HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/23/2003 HEAR 1
A �
2 �11\ 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
October 23 , 2003
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13
14 Board Members Present
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member
18
19
20
21
22
24
25 NOV fl 7 2003
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 VICE CHAIRPERSON ORLANDO: My name
is Vincent Orlando, and I' ll be acting as vice
3 chair today since the newly appointed
chairperson, Mrs . Oliva, is not here today.
4 Also, we are missing several other people on
the Board today. Member Tortora is out ill
5 today, and also our secretary Linda is out
sick today. So it' s just the three of us here
6 today. We do have a quorum so we will be able
to hold this meeting.
7 Before we get to our first
hearing, I' d like to stand for the Pledge of
8 Allegiance .
(Whereupon, all present stood for
9 the Pledge of Allegiance . )
VICE' CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
10 In our first meeting on the agenda is
Application 5308 , Trippe and I have some
11 paperwork here that they are looking for an
adjournment to December 18th at 9 : 30 a.m.
12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll make a
motion to adjourn it .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
14 favor.
(Whereupon, all Board Members
15 present responded in favor. )
16 ----------------------------------------------------
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next on
the agenda is Application 5334 , Debra
18 Victoroff . We have to wait two minutes for
you until 9 : 40 . We' re a little bit early.
19 The time is now 9 :40, so the floor
is yours .
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning, I'm
Jim Fitzgerald representing Mrs . Victoroff .
21 When last we met, the issue of
wetlands was the major topic, and I ' d like to
22 address those questions first .
The neighboring property owners
23 apparently have only lately become concerned
with the presence of wetlands in their
24 community; however, we note that Colette
Politis got a permit to build a deck addition
25 in 1998 , and Corinne Chick got a permit to
build a new dwelling in 2000 . These are both
October 23 , 2003
3
1
2 adjoining properties . With wetlands in the
area both projects would require at least a
3 Trustees permit . If those permits had been
obtained, it would have necessitated
4 delineating the wetlands and we would not be
talking about hiring someone to do it now.
5 The neighbors have pictures of the
alleged wetlands and we have asked for copies
6 to review, along with information as to when
the pictures were taken and the details of the
7 camera placement, the direction of view in
each case. I have briefly examined the
8 pictures at the Trustees office and found that
they don' t look like any part of our property
9 that I have seen.
We have a current report from En
10 Consultants concerning the wetlands, not
alleged anymore . Mr. Hermann says according
11 to the definition of Chapter 97 of the Town
code, there are wetlands on or near the
12 property. He says, among other things, the
ecological value of the wetland is limited;
13 the wetlands area is small and lacking in
diversity. It is comprised almost entirely of
14 fragmites and nonnative and invasive plants .
It is completely surrounded by development .
15 It is extremely limited in its ability to
provide habitat or corridor for wildlife .
16 It' s current primary function appears to be as
a catch basin for runoff from the surrounding
17 properties, and it appears that its boundaries
have been artificially altered by surrounding
18 development probably because of fill placed to
raise the adjoining properties .
19 So, that in addition to the
construction project I mentioned, it appears
20 that the adjoining property owners at one time
placed fill directly in the wetlands, which
21 placement of fill was causing or contributing
for the need for our property to serve as a
22 catch basin.
Having said all that, I must now
23 point out that it has been the practice of
this Board to review and act upon applications
24 for area variances without consideration of
the presence or absence of wetlands on or near
25 the property in question. The Board knows
that if wetland permits are required for a
October 23 , 2003
4
1
2 given project the Building Department will not
issue a building permit without evidence that
3 such permits have been obtained, the same
applies to permits issued by the health
4 department for the installation of sanitary
systems .
5 I suggest that the Board should
act upon the present variance, without regard
6 to wetland situation, with the knowledge that
that aspect of the project will be reviewed by
7 the Trustees, and they do indeed know about
this project . If our application to the
8 Trustees result in the need to reconfigure the
project plan, we will, of course, return to
9 the Board for further review and approval .
Getting to the specific project,
10 the Building Department disapproval, as you
know, has been amended several times so that
11 it reflects our current proposal . The project
plan has been revised dated 9/12/03 , and
12 copies have been provided to the Board. The
deck surrounding the pool has been reduced in
13 size, as has the deck on the north side of the
house so that the total coverage is less than
14 20 percent . The porch shown in the original
plan has been deleted from the drawing since
15 the Town code exempts it from including it in
computing the setback.
16 The revised project plan dated
9/12/03 reflects our attempt to minimize the
17 relief requested. The side yard setbacks meet
the regulatory requirement . The overall depth
18 of the property varies from 77 feet to 86
feet . In passing, we should note that these
19 depths are the same respectively on the
properties on either side of ours . With the
20 required 35 foot front and rear yard setbacks,
the house would be only seven to 16 feet deep .
21 The proposed house is only 24 feet deep and
the rear deck which adds eight feet to the
22 overall depth, is a minimal amenity. The
proposed front and rear yard setbacks are not
23 inconsistent with other properties in the
neighborhood.
24 At the last meeting Miss
Rosenblum, the attorney, said they had a
25 question about the single and separate search,
and we've- asked for specifics on that but
October 23 , 2003
5
1
2 haven' t heard anything yet . I have a chart
which depicts the ownership against time of
3 all the properties in the neighborhood, if you
would like to see that . Thank you.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you
going to give us a copy?
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you
6 going to give us a copy?
MR. FITZGERALD If you' d like .
7 As a matter of fact, I ' ll give you seven
copies . The numbers across the top of the
8 chart are the lot numbers on the tax map.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any
9 questions from the Board Members?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr.
10 Fitzgerald, on the Notice of disapproval that
was amended October 16th, is that the last one
11 and the one that we would be considering?
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes, yes, I would
12 hope it' s the last one .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr.
13 Fitzgerald, I know you very well and I know
you do a very good job, but I have some
14 problems with what you were saying. The
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town Trustees
15 have overlapping jurisdiction, okay, and I' ll
tell you where that overlapping jurisdiction
16 is : We have laws within the zoning code which
allow minimum setbacks from tidal water.
17 MR. FITZGERALD : When you say
"we, " you mean --
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Town
Trustees under their section and the zoning
19 Board of Appeals under their section; they' re
under a different section, we' re under this
20 section, okay.
In situations where there are
21 wetlands, the Town Trustees require minimum
setbacks . We are not an environmental
22 organization. We will at all times acquiesce
or agree to what their minimum setbacks are
23 regarding a wetlands review on their part,
okay. So, this is just my opinion, I am not
24 speaking for the Board, okay.
If there is some detection of
25 wetlands, and there is some protection of
those wetlands, okay -- so I don' t know who
October 23 , 2003
6
1
2 this is and this is not a sarcastic
statement, I don' t know who this Mr. Howard
3 you are referring to?
MR. FITZGERALD: Hermann.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t
know who he is; is he an environmental
5 consultant?
MR. FITZGERALD: He' s the north
6 fork guy of En Consultants .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of En
7 Consultants, okay. We don' t have a copy of
that or I didn' t receive a copy of that .
8 MR. FITZGERALD: We just got it
yesterday.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
you' ll give us a copy of that report?
10 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So at
11 the very least, the Trustees should look at
what the situation is, and if they make
12 recommendations as to what Mrs . Victoroff has
to do regarding the construction of this
13 house, we would want to know that prior to the
decision being granted by this Board. I 'm
14 just telling you that . They may require
something as minimal as downspouts on the
15 roof .
MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, they
16 routinely do.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That may
17 be the situation, but it' s very important that
we know that at this point so we can embody
18 that within a decision.
MR. FITZGERALD. One of the things
19 that was on the end of that speech that I read
was an example of a recent situation in which
20 I stood here and talked about a project that
was bounded on one side by a dredged canal,
21 with a bulkhead. I looked at the minutes of
that hearing, and the word "wetlands" doesn' t
22 come up. The word wetlands does not appear in
the minutes . There' s no discussion of
23 wetlands, the Trustees, or anything of that
sort, and that has always been the case in my
24 dealings with the Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
25 continue?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Sure,
October 23 , 2003
7
1
2 please .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
3 reason why is because there was a bulkhead,
right, and we will always go to the Trustees
4 when there is not a bulkhead but when the
bulkhead exists, that' s the line between the
5 water and the land. So you will not
necessarily hear the word wetlands, unless of
6 course, there are wetlands adjacent to or
contiguous to the bulkhead. Which has either
7 not been backfilled or has been preserved in
some manner or form so as it' s in its natural
8 state .
MR. FITZGERALD: There were not in
9 this case .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
10 MR. FITZGERALD: However, a
Trustees permit is still required. Because
11 they don' t look upon the bulkhead as a line .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we
12 do but they don' t .
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand.
13 But the participation of the Trustees in the
overall scheme of things is the same in either
14 case, and the -- I can assure you that the
Trustees will require a permit in this case .
15 And as I said here, and I discussed with the
then chairman, we would be -- if it turns out
16 that you should, for instance, approve this
application for a variance, and we go to the
17 Trustees and they say, no, you can' t build a
house here, you've got to have it there, and
18 this is in conflict with what you approved,
we' ll be back here again.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then you
have to reopen the hearing. You' ll have to
20 start a new hearing.
MR. FITZGERALD: It' s a question
21 of which came first . I have a sense you' re
leading up to saying that we' re going to have
22 to do this again after the Trustees .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why do
23 that when all you have to do is adjourn this
hearing until you get a Trustees
24 determination?
MR. FITZGERALD: That' s what I 'm
25 saying. The last time we were here the Board
said that you expected to resolve this issue
October 23 , 2003
8
1
2 at this hearing: Now, if something has
changed other than the fact that I said that I
3 didn' t think that was your concern, the
wetlands, then I' d like to know what it was .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
no bulkhead, we' re concerned. That' s my
5 opinion; that' s not the Board' s opinion,
that' s my opinion.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : One
comment first, Mr. Fitzgerald. I think what
7 we need to do here is have this professionally
flagged and then resurveyed. I think that
8 solves all the guesstimation on where the
wetlands are . I'm sure you know there are
9 surveys that say wetland and have it
resurveyed. We have a letter here from the
10 Trustees saying there are wetlands, I guess at
first glance without having it flagged and it
11 needs to be a 140 foot setback from those
wetlands, the property' s only 80 foot deep.
12 MR. FITZGERALD: With all due
respect that' s not necessarily so.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I 'm just
quoting off the letter from the Trustees .
14 MR. FITZGERALD: The Trustees have
jurisdiction within 100 feet . They don' t
15 require 100 foot setback.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think it
16 would be hard pressed for the zoning Board to
make a decision on where the house should go
17 if we' re not familiar with where the wetlands
are on that project . And I so I agree with
18 Mr. Goehringer, we should have a
professionally flagged survey and then we can
19 make a decision if the house is located
properly.
20 MR. FITZGERALD: The property has
been professionally flagged by Mr. Hermann of
21 En Consultants .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don' t see
22 a copy in the file .
MR. FITZGERALD: No. We don' t
23 have the survey yet because it was not done .
The thing I don' t understand is are you saying
24 that in every case where there' s not a
bulkhead you require a Trustees permit before
25 you will consider a variance in a wetlands
situation?
October 23 , 2003
9
1
2 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That was
your comment, you can follow up with that .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Most
certainly yes, if there are wetlands within a
4 hundred feet of the construction, yes .
MR. FITZGERALD: And has that
5 always been- the case on every --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
6 MR. FITZGERALD: If I were to be
able to show you, say, ten applications in
7 which that was not the case, would you be
willing --
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are these
zoning Board applications or just the Building
9 Department?
MR. FITZGERALD : Zoning Board
10 applications .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have
11 had one very smart person in Orient, sir, that
erased the wetlands off the map and then
12 resubmitted the map .
MR. FITZGERALD: That person is
13 not standing in front of you today.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is
14 not the person standing in front of me
today -- us . So what I 'm saying, I understand
15 your frustration, but there are a couple
situations that have most recently occurred,
16 one of which is it on Westphalia Road, a
couple had wanted to put an addition which is
17 a small bathroom on the back of their house
which came before us . That became a Trustees
18 issue, and we closed the hearing. We were
unable then, and we were barred from putting
19 any further information into the hearing based
upon that, and we did not know that it was
20 within about 75 feet of tidal water. We
thought it was more than that, well landward,
21 but they did require to get a Trustees
determination. I don' t know if they got a
22 Trustees permit but they did get a Trustees
determination. As you know the Trustees in
23 the past have granted waivers . For the past
few .years there were no waivers granted,
24 everything is done at a meeting now and that
was based upon Counsel' s determination. So
25 that' s where we are at this point .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Let' s hear
October 23 , 2003
10
1
2 from --
MR. FITZGERALD : So the answer to
3 the question is yes . My question is that if
there are wetlands involved and everybody
4 would agree that that was so, you require that
there be an approved Trustee permit before you
5 will finally consider the application for
variance?
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Or a
letter of nonjurisdiction?
