Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/22/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T O W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 April 22 , 2004 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member 17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 21 22 r®RIGINA 23 24 i 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: First public hearing is for Debra Victoroff at 9 :30 . Unfortunately, we 3 cannot hear that this morning because they do not have the Trustees approval as yet . So we' ll have 4 to move that over until May 20th at approximately 1 : 30 in the afternoon. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Wasn' t that going to be done the next -month after we spoke the last 6 time? MS . KOWALSKI : Yes, the Trustees had a 7 meeting last night . I know it' s been like six months now, right? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s been on just about almost a year. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : I need a resolution on that . Ruth, make that motion? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are we moving on? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Victoroff, until May 20th because they don' t have Trustees approval . 13 It' s all set with us . He was in yesterday. ------------------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next one is Mr. Cornwell, he lives on West Cove Road in 15 Cutchogue . We postponed that because the neighbor was not able to visualize what the concept was . 16 Mr. Strang, do you have anything to add to that? 17 MR. STRANG: Only that during that postponement, I have had several conversations 18 with Mr. Slattery, my client has had several conversations with Mr. Slattery, as well as 19 addressing a letter to him, trying to allay any of his concerns . And I assume that we've addressed 20 to his satisfaction whatever his concerns may be . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have not received anything. 22 MS . KOWALSKI : I thought I had a phone call, it was a few weeks ago and he confirmed 23 exactly what Garrett said. He spoke with the architect and he really wasn' t sure if he had any 24 concerns at all any more, and that was the last we heard. 25 MR. STRANG: Okay. So, I don' t know if the Board has any further additional comments . April 22 , 2004 3 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t . Does anybody else? If not I' d like to close the. hearing and 3 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 MR. STRANG: Thank you very much. ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next one is Len Vaccariello/Southold Floor Covering. 6 Mr. Vaccariello? Do you plan on making your move to the North Road there? 7 MR. VACCARIELLO: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you need a variance 8 because your building' s going to be more than 60 feet, and also I think you need a setback on the 9 rear yard? MR. VACCARIELLO: Correct . Tom McCarthy 10 is also going to be speaking on my behalf . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I did see your nice 11 stakes . Would you give your name, please? MR. MCCARTHY: Tom McCarthy, McCarthy 12 Management, Southold representing and assisting the applicant . 13 The two variances that we' re looking for today is a structure 80 feet in width in the 14 reduced rear yard setback adjoining the sump . A little bit of background, if you don' t 15 know the history of Southold Floor Covering business, it' s been a locally owned and operated 16 business for 30 years . It' s been in Southold, Lenny bought it from his uncle, Jerry Gralton, 17 three and-a-half years ago, and moved from the North Road location in Peconic, which now houses I 18 believe a pool and spa company, and he' s located behind Thompson' s Emporium in space that he 19 leases . His lease is up in a year and-a-half and 20 he' s taken steps to insure the future of his business for himself and his family. He' s 21 recently purchased this piece of property and obviously his intention is to own his own 22 building, and he has certain parameters that he' s working with, and that' s the size of the space 23 that he' s looking to operate his business out of . He' s currently facing competition from other 24 stores that are larger, Home Depot, and the like . His products are very large . He has large 25 rolls of carpeting, he has to warehouse them on-site, and if you have a floor plan of the April 22, 2004 4 1 2 operation, you' ll see that there' s a retail shop in the front, there' s a warehouse in the back. 3 These rolls of carpet can be 12 to 15 feet long as well as well as palletized goods for flooring and 4 rolls of linoleum and what have you. So he uses a fork lift in the warehouse, and he needs turning 5 space, turning radius and racking space for the goods, and he has to keep a large variety in stock 6 in order to compete with the other flooring companies in the marketplace . 7 What you see before you is an 80 foot wide building and that' s the minimum that 8 Mr. Vaccariello feels that he needs on this particular site in order to compete and in order 9 to insure the long term success of his business . What he' s done is he' s done an 10 extremely incredible job, I feel, in taking a look at the architecture of the building thinking that 11 this is going to contribute tremendously to the character of the neighborhood. We realize that 12 the building code setback is 100 feet in the B Zone unless the adjoining properties are 13 developed, which both of these are, which gives him the average of those two setbacks . The 14 architecture that he' s come up with for this particular building has kind of harkened back not 15 to put a big box up on 48, what he' s looking to do is to make the building look as if it' s been there 16 previously and kind of fashioned some ideas and concepts after what has recently gone on on 1670 17 house, which was in for a similar application for building width. So I' d like to be able to show 18 you what that elevation looks like, and he spent quite a bit of money, more than perhaps what he 19 would have to otherwise to try to get the elevation, so it would be something pleasing for . 20 the community. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you have a bit 21 of width but no depth. MR. MCCARTHY: There' s no depth, there' s 22 a sump directly -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- I remember when they 23 put it in. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Very nice . 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Just look at this landscaping area shown here would be this little 25 piece . MR. MCCARTHY: That' s actually changing. April 22 , 2004 5 1 2 We' re working together. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I saw the notes on 3 the Planning Board, but it wasn' t clear how that' s going to relate to this . 4 MR. MCCARTHY: There are two things that are important in the application and what we had 5 done in bringing this area in front of the building was to provide for cross-access agreement 6 to Vanduzer gas . The Planning Department kind of did a flip-flop on us . First they said they 7 wanted us with Vanduzer, and now they' re saying you know what, we' d kind of like it if it was 8 landscaped maybe sometime in the future . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So there is going 9 to be landscaping? MR. MCCARTHY: This parking will be 10 removed in front of the building. There won' t be parking, although they want us to continue to have 11 access through that, that could be opened at a particular time at the property line to the 12 Vanduzer site . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What would this be? 13 Like a 15 foot wide fence then this would be? MR. MCCARTHY: Right)* It' s going to be 14 landscaping and grass toward the front near the street . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My question is it' s really not pertinent in a way, but I see there' s a 16 driveway going back for the county to have access to the sump. Now my understanding is that the 17 county wants to use your access to get back? MR. MCCARTHY: That' s right . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To me that' s ridiculous . 19 MR. MCCARTHY: That' s what they have asked for. We haven' t agreed to it yet . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because then there' s two driveways right in a row. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you want a curb cut? That will be interesting. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, they don' t need it . It' s a driveway coming right back here all the way 23 to the back by the county. MR. MCCARTHY: They have asked us to 24 close up their curb cut on 48 and to allow them to allow a drop curb from our parking lot into their 25 flag section so that there' s no confusion on the part of the traveling public who want to come into April 22 , 2004 6 1 2 Lenny' s place and see it during the median strip, and then go into the DPW curb cut as opposed to 3 his . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 4 MR. MCCARTHY: So that' s what they' re looking for. We' re not opposed to that, and I 5 think it will create a little bit more green space in the front between the auto place and Lenny' s 6 place . So that would be accomplished just with a right of way for them going through the parking 7 lot, a drop curb for the one time in ten years that they need to get to the sump . 8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One question is the two adjacent buildings on the one side, how 10 wide do you believe those are, the Vanduzer and the one they' re rebuilding. 11 MR. MCCARTHY: Vanduzer I understand has recently been before you as well for other relief 12 for a revised building in the front, squaring off their building in the past several years . 13 CHAIRWOMAY OLIVA: I don' t remember that . MR. MCCARTHY: They have about 100 feet 14 of coverage . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Generator has -- 15 MR. MCCARTHY: Generators has 145 feet, the Ice Cream Cove, liquor store, which is the 16 Village of Southold shopping center on the other side, has 170 and the building that I own on the 17 other side of the street has 220 linear feet, so we feel that the 80 feet that we' re asking for is 18 not out of character with the area, with the neighborhood. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I wanted you to put on the record, I knew they were 20 much wider. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about even say the 21 new addition there, do you have any idea, the furniture place, they put on that new addition? 22 MR. MCCARTHY: They were 103 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s a very nice 23 addition. MR. MCCARTHY: It is . And we saw the 24 results of the process through Zoning and Planning and saw what they wound up with, which is a 25 beautiful building. They did a very credible job, they did a great job and we feel that our proposal April 22 , 2004 7 1 2 will be as nice, if not nicer, and, in fact, we' ll have, I believe, better parking and better 3 circulation on the .site with our proposal than what 1670 house currently enjoys . 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I wanted to get that point across . I felt it was much narrower, 5 this building than the other ones adjacent to it . MR. MCCARTHY: It certainly is . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Nice rendition of the drawing, good luck. 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Could you just run the numbers yourself? 8 MR. MCCARTHY: There' s a letter on Page 2 from them, but the Generator building on the 9 corner of Youngs Avenue, which was Commander, has 145 feet, Vanduzer is approximately 100 , the strip 10 center on the north side of the road is 170 , the 1670 house is 103 and my center on the other side 11 is 220 feet . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 1670 is the one we 12 had before us . MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . So it' s not out of 13 the character with that whole area and how that area' s been developed over time . 14 Speaking to the setback variance in the rear, I believe that that should be diminimus, and 15 we sent a site plan to the DOT, and they came back to us and they had reviewed the conceptual plan 16 for the referenced site, and are in general agreement with the variance requested at this 17 time, so they have no problem. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Backing up to a 18 recharge . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no other 19 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions . I like the way you've ferried the 21 warehouse in the back of the building. I have no objections to the setback. Also bearing in mind 22 that the Planning Board reflects a similar type of determination based upon the fact that the 23 recharge basin is really a dead area. MR. MCCARTHY: There' s no adjoining 24 neighbor to the project with that setback. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Just one other 25 question, the landscaping in front that was going to have that parking spot, do you have any idea April 22, 2004 8 1 2 what the Planning Board' s determination is going to be that landscaping area width-wise, going to 3 be that area? MR. MCCARTHY: I would say minimally 15 4 feet, but it really depends on how we work through what they need for the cross-access agreement 5 because that should be at some point two-ways so that traffic is not coming out onto 48 and going 6 onto Vanduzer. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 38 feet to the 7 sidewalk, and if you figure 15 foot for the access, so it could be about 20 feet . 8 MR. MCCARTHY: It could be and actually the perception from the traveling public that 9 green space will be larger because we' re going to be landscaping and putting grass out in front of 10 the property line before you get to the shoulder of the highway. So even though it' s 15 feet to 11 the property line, it may wind up to be 20 to 25 feet of green space that you see there because the 12 highway doesn' t come to the property line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just putting 13 grass or little shrubs? MR. MCCARTHY: To be honest with you, 14 Ruth, we' re going to do whatever' s mutually acceptable to the planning. And perhaps it 15 doesn' t require a lot of maintenance but an attractive looking building. Len has taken great 16 steps and spent a lot of money not only in the architect, on the drawings themselves, but putting 17 money into the building to make it a nice place because it' s going to be good for his business and 18 it' s good for the town. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in 20 the audience have any questions or remarks about this hearing? If not, I' ll close the hearing and 21 reserve decision until later. Thanks for coming in and lots of luck. 22 (-See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 23 MS . MOORE : Actually, this is the one before . Slaghery, my client had sent me a notice 24 that said that it was at 9 : 50, and he wasn' t opposed to the application. He was just concerned 25 about the vegetative screen that was there that that be maintained. I understand you've closed April 22, 2004 9 1 2 the hearing, and I did explain to -- we had, Garrett Strang and I had spoken about it before 3 and I apologize . I got here early and found it on the calendar just two or three minutes before I 4 arrived, and so I would just ask when you' re deliberating, if you would just put your standard 5 protective conditions for the adjacent property owner to maintain the vegetative screening. Thank 6 you, I apologize for interrupting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 7 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Joseph 8 and Michelle Santacroce . Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Good 9 morning, how are you? State your name, please . MR. SANTACROCE : Joseph Santacroce . I' d 10 like to start off by saying that the residence in question at 695 Kerwin Boulevard belongs to my 11 mother, Carol, she' s been a resident of Southold Town for the better part of 50 years . 12 Part of the reason we' re coming here for this accessory apartment, my mom has, as most of 13 you might know, is handicapped and as she' s getting older, she' s finding it more and more 14 difficult to take care of her home on her own. She does live there by herself at this time . Now 15 I get to my wife and myself . We've both been life long residents of Greenport, and we have been 16 trying to find housing around the Southold Town area because we would like to stay here . 17 Currently I'm employed at Central Suffolk Hospital in Riverhead. We' re having a difficult time doing 18 that, but the family got together and kind of talked and thought that this plan before you would 19 be the best idea for our family. Basically what we' d like to do is have my 20 mom live on the first floor of this apartment, what' s being called an apartment because she' d 21 like to have her own kitchen so we were informed that that makes it an apartment . We' re not going 22 to be renting it out to anyone . It will be my mom on the first floor and my wife and myself on the 23 second floor. Basically that' s what we' re coming to you for today, and I can answer any questions 24 that you might have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was looking for a breakdown of the square footage of the proposed April 22 , 2004 10 1 2 apartment . MR. SANTACROCE : I have a set of plans I 3 handed into you guys . It should be on the second page . I have another set, though. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The first floor, the apartment should be 1, 040 square feet, that' s 5 according to the plan. MR. SANTACROCE Correct . I don' t know the 6 number off the top of my head. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the second 7 floor is 1, 780 square feet . MR. SANTACROCE : That' s correct . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you state that again? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 1, 040 square feet at present . 10 MR. SANTACROCE : That would be the first floor apartment would be 1, 040 square feet and the 11 second floor would be 1, 780 square feet, that' s not including the garage, the garage is 490 square 12 feet . . MS . KOWALSKI : We have different figures 13 according to the Penny Lumber, a little bit, about 18 square feet it' s different . 14 MR. SANTACROCE : This is probably a newer plan. If you want that, I can give that to you. 15 MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t know if the Board members want their own copies of the new plan. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just need it because I'm the key person. 17 MS . KOWALSKI : And we need it for the file . So does everybody else want an extra copy 18 of the new plan? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How much a 19 variation is there from the old to the new? MR. SANTACROCE : I don' t think there was 20 any. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a 21 variation in the square footage? MR. SANTACROCE Not to my knowledge . 22 MS . KOWALSKI : 18 square feet, that' s all . 23 MR. SANTACROCE : If you' re telling me 18 square feet, I didn' t realize there was . Like I 24 said, I' ll give you the most current plans . MS . KOWALSKI : You said the first floor 25 apartment is 1, 058 square feet . MR. SANTACROCE : 1, 040 . April 22 , 2004 11 1 2 MS . KOWALSKI : Okay, the one here is 1, 058, which plan do you want to go with? 3 MR. SANTACROCE : This is the one . MS . KOWALSKI : What is the date of the 4 new plan? MR. SANTACROCE : April 10 , 2004 . 