so he could... MEMBER HORNING: Office means a certain thing in the code. Study means something else. Page 8 of 125 9 June 19', 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. MITCHELL: It should be labeled study rather than office. CHAIRWOMAN: I think Mr. Horning is right. A home office is permitted in the principle dwelling. It's not pennitted in an accessory structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are doing a flip flop in Nassau Point on a similar situation right now. And I don't think we discussed this issue. We can flip flop the accessory building for the swimming pool and put the swimming pool, and put the swimming pool forward of that and put a link, some sort of link between this house and I know the architect just discussed the difficulty of doing this. But if you flip flop it and put the swimming pool again in the front or between the house, I'm sorry between accessory structure and the, which would then be linked to the house with some sort of enclosed, heated, porch. MR. HAM: Again I'd have to defer to Mr. Mitchell on that. MR. MITCHELL: I can't say that, that would not be possible, however the grade, the grade change from the street to the house is fairly significant. And we were using that, as I described before, to decrease the apparent bulk of the structure, keeping the garage parking below. If we moved it back and attached it to the house, we would have to excavate significantly more. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just don't know where this is going, Mr. Ham. And as you know I'm a bit of a facilitator and I try to allay some of the fears of the board in the past, and some of them have been successful. Nor am I trying to prolong this project. What I'm trying to do and I appreciate what you've done up to this point. But at the same time, as you know, we are not scheduled to go over there until early August, and so therefore not going to physically see the site. We are basically taking your testimony and, of course, our Fishers Island member. But I think there's a possibility that something like that could be worked out. I'm asking you if that's a possibility rather than... MR. HAM: That's something that I think the architect has to discuss with the Trippes. And he'd have to look at the feasibility of that, the expense, and so forth. The additional expense of earth moving. If you're telling us that you're opposed to... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not opposed to anything other than the fact that it's certainly a use, I mean, that we are not used to on an accessory structure. But, I mean, have we done it before, I don't think so. Have people done it before, yes. Is it primarily legal, no. MR. HAM: What use are you referring to? The office now, or? To have a study? Page 9 of 125 10 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Accessory use. CHAIRWOMAN: It does not appear to, it is not an accessory building as we know them. MR. HAM: I'm going to the BD and I will report on what they say. But as Mr. Mitchell said, this is not a home office in the traditional sense of home office where he's running a business out of there. It's a phone, and a fax machine, and a desk, and a computer, I guess, is the extent of it. And if you have concerns about that, we can, you know, certainly have whatever limitations you'd like to put on that. I don't think that's... CHAIRWOMAN: If we approve something like this, subject to an annual inspections, would your client be willing to have his permit revoked if we came back in a year and there were other uses in here? MR. HAM: Oh I think he intends to obey the law so that, that's I mean I will discuss it with him. But I don't see that as a, for anyone, as a problem. CHAIRWOMAN: Because if it's a home office, then it's... MR. HAM: I understand, having participated with the Patterson application. MEMBER HORNING: And they withdrew theirs and came up with... MR. HAM: After one hearing, so... CHAIRWOMAN: We want to get this going. Are there any other question? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Opposing council has not presented anything in reference to, and I know I'm not putting words in her mouth, I know her very well, regarding any screening or anything else regarding this property. I don't know if she's reserving that. MS. ROSENBLUM: I'm going to ask if I could just, I have something I'd like to address the board again briefly, not on that issue, but on the issue that when you are looking at the grandness of this structure, I think 1020' of which more than half, 630' is devoted to living space. I don't think it includes the office. I think that's just the exercise room on the 2"d floor. And there's an office. And there's a covered porch. I mean, I just think the thing is clearly not intended to be used as an exercise room. That's the concern of my clients. The screening issue, they are not on the same side. The structure is on the other side from them. I think there is an issue about the location being a self-created hardship. But I think on other issues other than the size of this I would ask you to just calculate the actual size of the covered porch, the size of the so-called exercise room. You need 630 sq. ft. I mean, to me, there's no question about what it's going to be. And that's, you know, bigger than the garage. So I would say the garage is almost accessory to this Page 10 of 125 11 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing dwelling, I mean, structure, rather than the other way around. And I would reserve other comments until the next time. Thank you, Jerry. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. MEMBER HORNING: One further question for Mr. Ham. Were the Oaks, or the Howards, were they actually noticed on this based on that sliver of land in between here? MR. HAM: No, they weren't required to be. They weren't on the assessment roll as owning that particular sliver. That's come to light only in the last couple of weeks. And, in fact... MEMBER HORNING: That's an unresolved issue. MR. HAM: Well, it's not entirely unresolved. I think it's fairly clear that the utility company, I'm going to get a title company to look at it as well, but based on my research and what the surveyor was able to tell me, and real property at the SC clerk's office agrees with me, obviously. They've already assigned a number to that little sliver. So, if anyone, the utility company would have had to have been notified. MEMBER HORNING: Were they? MR. HAM: Well, no,because they are not record owners. Well, they are not on the assessment roll. The notice provisions of the code indicate that we look at the assessment rolls to determine who's required to receive notice. MEMBER HORNING: So you have the effected side without the neighbor being noticed effectively through this... MR. HAM: We have complied with the code. You have jurisdiction to act on this matter. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Ham would you be able to give notice to the utility company to let theirs know the next hearing date? MR. HAM: Oh sure, in fact I intend to call them to tell they own this land. Because I doubt they know it. And the Trippes may be interested in buying it at some point. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could you send them a certified letter so we have something for the record, please? Now that we know. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to address one question to the architect and then that's it. Could you just give us the approximate mean height to the ridge of the proposed Page 11 of 125 12 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing dwelling? And I know that this is a discussion we had before, and I don't know where it went at the last hearing to be honest with you. MR. MITCHELL: Off the cuff, I wouldn't be able to do that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I don't need it now. If you wouldn't mind. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, we need a date we can adjourn this to. MR. HAM: Can I just... CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Hain, we are, right now we are a half hour behind, so we do have to move along. MEMBER ORLANDO: Why don't we do August 141h so then we can actually go to the site and look at it. MEMBER HORNING: I don't know if I can snake a special meeting on that date. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So the regular meeting would be July 241h or August 21 st MEMBER HORNING: I would go for August 21 st. They are not going to be building on that, I don't see how they can. MR. HAM: Yes, that's acceptable. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I guess we will see it in the summer. MEMBER ORLANDO: Especially since the topography seems to be an issue, we can actually go and walk it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sometime before that, if they could just stake it? CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Ham, 9:30, August 21"? MR. HAM: Sure you don't want to put me last? I'll be sure to get my supplemental, supplemental memorandum earlier. CHAIRWOMAN: Earlier, earlier, everything must be into the board by the Friday prior to... MR. HAM: Mrs. Kowalski has me as well. Page 12 of 125 i 13 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So, if your late, you won't get heard. I'm_ going to make a resolution to adjourn the meeting to 9:30 August 21". All in favor. 10:11 a.m. LEONARD AND HELEN COSTA #5337 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's March 6, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with a front yard setback of less than 35 feet, at 900 Gin Lane, Southold; CTM #1000-88-3-11. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LEONARD COSTA: I was just requesting to extend the garage forward. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you speak up a little so we can hear you? MR. COSTA: I'm just requesting to enlarge the garage and it exceeds the setback of the 35'. CHAIRWOMAN: One moment, Mr. Costa. MEMBER OLIVA: So it just would move it forward another 10'? CHAIRWOMAN: The only question I had on here, and I do understand what you want to do. Is that the existing house is 397, but you have that little curve, that 1.9' niche where you are going to extend the garage coming out. So, and on the last revised survey that you showed us, you are showing a setback of 29.7. I actually think that's 31.7 because of the little niche. MR. COSTA: I believe you are right. I didn't realize it was written 29 on there. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think, it couldn't possibly be 29 if it's 10' because at the point where you are showing that, it's 41' and 39.7 on the other side. So I just want you to confine that the setback at the closest point would be 31.7. And I think we just need that confirmation. MR. COSTA: I believe you are right. I didn't realize it was written that way on the plan I submitted. CHAIRWOMAN: On the last one, it says 29. MR. COSTA: I know it's wrong because I have it on another copy and it's 31. Page 13 of 125 14 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, I really don't have any further questions. It's fairly straightforward. Let's see if the board members have any questions. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: No, I met with Mr. Costa at his house. I spoke in detail with him, and it's a 3 and a half foot variance, and there's no problem with that. MR. COSTA: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Excellent. So we do have a confirmation of new setback would be 31.7. MR. COSTA: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's wait and see if there's anyone in the audience. MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to give him, he requested another copy of the plan. CHAIRWOMAN: And I also put another copy in the office. 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 10:15 a.m. ROBERT REILLY #5316 - A Variance is requested under Section 100- 244, based on the Building Department's January 24, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations in a location-at less than 35 feet from the front lot line. Location of Property: 470 (new #510) Locust Lane, Southold; CTM#1000-62-3-30.1 (29 and 30 combined as one). 0. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? ROBERT REILLY: I'm Robery Reilly. Good morning. I'm asking for the same, almost Page 14 of 125 15 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the same, setback. I'm asking for a setback of 32' from Corn Road and 28' from Locust Lane. CHAIRWOMAN: The, the, on Locust Lane, what do you have? Do you have 28? MR. REILLY: I have a 24' setback now at the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: And so you're proposing on Locust, you are proposing 28 is the closest? MR. REILLY: Yes. I have a little niche in there stepping back, not stepping forward. MEMBER ORLANDO: Self created noche? MR.REILLY: Yes. Well, architecturally. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if the board members have any questions. MEMBER OLIVA: It's a fairly large addition. MR. REILLY: It's a very small house right now. And my truck is 21' long. It's a big truck. It's a Chevy Silervado 8' bed extended cab. I'd like to be able to walk around the truck in the garage. So I'm just asking for 3 more feet out towards Corn Lane. CHAIRWOMAN: Right now you're 58' from Corn Road. And you want to be 32? MR. REILLY: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no questions. It's a small house. I saw it, took a look at it. And you do have two front yards, which makes it unique and difficult for an addition. MR. REILLY: Yeah. I'm trying to attach it and put a little master bedroom in there too. I'm not too good with stairs. My knees are bad. So I'd like to keep a nice bedroom downstairs. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there. I understand the problem. I guess it's pretty much centrally located to the best of the applicant's ability. I'll make no comment at this point. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. Page 15 of 125 16 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? Yes ma'am, could you come up and state your name please? EILEEN WINGATE: Hi, I'm Eileen Wingate with Penny Lumber. And I helped Bob design his house. Because it's an existing nonconforming, and it's so tiny, it presented a lot of problems. By stepping the house back.that little notch, I tried to not impact Locust Lane as much as we could have. And I tried to arrange it so that he could have access to the existing basement by further keeping everything kind of where it is. Not only is his truck really, really big, the existing house has tiny, little bedrooms. In order to get a nice sized master bedroom, and a bathroom, we were fairly modest in using these proportions to get this. Going up was kind of out of the question because of his knees so we tried to keep everything on one floor and keep it all pretty reasonable without impacting a neighborhood. The other thing that Bob failed to mention was that the neighbors all have houses very close to the road. The neighbor on the same side of the street has a 17' setback. And across the street, there's only about a 10' setback. So it's really not out of character with what's going on around the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, thank you very much. Board members have any other questions? I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:20 a.m. JOHN AND MARTHA TUTHILL #5328 - Request a Variance under Section 100- 244B, based on the Building Department's February 5, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are proposing to construct a deck addition at less than 35 feet from the front property line at 1060 Navy Street, Orient; Parcel 1000-25-4-3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MARTHA TUTHILL: Hi, I'm Mai tha,Tuthill. And we're just requesting an open front porch that would exceed the setback of 35'. We are, right now, at 39' and we're asking for 12' under further consideration, we'd actually be happy with 10. I don't think we'll go further than 10. CHAIRWOMAN: You're talking about the width... MS. TUTHILL: The width of the porch, exactly. CHAIRWOMAN: I read through your submissions. The only thing I would, I note, is that you, the average setbacks in the neighborhood are, you know, even according to your Page 1.6 of 125 17 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing figures, are 31'. And you want to be forward of that at 21'. It is a very... MS. TUTHILL: No, not quite 21. CHAIRWOMAN: 27, excuse me. You want to be 27. MS. TUTHILL: Actually, as we said, we'd probably, we would only go the 29. CHAIRWOMAN: Because the setbacks according to the surveys of your neighbors are 39.6, 40, 40, there's one at 25,way down, that's a corner lot, but most of the other setbacks are considerably, none of them are as close as you want to be. MS. TUTHILL: That's the only one, right. CHAIRWOMAN: So that's my observations that we had made. The board, generally, does not like to grant any variances forward of the average setback in the neighborhood. We don't like to set a new line. Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: You would accept the 10' instead of the 12'? MS. TUTHILL: Yeah. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it 29.4, or is it 29? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, I cruised the neighborhood looking and that's quite large compared to the neighborhood. And it would be the very closest to the front yard. And I was looking for similar front porches. I only saw one neighbor with a partial, small, little porch and a notch. But, in my opinion, I'm not telling the board what to do, I would agree to an 8' deep deck, not 10. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: Well, I'd, I would think that 8' is too shallow for a porch. I'm agreeable to the 10' as the applicant proposes, not the 12'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm agreeable to exactly a 30' setback. We're doing even figures here today. MS. TUTHILL: So that would be 9. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 9', actually, it's 39.4, so it's a little more than 9'. And you can suck that right up in the overhang anyway when you use the rafters. CHAIRWOMAN: This is kind of like a bargaining thing here today. We have 8 or 9. Page 17 of 125 18 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing The board will make a decision. Let's see if anyone in the audience has any comments on the application. Thank you very much. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:36 a.m. DEBRA VICTOROFF #5334. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department February 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes a dwelling at less than 35 feet from the front property line and less than 35 feet from the rear lot line, at 445 and 505 Dogwood Lane, Southold; CTM#1000-54-5-55 & 29.1 (as one lot). CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? JIM FITZGERALD: Yes ma'am, Jim Fitzgerald for Ms. Victoroff. I think the important thing for the board to consider is what we are proposing is not at all out of keeping with the other houses in the area. The lots, particularly on the same side of the street, are all relatively shallow. Depths of about 80'. And, of course, 35 and 35' front and rear yard setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: Can you speak up a little bit? Or take the mike up a bit so we can hear you? MR. FITZGERALD: Is this thing on? MEMBER OLIVA: Yes it is. MR. FITZGERALD: Do you want me to go through that again? The lot's being as shallow as they are, present a problem when two 35' setbacks are enclosed. In this particular case, if the two 35' setbacks were imposed, the house could only be 12' deep. And as I said, I think the our main interest is in indicating that the house will not at all be out of character with the other houses in the neighborhood, with regard to both the size and the setback,both in the front and the rear yard. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of questions here. You presented your application for a building permit in November. And I noticed that the survey, which is showing, also shows a proposed pool in a side yard. And I wondered had the Building Department (BD) reviewed pool as part of this proposal? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: And, okay, let's make a note of that. MR. FITZGERALD: I mean that survey was submitted. I mean that same plan was Page 18 of 125 19 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing submitted to the BD. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, a couple of things. The neighbor, adjoining neighbor has sent a letter saying they would like time to retain legal council on this so they can review the plans. That they didn't feel they had enough time to review them. And we will definitely take that into consideration. The setback you're proposing to Dogwood Lane is to the porch. What would the setbacks be without the porch? MR. FITZGERALD: That porch could very well be a stoop so it would be exempt from the consideration of the setback requirements. It's 5' deep. CHAIRWOMAN: The porch is 5' deep? So that could be increased to 25'? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The Notice of Disapproval (NOD) says 18'. 18' is to which point? On the survey. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: Pardon me? MR. FITZGERALD: There is no 18' setback. MEMBER ORLANDO: It looks like the pool fence is the only 18' 1 can see. CHAIRWOMAN: And they wouldn't do it to the fence anyway. So it's not clear to me where the 18' setback is to. MR. FITZGERALD: No, it's not clear to me either. I think what we are proposing is what you see on the map that you have. CHAIRWOMAN: The deck that goes around the pool, is that where the 18' is? MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. That would be the northeast comer of the deck is 18' from the rear property line. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Horning, any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What complication? We are waiting for opposing council, Page 19 of 125 20 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing so this will be adjourned? MR. FITZGERALD: Do we have any indication from the neighbor what his problem was? MEMBER HORNING: No, they don't say they have a problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say that I was down and looked at the property and I do understand what the agent or applicant is telling us in reference to the shallowness of the lot, okay, and the ability to place something on the property. So all that, of course, will be taken into consideration. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand your width of the property. What is really exacerbating the problem is the fact that you put a deck on the back of it, which is creating a width of 34' as opposed to 25', which is one of the reasons that's requiring more of a setback. And the deck extends the full length of the house. And that whole area adjacent to the pool. So a lot of that could be minimized. Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a one-story or two-story house? MR. FITZGERALD: Debra? MS. VICTOROFF: Two-story. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of living space? Approximately? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we see the pictures? MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the deck continuous? The rear deck continuous to the deck around the pool? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: Same level? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's continuous. DEBRA VICTOROFF: I'm Debra Victoroff. And those pictures are pictures of a house built by the builder that drew my plans. And I'm not going to have a garage in mine. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's a cape like that? Page 20 of 125 21 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. VICTOROFF: Yes, that's what I'd like. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, well we will continue, it's a very small lot. The lot is only, what 8900', and this is a lot of building for a little lot. MR. FITZGERALD: This is 2, 2 lots. CHAIRWOMAN: It's still only 8900 sq. ft. MR. FITZGERALD: I know. But the point is, it was not a matter of, she bought what was available in the area. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. We are going to see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against the application. TOM ROSAKIS: My name is Tom Roasakis. I'm the adjoining owner. I sent the letter, that,probably, is in front of you, asking for an adjournment. But I decided to come just to hear the applicant. But I would like an adjournment. Thank you. I have not had more than 5 days to get a, retain council. I'm presently interviewing. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? When do we have a time to adjourn this to? MEMBER ORLANDO: Can I ask another question in the meantime? Would your client be opposed to a patio around the pool as opposed to a continuous deck, which would reduce the rear yard setback? And it would reduce the... MR. FITZGERALD: You mean a brick patio? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. A brick patio as opposed to a raised deck around it. MEMBER OLIVA: Yeah. At grade. MEMBER ORLANDO: You know,brick around it instead of a raised deck around it. It's continuous. So that increases your lot coverage. MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, it could be brick or flagstone. I think it would be okay. CHAIRWOMAN: Vinny, before we do that I think we need to go back to the BD and say that the ZBA had noticed that the pool was in the side yard. What's going to happen is, they'll catch it later, and then you're going to be back here again. MEMBER ORLANDO: It needs to be in the rear yard. Page 21 of 125 22 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FITZGERALD: And you can't act on it unless they've disapproved it. CHAIRWOMAN: We can't act on it unless it's been advertised and unless they've disapproved it. So I would strongly urge you to go back to the BD, get an amended NOD, and to really think about minimizing what you are trying to put on an 8900 sq. ft. lot. It's a lot of building. And that's why the degree of the variances that you are requesting are very substantial. And you're going to be into a front yard variance, a rear yard variance, and a variance for the location of the pool as well. So I think we need to give you sufficient time to get an amended NOD, and then we're going to have to re- advertise that, and give legal notice that, that will also be included in the hearing procedure. So I'm not... MS. VICTOROFF: Can I ask a question? I have a couple of questions. One is that I think that Jim submitted the plans with, to the BD with the pool on there. So I'm not sure why we're resubmitting it. MEMBER ORLANDO: They may have, obviously, overlooked it. They'll just catch it next time when you go for your building permit. CHAIRWOMAN: When you go for your building permit, they will catch it. MS. VICTOROFF: But I mean,meaning that you can tell somehow by looking at that, that they did not see that? MEMBER ORLANDO: The code requires that the pool be located in the rear yard. MEMBER OLIVA: And it's not in the NOD that we have here in front of us. So it means you'll have to go back. We're just trying to save you a couple of steps. MS. VICTOROFF: No, I understand, I just didn't know why they were saying they overlooked it. CHAIRWOMAN: It's probably an oversight on their part. But if it's not caught now, it's going to mean that this application could be delayed another 6 months. MS. VICTOROFF: Then I have another question. If you're not allowed to put a pool in the side yard, if I move it the back of the house, then the variance that we'll request is going to be greater. CHAIRWOMAN: That's why we need to go back and, to the BD, so that we can even consider this pool where it is. Right now we can't consider it. MS. VICTOROFF: Does that require a new survey or a new... Page 22 of 125 23 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: No, it requires Mr. Fitzgerald, he knows what to do. He will take very good care of you. I'm just concerned about the timing, when we want to adjourn this to. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have to wait for the amended NOD. And we have to advertise it. So it's a decision. Do we want to advertise for the amended relief, July 24th regular meeting or August 215t? CHAIRWOMAN: It's got to be the 21". Is that the regular meeting? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: We don't want to carry this over to the special meeting? MEMBER ORLANDO: You can eliminate the pool for this application,redraw it, resubmit, and... MS. VICTOROFF: Along those lines, can I ask Mr. Rosakis, at this point, what his objections are so that I know them before I redraw plans. Is that fair of me to ask? MEMBER ORLANDO: I think that's a fair request, if he's willing. MS. VICTOROFF: If he's still in attendance. MR. ROSAKIS: I'm still in attendance. You can ask, but without council, I will not answer. CHAIRWOMAN: We're looking for a date to give you sufficient time so that you can get the amended NOD and then we can readvertise. It will be either August, I think it would have to be August 21 or September 1 Ith. Do you have a preference? MR FITZGERALD: The earlier date. CHAIRWOMAN: Why am I surprised? Okay it would be 9:40am on August 21". So we will adjourn it, the hearing. I'll make a motion. 10:52 a.m. LAUREN ZAMBRELLI #5322. Request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244, based on the Building Department's February 21, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions to the existing dwelling in a nonconforming footprint, resulting in setbacks at less than 10 feet on a single side and less than 25 feet total sides. Location of Property: 4910 Pequash Avenue, Page 23 of 125 24 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Cutchogue; CTM 1000-110-3-27. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LAUREN ZAMBRELLI: Good morning. I'm Lauren Zambrelli. The reason I'm requesting the second story on my home is because I had a baby. MEMBER ORLANDO: Congratulations. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Thank you. A girl. We have 3 children, one who's in college, and one who's in elementary, and then on a sailing trip in Newport, we brought back a souvenir. CHAIRWOMAN: That wasn't the baby was it? MS. ZAMBRELLI: Yes, that was Cassidy. Our house currently has 2 bedrooms. And it's about 900 sq. ft. We love our neighborhood, and don't want to move. So we are proposing a 2nd story addition on our existing home. The house, in it's original form was built beyond the setback limits. Therefore, we are proposing simply to go up. And approximately 4' back off one side of the house. CHAIRWOMAN: I understand your situation completely. It's kind of an existing nonconforming setback, and you're not going to change the existing footprint whatsoever. So I really don't have any questions. Let's see, Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No, I was down there and looked at it. And I think you really have to go up. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I was there. It's a very modest house. My only concern and reservation is on the north side of the house, you have like a 1 ''/Z' setback. If you look at the plans with the overhang, 1, there's no measurement on it, but you're close to inches of setback if you include the overhang. MS. ZAMBRELLI: There's no overhang on the north side. MEMBER ORLANDO: According to your plans, you know the soffets. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Oh, the soffets. MEMBER ORLANDO: If you include the soffets, I mean it's not just, there's no measurement on it, but it would bring you close to almost inches or zero lot line on that side. Page 24 of 125 25 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. ZAMBRELLI: We've had, our neighbors... MEMBER ORLANDO: You have very large, substantial trees around there. I guess you'll have to remove some of those as well. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Actually we can cut them back. We love the trees. We don't want to take them out. But I did have coffee with Eileen and, when she got the notice, she wanted just to understand what was happening, the owner Eillen McCarroll, who is a neighbor and friend of ours. She has, her house, that she owns, is very far from her property line. So it's really, it's not like they are on top of each other at all. It's probably like 30' to her house. So it's not like they'll be boxed up. So there is plenty of space there. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm still trying to find out how that portion, that Mr. Orlando is referring to, is integrated into the plan. Is there a possibility of leaving that as 1-story? In that portion, no? MS. ZAMBRELLI: We would have, that wouldn't... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you figure out how it's integrated into the plan? I can't figure it out. Unless I'm, you know, I've seen the house, and I'm familiar with it. MEMBER ORLANDO: This is the overhang, that's the part. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you look at the original footprint, Vince, so, in other words, what you are saying is the overhang is going to be on zero lot line. MEMBER ORLANDO: Well, close, no, think it's a foot? MEMBER OLIVA: It's so close now. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's her neighbor, she had coffee with. MS. ZAMBRELLI: She's wonderful. I also have my other neighbor on the other side here. MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a distance on the north side to the neighbor's house, the closest? Page 25 of 125 26 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. ZAMBRELLI: It's about 30'. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the one major problem, number one is you're going to have to put definitely some sort of drywells in for any water runoff. That's number one. Okay, number two, you're going to have to give us an idea of what that overhang is going to address in reference to footage. And that has to be cutback as close, as close to the house as possible. Okay? Instead of a 16" overhang, it's going to have to be at least 8", or something a little less than that. It's drawn at a foot right now. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's drawn at a foot right now, so, which would leave us 6" because it's a foot and a half. Can you bring it back to 8"? I could do that, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Jerry, we want an 8" overhang maximum... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: North side. CHAIRWOMAN: On the north side. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And water directed in dry wells from roof runoff into drywells. You have to do that anyway. Because you don't want to, you really don't want to impose any water on your neighbors property. MS. ZAMBRELLI: She's got beautiful, large azaleas, and geraniums, and they are about 16', 17' high, so they'd love the water. But, yes, that's not a problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not the amount of water that we took already this year. MS. ZAMBRELLI: Actually, they were beautiful this year. They are all up and down the property line, and we enjoy them. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning.. MEMBER HORNING: No question. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? ETHEL JESSUP: My name is Ethel Jessup. And I'm on the south side. And I have no objection at all. None. Page 26 of 125 27 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much. If there are no further questions by the board, as we've discussed, we've discussed that you would be required to put in drywells for the roof runoff. And that the roof overhang would be limited to a maximum of 8" on the north side. So, if there's no further questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:00 a.m. FREDERICK and JOAN FROHNE #5317. Request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4B, based on the Building Department's February 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes additions and alterations to dwelling in a location at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 4700 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM#1000-81-3-4. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? GARRETT STRANG, ARCH: Yes. Good morning, Garrett Strang, architect, representing the Frohnes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a question? I understand. MR. STRANG: My clients bought the house about a year or so ago, and obviously our intention was to modify it so it suited their needs for their use, and improve upon it so it's more in keeping with the neighborhood as opposed to, they don't feel the present look is one that's compatible with the neighborhood. It's an existing one-story 3 bedroom home, single family dwelling, obviously. The proposed use is exactly the same. One story, 3 bedroom home. The appeal here is for, part of the program is to add a 16x28' addition off the water side of the house, which is going to be in front of the living/dining area. It's going to be roofed over, but unenclosed. The intention is primarily to provide protection from the sun when seated outdoors. This is a bayfront piece and exposure is quite open. It will also allow them to have some outdoor seating for both dining and relaxation. In the event of inclement weather, they can be seated under a covered area out of the weather. The positioning of this particular addition is really the only one that is practical inasmuch as it's in front of the living/dining part of the house. And that's the intended use. It's an extension of the living/dining part of the house. Albeit open and unenclosed, it still is roofed over. It's my belief that what we are proposing has a minimal impact since there's already an existing stone terrace there that exists. So I'd be going partially over that. It's a low profile addition since it's a one-story addition with a hipped roof, which minimizes the massing. It's a gable end. It's a hipped roof that slopes back. CHAIRWOMAN: Would it be screened in? MR. STRANG: No. Page 27 of 125 28 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: So it's just... MEMBER OLIVA: Open. MR. STRANG: It's an open colonnade. MEMBER OLIVA: Just with a roof? MR. STRANG: Just with a roof. There's not an intention to screen it in, or enclose it at this time, or anytime in the future. CHAIRWOMAN: Question, Mr. Strang. You're proposing a 48' setback from the bulkhead, right? MR. STRANG: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The addition you're proposing could be put flush with that L-shaped part in the house. Because if that's the living area, living/dining area, it would have access opening to it right there, which would increase your setback to 64' from the bulkhead. MR. STRANG: We appreciate that. And that was a consideration although it then puts it in front of the .bedrooms. And they are going to have their children and their grandchildren, obviously, visiting them and it would be in front of the grandchildren's bedroom. And we believe that use, if you will, congregation of adults, conversation, the like, in front of the children's bedroom is not the best location. CHAIRWOMAN: You're proposing a terrace there anyway. MR. STRANG: Yes, the terrace is open, and most likely, people will be congregating in the area for the roofed-over addition. I'd like to also call to the boards attention that the setback you make reference to is actually less than the setback of the neighbor to our east's deck, which is about 44' back from the bulkhead. So we feel like it's not out of character with an established setback. CHAIRWOMAN: And what's the setback on the neighbor to the west? MR. STRANG: Setback on the neighbor to the west is a new home. And his home was built under the present zoning criteria. So his setback is approximately 75'. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what I found when I was down there. MEMBER HORNING: To the deck? Page 28 of 125 29 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. It is 75' to the deck. And that's why I'm personally not in favor of this because I think, you have a lot of options here. And the living area is where you described it, and if it's, it can be, you know, fit in that niche. If it requires creativity and architecture.and design, so be it. I don't, I really think you have alternatives that could substantially reduce this variance. And we're not in favor of going any further forward toward the bulkhead on this. MR. STRANG: It's not the fact that the neighboring house is close to the bulkhead enter the picture? CHAIRWOMAN: That's a very, very, old house. MR. STRANG: Yes it is, it's about the sanne age as my clients house. CHAIRWOMAN: You do have options here. MR. STRANG: Not practically. Maybe in theory, yes, but, to put a living area in front of a child's bedroom is really not the best solution. Keeping the uses from a practical point of view, from a design point of you, from my professional opinion,keeping the uses as presented, where you've got a living/dining area that's part of the house and an outdoor living/dining area in front of that is the best use. To put it in front of a bedroom, really, is, it makes the bedroom unusable for the point of time that area will be used. Given the fact that it's a summer home, it's meant to be used in the summer. Take advantage of the bay front that they have, and to have that use moved around in front of a bedroom where it's going to cause a disturbance to young children trying to sleep in the evening. I don't think is the best solution either. I do have,just for the record, I do have an approval from the, well, I shouldn't say approval, I have a letter of non jurisdiction from the DEC as well as a permit from the Trustees for this work. And I'd like to submit that at this time. I'd also like to submit for the board's information, and for the file, a copy of the, actually, I've made several, numerous copies of the exterior views of the house so that you can see exactly what we're proposing here, since that hasn't been done. Again, I call to the board's attention, the fact that it does already exist, a terrace, a stone terrace, a grade, in this area. And that this roofed over enclosure is over the terrace. MEMBER OLIVA: Garrett, where are the children's bedrooms? MR STRANG: What I may do, if the board pleases... MEMBER OLIVA: Because I'm confused. MR. STRANG: I have a copy of the floor plan, actually. Let me submit that to you as well. I only have one copy with me in the file. I believe I have it in the file. It will show you the layout of the house. The bedroom wing of the house is not substantially Page 29 of 125 30 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ; changing. It's being left as it is. This is the living/dining/kitchen area of the house as it presently exists. This is the outdoor, roofed over terrace. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: May I see also, I represent the neighbor, Cooper, and rather than, in the back. CHAIRWOMAN: It's too far away for all of us to see at this point. MR. STRANG: We have the living/dining/kitchen here as presently exists although we are doing some upgrading to it internally. The footprint of the house with the exception of this element, and the garage which doesn't is being added. But the focus of our application is,basically is, this roofed over area here. CHAIRWOMAN: This is not showing up on our site plan. This little part, this little part that's jutting out. If you, this is,this terrace? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, that's the terrace. MR. STRANG: This is the terrace here, this is where the living area is. This is primarily where the congregation, this area would probably be used during daytime hours. It is kind of sheltered, it's outdoors, the roof is... CHAIRWOMAN: This is where the proposed addition is? MEMBER OLIVA: You're complaining about the kid's bedrooms, but you're in front of the 2 bedrooms anyway. MR. STRANG: His bedroom is here. If we move this, as you're suggesting, to here, it's in front of the bedrooms. MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you want to get out of the sun, you'd be there during the daytime hours, not the nighttime hours. MR. STRANG: We'd be here in the daytime if it's inclement weather or evening, you want to sit outdoors, but you don't necessarily... MEMBER ORLANDO: Right. So you wouldn't be disturbing the children because it's during the day. At night, you can go over there. MR. STRANG: If it's drizzly, the gray weather we've had recently, you may want to sit out here and have dinner. The kids may have already had their dinner and gone to bed. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang, this is going to be renovated, this bedroom? Page 30 of 125 31 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: No, it's there. CHAIRWOMAN: It says"altered bedroom"? MR. STRANG: Yes, because we are moving closets around. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now it's the master bedroom. MR. STRANG: The master bedroom is down at the end of the house. The existing floor plan is bedroom, baths, bedroom, master bedroom. They are staying, doing minor alterations by reconfiguring closets, redoing bathrooms, but the configuration of the house is exactly as it is with the exception of adding a master bath here, or adding a two- car garage here... CHAIRWOMAN: And you're shifting the closets and baths... MR. STRANG: We're moving the closet. The closet now is on this wall. This bedroom doesn't even have a closet presently. So... MEMBER HORNING: I'm sorry, I mean, we are talking about a family here, so I'm having a hard time buying into the argument of something outside the kid's bedroom because, you know, we're family. And if they can't have their appropriate conversations anywhere in the house, then the family is dysfunctional or something. MR. STRANG: Adult conversation over dinner and the like in front of a child's bedroom. MEMBER HORNING: We don't consider those types of issues, though. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's, Mr. Goehringer, do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can see architecturally, Garrett, apart from the use situation why you would want to put something like that on because particularly the way the pillars are drawn, you know. I can see it. I would not object to anything that would still allow you to do that architecturally, but would be somewhat meaningless in reference to depth. I think this could be treated in a different vein. I think you could use a roll up awning, an automatic roll up awning, which I don't think' needs a variance. It's a temporary thing. It's not supported in any other way. But I would, I would entertain an architectural cut of a certain amount of feet, you know, to give you that effect. Okay, then the use of an awning for sun prevention. MR. STRANG: I'm sure my client is receptive. In fact, we've had some discussions with a neighbor, who has voiced his objection. And we have offered to cut it, scale it back somewhat, but he was adamant that he didn't want it all. And we felt that was kind of Page 31 of 125 32 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing unfair since he has his. It's like well I have mine, you're not getting yours. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But I'm just saying that I think I can see it from an architectural point of view. And how it would lend itself to the house. Again, we haven't discussed the footage, the depth of the footage. Again, I still think it could be done from an awning point of view, and then retracted at night. MR. STRANG: It could be done from an awning point of view. It's not as aesthetically pleasing on a house, you know we're talking about houses in that area in the multimillion dollar range along the bay. So to hang an awning off the house really is not that attractive a solution. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to an automatic one that goes out and comes right back and withdraws, and you know, is water sensitive, withdraws automatically, and so on and so forth. MR. STRANG: Yes. I'm familiar with those. It's just a little lean to that rolls out. MEMBER ORLANDO: I would think is a major construction, though. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reconstruction of the house is a major... MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the roofline looks nothing like this. MR. STRANG: We're doing a major alteration to the house. But within the footprint of the house with the exception of the two elements that I mentioned that come toward the road, and, of course, the porch. So, again, as I mentioned, they are trying to enhance the appearance of the house so it's in keeping with the neighborhood and the value of the neighborhood. And not have what my clients refer to in their joking way as the Jetson's motel. MEMBER ORLANDO: It does look like that, yes, it does. MR. STRANG: And they don't want that. They feel it's a detriment to the community, and they want to improve upon that. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mrs. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: I was just thinking if you could cut back that terrace, you know, right in here, instead of sweeping it all the way around here, you could just fit it right into here. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what we had said originally. Page 32 of 125 33 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: You're suggesting that the roofed over area go in front of the bedrooms. And that's, from a practical point of view, is what I believe, what my clients believe, is not the best solution. CHAIRWOMAN: We've gone down that road, and, so, if you're not willing to go there, then, the board will have to take action in that direction. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Cooper, who is the neighbor directly to the east. What I have is, Mr. Cooper couldn't be here, and he had originally gotten Bruce Anderson to prepare a report, a written report, which is very comprehensive, on the character of the area. And I'll submit that to the board. It's his report. As I said, it's very well done, and I would ask you to read it and refer to it as you'd like. I'd like to address certain specific points as we go. So I will, if it's alright, I'll submit this. Do we have enough copies? Bruce goes through the whole description of the premises and all the criteria, which you are very familiar with and would address. But more specifically, I'd like to deal with certain issues that are kind of,bring it out to the forefront of the, why Mr. Cooper has an objection to really just the backend, which you've identified. He has no objection to the renovations that are being proposed, the garage in the front. His whole focus and they, or, he tried to convince Mr. Frohne to come up with a different alternative, which is in line with what you've been recommending. Putting in, or putting the addition, or the sunscreen that goes along, it can go along the entire length of the back of the house, provide adequate protection. One, certainly, design feature, which I noticed is that he has his master bedroom on the other side. Since there is so much renovation being done to this house, you could make the master bedroom be the one that is in front of what he wants as the dining area. Extend the dining, outdoor dining area. And because there's a bathroom that goes right out of that bedroom, the children's bedroom, as they describe it, they could change the interior layout and make the master bedroom away from what is the activity of the evening or daylight activity with adults be on the opposite end of where the overhang would be. Or the roofed over open patio would be. So there are design alternatives. I know Garrett's a very talented architect. And he can come up with a, it's really up to the client to accept his alternatives. I have the elevation of the house. And when you see the east elevation, it pretty much focus's why the objection by Mr. Cooper. The existing building right now is 63.5' in length. What he's proposing to extend to is 107' in length, when you include both the garage on the front of the house, and the overhang on the back of the house. And it's not just a little, you know, little covered over porch. It's an extension of the roofline. And it is a significant structure in the back. And that's, if you look the east elevation I submitted, you can see that, that is the side that Mr. Cooper is going to be facing. And it is going to take, for the most part, the entire length of the common property line. And that's intrusive to a neighbor. What we also have is, from Douglas Barnard, who was the let's see, he was active in the affairs of the Paradise Point Association (PPA) and he was the past chairman of the building committee. I don't know if this project has been approved by the building committee of the PPA. But he can recall, in all the time that he's been involved in the Page 33 of 125 34 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing building committee, that the PPA, they've controlled the extension of houses towards the water because of the goal to keep everyone at a common rear yard setback. So I have a letter, an original letter from Douglas Bernard' and then if you would also look at a photograph. I have a very nice aerial photograph from Mr. Amiaga. And what I did is I took a line,just a paper, and put a straight line of what is the common rear property line property line between Scalia, is the newest home, he's to the south. Frohne is the center property, the subject of this.application, then to the north is Cooper. And you can see that all the homes here have, are consistently in line in the rear of the property. With respect to you have yours and I can't have mine, that is not the case. In fact both houses, or all three houses, have extensions. And it's just a question of how far you want to go. They all have patios and unenclosed patios have never been an objection. They are pre- existing. The objections are always the roof. CHAIRWOMAN: Mrs. Moore, on our exhibit, there is no mark. MS. MOORE: No, I have it on mine. CHAIRWOMAN: Which means, in other words, it doesn't mean anything to us. MS. MOORE: Right. I'm going to give you this one. Before I hand it over, I want to describe it. You can see, I just took this, that's a photocopy of this aerial photograph. And you see it take off just a straight piece of paper, and you can identify who the owners are. And you can see that they are all extended, they both, here's the letter from You can see that they are all in line. It doesn't take a great deal of sophistication, just that straight lined paper to see that, how the character of the community has been expanded. With respect to the approvals, the Town Trustees (TT), Mr. Cooper did not appear before the TT. It was his opinion that he TT, generally, when there is a patio, once there's been disturbance, the TT do not, for the most part, give a hard time about expanding on top of already and existing disturbed area. So he felt it was, those issues might be environmental issues. And this is more in keeping with this board's consideration, which is the character of the area. So I think if I had known him at the time, I would have told him, advised him, he should have made an objection because sometimes the TT do try to retain the existing setbacks as a policy even though it's not one of their designated criteria for the standards of a TT permit. Those are the points that I want to bring up to the board, I'm sorry, I have one more letter. Mr. Scalia, Mr. Cooper gave me a letter with respect to speaking with Mr. Scalia. Mr. Scalia doesn't take a position one way or another because he sold the house to Mr. Frohne. I think it would be awkward as the broker to oppose any renovations that Frohne would have. But I have that letter here so you know, as far as Scalia goes, he's not taking any position. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. STRANG: Yes, if I may, I'd like to address some of the points that were brought up Page 34 of 125 35 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing by Ms. Moore, and again, she's representing her client, Mr. Cooper, who is immediately a neighbor to the east. And I've had some conversations with Mr. Cooper as my client. Just quickly to review some of the points that were brought up on behalf of Mr. Cooper by Ms. Moore. I haven't seen the information that was presented to you by Mr. Anderson. So I have no idea what he may be, so if I could get a copy of that, that would be, I think, helpful. Secondly, with respect to the association, the association has been given the plans that you see in front of you for their review and comment, which is part of the covenants and restrictions (C&R's). They have not convened yet, their final meeting to vote. However, according to the association president, he indicates that the board has been polled, and some of the neighbors have been polled. And even Mr. Cooper has agreed that everything that we're proposing is not in any violation of any of the C&R's of the association. And that he association, in general, CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Strang... MR. STRANG: May I finish? CHAIRWOMAN: I'm just going to save you some time. I should have said the same thing when Pat Moore was giving her presentation. The ZBA does not enforce (C&R's). MR. STRANG: I understand that. But since it was raised, I just wanted let you know what the. PPA's position is. There is no objections at this point and time to what's been presented. And they've seen everything that you've seen. So we're expecting a blanket approval from them once they meet. But, again, that's not in your area to enforce or not enforce. But it's a point of information. To redesign the house the way Mr. Cooper has suggested, I guess would be nice if Mr. Cooper was going to live there, and it was his house, and he'd lay it out as he so chooses. But my client is going to live in the house. And he'd like it designed to meet his needs, and his families needs without doing major changes with respect to yes, I'll concur that they were making major changes with changing the roof design. But the basic layout of the house, the placement of the bedrooms, the placement of the living areas, is exactly the way it is now with some enhanced tweaks internally. So, with respect to the length of the east elevation, yes it's correct, the existing house is 60 some feet in length and it will be 107 in length if everything were added as we've made our application. But just for the record, Mr. Cooper's house is 92' in length on his east elevation. And he's closer, again, he's closer to the bulkhead then we are. So that objection, although it has some merit, I think we're, our house, I could do a quick rundown if you'd like, but the Frohne house is basically in keeping in size, in scale, with everything else. Mr. Cooper's house is about 4600 sq. ft. of building area. CHAIRWOMAN: It's the setbacks we're concerned about. MR. STRANG: Okay, well Mr. Cooper is 44. We are 48 at this point. If this board asks us to cut this porch back somewhat, that's certainly an option that can be considered. Page 35 of 125 36 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing One of the other submittals I'd like to make is, as much as an aerial is attractive, and is nice, what I'd like to present to the board is an actual overlay. The three neighboring that shows the actual location. And yes, keeping a house in line is important. And we address that. This is Mr. Cooper's property, okay? This is my client's property, the Frohne's. This is Mr. Scalia. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Scalia had to be 75' back because he had a new house. If you take the line of Mr. Cooper's deck and shoot it across, it's in front of our 16' addition. This whole house is in front of our house as it is. There's vegetation on each side here, which may or may not enter the picture, but one of these photographs shows the fact that Mr. Cooper's house, presently, is in front of ours. MEMBER ORLANDO: But the new house, you say, is 75' back. So your new addition should be 75' back as well. MR. STRANG: Well our house isn't 75' back, because here's the 75' setback line. So our existing house doesn't comply. MEMBER ORLANDO: But your neighbor... CHAIRWOMAN: I think we've kind of beat this point to death. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I see that one minute, Garrett? MR. STRANG: I understand the board has it's concerns. And we are willing to address those and work with them. I think Mr. Cooper's concerns have some validity, but I think they are more personal in nature then they are having to do with what this board has to deal with. And I would certainly be willing to discuss with this board and my client as to what alternatives we have. I don't, again, I don't believe that putting this porch in front of the bedroom element of the house is the correct placement-of it. It doesn't necessarily say we are not willing to scale back. We have already made that overture to Mr. Cooper, but he was not receptive to entertaining that. So... MEMBER ORLANDO: But the one thing that no one has brought up yet, but we all know about is the bluff is very steep there. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very steep, and you're very close. MEMBER ORLANDO: Every house there that has steps to the beach has a platform because it's so steep, you cannot do a continuous. So any further building close, even though it's quite vegetated, it's a severely steep drop-off. So any construction close to it is not good for it. MR. STRANG: Again, our construction is limited to the placement of several columns around the perimeter. We're not excavating and tearing everything up. Page 36 of 125 37 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Well you'd probably have to put some sort of footing in,there. MR. STRANG: All we need to do is a hole to set a column in. It's minimal disturbance. My client doesn't want his house to wash into the bay either. So he wants to be aware of doing the least amount of disturbance as far as construction goes, in that area, as possible. This was a concern, which was also voiced by the TT, and they concurred that it really wasn't going to pose an issue. The bluff is relatively, heavily, vegetated and stabilized. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Horning, we really have to get moving. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What are you going to do? Are you going to close it? CHAIRWOMAN: Couple of things. Mrs. Moore, please give Mr. Strang, provide Mr. Strang a copy of all your submissions. Likewise anything you have submitted. Does the board wish to hold this hearing open? ZONING BOARD: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to go back and look at it again. CHAIRWOMAN: What's the purpose of holding it open? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like Garrett to go back to his client and find out if there's any way that an architectural cut can be put in. But at the same time, not request what he's requesting at this point. And possibly we could work out something on that basis. CHAIRWOMAN: In terms of what are we talking? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a small overhang to make it, you know, architecturally aesthetic to the reconstruction of the house. But at the same time, you know, appease the neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN: And also appease the board. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about because I don't want to misguide Mr. Strang. So that he's going back and creating a plan that would not fly with the rest of the board. MEMBER ORLANDO: I think Mr. Goehringer was more in favor of a retractable awning. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From an architectural point of view, as I first mentioned, not to be redundant, and again, I'm being redundant. But to say if he was willing to take say a 6' overhang at that point to create those pillars that exist in the original plan,just to create a walkway there, which I, it appears, the board, you know... Page 37 of 125 38 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: What are we talking about, a 6' patio? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I was thinking. MR. STRANG: I can take that to my client. I'm not sure if, practically, that addresses the need for outdoor seating and outdoor dining, which was the whole intention of this. MEMBER ORLANDO: It wouldn't be to scale. 6' with the huge pillars. MR. STRANG: We did, so this board is aware, we made an overture to Mr. Cooper that we could cut it back to 12', instead of the 16, and still feel that it was practically usable at that point. CHAIRWOMAN: I think what you're hearing from all of us is put it in the notch. I mean we can waste a lot of time. We can continue this till doomsday. But if you're not willing to do that, if you're not willing to redesign it, then the board, there's no reason to adjourn this. The board will vote on it. MR. STRANG: Well I can't say that until I've had an opportunity to speak to my client. So I would suggest that possibly we do as Mr. Goehringer suggested, hold it open. If you would consider that so I can confer with my client to see what options he may be receptive to. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, we will do it on the basis that you will go back to your client and ask him is he's willing to put it in the notch. When do we want to adjourn this to? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I wanted to ask if we could have the amended plans, is that what you're considering? MR. STRANG: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: At least the Friday before the meeting. MR. STRANG: Certainly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Several sets, please. August 7t1' is our special meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: Is that too soon for you? MR. STRANG: No, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN: Sometimes it isn't. Page 38 of 125 39 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STRANG: No, I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: What time? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: In the evening. The first hearing would start at 6:00. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing until Aug. 7th at 6:45. 