7 MR. FITZGERALD: An approved
Trustee finding one way or the other.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I
have to tell you, Mr. Fitzgerald, and I' ll
9 leave it at this point, that is the only way
you' re going to get a building permit anyway.
10 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
11 the only way you' re going to get a building '
permit anyway.
12 MR. FITZGERALD: I understand
that, and that, the way the system has worked
13 up until now is we do all this stuff, then we
go to the Trustees or the other way around if
14 it works out that way, and the two agencies
operate independently because they have
15 independent areas of concern. And then we go
to the Building Department and they say you
16 got a variance, yes . You got a Trustee
permit? Yes; you have a DEC permit? Yes .
17 You have a Health Department permit? Yes .
And if all these agencies, including your own,
18 start to say we need to see all the other
permits first, then it becomes impossible .
19 And what about Health Department permits, do
you require a Health Department permit first?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In some
cases . It' s always subject to a Health
21 Department permit but in some cases .
MR. FITZGERALD: Of course the
22 Building Department will not issue, as you
know, a building permit without all the other
23 necessary permits . So, what finally I will
say this and then shut up and sit down, the
24 Trustees area of expertise is wetlands, your
area of expertise --
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And
tidal water.
October 23 , 2003
11
1
2 MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And
3 tidal water, and tidal water. It' s not
limited to wetlands -- and tidal water.
4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . The
Trustees area of expertise is freshwater
5 wetlands, tidal wetlands, tidal water, low
marsh, high marsh, all those good things,
6 that' s their business . And up until today, I
thought that your business was, in a case like
7 this, area variances, setbacks, lot coverage,
and items of that sort, and I don' t
8 understand, still, how you' re doing anything
other than noting the presence of the wetlands
9 and saying, hey, you need a Trustee permit .
You understand that?
10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Fitzgerald, it affects our opinion and our
11 decision where we feel the house and/or pool
should be located with these wetlands nearby.
12 So you' re asking us to make a decision blindly
without knowing where they' re located. That' s
13 not fair to us or anybody else .
MR. FITZGERALD : Let me ask you
14 this : If you knew where the wetland line was,
if you had the survey in front of you --
15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It would
help us make a determination.
16 MR. FITZGERALD: Wetlands flagged,
what standards would you apply to the location
17 of the house on the property; how would you
determine what the setback should be from the
18 wetlands line?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I think
19 that' s why Mr. Goehringer was asking to go to
the Trustees .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re
going to take their recommendation, that' s
21 what we' re going to do, Mr. Fitzgerald.
MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re
going to take the Trustees' recommendation.
23 Now, if you would allow me, Mr. Chairman, to
finish this up .
24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Real
quick.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
We are dealing with setback situations . They
October 23 , 2003
12
1
2 are Type 2 actions under SEQRA, and that is
our threshold; we cannot go any farther than
3 that . The minute you' re talking wetlands,
you' re talking an unlisted action or the
4 possibility of a long environmental assessment
form, which could end up with a Scoping
5 session, which could end up with an
Environmental Impact Statement, okay, for a
6 single lot . And that happened, sir, right
around the corner from this piece of property,
7 and that situation went on for three years,
and we can direct you to that piece of
8 property because exactly the same situation
happened, except --
9 MR. FITZGERALD: You mean the
people didn' t go to the Trustees first, and as
10 a result of that --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly.
11 And I will directly you personally to that
piece of property. The name escapes me at
12 this point, but it went on for three years .
What we' re trying to do, and we' ll leave it at
13 this point, is to say, we want you to get all
your approvals, and we just want to know where
14 the situation fits in, that' s what I'm saying.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay.
15 MR. FITZGERALD: After we come
back with the Trustee permit, will you then
16 require a Health Department permit?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
17 subject to, everything is always subject to --
MR. FITZGERALD : I 'm sorry?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Subject
to the Health Department approval .
19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there
anybody else who would like to speak for or
20 against this application?
MS. ROSENBLUM: Yes, thank you.
21 Helen Rosenblum, 1287 East Main Street,
Riverhead, New York, here on behalf of the
22 Rosakis and other neighbors of this property.
First I wanted, if I can approach,
23 1 have one original of our land use survey,
I'm getting other originals . I have copies .
24 They' re not all that clear. One has been
furnished to Mr. Fitzgerald this morning and
25 I'm going to get him an original also. Thank
you. If you want copies you can have copies
October 23 , 2003
13
1
2 but otherwise I' ll get you some originals so
that everybody has some .
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Copies
will be fine .
4 MS . ROSENBLUM: Okay, good. The
reason I offered the originals is because the
5 aerial is very hard to read. But on the
original you can kind of make it up, what he
6 was compelled to do, naturally, was not to go
on the property.
7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s dense
property, I've been there .
8 MS . ROSENBLUM: First I want to
start off by saying that I think personal
9 attacks on my clients with respect to permits
that they lawfully obtained from the Town are
10 really inflammatory, and I think they' re also
irrelevant . I don' t know when the permits
11 were issued, but regardless of that, they were
obtained and they were issued. Perhaps the
12 Town regulations were different at that time,
but whatever it is they met Town code, they
13 got what they needed in the way of permits .
They' re not linked, so I object to the
14 characterization that they are lately
concerned with wetlands . It' s absolutely
15 unfair. Mr. Fitzgerald doesn' t know my
clients . He doesn' t know what their thinking
16 is, and it' s something that' s not proper as
far as a method for addressing the Zoning
17 Board.
There are some housekeeping issues
18 that we feel should be addressed. The legal
notice that is for this hearing now was based
19 on the original notice of disapproval . It' s
been amended four times since then, or it' s
20 been amended three times since then. That
notice of disapproval referred to property
21 that was in excess of 13 , 000 square feet . It
had a lot coverage of 11 percent; the lot
22 coverage changed. That original one is what' s
referenced in the legal notice.. I think there
23 have been so many changes in the whole
configuration, particularly with respect to
24 the fact that the lot is now substantially
smaller than what was in that original notice
25 of disapproval . Maybe another legal notice
would be appropriate so that the neighbors,
October 23 , 2003
14
1
2 additional neighbors are told by the Town that
there have been amended notices of disapproval
3 and they have what the current one is .
Similarly, I know Mr. Fitzgerald
4 because he kindly did provide a copy to me of
the drawings of the most recent iteration of
5 this project . They were basically what seems
to me not surveys; they were hand drawings of
6 the revisions to the contours of the house,
which were very unclear. For example, I had
7 thought that the porch was removed, and I
didn' t know how you were going to get into the
8 house . In fact, as he just mentioned, the
porch was removed because apparently it
9 doesn' t count in the building area or in the
setback area. I think that people are
10 entitled to have an accurate survey with
proper setback, not just something that' s
11 drawn in.
Regarding the Zoning Board
12 application, at the time it was originally
submitted with the original . notice of
13 disapproval no references were made to
wetlands . I think that would have to be
14 changed. I think that' s become a dominant
issue here . I'm sure based upon his
15 information he did what he felt was his best
in preparing the application, but I think
16 there is a change now and that should be
reflected in the application, which would lead
17 again, I believe, to a more accurate legal
notice .
18 Also in the survey, the original
survey, the existing flood zone, which I
19 believe there is a flood -- it' s in a flood
zone, is not mentioned, the elevations are not
20 drawn to the specifications of the Town code .
All these things should be in an updated
21 survey. With respect to the wetlands
application, I did call the Trustees
22 yesterday, they indicate they received nothing
from Mr. Fitzgerald. They do have a copy of
23 ours and have had it for the better part of a
month, and we received a notice from them,
24 which you referred to, that there are
wetlands . I couldn' t express more -- you
25 know, I defer to what the two of you have
basically said, which is the wetlands issue is
October 23 , 2003
15
1
2 so -- if I can paraphrase what you said -- the
wetlands issue is so important that I really
3 don' t know how you can proceed. If you look
at what we submitted, you' ll see that the
4 wetlands take up almost the entire amount of
the property in one form or another. Either
5 they' re trees, and I understand that some of
them are fragmites and I recognize the value
6 of the fragmites or the lesser value of the
fragmites to the trees, but there are bands of
7 wetlands that extend almost to the entire
amount of the property. And I don' t think you
8 can just disregard it . I don' t even know
where there would be space on this property to
9 put anything, quite frankly, given what land
use has come up with.
10 I think that that is really
basically it . I would like to ask, not that
11 it just be adjourned but that really that the
process be restarted with a proper legal
12 notice that doesn' t reflect a notice of
disapproval which has been amended, which is
13 now in its fourth iteration and that a proper
survey be submitted with proper elevations and
14 proper information. I think then we' ll all
know where we' re going and what we' re dealing
15 with. Thank you very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Do you
16 want to comment on that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr.
17 Fitzgerald has not submitted his report, from
Mr. Hermann who is again the north fork
18 gentleman who has the expertise from En
Consultants . I do know both En Consultants
19 and I know Mr. Bowman, and I think what you' re
going to see is an integration of the two of
20 them in reference to their opinion of where
things are . The Trustees are going to be the
21 judges of that, okay. I could not concur with
you more that we have to have, and I think
22 that discussion with Mr. Fitzgerald is that we
should direct him to go to the Trustees at
23 this point, which I think he' s going to do,
and I think it will be up to the Trustees to
24 direct whatever surveys they may need at this
particular point . Okay, thank you.
25 MS . ROSENBLUM: Thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: It' s important,
October 23 , 2003
16
1
2 Ms . Rosenblum indicated that I was -- implied
that I was being nasty by mentioning the
3 previous application, the dates, which were
given in my speech for the building permits
4 that were issued to adjacent property owners
was such that they were certainly within the
5 time frame when permits for freshwater
wetlands were required by the Trustees . My
6 point in mentioning them, as indicated by the
comments that I excerpted from the En
7 Consultants report, is that it' s his opinion
that in performing these other operations on
8 adjacent properties, is one of the reasons
that these wetlands exist on our property now,
9 and continue to exist, because the property is
serving,• in his words, as a catch basin for
10 runoff from all the adjacent properties . And
I think the discussion of previous activities
11 on adjacent properties is not a mean and nasty
thing to put before this Board.
12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes .
MS . ROSENBLUM: I just wanted to
13 say one thing here, which is, my clients are
good citizens and I don' t think it' s relevant
14 why something exists on the subject premises
and I'm not accepting his interpretation as to
15 why there are wetlands; what really is
relevant before you is what is .
16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All right,
thank you. Open this up to suggestion, but I
17 think we' ll leave this open. Adjourn it with
no date .
18 MR. FITZGERALD: I 'm sorry?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: We' re
19 going to leave this application open and
adjourn it with no date, which means you need
20 to do certain actions with public notices, but
I believe you don' t have to pay any more
21 money. You can avoid new payments but since
you don' t know when you' re going to get on the
22 ballot with the Trustees, we' ll leave it open
with no date .
23 MR. FITZGERALD: I do know when we
get on the agenda with the Trustees . It will
24 be at their November meeting.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Aren' t
25 they in a moratorium; how can they make a
decision, accept the application?
October 23 , 2003
17
1
2 MR. FITZGERALD: We will have a
decision from the Trustees at their November
3 meeting. So, and I say that only because if
you' re already filling up the December agenda
4 for the Zoning Board, I would like to be able
to get on that, and I have some understanding
5 of how the Trustees work, and the application
will be in to them in time for it to be on the
6 November agenda.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : So you' re
7 comfortable with a December date then?
MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just
don' t know if we have room for you on the
9 December calendar, and that' s the problem. So
I'm going to suggest to the Chair that we hold
10 this over for a date until the November 6th
meeting, and we' ll give you a date at the
11 November 6th meeting.
MR. FITZGERALD: I would think
12 that we had some sort of --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Priority.
13 MR. FITZGERALD: Preemptive power
in getting on your December agenda.
14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Well,
unfortunately_we' re light with staff, and our
15 secretary who knows all the magical answers
has called in sick today. So we' re kind of
16 behind the eight ball with answers to that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you
17 know, she' s very rarely sick and she makes
every meeting. So we' re just asking you,
18 we' ll call you with a date or you can call us
on the 7th.
19 MR. FITZGERALD: Linda won' t be
back until then?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need
to make a motion, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the only
21 time we' re going to have another tribunal is
on the 6th of November.
22 MR. FITZGERALD: You have to put
things on the agenda on the basis of a
23 tribunal?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Correct .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can' t
call, in a hurricane we can call, but thank
25 God this hasn' t happened this year.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So how do
October 23 , 2003
18
1
2 you want to adjourn this?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Adjourn
3 this to November 6th at the request of the
agent for the applicant, James Fitzgerald.
4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I make a
motion to adjourn this to November 6th,
5 special meeting.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
favor?
7 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
8
----------------------------------------------------
9
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Next
10 Application 5221, Denn, Daniel Denn, anyone?
So make a motion to adjourn this
11 with no date . Make a motion to adjourn
Application 5221 at this time with no date .
12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
13 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
14 present responded in favor. )
15 ----------------------------------------------------
16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
Application 5375, Fasbach. Is there anyone
17 here representing? Mr. Lark?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main
18 Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicant .
On this adjourned hearing we' re
19 here for two purposes today, one to approve
the proposed revised bedroom plan which has
20 been submitted to you by the architect, Meryl
Kramer, and the issue there is on the
21 variance, applicants variance for lot
coverage . The second issue that we have here
22 today is to obtain approval of the existing
deck on the rear of the premises so that the
23 building department will be in a position to
issue what they claim is a CO necessary for
24 same .
Okay, now on the first issue Meryl
25 Kramer, who' s here today if you have any
questions of her, submitted a revised plan
October 23 , 2003
19
1
2 which has two major changes on it from the
original plan that I had. The proposed
3 bedroom now as proposed is 151 . 8 square feet;
the original one was for 197, so you have a
4 reduction of 45 . 2 square feet with the
-elimination of the four foot side yard which
5 was in the original one . This is now strictly
on the front, that' s the major thing there .
6 The other change on her revised is
the size of the existing deck. It' s proposed
7 to eliminate that rather elaborate
landing/stair complex that was originally
8 built there and replace it with a simple set
of stairs for access, which reduces the square
9 foot of the deck by 81 square feet, you' ll see
that in the calculations .
10 The confusion that existed at the
last hearing between what the architect had
11 proposed and percentage of lot coverage with
what was the Building Department I believe now
12 has been rectified. Miss Kramer spent a lot
of time with the Building Department, and they
13 have issued an amended one, I think the one
that is October 16th is the one before you
14 that has all of the correct percentages . And
they have been agreed by both the architect
15 and the Building Department . Basically, one
of the discussions at the last hearing was the
16 size of the lot . They have now all agreed
that it' s 50 by 175 . The 175 is not as to the
17 deed, but they cut it off at the bulkhead
because that' s the de facto water line, the
18 high water mark. So we have now a definitive
size of the lot, it' s 8 , 750 square feet .
19 As I understand it, the
improvement on the property is presently
20 located as everything that is situated there
today is 26 . 7, that' s preexisting, it' s there;
21 and with the proposed changes that I just
reiterated to you or explained to you it will
22 be 27 . 58 or a . 78 percent increase, and that' s
what the application boils down to as to the
23 issue of lot coverage . Okay, on lot coverage?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only
24 thing I think you made a mistake on you are
still measuring to the high water mark.
25 MR. LARK: No.
MS . KRAMER: Yes .
October 23 , 2003
20
1
2 MR. LARK: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have
3 to be because it would be more than that if
you didn' t .
4 MR. LARK: It would be more square
footage?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Correct .
MS . KRAMER: Excuse me, we are at
6 the high water mark.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : They' re
7 one and the same?
MR. LARK: No, no, there' s no
8 confusion. They' re one and the same, the
bulkhead is the high water mark, and that has
9 been -- also we checked with the assessors as
to how they assessed and the square footage of
10 all the lots down there and that' s what
they' re using.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But does
the property line protrude past the bulkhead
12 into --
MR. LARK: In theory yes, in
13 practicalities no, Mr. Goehringer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At one
14 time it did, and I ' ll explain that when we get
to the next issue on the deck.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
very interesting to us because that' s been an
16 issue that' s been brought up for ions .
MR. LARK: And I can assure you,
17 with Mr. Fasbach I personally checked it after
he did it with the assessors, and the de facto
18 high water mark as we exist today along that
whole set of properties is the bulkhead as it
19 turns out . The one time it was not, but it is
today. As you know, it can come and go .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
why they use the word "mean. "
21 MR. LARK: True enough.
On the second issue I brought with
22 me today Linda Spangle . Her name was used on
the prior hearing because she' s a real estate
23 broker and the person who represented the
applicant when they purchased the property in
24 19 -- December of 1997 . And when the issue of
the deck and the bulkhead and all of that came
25 up, it was Mrs . Spangle who obtained the
grandfathered permit from the Board of
October 23 , 2003
21
1
2 Trustees . And the main reason for that was to
clarify the issues on the bulkhead and also
3 the replacement deck which was placed there by
the prior owner, Mr. Larry Mitchell and as I
4 told you before that had previously been
destroyed in that storm, the late 178 , 179
5 storm, and he replaced it with the deck that' s
existing there today. When the issue came up
6 back in 197 when the title closed to the
present applicant, Mrs . Spangle had pictures
7 that she obtained from the prior owner that
what was there before the storm and what was
8 there after. When she went to the Building
Department, she' s here to give you experience,
9 she was told at the time because the question
came up, where is the CO for the property, and
10 they produced a preexisting CO, and the
building inspector, as I understand it, went
11 to the property and inspected it and said you
must get a Trustees permit . Because
12 apparently what had happened in the storm,
Mr. Mitchell, as well as the adjacent owners,
13 when they replaced the bulkhead, things got
destroyed there, and when they replaced it,
14 they raised it . That explains to me today why
the high water mark is where it is . The mean
15 high water mark is where it is today at the
edge of the bulkhead. When they raised
16 everything because before, previously, the
mean high water mark was a little out; in
17 other words, there was a little beach there at
one time which is not there today. At that
18 time he had the person who repaired the
bulkhead raising it also put the deck in,
19 that' s why you see the spiels there that are
there, they use the same material to build it
20 so that it would stand the test of time which
apparently --
21 After she obtained the Trustees
permit, she got a grandfathered Trustees
22 permit, she went back to the Building
Department and the building inspector at the
23 time -- she' ll tell you her experience -- told
her that she didn' t need anything. It was a
24 replacement deck, she had the Trustees
grandfather permit, that was enough. The
25 preexisting CO covered everything, and he, in
fact, inspected it, and so that' s the reason
October 23 , 2003
22
1
2 that the title closed on the preexisting CO as
it was .
3 Linda, I think they need to know
exactly what happened, so if you would tell
4 them.
MS . SPANGLE : My name is Linda Lee
5 Spangle, and I reside at 1500 Breknock Road in
Greenport .
6 At the time of the purchase I was
associated with Hann Realty as an associate
7 broker. I represented the seller; I was the
seller' s broker, which was Mr. Lawrence
8 Mitchell .
In researching it and getting the
9 sale prepared, I did find there was not among
Mr. Mitchell' s papers that we could find any
10 CO or any documentation other than pictures,
which did show the deck before and after the
11 storm. The pictures were very detailed in
that, in those days on the back of the
12 picture, the film developer actually digitally
embossed the date . So I was very confident
13 with that . Then I proceeded with the pictures
to come here to the Building Department, and
14 they subsequently made an inspection.
Mr. Lark has -- and I'm sure you do have -- a
15 copy of the grandfathered CO. Then I was told
to proceed to the Trustees, which I did, and
16 Jill Thorp, now Dougherty, was very
instrumental in helping me with all of this,
17 and subsequently they obtained for me with all
the documentation I prepared, the permit that
18 Mr. Lark has .
Then nextly I was advised by the
19 Trustees to go back to the Building
Department . The Building Department then made
20 another inspection, and said, under this
scenario, no further documentation would be
21 required, conveyance of title in their opinion
could proceed, which it did. Any questions?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who was
the building inspector at that time; do you
23 remember?
MS . SPANGLE : All of this
24 naturally is to the best of my recollection
because it did occur prior to the closing in
25 1997, I believe it was John Boufis .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
October 23 , 2003
23
1
2 you.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank
3 you.
MR. LARK: I hope that clarifies
4 all the questions that the Board had. I think
you have everything necessary to make your
5 decision, and, of course, I respectfully
request that you grant approval of the
6 variances as amended as applied for because I
do believe they meet the balancing factors as
7 required by the statute, and we discussed all
of those the last time . I have the architect
8 here and Mrs . Fasbach is here, who appeared
before you last time . So if the Board has any
9 questions, that' s fine .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Any
10 questions, Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of whom?
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Lark.
Again, on this as-built deck, did you say it
12 was rebuilt in 1979?
MR. LARK: Yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: After the
storm?
14 MR. LARK: After the storm.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And it' s
15 been there ever since?
MR. LARK: Yes . As you see it
16 today is how it was constructed at that point
during that 179, ' 80 , that time frame .
17 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How about
the existing brick patio, that' s not
18 considered existing lot coverage?
MR. LARK: No.
19 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: On this
diagram here, is the existing as-built deck
20 within 20 feet of the bulkhead; is that right
as stated in the notice of disapproval?
21 MR. LARK: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What are
22 the dimensions on the existing brick patio?
MR. LARK: The one that' s on the
23 land?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Just in
24 front of the bulkhead.
MR. LARK: Right, I don' t know.
25 Meryl, do you know?
MS . KRAMER: I don' t have the
October 23 , 2003
24
1
2 dimensions on the drawing.
MR. LARK: The building inspector
3 told her specifically to leave them off .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that
4 right?
MR. LARK: Yeah, because that' s
5 what led to some of the confusion before .
It' s right on the surface there .
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Goehringer?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lark,
regardless of where the property lines go and
8 so on and so forth, if the Board is so
inclined to grant this application, you are
9 telling me that it is 7 . 58 percent over the 20
percent lot coverage with those modifications
10 of the 81 square feet, and the change of the
back of your property; is that correct so we
11 are at 27 . 58?
MR. LARK: As proposed.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As
proposed at this time with the modifications
13 of 81 square feet and the change of moving the
addition to the rear of the property that you
14 so clearly state?
MR. LARK: Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
good, which is a lot better than the 30
16 something?
MR. LARK: Right . With all that
17 confusion, we got it all straightened out . So
when it all boiled down to it, that' s what it
18 came back as .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what
19 you' re saying is that this meeting was
extremely fruitful to all of us because
20 somehow seven percent has been gone away with,
extinguished?
21 MR. LARK: Right . That' s why I
said, Miss Kramer, to her credit, went over,
22 detailed everything and then went over details
with the Building Department, just so that
23 everybody would be on the same page because
that was the problem.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you.
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Kudos for
her.
October 23 , 2003
25
1
2 Is there anybody else in the
audience that would like to speak for or
3 against this application? I ' ll make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve decision.
4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
5 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
6 present responded in favor. )
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you,
7 have a great day.
8 ----------------------------------------------------
9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
application, William and Mary DeBruin, is
10 5404, DeBruins, 2570 Pine Tree Road. Yes,
sir, please continue .
11 MR. DEBRUIN: My name is Bill
DeBruin, I 'm the applicant . I have my wife
12 Maryanne here who is the coapplicant . My
address is 34 Willis Avenue, Mineola, 11501 .
13 We' re appealing from a
determination of the Building Department
14 rejecting an application to build two dormers
in the front of the house, two small gable
15 dormers, and extend the shed dormer in the
rear of the house . Rejection was based upon
16 the fact that our southerly side yard house is
less than 15 feet . The property was
17 originally acquired by my father in August of
1971 . There' s a survey, an old survey around
i8 the same date, which shows the property as it
existed then and exists now.
19 The house was constructed sometime
around 1940 in its present position. The
20 upstairs, where we' re going to build the
dormer, is one and a half story consists of
21 three existing bedrooms and a bathroom. The
dormers are going to provide light, air and
22 additional floor area to those bedrooms . The
dormers will not extend beyond the present
23 height of the dwelling, nor will it extend
beyond the present side yard of the dwelling,
24 in fact, it will be setback somewhat .
The development, the improvement
25 is residential in character. The house is
used by myself and my wife and family and our
October 23 , 2003
26
1
2 children and grandchildren. The purpose of
the construction is to afford more comfort and
3 area for our children and grandchildren.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: One quick
4 question I just want to clarify. You' re
saying your additions will not increase your
5 nonconforming side yard and will not be any
higher than your existing ridge now?
6 MR. DEBRUIN: That' s correct .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is that
7 correct? No further questions . Mr.
Goehringer.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you
know, I met with your wife -and grandchild that
9 day and I don' t have any questions . I know
exactly what' s going on, and I don' t have any
10 questions .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
11 Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can you
12 tell us the actual recessed dimension of the
dormers from the footprint?
13 MR. DEBRUIN: The rear dormer is
going to be about one to one and a half feet
14 inward from the side line on the southerly
side. On the plot plan the normal extension
15 of the rear dormer is shown to extend to
the side yard, but the architect has convinced
16 us to pull it back to the same one to one and
a half feet, he says to give the cottage look
17 to the dormer. The front dormers will be
probably about three feet in from the
18 sidelines on both sides .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay, thank
19 you.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Let' s see
20 if there' s anybody else here who would like to
speak for or against this application? Seeing
21 no hands, I' ll close this case and reserve
decision.
22 MR. DEBRUIN: Thank you. I have
some receipts to file .
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes,
please.
24 MR. DEBRUIN: Should I take them
to the office?
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can
bring them up.
October 23 , 2003
27
1
2 MR. DEBRUIN: And an affidavit of
postage and a stamped envelope .
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Do I have
a second?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
5 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
6 present responded in favor. )
7 ----------------------------------------------------
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
Application 5413 , Mettes and Callaghan.
9 MS . STEELMAN: Good Job. Hi, my
name is Nancy Steelman, an architect
10 representing my clients, Patrick and Lisa.