5 MS . KOWALSKI : April 10 , 2004 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What does that 6 one read? MR. SANTACROCE : This one reads 1, 040 for 7 the first floor apartment and 1, 780 square feet for the second floor for a total of 2 , 070 : 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it' s 50 percent of the total square footage . 9 MS . KOWALSKI : 40 percent, might be 41 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the 10 first floor area not to exceed 40 percent? MS . KOWALSKI : Jerry, do you want another 11 new plan or do you want to give that to the file when you' re done with it? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The family room on that plan there, if you guys still have that plan, 13 that' s considered part of the primary residence, I guess you would call it, it' s kind of a shared 14 room between the two, but they' re considering it part of the primary residence being that' s where 15 the staircase is going to be? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: By the family room? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That family room, they' re considering that part of the residence . 17 That' s how they have access to the second floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 18 MR. SANTACROCE : But there' s a door there, like I say, the house isn' t blocked off, from one 19 part of the house is apartment and the other is not . It' s all basically the same house . 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Basically you' re just putting a second floor? 21 MR. SANTACROCE : Pretty much. She wanted her own kitchen they considered it an apartment . 22 That' s basically why we' re here now. MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t have the new 23 plans, the primary unit' s going to remain at 2 , 150 . 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What was the existing? 25 MS . KOWALSKI : With the addition will be 2 , 150 . April 22 , 2004 12 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Existing first story? 3 MS . KOWALSKI : I don' t have the plan in front of me . 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 40 percent of the liveable floor area of the existing dwelling unit . 5 MS . KOWALSKI : Well, the code allows people to add on, and this is what happens . So 6 instead of him adding on first, he' s adding on during the whole process . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then we can incorporate the addition; when we incorporate the 8 addition what will the figure be? MS . KOWALSKI : For the existing, I have 9 to check the plans . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 2 , 070 . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : 2 , 070? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Got it . 11 MS . KOWALSKI : 2, 070 with the new addition for the existing unit . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 2 , 070 at 40 percent is 1, 080 . We' re coming in at 1, 058 . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : So it' s slightly under the 40 percent . You can' t go over the 40 percent of 14 the existing for the apartment . MR. SANTACROCE : Like I said, I guess -- 15 okay. I wasn' t aware of that but if I fall within that parameter, that' s good. 16 MS . KOWALSKI : When was the house built? MR. SANTACROCE : I believe it was 1973 . 17 Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? 18 Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t have 19 any questions . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Vincent? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one for minor clarification. 21 MR. SANTACROCE : Sure . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are there two 22 accesses, one towards the apartment, or the one on the side is the downstairs or -- 23 MR. SANTACROCE : The one on the side, that' s the new access that was going to be for my 24 wife and myself to go in upstairs . My mom would still have the access for the front door and the 25 rear door. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other April 22 , 2004 13 1 2 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm all right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a 4 motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. I hope nobody in the audience has 5 any complaints, has any questions? (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 7 Christopher and Trudi Edwards need a variance because the additions to the dwelling will be less 8 than 40 feet from the front line but they have two front yards; are you Mr. Edwards? 9 MR. EDWARDS : I am Chris Edwards . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, why don' t you 10 tell us what you' re going to do, enlarging -- what I understand you' re doing is really filling in 11 where the deck is? MR. EDWARDS : Yes, the deck is going to be 12 moved further over. We' re going to add I believe it' s approximately 800 square feet bedroom, family 13 room, bathroom and laundry room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s all going to be on 14 the one story? MR. EDWARDS : Yes . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the closest you' ll be is 2115" -- you already are 2115"? 16 MR. EDWARDS : Yes, we won' t be any closer. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the rear section will be 22 . 5 feet from Madeline Avenue . Mr. 18 Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madeline Avenue 22 shows at 40 feet on your survey, what is it actually, Mr. Edwards? 23 MR. EDWARDS : The setback? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, how wide is 24 Madeline Avenue, is it a small road? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 28 , 25? 25 MR. EDWARDS : Yeah, portions of it are large . I' d say an average of 25 feet . April 22 , 2004 14 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s all paved, right? 3 MR. EDWARDS : Yes, it' s all paved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the 4 audience like to speak for or against this application? If not, I' ll make a motion closing 5 the hearing and reserving decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 MR. EDWARDS : What does that mean? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It means now we go 7 into contemplation and see . . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There weren' t many 8 questions so -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, there weren' t 9 many questions . Our next meeting is May 6th, and we will write the decision and then you will have 10 that, eventually perhaps if you would like to call, and then the written one will be within a 11 week after that meeting. MR. EDWARDS : So I' ll know by June . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Before June . MS . KOWALSKI : Middle of May you should 13 know. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Call the office and 14 Linda or Jess will be happy to let you know. ------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Lawrence Kotik on Middleton Avenue in Greenport, 16 with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet . MR. KOTIK: Good morning. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: State your name, 18 please . MR. KOTIK: My name is Larry Kotik, and I 19 am the new owner of 10 Middleton Road in Greenport . And as part of a proposed renovation 20 to the existing structure, I would like to square off the northwest corner of the structure, which 21 would result in an addition of 38 square feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s hardly 22 anything. MR. KOTIK: I'm just filling in a 23 corner. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what we 24 call diminimus . MS . KOWALSKI : It' s 38 square feet, 25 right? MR. KOTIK: Correct . It' s not going any April 22 , 2004 15 1 2 closer to the street . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the houses there 3 are about the same . MR. KOTIK: I actually measured them all . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They all look the same on Middleton? 5 MR. KOTIK: That' s right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have a problem 6 with it . Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I have one 7 question. The existing height to the ridge will stay the same? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s only one story. 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But they' re going to put -- 10 MR. KOTIK: It' s a two-story house right now. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re not going to go any higher than the existing? 12 MR. KOTIK: No. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my only 13 one question. I have to write that one up, so I have to ask that . I think it' s a cute little 14 neighborhood, and the house will look adorable . I think it' s in character of the neighborhood and 15 best of luck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Timmy will tell you I grew up in this house, my aunt and uncle . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You did? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, so I have no 19 objection at all . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None at all . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the 21 audience wish to speak on this application? If not, I' ll close the hearing and reserve decision 22 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you should have your decision, let' s see, we meet on the 6th, so you 24 can call with the verbal and we' ll have it probably within the next week to 10 days . 25 MR. KOTIK: Okay, thank you very much. ----------------------------------------- April 22 , 2004 16 1 2 'CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Robert and Susan Toman. Request a variance for a 3 proposed deck addition with a front yard setback at less than 40 feet, on Main Bayview Road. Your 4 foundation is in, correct? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you also, if the one that' s just the 30 feet just to actually the 6 porch? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have 40 feet to that wraparound deck? 8 MR. TOMAN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that deck, may I 9 ask, going to be raised because that foundation is very high? 10 MR. TOMAN: Yes . I believe the 40? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe the 40 11 foot setback is to the foundation? MR. TOMAN: Yes, it is . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not to the deck? MR. TOMAN: Not to the deck. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide is the deck; you still need it to the deck? 14 MR. TOMAN: Eight . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s going to be 15 raised level with the -- you had to build it up there for FEMA? 16 MR. TOMAN: Yes, they asked us to be flood compliant . We didn' t have to be . They said could 17 you be, and we said yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Was there a reason 18 that you didn' t come and apply to us before you started the foundation? 19 MR. TOMAN: I don' t know that we knew that we should. 20 MS . KOWALSKI : When did you plan the deck, I guess, did you plan it before the house? 21 MR. TOMAN: It was drawn in. MRS . TOMAN: Yeah, we just didn' t 22 know. No one told us that we should come to you before . 23 MR. TOMAN: No, they said, get the permits in and -- 24 MRS . TOMAN: And we also had a real rough ride to get everything done . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We got it, say no more . April 22 , 2004 17 1 2 MR. TOMAN: This guy is just a dead issue because he let the house go to Bob Diamond, so I 3 thought I better send it out anyway, but he had nothing to do with. 4 MS . KOWALSKI : He doesn' t own it any more? 5 MR. TOMAN: No, he sold it to Bob Diamond. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : He doesn' t own it anymore? MR. TOMAN: No . He sold it to Bob 7 Diamond. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The deck is about 65 8 feet in length, 67 feet, eight feet wide . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you' re talking 9 about a 32 foot setback; is that right? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is this deck 11 going to be integrated into the house; is it going to have a roof over it, sir? 12 MR. TOMAN: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s going to be 13 an open deck? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it will have just a normal railing, 32 to 48 inches in height? 15 MRS . TOMAN: Just over the doorway there will be -- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we only got the pictures . It' s hard to kind of visualize 17 this . MR. TOMAN: It' s going to beautify that 18 whole corner, then we' re going to put landscaping, hedges, keep them trim so when the cars come by I 19 don' t know if -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have much 20 room in the back before you' re in wetlands . MRS . TOMAN: Right . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In fact, you' re in wetlands, to be honest with you. 22 MR. TOMAN: It' s going to be gorgeous . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a 23 two-story house? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have your permit? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: DEC, Trustees, et cetera? April 22 , 2004 18 1 2 MR. TOMAN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to put a 3 fencing around the deck? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: According to those plans? 5 MRS . TOMAN: Railing. MR. TOMAN: Yes . And just hide everything 6 and make it look beautiful . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. That' s it? 7 You have on your survey, 30 feet to the stoop . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have on your 8 survey 30 feet to the stoop? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The reason I'm asking is the notice of disapproval talks about 10 the 30 foot front yard setback, what is the width of the stoop? 11 MR. TOMAN: How wide? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How deep . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The dimensions, 3 ' by 10' . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : 5' by 6 ' ? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s important 14 because I'm trying to figure out whether the stoop is included in the notice -- 15 MR. "TOMAN: I had two thoughts on that, if I may, I was thinking there' s two ways that we 16 could have went about that, one way would have been, to be eight foot out, actually have an eight 17 foot opening where the steps came up four feet into the deck area. 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Good idea. MR. TOMAN: So that it didn' t, maybe it 19 came out an extra foot or something, maybe not even, maybe flush. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Flush is good because I think 32 feet is where I would stop, I 'm 21 not speaking for the rest of the Board, but that' s me, not anyone else on this Board. I would go 22 30 . MR. TOMAN: 30, 32 it is, I' ll make sure 23 and if there' s some reason I can' t, I' ll swing the steps to the side if I have to. But I' ll step 24 them into the deck. MS . KOWALSKI : And steps can' t be any ° 25 wider than six feet . MR. TOMAN: Okay, six it is and 32 it is . L April 22 , 2004 19 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 3 objections . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm not saying I 'm 5 for or against your application, but I do have an issue and I'm going to be as nice as I can about 6 this, but I think the survey' s incorrect, reasons being I did some research on this because I pass 7 by it every single day, and it' s very close to the road, so I did some measurements, hand 8 measurements with rulers and your 40 feet goes actually to the road. Your 40 foot goes past the 9 utility pole to the public road. So I spoke to a respected licensed surveyor and asked about -- not 10 your particular application, just in general -- do telephone poles, are they are private property? 11 And they said no, they don' t put telephone poles on private property. There' s an easement, and a 12 guide wire is typically on the easement as well, so I said well, I'm just talking in general, if an 13 application comes before me . So he said on the application to put a pole on private property is 14 in a private community on a little private road, but on the major public highway on a dedicated 15 road, telephone poles do not go on private property, which yours shows it is on your 16 property, and actually yours goes two feet beyond. And ironically, I happened to speak to the manager 17 of LIPA, overhead lines in Brentwood, and I asked him the same questions, and he said absolutely not 18 would there be a telephone pole on private property for liability reasons . Just think about 19 it, if someone got hurt, a child ran into a pole, we' d be sued. We don' t put it on private 20 property. We put it on our easement, as well as the guide wires we do not put on private property, 21 if we can help it . There are occasions that the guide wires do go, but we move them; they' re 22 another liability, that' s why they put the yellow plastic on it as well . So my concern here is that 23 the survey may be inaccurate for the setbacks . You know, we just need a benchmark to go by, and I 24 personally don' t feel I have a benchmark because it shows the telephone pole on your property. 25 MR. TOMAN: Telephone pole is on our property and they' re going to move it . April 22 , 2004 20 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They are going to move it? 3 MR. TOMAN: Yeah, we've already -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can I get a letter 4 from LIPA stating that? MRS . TOMAN: It' s not a LIPA pole, it' s a 5 New York Telephone pole . It' s not a LIPA pole . The pole is owned by the telephone company. I 6 think it' s New York Telephone . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But Verizon. 7 MR. TOMAN: I also spoke to LIPA. I spoke to their architects, and they put me in touch with 8 the people who are in charge of that pole and at no cost to the Town or they' re going to move the 9 telephone pole because they made the mistake of putting it on our property, and the encroachment 10 is over the wires . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I 11 brought that up. MR. TOMAN: We brought it up immediately 12 when we bought the house . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think LIPA owns 13 the poles . MR. TOMAN: No, not this particular pole . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, New York Tel can own a pole . 15 MRS . TOMAN: New York Tel, that' s who it is . Some of the new poles are owned by LIPA, some 16 of the newer ones apparently, but this is an old pole, and it' s them, and they said -- the head of 17 LIPA sent me over to them, and said that if that' s what the survey says it' s not a problem and they 18 will move it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I clear this up with you? Whenever there' s a situation, take 20 Boisler Avenue, which is 66 feet wide, you' re going to see poles on private property. The same 21 situation is the case here because of that huge sweep of those roads, mainly LIPA poles, you' re 22 always going to see this in that situation and that' s the reason it ended up on their property. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: According to LIPA, they do not put them on there, and they will move 24 them when they find them. MRS . TOMAN: They had no problem to move 25 it . He was looking at the best possible way with the Town, whatever that means, and it' s not our April 22 , 2004 21 1 2 expense . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because your 3 property buts up to a public road, which I felt was very unusual and not safe, I mean, you step 4 off your property onto a -- MR. TOMAN: One of the reasons we cleared 5 that whole thing was to actually expose that and so people could actually see each other ' cause 6 that corner was -- you know, so we cleared it and we' re going to keep stuff there . 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Could we get a letter for the record stating? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to go by the survey that these people submitted and rely 9 on, you know, John Metzgar to have done the job properly, as they are . If Mr. Metzgar is saying 10 that and noting that that pole is within your boundary, New York Tel has -- 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You've already addressed that issue with New York Telephone . 12 They have already agreed to move it . They must have written you a letter saying that? 13 MRS . TOMAN: No . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not 14 negligence . New York Tel doesn' t have to respond to them in any way other than to move the pole . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The chairman can disagree with me, but I would like the letter for 16 the record just stating that it' s your property and they will move it, and I will be comfortable . 17 MS . KOWALSKI : I have another idea because it may be difficult for them to get that 18 letter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It will take them 19 forever to get that letter. MS . KOWALSKI : Do you have a copy of the 20 deed, the deed will describe the property and that' s what the surveyors go by is the deed, so. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I guess LIPA must have gone by the deed as well . 22 MS . KOWALSKI : No, they didn' t . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Vince, I worked 23 on the line for 18 years, and we put the poles where we needed to put the poles, and this was a 24 long time vacant, you can tell by the way the road is . The road actually on their property, the 25 right of way is on the corner of their property. It' s the way it was delineated many, April 22 , 2004 22 1 2 many years ago, and you probably have the right to go to the Town and say, hey, when are you going to 3 move that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Whatever the 4 chairwoman wants to do is fine by me . She' s the boss . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would object to asking NYNEX, basically months waiting for NYNEX. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Maybe if we just have a copy of the deed, that would do the trick. 7 MS . KOWALSKI : As I recall, Vince was concerned about where the property lines were, the 8 setback from the property line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The survey is 9 what' s going to give you that . The survey gives you that . You' re relying on the license of that 10 surveyor. He' s licensed to survey the property, and he' s the one to tell you what the bounds of 11 this property are, and I think you should rely on that . If you' re going to send these people to 12 Verizon, you' re going to call them up and say, we want a letter, you are not going to get that for 13 months, I can tell you that right now. It' s not something that they need to do. If they told you 14 they' re going to move it, and it' s not any subject at all of this variance application. What I hear 15 you saying is you' re relying on that pole being on their property line in some way and if we look at 16 the survey, we can see that it is not . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re basing that 17 he' s correct, surveyors do make mistakes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you it 18 wouldn' t make a difference, it' s his license and we' re relying on them. So either we make our 19 decision based on the survey, which is what we need to rely on, which is what you' re relying on 20 or not, one way or the other. But I can tell you, if you try to get NYNEX involved in this, I don' t 21 know why we should keep an applicant in any way because they want to put an open deck on the front 22 of their house, an eight foot open deck, why we should hold them up for months for something that 23 they may not be able to get . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The original deed 24 goes back to 1953 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm just saying I 25 think requiring them to have some kind of thing from NYNEX is not . April 22 , 2004 23 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm not saying I ' m for or against this, I just needed a benchmark to 3 get an accurate setback. I personally did not think we ,had one . If you had already spoken to 4 this person -- MRS . TOMAN: You don' t think the survey' s 5 accurate? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just by the person 6 I spoke to, it shouldn' t be there and you' re saying, you' re right, it is on my property, I need 7 to move it . But the person you spoke to at New York Tel could fax you just a note saying, yes, 8 we' ll move the pole . MRS . TOMAN: I don' t know if they would 9 okay that communication like that . I don' t know what it takes for them to make that communication, 10 but the pole is on my property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re not denying 11 that . Everyone knows that the road is too, it' s seven -- 12 MR. TOMAN: We told the Town take it if you want it . But take it off our survey and you 13 can have it . You can have the poles, too. MRS . TOMAN: We are adjusting all of that . 14 MR. TOMAN: It' s all being addressed. It' s not in our time though. 15 MRS . TOMAN: Can I ask why the pole, why that has to do with the deck? 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I use that as an example because I feel the benchmark, meaning the 17 survey, I didn' t think was correct, so we' re saying 32 , maybe it' s 30 feet . Maybe in front of 18 the pole it' s 30 feet . I'm not for or against the application, I'm saying is the benchmark correct, 19 where we' re going from here . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just that when we 20 give the decision, and the written decision that our figures are accurate and sometimes down the 21 line maybe 15, 20 years, somebody else might want to do something else with the property that we 22 have our dimensions correct . MRS . TOMAN: All right . So I can provide 23 you with the deed. The deed does give them the setbacks . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your intersection is a very busy intersection. And we' re voting on 25 this to give you permission to sit on that deck and have a very nice cup of iced tea in the April 22 , 2004 24 1 2 evening or something, and God forbid something happens, a car comes flying in there, a lawyer 3 will nit-pick and say, well, the application' s wrong and the variance was wrong, everything' s 4 wrong, and we all get sued. So I want to get an accurate benchmark so we can get accurate 5 decisions; that was my position on that . I wasn' t trying to beat you up. I'm just saying we want 6 accurate numbers, and if the chairwoman says no, to all of what I said, then that' s fine, she' s the 7 boss . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the only area you can actually fill on this property is the 9 portion on Main Bayview and that is both the portion that extends to the west and the portion 10 that extends to the south, so to speak, so you are going to cover this foundation in some way; is 11 that correct? MR. TOMAN: That' s why we want the deck. 12 We want to put the deck in then put lattice in front of it and make it cover it, totally cover 13 it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then you' re 14 going to plant in front of that? MR. TOMAN: Yes . Then we' re going to 15 plant in front of that and landscape . MRS . TOMAN: As far as the road -- as far 16 as the boundary around the road, further on North Main Bayview they have the low decorative cement 17 walls so that' s what I thought we' d do the perimeter. 18 MR. TOMAN: Stay a few feet on our property and put a nice decorative wall . We don' t 19 want the traffic either. I don' t mind the headlights, I got shades, but actually I'm glad 20 ' that the foundation is up high. If God forbid anything does come through, it hits the 21 foundation. It doesn' t hit us on the deck or anyone in the house . But we' re putting a brick 22 wall, we' re going to put, if you pass our house and go all the way down and make the left, all the 23 houses on the water they have those beautiful low cement decorative walls; we would love to put one 24 of those a few feet in from the property line right around the front . ` 25 MRS . TOMAN: And a hedge behind it . MR. TOMAN: Instead of a guard rail April 22 , 2004 25 1 2 because someone once suggested, well, call the Town and put a guard rail up, we don' t want 3 that . We' d rather have a nice looking wall and make it look country, make it look nice . Stately, 4 nice . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' re talking the 5 walls on Paradise Point Road? MR. TOMAN: Yes . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MR. TOMAN: So something like that maybe a 7 nice low, maybe slate I don' t know, but we do want to put a wall up to keep a barrier between us and 8 the road on an icy day. We don' t want no one sliding in. We have kids . We' re definitely 9 conscious about that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vince, would a copy of 10 the deed satisfy you? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Me, no. But it' s 11 your choice . I just wanted to get, a right benchmark to go by. Somebody told you the pole 12 was on your property? MRS . TOMAN: The surveyor. 13 MR. TOMAN: It' s right on the survey. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you contacted 14 someone from LIPA or New York Tel and said yes, it' s on your property. 15 MRS . TOMAN: Diane Janick from LIPA, I spoke to the architect, she' s their architectural 16 engineer and then she put me in with her boss who then gave me someone at New York Tel . But I don' t 17 know what it would take for him to put a communication in writing that they' re going to do 18 this, but I can try. You know, I can bring you the deed and I can try as a plus also to get the 19 communication, I hope that -- I' d ask that you don' t hold up my deck based on the communication 20 from New York Telephone . I don' t know that I can guarantee they will do it in writing. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did they give you a time frame when they would move it or they 22 didn' t say? MRS . TOMAN: They said -- actually, they 23 made it sound like it was not a problem. So it may not be an issue, it may not, maybe I could get 24 it in writing, I may be able to. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They did make it 25 sound like it wasn' t a problem? MRS . TOMAN: Right . April 22 , 2004 26 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' ll tell you this, it' s not a problem for them to move it at all 3 because it' s their liability, but I can tell you the engineering involved in moving that one pole 4 can take a long time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with Jim. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because they' re going to have to find a place to place that pole 6 other than the road. MRS . TOMAN: They said they might go 7 underground. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Either that or 8 they may put two poles in. MRS . TOMAN: They did make the other 9 suggestion we might get another pole . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you still 10 looking at this? They still might go over your property. They' ll need an easement from you. 11 MR. TOMAN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: See, I'm telling 12 you, I worked for 18 years for Cablevision in doing this . I can tell you that me, personally, I 13 was in charge of construction for three years, would not write you a letter, my corporate office 14 would have to because it' s liability. If someone hits that pole while it' s on your property and I 15 know it, it' s not going to happen, I'm not going to put my livelihood in danger of that . I 16 recognize the fact that if this Board asks you to go to NYNEX, you' re going to be a long time 17 getting a letter from them saying that they' re going to move the pole . - So my own personal 18 feeling is that -- and I'm speaking now to the chairwoman -- is that this application doesn' t 19 depend on that pole being there or not being there . This application depends on the survey, 20 and, yes, I agree that surveyors are wrong, if you have a deed that gives you the meets and bounds, 21 my personal feeling that wouldn' t be enough to satisfy me, but it should be enough to satisfy 22 this Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you give us then 23 a copy of your survey when you do your final CO of the house? 24 MR. TOMAN: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that agreeable? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Fine by me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? April 22, 2004 27 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm lost because we have a survey right now, so what are we asking 3 for? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it would 4 be interesting to know, we have a variable deck here, we have a deck that meanders at five feet, 5 we have a deck that as it goes around the corner of the house facing west -- that' s almost west, 6 okay, it then exceeds it says seven feet here, but you' re telling us eight feet because I assume the 7 deck is seven feet but you have that little bit of overhang and so on and so forth. So it could be 8 as much as eight feet okay, which we appreciate because we want the max, okay, but we' re not 9 surveyors, and it' s only going to be that final survey that you' re going to have to submit to the 10 Building Department anyway, which is going to fall within the category of the 32 feet that you' re 11 requesting in reference to a setback. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe it will be 12 moved by then. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 've lost 13 something. We have the survey now, right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is not on here is the 32 foot setback. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The 32 foot setback' s on there I 'm -- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But then they agreed to move the stairs back further. 17 MR. TOMAN: The stairs will be sunk in, it will be 32 . 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm writing it, and if the Board concurs, I'm going to write it 32 19 feet at its closest to the front property line as certified on the survey; is that what you' re 20 asking for? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what 21 we' re asking for. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s fine . MS . KOWALSKI : I just had a question, the 23 survey shows it' s 30 feet not 32 . MRS . TOMAN: Taking the steps out . 24 MS . KOWALSKI : If you build the steps inside the deck, how are you going to get out of 25 the house to go onto the deck? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s their April 22 , 2004 28 1 2 architectural problem. MR. TOMAN: We' ll work it out with our 3 architect, Chris Krause . We' ll work it out . If we have to, I said I' ll flip the steps to the side 4 if I have to. 32 is the number, 32 ' s the number. I won' t be any closer. 5 MS . KOWALSKI : I understand, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else 6 that would like to speak on this application? If not, I' ll close the hearing and reserve decision 7 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 9 Francois and Suzanne Latapie . We need a resolution to adjourn it . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. MS . KOWALSKI : It' s going to be the June 11 meeting. (See minutes for resolution. ) 12 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is 13 for William Bauer on Skunk Lane . He wishes to build an accessory apartment, sir. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want an accessory apartment, not a bed and breakfast; is that right, 15 an accessory apartment? MS . KOWALSKI : Is this a one bedroom? 16 MR. BAUER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a one bedroom, 17 and I have no problems with that . If you would just let me go through something to verify with 18 you. Square foot of the existing house is 2 , 038 square feet? 19 MR. BAUER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re going to 20 have a one bedroom 620 square foot accessory apartment? 21 MR. BAUER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Parking, I see you 22 have two driveways, actually, you have the unpaved driveway and the stone driveway; is the stone 23 driveway sufficient so that a car could turn around in there and wouldn' t have to back out? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . MR. BAUER: No, it isn' t . But the 25 driveway is the double wide with extra it' s probably -- a car' s about seven feet wide . I ' d April 22 , 2004 29 1 2 say it' s close to -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I drove in and I 3 couldn' t turn around. MR. BAUER: I wouldn' t turn around. I 4 don' t turn around in the driveway that I use . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the other driveway, what do you use the other driveway for? 6 MR. BAUER: That' s my access to that side of the house. 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The unpaved driveway will be for your personal use? 8 MR. BAUER: Yes, they' re both the same, actually, they both have stone on them. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you done? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do I have to be? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Just a couple 11 others . When was the house built, sir? MR. BAUER: Around 1840 . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you very much. Now I'm done . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t have 14 any questions . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Vincent? 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . I visited the site, took the tour, the nickel tour. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You got the nickel tour? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I did. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the plan, Mr. Bauer, looking at the house, standing in front 19 of it to the left side, the apartment is actually downstairs to the left side; is that correct? 20 MR. BAUER: That' s exactly right . You walk in the center front door, then you' re in the 21 living room, and I'm going to put a little partition up to partition it off . There' s an 22 archway between the living room and the dining room right now. I'm going from that archway 23 straight out and across to the wall to leave the staircase, that' s for the whole upstairs of the 24 house on my side . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the entire 25 upstairs and whole right-hand side of the house is all owner-occupied? April 22 , 2004 30 1 2 MR. BAUER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re going to be 3 upstairs? MR. BAUER: Yes . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that would like 5 to speak for or against this application? If not I ' ll close the hearing and reserve decision until 6 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. ------------------------------------------------- 8 MR. SANTACROCE : This is on the application of Santacroce again. I just wanted to 9 make clear, I just spoke with Arlene again, that' s the architect at Penny Lumber. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is for Santacroce . 11 MS . KOWALSKI : This is on the application of Santacroce . 12 MR. SANTACROCE : Joseph Santacroce again. The total square footage of the house was 3 , 100 , 13 the first floor apartment was 1, 040 and the primary residence was 2 , 070 . She said the total 14 square footage was to add those two together. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Tell you what, 15 because you have submitted two sets of plans, and we would like to act on this at the next meeting, 16 it would really be to your benefit to actually just put it in a one page letter to us so that we 17 have all the facts in the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Exactly the way that 18 you' re going to have it . MS . KOWALSKI : As changed. 19 MR. SANTACROCE : When would you like that? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As soon as possible . 20 MR. SANTACROCE : I could probably get it back to you today. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Within a week because we don' t have our meeting until Wednesday but 22 nevertheless, it should be accurate because if somebody comes and looks at it years from now and 23 it' s inaccurate . MR. SANTACROCE : That' s why I wanted to 24 go talk to her today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was that 25 total again? MR. SANTACROCE: She told me the first April 22 , 2004 31 1 2 floor apartment is 1, 040 .4 , then the primary residence is 2 , 070 square feet . She said if you 3 add those two numbers together, that gives you the total square footage of the entire house . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 3 , 050? MR. SANTACROCE : Okay. And the garage was 5 490 , I'm not sure if that' s included in the square footage . That' s not living space . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 3 , 150 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 3 , 125 . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 8 existing? MR. SANTACROCE : She did not give me the 9 existing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you could get 10 that . MR. SANTACROCE : I will do that and I ' ll 11 get that back to you guys . MS . KOWALSKI : The Board won' t be meeting 12 to vote on it until May 6th. MR. SANTACROCE : I' ll get it to you as 13 soon as possible, thanks . ------------------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is now a hearing for Locke McClean, Fishers Island, who' s had a few 15 changes over the year. Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Hi, Richard Lark, Main Road, 16 Cutchogue for the applicant, good morning. As stated in the published notice, this is 17 a rehearing in order to correct a misunderstanding of Appeal Number 5388, which granted a front yard 18 variance from the environment -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chairman, is 19 this a rehearing? MR. LARK: Yes, ma' am. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They've changed their -- 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then the Board has to vote to hear it . 22 MS . KOWALSKI : The Board hasn' t voted on the rehearing, it was your request for it so it 23 was advertised like a new application, so that you could put the prior information into the record. 24 It wasn' t voted on as a rehearing. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We need the 25 unanimous vote of the Board to have a rehearing. MR. LARK: Okay, well it really is a April 22 , 2004 32 1 2 rehearing -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, want to do 3 it, Ruth? MR. LARK: -- in reality. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' ll make a motion to rehear the application of Locke McLean, 5 Application Number 5388 (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 MR. LARK: Sorry, I was rushing. I had assumed that that was what was happening. That 7 5888 did, in fact, in the resolution grant a front yard variance from 55 feet to 27 and-a-half feet 8 for the property for an addition, attached addition on the northerly side of the McLean' s 9 house . The Board will recall just looking quickly at the surveys there' s three front yards on this 10 property, and so on the northerly side, which is on the gloaming, which was the subject of the 11 prior appeal, prior application. There was confusion in the hearings, it 12 was two, we had September and a December appearance before the Board, and there was a 13 little bit of confusion from the original application because the original application, if 14 the Board will recall, was for a detached garage with a 15 foot setback. And after discussions 15 with Mrs . McLean, who is here today, and members of the Board, while you were visiting the property 16 in Fishers Island and what developed at the Board hearing, was that due to the proximity of that 17 detached garage, primarily due to the proximity of it to the gloaming being only 15 feet away, the 18 Board was reluctant to in effect create a possible traffic hazard. So the applicant was told, go get 19 -- look see if you can do any alternative relief . Check with the Building Department . I 20 took Mrs . McLean that very day in September to the Building Department and there was a long 21 discussion with the building inspector as to what was living space what was not living space, what 22 would be required, because if the Board will recall, there was a greenhouse in the original 23 application and the question was could that be a segue as part of living space from the attached 24 house to the living space, the addition. After the planners and her designers and the Building 25 Department discussed, and in concert with Mr. Horning it was decided, you better not do it April 22 , 2004 33 1 2 that way, just attach the building itself right to the existing house . 3 So an amended application, if you would, was then presented in December and therein was the 4 confusion as to whether this attached structure would, in fact, be a garage, would be part of the 5 house, part of living space or was storage, just what was going to happen. And the record is there 6 before you, the minutes, and I thought it was clear, but apparently it wasn' t clear because 7 you' re going to be very pleased to know -- and I did not know this -- that the Building Department 8 reads your entire write-up when you do an appeal . I only thought they dealt with the 9 action, you know what you resolved, what you approved or disapproved because when this problem 10 came up of attached living space or a garage, just what, the building inspector said, yeah, you got 11 the variance, but I think they gave it to you for the garage that' s what it says in the statement of 12 facts; they didn' t give it to you for the living space, and that' s a change in use from what you 13 applied for. So I said there' s no driveway, there' s no 14 anything. I said okay, you' re reading the whole thing, so he read the whole thing that it was not 15 what I thought it was at any time what Mrs . McLean thought it was . So after consultation with your 16 clerk and looking up things, I thought the best way to go was to petition for a rehearing to 17 straighten out the problem because I was totally unaware that no matter what you put in that, in 18 your write-ups as you call them, he reads the whole thing very literally and he interprets it as 19 part of the overall, even though the resolution might be different from what you put on before . 20 It was an interesting thing that I learned out of the process, and I just wanted to make you aware 21 of it that they read the whole thing. I know they' re on the same piece of paper. It' s just I 22 know attorneys just read the resolution, what did they grant, what they did not grant . 23 MR. LARK: That' s it . So in any event, that' s why we' re here, and in the process over the 24 winter, I had another occasion to talk to -George Horning and I asked George, did I misunderstand 25 things and everything and he said, no, you didn' t . He said, he keeps records of everything. April 22 , 2004 34 1 2 He said I' ll write a letter to the Board unfortunately, he had some surgery and I guess it 3 just came in yesterday or the day before and when I looked at it, and basically he had -- and I have 4 to not correct him, but point out to you -- that he uses the word "inhabitable" as . occupiable, 5 whereas I think as under Mr. Webster' s definition it' s habitable . But he calls it inhabitable 6 because in my conversations with him, he in the second paragraph -- on the first paragraph on the 7 second page, he used the words "a new inhabitable addition. " But I know what he means by it . I 8 just wanted to clarify it because he' s used that word with me several times, so I just thought I ' d 9 pass that on in candor to you. So to clear up that' s why we' re here, the 10 whole purpose was, as to the use, as it turned out with the designer, they were going to leave the 11 existing garage because there was no safety issue due to the ways the cars came in, they came in 12 parallel to the gloaming and so it was always on site, the driveway. So there was none of this, if 13 you would back out on to the public road, and they were going to then use that building for what, in 14 fact, it always was used for before; it became a storage area, and that was a garage . And then due 15 to the topography to the way the addition attaches to the house, in other words, the road coming up 16 on that front yard is much lower as it approached the house, it was a natural to put a basement in 17 there, which would have been the floor of the original garage application. So that will be the 18 storage area, and then habitable or living . space, which is an addition to their home, will be on the 19 second floor. I attached -- the designer gave you a sketch of where the elevations and what the 20 floor plan would look like, what you approved in the prior variance . 21 So it' s basically that we' re here today to clarify a misunderstanding, and I guess I 'm 22 equally guilty. I probably should have made it clear in that December thing because the Building 23 Department has interpreted it as, no, you got a variance, you can build it but you've got to use 24 it as a garage . That isn' t what the applicants amended their petition for, and Mrs . McLean is 25 here today if I left out something because she participated actively, not only talking to April 22 , 2004 35 1 2 Mr. Horning, but I think some of the members of the Board while you were on-site and took all of 3 your concerns in, and that' s why she changed everything, hopefully, to accommodate . 4 Sarah, do you have anything to add? MS . MCLEAN: No, nothing, other than just 5 to apologize for not having gotten to the December meeting. Unfortunately, the ferry was canceled 6 that morning, which is why I was unable to get here . I hope you all understand that what we' re 7 now trying to apply for and what we' re trying to get a permit for. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My understanding for the new addition it' s going to be living space 9 upstairs, and storage downstairs . MS . MCLEAN: And nothing to do with a 10 garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the original 11 garage that we saw down there is going to stay there? 12 MS . MCLEAN: Going to stay as it' s always been, and as I think Mr. Lark pointed out, as no 13 issues just safety. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Safety because you' re 14 coming parallel . MS . MCLEAN: This is considerably further 15 setback from the road than our original separate building that we had proposed, but unfortunately, 16 because we have these three front yards, we still need some sort of variance . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, can I go on this one since it' s my application? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Lark, in 19 describing the new addition, how are we going to describe it in reference to living area? Are we 20 going to describe it as a one-story, a one and-a-half story? 21 MR. LARK: That' s a good question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because, Mrs . 22 McLean, you' re a very nice lady and we would dearly love to come back to your house again and 23 see that magnificent swimming pool like we did last year; however, we don' t want to make this any 24 more complex than it is . MR. LARK: It' s a good point, would it be 25 clarified if you dealt with the builder and everything. Is it a story and-a-half or just a April 22 , 2004 36 1 2 one-story? One story with a basement . MS . KOWALSKI : Raised basement out of the 3 ground. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the floor 4 above has a cathedral ceiling in it because you have dog house dormers in the front of it, and in 5 the rear of it, which is a shed dormer to add light to the ceiling of the house above . So we 6 really probably should call that a one and-a-half story. 7 MR. LARK: That' s what I thought . MS . MCLEAN: You don' t have to count the 8 basement? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 9 MR. LARK: That' s what I thought . I understand. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should refer to that as a one and-a-half story because if we 11 don' t refer to that as a one and-a-half story, the Building Department' s going to interpret it -- 12 MR. LARK: Now that I think about it, in that context you' re absolutely right, did you do 13 the roof line it' s because the builder was messed up as to how he was just going to do the roof 14 line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that going to be a 15 flat roof? MR. LARK: No, gable ends . So it matches 16 or blends . MS . KOWALSKI : So it' s a raised basement 17 with a one and-a-half story on top of that, right? MR. LARK: Right . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Cathedral ceiling, no floor but a one and-a-half story. I'm 19 going to say no floor on second story? MR. LARK: No . Because it' s just the one 20 window on the end as you saw. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the only 21 thing you' ll have there is you' ll have beams going across . 22 MS . MCLEAN: I'm not sure it' s going to be that high. My husband and I both don' t like the 23 idea of it being that high, but it will be more than just a nine foot ceiling; it will be higher. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . I remember the site . I remember the architectural April 22 , 2004 37 1 2, drawing was very beautiful, nice drawing. Well done . What we considered with what you started 3 with on the other side of the garage, it was a job well done . I'm sorry about the misunderstanding 4 in the interpretation there . MS . MCLEAN: George, in his letters is 5 somewhat critical of us for not applying for what we wanted right from the beginning, and I 'm afraid 6 that was a lot of the misunderstanding between us, our builder and George . We didn' t have fair 7 advice in the beginning that we could attach it . We thought just the opposite, that we weren' t 8 allowed to attach it, which is why we wasted -- MR. LARK: To amplify that this was the 9 application where they moved the house from off the one road, which was getting bombarded with 10 golf balls, they had to move it to the other side, if you remember. They had to get a variance for 11 that . That' s why the old garage was there and everything else, and what she' s saying is too, the 12 Building Department was quite critical when the Board approved it and wouldn'.t allow anything 13 because of this darned three front yard concept . So they were up against it, then, to make matters 14 worse, was the east side they deemed as the rear yard. 15 MS . MCLEAN: Then we had problems getting our swimming pool in. Anyway, I 'm sorry you've 16 seen us so much over the years . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s been a pleasure 17 to see you. MR. LARK: That was the difficulty. So 18 because of the three front yards, it got to be a nightmare . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm very happy to 20 see you again. I hope that we will not see each other for quite a while . I don' t have any 21 questions . It was clearly my understanding the minutes, that if you wanted to attach it to the 22 house, basement part of the main dwelling, part of the principal dwelling, it was no longer accessory 23 or anything else . MR. LARK: The lesson really to be 24 learned is that I never realized that this Building Department reads every word you put down, 25 and if anything is subject to how they want to interpret it, even if it' s not in your April 22 , 2004 38 1 2 resolution -- legally, it' s the resolution that counts not all the verbiage before, and I pointed 3 that out, and it was just wasting my breath. And, of course, she' s had the added 4 expense of the rehearing application, and all the other stuff, and it' s kind of unfair. But we got 5 to straighten it out because they won' t budge . It' s an unfortunate situation. She should get her 6 money back, but I don' t know if you can do that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, Town 7 Board. MR. LARK: I know you have to apply to 8 the Town Board, and she doesn' t want to make any more of a big deal of this than we have here . 9 If there' s no questions, then I thank you for your consideration. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just let me ask Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I fear saying 11 anything that she may have to come back here again, so -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I don' t see anybody in the audience, so I' ll close the hearing 13 and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 14 ------------------------------------------------- (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken. ) 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a motion to reconvene? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. All in 17 favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members responded in 18 favor. ) BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Opposed? So moved. 19 Our next application is George Anastasiadis . How are you this afternoon? 20 MR. ANASTASIADIS : Fine, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want to put on a 21 deck and you will exceed your lot coverage by one percent? 22 MR. ANASTASIADIS : Right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The proposed deck is 23 to the rear of the building and how large is this deck? 24 MR. ANASTASIADIS : 10 by 33 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to look at that . For some strange reason I'm out of the April 22 , 2004 39 1 2 file, I'm going to look over your shoulder. If you would call me back. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As I can see here 4 you' re having a proposed addition plus a deck? MR. ANASTASIADIS : Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the deck is what put you over the addition? 6 MR. ANASTASIADIS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The deck is not 7 to be enclosed, correct? The deck will remain open to the sky? 8 MR. ANASTASIADIS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions at 9 this time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, not a thing. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the percentage? 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just one percent over. It' s not a -- 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Oh, one percent? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re going to reroute your driveway or move it around? 16 MR. ANASTASIADIS : No . The driveway stays where it is . Probably I will have to go a little 17 bit around. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you don' t plan 18 on speeding in your driveway then? So it should be okay. 19 MR. ANASTASIADIS : Never do. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in 20 the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? If not, I' ll close the 21 hearing, reserving decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I' ll let you know, we have our special meeting May 6th, and then 23 within a week to 10 days you should have it in writing, but you can call on the 7th, and then 24 know it' s at least approved, and then take it to the Building Department a week to 10 days after 25 that . MR. ANASTASIADIS : Thank you. April 22 , 2004 40 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re welcome . ------------------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mr. Romanelli on Cedar Beach Road wants to add on 4 to an existing dwelling which will be less than 20 feet on a single side yard. 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is anyone here representing Mr. Romanelli? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Samuels . There' s a lot of renovation. 7 MR. SAMUELS : Really just to answer any questions unless I can help to understand what 8 we' re looking to do there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Want me to 9 start? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jerry. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Samuels, how are you today? 11 MR. SAMUELS : Very well, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautiful spot . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a magnificent spot . Do you notice that there' s a 13 little jog in the northern, I guess we' re going to call that the north side . 14 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no 15 change in the degree of non-conformities on that side; is that correct, other than the fact that 16 we' re going to the primarily second story? MR. SAMUELS : Yes, there is a second 17 story by the former definition of increasing non-conformity. I would say no, we are adding 18 also into that setback yard, but we are doing so to a lesser extent than it is currently 19 non-conforming. But by the Building Department' s definition, we are increasing the non-conformity. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s that little porch that I'm looking at that' s actually 21 sticking out there right now? MR. SAMUELS : Which we' re not touching 22 that, right, that just all stays the way it is, and over the existing, there' s an existing second 23 floor but we' re rebuilding that, there' s extremely low head room in the existing second floor, so we 24 would like to reframe it so he has eight feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So he can stand up . 25 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, John' s pretty tall . And then we' re extending also a little bit towards April 22 , 2004 41 1 2 the bay, which is less encroaching than the existing encroachment, but still is in the 3 required side yard setback. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' re removing 4 that existing screened pooch, then you' re going to build over that or just take it out? 5 MR. SAMUELS : We' re taking it out, and we' re building a new porch -- a new portion of the 6 house, which is a little bit bigger. I think the existing screen porch is something like eight feet 7 wide and we' re going to 12 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have anything else, Ruth. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 10 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have some . 13 The existing wood frame shower enclosure is going to remain? 14 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 15 distance there to the side yard? MR. SAMUELS : Six foot nine and-a-half 16 inches . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So that' s the -- 17 MR. SAMUELS : The funny way that line comes . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The odd what' s that six -- 19 MR. SAMUELS : 9 . 65 inches, it' s the surveyor' s program there, very accurate . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That is inches or is that 6 . 9 is it -- 21 MR. SAMUELS : It' s 6 foot, 9 . 56 inches . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All these numbers 22 are a little odd to me . MR. SAMUELS : When we work with the 23 surveyor' s drawing, we leave their limits and their order of magnitude . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So this new basement access door, is that a Bilco door? 25 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, it is . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s 10 foot to April 22 , 2004 42 1 2 that point, that' s what that line indicates right along side it . 3 MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct . Then our new addition is the 15 foot 8 . 39 inches, that' s 4 the actual new structure that we' re proposing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, because the 5 arrow doesn' t point to there . See the 15 . 8? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . It points to 6 the line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It points to that 7 line, but that is where -- that corner. MR. SAMUELS : That' s the corner of the 8 actual building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the 15 . 8 9 whatever. So you' re not going any closer to the side yard, the existing side yard? 10 MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks like you' re 11 going a little bit away, the 14 . 948 , that ' s the extent of that addition? 12 MR. SAMUELS : As an existing chimney, yes . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the chimney? 14 MR. SAMUELS : That' s the chimney, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s this 15 little jog? MR. SAMUELS : Little tiny jog, that' s the 16 fireplace on the house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mine doesn' t 17 point to that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mine doesn' t either, 18 points to a line . MR. SAMUELS : A line which is equal to 19 that . That' s a parallel line, a line parallel to the property line . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right that little dashed line there -- 21 MR. SAMUELS : That' s right . That' s the way the computer, so we can line them all up . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . MR. SAMUELS : Fully read the numbers, 23 otherwise they would tend to overlap a little bit . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So your 24 existing -- I'm reading the notice of disapproval -- your existing is 14 . 9 feet, that' s 25 your existing setback, you have no intent to increase that in any way? April 22 , 2004 43 1 2 MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct . I would say that our existing is 10 . 65 inches because that 3 is to that little -- it' s actually a bathroom. It' s a little funny jog, that is, I would say is 4 the closest regardless of what the disapproval says . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, so seven feet, 6 . 9 -- 6 MR. SAMUELS : Right . I would say that' s a structure, and it should be considered existing. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right . I thought that really was you can' t go into it from 8 the house . MR. SAMUELS : Two things happening, 9 there' s a shower enclosure, and then there' s the actual shaded portion of the bathroom, that 10 bathroom is the part that' s 10 . 65 inches, that is the setback of the closest encroachment of the 11 existing structure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . What the 12 shower part - MR. SAMUELS : The shower, it' s really 13 just a fence . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . I didn' t 14 consider that . MR. SAMUELS : Right, I agree . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But that' s the seven -- the 6 . 95 is to that shower? 16 MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And then to the 17 other is 10 feet? MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct, yes . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So if you didn' t have the shower you would be 10 feet? 19 MR. SAMUELS : Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think that' s it . 20 Your lot coverage is good, you' re not increasing anything. Removing the screen porch, that' s just 21 you' re going up with -- you' re going to put the new addition on top of that . 22 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And move that 23 porch over to what the south? MR. SAMUELS : Yeah, basically it' s in the 24 envelope . We' re taking an existing deck and pulling it out, so we can extend that other 25 rectangular dark shaded portion addition to the existing kitchen. April 22 , 2004 44 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, I ' ll leave you alone, thank you, Tom. 3 MR. SAMUELS : You' re welcome . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience 4 that would like to speak for or against this application? Any other questions from the Board 5 members? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I move that we close this hearing and reserve decision until later. 7 1 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Corwins, who wish to put on a second floor 9 addition on their home on Oak Street in Greenport seeking the same setbacks I believe . 10 MS . CORWIN: Yes, in fact, the same footprint . This is Marilyn Corwin for the 11 record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you just like to 12 tell us what you' re doing? MS . CORWIN: We' re just going to add a 13 second story on, three bedrooms and a bathroom. It' s the exact same footprint, we' re not going out 14 anywhere . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just going up? 15 MS . CORWIN: Just going up. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sounds good. Noisy 16 down there with the kids? MS . CORWIN: We have been there for 33 17 years, you don' t even hear them, once in a while . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You choose not to 18 hear them. MS . CORWIN: I like kids, the sounds of 19 kids is okay. It' s just time to get a little more room. 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Vince? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick question I 21 have is, the first floor will stay a masonry structure? 22 MS . CORWIN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the second 23 floor will be wood? MS . CORWIN: Yes . That' s my builder. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it' s a cute design and best of luck with that . 25 MS . CORWIN: Thanks, Mr. Orlando. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? April 22 , 2004 45 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Marilyn and I've sat on a few committees together, so I know that 4 kids don' t disrupt her. MS . CORWIN: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, my son used to work out in her basement . 6 MS . CORWIN: So he knows how small it is . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is a house 7 that I have personal experience with concerning my childhood. So no objection at all . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You really got around, you know that . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I have is are you going to cover the cement on the 10 first story; are you going to make it all wood, what kind of siding are you planning on? That' s 11 going to stay? MS . CORWIN: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to stucco it? 13 MS . CORWIN: Yes . MS . KOWALSKI : I just need your name for 14 the record. MR. FINNE : Finne, Dan Finne . 15 MS . KOWALSKI : And your answer was? MR. FINNE : The bottom half is going to 16 stay stucco, but it' s going to be like a barn wood that separates the piece the top from the bottom, 17 and the top up it' s going to be like one of the vinyl shakes . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this the most 19 current survey you have, the 1971 or do you have a more current one? 20 MS . CORWIN: Yes, that' s the most current . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or 22 against this application? Any further questions from the Board? 23 MS . KOWALSKI : I know Marilyn wanted to mention one other fact that came up today, it' s 24 brand new information that you just heard. MS . CORWIN: On my plans did you notice 25 that we had put a deck on, but that was neglected somehow, it was overlooked for the variance, but I April 22 , 2004 46 1 2 don' t want to add that to this one . So I just want you to know I will be coming back again. 3 We' re going to go through the process again, just to put the deck on. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You like to pay us twice? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want to pay twice? MS . CORWIN: I have no choice . I don' t 6 want to hold this up, because I mean it wasn' t put on originally. I guess everybody has to be 7 notified the same way and all that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Put the deck on. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : There' s probably an additional fee anyway because it' s an amendment . 9 It' s a different relief with the deck with the Building Department . When you say there' s no CO 10 for the pre-built deck -- MS . CORWIN: Right . So that' s what I 11 want to do. I want to come back. I don' t want to hold this up with the thing we' re doing now, so we 12 can forget about that . I'm going to come back and go through the process for the deck because we 13 didn' t advertise for the deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re going to 14 file for a building permit for the deck. MS . CORWIN: Right . They' re going to 15 disapprove it, and we' re going to come back, write letters to everybody again. I just want you to 16 know I 'm coming back again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d be delighted to 17 see you. We should hold onto these plans . MS . CORWIN: Hang on to them. 18 MS . KOWALSKI : If you need them back, we might be able to return a few sets to you later. 19 MS . CORWIN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a resolution 20 closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 21 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is the 22 Bartenopes on Youngs Road in Orient . This is for basically putting a second story on the existing 23 house, the existing house has a 36 foot setback from the road and you will continue that 36 foot? 24 MS . KRAMER: Yes, I'm Meryl Kramer for the record. I' d be happy to answer any questions 25 regarding this . It' s fairly straightforward. I think that the addition is fairly modest . We' re April 22 , 2004 47 1 2 doing a gable end. It' s eight feet, and then the roof slopes back, then we' re not doing a full wall 3 to the street, and it' s very much in keeping with a lot of the new renovations that are happening in 4 the area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' ve 5 become the guru of Bayshore Road in reference to your engineering here, you've done most of these 6 on Bayshore Road. MS . KRAMER: Yeah, but this one' s not 7 Bayshore Road. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is Orient, 8 right? MS . KRAMER: Right . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No question, I want 10 to verify that you' re putting a modest second story on an existing footprint? 11 MS . KRAMER: Correct . We' re not going beyond the existing footprint in the front . We 12 are going beyond in the rear of the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you don' t need -- 13 MS . KRAMER: We don' t need a variance for that portion of the work. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is that going to be to the ridge, approximately? 15 MS . KRAMER: 26 feet . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It says 26 on my 16 version. MS . KRAMER: I must have an older version 17 in front of me . It does slope back so the 26 feet isn' t actually at the front wall, it slopes back, 18 if you can look at the elevation drawing, you can see . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is it married up to the other point of the ridge? 20 MS . KRAMER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like it 21 does . MS . KOWALSKI : Higher in the back, lower 22 in the front, right? MS . KRAMER: Correct . It goes up to about 23 an eight foot plate height from the second floor, then it slopes back. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You will be logistically challenged putting the garage in the 25 back down that hill . It will be fun in the snow. MS . KRAMER: They' re going to do that at a April 22 , 2004 48 1 2 later date . It' s not too bad of a slope, but we just have to keep it back from the front yard. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions from me . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I just went 6 over your reasons, I guess they' re fairly sound, I have a little trouble with this second floor 7 stuff, but that' s not your problem. The addition in the back doesn' t require anything at all 8 because you' re not violating anything. MS . KRAMER: Correct . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t have any problem at all with this . It looks to me that 10 that roof, it' s going to be like a 20 foot wall, then it starts sloping back. The peak of that 11 roof slopes back. MS . KRAMER: Correct . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The shingled part of the second floor, does that overhang in any 13 way? MS . KRAMER: No. It doesn' t overhang, 14 it' s flush with the -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s flush with 15 that addition? MS . KRAMER: Correct . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like it does because it looks to me like it' s a roof that 17 slants up . MS . KRAMER: The overhang meets the 18 existing overhang, and it actually steps back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So that 19 the existing setback of 30 some-odd feet or whatever it is . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 36 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whatever it' s 21 going to be? MS . KRAMER: Correct . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the 23 audience wish to speak for or against this application? 24 MS . KRAMER: I do want to make sure that you received copies of the three letters from the 25 neighbors that were all in favor? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One from Latham, April 22 , 2004 49 1 2 Mr. Jacobsen and his partner? MS . KRAMER: Right, and Mrs . Susan Utz . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Susan Utz, right . MS . KRAMER: Okay. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I will close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 5 MS . KRAMER: Thank you. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Meriam. 7 Mr. Samuels, my first question is how much bigger is this new pool house than the old one? 8 MR. SAMUELS : The old one is probably about 10 by 10, 100 square feet . This is 12 by 9 24, which is 288 square feet, a little lower, but it' s about 13 feet to the ridge . 10 Here the situation is peculiar in that the pool house can only be located -- or the accessory 11 structure -- only in the front or rear yard. Because of the positioning of the house and the 12 waterfront, those yards are not useable . It' s a five foot wide area which is theoretically the 13 front yard by their definition, and obviously you can' t fit a pool house in that . And in the rear 14 yard it' s taken up entirely -by the 100 foot setback. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have to take down all those trees? 16 MR. SAMUELS : No . Just a couple of the arborvitae they put in. None of the mature trees . 