HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/18/2003 HEAR 2 L�� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 ---------------------- ---- ---------------- -X
5 T 0 W N . 0 F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z O 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
!December
uth k
11
18, 2 00312 35 a .m.
13
14 Board Members Present
15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
16 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member
17 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
18 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
19 GEORGE HORNING, Board Member
20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
21
22
23
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Public Hearing
= , for E . and R. Trippe, Number 5300 and 5308 , we
,y 3 have a request from applicant' s attorney to
postpone it to March 18, 2004 at 9 : 35 a.m.
4 pending a receipt of the Building Inspector' s
Amended Notice of Disapproval regarding
5 application 6/19 submission of amended design
and layout or other update from applicant
6 regarding acquisition of adjoining parcel; may
I have a motion?
7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll make
the motion.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
10 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
11 ------------------------------ ----------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
12 hearing is 9 : 35 Locke and Sara Ridgeway McLean
at Fishers Island. George, would you like to
13 fill us in on all the details? We didn' t see
it .
14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: To bring us
up to date, I believe the applicant took heed
15 to our suggestions and concerns with their ✓`
prior submissions and plans, and they have
16 reconsidered it and redesigned what they want
to do, and I believe attached - - are proposing
17 to make an attached addition to their house
instead of a separate garage .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . You
would be in favor of --
19 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I would be,
yes .
20 MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road
in Cutchogue, for the applicant . We' re on an
21 adjourned hearing. Before you as you' re
opening them up and it' s been submitted to the
22 building inspector, I ' ll brief you real quick
on it, bring you up to date . Instead of a 24
23 by 30 detached garage it' s now a 26 by 30
attached addition. It' s living space now.
24 From the zoning point of view, if you
remember, this unique piece of property has
25 three front yards . The original proposal when
they were going to site it was 15 feet off the
December 18 , 2003
3
1
2 gloaming. Now it' s 27 and a half feet off the
gloaming. In other words, they moved it up
3 another 12 . 5 away from the road, and, in fact ,
from a numbers point of view, it' s really a 50
4 percent request now as opposed to the other
number before for the variance in the front
5 yard in this area. Miss McLean wanted to be
here, but a glitch in her scheduling didn' t
6 allow it, and she' s kind of talked to
Mr. Horning, and she' s kind of thrilled with
7 the rethinking of the project, because not
only does it give her the storage that before
8 she was upset about that they didn' t have, but
it' s given them additional living space . It' s
9 worked out quite nice, and she' s quite happy
with the amendment as you have it before you.
10 So I think not to belabor the record, for all
the reasons that I gave you before that meet
11 the statutory criteria to give the area
variances required and the balancing test
12 apply not only here again, so I won' t belabor
that and I just ask respectively that you do
13 approve the application with this reduction as
you have before you today.
-- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
Mr. Lark. Is there anybody else in the
15 audience that would like to comment on this
application? If not, do I have a motion to
16 close the hearing and reserve the decision?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just
17 think it' s one hundred percent improvement .
MR. LARK: So does Mrs . McLean.
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' m glad
you went back to the drawing board and we've
19 eliminated a lot of the concerns and it looks
excellent .
20 MR. LARK: They completely
rethought the whole thing after our last
21 session here and I 'm glad that she was here
because if I tried to relate that, it ' s not
22 the same thing as the interaction she had with
you. Okay, thank you.
23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The concern
for the driveway with the detached onto the
24 road and all that stuff, all those concerns
are gone .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ' s great .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there
December 18 , 2003
4
1
2 a garage in this now?
MR. LARK: No .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
garage is going to stay where it was?
4 MR. LARK: Yeah. They' re going to
take the junk out .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And put
it in the addition?
6 MR. LARK: That was part of the
rethinking process .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see .
You had me going there for a minute .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a
motion to close the hearing and reserve
9 decision?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' ll make
10 the motion.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
12 responded in favor. ) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
13 --- -------------------- ------ - --- ----- --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
14 hearing at 9 : 35 is for Martin and Clorinda
Hartmann, Number 5425 , this is at Angler' s
15 Road in Greenport . Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to speak?
16 MR. HARTMANN: I am the owner of
the property. ,
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you
like to tell us, sir?
18 MR. HARTMANN: We want to put a
Florida room up here basically for our kids to
19 enjoy.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any
20 comments?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I
21 could pass just one second because I just got
the file and I apologize . I did look at
22 the -- no, I' ll comment . I did have look at
the property approximately a week ago, you
23 said, Mr. Hartmann, the purpose of the
addition is for what?
24 MR. HARTMANN: Florida room.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What room?
25 MR. HARTMANN: Florida room.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
December 18 , 2003
5
' 1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
a one story addition for the rear of the
3 house?
MR. HARTMANN: Correct .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And can
carry the same side yard approximately 6 . 2
5 feet . I don' t have any objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
size of the new addition?
7 MR. HARTMANN: 16 by 32 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 36 . 5 .
8 MR. HARTMANN: 36 . 5 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 36 . 5 by?
9 MR. HARTMANN: 16 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the
10 existing setback is 6-3 . You' re going to be
following the side yard, which would bring it
11 down, run parallel to the existing house so it
would run down to 6-2 , an inch less; is that
12 accurate?
MR. HARTMANN: Correct .
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t
have any further questions .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No further
15 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I might
just ask if you considered locating it on the
17 south end, the building rather than the west?
Were you -- you have much more room there but
18 if you have some reason not to do that .
MR. HARTMANN: It' s a lot easier
19 to put it where it is . I have bedrooms on
that side of the house . So I ' d have to
20 reconstruct the two bedrooms I have . I ' d have
to put a doorway into there .
21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So this is
the most feasible place for you?
22 MR. HARTMANN: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for
coming. I have a motion to close the hearing
24 and reserve decision until later?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' ll make
25 the motion.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
December 18 , 2003
6
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
` (Whereupon, all Board Members
3 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll have a
4 decision for you probably in a couple of
weeks . We usually have a special meeting two
5 weeks later and probably about five days -- we
should know by then anyway, if you' re approved
6 it takes another five days until it' s given to
the Town clerk.
7 MR. HARTMANN: So I 'm approved
now?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . You have
to wait for two weeks .
9 MR. HARTMANN: Okay, thank you.
------------------------------------- - --
10 MS . KOWALSKI : We received this
letter this morning, Bruce, it came in about
11 9 : 00 . Objection to Kapassakis (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
12 on behalf of George Kapassakis, Number 5440,
is there anybody in the audience that wishes
13 to speak for the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes . Bruce
14 Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Georgea Kapassakis . If I r
15 could just hand up a tax map so you can see
the lot in relationship to the neighborhood.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have
one .
17 MR. ANDERSON: You have this?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes .
18 MR. ANDERSON: The Kapassakis
family wishes to build a single-family
19 dwelling on a lot which lies in the R40 zoning
district; that lot area is 32 , 390 square feet .
20 The application before you
proposes a house that would contain a first
21 floor living area of 1, 205 square feet with an
attached garage totaling 598 square feet . The
22 second floor consists of 1, 402 square feet .
This is a four bedroom dwelling, and it,
23 including the detached accessory structure
found north of the proposed dwelling, lot
24 coverage in this application would total 6 . 8
percent, where 20 percent is required. As I
25 said, it falls in the R40 zoning district .
It is a preexisting,
December 18 , 2003
7
1
2 non-conforming lot for two reasons . Number
" one is the lot contains less than 40 , 000
3 square feet and is not conforming with respect
to area; secondly, is it also non-conforming
4 with respect to lot depth as the required lot
depth in the R40 zone is 175 feet , and this
5 lot has a lot depth of 120 feet .
It is because of the limitation on
6 lot depth that we are here today. If the
frontage on this property were otherwise, we
7 would easily be able to meet front and rear
yard setbacks .
8 This particular lot was created as
Lot 10 as part of the map of Aqua View Park,
9 which was filed on July 30 , 1971 . At that
time it was processed under the zoning in
10 effect, which was the 1965 ordinance, which
would have provided for lot area of 12 , 500
11 square feet a front yard of - -
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Anderson, I
12 think we have that information.
MR. ANDERSON: -- five feet and a
13 rear yard of 25 feet . My point in saying that
is that this is a lot that was oversized at
14 the time it was created. It didn' t have the
limitations as laid/out and designed and it is
15 only because of suIsequent zoning amendments
that we find ourse-lves with the problem we
16 have . Others have experienced the same
problems, specifically, the neighbor directly
17 to the south, Steven Schott, has a similar
sized lot with similar limitations with
18 respect to lot depth. Pursuant to a zoning
decision granted by this Board dated 3/15/01,
19 Number 4896 , that rear yard was reduced to
34 . 2 feet to provide for an attached deck.
20 Similarly, many years prior there
was an application made and granted by Peter
21 Frumenti, who lived on Stars Road, just south
of the property. In that application that
22 zoning board of appeals, Number 530 , the
zoning board at that time granted a front yard
23 setback reduction of 15 feet along a right of
way, which is shown as the unnamed road to the
24 south of the property after on your tax map.
Part of that zoning decision tells us that a
25 front yard setback of 35 feet would be
maintained. I ' ll hand these up so you have
December 18 , 2003
1
8
1
2 these (handing) .
- My point is that we experience the
3 same difficulty as others have . We -- I was
just given a letter written by Kim Desenkowski
4 and Betty Desenkowski . It is important to
know that the map Aqua View Farms was
5 developed by the Desenkowski family and it was
an oversized lot at the time it was developed.
6 It is also important to note that the garage
which now finds itself in a -- it' s not a
7 garage -- the detached accessory structure to
the north of the proposed dwelling was also
8 constructed by the Desenkowski property. We
submit an undesirable change to the
9 neighborhood will not occur. If you look at
the survey before you you will see that the
10 dwellings are sketched into the north and the
south and they are at 35 feet from the front
11 lot line; and then, of course, the rear yard
relief was granted to the Lot 11 to the south
12 at a lesser setback than is proposed herein.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the
13 length and width of this house?
MR. ANDERSON The length of the
14 house overall is 60 feet and the width of t'ze
house -- the depth of the house I presume1you
15 mean -- including porches and bay windowp is
45 feet as shown on the survey. l
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any
way that the depth of the house could be cut
17 back a little bit further than this to make
the variances less?
18 MR. ANDERSON It would cause a
total redesign of the property, and this isn' t
19 a situation where we' re putting too much house
on a property. You have to understand we' re
20 occupying a mere 6 . 8 percent of the lot area,
and we think -- you know, what we have here is
21 we have side yard setbacks that greatly exceed
what' s required in this zone even if you go to
22 Section 200 of the town code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I realize that .
23 MR. ANDERSON: So our problem is
not too much house nor is it not enough land
24 for that matter. Our problem is a limited of
depth of 120 feet . So when it was laid out,
25 we tried to lay out a house that would
actually fit in this neighborhood, and as it
December 18 , 2003
9
1
2 turns out it does in a way that' s consistent
- with other variances already granted by this
3 Board. The change -- you have to understand
when you' re 35 feet back from the lot line,
4 you' re actually about 45 feet back from the
road because you have an additional ten feet
5 of road shoulder. So we do not think the
house will look imposing from the street or
6 from the rear yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is a
brand new house, it ' s virgin as far as what
8 has transpired in the neighborhood. The prior
variances were granted to a pre-existing
9 house, brand new lot, brand new house . As far
as the 35 foot setback requested, there' s no
10 question that you can redesign the house to
make that 40 . The configuration of the house
11 being 45 feet wide, you' ve jutted out in the
front to that porch area, as well as where
12 you've got the driveway coming in.
On brand new houses , brand on new
13 lots, this Board has not and will not be
inclined to grant variances when clearly the
--- 14 burden of proof is on the applicant . Why you
can' t design a house that can fit on this
15 property; that' s where I 'm coming from point
blank. There' s no question that a house can
16 be designed on this property, a four bedroom
house, that will meet the front yard setback.
17 That' s my comments .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I agree
with Mrs . Tortora.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' ll ask a
20 question as to the garage also .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s there .
21 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Even though
they' re proposing it?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, the garage
is sitting there now. No house . There is a
23 garage sitting on the property.
MS . KOWALSKI : Isn' t there another
24 garage?
MR. ANDERSON: The garage doesn' t
25 function as a garage . It' s simply a detached
accessory building and a two car garage
December 18 , 2003
10
1
2 attached within the structure is proposed.
MS . KOWALSKI : You said it ' s blank
3 598 square feet .
MR. ANDERSON: Correct .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we
see a copy of that letter from the neighbor?
.5 MS . KOWALSKI : Vincent gave it to
you. Do you want to comment?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just
want to say that based upon your presentation,
7 you are pretty correct in the situation that
existed, we did have 12 , 500 square foot
8 zoning; however, the health department in 1966
required everybody to be 20, 000 ; they would
9 not approve anything. So that' s the reason
these lots exceed 20, 000 square feet because
10 we did go to one acre zoning at that
time . This lot is approximately 12 , 319 over,
11 even though the zoning was 12 , 500 , it was
really 20 based upon the health department
12 situation.
One of the major concerns that I
13 have with this particular area and the area
across the street, which is Gillette Drive, is
-- 14 that what the future is going to bring when
you have reduced setbacks and added decks and
15 j swimming pools and so on and so forth that
1, usually occur sometime after. This lot, of
16 course, is fortunately larger than that area
that I just mentioned across the street . When
17 I say across the street , I'm referring to
across the Main Road and a little west . On
18 those situations, I , myself as a Board member,
are requesting a mandate for the persons that
19 are requesting those variances, and very
simply saying that we' re not -- I 'm not
20 granting any decks on these houses if you' re
asking for a reduction already. So, that' s
21 one of the issues here, and I do support to a
certain degree my colleague' s opinions
22 regarding the house, a 45 foot wide house is
pretty wide, Bruce . I think you could scale
23 it down a little bit, and, you know, in my
particular case, add a little -- basically
24 give us a little on the front yard, give us a
little on the rear yard and let' s see what we
25 can deal with.
MR. ANDERSON: All right . Well,
A
December 18 , 2003
1
11
1
2 I' m hearing that you' re looking for a 40 foot
setback off the front yard?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right .
MR. ANDERSON: I have not heard a
4 setback off the rear yard that you' re looking
for. I 've only heard the front so --
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think if
we remove the bay, if I 'm not mistaken, I
6 think it' s about four feet in depth.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You could get
7 46 feet in the back.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the rear
8 bay.
MR. ANDERSON: It' s a bay window.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you make
that flush.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have a nice
picture window.
11 MR. ANDERSON: You understand each
house on either side --
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is a new
house . Every site is different .
13 MR. ANDERSON: Okay, the lot to
the south is nearly identical . It truly is .
- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is a
different applica' ion. Mr. Anderson, we take
15 each application by itself . I would agree
with my colleagL�s that I think you can take a
16 bit off the front and a bit off the rear .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The front
17 garage -- I' ll wait until you' re done writing .
MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The front
garage is in front of the front porch by three
19 feet also . If we can make that flush also
that reduces the front yard setback.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words ,
what we need --
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It would
make the front yard somewhere around 38 , 39
22 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 40 front and 45
23 back. Go any way you want would be far more
acceptable to this Board.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Then it
would be a rear yard setback .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 40 front and 45
rear?
December 18 , 2003
12
1
2 MR. ANDERSON: How do you wish to
proceed; do you want to leave this open until
3 we come back?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Close the
4 hearing and reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Don' t we
5 want to see plans?
MS . KOWALSKI : Usually what
6 happens, you submit an amended plan in
writing. The Board would close the hearing
7 subject to receiving that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Take that up at
8 a\special meeting.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Close the
9 hearing we' d like to see a 40 foot front yard
setback and a 45 foot rear yard setback, and
10 the hearing is closed. I' d like to have a
motion, please .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
moved.
12 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Before that ,
13 does anybody else in the audience want to
speak in favor or against this application?
14 If not, the motion stands . All in favor?.,
(Whereupon, all Board Membe
15 responded in favor. ) /
MS . KOWALSKI : Bruce, because of
16 the holiday, I don' t know if you' re going to
be rushed by doing this, but the Board likes
17 to receive the amended plans the Friday before
the next meeting, if you can' t make it the
18 Friday before January 8th, and it would be the
Friday before the following meeting, which
19 would be January 22nd, so the Friday before is
the 18th.
20 MR. ANDERSON: I would say let' s
shoot for submission before the Friday
21 before . We could even do that the one after
that . It ' s not going to bother me because
22 we' re in the winter time .
MS . KOWALSKI: You don' t need a
23 date to submit it then. It would go on the
agenda after that for a decision.
24 MR. ANDERSON: Or soon thereafter
as possible .
25 MS . KOWALSKI : As soon after as
possible, that ' s right, but not later than 60
December 18 , 2003
13
1
2 days .
- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Very good,
3 thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
4 Mr. Anderson.
------------------------------ --------- -
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
hearing is on behalf of Terry Capozzola,
6 Number 5444 . This is for an enclosed porch at
less than 35 feet from the front lot line . Is
7 there anybody here who would like to speak?
MS . CAPOZZOLA: Yes . That' s me,
8 I'm Terry Capozzola, and I just received my
last return receipt (handing) .
9 Well, I actually didn' t realize
that there wasn' t a CO for this porch. I
10 purchased the house a few years ago and it
only came up when I was trying to sell the
11 house right now, that there was no CO for this
porch, which near as I can figure was enclosed
12 in the ' 70s because I know the previous owners
and the owners prior to that , and I know the
13 porch existed then. So I 'm just basically
trying to go through complying with the
14 building department' s request with all the
documentation, and I sent out my notices to
15 all my neighbors and I don' t know if this
matters, but a picture of what it looks like .
16 I don' t know if you' re going to make me tear
it down.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t quite
make your house . The water was too high
18 yesterday with the rain.
MS . CAPOZZOLA: Oh, you mean
19 people actually visit it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . I got to
20 the Mattituck parking lot .
MS . CAPOZZOLA: It was pretty bad.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So I headed
back east .
22 MS . CAPOZZOLA: There' s no heat on
it . It was enclosed, and it ' s basically, it ' s
23 an enclosed porch. In terms of the interior
there' s bifold doors, so you could have it as
24 a little sitting area, whatever. I had it as
a little music room.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora,
do you have any questions?
December 18 , 2003
14
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, only
that you would have no objection to, if we
3 granted this, that it be conditioned on the
fact that there is no heat, it ' s not liveable
4 space, and it wouldn' t be converted into that ;
would that be acceptable?
5 MS . CAPOZZOLA: That' s perfectly
acceptable .
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe
you answered my one question. The addition
8 looked quite weathered, and you had said, you
obviously lived locally in the neighborhood.
9 You've seen it there for many years before you
bought it?
10 MS . CAPOZZOLA: No . What it is,
the people I purchased the house from Mike and
11 Joan -- I can' t remember their names, but
anyway --
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Kajuski?
MS . CAPOZZOLA: Kajuski , yes . And
13 the house, the porch was enclosed when they
purchased it . And the previous owners to
14 them, Mike Commando and Nanette, purchased it
in the ' 80s, and I personally know them
15 because when I was going through the motions
of buying the house, I found out that they
16 used to own it, and I was asking them
questions . I contacted them and they said
17 when they purchased the house, the porch was
existing also. So we' re not sure when it was
18 enclosed.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it went
19 through several title searches without
catching that one?
20 MS . CAPOZZOLA: Right . And I
didn' t use a personal attorney. I used the
21 bank and the bank' s attorney, and it just
never came up. I had no knowledge .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also, you
submitted a survey. I don' t see a date; do
23 you know when that was?
MS . CAPOZZOLA: 1975 .
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It shows
the porch was there?
25 MS . CAPOZZOLA: Right . The porch
was there . As a matter of fact, the Town had
December 18 , 2003
15
1
2 showed me when I first went to the building
;. � department, they have a picture of it when
3 last you did your whatever you do, your --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Tax
4 assessment?
MS . CAPOZZOLA: Right . It was in
5 1970 something, and it was not enclosed at
that time . So I suspect somewhere after that
6 survey 1975 , is when the porch was enclosed.
Because I think the Commandos purchased it in
7 the early ' 80s and he said the porch was
enclosed at that time .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
questions .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live
10 in Mattituck. I go back past the house at
least twice or three times a day, and it' s
11 been there a long time, and it' s preexisting.
I really have no other comment on that .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING : No comment .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I pass by that
way too, and it ' s been there a long time .
14 Thank you very much for coming. Is there
anybody else in ��,'iis audience who would like
15 to speak for or/ against this application? If
no one, I ask for a motion to close the
16 hearing and reserve decision.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So moved.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor .
(Whereupon, all Board Members
19 responded in favor. )
MS . CAPOZZOLA: What does that
20 mean to me?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That means in
21 about two weeks we will have a special meeting
where we will make our decision and then
22 probably two days after that, you will have
it .
23 MS . CAPOZZOLA: Thank you very
much, happy holiday everybody.
24 ----------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
25 application is Elizabeth Strupp, Number 5442 .
This is for an as-built location of a shed,
December 18 , 2003
16
1
2 proposed accessory pool house structure, and
proposed deck, all less than 60 feet from the
3 lot line at 3 Brooks Point Road in Fisher' s
Island.
4 MR. STRUPP : That' s me . I 'm not
Elizabeth Strupp but I married her.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
Mr. Strupp, what can we --
6 MR. STRUPP : Let me explain the
situation. There are three structures that
7 are in question. We bought our property,
similar to the last lady, about 15 years ago,
8 maybe 14 years ago. At the time of our
purchase, the pool deck was existing. As a
9 matter of fact, we have cut the pool deck back
from its original size . I don' t really know
10 when the pool was constructed, but I 'm
guessing it' s probably been there maybe 20 to
11 25 years . The other structure, I 'm going to
now stay in the same vein, the other structure
12 being the garden shed. When we bought the
property 15 years ago, that garden shed would
13 have appeared to have been 15 or more years
old. It' s an old, old, old shed, and somebody
14 put it there . They didn' t get a building
permit . I went through the process of�having
15 the plans drawn up and having a build/Ing
permit issued. And, obviously, now �n order
16 to get the certificate of occupancy -- then
they discovered there was a setback violation .
17 So that ' s why I 'm before all of you.
The third structure is a pool
18 house, which I am responsible for having put
there . So that' s my doing. I did it,
19 however, upon the issuance by the Town of
Southold of a building permit . The current
20 building inspector said, gosh, shame you
didn' t go ahead and do what you should have
21 done -- and he' s right -- and closed out that
building permit and gotten a C of O because it
22 would have been issued to you. And he said
now, I can' t paper over what clearly was a
23 building mistake on the Building Department ' s
part . I don' t know how you interpret your
24 rules but maybe somebody concluded, which I
think could be concluded, that where these
25 facilities are located is not really a front
line. If you look at the plan of the
December 18 , 2003
17
1
2 property, the road in question goes down to
the single residence of the Roosevelts . These
3 buildings, none of these structures are --
well, maybe the shed is visible to them from
4 that road; that' s 32 feet from, quite frankly
the edge of the road, and the road is probably
5 another 20 feet . And all along there there is
certainly on the pool house, there' s a ten
6 foot double hedge, so nobody can see into that
property at all . And the other road is -- I' m
7 very vacant anyway, and you come all the way
out to the road, which is off of what we call
8 Brooks Point Road, nobody travels on that road
except residents . And these structures are
9 probably, oh, gosh, maybe 500 yards from that
road.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a
question: Is the pool being requested for a
11 variance also?
MR. STRUPP: No. I think that' s
12 fine . That was not in question.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The shed,
13 the deck and the pool house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That ' s what the
14 Notice of Disapproval said?
MR. STRUPP : Yes .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The shed over
here by the garden?
16 MR. STRUPP : Yes . The shed which
says shed which has that octagonal structure
17 on, I bet you that is 35 years old.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the
18 tennis court?
MR. STRUPP : That' s all fine .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It ' s in
your application, it says this appeal was made
20 to allow a tennis court to be built in the
front yard; that' s in the application to us?
21 MR. STRUPP : Isn' t that the former
application? We had a proceeding before the
22 law was changed.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The
23 application that I am looking at here says the
appeal was made to allow a tennis court to be
24 built in the front yard. It' s an original
affidavit, it says sworn notary, and it' s
25 dated September 30 , 2003?
MR. STRUPP : I did all that,
December 18 , 2003
18
1
2 that' s puzzling. When we built the tennis
court, that too was about ten years ago, we
3 did have to go through a procedure similar to
this because of the fact that at that point it
4 is in the front yard, our property being on
the water.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you appeared
before the Zoning Board at that time?
6 MR. STRUPP : I didn' t, someone did
on my behalf .
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm just
mentioning it because this is the application
8 we have .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you
9 recall that one, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only
10 one I remember from about ten years ago is the
Jack Whitney one that Steven Hamm represented .
11 MR. STRUPP : Right . Jack Whitney,
they' re on the same road.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
the only one I remember as close to the
13 property line .
MR. STRUPP : Quite frankly, on
14 that situation, the law I think was changed
since that court was built to allow tennis
15 courts to exist in the, quote, front yard, if
your property is located adjacent to the
16 water.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And if
17 it meets a specific setback .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re
18 correct . The application was submitted
apparently by Elizabeth Strupp; that would
19 have been your wife?
MR. STRUPP : Yes .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora,
we have a prior in here from 1978 for a
21 swimming pool in the front yard and in ' 91 for
tennis court and croquet .
22 MR. STRUPP : I'm really puzzled by
Ms . Tortora' s --
23 MS . KOWALSKI : They' re making
reference to the prior appeal . You' re
24 describing the prior application?
MR. STRUPP : Right, right, right .
25 I' m not here at all about the tennis court, I
hope I 'm not .
December 18 , 2003
19
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : This is a
dedicated road, right, it' s not a right of way
4 even though used a private road?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Private road?
5 Because you' re on the east end of the island,
correct?
6 MR. STRUPP: Yes . Again, I don' t
have a -- wait a minute, yes, I do . If I
7 could sort of approach you all and show you
something here .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. STRUPP : I can put these
9 things together. I 'm a sailor, what I have
been calling it basically it' s called on the
10 chart, Brooks Point . So I call it Brooks
Point Road, but I may be the only one that
11 does that .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I believe
12 that' s pretty common.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The only
13 person that would travel that road is the
person at the end of the road?
14 MR. STRUPP : Chris and Roddy
Roosevelt . TY)ey' re the -- it' s almost like a
15 flagpole situ/ration, where they have taken that
property off(- this looped road. I don' t know
16 why I can' t make this thing work . But they' re
the only ones that come down that road.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And my next
question is what brought this to a head?
18 MR. STRUPP: I refinanced my
mortgage and I had the property resurveyed and
19 the Building Department looked at the survey
and said, wait a minute, we don' t have a
20 certificate of occupancy for this shed. And
we don' t see any -- we see a building permit
21 for the pool house, but you didn' t close it
out, and now we've determined that' s in
22 violation and the pool deck they also
discovered existed because it was not on the
23 prior survey. So they said go about
correcting all this, which I did, I'm a real
24 estate lawyer, so I just represented myself .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
December 18 , 2003
20
1
2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Strupp ,
when was that pool house constructed?
3 MR. STRUPP : A probably in 1991 .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Same time
4 as the tennis court?
MR. STRUPP : Yes, sir, shortly
5 after we had actually acquired the premises
and started to make improvements to them.
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: With no
building permits for it?
7 MR. STRUPP: No, no, no. That' s
the one where the Building Department did
8 issue a permit .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You did not
9 get the CO?
MR. STRUPP: Then I as an idiot
10 did not have the inspections made and close it
out .
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Also
on what I would call the driveway that you
12 share with the Roosevelts, do you know who
maintains that, does Fitco have that or not?
13 MR. STRUPP : I think probably it
is a Fitco responsibility, but there just
14 isn' t anything to maintain. It' s just a dirt
path back there, if you will .
15 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: j30 you
don' t have to pay to have it plowe(- in the
16 winter, if you would, as a driveway?
MR. STRUPP: It' s not the
17 driveway that I use anyway, and the other
one -- they' re never there in the winter time .
18 They leave basically Columbus Day weekend and
never appear until May at some point, whether
19 they have that road plowed out .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They could
20 give a hoot
MR. STRUPP : I just tell you,
21 maybe you all know that Armstrong house out
there, wonderful gardens, apparently about
22 half of it burned down about two days ago.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I heard about
23 that . I heard they got some of the valuable
things out .
24 MR. STRUPP: I think they did.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There' s no
25 doubt this is a private road off of a private
road, it' s a matter of really --
December 18 , 2003
21
1
2 MR. STRUPP : No. It' s three
times . It is a private road, off of a private
3 road, off of a paved private road. So it ' s an
east end road, then you make the loop that
4 we' re on, Jack Whitney' s house was on that
loop. Then you take a road off that loop back
5 in you dead into the Roosevelt' s house . If
anybody was coming down there they' re either a
6 guest, or they' re lost, or they' re trying to
do something unlawful .
7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It' s
basically a driveway?
8 MR. STRUPP : Right . It' s
basically a driveway.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Knowing
10 the area and knowing the privacy of the roads ,
I have to tell you I don' t have any particular
11 objection to your buildings .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I have one
12 other question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes,
13 Mr. Horning.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Through the
14 grapevine I heard some scuttlebutt about a
neighbor being opposed; did you hearing
15 anything; is there anything in writing?
MR. STRUPP : No.
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING : Okay.
MR. STRUPP : That' s strange . I
17 talked to Chris about it , I have now received
back five green cards . The one card I don' t
18 have is from a man named Cadus . He called me ,
and he said, hey, I ' d love to meet you and we
19 have absolutely no objection, whatever to what
you' re doing. Mark Gamaud, who is across the
20 other -- I mean across the second private road
that Jack Whitney was on, he' s a very good
21 friend, and he may or not build on his
property, and I know he has no objection
22 because he and I are on the board of Fitco
together, and we've discussed this . So I
23 can' t imagine what that would be .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You heard
24 nothing and received something in writing?