I think you have a pretty good
11 sense of what we' re doing here . They have
just recently in the last six months bought
12 this property known as Johnny' s Car Hop, and
have been trying to get this up and running.
13 They' re basically going to be using it as a
restaurant, but as part of what they want to
14 do with a restaurant they needed to add two
things, three things actually. They needed a
15 cooler area adjacent to the kitchen for
refrigeration. The space is really small and
16 the only way you accomplish the space would be
able to do something on the exterior. The
17 other thing that we have done is there was an
original Bilco door down into the basement and
18 because we' re using it for storage we' re
required to put in a basement stair, and the
19 Health Department has also required us to have
a covered roof structure over that stair. So
20 that is one of their requirements, but it also
affects where we are in terms of the setbacks
21 in that area.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I noticed
22 really quick you' re not extending beyond the
original footprint, correct?
23 MS . STEELMAN: Only with the
cooler and the basement stair, yes, we
24 actually are . If you look on the blueprint .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Those --
25 MS . STEELMAN: Right . Then
there' s a basement stair adjacent and there' s
October 23 , 2003
28
1
2 a roof structure above that which is
encroaching into that setback.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can
put the dumpster in there .
4 MS . STEELMAN: Yes . So, that' s
basically what we' re doing. I think that the
5 issue here is that we really have two front
yards, and the Building Department has
6 interpreted this being the side yard because
the building is backed far from the street and
7 that' s their interpretation. And, as a
result, they have a 20 foot setback off that
8 property line, and you know, this was with a
space that we needed -- I mean, in our mind
9 that' s the rear of the building and to put any
coolers or anything else in any other area
10 either on Hortons or on the North Road, didn' t
make any sense .
11 So we' re really looking for relief
to put it in that back section and not have it
12 on the road.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That' s
13 Jakanowitz, isn' t that Lucas Ford right behind
you?
14 MS . STEELMAN: That' s Lucas Ford
right behind me . Now the adjacent property is
15 zoned business or limited business and then
Ford' s also business . So it' s not a
16 residential area. That property' s not
residential that' s adjacent to us .
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Any
questions from Board members, Mr. Horning?
18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
19 Goehringer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
20 question I have is has the Planning Board
looked at this at all?
21 MS . STEELMAN: Yes . Actually they
have submitted a letter to you. Do you have
22 that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . Is
23 there any reason that the walk-in cooler has
to be placed to such closeness to the property
24 line, can' t it be somehow --
MS . STEELMAN: We tried to but the
25 basement stair is requiring a certain run down
the area, you can see the length of that
October 23 , 2003
29
1
2 stair, and then there' s access into the
kitchen. There' s a small stoop, and it' s the
3 only stoop that we can fit, it' s really the
remaining portion, it' s also directly off the
4 kitchen. There' s a door off that cooler from
the kitchen.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
other question I have is what kind of drone
6 comes from the fan of that?
MS . STEELMAN: I think Patrick and
7 Lisa, they have a brochure to give you an idea
of what it will look like .
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s not
.Johnny' s anymore?
9 MS . STEELMAN: No, it' s not
Johnny' s, North Fork Food, actually.
10 MR. METTES : It' s a pretty
traditional galvanized walk-in cooler. I
11 don' t know what the DB output of that fan is,
but it will generate -- it' s not a diesel
12 motor, it' s not going to generate that much
noise, but there will, in fact, be some sound
13 coming off that electric motor that drives the
compressor.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
we need your name for the record.
15 MR. METTES : Patrick Mettes, and I
reside at 4505 Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse
me --
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you
18 contact the manufacturer and ask him or her
how noisy that unit is? There is a house next
19 door, and regardless it' s not conforming,
there is a house next door, and that' s one of
20 the concerns that we have . And I know they
have updated these things to such a point that
21 it' s nothing really to worry about but we've
gone up to LIPA plants in Hicksville to listen
22 to drones of certain things .
MR. METTES : I do know this is
23 information via my engineer that they blimp
these motors with insulation to do just that,
24 to try to cut down on sound ' cause they know
often these things are in residential areas or
25 in places where, in New York City let' s say,
where apartment buildings are going to hear
October 23 , 2003
30
1
2 them. I know they construct them to try to
keep that sound down as much as possible . I
3 can ask my engineer, possibly that information
is in this brochure . I don' t know though.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can
also ask them if they have supplied anybody on
5 the Island with those, that has been very
successful .
6 I don' t have any objection to
anything else other than that concern, again,
7 for the non-conforming house . The dumpster
has to be placed in that location?
8 MS . STEELMAN: We' re trying keep
the dumpster away from the street, away from
9 the public, the parking area' s right there,
and we' re just trying to get it into the back,
10 most accessible to the kitchen and into the
work space off that door that goes into the
11 back section there
MR. METTES : The previous owner
12 did have it actually out in the parking lot
now, and when you would drive by there' s the
13 dumpster. We' re trying to aesthetically --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big
14 is that dumpster, is it like a six?
MR. METTES : It will be small,
15 fundamentally what was there before .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, we
16 wish you good luck.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The
17 walk-in cooler, obviously that' s for long term
supplies and obviously Johnny' s_ didn' t need
18 something to that effect?
MR. METTES : It' s not long term.
19 It' s daily use . Johnny' s kitchen is pretty
small .
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : It was a
fast-food type hamburger joint?
21 MR. METTES : Exactly.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And you' re
22 doing more of a sit down --
MR. METTES : A little bit finer
23 food, and the Building Department is requiring
that we have two full-sized handicapped
24 restrooms, and given the footprint of the
building, it' s pretty stingy with what real
25 estate is left to do business, if you will,
and in order to satisfy the Health Department
October 23 , 2003
31
1
2 and just to be smart about safe food handling
and such, this seems to be the best solution.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: This is
the smallest walk-in cooler that will satisfy
4 your needs?
MR. METTES : It is . Of course, I
5 would like the smallest possible because the
bigger they are the more expensive they are to
6 run.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you,
7 no other questions .
MS . STEELMAN: Would you like this
8 brochure?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
9 And if you could furnish us with that
information by the end of next week, because,
10 as you know, we run in sequence, and the
special meeting is on November 6th, we' d like
11 to have that information.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Will you
12 have to walk outside to access this cooler?
MR. METTES : The door will swing
13 into the cooler from the kitchen.
MS . STEELMAN: But it' s direct
14 access . We really wanted to maintain it .
That' s why it' s located where it' s at .
15 1 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there
anybody else that would like to speak for or
16 against this application? I see no hands .
We' ll close this hearing and reserve decision.
17 Thank you. Second.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
favor.
19 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
20
----------------------------------------------------
21
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
22 Application 5410 , A. and S . Waggoner?
MR. WAGGONER: Yes .
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It is
Waggoner?
24 MR. WAGGONER: I've been called
Wagoneer, worse things .
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What would
you like to tell us today?
October 23 , 2003
32
1
2 MR. DRINKWINE : We would like to
put a dormer on top of a garage,
3 Mr. Waggoner' s property. The existing setback
is 44 . 6 feet, and I guess under the new code
4 they want a 40 foot setback. We were not
looking to go past into what he already has
5 into the rear yard, which is a setback of 36 . 5
feet, we' re just going on top, above . And the
6 difference of three foot, three foot seven
inches . We received a denial for the building
7 permit . We did get a proper DEC jurisdiction.
There was nonjurisdiction there and the Town
8 of Trustees approval, so this would be the
only stumbling block we have .
9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : If you
could do me a favor and give me a little
10 history on this property. There' s two
dwellings on this property.
11 MR. WAGGONER: Yes .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : One' s
12 vacant and it' s not a liveable condition that
I saw; no one lives there now?
13 MR. WAGGONER: No. That' s
basically, I use that for storage . That, I
14 believe was the original house on the
property. My wife inherited the house in I
15 believe ' 87 or the two houses, from her
grandparents, and that was the original house
16 on the property. Her grandfather, I think in
1954 built the 1, 695 ; the other one had been
17 rented years ago, then the foundation and
everything went bad, so I put a new foundation
18 under it, new main beam, then had a heart
attack, and it' s been gutted and just sitting
19 now. I mean it' s used as a shed. There' s no
heat, no water, no anything right now. I
20 mean, my plans for the future to make it look
nice and use it as a shed or if I get the
21 money, knock it down.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : The
22 primary dwelling you have a started
foundation?
23 MR. WAGGONER: Yes .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Is that
24 part of your drawing here to be built on?
MR. DRINKWINE : Correct, we just
25 wanted to go above where that old garage is .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I didn' t
October 23 , 2003
33
1
2 see it . Oh, the garage that was torn down.
MR. DRINKWINE : That' s a little
3 bit of a hazard situation, I guess that was
the foundation but it bowed and swayed and
4 bent out so the garage we didn' t feel was
stable to do any type of project on that . So
5 we tore that down and want to build again over
the same footprint . So we' re not looking to
6 expand rear or side from what was existing.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : This is
7 going to be a two story?
MR. DRINKWINE : Over the garage
8 and one above it .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the
9 rest of the existing house is going to stay?
MR. DRINKWINE : Correct . That' s
10 going to stay as-is .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: When you
11 say dormer, is that one of those small little
dog house dormers you' re going to put up
12 there?
MR. DRINKWINE : Well, the
13 illustration here, there' s the existing house
now, which is the garage, we' re going up
14 above .
MR. WAGGONER: Do you want --
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we
have a copy of that? I didn' t see it . Thank
16 you very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you' re
17 going to move some of that foundation or is
that foundation now at grade to drive in for
18 the garage?
MR. DRINKWINE : Correct .
19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So a
portion of that will be garage and a portion
20 will be living space, and up above you' re
going to have three bedrooms and a bath and a
21 laundry cove .
Let' s see if there' s any questions
22 from the rest of the Board Members,
Mr. Horning.
23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Where' s the
stairwell that' s proposed to be up to the
24 second floor?
MR. DRINKWINE : The stairwell will
25 be on the south side; do you have an
illustration there?
October 23 , 2003
34
1
2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll
3 take it back.
MR. WAGGONER: (Handing) .
4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you
want Mr. Goehringer to go?
5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I don' t
have any other questions .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re
going with Option 2 that Mr. Waggoner just
7 gave me?
MR. DRINKWINE : Yes .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is
the reasons for the two front doors?
9 MR. DRINKWINE: The one that' s
existing, obviously that' s the one that' s
10 utilized now. The other one is going into the
heated living room space, on the first floor,
11 like a family room. So you can enter that way
as well . Then the staircase going up, which
12 will then lead to three bedrooms, bath and
laundry cove, which they are in desperate need
13 of the space for the family.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: This won' t
14 be a two-family dwelling then?
MR. DRINKWINE : No, definitely
15 not .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So,
16 upstairs is living, downstairs is the family
den?
17 MR. DRINKWINE : If you look at the
south side here, that will be a family room
18 heated, that will be a garage he can utilize .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And to
19 reiterate, we' re not going beyond the original
footprint of that house?
20 MR. DRINKWINE : Correct .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any
21 questions?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live
in Mattituck so I know the house . I've seen
23 the house for years .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Anybody
24 else in the audience like to speak for or
against this application? Seeing no hands,
25 we' ll close this hearing and reserve decision.
Second.
October 23 , 2003
35
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
3 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
4 responded in favor. )
5 ----------------------------------------------------
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Next
hearing Application 5403 , Parker Wickham.
7 MS . HARRELL: Good morning, Diane
Harrell for Parker Wickham. This is a
8 property that' s at the end of Marituck Point .
It' s second to the last from the end. Some of
9 these Board Members are pretty familiar with
that area because I 've been before this Board
10 before .
Right now the house is below the
11 required FEMA regulations, and it' s on a
questionable foundation. Mr. Wickham would
12 like to move the house off the existing
foundation, replace the piles and return the
13 house to the exact same location.
I'm assuming that the Building
14 Department denied my request because we asked
if necessary we would rebuild the existing
15 deck to the exact same size that they are now.
We will be complying. We' ll be using the
16 existing sanitary system, and I do have a
Board of Trustees permit for this project .
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is that in
your file? Did you submit that with your
18 application?
MS . HARRELL: I might not have . I
19 can make a copy; I do have it with me, or if
you' d like to see it .
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'm sorry,
we have it right here . Permit number 5707?
21 MS . HARRELL: Yes, 5707 .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay, we
22 have that .
I was over there, nice location.
23 I spent some time on the beach walking
around.
24 MS . HARRELL: Beautiful, isn' t it?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think
25 it' s a gallant effort, risky effort because
you' re moving the house closer to the water.
October 23 , 2003
36
1
2 MS . HARRELL: We' re not moving
it .
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Well,
temporarily.
4 MS . HARRELL: Temporarily.
Actually, if the weather is bad we' ll be
5 moving it to the west . We just discussed it
with the building mover, who also happens to
6 be my husband, and he said if there are storms
they won' t be moving it south. They' re moving
7 it slightly west .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: When does
8 this plan on --
MS . HARRELL: As soon as you give
9 me a building permit .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : So you' re
10 going to risk it?