11:35 a.m. JOHN HURTADO, JR. #5319 - Request for Variances under Sections 100-30A.4, 100-33C and 100-239.4A(1), based on the Building Department's January 27, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes an accessory swimming pool and deck addition to the dwelling, both at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff along the Long Island Sound. The swimming pool also is proposed in a side yard location instead of a code required rear yard. Location of Property: 2670 Grandview Drive, Orient; CTM 1000-14-2-3.6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? CATHRINE MESIANO: Good morning, I'm Catherine Mesiano. And I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Hurtado. Mr. Hurtado is requesting a variance from a relief of the required setback from the bluff as well as the required,requirement that a pool not be in a side yard. The property we are dealing with is located at 2670 Grandview Drive in Orient. This is approximately 52K sq. ft. lot in a R40 zone. Mr. Hurtado has under construction a single family dwelling. And he's coming to the board for relief for the proposed deck and pool. This is a sound front parcel of land. The setbacks that we are proposing for the proposed deck is 89'. The setback to the pool is at 75', and we are maintaining a 15' sideyard for the proposed pool. The purpose for the variance for the pool location is because the pool is offset to the west thereby encroaching on the required sideyard. Does the board have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN: Well I just would like to note that the report of the soil and water, as well as our own inspections, said there was considerable erosion going'on right now as a result of the current construction. You have a copy of the report, Ms. Mesiano? MS. MESIANO: Yes, let me just... CHAIRWOMAN: The lot slopes to Grandview Drive, right to the top of the bluff. And if the soil is being eroded from the lot during the construction activities, soils are also Page 39 of 125 40 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing being dragged out onto Grandview Drive by vehicular traffic since there's no stabilization. As a construction interest at this time, the house is incomplete. And downspouts and gutters are not on the structure, the plan does not show any plan drywells. It is recommended that drywells be installed to contain any roof runoff on the house. The plan also does not show proposed final grade for the yard, which would be very important for the pool. It appears that the deck will be raised due to stairs shown coining off the deck, soils below the proposed deck should be protected from erosion. If the deck will be elevated over the ground surfaces, and if there's water from the pool, it should be diverted from going over the top of the bluff, and down the bluff area. It makes a number of suggestions. It says the toe of the bluff is not stable, etc. But I'd wondered if you'd had a chance to think about that report and to address some of the points that have been raised in that report. MS. MESIANO: Yes, 5 drywells have been installed. 5 oversized drywells each consisting of 2 rings and a dome with capacity in excess of that,which the calculations show would be necessary to contain the 2" an hour in over 24 hour period. The surface runoff and the roof runoff will be contained in these drywells since the drywells have grates on the top and the final grade will ensure that any runoff is pitched towards the drywells and not towards the neighboring properties, the bluff or the road. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask that gentleman to close the door? The noise back there, I apologize. Thank you sir. MS. MESIANO: I think I've addressed the issue with respect to drywells and runoff. As far as the area under the deck, we would have no problem putting a containment system weather it be gravel or some other type of structural containment to ensure that no runoff were to occur, no erosion were to occur in the area under the deck. And with respect to the current conditions in light of the rain that we've had, and the volume and the duration of the rain, it would be impossible to construct a construction activity without some runoff into the road. And all of that material, all of that situation, of course will be addressed in the final grading and the finishing of the property. CHAIRWOMAN: Couple of other questions, where you have the pool, is there no way that you could incorporate the pool into the deck? The deck that you're adding onto that house, proposing that onto the house is 16' wide. It's a huge deck. In fact, 16x80' long. It's humungous. I'm trying to understand why you could not incorporate the pool into the existing deck that you are proposing. MS. MESIANO: Within the area of the deck that's seaward of the house? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. MESIANO: Well they are trying to maintain as the prior applicant, trying to maintain an area for outdoor dining and outdoor entertaining without having the pool Page 40 of 125 41 June 10, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing directly outside of the door. That's going to be off of the main living and dining area. The deck is off of the main dining and living area of the house. And the pool is adjunct to that. CHAIRWOMAN: I know,but the deck off the house is 80' long. It's... MEMBER ORLANDO: It's elevated deck, you couldn't put the pool with that deck. MS. MESIANO: You couldn't put the pool in the deck, no,because of the elevation. MEMBER ORLANDO: That deck is probably 8-10' high. MS. MESIANO: The deck, John, is that... JOHN HURTADO: The deck is going to be about 7' off the ground, off the final grade. MS. MESIANO: And the pool is proposed at grade. Thank you for pointing that out. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I have Mr. Hurtado's name,just for the record? MS. MESIANO: John Hurtado, Jr. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're not done yet. CHAIRWOMAN: I was just trying to figure out a way to minimize... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can figure it out for you very easily. Move the pool closer to the house. Move it just a little bit closer to the center of the house, and extend the walkway as a balcony over the top of the pool. MR. HURTADO: Just MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, move the pool a little closer to the center of the house, giving us a greater side yard. Some of the pool is still going to be in the side yard. Move the house, the pool, a little closer to the house, going in depth, giving us a greater setback from the bluff, okay? And taking that stairway and making it a balcony over the top of a portion of the pool. MR. HURTADO: So you want part of the pool underneath the deck? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's just under the stairwell. MR. HURTADO: I'm just not sure practically how I'm going to put stairway over a Page 41 of 125 42 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing pool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a balcony. It's no big deal. MS. MESIANO: I'd like to add one point if I may before we get too far into this. This board granted relief to the neighbor to the east a couple of years ago. And a 70' setback was granted to the neighbor for a much more substantial structure than what we are proposing. We are not proposing the copious amounts of fill that were used on the neighboring property. And much of what's driving the need and the design of this layout is the imposing nature of the neighboring property. Because it is up so high it would be very uncomfortable to be farther to the east and have that high slope overhanging this area. So that, the conditions that exist on the easterly property is a lot of what has driven us to the point where we are now with this situation. We are not asking for any more. As a matter of fact we are asking for less than what was granted to the neighbor to the west. As far as distance is concerned, and in magnitude, I think our's is a much less substantial request than was granted on the property to the west. That pool is totally within the sideyard and there is a very high stone wall that goes around the property. There's retaining walls there. We are not proposing to elevate the pool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The purpose of that; Ms. Mesiano, was the fact that in _ dealing with the elevation of that house,upon construction, they found out they had a major problem. And that was the main reason for the granting of that variance. Although the most, the majority of that variance, to my understanding,because I did view that when I went out to look at this property, was the sole purpose of creating an entire area, a flat area. So as to preserve the existing foundation around the house. The majority of that pool is in the side yard area. There's no question about it. MS. MESIANO: Yes. The whole thing is in the side yard. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was the purpose of it, to create that, I mean I consider it a reverse mote basically. MS. MESIANO: Ground around water. My point is that the board granted a 70' setback. We're asking for 75. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The actual setback is different. To the house, is much greater than that. MS. MESIANO: No. The setback to our house is 105'. The setback to their house is substantially less than that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know what it is? MS. MESIANO: It was granted at 80'. There were three variances granted on that. You Page 42 of 125 43 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing initially granted a variance for an 80' setback to the house. And then as an "as-built" condition you granted a 70' setback to the retaining wall patio and sideyard pool. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, except they are a little close to the point. MS. MESIANO: We didn't as build it and then come for relief. And another thing I'd like to point out. This was not handled prior to the commencement of all the construction. Because, as you are well aware, there was a building code change that went into effect at the end of the year and the design of this house was such that it was substantial. It would have been substantial if the developer had to go back and redesign the house, and implement all of the new code issues. Particularly pertaining to windows and so on. So it was important to get the building permit for the house. Because they were ready to start building at that time, and then deal with this. You can see that the application was submitted the end of January. So this is not something that, you know, just came up suddenly. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last question. CHAIRWOMAN: We have got to move. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. Last question, gunite, or liner pool? MS. MESIANO: We don't have a specific plan for the pool because it's Mr. Hurtado's intention to market the house to one having the ability to construct a pool if one wishes. And it did not make sense to come in for a deck or a pool. We came in for everything so the board would not have to revisit this issue again in the future. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool really could be a lap pool too. MS. MESIANO: It could be a lap pool. It could be 6'x40'. MEMBER ORLANDO: Since this is a spec house, I personally don't have a problem doing a deck,but why don't we just hold off on the pool. We don't know, the buyer may want a pool, may be allergic to chlorine, you know, it's a sensitive area. You know, we can not even address it... MS. MESIANO: Except that it's more marketable because most buyers, in this market, as you well know, are going to come in and want to know that they can have a pool in their backyard. And then you get into a contract subject to, and then coming back before the board in an extended delay because it takes, you know, 4-6 months to... MEMBER ORLANDO: But this house won't be done by the summer anyway, so it's a mute point for this summer anyway. So if they sold it by September, they could apply for a variance for a pool later on. And they have the biggest pool in the yard, in the sound Page 43 of 125 44 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting]Public Hearing right behind them. If it was custom built, and the person loved pools or something, we don't know who's buying the house. I mean there's allergies out there. They could be allergic to salt and chlorine. I'd be in favor of the deck, maybe holding off on the pool until there was a buyer. MEMBER HORNING: That's what the case is all about though. MEMBER OLIVA: I can't go with the pool. The house itself is 12K sq. ft. It's very heavy. Those bluffs out there, because I live in Orient, are very unstable. And I just can't put some, another weight on another piece of property. This house is so heavy and so enormous. And knowing the way the bluffs are, even speaking to somebody out there when they were doing the stairs, they have this very silty, clayish substance in the bluffs, and you have the right wave action, and the right wind, you are losing half of your bluff. I just can't go for it with another weight on it. I simply can't. It's against everything. MR. HURTADO: The house is just under 7K sq. ft., it's not 12K sq. ft. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can we have your name please? JOHN HURTADO: John Hurtado. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What was the other gentleman's name? TATHAIS MOE: I'm Tathais Moe, and I'm here to speak for this application. I just happen to be helping out, volunteering. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You spoke earlier, we need your name, it's important. Thank you very much, Mr. Hurtado. MR. HURTADO: Also the bluff that's behind this house,while we did get a permit to put stairs down, they are about halfway completed right now. It's an extremely heavily vegetated bluff, and we just cleared a total of 4' for the stairs, and 2' on either side,just to accommodate the construction of the stairs. But the balance of my bluff in back of my lot is extremely heavily vegetated. Matter of fact, you really can't even see silt or dirt or anything. It's all covered with vines and dead leaves, or whatever. From a laymans point of view, which is what I consider myself, as far as this particular thing would go, detennining the condition of a bluff, it's in very strong'shape. There's no erosion that's visible, there's no ravines that have been created by anything I've done or nature. So I think it's, from the bluffs I've seen around this area, I think it's extremely stable. MEMBER HORNING: Wait a minute. I was there this morning. Not only was it exceptionally muddy,but the swath you had cut down on the bluff was extremely eroded. MR. HURTADO: We cleared right to the ground. Page 44 of 125 45 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: You made a statement, nothing you did caused erosion. I take exception to that, clearing that swath for that stairway down even though it was 4 or 6' swath, very noticeable erosion with these last rains. Maybe unforeseen, but... MR. HURTADO: Well certainly, but, again, we do have hay bails there, and we will, once we are done with the stairs, we've been concentrating on putting the siding on the house. I have the same crew doing the siding that are building the stairs down to the beach. I've been concentrating on the siding so I can get a framing inspection so I can start moving on the inside of the house a little bit quicker,but they are going on that stairs in the next few days and fix it up. But certainly whatever needs to be remedied there as far as,before they had mentioned some grass being planted. MEMBER HORNING: Well it is a reminder of what happens when you defoliate a steep bluff like that. And if it does rain, there will be erosion as there is. MR. HURTADO: Understandable, and again, I know a couple of residents had some concerns with the mud and things running down into the cul-de-sac from the lot. And as Cathy had stated, I've had a lophead in there a few times scraping the mud off the cul-de- sac. You know, and what we plan to do over the next week and half, two weeks, is get the gravel down in the driveway, and get this a little bit more presentable so when the trucks go in and out, they are driving on gravel and the water doesn't have a chance to take the dirt that's on top of the surface and bring it into the cul-de-sac. But Vincent was mentioning before about not giving a permit for the pool. And I just feel that, for the price range this house is in, for what the land costs out there, it's something that's extremely desirable having sold a bunch of homes out there in this area over the past couple of years. CHAIRWOMAN: It's desirable, then as you said, it's a very, very, expensive home. You're spending a lot of money on the home, there are a lot of very fine architects out there that can design a pool, and a deck in that space area. If you're not willing to do it... MR. HURTADO: I'm certainly willing to do whatever the board's requiring. CHAIRWOMAN: Then the board will certainly act on that. MR. HURTADO: The only thing I want to get across is the deck is elevated off the ground. And, again, I'm not sure, practically, how you design a deck that's elevated 7 or 8' off the ground. CHAIRWOMAN: You either re-design the deck, redesign the pool, or redesign both. But for the type of money that you're putting into this house, please don't try to say to us that you can't design something that's going to work. Because there are creative architects all over the country that could do this. So the elevation question is really Page 45 of 125 46 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting Public Hearing irrelevant at this point. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? THESAIS MONE: Yes. My name is Thesais Mone, and I live in the property immediately to the west. I built my house in 1984. And I had, for almost 20 years, nobody out there in the wonderful cul-de-sac. Bob Hungerford was there. We never saw him. We've got progress, we have houses. MEMBER OLIVA: It's a swimming hole. A swimming and fishing hole. MR MONE: Yes,we do. And I'm happy to share the fishing with everyone as I did for years with everyone using that spot. My concern is if Mr. Hurtado were the homeowner, and were here, I'd be here supporting him. He has been tremendously accommodating and very professional with dealing with the mud. It's a problem, we can live with that. There's rain, there's mud, his men are very accommodating, they are not noisy, my problem is this pool is going to be built sometime in the future. And I may have a disagreeable neighbor. Then I don't have any protection in terms of privacy and noise. Noise and privacy are things that I moved out of Nassau County to get away from. And, it's for that reason that I do object,but I would withdraw my objection if the pool were conditioned, if the grant for the variance for the pool were conditioned on requiring that the, whoever puts the pool in, when they put it in, not install any outdoor sound systems, or noise systems. You can't stop someone from bringing a radio out,but this may be new to people out here. It's just what I had in Nassau. Someone put a pool in the backyard, 2 big giant speakers. Every night I'd have to call up,please turn the speakers down. Nassau county, where I lived, had a noise ordinance. We don't have a noise ordinance in Southold. I don't know whether you've ever had a request like this before, but it seems to me, I know you've had requests for noise ordinances, but Mr. Hurtado is here asking for permission for his eventual buyer to put a pool in. My hope and prayer is his eventual buyer is as accommodating as Mr. Hurtado is. I won't have a problem. If I get some disagreeable person, I would at least like to have the board have said"if you are going to grant him permission to put a pool in,he's got to not to put any noise in there. My other request is that we maintain the tree line as it currently exists on the east side, the west side of the property, north of the house. If you look on the map, you'll see that we're, it's called a property fence, which runs right along the edge of the house. If the tree line north of that continues, I will have some privacy. John has already said he's going to have to remove some of the trees on the south side in order to pen-nit cars to swing into the driveway. We've agreed to share the cost of putting up some kind of protective barrier, some new plantings, we've agreed with that. When the new owner comes in, I don't have any negotiating power with him, or anything else. If the board were in a position to grant permission to put a pool in to someone I don't know and haven't met, I would ask that the board condition the pool on maintenance of the tree line as it exists, and maintaining adequate screening between the properties. I have no objection to the deck. I understand the need, the size and whatever it is, is none of my concern. It is your concern. I understand the need to have the deck in order to maintain Page 46 of 125 47 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the view. I understand the need to have the swimming pool. Even though Mr. Orlando, what you said, I was a competitive swimmer for 4 years. I have a pool. The reason I have a pool is because very often that water out there is full of jellyfish. You can't swim. I'm sympathetic to that. But, you know, my privacy and tranquility is something that I would like to try and preserve. And ask the board to help preserve for me. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. MONE: I spoke to Mr. Hurtado about my request. And it is fair to say that he had no objection if the pool permit were granted to have those restrictions on it. CHAIRWOMAN: The screening, and noise. MR. MONE: It's outdoor sound systems, or speaker systems. MEMBER HORNING: How about enclosing the mechanical aspects of the filtering system, pumps, stuff like that? MR. MONE: I would hope that someone who moves into a$3M house would do that. MEMBER HORNING: Soundproof that, I mean... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It should go under the deck area, and should be soundproof. MR. MONE: I don't have a feel for that, Mr. Goehringer, it's just... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To answer your question before, sir, we've had sound engineers in reference to distance of sound and how they travel. And I'm not speaking for the board. MR. MONE: I've never been to one of these hearings, and I have a concern about the ground runoff because of the way the property slopes. It slopes not only down to Grandview Drive, it slopes down to my property. I've gone through a lot of effort to maintain a barrier on the northeast. My house is down in hollow. So northeasterly winds go over the top of my house. Wood, I'm afraid will come down. John assures me that he won't get a CO unless that's all graded. So I don't have that problem. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to rely on the building inspector before the CO is granted to make sure that is the situation. CHAIRWOMAN: We're going to wrap this up now. Is there anything further? MS. MESIANO: Yes. I would just like to say that our request is not anything, we're not Page 47 of 125 48 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing requesting anything that the neighboring properties don't already enjoy. We're not requesting a variance as substantial as was granted on the neighboring property. These setbacks, we're in line with the setbacks of the neighboring properties. This, and I just have to stress that this in conformity with the neighborhood. The houses on each side have swimming pools. I don't think this is an excessive request, or an unreasonable request. And I'd also like to add that if it would give the board and Mr. Mone any sense of confidence with respect to the drainage situation, I'm sure Mr. Hurtado wouldn't have a problem in providing a grating and drainage plan with the proper calculations to demonstrate that, that will not be a problem. But,but I would really like to stress that the granting of a variance for the pool is not inappropriate at this time because we can address the major concern of Mr. Mone's concerns and problems. And we can try to divert any future problem with respect to that. Because we can handle those issues now before anything is constructed and designed, rather than later after it's a problem. You can be proactive rather than reactive. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Cathy, would you know the status of the green cards? MS. MESIANO: Yes, yes. MR. MONE: I own the property immediately to the west, and the property across the street. And I have concerns. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS. MESIANO: Although Mr. Lavine did not pick up his notice; he had called me and asked if I would fax him the notice, which I did do. Because he told me he wasn't going to the Post Office to pick that certified mail up. So I know he's been served, informally, even though he choose not to pick up the certified mail. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 12:05 a.m. BLUEPOINTS CO., INC. #5335. Request for: (a) an Interpretation under Section 100-242A regarding the nonconforming location of an accessory garage building with like-kind rehabilitation; and (b) if necessary, 100-71C.1 a Variance under Section 100-71C.1, based on the Building Department's January 21, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 10, 2003. Applicant proposes a demolition and reconstruction of an accessory garage "as built" at less than five feet from the rear lot line, at 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck; CTM 1000-140-1-23.1. Page 48 of 125 49 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LEE SNEAD, ESQ: Good afternoon. My name is Lee Snead. I'm an attorney from Bellport,NY. I represent the Bluepoints Co. in this application. At this time, I'd like to .present an affidavit of posting, the green cards on the mailing, and a couple of copies of pictures taken of the posting taken yesterday by myself. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. SNEAD: As a housekeeping matter, I would note that, somewhat embarrassingly, there were two minor mistypings in my presentation. On page 4 of the addendum narrative to the application,paragraph 14, the third line from the bottom, it is typed as the garage did constitute, and there should be a not. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. I figured that one out. MR. SNEAD: And even more embarrassingly, in the following page, paragraph 18, I quoted the village law, which obviously doesn't apply here. And it's rather the town law section. CHAIRWOMAN: Village law and town law are the same. They are identical. MR. SNEAD: I'm here in regard to a garage, which is pre-existing non-conforming. It has a CO, which has been provided to you. The garage, as it originally existed, was made of a concrete foundation slab with 3' concrete block knee wall and then wooden framing. The applicant, in late 2000, and completing it in 2003, replaced the existing wood structure with cinderblock, put a new roof on it and rehung garage doors. The garage in question has not been changed in either length or width dimension, nor in height. So we are here as a request to this board for an interpretation that 242A of your zoning code applies, and that the reconstruction of this garage was authorized. In addition, in the event that interpretation should be in the negative, we also ask here for a use variance, excuse me, an area variance under the standards. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's go to the interpretation issue. The interpretation issue, you're requesting a, as you just said, that section 100-242A applies, which is an increase in the degree of non-confonnity. However, you will note the Notice of Disapproval (NOD) does not site that provision in the code. That you have not been cited with the provision under 100-31C 1-7, which is, goes directly to the issue of an accessory use and the specific setback for the use for both schedules. Yes we can go down the route of the interpretation, which would be a very lengthy route, but I'm kind of giving you a straight out, time saving... MR. SNEAD: I would prefer to take the variance if I could get it. Page 49 of 125 i 50 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I would say, without pre judging anything, it might be more beneficial to you, and you client, to take the shorter route. Because the 242, in my opinion, and this is solely my opinion, after reviewing the code, is not applicable in reviewing this particular case. So let's go to the variance issue, which is... MR. SNEAD: Fine, your honor, Madam Chairwoman. I have here with me a copy of some pictures of the site, and some surrounding properties to show that basically this structure, and I'm going to step up to the mike. Here is the structure as it's presently existing. It's a 2-car garage basically, but what's stored in there are tractors and some personal items CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to just pass it down and let everybody take a look. MR. SNEAD: Just a general description of what you are looking at with also a direction on there so you can kind of get an idea of the site plan that you are looking at. Here the white building is in fact the garage in question. You can see that there is a, it's a concrete structure, it's decent looking. CHAIRWOMAN: We thought... MR. STEAD: I will show you. There are a couple of neighborhood shots, this one is the shot of the person behind showing that frame sheds, or sheds, common that they are... MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that the old one? Oh, that's the new one. CHAIRWOMAN: This is just a concrete... MR. STEAD: The white one is ours... CHAIRWOMAN: It's right down at the base of, next to the park it's a property. MEMBER ORLANDO: But there was an old one, there was a wooden one. MR. SNEAD: It was wooden from 3' up. It was concrete and concrete block foundation with So what has been produced here is exactly was there before. It's just a much more sturdy structure. Also when it's been painted, it will probably look more decent than the other one. MEMBER HORNING: How did it get to be"as-built"? MR. SNEAD: It is my understanding that, in the past, reconstructions of this type... CHAIRWOMAN: Do you want to leave these? Page 50 of 125 51 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SNEAD: I have a copy, I'm leaving those with the board. What those are designed to show is other sheds and garages in the immediate neighborhood are hard up in the lines and within the setbacks. So this particular garage is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood. As I said before, it was pre-existing, so there is no change in the neighborhood, there's no detriment to the neighborhood, and in fact, having redone it, it is a better looking garage than existed there before, and would be maintained in an easier fashion, so we think that's a benefit to the community. MEMBER ORLANDO: What initiated the NOD? You went for the CO, you were... MR. SNEAD: He found out that he needed to have a building permit after the fact. I was getting to that when I was standing up there. It turns out that a few years back, there was a change in the code, which said you now have to have a building permit to do a rehabilitation of a structure. He then went back to the building department after the fact. And then there was a denial. The initial denial cited an incorrect zoning classification. I brought that to the attention of the BD, they modified the denial, and that's why the denial is dated in March. CHAIRWOMAN: The other thing is the old CO on this, which is the '85 CO, for the entire property was when it was AR zoned. And in 1989, the property was re-zoned MII. So even if you wanted to update your CO... MR. SNEAD: You'd probably have to come back here, at any rate. CHAIRWOMAN: So you can probably clean up everything in one shot. I have no problems with this application for a variance. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: One of the letters came back. Do you know which parcel it's for? MR. SNEAD: It's the Herbert-Swanson Trust. And I believe it's for the parcel, I'm not certain. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There may be a tax bill address that's available as an alternative. We can help you with that if you want to give us a call tomorrow. Call the tax office, and see if they have an address. Because they do have to pay taxes. And it's usually a different address on the assessment. If you could just send notice to them to see if they have any objection, or anything. Just send theirs a letter, you know? MR. SNEAD: Am I hearing that this matter is going to be held open? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No,just pending. It's going to be awhile before a decision is made. So in that 2-week period, you should have an answer, or something, Page 51 of 125 52 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing anything. This way we could say you attempted it a second time. MR. SNEAD: Just so you know, that address was taken out of the county roll, so, it's the only address they had. But I will check with the assessor here, and see if I can obtain that. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If we knew earlier, we would have asked you to do that anyway. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MR. SNEAD: It's been a pleasure to appear before you. I just wanted to say I practice out in Islip and Brookhaven, and if anybody's ever practiced out there, or talked with anybody who's practiced out there, you guys have a phenomenal system here. Your BD and ZBA folks have been very, very, helpful. It's been really appreciated. CHAIRWOMAN: Would you like to come to lunch with us? By the way, the Supervisor's office is... MR. SNEAD: I realize in saying that to you it might look one way, but it is so nice to have somebody who wants to help people get through. MEMBER ORLANDO: We accept letters. MR. SNEAD: You'll get one. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you, Mr. Snead. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 12:15 a.m. JOHN AND PATRICIA CLARK#5336. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's January 9, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended January 21, 2003. Applicants propose additions and alterations to the dwelling which results in a lot coverage exceeding the code limitation of 20% for all building area, at 800 Albo Drive, Mattituck; CTM #1000- 126-3-9. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Clark, before you speak, can I just make a general statement to the board? As you know, in the past, I have recused myself. Again, we have a situation where Mr. Clark's wife is a very distant relative of my wife. And, at this particular point, I think it's gotten a little ridiculous in reference to my recusal. So I'm Page 52 of 125 53 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing going to sit on this unless anybody has any objection. Thank you. JOHN CLARK: Good afternoon. Actually I think I'm going to make your day. I have a very simple, what I think is a very simple request. I'm proposing to extend all of onto a side deck to my single family home. CHAIRWOMAN: It's hard to hear you. MR. CLARK: I'm asking to extend a side deck by 6'. CHAIRWOMAN: The side deck meaning the front? MR. CLARK: No. This is the side of the house. There's 2, I'm requesting 2 different building structures. One is a side deck, off the side of the house. There's an existing deck there already. I'm only asking to extend that by 6' in length. It's not going any further. The width is not going out. It's just going to the end of the house if you see the survey, it will just bring it to the end of the house. I probably should have done it originally, but at the time it just didn't seem that way. Part of the reason to extend that is because family has increased in size. The deck is small to accommodate people now. There's a pool off the deck. And for entertaining purposes, it actually creates a problem where people are almost forced to straddle the stairway. So by increasing the deck I think I'll also gain some safety feature, and aesthetic value to the side of the house. And minimum intrusion to any neighbors, no one has complained. No one has an objection to it. The front is a, I'm putting on a porch on the front, basically a deck also. The front of the house has an overhang. I think there are pictures. I don't have them, but I believe they were filed with the folder. And if you notice, the pictures show there's an extensive overhang on the front of my house. MEMBER ORLANDO: Which will not change, that stays? MR. CLARK: That stays exactly as it is. All I'm doing is putting this porch underneath that overhang. The majority of the porch will not even exceed past the overhang. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There's always the possibility you could furnish us with a copy of, you could take a Polaroid picture. MR. CLARK: I was at the appeals office, and they had the folder with the pictures in it. CHAIRWOMAN: You gave the pictures to who? MR. CLARK: Yesterday at the office. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yesterday? Page 53 of 125 54 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. CLARK: No. The pictures were submitted when I submitted all this, all of this. And yesterday when I saw the file at the building, the zoning office, the pictures were in the file. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Did they put them in the back of the file? Oh there, right on top. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we see that picture? CHAIRWOMAN: None of us were copied on it. The photos. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They were with the original submission. And we probably didn't have 7 sets. Do you remember if you gave us 7 sets? MR. CLARK: I probably didn't do 7 sets. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That happens sometimes,but they are always in the official file. MR. CLARK: When you see that photo, you'll see that the proposed porch is going to be under. Probably 60-70% of the house is not even changing. It falls underneath the existing overhang. MEMBER ORLANDO: Just extending the roofline to cover the full porch. Some of your front porch will be open to the sky. MR. CLARK: Just on the south side. CHAIRWOMAN: So this will not be a porch? MR. CLARK: See where the bushes are? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MR. CLARK: The bushes are coming out. There will be a porch. CHAIRWOMAN: There will beeno roof, open to the sky? This is going to stay the same? MR. CLARK: Nothing on the roof changes at all. MEMBER HORNING: So the only porch area will be underneath the existing overhang. The rest is deck? Page 54 of 125 55 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is a patio now? CHAIRWOMAN: You are replacing this? This part is being replaced? Here's Albo Drive. Here's the front of the house. MR. CLARK: I'm just going to come right across here, going to do a little zigzag right here, and come back. So all of this is under the overhang right here. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the roofline stays, but no additional roofline. MR. CLARK: Then on the other side, here, we're just coming, this will be one or two feet will be exposed. MEMBER ORLANDO: You're building a deck, no roof? MR. CLARK: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN: Because, in your original application, you said you were going to be replacing the front porch. MEMBER ORLANDO: He meant, which is existing now, which is... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He's really filling it in. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's brick now. And the brick column will stay there as well? CHAIRWOMAN: I guess the concern I have is right now, you're at 22% lot coverage? MR. CLARK: 23. CHAIRWOMAN: And you want to be 23.8. And when it comes to the lot coverage, 20% is usually a lot. When you have 20% on a lot, it's a lot of lot coverage. Yes, I know you want to do this for aesthetic reasons,but... MR. CLARK: Also what you can't see here is the stoop that goes to the front door. It's a narrow stoop, when you open the door, young children And I eliminated that problem. CHAIRWOMAN: I guess what I'm saying is the board really does not like to grant lot coverage in excess of 20%. Because it really is a lot of building on a lot. And the town is very lenient on maximum lot coverage as it is. But in this case, you are already over the maximum lot coverage of 22%, and you're coming back for more. So it's... MR. CLARK: I don't have an attorney with me. And it didn't want to go out and hire an Page 55 of 125 56 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing attorney because I've already incurred expenses that are necessary to do this anyhow. It is my understanding that there are plenty of houses with more than 20% lot coverage, which is the purpose of the committee. And I know... CHAIRWOMAN: I don't think so. I don't know where, who told you that. But... MR. CLARK: Told me what? CHAIRWOMAN: That there were a lot of houses that had more than 20% lot coverage. MR. CLARK: I don't know statistics,but I know people come before the board because they like to.increase. Obviously, they are here because they have to increase over 20%. If I'm at 22, and I'm asking for an additional 1%, the reason I'm asking for is, as I started to say, was the entrance to my house, which is the stoop, is very restricted. So when I open the door, people are forced to walk backwards. I mean, I know what's going to happen, people have stumbled. I don't want to have a problem. By putting this porch on, I eliminate that problem. MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Clark, would you settle just for the variance for the front porch, the 8.4x21'? At least that will settle your liability concerns for the front door? MR. CLARK: What I'm asking for on the side porch is 6'. And that, again, creates a problem because my house, my family has expanded. I have now, actually, my son got married... MEMBER ORLANDO: I understand. But the Chairwoman is not looking in favor of that. So I'm trying to help you here, and see if you'll settle for that. Otherwise... MR. CLARK: It sounds like, again, I'd have to address the side porch. The fact that I'm still going to have a problem with safety there, expanding family and not enough room to entertain people. I'm still going to be forcing people to straddle a step, and stand half on a flat deck, or patio, a foot up on the deck to accommodate people. Things change, you know, my needs have changed. And I just didn't realize that this could create as much, maybe I'm just not presenting it correctly, maybe I'm confusing people. But 1% increase from 22% to 23%, I just didn't think I was looking for a lot of problems. I don't mean to cause problems. MEMBER ORLANDO: But you also have a large patio around the deck. You can entertain on there instead of... MR. CLARK: Except I don't have a barbeque, the barbeque grill is obviously on the deck. And when I'm feeding people, I'm feeding them on the deck. They are not walking from the deck all the way down to the patio. It also, the way the deck is now, it stops before, if you notice the section of the house, it stops before there. So aesthetic Page 56 of 125 57 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing value is going to increase. Not only my own personal aesthetic value,but the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. And the neighbors on the one side of me especially who look at this. It's almost like, why did you stop where you stopped? Why didn't you just finish the continuity of it? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? MR. CLARK: Yes. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Possibly, Mr. Clark, what you might consider doing is including that deck underneath that porch area that you are referring to. And then taking that portion, which you're asking for deck on the front of the house, and maybe reducing that to a brick patio. Which would be on the ground, which would exclude this. Thereby keeping in the variance application, would be the porch, or filling in underneath the porch. And that 6.6', which you are referring to on the side. The point I think I'm trying to raise here is that we need 3 votes. So you need 3 people to agree. And that's basically how the situation is. MEMBER ORLANDO: And how that works, Mr. Goehringer, is you make that a patio. It reduces his lot coverage, correct? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. That's what I'm saying. MR. CLARK: But, now you're saying make the patio under the large living room window? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, make that a brick patio. Or some sort of flagstone or something that's relatively even with the ground. Ground level. MEMBER ORLANDO: Continuous to the rest of the patio. CHAIRWOMAN: This is for the front porch? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. The front porch that's not filled in underneath the, it's for the front deck. MR. CLARK: The problem is, and I mean, I appreciate your suggestion... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could do it in wood too, you could do it in CCA. MR. CLARK: I don't think that's going to, I'm the one that has to live there. And I appreciate anybody's help, but we spent a lot of time. We actually started this thing 2 years ago. And come to find out the different things I had to keep doing. It kind of got sidelined. We finally got things together and started the movement. And I really have to Page 57 of 125 58 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing tell you, I'm not looking to turn the town upside down. It's a 1%increase. It's aesthetically going to enhance the neighborhood and the house. It's going to develop a better entrance and exit on the front of the house. It's going to be a safety feature that is going to be beneficial, not only to me,but to guests and to family members. Grandchildren, grandparents, I just, I kind of like feel that I would like to play the hand that I've given here. I'm not looking for confrontation. But I don't see by reducing the 6' on the side of the house is going to help anything. It's going to take away from the house. And changing the front, this is something that's going to make the house look nicer. It's not going to encroach on anyone at all, neighbor wise. It's going to increase values. It's got a safety feature as the bottom line to,it. I just would ask the board to... MEMBER ORLANDO: The last variance you got, I had a copy, but I can't find it. It was for the sunroom in the back. And that was obviously for lot coverage as well. MR. CLARK: I really don't remember. I never came to a hearing. I can tell you that. I think that it might have been that it was too close to the back property line. If that sounds right. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Why don't we take all of your thoughts and concerns into consideration here. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. CLARK: I can only tell you it's hearsay,borrowing an old phrase, but my neighbor across the street was impressed with the idea that we were having the porch as opposed to what it is now. That was her comments. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. MR. CLARK: Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 12:30 a.m. DONNA AND LEONARD SCHLEGEL #5327. Request for a Variance under Section 100-231, based on the Building Department's January 27, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to construct a fence exceeding the code limitation of four feet when located in the front yard. Location of Property: 1480 Westphalia Road, Mattituck; CTM#1000-114-7-13.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? DONNA SCHLEGEL: Hi. I'm Donna Schlegel. And I'm applying for a variance for an Page 58 of 125 59 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing estate gate. And it's highest length, height, is 6' with 2 sets of pillars. The pillars will be 6 '1/z' of natural stone, and 2 that are 4 %2'. It will be setback off the road 30'. And 21' off the property line. MEMBER.ORLANDO: So the fence is the size is MS. SCHLEGEL: The fence right, I'm going to put a fence across the whole front, a picket fence 4'. That's conforming. MEMBER ORLANDO: And 4' going to the internal pillar? The will be 6'? MS. SCHLEGEL: You got it. MEMBER ORLANDO: And the pillars will be 6.5? MS. SCHLEGEL: Yes. MEMBER ORLANDO: My big million-dollar question is, the nice shrubbery in the front, flowers, that's outside the fence? MS. SCHLEGEL: Yes. It's going to go back on an angle. CHAIRWOMAN: My big question was on the 2 pillars that are on the road. That maximum height on that is 4.5'? This is so easy. I think we've all got it. MS. SCHLEGEL: It should look very nice. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? What is the gate going to be made of? Is it wrought iron? MS. SCHLEGEL: I'm having a custom wrought iron fence made, 14' wide. MEMBER ORLANDO: Matching fence, more wrought iron? MS. SCHLEGEL: Yes. I'm putting the little Ixl pickets across the front. And then the 4 1/z' pillar, it will go 4 '/z', and then it will step up to the 6 '/z', where the other, larger pillars. MEMBER ORLANDO: Made of what? MS. SCHLEGEL: The larger, plastic fencing. And it will be a wrought iron gate. CHAIRWOMAN: I saw the design. It looks very nice. Page 59 of 125 60 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Electric, manual? MS. SCHLEGEL: I'm going to make it electric. I'm restoring this big old house. It's coming along. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any questions or problems with this at all. Any questions, board members? 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 1:06 p.m. VIRGINIA and CHRISTOPHER COYNE #5323. Request for Variances under Sections 100-31A and 100-33, based on the Building Department's February 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, for approval of: (a) living space in a non-habitable accessory building, with a proposed addition; (b) proposed additions/alterations to a non-habitable accessory building, and (c) "as built" accessory shed located in an area other than the code required rear yard. Location of Property: 8310 Soundview Avenue, Southold; CTM#1000-59-7-29.6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Coyne. Mrs. Coyne is actually here. She made it despite caving in sanitary systems, floodings from the road, and everything else that goes along with ownership out here. The way this began is, I represented Mrs. Coyne when she brought the property. And Shore, Schur, Mr. Schur was the seller. We actually started the process for a pre-CO on the cottage. And Mr. Schur didn't want any hassles with the Building Department (BD), didn't want to help us, didn't want to cooperate, so it kind of left it up to us to do all the background search on how this, when this cottage was in place, and when it was created, and the history of it here. We tried to submit all that to Gary Fish. And Gary said, "no, go to the zoning board and prove it there". And so that's why we carve to this board. What I submitted to you already in your packet is that this subdivision was created back in the 70's as oversized subdivision. Let me get you the date. CHAIRWOMAN: 1976. MS. MOORE: 1976. Thank you, it's all cut off on my print. In '76, this cottage was there. And what, when they did the property line, they included this piece, and then they later on, built the house that's there presently. But the lots are, could be, they could sustain 2 houses with virtue of zoning. The problem is that the Planning Board (PB) imposed a no further covenant, a no further subdivision covenant. So we can't solve the problem by splitting this cottage away from the house. So we are obligated to be here to Page 60 of 125 61 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing give it a pre-existing, non-conforming status. What we also did is went back to figure out when this cottage was placed on this property. And this property was originally owned by the Charnews family. It was part of the big farm Chamews owned, as you know, from the sound all the way to Soundview and parts of, to Main Road. This piece was one of the last remaining pieces. And it ultimately got purchased by Bales and subdivided by Bales. And that's the 70's subdivision that you have. You see from both the, did you get inside the building when you went to inspect? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. CHAIRWOMAN: We just peered in the windows. MS. MOORE: Okay. I took pictures. The house, pretty much, looks the same way it has for many years. It still has a tiny kitchen in it, a small bathroom and you can see from the exterior, it's really typical pre-existing, 1950's cottage construction that over time, may have been spruced up a little bit with a little, you know replace a board here and there. But not much has been done to it, even when Mr. Schur owned it. Mr. Schur had his son living in the house. In fact, I think, was it his son we had to wait until he got out? Or was it somebody else? Like a nephew, or? Yes. MS. MOORE: It was a family member that was in the house occupying it. Before we closed we had to wait until he found alternative living arrangements. So this little dwelling has been occupied consistently. And it looks to be in pretty good shape. What we, the situation we have now is that Mrs. Coyne would like to have the pre-CO for the house to legalize it. And would like to pursuer a small expansion of it because, at the time, when we first applied, this was a long time ago, we've been at this now for about 6 months, 7 months before we are here today. First she was, her mother was living in the house. Her mom is now living in Founders. She's got a unit at Founders Village. And their family situation has changed. The house is on the market for sale because her husband, his job got transferred, so she's got the 3 kids, 4 kids, all under 6, 8. There are a lot of little bodies around. And she's somewhat isolated out here with her husband still working in the city and working partly in the city. So their lifestyle has changed. CHAIRWOMAN: The house is, because in the original application, the mother was living in the cottage. MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: The mother is no longer living in the cottage. MS. MOORE: The mother isn't living in the cottage now. The mother is now living in Founders Village. She's bought one of the units in Founders Village. One of the condos Page 61 of 125 62 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing there. It's really more comfortable. She was really cramped in this house, and couldn't wait much longer. MEMBER ORLANDO: Now the current owners are selling this property. MS. MOORE: The current owners have it under contract, don't have it under contract, have it on the market. They have somebody who's interested in buying it. CHAIRWOMAN: This is Mrs. Coyne here? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: So Mrs. Coyne now is selling the house? MS. MOORE: Well we want a pre-CO because regardless, we need to have the pre-CO of the cottage. It deserves to have a pre-CO and the BD should have granted it, but they want you to do that. So we want to make sure it has a pre-CO or a recognition that it's a pre-existing structure. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When was the cottage built? CHAIRWOMAN: They don't know. MS. MOORE: In the 50's, early 50's. Because what we had from Charnews family, or from a neighbor there that this use, it started out as a little social club. They used to drink their potato liquor out of this place and this was a hangout. So it's been there. Pardon me? MEMBER ORLANDO: Its' hearsay. MS. MOORE: It's hearsay. We know it's there. We know from it's construction that it's been there for a very long time. And from surveys that appear on record from the PB when the subdivision application was made. The same little dwelling the cottage shows, and the fence is showing there as well. And the fence is still there. So the structure has remained, when it left being a drinking hangout, it then got occupied as a dwelling. But it was all consistent with the zoning because you're permitted to have a residence on residential property. Then when the 2"d house was built on this property, the BD in the 70's used to look at the acreage of the property. And they didn't have a problem with cottages if you had an oversized piece. If you had a parcel that was more than 2 acres in size or an acre, depending on the zoning, one dwelling per acreage that was required. At the time I think it was one acre zoning here, in the 70's. It is now, subsequently, 2-acre zoning. But this piece of property is over 4. It's just shy of 4, it's 3.9 acres. So it's legally a created use. But now it's non-conforming in that our code says no 2 dwellings on one property regardless of the acreage that you have. Page 62 of 125 63 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: I had seen a CO that was issued for this. MS. MOORE: For the cottage? CHAIRWOMAN: For the property. MS. MOORE: Yes. There's a CO for the house. Remember, there's a main house. Did you get over to see the property? Mrs. Tortora? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. MS. MOORE: The big house that's towards the back of the property was built in the `80's, 70's, 76, okay. Shortly after the subdivision was created, Mr. Schur purchased the property and built the house. The cottage was already there at the time. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you happen to have a copy of the CO of the house with you? MS. MOORE: I'm sure I do, I'll look for it. I'll see if I have it in my paperwork here. I'll look. I know I have it in my file. So I'll give it to you at the end of the meeting. I thought I had given it to you guys,but. It's in there somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN: No. Actually I have it in my packet at home. It does not appear to be in the master file for some reason. MS. MOORE: I don't know, I'll look. I know that we closed with a CO for the house. Anyway, the situation presently is we need the pre-CO to legalize this so that it doesn't create problems for the next person who buys this property. And the person who's interested, who's shown some interest in this house has a similar situation to what Mrs. Coyne had, which is a family member who's going to live in the cottage. And the house is going to be by someone else. You know, by another family member. What we're prepared to do is covenant that this cottage be accessory to the house so it will be family occupancy. It's not to be a rented dwelling. That's been what she's wanted all along. We want to continue that restriction on the use. We think it preserves the value of the property as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. So we are certainly willing to accept that as a condition on an expansion of the cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: The cottage is what, 432 sq. ft.? MS. MOORE: Yes, something like that. CHAIRWOMAN: It's very tiny. It's not even... MS. MOORE: Well it has a full bath, bedroom, and living, dining area, and kitchen. Page 63 of 125 64 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing You should have gone inside. Or too bad you didn't go inside. CHAIRWOMAN: I did peek in the window. It's very cute, and it's very old. And I can see that you, there is also a plan that you wanted to put on a major addition to the cottage. The major addition would be to make it almost double the size. MS. MOORE: No, it wasn't that big. There was a, come on up here so you're on the record. MRS. COYNE: What we had planned, I think, was expanding the width of the house, the 24', which is the living area. CHAIRWOMAN: Your mother no longer lives there. And by no definition would it even come close to being a dwelling unit, if, as you know, 850 sq. ft. minimum. MS. MOORE: It's pre-existing. CHAIRWOMAN: That hasn't been established. MS. MOORE: That's what I believe. That it's established through the history of this property. CHAIRWOMAN: Not as a residence though. MS. MOORE: Sure, it's shown... CHAIRWOMAN: When the, according to Mr. Doroski, it used to be used as a social club and a bar. MS. MOORE: That was in the 50's. CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. But there is no evidence that it has been used prior to zoning for a residence. MS. MOORE: No, no. It was the dwelling on this property until the `70's. CHAIRWOMAN: Do you have a CO that says that? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's none submitted to the record. MS. MOORE: Okay, we'll look for a, just think about the history here. You have a subdivision that creates the property, the lot, in the `70's. It has the building on that property at that time. If it was a, it would have been a dwelling at that time because it was residential use on a 3.9 acre property. When the 2nd house, the primary house, the Page 64 of 125 65 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing main house was built, that cottage still remained. Because the property, again, if zoning only required 1 acre per dwelling, it was conforming at that time. It only became non- conforming when it was put on the same property, and arguably, well, it's non- conforming when the upzoning occurred to 2 acres because technically, you would have required 4 acres to have 2 dwellings. So only at that time did it become nonconforming. Until that time, it was conforming. It's a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. The structure was built prior to zoning.. But the use became, was illegal. Was actually legal until the `70's when the 2nd house was constructed. And then it became accessory to the main residence. And it hasn't changed. CHAIRWOMAN: Either that, or it became the principal residence. And the new house became accessory. MS. MOORE: Unlikely from the way it's designed. It's always been accessory to the main house. MEMBER ORLANDO: Couldn't the PB do a set-off? MS. MOORE: No. I would have loved that. That was our initial solution here. But the PB put a covenant, no further subdivision on this property. So as a covenant against further subdivision, you can't come in and ask to subdivide the property. Whether that's a legal subdivision or not, the lower courts have said it's illegal, the upper courts have not yet made a final ruling on that. We got over, that issue I presented to the... MEMBER ORLANDO: Weren't you in Brooklyn Supreme Court at one time? MS. MOORE: Yes, and what happened is that the appellate division turned over the PB's denial of our being able to come in to further subdivide based on the fact that it wasn't a recorded covenant. Here I think it was a recorded covenant as I recall. It was recorded. So when we acquired, we found in our title report, the condition of no further subdivision, we knew that, okay, that solution is out because the PB has filed a covenant. The appellate division didn't sustain the lower courts ruling. They kept that silent. They did not address the issue. They said no PB, you have to consider this application because it was not a recorded covenant, a condition that would have put Iano is the case, would have put Iano on notice. So it's still, the lower courts, we have an Easthampton case and our case in Southold are both lower court case that say that the PB doesn't have authority to put that kind of restriction on it, but the appellate division hasn't yet ruled over that issue. So it leaves it in somewhat of a gray area. So, you know, the Coyne's don't want another, you know, they don't need to bring another case that brings the point back on to the appellate division. That's just not, not a reasonable process. CHAIRWOMAN: There was a note in the property tax cards that 2 buildings were moved onto the property. Page 65 of 125 66 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: That, we did not find any evidence of that, that one was definitely hearsay. It could have been the shed because that shed was put on there, I don't know. That looks like a relatively new shed. That didn't make sense because all evidence that we had from the subdivision application, and the Schur survey keep showing that the dwelling that we are asking for a pre-CO on as always being there. So as far as we can tell, has never been moved. Whether or not it may have been lifted and the foundation put under it and put back on, that's possible. I don't know the form of construction, how it was sitting on the, what kind of foundation it had. CHAIRWOMAN: The building, I, I understand that the building itself was pre-existing, non-conforming, and to the use, I really don't think that's been established that it's been a residential use used continually, etc. There's nothing. MS. MOORE: But the obligation is for us to show from the time that it was a residence, it became, you constructed the second residence. That's when it became the second dwelling. You understand the difference because you are not going back to '57. Even though you could. It was a legal, it was not a non-conforming use until the 2nd house was constructed. CHAIRWOMAN: As I say you could also take the argument that if you're going to take the argument that it was not a non-conforming use until the 2nd house was constructed, then you could also argue that this was the principal use, and the second house is the second use. MS. MOORE: Either way, we have a CO on the 2nd house. And I'll produce that because I know we have it. We wouldn't have been able to close with the bank if, you know, we didn't have a CO for the house. CHAIRWOMAN: What is the, we don't have that in our file. MS. MOORE: I know I have the whole file with me, so I'll pull it out and give it to you. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Mr. Horning. MS. MOORE: We still have the shed issue. It went on the front yard because that's where most of the property is. The house is all the way pushed to the back end. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: What is the applicant proposing to have inside of the accessory building, or second house? MS. MOORE: The same thing we have now. It was just the living room was, the kitchen, it's kind of a great room, it starts, the little kitchen is on the far end, and it's a Page 66 of 125 67 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing small little seating area and the sofa/TV. The one L side of the house. Do you have in your packet the interior layout? It looks like this. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're looking to seek from us a CO? MS. MOORE: Right. We need,the CO for the cottage, and then pennission to expand it, a small amount,just to make the living space a little more conforming. We have like an efficiency kitchen in there rather than a, there we go, thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far is the expansion? MS. MOORE: I'll get the dimensions for you. MS. COYNE: We've proposed about, the shed itself is about 24' deep. What we wanted to do is go like 20' 1 think, or 18'. About half, there's a fenced in area right behind it. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're talking the... MS. COYNE: No, I'm not expanding the shed. MS. MOORE: What was the distance here, this way? 10', I think it was. MS. COYNE: No, I think I was looking for 18'. MS. MOORE: Where the fenced in area is now, and you have a photograph of that, pushing it out about half way in that fenced in area, where the propane tank is presently on that side,just pushing it out a little bit. MEMBER HORNING: How much was that? MS. MOORE: The request was 18'. The length of the building is 24' from one end to the other. So pop it out 18. And that's negotiable. I mean... MS. COYNE: That's just to make the living room bigger. MEMBER HORNING: And who would live there? MS. MOORE: It would have to be a family member. The person who's interested in the house now has a, the parents are going to own the big house. And the adult daughter is going to be in the small cottage. MS. COYNE: Almost the same situation we had. Page 67 of 125 68 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: Reverse than what they had. They had the husband and wife with the four kids in the main house and moan in the cottage. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer, any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, they are going to give us a copy of the CO. MS. MOORE: The CO is dated November 271h, 1978, private one-family dwelling. And it was constructed by Robert and Shelia Schur, who are our sellers when we, we bought from the Schur family. CHAIRWOMAN: You have nothing, you have nothing, there's nothing mentioned in the CO about the cottage? MS. MOORE: Nothing prohibiting, nothing removing it or, we have an as-built deck. CHAIRWOMAN: There's no mention whatsoever of the cottage? MS. MOORE: In the original surveys there is. CHAIRWOMAN: I mean in the CO's. MS. MOORE: No. The first time that... MEMBER ORLANDO: The deed. MS. MOORE: No, it's there. CHAIRWOMAN: When you purchased the property. MS. MOORE: No when we purchased the property, we applied to the BD for a CO, a pre-CO for the cottage. At that time, Gary Fish said "well I'm going to call it an accessory structure, but I won't give you a pre-CO. You'll have to go to the ZBA." And that's, we gave him as much infonnation as we had, but he said bring it here instead. So we had to close with an accessory CO, an accessory structure CO rather than an appeal. Okay, because we appealed right away. CHAIRWOMAN: So what you do have is you have a CO... MS. MOORE: For the main house, the big house. CHAIRWOMAN: And you have a CO for an accessory structure? Page 68 of 125 69 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. MOORE: A pre-existing CO for an accessory structure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you have the numbers of those? MS. MOORE: Yeah, sure, I'll give you a copy. The number is 29279. CHAIRWOMAN: Can I have a copy of that? MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll give you... CHAIRWOMAN: No... MS. MOORE: I thought you got a copy. This was all attached to the building permit application, so it should have,the pre-CO... CHAIRWOMAN: The pre-CO for the cottage is called? MS. MOORE: Is an accessory building, an accessory structure. They recognize that the accessory structure was constructed prior to '57, but he wouldn't give us a pre-CO for dwelling, for a cottage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is there a pre-CO number on that? MS. MOORE: Yes. That was the number I gave you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So it's all in one document? MS. MOORE: It's a pre-CO Z number 29279. That's called a pre-existing CO. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That includes the new house? MS. MOORE: No. That was the cottage. We have a CO for the house, which is dated 1978. And that number is 29315, or no I'm sorry, Z9315, that's a Z. CHAIRWOMAN: And the pre-CO for the accessory structure is dated? MS. MOORE: There was none from '78. CHAIRWOMAN: The one that you have. MS. MOORE: Oh, the one we have currently is dated February 20, 2003. That's when we, it was at our request, or application. Fortunately the bank didn't give us a hard time because there was enough value in the house. Page 69 of 125 70 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Essentially when you bought the house, when you bought this house, you did not have a CO on this, or a pre-CO for... MS. MOORE: No, we had a pre-CO for an accessory structure because that's all the BD would give us. And we needed to have some form of... CHAIRWOMAN: Wait. You just said that the date of the pre-CO... MS. MOORE: Let me repeat. CHAIRWOMAN: Was 2-20-03. MS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: Now, you bought the house before then. MS.MOORE: No, it was, yes, it was about the same time. The procedure you have to go through when you go to a closing is you have to produce CO's for all structures. CHAIRWOMAN: When did Mrs. Coyne buy the house? MS. MOORE: When did you close? MS. COYNE: August 2002. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually it's September 30, 2002. MS. COYNE: I went to contract in August, closed in September. CHAIRWOMAN: When you closed... MS. MOORE: We closed without any CO's on this accessory structure. CHAIRWOMAN: Now you want to sell it... MS. MOORE: We want to have it legal, reflecting that it's a legal structure. CHAIRWOMAN: You want to have it pennitted for 2 dwelling units on the property. Is that the bottom line? MS. MOORE: Bottom line, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. I don't have any other questions. Does anyone, let's see if anyone else in the audience has any questions. Is there anyone in the audience who Page 70 of 125 71 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 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. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Before I get into this one (Theoharis, see page 104), Coyne, since you have to get from me the CO's from the previous application, I'd like to have an opportunity to submit a written submission so if you would just, it can continue to be closed subject to my written submission. So we don't carry it over to another meeting. CHAIRWOMAN: It's already been closed. MS. MOORE: Then I would ask that you re-open it for my written submission, then close it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Then I'd have to re-advertise it. MS. MOORE: No. There was nobody here except for my client with respect to that application. If you recall there was nobody else here in favor or opposed. I just want to put in writing and outline the points. The board may have some questions about the affidavit. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Just the letter or a new document? MS. MOORE: The attachment. They are CO documents. But I do want to, there seemed to be some loss of communication. I want to get, if I can, affidavits from any neighbors that were around in the `70's when the house was built, the main house was built to establish when this cottage became a cottage to the house, rather than, I think, the documents the town gave, that the town had in it's presence, adequately describe all that. But I don't know that any, the sense I got from the board was that you didn't believe me, or you just didn't... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lydia, why don't you... CHAIRWOMAN: We did hear you say that it was there in the `70's. I don't think we questioned that, okay? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you re-advertise to just open it to accept those? And then close it on July 10"'. MS. MOORE: I don't even think you have to re-advertise. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There's no information being added to the file. MS. MOORE: It's up to you, how you want to do it. Page 71 of 125 72 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's what I would do, for the special meeting.. CHAIRWOMAN: We can rescind the motion to close and reserve decision, and recess it to the next meeting. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. To July 10`'. MS. MOORE: At which time I have to give you extra paperwork, or you close the hearing. CHAIRWOMAN: One way or another, we'd like the paperwork. MS. MOORE: I'll start on it tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion to rescind, Coyne, a resolution to close and reserve Coyne, and to recess the hearing until July 101h at 7:30pm. MS. MOORE: Okay. Thank you. Later resolution to adjourn hearing until 7-10-03 at 7:30pm. 1:34 p.m. DAVID PAGE AND SHINN VINEYARD #5339. Request for a Variance under Section 100-31A(2-c), based on the Building Department's February 28, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 5, 2003. Applicants propose demolition of an accessory building and to construct an accessory equipment storage building at less than 20 feet from the side line. Location of Property: 2000 Oregon Road, Mattituck; CTM#1000-100-4-3.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? BILL KELLY: Bill Kelly from Morton Buildings, and I'm representing David Page and Barbara Shimi, who are here with me today. I have the cards in receipt of certified mailing. And I also have an additional survey stamped by a professional surveyor, professional land surveyor. CHAIRWOMAN: Is this a new survey? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: That we haven't seen? Page 72 of 125 73 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. KELLY: It's the same as the one that you do have. But they requested it to be stamped by a licensed surveyor. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Is there any change? MR. KELLY: No. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have a copy of that? MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes. There's 6. Much cleaner and crisper. MR. KELLY: Yes. The only thing that doesn't show is the fact that Shinn vineyards, David Page and Barbara Shinn are the owners of, separated that parcel out because they sold off the development rights for the larger parcel. When you look at that you don't see that. Then the one I originally submitted shows that. The situation is they have an existing structure that's on the property line. It's on the east property line. And what they would like to do is remove that structure. It's an older structure that's not in good enough shape to suffice their use. And replace it with a structure of similar size. Their structure is a little bit larger. And move that structure over to 12' because it's going to be used as part of the vineyard, or the vineyard production end of their operation. I guess by code it would be required to be 20' off the property line. And we are requesting that it only be 12' off the property line. And the reason for that is that they access their vineyard barns from the south end of that property. And that would put, we have the door access to that building that we are proposing on the south end of the building. So if it was to move over any more, then they would not be able to access that door. CHAIRWOMAN: They are going to access it from the 24? MR. KELLY: That's correct. Yes, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Because last time we were at the property, I think we had looked at the middle building. MR. KELLY: That one was pre-existing. It's really, it's, that's being accessed, I think from what would be the west side. And they really have it set up, you could tell if you were there, you could tell from the operation that everything is set up for access from the south side of the property, so that's what we are trying to keep consistent. And if the building was to move over any farther, then we wouldn't be able to access it from that end. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, let's see what happens. Mr. Horning. Page 73 of 125 74 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Is it totally impractical to make an expansion of the other framed building that's noted on the survey instead of an additional building. Somehow making a larger... MR. KELLY: If we were to make an east/west expansion on any of the buildings, we would be in the same situation, as far as, you know, we'd be here to you again. Because if we do an east/west expansion on any of the other buildings, then we are in close proximity, we are within the setback lines. And a north expansion wouldn't be practical because that's moving away from the vineyard end, and pushing it up towards the dwelling. MEMBER HORNING: I'm looking at the framed building that's listed as 24' from the property line. So that's already all okay. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He's talking about the existing barn. MR. KELLY: There's 3 framed barns there, okay? The framed barn on the... MEMBER HORNING: The one that's called framed building. MR. KELLY: Framed building, okay. MEMBER HORNING: Is there some way you can incorporate your expansion into that building only? Is what I'm asking. Is that practical or not? MR. KELLY: It wouldn't be practical for their operation. Because what they are trying to do is put a new expansion on that. You can see if we did a westward expansion, we would cut into the driveway, the drive around area. If we do an eastward expansion, we wouldn't be able to access that building from the south side. So we'd have to go around to either the east end or the north side of that building to access it. And what they are really trying to do is have all their equipment or anything that would be going in and out of that building, going out toward the vineyard. The vineyard area is all south of this property. And this property was cut out because, it was all one parcel, and it was cut out because they sold the vineyard part off as development rights, sold off development rights on that vineyard part. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, Mr. Goehringer. MR. KELLY: Just one other issue on that. According to the owners, the frame building is a historic Southold building. So I don't know what implications that has. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the building where the big winery ceiling is going? I remember the building. No. I remember the building. Page 74 of 125 75 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is, how tall is this structure going to be? Is it a typical Morton building? MR. KELLY: It's not a tall typical Morton building. It's 10' on the side wall. So it's more on a residential scale than it is on a large, commercial barn scale. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is your opinion in reference to ridge? MR. KELLY: I can give you exactly what it is. Peak height on it is approximately 16'. That's peak height. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what other kind of utility will it have in it other than electricity? MR. KELLY: None. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm trying to figure out if I was at the right house for the inspection. I think I was. MR. KELLY: There was a sign there. MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you this little 3.1 lot right there? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know why you'd say that. It was only 11,062'. MEMBER ORLANDO: That one right there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From Mill Road. MEMBER ORLANDO: So it's not the little shed on this side. It's on that side. CHAIRWOMAN: From Oregon Rd. you mean. MEMBER ORLANDO: At least it was the right house. Alright I'm at the right house. MR. KELLY: Yes everything is south of Oregon Road. And all of the vineyard part of the operation is south of that building lot. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the lot adjacent on the east side has not sold the development rights,just on the west side? MR. KELLY: Right. Correct. And the owner of the lot in question here, and the large Page 75 of 125 76 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing parcel, the vineyard that you saw there, are one in the same. MEMBER ORLANDO: So the neighbors won't complain then. MR. KELLY: The neighbor, I hope not. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? I think you're home free. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 1:43 p.m. GARY AND DEBORA STROUD #5326. Request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's February 28, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants propose an addition to the existing dwelling with a single side yard at less than 15 feet, at 480 Soundview Avenue West, Peconic; CTM#1000- 74-2-7. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? GARY STROUD: Good afternoon, I'm Gary Stroud. This is my wife Debora. We just moved out here on December 61h. The first big snowfall we had out here and we love the community. We are both teachers in Port Jefferson Station. We have about a 45 minute to an hour commute. We used to have a 5 minute commute. And we are asking for a variance to get a 2-car garage put on the house. The house is 3 years old. We love the area. We love the community. We want to be an active part of the community. We are asking for a modest extension for the garage because it goes more than 10' of the variance of our neighbors, Paula Daniels and Tim . I believe you have a letter from them. You sent us a copy, that they are not in any objection to it. We had a really harsh winter. We are having a really horrible spring. And having a garage would really improve the quality of our lives, tracking in dirt and mud and provides some more storage space. Certainly in the wintertime I won't have to get out there an extra half hour to shovel the snow off the cars and clean them up, and get the ice off. We are just asking that you can grant it for us and make our life a leisure here. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things. This is a 2-car garage? Page 76 of 125 77 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. STROUD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: Obviously the door is going to be in the front. I noticed, you know, in looking at most of setbacks in the neighborhood, the house is what 2 years old? MR. STROUD: I think it's going to be 4. It's going to be 4 this summer. CHAIRWOMAN: The house is not an old house. And when it was built, it conformed to all the setbacks, including the sideyard. Now here we are, 4 years later, and we want to reduce it to a 5' setback on that side. The neighbor may not have any objection because the neighbor may or may not want to do the same thing. But the board generally is not, and I'm telling you this because you indicated that you just moved here. This is really, in terms of our purposes, it's a brand new lot. This is a brand new house. And we really don't look too favorably on granting this degree of a variance on this size lot. You know, what amounts to practically a brand new house. So I'm going to ask you what you could do. Could you put the garage somewhere else? MR. STROUD: Well, if you put the garage somewhere else, we want an attached garage. It would sort of, I mean we'd have to go outside, and get wet, and track mud back into the house. If we only had a one-car garage, we'd have to fight over who gets to put his or her car in the garage. And we might end up in family court. And I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. We bought the house as it was. We hadn't built the house. We would have built the house with a garage. We were looking for about 11 months to buy a house. We saw many houses. We had a number of houses we put money down on and somebody else paid more and scarfed it away from us. It was a long, and detailed, and arduous process just to move into this village. And would really be a personal favor or boom for us if we could have a 2-car garage. It would allow me to get to work early or on time. I was hoping I would be able to get to this meeting on time. I just came from the NYS English regents, which I administered this morning. And I was able to have my principal arrange the starting date a little earlier so I could snake this hearing. And it would really help us tremendously. We tried to look at other options, as you said. Perhaps putting it further back, but then it wouldn't be attached. We couldn't put it on any other side. The front yard or the side, on the other side, because it would still be at a variance, if we put it on the right side of the house, and certainly there's no place to put it in the back or the front. MEMBER HORNING: What kind of driveway do you have right now? MR. STROUD: Currently, right now, we have a partially gravel, partially dirt driveway. MEMBER HORNING: And where is it in relation to the survey? MR. STROUD: It's right in the front of the... Page 77 of 125 78 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MRS. STROUD: And it goes right up to where the garage would be. MEMBER HORNING: So it's on the... MRS. STROUD: It's on the left side of the house. MEMBER HORNING: What the western boundary line? MR. STROUD: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: And you're saying you could not extend the driveway to the backyard area? MR. STROUD: Well we could extend the driveway to the backyard, but we couldn't extend the house to connect, the garage to connect to the house to the back area. We liked, we moved here, we had a house in Mr. Sinai. It had an attached garage. We really would like to add an attached garage to the house. It would really, tremendously, increase our being able to live in this area. MEMBER HORNING: You could attach it to the back yard area. The rear of the house. And as the Chairperson points out, it is an extreme reduction in an existing sideyard setback that is conforming right now. And it would be total and nonconforming when you are all finished. MR. STROUD: Well we are asking you to consider it. I don't know how I could put it in the backyard, and connect it to the house. Unless removing the deck that's there, and also removing the bilco doors that are there. MEMBER HORNING: Where are they? Okay, they are listed here? MRS. STROUD: There's a deck on the backside of that side of the house. Is that on there? MEMBER HORNING: Yes it is. MR. STROUD: And just to the right of the deck there's bilco doors, which go down to the basement. MEMBER HORNING: And is that just east of the deck, then? Is that how you would describe it? CHAIRWOMAN: Maybe an architect could help you design something. Let's see. Mr. Goehringer. Page 78 of 125 79 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well the only thing you could do is you could decrease the size of the garage in width, which I know is really tight now at 22.6'. MR. STROUD: Well we have 2 very small cars, and we tried to put the smallest thing there. You notice that there's not a second floor on it. There's not any... MRS. STROUD: You do have the architectural plans, right? MR. STROUD: And it's a very modest roofline. It only goes 4'. The architect and the builder wanted to put a second addition on it. We said we don't need the extra space. All we are looking for is a dry place for our cars. I own a convertible, and be that as it may... BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think there were architectural plans amended... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are they in the file? MEMBER HORNING: We don't have them. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I looked at them. MR. STROUD: We did send in 5 copies of architectural plans. MRS. STROUD: I don't have them with me. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Maybe you gave them to the Building Dept. (BD). MR. STROUD: No, no. We gave them to the ZBA. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: With a cover letter? MR. STROUD: With a cover letter. With 5 sets of pictures of the house. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There they are right in the back. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me see that. MR. STROUD: We are really trying to put the smallest thing there to try to be the least intrusive to the neighborhood. It is a dead end street. There's only three houses on the street. There's LIPA property on the other side. We are going to, keep it as low as is physically possible. And we tried, we tried to sit down with an architect to figure out every single way we could do it to keep it within the variance. And so far the only thing we could have would be to put the garage out in the middle of the back yard and then Page 79 of 125 80 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing walk to it. Which would be, you know, the only thing we'd be protecting would-be the cars,but not us going back and forth to it. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: The only other question... CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry George. MEMBER HORNING: You just called my name anyway. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He wants another shot. MEMBER HORNING: Alternative locations here. I confess I have not seen the site. Framed deck in front. You do have room in frontyard. MR. STROUD: We also have extensive gardens in the front that would, the person who owned the house is a landscaper. He beautifully landscaped the house. He didn't have the need for a garage because he had a bunch of trucks that he didn't care very much about. Certainly we could take all the beautiful landscaping out and just put a garage there. I don't know how that would make the neighborhood more attractive, but certainly would conform to the zoning board. What we are trying to do is something practical and aesthetic at the same time to fit into the community and make it a beautiful structure as well as just a post for a garage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would probably go for, and I know it's not my turn, but I'm going to say it anyway. I would go for a 20' wide structure with a single door. A 16' door. Thereby leaving you 7' or whatever on that sideyard. Single overhead garage door without the center post in it. I know I tend to be a little more traditional. I understand. But I just built exactly the same thing. And what you do is you end up with 2 small walls on both sides and a 16' door. That's my proposal to the board. MR. STROUD: And you're able to fit 2 cars in there? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No problem. MEMBER OLIVA: Come again? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A 20' wide garage with a 16' door with no, they are proposing 2 doors with a center post inbetween them. MR. STROUD: Instead of 22', 20'... MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 20' wide. Page 80 of 125 81 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what Mr. Orlando has. MEMBER ORLANDO: I heard your opening remarks in regards to keeping the car snow free, wet free, etc. I mean you comeback for not having it attached was just muddy feet. But I guess if you paved the driveway you wouldn't have muddy feet at all. So your detached garage, I believe can stay 3' off the property line? Is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN: On this sized lot it would have to be 5. MEMBER ORLANDO: 5' off the property line. So you could keep it close to the edge, just move it back, you know, maybe a foot off. Corner to corner, maybe a foot off the property. So you'd have a 3-step to get into the garage. MRS. STROUD: And that would be closer, further away from the property line? MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the code, it's detached, because it's not actually attached to the house. But you can have them relatively close together and you could keep it 5' off the property line. MRS. STROUD: It is 5' off the property line. MEMBER ORLANDO: It's attached. CHAIRWOMAN: A different part of the code. The purpose is here that it would be, it would have to be behind the framed deck if you did that, and it was attached. But the purpose here, the real issue is here, it's a brand new lot. Brand new house. Here we are a couple of years later, and we are asking for a variance on a 27K sq. ft. lot put a garage up 5' from the property line. MR. STROUD: By brand new owners who had no... CHAIRWOMAN: It doesn't matter, the ownership doesn't matter. The issue is the board does not look favorably on these, this degree of a variance. You require 35' total sideyards. What is going to happen is, from a visual prospective, you are going to come down Sound road and see wall to wall houses on that side. It places you too close to the property line. MR. STROUD: Actually on the property line, our neighbors house is set very far back on his property. There are huge, beautiful, magnolia and spruce trees adjacent on the other side of the property. CHAIRWOMAN: That's what we noticed. We did our inspections. We noticed that there are, that most of the houses have conforming sideyard setbacks. And that's what Page 81 of 125 82 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing we're trying to say to you. One of the reasons we're not in favor of this, we're not in favor of granting you a variance on this because the neighbors do not have what you're asking for. It is a brand new house,brand new... MR. STROUD: We do not have wall to wall houses next to each other. We do not have that. And we won't have that with this garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Sir, I'm just giving you... MR. STROUD: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN: The way the board has treated these in the past, we've given you some suggestions. If you want to take the suggestions, fine. If you don't, that's okay too. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam Chairman, after you ask everybody, I'd like to move a motion on this and see if I can get a vote of 3 votes for a 20' garage. CHAIRWOMAN: Try it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What were the alternative setbacks? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The alternative setbacks were 7.6'. I'll offer a resolution granting a 20' wide garage, 7.6' from the property line on the west side of the house that these people are proposing. Exactly the same except reducing it by 2.6'. CHAIRWOMAN: All in favor? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN: All opposed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I tried. CHAIRWOMAN: Motion failed. MR. STROUD: Thank you. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So we don't have any alternative, except... MR. STROUD: Maybe we should move. Find a house that already has a, maybe we should buy a piece of property, brand new, put up a brand new house, rather than buy a pre-existing house, and increase the housing. What we tried to do when we moved here Page 82 of 125 83 June 10, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing was not to buy property and put a new house in. We tried to buy a pre-existing house. So we wouldn't be adding to the fluent houses in the town. But if this is what you're telling us this is what we need to do to get an attached garage, and perhaps we might want to look into that. MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Stroud, I don't mean to be rude, but I was down there. You have a huge backyard. And you know, we all can't have exactly what we want sometimes. MR. STROUD: We noticed that in year and a half to get us to this point now. MEMBER OLIVA: I understand that. But, to me, you could put that garage, maybe your driveway a little bit longer and angle it, and you could have a garage back there. And also have a very nice backyard. We really do not look favorably on these wall to wall houses. MR. STROUD: If you were at the property... MEMBER OLIVA: I was there. MR. STROUD: You would have noticed that my neighbor's house is nowhere near. MEMBER OLIVA: I was not, I'm only talking about your property. Your neighbor is something else, I'm talking about your property. And then sometime when you go to sell it, and how the looks of it, if your neighbor starts building, you don't know what's going to happen in the next 20 years. MR. STROUD: No you don't. MEMBER OLIVA: But you do have, and may I ask, why is your backyard so wet? MR. STROUD: We are trying to figure that out ourselves. One of the other problems we have. It's been raining incessantly. MEMBER OLIVA: I have a feeling that whole area down there, but be that as it may, I still say, I'm sorry. MR. STROUD: Probably the other reason we don't want to put the garage back there is because there is so much water back there. MEMBER OLIVA: But you can't tell, it's so rainy right now anyway, but... MR. STROUD: Thanks for your help. Page 83 of 125 84 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER HORNING: Sir, one other question, or idea to think about. I don't know if the framed deck in the back could be moved eastward. And your proposed garage put where the frame deck is so you could have the garage and then the framed deck. I don't know what's in the house there... MR. STROUD: That would be the kitchen area. MEMBER HORNING: The deck right now is right off the kitchen. Where, what would be effected if it was east of there. MR. STROUD: We would lose our entire view of the backyard. MEMBER HORNING: You would? By moving the deck? MR. STROUD: Yes. That's the reason, we have a sliding glass door window. That's the only big window, and it looks out on the only view that we have of the inlet there. One of the reasons we bought the house was because we had a little tiny view of Goldsmiths inlet. And that's only through that window. MEMBER HORNING: Through that one window. MR. STROUD: Were we to put the garage there, we'd lose that view. Certainly, maybe, that's not important in terms of quality of life, to have a beautiful view. Of course, you can't have everything in life. MEMBER HORNING: We're not here to protect people's views. MR. STROUD: I know, that's why you don't want wall to wall houses. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if anyone else has any questions in the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? We'll consider everything. MR. STROUD: Thanks very much. CHAIRWOMAN: I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 2:00 p.m. MILLENIUM HOMES AND JOSEPH JOHNS. Location of Property: 970 and 1020 Seventh Street, Greenport. #5333 - Request for a Waiver of Merger under Section 100-26, based on the Page 84 of 125 85 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Building Department's January 12, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended February 27, 2003, for the reasons that (a) #1000-48-2-19 and #1000-48-2-40 are merged as one lot, and (b) that each lot is developed with a single-family dwelling having a floor area of less than 850 sq. ft. . Applicant proposes to unmerge 1000-48-2-19 (part of Greenport Driving Park #57), from 1000-48- 2-40 (Greenport Driving Park #56), and to enlarge the existing dwelling containing less than 850 sq. ft. #5332 - Request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's February 27, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes an addition to the existing nonconforming dwelling with a single side yard of less than 10 feet and total side yards of less than 25 feet, and rear yard of less than 35 feet. Ref. CTM #1000-48-2-19 (and 40). CHAIRWOMAN: The next hearing, the applicants sent us a letter requesting the application be withdrawn. So I'm going to offer a resolution to accept their letter of withdrawal. 2:02 p.m. TOWBEE, LLC #5355 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-142, based on the Building Department's February 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended April 10, 2003. Applicant proposes two new buildings in this LI Industrial Zone District with: (a) single side yard setback at less than 20 feet, (b) rear yard setback at less than 70 feet, and (c) building linear frontage greater than 60 feet for Building #1, having a front setback at a average of 90 feet. Location of Property: 700 Hummel Avenue, Southold; CTM#1000-63-2-30.1. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: They pronounce is Towbee. And that's their logo if you notice on their trucks. It's a little bee that tows things. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If I could ask Gail something. The ladies in the office said someone had dropped off snaps. And you were going to pick them up and submit them at the hearing today. Do you have it? MS. WICKHAM: I have everything. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You have it, okay. I just wanted to be sure. MS. WICKHAM: Are you ready? Okay. Good afternoon. Page 85 of 125 86 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Just a second. Is there an amended Notice of Disapproval (NOD) on this? MS. WICKHAM: The application to you was made based on an amended NOD. It was amended twice last in April. Yesterday we spoke to Damon at the Building Department (BD). And I understand he was go in to be issuing you another NOD, which I haven't received yet on the question of the 3` floor. Have you received that yet? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Actually we always require that the applicant or the agent submit that to the board. MS. WICKHAM: Okay. I don't have it yet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was issued. I believe they did it late yesterday afternoon. MS. WICKHAM: I don't have it yet. I take it you don't have it. I just wanted the board to be aware that it was coming in. And we're going to have to address that. But it wasn't part of what was advertised or discussed today. I assume, given the nature of this that you may need additional information in any event. CHAIRWOMAN: Because it will keenly relate to all of the other variances that are being requested on the property. MS. WICKHAM: Although the extent of it, I believe, is not as great as you might think. It's only partially 3rd story. And trying to clarify that with the BD now. And it would be storage facility. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Would you like to check, Gail, with the BD. Or... CHAIRWOMAN: Why don't we just ask if Linda could go quickly. MS. WICKHAM: Captain Joe is going to check. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, it just was brought to my attention late last night. MS. WICKHAM: I wrote you that letter so it wouldn't be in without you knowing what it was all about. I just wanted the board to be aware. CHAIRWOMAN: I just wanted to see if we have it here and what the specific wording of their denial was. Page 86 of 125 87 June 10, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: Would you like me to start with just the rest,because I have a lot of general information to cover. I think you've all seen the property, you're all familiar with the property. It was probably located in the LI zone years ago when zoning came in. Because it's historical use as a lumberyard and a lumber treatment facility. It's obviously located in a mixed use neighborhood. The predominant zoning on the block is hamlet business. The use proposed is actually more like what one would expect in a business zone and office building. Rather than the traditional LI uses. The proposal is for an attractive, modern, self-contained, single user facility by a local business employing local people. The primary use is office with accessory warehouse areas for equipment.and materials. Attempts have been made to harmonize the appearance with a residential area opposite Hummel Ave., which until now, has had to endure some rather unattractive property. I would like to briefly run through the types of uses,which might be constructive on this property as a contrast to the proposal for an attractive corporate headquarters for the Seatow operations. LI zones permit, and I'm going to run through them very quickly,building materials, storage,public warehouses, contractor yards, cold storage plants, food processing and packaging plants, auto repair shops, machine and equipment workshops, publishing/printing plants,boat building storage and service, laundry and dry cleaning plants, conference facilities, public utilities, truck and bus terminals to naive most of them. We have asked East End Drafting to give you a rendition of what the front east elevation of the building would be like. This is the elevation facing Hummel Avenue. This is a more elongated version of the Hummel Ave. side of the property, which shows building No. 1. The renovated, existing building No. 2, the warehouse, and the proposed building No. 3, which is a storage facility. I don't know if you can see them all from there. And obviously we've got a lot of work to do with the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Board (PB) on the actual site. It will be screened. It will be fenced. It will be a self-contained single user facility. I just want to tell you, very briefly, a little bit about Seatow. Because I was under a misconception myself. They do sea rescue and salvage operations, clean up of oil spills and such as that. They do not dispatch their equipment from this site. This is an office facility. It is a facility where they will have some boats but, that need to be outfitted, that's the reason for building No. 3, so that can be done indoors. Building No. 2 will contain equipment and material as well. But they have a large communications facility that's very important in coordination with the Coast Guard. They have a franchise agreement with many operators. And the actual dispatch of the rescue and the salvage and cleanup facilities are from shore front locations. Not only on the north fork and Long Island, but actually throughout the country most of whom are by independent operators. So without any disrespect, I think we could possibly liken them somewhat to AAA, more than you local fire department where they are running out from the facility with a rescue. So the actual usage on-site will be office usage and a quiet usage. It will be a facility because of the communications that will be manned 24 hours a day. But we will have a staggered shift operation. Most of the employees are there during the day. We've given the PB that information. The maximum employees projected on-site during the daytime are 41 people. And they will arrive at different times during the day so that there will not be a traffic impact. During the evening and night shifts, there will only be 2-3 and Page 87 of 125 88 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing occasionally maybe 1-2 people on the site. And it will be a locked facility so there will not be a lot of traffic running in and out that is not invited. There are no retail sales on the property. It's service and office use. I'm sure you have other questions, Cathy and Joe Frohnhoefer is here today, and Jim Foley with Seatow. I'd just like to go on now if I could and address the specific variance items. I'm going to address them in order of magnitude of the variance requested. That would mean of course, that I must start with the rear and sideyard setbacks. On building No. 2, which is the existing warehouse and they have the newest map. That's the existing warehouse that's up against the track which will be refurbished. That remains at a setback of 9.10'. The building on Hummel, which is at 0 setback, will be removed. Building No. 3, which is a new warehouse, and building No. 1, the office building, will be proposed at a 5' setback from the railroad, which is fenced. I realize that 70' is the required setback on a corner lot. A non corner lot would require 20'. We ask that you review this project more in terms of a sideyard than a frontyard, a rearyard, given the fact that it is a corner lot and the total lot width at that point in the property, the eastern section of the property actually being the wider, if only 140'. And a reduced yard would be appropriate. The alternatives would be to first reduce the size of the building. And we would like to avoid that because that would provide inadequate work space for the business that they do plan to conduct here. And it would also involve moving those buildings further towards Hummel Ave. to create a bigger setback against the railroad tracks. That would result in loss of parking,because you'd be moving into that parking area. And also the landscaping area. And it would only serve to give the railroad ROW more of a setback. And there's really not a whole lot out there that we feel is going to be adversely impacted by that proposed setback. Until recently that railroad, well recently since they acquired the property, that railroad setback I understand was kind of a mess. And Cathy and Joe did work closely with the railroad to get them to clean it up and get rid of a lot of junk and overgrowth in there. And it is much more accessible now. But we submit that the proximity to the railroad tracks does distinguish this property. And suggest that we do a reduced yard variance on that side, which would not create an offense to that neighbor. I'd like to give you a map which shows, as I understand it what the allowable building envelope would be on this property if all the setbacks were employed. And it's kind of odd because when you look at section 100-143, which requires 100' and 70', you end up, the actual size of the LI property only has to be 100x150'. So how they resolve that as far as setbacks, I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN: It's a non-confonning lot. MS. WICKHAM: No, in your LI zone, the minimum width is 100'. The minimum depth is 150'. And yet you have to have a 100' setback from the front, and 70 from the rear. It doesn't add up in terns of what they were thinking about when they wrote the code. But nonetheless we are here today to deal with what we have. MEMBER ORLANDO: And you have a 95' setback off of Boisseau? Page 88 of 125 89 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: We've got a lot of setbacks, let me get out my chart. Let me take them one at a time. And at first, I'd like to mention that one provision of section 100-143 mentions the fact that you look at the average setback of adjoining buildings. The setback of the warehouse facility on the adjoining property is at—2'. It encroaches into Hummel Avenue. I don't think the BD took that into consideration. I'm not sure that we should. But that is what the code says. CHAIRWOMAN: I read that. And I also see that they are saying the average setback, oh, what is the average setback, is 90' on Hummels. MS. WICKHAM: Yes. That's correct. That's the average setback whereas the, requirement is 100. CHAIRWOMAN: And you are asking for, on Hummels? MS. WICKHAM: 90, as an average. CHAIRWOMAN: But your plan is showing 95, that's... (inaudible) CHAIRWOMAN: We're talking about Boisseau. From Boisseau MS. WICKHAM: I think the average is 90. You won't see 90 on the map. The average I think is 90. CHAIRWOMAN: He just brought in new maps that we do not, we are not distributing to the board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Are they the maps, Gail, that they said that you're supposed to pick up today? They misunderstood you. MS. WICKHAM: I think they were submitted yesterday. The maps that you have and the snaps that are going to be submitted have not changed the building location. What has changed is the usage. We had some storage areas that are actually warehouse and the parking computations. But the actual location of the building has not changed. And you will not find 90' on the map. You'll find that is the average if you add up and divide all the setbacks. CHAIRWOMAN: I just don't see what he's making reference to. I don't have any copies of that showing that anywhere. Page 89 of 125 i June 19, 2003 90 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 15.,WICKHAM: Oh, you didn't bring that. Oh, I misunderstood, I'm so You ding about different maps than I was. The location and setback to the building have re Stchanged, so the NOD would not be effected. What's changed is the parking and we of the landscaping. And those revisions were based on conversations we've had jih_the PB. IDARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The message was that Gail was going to pick hem up today and amend them at the hearing. That's why the ladies did not distribute *M• We always get the maps the Friday before the meeting, otherwise... MEMBER HORNING: We need one more down here. I have the old one. (HAIRWOMAN: Now we can follow the setbacks you are talking about. Okay, so it is 89 would be the closest on Boisseau. And the closest setback from Hummel is 58. Is yet correct? It's where, it's in the area the building is going to be removed. Is that corect? The 5 yard setback, there's no change there? 0. WICKHAM: That's correct. (11AIRWOMAN: And on No. 1, and No. 3. A. WICKHAM: Now on Boisseau, the 89, is at the southeast corner. You can see pisseau Ave. angles the northeast corner we're at 117.9'. So the average setback off DDisseau is 104' as I compute it, which is in excess of 100, minimum. So that to me, is not the most significant issue here. And I just wanted to point that out. May I continue now that we've all got the right maps? Thank you. The setbacks, again, are not out of considerable character from the neighborhood particularly given the size of the lot. I mentioned the long building on the other end of the block, which is 2' into the highway. And that's a very long building. It's actually 340' long. And on this property, there's an existing building E. You will see nothing is happening with that building. That is located at 15.8. That's Mr. Bohn's building for contractor warehouse. I'd like to run a little bit, if I may, around the neighborhood. Because it's amazing how many times you go by something, and until you're involved in something like this, you really don't see where buildings are located. The Agway building across Youngs Ave. is located about 20' from Youngs Ave., if you don't count the overhang, which is a sort of awning structure. The Southold Savings Bank building is about 35' from the Youngs Ave. as is the Seatow building which used to be Southold Lumber Yard's office on the corner of Hummel and Youngs Ave. If you go around to the other side of the block to Boisseau, Suffolk County Water Authority(SCWA) has a building, which is about 10' from the side yard against the railroad tracks. And while I realize that more than what we're asking, at that point, the railroad ROW is only 30' wide. You can see that from the tax map. Whereas opposite our property, it is 60' wide. And even wider 110', I think, as you go further west. If you continue down Boisseau, the Colonial Village has a building, a residential building, which is 35' from Boisseau Ave. And they have a 4-car garage Page 90 of 125 91 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing that backs up against the north RR tracks, which has a 4' setback from the RR. And another 1-car garage with a greenhouse of 4'. Further back into the center of Colonial Village, which is, again, directly across the RR, they have a 7-car garage and a shed, which appears to be 4' from the line. And a 6-car garage and shed, which is 4' from the rear line, or side yard fine. And as you go down, further down Boisseau towards the Main Road, those small, older buildings are only 7 or 8' off the Boisseau Ave. Now they are all pre-existing, they are tiny. But I just thought he board ought to be aware of that character. Also the Southold Savings Bank (SSB), which used to be SSB, has a 3-car garage in the rear corner, which is 5' from the side yard. Some of those buildings are 1- story, but they are not screened. And this is going to be screened and architecturally reviewed, and I think that will make a consideration in terms of attractiveness of the buildings. We briefly touched on 100-143A, the 100' setback, 60' from Hummel is the setback on the main building. Again, if this was not a corner lot, 60' would be well in excess of what was required. Also the building on Hummel will be removed in approximately that same location. So you're going from a zero setback with an ugly concrete black building to 60' with the main building. And I've already discussed the 104 average setback from Boisseau. As to the building length, I'd like to address that next, if I may. That's 100-143C. And the board has previously interpreted this section as pertaining only to one of two sides on a corner lot. The BD decided that, that should be addressed to the longest side, which would be the Hummel Ave. side. Although we have 3 separate buildings, they will have connectors. So they determine the aggregate length is 220'. However, the length of the 3 buildings themselves, are 60' for the office building No. 1, 70' for the existing warehouse building No. 2, and 70' for the proposed storage building No. 3. So building No. 1 complies, and No. 2 is pre-existing. So we're really only talking, I think, about the 70' on warehouse building No. 3. Now I'd like to explain the connectors. Those are single story hallways, which are being provided to facilitate employee travel between the buildings. Each building that will be constructed will be safe contained. I may need help here,but I understand they will each have separate firewalls that they will qualify as independent buildings. And that the single-story connectors are included merely for convenience so the employees do not have to go out, or bring their material that they will be moving from building to building outside. We certainly would covenant that those connectors would never exceed 1-story, but the design was done in order to provide the appearance of 3 separate buildings. And the construction actually accomplishes that. If you look at the schematic that we provided before, typically when you get screening and fencing in the front of the building, it really does appear to be 3 separate buildings. Again, I know we have a number of questions that you may want to explore. There are maps here that show the elevations of the buildings that apparently also did not get printed out. But we can leave them for you if you want to distribute them and look at them at your convenience. And they show also the internal layout of the building. Now, let me just mention one other thing. We have met with the PB a couple of times. I know you've received a letter from them. We have discussed with them at length, the question of parking. That's why they have requested a building usage summary. When we last met with them, they indicated that they would certainly be looking at it again, but they seemed to be, to my opinion, or from my Page 91 of 125 92 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing reading, somewhat okay with the parking. And we also discussed with them the feasibility and the possibility that there may be alternate or additional parking available should it become necessary and should they deem that appropriate. So we are going to continue to work with them on that. CHAIRWOMAN: We can't address the question of the 3'd story today. MS. WICKHAM: I know, it hasn't been advertised. CHAIRWOMAN: A couple of things. One of the things I was a little confused about is the BD had, in one of the NOD's had omitted that, the width of the building was noncompliant on both Hummel and Boisseau based on a prior interpretation. But the prior interpretation, I'm sure, said that it required a width of on one street. And in this case,both streets are non-complying. Is that correct? MS. WICKHAM: I think they were referring or they were looking at the Lieb... CHAIRWOMAN: But in that case, one of the streets was compliant. In this instance, both of them are non-compliant. Both of them exceed, one is 222', the other is 80. MS. WICKHAM: In that case, they had 2 buildings. CHAIRWOMAN: Lieb did, one complied. One did not. MS. WICKHAM: They had 2 buildings and they were too long on the Cox Lane side. I don't honestly recall if they were both complying on the CR 48 side,but I know that between the 2 of theirs, they were certainly in excess. But they were separated. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm a little confused about that because this is not the same thing. And it is different. And I do recall the interpretation said that the code notes a single street. The presumption, of course, lies on one and is non-complying on both. Which brings me to the next question because it is 220' long. So that's the one that you've been sized on. MS. WICKHAM: If you add all 3 buildings, including the connectors, yes. CHAIRWOMAN: The 3-story building, why did you choose a width of 80'? As opposed to trying to have a 60' wide building in that area. MS. WICKHAM: Because when they evaluated the need for their office facilities, and they have an awful lot of equipment, technical equipment, which is included in cabinets and desk space, that was what they were requiring in terms of the layout. The number of employees, they have a telecommunications system. They want to provide a cafeteria on site in order for employees to be able to be there and not have to leave. There's a radio Page 92 of 125 93 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing room that takes up a certain amount of area. There's a number of handicap bathrooms they need. They just, when they added up all of the facilities they needed,.that was the size of the building that they thought was appropriate. The other problem was by the time you get done with bathrooms that you have to have on the roofline,you can only get and then the elevators. When you put the elevator in, that takes up a lot of space as well. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just need to ask your naive for the record, for the lady who transcribes. CAPTAIN JOE FROHNHOEFER: Captain Joe. MS. WICKHAM: Joe Frohnhoefer. CHAIRWOMAN: Then maybe I'll just ask Mr. Frohnhoefer another question. I note, on the plans, the plans say the building is 80x60, which would be a footprint of 4800 sq. ft. But on Mr. Sandback's note, he says the building No. 1 would be 5220 sq. ft. Do you know where the discrepancy is? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I can explain that. MR. FROHNHOEFER: Is that sidewalks? MS. WICKHAM: No. If I could just answer the rest of your question, again, this is not before us today,but this is what we're talking about a P floor elevation. And as you can see, while this is the 60x80 building, the actual area will be within here,but as you can see a roof that slopes. CHAIRWOMAN: What the actual footprint will be. MS. WICKHAM: That includes that connector. CHAIRWOMAN: For the addition, okay. MS. WICKHAM: And possibly, there's a little entry on Boisseau Ave. that might also be factored in. CHAIRWOMAN: That is a big,big structure. It looks like SSB. MS. WICKHAM: Oh, it's much more attractive. CHAIRWOMAN: I always thought SSB was somewhat attractive. The old one, not the new one. Page 93 of 125 94 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MS. WICKHAM: Part of the area requirements are based on how many square feet they need for people who are on the telecommunications deployment, which is answering the phone. And they need to have a certain square footage, certain number of people doing that. And that's where that came up. Again, we'll leave the floor plans with you, but I encourage them to pair it down as much as possible. CHAIRWOMAN: The variances are all substantial. MS. WICKHAM: They are substantial variances. There is no question. We are asking you to consider the amenability of... CHAIRWOMAN: Zero building envelope. MS. WICKHAM: The amenability of use to the neighborhood given the zone, the reduced setbacks that many of the other properties do have, and the fact that we will deal with the PB on whatever they feel is the adequate parking constraints. CHAIRWOMAN: The landscaping and so on. MS. WICKHAM: All that. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what, if you're through, let's see what questions some of the board members have. Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: With regards to the proposed parking and the 58 spaces required, are there 58 on here? And how does a P floor go into effect? MS. WICKHAM: We've already considered that. MEMBER HORNING: What you're calling an attic right now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, could you please speak up? I'm not picking up the answers, could you please use the microphone? Thank you. BRETT KEHL, ARCH: Sorry. Brett Kehl. On the computations for the amount of parking space, we did add up all the attic space that was going to he used as storage, and it's one parking spot for 500 sq. ft. MEMBER HORNING: To go over this a little bit, cause you have the building too delineated requiring 4, building 3, requiring 3. The other thing all refers to building 1, does it not? The basement warehouse, Is' floor office, 2"d floor office, and the attic, which may be a P floor. Page 94 of 125 95 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. KEHL: Storage. MS. WICKHAM: That's all building 1. So if I could clarify that for you, the 58 parking spaces that were determined, we are asking the PB to accept a 48 spaces based on the building usage figures that we've given them. We've submitted them an alternate plan that would provide 3 or 4 additional spaces, which we are asking them to hold back on unless it becomes necessary because of traffic flow within, we obviously want to avoid. MEMBER HORNING: So the calculated requirements for approximately 58, you are proposing approximately 48,maybe 2 or 3 more, 48-50, possibly? Is that right? MS. WICKHAM: And we are actually one over on building E, and we threw that in for information, even though that part of the project is not changing. MEMBER OLIVA: Gail, did you say that they'd be on staggered schedules? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. The day shift will be coming and going hourly so that probably by the middle of the... MEMBER OLIVA: That great shift of 40-50 cars coming out. MS. WICKHAM: That's correct. Let me give you that. But I only have one copy. I could provide more. I think I have it. We spent a fair amount of time in the PB with this. I'm sure we'll be spending more. Do you have any other questions while I'm... CHAIRWOMAN: The only other thing is, I just noted it. We do have a copy of a NOD that was amended June 19th now I just see it was amended June 18t11 MS. WICKHAM: One was today, and one was yesterday, right? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We didn't get yesterday's yet. MS. WICKHAM: I didn't get either one of them. I don't know, maybe he made a mistake the first time. I can't answer that question. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Gail, would you be able to send a letter amending your application to include the relief for the two amended disapprovals? MS. WICKHAM: Well once I get straight with the BD what the amendment is with respect to the 3Td story, that is what I intend to do. And that's what my letter yesterday indicated that we would have to do. CHAIRWOMAN: So what we'll do is we'll recess, we'll leave this hearing open. And then when you have an opportunity to advertise for the new issues that have been raised Page 95 of 125 96 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing by the BD, then we can take that as well as this same time. MS. WICKHAM: I'll get that in this week if I have the approval today, I'll try and get it in tomorrow, disapproval. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there are other questions, Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: I know Joe personally, Joe and I have similar livelihoods. So, I can tell you in fact that you can never have enough storage when you're doing your emergency response year round, when emergencies do not know holidays or weather or storms or snow. This winter, digging out equipment in the middle of the night is not fun. So I can understand Joe's concern for storage. I'm sure the building 1 logistics is the major management of branch offices and satellites as well as we do. So it's a quiet thing, more than an active thing. But warehouse No. 3 looks like it's for boats, mainly for drivable equipment,boats possibly, kind of... MR. FROHNHOEFER: Mainly for minor maintenance on, if they are ready for franchising... MS. WICKHAM: Outfitting. MEMBER ORLANDO: And building 2 is for other spill supplies, or whatever? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Correct. MEMBER ORLANDO: I personally like the way you've pulled everything towards the RR, I don't think they'll complain about noise. MS. WICKHAM: I also forgot to mention that most of the trucks that come in and out of here are UPS, FedEx type deliveries, once or twice a day. We are not talking about tractor trailer deliveries with any, any kind of frequency at all. If that was one of your questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: Like I was saying, I like the way it was pulled back to give Hummel as much space as they can, and the RR, they make enough noise. That's fine. It's pulled off of Boisseau, pretty much. They contribute to the town, I always see them sponsoring something. So, it's nice to have him around. MR. FROHNHOEFER: One thing you mentioned about the sound, the building will actually buffer some of the sound, and cut out the noise from the RR to the townspeople. MEMBER ORLANDO: So you became a sound barrier to them. Page 96 of 125 97 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: If you're going to be repairing boats and what is it? Building No. 3... MR. FROHNHOEFER: We're not going to be repairing boats. MEMBER OLIVA: No, because I was going to say, you'll going to need a real tall building. MR. FROHNHOEFER: No, we just prep them. I think it's 14' high doors. And the highest point is 21'. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing that really concerns me is how do you fight a fire when you put all the buildings back in that location? That's what concerns me. MS. WICKHAM: I told you he'd ask that question. I'm ready for that. MR. FROHNHOEFER: We have to have the entrance on both sides, Hummel and Boisseau, to get fire trucks in. We'll also have gained an access from the bypass on the ROW from the LIRR. So we have access on both sides of the building. The main building is going to be fireproof. That is poured concrete reinforced, ICF formed. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sprinklers? MR. FROHNHOEFER: Unnecessary, it has a longer fire rating than anything we have in town. The middle building is all concrete block now, and it will be fireproof. The steel building is of course, fireproof. That was one of my major concerns. There are also extra wells that were put in by Suffolk County, test wells on the property. And we have access to fire hydrants all along the block. So we are pretty well protected, and definitely in the response zone, only a couple of minutes. MEMBER HORNING: Sir, did you say the LIRR will grant you an emergency easement? MR. FROHNHOEFER: They have. We just responded, recently, to a car accident when the train hit the car on Boisseau. MEMBER HORNING: Can we get that in writing? MS. WICKHAM: He's referring now to the fire department.,The fire department has that access. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, the fire department. Page 97 of 125 98 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. FROHNHOEFER: We can get it for access, either way. MEMBER HORNING: It would probably be beneficial if you have something directly from the RR regarding this site. If you say you can get that. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's the only question I have at this point. It is, it's a very interesting plan. There's no question about it. CHAIRWOMAN: The only other question I have is I just in the plans that you have, . you have plans for a lighted sign, external? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN: That's okay, I just didn't... MS. WICKHAM: That'll go through it's own review. MR. FROHNHOEFER: If I may explain, this will be a security area. The gates will be closed most of the time. The building will be secured all the time. The entrance to the building will always be under security. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application. BRIAN HANSEN: I'm not in favor or against, I'm definitely not against his business and what he's doing on this plan. My name is Brian Hansen. And I live at 435 Hummel Ave. And I have some concerns, obviously, and it has nothing to do with what this plan is in his building there. And I'm definitely not opposed to his business. My concern is to excess traffic on the street. And also there's an entrance and exit about 10' west to my house. And that concerns me too,because I have 3 young children. The traffic on that street is intense as it is. And I'm worried about the safety factors as well as environmental factors with that. So I'd like the board to consider that when I, you know, whether you set limits or whatever you're going to do with this. But I need to be up here and I need to express my concerns. And I don't want to waste a great deal of your time. But... CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see. MR. HANSEN: I live on the west side of Hummel Ave. CHAIRWOMAN: So you're in the middle of this site? MR. HANSEN. I'm a little west of the site, you know, I'm west. Page 98 of 125 99 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: Down toward the pre-existing site. MEMBER OLIVA: Near Agway. MR. HANSEN: Yes. There's a fence there now that Mr. Frohnhoefer just put, and I spoke to them too, and they just put up a fence. And there's a driveway there, you know, an exit, whatever you want to call it. And that concerns me as well because, you know, this traffic is busy. I'm a little leery of it anyway down there. Another problem is obviously people speeding down the street. But the other thing that concerns me is there's an entrance, exit right there where my house is. I have 3 young children. And that worries me. CHAIRWOMAN: Are we talking about the, Mr. Frohnhoefer, are we talking about the 30' wide privacy gate on Hummel, or are we talking about 3 16'... MR. FROHNHOEFER: Actually what Mr. Hansen is talking about is an opening down by the barn, pre-existing, Southold Lumber barn, where the wall was falling down, we took the wall out and put a privacy fence all along there and cleaned up and planted that white fence all along there, which we hope is going to grow up nice. It will get covered up eventually. But we have to have an entrance. And what we did was move the entrance from in front of the houses down to,unfortunately, down by his house. But before it was an empty lot. There's a tree line. We have to have at least one entrance on that side off of Hummels for the fire trucks. Jerry is concerned, I mean, I have to have one. Unfortunately it wound up down by his place. However, that is going to be a privacy gate, and it is going to be secured. That is not open to public traffic. The main reason we have it there is strictly for fire access. MR. HANSEN: And I've talked to them about that. And they definitely have good intentions. And they've definitely improved the quality of the neighborhood with the fence and stuff like that. It looks a lot better. But I, you know, I have to go on record with my concerns about this because I think it's important and they are definitely valid as far as I'm concerned with the safely issues. And that street in general is a little wild because everybody cuts across. And I am worried about trucks coming in and out of there. You know, I have to say that. That's why I'm here. I have nothing against them personally or their business or anything like that. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you. We'll take that into consideration. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or against the application? MEMBER ORLANDO: To respond to that, how much more traffic will there be? MR. FROHNHOEFER: As far as we're concerned, there won't be any more. The Page 99 of 125 100 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing problem now is that everybody in town is using it as a bypass to get to the post office. And let me tell you, it is a bad lot. It's got to get slowed down. And I have a couple of ideas. I'll talk to you about getting it taken care of. MEMBER ORLANDO: But your plans don't have a lot more future traffic that you're going to implement on it? MR. FROHNHOEFER: I would say it wouldn't be less. It would be the same or, virtually none. I mean, we don't run up and down the streets. MEMBER ORLANDO: Most of your traffic will be off Boisseau coming in. MR. FROHNHOEFER: Correct. MS. WICKHAM: And once you're in, you're in. They don't go in and out. Except at the end of the shift. CHAIRWOMAN: What would be the next calendar date that would give sufficient time for us to advertise for the postings and the whole 9 yards again. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: August 7, special meeting. When would you be able to submit all the paperwork? MR. FROHNHOEFER: If I may, if we can snake it sooner. There are some specific reasons as to why. CHAIRWOMAN: Our next regular meeting is on the 24th, and unfortunately, it's overbooked. The next meeting after that would be the lst. If the height thing hadn't come up, we'd be fine. But I just don't know how we could possibly move it up. MS. WICKHAM: Could you look at the 241h again and see? CHAIRWOMAN: 21 public hearings we have. We are jammed. I simply can't do anything else at this point. You have any other suggestions? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We don't have any cancellations. CHAIRWOMAN: 7pm, August 71h, is that okay? I'll make a motion to adjourn the hearing until August 71h at 7pm. I'll also make a motion to advertise for the height and other added variances on this. 2:53 p.m. EDGEWATER II, LLC #5330. Request for a Variance under Section Page 100 of 125 101 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing 100-32, based on the Building Department's March 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 11, 2003. Applicant proposes a new dwelling with a third story, instead of the code limitation of 2-1/2 stories with 35 ft. maximum height. Location of Property: 63735 C.R. 48, Greenport; CTM #1000-40-1-20.2. CHAIRWOMAN: The next hearing is on behalf of Edgewater II. Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: I have Ira Haspel, the architect here. And Mrs. Cohen is here as well. The reason we are before the board is because of some design changes that were required for the house, and you had granted relief for a third floor, but the changes to the design necessitated us to return. So Ira can go over the specifies of the design, and I'll defer to him. IRA HASPEL, ARCH: Good afternoon. Ira Haspel, architect. We were actually granted a building permit,No. 27980, previously on a prior application. I guess after the owner spent some time on the property, they wish to change the design of the house. And most major thing was to move the master bedroom from the east side to the west side, creating a new footprint and therefore that's the main reason we are in front of you. Also the design changes included reducing the square footage of the house overall, and a number of interior changes. We can show you some of the sketches of the house if you like. MS. MOORE: Just a reminder, this is the center, the middle piece of three lots that are owned by the family. They have houses. One has a CO, the other is under construction, on either side. MR. HASPEL: Similar type of construction. Basically the master bedroom is switched. And that's the basic reason we are here before again, the square footage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Question, Lydia? CHAIRWOMAN: Go ahead. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Haspel, when you were before us the last time, there was the direct question to Mrs. Collins. The time to sprinkler the entire house. That situation has not changed. Is that correct? MR. HASPEL: No. The house is heavy timber construction and fully sprinklered, top to bottom. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 3"d floor has changed in what respect, other than the switched? CHAIRWOMAN: The whole house is changed. Page 101 of 125 June 19, 2003 102 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing -*MBER GOEHRINGER: I mean square footagewise. I could care less about the isign. JR. HASPEL: The basic design... [EMBER GOEHRINGdER: I don't care about the design. I care about the difference in square footage on the 3 story. MR. HASPEL: Okay. Previously the 3rd floor bedroom suite was 990 sq. ft. Now it's 1138 square feet. Previously the 2"d floor was 2415, it's been reduced to 2041 sq. ft. ind the 1"floor has been reduced as well. ,IS. MOORE: Ground floor is 4357. rJR. HASPEL: That's what it used to be. It's been reduced to 3458 sq. ft., current design. CHAIRWOMAN: So the sq. footage on the 3rd floor has been increased. It's kind of frustrating because we reviewed this application almost 2 years ago. In fact a little less, one month less than 2 years ago. And at the time we took a lot of time with the application, went through it very clearly. And came to a conclusion. And based on th . And here we arse 2 years later, some plans have changed conclusion, granted a permit at and we are simply back for a variance for a 3 floor based on plans that have been changed. MS. MOORE: I can appreciate your frustration because there's a lot of time involved in each variance application that's made. In those 2 years, the 2 houses have been constructed on either side. This is the last remaining. This is going to be their home. The other 2 are family. Their families are occu pying. They are time as well to redesign because this is kind of heir last chance tokdesign the fcenterl lot of homes with the design changes they've developed over time. Era's spent thousands of hours as well with modifications. The problem is that the safety concerns are always, have been addressed. The design elements are what bring us back here. Yes we are talking about a difference between 990 and 1138, which is the difference of about 200 sq. ft. more or less from the, on the 3rd floor. Everything else has shrunk down. So in overall design, the project is smaller. The 3rd floor, the 200 sq. ft. difference is relatively a minor, nominal one, but because of it's relocation to the opposite side of the house, the BD felt that rather than the generic approval that you had given, you were much more specific with the design standards, the design elements of the house. So that's why we are back here. CHAIRWOMAN: The other factor is the original approval was based on the fact that Page 102 of 125 103 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing the 3'-d floor only occupied 25% of the house that now occupies 1/3. So in hindsight what are we doing? Are we going back and re-doing another decision that we've already made a decision on? MS. MOORE: Well, it's a completely different design. You were very specific in your approval with respect to the, you know, the original application. If they had taken the same sq. footage,but a completely different design, we'd still, based on the BD's interpretation, we'd still be back here. So designs change. And certainly over a 2 years span on a waterfront multimillion dollar piece of property, they've come back and want it to look a little bit different. You had a generic footprint last time. When we had boxes instead of design, we may have been able to work around it. But since we really did change it in configuration, and layout, we are back here. We apologize. Mrs. Cohen doesn't want to be here anymore than any of you want to see this a 2',d time. But either way, we were looking to come back to you if,because of the specificity of your original decision. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Horning. MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any questions right now. I saw the site today. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I voiced my, not my concern,but the basic issue of what the size is. And I appreciate that information. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Orlando. MEMBER ORLANDO: This a new application for me since I wasn't here for the other one. So this is the 4t"bite of the apple? 4"bite? MS. MOORE: No, no 2. MEMBER ORLANDO: There were 3 variances already. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. We have 2 other houses. We have, it's Edgewater I, 11, and III. There was tennis court on one. MEMBER ORLANDO: Tennis courts and lights, right. MS. MOORE: Tennis courts and lights for the other one, adjacent piece. Each of them stands alone as a separate owner. Here we have the owner of this piece. As far as effecting the character of the neighborhood or effecting the neighbors, we are the neighbors. Page 103 of 125 104 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER ORLANDO: So what caused the extra 200 sq. ft.? MR. HASPEL: When the master bedroom suite was moved from the east side to the west side, interior changes to take a little better advantage of the sun and view. The owner requested that it be increased to the size that it is now. MEMBER ORLANDO: Sun and view is more windows, not more space, correct? MR. HASPEL: Layout of the furniture. They got very specific about the design. MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the total square footage of the house? MS. MOORE: Ground floor? MEMBER ORLANDO: Total living space. MS. MOORE: I don't know. MR. HASPEL: 6775 sq. ft. MS. MOORE: We're not touching the lot coverage. We are conforming in every other respect. Side yards,rear yards. We are how many feet from the road? MR. HASPEL: 500. MS. MOORE: 500' from the north road. And 100' back from the bluff. MEMBER ORLANDO: I took a ride back there, it was kind of... MS. MOORE: It's a beautiful piece of property. MEMBER ORLANDO: There's a little shed there now. MS. MOORE: It's very isolated. They've kept the natural features of the property, as you can tell from both other houses. They've been respectful of the character, of the trees and everything. They've kept everything the way it is, with minimum clearing. MR. HASPEL: A point of interest. The lights have not been put up on the tennis court. CHAIRWOMAN: Good. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Ms. Oliva. Page 104 of 125 105 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MEMBER OLIVA: I've just never been very happy about 3 floors. And especially about enlarging it, because it is so huge as it is. How many feet back from the bluff? MS. MOORE: 100. MEMBER OLIVA: Over 100. MR. HASPEL: The house is well over 100. 100 is to the steps of the deck on the bluff side. And then there's about a 16' deck. And then the house starts. MEMBER OLIVA: No further questions. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see if there's anyone in the audience that has any questions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? I really don't have any other questions. And if the board members don't, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. All in favor. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:09 p.m. HELEN THEOHARIS #5331. Request for a Waiver of Merger under Section 100-26, based on the Building Department's February 18, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to unmerge CTM #1000-22-4-10 (Stars Manor #12) from CTM #1000-22-4-11 (Stars Manor #11), vacant land. Location of Property: 1625 and 1745 Stars Road, East Marion. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Pat Moore spoke briefly about Coyne (see page 71) CHAIRWOMAN: Now can we go back to this hearing? MS. MOORE: Sorry, this will be much quicker. Alright, Theoharis, Steve and Helen Theoharis bought from Costa Stars, from the original developer of the Costa Star subdivision, in 1965, 2 lots, lot 11 and lot 12. At that time, there was no belief that they had to checkerboard it. They owned 2 separate pieces of property. They bought 2 because they had 2 sons, and they wanted to pass it on their sons. The attorney that drafted the wills stated that, in the wills, the properties were deeded over, were to be conveyed to the sons upon their death. However, Mr. Steve Theoharis passed away from an illness in May of 2002, and Mrs. Theoharis finds herself in need. As a widower, she has to sell the property to continue to live off of her assets. And there was a contract prepared with a P party. And at the time they went to contract thereafter they did a single and separate search and they discovered that this property had merged by way of, under our code. That's why we made the application to this board. The properties have Page 105 of 125 106 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing received separate tax bills. They have always been intended to be separately owned and separately conveyed. And these two properties are identical to all the other lots on Star's Rd. subdivision. And I've have numerous applications to this board with respect to waivers and applications for homes that are along Star's Rd. This will be consistent with all the other homes in the neighborhood and it would be a significant financial hardship to Mrs. Theoharis that the lot is under contract for$130K. And it would be a significant decrease to combine the lots if each lot is worth $130K. The combined lots don't equate to much more than that. So it would be a significant reduction in the value of the property, and a hardship to the owners. Mr. &Mrs. Theoharis were greek immigrants. They were not sophisticated with respect to preservation of these properties as single and separate properties. And this neighborhood, which is primarily owned by many of the greek immigrants. What you find is people, unknowingly,have these mergers of lots occur. And that is what we have here. A situation, not unlike many other applications that you've seen along this. That's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN: Do the board members have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: I have one. Perhaps Mrs. Moore could submit to us an area survey similar to this with a marking of what ones of these parcels are developed with buildings and what ones are vacant? MS. MOORE: I can do that. I haven't yet. But, if you'd like, I can provide that. MEMBER HORNING: It would be helpful. MS. MOORE: You've had so many applications along this road. I thought maybe in- house you already have that done. But that's fine. I will submit my own. CHAIRWOMAN: Does anyone in the audience have any questions? Yes? JANE GOHOREL: My name is Jane Gohorel. And I have already written of my opposition this waiver of merger. And I submitted it to you on the basis that I do not see any reason for undoing something that's been done for 20 years to bring these lots into compliance. And the fact that the lady who owns this, I'm very sorry her husband died. I live very close to this lot. The fact that they have been merged, I don't believe would snake theirs less valuable as one lot than if they would have been as 2 little lots that are not in compliance. And I have another question. What about the, if 2 houses go on these lots, what about the cesspool, the distance between cesspool and well for 2 different houses right next to each other. To me, the lot doesn't look to be that big as it is now. So there are other houses just behind this lot. Really huge, new houses that have been built, overpowering in the neighborhood actually. I think these, I mean it's just out of proportion with anything else. And I would hate to see something similar go up on these even on one lot itself, much less 2 lots. So I guess my question is, why undo something that was an improvement in planning after 20 years and make it possible to add even Page 106 of 125 107 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing more houses to a neighborhood that's been greatly under stress for the past few years because of all the building activity. And the other thing is if indeed there are some other lots that are not in compliance, and if you allow this, then how can you say no to any of the others who come to ask for similar unmerging? That's it. That's what I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: Anyone else in the audience? NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ: Good afternoon, board. I'm Nancy Sawastynowicz. And I've lived there for 9 years. And we're not, all the people down there aren't greek. I have a real, serious, problem with that area. Within one year, there had been over a dozen homes brought in on flat beds and huge, huge, homes like Mrs. Gohorel just mentioned on the backside of this property. They are so oversize. I don't know. I would like this town to do something about the oversized homes that are being built. It's beyond my belief why somebody would need that much room. So for me to feel sorry for somebody who has two lots, when I know just down the street, at 100 yards, a small sized lot went for 190K with nothing on it. I can't feel sorry for anybody. I can't afford to live in this area. I rent. And I'm like, happy, that I can afford the rent. But for somebody whose husband just died, obviously she's not young. To not be happy with the amount of money she's going to get is ludicrous. I find that not a hardship. And I just feel that we have to stand our ground. There's not even an acre. We're talking now, in last week's paper, the town just spent$200K for this draft generic environmental impact statement. It's the current state of development and the pretense for limiting that growth. So we're trying to deal with this and to, and there's so many undersized lots already on Stars Road. And it's like behind me, there was 11 acres clear-cut 2 years ago for this house that looks like a motel. It's disgusting. The animals are in the street. I go out in broad daylight. The deer are standing there looking at me. The fox are looking at me. I'm going to myself, where is the planning on this poor, it used to be all wooded. Where is the planning on this wonderful area? Living there for 9 years I felt like I was in heaven. And now like I'm saying, it's like getting deluged with these houses. So please don't give this request approval. I just feel like little lots with big houses because that's, you know, that's going to happen. It's disgusting, and it's not in character of the area. And I'm really adamant about it. So I hope you take it into consideration. I know the board is a very good board, and they think everything out. And I would just like to say thank you for listening to me. I'm a little emotional because I live there. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN: That's okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? CINDY MYSLIBORSKI: Hi. My name is Cindy Mysliborski. I'm a new owner on Stars Road. I've been there for about a year and a half. And this is all new to me. But since I've been there, I thought I was moving to a nice, quiet, neighborhood to enjoy. And it's been nothing but construction, and vehicles, and debris. And it's just outrageous. I woke up the other morning to find 3 little baby foxes born running down Page 107 of 125 108 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing my driveway, and one of them dead in my pond. They just have nowhere to go. And I do agree with Mrs. Gohorel and Nancy that the value of land there as one lot certainly will be worth as much as if it was two. And I am opposed against that. And would like you to take that into consideration with Mrs. Gohorel and Nancy's request too, that enough is enough in that neighborhood. And oversized housing is definitely outrageous in there. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MS. MOORE: Just some quick responses. Each lot here as a single and separate lot, each lot, rather than combined has a greater assurance of building a house that is in conformity with the neighborhood than to merge two parcels and have an oversized parcel that then allows a person to build much more than at 20% of that sized lot than to retain the character of the area under the original subdivision configuration that all of these people who have come here and objected to the request all live on the same size parcel as what we are proposing to return the parcel to it's original size. The master plan that we've just spent a fortune on, actually talks about housing diversity. And the diversity is also recognizing that existing subdivisions like these, which are now undersized because the minimum zoning is one acre, still retain value for the, to retain the character of the area, and to provide diversity of housing stock in the town of Southold. The merger law actually breaks down and forces, or combines, parcel in situations like this where you have pre-existing half-acre lots. Because it takes the parcels and makes them less affordable for people. At 130, which is the contract that is presently, excuse me 132, is the contract price. Jean and Betelina Kelly, who are the prospective purchasers, they can buy this lot and build a modest sized home on it. And have a normal home,just like everyone else. The alternative is that the seller, Mrs. Theoharis, has to sell this double sized parcel, which is a much more expensive parcel to someone else. And the person who buys it will be forced, because of the value of the land itself, to build a much more grandiose house, which is more like the subdivision that is in the rear, and the lots that are larger. So we are actually trying to keep within the character of the existing Stars Road community by retaining the existing pre-existing lot sizes, rather than combining it under our zoning code, combines two lots that are in common name. And inadvertently brings the two properties together. CHAIRWOMAN: Last question. MS. MOORE: To me? CHAIRWOMAN: Yes. I went through the title search on this property. And in looking at the title search, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they bought the two properties, they bought them in the same name, the husband and wife name. MS. MOORE: Right. But they bought them in 1965. Page 108 of 125 109 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: In 1965? They never separated the ownership. They never checker boarded. They never made any effort whatsoever to keep the properties in single and separate ownership, which has always been noted. MS. MOORE: If you and I were the owners of the property, we would have known to do that. These are, to the extent, they were unsophisticated, and did not inquire about, you know, the changes in the zoning code. CHAIRWOMAN: Well there were so many opportunities. This is virtually 37 years ago. It's not 20 years ago when they went to 1-acre zoning in 1972, this lot became nonconforming. When, all through the `70's... MS. MOORE: However they continued, the one way they would have been alerted, for somebody who is unknowing, would be through the tax bill. If their tax bill had been combined, and the town, the assessor, actually notifies you that it's been merged, it would have triggered some knowledge by unknowing people. The tax bills continue to come as they always come in... CHAIRWOMAN: That's true throughout the town in dozens, and dozens, and dozens of parcels. MS. MOORE: There are sophisticated buyers. And the merger law protects those that are sophisticated buyers. It does not protect against unsophisticated buyers. That's what your role is. That's what many times, government's role is, to protect against people who would otherwise not know. They bought 2 lots, always intended it to be 2 lots. Their wills, which were done in the `90's, reflected each lot going to each son. If you want, I can get a copy of the will for you. CHAIRWOMAN: I noticed, in your presentation, you said that because she needs the money, that she, originally the lots were to go to each son, but because she is now apparently in a nursing home, or... MS. MOORE: No, no, no, she's, I don't think she's in nursing home. She's just now a widow with limited funds. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Now that she has limited funds, she's no longer going to keep both lots. She's wants to sell one and the other son is going to keep the other lot. It's her assets, it's her future. It's also her responsibility. But there's no real economic hardship here. MS. MOORE: Well the economic hardship is not only to them to combine. CHAIRWOMAN: Profit is not necessarily hardship in this case. This is a very unusual Page 109 of 125 110 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing one because this lot has been one lot for so many years. It's not even a question of a waiver of merger anymore. MS. MOORE: Let's put it this way. The hardship will truly be for the buyer, the Kelly's, who were under the impression they were buying a lot to build their house, and now the contract would be nullified because they are not getting what they expected, which is their lot. The whole deal would fall through. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm sure that their purchase is subject to... MS. MOORE: Oh sure they'll get their money back, of course,but people buy a lot with great expectations of building their house, and the expense of a survey and the title, and the lawyers. They have invested a certain amount of money to get to this point when they discovered that it had merged. So I feel bad for any purchaser who undertakes this. Because now, when they go out to look for a parcel, they can't find another half-acre parcel for 130, maybe they find, they are few are far between. And you know as well as I do that the pressure is now, and in particular for these... CHAIRWOMAN: But that's not justification to go back and subdivide lots and half- acre lots. _ MS. MOORE: This was a subdivision, this is a subdivision that was approved by the PB. We are not talking about like, Captain Kidd Estates where it's an 8th of an acre. CHAIRWOMAN: This was done in 1965. MS. MOORE: And they were large lots, at the time, in 1965. Personally, I live on a half-acre parcel. And quite frankly, that's a nice sized, would I like a lot more, sure. But my ranch fits very comfortably on a half-acre parcel. It is consistent with all the rest of the neighborhood. I will supply to Mr. Horning showing how many lots have actually been developed, and what remains vacant. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay. Is there any other questions? I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve the decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 3:27 p.m. TARIQ MAHMOD BAIG, and RIFFAT MINHAS #5369(A & B). Requests for: (a) Variances under Section 100-244, based on the Building Department's April 17, 2003, Notice of Disapproval amended April 28, 2003, for a front yard setback of less than 30 feet, and a two-family dwelling on a less having less than 80,000 sq. ft.; and (b) a Special Exception under Section 100-31B for a two-family dwelling. Location of Property: 6125 County Rd. 48, Mattituck; CTM #1000-139-3-49. Page 110 of 125 111 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? TARIQ MAHMOD BAIG: Good afternoon ZBA members and all of the ladies and gentlemen. This is my first appearance before the board regarding the lot. It is my wife's, actually, for my son who has juvenile arthritis, a chronic disease. Instead of putting the money he inherited from his maternal mother, we're looking forward that this lot will be useful for providing him shelter. And I'm a heart patient who has 5 by-pass. To look at this with uncertainty, the possible investment was to buy this piece of land instead of putting the money in the bank account. The reason for coming to the zoning board is that the size of this lot is small as it had been a quarter of an acre. When Rt. 48, where this lot is located, near Wickham Ave. in Mattituck. This lot was when 48 was widened, and extended, and constructed. Because of that, the lot size has been decreased from the old building allocation of a '/ of an acre to .22 of an acre, a little less than that. But I have certain examples in Mattituck where the houses are allowed to construct in old allocation like on Rogers Place where house is constructed on 1/8`h of an acre. So this is a lot located on three sides around the neighboring houses. And the front is Rt. 48. Before buying this house, I applied to the Health Department(HD). That whether it is suitable for making a house or not, HD, according to this map approved this date initially applied for 3 bedroom, 2-story residence,but HD approved it a maximum of 4 bedrooms, 2-story house can be built on this lot. I have provided this map, and the proposed other variance maps to all the neighbors as I was to the zoning board and to the members of the ZBA. CHAIRWOMAN: Which map did you give to the neighbors? MR. BAIG: A copy of the HD map and the letter. One I have for the variance that I want that this house should be 3 bedrooms, 2-story residence with a 3 bedroom accessory apartment on the 2nd floor. Variance is needed for 3 things. First that 15' of this lot has been used, according to the new construction law. If I leave behind front and behind 15', it will be a very small house. So if I be allowed to leave instead of 35' from the front and 35' from the back, I should be allowed for 30' and 30' so I'll be able to gain at least 10', instead of 15' I have lost, by the construction of Rt. 48. Number 3, as I had described, if it becomes a 2-family dwelling, if allowed, it will be a source of income for the son who has juvenile arthritis himself. And I'm a 55-year-old person with a heart condition. He will not have any other source of income to live off. Except that at this state, being the parents of the children, we all together, should think about the future of this baby, who is 9 years old, goes to east Cutchogue elementary school. Certainly my emphasis is that we should come together and think about this. This is a very concern matter to his health and to my health, and the future of this baby. This place is very near to school at a walking distance. And this illness is so chronic that he's desperately, always, in need of some help to go to school and come back. So my emphasis is only 3 things. And I hope this board will consider my request that if the law makes me to leave 30' from the front and 30' from the back, it will be a spacious home for living. Number 2 that this lot is not Page 111 of 125 112 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing very small, but there are some houses, which are on the smaller lots like this. And there are many double story houses all around Mattituck and in Southold. If board likes, I have the pictures of those houses, which are in the neighborhood as well. On Wickham Ave. there's a very big house, 2-story house. And seen from outside, I should not have to invade.the privacy of anybody, but just to give an example, that house must not be less than 6 bedrooms. There is another way to do this thing that the HD has approved. I can make 4 bedrooms, and without telling, and lying to this board, it is not fair on my part with my faith and everybody's honor and respect that I should say, okay, I will make two rooms and two bedrooms, making it 6 bedrooms indirectly telling that these are two study rooms. It's not fair. I should tell you, what is the need of my son, is a source of income. If we would borrow some money from the bank, nearly$300K, certainly that money has to be returned if something happened to me. State of NY will be again there to do what we can do to live. And this matter is before the ZBA. So I have sufficiently emphasized, on my 3 demands. First by extending the Rt. 48 this lot became more small,but not as much which cannot be redressed. Two, that this lot is still sufficient to build a 2-story house. It has been approved by the HD. Another thing, which is needed to be mentioned here, that public water is available from the Rt. 48 side of this lot. So the cesspool hazard or any other thing to the neighbors will not be as maybe they feel it,but they had the opportunity and I had to find this thing that this lot and the neighborhood is an area where running water will be available to everybody and well water, if they like it. I think I have said much more than what is required if you have any questions of that. CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Baig, a couple of things. Because I read through all of your literature, and I read through all the documentation. The HD, you are here, the property is small, it's an 8900 sq. ft. parcel, right on Rt. 48. And you are here requesting a special exception for a 2-family house. You want 3 bedrooms downstairs, kitchen, bath, etc. You want 2 bedrooms upstairs with a one... MR. BAIG: A study room. CHAIRWOMAN: Another unit, rental unit. So it's a total of 3 rental units in one house? MR. BAIG: 2. CHAIRWOMAN: 2 upstairs... MR. BAIG: No. 1 upstairs, 1 downstairs. 