MR. STRUPP : No. I mean did Wall
25 say this or something?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I ' m not
December 18 , 2003
22
1
2 going to say.
MR. STRUPP : That' s okay. I' d
3 love to know.
MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Strupp, I ' m
4 going to ask you for the green cards .
MR. STRUPP : I have four of them.
5 They were delivered to my office .
MS . KOWALSKI : There will be a
6 fifth one coming later; is that what you said,
there will be five?
7 MR. STRUPP : Mark Gamaud, who is
the one card I don' t have . I will call him
8 and he had the unfortunate situation that he
was an Arthur Anderson partner, and they have
9 relocated him to San Francisco . Now I mailed
it to the tax assessor' s office, and I' ll sort
10 of run him down and find out, if he' s received
it . Maybe his wife is still living in
11 Connecticut .
MS . KOWALSKI : We don' t have the
12 white receipts either.
MR. STRUPP : The white receipts
13 have been faxed to Jessica.
MS . KOWALSKI : We have had a phone
14 call yesterday they were missing.
MR. STRUPP : Yeah. I just hadn' t
15 gotten in. My mail department took care of
all that . I can get you the original .
16 Jessica soon is going to have the copies .
MS . KOWALSKI : Okay, if you can
17 have those .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very
18 much. Is there anybody else in the audience
here that can speak for or against this
19 application? If not, I ' d like the motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
21 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
22 MR. STRUPP : Can I just ask you a
question, when might I hear? I ' ve got some
23 money tied up in escrow with my bank as to
refinancing.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We usually
have a special meeting in two weeks, then the
25 decision is written so let' s say three
weeks .
December 18 , 2003
23
1
2 MR. STRUPP : Thank you all very
= , much.
g3 ------------------------------ ----------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing
4 is for Everett and Melissa Corwin for a new
porch addition on Brown Street in Greenport,
5 Number 5445 . Yes, sir.
MR. CORWIN: Hello. Yes, I would
6 like to build a front porch in front of my
house . There' s a cement slab in front of the
7 front door right now, and we' d like to just
build a front porch. I don' t know how else to
8 say it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I ask you
9 why you weren' t posted yesterday?
MR. CORWIN: I was posted.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t see
it .
11 MR. CORWIN: It' s in the front
yard, there' s --
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw a stick
but I didn' t see anything on it .
13 MR. CORWIN: Maybe the wind blew
it down. It ' s been up.
--, 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
Mr. Horning, do you have any questions?
15 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: I' ll pass
at the moment .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr.
17 Corwin, as you know you had a prior variance
on the house . It didn' t mention that within
18 the prior variance -- you know, the house is
quite tall, it' s quite large and probably one
19 of the reasons why you want the porch to do
that, but you know, there' s a degree of
20 pushing the limit, and I think we' re at that
degree . And I' m just mentioning that to you I
21 mean in reference to how much you can build on
a 50 foot lot, and I ' ll pass at this point
22 until I hear from my fellow colleagues
regarding this .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I 'm in
24 somewhat agreement with Mr. Goehringer. I 'm
not totally opposed to a front porch you have
25 an eight foot, six foot would be acceptable
for me . No other questions .
December 18 , 2003
24
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We just
3 granted a variance on this property in June .
At the time that we granted the variance, I
4 clearly recall this application that we had
discussed the fact that this was -- it was a
5 large house, you wanted to go up to create
more room, but we were also concerned that
6 this would not be a further expansion. So I
really am having a lot of problems with this
7 because there are three variances and that
we' re requesting, lot coverage, you want to go
8 from 20 percent to 23 percent ; you want to
continue to the reduced side yards, which is
9 right on top of your neighbor' s property, and
you want to come forward to the road. You' re
10 at 34-7 now, and now you want to knock that
down having a front yard setback of 26 feet .
11 So quite frankly, I 'm not in favor of this
application.
12 MR. CORWIN: How am I reducing the
side yards?
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re
continuing to extend along that end, which is
14 what we granted you a variance for the
principal house last year, but youfre 4 feet,
15 4 . 5 feet from your neighbor' s property line
now. You want to continue that 4-. 8 inches
16 from the property line now for the porch. So
that' s just exacerbating the problem. You
17 want to increase your lot coverage this time
over the limit . I really kind of agree with
18 Mr. Goehringer. There' s a limit, I think
we' ve reached it . That ' s my comment .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No other
20 comments .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want
21 to reflect on one thing. Possibly you could
construct a porch just over the front door and
22 not extend it out to both sides of the house;
that would be within variance purview and not
23 as significant as the issue that we' re
discussing at this point .
24 MR. CORWIN: Okay, so if I --
would I have to reapply again and go through
25 the whole procedure if I changed the plans?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You could just
December 18 , 2003
25
1
2 give us amended plans . The lots there are
very small, and there is just no room between
+� 3 your house and another house . And we
certainly wouldn' t want to see that all of a
4 sudden you' re going to apply for a deck in the
rear. It' s really tight down there .
5 MS . KOWALSKI : I believe the Board
wanted an amended site plan to show.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, an
amended site plan to show.
7 MR. CORWIN: I understand you say
it' s tight, but there' s fences up and I have a
8 driveway on one side . I don' t understand
where it' s making any --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we have a
policy that we only want 20 percent of lot
10 coverage for any structures on the property.
You are just about 20 percent, if you put the
11 porch on the way it is now it would be 23
percent, and we do not look favorably upon
12 this at all .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If he made
13 it 20 foot wide, six foot deep, you have to
give the gentleman a number to work with.
-- —; 14 Jerry, 20?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think
15 you have window and you don' t want to extend
it to the window on both sides of the front
16 door. So, I would architecturally try to
develop something that would look very
17 appealing, but not a porch across the whole
front . We basically just did one and voted on
18 it . It was the first application, the name
was DeFeis . It was Cedar Beach. It was a one
19 story. They converted it to a high ranch,
which is now a two story. It was a very
20 tastefully done front porch. Exactly the same
situation that you have in reference to the
21 front property line and so on and so forth.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think some
22 of the members of the Board really want to
deliberate on this a little bit more, but give
23 us your amended plan.
MR. CORWIN: Okay, and I
24 appreciate if you' re going to deliberate and
stuff, just the phrase overdoing it to me, I
25 mean, overdoing what? I 'm trying just -- I ' m
trying to make what I got lucky enough to buy
December 18 , 2003
26
1
2 better. I don' t understand that' s overdoing
it .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 20 percent
has been a policy of the Board and it takes a
4 lot for us to go over that amount .
MR. CORWIN: Okay.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do it
the minimum you can to make it look --
6 MR. CORWIN: All right . Thank you
for your time .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody else in the audience that would like
8 to speak in favor or against the application?
If not, I would like a motion to close the
9 hearing and reserve decision pending the
receipt of an amended application.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
11 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
12 ----------------------------- -- ---------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
13 application is Mr. John Henry, Number 5436 .
The gentleman wishes to put an addition on a
14 piece of property on Village Lane at 35 feet
ffrom the rear yard less than 25 feet from
15"/ single side yard and exceeding the 20 percent
l lot coverage limitation. Mr. Henry, good
16 morning, how are you?
MR. HENRY: Fine, thank you . I
17 have copies of the Notice of Disapproval if
anybody would like them.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have them.
MR. HENRY: And I also have a
19 table showing in greater detail the coverage
situation. May I?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. HENRY: This is the main -thing
21 that I wanted you to see is the table .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I 'm sorry.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Henry,
would you just like to tell us what you
23 propose to do?
MR. HENRY: Yes .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it' s a
small house and a small lot .
25 MR. HENRY: Yes . It ' s to put an
exterior stairway on the south side of the
December 18 , 2003
27
1
2 house . And this would not have been the the coverage would not have been an issue
3 according to our original survey, which is in
that table done in 1999 . You' ll see after the
4 addition had been put on, that is the stairway
the coverage would have been 19 . 97 percent,
5 what happened is the lot was resurveyed and
you' ll notice, if you look at the far
6 left-hand column.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It shrank
7 from erosion?
MR. HENRY: I don' t know whether
8 it was erosion or whether the different
surveyor had a different standard for where
9 the beach ends our property begins .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Maybe the road
10 got wide in the middle of --
MR. HFNRY: We didn' t get a tax
11 reduction.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the
12 infamous mean high water mark depending on if
it' s a full moon or not?
13 MR. HENRY: So that ' s what brought
about the problem, and you' ll notice there' s a
----i 14 difference between what the DEC' s calculations
and the Ta__W_,n' s shown down at bottom, that' s
15 because DEC I guess includes paved areas such
as drive•...ays or sidewalks . So it dropped down
16 to 23 . 2 percent is what we' re dealing with now
if we add that stairway.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it ' s just
the stairway that you want?
18 MR. HENRY: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Not the
19 deck?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That ' s
20 there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' m just a
little confused because the Notice of
22 Disapproval makes it appear as though the
deck, it says method of constructed additions
23 and alterations?
MR. HENRY: Of the deck would not
24 expand the footprint .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you have
25 the second tier deck built . It' s the first
floor that' s not there yet?
December 18 , 2003
28
1
2 MR. HENRY: That' s right there' s
currently a concrete slab and we would just
3 cover that for esthetic reasons .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you look
4 at the Building Department Application Number
7, this is what' s confusing me a little bit
5 and this is why I' m trying to figure out what
they approved and what they didn' t . It says
6 mention of existing structures 36 , with
additions 42 and the rear. So that is what' s
7 making me believe that they did disapprove
that on the Building Department' s application .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the
new construction maintains the 22 . 4 rear yard
9 setback.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: When we
10 went to the Building Department, if you look
at his application for the building permit on
11 the second page, it leads you to believe that
they did disapprove the --
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The ground
level deck .
13 MR. HENRY: Perhaps a photograph
might offer clarification.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We have
them as well .
15 MR. HENRY: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER TORTOlA- : I 'm trying
16 to make sure you don' t have to come back here
again.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I agree . I
believe the ground level deck does not exist .
18 It needs a variance as well because of the
rear yard setback.
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think so .
Just looking at the Notice of Disapproval on
20 the application. It' s not just the
stairwell .
21 MR. HENRY: Why does that need a
variance?
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Because
you' re building a ground level deck that
23 exceeds the rear yard setback.
MR. HENRY: I have trouble
24 grasping that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You already
25 have a concrete slab where the deck would be;
all you want to do is cover that deck with a
December 18 , 2003
29
1
2 piece of wood to make it more aesthetically
pleasing?
3 MR. HENRY: That' s right .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s the
4 resurfacing of a preexisting slab.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Can' t we
5 address that on this? We just want to address
it so you don' t get an inspection and all of a
6 sudden they give you a stop work order. We
want to rectify this once.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
8 questions . The day I went there it was a
quick inspection because it was probably
9 blowing 40 miles an hour that day. Your
biggest construction here is to move the gas
10 meter, that' s right in the way of your
construction, isn' t it?
11 MR. HENRY: We will build around
that .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' ll
leave the gas meter as is?
13 MR. HENRY: The stairwell will
actually come out from the house, it ' s not
�t 14 hugging the side of the house at that point .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have
15 natural gas or propane?
MR. HENRY: Natural .
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I see that
you had applied for a Trustee permit?
17 MR. HENRY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the
18 status of that?
MR. HENRY: We received it .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s what
I wanted to know. We don' t have a copy of
20 that . Do we have a copy of that in the file?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' m looking,
21 no .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
22 further questions .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would
23 like to make sure we have a copy of that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you
24 furnish us with a copy of the Trustees permit?
MR. HENRY: Sure .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer,
any questions?
December 18 , 2003
30
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
to bring the first story deck to grade; in
3 other words , so you can walk down the slope
from the garage or the driveway?
4 MR. HENRY: The stairway will go
from ground level up to the second floor.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will
go to the second floor?
6 MR. HENRY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is that a
7 way to get off the deck besides going into the
house?
8 MR. HENRY: That' s right , it' s a
house that we rent to folks, and in the event
9 that we do want to use the deck in their
absence, they have given us permission to, so
10 we don' t have to go through their house.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What
11 provision are you doing to buffer that from
the next door neighbor; are you going to use
12 lattice work; are you going to use greenery?
MR. HENRY: I should add, my wife
13 and I own the house next door.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They may
14 be the next door neighbors today, but tomorrow
that may be someone else?
i5 MR. HENRY: Yes, I think we would
put greenery along there .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would
you object to a decision, assuming the Board
17 was so inclined, to reserve the right to
review any landscape buffering that you might
18 do?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Can we just
19 add in the decision natural screening on that
side?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we
have to look at it . We have to see it . Or
21 lattice work, I mean, it has to be something.
It stands out like a sore thumb when it' s
22 coming off to the second floor.
MS . KOWALSKI : Before a CO is
23 issued?
MR. HENRY: May I check with my
24 architect on this one?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma' am
Chair, if we could take a three minute recess
December 18 , 2003
31
1
2 sometime in the near future?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
1I 3 MR. HENRY: Are you saying that we
have to put some screening there or are you
4 just saying in the event we should, we would
then come back to you.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' m
saying you should, you have to . In the
6 respect that it' s going to stand out . It' s
very visible from Village Lane . It' s not
7 visible now because there' s nothing there, but
it' s extremely visible when it ' s constructed;
8 and I think it' s incumbent upon all applicants
who have significantly undersized lots, and
9 you heard what we just said to Mr. Corwin with
reference to his front porch. This is a side
10 porch. It' s not a porch; it' s a stairwell,
and the stairwell tends to be extremely -- I ' m
11 sure it' s going to be gorgeously built . I can
see the plan and you have an architect doing
12 the plan, but it' s going to be an open
stairway.
13 MS . KOWALSKI : What kind of height
are you talking about?
-i 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It
should � six foot . Some sort of greenery
15 should/be placed around it . And you can do
that oven and notoriously, I mean
16 extemporaneously, and we' ll just look at
it . This is not anything difficult
17 MR. HENRY: I 'm agreeable to that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank
18 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
19 anybody else in the audience that would like
to speak for or against this application? May
20 I have a motion -- yes, sir?
MR. ARIIZUMI : My name is Hieeaki
21 Ariizumi .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have
22 to spell that .
MR. ARIIZUMI : H-I-E-E-A-K-I ,
23 A-R-I-I-Z-U-M-I . And I would love to just
reconfirm what variation we are asking for a
24 variance . It' s kind of confusing because of
the numbers, a lot of numbers there and I
25 think it' s a very, very minimal activity. And
the thing is what I believe is the side
December 18 , 2003
32
1
2 setback is listed in the agenda for today, but
there should not be any violation in the side
3 setback because from the change of surveyors
and change of contents of the survey map, we
4 found out the original design actually had a
little side setback problem. So I recently - -
5 and actually this year I changed and reduced
the footprint of the proposal, minimal;
6 therefore, the one side setback is more than
10 foot and more than the 25, so that
7 shouldn' t be a problem. And the rear setback
is, which is normally -- I believe there' s a
8 grandfather' s rule be applied so the only
variance I should say, I believe is the
9 coverage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, did you
10 submit a revised site plan then showing that
you meet the 25?
11 MR. ARIIZUMI : Yes, I do have in
the Building Department I submitted with the
12 building application with my site plan showing
that kind of stuff as well as the list of
13 numbers coverage side setback things .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you see
14 that we get a copy of that, please, of the
revised showing that you meet the 25 foot
15- setback, an amended disapproval?
MR. ARIIZUMI : I can show you
16 right now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have
17 copies that you can give us right now?
MR. ARIIZUMI : Yes . And two
18 gentlemen have the approved budget .
MS . KOWALSKI : We would also need
19 a Building Department decision on the amended
disapproval .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We would need
an amended disapproval from the building
21 department for your application then.
MR. ARIIZUMI : Okay.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you
say you meet the 25 foot setback, but we still
23 need the amended disapproval for the coverage
for the deck, okay?
24 MR. ARIIZUMI : Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we can close
25 the hearing and reserve decision subject to
you submitting the revised Notice of
December 18 , 2003
33
1
2 Disapproval and site plan?
MR. ARIIZUMI : Okay.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MR. HENRY: Thank you .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can I have a
second?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Second
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
6 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved. Can
we have a three minute recess?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
moved.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
10 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor, and a brief recess was
11 taken. )
------------------------------------ ----
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to
open our hearing again, the next hearing is
13 John Stadelmann and Jeannette Coleman, Number
5437 for a waiver of merger.
14 MR. FALLON: Good morning, David
Fallon, Fallon and Fallon, 53 Main Street,
15 Sayville, New York, for the applicants .
As you know, what we' re trying to
16 accomplish in this application is the unmerger
of these two pieces of property on Stars Road .
17 You have the history of the property from the
TPS abstract from the chain of title . 1971 it
18 was purchased; the one lot named Fred
Stadelmann, one lot in the name of Edith
19 Stadelmann. So it was held single and
separately in compliance with the subdivision
20 at the time . And then in 1977 thereabouts,
Edith Stadelmann applied for a certificate of
21 occupancy for the house to be built on the
southern lot . The CO was part of the file .
22 It was granted. The Suffolk County Department
of Health is listed on that, and the house was
23 built on that southern lot and the CO was
issued just for that southern lot .
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Lot number?
MR. FALLON: Excuse me?
25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Lot number
is improved?
December 18 , 2003
34
1
2 MR. FALLON: Yes . 19 . Then the
Town of course, upzoned the property, I
3 believe around 1983 , but it was still held
single and separately.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was held in
two separate names?
5 MR. FALLON: It was held in two
separate names . Unfortunately, what happened
6 in 1990 the Stadelmanns now, we can hear from
John Stadelmann, but Mrs . Stadelmann was in
7 her mid 70' s and Fred Stadelmann was in his
mid 80s at the time, and they go to an
8 attorney to do some Medicaid and estate
planning, and unfortunately the attorney was
9 unfamiliar with the zoning law obviously
' cause they had held this property separately
10 for 20 years, you know, done the right thing,
and as you see from the chain, the Stadelmanns
11 at the time, given their advanced age, weren' t
quite aware of what was happening, and this
12 attorney, unfortunately, merged the
properties . And you see the deed, and I don' t
13 understand why he did a deed from Edith to
Edith and Fred; and then from Fred to Edith
14 and Fred, and then on to the present
applicants Jeannette Coleman and John
�15 Stadelmann, their children, thus merging the
{ properties . So after 20 years having been
16 held single and separate, this attorney merged
the property.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I ' m sorry,
this happened in 1990 , this estate planning?
18 MR. FALLON: Yes, you' ll see the
deed was 1990 , it wasn' t recorded until 1991 .
19 I think there was some confusion with the
attorney. Unfortunately that' s a classic
20 legal malpractice suit, but it' s only a three
year statute of limitations on legal
21 malpractice . I mean mistakes happen, but it' s
unfortunate . I do have pictures of the
22 property for you, of the rear of the property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that
23 property posted?
MR. FALLON: Property was posted.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw it .
MR. FALLON: This shows the rear
25 lot showing the house, and then the lot from
the side, and my clients John Stadelmann and
December 18 , 2003
35
1
2 Jeannette Coleman. John why don' t you step
up. This is John Stadelmann, the son of Fred
3 and Edith. They didn' t discover the problem
until they went to sell the property and John
4 had retained me . I don' t know how he ended up
with a guy from Sayville, I don' t remember
5 why, but he mentioned we have to sell the
house, and then he mentioned to me we have to
6 talk about the lot to the north. And I said,
wait a second, what lot to the north, what
7 about merger? That' s when he discovered it,
this past six months . Now you' re one of the
8 owners of your property right, with your
sister?
9 MR. STADELMANN: Right .
MR. FALLON: Make sure I have the
10 ages right, when your mother and father
brought the property in 171 how old were they
11 about then?
MR. STADELMANN: My dad was about
12 65, my mom was about 55 .
MR. FALLON: When they built the
13 property was that their principal residence?
MR. STADELMANN: Yes .
14 MR. FALLON: That was their only
reside ice . So in 1990 , that makes your father
15 about 85, when they went to the attorney in
1990:-
16 MR. STADELMANN: 84 .
MR. FALLON: And your mother about
17 74 , 75?
MR. STADELMANN: Yes .
18 MR. FALLON: When did your father
pass away?
19 MR. STADELMANN: They talked about
gifting the property to my sister and I and
20 very shortly after that he died of cancer.
MR. FALLON: 1991?
21 MR. STADELMANN: Yes .
MR. FALLON: And your mother is
22 still alive, correct?
MR. STADELMANN: Yes .
23 MR. FALLON: Unfortunately she' s
been in a nursing home?
24 MR. STADELMANN: She' s been in the
nursing home for a little over two years in
25 Katherine of Sienna .
MR. FALLON: How is her
December 18 , 2003
36
1
2 competency?
MR. STADELMANN: She is not
3 competent?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: She is not
4 what?
MR. FALLON: Competent . She
5 unfortunately has dementia.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Has she
6 been declared legally incompetent under New
York laws, or is it a medical assessment?
7 MR. FALLON: Medical assessment .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Because
8 there' s a legal definition of incompetent .
MR. STADELMANN: Her doctor has
9 said that she' s incompetent . I don' t believe
there' s any New York state judgment on this .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay.
MR. FALLON: You' re familiar with
11 the property?
MR. STADELMANN: Yes .
12 MR. FALLON: Can you describe the
vacant land from the topographical standpoint?
13 MR. STADELMANN: It' s essentially
a vacant lot . There' s no wetlands associated
14 with it . There' s no marsh.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA- Just to recap,
15 the properties were put in two separate names
in 1971, and they remained o until they did
16 some estate planning in 1990 , at which time
the lawyer kind of just mixed it all together .
17 So they' re in both their names, which was
deeded in 1991, and when you went to sell the
18 property, you found out that they had merged;
am I correct?
19 MR. STADELMANN: That' s correct .
All the years in between I received separate
20 tax maps, and you assumed because they had
been in single and separate that they just
21 remained so.
MR. FALLON: So to show economic
22 hardship, I have a real estate broker to
testify quickly about the value .
23 Kathy, can you step up, please .
Kathy, can you introduce yourself to the
24 Board, please?
MS . ROSENBAUM: My name is
25 Kathleen Rosenbaum. I am the real estate
broker for Lloyd' s Realty in Greenport .
December 18 , 2003
37
1
2 MR. FALLON: How long have you
been in the real estate business?
3 MS . ROSENBAUM: Going on seven
years .
4 MR. FALLON: Are you licensed as a
real estate broker?
5 MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
MR. FALLON: Where is your
6 business located?
MS . ROSENBAUM: 124 Front Street
7 in Greenport .
MR. FALLON: You work full time?
8 MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
MR. FALLON: As a real estate
9 broker?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
10 MR. FALLON: And you' re familiar
with the property?
11 MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
MR. FALLON: We know that there' s
12 a contract of sale that' s been entered into
for ' the sale of just the improved lot for
13 $410 , 000 ; is that correct?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Correct .
- D 14 MR. FALLON: Concerning the vacant
lot to the north, do you have an expert
15 opinion as to the value of that lot if sold as j
a buildable lot?
16 MS . ROSENBAUM: Today it could be
sold for approximately, based on comparables,
17 around $190 , 000 .
MR. FALLON: You ran comps I
18 believe and it showed a couple of sales?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes . One lot --
19 there was a lot two doors down, half acre lot ,
that was just sold this past year for $180 , 000
20 and another single and separate lot a half
acre only four doors down from that, both this
21 past year, and they sold one for $189 , 000 and
one for $182 , 500 .
22 MR. FALLON: And that was for 2780
Stars Road, East Marion, half acre, sold for
23 the 189 in July of 103?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Correct .
24 MR. FALLON: And 2320 Stars Road,
East Marion sold in June of ' 03 for 182?
25 MS . ROSENBAUM: Correct . And
they' re both on the east side of Stars Road
December 18, 2003
38
1
2 heading north.
MR. FALLON: And this is the
3 listing of the comps (indicating) ?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
4 MR. FALLON: Unfortunately I
didn' t have a chance to make a lot of copies
5 of this, but I at least can give it to the
secretary for the file .
6 So in your opinion you think the
lot is approximately --
7 MS . ROSENBAUM: 190 to $200 , 000
today. We just had a lot in Greenport for
8 about . 37 that was just listed this week for
$195, 000 and already has an accepted offer.
9 The values of single lots are just rocketing
because of the lack of land.
10 MR. FALLON: If the Stadelmanns
had to sell the property all as one merged
11 piece, do you have an opinion as to what the
fair market value an acre piece would be?
12 MS . ROSENBAUM: Based on
comparables sold this year, the specs of the
13 house and so forth, my opinion is that that
house would sell in the high fours, maybe 485
' 14 to 490 , somewhere in that range if he was to
sell without the unmerger.
15 MR. FALLON: Is this three of the
comps that you had looked out?
16 MS . ROSENBAUM: Right . All that
sold within this past year.
17 MR. FALLON: Roughly comparable?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Yes .
18 MR. FALLON: Again, I apologize
and I didn' t have a chance to copy this . I ' d
19 like to offer that (handing) .
Now, if the property is not
20 unmerged, does the location of the louse
affect the value?
21 MS . ROSENBAUM: I believe it does
because what are you going to do with a vacant
22 piece of land that' s wooded? If you' re going
to build on it, you' re going to center it ,
23 you' re not going to off-center it . So I think
it devalues it, and what are you going to put
24 there? I know your restrictions on accessory
buildings and apartments and all that , so it
25 seems to be just wasted space .
MR. FALLON: Because of the house
December 18 , 2003
39
1
2 being built?
MS . ROSENBAUM: Right , all the way
3 to the side, and now new houses on Neighbors
right now, and they' re going into the six to
4 $800 , 000 mark right now. That' s what they' re
selling for.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
Mr. Horning, do you have any questions?
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Bottom
line, what was the difference in the price
7 between the two parcels separate and combined?
MR. FALLON: Bottom line was as
8 separate you have $410 , 000 we have a contract
of sale, and I actually have the buyer here,
9 who is paying the $410 , 000 for the separate
house if the unmerger application goes
10 through. And then, if you had based on
Kathy' s testimony the $200, 000 , so it would be
11 a combined total of $610 , 000 versus Kathy
testified about $480, 000 because of the odd
12 shape of the lot . So you' re talking economic
hardship approximately $120 , 000 , $130 , 000 .
13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: This
potential buyer, has he toyed with the idea of
-- F1 14 purchasing the whole thing?
MR. FALLON: I ' d like to
15 intj`oduce, Paul .
(. MR. SCHMIDT: Hi, I ' m Paul
16 Schmidt . My fiancee and I are buying the
property, Ellen Hart .
17 MR. FALLON: That ' s for $410 , 000?
MR. SCHMIDT: That ' s correct .
18 MR. FALLON: And do you have any
opposition to this application to unmerge the
19 property as you would be directly to the south
of this?
20 MR. SCHMIDT: None whatsoever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did that
answer your question?
22 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No.
MR. FALLON: If I may, arguing for
23 the application, I know that you denied an
application a couple months ago on the other
24 side of the street, and I 've had a chance to
review that decision, and there are
25 differences . In this case, there is a CO
already issued back in ' 77 , ' 78 on one lot .
December 18 , 2003
40
1
2 And actually, if I hadn' t picked up the
problem, it' s possible this could have been
3 sold and some poor schlep would have bought
that northern lot thinking it' s a separate tax
4 map and had a big problem. We do have a
separate CO. The location of the house is odd
5 here . The other application you had someone
saying I have a vacant lot, I want to put two
6 houses . We already have a house built here;
we' re just throwing one more possibly on the
7 other side . I gave to everyone a marked tax
maps with yellow and pink with all the tax
8 bills annexed, which shows all the houses that
have been developed on .Stars Road. If you
9 look at that you will see that the majority of
the lots are this side of a half acre lot, and
10 you' ll see a lot of houses already built on
those half acre pieces and then you' ll also
11 see -- I listed the owners -- a lot of single
and separate lots on the same . So, when I
12 looked at it on the east side, I think there
was one merged lot out from Main Road all the
13 way up to the top where I had marked.
Everything else is buildable so the
14 neighborhood is half acres . On the other side
I believe there was only a couple of merged
15 lot, everything else was e-_ther built on these
roughly half acre lots or :jingle and separate
16 ownership.
It would be unfortunate to
17 penalize the Stadelmanns because unfortunately
they got old and they probably forgot why they
18 had done this originally. They got good
advice in the beginning when they bought it
19 separately, and unfortunately Mr. Stadelmann
in his mid 80s, you know, he died only six or
20 eight months later. The major differences
between your ZBA decision not to unmerge Lots
21 10 and 11 and this is, in that you said, hey,
there was never any single and separate
22 ownership . Here there was single and separate
ownership for over 20 years as shown by the
23 chain. In that was on the western side of the
Stars Road and it backed up to a development
24 that had acre lots . This does not . This only
backs up to one big ten acre piece on the
25 other side . I talked to that gentleman, he
had no problem with this application. In the
December 1,8 , 2003
41
1
2 other application you said there was no proof
of good faith intention to maintain the
� RE 3 property as separate lots . Here there was
obviously for 20 years a good proof to
4 maintain it as separate . For some reason, the
people that applied in that other application
5 didn' t offer any proof of economic hardship .
You've heard from Ms . Rosenbaum, there' s over
6 $100 , 000 of economic hardship. Environmental
impacts, you' ve heard from my client, it' s a
7 wooded lot . There are no wetlands or
environmental . It' s really a different case
8 altogether, and if not for that lawyer' s error
back in the 1990s, I wouldn' t be standing
9 here . It would have just gone through on a
single and separate . I went through the Town
10 code . You' re more aware of these than I am.
I don' t believe there' s an increase in the
11 density of the neighborhood. The lot is
consistent with the size of the lots in the
12 neighborhood, the waiver will avoid economic
hardship, and I don' t see any major
13 environmental impact . We' re only having one
house built here potentially, not the two in
14 the prior application.