17 I mean, those screening trees were put in last year. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re nice . MR. SAMUELS : They are . They' ll be 19 moved. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautiful piece of 20 property. MR. SAMUELS : Isn' t it? It' s an old 1920s 21 house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the 22 original Audien estate, then they moved next door, Dr. Rich bought it and then, of course, operated 23 out of there for his entire career. MR. SAMUELS : Right . We completely 24 restored the house now. It' s really nice . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very nice . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I go on this one second? April 22 , 2004 50 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tom, we've been 3 kind of getting away from this, but I need to discuss with you the issue of at least the 4 changing room should have a door open to the outside so that window should be taken out and 5 that door should be opened to the outside so as not to create -- this has nothing to do with your 6 client, okay, this is a generic statement from me, I ' m not speaking for the Board -- the door should 7 be taken -- I don' t care if it' s a door, if it' s completely glassed open, it doesn' t make any 8 difference to me, but that should be opened so as not to create a bunkhouse effect, so to speak. 9 MR. SAMUELS : Right . There was a bit of confusion in the Building Department when this 10 first went in because Dameon thought that was the intention, I told him it wasn' t, and so he wanted 11 the wording changed in the kitchen -- we called it kitchenette, he said no, it has to be called a wet 12 bar, and so we did that . I think I understand that' s where you' re coming from here, and that 13 wouldn' t be the first time I heard that kind of a suggestion. Although, they were satisfied with 14 the use over at the Building Department, the intended use . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No heat? MR. SAMUELS : No heat . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No air conditioning? 17 MR. SAMUELS : No . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Refrigerator? 18 MR. SAMUELS : There will be a refrigerator, little sink for drinks out there . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No stove? MR. SAMUELS : No . It clearly is from our 20 standpoint, from the Meriams' standpoint, it absolutely is an accessory use . They' re not 21 intending to turn it into a bunkhouse . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a summer use? 22 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, it' s for the pool . I mean, I know there' s been an awful lot of 23 accessory buildings converted illegally, but in this instance I think it' s almost physically 24 impossible, it' s really just too small for that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re not 25 saying this client, I mean, they could sell the property. April 22 , 2004 51 1 2 MR. SAMUELS : Of course, I understand your point . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vince? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just reviewing 5 some of the comments, the concerns of the neighbors and I think they should be placed in the 6 record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One neighbor is concerned about property values in the 8 neighborhood, that this would possibly decrease it, another neighbor is concerned that water view 9 would be -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would be 10 diminished. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The same neighbor 11 was -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leaching pools and -- 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that' s the one concern I would ask you to address, the letter 13 that the proposed leaching pool may restrict future location of a well at this property and the 14 suggestion that the leaching pool be located as far from their property line as possible . 15 MR. SAMUELS : Well, of course that' s the Health Department' s review. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think put it by the existing ones . 17 MR. SAMUELS : It' s possible it could go a little closer to the existing ones, although there 18 is a separation requirement there too. I would say that they are about that close to putting 19 public water down Marratooka Road and Bungalow Lane . I mean, it' s the Water Authority intends 20 to, it' s part of their new project, they haven' t 4 scheduled it yet, so that issue will be 21 removed. And the Caines have said that they intend to hook up as soon as it' s available . But 22 it' s true, the circle or 150 foot radius does partially cross their property. It' s true . 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there some way that we can eliminate that concern? It does seem 24 to be a concern in my mind at least . MR. SAMUELS : We can do the best we can 25 to move it as far away -- I can' t say at the moment because we' re also respecting the sanitary, April 22, 2004 52 1 2 I mean the wells of the people on the other side of Marratooka Road, including the lady who wrote, 3 Mrs . Dalrymple, which had an effect on where the replacement system went in the first place for the 4 main residence, which was fixed partly by our well, which was fixed by the next guy' s sanitary 5 up the road. MS . KOWALSKI : It' s like a domino? 6 MR. SAMUELS : It is . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Once you get the public 7 water, you don' t have to worry? MR. SAMUELS : And that is, I mean they 8 have taken it now all the way to the first road off -- I'm sorry, I can' t think of the name, it' s 9 a little private road to the left . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bungalow Lane? 10 MR. SAMUELS : It' s the one before that on the left . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Buxton' s Point . 12 MR. SAMUELS : Buxton' s Point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, they went down 13 Buxton' s Point? MR. SAMUELS : Yes . That' s where it 14 stops . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just about there 15 then? MR. SAMUELS : They intend to take it down 16 Bungalow Lane and Park Avenue, and the whole neighborhood, but they just haven' t scheduled 17 it . They have the 50 percent from what I understand from what' s his name at the Water 18 Authority. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: People don' t have 19 to sign up. MR. SAMUELS : That' s true . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s my concern. 21 MR. SAMUELS : We can certainly try. We can make every effort to move it as far away as 22 McCaine' s property and I certainly will guarantee we will do that, we will move it just as far as we 23 can. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ' You' re talking 24 about the leaching pool? MR. SAMUELS : The leaching pool . 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How close is their well to your leaching pool, obviously more than April 22 , 2004 53 1 2 150 feet? MR. SAMUELS : Yes, it is . I think it' s 3 in their basement . And I would just also mention, by the way, this is, as a pool house, this is 4 going to get very little use and the Health Department standards, of course, are probably 5 greatly in excess of the actual likelihood of leachate coming anywhere near their lot . But your 6 point is well taken and I understand it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was also under the impression that the reason you went to the 8 Health Department was that the one property wouldn' t effect the other. 9 MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they wanted to 10 put a well in, they would have to go to the Health Department, the Health Department would have this 11 on record, they wouldn' t allow them to go in. MR. SAMUELS : To be honest with you, I 12 don' t know if they would have to go to the Health Department because it' s an existing residence, you 13 know, there is kind of a grandfather situation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, one would 14 think that if they were going to put a well in, they would want to do that to know what' s next 15 door. MR. SAMUELS : You would think, and 16 certainly to test the water, right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . So I think -- 17 MR. SAMUELS : It' s a valid concern on the part of the Caines . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose you actually could -- 19 MR. SAMUELS : And we' ll go just as far as we can as per the Health Department regulations, 20 those are the ones that we' re needing to satisfy, not that we don' t need to satisfy you as well, but 21 regarding that system at least . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Did I read 22 something that you were taking down a windmill? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, the pool house 23 looks as though -- the old one . MR. SAMUELS : Pat Richards works in my 24 office, and it was her in-laws' house and she refers to it as the windmill because I think 25 originally, the wells are canted in like this, and there probably was a structure, a superstructure April 22 , 2004 54 1 2 that went up to a windmill . MR. SAMUELS : Like as a Komoginal 3 Point . It' s not a windmill like Hook Mill or something. 4 MR. SAMUELS : It may have originally produced pumped water for them. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right, thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this 7 application? If not, I ' ll close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Brandvold. Open the hearing for John and Marian 10 Brandvold and they have requested an adjournment to June 17, 2004 . 11 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you here on the Brandvold? 12 MR. WALDBRIDGE : Yes . MS . KOWALSKI : The applicant was asked to 13 give more information to show what the elevation designs would be on the house as it' s being 14 rebuilt, and she did not have the information available . So the Board basically recommended 15 that the hearing be adjourned to give them time, and it' s been put over to the June meeting, either 16 June 17th or June 22nd. We have to check the calendars before we can give you an exact date . 17 MR. WALDBRIDGE : Will I be notified? I live adjacent to the property, across the street . 18 MS . KOWALSKI : If you have already been given notice, then what you should do is call our 19 office for the day in June . Did you get notice already? 20 MR. WALDBRIDGE : I did. MS . KOWALSKI : So that' s the only notice 21 that everyone gets, and since you' re here, we' re notifying you that it' s on for the June calendar, 22 so that is notice . MR. WALDBRIDGE : June 17th or June 22nd? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, call the office . 24 MS . KOWALSKI : You can call us to confirm the time and everything. What is your name and 25 everything? MS . KOWALSKI : What is your name, please? April 22 , 2004 55 1 2 MR. WALDBRIDGE : Jim Waldbridge . MS . KOWALSKI : Thank you. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I make a motion we go for June 22nd. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do We have a motion to recess this hearing? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So moved. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to open 7 up the hearing for the Cowans, who have a home on Smith Road North, and, unfortunately, their 8 foundation was put in at 8 . 5 feet instead of 10 feet . Miss Wickham, what would you like to tell 9 us? MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon, Abigail 10 Wickham, Mattituck, representing the owners . As you can see from the application, the 11 Cowans did design a house, and got permits for a house that met all the code criteria, all the 12 criteria of all the regulatory agencies . They had the foundation poured pursuant to the building 13 permit . And when the building inspector came out to inspect it, he determined for the first time 14 that he thought there might be a problem with the flood plain, and so the Cowans hired an 15 environmental consultant, who, in addressing the flood plain question, had another surveyor, 16 Mr. Ingegno, prepare a survey on the flood plain issues . Well, it turned out that the flood plain 17 was not a problem and Mr. Anderson has since gotten a FEMA determination on that . However, 18 we' re here because it showed the eight and-a-half feet at the rear corner as insufficient . 19 We compute that approximately as 48 to 50 square feet on each floor as over the line, and 20 it' s about 1 .4 percent of the total volume of the house . It was certainly inadvertent . There is no 21 one that would rather not be here than the Cowans, and we did try to contact the neighbors before the 22 hearing just to make sure they didn' t have any questions or concerns, and some he was able to 23 reach and some he wasn' t . So I'm not going to really say anything 24 more unless there are other things that come up in the way of questions, but that' s an explanation of 25 what happened. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? April 22 , 2004 56 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This house is going to be two-story with this foundation? 3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The entire house 4 or? MS . WICKHAM: The extension portion that 5 you see, the original house will remain at one story. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, if the Board is so inclined to grant this, Mrs . 7 Wickham, the other side yard, we would really want to remain completely open. 8 MS . WICKHAM: They don' t have a problem with that as a covenant or condition. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I shouldn' t say we, I . 10 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, that was something we had discussed previously that there would be no 11 further incursion into the other side yard and also, I think I put in the application that 12 there' s an evergreen screen that will either remain or be improved upon. It' s some old bushes 13 as I recall . So that will be screened on that side . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I understand your scenario, the foundation was put in and it 16 was surveyed, and the foundation survey was submitted and it said 10 foot -- 17 MS . WICKHAM: The first survey, yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: -- showed the 18 foundation at 10 feet . Then when you wanted to introduce or talk about the flood plain it was 19 resurveyed. MS . WICKHAM: Right . The environmental 20 consultant just got another surveyor to go out and do it, having no idea that that was going to be 21 the issue . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So the first 22 surveyor surveyed the foundation, and it was 10 foot front and back and the second surveyor found 23 it -- MS . WICKHAM: Eight and-a-half . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the first surveyor was incorrect, he made a mistake? 25 MS . WICKHAM: Apparently. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It happens April 22 , 2004 57 1 2 sometimes . MS . WICKHAM: It does happen. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s a fencing 5 on the adjoining neighbor' s property, and I see you have a row of evergreens you' re going to 6 extend that I presume, that' s what you' re talking about extending? 7 MS . WICKHAM: We were going to maintain them. They will certainly maintain the extent of 8 evergreens that are there now either, as I said, the existing plantings or newer ones that might be 9 a better screening, and they will be screening the line on that side back at least to the shed; is 10 that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Because that 11 house is going to be rather tall on that side and the next door neighbor, who has just the one-story 12 house -- MS . WICKHAM: Yes, they do want to 13 maintain screening there for their privacy and the neighbor' s . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no further 15 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in 17 the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, I' ll move 18 that we close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Steve Axelrod and Sandra Schpoont, on Ruch Lane that 21 little narrow lot there? MR. FOSTER: Yes . I'm Jonathan Foster, 22 the architect for Steve and Sandy Axelrod. And this house is an existing house on the site, which 23 we' re putting a half a story above that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' re just 24 maintaining the same setback. MR. FOSTER: Maintaining the same setback 25 all along, the roof, though, will be setback more on the south side because we' re making some of April 22 , 2004 58 1 2 what is existing roof into a flat roof area, and that' s most of what I had to say right now. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the roof going to be to the ridge? 4 MR. FOSTER: The roof is -- do you have it on the plan there? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I'm missing something. No, I don' t think so. 6 MR. FOSTER: I have 15 -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 24 feet to the top of 7 the ridge . MR. FOSTER: It' s 23 ' 1011 , actually. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a question on the deck that' s staying ground level, there' s not 10 a second deck above that? MR. FOSTER: There' s no second deck above 11 that, no. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s my only 12 question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not a tear down, this is a reconstruction of the first 16 house, the original house; is that correct? MR. FOSTER: We' re taking off the existing 17 roof . We' re not tearing the house down, we' re taking down the existing roof and putting a new 18 roof on the house, which allows us to have a half story above . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor or 20 against? MS . CLEMENS : Against . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: State your name for the record? 22 MS . CLEMENS : Yes . My name is Ann Clemens, I am the immediate neighbor to the 23 northeast at 560 Ruch Lane . I' d like to give the Board a copy of a letter and a survey. I' d like 24 to thank you for your time today. This letter is in reference to the 25 proposed addition my immediate neighbor to the east, Sandra Schpoont, is planning. In speaking April 22 , 2004 59 1 2 with Miss Schpoont as well as reviewing the architectural drawings that she supplied me with, 3 I have serious concerns regarding this addition. If a second story is added to her 4 cottage, my home will suffer a significant decrease in eastern morning light as well as my 5 view as Arshamomague Pond, upon which both homes are located. Both of my bedrooms are located on 6 the eastern side of my home and this wonderful morning light is a big part of why I enjoy my home 7 so much. It is a major value to the property representing a significant selling point were I to 8 market my home . Having this light greatly diminished by a second story structure so very 9 close would significantly decrease my property' s market value . The Schpoont architect, Jonathan 10 Foster, will try to make a case for where the sun is on the shortest day of the year. While I 11 respect his expertise in the architectural world, as a person who has lived in my cottage for years, 12 I know better than he how the Schpoont addition would serve to hem in or impinge on the sense of 13 open waterside property that I have purchased my cottage to enjoy. 14 As the Board is well aware, the Schpoont cottage is only seven feet from my property line . 