Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/25/2003 HEAR D� i I 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 September 25, 2003 12 9 :30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present 15 LYDIA A. TORTORA, Chairwoman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member 18 RUTH OLIVA, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 21 22 X OCT 2- r'I 2003 23 ORIGINAL9 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 , 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The first appeal on the agenda is number 5388 on behalf 3 of Locke. .McLean. I would like to know if there' s anyone here who would like to speak in 4 favor or against the application. MR. LOCKE: Richard Locke, Main 5 Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant . Sarah McLean, the co-owner of the property is 6 also here . I understand she' s had a discourse 7 with some of the members of the Board concerning the application. Just to put 8 everything in reference before she speaks, the Board is familiar with this property, having 9 granted the relocation of the residence under appeal Number 4764 . And it' s one of the 10 unique properties in the entire town in that it' s got three front yards and very little 11 rear yard on which it' s has been designated because of the three front yards . 12 The proposal before you was created by her designer, BD Design, because 13 the McLeans sought more storage space in their house for their premises there, and what they 14 proposed was the garage, I won' t speak to the application per se because you've all reviewed 15 it and spoke to the applicant, and it' s a verified petition and you' re well aware of 16 what' s in it . The existing garage that' s being 17 utilized, as we speak today, is going to be converted to storage . Now, the problem that 18 we have here is that this is in an R80 zone, and to the existing house today is right at 19 161 feet as shown by the site plan from the gloaming. So anything that' s done in that 20 area because it is a designated front yard, would require a variance, and I understand 21 that Mrs . McLean has been talking about the Board, Board members concerning it . 22 What concerns me is in the thinking here this morning at this hearing is 23 what the Board would allow as a permissive front yard variance, considering the fact that 24 the existing garage on the gloaming is 21 feet at its closest point . So with that point I' ll 25 turn it over to Mrs . McLean. I won' t belabor the application because you've all discussed COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 3 1 2 it . Sarah. MRS . MCLEAN: Good morning. Would 3 you like me to speak, or I don' t know quite how to proceed on this? _ 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Well, let' s review a little history for the record. 5 MRS . MCLEAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board 6 members did inspect this site at our annual meeting in August . 7 MRS . MCLEAN: Right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And the owner 8 was at the site at the time, and the Board members did clearly express concern that at a 9 15 foot setback from the road that cars would be backing out into the road, and the Board 10 members were very concerned and asked Mrs . McLean at that time to give serious 11 consideration, since it is new construction, to consider moving it further back, so that we 12 would not have what amounts to a traffic hazard on that road. 13 You know, I recognize that it is not a major thoroughfare; on the other hand, 14 we also have to think down the road in the future and certainly not to try to create a 15 situation that would be a potential hazard to people who are using the road. And having 16 said that, please give us your thoughts? MRS . MCLEAN: I think that' s a 17 very fair point that you've raised, and in considering all that, my husband and I have 18 had unfortunately just preliminary conversations with our builder and architect, 19 but in order to move the building back, which we understand why it' s necessary to do and 20 we' d be happy to do, we' re really getting into an issue of it getting so close to the house, 21 and thinking we therefore have to attach it to the house . And as I understand it, that 22 changes the whole situation in terms of what it actually is what we' re asking for a 23 variance for. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, if 24 you' re thinking of incorporating this as part of the house, it would no longer be an 25 accessory, it would be a detached accessory building. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 4 1 2 MRS . MCLEAN: What I need is a little -- 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would become part of the principal building. 4 MRS . MCLEAN: I guess I need a little guidance as to how firmly attached does 5 it have to be, and how far back does it have to be . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have to consider using nails . 7 (Laughter. ) MRS . MCLEAN: No. You know what 8 I mean. Can it be an open breezeway or does it have to be an enclosed building? 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re getting into an area where -- how to say 10 this -- this is going to depend on how the building department reviews your plan. 11 MRS . MCLEAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In this 12 matter, we are appellate . Our jurisdiction is appellate . 13 MRS . MCLEAN: Fair enough. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The building 14 department will review your plans, and in all honesty, they will try to help you. Those are 15 the kinds of issues you can discuss with them; if I do this what will happen; if I do that 16 what will happen. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 17 just break in here? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re here today and your attorney is with you; you 19 could zip over to the building department, and we could recess this hearing for a little 20 while and possibly if that' s the way you want to go, come back and talk to us . 21 MRS . MCLEAN: Really, that would be very helpful . Actually, George had 22 recommended that . Can you at least give me some guidance as to how far back from the 23 street we would have to be? The house is just barely within the 60 foot setback, so 24 obviously -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At the closest 25 point the house is now 61 feet . 61 feet versus 15 -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 5 1 2 MRS . MCLEAN: Significantly different . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: As far back 4 as you can have it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s put it 5 this way, if the width of the garage is 24 feet -- 6 MRS . MCLEAN: Yes . I mean the whole building may change in design in terms 7 of our new thinking, but obviously we' re not going to get 60 feet back from the side street 8 there . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George' s comments are quite accurate . The Board would 10 like to see the maximum possible . Remember, this is a 64, 000 square foot lot, and there 11 are a lot of options, and I think the board member on Fisher' s Island has correctly stated 12 the Board' s feeling. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It is a 13 hilly area, however I will say I am inclined towards the applicant revising their plan and 14 attaching it to the house and working with the building department, and we' ll see what they 15 come up with, and they would be better suited for our decision at that point I think. Where 16 the greenhouse is, in my mind, is inappropriately placed to me . 17 MRS . MCLEAN: George pointed out -- horticulturist that I am -- that it 18 should be facing a different direction, and therefore, it might be used as the connector 19 building. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . I 20 understand it' s facing north. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I 21 raise one more issue? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I raise one more issue? 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 24 not privy to the conversation because I was basically standing higher up, looking down at 215 it at the time you were discussing it with the Board. But we have totally ruled out the fact COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 6 1 2 that you don' t want to enter this garage from an angle coming in adjacent to the other 3 garage? MRS . MCLEAN: No, that is another 4 possibility. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because 5 you have that topography there and you could make use of that in the plan, and then you 6 could buffer it around it, and I don' t think you' d have to change the position of it, as 7 long as the cars came in where it says proposed 18 by 24 foot greenhouse, and 8 actually enter the building from that side? MRS . MCLEAN: I think the real 9 issue is this building was being built for storage purposes . The problem is we have a 10 garage as it now stands, but it' s so filled with stuff, garden furniture, whatever, that 11 we can' t store our cars in it . So we' re looking for a place to store cars . We' re now 12 beginning to think the other way, that maybe what we should be building is an addition we 13 can use for storage and go back to putting the cars in the garage . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . McLean. Save us all time here . I think what we' re 15 hearing is you' d like to consider other options and the Board is perfectly open to 16 that . Why don' t we allow you some time to discuss this with the building department . 17 Counsel, will you be available at some time? 18 MR. LOCKE : Since her architect and builder are away, I would request then 19 with the dialogue that' s taken place this morning is that we recess it for a month or so 20 and then come back to it with an alternative situation, knowing that we' re going to need a 21 front yard variance here of some sort . So the application doesn' t change . What I was 22 looking for -- she was looking for some guidance . We have 21 feet there now. As long 23 as we don' t encroach on that and come back to that, they' re going to utilize the new 24 structure as a garage, as the old structure the ingress and egress is off the road. So 25 you' re not coming off the road. So with that in mind, if we have that parameter, then I COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 7 1 2 think her architect and the building department could get something organized for 3 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm not clear 4 what you just said. MRS . MCLEAN: I'm not sure I am 5 either. I think- what he' s saying is, if we go back to using the old garage as the garage 6 instead of just storage, then access to the road is irrelevant . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that what you said? 8 MR. LOCKE : Partially. Because the existing garage they don' t use to back out 9 on the road. They do not have to. She' s unable to use it because of the storage 10 problem so that would convert that back to the garage and then add an accessory, part of the 11 dwelling if you would with this addition, which would primarily be for storage, although 12 it' s considered part of. the living area of the house because it' s attached in some fashion, I 13 understand that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me 14 leave you with this last thought is that, Mrs . McLean, you intend to attach it to the house, 15 put on a glass roof, and put the greenhouse right up to the house . 16 MRS . MCLEAN: That' s what we' re thinking about, exactly, having the attachment 17 be the greenhouse . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think the 18 Board is more inclined to entertain a variance for that sort of thing rather than have to two 19 detached structures on the front yard. MR. LOCKE : What I'm trying to 20 get, should we use the 21 feet? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, Gerry, 21 we have a difference of opinion on this, so please don' t state the Board' s opinion. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm stating my opinion. Never, never, never, do I 23 state the Board' s opinion. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We do not 24 want to see a minimum of 21, that used as a parameter. This is a blank slate . It doesn' t 25 exist right now. MR. LOCKE : Two months, can we COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 8 1 2 adjourn it for two months? I 'm just trying to be realistic, to get the plans and come back 3 with something concrete . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To get 4 correct exposure for your greenhouse, which is questionable at this point . 5 MRS . MCLEAN: Anyway, doesn' t matter. But thank you for your guidance . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you want to set a date for this? 7 MRS . MCLEAN: We have to be turned down by the building department, first, don' t 8 we? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You may have 9 to do a renotification on this . So we will -- MR. LOCKE : Will December be 10 better then? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What is more 11 convenient for you? MRS . MCLEAN: Do you know your 12 meeting dates in November and December? MS . KOWALSKI : On December it' s 13 the 18th at approximately 9 :30 in the morning. 14 MRS . MCLEAN: What is November? MR. LOCKE : That was November. 15 MS . KOWALSKI : That was December. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably safer off with December. 17 MRS . MCLEAN: I would be happier with December. 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: December season. 19 MR. LOCKE : It gives us more time . Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We may have to do a new notice . 21 I will make a motion to recess this until December 18th. 22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in 23 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 24 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Next appeal 25 is on behalf of John Casillo. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 9 1 2 of that application? MS . SPECHT: Hi . My name is 3 Gretchen Specht . I'm with Spectacular Pools . I'm representing the homeowner, who is also 4 present as well . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We cannot 5 hear. MS . KOWALSKI : I didn' t get your 6 last name . MS . SPECHT: Sure, my name is 7 Gretchen Specht, S-P-E-C-H-T, and I'm with Spectacular Pools, we' re the builder 8 representing the homeowner, and the homeowner is also present . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would you like to tell us? 10 MS . SPECHT: Sure . What we' re requesting is a side yard variance for an 11 inground swimming pool . This property is waterfront property. At this point we've 12 received approval from the DEC and also the Board of Trustees for the placement of this 13 pool in this location. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s one 14 thing I' d like to confirm, the setback on the east side, you' re 53 feet from Wiggins Lane, 15 correct? MS . SPECHT: Off the front of the 16 house, you mean, off the street of the house? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . So the 17 pool would not be any closer than 53 feet? MS . SPECHT: No . The pool would 18 be placed behind the front line of the house . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it would not be any closer than 53 feet? 20 MS . SPECHT: That is correct . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other 21 question I had was the setback to the other side yard, that' s 26 feet; is that correct? 22 MS . SPECHT: Which side yard, where the pool is located or the opposite? 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The other side yard. 24 MS . SPECHT: I don' t have my ruler with me . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It shows it on the survey, but it does not show it on the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 10 1 2 landscaping plan. It' s not on the land plan. 3 MS . SPECHT: The survey is the same as the landscaping plan. I don' t see it 4 on the landscaping plan. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, it isn' t . 5 It' s on the survey. The setback to the side yard is actually on the survey. 6 MS . SPECHT: I have quite a large file after a year of working on this . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . If you look at the survey, the 1991 survey, there' s 8 an indication of 26-1 . MS . SPECHT: That' s what I 'm 9 seeing. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So 10 essentially that' s going to leave us with a setback on the pool side of about 12 feet at 11 the closest point; is that correct? MS . SPECHT: That is correct . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The landscaping plan, I did review it, it looks 13 very nice . MS . SPECHT: Thank you. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if the Board members have any questions . 15 MS . SPECHT: If I could just make one other point too, because I feel it' s 16 related. There is another location in the yard in the back of the house, but I want to 17 make you aware that due to the slope of the yard and there' s large caliber trees in that 18 location, that it would not make it feasible to place the pool there . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Talking about the canal side? 20 MS . SPECHT: Yes, that' s correct . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We would get into problems with the trustees as well as the 22 DEC. MS . SPECHT: Absolutely. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s fairly clear the DEC wanted to see this as far 24 landward of the canal as possible . MS . SPECHT: That' s correct . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Any questions? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If you did it COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 11 1 2 on the other side of the house, there' s all those trees there . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Member Goehringer. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a liner pool? 5 MS . SPECHT: Yes, it is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t 6 see any indication of what actually is going to go around the pool; is it a ground level 7 patio; is it a raised patio? I know the topography there; I 've been to the site . 8 MS . SPECHT: At this point, whatever is placed around that area would be 9 at ground level, would not be raised. We' re hoping to put brick, but right now we' re in 10 conversations with the DEC on that . We' re looking to work together with them on some 11 pervious material that would be placed at the same height as the pool and no higher. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn'.t hear the Chairperson in reference to -- I'm 13 going to refer to this wall that you go on to the beach area as a secondary bulkhead, so to 14 speak, what is the distance between there and that wall; do you know? 15 MS . SPECHT: The distance between that bulkhead and that wall? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MS . SPECHT: Let me see, I'm going 17 to be guesstimating, and I'm going to say it' s about -- it' s approximately 12 to 15 feet . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s from the pool or from the proposed patio? 19 MS . SPECHT: Oh, from the proposed patio. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a particular reason why the applicant chose to 21 put the pool adjacent to the corner of the house or within line of the corner of the 22 house and not within line of the deck, which is the farthest most, in other words, taking 23 it and bringing it back a little farther from this, which I' ll refer to the secondary 24 bulkhead? MS . SPECHT: Correct me if I'm 25 misunderstanding your question -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Twelve COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 12 1 2 feet is relatively close to that wall . I 'm just wondering why -- 3 MS . SPECHT: Perhaps, I'm misquoting you -- or misquoting myself, 4 actually or misstating -- is what we tried to do is bring the pool as far away from the 5 water as we could. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s what 6 the DEC wanted you to do . MS . SPECHT: Right, just in 7 conversations with them. First we met with the DEC, and that point then they basically 8 gave us through back and forth, gave us what their requirements were and at that point with 9 the Board of Trustees as well, the placement of the pool was their desire to be here . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn' t try to push it any closer to the front 11 yard, meaning to the street side? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It' s pretty 12 close, Gerry. MS . SPECHT: Yeah, it' s like right 13 up against the front line of the house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As I 14 said, I was there, I slid off the steps right into the grass because there was a down spout 15 there . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is a 16 compromise between the DEC and not allowing it into the front yard. 17 MS . SPECHT: This process is over a year, just involvement . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are you through Mr. Goehringer? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning? 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against the application? Seeing 22 no hands, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 23 MS . SPECHT : And just so -- I 've never gone for a variance in the Town of 24 Southold, is it normally I guess at the next hearing you make your decision; it' s presented 25 at that point? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Generally, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 13 1 2 yes . MS . SPECHT: Okay. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would someone like to second? 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? 5 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 7 The next hearing is on behalf of Kenneth and Dorothy -- is it Woychuk? 8 MR. WOYCHUK: Woychuk. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I lucked out . 9 Good morning, Mr. Woychuk. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of that 10 application? We can' t hear you, so please use 11 the microphone . MR. WOYCHUK: It' s just putting -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just state your name for the record, please? 13 MR. WOYCHUK: Ken Woychuk. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning. 14 MR. WOYCHUK: Good morning. The shed was placed on the side yard prior to 15 construction, and it' s actually in the neighbor' s to the north' s rear yard, so it' s 16 not like I'm placing it in their side yard or in view of their backyard, and when we put it 17 there, it was kind of the most convenient place because it was open, and we didn' t want 18 to take any trees down at the time and we used it for storing stuff while we were building 19 the house, and that' s where it was . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm familiar 20 with the site . I did visit the property, and in many respects that it almost appears it' s 21 in the rear yard because it is facing the rear yard of your neighbor' s property. Let' s see 22 if the Board members have any questions . Mr. Horning. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' ll pass for the moment . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Goehringer. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any utility in the building, sir? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 14 1 2 MR. WOYCHUK: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you 3 plan to plant any shrubs or anything around it? 4 MR. WOYCHUK: I have hibiscus around it now. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did see that, but anything taller than that? 6 MR. WOYCHUK: I'm waiting to see what my neighbor does, what he' s going to put 7 up, and when he finishes construction, we figure on maybe putting some evergreens along 8 that line if he doesn' t do something. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In light 9 of the new construction? MR. WOYCHUK: Yeah. They took 10 every tree down on their lot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know 11 they did. MR. WOYCHUK: So I didn' t know 12 what they were going to do. So we were holding off on that . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You do have sufficient area if you did want to do 14 something. MR. WOYCHUK: I didn' t know if 15 they wanted to get together and plant evergreens or something, you know, there' s 16 still going along the way and what we kind of wanted to do is put evergreens along there . 17 I'm in the process of trying to check into that right now. Actually, we didn' t get it 18 done in the spring so hopefully . . . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have a 19 question. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, George . 20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Briefly tell us how it got to be placed where it is . 21 MR. WOYCHUK: When we purchased the lot, somebody had given me the shed, and 22 at the time I didn' t realize that you couldn' t have anything on the side yard. All it was 23 small cherry trees and things there, and we were able to drive the truck into the area, 24 and I just off-loaded the shed there . I knew it had to be a distance from the property 25 line, but I didn' t realize at the time there was no side yard thing. And when we built the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 15 1 2 house we kind of pushed the house back a little more and turned it . It' s still on the 3 side yard. The property, if you see it, it' s a wide piece, and there' s a little extra piece 4 that jogs in. I envisioned putting my garden there at one time, and we were going to use 5 the shed for the garden in the back. And that' s the original construction. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you put the shed in the back with the garden? 7 MR. WOYCHUK: I can, but I ' d have to clear out some more trees in the back to do 8 that . I didn' t want to have to do that if I didn' t have to. 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was there . 11 There was some buffer there but I think your idea of putting evergreens there is even 12 better. Is that shed anchored down? MR. WOYCHUK: It' s on railroad 13 ties, bolted onto that, nailed to that . It' s not like on a foundation. 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They still have some construction and strapped down into 15 the ground a couple of feet . MR. WOYCHUK: New construction is 16 strapped down. No, at that time it was just put on railroad ties . 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Maybe you don' t get the winds down there we get in 18 Orient . In Orient you better tie everything down. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if there' s anyone in the audience that would like 20 to speak in favor or against this application; do the board members have any further 21 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still 22 would like to see some additional screening around the roadside, meaning his right of way 23 coming in or adjacent to his neighbor. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have 24 any objections to that? MR. WOYCHUK: No . Now my wife is 25 really going to get on my case . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sorry COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 16 1 2 about that . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What we 3 usually would do is ask you for some type of evergreen screen. 4 MR. WOYCHUK: That' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that okay 5 with everyone else? MS . OLIVA: Yes . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 7 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 9 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion - carried. 11 The next hearing is on behalf of Kyle and Lisa McCaskie . Is there someone here 12 who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Hi . MR. MCCASKIE : Good morning. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Please state your name for the record. 15 MR. MCCASKIE : Kyle McCaskie . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Pardon me? 16 MR. MCCASKIE : Kyle McCaskie . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you 17 tell us, Mr. McCaskie, you want to put a six foot high fence up? 18 MR. MCCASKIE : Yes . On the corner, I live on the corner lot . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: A couple of questions . I have a copy of the Josephine 20 Garro survey that essentially shows it' s blacked out where you want to put the fence 21 there . It doesn' t state, one, how far off Pierce Road the fence would be to your 22 property line . So I ' ll give you all my questions : What the exact length of the fence 23 is along Pierce Road, as well as on the property line . We don' t have that information 24 in front of us . MR. MCCASKIE : I can' t give you 25 exact measurements, but I could give you a rough estimate . It' s about 40 feet from the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 17 1 2 house to Pierce . I believe it was 115 from -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Along Pierce 3 Road? MR. MCCASKIE: Yeah, along Pierce, 4 then it was like 35, somewhere around there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: 35 feet long? 5 MR. MCCASKIE : Along the neighbor' s property. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why do you want the fence along the property line to the 7 east? I'm not clear on that . MR. MCCASKIE : Privacy, and 8 eventually we plan on hopefully some day putting in a pool . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In the front yard? 10 MR. MCCASKIE: in the backyard. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: One, I think 11 the Board would like to make -- I mean, we generally like to, when we' re dealing with a 12 six foot high fence in the front yard, we generally don' t want to see it right on the 13 property line . So we would like it set back on the property line . It' s not only a safety 14 issue, it' s also an issue of when cars are traveling by you simply don' t want a fence 15 right on the front property line . MRS . MCCASKIE : It' s mostly on the 16 side of the property. It' s not even going the full length of the house, it' s set back a very 17 long way, actually to the back of the house, alongside of the road but not anywhere close 18 to the corner of the road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You see the 19 road has -- how far the road has been widened is not an indication of how far the Town has a 20 right to widen the road. That would not be a reliable gear. What I'm saying is, from your 21 property line in the past the Board has not -- does not want to see that six inches from your 22 front property line . So the first question I ' d ask you is how far you' re willing to put 23 it into your property line? MR. MCCASKIE : From the edge of 24 the street -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: From your 25 property line? Remember from the edge of your street, the Town can always come along and say COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 18 1 2 our property, we' re going to widen it . MR. MCCASKIE: Oh, no. I was 3 going to run -- I don' t know if you can see the post and rail -- I was going to on the 4 corner even with him, along the property on Pierce . I can move it back, if I need to, a 5 foot . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeah, because 6 it looks like he' s got it right on his property line . 7 MR. MCCASKIE : I have no problem moving it back six inches or a foot if I need 8 to. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would be 9 more than six inches . Let' s see some of the comments 10 from the other Board members . Those are my personal comments . Member Oliva. 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I had a concern too with a six foot fence on a corner 12 lot . There' s a line of site is going to be impeded by such a high fence, unless you get 13 it back from -- the road is one thing but your property line is probably further in than just 14 the road. There' s a certain right-of-way, you have a 50 foot right-of-way in the road. We 15 want to see if it' s granted from this in five, ten feet into your property because a corner 16 is very difficult . You know, I've seen them when they just have hedges that are allowed to 17 grow say six feet and you just can' t see, and it' s dangerous . Of course right now you' re 18 not that built up in that area, but the way building is going, it probably will be . So 19 would you be agreeable to move it back five, ten feet within your property line, not from 20 the street but within your property line? MR. MCCASKIE : I' d have to take 21 the measurements . I' d have to get the surveyor in and tell me exactly where the 22 property line is . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think that 23 would be advisable . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Even if you 24 look at your pictures of where the area is flagged where you want the fence -- 25 MR. MCCASKIE : Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It becomes COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 19 1 2 very clear that it could become a problem with -- 3 MR. MCCASKIE : It' s really not disrupting the corner where the stop sign is . 4 From the stop sign is to where I plan on putting the fence, there is I ' d say a good 50 5 feet there, easily from the stop sign. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You mean into 6 your property 50 from that stop sign? MR. MCCASKIE : Yeah, I would say 7 easily. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. 8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So the proposed fence you' re saying would not go down 9 to the intersection of Harbor Lane and Pierce Road; it would be at least 50 feet up from the 10 intersection; is that correct? MR. MCCASKIE : Yeah. It' s 11 basically running even with the back of the house . 12 BOARD- MEMBER HORNING: As shown on our little diagram that' s submitted? 13 MR. MCCASKIE: Right . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What 14 material would this be made out of? MR. MCCASKIE : We' re planning on 15 the tongue and groove . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Basket 16 weave? MR. MCCASKIE : No. 17 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Solid fence, horizontal? 18 MR. MCCASKIE : Yeah, solid. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: With 19 horizontal boards? MRS . MCCASKIE : Up top it has 20 hearts cut out of it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 21 pass some photos down. We' ll just take a few minutes and let the Board members take a look 22 at some of the photos . MR. MCCASKIE : Would you like to 23 see this? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Certainly. 24 It' s a six foot high solid cedar fencing. 25 MS . KOWALSKI : Ask the lady in the office to make a copy of that in the file and COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 20 1 2 then give it to me later on. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: One further 3 question, sir, why do you need a six foot high fence? 4 MR. MCCASKIE : The privacy because as the incline of the property, the road is 5 kind of high to where the property is . S . 0 four foot really wouldn' t take care of the 6 problem. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you 7 somehow physically demonstrate to us that this would not obscure the intersection at all? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Have you seen the photos? 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. I mean it appears as though it wouldn' t . 10 MRS . MCCASKIE : The neighbors say really they don' t understand why -- 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There' s also some evergreens that would be more of an 12 impediment . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The only 13 thing is to make sure that it' s not on the -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Property 14 line . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, 15 Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looking 16 at these pictures, Mr. McCaskie, where you have these stakes actually running through 17 that stone planter is actually the position where the fence will go? 18 MR. MCCASKIE: Yeah, about three feet in from those rocks . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that approximately your property line? 20 MR. MCCASKIE : The rocks is pretty much the property line . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in reality, you have shown the offset, and -- 22 MR. MCCASKIE : Pretty much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you 23 estimate those to be how far from the actual paved road, in your opinion? 24 MR. MCCASKIE : The rocks from the paved road I would say is a good ten feet . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR. MCCASKIE : Then I plan on COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 21 1 2 going in another three, three, four. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Three from 3 this? MR. MCCASKIE : Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to tell you that -- excuse me, Ruth, go 5 ahead. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want 6 to clarify from the picture I have, it would be another three feet from where those flags 7 are? MR. MCCASKIE : No, from where the 8 rocks are . The flags I would say would be the fence . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say that the Town really does have 10 an easement with around six feet in from the edge of your property line . So just be aware 11 of the fact that whatever this Board does, the Town could, as I believe one of the Board 12 members said, we intend to put sidewalks in and we intend to do this or that, because this 13 is a very expensive fence you' re putting in, and I'm sure you would want it to stay there 14 for a period of time . MR. MCCASKIE: Oh, yeah. 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you have any objection if we say the fence must be 16 set back a minimum of five feet from the property line? 17 MS . KOWALSKI : Go back farther not closer than five . 18 MR. MCCASKIE : Five foot back from the property line? 19` CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think that would kind of resolve all the questions . Is 20 that agreeable? MR. MCCASKIE : Yes . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do the Board members any questions? I think that will work 22 for everyone . I'm going to make a motion to 23 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 25 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 22 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much for coming in. 3 We have a request here to withdraw an application. I'm going to make that 4 motion; it' s on the agenda, the Christiansens . I' ll make the motion. 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in 6 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 7 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Next 8 application is on behalf of Laurence and Betty Rubinow. Is there anyone here to speak on 9 behalf of the applicant? MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 45 Hampton 10 Road, Southampton, for the applicant . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning, 11 Mr. Hamm, how are you today? MR. HAMM: Good. I have the 12 original of the affidavit of posting (handing) . 13 This is a relatively straightforward proposal, I hope . I 14 understand you did visit the site when you were there in August . 15 Basically the Rubinow' s plan to put an addition on a preexisting dwelling on 16 their property on Munnatawket Road. The dwelling currently has a front yard setback of 17 7 . 2 feet going to about eight feet; they would preserve that eight foot setback for a small 18 portion of the addition, then it would generally go back into the main part, the 19 widest part of this fairly long and narrow property. And we feel what this design is 20 the -- would have the least impact on the neighborhood. This is a very small 21 neighborhood. Munnatawket Road, apparently the pavement ends right around their house, 22 and it' s really used only for about three properties on that branch of Munnatawket 23 Road. The neighbor who is the closest, 24 Jensen, we feel this would have the least impact on that property because rather than 25 going straight back toward her property, which we could do to some extent, we' re trying to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 23 1 2 utilize the main portion of the property. Further, the entire southerly half 3 of that property will remain undisturbed, and the structure will only be 18 feet, seven 4 inches in height . So, again, the impact on the neighborhood is minimized. 5 I have today, I've asked Oliver Cope, the Rubinow' s architect, to be here in 6 case there are any questions concerning design. In the meantime, if you have any 7 questions for me I' ll try to- answer them. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Couple of 8 questions . The existing house, what is the square footage on that? 9 MR. HAMM: 470 is what I commuted from what Mr. Cope had given me, then there' s 10 an additional deck on that which I don' t have here . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you have a CO on that house? 12 MR. HAMM: Yes, we do . Would you like to see it? 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like it submitted in the record, yes, I would. 14 MR. HAMM: When Mr. Cope comes up I' ll pull it out of my file . 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s a CO on a single family dwelling? 16 MR. HAMM: Yes . Preexisting. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, 17 that' s the major question I had because I saw it, and I said this is tiny and I know you' re 18 trying to preserve that existing eight foot front yard. Couple of real questions I have 19 on here, the existing 470 square foot, are you going to maintain that structure? 20 MR. HAMM: Well, that will be incorporated -- yes . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s not going to be demolished? 22 MR. HAMM: No. Mr. Cope can answer that for you. No, it will be 23 incorporated into the building. Apparently, in speaking to Mrs . Rubinow and someone, and 24 George may be able to back this up, a well-known cottage on the island, they call it 25 the Christmas Roost or something, so they did want to preserve it . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 24 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: A little history there? 3 MR. HAMM: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before you 4 step down, I just would like to turn this over at this point to Mr. Horning, who is 5 intimately more familiar with it because he lives there . 6 MR. HAMM: Sure . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don' t buy 7 into the preservation stuff because people tear down what they want to tear down, and 8 this thing is twice the size of the existing cottage, and it will look completely 9 different . I am concerned of the possibility of wetlands and the proximity of the wetlands . 10 We asked Mrs . Rubinow when my colleagues were there to either come up with a letter of 11 nonjurisdiction from the Board of Trustees or some statement . 12 MR. HAMM: She did not mention -- she did mention the issue of wetlands to me, 13 but not that we had to come up with something formal . I did speak to the surveyor and the 14 environmental permit person whom I use . There are no designated wetlands on the DEC map. If 15 you would like, I can try to get you something more formal on that . Apparently there' s a 16 area, and I mention it on my memorandum, that may collect rainfall, but if the wetlands are 17 not designated on the map they don' t exist as far as the state . 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There was a huge wetlands just south of that property 19 across from the Main Road -- MR. HAMM: I asked the surveyor 20 who has the map and he said no. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That does 21 feed into that major area and, in fact, anyone going there would quite frequently notice 22 running water alongside of the road. MR. HAMM: What part of the 23 property, Mr. Horning? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Fox Avenue . 24 MR. HAMM: The Rubinow' s property, unequivocally I can state that entire 25 southernly portion is going to remain undisturbed. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 25 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I understand. I 'm just concerned with the 3 proximity to a wetlands . We had an open question there -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Did you check with the Town Trustees? Because while it may 5 not be a wetlands as designated by the state, that doesn' t necessarily mean that it' s out of 6 our local jurisdiction here . As you know, there are many wetlands area that the DEC will 7 send a letter of nonjurisdiction and will require local approval . So the two agencies 8 have different areas of jurisdiction, and I think the issue here is there is possible 9 wetlands that may not be charted by the state but may be under our local control . 10 MR. HAMM: As I say, if that' s what you would like me to pursue -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George would that be something -- 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think it' s a tributary, so to speak, to a 13 neighboring wetlands right across the street on Fox Avenue and probably on the designated 14 map as such. MR. HAMM: It' s not on the state 15 map, that was confirmed to me by the surveyor. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This 16 property you' re saying? MR. HAMM: Right . There are no 17 designated, state designated wetlands on this property that I've been so advised by people 18 who have seen the map. So it would just be at the local level you would like me to come up 19 with some . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I'm going 20 under a theory, Mr. Hamm, that if you had a major wetlands, which was designated as such, 21 which I don' t know if there is designation on this major one across the street on Fox 22 Avenue, but if you had that such thing, and then you had -- I will call them tributaries, 23 smaller wetlands streams whatever on adjacent peripheral properties, and you stopped the 24 flow from all those areas impacted it, then it would impact the larger wetlands . So that's 25 my concern that there not be much disturbance on this unofficial wetlands . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 26 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the issue needs to be clarified here as to address 3 Mr. Horning' s concern. Are there wetlands on the property that fall within the Town' s 4 jurisdiction? And that is something that you can answer for us and certify for us et 5 cetera? MR. HAMM: Sure . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So I think that' s where we need to go as far as the 7 setback; is there the proximity, the eight foot, you' re aware of the Board' s feelings . 8 Yes, you do have constraints on the lot . The requirement' s eight -- the requirement is 40 9 feet . MR. HAMM: That' s right . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re proposing eight? 11 MR. HAMM: Right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What' s wrong 12 with that picture? MR. HAMM: I address the 13 substantial nature of the variance in my memorandum, and I think the context is we are 14 gradually become -- we' re using that eight feet for maybe less than ten more linear feet 15 then coming back into the widest part of the property. That will have less impact on the 16 Jensen property, which is the nearby property, than we would if we came straight back and 17 then came down, which would be the other option. 18 I mean, Mr. Cope had discussed the proposals with the building department, and it 19 was determined that if they want to do anything on this property I guess short of 20 demolishing this structure and trying to fit it into a rather constraining envelope, they 21 would need a variance . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The issue is 22 that you don' t need a variance; the issue is to grant the minimum variance necessary. 23 MR. HAMM: Taking into account effects on the neighborhood and other things, 24 and this while there may be some alternative to go straight back toward the Jensen property 25 and then come down into the allowable building envelope, that would have more negative impact COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 27 1 2 on the neighborhood, in our view, than the current proposal and that I think you should 3 weigh in your determination. In other words, there may be other 4 alternatives and substantial nature of the variance and so forth is certainly one, but I 5 think you should in this case, focus on some of the other factors under the town law which 6 allow you to grant variance, and the neighborhood I think is an important one here . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Having the luxury of visiting this, Mr. Hamm, as you 8 know, sometimes we don' t identify a particular problem. However, if the Board does have an 9 objection to the eight feet of the new structure, okay, could we step that back to 10 ten, you know or something of that nature.? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just 11 saying at this particular point, it' s a road which does lead to somewhere, but it' s really 12 not, it' s no more than what we refer to as a traveled road. 13 MR. HAMM: And Mrs . Rubinow told me also that she spoke to locals on Fisher' s 14 Island that don' t even know it goes all the way through. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm just saying, I don' t have any specific objections 16 to the eight feet, but if the Board does have an objection, you know, then -- 17 MR. HAMM: I will let you ask Mr. Cope, since he' s here . If there are 18 design questions or comments that you may have, we' ll take advantage of having him 19 present . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need to 20 move things along. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I will say 21 again, there are DEC involvement in wetlands in the immediate adjacent -properties . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We agree that issue has to be cleared up, George . 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Pierce Rubinstein, where we had a variance, right 24 down the road from there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need to 25 clear that up and the applicant will have to provide that to us . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 28 1 2 Yes, sir. MR. COPE: Good morning. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Good morning. 4 MR. COPE : I'm Oliver Cope, address is 151 West 26th Street, New York 5 City, 10001 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would 6 you like to tell us? MR. COPE : I'm here to answer any 7 questions you had. I can tell you about the sort of genesis of this particular approach, 8 if you like . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the 9 question, aside from the wetlands, the question has been raised, and the question is : 10 What other alternative could you go to get that off of the eight foot? 11 MR. COPE : Well, we did a couple of alternative schemes, which we discussed 12 with the Rubinows and with the building department, and my first approach actually 13 with them was let' s take a look at what happens if we simply added a second floor. 14 It' s a small cottage . They really -- I understand were making a substantial addition, 15 but I don' t think we' re up more than around 1, 500 square feet right now. It' s still a one 16 bedroom house with a second bedroom in a lower level . The issue with the building department 17 is, unlike many jurisdictions in which we practice, Southold takes a very strict 18 approach to the expansion of an existing nonconformity. In this case, any expansion 19 whatsoever of a nonconforming structure is deemed as being as an expansion of the 20 nonconformity. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Expansion on 21 an nonconforming area? MR. COPE : 'No. I understand it 22 from talking to the building department, even if we put a second floor on it, it remains in 23 the same footprint they would consider an expansion of nonconformity. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, air does count .. 25 MR. COPE : So we agree then any expansion of this nonconforming building COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 29 1 2 requires a variance . As it sits, I think there is no direction except perhaps to sort 3 of uphill side of it where we might have six or seven feet where we can expand. There is 4 no direction. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The object 5 here -- Mr. Hamm touched on this before, I want to get this very clear -- you do not feel 6 you could go back any further because you would be imposing on the neighbor; is that 7 correct? MR. COPE : I think there' s always 8 a balance on to who you' re imposing upon. But as you get closer to a neighbor you not only 9 are feeling their proximity more, but they are feeling yours more . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: How close would you be if you moved it back? You' re 11 talking too close to the neighbor, how close is it that you would be? 12 MR. COPE : We could go to 15 feet, that' s considered a side yard on that easterly 13 portion, since we have two front yards, so 15 feet . They have a shed right outside -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So you could go 15 where, Mr. Hamm? 15 MR. HAMM: We could go 15 feet from the easterly property line . Do you 16 want -- we, in anticipating this might be a issue, I had Oliver do some real building 17 envelope for you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why don' t we 18 take a couple of minutes to take a look at them. 19 MR. COPE : This shows the building department' s review and suggestion that we 20 designate the rear as this . The side here, front and front (indicating) . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right, okay. MS . KOWALSKI : How long, how big 22 is the property? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is 23 a one and a half story new addition. There' s a story in the ground and you' re going to keep 24 a similar type of ridge line to the existing house . 25 MR. COPE : We actually are over building that roof and increasing the ridge COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 30 1 2 height slightly. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need to 3 talk one at a time and slow down a minute . I' d like to make a couple of notes 4 here. On this you' re showing a building area with a 15 foot on the rear yard? 5 MR. COPE : That' s the side . That' s considered the side . This is a product 6 of discussions, again, with the building department . 7 MR. HAMM: Just the law, this is considered a corner lot . With a corner lot 8 you need two front yards . However, the code allows you to elect what one, what would 9 otherwise be a rear yard as a side yard, that is why we only need one variance for this 10 application for the front yard. We conformed to the required 15 foot setback in what would 11 otherwise be a rear yard, but I argued that even though it' s designated a side yard, for 12 all intents and purposes, it' s a rear yard. So we' re trying to stay off of that line as 13 much as possible . That' s why we don' t want to build up to 15 feet . Because even though we 14 are entitled to, as a practical matter, it' s a rear yard and Jensens have a house on that 15 property, they have a shed right near there, if you can see . 16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: A shed, yes . But the house is a good hundred feet 17 away. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thoughts on 18 that? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. My 19 thoughts would be to push it into the building envelope as much as possible . 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To get it back a little bit . 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Which is conceivably doable . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think there are a couple of things we have gone through 23 today. We need a clear letter of nonjurisdiction from the Town Trustees . I 24 think our Board member from Fisher' s Island, as well as myself and Mrs . Oliva would like to 25 try to see the plans fall within the prescribed building envelope . We do respect COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 31 1 2 and understand the 15 feet buffer, on the other hand, there is a substantial area in 3 here where you could develop this without further encroaching. I mean, right now 4 because it' s at an angle, it is 30 feet to the closest -- to that property line, but however, 5 with a little different architectural designs, perhaps we could get it more into the building 6 envelope, so that it would be off further back from the ten feet . 7 So I think all we' re asking for is give us a few alternatives here . Is that 8 accurate, George? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Gerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm 10 still trying to figure out what the ridge is . Could you just give me an idea, is it 16 11 inches higher than the original ridge? MR. HAMM: I have to check the 12 drawings . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Get that 13 information for us . Is there any other information before we recess this hearing that 14 we have to address? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That 27 15 and 30 foot seven inches that I'm looking at off the edge of the stairs, is that 27 feet 16 more to the end of the building envelope? MR. COPE : I'm sorry, which? 27, 17 that' s a contour line . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could 18 you just tell us on whatever else - you do, what the distance is from the edge of those stairs 19 or the edge of the deck or to the end of the contour line -- I mean to the end of the 20 building envelope, so we know what that aspect of moving that whole structure would be? 21 MR. COPE : I do want to make one point before you adjourn. When you were 22 looking in the drawings, your perception of this plan was that this 15 feet was, in fact, 23 the rear, and you were confused about that dimension here . And I think what you' re 24 asking us to do is do precisely what we tried to avoid doing, which is take the house from 25 what is perceived to be the front and side yard situation now, and push it into much COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 32 1 2 closer proximity to what is, for all intents and purposes, the rear of the property. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t think SO. I could draw this on here myself, but I 4 mean, I think -- I think what we' re both ,seeing is this . Here' s your existing house . 5 For all intents and purposes you could do this and you would not -- you would be lessening 6 the distance to here . You' re saying you want to do this (indicating) . For all intents and 7 purposes you could take the same square, turn it around so it would be parallel to one 8 another, and you would actually increase what we are terming the side yard to the adjoining 9 properties and you' d also increase your setback to the road. These are options 10 that -- MR. HAMM: I think what you' re 11 saying, again, I've got some constraints here given this situation, but say we did this 12 (indicating) . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Correct . That looks to be you just doubled the setback 14 to your property, and you have just increased the setback to the road from eight feet to 40 15 feet . So I think, yeah. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Our job is 16 to consider the minimum relief necessary. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George, come 17 over here and you can physically see what we' re talking about here . We' re talking about 18 this . We have just taken a 15 foot side yard setback and increased it to at least 35 . We 19 have just taken an eight foot front yard setback and increased to a minimum of 40 . 20 What we' re all saying -- MR. COPE: The reality though, is 21 it is perceived to be the rear. So this is far more constrained here . And, yes, you've 22 kept us from building in this area, but it' s already developed. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just that one little piece . 24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: But you' d have a far more conforming -- 25 MR. HAMM: It' s conforming, but please, don' t be literal on that . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 33 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we' re not . 3 MR. HAMM: And take the neighborhood into consideration. So it' s not 4 the encroachment on the front yard in this circumstance should be taken in light of other 5 factors, that' s all I ask. MR. COPE : This is defined as a 6 corner, but this is Munnatawket, and so is this . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We understand. 8 MR. COPE : In many ways that' s a bend. You have a long narrow -- 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is the bend, you flow into it . 10 MR. COPE : I understand there' s one house here which isn' t that a fact they 11 own fifty percent of it? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Jensen' s 12 right in here because they have a rather long drive . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : Is there a stop sign? 14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The road doesn' t go like that . It becomes a private 15 right-of-way. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We understand 16 your constraints, and, however, we do see that you have a lot of options here . At least one 17 clear option that we have demonstrated here that would make the setbacks far more 18 conforming than what you are proposing, there' s alternatives; alternatives that make 19 sense . You maintain that the plan that you presented was because you wanted to maintain 20 the privacy of the distance to your neighbor' s property line . I respect that, however, we 21 have just developed or shown you a plan that you can double their privacy and also double 22 the setback to the main road. So these are considerations that we' d like you to take into 23 account . We would like you to come back and give us a letter of non-jurisdiction or a 24 letter of jurisdiction for concern of the wetlands in that area. 25 So we' re running ,a little late . I think we' re all on board as to what the Board COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 34 1 2 wants, and then to find out from Mr. Hamm what would be a reasonable time . 3 MR. HAMM: I' ll defer. MR. COPE: I think we' re into a 4 new design because we' re substantially changing the nature of the approach. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we say that, it may not be . Let' s -- I wouldn' t want 6 to -- you may come back and it may be that you , still need the identical variance in terms of 7 this yard. MR. HAMM: Because anything we' re 8 going to attach to this is still going to be within 40 feet . 9 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s going to be within 40 feet, submit that to the building 10 department and submit it to the Board with seven prints . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the best thing we can do right now, before we say, 12 yes, we' re going to have to do that, let' s adjourn it and keep it on the docket . 13 MR. HAMM: You want two months or one? 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think two. Let' s adjourn this to December 18th. 15 MR. COPE : That' s three . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm sorry. 16 MS . KOWALSKI : November 20th. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You know 17 something, Mr. Hamm, I didn' t have a second cup of coffee . 18 MR. HAMM: I didn' t have one yet . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s adjourn to November. 20 MS . KOWALSKI : To November 20th. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion 21 to adjourn this to November 20th. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 23 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Take a five 24 minute recess . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Make a motion 25 to take a five minute recess . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 35 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of 3 the Board responded in favor, and a brief recess was taken. ) 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to make a motion to reconvene . All in favor. 5 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is on behalf of Ellen Zimmerman. Is 7 there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? 8 MS . ZIMMERMAN: Yes . I 'm Ellen Zimmerman. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you tell us? 10 MS . ZIMMERMAN: My understanding is that what we want to do is we've done 11 substantial renovations to my house, and as it turned out, there was never a C of O on the 12 garage and the breezeway. Why that was so, I don' t know. I bought the house in 1996 . The 13 house was built in 1967 . What we want to do now is fix up 14 the garage, reshingle it, change the roof line so it will conform with the house ' cause now 15 it' s a little askew and just leave the breezeway and the footprint of the garage the 16 way they exist . But my understanding is that the breezeway dimensions don' t conform to 17 current zoning regulations . I have a letter here from my 18 neighbor Edith Minnigan stating that they have owned their property since 1964 and that to 19 their knowledge the garage and the breezeway have existed as long as the house, and she has 20 no objection to my doing whatever I want to do. So I' ll give that to you (handing) . 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Couple of questions . 22 MS . ZIMMERMAN: Sure . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I confess, 23 I 'm a little confused on the notice of disapproval on this . I read it . I visited 24 the site, and I also studied the file quite extensively and apparently I understand that 25 the breezeway does not meet the definition of a breezeway because instead of being a maximum COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 36 1 2 of 80 square feet, or eight by ten; it' s ten by ten, that much I understand, but the notice 3 of disapproval also says that the existing accessory garage is noted as being in the 4 front yard. It' s a waterfront lot; is it not? MS . ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Your property directly abuts Gardiner' s Bay or is Lot Number 6 10 in separate ownership? MS . ZIMMERMAN: The beach and the 7 right-of-way next to my house are owned by the homeowner' s association. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s the question. Then your property does not -- 9 MS . ZIMMERMAN: My property technically does not abut the bay. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I see . So that is where we come into the issue that it 11 is no longer a waterfront lot . MS . ZIMMERMAN: That' s correct . 12 Although there would be no other place to put a garage. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand that . We' re talking about a situation that' s 14 existing. That clarifies that because it is not directly abutting Gardiner' s Bay and I see 15 Mr. Notaro shaking his head. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Somehow we 16 now have the accessory garage as being in the front yard. Over the breezeway, is it 17 enclosed? MS . ZIMMERMAN: It is enclosed. 18 Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s a 19 roof on it? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There' s a 20 roof and no sides . There' s no sides . It doesn' t connect . You don' t have a door. No 21 windows because I was there . MS . ZIMMERMAN: That' s right . And 22 my neighbor, Mrs . Minnigan, has basically the same situation with her garage in her front 23 yard, and she also does not own -- the beach in front of her house is also owned by the 24 neighborhood association. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So the beach 25 in front of the house is owned by the association? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 37 1 2 MS . ZIMMERMAN: The neighborhood association, the homeowner' s association. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. I really don' t have any questions; that was my 4 one question on this . Let' s see what develops here . Mr. Horning. 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure . Ma' am, you made statements this morning that 6 you' re doing major renovations to your house and garage; is that correct? 7 MS . ZIMMERMAN: Major renovations to the house have been completed. We had the 8 proper approvals for that, and now that the house is done, the garage looks a little on 9 the shabby side . But it also has -- the roof line is a little askew, and we want to even 10 that out . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will it 11 remain a garage? MS . ZIMMERMAN: It will remain a 12 garage. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So while 13 you' re doing this roof work, could you not tear down the breezeway and make a conforming 14 size breezeway? MS . ZIMMERMAN: I suppose we 15 could, but I don' t really want to make any more changes to the footprint of the garage 16 than I need to . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That would 17 not change the footprint of the garage . MS . ZIMMERMAN: Well, the only way 18 to make it fit the right dimensions would be to make the garage -- move the garage to the 19 house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: She would 20 have to shorten it, I believe . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I thought it 21 was ten feet wide and ten feet from the garage to the house . 22 MS . ZIMMERMAN: My understanding is that that makes it too -- 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Wide . MS . ZIMMERMAN: No . The distance 24 between the house and the garage is too large . The distance between the house and the garage 25 is apparently the dimension that is nonconforming, and I don' t really want to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 38 1 2 change the location of the garage . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Understood. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Goehringer. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Zimmerman, how old is the garage; do you know? 5 MS . ZIMMERMAN: To my knowledge it' s as old as the house, and the house was 6 built in 1967 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what 7 we' re saying is at least zoning as changed or modified that interpretation since then? 8 MS . ZIMMERMAN: I believe so . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you 9 suspect that the breezeway is of similar vintage? 10 MS . ZIMMERMAN: Yes, yes . And my neighbors say as long as they have lived there 11 that' s the way it' s been; it' s always been like that . And there' s a homeowner' s 12 association rule, or I guess part of the covenants, that there can be no building in 13 the subdivision that is not attached to the main building, which is why there' s a 14 breezeway to begin with. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank 15 you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva. 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I looked at it . I have no problem. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to 18 speak in favor or against this application? MS . ZIMMERMAN: There' s my 19 architect here in case you have any questions . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do the Board 20 Members have any questions of the architect? MS . KOWALSKI : I just need the 21 architect' s name for the record, please? MS . ZIMMERMAN: Frank Notaro. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Seeing no hands, I'm going to make a motion to close the 23 hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 25 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 43 1 2 understood. MS . KOWALSKI : And the new date 3 will be October 23rd. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that all 4 right, Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I make a motion to grant the applicant' s request for an 6 adjournment to October 23rd at 9 : 30 a.m. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 8 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So moved. 9 All right, we' re in pretty good shape . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How 10 about Kelly? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t have 11 anything on my agenda. MS . KOWALSKI : I wanted to ask -- 12 it' s my typographical error on that . Could we add it to the agenda, it should have been 13 added on Page 2? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would the 14 Board like to do that? It' s fine with me . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was not 15 here at the special meeting when you decided to hold that over. You should have a copy of 16 my original draft . As of the original draft I spoke to the Board secretary, and there was an 17 opinion that I should reenhance Number 5 of the decision. Now I did not bring -- 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t have a copy of that . 19 MS . KOWALSKI : I have a copy of the new draft that was distributed. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a copy of the old one, though? 21 MS . KOWALSKI : The old one that the Board read, and there were areas that we 22 were waiting to be confirmed by Bruce Anderson since then. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Off the record. 24 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken. ) 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to offer a motion to reconvene . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 39 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next application is on behalf of Andrew and Lois 3 McGowan. Is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? 4 MS . MARTIN: Yes . Amy Martin of Fairweather Brown, representing Andrew and 5 Lois McGowan. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What can you 6 tell us? MS . MARTIN: Well, the McGowans 7 have made the house that used to be their summer home into their year round home or at 8 least their primary residence . They, in turn, wanted to gain some more space from the 9 interior of the house and wanted to make the existing attached garage into part of their 10 living space . They have a pre-existing detached garage that is very close in 11 proximity to the right-of-way that the neighboring property has . 12 From what I understand, the building department has ruled that this 13 right-of-way that the neighbor has is a road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Do you 14 have -- let' s talk about the right-of-way. It has a name, Lois Lane? 15 MS . MARTIN: That' s something that the family I think gave her the sign for 16 because that' s her name, and it' s more of a family thing. It' s not an official road. It 17 is a right-of-way deeded to the neighboring property as their only access to their summer 18 home . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Who uses the 19 right-of-way? MS . MARTIN: The McGowans to get 20 to their own property is not the right-of-way, and then from their little garage on is the 21 right-of-way. The deeded right-of-way actually goes from the road to the property 22 next door, just that one property next door. It' s really an exaggerated driveway. It' s a 23 gravel path that' s pervious due to its proximity to the wetlands . And actually, the 24 driveway itself can no longer be where it' s deeded because it' s half under water. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question I have is : How do you obtain access? Do you COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 40 1 2 obtain access to .your property from Pacific Avenue or through the private right-of-way? 3 MS . MARTIN: According to the survey, it' s from the private right-of-way. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So your access is from -- I'm going to call it Lois 5 Lane . MS . MARTIN: All right . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because that' s what the sign says . So, yes, it' s a 7 private right-of-way, but you do maintain access to your house from Lois Lane? 8 MS . MARTIN: Well, actually except for the fact that the deeded right-of-way as 9 you' ll see the dotted line that goes across the edge of the wetlands is really under water 10 and the road that is used is actually mostly on the McGowan' s property. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The traveled road? 12 MS . MARTIN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The traveled 13 road is Lois Lane? MS . MARTIN: Lois Lane, yes, I 14 guess, yes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The 15 measurements being used by the building department are from the traveled road, 16 correct? MS . MARTIN: Yes, they are . 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I think we' re all on board on what' s before us . 18 MS . MARTIN: I've been to both the DEC and the Trustees on this issue, and what 19 the McGowans have done -- actually, there is only, I think a 516" problem of not being set 20 back 50 feet from this traveled roadway, 5' 6" of the proposed new garage is too close to 21 that . And what we have done with both the DEC and the wetlands, the Trustees, is they are 22 tearing down the accessory structure, the garage that exists, in lieu of the new 23 structure . And, in that way, taking the structure and the existing stone surface that 24 goes to that structure out, and, therefore, mitigating the closeness to the wetlands . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would be about, so the variance request would be COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 41 1 2 about -- MS . MARTIN: 5' 611 . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, 5' 611 . MS . MARTIN: Yes . The other thing 4 that' s happening is the driveway to their own home and turnaround is coming interior from 5 the wetlands, and the traveled roadway to the neighbor' s property will become narrower, and 6 therefore, also the run off because this house is in a flood plane, is going to be less of a 7 problem to the wetlands . And both the DEC and the Trustees were very happy with the 8 repositioning and the changing of all this . Although, everything that exists was approved 9 by them in the past . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Well 10 let' s see what happens . Mr. Horning, questions . 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No, ma' am, no questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Goehringer. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t really have a problem with the new conforming 14 location attached to the house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Mrs . 15 Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just want 16 to confirm, you' re talking taking down the existing garage? 17 MS . MARTIN: The existing detached garage. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They have two garages at present . 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That' s what I'm saying. You' re going to enlarge that 20 garage you said? MS . MARTIN: The existing attached 21 garage is going to become part of the living space, and they' re adding on 26 feet to make a 22 two car garage heading the other way. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if there is anyone in the audience who would like 24 to speak in favor or against this application. I think this is fairly straightforward. We 25 are looking at a variance request essentially 5' 6"? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 42 1 2 MS . MARTIN: Right . And actually, I was told that the building department could 3 have said that that was not a road, and did not require as much of a setback, but they 4 chose to take the hardest route . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 5 very much. I 'm going to make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision until 6 later. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor? (Whereupon, all Members of the 8 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 9 carried. Let' s go back one on the agenda, 10 that is the application of Mr. Daniel Denn. MS . KOWALSKI : I want to mention 11 that we got a message that Mrs . Denn' s car broke down this morning. There' s a note on 12 the file and she' d like to know if the Board could open it, and then adjourn it with a 13 date . And she also needs to submit certified mailings . It' s for a proposed swimming pool, 14 the applicant' s asking for an October date, if possible, but I explained to her that it may 15 not be until November. We have a full calendar. I left it up to the Board. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t know if the calendar' s quite full, Mrs . Kowalski . 17 MS . KOWALSKI : We could fit one more adjournment . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This application has been before us, as you can see 19 by the number, it' s quite old. My personal feeling is let' s try to get to it, because it 20 has been hanging around for quite some time . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 21 fine with me . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is that 22 agreeable with anyone, to try to" get on the October' s hearing calendar? 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I guess it' s the applicant' s mistake . They did not 24 get the proper documentation. MS . KOWALSKI : It' s inadequate for 25 a hearing today. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 44 1 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 3 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion carried. 5 The first hearing on the afternoon agenda. is Jason Taggart; is there someone here 6 who would like to speak on that appeal? MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Taggart . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Taggart, I'm sorry, Mr. Penney. 8 MR. PENNEY: Douglas Penney, appearing on the behalf of the applicant, 9 Jason Taggart . Do you need to read any public notice into the record? 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, we don' t . 11 MR. PENNEY: A waiver of merger 100-26 to permit the issuance of a building 12 permit for a single family dwelling on a vacant parcel, Wabasso Road in Southold, 13 District 1000, Section 78, Block 3 , Lot 29 . As shown on the single and separate 14 abstract, which is already contained in each of your mails and known as 1145 Nichomas Road. 15 This parcel is identified on the tax map as 1000-78-3-28 . This lot is improved with a 16 dwelling, which was built in 1963 , and it is benfitted by a certificate of occupancy. 17 Although these properties have been held in common ownership since the vacant 18 lot was purchased, both lots were conveyed by separate deeds, at separate points in time and 19 have always benfitted from separate assessment and separate property taxes and stated its use 20 as a residential vacant lot, and the certificate of occupancy issued for the 21 improved parcel only references Tax Lot 28 . Although these may not be the most 22 legally significant factors in this application, they help to explain why the 23 applicant never checkerboarded the lots, and had always told Jason that he could build a 24 house on it . Mr. Koslik resided on the east end and was relatively unsophisticated about 25 zoning, planning and other land use issues and bought the properties at different times, had COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 45 1 2 two separate deeds, was always assessed separately and believed that he, in fact, had 3 two separate parcels . After Jason' s grandfather passed away, he purchased the 4 house and the lot under the same assumption. I believe it' s important to 5 remember that these lots were purchased in 1963 and 1970 , long before your date of 6 codification in 1983 . This is not a situation where a property owner comes into the town 7 owning a parcel of property and buys an abutting piece, when here' s a situation where 8 a person through his own inactivity would have had to do something affirmative to 9 checkerboard his properties back in 1983 . He obviously wasn' t aware of it and allowed that 10 time to pass . Your Town Board specifically 11 enacted legislation and created a procedure by which the Zoning Board of Appeals is allowed 12 to waive and make four separate and specific findings of fact, and if those four findings 13 are made, the waiver should be granted. The first as I 'm sure you all know 14 that the waiver must not result in a significant increase in density, and second 15 the lot must be consistent in size with the other lots in the immediate neighborhood. 16 The third, there must be some economic hardship to be avoided by the merger, and 17 fourth and contours of the lot should not be significantly changed and there should not be 18 a significant amount of fill being added to the property so as to cause any harm to it 19 environmentally or flood sensitive areas in the vicinity. 20 I have submitted to you, and I have the original still with me which I will 21 hand up later to be marked, a copy of Section 78 of the County Tax Map showing the vacant 22 and improved parcels, along Hiawatha' s Path on the north and east and along Nichomas Road on 23 the south and west . A review of this exhibit will show 24 that absolutely every lot in this area is nonconforming as to both the lot area and lot 25 requirements in this AC district . Of the 32 lots that are identified COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 46 1 2 as being within a relatively significant radius of the property, 24 are improved with 3 single family dwellings only eight, or 25 percent remain vacant . 4 Of the 24 improved lots 18 , again 75 percent, are comparable in size and lot 5 area and 125 are of lot width contained in the subject parcel . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Could I just stop you there for a point of clarification? 7 MR. PENNEY: Sure . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: When you' re 8 speaking of the area that you conducted the study in, could you clearly delineate what 9 area that is? MR. PENNEY: I said Hiawatha' s 10 Path on the north and east and along Nichomas Road on the sorth and west . 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is Nichomas Road extending up to Bay Avenue or 12 Old Hiawathas Path? MR. PENNEY: Only the Hiawathas 13 Path I felt was the immediate neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So the 14 boundary would be Hiawathas Path and Nichomas Road, and just the areas, the lots that are 15 contained in the diagram that you submitted to us? 16 MR. PENNEY: Yes . Courts have generally up held character -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the code refers to the neighborhood or district . 18 MR. PENNEY: Yes . For you to determine what is the neighborhood I could 19 have gone farther, and I don' t think it would have changed. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I wanted to clarify what the data is based on. 21 MR. PENNEY: Shows the particular area that I went to the assessor' s office and 22 checked the records on. As I said, 75 and seven remaining vacant lots in this area; 23 three of them are also comparable on the tax map that I submitted to you. There have been 24 waivers or other divisions of property in this immediate area over the past . 25 By reviewing the decimalized lot numbers that you' ll find and records, you will COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 47 1 2 find that at least five larger lots have been divided to allow construction of houses on 3 lots of similar size to that proposed by this application. These are Lots 30 . 1 and 30 . 2, 4 and 42 and 42 . 3 , 23 . 1 and Lots 28 , 9, 65 . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Question on 5 that then: Do you know if those lots were unmerged by this Board? 6 MR. PENNEY: I think one of them may have been. The assessor' s records were 7 not clear on that, and I tried to go through your computerized records and -- if you go 8 back, you' ll find some of them were done by subdivision; some of them were just done and 9 somehow allowed building permits were just issued on them, how this was allowed to 10 happen, but I suspect as you get more and more sophisticated and development gets to be more 11 of a formal procedure to go through and these things don' t slip through the cracks, but 12 there' s no doubt that those five were larger lots merged and have been divided. The point 13 I make is that the character of the area is being allowed to be developed along lots 14 original sizes, and I think it was out of Wickham back in probably the 150s or 160s when 15 he just carved them up. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These 16 are described parcels . MR. PENNEY: They are described 17 parcels; they' re not on the map. A surrounding neighborhood is that 18 all of those improved parcels have been noted by the yellow marks on that tax map, the 19 houses have similar setback to front, side and rear. As proposed by this application some of 20 them were relatively new and benefitted from the special relaxed provisions that you have 21 in your code for single and separate, but the character of the neighborhood and the size 22 house and the setback of the houses is very well established along these roads, and it' s 23 very much in keeping with what is proposed by this applicant . 24 I would urge you to make a finding that that map and your physical inspection of 25 the area shows that the character of the neighborhood and nonconforming lots are COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 48 1 2 comparable in density and size and construction of a single family dwelling on 3 this one lot is not going to significantly increase the density and of this area. In 4 fact, there' s a row of arborvitae all long the road. This house will probably not even be 5 noticed by neighbors; it' s so well screened already and provisions for a waiver have been 6 met . The third necessary finding 7 involves an economic harm to the applicant if you were to deny his appeal . I've submitted 8 to you two independent real estate appraisals by local brokers who have been practicing in 9 this area for an extraordinarily long period of time . Each opinion provides you with three 10 values and separate building lots . The value of the improved parcel, if it is separated 11 from the vacant lot, and the value of the parcels if they are required to remain, 12 according to Maryanne Faval of Century 21 Agawam Realty if denied this harm will be 13 $149, 000 . According to John Jay Nichols of Lewis and Nichols, this harm would be 14 $145, 000 ; although the actual values that are contained in these two appraisals differ to 15 some degree, the economics differ by more than three percent . 