I mean, it' s unfortunate that l
15 the -- you know, the Stadelmanns intended, /
they worked hard, they lived out here, you
16 know, they intended to provide a legacy to
their children. They had it set up single and
17 separately, It' s unfortunate when they got
older that for whatever reason, they forgot
18 why they set it up and they didn' t get good
advice . I'm asking that the Board consider
19 all those reasons and granting the
application. Thank you very much.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
Mr. Goehringer.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
R40 zone?
22 MR. FALLON: Yes, acre zoning.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank
23 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Couple of
things to get the record straight . I ' m not
25 sure that there was an error on behalf of the
attorney. You' re probably not aware of it,
December 18 , 2003
42
1
2 but this subdivision, which is a Sound Crest
Woods subdivision, was on the accepted list
3 until 1995 , not. effective until 1997 ,
therefore, when the properties were put into
4 common ownership in 1990 , it was on the
accepted list .
5 MR. FALLON: That' s good.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The lots
6 were recognized. So, the father, just run
that by me again.
7 MR'. FALLON: Is Fred Stadelmann,
Fred was the father of John Stadelmann. He
8 passed away in 1991 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: After the
9 transfer?
MR. FALLON: After the transfer,
10 shortly thereafter.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Well, I
11 just wanted to get that very clear for the
record because this has not been merged
12 1990 . It' s only been merged since 1997 . As
to an error on the part of the attorney, when
13 the attorney, in fact, deeded this out to the
son and the daughter, they were two separate
14 lots under the code of the Town of Southold.
I just want to get that right on the record.
15 MR. FALLON: I believe the
attorney also if he could have made it 51
16 percent and 49 percent, had flipped it, there
wouldn' t have been any merger either. I
17 believe that' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further
questions .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody in the audience that would like to
2.0 speak for or against this application?
MR. COCCIO: Yes . My name is Tony
21 Coccio. I live at 2190 Stars Road next to the
property in question.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: South or
north?
23 MR. COCCIO : North of it . And
one of the things I wanted to bring up where
24 the attorney mentioned the fact that most of
the houses on Stars Road are half acre, I did
25 a rough count the other day of them and more
than half of them are on a full acre . So
December 18 , 2003
43
1
2 there is a question there .
On the question of the property,
L 3 the property is a wooded lot . They called it
flat, it is not flat . There is a deep
4 depression, which goes from the high spot on
the southwest corner, toward the other corner
5 of the property, and it' s -- I would guess
between eight and ten feet deep and it should
6 be looked at .
I also don' t believe that the
7 criteria, other than the hardship, the
criteria based on what the code calls for a
8 waiver were met . Talks about not
substantially changing the piece of property.
9 In order to build on that lot, which is a
hundred percent treed, pristine and natural,
10 would mean taking down a majority of the trees
and somehow dealing with that slope and that
11 hole .
Also, whether the attorney made a
12 mistake or whether the Stadelmanns wanted to
merge that property when they gave it to their
13 children, I don' t know if that' s a question.
The question is what is the criteria for
E 14 getting a waiver? And my question is the
su stantial change to that property, the
15 density in the area. During the summer -- and
these people are not there during the summer,
16 they' re not even full-time residents . I live
there full year ' round and I can see the
17 density change just in the two years that I ' ve
been there . I purchased the property on the
18 other side of me for that very reason, to keep
a one acre lot without that density. And when
19 I purchased that house two years ago, we were
aware of the fact that the property next door
20 to us was merged and therefore assumed that it
was not going to be built on. And now we find
21 out that they' re looking for a waiver to build
on that property. And a half acre is not a
22 lot of property to put a substantial home on.
I assume also the Stadelmanns when they claim
23 that the house is not on the center of the
property, the reason probably was that they
24 saw at the time it would be nice to have a
decent amount of wooded area to one side of
25 them, which is a very attractive piece of
property. There are beautiful laurel in there
December 18 , 2003
44
1
2 and there are animals in there constantly, and
it really is a very attractive natural lot .
3 The other point was , this
property was zoned one acre, and now they' re
4 looking to unmerge it so it can go back to
half acre . The development in the area has
5 been dramatic, the density has been dramatic
in the last few years . The houses in question
6 at the other end of Stars Road which are on
half an acre have been there long before this
7 was zoned as one acre . So I think in order to
keep with the statute, which I guess it was
8 created to eliminate some of the density in
the area, should be upheld.
9 Any attorney' s mistake shouldn' t
be an excuse, and we' re not sure that really
10 happened; that' s what they' re assuming if
their parents decided you got one lot, he gets
11 the other lot, or we give it to you together.
We don' t know the reason. We' re assuming
12 that' s the reason. There were two different
lots . Wouldn' t somebody ask the question why
13 it was in two different names? No, they
decided to merge it into one, so shouldn' t it
14 stay that way? Thank you .
CHAIRWOMAN OL. VA: Thank you very
15 much. Anybody else woul � like to comment?
Yes .
16 MS . GARLE : I'm Jane Garle, and I
live on Stars Road to the south of the
17 Stadelmann' s house . I wrote a letter to the
Board stating my reasons for opposing the
18 unmerger, and I agree with everything that
Mr. Coccio has just said, and I also would
19 like to say that I question the idea of
financial hardship . Because - - and I wouldn' t
20 base any decisions on what one particular real
estate agent has to say, and I also find it
21 very odd that the prospective buyer of this
house has absolutely nothing against the
22 unmerger and presumably having another house
right next to him. He' s willing to buy this
23 house for 400, 000 and in my mind anyway,
immediately destroy one half of his property,
24 the property that could have been his . And I
believe that maybe another buyer would come
25 along who would appreciate this extra privacy,
and the beauty of the surroundings . So I 'm
December, 18 , 2003
45
1
2 sorry, the Stadelmanns have been good
neighbors of mine, Fred and Edith, and
3 unfortunately they' re both gone . I have
nothing against John and his sister, but I do
4 not see the necessity for doing this , and it
is I who have to continue to live here, and
5 Mr. Coccio and the other -- there are other
residents of the street . Mr. Petas across the
6 street, his name was on the list of neighbors
to be alerted, and I spoke with him about it .
7 Unfortunately he' s disabled physically and he
was not happy about this either. He' s
8 immediately across the street from the subject
property. So, I hope that you will deny this
9 request . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank
10 you. For the record, we do have another
letter from Miss Nancy Swasanow as also
11 opposing the unmerger. Is there anybody else
in the audience that wishes to speak? If not
12 I' d like to close the hearing and --
MR. FALLON: If I may, just that
13 the tax map that I submitted clearly shows
what the size of the lots are; that' s not in
14 question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I have. a
15 motion? /
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So moved. {
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
18 responded in favor. )
-------------------------------- --- - - ---
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
hearing is for Mr. Tzanopoulos for Notice of
20 Disapproval concerning the location of a
proposed addition and alterations at less than
21 35 feet for total side yard and with the lot
coverage in excess of 20 percent of the total
22 lot area in Homestead Way in Greenport . We
need the green cards .
23 MR. CALIENDO: Yes . It' s my
understanding they were mailed to you . I do
24 have copies of them if need be, but they were
put in the mail .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. --
MR. CALIENDO : Raymond Caliendo,
December 18 , 2003
46
1
2 C-A-L-I-E-N-D-O, Art of Form Architects
representing the applicant . Would you like me
3 to proceed?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead?
4 MR. CALIENDO : The reason for our
appearance is our proposed work follows the
5 addition of an open gazebo with connecting
wood decks serving as a walkway. The
6 combination of the gazebo result in an
additional 200 square feet approximately in
7 lot coverage, which would push the lot
coverage to 21 percent instead of the required
8 20 percent . Also the open gazebo would
encroach on the side yard setback to the
9 east .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' m jumping
10 in since it' s quiet here . The construction
underway now has a building permit?
11 MR. CALIENDO : Yes . It was issued
in May.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you've
resubmitted a new building permit for an
13 addition?
MR. CALIENDO : The addition is for
14 the gazebo and the decks only because we
realize that was going to require a variance
15 so that' s the application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And also for
16 the extended roof area over the residence?
MR. CALIENDO : Yes . But that was
17 not required as a variance after our
discussion with the Building Department . We
18 stayed within the existing footprint of the
house; we just reconstructed the roof with a
19 higher pitch for the aesthetic value but it
was not part of the variance application.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If I can
clear this up, it threw me for a loop that
21 construction was underway, so the house has
its own building permit separate of this .
22 This is coming off the existing wood deck in
the back?
23 MR. CALIENDO : That' s
correct . Maybe I can clarify something.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not
under construction?
25 MR. CALIENDO : Absolutely no, it' s
not . We were under the impression that the
December 18 , 2003
47
1
2 work on the main house, the house proper, by
doing the addition on the west side even
3 though we weren' t increasing the footprint the
construction was within the revised side yard
4 setback, and we were under the impression that
that would also involve a variance . However,
5 when we questioned the Building Department on
it, we were told that that would not
6 necessitate a variance, and we were issued the
building permit accordingly for the work on
7 the main house in May of this year.
When we submitted our plans for
8 this application, we determined that the only
two variances would be for the side yard
9 setback and for the overall lot coverage, and
again, this only relates to the gazebo and the
10 decks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And this is
a 40 , 000 square foot lot?
12 MR. CALIENDO: Yes, excuse me,
20 , 000 square foot lot .
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t
have any questions .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I ' ll keep
g'�ing. Go on, George, jump in there .
15 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Why did you
•locate the gazebo where it is?
16 MR. CALIENDO: We studied a whole
different gamut of design scenarios . The
17 gazebo based on the way they occupy the
property and the way they use the pool, the
18 gazebo as you can see it kind of comes off the
existing wood deck, then goes to the side of
19 the pool . We tried all kinds of scenarios, on
the other side of the pool, closer to the
20 pool, and none of them worked. For practical
reasons or reasons of safety, we didn' t want
21 to bring the gazebo too close to the pool .
After many different scenarios we just arrived
22 at that conclusion.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If you flip
23 this, you wouldn' t be any closer to the pool
than it is now?
24 MR. CALIENDO : That' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' d be
25 further away from the side yard?
MR. CALIENDO : Yes . What it boils
December 18 , 2003
48
1
2 down to after all the scenarios, this was our
clients preference in terms of location.
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only
comment I have in listening to my colleagues
4 here, I think what I'm hearing, and I would
agree with is you really don' t need to be here
5 for a variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t if
6 you just flip it over.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One of the
7 things we look at very strongly is there an
alternate way to do what you want to do
8 without a variance, and you've already
submitted that there is . I really think the
9 issue is kind of moot .
MR. CALIENDO: If you consider
10 from the point of view of my client' s
preference that would be the --
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MR. CALIENDO: So you' re saying it
12 would not be approved.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s
13 correct .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING:, Not if you
- 14 have a suitable location and room that you
could do it without a v riance, and
15 essentially the same -7nd achieve the same
thing except for perso{_al preference .
16 MR. CALIENDO : So the Board' s
preference would be to flip the gazebo to the
17 other side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That ' s
18 correct .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no
19 need for a variance .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: New York
20 State code, one of them is minimal relief, and
any alternative option, and we cannot say
21 there is no other options for these people .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You also
22 want to put this thing 3 . 6 feet from a
property line, six inches from a property
23 line . There' s no need for that .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You could
24 incorporate it right into the existing deck .
MR. CALIENDO : That' s despite the
25 fact that the property owner has no
objections?
December 18, 2003
49
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That ' s the
owner today and three feet, the minute you
3 place any structure three feet from the
property, you' re restricting their privacy,
4 and you' re restricting their ability and the
future owner' s ability, and in a case like
5 this, there' s no reason to do that . You can
enjoy the benefit of what you want to do
6 without a variance .
MR. CALIENDO: That' s despite the
7 fact in question it' s an open structure . It' s
not habitable space .
8 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What is the
elevation?
9 MR. CALIENDO : About two and a
half feet .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You still
need a variance from us for lot coverage,
11 correct?
MR. CALIENDO : That was my next
12 question. If I bring it to the other side, I
still have the issue of coverage . It' s 200
13 square feet in question differential .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I wouldn' t
14 have a problem with that .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The lot
15 coverage is no problem with me but as far as
the variance, no. 1,
16 MR. CALIENDO : Okay, so --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As you can see
17 we' re mostly in agreement up here .
MR. CALIENDO : I guess I 'm running
18 out of arguments here . So the issue is I
would have to revise the drawing, resubmit
19 with the understanding that if in principal
you have no objection to the lot occupancy
20 issue --
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You don' t
21 have to revise it for us because I think as
you heard, the Board is not going to vote
22 favorably for the variance .
MR. CALIENDO : We still have a
23 variance for lot coverage .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as
24 the lot coverage in issue, yes . The size of
the structure is not going to change, that' s
25 not going to affect whether you submit it
through new plans or not unless you' re going
December 18 , 2003
50
1
2 to make it larger?
MR. CALIENDO : No .
s
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Good. Then
we' ll still be at the same lot coverage in a
4 different location.
MR. CALIENDO: So, I' m sorry, the
5 procedure, you' re saying I do not need to come
back for another hearing at this point?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MR. CALIENDO: So I ' ll resubmit
7 drawings directly to the Building Department
that would show the structure on the other
8 side, with the 200 square foot increase in lot
coverage and that would be permissible to the
9 Board?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With a copy to
10 us .
MR. CALIENDO : Copy you, okay.
11 Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Make a
12 motion to close the hearing. I ' m sorry, I
always forget somebody else might have
13 something to say.
MR. TETCHERONE : Hi, how are you
14 this morning. My name is Joe Tetcherone . I ' m
here on behalf of my wife and I , Virginia.
15 And we own the property to the east of the
Tzanopoulos home . Thank God you agreed on
16 moving that gazebo, because that ' s way too
close to my fence, which is right there, and
17 we kind of stay in our backyard right where
our gazebo would be . And we don' t understand,
18 my wife and I pulled up in front of the house
last week, and all of a sudden you see all
19 this construction going on, and I assumed that
they needed a variance to do any type of work .
20 You said it already that the construction
already started. I don' t understand how they
21 already got building permits .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He had
22 answered that question.
MR. TETCHERONE : There was and
23 they didn' t need a variance to do --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I checked this
24 morning with the Building Department because I
had the same question you did, and they do
25 have the building permit to do that .
MR. TETCHERONE : It looks like an
December 18 , 2003
51
1
2 apartment building actually.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody has
3 their own tastes .
MR. TETCHERONE: I think if they
4 want that magnitude, they should have gone to
the south fork, down on Dune Road ' cause
5 that' s where they' re building all that . I
mean I came out here to Southold, to Greenport
6 to have a beautiful home, nice area and all of
a sudden I see this big thing coming up next
7 door to me . I'm like, it' s a little too close
for comfort .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Southold
Town has parameters with code, they can build
9 whatever they like .
MR. TETCHERONE: I understand. I
10 just found that out this past week.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, one
11 question for you. What' s the distance from
your property line to your edge of your house?
12 MR. TETCHERONE: My property, on
that side maybe 15, 17 feet .
13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So
this gazebo if it was there would be within 20
14 feet of the side of your house?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I thought
15 you were the neighbor that didn' t mind this or
is there another neighbor that didn' t mind
16 this?
MR. TETCHERONE : The other
17 neighbor to the west is family of theirs . I
don' t see why they didn' t want to put the
18 gazebo on that side anyway so they could both
share it .
19 MR. CALIENDO: I didn' t realize
that there was an objection.
20 MR. TETCHERONE : I got this in the
mail last week, and when I came out to my
21 house this past weekend I saw construction, I
thought the whole variance was all part of
22 these plans, and then I came to the Town Hall ,
I believe it was Monday early morning to get
23 that clarified about the building permits that
were already issued without a variance because
24 it was on the code .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As I said, I
25 just had a conversation with the Building
Department .
December 18 , 2003
52
1
2 MR. TETCHERONE : So you need to
tell me, the other part of this house on the
3 west side that they' re extending up, they
don' t need a variance to do that?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MR. TETCHERONE : Even though
5 they' re proposing to be 16 or so feet from
their property line on that side, that' s okay?
6 I mean, the whole perimeter of that new
construction is overhanging, I don' t know how
7 they don' t have the footage, but I can see the
proposed overlay, after they do that overlay,
8 that' s going to be okay?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The way it was
9 explained this morning that is existing and
they' re just redoing that part of the house;
10 am I correct?
MR. CALIENDO: That' s correct .
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Did you
talk to the Building Department on this?
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I talked
to Daemon this morning.
13 MR. CALIENDO : I can clarify on
the west side . The primary addition is on the
-- - 14 east side of the house . The west side was an
f existing roof . When you look at the overall
15 house, the roof pitch/ the existing roof ended
up being very flat aid low in relation. We
16 just raised the roof up to get a higher
profile .
17 MR. TETCHERONE : It says right
here, proposed extended roof area of residence
18 hatched with overhang dashed. So their
overhanging furthermore .
19 MR. CALIENDO : That ' s not true .
MR. TETCHERONE : Am I not seeing
20 right?
MR. CALIENDO : We' re not creating
21 any additional floor area. You' re talking
about overhang, you must be talking about the
22 eves .
MR. TETCHERONE : What does it say
23 here? It says hatched with overhang
dashed. Aren' t they extending the whole
24 house? ' Cause they did it on the east side,
so I 'm assuming they' re going to continue that
25 whole line .
MR. CALIENDO : I don' t know
December 18 , 2003
53
1
2 whether he' s looking at one of my plans or
not .
3 MR. TETCHERONE : The new circular
driveway they' re putting in also; I hope you
4 like that one . It doesn' t say roof overhang,
it says hatched.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We have a
further question also for you, sir. The
6 Notice of Disapproval says total side yard
setback of less than 35 feet . The existing
7 footprint does not have a side yard of 35
feet .
8 MR. CALIENDO: Again, when I spoke
to Mr. Daemon I think the judgement was --
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Even so, we
have had many variances for the same thing.
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Our
authority in this case -- let' s start in the
11 beginning -- is appellate only. That' s the
only reason we' re here . You are taking an
12 appeal of the Building Department' s
determination. What we have in front of us is
13 the Building Department' s determination that
therefore the proposed construction is not
14 permitted pursuant to blab, blab, blah, which
states that nonconforming parcels between 20
15 and 39, 000 square feet require a minimum side
yard setback of 35 feet, and this is why
16 you' re here, and a maximum lot coverage of 20
percent .
17 MR. CALIENDO: If you read the
reason why we' re here, which is in your Notice
18 of Disapproval, this refers specifically to
the gazebo setback issue, they' re decreasing
19 that to 3 and a half feet or so .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We can' t
20 tell that .
MR. CALIENDO: I understand.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The
building permit was issued in May.
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is
also amended September 29th from the Building
23 Department . It says to construct additions
and alterations to an existing single family
24 dwelling. A gazebo is not an addition or an
alteration. This is a separate structure in
25 this case . I 'm only saying this because we' d
hate to give you a permit for lot coverage and
December 18 , 2003
54
1
2 have you have to go back to the Building
Department and say, gee, we didn' t cover
3 everything.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we
4 adjourn this to this afternoon and go to the
Building Department and ask Daemon if he would
5 come and explain this to us? If you can catch
him now, bring him back. Because I asked him
6 the same question this morning, and he blew me
off .
7 MR. CALIENDO: You want me to try
and see Mr. Daemon, and --
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And have him
explain it to us .
9. MR. CALIENDO : What are you going
to do, run through this whole --
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . We' ll
put you on for --
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If Daemon' s
there now.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You can do
the first one of the afternoon, which is 1 : 00
13 p .m.
MR. CALIENDO : Okay, I ' ll try to
14 find him now.
l CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion
15 to adjourn this hearing until 1 : 00 this
afternoon.
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
17 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
- ----------- ---------------------- --- ---
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing
is Jeselsohn and DuBois on Bay Avenue in
20 Greenport . The Application Number is 5448 for
a new dwelling less than 35 feet from the
21 front line and less than 35 feet from the rear
lot line, Bay Avenue in Greenport .
22 MR. SAMUELS : Hi, my name is Tom
Samuels .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tom, there
was no posting.
24 MR. SAMUELS : Two signs were put
there . It' s been extremely windy. Are you
25 sure you looked on both sides?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I looked on
December 18 , 2003
55
1
2 three sides .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was there
3 Tuesday I couldn' t find it on Tuesday as well .
MR. SAMUELS : Is that right?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry. You
have the green cards? Thank you. Go ahead.
5 MR. SAMUELS : Basically, I 'm here
to answer questions, but first let me say that
6 you did find it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, we finally
7 did find it . You know there' s so many little
roads down there . A lot of them have three
8 sides, and I did see a mail box with 55 on it .
MR. SAMUELS : It' s a triangular
9 parcel with all front yards .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a white
10 house .
MR. SAMUELS : Light blue shutters .
11 I put a sign on both sides . It' s been crazy
with the wind, but that' s no excuse . We' ll do
12 what we have to do. Maybe I can at least go
through the case in any event, you can decide
13 what you want to do .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
14 MR. SAMUELS : It didn' t start out
as a second floor addition project, but
15 j� because the entire house is within the flood
( plain, we realized soon that even lifting it
16 to the flood plain elevation would increase
the nonconformity. When that became evident ,
17 I think my clients, Messers Jeselsohn and
DuBois, then it made sense to consider a
18 larger project and do a second floor. The
foundation is almost non-existent and so we
19 would have to effectively reconstruct the
house in any case and we' d need a variance .
20 We' re looking to do this
reconstruction with a second floor completely
21 within the existing footprint, which is
existing nonconforming. We' ve tried to do it
22 in a way which is respectful of the
neighborhood, with a hipped roof that would be
23 a little lower and less imposing than some
other things might be .
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How high is
the roof going to be, Tom?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Actual dimension?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ' s very
December 18 , 2003
56
1
2 mixed down there .
MR. SAMUELS : It is very mixed
3 down there . Lydia, I don' t have a scale on it
but I would say overall it' s about 24
4 feet . Like I say we've tried to keep it that
way. In fact, in this instance we were
5 working with proposed height limitations for
small lots, which didn' t go into effect
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You seem to
have done it very nicely.
7 MR. SAMUELS : It' s a shoe horn
situation, but because there' s public water
8 there it can happen.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no
9 objections . It looks very good to me .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The
10 majority of the houses that I saw on the
waterfront were two story.
11 MR. SAMUELS : Right . We did the
one on the bay side .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the bay
side there .
13 MR. SAMUELS : Mr. Price, I
believe, is also building a house on the bay
14 side . He sent in a letter which I included in
that together with this DEC nonjurisdiction of
15 support to the ZBA, and we have the Trustees
permit approved, but I don' t have a physical
16 copy of it yet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have to
17 raise the house at all for FEMA?
MR. SAMUELS : Yes, we do. It' s
18 eight foot something now, and believe it or
not it has to go to ten because it' s exposed
19 to the east . That alone, raising the house in
that instance would have involved a variance,
20 which was my point . Almost anything we do in
order to get him out of the flood plain. So
21 at that point we decided we might as well do
the project . It ' s a tiny little house,
22 cottage . They wanted a proper three bedroom
house .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many
square feet will the house be?
24 MR. SAMUELS : I don' t believe -- I
don' t know that . It' s less than 2 , 000 square
25 foot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Great .
December 18 , 2003
57
1
2 MR. SAMUELS : But I 'm sorry, I
don' t know.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could
you send us that information, Tom, please
4 because I have to write the decision.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The height is
5 going to be 24 feet, Jerry, and he has to
raise it eight foot and what are they in?
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Flood
plain.
7 MR. SAMUELS : 10 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With the
8 extension 10 .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, could
9 you tell us then, after the demolition, what
will be left in terms of foundation?
10 MR. SAMUELS : Nothing. There is
effectively no foundation.
11 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There will
be nothing there .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Slab?
MR. SAMUELS : We need a footing
13 and there is no footing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ' s a
14 velocity zone?
MR. SAMUELS : No, not a velocity
15 zone . We need flow through vents and there' s
no basement, obviously.
16 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Crawl space
area?
17 MR. SAMUELS : You could call it
that . I don' t think the Building Department
18 even refers to it that way, and you' re not
allowed to do a slab down there .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is
a new place in kind?
20 MR. SAMUELS : With a second floor .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This may
21 have come up and again I apologize for not
being here . Is there any reason why it isn' t
22 centered more on the property?
MR. SAMUELS : This is the existing
23 footprint . We could have done that , but we
just stuck exactly within that footprint, in
24 fact , it' s a little tiny smaller on all sides,
also the sanitary system is very tricky in
25 that site, and I don' t actually have that
final approval from the Health Department , but
December 18 , 2003
58
1
2 we expect it; it conforms because of the
public water. So actually moving it if it did
3 conform on the back side there is tough. I ' d
rather leave it where it is .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any
buffering between there and that six and a
5 half feet between that and the side yard?
MR. SAMUELS : Whatever we can fit
6 in there it' s tight, and you want to have
access to the house so that you can maintain
7 it . There' s an existing stockade fence
between the neighbor, which is the property of
8 the neighbor; we can' t really fit much in
there . It' s tight . I believe the neighbor' s
9 going to be in soon, I might add, February
something.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What' s
going to be out of the ground, how much out of
11 the ground itself in reference to the pilings?
MR. SAMUELS : No pilings, masonry
12 foundation, no breakaway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know
13 you said no velocity.
MR. SAMUELS : No, no breakaway
14 wall . We' re actually bringing in a little bit
of fill on the sanitary system. So there will
15 be very little out of the ground on that . The
minimum eight inches on the east side where
16 that' s six foot border there' s really no room
for fill there . So it will -- the flow
17 through vents will be on that north side, that
little six foot .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m not
going to see much foundation?
19 MR. SAMUELS : No. ' Cause, it' s
against -- we' re trying to fill where we can.
20 You will see some foundation because we don' t
want to drain away unreasonably into the road,
21 and we have very little to work with physical
site there, and, of course, it will all be
22 contained by dry wells but still, there isn' t
a lot of room for fill .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you
have an objection to the Board reserving the
24 right -- assuming the Boards agrees to this to review any possibly buffering at all?
25 MR. SAMUELS : Buffering' s fine .
They want privacy too, they have very little
December 18, 2003
59
1
2 there . It' s a triangle, they' re right up
against the road on all sides . If we could
3 fit buffering in, I'm not sure what would fit
there if you' re talking plant material .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe
arborvitae .
5 MR. SAMUELS : That ' s not a view
side, as long as it physically fits and can
6 they can still get to the house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From a
7 cylindrical point of view there, they don' t
really grow out until they get very old, and
8 they' re easy to remove, if you have to.
MR. SAMUELS : I don' t think Mr.
9 Jeselsohn would have any objection to that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any
10 objection to that?
MR. JESELSOHN: No .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody else in the audience that wishes to
12 speak for or against this application? May I
have a motion to close on the hearing and
13 reserve decision?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
14 moved.
l� BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
16 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
17 ---------------- - ---------------- --- ----
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
18 hearing is for Phil and Nancy Rodilosso,
Application Number 5443 , for Notice of
19 Disapproval for proposed alterations and new
addition at less than ten feet . Yes, sir.
20 MR. RODILOSSO: My name is Phil
Rodilosso, and I 'm here to represent my wife
21 and myself and Peter Staffberg our contractor
is here as well . We have been on the north
22 fork for about 25 years as homeowners,
starting in Mattituck, moving to Cutchogue and
23 then Southold, and now we' re back in
Mattituck, which is closer to my wife' s
24 family. She herself has been coming out here
since she was born. Her grandparents lived in
25 Mattituck since 1933 . So I guess we view
ourselves as long term residents and totally
December 18 , 2003
60
1
2 enjoy the north fork of Long Island.
3 We purchased a small home on
7` 3 Sigsbee Road last summer and having been used
to larger houses, of course, and even a larger
4 condo in Southold, and we felt we really
needed to add a master bedroom suite to what
5 was essentially a cottage built in 1942 and
then added on to about 20 years ago . But it
6 was still quite small; it was about 1, 600 ,
1, 700 square feet .
7 The existing home is very close to
our property line to the south, and we wanted
8 to extend the house about 24 feet to the rear,
and the house is on a slight angle, which
9 would actually protrude a little bit closer,
about a foot closer to the property line than
10 the existing home is . I guess that' s really
the issue, that the existing home is
11 essentially nonconforming to the current
codes, and we want to extend the home back
12 another 24 feet to provide a proper master
bedroom suite in the home, and that ' s it . And
13 we' re here to answer your questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
14 make a public statement?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know
for a fact that -ie Pedersons who owned the
16 house -- and grew up on Sigsbee Road. I
presently own one house on Sigsbee Road at
17 2290 . I know Celic Realtors sold the house to
you, and I know there' s some involvement
18 with -- Pedersons are friends of mine . I have
a license with Pedersons, which is now
19 Prudential . Does the Board have any objection
to me voting on this application?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So then
21 I will not voice any opinion.
MR. RODILOSSO: Okay.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only
23 thing that I see is you hand drew on the
survey the 24 by 24 addition, and the only
24 thing I 'm a little concerned about here is
that if you look at the angle of the house --
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Two side
yards?
December 18 , 2003
61
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: -- to
Sigsbee Road, the front of the house narrows
3 to the back; in other words, it ' s -- that' s
what I ' m very concerned about .
4 MR. RODILOSSO : It' s not plum to
the property line .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly
what I'm concerned about is that rear yard
6 side where it may be 512 " .
MR. RODILOSSO : We know where you
7 are, right .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where it' s
8 5 feet 2 inches where you' re going to begin
the addition, when you extend that 24 --
9 MR. RODILOSSO: We were thinking
aesthetically to continue the house line
10 straight rather than have some --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because
11 they' re not parallel .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know.
12 But the way the angle is here --
MR. RODILOSSO : Right . It would
13 actually be closer. Peter, you have an
estimate of how close?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We can' t
estimate because we' re going to put our /
15 decision in the number if you' re wrong and /ou
go for a final .
