Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/20/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 ----------------------------------- ---------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, N:w York 11 May 20 , 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 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 18 LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary 19 20 rORIGINAL 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047' 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for Alan Braverman of 2700 Vanston Road in Cutchogue, 3 who wishes to put a swimming pool and a garage workshop, storage area 18 foot setback of the 4 closest point from the front line, elevation 25 feet to the top of the ridge . Planned by Frank 5 Uellendahl, and the lot is triangular in shape, so it has two front yards . 6 Is there someone here who would like to speak to that? Yes, state your name, please . 7 MR. BRAVERMAN: My name is Alan Braverman. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you _like to tell us? 9 MR. BRAVERMAN: Just that my understanding is that the property has -- it' s not my 10 understanding I live there -- it has a funny shape, and one of the roads used to be private and 11 it only goes to about two houses, but then for some reason, probably a good 'reason, they made it 12 public . Which means almost my entire yard is considered front yard, on both sides, so my 13 backyard I didn' t realize, my backyard is actually considered also my front yard, plus my front yard 14 is my front yard. So what I' d like to do is, I hope you've seen all the plans, it' s not that big 15 of a change in the house, and also as far as the pool is concerned, if we had put one in 35 feet 16 away, you know that whole thing, ,we would lose our entire yard, so I was just asking that you let us 17 do that . If you have any questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? 18 BOARD MEMBER .DINIZIO: No, it' s an odd shape . There' s no doubt, I do see some hardship 19 there, I have no questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just one question, 22 one concern, backing out of your driveway, please be careful . I backed out of your driveway you 23 can' t see . MR. BRAVERMAN: I make sure the hedge row 24 is down, but we should put a big mirror there . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My one question 25 is, you' re changing the roof line . It looks like a flat roof line from a cross-section; are you May 2.0 , 2004 3 1 2 going to have an active third floor deck up there; is that the plan? 3 MR. BRAVERMAN: I don' t know. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm looking at a 4 cross-section, looks like a flat roof, the whole top is flat, half the house is flat . It ' s hard to 5 tell from this particular picture . MR. BRAVERMAN: We haven' t really decided 6 unless I have to decide at this minute . At first my architect made it flat, and I said what happens 7 if it snows and it' s not such a great idea, and it' s not like up there you have a better water 8 view. Actually, the water view is underneath the trees . In other words, so I don' t really know. I 9 think we' re just trying to figure out what to do there . When we found out we weren' t actually 10 allowed to -- you know, about the public road, you know the front yard thing. So we haven' t decided. 11 If you want to recommend -- I mean, I don' t know that' s the answer. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We had a recent application before us recently with the same idea 13 with basically a third roof deck, and. we denied it because it was towering over people' s yards 14 basically to have a cocktail party. on top of the roof, which is very inviting but intimidating to 15 the neighbors . MR. BRAVERMAN: One thing is that there 16 are no neighbors., if we did that, we wouldn' t build any structure, of course, if we did that 17 because the ground is so inclined -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Slopes upward. 18 MR. BRAVERMAN: -- so that height is probably just a few feet above the road and any 19 neighbors are at least 30 feet above that same road, Vanston Road. So it wouldn' t -- do you see 20 what I 'm saying? So' in other words there' s nobody there that would -- 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right . MR. BRAVERMAN: It wouldn' t block any 22 view. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From flat roof 23 experience, don' t get a flat roof because the snow, my son' s had terrible trouble with a flat 24 roof, has gone through all sorts of expense trying to plug up the leaks and holes . 25 MR. BRAVERMAN: The idea of the flat roof was the drawing like that was to -- right now the: May 20 , 2004 4 1 2 master bedroom is so small at the very highest it' s still under eight feet : It goes, down the 3 whole way. So the idea is just to bring it up, but we hadn' t finished the exact thing, if you 4 want, I mean. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t have a 5 problem with the variance of the setbacks, you have an awkward space there, it' s unique . Would 6 you have a problem if we put a condition about no active third floor on top there? That' s what I 'm 7 driving at . MR. BRAVERMAN: I would request that you 8 consider -- we haven' t gotten to the -- we haven' t really decided, but I would ask you to consider if 9 that would be okay to do that ., If that ' s going to prevent you from doing the whole thing, then I ' ll 10 say fine, and I can always ask about that part . Because my guess is it' s a different situation 11 than whoever these other people are because as I said, our entire house is basically below the 12 road. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was there . It' s 13 below the grade, the topography is all different over there, you' re in a valley. 14 MR. BRAVERMAN: I would love to have that option to have even just a part of it to be able 15 to go up on. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm not speaking 16 for the rest of the Board but it could decide if it' s a vote for or against, if that, I just wanted 17 to throw it. out there for you. MR. BRAVERMAN: I'm not so great at 18 decisions sometimes . I share when I order food. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Because if you did 19 want to use it as an active top site, when you went for your building permit you would have to 20 have your standard three foot, 38 inch rails around it . It doesn' t show it here . I ' m not sure 21 how much you have of this, that' s why I ' m asking that question. 22 MR. BRAVERMAN: You know what I could do, I don' t know if you can do this, is if we decide 23 to do this just show it to you and see if you guys would let me do it . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Vincent' s asking you if you' re going to use that roof as an 25 active area to go up there and entertain. MR.