MS . HARRELL: We' d like to do it
11 out of season. If you've been down there when
it' s seasonal, there are a lot of kids there,
12 a lot of people around. The Parkers asked us
to do it in the off season.
13 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You may
get away with it . The north wind' s coming
14 around instead of the south wind.
MS . HARRELL: I don' t think it
15 will be a problem. We' ll take our time .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I saw the
16 plans for the footings --
MS . HARRELL: The pilings .
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The
pilings, your husband is going to be pulling
18 out the old ones or just putting in the new
ones?
19 MS . HARRELL: Definitely take out
the old ones . There' s nothing there . Rambo
20 will be doing the pilings . We've already
contracted with them.
21, VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And
everything' s going exactly the way it was .
22 MS . HARRELL: Yes, everything
should be the way it is now.
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : So that
next year when we go back --
24 MS . HARRELL: The decks might be
new.
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: New CCA
pilings?
October 23 , 2003
37
1
2 MS . HARRELL: And the building
will be higher.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much
higher?
4 MS . HARRELL : About two feet .
It' s comparable to all the other houses I 've
5 done down there . Giacone is at their
elevation, Powers, they' re not that high above
6 the ground.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: About the
7 height of Celic?
MS . HARRELL : Celic' s, that' s
8 higher.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Utilities
9 will be where?
MS . HARRELL: They will stay
10 exactly the way they are .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: On the
11 first floor?
MS . HARRELL: There' s only one
12 floor.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the
13 reason why you' re here is because you' re
moving it and putting it back the way it was .
14 MS . HARRELL: I 'm here because I
got a denial .
15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s still
nonconforming.
16 MS . HARRELL: It will always be
nonconforming, everything down there is
17 nonconforming. I've been before this Board
for probably four other projects for that
18 area.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I guess if
19 we requested to move it closer to the water it
would be detrimental to the survival of the
20 beach --
MS . HARRELL: This Board has
21 never given me permission; they've always made
me move it farther away from to the water.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Either
one of the right of way down below it?
23 MS . HARRELL: I was thinking
Powers . Powers was in the water, and we
24 worked it out with all of the Boards that we
would bring it back same distance from the
25 road. Basically, this house will be the same
distance from the road as all the other
October 23 , 2003
38
1
2 houses, in fact, some of them are closer.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s not a
3 very populated, traveled road, I'm sure .
MS . HARRELL: No . And I don' t
4 think it stays in exactly the same spot . So I
can' t say exactly how many feet I need.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Member
Horning, any questions?
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How many
adjacent property owners besides this one have
7 access to the traveled road?
MS . HARRELL: Oh, the road, well,
8 there are a number of houses on the road, but
Celic' s is the only one passing this house .
9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Goehringer.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know
Parker Wickham very well, I've been to the
11 house several times, and I, of course again,
inspecting it and the Celics very well . I
12 have no objection to it . I think it' s a
positive step in the permanent procurement of
13 this structure .
} VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Preventive
14 maintenance .
MS . HARRELL: Exactly what it is .
15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All right,
we' ll see if there' s anyone in the audience
16 for or against this application. Looking at
the only person, he' s not raising his hand,
17 we' ll close this hearing and reserve
decision.
18 MS . HARRELL: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second.
19 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
20 favor?
(Whereupon, all the Board Members
21 responded in favor. )
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Thank you,
22 have a nice day.
That concludes our morning agenda.
23 I' ll make a motion to adjourn reconvening at
1 : 00 P .M.
24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
25 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
October 23 , 2003
39
1
2 responded in favor, and a lunch recess was
taken. )
3
----------------------------------------------------
4
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' d like
5 to make a motion to reconvene the public
hearing?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
moved.
7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll
8 second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
9 favor?
(Whereupon, all Members of the
10 Board responded in favor. )
11 ----- ----------------------------------------------
12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Application
5357, Omnipoint has faxed us a letter
13 requested an adjournment to December 18th. I
don' t know if there' s people here for that
14 hearing, but they asked for an adjournment to
December 18th at 1 : 00 p .m.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Should
we grant them that?
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I'm in
favor of that .
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So I' ll
make a motion to adjourn that .
18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
19 favor.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: When it comes to
20 that date, do we have a right to make an
adjournment also?
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you
have a compelling reason.
22 MR. BUFARD: And if I have reason
I can have an adjournment also?
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You can
request an adjournment, yes, you can, sir. Is
24 Pignato and Regina in the audience yet?
MR. BUFARD: What was the date
25 again?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : December
October 23 , 2003
40
1
2 18th.
MR. BUFARD: December 18th?
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes .
Next hearing Application 5415 ,
4 Pignato and Regina. Is there someone here who
would like to speak?
5 MS . MOORE : Hello. It' s a men' s
club here today.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
lucky we' re here .
7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: To bring
you up to speed, you weren' t here in the
8 morning session. Linda called in and the
newly appointed chairperson is not here
9 today.
MS . MOORE: That' s a good start .
10 We have a quorum.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So I'm
11 acting as vice chairperson.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However,
12 we have a big agenda here today.
MS . MOORE : Do you?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we
do .
14 MS . MOORE : Want me to move along?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
15 MS . MOORE : Enough of the
niceties .
16 This was a piece of property that
was developed some time ago, and it had a
17 common driveway for this parcel as well as the
back parcel and two others, one to the right
18 and one behind it . At one point in time
Ms . Pignato and -- the two owners had to
19 expand the house for one of the family members
who is elderly. So they used what was the
20 garage space as expanded living quarters for
the ill family member, and they left
21 themselves without a garage .
So what they have proposed is a
22 garage which conforms with a rear yard setback
of ten feet, but because this is a common
23 driveway it' s being allocated a front yard
setback from the right of way.
24 We had proposed a 50 foot setback
from the originally proposed driveway, and I
25 would like to point out that the neighbors,
we've welcomed their comments, we've asked for
October 23 , 2003
41
1
2 their comments, and actually it was a
cooperative venture between all of the
3 neighbors to relocate this driveway from its
original position, kind of centered in the
4 property to its now centered position on the
east side of the property.
5 What the neighbor in the back did,
and I'm going to give you a survey, which is
6 actually hot of the press and we don' t even
have a measurement because John Metzgar went
7 out and got it to me today.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Just one,
8 missing one copy.
MS . MOORE : Well, right now we' re
9 going to need measurements, and I didn' t know
what the ultimate decision of the Board would
10 be .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Actually
11 when I was out there yesterday, they were
surveying.
12 MS . MOORE: Yeah, well, we had it
surveyed. Well, obviously the position of the
13 garage is the same . The new survey was based
on where it shows Plot 1, that property owner
14 in the corner. The property owner in the
corner asked that the access to the property
15 that on this survey says May Watson, which is
not actually the owner now, it' s someone else
16 who sent the letter, they wanted -- if I could
approach, it will just be easier.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MS . MOORE : The original survey
18 has a straight line going out with an overlap
on Plot 1 . Plot 1 asked that this overlap not
19 occur, that this property owner get access via
through the Pignato property rather than
20 encumbering his .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: He didn' t
21 want it on his?
MS . MOORE : He didn' t want the
22 other neighbor getting access on his property,
which- is understandable .
23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Right now
they go in the center of that one lot?
24 MS . MOORE : No, actually.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This right
25 here (indicating) .
MS . MOORE : No, look at the other
October 23 , 2003
42
1
2 map. That one actually has ended. This map
was the original road that at the time the
3 surveyor went out there, the road was still
there . In that time the driveway has been
4 relocated.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Has been,
5 not proposed?
MS . MOORE : No, physically, the
6 actual driveway has been physically moved to
the east side of the property, and that' s why
7 that survey there is more helpful because it
shows where the actual improvements have
8 fallen.
What they did is they moved the
9 driveway, since everyone was in agreement, and
they relocated it over to the east side of the
10 property. Now you see that it actually comes
outside of the property line and that' s
11 because there are some mature tulip trees,
very beautiful trees that they wanted to
12 preserve . So the contractor suggested a more
aesthetically pleasing driveway, for a title
13 company, we' ll have to deal with those issues
later, but nonetheless everyone was in
14 agreement on -- all the neighbors were in
agreement of the placement of the new
15 driveway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does
16 that then put the driveway closer than the 50
feet?
17 MS . MOORE : That' s one of the
issues -- no, let me start, the right of the
18 way originally had -- the driveway itself was
opened up to give access directly. Then I
19 asked the surveyor, please draw it as it
should be, which is giving this property owner
20 exclusive use of the access into his property,
and giving the westerly property owner, the
21 rear property owner access directly from the
right of way.
22 So, yes, the line changed now, at
the request of one of the neighbors . So after
23 the application was submitted to this Board, I
got a call from the neighbor who said, listen,
24 I don' t have a problem with this, but I want
you to change the right of way so it gives
25 access to the neighbor in the rear without
going over my property. Okay, we try to
October 23 , 2003
43
1
2 accommodate for cooperation, we made the
change .
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : You need
to change the application then?
4 MS . MOORE : No, because once it' s
here, we can amend -- well, you can make the
5 distance whatever you think is appropriate .
We can push it back so it' s 50 feet, but
6 ultimately we' re talking about --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why
7 don' t you give us the measurement?
MS . MOORE : Because John Metzgar
8 couldn' t get it to me on time . I can call it
in or I can have a final version, but this
9 came in today, as I said. So I did not have a
chance -- we can call it in or give you a
10 measurement . Actually, , I can have John write
it on the seven prints that would be helpful
11 to this Board.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This little
12 insert here, is that --
MS . MOORE : That' s an existing
13 driveway, bluestone .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will that
14 remain that way; is that going to be this
driveway for this proposed garage?
15 MS . MOORE : I don' t know where the
driveway' s ultimately going to end up . Right
16 now it' s a temporary driveway next to the
house, there is a driveway like a bluestone or
17 some rocks, that are used to give access to
where the cars parked over by the house . So
18 it' s temporary right now, that area is going
to be disturbed when the garage is built . So
19 I don' t know where the actual entranceway is
for the actual garage .
20 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Does it
have to be a 50 yard setback?
21 MS . MOORE : Well, we could, if we
pushed this garage back somewhat, but my
22 concern is if we push it back, which, I think
this measurement might be another 15 feet, the
23 difference between the old measurement and the
new measurement may be in the range of 15
24 feet, we may be pushing it under some LIPA
wires, and that could be a dangerous
25 condition. So I had some physical limitations
of pushing the garage too far back.
October 23 , 2003
44
1
2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Did it go
through the old driveway area?
3 MS . MOORE : Yeah. The wires and
the poles were at their old location, there' s
4 a gas line underground, which I presume would
have gone under the old road as well . They' re
5 not shown here because the surveyor has no
knowledge .
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The notice
of disapproval says you' re located in the
7 front yard. I don' t know if they can get out
of the front yard with this right of way
8 surrounding the house .
MS . MOORE : No. They call the
9 right of way a front yard.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That' s
10 what I'm saying, you cannot relocate this
garage; 90 percent of this property is
11 surrounded by front yard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Three
12 front yards .
MS . MOORE : Right . If you look at
13 the right of way behind us, you have three and
a half . So we are physically constrained by
14 roadways, everything is a front yard here .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s not
15 number-wise, you' re restricted --
MS . MOORE : Exactly, it' s
16 location.
So now we had, there was a letter
17 from this neighbor over here which objected to
the ten feet . Now, what happened was they
18 didn' t realize that their driveway was
encroaching. We just found out when I asked
19 the surveyor, please put the driveways where
they are . I didn' t make sense . We were out
20 there with the stakes . We ,looked like clowns
because the three women, one stood here with a
21 ten foot ruler and said, hold here while we
move to the ten foot, then hold here . We were
22 trying to place where things were and nothing
made sense because the driveway and the
23 improvements didn' t match the property lines .
So this would be our choice for
24 the garage . We could move it away from the
Watson property line by maybe five feet to
25 give that, since they have an encroaching
driveway, we don' t want to hurt them. We have
October 23 , 2003
45
1
2 to make them aware of it and we have to get
something in writing saying they make no claim
3 of rights so title issues won' t be an issue,
but another five feet doesn' t really make a
4 difference . If it will make our neighbor in
the rear a little happier, I anticipated that
5 request . So I had spoken to the clients about
it . In her letter she asked for 25 feet and
6 that can' t be. -- that' s just too far.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Do you
7 know the history on that property at all?
MS . MOORE : Yeah, I do .
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: My
question is that gray house in front of the
9 shed, is that a dwelling; is that garage? I
walked around as much as I could without
10 getting shot or attacked or --
MS . MOORE : You mean where it says
11 "Watson" on the survey?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Straight
12 back there' s a gray --
MS . MOORE : There was a conversion
13 of what used to be an out building.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That' s not
14 a separate building, it' s all one?
MS . MOORE : No. It' s all one .
15 I'm not going to testify to what it was .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I wasn' t
16 sure what it was, even though it showed one
lot . Was it houses?