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is at
an angle here . This is 5-2 here when we come
17 back here this could be 4-2 ; this could be
3-2 . What do you think, Peter?
18 MR. STAFFBERG: I think closer to
the 4-2 . Because I believe the distance on
19 the existing, I believe it drops a foot on the
survey -- and I ' ll check my survey here -- in
20 addition to the existing house, and that' s
approximately 24 , 25 foot deep .
21 MR. RODILOSSO : So it' s like 6-2
in the front, 5-2 in the back.
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The survey,
the actual survey mark at the rear of the
23 house is 5-2 at the corner. If we extend 24
feet in the same direction, our problem is
24 very simple : How are we going to determine
what that setback will be on that property
25 line?
MR. RODILOSSO : I guess your
December 18 , 2003
62
1
2 computer calculated that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We have
3 another survey that showed 5-5 .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: What is the
4 possibility of inserting the addition - - you
were talking about trying to make a straight
5 line, obviously, if you look from the road
side down, and it was inset some you' d never
6 see that line .
MR. RODILOSSO: Your colleague who
7 is familiar with the whole home will
understand that the roof lines on this house
8 are very unusual . I mean, we were faced with
a choice when we bought it of going up or
9 changing everything completely, but we decided
a one-story addition would make more sense
10 from the point of view of what ' s in the area,
and, you know, from our own use of the home,
11 and, you know, I just think aesthetically
having one line rather than a zig-zag
12 arrangement makes a little more sense . Peter
can speak on that .
13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: If that was
setback in another four to five feet from the
14 existing house line, you' re saying that it
would make a total unworkable roof line
15 situation here?
MR. STAFFBERG: If you were going
16 to extend the roof line that exists back, we
would be breaking the roof line, so you' d
17 start another one and sort of have like two
houses lined up. I could get you that number
18 and I'm asking the survey on the computer.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Peter,
19 here --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We actually
20 have a new survey, September of ' 03 , and they
actually jogged the addition over to keep it
21 parallel .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: See what
22 they did? They brought this in at a slight
angle to maintain it at 5-5 .
23 MR. STAFFBERG: They actually made
this out a square .
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So throw
the levels and squares out for this .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Made it 5-5
back here .
December 18 , 2003
63
1 '
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s the
one they' re looking at?
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly.
MR. STAFFBERG: How can I said
4 correct that?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t
5 know, you tell me .
MR. STAFFBERG: I can ask them
6 what this measurement would be if we kept this
line straight . I can give you an exact
7 number, whatever that will be, 4-8 or 4-7, and
then I' ll get you a corrected survey, and I' ll
8 get that back to you today to give you a
number from them with a stamp.
9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not
going to matter. We could close the hearing
10 pending receipt of the actual dimension
sE.tback that you' re requesting.
11 MR. STAFFBERG: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The survey
12 with the actual setbacks are because that' s
what we' re all looking for really.
13 Peter. A number to put there .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes .
14 MR. STAFFBERG: Then thereafter
I ' ll get your straight addition.
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Otherwise
{ you' ll have a crooked house .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also for
the record, it looks like this is two lots at
17 one time . It is merged. It is one lot .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me
18 comment since I can' t vote on this, to help my
fellow neighbor, but you know who I am.
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : State your
name for the record.
20 MR. GOEHRINGER: It' s the first
time I 've ever done this in 24 years . I have
21 to tell you that the house was built by the
Petrukises in 1942 . They owned Bungalow Bar
22 Ice Cream, and they retained ownership of that
house, and I don' t know if there was a breach
23 in between there and the Pedersons in that
period of time . It is an extremely unique
24 premises, there' s no doubt about it . Just to
answer your question, the property was bought
25 next door by the Pedersons to my knowledge,
and then it was split to add more property to
December 18 , 2003
64
1
2 the Pederson lot, and then they sold off the
�i
lot on the corner, and that' s how the property
3 was created.
MR. RODILOSSO: Because they did
4 the addition about 20 , 25 years ago.
MR. GOEHRINGER: If you look at
5 the house standing in front to the left, they
did a magnificent job adding that addition on
6 and contouring those very difficult roof lines
that you alluded to and Peter alluded to,
7 because they are very different .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: To answer
8 your question, they' re one lot ; you' re not
going to do a waiver of merge?
9 MR. RODILOSSO: No waiver of merge
here. We heard that earlier.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s on the
record now.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision
12 pending new survey with the actual setbacks
for the addition.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' ll make
that motion.
14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second
CHARWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
15 (Wh6reupon, all Board Members
responded in fa(sor. )
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
------------------------------ ------ ----
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our last one .
Darby Moore, 5447 on Oak Road in New Suffolk.
18 You just want to put a dormer out, I
understand?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And on up,
Tom.
20 MR. SAMUELS : I' d have to clarify
this as a minor application. It' s a dormer on
21 an existing house that will make useable an
existing second floor, which is currently an
22 attic . And it' s all entirely within the
footprint , of course, but the entire existing
23 house on the Rathwell Road side is not within
the allowable setbacks . Therefore, the dormer
24 itself is not within the allowable setbacks .
Approximately 100 square feet is all that' s
25 projecting that roof . We' re not increasing the height of that roof . We' re not doing
, December 18 , 2003
65
1
2 anything else that in any other way I can
imagine has an impact on the neighborhood. I
3 don' t even think that the dormer itself does,
but it does allow us to use that attic space .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora,
do you have any questions?
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No
questions .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have one
question since I 'm writing this one . The
7 dimensions I'm speculating on the south side
of the dormer, what is it recessed in on the
8 existing footprint approximately? Is the
proposed dormer within the size of the
9 footprint?
MR. SAMUELS : It' s behind the
10 existing porch, which is about six feet wide,
so the face of that dormer that' s encroaching
11 would be about six feet in from the existing
front of the porch, which itself is actually
12 recessed from the face of the gable facing the
creek another foot or two. So I ' d say, you
13 know, it' s going to be with the 40 foot
setback there, we' re probably something like
14 36 feet to the face of that dormer . I can
find out exactly. %
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But /
recessed in from the original footprint?
16 MR. SAMUELS : From the original
footprint, it ' s actually six-plus actually
17 another foot from the side, make it seven
feet . By the way, there' s an existing
18 building permit there . Nothing' s been done on
the site . But the Building Department was
19 nice enough to give a permit for a screened-in
porch on the north side, at which point the
20 application was split because of this dormer .
So Daemon in his wisdom decided to give us the
21 permit for the screened porch, but nothing
will happen until we resolve this because they
22 want to do it all at one time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
23 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No
questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr.
Goehringer?
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is
it going to affect the roof height as it
December 18 , 2003
66
1
2 presently exists?
MR. SAMUELS : Nothing. It' s a
3 shed dormer coming off from the main ridge .
It has no effect on the roof height .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was down
there yesterday, and I didn' t see a problem
5 with it . There was a great lake in front of
the house, though.
6 MR. SAMUELS : Rathwell Road and
not to mention New Suffolk Road, I had to go
7 back around the other night .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have
8 any further questions . Make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision.
9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So moved.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
11 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
12 ----------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: First I need a
13 resolution to cancel the hearing of Omnipoint
Communication because it has moved.
14 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
16 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
17 ---------- ------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
18 application is Susan and Joseph Ulrich, Number
5460, at Mill Creek Drive . Would you come to
19 the mike?
MR. ULRICH: Hi, my name is Phil
20 Ulrich, I'm the son of Dorothy and Joseph
Ulrich and this is my story, Susan.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you
like to do; would you tell us?
22 MR. ULRICH: We propose to create
a dormer in the existing home on the second
23 floor, which would add a modest amount of
improvement in terms of living space to what
24 is currently an attic .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So that would
25 extend your rear property line then, it would
be just 40 feet?
December 18 , 2003
67
1
2 MR. ULRICH: No. The current
property line would not be altered at all . In
i 3 other words, the footprint of the house would
be entirely unchanged and this dormer is a
4 second floor. The builders refer to it as a
reverse gable dormer.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s
actually recessed or two from the side view of
6 the drawing?
MR. ULRICH: No . I wouldn' t say
7 that . I have a drawing with me .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: From
8 looking at a side view of this .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
9 looking at it with the overhang. So what the
applicant is saying is that it' s really on top
10 of the first story and the overhang protrudes
past it?
11 MR. ULRICH: That' s correct . In
other words, the drawings that I 'm aware of,
12 it shows an extension of two feet eight
and-a-half inches, but, again, this is on the
13 second floor, the footprint of the home is
unchanged.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree it
doesn' t go beyond. I just thought it was
15 recessed actually.
MS . KOWALSKI : It' s not 50 feet
16 from the rear.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not 50
17 feet . It would be 40 feet, your Notice of
Disapproval ..
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let ' s look
at the survey.
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It doesn' t
give a distance on that side .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t
know how they determined 40 feet, 45 feet .
21 MR. ULRICH: I would presume that
one makes a judgment from the high water mark.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, the
house is skewed.
23 MR. ULRICH: Again, my point being
the distance from the high water mark to the
24 home, the footprint of the home is unchanged.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Correct .
25 MS . KOWALSKI : I think what
they' re asking was the existing footprint set
December 18 , 2003
68
1
2 back?
MR. ULRICH: I believe that to be
3 exactly approximately 40 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 35 feet on one
4 side to the tie line on the east side .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not
5 labeled on your survey.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . It' s
6 not labeled on the survey.
MR. ULRICH: Sure, it might have a
7 slight angle to it depending on --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it would be
8 more actually on the west side .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: It could be
9 40 then.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have no
10 idea.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They might
11 have scaled it off, the Building Department .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Sir, would
12 you say then in summary the reason you' re here
for the Notice of Disapproval is because the
13 existing dwelling has a nonconforming setback?
MR. ULRICH: That is correct . It
14 is my understanding that by virtue of the
existing dwell�'rig' s nonconformance, that any
15 construction a/ctivity to take place , on the
property requ{=_res our appearance here to
16 advise you that there' s something we want to
do, and, again, what it is we' re looking to do
17 in no way alters that existing nonconformance ,
to my understanding.
18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not
19 expanding a nonconforming. You' re merely
putting a dormer?
20 MR. ULRICH: That' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a
rough calculation 37 to 40, the shortest
22 distance will be 37 to 40 .
MR. ULRICH: That could be .
23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not on
the survey. It' s just the variances for that ,
24 you might want to know that .
MR. ULRICH: Okay, thank you.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for
December 18 , 2003
69
1
2 the record some notes on that, adding on what
--, Board Member Tortora said, the dimension of
3 the dormer is 20 feet by what? Doesn' t really
say, but 20 feet also?
4 MR. ULRICH: I ' ll have to take a
quick look at the prints .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Top view.
MR. ULRICH: Correct . I don' t see
6 it as being anymore than 20 feet . In other
words, I'm looking at what I know to be a
7 quarter of an inch to a foot, as I look at
this, I'm an engineer, it strikes me as
8 approximately five inches so I can conclude 20
feet .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Once again
it does not extend beyond the original
10 footprint?
MR. ULRICH: Correct .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: All set .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr.
Goehringer?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No
questions . We just had a variance on this
14 piece of property, I'm fully cognizant .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t rave
15 any questions either. Anybody else in tjne
audience speak in favor or against this4
16 application? Seeing no one, then I will make
a motion to close this hearing and reserve
17 decision until later.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
19 responded in favor. )
MR. ULRICH: Not being familiar
20 with your policies --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will have a
21 special meeting in about two weeks, and then
give us another week after that .
22 MR. ULRICH: Is there a problem
with anything that I have presented here?
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. It' s our
procedure . We do the hearings now. We have a
24 special meeting to make sure that they' re
worded properly; then they' re typed up and
25 presented to the Town Clerk and by that
time --
December 18 , 2003
70
1
2 MR. ULRICH: Should we get in
touch with you in three weeks?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that will
be fine . Call within two weeks . I don' t see
4 there' s a problem.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If we were
5 not in favor and we had a problem, we' re
really very up front . If we don' t like it, we
6 don' t like it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very
7 much and have a happy holiday.
--------------------------------------- -
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
application is Mr. Donald Grim, Number 5441 .
9 He would like to do something with his corner
piece there at Cox' s Lane and the North Road
10 for a horse barn. Mr. Strang, I believe, is
your architect?
11 MR. STRANG: Yes, good afternoon,
Garret Strang representing the applicant .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good
afternoon.
13 MR. STRANG: I did receive one
last green card his afternoon in the mail , so
14 I' ll bring it up.
Our application I think is
15 relatively straight forward. We have an
agricultural piece of property. The intended
16 use is to put a horse barn, the application is
for to put a horse barn on that piece of
17 property. Unfortunately it is less than ten
acres that the Building Department has
18 required us to seek relief from this
Board. The barn is intended for personal use
19 and housing of personal horses . It ' s not
meant for a riding academy or boarding other
20 horses or other things like that . It' s
strictly a personally used barn. I don' t know
21 what else I might add to that; as I said, it' s
quite straightforward. I would be happy to
22 answer any questions the Board may have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr . Orlando?
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sure, if
you could elaborate on this . You have a lot
24 of activity going on here . You have a farm
stand which has an expired building permit .
25 MR. STRANG: That permit has been
reinstated and is currently running as the
December 18 , 2003
71
1
2 project is moving toward completion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm sorry?
3 MR. STRANG: There is a current
permit on that ; the permit' s been
4 reinstated.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have
5 confirmation on that?
MR. STRANG: I may have one in my
6 file . I can certainly provide it to the Board
if I don' t have it in my file . See what I
7 have here .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have two
8 Notice of Disapproval . An old one, which
explains the --
9 MR. STRANG: The disapproval I
believe makes reference to the fact that the
10 permit be renewed. Let me look at that once
again.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We have the
October 15th 103 .
12 MR. STRANG: Bear with me a
moment . I have more paperwork on this than I
13 normally have for some reason.
. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have the
14 wrong dated one in front of me here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have the
15 January.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s the
16 one . I was misinformed. I 'm reading a
combined file there for the October 15th.
17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The January
one that I have cites three specific issues
18 here. It says you' re proposing a horse barn.
MR. STRANG: That' s correct .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And one
that says it' s keeping, breeding, raising
20 horses less than ten acres and the property is
seven, 7 .44 , so that' s one variance .
21 MR. STRANG: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second
22 variance says that the farm stand permit has
expired, and then it goes on to say that if,
23 even if it' s reissued, that the farm stand
must be located on a lot containing 5 tillable
24 acres of land excluding any horse or
agricultural building. So, assuming we get
25 over the first hurdle, which is variance
Number 1, then we have to go to the second
December 18 , 2003
72
1
2 one, which even if you have a farm stand, you
would have to get a variance to the 'farm stand
3 regulations . It' s kind of convoluted. I know
it really is .
4 MR. STRANG: I may be able to
simplify it for you, hopefully I can. The
5 permit has been renewed for the farm stand. I
believe it' s good for at least another year,
6 which will bring us into 105 at this point .
It will be completed by that point and a
7 certificate of occupancy will be issued. So
there wasn' t any need for a variance for the
8 farm stand at all . It was just, I think it
was a point .of reference that at the time this
9 disapproval was written, it was a permit that
was still open and had expired and it hadn' t
10 been CO' d yet . With respect to the five acres
of tillable land, there' s no relief being
11 sought for that because we are providing five
acres of tillable land for the farm stand
12 situation, and the calculations as such have
been provided to the Building Department, and
13 I have a copy that I could provide this Board
with.
- 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you want
to throw all th' e acreage into the farm stand
15 and leave it that there' s actually only 5 . 2
acres of tillable land and knock it down to
16 one variance because you' ll apply that land
that ' s tillable to the variance being sought
17 on the ten acres; is that --
MR. STRANG: I think the bottom
18 line is the relief we' re seeking is to have a
horse barn --
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: A new code
written on this issue immediately.
20 MR. STRANG: On many other issues ,
I could bring the wheelbarrow in with the
21 list , but --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garrett, I
22 think you' re going to need a new Notice of
Disapproval, too, don' t you? Because it says
23 the permit has expired and the farm stand must
be located, blah, blah, blah.
24 MR. STRANG: Well, if we will
provide you with a copy of the current permit ,
25 will that not alleviate that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it
December 18, 2003
73
1
2 just needs to be updated, your Notice of
Disapproval, that it' s really just for the
3 horse barn, never mind the farm stand, which
if you say you have a new permit, that will be
4 fine . You need a new Notice of Disapproval .
This is what we' re going by.
5 MR. STRANG: I didn' t know that
that -- it wasn' t a subject to my application
6 because it was never an issue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it is on
7 our --
MR. STRANG: Would you like a copy
8 of the letter that was given to the Building
Department which documents -- how we arrived
9 at the five tillable acres for your file?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine,
10 then we have to have an updated Notice of
Disapproval
11 MR. STRANG: If I understand, does
that mean without the updated Notice of
12 Disapproval, we need to continue this to
another date or can we proceed?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, we can
proceed, no problem.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we can
proceed, no problem, just make it a con tion .
15 MS . KOWALSKI : If there' s �ynything
new in the disapproval that wasn' t add�-essed
16 before --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we just
17 adjourn the hearing.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re
18 safer off .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Adjourn to the
19 special meeting in January.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Leave it
20 open, because if something happens over there
that triggers and you have to --
21 MR. STRANG: Have to reapply.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Leave it
22 open for your own protection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or you' ll have
23 to readvertise it and everything.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Leave it
24 open for your own protection.
MR. STRANG: I don' t have any
25 aversion to that . I agree with you, let ' s run
it as smoothly as possible . It' s a surprise
December 18 , 2003
ti
74
1
2 to me that this wasn' t already resolved, given
the permit was renewed.
3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Strang?
MR. STRANG: Yes .
4 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: How many
horses are going to be housed in the barn?
5 MR. STRANG: We' re proposing four
horses be stalled in the barns .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garrett, then
it would be on January 22nd at 2 : 30 .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any comments,
Mr. Orlando?
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How long
has Mr. Grim owned this piece of property?
9 MR. STRANG: A little over ten
years .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The reason
I 'm asking is, I 'm sure you are aware of your
11 surroundings, I would just be heartbroken if
we voted in kind on this variance and then two
12 years from now on the front page, you' re suing
the rifle range for disturbing your horses .
13 You' re aware you have a gun range behind you
and Route 48 in front of you and where it' s
r 14 loud in the morning, and the horses ' can' t
breed because of the gun fire .
15 MR. GRIM: I 'm not looking to
breed anything, I have three girls . -
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I just
wanted to -- you know somebody buys a house by
17 the airport and all of a sudden it' s too loud
with the planes going over.
18 MR. GRIM: This is just for my
girls .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' re
aware of your surroundings?
20 MR. GRIM: I 'm very much aware of
that, 48 ' s very busy, I'm aware of all that .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
questions .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Horning.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: There might
23 be three or four horses in this barn, you' re
using all your land for your tillable acreage
24 to meet the farm stand requirements of the
five acres, and there' s still room for horses?
25 MR. STRANG: In referring to the
site plan, you' ll see there is an area that' s
December 18 , 2003
75
1
2 X' d out, that is the turn out area; there' s
plenty of space for four horses to graze .
a 3 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Not taking
into the five acres?
4 MR. STRANG: No, that' s in excess
of the five acres . And that document I just
5 provided to the file on how we arrived at five
acres is pretty clearly defined, the building
6 square footage, the driveway, the turn out
area.
7 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: The corral?
MR. STRANG: Yes . All that' s
8 included in the tabulation of how we got the
five acres of tillable .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
10 no objections to the plan.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
11 anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against this application? Yes,
12 Mr. Heinrich?
MR. HEINRICH: Yes . The name is
13 Bernard Heinrich, I live on County Road 48 .
Since this owner has bought this property, it
14 is used for commercial purposes only. It is
used to sell cars, trucks, and construction
15 equipment, and now to rent out dumpsters .
I have some photos that perhaps
16 you would like to look at . There is a large
earthen berm built on a west and south side of
17 an agricultural storage building. This berm
is approximately 300 feet long, 20 foot wide
18 and ten foot high; it is not shown on the
plans that you have . If you deduct this as
19 not being tillable acres, you have less than
five acres . This berm hides from the view
20 construction trailers, a large live-in house
trailer and trucks . The agricultural storage
21 building allegedly is rented out to a trek
exporter. This property is littered with old
22 trucks, and box body trailers . This property
does not appear to be used for agricultural
23 purposes . It is a disgrace and changes the
character of the neighborhood. The
24 application appears to be a complete
subterfuge . Thank you.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
Mr. Heinrich.
December 18 , 2003
76
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Would you
like to respond to that?
3 MR. STRANG: I would like to
respond to it . The property has, in fact ,
4 been used for agricultural purposes . There' s
been -- the field has been planted with
5 pumpkins which were sold at the farm stands
and other vegetables . It' s presently part of
6 the field has been planted with orchard,
there' s intentions of planting more '!of the
7 field with orchards for apples and pears and
other fruits . I mean, this is an ongoing
8 family, owned and operated, if you will,
venture . So it' s very labor intensive for a
9 family to get involved with it . It' s not
moving at the fastest of paces, but it is, in
10 fact, developing to its ultimate use, and that
is for an agricultural purpose, that being
11 orchards and fruits, vegetables whatever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gary, what is
12 that berm on the north side of the building?
MR. STRANG: That berm I believe
13 was built - - Don, you can correct me --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that on your
14 property, Don?
MR. GRIM: When you put up a
15 building ar�d you have to strip the top soil,
you have t0 put it someplace . And the Town
16 asked that it wasn' t removed from the site so
we used some for regrading.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And there is a
building behind that berm, is that yours also?
18 MR. GRIM: I think it is . I
didn' t know you had to show the extra dirt .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The
trailers that this gentleman - -
20 MR. GRIM: There' s a house trailer
back there, and we were in front of the Town
21 Board three or four months ago, and we
received a permit . We have to apply to the
22 Department of Health for septic and water and
the house trailer can be put in place, but we
23 did receive a permit from the Town Board for a
security trailer and that' s what that' s for.
24 There are other trailers back there that we
store material in. There' s a dump truck on
25 the property that we use to move the dirt to
grade the field. The cars that are there,
December 18 , 2003
77
1
2 they' re not mine .
It is a family project . I have
3 three girls, and we work on it on weekends .
We' re trying to build some family memories .
4 I'm sorry he doesn' t see it that way, but not
everybody looks at the picture the same
5 way. It' s almost done, my kids have stained
every shingle before we put it up. We have a
6 lot of good memories . Like Garret said, a lot
of people want to see things done today, no
7 it' s not done today. The last thing I have to
do is electric on the inside . We did plant 35
8 apple trees; we have 35 more coming, 35 after
that .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are they
planted?
10 MR. GRIM: Right behind the farm
stand.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Parallel to
Thompson' s?
12 MR. GRIM: Yes . And there' s also
two rows of grapes . We tried grapes, but a
13 little too much spraying for me, the apple
trees are better.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr.
Goehringer.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: /Mr. Grim,
isn' t it your determination -- I ' m n(�t putting
16 words in your mouth -- that there are
additional trailers on pieces of property, if
17 not adjacent contiguous to these properties
similar requests and again, I ' m not -- I 'm
18 just asking you to say yes, because I sat in
on a Town Board hearing for Mr. Thompson, who
19 is not far away from you that has the
landscaping business . His request at the same
20 time was for a security trailer also, and I
suspect that' s what you requested from the
21 Town Board also .
MR. GRIM: Yes .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the
time he said, and I can quote him, and if you
23 were to read the record, that the purpose of
the trailer was that he was losing gasoline
24 out of some of his vehicles and some things
were being stolen from his property.
25 MR. GRIM: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it' s
December 18 , 2003
78
1
2 just the width of that nursery next door, that
greenhouse situation whatever that width is ,
3 400, 500 feet, and he' s on the other side of
that isn' t he now?
4 MR. GRIM: Tommy Thompson' s right
next door. I've always had things dumped on
5 our property, and we had to call the police
down. We had police records of that . So
6 that' s what that trailer' s about .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Was -that berm
7 included in your calculations for cultivated
fields?
8 MR. STRANG: The berm is right
here (indicating) .
9 MR. GRIM: I can move it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How -many uses
10 you have on the thing, you have a storage
trailer, you have a building for agriculture
11 storage, and you have some other trailers back
there .
12 MR. GRIM: There' s trailers that
we have wood in that we use to --
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually your
calculation for 7 . 4 or six, seven acres is not
14 really true for cultivated field. If you have
a berm back there with buildings behind it, so
15 your acreage is less .
MR. GRIM: If you want it removed,
16 we can remove it .
MR. STRANG: The berm is the only
17 thing that' s not calculated into that ,
everything else has been, in fact, calculated
18 into that t,o arrive at those numbers .
MR. GRIM: We' ll take it down if
19 you want . I think when you go for the
building permit they ask will this soil be
20 removed. And if you answer no, you leave it
there. They ask you that question. '
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It just seems
you have more uses on this piece of property
22 than meets the eye .
MR. GRIM: It' s all agricultural
23 uses . We' re not changing uses . It' s all
agricultural, that' s kind of one use .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Did they
25 approve your permit for the trailer', and how
long did it give you for the security trailer?
December 18 , 2003
79
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Six months
usually.
3 MR. GRIM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What
4 happens after that?
MR. GRIM: Renew it . I came in
5 front of the Town Board for that, and I had to
give police reports . We try to do the right
6 thing. I try to get the paperwork. If
there' s anything you want done, tell me, we' ll
7 try to do it .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: In addition
8 to the agricultural uses, are you leasing or
renting various pieces of equipment or
9 dumpsters?
MR. GRIM: I do have a sanitation
10 company which I just started, and I have a
truck that' s registered, insured and
11 inspected. It' s allowed to be on that
property, I talked to Ed Forester about this .
12 It' s allowed to be there . I do park it there ,
no doubt about it .
13 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: You have
what kind of an additional business?
14 MR. GRIM: Not on this piece of
property on another piece of property we
15 started a sanitation company, and we do have
very small dumpsters, and we park them on the
16 back. Do you know what a dumpster is? Okay.
A dumpster sits on the back of the truck and I
17 do park it at that corner for advertisement,
yes, I do.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you still
own that other piece of property to the north
19 of the landfill?
MR. GRIM: Yes, I do, Ruth.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that where
you' re doing the --
21 MR. GRIM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: One other
22 question on the dumpster situation, you say
you park it on the corner for advertising.
23 MR. GRIM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Can someone
24 go to that parcel and rent that particular
dumpster or do they go somewhere else?
25 MR. GRIM: It' s actually they
drive by and see a phone number and call me .
December 18 , 2003
80
1 '
2 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: They don' t
get that particular dumpster, that stays
3 there?
MR. GRIM: No. That' s a truck I
4 use every day. Sometimes when it' s ;not in
use, I park it there . The vehicles that are
5 for sale there, they' re not mine . Some people
just put them there . I've had people drive up
6 and just park their car and walk away, and I
go hey, what are you doing.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER; Where
those vehicles are parked, Mr. Grim,! they
8 might not be on your property and they might
be on the County right of way? 1
9 MR. GRIM: A lot of them are on
the Town roads, yes .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
anybody else? Yes, Mr. Heinrich?
11 MR. HEINRICH: Let me respond a
little . The amount of earth that' s created in
12 that berm did not any way come from the
excavation of that building. That' s a pole
13 barn building. A lot of that material was
trucked in. As far as the trucks are
- — 14 concerned, it' s a large -- you can ride by the
}
premises - it' s a large white body; truck
15 body just dropped south of the right of way to
the rear of the property. There are other
16 trucks hidden -- I used the words hidden --
behind the berm so that no one can see them
17 from the street line . If you ride by
yourself, you will not see anything because
18 the berm is there, and evergreen trees have
been planted along that route . That is not
19 tillable property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
20 Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Grim.
MR. GRIM: The white truck body
21 he' s talking about is a refrigerated body
where when we get operation, we can keep the
22 produce cold at night . It' s back by the gun
club, so if there' s noise from the engine
23 running, it' s not going to disturb anybody.
You were worrying about the noise from the gun
24 club, I don' t have any neighbors to the back .
Every Saturday, Sunday and weekends there' s
25 guns going off all day long. So a little
refrigeration body I didn' t think was going to
December 18 , 2003
81
1
2 hurt anybody or have anybody complain. If
it' s not allowed, it' s not allowed. I' ll take
3 it away.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I move that we
4 adjourn this hearing until January 22 , 2004 at
2 : 30 p.m.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I make
the motion.
6 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
7 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved.
MR. GRIM: Thank you very much.
9 Have a nice holiday.
----------------------------------------
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next
application is Main Road Brokerage, Number
11 5407, proposed marine showroom at Main Road,
Southold. Mr. McCarthy, good afternoon, how
12 are you?
MR. MCCARTHY: Good afternoon,
13 likewise . How' s everybody? Tom McCarthy
Management, representing the applicant, Main
14 Road Brokerage . Just the nature of the
application and the need for reliefl Bill
15 Witski, who owns Albertson Marine ajad is a
principal of Main Road Brokerage i•. going to
16 be moving his operation from the north side
of -- I' m sorry from the south side of 25 into
17 the north side of 25 into this new facility.
This is a facility he will own, and presently
18 where he is located he does not own the
building, is a tenant and needs to move . He
19 is looking to have a warehouse and store
showroom and some bathrooms for his patrons .
20 The gist of the disapproval from the Building
Department stems from the fact that to the
21 westerly property line, his 50 foot right of
way on the west side of the property he has
22 deeded access across that right of way. It' s
not his intention through the Planning Board
23 application to use the right of way, but
because he does have a right of way across it ,
24 the Building Inspector gave us a disapproval
and determined it' s a front yard. We have two
25 front yards, one is on 25 . We' re in the M2
Zone, which dictates a 35 foot setback. We
December 18 , 2003
82
1
2 have, in consideration of the size of the
building, we've really moved the building back
j
3 off of 25 to lessen the impact to the
traveling public, down 25 we' re back 225
4 percent of what we need to be back of off of
Route 25 . The traveling public will really
5 see this building, and it will see the side of
the building as a side yard. They won' t
6 realize that technically it' s a front yard.