15 In fact, the Schpoont lot was until 1975 , my cottage' s south side yard. The previous owners of 16 my property sold off this land in 1975 and their boathouse was pulled up from the pond and made 17 into what is now the Schpoont cottage . I am providing the Board with a copy of the original 18 survey done in 1934 and amended in 1975, and that is what I have just presented. The proposed 19 addition to the Schpoont cottage will reach a center ridge line height of 2311011 , significantly 20 reducing my light and view. Most of the homes on this side of our 21 private road are low bungalow-type structures and all but one of the few one and-a-half and two 22 story homes that have been built have large side yards that separate them from their neighbors . 23 In closing, I' d like to say that as much as I regret upsetting my neighbors, I must protect 24 my property' s value and the quality of life I enjoy in it . I respectively submit to the Zoning 25 Board of Appeals my request that the Schpoont variance be denied. Thank you. April 22 , 2004 60 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Any of the Board members have questions? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anything that they could add to that property would make 5 you happy? MS . CLEMENS : I have absolutely no problem 6 with them making the house bigger if they were to stay on one level and go out toward the back, 7 toward the road because my garage is back there . I have no problem with them making their house 8 bigger, but I do have a very big problem with it being so tall, so close to my house . It would 9 really overwhelm it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if they went -- 10 MS . CLEMENS : If they went back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ruch Lane say with 11 another room? MS . CLEMENS : I would have no problem 12 whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the seven 13 foot setback wouldn' t bother you? MS . CLEMENS : No, it wouldn' t, because I 14 have planted a screen of evergreens there when I first bought the cottage to protect both property 15 owners from the fact that both their bedrooms and my bedrooms were so close together. I thought 16 that that would help, but toward the back I have absolutely no problem with that, but where they' re 17 thinking of doing it is right at my painting studio and bedroom area. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How close is your house to the property line? 19 MS . CLEMENS : How close is my house? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . 20 MS . CLEMENS : I don' t know exactly, maybe to my property line, 15, 20 feet . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How close would you be to their house? 22 MS . CLEMENS : Probably about 30 feet, maybe, house to house . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to say I don' t practice being a real estate broker, 25 but I have been a real estate broker since 1975, and I do respect your opinion regarding your April 22 , 2004 61 1 2 expertise as a property owner, but you don' t have a sworn affidavit from a licensed real estate 3 broker and appraiser, please, in no way am I diminishing that . Normally, that' s the testimony 4 that I take as being credence in that situation but based upon your testimony, I will come back 5 down and look at their property and kind of get the feeling of what you' re saying, okay, I was 6 down there Saturday, and I will come down there again this Saturday. 7 MS . CLEMENS : Come early in the morning when the light' s the best . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On this opinion of your testimony so to speak. 9 MS . CLEMENS : If I might just answer the gentleman, the house they own on Ruch Lane is the 10 second piece of property that I have purchased out there . I bought one right across the street as an 11 investment, which I sold last year, and before buying either of the houses, I probably looked at 12 several hundred on the north fork. So again, I am not a licensed real estate agent, but I do know 13 the value of any waterfront property, and in other words, its premium aspect . I 've got a lot of 14 friends in the city that are all looking for waterfront property if they could only find some . 15 So, again, just FYI, sorry. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do have a good 16 sunset . MS . CLEMENS : Excuse me? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do have a very nice sunset . 18 MS . CLEMENS : Sure, nice everything out there . It' s a beautiful piece of property. All 19 of the houses on the pond are nice little homes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Are there any 20 covenant restrictions in your community with scenic view easements? 21 MS . CLEMENS : No. I serve as the defacto secretary of the homeowners association when the 22 current secretary is unable to be there since she travels a lot, so I have attended all of the 23 meetings for the last several years . We have a very casual attitude toward building and 24 improvements . I do believe that if somebody wanted to cover their house in neon there would 25 definitely be some conversation about it among the neighbors, we' re all very amenable to each other' s April 22 , 2004 62 1 2 desires about improving their property. In the last few years the whole street has been 3 terrifically improved by -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A lot . 4 MS . CLEMENS : Exactly. I've actually worked as a project manager for an architectural 5 firm in the city that has done two of those improvements . I'm very familiar with the street 6 and both of those are on the water. And so I 've been very involved with those homeowners in terms 7 of doing what they have done . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You know that your 8 neighbor' s house is not parallel to the property line . 9 MS . CLEMENS : Yes, I do. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So if they 10 extended toward the road, it would get closer than seven foot . 11 MS . CLEMENS : That' s right, but the only thing back there is my garage . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you' re not opposed to the second story, but if they put an 13 extension towards the road, another neighbor may be opposed to that . You see where you' re putting 14 us, you' re opposed to a second story, you' re opposing a second story, the other neighbor might 15 oppose going closer to the road. MS . CLEMENS : The neighbor across the 16 street is them. They own the property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say that 17 they might not even need a variance for that . MS . CLEMENS : For what, going back? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Going forward, well, well, back to you is forward to us . Towards 19 the road. MS . CLEMENS : I have no problem. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would think in that area it' s 35 foot setbacks, you could get 21 nine feet . MS . CLEMENS : Again, I have no problem 22 whatsoever. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Probably they would 23 have to come back for a side yard if they went back that way. I'm saying you' re opposed to this, 24 someone else might be opposed to something else . They could go through a whole gyration of 25 redesigning and someone else could say I would rather you go up than go out . I ' m trying to be April 22 , 2004 63 1 2 hypothetical . MS . CLEMENS : Sure, but the three 3 neighbors that would be left, right and behind, ' cause the fourth neighbor obviously is the 4 pond. Is me, themselves and then Ann Gable, so it' s just one other person being involved in 5 that . So I have no problem with them going back or adding to their house . I completely 6 understand. I actually rented that cottage when it was owned by the previous owner, the first 7 summer that I was interested in getting property out here so I could get a better lay of the land, 8 and I know how tiny it is . I have no problem with them wanting it to be bigger, but it' s just, it 9 would be -- in my opinion, no matter how nicely designed, the fact that the houses on either side 10 and for several more are very low, one to one and-a-half story little bungalows having that 24 11 foot ridge line would be less than perfect, but again, that' s not my main objection. My main 12 objection is that I know it will put my house in deep shadow because I have lived there . I know 13 how that sun is and how that sense of openness when you are sitting in your front rooms, you 14 know, I don' t want a great big house right there . It' s only seven feet off of the line . 15 It' s just too close and if you can see on that property, the survey done in 1934, when they 16 pulled the boat house up, they positioned it closer to my line than to the other line; in other 17 words, it' s not centered on the lot sideways . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no other 18 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the 19 audience wish to speak for or against? Yes, sir. MR. FOSTER: Can I come forward so you can 20 see this? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 21 MR. FOSTER: Several things that were said. It' s true the houses along the street have 22 been improved all the way along, and they have gone up one half, there' s one two and-a-half, or 23 three stories as far as I can see . It' s a street that people have decided for good reasons that 24 it' s a nice place to be and everyone is improving their houses, and the improving of the house in an 25 appropriate way .helps everyone' s property values . If you have one bad cottage on a street with a April 22 , 2004 63 1 2 hypothetical . MS . CLEMENS : Sure, but the three 3 neighbors that would be left, right and behind, ' cause the fourth neighbor obviously is the 4 pond. Is me, themselves and then Ann Gable, so it' s just one other person being involved in 5 that . So I have no problem with them going back or adding to their house . I completely 6 understand. I actually rented that cottage when it was owned by the previous owner, the first 7 summer that I was interested in getting property out here so I could get a better lay of the land, 8 and I know how tiny it is . I have no problem with them wanting it to be bigger, but it' s just, it 9 would be -- in my opinion, no matter how nicely designed, the fact that the houses on either side 10 and for several more are very low, one to one and-a-half story little bungalows having that 24 11 foot ridge line would be less than perfect, but again, that' s not my main objection. My main 12 objection is that I know it will put my house in deep shadow because I have lived there . I know 13 how that sun is and how that sense of openness when you are sitting in your front rooms, you 14 know, I don' t want a great big house right there . It' s only seven feet off of the line . 15 It' s just too close and if you can see on that property, the survey done in 1934 , when they 16 pulled the boat house up, they positioned it closer to my line than to the other line; in other 17 words, it' s not centered on the lot sideways . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no other 18 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the 19 audience wish to speak for or against? Yes, sir. MR. FOSTER: Can I come forward so you can 20 see this? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 21 MR. FOSTER: Several things that were said. It' s true the houses along the street have 22 been improved all the way along, and they have gone up one half, there' s one two and-a-half, or 23 three stories as far as I can see . It' s a street that people have decided for good reasons that 24 it' s a nice place to be and everyone is improving their houses, and the improving of the house in an 25 appropriate way helps everyone' s property values . If you have one bad cottage on a street with' a April 22 , 2004 64 1 2 bunch of nice houses, it takes the value of some of the nice houses . 3 A couple of things, one is the idea of light coming in and damaging the value of this 4 neighbor' s house; this is the survey, this is the neighbor' s house; this is where the sun rises in 5 the summer time and this is where it sets in the wintertime, it' s where it -- excuse me, this sets 6 in the summer. So, at this point, of course -- if this sun is horizontal, if this sun is flat earth, 7 this sun is horizontal it immediately starts rising and gets to this point where it is 14 8 degrees . So here it gets to be 28 degrees in the summer and 14 degrees in the wintertime . By 9 calculating the amount of times that this house, with its extra 10 feet of roof would block any 10 direct sunlight onto this other house is six to eight hours a year in December, 21st of December, 11 those several days, every other time the sun gets up and over, hits this house because it' s either 12 the angle is above the roof or it completely misses the roof . It has no effect whatsoever on 13 the sunset or anything. The other aspect of this design is that the roof starts exactly in the same 14 place as it does today, the new roof . It goes up a little steeper because it' s going up as a gamble 15 roof like the one across the street here, but it starts in the same place . It' s not a vertical 16 wall that' s going up a complete second floor across the roof; it starts at the same place and 17 basically this is a drawing of what it looks like . Their existing roof now is about where this -- 18 where Miss Martin is in the middle of that window. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do we have 19 up there, one room, one master broom? MR. FOSTER: One bedroom. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And bath? MR. FOSTER: There' s a master 21 bath. There' s a bathroom, master bedroom suite and -- 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the rest of it' s cathedral . 23 MR. FOSTER: The rest of it' s cathedral and open space so that the -- the ceilings are 24 only like 7' 711 , you know. So by cutting a hole out, you go up the full height in the living room, 25 make the full height in the living room, makes a small house seem larger. April 22 , 2004 65 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So, in Mr. Dinizio' s situation, the master bedroom is 3 really toward the road, which would be the front of the house and therefore, the living room would 4 be facing the water? MR. FOSTER: I'm sorry -- 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were just discussing what we really call the front yard/back 6 yard. The bedroom would be? MR. FOSTER: The new bedroom? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The new bedroom. MR. FOSTER: Is on the water side . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is on the water side? 9 MR. FOSTER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then the living 10 area or the open vaulted ceiling would be towards the road? 11 MR. FOSTER: Correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width of the lot is 50 feet? 13 MR. FOSTER: 48 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It is a very narrow 14 lot . MR. FOSTER: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would have to say that I listened to your presentation with a 16 diagram, but to be candid, in my opinion, I can' t help but believe that it is going to block some 17 kind of -- create more of a shadow, to what extent? I don' t know, I'm not an expert . I don' t 18 know whether you' re an expert either, but it' s kind of common sense, it would have to. You' re 19 just too close to the property line . It couldn' t -- 27 feet does create a shadow. Period. 20 MR. FOSTER: It' s not 27 feet, it' s 24 and the sun is not always in one spot . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know that . I 'm aware of that . 22 MR. FOSTER: So what I'm saying is it' s only on the shortest days of the year when the sun 23 is at its most horizontal that it would actually hit the roof before it hit the other house and 24 that is a few hours on those few days around December 21st, and you know, there' s a solar 25 division at the Department of Energy of the United States Government, I can get a solar diagram from April 22 , 2004 66 1 2 the government if you want me to do that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go to the mike . 3 MR. AXELROD: I'm Steve Axlerod. Jonathan spoke to the sun and light issue, I just want to 4 address a few other things . The intent here is to do something that' s 5 modest . It' s not even a full second story. I want to address the issue of the sight line to the 6 pond and the scenery because I really don' t think that this improvement is going to alter that and 7 the basic feel in relation to the pond of either house or any of the houses . There are many houses 8 on the street that have second stories and they' re recently added and fortunately, I just want to 9 emphasize that if we were able to do this, it' s going to improve the front facade of the house, 10 the part that faces the road. It' s going to make it more attractive, the whole thing I think is 11 done to be tasteful and to fit in with the houses in the area, and I really think we' ll improve the 12 overall value of the property and adjacent properties . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Axlerod, we have had some very unique pieces of property in 14 the town. There is a piece of property in this town that is very similar to this except it' s not 15 on a very nice beautiful pond like this, it' s on Peconic Bay and that' s an area called Rabbit Lane 16 in East Marion, where the lots are of similar size as this . The minute you get smaller than 50 feet, 17 we now look into other options of entire reconstruction of the second story -- I shouldn' t 18 say entire reconstruction -- of the roof line of the entire structure . You actually could drop the 19 roof toward the road, could you not, and make that vaulted ceiling lower than what' s proposed? 20 MR. FOSTER: I understand exactly where you' re coming from. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the issue here, regardless of the sun issue, there' s 22 definitely an impact on a property or properties in general, okay, when we' re dealing with lots 23 that are less than 50 feet and those lots are very similar and familiar with having dealt with this 24 pond area and the bay area that I'm referring to in East Marion called Rabbit Lane, then a 25 subsequent road that' s above that, why we have even had lots even smaller than 48 feet . In those April 22 , 2004 67 1 2 situations, we have taken not only the neighbors consideration but the Town' s consideration in 3 reference to the impacts of these types of construction and what we have requested in those 4 situations, and I'm referring to we because I am custom, I was chairman of this Board for 21 years, 5 we have taken and allowed the construction of a portion of the alteration of the roof line and we 6 understand that the lower half of the house has seven and-a-half foot ceilings, which you would 7 like to go to a modest eight, eight and-a-half feet, whatever the case may be, to make it the 8 look of a vaulted ceiling but not necessarily a full vaulted ceiling the same height . So what in 9 essence I'm saying is you could drop the roof on the portion of the house that' s closest to the 10 road, and that was the reason why I asked the question of where the bedroom area was in relation 11 to the view of the pond. That could be done; could it not? 12 MR. FOSTER: Could be done . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because that' s 13 exactly what we did on that pond over in East Marion. We instead of calling what we refer to 14 and -- and please, this is no reflection on your house -- the railroad effect, of one roof line all 15 the way through, we requested the applicant to drop the roof line . It was the direct opposite of 16 this in the respect that the portion of it that was facing the pond was one story and the portion 17 of it that was in the rear was two story. In this particular case, you' re asking for the reverse . 