• BRAVERMAN: Probably not . I just May 20 , 2004 5 1 2 don' t want to -- should I say no and then if I want to I could come back and say would you let me 3 consider that? Because it' s not a main -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We could do 4 conditional approval then you would agree if there' s going to be further activity than what ' s 5 on these plans, activity or use of that area that you would come back for further consideration. 6 MR. BRAVERMAN: Also my wife' s involved by the way she might think -- that kind of thing. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any way with your proposed addition to the garage that you 8 could turn around there or not have to back out into Vanston? 9 MR. BRAVERMAN: That' s one of the things we are putting in there . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see the carport? MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you could swing in . there and back around? 12 MR. BRAVERMAN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any other 13 questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 14 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, do you have any 15 other questions? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Just that if 16 there' s any activity planned for that other than what' s been stated at this public hearing and in 17 the record or in the files, that the applicant agrees to come back to the Board for further 18 consideration. MR. BRAVERMAN: Absolutely. Thank you. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, I ' d like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 20 decision until later. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against 21 this application? (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We won' t decide today, Mr. Braverman. We' ll have our meeting in about 23 two weeks, and then we' ll go over our decisions, and then it will be written in about another week. 24 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 25 for Mr. Orlick on Leeton Drive . He wishes to build a new house . May 20 , 2004 6 1 2 MR. ORLICK: Good morning. Initially when we were designing the house, we went to the 3 Trustees and there was a current moratorium, and we waited for them to be finished with the 4 moratorium. And I showed them my plans to see how they felt where the house could be placed, and 5 initially they encouraged me to place the house landward of the coastal erosion line, which would 6 result in violating the front yard setback. Initially that would have been a 23 foot front 7 yard when you required 35 , noting that the front staircase takes up four feet so in essence it' s 8 really 27 feet, the major part of the house . Since then I was thinking of ways to, I 9 guess, to improve the front yard. So I thought the rear deck, which at its widest, takes up about 10 six feet, if we move the house back towards the water six feet and cantilever the deck into the 11 coastal erosion zone, might be a good way to reduce, I guess, the violation for the front yard 12 setback. Since then I met with the Trustees, and they came out to the site, and they thought it was 13 a good idea to shift the house back. It wouldn' t have any environmental impact on the coastal 14 erosion zone, so I guess depending on the results of this hearing, I would go to them for permits to 15 cantilever the rear deck into the coastal erosion zone, which would help the front yard setback, 16 which the bottom line is we would be looking for excluding the front porch 33 feet as opposed to 17 35 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width of the 18 porch is four feet? MR. ORLICK: Yes . The actual variance is 19 31 feet, but the front porch just fits into the house . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So there would be no change in the footprint of the house? 21 MR. ORLICK: No, no change at all, just shifting it back a maximum of six feet towards the 22 water. CHAIRWOMAN .OLIVA: So you don' t have much 23 of a bluff there? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Start off at the 24 beginning, the porch is right now -- the proposed setback on the survey is 27 . The porch is four 25 feet, so if you eliminate the porch that would give you a setback of 31 . Now you' re saying that May 20 , 2004 7 1 2 you' re going to move it back, the entire foundation another six feet? 3 MR. ORLICK: Correct . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re out of our 4 jurisdiction, you don' t need a variance . MR. ORLICK: Okay. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But we don' t have any plans on that, let me just take a look. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s 27 . feet to the foundation, you' re going to move it back six feet? 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, the code requirement on the front yard is 35 , 8 you' re here at 27 because it' s 27 to the porch. The width of the porch is four. 9 MR. ORLICK: If I may interrupt , the porch is 23 feet . 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I see . MR. ORLICK: On the survey I don' t know 11 why they, put it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it' s really 23 12 feet? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it' s 27 to the 13 house now and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you go back six it 14 just makes it 33 , so you still need our approval . MR. ORLICK: Correct . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You still need -- MR. ORLICK: Correct . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have much of a bluff there as a protection against the storms . 17 I wish you luck with it . MR. ORLICK: I just think that -- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to have to bu21d on stilts . 19 MR. ORLICK: Yes . And the Trustees came out and I' d be nine feet off the ground, and they 20 felt if I, just had the deck with no supports, underneath footings, that it wouldn' t impact 21 anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the deck is not 22 doing to be raised? MR. ORLICK: The deck is going to be 23 ;raised but no footings underneath it . It' s going 'ito be just flying out more or less . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A flying bridge? 1 MR. ORLICK: A flying bridge . I mean, . 25 there will be supports underneath. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hope so . May 20 , 2004 8 1 • 2. Vincent, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 3 That was my concern, I'm glad you moved it back, and it' s only a two foot reduction in the code, 74 which is minimal, and it looks like you' re saving your little lean-to shed. 5 MR. ORLICK: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just happened to 6 see it on the property, and I kind of chuckled. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a lot of 7 poison ivy, be careful . Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . s 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against 10 this application? Hearing no one, I would like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 11 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) t12 - - ------- ---------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 13 Thomas Rosicki and Sparkling Point, LLC to put a winery in the old Atkins nursery, on the North 14 Road in Southold. Is there anybody here who would like to speak for this application? 15 MR. ROSICKI : Good morning, my name is Thomas Rosicki . And yes, what we' re seeking and 16 what' s before the Board today is to get a variance of the 100 feet setback. As you probably have in a 17 your materials, at one point the existing building that has been there for some time is setback 67 18 feet on one corner and 80 . 8 feet on the other, and that' s the variance that we are seeking. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Planning Board, I must say, had sent in the recommendations and they 20 have no problem with the setbacks . Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have a 21 revised site plan? Because this' is the original survey from the nursery because some of these 22 things don' t even exist here anymore, like the poly greenhouse, it' s gone . So this is an old 23 survey. MR,. ROSICKI : What we had planned to do 24 was to do the site plan after -- there wasn' t any sense in our opinion -- this is my wife Cynthia 25 Rosicki, by the way, -- in doing the site plan before we had the variance . May 20 , 2004 9 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you plan on expanding the main structure? 3 MR. ROSICKI : No, not at all . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re going to 4 keep it? MR. ROSICKI : As is . 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not changing the footprint of that main structure? 6 MR. ROSICKI : Not by one inch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Because there' s no 7 greenhouses on that side . MR. ROSICKI : The greenhouses, they were 8 falling apart . MR. ORLANDO: Are you putting any other 9 structures on the site? MR. ROSICKI : No, we' re not, no other 10 structures . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if anybody else in the audience has any questions . 14 MS . SMITH: _ Donna Dougas Smith. I ' m an adjoining landowner. And I 'm here to represent 15 myself and also other neighbors in the neighborhood. 16 I did receive a notice in the mail, and it didn' t exactly say the same exact thing this piece 17 of paper says this morning. The piece of paper here says it' s asking for solely that variance . 18 According to the paper I received, unless I misunderstood it, was that it' s asking for also a 19 change of zoning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 20 MS . SMITH: There' s no change of zoning? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That wouldn't come 21 before us anyway. MS . SMITH: I did receive no notice that 22 this has gone before the Planning Board, if this has gone before the Planning Board. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it has not as yet . MS . SMITH: We have a petition here from 24 the neighbors around here, and I' d just like to read it before the Board. 25 "We the undersigned object to any zone change or variance be granted to the May 20 , 2004 10 1 2 owners or representatives of the property located at 33975 County Road 48 , 3 CTM 59-10-1 . This property for many years a shrub/flower/tree farm, which falls 4 under the zone agricultural nursery code . A winery metal storage building and a 5 retail office building and large parking area will change the character of the area 6 and cause a depreciation of our properties . 7 "The Town of Southold has spent considerable . time and money addressing the 8 existing codes and usage of the property on Route 48 , and, therefore, no change 9 should occur. " I ' d like to submit that into the 10 file . . It' s the signatures of the people that are supporting that . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Donna, are your neighbors more concerned that it' s a change of 12 zone because wineries are allowed in the agricultural district, you know that . 13 MS . SMITH: Also the fact about the change of use which I' ll get to right now. 14 Number 2 , the original building that you' re referring to was built as a barn/workshop. 15 It was not a retail use . It was their greenhouse, that ' s the retail use . Nurseries tend to do that 16 because they always say it' s a temporary building, and so they get away with not doing light 17 business, getting zoned as light business . So that was a barn/workshop; that was not used for 18 people coming in and out, et cetera. Number 3 , when I went in front of the 19 Planning Board for my building, -my log building, which you can see is a small thousand square foot 20 building, I got the wrath of the town about it, and I was told to go 250 feet back from Route 48 , 21 of which my land slopes down, and if I had done my little tiny building in that place, you would have 22 only seen a little green roof . So' we did compromise, it' s a 60 foot minimum setback for new 23 buildings off of Route 48, ' cause that' s -- the first 60 feet belongs to the county, I was told, 24 and so we compromised on 160 feet because they considered that that building would be used what 25 you' re claiming this building' s going to be used for, in that people would be coming in and out May 20 , 2004 11 1 2 whether to buy wine, deliver wine or whatever. So I think that' s something, I 'm an adjacent neighbor 3 and I ' m being held to a higher standard. Number 4 , you have to think on the notice 4 I got, it said that wine storage with an office attached, because it' s a big building, and it has 5 a little part jutting out, and they said that that was going to be the office . It doesn' t actually 6 refer to it as a quote/unquote winery. There are no vines on that land; it' s a nursery. 