In the M2 zone the side yard minimum
7 requirement is 20 feet ; we meet that plus five
feet . So we really meet the spirit and intent
8 of the code . If he did not have deeded access
across the right of way, we would not be in
9 front of you.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You don' t
10 own the right of way?
MR. MCCARTHY: He does not own the
11 right of way, no . If he didn' t have deed
access, we wouldn' t be here we' d be continuing
12 through our process with the Planning Board,
so it' s really a technicality.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Does that
right of way access the railroad?
14 MR. MCCARTHY: No. I think three
or four homes are back there . Again, it meets
15 the spirit and intent of the code being a side
yard; although, it' s technically a side yard,
16 and it' s the minimum that' s necessary for Mr.
Witski and Main Road Brokerage in order to
17 accomplish their business . They have a
related company that owns an adjoining parcel
18 of property to the east, and they plan on
using these sites, although they will both be
19 independent and stand-alone from each other
for site plan purposes, they will both be used
20 physically together. We dealt with the
Planning Board and they have cross access
21 going between the two properties . You see on
the site plan there' s ADHP, they' ll be cross
22 access between the two properties . So they
would be able to bring their boats from one
23 property to the other property if they' re
being worked on or stored or what have you.
24 And that' s why this building is being pushed
as far as it is to the west; it' s to
25 accommodate and facilitate large boats, travel
lifts, fork lifts, what have you, between the
December 18 , 2003
83
1
2 two buildings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Some of these
3 buildings are going to be used for a dry dock?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I believe he' s
4 going to use --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Big buildings .
5 MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which, for big
6 boats you need big buildings .
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . Big boats
7 need big buildings, although they' re not
looking for any variances as far as size or
8 lot coverage or height or anything like that .
We certainly -- dealing with the other
9 criteria within the zone . It' s the minimum
that' s necessary to accommodate its business
10 given the circulation plan he had laid out on
the site, with how the boats move, the travel
11 lifts, the fork lifts, et cetera.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to go
12 to Planning Board for site plan approval?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, we' re in the
13 Planning Board right now, as a matter of fact .
We' re in the Planning Board, Health Department
14 and all the other agencies .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have
a heck of a lot of questions . You already -
16 submitted these plans to the Planning Board?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, and I believe
17 you have a memorandum from the Planning Board
in your ZBA file .
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Have they
made any initial suggestions as far as
19 landscaping?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, and we' re
20 working with them and incorporating that into
their landscape plan.
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width
of the building' s 100 feet?
22 MR. MCCARTHY : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you
23 very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando .
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
questions for Mr. McCarthy, but a question for
25 our own Board. Member Horning, didn' t you
mention at the last meeting about the right of
December 18 , 2003
84
1
2 way; didn' t the Zoning Board make some sort of
a statement about right of ways several years
3 ago, or am I misinformed?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: We did. We
4 came to an interpretation that a right of way
was not a front yard, property adjoining a
5 right of way was not a front yard.
MS . KOWALSKI : In certain
6 situations .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So it
7 wasn' t generic?
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: No.
8 MR. MCCARTHY: We've been informed
by the Building Inspector that helped us
9 interpret it was if the applicant had a deeded
right across that right of way, then it was
10 considered a front yard; if they did not have
a deeded right across it, then it was whatever
11 yard they wanted it to be, be it side or rear .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: And we
12 ruled on a private right of way situation.
MR. MCCARTHY: And this is a
13 private right of way as well .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr.
14 Goehringer.,
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was
15 over to the office this past Saturday and
Mr. Wit`,ki, Senior showed me, I believe
16 probably the map you have in front of you,
Tom, and we ran over the actual size of the
17 building, its proximity to the existing
building that' s there, of course there' s a lot
18 of boats on there right now, and I really
don' t have any questions . We know it' s a
19 boating area, and if it' s compatible with the
zone that' s it .
20 MR. MCCARTHY: Any further
questions?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody
in the audience have any questions for or
22 against the application? Seeing none, I have
no further questions . I move that we close
23 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
25 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for
December 18 , 2003
85
1
2 coming in and a happy New Year and a Merry
Christmas .
3 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you, same for
the Board.
4 ------------ ----------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
5 hearings on Osprey Dominion and LIPA Keyspan
and Number 5432V and 5432SE. How do you do?
6 MS . MINTZER: Good morning, I'm
Karen Mintzer. I'm counsel for Long Island
7 Power Authority, it' s the applicant . Key Span
is acting as LIPA' s agent so if you see Key
8 Span' s name in the paper or LIPA and Key Span
are acting together for purposes of these
9 applications .
LIPA' s seeking a special exception
10 to construct a public facility structure in an
agricultural conservation district, and also a
11 height variance, as the proposed public
utility structure, which is a wind turbine is
12 125 feet, the structure is 100 feet and the
wing span of the turbine is 25 feet . The
13 proposed wind turbine is part of LIPA' s clean
energy initiative project . There' s a
14 representative from LIPA here, Marc Dougherty,
who would like to say a couple wor -s about
15 that program after I give a brief intro . We
also have our environmental consu.Ltant here
16 who is going to show you a couple of boards of
how the wind turbine is going to look like .
17 The wind turbine is going to be located on the
Osprey Dominion' s property. The lot that it' s
18 going to be on is 4 . 64 acres . Two acres are
available for this use . LIPA' s entered into a
19 lease with the owner of the property, which
permits LIPA to use a 25 by 35 foot piece of
20 land necessary for the construction and
operation of the turbine . LIPA also has an
21 easement to run a power line from the wind
turbine to its existing distribution line .
22 LIPA' s acting as lead agency for
purposes of SEQRA review of this project, and
23 it notified the Planning Board of its --
Planning Board and the ZBA of its intention to
24 act as lead agency on August 20th. No
objection was heard. Thereafter, LIPA
25 presented or submitted a full environmental
assessment with its application on the October
December 18 , 2003
86
1
2 20th. The EA analyzes all the potential
environmental impacts of the wind turbine,
3 including impacts on land use zoning,
community facilities historical and
4 archeological resources, visual resources,
natural resources, hazardous materials ,
5 traffic, air quality, noise and potential
construction and cumulative impacts . The
6 environmental assessment reveals no
significant environmental impacts resulting
7 from the wind turbine . In fact, the wind
turbine will actually be an environmental
8 benefit . It will eliminate the use of 160 , 000
gallons of fuel oil or 22 . 6 million cubic feet
9 of natural gas over a 20 year period. It will
eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide,
10 sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in
particular. So we believe this is going to
11 actually be an environmental benefit .
LIPA is satisfied that it has
12 fully analyzed all of the environmental
impacts ; however, it hasn' t made its
13 determination of significance so the SEQRA
process is still open because the Planning
14 Board has advised us that we are -- that it
has retained an environmental consultant and
15 it' s going to have that consultant review the
environmental assessment . And LIPA intends to
16 consider any comments that consultant may have
before it makes its determination of
17 significance .
So we have the question for the
18 Board as to whether we should -- we' d like to
make our presentation today, but we may need
19 to continue this hearing pending any issues
that might arise from that review.
20 Mark Dougherty would like to say a
few words about the clean energy initiative
21 program.
MR. DOUGHERTY: Good afternoon, my
22 name is Mark Dougherty, I 'm the clean energy
project manager for LIPA. I just want to give
23 a brief description of our clean energy
initiative program and this wind turbine
24 demonstration program. This program is one of
the most ambitious clean energy programs in
25 the nation. It' s approximately $350 million
over ten years to promote clean energy. We
December 18 , 2003
87
1
2 also promote renewable energy programs,
_ demonstrations as well as efficiency peak load
3 management programs and also research and
development and demonstration programs, which
4 this application is one of .
We' re also -- renewable energy is
5 defined as energy that comes from resources
that are not depleted or naturally replenished
6 when used at sustainable levels . And just a
brief overview with this joint program with
7 the Long Island Farm Bureau for a land based
wind turbine demonstration. The purpose of
8 this program is to demonstrate the feasibility
and viability of wind power on agricultural
9 lands, small footprint and continued
unobstructed use of surrounding property. In
10 December of 2001 a joint letter was sent to
the Farm Bureau members requesting
11 applications for potential wind turbine sites ,
field visits to potential sites also to assure
12 the environmental capability as laid out in
the EEA. This unit here is a 50 kilowatt wind
13 turbine, which is feeding power back to the
grid under a lease agreement as Karen has
14 stated with our site operating agreement with
the host . The first unit was installed in
15/ August of 2002 at the Zay Brothers Farm, Windy
Acres located in Calverton. That was
16 dedicated by Governor Pataki on August 31,
' 02 . Thank you .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
ask a question, Ruth?
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that
19 operating at all times now, or is there a time
when it' s not operating?
20 MR. DOUGHERTY: It ' s operating 24
and 7 .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we
need your permission, the owner' s permission
22 or whose permission to go and see that in an
operating condition?
23 MR. DOUGHERTY: One of the things
in all our demonstration programs, whether
24 it' s fuel cells, wind turbines, we do ask that
we just notify the host because it' s private
25 property, that we just give them the head' s up
that we' re going to show up.
December 18 , 2003
88
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
should we make the appointment through
y 3 counsel?
MR. DOUGHERTY: However, your
4 convenience .
MS . MINTZER: I 'm sure LIPA is
5 pleased to host this Board and make a trip if
you want, but yeah, you can get in touch with
6 me and I' ll arrange it through LIPA.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
7 realize -- just let me give you my
determination -- I realize a lot of the
8 information within the environmental impact
statement may be generic to certain ' situations
9 that you have produced already, butiuniquely,
this Board, and I'm not speaking for the
10 Board, I'm speaking for myself -- I've been on
the Board for 27-something years --we' re
11 interested in drone, noise drone from it, I
know it' s mentioned in here, and more in
12 particular the ability to shut the system down
in high wind situations, and what the velocity
13 effect would be in the wind in damaging either
the rotor or whatever the case may be, but the
14 drone, of course, having probably the most
affect, This happens to be in a fairly
15 agrarYan area. There are some houses around
it, they are some distance away. I , assume
16 that probably may be one of the reasons why
you selected this particular site .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Should have
a wind speeds cutoff, right?
18 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You know the
19 winds out here, especially this past year has
been one of the windiest years I have
20 remembered.
MR. DOUGHERTY: It' s great for
21 this demonstration program.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ask you
22 about this demonstration, you' re having other
ones, fuel cells and what have you, is this to
23 take the place eventually of putting up
another generating plant?
24 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes . Our chairman
has publicly stated that the demand for
25 electricity keeps growing every year on land
capable of siting generation is often
December 18 , 2003
89
1
2 difficult . This is one of the programs to
dovetail and offset having to do some of that
3 as well as our other programs . One of the
main aspects of demonstrating technology like
4 this is to educate ourselves as a utility, how
does this impact our grid, and that' s the part
5 that we' re learning too. Also various
municipalities how they learn about this and
6 how we can see if this is feasible and install
this technology.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is the other
wind turbine on a farm also in Calverton?
8 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes .
MS . MINTZER: Every site looked at
9 was a farm site.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do they
10 grow?
MR. DOUGHERTY: They mainly grow
11 beans; I' ve seen cauliflower, squash,
zucchini .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was wondering
whether it would have a beneficial effect of
13 keeping some of the birds away from the
vineyards . I don' t know.
k
14 MS . MINTZER: I want to address
the comment about noise briefly. While some
15 of the material in our assessment is generic,
birds for example, wherever they{: are, unless
16 there' s a particular species that isn' t here,
that analysis is similar for each turbine, but
17 the noise has specifically been tailored for
this site depending on receptors .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we
have just a small one, I live in Orient . We
19 had a small one on up on the North Road and
they are noisy.
20 MR. DOUGHERTY: I don' t know which
models you've had.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was small,
believe me .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma' am
Chairman, I would like to leave this hearing
23 with the ability to have a scheduled
appointment from these very nice people
24 preferably on a Saturday because the daylight
situation is not great . We' re close to the
25 shortest day of the year . And go down there
and see that in operation?
December 18 , 2003
90
1
i
I
2 MR. DOUGHERTY: The only downside
I can say you can' t schedule the wind.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That's true .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, but
4 knowing it' s there maybe we can -- the host
will allow us to come down at certain times
5 when the wind is blowing vigorously and when
the wind is blowing lightly.
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How far is
the turbine setback from Main Road?
7 MS . MINTZER: I think it ' s 600
feet .
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The site
plan they have is not referenced on , the site
9 plan?
MS . MINTZER: It' s actually
10 discussed in the EA. It is -- actually it' s a
little more than 600 feet .
11 MR. MCALLISTER: My name is Jim
McAllister. I 'm the environmental consultant
12 with AKRF.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In looking
13 at the parameters under New York State law as
well as the local zoning ordinances as far as
14 with regards to the special exception, a
couple of things that are of concern to me .
15 One is, you know, you are requesting a
variance, the variance is substantial . There
16 is going to be a visual impact , there' s no
question about that . Some of my colleagues
17 are concerned about the noise impact , which is
reasonable, and I think we want to know about
18 that . Yes, it' s a new project , yes, it' s
being promoted, that' s all the more reason why
19 this project be a good one and before we go
forward with it, that we make sure that it' s
20 something that' s going to be compatible with
the community. And my concerns are the visual
21 impact . I would like to know, I would like to
be able to have you interpose what this is
22 going to look like .
MS . MINTZER: I --
23 MR. MCALLISTER: Can we go to that
first?
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, if
that' s what that is . If we go north to the
25 railroad tracks, you did not feel that there
would be any advantage of locating further off
December 18 , 2003
91
1
2 Main Road?
MS . MINTZER: Well , the
3 development rights of Lot 20 . 2 , I think it is ,
have been sold. That' s why we' re locating it
4 at the furthest point back on Lot 20 . 1 , but we
can' t locate it on 20 . 2 .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That was my
main concern.
6 MR. MCALLISTER: Again, for the
record, my name is Jim McAllister, I 'm with
7 AKRF. Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of
Board. I just want to briefly touch on the
8 visual impacts and the issues that you raised .
We recognize the visual impacts can be
9 somewhat subjective. However, for the
analysis that we did in the environmental
10 assessment, we used guidelines that were
prepared by the New York State Department of
11 Environmental Conservation, which were
designed to kind of remove some of the
12 subjectivity from visual analysis . What it
looks at is use in the area, perspective,
13 nearest sensitive receptor, similar types of
facilities, and based on that analysis, it was
14 determined that there would not be a
significant adverse impact, and I have some
/5 photo simulations that we can show you.
`- I don' t know where to put these .
16 As we said, the setback is over 600 feet, this
is the current view, over 600 feet from 25 .
17 The colors chosen would be light gray, light
blue to blend with the sky. Again, that' s
18 photo simulation. This is the perspective
looking from the entrance looking kind of
19 northeast from the driveway, again, this is
that building, located there . It' s kind of
20 located up and over.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is as
21 large as the one in Riverhead?
MR. MCALLISTER: Yes .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we
see both of those?
23 MS . MINTZER: Just to let the
Board know, they' re also ;in your EA pages .
24 MR. MCALLISTER: Again, looking
from the north, this would be the photograph
25 of the existing, this is the photo simulation
adding what it would look like from the
December 18 , 2003
92
1
2 perspective of the north view.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is one
3 blade length?
MS . MINTZER: One blade length is
4 20 --
MR. MCALLISTER: When the blades
5 are spinning at the maximum speed are they
visible?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How large is
this or small is this compared to some of the
7 wind farms that are say out in California?
MR. MCALLISTER: That' s a metric
8 larger. That' s a 900 KW or 1 . 3 megawatt .
Those larger ones you probably have a vision
9 of in your mind' s eye . This is another
project we have out there for our offshore
10 wind projects .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I've
11 seen those wind farms coming out east from San
Francisco.
12 MR. MCALLISTER: They' re quite
large . I don' t want to compare it to a cell
13 tower, which I will not do. But for
perspective, the tower by. the Southold Police
14 Department, which is much closer to the road
is o r 100 feet tall; that' s to give you a
15 sensy of scale .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right , it
16 does, thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the
17 long term goal of LIPA for this prototype
experiment?
18 MR. MCALLISTER: What we' re hoping
to do is, again, demonstrate wind technology,
19 and just to add something for you folks to
think about, historically, wind turbines,
20 windmills, water mills, grist mills have been
used in agricultural use historically. So
21 that' s why we feel it' s not going to be
incompatible with farm use . It' s been used
22 for 500 years . It' s old, it' s new.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This one
23 turbine is half a megawatt, right?
MR. MCALLISTER: No, no, 50
24 kilowatts .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many
25 megawatts?
MR. MCALLISTER: One megawatt is a
December 18 , 2003
93
1
2 million watts, this is 50 , 000 watts .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s why
3 I was asking a long term goal . So a small
power station, such as Port Jefferson, puts
4 out about 360 megawatts . You' re trying to
experiment to generate power, you' d have a
5 thousand of these out here to generate power
to simulate a power station. So what' s your
6 long term goal?
MR. MCALLISTER: I think if you
7 look at where we started with our 10 kilowatt
with a small wind verification program with
8 the Department of Energy, we have a turbine
out at Southampton and one in Brookhaven, and
9 now this is a larger size, a 50K and then you
look at our long term is what you' re referring
10 to as power generation, a power plant would be
our offshore, where it ' s 100 megawatts . Then
11 you go up a metric into real generation.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I can
12 understand and we all know wind turbines
produce power, I didn' t know you were also
13 trying to produce power to run towns, and I
don' t think it ' s feasible, so I don' t
14 understand your logic behind this experiment .
We know they work. �
15 MR. MCALLISTER: F�_`ed, help me out
here .
(-
16 MR. TERRITORY: My name is Fred
Territory, I ' m with Key Span working for LIPA,
17 I ' m the project manager for the project and
also the Calverton project .
18 The essence of your question I
think speaks to the issue of why are we doing
19 this, what do we see down the road in terms of
its use and in terms of LIPA' s use for
20 possible generation. The idea here is to
demonstrate to people that these things are
21 compatible with their operations so that down
the road they may elect to have some of these
22 for their own use . This is not something that
necessarily LIPA is going to spread throughout
23 the system. That having been said, it' s also
that -- it' s something that is also a learning
24 experience for LIPA as Mark alluded to. We' re
learning how this interfaces with the grid,
25 the kind of impacts it would have, if any. We
have underwritten projects from NYSERDA, which
December 18 , 2003
94
1
2 is New York State Energy Research and
Development Association, associated with
3 Calverton and subsequent locations , where we
are collecting data, we are analyzing data, we
4 are reporting data, and this information is
getting disseminated throughout the industry
5 in terms of kinds of impacts that may occur.
So it is a demonstration program, but it' s
6 also part of this R and D, research and
development and demonstration umbrella . And
7 this is part of the effort to learn; it' s part
of the effort to demonstrate, it' s part of the
8 effort to show people how compatible it is
with the environment . That' s the whole idea
9 behind this . That' s one of the reasons we' re
going through the process we' re going through
10 here, we want the people to be satisfied. We
want people to be accepting of these kinds of
11 things when they are installed. It' s not
something that we want to impose upon
12 people . That' s the whole idea behind why
we' re going through the process . We' d be
13 delighted to show you the Calverton operation .
We' d be delighted to answer any questions you
f14 might have, any further questions .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : My last /
15 question is : Have you looked into the path of /
migrating birds; is this in the path of
16 migrating birds?
MR. TERRITORY: The answer to that
17 is yes, and it should be part of the EA. We
had one of the world' s renowned bird experts
18 speak to that issue for us .
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: That was
19 why I was kind of asking about how visible the
blades were when they were rotating at the
20 maximum speed. Can you imagine that a bird
will see this blade moving and avoid it? Is
21 that the reason why there doesn' t seem to be
much of an incident on a single site wind
22 generators?
MR. TERRITORY: Not being the bird
23 expert, but having spoken to the expert I ' ll
just give you my take on what he explained to
24 me . His explanation as to bird impact on wind
turbines in general were that when they are
25 more than 200 feet high and when they have guy
wires supporting them that are more than 200
December 18 , 2003
95
1
2 feet high requiring lighting, that' s when
birds are impacted. The speed of the blade in
3 the new technology is not one that causes any
problems with birds . What happens is night
4 migration, and they don' t see the guy wires,
they' re attracted to the light and they' re at
5 200 foot or above level with night migration,
and that' s what kills the birds . And you' ll
6 find Head birds at the foot of the towers .
Today, and I ' ll just say from my own
7 experience, with the Calverton turbine that
has been operating over a year, I have not
8 seen one bird that had been impacted thus far
with that turbine and its operation.
9 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Is there
actually somebody examining that site every
10 day?
MR. TERRITORY: Not every day but
11 we do go there periodically, we go there
fairly frequently, and there' s no evidence of
12 any bird damage or bird impact so far.
BOARD MEMBER HORNING: An
13 authority here basically maintains that the
danger for the migratory birds is in fields of
14 these wind turbines where you have a bunch of
them and the height and the lighting.
15 MR. TERRITORY: Many parameters
that play into them, the number of them,
16 they' re in a valley, a migratory location and
other such things such as the night migration,
17 the height, the guy wires, the lights, those
kinds of things .
18 BOARD MEMBER HORNING: Do you feel
that this proposed site minimizes those risks?
19 MR. TERRITORY: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically you
20 want to get the public' s reaction and
acceptance if possible for more of these if
21 they prove to be beneficial and
environmentally acceptable and efficient?
22 MR. TERRITORY: That' s correct .
MS . MINTZER: Just like you had
23 referred to other power cells, just like that ,
something that could be used by small groups
24 of people around areas electing to use them.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a few
25 years ago, everybody, LIPA, at least it was
the government that really wanted a lot of
December 18 , 2003
96
1
2 people to put these things in the back yard
and a couple of people did and most of them
3 have taken it down.
MR. TERRITORY: Just to expand
4 upon what Karen had stated, she' s talking
about distributed generation, which is getting
5 away from centralized power plants into small ,
individual power plants . Is more the mind set
6 towards the future with fuel cells, PV on
people' s homes and maybe some -- I don' t see
7 that year we' re going to have a proliferation
of wind turbines . That' s never going to work .
8 We understand that, and we know the
community' s never going to accept that . Like
9 I say, we' re taking it to the next level,
looking at the offshore . This is an
10 educational demonstration. How does it impact
with the grid for the utility. It' s very
11 important for us to learn about that and also
having the public accept this as alternative
12 technology.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
13 ask a quick question? Over the experience of
the one year that that' s existed in Calverton,
14 have you had any major complaints from any
contiguous property owner or any adjacent
15 property owners?
MR. TERRITORY: I can honestly say
16 we' re not aware of any complaints that have
come forth, not to us, we haven' t been made
17 aware of any.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very
18 much.
MS. MINTZER: I want to hand up to
19 the Board, we faxed in our affidavit of
posting. I also have the original and I also
20 have the memorandum explaining why we think we
meet the standards for granting this relief .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, is there
anybody in the audience that would like to
22 speak for or against this application?
MR. GILLIES : Matt Gillies,
23 general manager for Peconic Bay Winery. We
have a property within about 650 feet of
24 Osprey' s Dominion, and there' s almost no
question in my mind that whether a
25 residence -- there' s no residence there
now. Currently John Stankowitz lives in the
December 18 , 2003
97
1
2 front of that property, and there' s no doubt
in my mind he will hear this turbine as it
f 3 runs . They run, from what I understand from
about ten, 12 miles per hour up to I think 50 ,
4 then they have a break that kicks in and cuts
off . So granted it might not be running when
5 there' s 60 miles per hour winds, for I suppose
safety reasons, but long before I can even
6 address the fact that the tower is almost six
times -- with the blades -- six times the
7 variance in the Town code, which is
significant, I think the picture looks pretty
8 terrible . The idea that you' re going to see
this big wind turbine out there when you pull
9 into Osprey' s Dominion, and when you drive by
on the Main Road of all places, I think Long
10 Island, at least the north fork to me seems
like a poor place to put this . On the
11 philosophy of it, it sounds like a PR campaign
for me, especially at Osprey' s Dominion, where
12 they' ll probably get more bang for the buck
because so many people will see it, and it
13 will give the perception that LIPA -- with all
due respect to the presenters - - it will give
14 the impression that LIPA is going the
environmental route and doing these things and
15 a lot of people may walk awa-v' and say, oh,
that' s great . But meanwhile`; this only
16 generates enough power for 20 homes . So in my
mind that' s less than 20 , 000 gallons of diesel
17 a year. So long before this power would ever
get back to the grid, theoretically a house
18 could tap off that power on its way back to
the grid, it would only get past 20 homes
19 before used -- it' s used up everything its
generated in a year.
20 In addition, I don' t think that
area is a good area. Obviously it' s a not in
21 my backyard sort of thing. I may well have a
house there within 650 feet of this thing, and
22 I don' t think it serves the interest of the
community and the Town, and I think it' s a
23 demonstration of what LIPA wants to do out
here where we live, for what? They last 30
24 years before they have to be replaced from
what I had read on the website . The nine
25 units that I found on the website were located
in Scotland, Siberia, Morocco, there was one
December 18 , 2003
98
1
2 in Burlington that I think was pretty much
there for industrial purposes for a private
3 company but they are first and foremost , if
you look at the Atlantic Orient Company, they
4 are first and foremost for very remote
locations to generate a relatively small
5 amount of power. And not only that, the last
thing I want to do is give LIPA access to
6 power that' s designed for people who want to
be independent of a large power company. If
7 anything, I' d want to see the County or the
Town put something like this up so that we can
8 perhaps take little areas that can generate
their own area, or Greenport, which has its
9 own power plant, but I think it' s more PR than
anything. I think it' s ill-conceived, and I ' m
10 totally into the environmental rationale, but
at 1 . 4 million dollars for five of these
11 things and this in effect demonstration that
they' re doing, that' s over a quarter million
12 dollars per unit, which doesn' t generate
enough power for 20 homes in a year, and that
13 doesn' t even count the trenching for the road
and possible variations of electric . We
14 already have, I don' t know if anybody' s
noticed, but I've lost power constantly. So J�
15 already there are many interruptions and this I
thing feeding the grid and not feeding the
16 grid, and the transformers that have to be
built at the base of the unit on that
17 property, are just overkill for a
demonstration in our backyard when it really
18 doesn' t have -- at least not yet in my eyes any function yet . I think it should be in a
19 large field where it' s out of site . I think
there' s enough land in New York state to
20 achieve that . And if the governor' s so into
it, I suggest he find some public land to do
21 this sort of thing and not put it on the Main
Road in a hamlet like Peconic . Thank you very
22 much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
23 Anybody else? Yes, sir.
MR. MIDGLEY: I'm Bill Midgley, I
24 represent the William Buckingham estate . It
has ten adjacent acres of farm land next to
25 this situation. Not opposed to wind
generator, but I do not like their drawing on
December 18 , 2003
99
1
2 here . It seems to include my property. That
I represent, if you can see it , it ' s so
3 small . And it includes two other pieces of
property as if this was all a part of the
4 project property. I ' ll bring this up and you
could take a look and I' ll point out what I
5 mean. I'm not speaking opposed to it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On a larger
6 drawing it says "See detail 2 of 2 , " it' s
probably 100 feet diameter.
7 MR. TERRITORY: To scale you mean?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What does it
8 mean?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You can
9 have the circular diameter that you have on
the wind turbine, but the diameter, according
10 to this gentleman includes part of this
property, so the question is, what is the
11 dotted diameter indicate?
(Off the record discussion. )
12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I hope you
didn' t send this to all the neighbors . It
13 misrepresents it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wanted to
14 ask?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel ,
15 can I ask you a question? Where do we stand
at this particular time with the EAF with the
16 determination of the Planning Board and how
they feel regarding this project and so on and
17 so forth?
MS . MINTZER: The Planning Board
18 just hired outside environmental consultant to
review the large book that we presented to
19 you. They' re waiting for you to take action
before they can act . And we' re waiting for
20 their consultant to comment on the EA before
we can finish the SEQRA process .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we have to
adjourn this to some future date until the EIS
22 is completed, the Planning Board reviews it,
we review it, what have you.
23 MS . MINTZER: The EA right now may
be the end of the environmental review, it
24 depends on what the Planning Board' s
consultant thinks of it . We want to have a
25 chance to hear their comments, respond to them
if necessary and then proceed to make our
December 18 , 2003
100
1
2 determination of significance, either a pos
dec or a neg dec . If we do a neg dec, that
3 will finish up the process, obviously and then
you' ll be able to make your determination.
4 We' re hoping that Nelson and Pope, that' s the
outside environmental consultant, we' re hoping
5 to get their comments soon, They've been
looking at this for about a month already,
6 until January 22nd or the 18th.
MS . KOWALSKI : 22nd.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will. have to
be February, February 26th.
8 MS . MINTZER: January' s full?
Okay, by then we will have had their comments ,
9 have had the opportunity to respond and
possibly have finished SEQRA, and then we
10 could just respond to you at that hearing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In
11 between now and then, preferably in the month
the January we' ll schedule an appointment to
12 see the one in Calverton with one or two of
you?
13 MS . MINTZER: Linda has all my
contact information, and Mark can give his
- � 14 card_ as well and I see no reason why that
caln' t happen in January.
15 / MS . KOWALSKI : Are you available
Ly Saturday?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' m
available any Saturday in the late morning in
17 January only.
The last question I have is going
18 to be a question that would lead into
Mr. Gilley' s situation of his testimony, and
19 that is, is this an experimental turbine? Is
this being placed there in an experimental
20 manner? Is it something that is permanent?
Is it something that' s going to last the
21 existence of the value of the generator itself
and then be replaced?