16 It is clear that a denial of this application will cost this applicant 17 significantly, and I also submit to you he meets the third criteria for the waiver of 18 merger. The fourth and final requirement 19 concerns the alteration of existing topography and a possible need for fill . To meet this 20 test I have submitted to you two additional pieces of information. One I did not repeat 21 because it' s already contained in your file, that' s the survey and approval of the Suffolk 22 County Department of Health Services noted thereon. This approval is evidence that the 23 soils are receptive and that the depth to groundwater is sufficient and safe from any 24 kind of environmental harm without the need for any fill or alteration of existing 25 grade . The second piece of documentary COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 49 1 2 evidence that I've submitted to you is a professional opinion from Suffolk 3 Environmental Consulting. Mr. Bruce Anderson personally visited the site . His curriculum 4 vitae is attached to a letter to you -- actually it' s a letter to me but I' ll submit 5 it to you. He rendered his written report concluding their approval of and survey will 6 not significantly impact on the contours of the lot . We would submit to that these two 7 submissions show that the final condition of a waiver has a also been met . 8 In conclusion, I submitted two additional exhibits for your file . Immediate 9 neighbors who are supportive of the application and have no objection to the 10 construction of the a house on Tax Lot 29 . I would note for the record also that one of the 11 signatories on that petition is Kenneth and Lisa Burns . When we sent out our public 12 notices of this hearing to the abutting properties, one came back undeliverable and 13 that was Mr. and Mrs . Burns because they' re taxpayers in accordance with your code but the 14 notice came back. They are obviously aware of the application, and, in fact, support it, so 15 I don' t think there' s any notice questions regarding the notice of the publication for 16 this hearing. The second and last exhibit that I 17 handed up to you are three Second Department cases which stand for the proposition when you 18 have lots that are subject to what is commonly referred to in zoning as a back to back lot 19 slip, they separate out of municipal harm or a public interest . If you can establish the 20 following facts : First that the lots have separate road frontages on separate streets, 21 that the lots have similar depths to surrounding lots and conjunction with one 22 another; that they are merged only by virtue of construction no additional burden on public 23 services because there is already an improved Town road and all utilities existing and in 24 place all of these facts are present in this application for you. Variance it' s more along 25 the lines of a special exception request, where we need to prove very specific things, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 50 1 2 and if we prove them, you need to approve the application. With the application are all of 3 the deeds, certificates of occupancy, tax bills, health department approvals and the 4 exhibits that I've handed up to you today, the originals which I' ll give you today and merger 5 should be granted so that one of your native sons can construct a house where he always 6 intended to and where his grandfather wanted him to. 7 If you have any questions, I' ll be glad to answer them. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Couple of questions . Vacant parcel, improved lots . 9 Under the vacant parcels, vacant lots, are those lots, do you know for a fact that those 10 lots are not merged with any adjoining parcels? I obviously didn' t do -- variance 11 ownerships are now separate, whether they were separate since prior to 1983 . I do not know. 12 I would have needed a variance search on every single lot . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I just wanted to get all the facts right . The vacant lots 14 shown on your section of the tax map do not necessarily mean that they are vacant; they 15 could, in fact, be merged with any of the adjoining properties; is that accurate? 16 MR. PENNEY: They could be but I doubt that they are . 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: At this time? MR. PENNEY: If this is a very 18 critical determining factor for you, I would be asking to spend approximately $2 , 400 to 19 obtain a separate variance search for each property because I think they would probably 20 bear that out, but I can' t represent to you that they are without having a title company 21 do that work. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The second 22 question: These were deeded parcels because the Laughing Waters, it was not part of the 23 Laughing Waters subdivision? MR. PENNEY: I don' t know that 24 there' s a map of Laughing Waters . The fact that there are no lot numbers in parens on 25 the -- not shown on a subdivision map, and I suspect that all of Laughing Waters -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 51 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' ll shed some light on that -- 3 MR. PENNEY: It was referred to the Laughing Waters subdivision, and it was 4 done . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: When the lots 5 were created in 163 and 171 respectfully, in my review of the title search, it doesn' t 6 appear that they were ever held in single and separate ownership? 7 MR. PENNEY: No. They never were. Mr. Koslik, he bought the lot from 8 Mr. Wickham first in approximately 1963 . I know he bought the house in 163 . He 9 subsequently bought the lot to the rear in 1970 , did not place it in a separate name at 10 any point in time conforming parcel, I don' t know what the zoning was back in 1970 on that 11 street . But for simple of lack of perhaps putting his wife' s name on it or someone else 12 with him, we' re before you today. But again, that' s what I wanted to 13 stress, when the code was right there saying if you do this, you' re merged. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Penney, there was a code provision in 1978? 15 MR. PENNEY: But not in 1970 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, but 16 prior to this merger provision in 1978 there was a clear code . 17 MR. PENNEY: They were merged as soon as he took that deed from Mr. Wickham 18 they were in common ownership. They aren' t merged. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So, those are the two questions I have, and I'm going to see 20 if the Board members have any other questions . Mr. Horning. 21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sure . I was looking at your environmental consultant 22 report . MR. PENNEY: Yes . 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You did mention not having to import fill to build a 24 house, the septic system is that way also, correct? 25 MR. PENNEY: Correct . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There' s no COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 52 1 2 fill in to build up the grade, the water table' s -- 3 MR. PENNEY: 13 , if you look at the health department approved survey. 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: 6 . 5 feet below grade . 5 MR. PENNEY: Where is that from? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Suffolk 6 Environmental Consulting. MR. PENNEY: There' s a survey 7 probe, had a test on that . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The 8 groundwater' s to be 6 . 5 feet below grade? MR. PENNEY: That' s certainly 9 adequate for a shallow pool system. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So again, 10 no fill necessary to build up the grade? MR. PENNEY: Absolutely not . And 11 from the test toll and pale brown fine course sand so it' s not the actual water. There' s no 12 fill required. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Also the 13 chairperson was getting into this a little bit looking at the map you did submit, of the 14 survey of lots, it would appear that the lots right on the corner of Hiawatha and Wabasso, 15 it is quite a bit larger than the lots that you' re proposing to unmerge . The lot directly 16 across the street appears to be quite a bit larger than the lots that you' re proposing to 17 unmerge . MR. PENNEY: There' s no question 18 there' s a lot down the street that' s a double lot as well . There' s no question. As I said, 19 of the remaining vacant lots three of the seven, I think it was, were comparable in 20 size, and from my experience and obviously I don' t know what your experience is, it is not 21 only the immediate abutting properties that determine character of a neighborhood, if you 22 take your car and drive Nichomas, you' re not in the same neighborhood, and through those 23 parallel roads, in the Laughing Waters subdivision, that' s the true neighborhood. 24 The fact that there' s a piece immediately abutting us that' s bigger is not necessarily 25 fatal to the application because that' s not what the Town Board said when it dictated the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 53 1 2 legislative requirements for the waiver. It said you' re not going to significantly change 3 the density of the neighborhood. You' re the people that are going to determine what the 4 neighborhood is, but I would certainly submit to you that it' s not simply the abutting 5 property but the entire neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Quite true 6 but adjacent parcels are part of the neighborhood. 7 MR. PENNEY: Quite true . Not comparable and vacant . As I mentioned before, 8 these questions come up to the courts quite often and character of the neighborhood to my 9 knowledge is never determined by only the immediately abutting properties . Generally 10 it' s a 500 foot radius, but I think if I went that far, my case wouldn' t have gotten any 11 weaker. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It' s okay, 12 it' s understood. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 13 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 14 Penney, regarding the proposed house, if the Board was so inclined to grant this waiver why 15 is it so skewed to the -- MR. PENNEY: Jason is here, but 16 'it' s probably there so that they had plenty of room for the sceptic field, and it was put on 17 their proposed coordinates with the setback required had this property been a single and 18 separate lot . I don' t think there is any specific importance to that particular 19 location. If we were to move it as long as we were to fit the 12 feet, there' s plenty of 20 room that you can see . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not 21 necessarily germane this to application. MR. TAGGART: I just did it that 22 way so you have more property to enjoy if you put it in the middle . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s never good, and so it' s probably like he said he 24 left himself . Member Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I believe the 25 other three members would have asked the questions I would have asked. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 62 1 2 according to the building department' s notice of disapproval with respect to the number of 3 uses per acreage . And I have it in written form so 4 that you will have it, I saw from your outline that you prefer to get it in writing so that 5 we can kind of go through it and get to the questions stage . But when you are looking 6 through the code the language of B Zone does not have any limitation on the size or the 7 number of uses, as long as they are permitted uses . There is a list of permitted uses in 8 the code . Unlike to other code provisions 9 and Marine 2 or Residential Office, there are other sections in the code that are specific 10 about how many uses you can have per acre . I would submit to this Board that when the code 11 does not dictate how many uses are per the code, that the general -- that it' s really 12 based on site plan, parking and other limitations that you might have with respect 13 to the uses and the occupancy of the structures . 14 So the code itself, on the business zoning does not put a limitation on 15 what uses that can occupy this building. Primarily, you were looking if you 16 were to look at the comparable building next door, their office complex, professional 17 office, architect, engineer' s sign that' s there, they have chiropractor and 18 physiotherapist . They also have doctor' s office . They have a retail, and they have the 19 beauty shop. When they went in for site plan approval, all they showed was generic space 20 and the parking for that generic space was calculated at let' s say 47 spaces . That' s 21 what the Planning Board approved at the time . We are similarly applying the same 22 code and saying, well, we have the space, and we don' t know precisely who the tenants are 23 going to be . We might have office, aside from the restaurant, which is the one use we are 24 pretty confident that we know will be occupied there, the other space can function as either 25 an office space or a retail space and for purposes of kind of hedging the bet, the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 63 1 2 architect put a couple of the units as retail and a couple of the units as office . But the 3 reality is, that until the building is built and you start looking for tenants, you really 4 don' t know what kind of tenants you' re going to have . You know from the code what the uses 5 are that are permitted. And as long as you abide by the type of uses, the permitted uses 6 under that zoning category, you' re safe and the Town allows you to have the tenants occupy 7 the buildings . So, as a matter of statutory language and construction, there is no 8 limitation on the occupancy, the number of uses . 9 Secondly, if, in fact, we took the Building Department' s interpretation, then at 10 the time that this interpretation came into effect, the building next door would not be 11 able to occupy with the tenants that they have . They would have to decide among the 12 many tenants that they have, are they going to have a retail use, are they going to have a 13 doctor' s office, a professional office; it' s called, and I refer you to the photographs 14 because I took a photograph of the sign, they have primarily they call it medical center, 15 but we have retail center there, you also have the hair studio. So you have a mix of uses, 16 which actually complements the business, hamlet business intention in the code . If you 17 look at the purposes section of the business zoning, it' s precisely these uses and how the 18 facility next door is operating, we' re going to operate precisely the same way, and it 19 leads to the services that the hamlet and the surrounding residences desire and want . 20 So it' s -- I was kind of baffled by the Building Department' s interpretation, I 21 knew about the 60 foot rule, but this interpretation about the number of uses in the 22 buildings was quite a surprise to me that they would interpret that way particularly with the 23 way that the occupancy next door is operating. If that' s, in fact, the case then 24 Kaelin' s couldn' t occupy the tenancy that he has . You've got the contractor' s yard along 25 Cox Neck, you have three structures and one I can' t really identify, I 'm not sure what he' s COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 54 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Would the applicant' s side yard setback be to 15 feet 3 rather than 12? MR. PENNEY: I can' t see any 4 reason why he would not . I don' t see how that would impact on his health department approval 5 at all . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We do 6 consider fire access as such and drive through the sceptic field to combat a fire 7 MR. PENNEY: And fire of 15 feet is most of your Town codes, yes . 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If that' s all, I' d like to see if anyone in the audience 9 has any comments on this application, either for or against the application. Do the Board 10 members have any further questions or comments for the applicant? Seeing no hands, I 'm going 11 to make a motion to reserve the -- MR. PENNEY: Could I ask you one 12 question? I know you' re missing one member, would that member familiarize himself with the 13 procedure and vote? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If the member 14 has read the written transcript and you have no objections . I' ll repeat the motion, do I 15 have a second? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 17 Board respondedin favor. ) . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 18 hearing is appeal 5380 it' s on behalf of Aldo Blaskovic . I believe we saw you earlier. 19 MR. LISO: I'm for representing Aldo Blasovic, he wants to put an addition on 20 his house, a garage to the second floor and renovate the house and update it to the new 21 ways . So it would be a more valuable house and have more room inside and out for himself . 22 What we' re looking for is relief on the left-hand of the property, which is a six foot 23 four is what we' re looking for. Now, when I look back on this 24 original house and what I see on your variance thing it says 15 feet . That must be something 25 new, because when this house was built with the old map being in existing house it was COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 55 1 2 built with ten foot one side, 17 on the other; why are we following a 15 foot setback? 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because -- and there has been no change in the code -- what 4 obviously happened is your lot is 20 , 825 square feet . It' s a nonconforming lot, like 5 90 percent of the town. MR. BLASKOVIC: So it was changed? 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No, actually it wasn' t . 7 MR. LISO: How did he build this house with only ten foot? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I can assure you it hasn' t changed. 9 MR. LISO: Garage with a second story on it, I don' t see where it causes a 10 problem with any of the neighbors . The neighbor to the west behind Aldo' s house -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The neighbor to the west is -- 12 MR. LISO: It says Christiansen but evidently there' s a new owner. I think 13 he' s here today. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I have a 14 couple of questions for you. According to the survey as we go through this, it' s a 20 , 825 15 square foot lot, you have 63 feet of side yard on the east side of the property, and the 16 property, your unit' s very wide, it' s at least 120 feet of width; so the obvious question and 17 one of the questions we' re charged with examining, is why not find an area that 18 doesn' t require a variance, and the obvious question here is why not put the addition on 19 the east side, where you would not require any variance and you certainly wouldn' t encroach 20 on your neighbor' s property line, which you' re showing an existing setback of, I believe the 21 existing setback is at least 20 feet and you' re proposing to reduce that to about six 22 feet . So that' s my question. MR. LISO: Basically on that 23 corner of the house we put one addition on it already. That already came just about made 24 it . If we were to go at an angle, if we come . Second of all, the configuration of the house 25 and the addition, there' s no way -- and the roof line -- there' s no way we could put an COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 56 1 2 addition and attach it there . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the east 3 side there' s no way? MR. LISO: No. If you look at the 4 house and the drawings, plus if you go straight out closer to the front yard line and 5 same problem again. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The purpose 6 of the addition is -- refresh us again? MR. LISO: Update his house and 7 he bring everything up to date with new floors and new bathrooms and the whole thing. He 8 needs a garage and he wants to put a new master bedroom upstairs . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if the Board Members, some of the questions they 10 may have . Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My question 11 again is why he couldn' t go to the east side or even to the rear because he' s got plenty of 12 room in the rear yard, which he wouldn' t need a variance because here you' re going to 13 consider taking a substantial side yard setback of just over four feet . 14 MR. LISO: First of all, on this side it' s all low lands . It' s all wetlands 15 and you got association property here . It' s probably the reason this house was put to this 16 side in the first place . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: According to 17 your survey the low area is more to the northeast . 18 MR. LISO: Right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm going to 19 cut this just for one minute, two of the Board members are -- the survey is missing from 20 their file, and we definitely want them to have the advantage of being able to review 21 what you' re saying. So if you would give us a few moments, I would like to give this to the 22 Board members out there . Mrs . Oliva. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The lower area directly east, there isn' t -- I realize 24 going out the back it would entail a sense of bearing down on what you've got . We really 25 don' t look favorably on giving just a 6 . 4 area variance . COURT REPORTING. AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 57 1 2 MR. LISO: It' s a hardship. The only way to do this project is to knock the 3 house down and start all over. The contract dollar value would be unbelievable . 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I realize that . It' s a beautiful deck and nice sun 5 room. But could you do something to the east? MR. LISO: That' s a dining room 6 there . That' s one story cathedral, there' s no way to connect it, and that' s the reason we 7 wanted to do it over the garage, the two staircases could walk into the bedrooms 8 upstairs . As you could see on the second floor plan when it comes through the existing 9 second floor. Do it the other way it' s almost unfeasible . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning, have you had a chance to take a look at this? 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes, ma' am. And the question does become why the addition 12 has to be on the west side of the house when, in fact, you have more than enough room on the 13 east side of the house or the rear of the house . You could, in fact, probably take out 14 a portion, if not all of that wood deck, put your addition back in there someplace, and 15 have plenty of room for a wood deck. So to compromise a side yard setback, what' s the 16 compelling reason? MR. LISO: Compelling reason is 17 because the bedrooms and everything is right adjacent to where I want to put the addition. 18 The other way we' d have to knock off everything off the back of the house, then try 19 and get a garage and drive around somehow, and just like I said before, it would be 20 unfeasible . A lot of money, just as well to knock the house down. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Liso, you could, if the Board was so 22 inclined -- I'm not suggesting that we are -- you could push the entire addition back 23 farther, which would give you a greater side yard, could you not? 24 MR. LISO: I don' t know if it would make 15 feet, though. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wouldn' t make 15 feet but maybe closer to COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 58 1 2 10' 7" MR. LISO: The way it' s laid out 3 for the stairs to go up to that new addition, it wouldn' t work out if we pushed it back too 4 far. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just 5 thinking of options that' s all . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Why couldn' t 6 you push it back, I 'm sorry? MR. LISO: Because of access to 7 the new addition. I don' t have the survey in front of me, but what' s the side yard in the 8 back of the new addition? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 1017" . 9 MR. LISO: It' s ten. It' s still not 15 . 10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Chimney is going to be raised. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. Let' s see what happens . Is there anyone in the 12 audience who would like to speak in favor or against this application? 13 MR. ROSS : Good afternoon, Dan Ross representing the neighbors to the west, 14 Don and Ann Alberto, who acquired their residential lots and residence on September 3 , 15 2003 , just a couple weeks ago. I ' d like to hand up to the Board a survey of the Alberto 16 property and a copy of their deed. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Certainly. 17 MR. ROSS : While Mr. and Mrs . Alberto can appreciate a neighbor upgrading 18 their residence, they nonetheless oppose this application and think it' s somewhat out of 19 line as the Alberto survey indicates the Alberto house is ten or 11 feet from the 20 Alberto/Blasovic boundary line . That would put, if this variance was granted, the two 21 houses very close together. Presently the Blasovic residence 22 is 20 to 24 feet from the boundary line and they' re seeking to reduce this to 6 . 4 and 23 10 . 7, which is 50 percent and sometimes below 50 percent relief . 24 In addition, the Blasovic proposed addition is a two story residence, while the 25 Alberto residence and construction close to that boundary line is one story. It would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 59 1 2 have a towering effect over the Alberto property. 3 And, as I don' t need to point out, there' s 63 feet on the east and there' s room 4 in the rear for expansion. Just reviewing the criteria, I suggest that, in fact, the 5 granting of this variance would be to the detriment of nearby properties; second, it 6 could be achieved by some other method; third, this is a substantial request, substantial 7 variance is being requested, and it would have an adverse impact on the character of the 8 neighborhood and it' s self-created. And for those reasons I ask the 9 Board to reject the variance request . Thank you. 10 MR. ALBERTO: Good morning, my name is Don Alberto, my wife and I just 11 purchased the house a few weeks ago . We' re most impacted. We' re to the west of the 12 proposed addition at 15 Blue Marlin. We' d been here in Southold looking for a house, and 13 we fell in love with this area, this association, we found a small house that we 14 could afford, but we most appreciated the open space in this neighborhood between buildings, 15 and before even going to contract saw the 15 foot side yard is required. So I felt anyway 16 we were pretty safe with preserving that open space that we were looking for. There is a 17 slight water view that we believe this would encroach upon, and as you know, real estate in 18 this town if there' s a water view suddenly the price jumps tremendously, and so we' d hate to 19 lose that . We have our life savings in this house and it doesn' t make sense to us why the 20 Town should give relief leave up to 6 . 4 , feet when there' s 63 feet on the other side . 21 I 'm an architect . I certainly could figure several ways to reconfigure and 22 redesign and make something happen that extensive, to build on the other side, 23 renovate the interior hallway to the bedroom. It sounds like the owners are reconfiguring 24 the house . My understanding of variances, they' re given when there' s no other option or 25 basically very little option, and I believe there are many other alternatives that would COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 60 1 2 be done to achieve the space they' re trying to create. 3 I believe the negative impact on my property far outweighs the benefit 4 precedent it may set in that neighborhood where all the houses if 6 . 4 is a number that 5 is allowed, another neighbor may come and also ask for the same, and once there' s a 6 precedent, it could be the deterioration of the area. 7 So I'm asking to preserve, if it' s a two story addition, a 15 foot side yard. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Liso -- MR. LISO: Yes . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think you've heard the Board Members' concerns and 10 you've certainly heard the neighbor' s concerns and looking at the survey submitted by the 11 neighbors, it would appear that they just purchased this house, but it would appear that 12 if the Board granted the variance, that you' re requesting we wouldn' t even have 20 feet 13 between houses . On lots that -- -MR. LISO: . His house sets back 14 much further. It' s not like it' s right along side of each other. If you put the two 15 surveys together, he' s like 67 feet back. We' re 30 . 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, at that point, you' re 39 feet back. Nonetheless, 17 I think we have heard some concerns here . Is it possible that you could go back and think 18 of, come up with some other designs that would lessen this impact on the variance and on the 19 neighborhood, in listening to the neighbors' concerns and the Board be members' concerns? 20 MR. LISO : I guess I don' t have a choice, right? 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' d like to work together with you and we' d like to work 22 together with the neighbors because Mr. Ross is quite right, the test is there another 23 alternative here? MR. LISO: One way is to knock the 24 house down and build a new one, which he can' t afford to do . The other one is to build an 25 addition on the other side, which is going to be much more costly, and it probably won' t COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 61 1 2 happen ' cause this man has so much money, he just wanted to update it and try to make it 3 liveable for himself . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board, 4 George, Gerry, Ruth -- I think we need to just try to look at some other alternatives; is 5 that agreeable? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don' t think we can explain the idea of decreasing 7 the side yard setback very much. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have kind 8 of heard the consensus of the Board. But, yes, I don' t think it would result in anything 9 as draconian as destroying the house, and if it does, there' s something wrong with the 10 appraisal . But try to come back with something that is not going to result in some 11 kind of encroachment on the neighbor. And we will adjourn it, and at the next hearing we 12 will be able to reconsider your plan. And what we would like to ask you if you submit 13 new plans make sure that you do so in advance of the hearing so that possibly you can work 14 with your neighbor, working out, you have to live together. 15 MR. LISO : Exactly, you have to live together. Okay, thank you very much. -16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm going to see when our calendar would allow this to be 17 adjourned to. I 'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to November 20th. 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in 19 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 20 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 21 carried. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 22 hearing is on behalf of Stanley Malon is there someone here who would like to speak on behalf 23 that of that application? MS . MOORE : We have -- Pat Moore . 24 And I have Harold Gephart, who is the architect on this project, and there are two 25 primary issues here . One is the limitation on the number of permitted uses or tenancies COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 K, 62 �c 2 according to the building department' s notice of disapproval with respect to the number of 3 uses per acreage . And I have it in written form so 4 that you will have it, I saw from your outline that you prefer to get it in writing so that 5 we can kind of go through it and get to the questions stage . But when you are looking 6 through the code the language of B Zone does not have any limitation on the size or the 7 number of uses, as long as they are permitted uses . There is a list of permitted uses in 8 the code . Unlike to other code provisions 9 and Marine 2 or Residential Office, there are other sections in the code that are specific 10 about how many uses you can have per acre . I would submit to this Board that when the code 11 does not dictate how many uses are per the code, that the general -- that it' s really 12 based on site plan, parking and other limitations that you might have with respect 13 to the uses and the occupancy of the structures . 14 So the code itself, on the business zoning does not put a limitation on 15 what uses that can occupy this building. Primarily, you were looking if you 16 were to look at the comparable building next door, their office complex, professional 17 office, architect, engineer' s sign that' s there, they have chiropractor and 18 physiotherapist . They also have doctor' s office . They have a retail, and they have the 19 beauty shop. When they went in for site plan approval, all they showed was generic space 20 and the parking for that generic space was calculated at let' s say 47 spaces . That' s 21 what the Planning Board approved at the time . We are similarly applying the same 22 code and saying, well, we have the space, and we don' t know precisely who the tenants are 23 going to be . We might have office, aside from the restaurant, which is the one use we are 24 pretty confident that we know will be occupied there, the other space can function as either 25 an office space or a retail space and for purposes of kind of hedging the bet, the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 63 1 2 architect put a couple of the. units as retail and a couple of the units as office . But the 3 reality is, that until the building is built and you start looking for tenants, you really 4 don' t know what kind of tenants you' re going to have . You know from the code what the uses 5 are that are permitted. And as long as you abide by the type of uses, the permitted uses 6 under that zoning category, you' re safe and the Town allows you to have the tenants occupy 7 the buildings . So, as a matter of statutory language and construction, there is no 8 limitation on the occupancy, the number of uses . 9 Secondly, if, in fact, we took the Building Department' s interpretation, then at 10 the time that this interpretation came into effect, the building next door would not be 11 able to occupy with the tenants that they . have . They would have to decide among the 12 many tenants that they have, are they going to have a retail use, are they going to have a 13 doctor' s office, a professional office; it' s called, and I refer you to the photographs 14 because I took a photograph of the sign, they have primarily they call it medical center, 15 but we have retail center there, you also have the hair studio. So you have a mix of uses, 16 which actually complements the business, hamlet business intention in the code . If you 17 look at the purposes section of the business zoning, it' s precisely these uses and how the 18 facility next door is operating, we' re going to operate precisely the same way, and it 19 leads to the services that the hamlet and the surrounding residences desire and want . 20 So it' s -- I was kind of baffled by the Building Department' s interpretation, I 21 knew about the 60 foot rule, but this interpretation about the number of uses in the 22 buildings was quite a surprise to me that they would interpret that way particularly with the 23 way that the occupancy next door is operating. If that' s, in fact, the case then 24 Kaelin' s couldn' t occupy the tenancy that he has . You've got the contractor' s yard along 25 Cox Neck, you have three structures and one I can' t really identify, I 'm not sure what he' s COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 64 1 2 got going on inside . You've got the Kaelin equipment and storage, and sale of equipment 3 and repair; then you also have the contractor' s yard with materials . Those 4 combination of uses, given the size of his property, which I believe is a property only 5 80 feet in width, long, I believe it' s 200 feet in length, but even so, acreage-wise it 6 wouldn' t comply with the code . He' d be preexisting as to one use, but that' s all he 7 would be able to fit . So the interpretation makes no 8 sense in this instance, and I would say that maybe the Building Department needs some 9 guidance from this Board that if it doesn' t say it in the code, you' re not to make it up. 10 So with respect to the code provision on the number of uses, I 11 respectively disagree with their interpretation and would ask this Board to 12 interpret the code accordingly, which is that there is no such limitation. 13 Then we reach the issue of the 60 foot rule, and you all know from prior 14 applications and hearing many cases before your board, the 60 foot rule was adopted at 15 the time where zoning was still up on Route 48 for commercial complexes . The Town Board was 16 concerned about strip shopping centers going up on the North Road, and the idea of how to 17 zone or limit -- I think Mrs . Oliva you may have been on the Board at the time . 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was . MS . MOORE : The idea of 19 limiting the width of the building would take away the ability to create the strip shopping 20 centers . Unfortunately, our code still hasn' t been cleaned up with respect to that, and most 21 applications, commercial applications, unless you' re dealing with a very small piece of 22 property, ends up having to come before this Board for a variance . You've numerous 23 applications for variances with that rule . It seems like any commercial development that 24 wants to come in either through a renovation like Harts Hardware or a new construction, 25 ends up having to come before this Board for this type of variance . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 64 1 2 got going on inside . You've got the Kaelin equipment and storage, and sale of equipment 3 and repair; then you also have the contractor' s yard with materials . Those 4 combination of uses, given the size of his property, which I believe is a property only 5 80 feet in width, long, I believe it' s 200 feet in length, but even so, acreage-wise it 6 wouldn' t comply with the code . He' d be preexisting as to one use, but that' s all he 7 would be able to fit . So the interpretation makes no 8 sense in this instance, and I would say that maybe the Building Department needs some 9 guidance from this Board that if it doesn' t say it in the code, you' re not to make it up. 10 So with respect to the code provision on the number of uses, I 11 respectively disagree with their interpretation and would ask this Board to 12 _ interpret the code accordingly, which is that there is no such limitation. 13 Then we reach the issue of the 60 foot rule, and you all know from prior 14 applications and hearing many cases before your board, the 60 foot rule was adopted at 15 the time where zoning was still up on Route 48 for commercial complexes . The Town Board was 16 concerned about strip shopping centers going up on the North Road, and the idea of how to 17 zone or limit -- I think Mrs . Oliva you may have been on the Board at the time . 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I was . MS . MOORE : The idea of 19 limiting the width of the building would take away the ability to create the strip shopping 20 centers . Unfortunately, our code still hasn' t been cleaned up with respect to that, and most 21 applications, commercial applications, unless you' re dealing with a very small piece of 22 property, ends up having to come before this Board for a variance . You've numerous 23 applications for variances with that rule . It seems like any commercial development that 24 wants to come in either through a renovation like Harts Hardware or a new construction, 25 ends up having to come before this Board for this type of variance . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 65 1 2 Again, when we started it, Mr. Gephart and I first met -- two years ago 3 when we started this process? -- two years ago, the first thing that we did is we went to 4 Town Board, we met with planning briefly, but most importantly, we pulled out the adjacent 5 development . We pulled out the site plan from the medical center, and we said, okay, the 6 medical center is a lovely building, Gary Olsen' s office, lovely building, let' s do a 7 design. And we had clients who wanted to make a beautiful building. This is where they' re 8 going to be on the property; the office space above the mezzanine is going to be their 9 occupancy. So they are on site managers, and they want to be proud of what they built . 10 We went, pulled out the file and looked at the building and said, okay, 11 architectural style, design style, we want to make it look similar to the other newer 12 buildings they built since the ' 80s right next door. 13 The design that Mr. Gephart has prepared is before you, a rendering of it, 14 what you have are -- and he looked at the 60 foot rule and his interpretation of the 15 language was a little different than my interpretation of the language, but he took 16 two structures that certainly could sit independently of each other, 38 feet in width, 17 by the length that I don' t recall the length, 106, the 30 linear feet being the relevant 18 portion. It didn' t make sense to have those two buildings standing apart, particularly 19 when looking at the character, looking at the design of the adjacent buildings, the 20 colonial, I would say, the colonial design, the colonial feel with design with symmetrical 21 shapes the mezzanine just fit and it made sense . It also made sense with the way that 22 the owner wants to be present on the site, the manager' s office being up top, maintaining and 23 controlling and making sure that the facility is run well . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just ask -- 25 MS . MOORE : Do you want me to close your door, because if the air COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 66 1 2 conditioner goes on -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The question 3 I just want to clarify? MS . MOORE : Sure, go ahead. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The photo, the architectural rendering that you' re 5 showing here is the total of 89 linear feet? MS . MOORE : 38, 38 and 16 is the 6 mezzanine, I did the numbers, hold on. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is the linear 7 feet facing -- MS . MOORE : Yes . The linear feet 8 facing is Main Road is 90 feet . I had used 16 because that' s wall to wall . There' s an 9 overlap, see the opening it says 16 . MR. GEPHART: That' s grade, 90 10 feet . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So it' s a 11 total of 90? MS . MOORE : Total of 90 . You have 12 two 38 foot buildings not contiguous . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: 38 , 38 plus 13 the mezzanine? MS . MOORE : Right, plus the 14 mezzanine . The problem, the reason that we get kicked into the 60 foot rule is that 15 mezzanine that connects the structures -- the mezzanine does two functions it provides some 16 office space above for the owners, but it also provides the portico that the roof for the 17 entrances to those units . So it keeps them dry, similarly to the property next door. 18 They similarly have -- I took a look at their design, they have 24 foot width plus an eight 19 foot alley, then a 30 foot width and another eight foot alley and then a final 24 foot 20 width with a total of 94 . So the adjacent medical center is actually 94 foot in width 21 taking all of those measurements combined of linear feet . 22 Gary Olsen' s office appears to be, and I don' t have the site plan, I could not 23 get the site plan in time, but that appears to be 80 feet in width. They have the accountant 24 on the one side and the attorneys on the other and above . 25 And I refer you also to the photographs because that helps you kind of COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 67 1 2 recall all the buildings within the area, the character of the area. If I walk you through 3 the photographs . The first set of photographs the top is of the sign, the lower photograph 4 is the alleyway of the adjacent property. The alleyway there is a narrower alleyway, it' s an 5 eight foot alleyway, ours is 14 , ours I believe just works better in design as well as 6 safety access . It' s more of a plaza than an alleyway. Sorry, I've been corrected, it' s a 7 plaza. The third set of photographs is 8 the back of the medical center; so you can see that the parking goes all the way, appears to 9 go to the property line with a couple of trees, probably small trees when this was 10 built, they've now matured. The adjacent property is Mr. Glover' s property and is zoned 11 LB, just to keep that in mind. The fourth set of photographs, 12 Page 4 , I've taken photographs of all the Kaelin buildings, the front Kaelin building, I 13 believe is in the process of being renovated for, I believe, a retail use, I don' t know for 14 sure what the end result is going to be, but my understanding is that Planning has spoken 15 with someone who' s interested in renovating that and making it some kind of retail . The 16 rest of the Kaelin property, which runs along Cox Neck is 4C, the photograph that I've 17 labeled as 4C, is the building but I can' t quite tell what' s going on inside . It may be 18 part of the work space for the repairs, and then adjacent to that is a building that they 19 used for sales and service of the equipment, and then just further to the north of that is 20 the contractor' s yard. So you can see that there' s a lot 21 of activity going on in the Kaelin' s property; that' s fine; that' s appropriate . The Kaelin' s 22 property been there a long time . The setbacks predate the zoning, but, again, I repeat 23 myself, that the Building Department does not enforce the number of uses per acreage to 24 anyone else in this area. The fifth set of photographs I 25 have is Gary Olsen' s office so you can see architecturally as well as size-wise we are in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 68 1 2 conformity with that structure as well . The sixth set of photographs is 3 Mr. Glover' s property. The photographs -- I apologize, I had to do it from the road, I 4 didn' t want to trespass on Mr. Glover' s property to take close photographs -- but if 5 you see that along the property line, Mr. Glover uses that area as somewhat of a 6 storage area. There are racks, I guess, what he uses to transport some of the merchandise, 7 some of the agricultural products that he grows . So that things are piled up and, you 8 know, it' s a working property, and that' s fine . We certainly have no objection to that . 9 So you can see that it' s a pretty actively used and intensely used limited business zoned 10 property. The seventh set of photographs is 11 Koster Funeral Home, that' s probably one of the -- that' s one of the earlier buildings 12 that have been built, or later -- excuse me -- it' s been built after Gary Olsen and after the 13 wine boutiques was constructed. This, I believe, it appears to be, 14 again, more than 60 feet in length. Maybe the portion that is the funeral home may be 60 15 feet, but it has the portico to its side which adds another 20 feet or so to the building. 16 So you' re looking at an 80 foot length to the building. And, again, the property is quite 17 small . If you look at the tax map, which I attached here also as an exhibit to my written 18 materials, the tax map parcels, you' ll see that in relation, the 60 foot rule never made 19 any sense because you had no relationship whatsoever to the size of the property. 20 One of my earlier applications was Riverhead Building Supply where the 60 21 foot rule was applied to a 350 foot road frontage . You would be crazy to put a 60 foot 22 wide building where you have that size property, as well as many other reasons the 23 lumberyard could not operate with that limited space . But as far as the design element, 24 you' re taking away from the ability of architects, good architects and site building 25 to do a building that matches the size and the scale of the surrounding properties . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 69 1 2 So I would urge this Board to push the Town Board to clean up the code with 3 respect to the 60 foot rule . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Miss Moore . 4 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Question in 5 your research of any of the neighborhood properties, do you know if there' s any of 6 these that were subject to a Zoning Board of Appeals decision at any time regarding the 60 7 foot width and/or the use? MS . MOORE : The 60 foot width, 8 no, I'm not aware of any variance applications . 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Or do these all predate code? 10 MS . MOORE : I think Koster may have been the only one that may have been 11 close to the 60 foot rule, they may have gotten it just before . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: To the best of my knowledge every property that you are 13 referring to was in place prior to the 60 foot rule. 14 MS . MOORE : Right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We are going 15 to have to step this up see if the Board has questions . 16 MS . MOORE : Okay. That' s fine . You have the photographs . It' s obvious, you 17 also live in the community, it' s obvious what the community looks like . 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s just clarify everything for the record. Your first 19 question is a matter of the interpretation; you' re asking us to interpret the code, to 20 reverse the Building Department ; that is the first question? 21 MS . MOORE : That is . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In the 22 absence of that, are you also applying for an area variance? 23 MS . MOORE : Obviously we' d have to have an area variance, if that -- 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s not on your application. 25 MS . MOORE : Well, put it this way: If you were not to override the Building COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 70 1 2 Department' s interpretation, we' d be in court because there is no reason why -- it' s 3 inappropriate to interpret -- to apply language to a code that doesn' t exist . 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Bearing that threat in mind, I don' t think we' re going to 5 go any further in this process . There would be no need to because we need to make the 6 interpretation, and then if the interpretation is not favorable, you have just said you' re 7 going to sue us . So what' s the point of discussing the neighborhood or anything else? 8 MS . MOORE : Well, no, what I 'm saying, it seems so black and white that this 9 Board, if they were to interpret that the application of the uses applies here, when you 10 have the specific language in other provisions, you have the specifics that 11 overrides the general . If the Town Board wanted to place that restriction on business 12 zoning, they would have had the ability to do so by virtue of looking at M2 or 0 , any of the 13 other zoning districts that actually had that language in it . There are no business 14 zoning -- there are several other limited business, other zoning districts that don' t 15 have that language nor have ever had that application. The Building Department for the 16 first time, I think, Mike Verity, the first . time ever that I 've had any application 17 dealing with a commercial structure has ever told me that there was this provision in the 18 code . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You have 19 submitted a lot of evidence in support of your contention, and the Board certainly will weigh 20 that, however, we really cannot move forward on this application as far as even the 21 variance application of the other variance application until we determine the first 22 request . MS . MOORE : With all due respect, 23 you can -- the notice has gone out for the two issues . We can finish. If you want me to 24 amend my application to ask for a variance when the Board -- you know, if you want to 25 just take my client' s money for that purpose, we' ll make "that application. It' s not even COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 71 1 2 appropriate whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I 'm 3 suggesting that usually we call these a shotgun appeal, and usually what happens is 4 the applicant asks for a Board to reverse the Building Department' s determination based on 5 an interpretation of the code in their favor, obviously. And then alternatively the Board 6 does not reverse the Building Department and you ask for a variance . You've not done 7 this . If you don' t want to -- MS . MOORE : This is going to be 8 more than one hearing, I 'm sure, because there will be questions you have and things we have 9 to return with more information, I 'm sure . I can amend our application to 10 include an alternative relief of an area variance on the number of uses, but, again, if 11 you were to come to that conclusion, medical center would have to shut down; they' d have to 12 throw out half their tenants; Kaelin would have to throw out one of their tenants . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We haven' t deliberated on this, so I'm not making 14 presumption. MS . MOORE : It seems so ludicrous 15 to me . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Clearly 16 what' s before us -- a couple things, I did go down to the site, not once but several times, 17 and there was a lot of flooding on the site . MS . MOORE : Where, in the back? 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . MS . MOORE: We can talk about the 19 drainage . We have addressed the drainage issues with respect to any of onsite water, 20 and the town engineer actually his recommendation is adding some drainage rings 21 at the Main Road, toward the Main Road to capture any rain water that comes off of the 22 Main Road. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I saw his 23 recommendations, couple of things, he needs to see more details we do too. The other thing 24 is we have a letter from the Planning Board saying they' re not reviewing the same site 25 plan that we are . MS . MOORE : Bruno -- I did submit COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 72 1 2 it . Let me explain a little bit of the history here. The design of the -- the site 3 plan that we submitted originally to you and to the Planning Board went to the 4 Architectural Review Board. At the Architectural Review Board meeting, the 5 Architectural Review Board came back with some recommendations, which included -- I'm sorry 6 before the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Board came to some recommendations 7 about moving some of the parking, land banking in the back and creating a greater green 8 space -- help me out -- more landscaping in the front, we reduced the brick patio entrance 9 in the front so that we could push the parking towards the building. The location of the 10 building remained exactly the same . We did tweaking of the parking at the Planning 11 Board' s request . We then went to the Architectural Review Board and talked to them 12 about the elevations, and the elevations they suggested, reducing the height or bringing 13 down the height of the mezzanine down so that this you wouldn' t know from the, maybe from 14 the elevations, but it' s brought down somewhat . They also recommended the trellis 15 in the front to soften the look because of the brick facade 16 So those, we have been working for the past two years on design elements before 17 we even came to this Board. So now we' re at a point where most of the site plan work has 18 been done . We may need to do some additional drainage calculations or drainage design 19 because Mr. Gephart has pointed out apparently one of his drafting people had put a wrong -- 20 the elevation he had shown it as 15 feet when it was actually 13 feet, so that the Planning 21 Department has the corrected version. When I had delivered the final version, the plan that 22 you have in your file, I hand-delivered also to the Building Department for an updated 23 notice of disapproval, which they said was not needed because the building was the same, also 24 to the Planning Board, but Bruno was on vacation for I think a week or so, so during 25 that time I don' t know that when he wrote the letter he had this or didn' t . So they now COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 73 1 2 have the same document that you have . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s dated 3 September 24th. MS . MOORE : Bruno called me 4 yesterday and had not yet -- or on Monday and had not seen some correspondence on another 5 project so it' s very possible that things had not been processed in their office on time . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We need to make sure that their concerns are addressed. 7 MS . MOORE : Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And that they 8 also have the same plans that we do. MS . MOORE : They do . 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The notice of disapproval said nine feet, you have corrected 10 that for the records to 90 feet . MS . MOORE : The width? 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . MS . MOORE: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . 13 MS . MOORE : Sure . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: George . 14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Going back to the Building Department, you' re maintaining 15 in your request for an interpretation that somehow the Building Department is 16 misinterpreting Town code or misapplying town code? 17 MS . MOORE : What happens is that they' re reading the general language of the 18 bulk schedule . They' re saying because our bulk schedule dictates -- when you' re doing a 19 subdivision in the business zoning, your lot is going to be 30, 000 square feet; that' s the 20 bulk schedule that' s applicable . When it comes to the number of uses, you look at the 21 specifics under the code, and what I'm saying is if the Town Board had wanted only two or 22 three or five uses, whatever the number is, one use per square footage, logically, the way 23 the Building Department' s interpreting it, one use per 30, 000 square feet; that is so -- it 24 just doesn' t make any sense . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That' s not 25 what current code; is that what you' re saying? MS . MOORE : That' s not what the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 74 1 2 code says . That' s what I'm saying is the code does not say that . 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Did you read the Planning Board' s memo? 4 MS . MOORE : Yeah, the Planning Board memo, yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They talk about the proposed multiuse building has many 6 uses . MS . MOORE : Yeah. 7 MR. GEPHART: Like, any shopping center. 8 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING Apparently 9 does not meet the town requirements . MS . MOORE : He' s referring to the 10 September 24 , 2003 memo that came from the Planning Board. 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They' re not specifically saying there are too many uses 12 here, but they' re implying that . MS . MOORE : Yeah. Well, one 13 thing I' d like to point out is a restaurant their occupancy is mostly dinner hours, five 14 to nine . If you have uses that are retail or office, mostly retail and office or personnel 15 service, if we took the same identical uses as next door, they would be nine to five . So 16 there is an overlap of parking needs that unfortunately nobody' s thinking about it . And 17 Bruno' s very good, wonderful but he looks at purely the square footage of the structure, 18 and because we said retail and office, he takes retail and does the calculation for 19 retail and the office calculation -- he' s looking at the code in the worst-case 20 scenario. We look next door and say, they have got doctors, which require five spaces 21 per doctor, I believe . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Parking 22 spaces . MS . MOORE : Five parking spaces 23 per doctor. BOARD MEMBER HORNING How many 24 uses are in this project? MS . MOORE : Our project? 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING Correct . MS . MOORE : Restaurant . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 75 1 2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Give us a number total uses . 3 MS . MOORE : We think it' s going to be three . We know restaurant . The retail 4 and office could end up being personal service, because a beauty shop, another beauty 5 shop wants to open up or maybe a nail salon wants to open up. 