7 My other concern is that we did spend the town, the people -- spent a lot of money and r 8 time and energy on a moratorium on Route 48 to avoid exactly this, that we weren' t going to 9 continually give exceptions, that we weren' t going to spot we' ll do this for this person, that for 10 that person. They had at that point, the owner at that time, to decide what the future of that land 11 was . They had that opportunity to come . I had that opportunity to ask for a different zoning, or 12 to do what I wanted to do with my land, and so did the owner at that time had the same opportunity, 13 this is now a different owner. And the other thing is, already it seems 14 there' s a lot of land clearing going on there . On the plan that I received there' s something like 30 15 parking spaces with overflow parking. I have to question what are you going to do with what ' s 16 going to be done with that building. If already trees had been knocked down all around that 17 building as if it' s a given that this building is going to become what they' re asking, a huge giant 18 parking lot is going to surround it . I don' t understand how that occurs . I don' t understand 19 why someone would already do that almost like assume it' s a given. We' re going to put this big 20 parking lot around this existing building. I just hope you keep in mind that we don' t want to get 21 like from up west . My family moved out here . because of the farming, because of the views . We 22 spent a lot of development right money buying development rights . There are lands surrounding 23 that the development rights money of the tax payers have been spent to keep the views, all 24 right . There can be -- there' s a potential problem with this . I ' d like you to consider 25 everything I brought up. Read the petition. I think the person here -- this is the first I 've May 20 , 2004 12 1 2 seen of them -- I think if they were sincerely interested and they don' t live right there, they 3 should have talked to all the neighbors . We' ve asked in the past when something like this comes 4 forth that a bigger sign, three feet by three feet be put on the property so people are notified. No 5 one finds out about this until such things are approved. Let' s try to continue to save Southold. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Smith, in respect to the parking, I think if we approve the setback, 7 then really the parking issue should go when they come for site plan approval to the Planning Board. 8 I think this would be more appropriate for them to decide . 9 MS . SMITH: But it' s something you need to consider before you approve the setback. It' s an 10. existing building. There are. other opportunities out in this town that have the proper setbacks for 11 such use . This is a new thing. This is not the original owner of the property, then it went to 12 . someone else and the person admitted they bought it on speculation. They sold it on speculation. 13 Do not do it at the cost of the town, at the cost of the neighbors . I 'm an adjacent neighbor, 14 please . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there 15 anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application? 16 MR. MUDD: Good morning, Board, I ' m Steve Mudd. I am an adjoining neighbor across the 17 street and Donna brought up a lot of points of concern, one of which is not valid. The Accent 18 nursery. piece that was over there, they did do retail sales out of that structure, as well as the 19 greenhouse both, and I would ask the Board to vote upon it favorably in consideration of the variance 20 for the setback of the building that' s existing that was used for an agricultural para use . Just 21 a conversion to a different use . Thank you . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. 22 Does the applicant have anything further to add? 23 MR. ROSICKI : Yes I do. I listened very carefully to the impassioned speech by Miss Smith, 24 and that was first on my list, as Mr. Mudd mentioned, the retail use piece is simply not 25 true . The other thing I ' d like to add is that we have been residents of Southold for eight years as May 20 , 2004 13 1 2 well, and we own a house within one mile of this parcel . We' re not people who haven' t been 3 familiar or acclimated to the area. In fact , quite frankly, we bought this property because we 4 didn' t want to see Southold turned into development, after development, after development . 5 And as we came out here more and more and we put down our hard earned money and bought a house out 6 here on North Sea Drive, we bought this piece, in fact, to help stop the development that was 7 happening. The other thing I ' d like to add is that 8 the word adjacent means directly next to. I don' t believe her parcel is directly next to . I think 9 there' s a parcel in between, and I' d like to say that we care about Southold and Southold Town and 10 we've made a very big investment in it to preserve the agricultural nature of it , and this isn' t just 11 a money making operation for us . Thank you, and I would ask that with the issue before the Board 12 that you would favorably approve it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Board Members have any 13 further. questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No further 14 questions, I just wanted to sum up the clarification, exactly what I said, so it ' s 15 clearly on the record. You' re not expanding the existing structure? 16 MR. ROSICKI : Not by one inch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And you' re not 17 putting any more new structures on the property? MR. ROSICKI : Zero, in fact, we have 18 removed structures . There were greenhouses that aren' t there anymore . There are fewer structures . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Thank you. And I consider wineries farming. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' d like to -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The parking you' re going to put in there is going to be the parking 22 that is required by the Planning Board? I ' m assuming you' re not putting parking in because you 23 like parking? MR. ROSICKI : No . We don' t like parking 24 and in fact, the idea of paving over square footage of something we want to be agricultural, 25 is anathema to us, and there is also drainage and parking that exist there as well . May 20 , 2004 14 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm familiar with it . Have the development rights been sold to any 3 of this? MR. ROSICKI : No. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like the piece is cut out where the building is, is there 5 any reason for that line that's there on the survey? It looks like it' s cut out . 6 MR. ROSICKI : That' s the way it was under the previous owner. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s one lot . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The development 8 rights are fully intact? . MR. ROSICKI : Yes . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought maybe that denoted that in some way. I was concerned 10 about that . Other than the fact that you' re putting a permitted use there, I see no reason 11 why -- you have a hardship in that there' s an existing building, there shouldn' t be any reason 12 why you can' t use the existing building. You may need to make the ingress and egress a little 13 safer, it ' s not for us to know, but other than the fact that parking is required by the Planning 14 Board and we don' t do it, I see no problem with this . Thank you. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to 16 make a couple of notes for the record as to the concerns of Miss Smith. Number 1, the property 17 itself does not appear to me to be more than one 150 feet deep, 67 feet from the road, the length 18 of the building is 65 ' 211 , and even with the apron, so as to the criteria under New York Town Law that 19 we are required to look at is, do they have an alternative? The answer is no. There is no 20 feasible way that this structure could be placed on this property without a variance . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have 11 . 5 acres . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Their hardship is 22 that they have a building and want to use it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have an existing . 23 building. . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Without tearing 24 the whole thing down, correct? Theoretically they could tear the whole thing down and -- 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Move it back 100 feet . But that' s not what they' re asking for. May 20 , 2004 15 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you know what the easement is in front of you, the ,utility 3 easement between your property, 10, 12 feet maybe? MR. ROSICKI : I don' t know. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because the apron' s way out there, so I'm assuming even though it' s 5 from your property to the house is 67 feet from the Main Road it' s probably closer to 80 feet? 6 MR. ROSICKI : I would think so . There' s a huge piece out in front, but exactly what it is, 7 I don' t know. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going to keep 8 that landscaping that' s there, that buffer? MR. ROSICKI : Absolutely. It' s beautiful 9 landscaping out in front . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much of a financial 10 hardship would it be for you to move that building back? 11 MR. ROSICKI : I don' t know. We' re not in construction, but I would think it would be 12 $750 , 000 maybe . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Substantial . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLI.VA: Does anybody else have anything to say? If not; does anybody else in the 14 audience wish to make any comments? MR. ROSICKI : One other thing, may we 15 request a copy of the petition that was submitted? MS . KOWALSKI : Yes, we' ll mail it to you 16 tomorrow, or if you would like to. read it before the hearing' s closed. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Miss Smith? MS . SMITH: Just a few corrections there . 18 I am an adjacent property owner where you recently had all the pine trees knocked out, my vineyard is 19 right next to that . So you can see the map, I 'm an adjacent property owner, that' s not disputable . 20 The other thing is, the address I received on the application said up island somewhere in 21 Nassau County, it did not say a local address to get in touch with you and it had a 5-1-6 area 22 code, so I did not know that these people lived in Southold, and if they considered to be neighborly, 23 they could also talk to us as neighbors . But the thing that you need to remember was that building 24 was built as a barn. If you look at what that was built as when Askins owned it, it was built as a 25 barn. When you change it into wine storage -- and that' s what it says on the paper that was sent to May 20 , 2004 16 1 2 me -- wine storage with office, it did not say winery. And how are you going to have a winery 3 without grapevines? And as far as lifting up a building and 4 moving it back, they .do have 11 acres, they could use that as a barn. If they' re truly going to be 5 a winery, they could use it as a barn and build a winery further back where the public could safely 6 enter a property and be less of a nuisance to the neighbors . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Miss Smith. Anybody else? If not, I ' ll make a motion 8 to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 9 (See minutes for . resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for 10 coming in. I just want to tell you that we make our 11 decisions probably in two weeks and then about a week after that it will be written and then when 12 it' s filed with the town clerk, it will be finalized. 13 - -------------------------------------- -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing, 14 Mr. Vitelli is on Gillette Drive,, or East Gillette Drive, he wishes to build a swimming pool . Is 15 there someone here who wishes to speak to this application? 16 MR. VITELLI : Good morning everyone, my name is Robert Vitelli, and this is my wife, 17 Nancy. And I 'm the property owner of 1045 Gillette Drive, and because of the hardship of 18 front and back road, we' re filing for a variance on it . 19 We bought ,the property in 2001, and we improved the property. It was a wooded lot, 20 overgrown. We put a house suitable for the area and we' d just like to improve on it some more with 21 a pool, but we do have that hardship front and back. 22 As far as I received a letter from the Zoning Board as far as neighbors concerns, I ' d 23 like to address that . The houses that are around the property and across the street from the 24 property are one level ranch houses . The pool that I 'm proposing is an in-ground pool , which 25 doesn' t go above the surface, so I think with proper landscaping, if I plant trees around it, it May 20 , 2004 17 1 2 won' t be seen by anybody, and as far as wild parties, and me being out there, I have one 3 daughter. I 've been there a year and nobody' s complained about me being there . I do not have 4 wild parties . I 'm a weekend resident here, and we' re looking to use the . house for summertime use . 5 So I ' m proposing if I would put trees around the property. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think that was one of the concerns of your neighbors that it was going 7 to be a chain link fence, and they didn' t want a chain link fence around. 8 MR. VITELLI : I have to fence the pool . I ' ll go whatever it would take . I 'm just trying 9 to protect from somebody walking in there and getting injured. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to put the fence around the pool . I think they were 11 concerned about having a fence around the perimeter of your property, of the rear property 12 facing East Gillette . Did you want to put a chain link fence back there? 13 MR. VITELLI : I want to enclose by code the area, whatever it would take by code . I ' m 14 flexible with the fence . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To address your 15 neighbor' s concern, I would say if you want the fence to then put landscaping, some sort of trees, 16 some sort of buffer so they wouldn' t have to look at the fence . So you feel secure knowing you have 17 the fence, and they feel better if you have mature plantings there that they don' t have to watch what 18 you' re doing, what you' re not doing. MR. VITELLI : It would also return it to 19 the original look. It was a wooded lot before . It would be a manicured tree line now, but it will 20 still go back to a more rural look. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you wouldn' t have 21 any concerns if we put a condition of our approval that you plant mature evergreens at- such and such 22 foot apart at the rear and around the sides of your property there? 23 MR. VITELLI : Not a problem. I was intending on doing it anyway. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 25 It ' s your backyard. Thank you for staking it out, and you should be allowed to entertain in your May 20 , 2004 18 1 2 backyard whether it has a pool or not a pool . MR. VITELLI : ' I had it staked out since 3 February so all the neighbors can see, certain neighbors that I speak to have my phone number, so 4 before I even went for a variance or when I first applied for my building permit in February, so if 5 anybody had concerns, there was ways of getting in. touch with me. They could even drop a letter in 6 my mailbox, which is across the street from the house . It' s right there . I did everything that 7 the Board asked as far as the mailings and posting. I tried to post everything in a timely 8 fashion so nobody would be surprised, and I ' m not putting anything above the ground, so I ' m figuring 9 it is what it is, and I have this hardship of the back road. So I hope the Board looks favorable on 10 my proposal . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You meet all the 11 required setbacks, you just have unfortunate of two front yards . 12 MR. VITELLI : Also, up the street at 2705 Gillette Drive, they have a pool; they went for a 13 variance two years ago and they have the same situation, their pool faces East Gillette Drive, 14 and they do have the chain link fence around the property, I also included pictures, and their 15 fence is not completely covered, but I will try according to what the Board asks as far as trees 16 and landscaping, to cover it - up as much as possible . 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think with the 19 evergreen hedging along that yard line that should mitigate the neighbors concerns . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER . DINIZIO: Just so we' re 21 clear, when we ask you to put the evergreens, they' re going to be planted on your property. 22 They' re not on the right of way. So the fence is going to be back four feet from your property 23 line, you' re going to put these arborvitae planted five, six feet apart, . or whatever they' re going to 24 be . MR. VITELLI : I'm very flexible, whatever 25 the Board tells me to do, I ' ll comply. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm well aware of May 20 , 2004 19 1 2 this neighborhood. It' s more than just those two pools that have that problem. There are quite a 3 few on the Gardiners Bay side on Gardiners Bay Road, you definitely have a hardship. As long as 4 we' re clear on the evergreens, I think we' re going to be okay. Thank you. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or 6 against this application? MR. WELLS : My name is Wells, I live 7 across the street from this proposal and I 'm opposed to it, as the letter stated. It ' s right 8 in my front yard, my living room, my bedroom, my family room, whatever you want to call it, and to 9 date, I mean, they've had a couple projects there . They put up a berm, then they took it down. When 10 they left , the garbage is still on' the side of the road. Mr. Vitelli said he' s going to do this and 11 that, that kind of scares me, if he gets all done we're going to have a pool and fence, and that' s 12 it . It' s a scary idea, and I think it' s going to devalue my property and my house, my looks and 13 everything else with this in my front yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you have a 14 problem if he put evergreens around the outside? MR. WELLS : I'm not opposed to that but 15 saying and doing it is two different things . Who' s going to make him do it? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Wells, we can condition it that he would not get a CO for his 17 swimming pool until we come and inspect it and make sure those plantings are in. 18 MR. WELLS : Maybe he' ll clean up. the mess from the last job they did. They graded the last 19 thing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, that' s not our 20 concern. MR. WELLS : This is just going to be a 21 continuation, that' s my fear. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Vitelli? 22 MR. VITELLI : To address the issue of the debris, that' s another lot that' s next door . They 23 cleared that lot . All my debris was taken away. I hired P . T. Nicola, he was the builder, he was 24 responsible for everything that was done there . The grades are according to the survey that the 25 Town has, so there is no loose ,dirt anywhere . It is exactly what the grades are on the survey that May 20 , 2004 20 1 2 was submitted. I have pictures and photos . My property line does not include that wooded lot 3 next to it and those woods that were taken down by somebody who had bought that property, they left 4 that debris there, and it' s on their property. It is not on my property line . The berm in 5 the back was not on the survey, they had to remove that extra dirt to grade it properly for drainage . 6 It ' s a flat piece of property, the low point is at the front of the house, and the high point is at 7 the back. So to get the proper drainage there, and it' s all represented on the survey, there' s 8 nothing hidden. The pictures show -- they have the pictures . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we do, thank you . Any further questions? If not I' ll make a motion 10 to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) - -------- ---------------------------------------- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Katsoulas . 13 MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Katsoulas, we received another letter from one of the neighbors, I ' d like 14 to give you a copy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are asking for - - 15 you' re over 20 percent lot coverage, and you want to go to about -28 , 29 percent of lot coverage? 16 MR. KATSOULAS : The thing is part of that is the deck, which is -- I have an in-ground pool 17 and the deck is not elevated. It' s even with the ground, and I understand if the deck is even with 18 the ground, that doesn' t consider like a living space . It' s like my property goes to incline and 19 when I built the deck, I had actually dig it from the west side, actually southwest 'to put -the floor 20 beams down. So it' s about 70 percent of the deck is even with the ground. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe the interpretation of the Building Department is if 22 they can drive a lawn mower over it from the grass; is that correct? 23 MR. KATSOULAS : You could, but the fence is around so you can' t . You can come from the 24 west side, southwest side and you can drive a lawn mower. 