22 MR. DOUGHERTY: In terms of shelf
life, it' s not an Alpha Beta unit . It' s a
23 production model that AOC manufactures . It ' s
a working, very capable device . As the
24 reference was made, these things are fairly
hearty, and they' re used in an active farm in
25 Kosaview, Alaska, that tells you how hearty
the machine is . Yes, machines are subject,
December 18 , 2003
101
1
2 just like cars, to maintenance and repairs and
t what have you, but in terms of it being
3 experimental in the true sense of the word,
no, it' s a demonstration program, because I
4 can' t stress enough, there' s two components of
it : There' s an educational component where
5 we' re learning as a utility, and public
perception they' re learning; municipalities
6 are learning how to integrate this technology
and that' s the nature of this demonstration;
7 you run this program, you take all these
metrics in, you evaluate it, and see what
8 you've done, what has changed. And I think
that ' s a very valuable program to do. Maybe
9 the public won' t totally embrace this
technology, maybe this is not the end-all
10 save-all . This is renewable generation,
nonfossil, and as folks are aware of in the
11 general sense, that' s what we talk about when
we say renewable generation.
12 References made to PR, we have an
extensive program. We just issued an RFP for
13 75 megawatts of energy efficiency offshore
wind project , commercial-type project for 100
14 megawatts, maybe many things aren' t seen, and
maybe we don' t do such a good job of putting
15 it out there .
BOARD MEMBER G6EHRINGER: Let' s
16 assume Mr. Gilley' s not putting words in his
mouth ' cause he' s here and is correct, based
17 upon the EA that it has a visual impact, the
total cost to this plan is how much
18 approximately to construct this?
MR. DOUGHERTY: About $250 , 000 .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
basically could we put a ten year time limit
20 on it saying that it would be used up within
ten years?
21 MR. DOUGHERTY: I think we put a
20 year time limit on it .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But at
that point at that time all you have to do is
23 replace the generator.
MR. DOUGHERTY: Replace the
24 generator, remove it .
MS . MINTZER: Renew the lease .
25 MR. DOUGHERTY: There' s a whole
contract involved here .
December 18 , 2003
102
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
the lease can be limited to the amount of time
3 that we give you permission to put it there .
MR. DOUGHERTY: The lease is
4 already in place with the host .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s a
5 20 year?
MR. DOUGHERTY: 20 years .
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only
question I had is when you were discussing the
7 applicable criteria for reviewing you fairly
referred to the preferable status that a
8 public utility is awarded, but you' ve just
said this is a demonstration project; so I ' m a
9 little confused.
MR. DOUGHERTY: It' s more legal as
10 a public utility we can claim exemption and
therefore not have to go through a process as
11 this . We chose not to do that in this case .
MS . MINTZER: And the reason is as
12 part of the demonstration LIPA wants to be
situated in a place that hopefully thinks this
13 is a good idea and that' s why we want to go
through this process and technically it is a
14 public utility structure; does that answer
your question?
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, you %
made reference before, when giving your
16 opening remarks , you made reference to the
applicable standards under the law as a public
17 utility. MS . MINTZER: No, I
meant for you acting within your discretion to
18 grant these proposals .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further
19 questions .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No further
20 questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wanted
21 you to be aware, Mr. Gilley, that maybe you
should be aware of the restriction.
22 MR. GILLEY: They hope that it
serves as a demonstration and that it does
23 kick back to the grid and 20 houses as a
demonstration for power when its first and
24 foremost design is for private remote locales
for power. I ' d rather donate space for the
25 Town to see them generate their own power.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
December 18 , 2003
103
1
2 reason why I bring this issue up and I' ll
bring it up, this Town, as you know, for the
3 people -- please, this is not a sarcastic
statement to anyone that has not lived here
4 for more than 20 years -- this Board took an
initiative more than 20 years ago to remove
5 all the billboards and they gave them five
years to do so. How does this compare to
6 this? A billboard is a similar situation, it
gives advertising to businesses in town.
7 Again, I don' t know if 20 years is a long time
limit regardless of what the host has signed.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion
to adjourn this hearing until February 26th at
9 1 : 00 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
11 responded in favor. )
----------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. --
MR. CALIENDO: I 've conferred at
13 length with Mr. Alice on this issue, and it
appears that there was a misunderstanding,
f 14 whatever you want to refer to it , with
reference to the degree of work that was
/ 15 encumbered within the variance . If this gets
( too wordy, I 've got his approved plans and
16 I've got the alternative set of plans so we
can get it right . The essence of it is, we
17 are doing the majority of the second floor
alteration work on the east side of the
18 property that ' s where the physical structure
assess we' re adding habitable space is . The
19 work on the west side of the property amounts
to nothing more than a restructuring of the
20 roof . In other words, it' s a gable-shaped
roof . The intent was to raise that roof, the
21 height of the roof in order to make the roof
pitch match the adjacent work that we' re doing
22 on the other structure . Again, it was not
habitable space, it was only a roof
23 restructuring. That result -- and we were
under the impression that despite the fact
24 that that created a nonconforming aggregate
setback that was still part of the approved
25 building permit and we conferred with
Mr. Alice and confirmed that that ' s not the
December 18 , 2003
104
1
2 case . That roof restructuring was indeed
supposed to be part of the variance
3 proceeding. So that' s the essence of it . If
you' d like me to go forward with the
4 presentation in that regard, I will, but I
don' t know where we take it from here . Do we
5 show you what we proposed to do on the side?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes,
6 because this morning you were leading us to
believe that this was only for a gazebo . And
7 that' s why we asked you to go back.
MR. CALIENDO: I agree .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The
original plan which you had the building
9 permit for didn' t .
MR. CALIENDO : Didn' t include the
10 roof on the west side . I' ll show you.
MS . KOWALSKI : Can we have the
11 dates of both plans?
MR. CALIENDO: The approvals .
12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did
they calculate that you' re under lot coverage ;
13 where did the calculations come from?
MR. CALIENDO : We did them the lot
14 area plus four --
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Of what ' s
15 % existing or adding the gazebo? The 21 percent
includes the gazebo?
16 MR. CALIENDO : Yes, that' s
everything. By the way, the house application
17 itself, the house there' s no additional lot
coverage . These plans are dated 4/25/03 .
18 That' s the most -- that ' s the approved plans
from the Town that' s our most recent date, and
19 the proposed, this is what we were hoping to
get approved shows the variance addition
20 9/19/03 , and the permit was issued in May. So
that' s the essence of the misunderstanding
21 with Mr. Alice and as a result we' re going to
have to have to approve that as part of our
22 variance .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Three
23 variances, lot coverage, location, the gazebo
and the addition on the side yard. Three
24 variances, correct? We already went through
one variance and we know what the story is
25 there .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have to
December 18 , 2003
105
1
2 amend the application for the other variances?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s rights-. in
3 the Notice of Disapproval . It reads
correctly.
4 MR. CALIENDO : It reads correctly.
In our conversation that we had with
5 Mr. Alice, which we misinterpreted, we thought
that the roof variance was not required.
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So we' re
clear on everything up to this point and now
7 we' re at the third variance .
MR. CALIENDO : Yes .
8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no
objection to it because essentially you' re
9 going up.
MR. CALIENDO: We' re not adding
10 any floor space . It' s purely an aesthetic
feature to change the roof feature
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Close this
hearing reserving decision until later. May I
12 have a motion?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You got
13 it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Second?
14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN OLI�4A: So moved.
15 MR. CALIENDO : //What is the next
step after this, you' re going to notify us?
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re going to
have another meeting two weeks from now and
17 then probably at least a week after that .
MR. CALIENDO : Should we attend
18 that meeting?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That ' s up to
19 you.
MR. CALIENDO : We won' t receive
20 notice?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Don' t you
21 have to resubmit the other plan on the gazebo
on the other side?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right .
MR. CALIENDO : This morning you
23 indicated you didn' t want us to resubmit .
MS . KOWALSKI : We need it for the
24 permit .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' m sorry.
25 MS . KOWALSKI : You need to give a
revision on that, please .
December 18 , 2003
106
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just denied
the location of the gazebo '
3 MS . KOWALSKI : You took action on
it already before the hearing was finished,
4 only the side yard addition that you' re
addressing. So it' s only two variances .
5 MR. CALIENDO : We would revise the
drawings to move the gazebo so the minimum
6 side yard setback would no longer be an issue ,
only the aggregate side yard setback as an
7 issue and the lot coverage as an issue . Those
two variances we' ll submit the revised plan to
8 you prior to the hearing in two weeks?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
9 MR. CALIENDO: Will we receive
notice of the next meeting?
10 MS . KOWALSKI : We' re giving you
notice that the next meeting is January 8th.
11 Call us, you' re welcome to call and I ' ll tell
you more about it .
12 MR. CALIENDO: Thanks very much.
----------------------------------------
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next
hearing Stanley Malon, Number 5383 , which is
14 carried over from our last meeting. Mrs .
Moore .
15 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon. Just /
some housekeeping items, I apologize, I just
16 got the site plans, and I wasn' t sure if you
wanted them in your packet or I would submit
17 them to you now. I got them back and I ' m
submitting them to you now on the record. It
18 is a site plan update dated 12/11/03 . And
these site plans have actually gone - - again,
19 as I always do, any new revised site plan I
give to the Planning Board for their review;
20 they asked me to forward it to the DOT . The
Planning Board had already forwarded the
21 previous, the September site plan to the DOT
as well, so everybody' s getting these updated
22 site plans, but through the site plan process
there' s also tweaking going along. So the
23 original plan, the placement of the building,
everything is in the same place; it' s just
24 engineering and it' s drainage . The issues are
primarily engineering issues, but I ' m keeping
25 you informed of all the revisions as I go
through. So, let me give those to you
December 18 , 2003
10'7
1
2 (handing)
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you do
R 3 understand that we will not have time to
review these?
4 MS . MOORE : Really they are
issues, as I said, engineering issues . The
5 town engineer gets the site plan and it will
address any water runoff, any issues that he
6 feels are important . From the testimony that
was put on the record from -- thank you,
7 Mr. Glover and Mr. Kalen were very helpful
with Mr. Gephart, they were out on the field
8 for a good hour after the last meeting and
historic -- their history, they walked through
9 the property and gave some recommendation with
respect to the drainage that occurs off site .
10 There are some problems for water runoff that
comes from the farm fields and in the back,
11 and how it crosses the property. And quite
frankly, if you weren' t a long time property
12 owner there, you may not know that the
nuances, the intricacies of where the
13 drainage, the water runs . So it was very
helpful . I told them thank you and certainly
14 Mr. Gephart was very appreciative of that .
lAnd that meeting culminated in engineering
/ 15 changes that were put into this site plan. So
l that being said, we' ll proceed with the actual
16 issues before you.
There are two issues that are
17 before you. One is the 60 foot rule and the
other issue, which I think is really crucial
18 and has far reaching impacts in the way the
code is interpreted and how legislation is
19 adopted here in the Town of Southold, there
are standard rules that are recognized in the
20 law with respect to how statutes are to be
read and when you' re writing them and they' re
21 written by lawyers most likely with some help
from staff but essentially it' s written in
22 such a way that when generations from now when
someone looks at it, they understand, given
23 the rules of construction, how they are to be
interpreted.
24 I 've given you and submitted prior
to this hearing, my memorandum with respect to
25 the interpretation of the code and with
respect to uses listed in this instance in the
December 18 , 2003
108
1
2 business spoken zoning district, but it does
apply throughout the code in other zoning
3 districts . And specifically it' s when the
code is specific as to a size of the property
4 and the use given the size of the property,
that overrides the general . When the code
5 does not speak with respect to that
limitation, you' re not to interpret it .
6 Zoning as a matter of law is a restriction on
people' s property. So it' s to be strictly
7 construed. And with respect to the uses and
the bulk schedule, I've written it out . I
8 don' t want to beat the point any further --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Don' t repeat .
9 MS . MOORE: -- but I think it is
very clear, once I pointed out the statutory
10 instructions as well as the general way of
interpreting the code . I think it' s pretty
11 clear how the code should be interpreted. I
would hope that you would clarify for the
12 Building Department how the code should be
read.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Taken under
consideration.
14 MS . MOORE : Thank you. Do you
have specific questions with regards to that
15 / issue or should I just go forward?
( CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No,
16 continue .
MS . MOORE: Okay, thank you.
17 Mrs . Oliva, you raised a question
or a point last time which we wanted to
18 address, try to address your - - you' re the
only one who voiced this, but maybe the others
19 were thinking it as well, which is the volume
of the building, how big it is .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MS . MOORE : What I did was I
21 asked Mr. Gephart to please give me a very
simple -- and I only have three, so you' ll
22 have to share -- if you pull it out, I have a
copy. As you can see we do a rendering so you
23 can see what the building will ultimately --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Am I correct
24 that it' s about 18 , 000 square feet?
MR. GEPHART: No, it' s about half
25 that .
MS . MOORE : I ' ll defer square
December 18 , 2003
109
1
2 footage and reading. When you ask the
questions, let' s talk about the base floor; is
3 that what you' re asking? Because you never
know, are you talking basement?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not basement .
MR. GEPHART: Want me to explain
5 it? The buildings themselves are 38 by 105 .
There are two buildings that run parallel to
6 each other. The total of the two buildings,
8 , 616 square feet . There is a second level,
7 the mezzanine . The mezzanine is set back and
it connects the two buildings, and that' s 880
8 square feet, that' s the only second level .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the
9 only thing on the second level?
MS . MOORE : That' s the only thing .
10 It' s the owner' s office . To have onsite
management, the owners want to be there and
11 they want to manage the property, make sure
the tenants, everybody' s behaving. And what I
12 tried to do is I know the --
MR. GEPHART: This is one
13 building, this is the second building, and
it' s open in the middle . Halfway through and
14 20 by 20 (indicating) .
MS . MOORE : Ins like a little
15 hat . That was actually - n your office . We
just pulled it out .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
MS . MOORE : Thank you. I just
17 want to know we have it back. It' s a very
expensive drawing that they' d like to get
18 back. We can submit to you a print, so you
can have that in your records . Not that' s
19 valuable. I asked Mr . Gephart to give just a
very simple no site, no engineering, nothing,
20 simple, almost like a silhouette of the
structure, and you can see on the drawing how
21 we' ve identified where it is placed on the
property. It is more than what is required
22 side yard setbacks . The code requires 25 feet
on either side of the property as a legal
23 conforming side yard setback. We actually
have 29-10, almost 30 , but 29-10 on the one
24 side and 30 on the other. So you can see, we
are exceeding the code requirements with
25 respect to side yard setbacks . The front yard
setback has 100 foot setback as required in
December 18 , 2003
1
110
1
2 the code, you can push closer, as you know,
based on the average setback of adjacent
3 properties, and we actually 107 and a half ,
107 . 5 as a front yard setback. The rear yard
4 we' re compliant, but he didn' t give it to me,
but we can get it to you if we need it .
5 So you can see that the building
itself, maybe in the picture maybe it looks
6 large and because it' s a lovely -- I mean
matter of taste, but it' s a lovely structure,
7 it' s going to be a significant structure
there, but again it was modeled after the
8 other buildings, there were this property is
part of a three or four lot subdivision. Two
9 of the three have been developed, that' s
Olsen' s office, the Wine Store commercial
10 center and then this piece is what' s
remaining. When we first began, we came,
11 looked at the other site plans, modeled them
so as to not create something that was out of
12 character with this commercial area . That ' s
what' s been submitted to you. What we think
13 is a structure that is completely in character
with the Cutchogue business district that ' s
1 14 been developed west of Eugenes . We hope that
that at least puts you at ease with respect to
15 the volume and size of the buildings . j
Again, keep in mind it' s this {.
16 mezzanine, this secondary office space that
small office space that brings us not into
17 conformity with the code because both
buildings are each 38 feet in width, so we
18 would comply with the 60 foot provision. The
code where it speaks of the 60 foot rule, that
19 rule is only applicable on one structure, if
you have a continuous structure . The only
20 reason this is continuous is because of that
small connection right in the center. It just
21 makes the design better, it gives a better
working design for the owner, and to take that
22 away I think would certainly not be
architecturally pleasant . The architect may
23 have to redesign completely. It just won' t
look right . You' d look like two long
24 buildings next to each other without any real
relationship between the two . That mezzanine
25 puts relationship, continuity between the two
independent structures . Do you have any
December 18 , 2003
111
1
2 questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I do . I
4 missed the previous meeting so the two lots
that were finished, what is -- the adjacent
5 lots, what is their setback, approximately?
MR. GEPHART: The building just to
6 the east shows on the site plan.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : To the west
7 would be the winery.
MS . MOORE : He actually showed the
8 location of the building on this site plan.
Gary Olsen' s office is about the same setback
9 as I recall . The parking areas are a little
different, but the buildings themselves appear
10 to be all in line . So we only show the one
here, I can get that information for you,
11 that' s not a problem. I know I had it the
last meeting. It may take too long to pull it
12 out today.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s the
13 only question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your
14 parking would be in the front or the rear too?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I do have
15 another question.
(. MR. GEPHART: Front and the
16 back.
MS . MOORE : We can kind of walk
17 you through the site plan that was submitted
to you. It hasn' t changed with respect to
18 parking.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know it .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What is
the status of yourself with the Planning Board
20 on this project?
MS . MOORE : They take in the
21 information and they will then forward it to
the town engineer for comment and for site
22 plan review. They can' t go much further
without the variance being granted because the
23 whole design is premised on the width of the
building or the two buildings and how they' re
24 connected. So they can' t move forward any
more than just to refer it out and hope that
25 at least with DOT and with the town engineer
that we don' t completely change the design
December 18 , 2003
112
1
2 here . We paid the full fee . We've given them
the site plan. They actually have all the
3 site plans that you have in your file . Bruno
didn' t realize that the September one was in
4 his file . He gave you a memo saying he didn' t
have it, but he had it in there . It was
5 actually not a big difference . It was some
changes to the front parking layout, which was
6 based on a conference that we had, a work
session. So we did some tweaking what the
7 parking needs would be . The major difference
here is we actually reduced the size of the
8 restaurant . It' s now one retail space . It' s
going to be a deli, limited use restaurant .
9 So that' s just a matter of, I think, health
department issues more than anything else .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Olsen' s
building and the Wine Store approximately the
11 same size structures?
MS . MOORE : Yes, for the most
12 part . You have all the site plans in your
office, but they' re comparable .
13 MR. GEPHART: I do .
MS . MOORE : The buildings right
14 next door is the one that' s probably closest
in line because it' s multiple occupancy. It' s
15 designed similar to the way we want to operate
and design this one . Gary Olsen' s office you
16 have multiple lawyers in one side of the
building and I guess several accountants on
17 the. other, so the occupants, we don' t know how
many you have, but it' s really two major
18 tenancies and it' s an accountant and lawyer.
But size-wise, we can, they' re comparable .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In order to
20 put parking in the rear, you' re not going to
have to put fill in the back there where it
21 drops off?
MS . MOORE : Why don' t you answer
22 the engineering issue?
MR. GEPHART: Between the last
23 time I appeared in front of this Board and
this time, I 've been aware that the water
24 level is somewhat higher than the test hole
that we paid for and had done . So I did spend
25 a lot of time with the gentlemen here, had a
good time at it, and we found out . that the
December 18 , 2003
113
1
2 water level was higher. So what we had to do
was to raise the grade of the entire site .
3 The drainage still stays the same, tried to
keep the drainage away from the rear
4 part . There is some cut and fill, like
there' s cut and fill on every project that we
5 do. In the center of the site the contour
shows elevation around 15 or so, cutting that
6 down to the back of the site, we' re going to
fill that in just a little bit . The actual
7 extreme north kind of stays the way it is; on
the east portion there is some retaining walls
8 designed by engineers that we have to install
to keep the ground and the water from going on
9 to Mr. Kalen' s property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How will this
10 affect the runoff into Route 25 and Cox' s
Lane?
11 MR. GEPHART : The code in any town
or village that I work on, the storm water has
12 to be contained on site and put into dry
wells; that has been engineered on this
13 site . There' s no water that goes past the
high point that' s on the curb cut onto 25 .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr.
Goehringer. �1 f
15 BOARD MEMBT'R GOEHRINGER: I have
to think back to thatlhearing and the only
16 concern that I have is it certainly the new
plan that you gave us showing the buildings,
17 virgin, so to speak, and not necessarily all
muddled within the site plan itself is a
18 little more understanding. But I understand
also there' s a maximization in reference to
19 how narrow or how wide you can make an
individual store or retail establishment . I
20 was just wondering why you didn' t try and
elongate the building a little bit more and
21 give it a little more side yard?
MR. GEPHART : At one point in time
22 in the original design stage, first thing I do
when I design a project, look at the site, see
23 what the area looks like . I 'm not that
familiar with the town, so, please . But there
24 are buildings a little bit to the east of us
that have smaller buildings were connected,
25 and actually the building immediately -- the
public water, but the building right next door
December 18 , 2003
114
1
2 has the same concept that I used on developing
this piece of property and where there' s two
3 buildings running parallel to each other
somewhat connected with through structure . I
4 did also lay out different concept of longer
buildings and tried to maximize and also get a
5 better architectural effect of I believe the
two buildings that I have designed with the
6 little piece in the middle . I think if you
look at the rendering real close, you see that
7 will would look much nicer than a long narrow
building maybe 25 foot on one side and parking
8 on the other.
MS . MOORE : Actually, the building
9 to the west, the wine building, has a narrower
hallway or open pathway between, and it
10 actually, from comments that I 've heard from
the tenants there, they say that that doesn' t
11 work very well . It creates a wind tunnel
effect . It' s dark and tenants that have
12 occupied it for some time know the nuances of
whether it works or doesn' t . They recommended
13 a little more space in the alleyway because it
gives certainly more light -- well, the fact
s: 14 is you have the mezzanine in the center part
so that it will be open to the air in the j
15 first how many feet?
MR. GEPHART: The first in the
16 rear 20 , 22 feet have a trellis, then there' s
a slight roof that pitches up and it connects
17 to .the --
MS . MOORE : An open concept works
18 better.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Olsen' s
19 building is the same as yours?
MS . MOORE : Within feet, I mean
20 it' s very -- so close, whether it' s 38 , 39 ,
they' re all very similar in dimensions, so
21 MR. GEPHART: You can see on the
site plan.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the wine
building?
23 MS . MOORE : The wine that ' s
probably closest in design. As we said, the
24 rental space is very close to the one next
door. It' s just the widening of the open
25 space between the two structures that ' s been
enlarged somewhat and that' s based again on
December 18 , 2003
115
1
2 just architectural design and use.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other
3 questions from the Board? Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or
4 against this application?
MS . MOORE: His question is what
5 is the width of this lot . 150 feet .
MR. KALEN: You' re utilizing 148
6 of it?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many
7 square feet?
MS . MOORE : The width from end to
8 end? You have 30 then almost 30 -- 90 .
MR. KALEN: You got 20 feet
9 thereabouts?
MS . MOORE : That' s what the
10 buildings look like, would you tell us any --
MR. KALEN: Only using 14 feet
11 in --
MS . MOORE: Right, exactly.
12 MR. GEPHART: There' s 30 foot
basically on each side of the building.
13 MR. KALEN: I came up with 148 .
MR. GEPHART : It' s not exactly
14 square. I think it opens up in the back a
little bit, back is 154 .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other
!_ questions from the audience? If not - - yes .
16 Yes, Mr. Glover.
MR. GLOVER: They' re talking about
17 filling in for parking, that fills up the
water on bad storms and backs up right towards
18 me . So any fill they put in is going to
eliminate where the rain water goes and runs
19 there . So because of all that building space
and running the water off, they' re making less
20 place for it to go .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think
21 they' re supplementing that with leaching
pools .
22 MR. GLOVER: The leaching pools
aren' t going to do too much because there' s
23 only 28 inches to water.
MR. GEPHART : I think what we
24 discussed a couple weeks back, the water comes
from the northwest and runs where my thumb is ,
25 which kind of runs past our property, on your
property past the corner of this property and
December 18 , 2003
116
1
2 just keeps going. We' re not changing their
area here, but just picking this space up over
3 here . We' re not modifying this at all .
MR. GLOVER: This back here is
4 me .
MR. GEPHART: That' s you and
5 that' s where most of the water runs . This is
all natural .
6 MR. GLOVER: When the water comes
in, you' re high over here by about 40 foot
7 maybe .
MR. GEPHART: How many feet?
8 MR. GLOVER: 40 .
MR. GEPHART: I don' t know about
9 40, if you look at the grades here, the
existing grade, the new grade is 13 and your
10 grade is also 13 , so we didn' t raise this .
MR. GLOVER: But over here it
11 drops back to a swamp and goes all the way
back to where the building --
12 MR. GEPHART: Not according to the
contours that I got .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Glover, why
don' t you just go outside and explain it .
r 14 MS . MOORE : For the record, we
recognize we have to contain all water runoff
15 on the site. This has been engineered for
�- that purpose. Both the DOT and town engineer
16 are going to be very strict with us to make
sure that we comply with this . Really it ' s in
17 everybody' s interest to make sure that water
is maintained and that the dry wells work
18 because nobody wants cars in water, so.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t want
19 to see Mr. Glover' s property to be King
Kullen' s parking lot .
20 MR. KALEN: Dan Kalen. I just
want to bring up the point I don' t know how
21 many of you traveled the road yesterday
afternoon.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I did.
MR. KALEN: When I say without
23 even building on that road we have a major
problem there . When I say major, it is a
24 major problem.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The whole
25 town was flooded. I couldn' t even get to
Genovese .
December 18 , 2003
117
1
2 MR. KALEN: This is constantly,
-� every time we get rain. I know the state has
3 been out . They have done absolutely nothing.
You got the same problem on Pequash.
4 MS . MOORE : I know. To some
extent I 'm sure the state' s going to use our
5 property to try to solve their problems as
well, sometimes that happens . Even though it
6 is the responsibility of the state to handle
their own runoff problems, we can only do as
7 much as certainly our property can
accommodate .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, I' d
like to close the hearing and reserve decision
9 until later.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all B-)ard Members
11 responded in favor. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So moved .
12 Recess for a two minute break.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was
13 taken. )
------- ----------------- ------------ ----
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next
hearing is Frank Orit6 , Number 5446 ,
15 concerning a propose� dwelling at less than 35
feet from the rear Vot line . Miss Moore .
16 MS . MOORE : On this one you do
have, I have -- I 'm sorry, Frank Capone here
17 who' s the architect, he' s here with Mr. Orito .
If you have any specific questions, I will
18 defer them to him.
What I wanted to do, our adjacent
19 owner had a variance as well, and I have a
record of his variance, a little confusing
20 because the variance was granted but the
house -- the survey that I found in the
21 Building Department records has a rear yard
setback of 14 feet . I don' t know how .that
22 happened, but it ' s there, so I will submit it
and --
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What was
the variance for?
24 MS . MOORE : It was rear yard
setback and I believe the variance was 26 .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It ended up at
14 .
December 18 , 2003
118
1
2 MS . MOORE : It ended up at 14 and
I honestly don' t know how that happened. It' s
3 an old survey. It got a building permit . It
got a CO, and it ' s over and done with. But at
4 least as far as the character of the area, we
have a neighbor who has 14 feet from the rear
5 property line, which is the same rear property
line which is the variance request we' re
6 making today. You' re very familiar with Stars
Road, it is an area --
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Getting more
familiar every day.
8 MS . MOORE : And I know I have had
several applications on Stars Road for
9 variances . It is a common problem here
because the houses, even though they' re not
10 large, we did give you a drawing of the
applicable setbacks, and if we were to apply
11 the 50 foot rear yard setback, and in this
case it showed 40 foot rear yard -- front yard
12 setback, but I believe it' s actually 35 front
yard setback is the correct one, you wouldn' t
13 have very large building envelope . So it does
create a need for a variance and certainly
14 that' s why we' re here today.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s your amendel
15 site plan, says 35 feet because the survey /I
have here says 40?
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I have 40 .
MS . MOORE : This one has 40 but
17 the correct setback is 35 feet based on
nonconforming setbacks .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean
preexisting?
19 MS . MOORE: Preexisting
nonconforming so 35 is the appropriate . I
20 don' t believe the architect was aware of the
nonconforming section of our code at the time,
21 so that was in the original application. It' s
not an issue . We are conforming with respect
22 to the front yard. We chose to make the front
yard conforming at 35, . but unfortunately it
23 pushes us toward the rear.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
24 ask a question?
MS . MOORE : Yeah.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t
know if you were at the hearing this morning,
December 18 , 2003
119
1
2 but I 'm asking this each time we deal with
either Gillette Drive or Stars Road and that
3 is, it is not the concern of what the
applicant is applying for now, it is what the
4 concern is later. I am not inclined to grant
any further rear yard variances for decks and
5 so on and so forth, and I need you to carry
that to the applicant . I am only one person
6 on this Board, but I have to tell you that
people have to start building ground level
7 decks that don' t take up square footage, don' t
take up measurements, and so on and so forth,
8 on a significantly undersized lots with
reference to maximum size and width.
9 MS . MOORE : Right . When I first
met with him I said, you don' t want a deck in
10 the back and he said, no, it' s just patio and
grass . That ' s fine with him. He wants a
11 front porch because it is a nice feature as
far as architecturally and useable space with
12 the family.
Excuse me, the circumstances here
13 for the deck for the front porch is that he
has one son he suffers from handicap, and they
14 would like to have just a living space, a nice
l place for him to sit and vegetate, I guess
15 with the family. So the design is set up, so
that they have a nice living area where he can
16 retire, the family can retire out here, and
yes, I have expressed my knowledge of the
17 Board' s feeling on variances, and this will be
it as far as a variance goes . In the future,
18 we' ll certainly, depending on who' s sitting on
this Board, but if this Board is the same
19 board, you' re less inclined to grant a
variance for any above ground structures that
20 would be requested at a later date .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a
21 question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you may.
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We had an
application for a variance that looked almost
23 identical to this this morning.