17 MS . MOORE: No . Watson property
is one lot behind them and where it says lot
18 one is a brand new house under construction,
that is a separate lot .
19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you' re
not interfering with any view of someone that
20 would live there?
MS . MOORE : No. This is our
21 yard; there' s not a view of anything in
particular.
22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Were you
saying that Mary Watson submitted a letter
23 requesting a 25 foot --
MS . MOORE : Yes . There was a
24 letter that was submitted yesterday, I think
it was . It didn' t get to you?
25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It' s in the
mail .
October 23 , 2003
46
1
2 MS . MOORE : Yeah, it' s probably in
the mail . I don' t want to be surprised with
3 an alternative relief that really would not be
acceptable to the client . So I prefer to
4 raise it here, discuss it, and if you suggest
alternative relief, we could certainly try to
5 accommodate . Ten feet is a legal setback, so
that does not necessitate a variance . Our
6 only variance is from the right of way, and,
quite frankly, I'm not even sure based on
7 prior interpretation of the codes whether or
not it would constitute front yard setback,
8 but rather than delving into the
interpretation aspect, we' re just going
9 straight for a variance .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It' s that a
10 private right of way?
MS . MOORE : Yes . It' s a right of
11 way that gives access to Watson and Plot 1 .
It is not -- it' s a common access -- the
12 Planning Board, when they approved this
subdivision wanted to limit the number of
13 driveways on Main Road in Orient . So they
actually directed that this house get their
14 access via the westerly -- the easterly side,
pardon me, the easterly side of the property.
15 So they came up with the common access point .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Does
16 someone own that right of way?
MS . MOORE : Well, my client owns
17 the other title, yes .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I think
18 before you were on the Board, the Board made
an interpretation on the front yard in
19 relation to private right of ways, et cetera.
MS . MOORE: Yeah, it was my case
20 actually. I think Koch was the opponent .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And I
21 believe, if I'm not mistaken, we determined a
private right of way did not constitute a
22 street, therefore it was not a front yard.
MS . MOORE : Correct .
23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Therefore
the building department in a way made an error
24 and determined that --
MS . MOORE : You can come to the
25 conclusion that we don' t need a variance, and
that' s okay, I'm certainly amenable to that .
October 23 , 2003
47
1
2 But not knowing how the Board would based on
the new constituting Board or --
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Regime .
MS . MOORE : Regime .
4 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would your
client be opposed to 15 feet off that line and
5 some screening behind it?
MS . MOORE : An additional 15 feet?
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Total 15 .
MS . MOORE : Total 15 , not a
7 . problem.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And some
8 natural screening?
MS . MOORE : Yeah, we could suggest
9 a fence or some screening. They have a nice
white lattice fence that would work or
10 screening, it doesn' t matter. Either way we
could provide privacy for the property owner
11 on the other side .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think
12 natural screening would be preferred for that
nice little spot .
13 MS . MOORE : Any problem with that?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Board
14 Member Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I 'm just
15 wondering whether our previous interpretation
has any bearing on this .
16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Goehringer, comments on this?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s so
rare that we see a garage that' s going to be
18 used as a garage .
MS . MOORE : That' s very true .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
to raise that issue .
20 MS . MOORE : I think I submitted
the plans .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm
looking at the plans right now, it' s a
22 garage . So that' s very refreshing, and that' s
not said in a sarcastic manner.
23 MS . MOORE : No. I know you hear a
lot of these .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it
will contain -- only utility is electric; is
25 that correct?
MS . MOORE : Electric, no bathrooms
October 23 , 2003
48
1
2 or anything, no water, no heat, definitely no
heat .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
all I 'm interested in. On the maximum
4 height --
MS . MOORE : I think 18 as an
5 accessory structure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
6 MS . MOORE : Okay, do you want me
to give you a measurement from John Metzgar?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Let' s see
8 if there' s anyone in the audience that would
like to speak for or against this issue? Not
9 seeing anyone, I ' ll make a motion to close
this hearing, reserve decision
10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
11 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
12 present responded in favor. )
13 ----------------------------------------------------
14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
Application 5402, Paul Sennet .
15 MR. SENNET: Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: He' s been
16 waiting such a long time . Mr. Sennet, please
enlighten us .
17 MR. SENNET: What I have here is a
cottage that' s been in my family for -- since
18 1947, approximately. Basically after my
parents passed away it was left to myself .
19 I 've been working for a federal
government as an agent and now work as a
20 detective down in the state of Florida. But I
intend on retiring probably next year so I had
21 to spend a lot of time here in Southold where
I grew up basically.
22 The house is -- it' s on an
existing nonconforming piece of property, and
23 the porch is basically falling off . I just
want to make it a little bit larger and
24 submitted the plans . I had it drawn up by
Penny Lumber, and basically, you know, I've
25 got a letter from nonjurisdiction from the
Trustees, ' cause we set far enough back from
October 23 , 2003
49
1
2 the water, and I think the actual dimensions
of the porch are now going to be 12 by 18 , and
3 one that' s on there is 7 by 14 , something like
that . And actually the way the property line
4 on the right side facing the water, it' s the
porch. It' s a narrow piece of property, but
5 actually as the porch is being a little bit
longer, it actually is further away from the
6 property line .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is
7 a new survey. What is the date on that?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: October
8 loth.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I got one
9 August of 2000 .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Quick
10 question, Mr. Sennet .
MR. SENNET: Yes .
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I see the
porch that' s there as it sits now is pitched,
12 I believe that' s because it was an open porch
at one time . It wasn' t always enclosed, I
13 believe .
MR. SENNET: No. In fact, I put
14 in a --
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Typically
15 they pitch a porch like that when it' s open so
it runs off quite well?
16 MR. SENNET: I put in some used
storm windows just to close it in for the
17 winter.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : When I
18 walked around your property just yesterday, it
was a nasty day, but I enjoyed the property
19 anyway, and I see following the contour of the
back property line . But my million .dollar
20 question to you is, I couldn' t figure out
where do you park when you go to this --
21 MR. SENNET: Right by the maple
tree in the back yard.
22 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you
pull on --
23 MR. SENNET: Pull off the private
road, our road, and right off in there' s a
24 brick patio, right back in to that .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: ' Cause I
25 was looking. I didn' t know where this
gentleman parks his car.
October 23 , 2003
50
1
2 MR. SENNET: Yes, unfortunately
it' s just for one car.
3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you park
on the brick patio?
4 MR. SENNET: No, I don' t .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Just
5 adjacent to it?
MR. SENNET: Adjacent to it .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s now
12 by 18?
7 MR. SENNET : No. The new one will
be 12 by 18 .
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : It' s not
going to be enclosed; it' s going to be a
9 covered porch like the original?
MR. SENNET: I have the plans, can
10 I show you the plans?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t
11 think we have the plans .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They are
12 tucked away. It is an enclosed porch here .
Thank you.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that
going to be heated?
14 MR. SENNET: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I'm sorry,
15 it sounded like you said you' re not going to
heat .
16 MR. SENNET: It' s not going to be
heated. We' re going to have electric, and
17 that' s it .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any
18 questions, Mr. Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No.
19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Goehringer?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MR. SENNET: I'm not sure how it
21 works . I'm up here from down south, and I
won' t be coming back until early in the
22 spring, and I would like to find out while I'm
here before I go back on Sunday to talk to
23 builders, if it' s acceptable with the Board,
so I can start the process rolling. So I
24 could get this thing rolling, if this is
acceptable or not .
25 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Might take
a few weeks . We' re short-handed today. We
October 23 , 2003
51
1
2 don' t have a full Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
3 Normally, we make the decision at the next
special meeting, which is November 6th.
4 MR. SENNET: So I can call up the
Zoning Board and find out?
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes .
MR. SENNET: You send a letter?
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: With that
decision you can apply back to the Building
7 Department, get your building permit .
MR. SENNET: Thank you.
8 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there
anybody else in the audience that would like
9 to speak for or against this application? I
see no other hands, I' d like to close this
10 hearing and reserve decision. Second?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
favor?
12 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
13
-----------------------------------------------------
14
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
15 hearing Application 5400, Meinke .
MR. MEINKE : Howard Meinke, yes .
16 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would that
be you, sir?
17 MR. MEINKE : Yes . Okay, can I --
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you
18 have representation?
MS . MOORE : Yes, Pat Moore .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And,
Howard, she promises to be quick today.
20 MS . MOORE : Put you guys in charge
more often.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did
this 21 years there was no problem.
22 MS . MOORE : I can attest to 15 of
those years, yes .
23 We have here a situation and the
decking probably is older than most of us
24 here, well, some of us standing. Mr. Meinke' s
father actually built the house and the
25 decking, and later on when Mr. Meinke acquired
the property from his father, from the estate
October 23 , 2003
52
1
2 I would -- from the estate, he made the
renovation. He spruced up the house, made
3 renovations to the house and added the hot
tub, not realizing that it would create an
4 issue with respect to Crabber' s Road, which,
in fact, is an unimproved, unopened road that
5 shows up on the Nassau Point or the -- yeah,
the Nassau Point map from way back when. You
6 have a lot of those and you've seen them often
on cases up here . You have those spur roads
7 that have been created on the map still
showing the tax maps, and they' re actually
8 unimproved, unopened. And in this instance,
there' s a fence blocking it because it' s
9 wetland, and natural features that would not
allow access under today' s environmental
10 regulations, and it' s questionable whether you
can cut through and given access there .
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Who owns
that access?
12 MS . MOORE : I'm not sure the title
is clear because these roads show up on a
13 title map of the original developers of
it . I've seen title reports, not on this
14 property but in other instances, where the
property owner on either side owns to the
15 halfway point, but if a map has been filed
that predates with the deed or there' s some
16 recognition, it' s unclear. I 'm not sure that
a title company could give clear title to that
17 road to anyone because of the way it was
created.
18 1 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is the
fence blocking?
19 MS . MOORE : Yeah. The fence is
blocking that access to the water, because, as
20 I said, the ten foot contour line as you can
see on the survey cuts about halfway into the
21 property, or halfway into Crabbers Road and
then north -- south of that is a fence . So
22 it' s no access . So for all intents and
purposes practically my client owns both sides
23 of that road, both properties to either side
of that side of that road and so we have full
24 dominion and control of that road, and he has
had it, and his family has had it for at least
25 50 years .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are those
October 23 , 2003
53
1
2 lots merged or they' re separate lots?
MS . MOORE : No, it' s actually
3 separated lots because the road does have that.
benefit, which is the fact that it' s cut by
4 that road, segregated, isolated lots .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That, in
5 fact, is his driveway anyway?
. MS . MOORE : Yeah, actually he does
6 get access through that roadway for his garage
which under today' s code would not be allowed
7 to be an accessory couldn' t be built on a
separate lot, but in the 150s, nobody cared.
8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Pat, when
was the as-built deck built?
9 MR. MEINKE : Earlier there was a ,
deck and probably 20 years ago I did some
10 renovation and essentially ripped out the old
deck and did a new deck.
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Without a
building permit?
12 MR. MEINKE : Yeah, I convinced
myself that it was old, and also as a
13 weekender, it' s always a little bit harder to
deal with the different bureaus . Then much
14 more recently did come up with a hot tub, it' s
hot tub season, and I added the little more
15 where the hot tub goes, and --
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And
16 convinced yourself once again.
MS . MOORE : Well, he did get a
17 building permit for the hot tub, it' s just
unfortunately, the deck that the hot tub was
18 sitting .in was a violation. So essentially he
had to come here to legalize everything that
19 was there . But if you recall some time ago,
it wasn' t that long ago, maybe ten, 15 years
20 ago, that you could do renovations to existing
structures without a building permit . It' s
21 only in recent time that our Town has gotten a
little more strict because of abuses that now
22 you come in for everything. Even things under
the State building code are not structural
23 alterations .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How did
24 this parcel amongst probably many around the
Township get involved in the notice of
25 disapproval?
MS . MOORE : He did a refinance, so
October 23 , 2003
54
1
2 when he needed to gather up his permits for a
refinance, it suddenly became obvious that
3 there were structures that needed permits .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is he
4 seeking a C of 0 on these?
MS . MOORE : Yes . Everything will
5 be conforming when we' re done with this
process .
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are we
selling this property?
7 MR. MEINKE : No. There was a
interim need for some money, and the best way
8 to get it was a home equity loan. I had to
clean up these tag ends .
9 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Okay. Any
more questions, Mr. Horning?
10 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Mr.
11 Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I
12 was up there, beautiful piece of property.
MR. MEINKE : Thank you, we love
13 it out there . Never sell it .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See if
14 there' s anyone else in the audience that has
any comments either for or against this
15 application? Seeing no hands, I make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve decision.
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
17 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
18 present responded in favor. )
MR. MEINKE : Decision will be
19 when?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : November
20 6th at the special meeting.
21 -----------------------------------------------------
22 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next .
Application 5404 .
23 MS . SCHEIDER: Pamela Scheider,
I'm Priscilla Reilly' s sister.