18 Well, I'm suggesting the reverse, thereby allowing this master bedroom, this modest master bedroom, 19 because it is modest, and bathroom but thereby reducing the size of the roof line on the front of 20 the property or the front portion of the property, which, of course, really is the rear because 21 everything in the pond is the back. MR. FOSTER: Street side . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Street side, and therefore creating less impact on the 23 neighborhood. That could be done, right? MR. FOSTER: What height would you 24 require? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know. 25 That' s an issue that I would have to speak to my colleagues about . April 22 , 2004 68 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the height of the existing house now, the ridge? 3 MR. FOSTER: Of the existing house is about 13 and-a-half feet . 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you go another 10 feet higher. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: See, I wouldn' t, I really wouldn' t want to see that first story go 6 much more than about 14 , you know to be honest with you, 14 , 15 to the ridge and thereby allowing 7 the other portion of it to be whatever the 20 or 23 it has to be or even maybe less a little bit if 8 you could. And that may be a possibility in reference to impacts . 9 MR. AXELROD: Maybe Jonathan knows what the typical roof line is of the other houses on 10 the street . My understanding is that this doesn' t stick up above them, but I don' t know the 11 technical because we wanted to be consistent, not to stand up. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Axlerod, let me tell you that the one person that came before 13 us was the person on the right-hand side, I believe, it' s the first house on the right-hand 14 side . They had a significantly larger piece of property. They also got themselves involved in 15 what we refer to as a turret-type of review thing, that is not a room. That was never determined to 16 be a room by us and it still is not a room. It' s an area which they choose and they agreed to go up 17 and look at the pond and the Sound or whatever other view they have . But it was a significantly 18 larger piece of property than this piece . Again, I 'm not taking anything away from your piece, I 19 grew up on a 50 foot lot and I never had any problems with a 50 foot lot, but those are the 20 issues that we have to look at in this weighing back and forth. Because let' s face it, we are 21 going through a resurgence on Ruch Lane, there' s no question about it, and you' re in the middle of 22 it, and it' s going to create that domino effect in directions back down and forward. And the same 23 thing in the back, when I say in the back, I'm referring to not on the water side, so that' s an 24 issue that I'm saying I don' t know how my colleagues -- 25 MR. AXELROD: I think they have already built up on those . April 22 , 2004 69 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some of them have . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No comment . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I kind of like 5 Jerry' s suggestion. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We did that on 6 the pond over there, if you remember, Lydia . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I think it' s 7 appropriate . In fact, I'm just looking through this block and your lot is the narrowest on the 8 entire road. MS . CLEMENS : I believe it was the minimal 9 amount that they could legally cut from my lot in 174 that would allow them to pull the boat house 10 up and make it into a summer cottage with no heat or anything like that . It was strictly a cottage . 11 Didn' t even have a bathroom, outdoor shower when they originally pulled it up. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s my comment . 13 MS . SCHPOONT: This is a picture of the house and the roof so on and so forth to 14 scale . This is a series of pine trees that were put on the property line by this owner over here 15 so that if these trees, they' re going to keep on growing and they' re going to do all this sun work 16 all by themselves without any benefits of a roof angle and so on and so forth. So when you' re 17 thinking about the roof height that we' re allowed and so forth think about this self perpetuated -- 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care if you want to lessen that by clipping gables or 19 whatever you want to do, you can clip a gable end if you want to make it so not obtrusive, but my 20 suggestion is on less than a 50 foot lot, you really should lower the impact by not creating 21 that entire roof line one straight roof line . By the way, I think your plan is magnificent, 22 unfortunately, I think it should be on a 60 foot lot or larger, and unfortunately, we don' t have 23 that here . And I really think that the way to deal with it would be to do what I said, just 24 redraw it and give us a little bit of a vaulted ceiling toward the road and let them go with their 25 master bedroom on the rear side of the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it more than 20 April 22 , 2004 70 1 2 foot? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They should 3 maintain not much more than a foot over the roof line as it exists today and open it right up in 4 the front . Then the rest of it they can go to the height that they want to go, and, as I said, if he 5 wants to lessen the impact of the gable ends, let them put the gables on, which is that effect which 6 we just saw in Orient that they' re doing. MS . CLEMENS : Can I can ask for some 7 clarification? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 8 MS . CLEMENS : Okay. Unless the drawings have been changed, the only set that I have showed 9 on the water side where the master bedroom and bath are going to be is also a fireplace, so there 10 is some more structure up there, it' s not just a little bedroom and a little bathroom. Also, those 11 trees that I've planted are French arbovitae and they are guaranteed not to grow over 12 feet, and 12 I did that on purpose because I didn' t want gigantic -- I didn' t want to lose most of my side 13 yard by an enormous evergreen screen. Also, on the water side, the other neighbor on the other 14 side of the Schpoont cottage is owned by a friend of mine, Ann Gable . Needless to say -- nor would 15 I ever speak for her -- that she' s never going to go, move up or build up, but, the latest 16 conversation we had is that when she can afford it, she would like to probably refurbish her 17 little cottage a little bit since it' s not even winterized, it' s a very, very, you know, your 18 minimal summer cottage . It' s never been improved other than a deck put on many years ago . So that 19 immediate piece of property has not been, quote, improved. The improvements that I did on mine as 20 far as exterior was I shingled it instead of the lap siding which had been painted and was falling 21 apart . And all of the other houses from my cottage and then the Schpoont-Axlerod cottage and 22 Ann Gable and then there are two or three others, Mrs . Shanky, those are all one story. The first 23 time you hit a two story is when you get to Laurie Kritolfy' s cottage, and her cottage, which I was 24 the project manager for the designing team that built that is significantly lower. She has no 25 bluff, she' s only maybe eight feet above water line . My cottage and the Schpoont cottage are 32 April 22 , 2004 71 1 2 feet above the water line . So in other words, even though her house is technically two story, it 3 doesn' t look that tall because her lot is so much lower on the road. So again, there is an unbroken 4 line of roof lines now that this, if it were to go ahead, would stick up in the middle of . I just 5 wanted to clarify that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 6 MS . SCHPOONT: I just want to say one thing. Ann here, who is the person responsible 7 for the three story house and the other two story house on the block, she helped design it and she 8 was in favor, obviously, of those houses being built up, and it comes to the house next to hers 9 and she doesn' t want us to put up a very modest half a story. This is the house that she says is 10 -- this is the new two-story house that she just put up . It' s extremely close to both houses on 11 either side and it' s huge . It was a one-story house and now look at it, look at it compared to 12 the other house next door. We' re taking the house, and we' re not -- we' re just putting on a 13 roof that' s going to move up. It' s a tiny, tiny house . We've got four kids and we were hoping 14 that we would be able to have a couple bedrooms, two bedrooms that we could have our kids there and 15 have our bedroom facing the water and it would be nice to have the ceiling a little higher. I don' t 16 think what we' re doing is really very different from what other people on this block have done . 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Except that' s a bigger lot . 18 MS . SCHPOONT: But it' s a huge house . I mean, look at how close it is, how close it is to 19 the house next to it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Typical side yard 20 setback. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s got to be at 21 least 10 feet, otherwise it would have to have a variance . 22 MS . CLEMENS : It' s 15 feet from Mr. Shanky' s house . 23 MS . SCHPOONT: It is seven feet away and we are trying to improve it . Right now it doesn' t 24 look like much of anything. It' s a little boat house . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can we have a compromise here or not? I guess that' s the bottom April 22 , 2004 72 1 2 line . That' s what we' re requesting is a compromise, and I have to tell you it' s not really 3 taking living space away from you. It' s taking some aesthetics away. There' s no question about 4 it . But it' s not taking living space . Your first story will exist the way it exists and you' ll just 5 have a lower roof line toward the road and less impact . I don' t care how you design it, we don' t 6 deal with design. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you disagree to 7 just a lower roof line and submit that? MS . SCHPOONT: You' re saying we could have 8 the second story by the water of the bedroom but then the rest of it would be lower? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . MR. FOSTER: If we have the space, we can 10 do the bathroom and bedroom? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re not 11 changing the -- I'm not suggesting that you should change your specific recommendation for that area 12 that you want to use as living area on the second story, it becomes now a one and-a-half story 13 house . MR. FOSTER: It makes sense to me . 14 MR. AXELROD: So the 23 is appropriate where it is, but the other half, the road side 15 half, would be a different shape of some sort? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can be the same 16 shape or a different shape, I don' t care . And you can clip the gables if you' re concerned about -- 17 if you' re going to go with the gable ends or if you' re going to go with that gambrel effect, 18 whatever way you choose to go . MR. AXELROD: While we' re talking, it just .19 occurred to me, if we tore the house down and then went into the legal setbacks correct, which would 20 be 25 feet overall -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 10 and five? 21 MR. AXELROD: 10 and five . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 and 15 . 22 MR. AXELROD : 10 and 15 -- so then we' d have a 23 foot wide house and we could make it 23 appropriately long. We could go up two and-a-half stories, which would be say 10 and 10 and 5 , 25 or 24 30 feet legally 35 feet, right; is that an appropriate thing? 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s perfectly legal . April 22 , 2004 73 1 2 MR. AXELROD: That' s perfectly legal . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me take it a 3 step further, because everyone here knows my feelings about the reasons why you' re here, if you 4 took the roof off of this house right now and you built that addition 23 feet wide, you wouldn' t be 5 here . MR. AXELROD: If we built the addition 23 6 feet wide on top of the existing roof? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s right . 7 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s not because you' re going beyond that into the side yard. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you could build out there, go up two and-a-half stories and 9 you' d be perfectly legal and you wouldn' t be before us . 10 MR. AXELROD: Wouldn' t require a variance? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . 11 MR. AXELROD: Even though we' re addressing a house that' s already previously -- 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I do understand your confusion but if you' d like to contact me 13 sometime, I can explain it to you a little better. MS . KOWALSKI : You' d have to step 14 everything back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Wide house . 15 MS . KOWALSKI : You wouldn' t be here . MS . SCHPOONT: So if we make a compromise 16 that will be acceptable to everybody? MS . KOWALSKI : You have to submit it and 17 the Board will review it, or withdraw your application and start over. 18 MS . CLEMENS : Can I have some clarification on what this is -- I'm sorry I can' t 19 read. What you said that if they step down the back part, towards the road, they can still 20 maintain the big front part? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would be 21 willing to do that at this particular time, in the respect that my concern of weighing the aspect of 22 this variance is that of the impact from the road, not necessarily the impact from the water, only 23 because the elevation factor is what it is, which you describe because that' s what it is . If this 24 house was laying right on the water or was on pilings, I wouldn' t be willing to do that, okay. 25 And I have to tell you we were very successful in that area of East Marion to create this type of April 22 , 2004 74 1 2 facade or -- I'm sorry, philosophy, so to speak, in the construction because what it did do was 3 lessen the impact . It absolutely has . MS . CLEMENS : So you' re saying despite the 4 impact, that this is a very narrow lot and it' s within seven feet of my property line, you are 5 willing to let them build this structure, that' s the bottom line? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One half of it . MS . CLEMENS : One half of it? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One half of it . MS . CLEMENS : But the front half, the half 8 that impacts my light and view. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, the front 9 half is the portion that' s toward the road. MS . CLEMENS : I think they may be 10 misunderstanding you. I don' t want to speak for them, I just want to be clear. f 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The front half is the portion that is closest to the road. 12 MS . CLEMENS : So the back half then cannot go up any higher? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, the back half higher and the front half would be half the 14 size . MS . KOWALSKI : What about the side yard 15 stuff? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Doesn' t affect 16 the side yards because they' re allowed to keep it at the existing footprint . 17 MS . KOWALSKI : If they would be stepping -it back, if this is what we' re talking about? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re not stepping it . If this is what we' re talking about, 19 we' re not stepping it back. MS . KOWALSKI : You' re saying approve the 20 side yards at seven and 10 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it seven and 21 14 or seven and 10? MR. AXELROD: 14 is the dimension to the 22 new roof we' re taking off on that south side, we' re taking off the existing roof and lowering it 23 down to a so-called flat roof, so we' re lowering that roof . We' re trying to -- we did this because 24 we thought we were being sensitive . The idea is that right now it' s 10 feet to the existing house 25 on the south side . We' re starting 14 feet, making that -- leaving that four foot building or April 22 , 2004 75 1 2 whatever be a flat roof, so the new boundaries are 14 and seven. 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right . So you' ll come in with an amended plan. 4 MR. AXELROD: We' ll come in with an amended plan. 5 MS . KOWALSKI : If you wanted to, you could also give two or three different alternative 6 plans, and then let the Board decide . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll review 7 those . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll review it on May 8 6th, it' s up to you. We just deliberate then. It' s an open meeting. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : Or May 20th for the recording purposes . 10 MS . CLEMENS : I would like -- I 'm going to be out of the country on May 6th, so if there 11 could be any way -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May 20th would be 12 agreeable . MS . CLEMENS : May I make a final 13 statement? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 14 MS . CLEMENS : I find it very disingenuous of Sandy to say what she did about the fact that 15 even though I was involved in the other improvement on the streets that when it came to 16 somebody wanting to play close to my house all of a sudden I changed my tune; that is not only an 17 absolute misrepresentation of the facts, I find it highly, highly insulting that she says that in an 18 open public hearing. My intention on both of those other houses -- I am not an architect, and I 19 was a project manager -- was to do what the owners wanted to do with approval of their neighbors, 20 which we achieved. They were both, one was on a much, much larger lot, and the other one, which 21 she showed pictures of, I had just explained, it is not only a larger lot, the lot sits lower on 22 the pond, therefore the roof line does not necessarily tower over her neighbors and her 23 neighbor to the right, it' s a garage and a huge line of forsythia bushes, and the neighbor to the 24 left was consulted in person by me and said she had absolutely no problem with the improvements 25 being made to that property. I just don' t want the Board to think that I am being capricious in April 22 , 2004 76 1 2 my attitude . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t . 3 MS . CLEMENS : Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. 4 MS . KOWALSKI : Regarding the alternative plans, they would need to be submitted at least by 5 the Friday before the May 20th meeting, I'm not sure what that date is, I think it' s the 12th of 6 May, if you could please submit it by or before the 12th. The time would be in the afternoon May 7 20th in the afternoon approximately 1 :40 . You could always call us . 8 MR. AXELROD: Are you going to notice us again? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . This is your notice . If you could make a motion to adjourn 10 this hearing until May 20th at 1 :40 p.m. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 22, 2004 77 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 the 6 State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 8 the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 11 action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 22nd day of April, 2004 . 16 17 18 19 lorence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 22 , 2004