MS . MOORE : The same street?
24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, but the
bottom line was this is brand new
25 construction, brand new lot, and the general
feeling of the Board this morning was
December 18 , 2003
120
1
2 identical to what I 'm going to say now, is
that we would like to see you reduce this .
3 You do have a lot of opportunities
architecturally and in terms of design to
4 achieve the benefits that your client wishes
us to achieve without requiring a variance
5 that you' re seeking. It is a brand new lot .
The porch can go on the side . As far as the
6 width of the house, you can reduce it . There
are a lot of options . There are hundreds of
7 designs . But is it necessary to have the
degree of variance you' re seeking in the rear
8 yard?
MS . MOORE: Given the fact that
9 you have a neighbor at 14 feet .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That is not
10 lawful .
MS . MOORE : I honestly don' t know
11 what' s lawful or not in that history because
the Board did grant the variance, so . Given
12 the width of the property, there has to be a
reasonable variance granted. I could
13 certainly have them discuss -- I know when I
first sit down with the client, I ask them to
-_I 14 please shrink, please consider the minimal
variance, and, in fact, we actually eliminated
15 the variance, had the garage as a detached
garage; that would have required a variance
16 because the garage would have been on the side
yard or partially in the rear yard, partially
17 in the side yard given there' s not much of a
rear yard here . So we actually eliminated
18 that variance by that design that' s before
you. My policy, just knowing the Board is to
19 eliminate variances that aren' t necessary, to
have them go back, and they have taken a long
20 time to get to this design, and it' s not a
significant request and please keep in mind
21 that the rear property here is a ten acre
parcel that actually is a house on the sound,
22 and you know how long Stars Road is . You have
a house on the sound and the property that
23 abuts on the rear is a long driveway that
gives access -- 14 acres is the adjacent
24 property. So, as far as your feelings with
respect to Gillette Drive and the impact of
25 the character of that area, here you have
Stars Road with an adjacent rear yard property
December 18 , 2003
121
1
2 owner who' s not going to be affected at all .
So you' re really not looking at comparable
3 situations . And I would hope that when you' re
dealing with Stars Road, you do look at what
4 the other homes, how the other homes are being
built . But the person in the back is not
5 going to be affected at all . Keep that in
mind. You don' t want to penalize this
6 owner.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t see
any handicap access ramps; is that required?
8 MR. ORITO: My son has learning
disabilities . He can walk and function, but
9 he doesn' t have full facilities . He' s 29
years old, and he has the mind of a 10 year
10 old. So he' s basically under my wing.
However, he can walk and cl�.mb stairs, so I
11 don' t think we need a handicap ramp for him.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Okay. So
12 maybe we could lose a couple feet off the
deck. Ten feet is a deep, deep deck that' s
13 huge, maybe a little off the back, we' re
shaving here and there . If we lose a little
14 here and there, we come up with almost 30 feet
in the back.
15 MS . MOC"RE : 30 ' s a little
difficult to arrange in the back.
16 MR. CAPONE : Frank Capone,
architect . May I ask a few comments? I 'm a
17 little confused about 35 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re saying
18 35 foot .
MR. CAPONE : Can you explain?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Ms . Moore
said there was a 35 foot front yard setback.
20 MS . MOORE : I believe that on the
nonconforming section of the code on size of
21 the lot, you can go to a 35 foot front yard'
setback. I have to check the Notice of
22 Disapproval, here we had it at 40 . If you
could pull the house forward five feet, it
23 would solve many of our problems .
MR. CAPONE : I wasn' t aware of
24 that . I was given a sheet that showed the
setbacks and I think it must be written
25 somewhere else in the zoning ordinance . I was
not aware of that or I would have pulled the
December 18 , 2003
122
1
2 whole house forward.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
3 in the area where that houses are in. that
general vicinity, that setback exactly.
4 MS . MOORE : Let' s just make sure,
the size of this lot is 20, 473 . It' s just
5 over. I stand corrected because it' s over
20, 000, it' s 40 feet . It' s that 473 feet that
6 brings us over the nonconforming requirement .
However, the adjacent property -- the house to
7 the, when you' re facing on the left, to the
north is at 35 feet so we do have the building
8 permit .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This house
9 you designed is not a cookie cut house . It' s
custom designed.
10 MR. CAPONE : It' s custom designed,
so there' s room to --
11 MS . MOORE : Little tweak. If you
tell us generally what you feel you would be
12 comfortable with, I can at least tweak him
with a size in mind -- keeping in mind
13 again --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : If we could
14 do an eight foot front porch. And then lose
two, three feet off the back somehow.
15 MS . MOORE : I don' t know the
interior. He has the plans . {.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Actually, I
don' t need to dictate how you have to do this .
17 MR. CAPONE : You' re looking for
five feet? You would be comfortable with
18 that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: More
19 comfortable .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We' re
20 looking for 30 feet in the back, a little off
the deck, move it up.
21 MS . MOORE : That' s okay. If you
want to give a generic variance for 30 feet,
22 we' ll work within that footprint .
MR. CAPONE : You need revised
23 drawings and figure out at the next meeting?
MS . MOORE : Just a footprint .
24 MR. CAPONE : You don' t need the
whole package?
25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly.
We just need to show, make sure .
December 18 , 2003
123
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Our
decision will say 40 foot front yard, 30 foot
3 backyard and --
MS . MOORE : That' s fine .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
5 fine.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
6 anybody in the audience that would like to
speak for or against this application?
7 Hearing none, I ' ll make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision until later. All
8 in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members
9 responded in favor. )
----------------------------------------
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon,
next hearing is Zoumas Contracting, Number
11 5345 .
MR. ARNOFF : Good afternoon,
12 everybody.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon .
13 MR. ARNOFF : Before I start, I
notice that the wonderful secretary of the
14 Zoning Board who served so diligently all
these years has made an entry on your calendar
15 for today, and I was wondering if it was
directed at lawyers, because Article 5 says
16 possible execution session. Now, I don' t know
if that means if that' s directed at me
17 indirectly or Miss Moore or perhaps Miss
Wickham, but I ' ll internalize that, and I ' ll
18 be brief .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aren' t
19 you the past town attorney in this Town?
MR. ARNOFF: Yes, I am.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Therefore
it refers strictly to you.
21 MR. ARNOFF: Then I ' ll finish
somewhere around quarter to 6 : 00 .
22 Having said that, good afternoon.
I 'm here, one, to sort of reiterate in part
23 what you have in written form in my July 17th
letter. The first thing, and it' s interesting
24 in a prior presentation Miss Moore said zoning
statutes are to be strictly construed.
25 Everybody thinks they come here for a
variance, it' s a rubber stamp . Okay, fine .
December 18 , 2003
124
1
2 No, there' s got to be a valid reason, just
_ like with lot merger, and the code sets up
3 four criteria. And in my letter to you, I 've
shown you how they can' t meet two of
4 them. Two of the four are impossible to meet .
Can we feel sorry for Mr. Zoumas?
5 Certainly we can feel sorry for him, he bought
a pig in a poke, that' s what happened. He
6 should have done some things in advance,
perhaps not, that' s not my determination. The
7 fact of the matter is, he' s in a position
where he' s created this hardship unto himself .
8 Had he come to this Board, had he made an
application when he was a contract vendee,
9 perhaps then he would not be a position he is ,
having spent the money on a piece of property.
10 But I'm going to pass on that because I think
what' s important to you is also to address the
11 issue of the adverse possession claim.
The adverse possession claim is
12 brought utilizing applicable law, and I will
hand up to the Board the decision by the Court
13 of Appeals matter of Ray against Beacon Hudson
Mountain Corporation. I have one copy of it .
14 It just basically outlines one of the more
recent determinations by our Court of Appeals
15 / in regards to criteria. That property in that
question was a summer property. It dealt with
16 issues of whether there was a continuing
period with summer home, and it dealt with
17 other issues, but there' s some very important
language embodied in that decision which
18 directly impacts on what the Winterlings are
doing with their adverse possession claim.
19 Now, we know certain things that
are incontrovertible . In July 1987 the
20 Winterlings bought their property. In July of
1991, the deceased Mr. Grattan transferred to
21 his son Wayne the parcel in question. And
then I believe it was November of ' 02 -- I may
22 be wrong but sometime in ' 02 , the property was
transferred to Mr. Zoumas . There is no
23 question that the lots merged as a matter of
our zoning code law. I don' t think there' s
24 any question about that, these lots merged.
The questions is : Did we acquire them by
25 adverse possession? Well, that ' s going to be
for a Supreme Court judge to decide
December 18 , 2003
125
1
2 ultimately.
Now, one of the things that I
3 think is not entirely clear according to our
appellate courts, and, I'm sorry, I apologize
4 to this Board because I don' t have the
decisions with me, but the issue that there' s
5 a lis pendens filed and an adverse possession
case pending is not diapositive . And I don' t
6 want you to think I 'm coming in here trying to
sell a bill of goods, I 'm not . It' s not
7 finally dispositive . This Board has the power
to grant Mr. Zoumas' s application,
8 notwithstanding the pending adverse possession
case . That' s a fact . The question is, is it
9 provident for it to do so? Is it a
discretionary act that they can say, you know,
10 Mr. Zoumas, finish your adverse possession
case, and if you' re succeFsful come back
11 before us and then we' ll hear your
application. You have that power as well, and
12 that was the purpose behind my sending your
secretary initially a copy of the summons and
13 complaint in the lis pendens to indicate the
action was pending, issue has been joined,
14 there' s been a preliminary conference,
discovery has bee 7'commenced but we' re still
15 talking a few years . But what we have here is
an application wZaere this Board could act to
16 no avail . You' re going to split the lots to
have us say a Supreme Court judge say we own
17 it .
So ultimately, what I think we
18 really have here is perhaps this Board is in a
position here to take the position to deny the
19 application without prejudice . Mr. Zoumas
prevails, so be it; if he doesn' t prevail,
20 then this Board has not wasted its time and
the taxpayers' money going through additional
21 work and Article 78 proceedings, or whatever
else comes out of this, that is totally
22 unnecessary. So that' s why I ' m here today, I
think it says it simply. I would welcome any
23 questions from any members of the Board on any
issues I can probably address .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I agree
25 with you.
MS . MOORE : Maybe you should hear
December 18 , 2003
126
1
2 from the rest of the attorneys in the room
before you decide .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I haven' t
decided. I just want to know if they have any
4 questions of Mr. Arnoff?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No
5 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No questions .
6 MR. ARNOFF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Moore .
7 MS . MOORE : I'm obviously not in
support of that position. To begin with, if
8 there is a merger it would have occurred when
Daniel P. Grattan had the common ownership
9 between ' 87 and 191 because after that, both
parties sold believing that they had single
10 and separate properties . Mr. Winterling got a
lot, a house thinking that' s all he bought ;
11 and Daniel P. gave his property to Wayne
before he passed away believing that he gave
12 his son a lot that could be built on. So the
adverse possession may or may not prevail, and
13 I have Mr. Sal Antonacci , who is the attorney
for the title company, who is obligated to
14 bring the defense with respect to this adverse
possession claim.
15 My objection is with his, Mrj
Arnoff, suggesting to you to close the �iearing
16 or deny the application without prejudice . I
believe that once you deny an -- even though
17 you' re saying without prejudice we can come
back in and make the application, my concern
18 is somehow or another, a town attorney down
the line is going to raise the issue that you
19 made the decision, it was final , it was a
denial , and therefore we have to bring an
20 Article 78 with respect to your
decision-making. That is an issue that can be
21 brought, and I've seen all kinds of procedural
uses or abuses of proceedings . I don' t want
22 my client to -- and all of you -- believing
based on what Mr. Arnoff' s opinion is, that
23 this denial will have no effect on future
either Mr. Zoumas or Mr. Grattan or anyone
24 else. I believe once you make a decision,
it' s final and binding even though you say
25 it' s not -- it' s without prejudice, come back
in when this is all resolved.
December 18 , 2003
127
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
other avenue is -- and I'm not speaking for
3 the Board, I ' m speaking for myself -- is very
simply is to hold the hearing in abeyance, and
4 quite honestly in either one of those
situations one is legally able to be brought
5 in Article 78 ; the other one is it' s held in
abeyance until the judge makes the decision.
6 MS . MOORE : If you' re inclined to
wait out the process, and I think you should
7 rule based on the fact that I disagree with
Mr. Arnoff whether or not Mr. Zoumas has been
8 able to identify all of the standards of the
waiver of merger. I think that we fit every
9 single one of those statutory standards to a
T. So it' s not -- so you could grant this
10 waiver of merger, and we could proceed on with
whatever Supreme Court battles ensue . And
11 Mr. Winterling may end up with a lot or not
depending on the success of his claim.
12 I know that the courts have in the
past when there' s been litigation that' s
13 outside, separate litigation pending, and I
think Gail Wickham' s here, the Zoupa case is
14 one, I was actually before the same judge, and
he was beating me up with respect to making a
15 decision and whether or not your decision has
any -- should be held up with respect to
16 separate litigated issues . And that
particular judge felt that they wanted a
17 position from this Board.
I think the Supreme Court
18 generally wants to see a decision. You should
not hold up your decision-making based on
19 separate and distinct arguments that they may
or may not prevail in the Supreme Court . I
20 would rather see it done that way. But if you
are inclined to postpone the decision-making,
21 I would prefer that you keep it open rather
than deny with leave to renew or reapply. I
22 think that that' s a concern of mine that I
don' t want to find myself years down the line
23 after this is resolved and finding out I ' m
precluded from coming back in. Let' s say the
24 code changes, whatever, we have an application
that' s still in effect . I don' t want -- maybe
25 they' ll clean it up for the good, but I --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In a
December 18 , 2003
128
1
2 generic sense, let me say this to you : Taught
by the town attorney, who was the town
} 3 attorney from 1955 to 1988 , we never, never,
never, held an application in abeyance . It
4 was always denied without prejudice . It was
only sometime in the latter ' 80s, early ' 90s
5 that we started that process . Only because,
or many times, I won' t say only because, many
6 times because, the applicants were probably
not ready to complete the application or that
7 there were extenuating circumstances which
caused the Board to hold the application in
8 abeyance . That' s just past procedure .
MS . MOORE : I understand but
9 there' s been a lot of law that' s occurred
since 1988 . And my concern is how the Court
10 of Appeals have been ruling and finding this
Board' s decision-making, whether or not that
11 allows us to come back in or not . Before you
make that decision, I think I ' d like to look
12 into the books and make sure that you' re not
inadvertently, kind of stop the process, let
13 them battle out, come back in when you know
what you' ve got . I understand logically that
u % 14 makes sense, but I don' t want legal obstacles
having the Grattans have a different lawyer
15 come in and say, well, they denied without
prejudice, but without prejudice just like you
16 can' t extend times for statutes of
limitations, even though that was something
17 that agreed between the parties . Oh,
absolutely, give us time to make this
18 decision, give us time to appeal . Those cases
have clearly been thrown out, and no, no, you
19 don' t have that authority. I don' t want that
situation to come up, some court deciding you
20 don' t have the authority to say we can come
back in and make an application after the
21 title issues are resolved. So, if you' re
inclined to do that, please give me a chance
22 to check it out or check with your own town
attorney. But we don' t want to -- I know
23 you' re not intending to hurt anybody here . I
just don' t want you to inadvertently hurt
24 someone .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Must be
25 late in the afternoon. I ' m not sure exactly,
what is it that you want?
December 18 , 2003
129
1
2 MS . MOORE : My inclination is that
you leave the hearing open for whatever period
J 3 of time . Personally what I want is for you to
make a decision on the Grattan case and then
4 be done with it . Winterlings can fight out
whatever claim they want . If you don' t feel
5 comfortable doing that, then at least leave
the hearing open.
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Hearing
open a year, two years, six months, ten
7 months?
MS . MOORE : Put on the record --
8 MR. ANTONACCI : My name is
Salvatore Antonacci, A-N-T-O-N-A-C-C-I , and I
9 am representing Zoumas Contracting Corporation
and the State Court of New York County of
10 Suffolk. The matter is Winterling versus
Zoumas Contracting Corporation, we have been
11 retained by first American Title Insurance
Company of New York to defend Zoumas against
12 Winterling' s claim for title by adverse
possession.
13 And I 'm just here to state our
position that this matter should not be stayed
14 as a result of the litigation ongoing at the
Supreme Court . Tt is not -- it' s not
15 irrelevant, howlver, it is irrelevant to the
point of adverse possession by claim of title .
16 It is going to be at least a two
or three year litigation. And it is our
17 position that the court will not make a
decision until that time, and this particular
18 Board should not be delayed with the decision
for two to three years .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It really
must be late because somehow this is all
20 getting very garbled.
The Board can' t make a decision.
21 We don' t know if there is a lot . We don' t
know the ownership of the lot . Those are
22 facts that this Board needs, in my opinion, in
order to render a decision.
23 As far as Catterson, Miss Wickham
had nothing to do with that case . As far as
24 Catterson was concerned this Board made a
determination, but that is totally, totally
25 not related anywhere to what is happening
here . What' s happening here is we have a
December 18 , 2003
130
1
2 waiver of merger before us; what' s happening
here is we don' t know who owns the lot , so to
3 ask us to hold it in abeyance for two years ,
we' re not going to do it . To ask us to make a
4 determination on what, to grant the waiver to
who?
5 MS . MOORE : you have an owner.
Zoumas is an owner. The claim is merely a
6 claim of title it is not a determination of
ownership . You' re presuming here that
7 Mr. Winterling is going to win.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I' m not
8 making any presumptions .
MS . MOORE : You've accepted his
9 claim as a fait accomplis .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. I said
10 you don' t know. It' s very difficult for us at
this point to follow along this track. No
11 further questions, Ma' am, Chairman, I don' t
know where you want to go with this .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I rather agree
with what you' re saying. I really do . I
13 don' t want to see -- because if we hold an
abeyance it could be one or two years . the
14 Board could be different . They' re not going
{ to be familiar with the circumstances It
15 would be much simpler to do what Mr.
Goehringer said, deny with without
16 prejudice -- and/or Mr. Arnoff said -- then
come back again.
17 MS . MOORE : Well, it might make
more sense, and I haven' t spoken with the
18 client -- but we withdraw our application so
there' s no decision by this Board. That makes
19 more sense and then we can argue over the
title . We won' t have a decision of this Board
20 that we have to worry about being binding or
not binding, or whether or not you have the
21 authority to allow us to reapply.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That would
22 make a lot more sense .
MS . MOORE : This is off the top of
23 my head. I understand what you' re trying to
do. My concern is, I don' t want you making a
24 decision today, deny the application with
leave to renew or reapply. I don' t want to
25 create that record today without an
opportunity to look into it, because I don' t
December 18 , 2003
131
1
2 want all of us to inadvertently preclude
- Mr. Zoumas from coming back in when he
3 prevails .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Why don' t
4 you --
MS . MOORE : I have to talk to a
5 client . I don' t have a client here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the best
6 suggestion of all .
MS . MOORE : Thank you. I know
7 that will make your life easier.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why
8 don' t you ask Miss Moore to make a decision by
the special meeting.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: January 8th.
MS . MOORE : I just want to speak
10 to a client, so --
MS . KOWALSKI : Unless it' s
11 withdrawn after --
MS . MOORE : Sure, I can withdraw
12 it tomorrow.
MS . KOWALSKI : So we should recess
13 this without a date .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando,
14 did you have anything?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No
15 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Arnoff?
16 MR. ARNOFF : I' d like the record
to be clear. I 'm wearing a couple of hats
17 here . I represent the Winterlings in a
litigation. I also represent the Grattan
18 family and the Winterlings in their opposition
to the -- not the merger issue . So I' m here
19 in a sort of dual capacity. So I don' t want
the Board to be confused. But I agree with
20 what Ms . Tortora said and Mr. Goehringer said
to hold this in abeyance and unresolved,
21 you' re absolutely correct; we could be dealing
with a whole new board when we come back here .
22 What is the purpose of holding it in abeyance
when it could be denied without prejudice and
23 we' ll burn the bridge if and when we have to
burn it, and we' ll deal with the issues of
24 whether or not the lot remains merged or
doesn' t remain merged and the equities that
25 are involved in that argument at a later date .
That makes the most sense . Should Miss Moore
December 18 , 2003
132
1
2 choose to withdraw, that' s her choice, of
course . That' s everybody' s right to do, but
t 3 ultimately, I think the Board is left in sort
of -- you can obviously do whatever you
4 like -- but I' d like to point out -- you can
actually make me be quiet, which is what
5 you've done for years -- one of the
interesting things that you might want to
6 consider is, think about this, you approved
Mr. Zoumas' s application. We filed an Article
7 78 ; we now have dueling -- we have a lawsuit
pending and an Article 78 proceeding. Really
8 having no relationship to one another but
relating to the same piece of property. We
9 end up with two Supreme Court judges making a
decision that would somehow or other make no
10 sense at all, and we would avoid taxpayer
money in defending an Article 78 proceeding,
11 County money and wasting judicial time and
going through all this in a needless Article
12 78 proceeding. We all complain about lawyers
and litigation and expenses, here' s a way to
13 short circuit a lot of this, for the Board to
make a prudent economic thing saying, stop it
--r, 14 here, we' ll give you leave to reapply. And
I ' ll put a stipulation on the record now, as
15 far as my clients are concerned, we will
consider this without prejudice, and we will
16 not raise the issue of a prior proceeding
brought . That solves her problem. I think
17 the matter should end today, whether it ' s done
by way of withdrawal or done by way of the
18 denial without prejudice of this Board. That
makes the most sense . Now I 've said all I ' m
19 going to say today. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there
20 anybody that would like to speak on this
application? Hearing none, the Board' s
21 pleasure is to recess this hearing until
January 8th.
22 MS . KOWALSKI . Without a date .
MS . MOORE : By January 8th I ' ll
23 notify by January 8th.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s
24 a gentleman has a question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir .
25 MR. RATICAN: My name is Joseph
Ratican, I live west of Zoumas' s property
December 18 , 2003
133
1
2 there, if it is his property. I have a
question on this map, here it doesn' t show
3 where the cesspool ' s going to go . It doesn' t
show where the front steps or porch or back
4 steps going to go . I built at least 20 houses
in Southold, and I was never permitted to put
5 cesspools in the back of the house . Now,
according to this, the cesspools are going
6 back in the house, next to my property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, I think
7 that is up to the Board of Health and not up
to this Board to determine where the cesspools
8 are being placed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re
9 not even close to --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not even
10 close to them building a house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t
11 mean to be sarcastic yet but --
MR. RATICAN: That' s all I have .
12 Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
13 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second
and I .
15 CN/AIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
J. and C Hold(ings, Incorporated, Mrs .
16 Doll . It' s been recessed since 12/1 we got a
new letter from the soil and water
17 conservation. They actually replied rather
favorably. Mrs . Wickham, good afternoon.
18 MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon,
Abigail Wickham for the applicant .
19 And yes, since the last hearing,
several things have happened. Soil and water
20 has responded indicating a favorable review of
the proposal with respect to bluff
21 drainage . You have received new maps which
indicate the moving of the drain that had been
22 close to the bluff further towards the street
and that drain will accommodate part of the
23 roof runoff, and there are other dry wells on
the property that will accommodate the
24 driveway run off and the run off from the
front part of the roof, front meaning water
25 side, actually the rear .
You have also received a plan that
December 18 , 2003
134
1
2 shows the building that is proposed to be
constructed. Frankly, I think it' s kind of an
3 attractive home, and if you look at it , it is
not imposing. It will be very modest and
4 being somewhat lower than street level, will
not be a looming structure .
5 The survey shows that the side
yards will be 26 feet on the west and 32 feet
6 on the east, those are the shortest
dimensions; there are actually wider distances
7 because of the angle of the side lines . And
so the house is fairly centered on the lot .
8 I ' d like to call your attention to the fact
that while there' s a 50 foot setback from the
9 top of the bluff that is considerably less
than the house to the east, and it is about as
10 far back from the bluff as can be obtained in
order to have adequate setback from the street
11 to get the driveway in.
The setback from the street is,
12 again, more than the house to the east, and I
think that there' s been an attempt to really
13 mitigate what are obviously concerns of
drainage and impacts on the property.
14 I ' d like to know if you have any
particular questions that you' d like 'o
15 address that we haven' t supplied to yZu? But
I think that we have tried to accomn�odate your
16 requests and Mr. Fischetti is here to address
some of the engineering concerns .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think
18 a lot of the concerns have been addressed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I still think
19 the house is too big.
MS . WICKHAM: Let me address that .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s almost
3 , 000 square feet . It' s a pretty big house .
21 MS . WICKHAM: I have to disagree
with you a lot of people building pretty
22 ridiculous lees big houses . On this
particular plan, you will note that the ground
23 floor includes the garage, and the garage has
been scaled back to an 18 foot width, which is
24 pretty minimal when you consider what a
typical two car garage would be . You do need
25 however two car garage here because otherwise
you' re going to have a car in the driveway and
December 18 , 2003
135
1
2 there' s just not adequate room on the property
to provide turnaround and what not . And you
3 can' t have cars backing in and out . So that
first floor makes it a 47 foot width after you
4 take off the garage, and that I think is
pretty modest . If you look at the front
5 elevation, which is facing the street, it
really does not look like an imposing home .
6 There are windows on the water side coming off
the first and second half-story on the top.
7 He' s really scaled it down to a pretty bare
minimum, and left a lot of the floor area open
8 on the first floor to take advantage of as
much space as he can. Not a very big kitchen
9 with a dining room as part of it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From your
10 original plan I don' t see that he' s scaled the
house down that much. Still 65 by 32 feet .
11 I' m very sensitive on to that bluff area. I
really feel that a house more 2 , 200 to 2 , 500
12 square feet is more than enough.
MS . WICKHAM: This is 2 , 800 .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That
includes the second story, right?
14 MS . WICKHAM: That includes the
second story. The first floor, without the
15 garage which is the way I 'm told is they
determine living is area, is under 1, 700
16 square feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The second
17 floor is supposed to be one and a half
stories, so I would think that would be even
18 less than 1, 188 square feet .
MS . WICKHAM: That' s the way the
19 actual square footage; he counted everything,
and that' s what it comes up as .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When
you' re done can I ask Mr. Fischetti a
21 question?
MS . WICKHAM: I don' t think you
22 can look at the house or even the elevation,
or the height is under 31 feet .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house is
going to be 30 feet?
24 MS . WICKHAM: Under 31 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' m not happy
25 with that .
MS . WICKHAM: Since it' s below the
December 18 , 2003
136
1
2 street level, it' s not going to be an imposing
house by any means .
{� 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Mr.
Goehringer.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I
ask Mr. Fischetti a question?
5 MS . WICKHAM: Please .
MR. FISCHETTI : Joseph Fischetti .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' ve
been before this Board many times and the most
7 recent was the Mattituck situation on the
bluff that is not on the water, where we had
8 some significant washing away. There was an
awful lot more sand there than there is, I
9 think, in this location. The question is and this is for my own personal -- I see a
10 retaining wall made out of railroad ties -- I
may have asked you this question before, but
11 not necessarily on the site -- what is
actually holding up that railroad tie wall?
12 MR. FISCHETTI : : The weight of the
soil on, the retaining wall itself .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not like
in Mattituck where you drove pilings in back
14 of it?
MR. FISCHETTI : Not at all . What
15 / we' re doing here is a standard retaining wall .
They' re four foot high we have dead men, which
16 are four foot deep.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Horizontal .
17 MR. FISCHETTI : They' re connected
to the wall .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But
there are pilings driven into those dead
19 men.
MR. FISCHETTI : Most of the time
20 it' s the horizontal . It' s the angle of repose
of the soil that you' re using. It' s the
21 weight of the dead men to hold everything
together. Very different than that other
22 area. What we' re doing here is a very limited
retaining wall . The retaining walls are only
23 there to change the grade . We' re there to try
to stop that depression that' s in there now
24 where all the soil is going to. So what the
retaining walls are doing only holding up four
25 foot of soil . It' s there to change the grade;
it' s not to hold up all this soil behind it
December 18 , 2003
137
1
2 like it was before . We had to do that to make
sure that everything was above impacting that .
3 We' re trying to change the grade eight feet in
that area, bringing it up in four foot
4 intervals .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doing that
5 whole retaining wall on the west side too?
MR. FISCHETTI : That' s correct .
6 It starts at four foot, then it will end up
getting smaller as it goes to the end, but
7 it' s there to change the grade to bring that
grade up. If you notice at the low point in
8 that area where there' s a low point it says
74 , and the grade changes slightly. Then it
9 goes to 76 and the bottom of the lowest
retaining wall is 79 . Then it goes up four
10 feet to 83 this' s the first level . That' s
what' s built first . That' s the first
11 retaining wall that will be built on that
site. When we go down -- one of you last
12 meeting wanted to know construction processes ,
and really what happens is we would go in
13 there and build that first retaining
wall . Most of it will be done by hand.
-- 14 There' s not much change of grade, four
feet . The 1�er level will be put in and the
15 retaining wall will be put in with no fill,
and then whlzLt happens is we' ll start taking
16 the soil from the top where the next retaining
wall would be, bring it down to the first one ;
17 then now we've got the next one leveled to the
lower level; and we build the next one up four
18 feet . Then once that' s built up, we have the
soil where the house is gets pushed in and
19 that gets filled in. All of those will be
done prior; that will be done mostly handwork
20 I don' t think there' s any need for machine
work except maybe small machines to carry the
21 retaining walls, whatever they use, the
bobcats, and mostly it' s by hand.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you
going to clear that lot, it' s a mess?
23 MR. FISCHETTI : It gets cleared.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to
24 take some big machinery in there?
MR. FISCHETTI : Not really. A lot
25 of it is chipping. I really doesn' t do an
extensive, but whatever, that gets done first .
December 18 , 2003
138
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know that .