25 MRS . KATSOULAS : The problem is it' s a slope so the very end of it is just raised up like May 20 , 2004 21 1 2 this . I mean, that pool' s been there since 1989 . MR. KATSOULAS : I had to put the deck 3 level so . MS . KOWALSKI : I believe the architect 4 determined the lot coverage on that, and I ' m not sure whether he included the deck in that lot 5 coverage . Would you be able to tell us? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 23.. 9 percent is what 6 you have now, and you want to go to 28 . 7 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t see a 7 breakdown on the new. MS . KOWALSKI : Do you have a set of plans 8 with you, Mr. Katsoulas? MR. KATSOULAS : Yes . We have two 9 setbacks, one for the garage and one for the house . 10 MS . KOWALSKI : Have you a breakdown from the architect on one of the pages of the plan? 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, it ' s in four point typeface on the plans . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Two car garage is 733 square feet . 13 MRS . KATSOULAS : We brought new plans in. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s so small on 14 our plans, unless we have a magnifying glass . MS . KOWALSKI : Your architect included the 15 deck around the pool, you' d have to have him correct it . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He has the pool and deck included and house deck. See, right down 17 here, if you can see it . MR. KATSOULAS : Is the pool considered 18 part of MS . KOWALSKI : The Building Department 19 would decide -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Here you have the 20 house and deck and then you have the pool and deck. 21 MR. KATSOULAS : What do you want me to do? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s going to have to give us the square footage of the pool and also a 23 determination whether that deck is on the ground, and therefore exempt from square footage 24 MR. KATSOULAS : It' s in-ground pool . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The in-ground pool is 25 part of your square footage . MR. KATSOULAS : Let me finish. The May 20 , 2004 22 1 2 in-ground pool, so the deck is level with the pool . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But how about this house and deck it says, is that deck on ground 4 level or is it raised? MR. KATSOULAS : The front deck is raised. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But that is considered part of your square footage . 6 MR. KATSOULAS : I'm not disagreeing with that . 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s the pool deck. MS . KOWALSKI : Do you have pictures? 8 MRS . KATSOULAS : No. The only reason we thought was going to be the problem with the 9 variance was the lot coverage, which the extra lot coverage was going to be the two car garage, which 10 definitely we can do anything. We don' t even have to have that garage . It was if we could get that, 11 fine . Really we' re going for a second floor -- second story deck above an existing deck that was 12 already years ago we put in, had variance and everything. So that' s if you don' t approve of the 13 pool -- I mean the garage, that' s fine . Right here we' re just concerned about a deck that' s 14 above an existing deck already. No bigger, no smaller, same size, directly above on the second 15 floor. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Your plan is very 16 confusing. MR. KATSOULAS : I know. Let me explain. 17 On front of the house I want to put two peaks as shown, because the roof structure now, the front 18 of the house is very old. It' s only two by four. I ' m in the construction business so -- 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re going to put reverse gables in the front? 20 MR. KATSOULAS : Two reverse gables . I want to put a window that shows on the plan, I 21 want also a sliding door on the east side and with a deck. It' s 8 by 11, whatever the first floor 22 deck and that' s it . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The problem is 23 this : We have existing lot coverage of 29 percent, 23 . 9 . On your architect' s plans, 24 submitted by your architect that' s on the plans, that' s on what you submitted here, the proposed 25 house pool is 36-55 and the garage is 7733 , which would bring you to 28 . 7 lot coverage . So what we May 20 , 2004 23 1 2 either have to see revised calculations here because what you' re saying does not mesh with the 3 plans from the architect, what you've submitted, and we have no way of quickly looking at this and 4 ascertaining. You do have existing lot coverage right now of almost 24 percent, period. According 5 to your calculations and your architect ' s plans . That' s what you submitted to us . 6 MR. KATSOULAS : So eliminate the garage . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is that what 7 you' re calling the pool house, the garage? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the existing 8 house pool? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I want to know 9 what the house pool was . MR. KATSOULAS : In the back I have the 10 filters in the little enclosed there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you do not have the 11 garage, according to the figures that you have here on this plan, then you' re not really adding 12 anything on that requires a variance . MR. KATSOULAS : Exactly, yes . 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Still the front yard setback. 14 MR. KATSOULAS : The front yard setbacks, yes . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As far as the percentage of development on your property would 16 remain at 23 . 9 percent . MR. KATSOULAS : Without the garage, yes . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without the garage but you still need the front yard setback. 18 MS . KOWALSKI : Is the deck replacing a deck? 19 MRS . KATSOULAS : No . It' s just going directly above . I don' t know if you know the 20 property. We have Captain Marty' s in front of our house . We bought the house from his parents . He 21 has boats in front of the house, we don' t care . So we have a really nice view and with those boats 22 there, and we've never complained. We like Phil , we do business there . We just want to put a 23 second story deck so we can lookout and just appreciate the view. 24 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s the garage that' s changing your lot coverage . 25 MRS . KATSOULAS : I ,know. Fine, they said put it on so you don' t have to go twice later on May 20 , 2004 24 1 2 down the road. If the garage is a problem, scrub it . 3 MR. KATSOULAS : There was a barn, the old survey shows a barn. When we bought the house 4 back in ' 87 . MRS . KATSOULAS : With the garage we were 5 going to replace it but we wanted it a little bigger. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : That little deck still needs a setback variance . 