1 for my living... CHAIRWOMAN: Who is going to live in the house? There are 3 owners, who is going to live in the house? MR. BAIG: No. There are 2 owners in the house. Because Sonny is 9 years old. And this house, this lot, will not be bought in his name. So Minhas is the mother, and Mr. Assad is the maternal uncle of Sonny. And because of my health, it was suggested that I Page 112 of 125 113 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing should not be the owner if something happened again, Sonny or his another has to go through of ownership. So to be on the safe side, right from the beginning, I being the father, is also the representative of these 2 people who own this lot, because Sonny is 9 years old. CHAIRWOMAN: So who... MR. BAIG: Sonny will live with his mother and me, the father in 1-story, the ground floor. And the 2„d story, which will be 3-bedroom house complete with a kitchen and living area with all necessities of life. Second floor, that will be rented. CHAIRWOMAN: I really have to tell you that the code, our town code for a 2-family unit, our town code requires an area of 80K sq. ft. And going from 80K sq. ft. to 8K sq. ft. is a very big drop. That's No. 1. Even with the parking that you're showing, you're showing parking on Rt. 48. There's no way to even get out onto 48 without backing out into Rt. 48. Eight years that I've been on the board, the board has never approved a 2- family dwelling on an 8K sq. ft. lot, or even for that matter, a 20K sq. ft. lot. But the larger issue is that in February the Department of Health gave you approval for a single- family residence. That means one family. It's, and the approval, I have the map here that you're talking about, and the approval for the house that they gave you is substantially smaller than, in fact the house that they gave you approval,you met the setbacks, the 35' setback in the front, and the 35' setback in the rear. And the driveway was on the side. Now the map that you're asking us to approve, shows a much larger house. So it shows the driveway in the front coming back, right out into Rt. 48. It shows the setbacks don't comply. And I don't think the HD is going to give you approval for a 2-family house on an 8K sq. ft. lot. MR. BAIG: There is only one little variance in this regard. As you have said that the map approved was having 35' setback. And the one I have proposed is 30' setback from the back. And from the front, that's what I'm demanding a variance. Next I have requested that from the, instead of east side, I will leave 10' from the west side, and 15' from the eastern side, making more room, space available for driveway as well as for parking. CHAIRWOMAN: But the snap that you submitted to the HD that was approved shows all the parking on the east side. They are totally different maps. They are totally different plans. MR. BAIG: No the driveway also is in the same map. Only the difference is that the setback has been increased, and that has been switched over from 10 to 15 from west to east. MEMBER ORLANDO: But you're putting another family in there too. Page 113 of 125 114 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Exactly. You're trying to put another family in there. We don't have any clear floor plans with this. So we really don't have any way to see what the sq. footage of the house... MR. BAIG: The floor plan, I think I submitted... CHAIRWOMAN: There's no sq. footage on this at all. So it's impossible. And the floor plan that you gave us does not match either one of the, the outlines of either one of the plans that you gave us. So we have no way of calculating what the size of the footprint of the I"floor or the 2"d floor. We have no method to even gauge that. MR. BAIG: Yes, my proposed plan the one approved by the HD has given this specification and the HD from the Rt. 48 side, the house will be 50' wide, from the east, 14' and the angle for the 8' and from the west side, 22'. CHAIRWOMAN: Then this survey that you showed us here... MR. BAIG: And the one I gave you with the approved setback of 30', the size of the house will increase from 14 to 18'. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm very confused then because the map that you submitted to us says proposed 3 bedroom 2-story residence with a 3-bedroom apartment on the 2nd floor. Is that the map that you want us to consider? That's not one that the HD has reviewed. It's totally different. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. It's the nature of the one, the applicant has before us today. That's the nature of the disapproval. MR. BAIG: for the disapproval. CHAIRWOMAN: Jerry, do you have any questions? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The point in question, the Notice of Disapproval (NOD) reads, I mean the one that's before us, you could still make it subject to HD approval if the gentlemen has to go back to the HD. CHAIRWOMAN: He has applied to us for a Special Exception. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that, but he also applied for a variance. MR. BAIG: I applied for a variance and the HD already sent back to the zoning board that they shouldn't go through the variance after the variance is down by the zoning board. If the ZBA agreed that they allow for the setback of 30' from the front and back, certainly HD will consider. Only thing that arises is the cesspools adjustment. Cesspools Page 114 of 125 115 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing will be moved from the back to the front because running water is available. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern we have is the parking. And that is that you really cannot back out on that road. Somehow you have to work some kind of parking plan. MR. BAIL: There's 123 front of this house and 30' wide. And the person who I have requested to Mr. Stanley it had already, clearly mentioned here the proposed parking of 9' and 19' wide, long and wide. And those are there too. Entrance of 100' driveway from the Rt. 48. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see the parking in the front of the house that you have proposed. I think we should go on to the remaining people that have concerns regarding this and then come back to the hearing and let you speak again. I think that's what we should do. And that's what I propose to the chairperson. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MARYLOU FOLTS, ESQ: Madame Chairwoman and members of the board, I'm Maylou Folts of Lark and Folts. And I'm speaking to you on behalf of Halsey Goldsmith, one of the neighbors of the property. He's a life tenant at 240 Freeman Rd., which is just north of the applicant's property. So it backs up to their backyard. I also represent Teresa Buelawitz Thompsen who owns the parcel on the corner of Wickham Ave., 1400 Wickham Ave. and CR 48. And also here is Valerie Meyer who owns the parcel immediately to the north of the Thompson/Buelawitz. So her lot also backs up to the Minhas property. Obviously I'm here because these adjacent neighbors oppose the main thrust of this application, which is to construct this 2-family house on the applicant's parcel at 6125 CR 48. 1 want to discuss I"the special exception portion of the application. In making the determination, as you know, you have to follow the general standards of section 100-2.63 of the zoning code and give consideration to those specific factors enumerated in 100-264. 1 wish to discuss these factors at the outset. And that should take care of most of my comments if you'll bear with me. I will, I would like to address each and every one of these factors to lay it out for you. It's a hearing, and I'd like to address each one of them. A, the character of their existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for such district for the location of any such pennitted uses. It's a mouthful, but as the board's aware, the existing neighborhood consists of single family residences. The fact that the houses are 1 or 2 story is irrelevant. I think that's part of Mr. Baig's confusion. They are all single-family residences. The point is that the use of a residence is defined, not by the number of floors. And the residences in this neighborhood are single family, and have been for probably over 50 years. And considering the size of this applicant's property, it's not suitable for a 2-family residence. As to factor B, the conservation of property values and the encouragement of the most appropriate uses of land, as the board's aware, Page 115 of 125 116 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing we're in Southold Town. This is only 8982 sq. ft. less than 2/10's of an acre. And it's not NYC, or Queens, or the Bronx, or Brooklyn. We don't have that kind of density. As to factor C, the effects of the location, the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation of undue influence of vehicular traffic congestions on public streets, highways, or sidewalks to assure the public safety. At the outset, there's no sidewalks. The entrance is on a turn lane actually. Off of CR 48, there's a turn lane that starts about midway of this property. So the 2-family house on this undersized lot is going to create additional traffic. The parking is shown as being provided in the front yard. And as Mrs. Chariwoman pointed out, it involves backing out onto this bad highway where there's a bad intersection at Wickham Ave. and CR 48. I think it was even designated as one of the black spots where there's so many accidents that happen there. I know within the past year, there was an accident just to the east of this Minhas property where a child was killed. It's a busy highway, and I can't imagine backing out onto as being an allowed use. The only relief I would see is if you let him create a single- family house and have a semicircle driveway that came across the yard. At least in that way he could drive across the front yard,point in and point out onto CR 48, but to create a 2-family use which, to me, more than doubles the use of traffic at this point is just creating a hazard that I don't think this board wants to incur. I think it's a prescription for disaster. As to factor D, the availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and the facilities for treatment removal or discharge of sewage refuse or other , or other liquid, solid, gaseous, or otherwise that may be caused or created by, or as a result of the use. Again, the question here is for the board to consider that this is a 2-family residence. It should have public water. Now I understand, and I didn't see the HD map before the approval, but. And I was under the impression that public water ran down Wickham Ave. I wasn't under the impression that it ran along Rt. 48,but again, that would be for the HD to make that determination. I can't imagine the HD approving a 2-family use without public water. And what's been presented to them, obviously isn't the map that's before us, or what was sent to the adjoining neighbors. I didn't see any application for a 4-bedroom house that was sent to everybody. It's 2- family houses, they are identical levels from what I looked in your file. They are 3 bedrooms on each floor, living, dining,bathrooms, entrances, kitchens, everything duplicate, one on top of the other. The next factor, factor E, whether the use of the materials, incidental there too or produced thereby, may give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. You'll be happy to know I have no comment on that. Factor 4, whether the use will cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. This is probably not relevant because I don't know what they propose in the way of lighting. That would be the only comment I would have to that. It they were going to do something obnoxious with lighting on side yards or rear yards that would effect the Thompson, Meyer, or Goldsmith property. Factor G, whether the operation in pursuance of the use will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or recreational facilities either existing or proposed by the town, or by other competent governmental agencies. Again, it's not relevant to this application. Factor H, the necessity for luminous surface space for purposes of off street parking of vehicles incidental to the use and whether such spaces reasonably adequate and appropriate and Page 116 of 125 117 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing can be furnished by the owner of this lot sought to be used within or adjacent to the plot wherein the use shall be located. Again, he's proposing, the applicants are proposing parking slots on the front lawn and the driveway. And whether black top or asphalt, it appears they are going to have, over half the front yard is paved over with something. And just putting it all in the front yard just still is not feasible for safety purposes. That's basically all'I have to say on that factor. The other factor, whether it's a hazard to life, limb, or property because of fire, flood, erosion, or panic may be created by a reason or result of the use or by the structures to be used therefore or by the inaccessibility of the property or structures they are on for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus, or by the undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon the plot. Now fire and emergency vehicles gaining access to the property is not a problem. Obviously it's on this highway. And I know you're not building inspectors,but if you look at the house and the various entrances on what you show on the floor plans that you have, there's only an ingress and egress to the upstairs through the east or, I think, the northeast corner of the floor plan so the upstairs can only be gotten to from that one end of the house by, and that's, again,passing into the first floor of the house. I don't know. I'm not a building inspector, either are you. But it's another factor that I'd want to consider. The other factor, J, whether the use of the structures to be used therefore will cause an overcrowding of land or undue concentration of population. Clearly by the location of the proposed 2-family residents on CR 48 on this 8900 sq. ft. plot on a busy intersection, and 2-families, obviously creates double the people, double the crowding, double the traffic. I think that covers that. Factor K, whether the plot area is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the use and the reasonably anticipated operation and expansion thereof. Again, it's a 2-family house on 2/10's of an acre property. It's, common sense says it shouldn't have been brought. You've got 10 pounds and you're trying to cram it into a 5-pound bag. That's the best way I can say it. The other factor, L, whether the use is to be operated as unreasonably near to a church, school, theater, recreational area, or other place of public assembly doesn't seem to be relevant to this case. Factor M, whether the site of the proposed use is a particularly suitable for such use. And again, for the reasons I've gone over, no, it's not suited. It's 8900 sq. ft. As to factor N, whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. If you look at the lot today, it's densely wooded, but when you look where the proposed plan is for the house, the parking, the driveway, cesspools, if he does have them. It's obvious the property is going to be stripped of everything. And there would be no buffers if, I don't know how much property they could possibly be left for buffers after building, over-building what he wants to do here. Factor O, whether adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of storm water runoff sewage, refuse, and other liquid, solid, or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. From what I can tell, it's a level piece of property. And basically when they build the house, the grading will determine any kind of a runoff problem. But it doesn't seem to be at this point. Factor P, whether the natural characteristics of the site or such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems, or processes. And without risk of pollution to ground Page 117 of 125 118 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals = Regular Meeting Public Hearing water and surface waters on and off the site. And again, on that, I have no comment. CHAIRWOMAN: Could you,just because of the time, we do have to be out of here. Do you have a copy of this, that you could provide us with? MS. FOLTS: I'd like to get it on the record if I could. And it won't be too much longer. I'm through reading the code to you. I don't mean to give a training lesson. I just want to preserve the record and give you the grounds. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you give us a copy, it's automatically in the record. MS. FOLTS: I'd just like to continue, if you don't mind. As I said, the factors I just went through, all of them the A-P are the matters you have to consider when you make your 6 findings and determinations as required by the 100-263. And again,back in those factors, the use of the property for a 2-family house will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties because they are all single-family houses. And this is a proposal for a 2-family house. If the applicant's lot is located in this legally established single-family residential neighborhood, and I can't emphasize that enough. The health and safety issue is obvious because of the traffic and I just can't imagine backing out onto Rt. 48. Granting the special exception certainly doesn't promote harmony in the general purposes of the code.'To grant the application raises the question of why have zoning at all when it's not compatible with this neighborhood. And again, factor F that the proposed structure be readily accessible, again, I don't know until we know which plans they are dealing with. I just don't know what the house plans are. Applicant's theory that this application is just for this lot and within this, it's boundary and area. Again, it's contrary. If everybody went in and said, it's just for mine, don't worry about it, it's just my lot, it's not. Once you give it to him, somebody else comes in. It's special exception after special exception. Turning now, quickly if I can to the variance issue, and I won't take up too much more of your time. The variance is again, is for the 2-family house. And under town law, section 267B, the criteria can't be met. CHAIRWOMAN: It's for special exception. MS. FOLTS: For the area and for the 3 variances. CHAIRWOMAN: The 2 setbacks, front, rear, and the lot area. And then there's special exception. So we are looking at 3 variances and a special exception. The special exception, which he has applied for, is what you just addressed, which is the 2-family dwelling. MS. FOLTS: The, basically the area variance ties into a lot of the same factors, what you are looking at, the size of the property, the benefit that's sought by the applicant just can't be had on this property. But it doesn't mean he's deprived of the use of his property. Page 118 of 125 119 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing He's still got the option of coming to you for a single-family residence. And from what you said, there's a map in your file that shows that he wouldn't even have to apply for variances for setbacks if he went with a smaller, single-family house, which to me, seems reasonable. Now I know he says he'd only request, for this particular variance, he wants a 5' in a rear, and a 5' back rear yard and front yard setback adjustment. But that becomes substantial when you consider the size of the parcel. So I submit to you it's two-family, it's going to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Now the issue, when you are looking at the variance, an area variance is weather his hardship is self created. And I know that's not a commanding factor, it doesn't have to be the only factor that you look at. But he bought it, I believe, in February of 2003. At that point, it was already an 8982 sq. ft. lot. It hasn't changed. He bought it knowing what it was. The county taking 15' or however many feet they took was years ago. And they took it and compensated the owner at that time. When he bought in 2003, he bought what was there. So he hasn't been deprived of anything at that point. And basically, the house size seems to be based on his idea that he needs the money to support the child in his health and other people's health, and that. But, again, I feel sorry for him, my clients feel sorry for him. And we sympathize. But it's not, they've created their own hardship by buying this small lot and trying to do too much with too little. So basically, scale it back and I'm sure the neighbors wouldn't have an objection to a single-family residence without backing out onto CR 48. And with a single-family residence, and half the traffic, and less parking area, I think that can be worked out. In conclusion, the problem you are going to have, is that the applicant's mere purchase does not warrant this 2-family, the variance for the 2-family house. And if you deny the special exception, then I would think you'd have to legally deny the variance and I guess that they reapply. You can't convert this, I think to a single family because you need to have them reapply, give plans for the house that they plan to build. And basically, I don't know what the confusion is with them with the, whether it's 4 bedrooms, 6 bedrooms, or what. But what we are looking at is a 2- family house. And if he presented you the same plans and said, gee, I want a single family house. I think you'd look at it and say hey, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's a 2-family house whether he came back with the same plans. I think if you approve a single-family residence with this kind of plans, you're just kind of saying yeah, yeah, you're going to have something illegal, accessory, happen there. So again, when he comes back, you'll give further consideration as to what he's trying to do. I feel badly that he can't do what he wants to do with his property. But, again, it's not for you, the board, to grant variances or special exceptions based on self-created hardship or the fact that you just want something that the neighborhood doesn't allow. Basically, I'm just asking you, at tliis point, to deny the special exception, and deny the 3 variances. And I thank you for your time. Enough said. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MR. BAIG: Can I give you, these are the pictures of 3-story houses built in area. Page 119 of 125 120 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Baig, we have to be out of Town Hall at a certain time, and we really have to wrap this up. And the other 2-story houses in the neighborhood. They are single family. That's one family. So it does not matter that they are 2 stories. MR. BAIG: Only one thing I am mentioning here. They have rented those houses and are earning money. I don't know how far it is right, but these are the documents I had been submitting all those neighborhoods. Next a traffic hazard, entrance and exit of this lot is from the Rt. 48, not from the neighborhood. And there is a curb available for the entrance and exit. If you have to go and see, personally,because no proper map is available from the Southold Town for this regarding how the road map has been planned on this for the traffic. It's a very convenient entrance and exit available because there is a traffic light there. And it is safe that the environmental hazard, yes I was aware of the extent that this kind of thing can come. There's water available if they don't want, and they want a lot of water to irrigate their lawns and grasses and other things, certainly they would not allowed to use that water. But for drinking water, as many families need water,more is available. And nobody can be denied from getting water to use for their personal use instead of irrigating their lawns. And this has been in the newspaper that people should be suggested that they should not misuse this water for irrigating their lawns. And next, it is very wise to allow multi-family living in this area to save the agricultural land has been doing. To save the land for the betterment environmental and other things that are going on if you'll not allow the people to make multi-story buildings, then how can you save the land? Further houses will be built in that instead of extending the size of the lot. This lot... CHAIRWOMAN: I'm going to have to cut you short because we've devoted over an hour to this hearing. And there are people who've been waiting here since 2:00. And we simple cannot devote anymore time. It's not fair to them. MR. BAIG: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN: We will take all of your comments into consideration. And thank you for your presentation. I'll snake a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:08 p.m. ERNEST SCHNEIDER#5343. Request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3, based on the Building Department's March 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes a lot with an area of less than 40,000 sq. ft. and lot width of less than 150 ft. in this R-40 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: 1015 and 915 Lakeside Drive, Southold; CTM 9-4-5- and 6. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? GAIL WICKHAM, ESQ: Two issues 1'd like to go over. First of all the front yard Page 120 of 125 121 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing width, as you can see, we are merely moving 9' from one lot to another. The lot that is being reduced by 9' has an existing dwelling. It has plantings and a driveway that are not in the effected area. The total lot width of both parcels together will not change. The object of a lot line change was to snake what was an existing legal vacant lot a little bit bigger because of it's proximity to the wetlands. On the second point area, I just spoke to Damon at the BD because I think he and I both misread the snap. And the 40K sq. ft. that he thought we were under, he was referring, and he had circled on his snap, on tax lot 6 proposed adjacent area, 27K sq. ft. If you go up and look at the map, itself, on the upper lot, it says 1.9 acres proposed. So it is, in fact, over 40K sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: That's the one thing, because our maps came in 2 different pieces. If I could just, if we could just get to the real, it's like fill in the blanks. Lot 5 is the size now, is lot 5 is the wetland lot. MS. WICKHAM: .825 acres. CHAIRWOMAN: Excuse me? MS. WICKHAM: .825 acres. CHAIRWOMAN: Do we have any sq. footage on that? MS. WICKHAM: 35K, 36K CHAIRWOMAN: 36K, is that even? MS. WICKHAM: 35,933.80. I'm sorry, I was rushing, because I know you are so far behind. CHAIRWOMAN: The size of lot 5 now. And after the change, it's going to be? MS. WICKHAM: 49,590 sq. ft. CHAIRWOMAN: Okay, lot 6? MS. WICKHAM: Lot 6 is now 57,613. CHAIRWOMAN: And it will be? MS. WICKHAM: It will be 43,956. 1 hope if we subtract, it may come out right. CHAIRWOMAN: We'll make them come out right. That was the question actually of, that was the only question I have for this whole thing. I know that you've been to the Planning Board on it, and I know that you've been granted a waiver from the Town Page 121 of 125 122 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing Board on it. And I have absolutely no objections. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nor do I. CHAIRWOMAN: And board members have any questions? MEMBER HORNING: Again, clarification,proposed adjacent area for 5 is say, 27K? MS. WICKHAM: That's a demarcation that the environmental agencies, the DEC requires it to be shown on the map. And I confirmed that with the surveyor that that's what that refers to. Is what the DEC needs to show is an adjacent area, adjacent to wetlands. And it has to do with elevations and what not. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Both lots over 40K sq. ft, correct? MS. WICKHAM: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wanted to make sure I have the right numbers. CHAIRWOMAN: They will be after the change. MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick question. The proposed house will be sold to stranger, relatives, friends? MS. WICKHAM: It will be built by and occupied by Mr. Schneider. He's selling the existing house. CHAIRWOMAN: Congratulations. MS. WICKHAM: He's living in a trailer right now. CHAIRWOMAN: I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 4:14 p.m. PETER BOGER #5341 - Request for a Variance under Section 100-33C (ref. 100-244B), based on the Building Department's February 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing accessory shed and to construct a new accessory building at less than 35 feet from the front lot line, at 717 Private Road #12, Southold; CTM#1000-87-4-4. PETER BOGER: My name is Peter Boger. I'm the owner of the subject property on Page 122 of 125 123 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing which I'm seeking a variance. My family has owned this property for 55 years. The property is presently improved with a 950 sq. ft. approximate seasonal bungalow and metal shed. I am seeking to demolish the existing deteriorating metal shed, and replace it with a wooded shed. The shed has been in this location for over 40 years. It needs to be in this particular location as I mentioned in my application because the shed houses, among other things, the well pump and the tank for domestic water for the house. The well needs to be in that location because of proximity to the wetlands and adjacent cesspools. So there really is no other practical spot in the yard which to place the shed. The initial application was denied because the Building Department (BD) deemed the shed to be in the front yard, but as a practical matter looking at the survey and looking at the land, layout of the house, it is really, in effect, the backyard. So what I'm seeking to do is replace this with a nice,more attractive, wooden shed. I've spoken with 3 out of the 4 neighbors in question. None of those 3 have any objection to the proposed construction. CHAIRWOMAN: The application is actually very simple. You want to be 22' from the so-called ROW. I understand. I have no questions/comments/objections to this whatsoever. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree it will look much nicer than the existing shed. MR. BOGER: You've seen it, I guess. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I was down there and I couldn't agree with you more. It will look much nicer. MEMBER HORNING: I'm pleased with the application. I looks very straightforward. CHAIRWOMAN: 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 4:16 p.m. ROBERT SAMOLEWSKI #5338. Request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's March 14, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant proposes an accessory garage in an area other than the code required rear yard, at 7800 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; CTM#1000-101-1-19.3. CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? You want to put a new garage... Page 123 of 125 124 June 19,2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing ROBERT SAMOLEWSKI: Yes, on the corner of 48 and Alvah's Lane. We are building a new house and we want to put a detached garage. And because it's on the corner, it says we have 2 front yards, but it's really the side yard because where the driveway is and all. I have an existing tree line that I put up. It's setback 65' off of the Main Road. And then the garage is going 90' from the Main Road. So it's plenty far away from the Main Road. I also have pictures here if you need to see as far as the way it's set up. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean Middle Road, you don't mean Main Road. MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Oh yes, Middle Road, 48. MEMBER ORLANDO: When are you going to get the crane there to put that together? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Right. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't have any questions. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house will contain utility of what? Pardon me, the garage, the utility of what? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Just for storage. Electric will be in there. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No water? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: No water. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER OLIVA: No questions, good luck. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'll follow up with Jerry. Just storage? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Just storage. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One story, or 2-story? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: It's a 2-story, 2-car garage. MEMBER ORLANDO: No bathroom, or anything like that? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: No. MEMBER ORLANDO: I'd be tough with no water, right? Page 124 of 125 125 June 19, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Yes it would be. MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions, good luck. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the applicant? MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that going to be stick built or modular? MR. SAMOLEWSKI: Stick built. CHAIRWOMAN: Good luck. And I'm going to make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION Public hearing concluded 4:20pm Page 125 of 125