MR. FISCHETTI : Whatever the
3 retaining wall is has to be cleared. Most of
it is not that , that' s all scrub brush in that
4 area . What happens is now you have that
depression in there . So the first thing that
5 gets is those two retaining walls and minor
clearing to get the equipment in, whatever.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a stupid
question, but that great big hole that' s
7 there, all that dirt that' s been pushed there
put back into that big hole; what' s done with
8 that?
MR. FISCHETTI : The hole was there
9 for the sanitary system. It really has no
bearing. The whole site is balance, cut and
10 fill . Not bringing any soil in. You asked
that question last time .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I did.
MR. FISCHETTI : If you notice the
12 east side of the house is sitting inside the
slope and the west side is sitting out . What
13 happens is all that soil on the east side gets
pushed to where the retaining walls are to
p 14 level that site . So that' s why the retaining
f walls get built first . The site gets cleared
15 and leveled. So I really didn' t do an
analysis of the whole of the pit, kut that all
16 gets filled in and everything gets put back
again.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is
your opinion in reference to the distance
18 between the retaining walls?
MR. FISCHETTI : Four feet, it' s
19 standard, between the lower one and the upper
one, that' s all you need. And I've done steps
20 up three or four even that way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of
21 course I have grass growing or some sort of
soil retention the minute that' s done .
22 MR. FISCHETTI : You mean on the
levels? You could put them there, there' s a
23 slight pitch on them, basically level . You
could put grass or any kind of vegetation to
24 grow in there . Again, it' s level . It' s not
getting eroded. There' s no place for it to
25 erode to because the retaining wall itself is _
there to hold it back. You could put ground
December 18 , 2003
139
1
2 covers, plantings .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wood
3 chips .
MR. FISCHETTI : That ' s your
4 question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora?
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No
questions .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not for
7 Mr. Fischetti but for Miss Wickham. I was not
present for the last public hearing, but I was
8 briefed on it . I was under the impression, I
was told that the house is going to be
9 reduced. I don' t see it . It was a 32 by 65 .
It' s still 32 by 65 .
10 MS . WICKHAM: It was originally
going to be a two story center hall colonial,
11 and that was kind of an imposing structure .
He did cut that back.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The
footprint of the house?
13 MS . WICKHAM: Is essentially the
same, yeah, it is the same, yes . And just
14 given the size of the house, the size of the
side yards, you' re not anywhere near the side
15 yards in terms of maximum size . You' re well
within the side yard requirements . And to
16 make a house less than 32 feet is going to be
a little bit difficult . If you' re concerned
17 about the width of the house, 65 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' m not
18 concerned, I was just was under the
impression --
19 MS . WICKHAM: I talked to him
about it . He spent a lot of time . He had a
20 whole plan done, and this is what he felt made
sense for the property in terms of what was
21 reasonable given a moderate size house . It' s
not one of these mansions that people are
22 coming up with. It' s 2 , 800 square feet of
living area . It' s modest .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I was just
making a comment and because it said it was
24 being reduced.
MS . WICKHAM: We were asked to
25 consider it, and we did consider it . It' s
certainly a better plan.
December 18 , 2003
140
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many
square feet was the original house; do you
3 recall? My original paperwork does not show a
plan either.
4 MS . WICKHAM: He didn' t have one,
but he was thinking of more of a two story.
5 MS . KOWALSKI : Probably the same
square foot or so.
6 MS . WICKHAM: He didn' t have a
specific plan when I was here the last time
7 that we would come up with the conceptual
plan.
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further
questions from me .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Wickham,
you still couldn' t take another five feet off ,
10 maybe six feet?
MS . WICKHAM: Believe me, I have
11 been up and down. Unfortunately he' s out of
town today and couldn' t be here . But I did
12 examine him very, very closely on that . And
he said when you start doing that the layout
13 is not working, this man is a builder and he
knows how to deal with houses and get things
14 to move . With the garage on that first floor,
I think he put a small study or something
15 behind it just to fill up the space, but
basically the first floor is 47 feet wide .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is he
building a custom house for a client or is
17 this just a spec house?
MS . WICKHAM: He would be building
18 this basic house whether there would be a
slight change on the interior, I can' t say,
19 but basically this is the house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : He' s not
20 building it for a particular family?
MS . WICKHAM: I don' t know.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is it a spec
house?
22 MS . WICKHAM: I think he may
because he did get this plan together.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see if
there' s anybody else in the audience . Thank
24 you, Mrs . Wickham.
MS . SUMMERS : My name is Lindy
25 Hill Summers . I 'm the abutting property to
the west .
December 18 , 2003
141
1
2 First I want to thank everybody
for allowing this to be deferred for one month
3 because I wasn' t able to attend, I was out of
town last month.
4 I have three major concerns that I
wanted to address and just get some feedback
5 on. My first one concern is the height and
safety and the aesthetics of the retaining
6 walls . From the plans, the retaining walls
appear to be three feet from my property line .
7 And the retaining wall appears to be, although
I can' t exactly tell, appears to be roughly 60
8 feet or so, right along my property line,
three feet from the property line . And it is ,
9 while it is called a two tiered retaining
wall, and each one is four feet, that is
10 essentially eight feet of wall, three feet
from my property, 60 feet or so long, which I
11 think is a little excessive .
The second point on the retaining
12 walls, if I look at the contour lines, the
retaining wall at the bluff south side hit the
13 74 retaining wall, 74 sea wall, and the one on
the driveway side hits 92 feet . So that' s a
14 difference of 18 feet . So, I want to make
sure I understand, if the retaining walls are
15 four feet Zide
id four feet or eight feet high at
the bluff and the difference is 18 feet,
16 what happens to the other ten feet ; is the
property sloping down,- is the property level,
17 so that the retaining walls have to be
actually more than two four foot ones at the
18 bluff side, because our dwelling has sliding
glass doors that look out on the retaining
19 wall, and the retaining wall is three sides;
so the view from our window here, which is all
20 windows, goes directly out onto two four foot
or essentially eight feet wall of retaining.
21 So I just don' t understand the depth. Does
that mean that they are taking away ten feet
22 from the bluff? I mean, ten feet from the
inside and moving that down to create that
23 this eight foot retaining wall . Or the
difference of eight feet , how is that handled?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fischetti .
MR. FISCHETTI : Do you want me to
25 answer it now?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
December 18 , 2003
142
1
2 MR. FISCHETTI : If you notice the
top, the upper -- the lower wall , the lowest
3 part of the lower wall has elevation of 79 and
the top of the lower wall is 83 .
4 MS . SUMMERS : My map shows 74
could you show me where 79?
5 MR. FISCHETTI : 74 is a change in
grade; that' s not a retaining wall down there .
6 MS . SUMMERS : The contour line .
MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, that' s a
7 change in the contour; that' s not a retaining
wall . Then it goes the next contour line
8 changes to the 76 foot contour line, and
that' s a slight -- so we' re going from 74 to
9 79 . 79 is the bottom of the wall, the bottom
of the lower wall is 79, okay?
10 MS . SUMMERS : No, on the drawing
that I 'm looking at, which may be down level
11 the retaining wall crosses the 74 contour
line.
12 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, it does .
MS . KOWALSKI : I think she wants
13 to know what' s the difference between the 79
grade and the 79 foot to the bottom.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : When she
looks out her window how far above grade?
15 MR. FISCHETTI : The retaining
wall' s only four foot above ground. It' s only
16 four foot high, each level is only four foot .
MS . KOWALSKI : Is it filled?
17 MR. FISCHETTI : Below it it' s
filled from 74 to 79 , yeah, that hole, which
18 is a hole there, is filled five feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But four foot
19 that she can see --
MR. FISCHETTI : It' s only four
20 foot . The retaining wall' s only four foot
high. So what happens is initially that hole
21 where the 74 is gets filled up to the bottom
of 79 . That little hole, there' s a little
22 hole depression in there gets filled up to 79
to try to level the bottom to get to the
23 steps, the bottom of the elevation of 79,
which is the bottom of the wall . So we go to
24 79 , that bottom of the wall, the last grade
line that that wall hits on the east side is
25 80 . If you notice it ends at 80 . This end at
80 or 81 I 'm sorry.
December 18 , 2003
143
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 81 .
MR. FISCHETTI : So 79 to 81 it
^3
3 dives into that side . So now we continue
that, we actually the bottom of the retaining
4 wall continues along going west at 79, goes
around it' s at 79 ; you' ll see it hits towards
5 the western property line . It hits a 76 , so
it was three foot fill in there slightly to
6 build it up you' ll see the grade line
continuing around to 78 ; and then that new
7 contour line ends right there ' cause now it
hits the actual 79 . So the bottom of the
8 first wall is 79 .
MS . KOWALSKI : What would the top
9 of the wall be from grade?
MR. FISCHETTI : Four foot higher.
10 MS . KOWALSKI : No from the top of
the 74 foot contour grade that ' s there now.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Filling in the
back of it .
12 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, it' s nine
feet higher than 74 . The top of the wall is
13 79 .
MS . KOWALSKI : I 'm just saying it
14 relates to the water view.
MR. FISCHETTI : The top of the
15 wall is 83 . It' s only a four foot wall . It' s
not a nine foot wall .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the way
across it' s four foot above grade .
17 MR. FISCHETTI : Underneath there' s
some areas of fill there was a hole there that
18 has to be hand filled and leveled so we can
get into it . Once that first wall is done,
19 then it' s leveled four feet away from it, and
the next wall you see starts at the top of the
20 old wall . So the top of the first wall is 79
and the bottom of the upper wall is 79 , goes
21 to 83 , and it just steps it up. So, yes, she
will see two walls that are four foot on that
22 side . Now, understand that you have an
erosion problem here . If we didn' t build a
23 house, you would have to do this to stop the
erosion because you want the erosion to pitch
24 backwards . So whatever you do in there, you
can' t do it without some kind of fill and some
25 kind of retaining wall . So either you' re
going to leave, you don' t build in there and
December 18 , 2003
144
1
2 leave it as a natural soil, eventually it will
wash out and eventually lose everything in
3 there in who knows how many years . And the
solution to stop the erosion and which
4 everybody was concerned about and now people
are saying, we' re not concerned about that; he
5 doesn' t want to build that retaining wall . It
costs $20 , 000 , $30 , 000 to build that . He' s
6 doing that to save that erosion that' s in
there now, plantings along that side can
7 mitigate the view of that wall .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
8 exactly why I asked that question.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Both
9 planting the walls and on the tier?
MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, you have four
10 feet to plant in front of it, and plant in
between. In front of them can be planted if
11 that' s a concern, that could be mitigated that
wav, and then you couldn' t, wouldn' t see a
12 retaining wall . And I ' ve seen just ivy, I' ve
seen retaining walls planted with ivy, after a
13 while you don' t see retaining walls . I ' ve
been a builder for 30 years myself, and this
t 14 house is modest at 2 , 800 square feet , that' s
` living area. Some of the stuff that' s being
15� built now is talking about 5 , 000 , 6 , 000 , 7, 000
square feet . When I built a big house it was
16 in the 4 , 000 square foot range . This house is
modest and reducing it five feet, it would
17 make everybody feel better, but it really is
not going to mitigate anything. If we reduced
18 it five feet . What it would do is constrict
the floor plan of the house . There' s certain
19 modules that you work with modules of
bedrooms, living rooms and modules of garages ,
20 normal two car garage for a reasonable house
is usually 24 by 24 . This is 18 by 18 . He' s
21 kept everything to a minimum. It is a one and
a half story house . It' s a very modest house .
22 In the front it looks like a ranch. It ' s
modest in the back as well .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does that
answer your questions?
24 MS . SUMMERS : So the question
really was so they' re taking ten feet of soil ,
25 away from the upper driveway portion and
moving it to the lower so it' s level .
December 18 , 2003
145
1
2 MR. FISCHETTI : We will use the
upper area for soil . To make the site
3 reasonable level . Actually, the front of the
house, the soil slopes from front to back but
4 in essence, the soil on the east side will be
brought to the west side to bring a rough
5 grade of 79 in the back and in the front 91 .
MS. SUMMERS : So in essence, it' s
6 roughly around 90 feet the total level where
the house is?
7 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes . On the right
side where the grades are to the right side of
8 the house it does go up to about 96 . So some
of that 96 will be cut .
9 MS . SUMMERS : I still want to
state my concern, three feet from my property
10 line I have lovely levels, two levels pointing
to eight feet of wall, and it goes over 70
11 feet right to my property line . I' m concerned
about how that is going to be, how the
12 retaining wall will be reenforced.
MR. FISCHETTI : The retaining
13 walls are built standard, that every retaining
wall will have a dead man tieback. It ' s
14 structurally sound, standard procedure to
build it . Yes, you will see eight foot of
15 wall if it' s not planted.
l MS . SUMMERS : My second question
16 was related to the height . The house picture
that was in the file is 30 feet high, and that
17 is on top of the eight feet from my property.
So this house will be 38 feet high from my
18 property level, which does, if you beg my
pardon, I consider to be kind of towering, 38
19 feet . The second question was the stability
of the bluff . Given the weight of the
20 transfer of the fill from one side of the
property to the other side, do you know how
21 much fill in square yards or cube yards or
what the weight of that has to get transferred
22 to the road side to the bluff side to make
this property level?
23 MR. FISCHETTI : It comes down to
the angle of repose of the bluff . When the
24 soil has a normal stability, an angle,
anything below that angle is stable, anything
25 placed above that angle makes it unstable . So
anything placed below that angle makes the
December 18 , 2003
146
1
2 soil more stable, not less stable; anything
placed above that line makes it unstable .
3 Right now this bluff is at its angle of
repose, and if that line continued from the
4 top, all the construction and all the material
is placed below the angel of repose . So it
5 has no bearing, no effect except making the
bluff below it more stable because it' s adding
6 weight to it . It' s not making it unstable .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Wickham,
7 did you get a permit from the Trustees?
MS . WICKHAM: There' s a letter of
8 nonjurisdiction from - - back from the previous
application, I believe . If you don' t have it
9 in your file, I have a copy and I will submit
it to you.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MS . SUMMERS : I had one last
11 question. How deep are the dry wells expected
to be?
12 MR. FISCHETTI : Actually, they' re
probably about eight feet deep .
13 MS . SUMMERS : So if the dry wells
are eight feet deep, and the walls in which
14 the dry well is contained is eight feet, that
means the dry well will empty ou "level with
15 my property; is that correct, eight feet,
eight feet?
16 MR. FISCHETTI : No . Basically,
the water will basically drain straight down.
17 it is sandy soil and it won' t go horizontal .
It will drain straight down.
18 MS . SUMMERS : Even in -- what is
the soil composition at eight feet ; do you
19 know?
MR. FISCHETTI : Again, it ' s all
20 sandy soil .
MS . SUMMERS : So I should have no
21 concern that the dry wells will provide any
extra runoff on my property at all because of
22 the depth of the dry wells being consistent
with this eight foot wall, eight foot dry
23 well .
MR. FISCHETTI : Not at all .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there a
clay layer there?
25 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, there is
some clay. It' s sandy clay. It' s not silty
December 18 , 2003
1
147
1
2 clay. It' s still permeable and the soil all
of that material will go down.
3 MS . SUMMERS : Because the problem
is this little depression that' s mostly on our
4 side of the property line goes down to like 68
feet contour. So I'm kind of concerned given
5 the top of the property is 92 feet, and is the
bottom is 72 or 68 , sorry, that anything that
6 would -- so I shouldn' t worry about any water
runoff?
7 MS . WICKHAM: The drain is well
back from that point .
8 MR. FISCHETTI : It' s not even
close . And this is not a lot of water . This
9 is just the roof runoff . This is the same
amount of water that would be there if it
10 normally rained. What' s happening is just
it' s just being contained. It' s not
11 additional water. It' s the standard runoff
that would happen at that point .
12 MS . SUMMERS : Can I request that
we reconsider the retaining wall being three
13 feet from my property line at eight feet tall?
MS . WICKHAM: If you' re finished,
14 can I address that? If you' re finished.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
15 MS . WICKHAM: First of all, I just
want to respond to one point she made and
16 clarify that an adjoining owner does not have
the right to a water view over the neighbor' s
17 property. She has 150 feet of her own, but
that being said, let me just indicate to you
18 the mitigating factors on this retaining wall .
I don' t think they' re going to be as ominous
19 from her point of view as she may be concerned
about .
20 First of all , her house is 55
feet, and there is vegetation there . Second
21 of all, the retaining wall will not be -- the
first one, the outside one -- will not be four
22 feet height for the whole distance of the 50
feet . It goes into the hill . So it' s not
23 going to be standing up . The neighbor could
put a four foot fence all the way along that
24 side yard, which would probably be uglier, but
this is a recessed planted retaining wall .
25 And portion of the retaining wall opposite her
house is actually angled away from her house .
December 18 , 2003
148
1
2 So that' s not going to be nearly as obvious as
it being right up against the side yard.
3 The second inside retaining wall,
again, is further recessed, it will be
4 planted, and it' s not going to be four feet
above the ground the whole distance . I ' d also
5 like to point out that the entire proposed
house is behind the location of her house . So
6 there' s not going to be an impact, I think,
to the extent that she is concerned about .
7 Basically, just trying to level off and
ameliorate the runoff that' s really decimating
8 that property right now.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s
9 why we' re going to request -- suggest the
buffering. And we' ll reserve the right to
10 review it .
MS . WICKHAM: That ' s fine . I
11 don' t know what precisely you have in mind,
but I would suggest plantings between the two
12 retaining walls perhaps in the nature of a
perennial that would overgrow the lower
13 retaining wall and upper retaining to
camouflage it in some way. Or, do you want to
14 put plantings on the ground in front of it? I
don' t know if that' s environmentally sound. I
/--5 would think --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where
16 the retaining wall is the most blatant looking
at it' s lowest point to plant plantings
17 there .
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . We would do
18 plantings there and get someone who can tell
us what' s going to be best in terms of --
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Probably
rosa rugosa.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or you can ask
Cornell what would be best .
21 MS . WICKHAM: We would be
advantage willing to accept that condition. I
22 think that would be in their best interest
make sure that bluff stays stable .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s
only going to add to the stability of the
24 whole thing.
MS . WICKHAM: Exactly. I have no
25 problem with that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other
December 18 , 2003
149
1
2 questions from the audience? Yes, sir.
MR. HESTLY: Who' s liable if it' s
3 not stable?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come to the
4 mike give your name, please .
MR. HESTLY: My name is Chris
5 Hestly. I 'm the adjoining property owner to
the east side . I'm very concerned about the
6 fill is going to come off the slope adjacent
to mine, to fill the other side of the
7 property. I'm wondering who -- say this
doesn' t work, this retaining wall and
8 everything, who' s committed to this property
that' s still going to be here five years from
9 now? Is anybody in this room? Because I'm
going to be here five years from now and I 'm
10 pretty convinced that there wasn' t an erosion
problem before that lot got cleared. It was
11 built up with trees and lots of underbrush,
and it was totally stable . And now
12 everybody' s talking about, everybody' s
concerned about erosion. Now we build a
13 retaining wall, we were concerned about
erosion after the lot got cleared out .
14 Anyways, so I' m concerned about
the fill coming from my side, the east side,
15 and I ' dylike to hear something about that, and
going t6o the other side, how' s that going to
16 happen? What' s the grade going to look like
coming off my property on that side now? I
17 also have to say, just like what I said last
time . These are huge variances I don' t
18 understand why they just are allowed to
happen. I think it' s really kind of horrible
19 because I don' t understand why these
guidelines are in place, if they' re just
20 rubber stamped. Just like that attorney said
before, you guys are rubber stamping if you
21 allow anything this big to go in there . It' s
really like the laws or the guidelines are
22 very far from being what that drawing' s
about .
23 Also, I ' d like to state that we
back out of our driveway. There' s no garage .
24 Most of the houses up there don' t have
garages . So if all this extra room is being
25 taken to justify having a garage, I think the
garage should be reconsidered.
December 18 , 2003
150
1
2 Also, somebody was comparing my
house, which is to the east, to this house in
3 terms of building on that property, and we' re
closer to the bluff . But we' re also on top of
4 the hill . This is being built on a slope .
It' s an entirely different situation. We' re
5 up on the crest of a hill . It' s stable . It' s
got rocks underneath it .
6 Just thought I would bring that
point up . They' re not at all similar. You
7 can' t look at them and say you've got this
much room, the house on the east has this much
8 room away from the bluff -- it' s on top of the
bluff .
9 Somebody made a comparison about
these big houses being built all around here,
10 well Brown' s Hills doesn' t have any 5 , 000 or
6 , 000 square foot houses . We've got a very
11 beautiful little community and we' d like to
keep it that way. So a 5, 000 or 6, 000 square
12 foot house would be like three times bigger
than the biggest house up there . This house
13 relative to the other houses up there is big,
this proposed house .
14 I would also like to just state
before this that I' m a little concerned about
15 the sensitivity of the builder and the people
involved in this, because somebody had a
16 survey done, and they cut through my property.
They cut a path through the underbrush. They
17 macheted through and sawed through on my trees
and everything. So I really hope that when
18 something' s agreed to -- I guess what I 'm
concerned about is, say we agree to a proposed
19 plan or whatever, who' s to say that if that
plan changes from what it is when it' s
20 actually built, what do we do about that then?
Is there any recourse at that point? When the
21 building starts, what happens?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Building
22 inspectors usually come out and inspect at
various stages of the construction to make
23 sure, first of all, that the foundation is
exactly in the place that we have agreed to,
24 because there have been times when the
foundation have been placed in someplace other
25 than what the Board has decreed, and we have
made them change it .
December 18 , 2003
151
1
2 MR. HESTLY: What about porches
and stuff like that?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He does have to
come back again for a variance for anything
4 because it would be too close .
MR. HESTLY: Okay.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t look
too favorably on that at this type of a
6 construction.
MR. HESTLY: Especially because
7 the variances are highly extreme already in my
opinion as a property owner.
8 I guess that' s all I have to say.
Thank you.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
there anybody else? Yes, ma' am.
10 MS . MORGAN: Mary Morgan, I live
in Brown' s Hills . I spoke at the meeting
11 before and I just wanted to reiterate that it
is a small property with a deep ravine and I
12 am concerned about the runoff and what ' s going
to happen there, and also this being a builder
13 and the fact that we don' t know -- it isn' t
someone who loves this area and loves this
14 property and really wants to build a nice,
sensitive little house on this lot , which
15 again, is like a negative building envelope,
there' s not much room there, but a small,
16 nice, little house could be built . Nobody
who' s in that category of being interested in
17 being a good neighbor with all of us has
stepped forward, no one' s approached our
18 association. It' s just a lovely, sensitive,
little house could be built there with very - -
19 not these huge variances, and I don' t see what
seems to be driving the fact that somebody' s
20 got to build this big house is that the
property' s very high. If they would sell it
21 for less, somebody could build something
smaller and more sensitive . That makes sense
22 to me .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is
23 there anybody else wishes to comment? Any
Boards members that are left?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
unfortunately have to get going. I apologize .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So do I .
MS . WICKHAM: Could I just respond
December 18 , 2003
152
1
2 to something? I ' ll be brief .
First of all, front yard variance
3 is not significant . And front and back
together, while it may be a lot , is really
4 minimal, I think, particularly when you look
at adjoining properties whether you' re at the
5 top of the bluff or part way down, it' s
proximity to the bluff that we' re concerned
6 about . There is a house that is located just
on the other side of one of these to the west ,
7 which is 73 feet long, that is the Tax Lot 5 .
The house on the other side, Tax Lot 3 , as I
8 read the town assessor' s card is 93 feet long .
So again, yes, it' s a small lot, but I don' t
9 think th side yards is what' s the problem
here . Everything has tried to be mitigated,
10 and I think he really has designed a nice
house that we would be willing to adhere to
11 conditions .
MS . SUMMERS : Can I make one more
12 comment?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Please go
13 to the mike .
MS . SUMMERS : I just looked at the
r
14 drawing again and noticed there' s five feet
before the first floor starts and then there' s
15 25 feet of house and again, just the concern
�. that while the 30 foot height doesn' t sound
16 like a lot when you 30 feet to the eight feet
of wall, I ' m concerned about it , and I don' t
17 know what value it brings that house to have
that five feet . I don' t know if that ' s
18 something that was brought up before . But it
seems to me that' s five feet that doesn' t
19 bring any value but brings 38 foot from the
base property that could be potentially --
20 MR. FISCHETTI : That drawing is
not truly -- it doesn' t show grade . If you
21 look at the site plan, you' ll notice there' s
the two in the front, it says PG, that' s
22 proposed grade in the front is 91 . The
finished floor elevation is 93 , so that means
23 the grade in the front is a two foot
differential on the grade in the front . The
24 back, there' s a PG in the back is 87 . So it' s
a six foot in the back because, again, we' re
25 trying to mitigate the little bit of elevation
in the front .
December 18 , 2003
153
1
2 MS . KOWALSKI : Date on that plan,
Joe?
3 MR. FISCHETTI : Excuse me?
MS . KOWALSKI : What' s the date on
4 that plan?
MR. FISCHETTI : The maps are the
5 same .
MS. KOWALSKI : I think the map we
6 gave her --
MS . WICKHAM: December llth.
7 MR. FISCHETTI : Proposed grade in
the front is 91, and it says that' s FFL,
8 that' s finished floor elevation is 93 ,- that' s
what those words mean.
9 MS . SUMMERS : Could you translate
for me? From the base of my property, how
10 tall does this house go?
MR FISCHETTI : What is your base ,
11 76?
MS . SUMMERS : 78 is the
12 midpoint .
MR. FISCHETTI : We' re basically a
13 grade in the back of ten feet higher .
MS . SUMMERS : From the top of the
14 roof to the bottom of my property at the
midpoir.,t 78 , how many feet is it? Cause this
15 says that it' s 38 . That' s not right .
`. MS . WICKHAM: It' s 81 feet away
16 from your house at least .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: From the
17 ridge of her house to her average grades .
MS . WICKHAM: What was the first
18 part?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: She wants
19 to know from the ridge of her house to average
grades .
20 MS . WICKHAM: 118 would be .
MS . KOWALSKI : 118 minus 78 leaves
21 her 40 .
MS . WICKHAM: It' s 80 some feet
22 away, behind the house . That' s the topography
of the property.
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 40 feet,
four story building.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s a lot .
MS . WICKHAM: 31 feet to the ridge
25 line .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We didn' t
December 18 , 2003
154
1
2 say that, 40 feet .
MS . WICKHAM: That' s because her
3 property is lower. And the house is behind
her house .
4 MS . SUMMERS : It' s not really
because my property is lower per se, it ' s
5 because you' re filling up eight feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir. Real
6 quick because I've got to go .
MR. MORGAN: Very briefly, Tom
7 Morgan, Brown' s Hills . These are not huge
variances? There is a negative building
8 envelope according to the setbacks . I don' t
want to deny somebody the right to build on
9 their property, but there' s a negative -- you
start with less than nothing and anything is a
10 huge variance beyond that . In addition, to
which when we were building, and it was only a
11 couple of years ago, I was told that the
height of the house that we were allowed to
12 build was based upon -- I said what' s the
starting point, what' s the ground point?
13 Well, that' s the mean level of the property,
goes to 80 to 100 feet . So we had to conform
r
14 as though it were in the middle of that . Now
this goes from 0 to 92 or som :thing like that ,
15 doesn' t it? Or does it countfrom where the
bluff begins? �.
16 MR. FISCHETTI : It ' s average .
MR. MORGAN: So --
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is says
average natural grade is 81 .
18 MR. MORGAN: Where does that 36 - -
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the
19 height of the house .
MR. MORGAN: At what level is the
20 house first floor?
MR. FISCHETTI : The first floor
21 elevation, first floor is 93 . First floor
elevation is 93 .
22 MR. MORGAN: Does this not exceed
the height?
23 MR. FISCHETTI : I ' m not sure the
question he asked me -- the code says you have
24 to compute that maximum height of 34 feet from
the average elevation all around. We' re
25 talking about it' s sloped down, so you' re
starting from the right side of the house
December 18, 2003
155
1
2 starts to 92 and it goes to 82 . So it' s 85,
87, that' s the average .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It ' s
written down 81 it' s your drawing.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know
the problem, Mr. Fischetti, the problem is
5 that everybody is visualizing as a suspension ,
as opposed to the relationship of the lady' s
6 property that spoke that' s sitting in back of
you and the relationship of the road. If we
7 knew the relationship of the house to the
road, we would then be able to understand, I
8 think, what the height differential would be .
I 'm just throwing that out . We' re throwing
9 numbers out left and right here, and there' s
no mean, the mean that we have here, because
10 the lady in back of you has multitopography,
but the roads should the mean, and that' s the
11 problem.
MS . WICKHAM: The middle of the
12 road, if I can answer that question, is about
92 , in the middle of the property at the road .
13 So the house is going to be just under that at
the ground floors elevation is 91 .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that
first floor finished plan is 92 .
15 MR. FISCHETTI : Finished floor
elevation is 93 .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
about even with the road then?
17 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, it ' s not going
to be looming.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: that
answers the question because now we have a
19 norm to deal with. Ma' am.
MS . SUMMERS : I can only assess
20 the quality of looming from where I sit, and
from where I sit it' s 40 feet .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was
not referring to your property being
22 multi-topographical . I was merely referring
to it as the hole that exists on the one side .
23 I know your property is much more level than
that . No way was I degrading the property. I
24 just wanted you to be aware of that
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s no
25 other comments, I will have a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later .
December 18 , 2003
156
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
_ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
3 (Whereupon, all Board Members
responded in favor. )
4 (Time ended: 4 : 55 p .m. )
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
December 18 , 2003
157
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for
6 the State of New York, do hereby certify:
7 THAT the within- transcript is a true
8 record of the testimony given.
9 I further certify that I am not related by
10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to
11 this action; and
12 THAT I am in no way interested in the
13 outcome of this matter.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand this 18th day of December, 2003 .
i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Florence V. Wiles
23
24
25
December 18 , 2003