24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : What a
good sister.
25 MS . SCHEIDER: Well, she' s a good
sister.
October 23 , 2003
55
1
2 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All right .
What would you like to tell us today?
3 MS . SCHEIDER: It' s an old house
that has a garage on the side which is
4 composed of several sheds, apparently when
that was an onion field there were sheds all
5 over the place, but the house used to sit up
where Mullen Motors is, and it was moved and
6 various modifications were made, and one of
them was the garage . And the inside of the
7 garage has several roof lines, and when we
were looking at it to think what we could do
8 in there, she wants to make a guest room and
bath, we were told that because of the
9 construction it has to be removed and
replaced. It wouldn' t be up to code . So we
10 got an engineer in to do plans and submitted
it, and the house apparently is too close to
11 the side yard; it' s less than ten feet from
the side yard.
12 So the proposed change has to do
with using the same footprint and basically
13 the same roof height, just changing the roof
line a bit and turning it into habitable
14 space .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you' re
15 doing a one and a half story addition?
MS . SCHEIDER: Yes . It' s
16 basically the same shape and size of what' s
there except for the roof line .
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Upstairs
is going to be a little reading room almost?
18 MS . SCHEIDER: Yes . Actually,
we' re putting bookshelves in. We have a lot
19 of books .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Open to
20 the first floor, kind of a balcony.
MS . SCHEIDER: Right, very
21 bright . Now there is a loft which we use for ,
storage, but there' s no light in it, so it
22 would be sort of a balcony sort of thing.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So the
23 peak ridge would not be any higher than the
main house ridge?
24 MS . SCHEIDER: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : That' s how
25 it shows in the plan?
MS . SCHEIDER: Yeah. That' s
October 23 , 2003
56
1
2 basically what the roof looks like now except
the line in the back is a little different,
3 and he wants the -- we' re going to change the
line that' s there . It' s still not exactly how
4 we want it . The plans don' t really --
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Kind of
5 has that 45 degree -- I saw that .
MS . SCHEIDER: It' s ugly. I' ll
6 get an architect for the next step.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Any
7 questions, Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in
8 other words, you' re taking the old, existing
structure off and you' re replacing it with
9 something that also has a loft, has a loft now
but you' re making that loft a habitable space?
10 MS . SCHEIDER: The loft would be
more of a, not a living space but a storage
11 space . It' s not going to have the height that
you need to make it two stories .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
that' s where you get the story and a half?
13 MS . SCHEIDER: I guess . I didn' t
understand what the woman was saying
14 yesterday, and she kept asking me and asking
me why I couldn' t show on the survey. I don' t
15 know how you can show height on a survey.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yeah, it' s
16 not a full two story, it' s like a one and a
half . It' s half --
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All
right .
18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And down
below is going to be?
19 MS . SCHEIDER: Bathroom, full
bath and it' s inconvenient and sharing a bath,
20 so full bath and just sort of a den area, sort
of a library, I think they call it a library
21 because that sounds a little pretentious .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : And the
22 upstairs .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why is the
23 Building Department call it a two story
addition?
24 MS . SCHEIDER: I don' t know. I
just thought if it wasn' t a one story they
25 called it a two . But apparently yesterday, I
guess they wait only until the day before to
October 23 , 2003
57
1
2 read through, so yesterday they called me at
noon and there was a big to do, and it wasn' t
3 fun.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: She
4 tries to correct things that may be a
problem.
5 MS . SCHEIDER: Because I think if
I had gotten the phone call at 7 : 00 , I think I
6 would have been -- but I still didn' t
understand, so I had the plans made so that
7 maybe that would help .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
8 plans are pretty extensive . It' s wonderful .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No
9 proposing of any changes in the existing
setback; is that correct?
10 MS . SCHEIDER: Footprint' s the
same, they' re going to use the existing
11 foundation, perhaps move it a little bit in
terms of the concrete, et cetera.
12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Was the
garage originally built with the house?
13 MS . SCHEIDER: I think it might
have come with the house, but it' s attached,
14 there' s several different roof lines in there .
It' s certainly from the ' 40s or somewhere
15 around there .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you date
16 the house to the same time period?
MS . SCHEIDER: It' s hard to tell,
17 the house is several parts . The original part
of the house, if you look at the construction
18 underneath, is different from the right side .
If you have the picture, there' s an addition
19 that might have been in the 140s .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What
about the part on the plan that says existing
21 garage to remain?
MS . SCHEIDER: I don' t know what
22 that means, that' s not going to happen.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we
23 can cross that out?
MS . SCHEIDER: Yeah, maybe he
24 means the foundation. It' s such a small
garage you can' t even open the car door
25 anyway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
October 23 , 2003
58
1
2 what had me going there for a minute .
MS . SCHEIDER: Sorry.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
okay.
4 MS . SCHEIDER: There' s plenty of
room in the driveway to park your car.
5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The only
issue here is the side yard setback?
6 MS . SCHEIDER: Yes . As far as I
can see .
7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : No other
questions?
8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 MS . SCHEIDER: It has a plastic
garage door anyway. Everybody in the area
10 seems to have one .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Cause
11 you can see through it . I used to have one,
and now I have a steel one and I can' t see
12 there through it .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Anyone in
13 the audience that would like to speak for or
against this application? Since I see no
14 hands, I' ll make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
16 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
17 present responded in favor. )
18 ----------------------------------------------------
19 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Next
Application 5401 . Paul Stetz ; did I pronounce
20 that right?
MR. STETZ : Yes .
21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: We run a
tight ship here, so we' re right on schedule .
22 MR. STETZ : I'm amazed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So are
23 we .
How are you today? What would you
24 like to tell us today?
MR. STETZ : I wasn' t sure of the
25 procedure . I just have to state what I want?
I don' t have a back door in the house at all .
October 23 , 2003
59
1
2 Every time we come in the house we go in the
front door up the front steps and whatever.
3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There' s
only one door?
4 MR. STETZ : There' s a basement
door down one level .
5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No side
doors?
6 MR. STETZ : The basement door is
on the side .
7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Does it go
into the basement?
8 MR. STETZ : Yeah. So we wanted
to put a door and there' s a window right there
9 now, we wanted to switch that into a door into
the kitchen, so it' s directly into the
10 kitchen, and a set of back steps coming into
the backyard and whatever porch was necessary.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next
page, George, describes exactly what he was
12 doing right there?
MR. STETZ : And we' re about, I
13 guess, we' re 35 feet, and this is going to cut
it down to 31 feet . It' s very small, it' s
14 only about 60 square feet and about 60 inches
high at the porch height and then steps going
15 down, railing would be another three feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said
16 60 square feet, right?
MR. STETZ : Roughly. It' s four by
17 seven, six, and then the step run would
probably be about the same . And that' s
18 basically it, really. It' s really accessed
directly into the kitchen with groceries and
19 stuff like that in bad weather. It' s a basic
thing.
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I was
there yesterday and your wife had shown me the
21 layout, and she wasn' t very pleased.
MR. STETZ : I didn' t think we
22 needed a variance when I realized the
setback. When I went to the Building
23 Department they said, yeah, you need that four
feet, and it doesn' t really go across the back
24 of the property at all . It' s minimal amount
for a doorway to get in and out of the house
25 in bad weather with groceries and whatever and
not going to the front, and we' re still under
October 23 , 2003
60
1
2 the lot coverage too .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any
3 questions, Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I
4 was over on a much nicer day. Remember that
one Saturday I was over? We were all in shirt
5 sleeves and we were admiring your pool, which
is beautiful .
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That
wasn' t yesterday.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
certainly wasn' t yesterday, and you explained
8 the entire thing to me . That porch is all
going to be open. There' s not going to be any
9 roof over it or anything?
MR. STETZ : No.
10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Mr.
Horning?
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No
questions .
12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Anyone in
the audience that would like to speak for or
13 against this application? I see no one else .
And I make a motion to close this hearing and
14 reserve decision for another date .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
favor?
16 (Whereupon, all Members of the
Board responded in favor. )
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We hope
to have a decision for you shortly.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: November
6th.
19 MR. STETZ : Thank you.
20 -----------------------------------------------------
21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
Application 5431, Diffley.
22 MR. DIFFLEY: Good afternoon.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes .
23 MR. DIFFLEY: I am the homeowner.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Yes, what
24 would you like to tell us today?
MR. DIFFLEY: We are proposing a
25 second floor addition, actually the extension
out over the existing, we are not changing the
October 23 , 2003
61
1
2 footprint of the current property, and the
reason why we' re applying for a variance is
3 that the current setback on this nonconforming
lot is 31 .feet, and it' s required to be 35
4 feet . It' s a preexisting condition. The
footprint doesn' t change at all .
5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Tell us
about the renovations .
6 MR. DIFFLEY: All interior
renovations, and then just, again, the
7 extension of the second floor out over the
current garage, again, not changing any of the
8 existing footprint . Upstairs will just extend
two bedrooms, we don' t propose to add any
9 additional bedrooms or any additional
bathrooms . It will still remain as four
10 bedrooms and two and a half baths .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The garage
11 will remain a garage?
MR. DIFFLEY: The garage, the
12 orientation of it will slightly change;
instead of it being a two car garage, it will
13 be a one and a half car garage as described by
the architect .
14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So that you
have a stairway going up to the second floor?
15 MR. DIFFLEY: Currently we do and
we will remain having a second floor
16 stairwell .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How would
17 one access the second floor over the garage
then?
18 MR. DIFFLEY: Same as we do now,
the interior stairwell . So that' s where all
19 the bedrooms are; that doesn' t change from
existing.
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any
further questions, Mr. Horning?
21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
22 Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From my
23 understanding, Mr. Diffley, this looks like a
total renovation. It' s my understanding that
24 you' re leaving the actual house?
MR. DIFFLEY: We are . We will be
25 vacant from the house for about four months .
So we don' t have to face any of the interior
October 23 , 2003
62
1
2 renovations .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was
3 there for the second time, I just brought
Mr. Horning over a little while ago during the
4 lunch hour. So we are completely cognizant of
what you are doing and wish you the best .
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' ll
assume that' s no further questions . As of
6 right now, 75 percent of the your house is
already a second story building, correct?
7 MR. DIFFLEY: Correct .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : And you' ll
8 be increasing your living space by how much?
MR. DIFFLEY: Eight hundred
9 square feet .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : That
10 would give you a total of what?
MR. DIFFLEY: Roughly 2 , 600,
11 2 , 700 square feet . I'm sorry I don' t have
those exact numbers .
12 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the
notice for disapproval was for a front yard
13 variance, you have a setback of 31 as supposed
to 35?
14 MR. DIFFLEY: 35 is required, 31
is current .
15 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you
need to upgrade your septic system to this?
16 MR. DIFFLEY: No . We' re not
adding any bedrooms or we' re not adding any
17 bathrooms .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What is
18 the addition before the garage space?
MR. DIFFLEY: No . Just really
19 extending our master bedroom because it' s
fairly small closet space and then extending
20 one of the children' s bedrooms slightly.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: At least
21 we' re sharing then. It' s not all about you?
MR. DIFFLEY: Yeah, we' re
22 sharing. Even though she' s going to college,
she has the biggest bedroom, we' re still
23 sharing. Some people are princesses .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have no
24 further questions, but we' ll see if there' s
anyone in the audience . I see no one jumping
25 to the podium, so I ' ll make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision.
October 23 , 2003
63
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
3 favor?
(Whereupon, all Members of the
4 Board responded in favor. )
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll
offer resolution granting that application as
6 applied for with a 31 foot setback, again, not
changing the footprint in any way.
7 The purpose of my escalating the
resolution is that these people are in need of
8 additional housing during the period of time,
and they would like to get the house
9 renovated, and that' s why they' re asking that
request .
10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second.
All in favor?
11 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
12
----------------------------------------------------
13
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next
14 Application 5414 , Jones, is there someone here
who would like to speak? Yes, sir.
15 MR. STOUTENBERG: My name' s Peter
Stoutenberg, I'm here to answer any questions
16 you might have on behalf of Mrs . Jones .
She had requested a variance a
17 year ago for the same side yard setback
maintaining what exists on the house . Of
18 course, I know the big backlog it was spring
before we got the approvals . At that time she
19 wanted to use the house for the summer and
over the summer the kids came out and said
20 gee, mom, let' s make it a little bigger. We
are not encroaching any further on the side
21 yard, but we are extending it another four or
five feet .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
a full enclosure though?
23 MR. STOUTENBERG: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only
24 encroachment is to the road?
MR. STOUTENBERG: Yes . It' s not
25 a new setback, we' re extending it further out .
We' re asking for another setback reduction.
October 23 , 2003
64
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
no front yard problem. It' s just the side
3 yard.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Any other
4 questions, Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Horning?
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have no
questions .
7 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have
questions . On the addition right now it has
8 no basement or crawl space -- well, it has a
crawl space . Will it be a full basement
9 addition or just a crawl space?
MR. STOUTENBERG: No . It will be
10 a crawl space, but it will be a contained
crawl space .
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right now
it' s an open crawl space?