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why would the Building Department say, although 7 permitted uses, there are up to eight different? 8 MS . MOORE : Oh, they take every single unit and say each is a different use . 9 Again, that' s not what we've shown. We've actually shown a maximum of three . 10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Three uses . Thanks . I know we have to move this on. 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Goehringer. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have received some telephone calls from neighbors 13 regarding water runoff problems, concerns from neighbors which may or may want, they may 14 speak today, but, these things have to be resolved. 15 MR. GEPHART:. Right now, if you go to the site, as we speak, the elevation at the 16 beginning of the site along the Main Road is elevation 12W. It goes up and slightly off to 17 the side towards the center and that reaches elevation 16; and then it goes back down 18 toward the rear of the site to elevation I think nine . We' re setting the building up at 19 elevation 15, that kind of levels the site off, and I've designed the drainage so that it 20 drains to dry wells consistently as we go around the side of the building and toward the 21 back of the building. There' s no major change in grade, and there' s no need for any type of 22 retaining walls . So all the drainage, as we speak, is as per my calculations is contained 23 onsite; however, I do have to modify some runoff calculations for the Planning Board, 24 which we have no problem doing. We' ll do that, and we' ll submit the site plans to all 25 boards . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 76 1 2 I'm going to reserve my comments until either they speak, or, whatever, we see the 3 changes . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Just one 4 question. So you' re saying the Planning Board does have the same site plans that we have 5 before us and the letters that they sent us yesterday is in error? 6 MR. GEPHART: That letter is dated September 5th. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have a letter dated September 24th. 8 MS . MOORE: We had originally a letter dated September 5th, which came from 9 when the town engineer -- no Planning Board sent September 8th a letter to us with an 10 attachment of the September 5th letter. Thereafter I guess they responded to the 11 Board' s request for comment -- well, let' s see, do they say which date, plans dated 12 September 30 , 2003 . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They say 13 they' re reviewing plans from 4/28/03 . MS . MOORE : I don' t know why 14 they would be reviewing those plans when we've i given them at least two new sets of plans 15 since that time . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Excuse me, 16 I 'm going to take a break here . I do see the site planners in the audience -- 17 MS . MOORE : Oh. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- and if he 18 wouldn' t mind, Mr. Bruno, would you mind just trying to clear this up for us . 19 MS . MOORE : Yeah. Which one did you review? 20 MR. BRUNO: I 'm Bruno from the Planning Board. I am a site plan review 21 person. We received everything on September 22nd. We did not have a work session, so the 22 Planning Board did not see the new revised site plan. So the comments are clearly from 23 what we had reviewed in previous sessions . Basically having three days notice is not 24 enough time to review a new site plan and get comments from all the Board members . Next 25 available meeting will be Monday they will review the site plan at that time . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 77 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So you have not had a full opportunity to review this? 3 MR. BRUNO : No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. I 4 thank you very much, Mr. Bruno. We' re going to really kind of move it along at some point, 5 Mrs . Oliva? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: All other 6 questions have to be answered, but I do not look too favorably on it, 90 foot wide . That 7 lot is not that wide . MS . MOORE : It' s 150 feet . 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Again, it' s the boxed in look down there . I have to be 9 honest with you, Pat, when they were doing the master plan, I did not like the idea of 10 putting the business zoning all the way down that far either because it just extends the 11 whole hamlet area. So I would like to see smaller. 12 MS . MOORE : We' ll take your comments . 13 MR. GEPHART: The way I look at the design of the building, I don' t see that 14 boxed in look, I'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I'm saying in 15 relation to all the other things . MR. GEPHART: If you look at the 16 buildings 38 feet in the front, 14 feet open space, plaza, and 38 feet again, and 28 feet 17 setback, which is the second stage, second level . 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It' s still linear. 19 MR. GEPHART: It' s not a contiguous 90 feet, 38 recessed, 22 on the 20 setback, back out to 38 feet again. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I think 21 before we get to the audience, we do have to resolve the matter of interpretation on this, 22 and we also have to resolve the fact that we don' t have a review from the Planning Board. 23 There are definitely issues that there' s a serious question in my own mind from my own 24 site inspection, it was a swamp back there when I went back there on Monday. 25 MS . MOORE : After that major storm. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 78 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Major storm or not . The bottom line is -- 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Only an inch of rain. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: -- there' s no way that this Board will give any approval on 5 this if it' s going to affect the village property. 6 MS . MOORE : That is the code right now, whether it' s your Board or the Planning 7 Board, that is what we have to do, there is no doubt about that, and either of us as 8 professionals in our mind that it has to be contained. In fact, it will be contained when 9 the development occurs rather than now when the condition exists . Right now the problem 10 exists; when the construction occurs and all the drainage is put in, it will limit that 11 problem altogether. Obviously, if there comes a time when there is problems with some kind 12 of drainage, the Town has the authority, through site plan process, to direct us to put 13 additional dry wells . If that' s a condition that you would want to put as a condition of 14 your approval, I think that' s an appropriate condition, that the owner of the property is 15 not going to want to have cars sitting in water. It' s not attractive . It ruins the 16 cars of the tenants and it' s not a good way of operating a facility. So that is something 17 that obviously has to be taken care of and will be continued. The problem now is not 18 reflective of what the development will end up -- how the site will be treated and 19 developed. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, let' s 20 see we really do have to move this along, and there are so many things that are up in the 21 air with this application at this point . The option is yours; if you want to simultaneously 22 apply for relief under a variance you can, if you don' t, that' s your option. 23 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this 24 application? Is there any anyone in this audience who would like to speak -- yes, 25 Mr. McCarthy. MR. MCCARTHY: Tom McCarthy, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 79 1 2 Southold. I just want to touch on some points . I think it' s your decision in 3 interpretation and number of uses, which is what I'm here to speak about, and not to this 4 particular plan or its merits, but the number of uses I think that your decision is going to 5 have far reaching effects for every business owner in the town. 6 I think if we ,look around our planning guidelines, our site plan rules and 7 the Town roads, we have a lot of constraints on the business property. The general 8 business zone, buildings have to be setback 50 feet -- I'm sorry, 100 feet from the roadway, 9 and now you can' t have a building that' s any wider than 60 feet . You wind up having a very 10 small envelope in which to do something and that puts a lot of constraints on every piece 11 of property. Because most properties aren' t -- that is are business zoned -- are not 400 12 feet deep, so you can' t take it and put the square footage that you need to do to develop 13 a piece of property and have that financial return and make the whole thing work far 14 enough away from the roadway to settle everything ' cause the zones only go back so 15 far off of the Main Road on most of these properties 16 I've been involved in the development while working for others and 17 looking at other projects around the town. The way that the building inspector is 18 interpreting this, I totally in disagree with. I'm totally in agreement with Pat, and it' s 19 something, if you look at the examples of previous things that have been approved in our 20 town, it has not been interpreted this way. Whether you like the buildings or you don' t, 21 if you look at Cox Lane Industrial Park, without a variance -- the building inspector 22 is saying that this needs a variance -- that building would need 23 acres . There are 23 23 separate units in a LI40 zone, and if he was to interpret it this way you would need 23 24 acres for that building. It' s a waste of land, and that' s really what we get down to. 25 If the number of uses is synonymous with the lot size, you can only COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 80 1 2 have one use per lot . It' s a waste of land. I think what we' re looking at in the town is 3 let' s have more focus in the hamlets, let' s not clutter up the open spaces, let' s see what 4 we can do on the pieces of property that we have, and I think that this is a very, very 5 key issue for you today. That these uses especially in the downtown hamlet areas -- 6 Love Lane would probably not exist . You would need half an acre for the post office, and a 7 half an acre for the deli, half acre for, you know, any of the shops down there, same thing 8 in Orient . Any one of the hamlet areas that this would apply to, you would not be able to 9 have South Fork Pharmacy if it didn' t have half an acre of property or the barber shop, 10 or any of those things . So your decision today really has 11 far reaching effects on every business owner in this town. I guess it would harken the 12 question would everywhere else be nonconforming at that point? And how far do 13 we push this? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All of your 14 points are well taken and that' s why initially it is a very important determination by the 15 Board, and the Board will try to do the right thing, go back and do the research to find out 16 when what parts of the code -- as you know, making an interpretation of the code requires 17 a lot of research and homework, and we will do that . 18 MR. MCCARTHY: I appreciate your listening. There are just a few more points 19 if you would indulge me just another moment . There are several other buildings 20 that have been put up in this town where this has not been in effect . I happen to own 21 Southold Square, which I purchased when it was barely occupied at all . There are 11 units; 22 that would take 11 times -- it ' s in the business zone -- 11 times 30, 000 square feet 23 minimum lot size you would need eight acres to do a building like that . I understand that 24 maybe that' s not the best architecture in the world; I didn' t design it; I didn' t build it . 25 I happen to own it . But any of these things that you' re looking at are going to really COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 81 1 2 wind up using =- you' re going to see more of a rapid build-out of the business properties, 3 and you' re not going to be able to achieve any economy in space, any economy in build-out at 4 all for the town. In addition to that I think that 5 in the interpretation, and I've asked Ed Forester about this because I 've come up 6 against this previous times, and Ed has been code enforcement official, and what is a use, 7 is a use a tenant well, I 've asked Ed, well, is retail, retail, and that constitutes the 8 use; or if you have five people doing retail in one building is that five separate uses? 9 And that' s something we' re going to need further clarification from your Board in this 10 interpretation as we go forward with other processes with both code enforcement official 11 and the Building Department to say, what constitutes a use . Is it a tenant or is it 12 what the tenant is doing? And that' s something I 'm asking to come out of this 13 decision as well . Yeah, I think it puts an unfair 14 burden on a business owner that may look to put up a building and house his own business 15 and perhaps put in a' small rental unit to help him pay the rent, as we see happening in some 16 of these projects, the projects are only possible because of that additional income 17 they might have . So if you have a small piece of property, you' re out of luck, or you' re 18 going back to the Zoning Board for some type of relief, which I feel isn' t necessary. 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 someone else who would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there someone who 22 would like to speak against the application? Ma' am. 23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Could we limit them? 24 MS . CUSAMATO: My name is Vera Cusamato, I live on Harbor Lane . 25 Currently I have to make a right-hand turn to go left when I 'm coming out COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 82 1 2 of Harbor Lane . The beauty parlor that is across the street already creates a hazard 3 when we' re coming and going with the turning. This complex is going to create even more of a 4 hazard, and I don' t see how they' re going to fit that proposed building on that little 5 lot . I'm totally against it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Could you 6 turn this around so the audience can see it? MS . CUSAMATO: And I know there 7 are many other people here to speak, so I just wanted to let everybody know. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, thank you very much. Yes, sir. 9 MR. CARSAGE : My name is Fred Carsage, I also have a house on Harbor Lane, 10 and I want to reenforce what Vera has just said. 11 There are 72 single dwelling units on Harbor Lane the only access those dwelling 12 units have is out through Route 25 . Anyone who has been down at that particular corner 13 can see traffic backing up to the light 350 feet away at the traffic light to the east . 14 So that people cannot get out of Harbor Lane except if the traffic now makes a gap. And it 15 becomes a very dangerous situation even to make a right turn, but to make a left turn 16 it' s even worse because the vehicles are blocking your view as you' re coming out of 17 that lot . So since I've been here there have 18 been two commercial developments that have been put directly opposite us on Route 25 , 19 opposite Harbor Lane; the third will exacerbate a very, very bad traffic situation 20 that now exists . The respondent who was in favor of the project, the attorney that was in 21 favor of the project said that the restaurant' s peak would be between five and 22 eight, I invite the Board members to go down to that particular corner between five and 23 eight and look at the traffic and imagine more cars spilling out into their particular area, 24 that 350 feet between Harbor Lane and the traffic light, thank you. 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. Yes, sir. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 83 1 2 MR. CUSAMATO: My name is Matthew Cusamato, I 'm a resident of Cutchogue, which I 3 find very pleasing. Miss Oliva made a very good point with regard to there is a 4 concentration of commercial building there, excessive concentration of commercial 5 building. If you want to create another Patchogue or something like that, then we can 6 go ahead with this . If you want to create an environment that would benefit most of the 7 citizens, then I think you should be discouraged. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. 9 MR. ALLEN: I 'm Haden Allen in Cutchogue . I was raised just in Harbor Lane, 10 between Harbor Lane and Eugene' s Road, Windsong Farm. 11 In 1969 I moved away and came back in 1999, and just out of curiosity I was 12 amazed at the traffic . I was -- I couldn' t believe it . So I've just made count, just for 13 my curiosity. They aren' t scientific or anything, but from the 21st of March through 14 May end of June, there were average of 30 cars every two minutes, which makes 900 an hour. 15 Now, in July, average 33 . 7 cars per two minutes, which will be 1, 011 cars and adding a 16 restaurant or anymore stores across the way is just going to make it impossible . I certainly 17 hope you will deny the application. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, 18 sir. Is there anybody else who would like to -- yes, sir. 19 This is Mr. Glover, who has just submitted some pictures and a survey for us . 20 Yes, sir, go ahead. MR. GLOVER: I 'm Leander Glover, 21 and I 'm on the north of that building. I just gave you pictures, and it' s all overgrown in 22 briars, and it' s way lower than where I am. But natural flow of water comes all the way 23 over from Sterling Lane and comes through there . I've put drains behind the barn, 24 pre-cast, but it will build up until the cellar door and a lot of the houses in the 25 back and goes over the driveway and keeps going, and the natural flow always went down COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 84 1 2 to the crick; there' s a big drain under the Main Road, under Route 25, and right there in 3 the woods, south of my building is where the water catches . And if you get a hurricane or 4 anything, so far it' s cost me two water pumps in my building because the water just can' t go 5 anyplace . And that land, if they develop there, is going to put that much load in there 6 and not only me but one half of that building is leased to the Town of Southold by the year, 7 and the furniture is in that building for the Town Hall; that came from New York City. And 8 if they block that off or add anything more to it, they' re just going to raise the water 9 table ' cause the water table on that surveyor' s map says 12 foot in the back. But 10 when you take a shovel and dig, it' s 28 inches . 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Glover, has there ever been a lot any runoff from Cox 12 Lane and that whole piece of property along Route 25 on heavy rains? 13 MR. GLOVER: There' s some from Cox Lane but not too much. The Town has put 14 drains down by Kaelins, and they go back over to that drain that goes under 25 , but the 15 original drain under 25 just connected with the crick, and it' s a big drain, but a lot of 16 the water comes off the farms behind -- or between me and King Kullen and just follows 17 right through. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right . 18 MR. GLOVER: So that' s the only place that the water' s been able to go in the 19 last quite a few years now. And they put parking area and things in there, it' s just 20 going to flood the rest of us . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The photos 21 that you submitted where it shows the water, this is 28 inches? 22 MR. GLOVER: 28 inches . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sounds like 23 Orient . MR. GLOVER: Just about and 24 Koster' s Funeral Home runs a pump all the time, and it can' t keep up with the water 25 because the water table goes right in the cellar. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 85 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much, Mr. Glover. Yes, sir. 3 MR. KAELIN: Good afternoon Sam Kaelin. I own the property on the corner of 4 Cox Lane and 25 . The biggest problem there is the water. I have taken it upon myself on two 5 different occasions to have the Town put in drainage . At the present time, I no longer 6 have the gas station, which was out in the front . I've been on that corner for 42 years . 7 One thing I' d like to bring to your attention, when I had to put new tanks in 1977 we dug the 8 holes for the tanks, the only way we could hold those tanks in the ground to cover over 9 the top was to fill them with water. I know for a fact the advantage 10 that we do have on Cox' s Lane, the one on the northern portion, coming south to where my 11 driveway is between my two buildings goes out to the Main Road, it' s a 14 inch pipe . At any 12 given time, when we get any amount of rain, it cannot handle the water going out through 13 those two drains, to the drain right in front of my building, which goes under 25, mainly 14 base of the bay, she' s right across the street . And at any given time you want to go 15 over there, the amount of water coming down through those drains has no place to go and 16 fills up. Even though I have my drains, and many of you have gone on Cox' s Lane, it cannot 17 handle the water. And I am dead against the application. Thank you 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else who would like to 19 speak? Couple of things we talked about, 20 flooding water, traffic, and this Board is definitely going to ask the Planning Board, 21 who will probably take lead agency on this, to incorporate all of these concerns in the 22 environmental impact statement so that they will completely address it . 23 MS . MOORE : Environmental assessment . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Depending on what, if they take the lead agency, depending 25 on what type of action. So those issues, some of these issues that you have raised will be _ COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 86 1 ' 2 addressed in the environmental impact statement, assessment or whatever it is . 3 MS . MOORE : I just want to point out with regard to the traffic, unlike the 4 adjacent properties, we have one egress/ingress to address the traffic flow 5 issues . This lot, there were three lots, four lots created, one in the back and three lots 6 in the front, all at the same time; Olsen' s office, the medical office and this office 7 being the last one . All three of them are supposed to have cross-easements between them. 8 My client has, in their title, they have a cross-easement so they know they have to 9 provide them. The adjacent medical center is not real keen about providing the 10 cross-easement, even though it is part of their requirement . We can' t force them to do 11 it; certainly the Planning Board has the authority to tell them to open it . That also 12 will solve some of the traffic issues that have been addressed because within the 13 development of Olsen' s and the medical center and then our facility, there can be connecting 14 traffic . You can' t punish this applicant all the ills that occur off site . What has been 15 pointed out so far is that drainage is coming from other sources and using our property, 16 because of its low point, as the cross through. We have to address -- drainage 17 issues are serious issues . We' re going to address them. We appreciate the comments that 18 have been made because the architect will return and review what has been submitted so 19 that we make sure that we don' t have what King Kullen has every once in a while, which is 20 drainage problems -- or actually, Mattituck is the one with the serious drainage problem. We 21 will address the drainage onsite . We cannot cure the ills of the adjacent properties or 22 the Town road. That' s inappropriate . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No . I don' t 23 think that' s the issue . I think since there are concerns about drainage concerns about 24 traffic to have a very clear picture of what impact the proposed uses you have are going to 25 make on traffic . And if it' s going to exacerbate a situation, what the effect is, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 87 1 2 and that' s what -- that' s when I mentioned the environmental impact statement or whatever the 3 determination is, usually that is the proper method of taking making the determination. 4 MS . MOORE : When it comes to individual projects like this, the stand alone 5 project an impact statement is a tool to punish rather than as a legitimate -- 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s not our fault . 7 MS . MOORE : No. I understand that if that is the recommendation being made from 8 this Board over there, SEQRA is not to be used -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I didn' t say that this Board was going to ask the Planning 10 Board to incorporate that in their environment -- we do not make recommendations 11 to the Planning Board on how to make its determination as to whether it' s Type 1, 2 , 5 12 or 12, that' s not our place . But we will listen to the residents, who have very serious 13 concerns, and we will ask the Planning Board to address those concerns in an environmental 14 study. MS . MOORE : They are obligated to 15 do SEQRA. But this Board also has -- these are Type 2 actions before this Board, so I 16 don' t want us to be in an endless circle of delay. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I understand. Okay. So you are going to come 18 back to us, and we' re going to have another review by the Planning Board, and we' re going 19 to address the concerns of drainage; we' re going to address the concerns raised by the 20 Town engineer; we are going to -- it is now 90 feet, we already expressed that . For a point 21 of clarification, could you give us a layman' s list of the proposed uses? 22 MS . MOORE : We don' t have tenants yet; that' s the problem. We only have what 23 the code provides as permitted use . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In other 24 words, you know that you' re going to have a restaurant there because a family member. 25 MS . MOORE : Because a family wants to open up a restaurant . That' s the only -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 88 1 2 and if the family says to us, well, forget the restaurant, I don' t want to go to Southold, 3 then we' ll obviously let you know that because that' s our anchor, the largest space . But the 4 rest of the tenancies are spaces that also have flexibility and design, so that, like 5 Feather Hill, you have some offices that interconnect with other offices ; you have one 6 tenant, like Town Hall that occupies a whole annex. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I don' t know that you want to compare that because look at 8 Feather Hill, right now it' s half vacant . MS . MOORE: Well, actually the 9 adjacent property had a hard time filling its occupancy. So there is, the owners want their 10 facility mostly for their own purposes . The other tenants that come in will certainly be 11 secondary, would have to be those that can work with and interact with and be 12 complementary tenancies that the owners themselves want to have . So we have eight 13 spaces, what we have as tenants we really don' t know. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would the Board Members ask the applicant to request 15 anything further at that time? George, Gerry. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Covered everything. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, we' re going to adjourn this hearing until -- when is 18 our next available date? MS . MOORE : November is fine if 19 you' re pushing it in that direction. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I'm just 20 trying to get an idea on the dockets here . MS . MOORE : Well, again you have 21 Type 2 actions here . The width of the building is crucial to us because we can' t 22 design without knowing what the width of the building is . We've spent a fortune on design. 23 No offense to Mr. Gephart, but his work doesn' t come cheap, and we've gone quite far 24 with the Planning Board, and to get the type of recommendation that they sent over is very 25 upsetting when we spent a year and a half in design and expense . We' re almost at a final COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 89 1 2 site plan in design. And that' s the catch 22 that you always have coming before this Board 3 for a segment of the project when the Planning Board needs to review it to a certain extent, 4 and you want to see the elevation. And keep that in mind, that the design is almost -- I 5 mean, when you say the 90 feet is something you' re not real happy with, we tried to give 6 you a rendering so you can see it' s really going -- maybe you don' t like the other 7 buildings, and I'm sorry, but they are quite attractive as buildings go. And this is the 8 hamlet area. Even the proposed zoning codes is talking about HALO zones and is expanding 9 the hamlets . When this comes to the Town' s development, you can' t eliminate growth 10 altogether; most of it is going to be pushed towards the hamlet, and this is a normal -- 11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I realize it' s already there . 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. What we will do is we will discuss the status with 13 the Planning Board of this so we can coordinate everything with them. 14 MS . MOORE : So you' re going to give me a date or not? 15 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Regardless of whether it' s a Type 2 action or not, this 16 Board is going to take into consideration the neighbors' concerns . 17 MS . MOORE : Oh, absolutely. And I think we can address that with this Board 18 because traffic problems are town wide . To the extent that we can address it by curb cuts 19 and the appropriate placement and cross-easements, we've done, the best that we 20 can given the constraints of the property. We cannot rebuild the road for the Town or put up 21 a drawbridge to keep the public out . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What would be 22 our next available date? MS . KOWALSKI : I would recommend 23 December. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: December 24 18th. Okay, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until December 18th. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 90 1 2 favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 3 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Motion 4 carried. MS . MOORE : Given that we've asked 5 for an interpretation, maybe prior to the 18th continuation, we could get an interpretation 6 since, I think it' s crucial a Town-wide issue if that' s a possibility. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We will discuss that . 8 MS . MOORE : Okay. MR. KAELIN: Can I ask one 9 question? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The topic has 10 come up as far as curb cuts, with this project that' s next door to me, someone had mentioned 11 to me that they were talking about a curb cut on my west property line; if that is approved 12 that means they' re going to have to come out on Cox Lane to make a right or left-hand 13 turn. MS . MOORE : I' ll address that . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The hearing is closed. 15 MS . MOORE: I'm sorry, what? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The hearing 16 is closed, but a lot of that has to do with site plan elements so, Mr. Kaelin -- 17 MS . MOORE : We' ll show him the site plan. 18 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Right now what you' re saying is not on the record. 19 MS . MOORE : Okay. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I apologize 20 for the delays . We do have a request for a five minute recess . Make a motion to make a 21 five minute recess . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 23 Board responded in favor, and a brief recess was taken. ) 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I' d like to make a motion to reconvene . 25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 91 1 2 f avor.. (Whereupon, all Members of the 3 Board responded in - favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 4 hearing is on behalf of J Boomer is there someone here to speak on behalf of that 5 application? MR. BOOMER: Hello . My name is 6 James Boomer. I'm putting in an application for a two and a half foot height variance for 7 a detached garage . The reason I'm going to for a two and a half foot is I'm restoring a 8 couple of Corvettes that I' d like to -- and the garage that I 'm building is going to have 9 ten foot main bay so I could put a hydraulic lift, put the cars up. So I need that extra 10 two feet to accommodate that lift . I'm building it on the side of my property that 11 abuts Town sump, which is heavily overgrown. I brought pictures of my property 12 that shows I have 40 foot pine trees surrounding the whole place . I don' t think 13 that two and a half foot would impact anybody. I don' t think anybody would even see it . I ' ll 14 show you those pictures (handing) . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . 15 MR. BOOMER: I believe some of my neighbors are going to probably speak against 16 it, but the reason I 'm here is for the two and a half foot variance, and I believe they' re 17 opposed to the garage in general . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: These are 18 your cars? MR. BOOMER: Yeah. I own a 167 19 and ' 73 Corvette that I've been playing with for the last three years . 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why is it that you have proposed a detached garage as 21 opposed to connecting this to your house? MR. BOOMER: I don' t believe I 22 could probably do that, but I have an attached garage now under the house that the cars are 23 in, but it' s a passageway to the kitchen that everybody walks through and bangs the cars . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Why not just enlarge that? 25 MR. BOOMER: I think structurally, there' s an oil tank in the way I' d have to dig COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 92 1 2 out a 550 gallon fuel tank. I mean I wanted to actually place it next to the house but 3 because of Town code I couldn' t place it next to the house, they wanted it past the rear of 4 the house . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Unless it 5 was attached. MR. BOOMER: Excuse me? 6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Unless it was attached. 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If it' s attached you could incorporate it right into 8 the house . MS . KOWALSKI : It doesn' t need a 9 variance . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You wouldn' t 10 need a variance . That' s what we' re asking you. Because you already have a garage, if 11 you wanted to expand that space, why not just do it in the main house? 12 MR. BOOMER: Because no matter how I extend it, it' s still going to be the 13 entranceway to the kitchen, that everybody uses bringing packages to the kitchen, which 14 is where my cars keep getting banged up from. And I 'm at the point of getting one of them 15 painted, and I really don' t want to spend a lot of money painting it to have everybody 16 bang it up. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: In other 17 words, you' ll spend a lot of money on this garage? 18 MR. BOOMER: Right . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Where are you 19 going to keep these cars once you restore them? 20 MR. BOOMER: Hopefully in the garage that I want to build. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: When I read though your application, you said you wanted 22 the additional height on the building to be able to stand up on the second floor, correct? 23 MR. BOOMER: I'm going to use the second floor as like an attic storage for some 24 of the car parts . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why can you 25 not restore the vehicles on the first floor of the proposed garage? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 93 1 2 MR. BOOMER: Because I'm also planning I got two John Deere tractors and a 3 bunch of other car stuff . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where do 4 you have those now? MR. BOOMER: Right Now they' re in 5 a portable plastic shed, that I want to take down and put all this stuff in, you know, one 6 of those things you buy at BJ' s . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You have 7 another shed toward the rear of your property too, right? 8 MR. BOOMER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The Board 9 is not very well inclined to give you a variance on your height for a garage . If you 10 would attach it to the house, you could have an increased height . 11 MR. BOOMER: So if I attach it to the house, I could have the same height as the 12 house; is that what you' re saying? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Basically, 13 yes, I believe so. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: There' s a 14 concern on this because if you look at the plans, really, you' re showing what amounts to 15 a full second story on this . And the Board always has concerns when we see this . We have 16 concerns because suppose you decide to sell the property in six months, and we gave you 17 the height variance, what we' re looking at in reality is almost a 900 square foot two story 18 building, that is located five feet from a property line, and there' s a great deal of 19 concern that while it may not be your intention to convert it into illegal housing 20 space, there is a great deal of concern in that respect in terms of -- you may not do it, 21 you may have no intentions of doing it, but we certainly don' t want to lay the groundwork for 22 such an scenario in the future . And as Board Member Horning said that is why the Board does 23 not look favorably in creating oversized accessory structures in residential 24 neighborhoods . So I'm giving you from the Town' s 25 perspective -- from our perspective -- I'm sure you' re well aware of the impact that a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 94 1 2 lot of the illegal housing has had on our school districts . We don' t want to contribute 3 to that . So one of the things that we' re charged with looking at under the law is do 4 you have an alternative, and the question here is : You have a garage, you have convertibles 5 that you want to restore, why not put that addition right on to your house as opposed to 6 creating this 900 , two story square foot structure? That' s the question. 7 MR. BOOMER: If you' re allowing me to attach it to my house it' s 900 square 8 foot . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s an 9 addition. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It' s 10 different . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s an 11 addition to the house it would be an addition. Let' s see what happens . Board Member 12 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No 13 comment, mirroring comments of Mr. Horning. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva. 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think, again, it' s too large for the neighborhood and 15 set a precedent also. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see 16 comments and questions from the audience . Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor 17 of the application? Is there anyone who would like to speak against the application? Sir. 18 MR. MAZZARESE : Yes . I 'm Charles Mazzarese, and I live directly across the 19 street from Mr. Boomer, and, again, what you indicated the concern that you have, we have 20 the same thing. We have a situation right now that we' re trying to fight and look into 21 where -- first of all, let me back up. Mr. Boomer and all of us are a member of 22 Mattituck Salt Air Association, which does not permit a second garage . It only permits one 23 family residence, and one garage per lot either attached or detached. And Mr. Boomer 24 knows that . I mean, the covenants, I know you' re not supposed to enforce it, it' s not 25 your duty to enforce our covenants, but I would like you to help us enforce our COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 95 1 2 covenants . We have a situation where another member of our association submitted an 3 application but he didn' t need a variance so a permit was issued without us knowing it, and 4 he put a permit in for a one story two car garage . It turned out to be a two story 5 home -- a garage, with an apartment upstairs and a deck, Anderson windows, heat and 6 everything else . And we' re fighting that now. We don' t want the same thing to happen here . 7 And not only that, this is a monstrous structure, 32 by 38 by 24 , I don' t 8 think his original home is the same size right now, and there' s no evidence of practical 9 difficulty for him, like you said, to put the garage next to his home . If he puts another 10 extension on to his existing garage, then he' s in conformity, he' s in compliance with our 11 covenants and there should be no problem, and our concern too is, we don' t want the noise 12 pollution or the paint pollution, or whatever' s going to happen with this . This is 13 not a commercial property, this is residential property. I don' t know what he' s going to do 14 with that later. I don' t know if he' s going to make it into an apartment later, or someone 15 else purchases the property and make it into an apartment . So we can request that the 16 Board deny his application. If he makes the garage as an extension, then he' s in 17 compliance with our covenants, which, I mean they were written in perpetuity, and he knows 18 about it . I don' t know why he submitted that application. I would submit that the Board 19 help us out and do the right thing. I 'm sure you will . Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak 21 against the application? MR. WAYNE : My name is Michael 22 Wayne, Junior and my parents live next door to the Boomers . My question is what' s to stop 23 Mr. Boomer from repairing other people' s cars? I mean, you' re putting up a lift, come on, 24 basically standing under a lift . You' re about six feet you got the height of a car, another 25 four and a half feet; he' s making it commercialized, and it should be taken into COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 96 1 2 consideration that he could be repairing other cars a side business, which everybody likes to 3 do. But this is a residential community. We bought property in the community based on the 4 covenants attached to it . If he wants to attach it to the house, as you recommend, 5 that' s fine . Otherwise deny this appeal . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, 6 sir. MR. MELAGE : My name is Arthur 7 Melage, I've been a resident up there for 30 some-odd years . The only question I have is 8 what constitutes a garage by your Board? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That the code 9 defines sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we 10 have that defined? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The code 11 defines it, sir, the code has the definition of a detached garage . There have been 12 questions here that have been raised that are legitimate questions as to whether or not this 13 meets our code definition of a detached garage . I think those points will be taken 14 into consideration. MR. MELAGE: I think you boys are 15 doing a good job, and I guess everybody will abide by the ruling. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Someone else who would like to speak? Yes, sir. 17 MR. WILLS : My name is Jack Wills . I live around the corner from Mr. Boomer. He 18 wants to put up a 900 square foot garage with a lift . He said he has. a hobby in restoring 19 cars . He' s putting out $60 , 000 probably for this building and this lift; that' s a very 2.0 expensive hobby. Is he understated about what he' s going to do in his future, or is this 21 going to be for his own hobby or his own amusement? It looks very suspicious . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Is there someone else who would like to 23 speak on this application? Mr. Boomer, if you could just 24 answer a few questions . Mr. Boomer, I think you kin&of heard the sentiments of the Board 25 and the community. And some of the points have been very valid. I mean, normally one COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 97 1 2 does not spend $60, 000 to work on two cars . MR. BOOMER: Well, that' s 3 somebody came up with that number, that' s not the number that I'm spending. 4 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Even if you could build this garage for $30 , 000 , the Board 5 would really question, are you saying that that' s all you would ever use this for? 6 MR. BOOMER: I have two Corvettes, that' s all I'm going to do is my 7 two Corvettes . I'm not painting cars . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And you 8 would have no objection to any member of this Board upon 24 hours notice entering upon your 9 property to insure that' s what' s going on? MR. BOOMER: Certainly. I ' ll sign 10 the slip right now. I have two cars . Everybody knows . I have two Corvettes . 11 That' s what I play with; that' s all I play with. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Before we wrap this up, Mr. Horning, any further 13 questions? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No . But I 14 will say I don' t go for the increased height . I don' t understand the necessity of it . 15 MR. BOOMER: From what I understand, I could build this same footprint, 16 and everybody' s worried how big it is, if I just drop that down two and a half feet . Then 17 there' s no problem with everybody. All these arguments don' t go away, I still have the same 18 legal detached garage . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You might 19 have the covenant issues still, but you wouldn' t need a variance from us . 20 MR. BOOMER: The association had a vote three days ago, and it was voted like 21 32 to 12 not to enforce this covenant . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We don' t 22 know about this . But you' re here for the variance on the height only? 23 MR. BOOMER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You' re 24 correct . If it was 18 feet high, you would not be here . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, Mr. Goehringer? COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 98 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I , unfortunately, was a little detained coming in 3 here and you and Mr. Horning were discussing storage upstairs; is that correct? 4 MR. BOOMER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 5 personally think, notwithstanding the covenant issue, which again, this gentleman is 6 absolutely correct, we are not bound by it; we certainly don' t like to go around it, okay, 7 but 18 feet is a high garage, it' s a high situation, and, you know, it' s difficult for 8 this Board to deal and stomach with something that exceeds the code . And that' s the story. 9 MR. BOOMER: I believe at 18 feet, because I think this other neighbor that they 10 brought up, built the two story and garage and did do the apartment above it, which I 'm not 11 doing. But legally, if I did the 18 feet I could still build the thing and have an 12 apartment above it legally. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s 13 inaccurate . MR. BOOMER: I know I can' t have 14 an apartment . I don' t want an apartment . But the whole argument is because I'm going to go 15 that extra two feet that I'm going to put the apartment up there . 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That' s part of the argument that we've heard. We've heard 17 a number of other arguments . I think the Board has given you a clear indication on our 18 feelings on this matter, and if there' s no other comments from the audience . Sir. 19 MR. MAZZARESE : Yeah, I just want to add that the structure that he' s talking 20 about 32 by 38 -- MR. BOOMER: 32 by 28 . 21 MR. MAZZARESE : Well, it' s huge -- by 21 foot high. Like he said, he could put 22 an apartment up there, but our covenants doesn' t allow that . Again, know I know you' re 23 not supposed to enforce our covenants, but you could at least help us enforce our covenants, 24 and if he puts it attached to his home, fine, he' s in compliance with us, and he' s in 25 compliance with you. But we' re afraid it' s going to be another apartment, not maybe by COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 99 1 2 him but someone else . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 3 anyone else who would like to speak from the audience? Seeing no hands I move to close the 4 hearing and reserve decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 6 (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in favor. ) 7 MS . KOWALSKI : Could I have your name, sir? 8 MR. MAZZARESE : Charles Mazzarese, M-A-Z-Z-A-R-E-S-E . I submitted copy of a 9 written -- MS . KOWALSKI : Yes, you did. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, thank you very much. 11 The next hearing is on behalf of Raymond and Agnes Combs . Is there someone 12 here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? If I'm talking fast, I 'm meaning 13 to because we' re running very late, sir. MR. SCHWARTZ : I' ll be short . 14 My name is Mark Schwartz, I'm the architect for the project . 15 The existing square footage of the house is in the range of 910 square feet . The 16 owners are looking to expand it to approximately 1860 square feet . To be cost 17 effective, we would lake to utilize some of the existing foundation as much as possible, 18 reuse some of the rafters that are there and extend them up to a new ridge as shown on the 19 elevation sketches . Unfortunately, because of the 20 existing width of the house, we can' t make the side yards using this cost effective way, 21 following through with the same walls out . So, we' re looking for the relief on the side 22 yards . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I did review 23 the application. It' s pretty straightforward to me . I understand there is some concern by 24 the neighbors, so we will definitely hear those and take those into consideration. Do 25 the Board Members have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why five COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 100 1 2 feet to the property line, Mark, on the garage; is it three feet or five feet? 3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Five feet . I believe that' s what' s allowed by code . 4 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s a shed, right? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a 5 proposed garage . MR. SCHWARTZ : It' s a garage . Oh, 6 talking about -- that' s an existing frame shed. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Garage is not in the variance? 8 MR. SCHWARTZ : No . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was 9 taken out? MR. SCHWARTZ : It doesn' t need it . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Member Horning, any questions, Mr. Horning? 11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I was down there . I see no problem with it . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak 14 in favor of the application? Yes, ma' am. Is there anyone? 15 MS . PANTING: My name is Helen Pantino. I live in Peconic on Indian Neck 16 approximately 36 years or more . And all along in the woods there in the creek have been 17 smaller homes, probably used mostly for summer homes, and I would have absolutely no 18 objection to having this addition put on their home . At least not a 3 , 000 or 4, 000 square 19 foot building like some people are trying to do. But I have no objection. 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you very much, ma' am. Is there someone else who 21 would like to speak on this application, yes, ma' am. 22 MS . COMBS : Good afternoon, my name is Agnes Combs . The property has been in 23 my family since it was built in 1946 , 147 . Two additions that were put on right when the 24 next two years have been there since we have been there, and I see no reason why we 25 wouldn' t have a problem extending back towards the road. It' s not affecting the waterfront COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 101 1 2 or anything that' s all we' re asking. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you 3 very much. Is there someone else who would like to speak in favor or against the 4 application? Yes, sir. MR. FIRST: My name is Mike First . 5 I live in Cutchogue . I'm step-dad to Mark Lowenheim, who is part owner of the property 6 next door. Neither one of them could be here . They asked me to give you some remarks, and I 7 could read them in. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Would you 8 like to or would you like us to read them in? MR. FIRST: Somebody should read 9 them. Would you prefer to read them? CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s up to 10 you. MR. FIRST: I' ll read them. This 11 is from Mark and Walter. "Looking at questionnaire the 12 architect, Mark Schwartz filled out for the Board of Appeals we noted that he stated the 13 woods would hide the new house, but actually the foliage of the mature oak starts very high 14 and the Combs do not have any shrubs that would block the new house. 15 "In addition, Mr. Schwartz wrote that the wetlands are shown in the survey, but 16 they' re not on the survey supplied to us . "Additionally, the architect has 17 not supplied any real plans except for rough sketches . What assurances do we have that the 18 finished house will look like that? " -- Now, here' s the thing -- "Last year Raymond Combs 19 told us that when he renovated his home, he would be removing the addition to his house 20 put up many years ago . That addition actually went over the property line and a deal was 21 worked out with the previous owner to our home giving the Combs the property under the 22 addition. Presently, their home comes within three inches of the fence . 23 "In conclusion, we' re not opposed to the Combs' intended renovation of their 24 home, but leaving the present setback of three inches seems unnecessary considering the scope 25 of the project . We' re requesting the removal of the prior addition to make the easterly COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 102 1 2 side setback at least ten feet . We truly believe this is a fair compromise . " 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Schwartz . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When he' s done, I need to ask him a question. 5 MR. COMBS : Good afternoon, my name is Raymond Combs, and we' re the occupants 6 of the house . I might mention that if our 7 neighbor' s concerned they shouldn' t have taken so much of the natural foliage down. Our 8 house was hardly visible, or theirs was from our house until they literally cleared the 9 land. Natural growth was there all the years before that, and it was a great separation. 10 And still, on their side is approximately 30 feet, I believe between the fence and our 11 property. It' s true many, many years ago that the survey wasn' t that accurate and that 12 Mr. Knolls when he was alive, who was the former owner, when he retired observed that 13 indeed our house did encroach two inches on their property, and he was very gracious and 14 he said, if you will pay the legal expense for the preparation of a deed, I will deed the 15 required amount at no charge . I tried to buy another five feet so we had a little bit of 16 land, and Jim passed away and then his wife passed away also. 17 We' re not asking for any extension. We wouldn' t be that brash, but due 18 to some other constraints, we would like to keep the house line, basement line the way it 19 is . Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 20 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 21 Schwartz, I ' d like to ask him a question. Mr. Schwartz, I'm looking at 22 the -- and you may have said this already, we' re talking about a first story addition of 23 888 square feet? MR. SCHWARTZ : Total would be 24 approximately 1860 and existing is 910 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Existing 25 is 910 and proposed? MR. SCHWARTZ : 1860 . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 103 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHR:INGER: 1860 total? 3 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there 4 is no second floor? MR. SCHWARTZ : Well, there is a 5 second floor -- well, it' s a Cape style house . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So it would 6 be what, one and a half stories? MR. SCHWARTZ : Just as it is 7 drawn. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay, I don' t 8 really have any questions . I understand the neighbor' s request, however, it is not the 9 existing construction of the house that requires the variance before us . It' s the 10 proposed construction, and although the existing house is two or three inches from the 11 property line, that is not properly before us . We don' t really have any jurisdiction over 12 that . MS . KOWALSKI : Mark, maybe you 13 could explain how you got the amended disapproval there . 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: This is kind of hot off the press . It came in the 24th, so 15 you are going to further encroach on that area that is three inches from the -- 16 MR. SCHWARTZ : No. That area is one room right now. It' s going to remain one 17 room. The walls and roof will stay intact . The alternation is for the rest of 18 the first floor that I did not have on the survey originally. 19 MS . KOWALSKI : They don' t understand where you' re doing the changes on 20 the existing footprint ; would you explain that? 21 MR. SCHWARTZ : : Yes . This area, the hatched area, shows the addition, and this 22 is what I submitted yesterday because I wasn' t aware and I wanted to make sure it was clear 23 that the rest of the house was going to be altered but not this piece . 24 MS . KOWALSKI : Where is the alteration on the rest of it? 25 \ CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes, this is not included. It' s going to be this area here COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 104 1 2 (indicating) . MS . KOWALSKI : Which is also 3 nonconforming. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not 4 writing a decision until we get the plans . I apologize, but it just can' t be done . 5 MS . KOWALSKI : You've got to get everything ahead of time . 6 MR. SCHWARTZ : A floor plan you want . I have the elevation settings . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need the floor plan showing what the square footage 8 is existing, what it' s going to be . MR. SCHWARTZ : Certainly. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In other words, what we need to see is just like you 10 thatched out the proposed addition and where you have area of alteration, if you could 11 double that it to clearly indicate what is being, where there' s a second story. 12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Absolutely. I' ll draft that up. 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: That will make it a lot easier for all of us and the 14 neighbors too. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you 15 could have that before October 9th. If that would be greatly appreciated. 16 MR. SCHWARTZ : We will . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The Board has 17 to take a look, there is a new map, there is a new survey, not a new survey but a new map on 18 this that just came in yesterday on this, which shows the second story on the old house 19 over part of the main house . It does not show it over the entire house or that small area 20 that is three inches from the property line, but the main house, but we really don' t have a 21 clear -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Picture . 22 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s not clear enough for us on the survey at this 23 point . So we' re going to ask the applicant to give us that information and we' re going to -- 24 would the Board like to leave this hearing open? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should leave it open until we have COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 105 1 2 everything we need. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think it' s 3 best because, Mr. Schwartz, in all fairness to the neighbors, if there are concerns then they 4 can take a look at this map and have a clear understanding of what' s involved. So we just 5 want to be fair to everybody. MR. SCHWARTZ : Okay. 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We' re going to adjourn this to October 9th at 6 : 30 ; is 7 that okay? Very good. Thank you very much. Make a motion to adjourn the 8 hearing until October 9th at 6 : 30 . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 9 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 10 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Thank you. The next hearing is on Gerald 12 Dieffenbach, is there somebody here that would like to speak on behalf of that? 13 MR. WILDE : Gerald Dieffenbach will . My name is Reggie Wilde, Architect and 14 I'm representing Mr. Raia. The house in question has a small 15 footprint of 800 square feet on a very irregular site that was sort of cut up when 16 the land was subdivided so it' s rather irregular. The house has a dormer on the 17 second floor, and this proposal is to remove the dormer and put a new roof on, which will 18 be a little higher so Mr. and Mrs . Diffenbach can stand up in the bedroom. We' re not adding 19 anything to the site, any living space . We' re just raising the roof . We can' t raise the 20 roof without raising the rafters and bringing the whole thing up, increasing the height 21 three feet . The house as it stands is about 20 feet high. It' s a very small house . 22 We are replacing the roof in its entirety. So it has more structural integrity 23 than it has right now with the ridge and the dormer coming off the existing ridge . So it' s 24 for structural soundness, head room and adding some light and space . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: You' re essentially raising the dormer and putting a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 106 1 2 look out, there' s no change in the footprint? - MR. WILDE : No change in the 3 footprint . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mrs . Oliva? 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: : No, I was there I don' t have any questions . It' s fine . 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No 6 questions rights now. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 7 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 8 down there and looked at the site, the property is relatively small, and it' s 9 extremely tight . You did say that you' re not increasing the footprint? 10 MR. WILDE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you 11 say you' re going up three feet, are you saying three feet from the existing ridge or the knee 12 walls? MR. WILDE : From the ridge because 13 we' re going to set the bottom of the truss where the ridge is now which would give them 14 eight foot clearance in the upstairs room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 15 Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see if 16 anyone in the audience has any comments or questions . Seeing no hands, I'm going to make 17 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 19 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is Norah Bischoff and Jane Winsch; is 21 there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the applicants? 22 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz . This application is for an addition to the 23 rear of the house of 168 square feet, one story, that' s the application. 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I reviewed this, it' s a very, very small addition 516" to 25 be exact, by 15, small niche in the rear of the house and the existing setback is 13 feet, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 107 1 2 and ,what will happen when you fill in the niche because of the angle of the house, it 3 will go to 12 , but I really don' t have any questions about this application. Mrs . 4 Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don' t have 5 any questions, Mr. Schwartz . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 6 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. 7 Schwartz, it' s diminimus . MR. SCHWARTZ : Good. 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. Boy, you' re flying here . 9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I 'm agreeing with my colleagues . I did take a 10 / look at this . I believe you could actually have fire fighting apparatus from the Navy 11 Street area to getting access in an emergency is not a real major concern. Small proposal . 12 MR. SCHWARTZ : Great . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 13 anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor over or against the application? 14 Seeing no hands I would like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 15 until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. (Whereupon, all Members of the 17 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next 18 is on behalf of Frederick and Antonia VonZuben. Is there someone here who would 19 like to speak on behalf of that application? MS . MOORE : Okay. I hope to go as 20 fast as the rest, as the previous ones went . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It' s up to 21 you, Pat . \ MS . MOORE : Okay, I' ll try. 22 VonZuben is the contractor -- well, actually the homeowner was doing extensive landscaping 23 I think if you've seen the property all the landscaping that was done, she wanted to put, 24 the owner wanted to put an arbor on both sides of the garage as part of the landscape design. 25 They did not realize that an arbor would be considered a structure and requiring a COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 108 1 2 building permit . The building -- the contractor believed, because he saw other 3 trellises, arbors, that are generally along the street at the entrance of the properties, 4 that this would be similarly treated. Then they came to me and I suggested that maybe, 5 you know, that this is the right procedure to undertake . 6 I want to correct something that I don' t know where it came from, the arbor that 7 is in question is not attached to the garage . It stands alone and is not part of the garage . 8 It stands independently of it, and matches for purposes of symmetry the arbor to the north, 9 both of them are detached. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Where does it 10 say it' s detached from the garage? MS . MOORE : I don' t know it came 11 from you guys . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Probably just 12 typographical error. MS . MOORE : Okay, good. Because I 13 checked the notice of disapproval in the building permit . I thought that maybe I had 14 in error described it . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No . It' s 15 just a typo. MS . MOORE : Good. 16 MS . KOWALSKI : No, it' s on one of the plans that I saw. 17 MS . MOORE : In any case, regardless of where it came from, it is 18 detached. I have photographs of it for your records . I also -- the contractor -- 19 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s close to the garage . 20 MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s close . There is landscaping. The trees, the pine 21 trees that are along the street are not very healthy. They' re actually warranteed by the 22 landscaper, and they' re to be replaced with healthier trees, but I guess they haven' t come 23 back to do that . It will be landscaped, and eventually we hope that the shrubbery will 24 take, and it will not be as noticeable from the road. 25 It' s an architectural feature . It has really no function other than aesthetics, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 109 1 2 so. If you have questions, I will try to answer them for you. 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How did the applicant come to build it there? 4 MS . MOORE : Pardon? BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why did the 5 applicant build it there? MS . MOORE: They definitely 6 wanted the arbor on the north side because that' s where their patio is . They' re going to 7 plant some of the -- what are the vines, the purple flower vines? 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Wisteria? MS . MOORE : Wisteria. They wanted 9 to plant that when they looked at their landscape plan, it looked off balance . So she 10 wanted to build one, the equivalent structure on the south side of the garage . That' s 11 why -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let' s see 12 what happens . Mrs . Oliva. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I 've been 13 there . I looked at it . I don' t have a problem. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. Horning. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No, I 15 don' t . But then the applicant just decided to build it without a building permit . 16 MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s not that they decided to do it knowing that they would 17 be in violation, they -- I submitted photographs -- there are trellises, certainly 18 not of this scale . There are trellises and fences and architectural landscaping that' s 19 all over town of different size, and so they believed that since it was really, it wasn' t 20 holding anything up, it' s not a structural -- it' s not a structural building, that it would 21 be exempt . It would be the equivalent of a fence . They were in error, and that' s when 22 they had to come before this Board. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Mr. 23 Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was 24 down there Saturday. I did speak to a neighbor. They were not terribly happy with 25 it . They were more upset about the shrubs not the taking, so to speak, as you just COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 110 1 2 discussed. So, in light of that, I think we have to put a restriction or condition on 3 this, if the Board is so inclined to grant it, that the bushes have to be maintained. 4 MS . MOORE : That' s certainly -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What side is 5 that, Gerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s 6 along the southeast side . MS . MOORE: Southeast, yes . 7 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They' re existing? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, there actually -- 9 MS . MOORE : Actually, there are some spots that need additional shrubs . So 10 why don' t we screen it to say with appropriate screening on that southeast side? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are extremely mature shrubs . They' re extremely 12 wide and they' re high. MS . MOORE : Is that old vegetation 13 or the new stuff? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The old 14 stuff . We certainly want the old stuff removed and the -- 15 MS . MOORE : Removed? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, 16 the stuff is dying. And we want to stagger some new stuff in between. And we need that 17 continuously maintained. If it requires a drip system, it requires a drip system; 18 whatever it takes to keep that maintained. Shrubs have to be watered. 19 MS . MOORE : The ones that were planted were mature I think, and maybe the 20 storms we had actually strained them. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Is there 21 anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone 22 in the audience who would like to speak against the application? 23 MS . PHILISTEIN: I'm Josephine Philistein, Southold. I'm not really against 24 it, but whenever we had building we always had to get permits . If you did anything against 25 this, you were served with a stop work order and several of us complained as we saw this COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 111 1 2 building, which has been going on for about three years, now we saw these arbor 3 construction going up, and we complained, that was in June I think and no stop work, nothing 4 happened, to continue, and now they' re applying for permits, as is, which we find, a 5 few of us in the neighborhood find this unfair because we all had to go by the deeds, you 6 know, by the way things are processed, the way you have to go about getting permission, and 7 this was followed through completion. So we think it' s very unfair. It looks as the 8 garage is the most beautiful garage I ever saw, and these arbors they go from about four 9 feet from the road, and so it' s -- I don' t expect it to be anything other than this arbor 10 what it is, it is awfully close to the road. And they did not follow the right process; 11 that was our complaint . So we' re not asking for it to be 12 taken down, certainly, but I wonder why the law is so unfair, that some of us have to go 13 through this step by step and this was continued. 14 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Actually, if you build something without a permit, there 15 really is no penalty. MS . MOORE : There is actually, 16 the application is fee is . doubled, doubled at the building department when you go in on an 17 as-built permit .. MS . PHILISTEIN: Stop work things 18 in the neighborhood, you had to stop until you got it legal . That' s what I have a problem 19 with. Proximity to the road, you have to get a building permit; we have to get variances 20 for things that were 50 feet back. This is four feet, it seems to be, from the road. 21 That' s about right . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So 40 feet 22 from the road? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four 23 feet from the property line, 3 . 2 at its closest . 24 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Are there any other comments from anyone in the audience? 25 Board Members? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 112 1 2 decision until later. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 4 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: The next hearing is on behalf of Victor Catalano. Is 6 there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of that application? 7 MR. CATALANO: I'm Victor Catalano . I've asked for a variance to put a 8 garage on a lot adjoining my property on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel . It' s a 9 variance for, I guess, a reduction of the sideline to the westerly property. There' s no 10 other structure on this lot . It had an approved building envelope on a prior meeting 11 that I had with the Building Department showing where our house and a garage could 12 eventually go . I've not decided to pursue any other building ventures, but this garage would 13 serve my house, which is a middle lot on the property, and as it turns out my daughter owns 14 a lot on the water that' s part of this parcel, that has a one car garage. My home has no 15 garage . We have had this situation since 1980 with the front house having one car garage the 16 middle house having no garage . There' s really no other area to build a garage on either 17 parcel . I've had both looked at . I think the survey shows constraints on both sides of the 18 house, both houses . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Let me just 19 stop you. One of the things that a couple of Board members had asked me about this and 20 myself, when you' re speaking about the three lots, what we have in our file is one lot . 21 MR. CATALANO: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So when 22 you' re referring to where your principal house is, and your daughter' s, that' s one of the 23 problems is that we' re trying to review this application. We don' t have a view of the 24 three lots . All we have here is a survey of where the proposed garage is, which is, you 25 know, it' s called Lot Number 2 , I believe it is . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 113 1 2 MR. CATALANO: Yes, ma' am. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: And we can' t 3 make any assessment as to where your house is, the distance or any of those other factors 4 because we simply don' t have that . What we really need to see is, we need to see, you 5 refer to in your application, you refer to three lots, and the need for this garage . We 6 have some concerns from neighbors but we have nothing, no picture in front of us of where 7 the three lots are . All we have is one isolated lot, and it' s very, very, difficult 8 for us . MR. CATALANO: I 'm sorry. I 9 had -- I wasn' t advised to provide the other pictures . I can do that; it' s not a problem. 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the other two lots do you have a surveys on them so that 11 when you say, here' s my lots and here' s -- MR. CATALANO : Yes, ma' am. 12 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: It would make things so easy for us, because we simply have 13 no way of calculating the neighbors' concerns or anything else without looking at all three 14 together. And one other thing, I know that 15 this has been the subject of a number of prior appeals, and maybe you can clarify this for 16 us, in 1985 the three lots were created. Zoning Board of Appeals approval Lot 13-1, Lot 17 13-2 and Lot 13-3 . What happened to 13-1 and how did we get 13 . 4? 18 MR. CATALANO: I think it was 2 , 3 and 4 . 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: No . I went 20 through, and it was like a mystery. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I did too. 21 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: On the old ZBA approvals it refers to Lot 13-1, 13-2 and 22 13-3 , and every single variance application there is no mention of a Lot 13-4 . Now when 23 we look at the tax map we see a lot 13-4 , and 13-1 has disappeared. . In other words, I'm 24 trying to cross reference what the Zoning Board approved before and what we have now and 25 somewhere along the line Lot 13-1 disappeared and 13-4 showed up. COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 114 1 2 MR. CATALANO: Could 13-1 have been the original total parcel? 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We don' t know. 4 MR. CATALANO: And the resulting three be 2 , 3 , and 4 . Because I don' t ever 5 remember a 13-1 . Honestly, I' ll go back in records . It had been a single parcel when I 6 bought it in 1980, I believe, and at that point it then was made into three . 7 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s probably 1 . Usually when a property is redeeded, and it 8 would have been redeeded sometime after 1979 probably? 9 MR. CATALANO: Yes . MS . KOWALSKI : It gets new 10 numbers . MR. CATALANO: Because, Linda, I 11 don' t ever remember a 1 . I remember my tax bill 2 , 3 and 4 . 12 MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t have the answer for you. You can find out from one of 13 the real estate offices, either the assessor' s office or the Suffolk County Center Real 14 Estate office . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Real 15 property, second floor. MS . KOWALSKI : Or the assessor' s 16 office can tell you. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir. 17 MR. CATALANO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The most 18 obvious question here why are you proposing to locate this garage outside of the building 19 envelope that you could put it in? MR. CATALANO: Strictly 20 aesthetics . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Nothing 21 else on the parcel . MR. CATALANO: Exactly, to put it 22 to one side . I only have a neighbor, residential neighbor to my east . There' s no 23 structure to my west at this point on the lot . Basically, to make it not as conspicuous in 24 the middle of the property. As I said, I don' t plan to do anything more . It' s really 25 strictly for garaging vehicles in the winter. BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And then COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 115 1 2 you sell a parcel and someone tries to build a house, and then you have this nonconforming 3 garage . I don' t understand the logic of why you cannot put it in the building envelope and 4 conform that way. Your biggest problem is the use is not allowed. A single family dwelling 5 would be allowed. MR. CATALANO: Yes . I was 6 apprised of that . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Not a 7 garage, but. now you' re compounding a situation by wanting to push it up to some setback 8 that' s going to be nonconforming. MR. CATALANO: This is why I'm 9 here . I'm asking for that consideration. Because either way it' s either going to be 10 where I've asked it to be, or it' s going to be in the middle of the property. So either way 11 it' s going to be, because we've decided for the two family residences we need a garage . I 12 personally -- we felt it would be aesthetically more pleasing hidden. I believe 13 you went to see the property; it' s more treed there. It would be a little more hidden than 14 stuck in the middle of the property. But if it' s got to go in the middle of the property, 15 it will go in the middle of the property. I think it would be much more pleasing to the 16 eye to my neighbors . BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You' re 17 asking for a lot in a way. You' re asking for a use that' s not conforming and placed in a 18 nonconforming position on the parcel, when in fact, you have ostensibly all kinds of areas 19 where you could place it would be at least conforming. 20 MR. CATALANO: Yes, sir, that' s completely correct . There' s a building 21 envelope that we could put the building smack in the middle and build it as large as we 22 want, but that was not our desire . We were trying to keep -- 23 MS . KOWALSKI : I think you were talking about planning a house for the 24 future . MR. CATALANO: Right, exactly. 25 That was why the building envelope had been done by the office here, show me what the COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 116 1 2 building envelope would be, but at this juncture, I do not have a plan for a house . 3 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think the most important thing before we -- because 4 Mr. Horning' s raised some good points -- I'm sure Mr. Goehringer will, but I really think 5 we need to see what all three properties are . I see on the survey, I see part of the brick 6 patio that' s over the property line, is that your property also? 7 MR. CATALANO: Yes, ma' am. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: See, we' re 8 not looking at everything. We are just looking at one lot, so we have no idea how it 9 relates to the three houses . MR. CATALANO: I had asked that 10 question, and I was advised that the other two lots had no impact . In other words, it 11 really -- the fact that one of the reasons I'm here, and as far as being a variance, that 12 it' s owned by family members -- CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They would 13 not have impact as far as the Building Department, but they definitely have impact as 14 to whether we' re going to grant a variance on this and our Board, yes, they do. 15 MR. CATALANO: Right, obviously. And obviously because there' s really no space 16 on the other two lots that a structure like this can go. 17 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have to see all that . 18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: My suggestion to you, sir, would be come up with 19 a plan on that parcel that included a house and the garage, if that' s what you need, and 20 then you come back to us with that plan so we would have an idea and with where you would 21 place a house on there, so that we don' t end up with a nonconforming thing, that -- oh, 22 well the garage is here now and I can' t do -- MR. CATALANO: If you look at the 23 picture, I believe the survey shows one of the things they suggested was to make sure the 24 garage stayed within the setback from where a house would have to be . You have to be 35 25 feet from the front; you have to -- BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right . But COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 117 1 2 you' re not proposing that . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yeah -- 3 that' s why. You' re right, I 'm not proposing that . 4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You' d be better off with a plan for a house, just my 5 suggestion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or merge 6 both properties . MR. CATALANO: Excuse me? 7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Or merge both properties to your existing house . Merge 8 this lot to your existing house . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: He' s saying 9 combine the lots with your existing house lot . 10 MR. CATALANO: And -- MS . KOWALSKI : Waive your right to 11 a new house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is 12 the only true way that we really can grant an accessory structure on that piece of property. 13 In reality we don' t do it . It' s been done once; it was done down on Moose Cove, and the 14 gentleman merged the two waterfront parcels, and I can tell you that was in 1986 . We just 15 don' t do it . We don' t create accessory -- cause it' s not accessory to anything. There' s 16 no dwelling to make it compatible with. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: In other 17 words, the other factor if you really look at this from a legal point of view, the use is 18 not permitted on a vacant lot . MR. CATALANO : Vacant lots . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: So, Mr. Catalano, the criteria for that in the 20 Town law you wouldn' t even want to come in here with that . 21 MR. CATALANO: Point of clarification, one last question, I know it' s 22 running late, a request for the house with the garage, still requesting a variance to be 23 over, closer to that lot line . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Over the 24 building envelope? MR. CATALANO: Yeah. If I ask for 25 the house with the garage and the garage being closer to that lot line -- COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 118 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn' t create that lot line, the Planning 3 Department created that lot line, that building envelope and that' s something -- 4 MS . KOWALSKI : The Planning Board did not create a building envelope . It' s the 5 Zoning Board setbacks, and if you can' t fit in the zoning setbacks, then you get an amended 6 disapproval from the Building Department, and you could submit a separate variance for that . 7 MR. CATALANO: But it would have to be for a house and garage? 8 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Yes . MR. CATALANO: And technically, I 9 can build in stages, right, if I had that approval for that house and garage, I could 10 start with my garage and as I went in stages then -- 11 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Then they would have to determine that . Do you want to 12 do this, you kind of -- do you want to consider some of these alternatives? Because 13 we could keep adjourning this, but I think Mr. Goehringer and Mr. Horning are have really 14 kind of pointed out the Board really doesn' t grant accessory uses on unimproved parcels 15 because it' s not accessory. And in order to get approval you' d have to have a use 16 variance; in order to get a use variance, it' s the toughest area in New York State Town Law 17 to get . MR. CATALANO : Okay, so then, 18 basically to come even with a request for the garage within the building envelope strictly 19 as a garage probably wouldn' t work either. So it would be the house and the garage . 20 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: If you have a house on the property, that' s fine, if you 21 want to merge or combine this parcel with your house lot it' s fine, but a garage by itself, 22 no, no. MR. CATALANO: All right . 23 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We just don' t want to waste your time . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no provision in the law to do it . 25 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: We have no way to do it . COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 119 1 2 MR. CATALANO: And that would be a whole new application for the house and the 3 garage . CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: I think what 4 you need to do is go over it with the Building Department first and say, if I do this what 5 will happen. MR. CATALANO: Right . 6 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Because we can' t say how the Building Department' s going 7 to respond. We have an idea, but it' s really up to them to kind of guide you on their end. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : I think there are time limits too. You have to build the house 9 together with the garage . You can' t just build the garage without the house . 10 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: They can go through those things and different options you 11 might have with them to get you off in the right direction. 12 MR. CATALANO: Okay, so the Building Department . 13 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Okay. To see if anyone in the audience has any 14 questions or comments or anything. AUDIENCE MEMBER: It' s not viable 15 now is it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 16 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: What I think we' ll do is we' re going to -- do you want to 17 close the hearing? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think 18 you should recess it without a date . Then you come back to us when you figure out . 19 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Exactly. That will leave things open for you after 20 you've kind of mulled on them, if it does require a new application, you can go that 21 route; if it doesn' t, you don' t have to go that route . 22 I'm going to make a motion to recess it without a date and look over some 23 options, and I think we've given you some things to think about . 24 MR. CATALANO: Very good, thank you. 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 120 1 2 f avor.. (Whereupon, all Members of the 3 Board responded in favor. ) CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: Resolution to 4 adjourn. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 5 CHAIRWOMAN TORTORA: All in favor. 6 (Whereupon, all Members of the Board responded in favor. ) 7 (Time ended: 4 : 13 p.m. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 121 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for 5 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true 7 record of the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am not related by 9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to 10 this action; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the 12 outcome of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 25th day of September, 2003 . 15 16 17 18 j L. 6/vFlorence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047