12 MR. STOUTENBERG: Right . But it
will be contained, so that if there' s duct
13 work or heating or anything in the future
they' ll have a place to put it, but it' s not
14 going to be a stand up basement .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There will
15 be some excavation on the site?
MR. STOUTENBERG: There will be
16 ' cause we've got to be three feet in the
ground for the footings, yeah, but it' s going
17 to be minor. '
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : So the
18 whole crawl space will be three feet below
grade?
19 MR. STOUTENBERG: It will be
whatever we go down to for our footings, yeah.
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : And the
addition is what, for the house, bedrooms?
21 MR. STOUTENBERG: Basically
it' s -- they have got sort of a living room,
22 kitchen combination, and this is going to be
an extension so they really have a living room
23 that' s separate from the kitchen/dining area.
They' re not changing the bedrooms, bath.
24 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Here
they' re calling it a new family room or
25 sitting room.
MR. STOUTENBERG: Yeah, it' s a
October 23 , 2003
65
1
2 extension of the living room. The living
room' s kind of small . And like everybody
3 else, they' re using the house a bigger part of
the year, spring and fall and the weather' s
4 not always conducive to sitting out on the
deck when the family relatives get together.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I saw the
deck when I walked around. I don' t know who
6 got scared, I don' t know who got scared more,
the deer or myself . I didn' t know they
7 started like that when you scare them.
I have no further questions . See
8 if there' s anyone in the audience that would
like to speak for or against this application?
9 I see no one, so I ' ll close this hearing and
reserve decision.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
11 favor?
(Whereupon, all Members of the
12 Board responded in favor. )
13 ----------------------------------------------------
14 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Next
application -- the time is 2 : 30 -- 5412 ,
15 Sutherland.
MS . D. SUTHERLAND: I'm Dorrie
16 Sutherland. I'm one of the owners of the
house, my husband deserted me today.
17 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Just for
today, I hope?
18 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Just for
today. He sent Warren in his place . We' re
19 applying for a handicap ramp for wheelchair
access and a small deck addition, so that the
20 person in the wheelchair can get up onto our
back deck from the ramp; and the small deck
21 addition on the other side so that when you
have more than two wheelchairs, people aren' t
22 smashing into each other like bumper cars .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay, that
23 was short and sweet . Mr. Goehringer, any
questions?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in
other words, you' re squaring off the deck?
25 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: That' s
correct .
October 23 , 2003
66
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be
the entire rear of the house toward the water?
3 MS . D. SUTHERLAND : Yes .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Including
4 the new ramp.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
5 stoop is going to be removed and the ramp will
be on the easterly side of the house?
6 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: South side,
that' s where the door is, the front door.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where
the brick stoop is now, okay. And the ramp is
8 how wide, three feet even, right? Okay.
What' s going to happen where the stoop is,
9 where the door is; how are you going to get in
there?
10 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: How are we
going to get into the door?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah.
MS . D. SUTHERLAND: It' s such a
12 gradual incline but it will level off for the
wheelchair.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because
the house is built fairly low to the ground,
14 the biggest part is the part that' s facing the
road, right?
15 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Right . It' s
going to level off where the door is, and then
16 continue up a little bit, to reach the ramp
and the deck in the back.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very
nice job on the house, by the way.
18 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Thank you,
you' re invited over. I'm proud of it . I
19 painted it myself .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Any other
20 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr.
Horning?
22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This is to
take care of an immediate family need?
23 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Yes . We have
family members who are in wheelchairs and
24 someday maybe we' re going to retire there, we
might need it .
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Hopefully
you won' t .
October 23 , 2003
67
1
2 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Hopefully we
won' t .
3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You want to
make this a permanent addition?
4 MS . D. SUTHERLAND : Oh, yes . We
want it to look nice too.
5 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You have an
immediate family need and in addition you' re
6 going to do an excellent job.
MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Yeah. It will
7 look like a Japanese tea house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just
8 want to say, we just want you to be on notice
that we really don' t want side yards closed
9 up, and since you have a really small side
yard on the other side, this would be the max
10 that could be done in case you have to get to
the water side . That' s a philosophy that' s
11 been carried by the Board for many years .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Going to
12 the Notice of Disapproval, I'm noticing that
the existing setback is five feet on one side,
13 then it will become 5 . 5 feet according to the
Notice of Disapproval; how would you explain
14 that?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I guess
15 the property' s not true perpendicular on that
one point .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The way
it' s shown, George, is they' re going to end up
17 with 12 feet on the one side, 17 . 1 minus 5 .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The fives
18 are over here .
BOARD' MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know
19 the fives are over here, but they' re not
showing it' s going to be reduced on this side .
20 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s
giving them perpendicular, not perfect so the
21 property, the house is tweaked a little .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I see .
22 It' s depends upon which end you' re measuring
it from.
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
24 the reason why the issue is not mentioned on
the side yard setback on the other side is
25 because I have a feeling that the wheelchair
ramp is exempt . And we've carried that
October 23 , 2003
68
1
2 exemption through pretty much on all of these
things, but the deck isn' t, so that' s the
3 reason why it picks it up at the deck, okay?
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have one
4 for more question, the deck that you' re
building and is existing will stay open to the
5 sky?
MS . D. SUTHERLAND: Yes .
6 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s not
being closed?
7 MS . D. SUTHERLAND: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there
8 anyone in the audience that would like to
speak for or against this application?
9 MS . M. SUTHERLAND: Absolutely.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes,
10 ma' am, state your name, please?
MS . M. SUTHERLAND: My name is
11 Maureen Sutherland. I live in Jamesport now.
I moved to the beautiful north fork two years
12 ago. One of the reasons I moved out here was
so I would have an opportunity to visit with
13 my brother and sister-in-law weekends when
they' re away from their jobs . One of the
14 things Dorrie failed to mention so far was the
fact that they already built in their
15 renovations, they have made their bathroom
wheelchair accessible . So now it' s just a
16 matter of being able to. get into the house .
I have become more and more
17 disabled over the past several years . I
anticipate that within a matter of time I will
18 probably be using a wheelchair also, and I
will not be able to get into their house
19 unless there is a ramp . So, as of right now,
I can still make it . It' s a tough step for
20 that one step that they have getting up there
for me, but I can do it, but my anticipation
21 is that since I'm becoming more and more
disabled that I would need a ramp.
22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Will you be
able to walk up the ramp easier?
23 MS . M. SUTHERLAND: Absolutely.
I cannot do steps very well at all .
24 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: My mother
had the same situation.
25 MS . M. SUTHERLAND: One of them
usually stands close by me as I go in.
October 23 , 2003
69
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you.
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to speak for or
4 against this application?
MS . ROBERTS : I don' t need that .
5 My name is June Roberts, and I also live in
Jamesport . When Dorrie mentioned more than
6 one wheelchair, I am involved in the wonderful
world of disabilities where we live in
7 wheelchairs very well, but my butt' s getting
worn out going up on the butt to go visit and
8 that' s the only way I can get into the house .
There' s nobody in this world that can lift
9 this wheelchair.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How are
10 they getting you in the house now?
MS . ROBERTS : I go up on my butt,
11 and they put a manual chair in the house . I
look forward to the day when every community
12 has a disability law where all people can go
visit each other and not just because you have
13 a family member, ' cause you have friends too,
and as Maureen said, as she' s getting older,
14 she' s going to need a wheelchair, trust me,
you may too, and we' re the only minority
15 anybody can join.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I know.
16 MS . ROBERTS : It only takes a
step off a curb. It will be -- what I have
17 seen and what they have talked about and what
they envision is a nonintrusive attachment to
18 the house . As you mentioned, they have done a
beautiful job at the house . I have seen many
19 of the houses they have moved to and in some
way upgraded, and they have always done a
20 beautiful job and I think they will do one
here too . Thank you.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
22 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there
anybody else that would like to speak for or
23 against this application? Seeing no hands,
I would like to make a motion to close this
24 application and reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
25 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : All in
favor?
October 23 , 2003
70
1 ,
2 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' d like
to make a motion to approve the application as
4 applied for.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
5 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Deck will
stay open to the sky as well as the ramp.
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
7 favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
8 present responded in favor. )
9 ----------------------------------------------------
10 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Time is
2 : 55, Application 5417, Cirrito, correct?
11 MR. CIRRITO: Yes, that' s right .
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Cirrito.
12 I'm one of the homeowners, and this is a
request for a variance to build a second story
13 at a home we own at 7625 Nassau Point Road.
If you can see from the plans, the
14 intention is to build a second story within
the actual footprint of the home now. We' re
15 not building out . The reason why we need this
variance is it' s a preexisting, nonconforming
16 use on the south side, with respect to the
side yard setback.
17 I have discussed this matter with
neighbors to both sides, they have no
18 objections to our proposal, and I think it
will be within the quality of the neighborhood
19 and more impact on the neighborhood at all and
I ask that you grant this application.
20 Mr. Brown is here today, he' s our
architect . If you have any specific questions
21 with respect to the plans of Mr. Brown, I ' ll
turn it over to him.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ask a
question.
23 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' ll ask
the question. It took me a second to figure
24 it out, the addition is above -- I guess it' s
in the garage or storage?
25 MR. CIRRITO: It' s storage .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : And that' s
October 23 , 2003
71
1
2 going to stay there?
MR. CIRRITO: As is .
3 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And that' s
the portion that' s the second story?
4 MR. CIRRITO: Of the half to the
right as you' re looking at the house
5 street-side will remain one story, the roof
line will change a little just to make it
6 aesthetically.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The south
7 side of the house will stay as a second story?
MR. CIRRITO: Correct .
8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You' re also
filling in on the north side?
9 MR. BROWN: There' s also filling
in on the entry porch but we' re not extending
10 any farther to the north than the existing
structure .
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : There' s
kind a notch there now?
12 MR. BROWN: That' s exactly right .
We' re just cleaning it up a little bit, and
13 the second story extends from that north face
back over the living room in the center of the
14 house .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What will
15 be the total height to the ridge on the new
extension?
16 MR. BROWN: Bear with me one
second. The height to the ridge, from average
17 grade will be approximately 29 and a half
feet, that' s to the ridge .
18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you
19 have it, Mr. Brown, because I have to write
this decision, what would you say that the
20 increase in square footage would be, any idea?
MR. BROWN: I wasn' t expecting a
21 quiz .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You
22 don' t have to give that to me today.
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You always
23 have to study.
MR. BROWN: But I never know what
24 to study. I can give you in round numbers
it' s approximately 800 square feet, 850 square
25 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of the
October 23 , 2003
72
1
2 850 -- that' s good. Okay.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What
3 safeguards are you making toward little
Peconic Bay during the construction period?
4 What impact will there be between the house
and the bulkhead?
5 MR. CIRRITO : We agreed with the
Town Board that the hail bays --
6 MR. BROWN: -- the Trustees .
MR. CIRRITO : The Trustees, excuse
7 me, we' re going to put hail bays around the
perimeter on the Peconic side, and we always
8 agreed to put dry wells in at the end of
construction.
9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you
have a Board of Trustees letter of approval
10 then in the file?
MR. CIRRITO: We have the approval
11 letter.
MR. BROWN: We don' t have it with
12 us .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We' re
13 asking all the applicants to do that if
there' s any Board of Trustees issues .
14 MR. BROWN: We' ll get that for
you.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the
record, I have gone to the site, as you have
16 heard the other Board Members . I looked at
the bluff, which is a well vegetated bluff,
17 and --
MR. BROWN: It' s actually double
18 bulkheaded.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- double
19 bulkheaded. And I was there on the day when
it was extremely windy, and everything was
20 staying in place, and I don' t foresee any
particular problems with this construction.
21 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is this
house a primary residence or is it a summer
22 residence?
MR. CIRRITO : It' s a summer
23 residence hopefully soon to be primary
residence .
24 MR. BROWN: I'm sure you have been
getting a lot of those .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes,
particularly in a beautiful area.
October 23 , 2003
73
1
2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And the
frame of the house should be able to support
3 the addition?
MR. BROWN: And there are some
4 things that we' re doing to accommodate some
unusual loads because of the second floor.
5 It' s all being accommodated.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All up
6 to you, boss .
VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Anyone in
7 the audience that would like to speak for or
against the application? I see no one . Any
8 Board Members feel there' s any reason why we
shouldn' t close this hearing? I make a motion
9 to close this hearing and reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
10 moved.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
11 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All in
favor?
12 (Whereupon, all Board Members
present responded in favor. )
13 MR. BROWN: Can you let us know
when we' ll be --
14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: November
6th. Thank you.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
you very much.
16 MR. CIRRITO: Thank you for your
time .
17 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Make a
motion to adjourn.
18 VICE CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Second.
All in favor?
19 (Whereupon, all Members of the
Board responded in favor. )
20
(Time ended: 3 : 00 p.m. )
21
22
23
24
NOV 1 7 2003
25
October 23 , 2003
74
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 23rd day of October, 2003 .
15
16
17
18
Florence V. Wiles
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October 23 , 2003