7 MRS . KATSOULAS : Fine . That' s the only thing I ' m concerned about . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All you need really is the front yard setback for the deck that you wish 9 to build to have a view and look out . MRS . KATSOULAS : Absolutely. 10 MR. KATSOULAS : Also we put a roof above the existing patio there on the left of the 11 house . MRS . KATSOULAS : It' s going to the bottom of the deck. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, you have more questions? 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The roof of the patio, is it going to be opened up? 14 MR. KATSOULAS : Open porch. MS . KOWALSKI : Would you like to give us a 15 letter withdrawing the portion with the garage, we can mark the file changed and proceed from there? 16 MRS . KATSOULAS : Absolutely. MR. KATSOULAS : Is there any way we can 17 make it smaller? I know I proposed a big 24 by 30 , I do have that property in the back, can we 18 make it a one car garage, 18 by 24? MS . KOWALSKI : You can always reapply. 19 MR. KATSOULAS : I can always reapply? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think you need 20 to investigate the deck around the pool and see if it should be part of your square footage or not . 21 I think you should inquire about that because that would reduce your lot coverage and you wouldn' t 22 need a variance for the garage . MR. KATSOULAS : I understand. So, do I 23 have -to call the architect again, and how that works out . Who is going to determine whether the 24 deck around the pool is ground level or is elevated? 25 MS . KOWALSKI : That' s not the issue right now if you' re going to withdraw the garage, but May 20 , 2004 25 1 2 for the future . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . 3 MR. KATSOULAS : So the architect will determine that . 4 MS . KOWALSKI : Architect and the Building Department . 5 MR. KATSOULAS : And the Building Inspector. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : Show them photographs . MRS . KATSOULAS : Right . For now can we 7 just do the deck? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do the setbacks for the 8 deck. CHAIRWOMAN. OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would like to see something in writing that they have agreed to 10 remove the garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLI.VA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are you going to do underneath? Are you going to enclose that? 12 MR. KATSOULAS : No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you don' t intend 13 to enclose the existing patio once . you put a roof on? 14 MRS . KATSOULAS : No, the bottom .of . the top deck. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So basically, the deck you' re putting up top there will be able to 16 rain through, there' s no roofing there . MR. KATSOULAS : No. The deck is on the 17 right side facing the house and the roof over the patio is on the left side where you go in the main 18 door. MRS . KATSOULAS : Are you talking about the 19 front roof? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I am just 20. concerned about the two decks you' re going to put on. I don' t want underneath to turn into a room 21 of your house . MR. KATSOULAS : Big house . I don' t need 22 any more room. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not going to 23 be enclosed and our decision' s going to say that . Listen to what I 'm saying, please . Our decision 24 is going to say that you cannot enclose that , and we will let you have the deck. So that means 25 you' re not going to be able to come back and enclose that . May 20 , 2004 26 l 2 MRS . KATSOULAS : No . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to be clear 3 on that . If you agree to that now -- MRS . KATSOULAS : I agree to that . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could not agree to that, it wouldn' t make a difference to me . 5 MR. KATSOULAS : We have no choice . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words , you 6 want the deck, you' re _going to give something up, and it ' s going to be that . You' re not going to 7 put another room there . MR. KATSOULAS : Let me ask you something. 8 Can we put screen -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think you 9 can enclose that . I just want to point that out to you. My opinion, personal opinion is I . could 10 care less, but I can tell you that the Board is going to restrict certain things that you can do 11 there, that' s going to be one of them. So, you want to walk away knowing that and I just want you 12 to walk away knowing that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So to sum up, you are 13 going to send us a letter stating that you' re withdrawing your application for the garage . 14 Number 2 , that we will consider the deck an open deck never to be enclosed at the same setback that 15 you have now, which is eight foot, am I correct, from the front yard? And if you decide to do 16 anything further, you will have to go back to your architect and the Building Department to determine 17 the square footage of your pool and the deck around that if that' s included in your lot 18 coverage; is that correct? MRS . KATSOULAS : Yes . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re clear on that . Let me just see, is there anybody in the 20 audience who wishes to speak for or against this? Any other questions for the Board? Then I make a 21 motion to close this hearing and reserve decision until later. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) ----------------------------------------------- - - 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Peter and Arlene Manos . They wish to expand 24 the house and put a lap pool in the side yard. Mr. Strang? 25 MR. STRANG: Yes, good morning, Garret Strang, architect, representing Peter and Arlene May 20 , 2004 27 1 2 Manos . First I' d like to submit to the Board the 3 determination that we received from the Trustees so you have it for your record (handing) . 4 We' re also presently awaiting determination from the DEC with respect to 5 jurisdictional inquiry on this.. Once we receive that we' ll be happy to forward that determination 6 to the Board. The application we have here, just a quick 7 review, if you will, a history on this, my clients a while back before we were working together, had 8 made an application to this Board for a swimming pool . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . MR. STRANG: And the pool was shown to be 10 in the rear yard, if you will, on the waterside of the house . Ultimately this Board denied this 11 application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 12 MR. STRANG: Subsequent to that we have had several meetings and numerous conversations, 13 and although a pool is allowed by code in the front yard of the house, the street side of the 14 house, in my opinion I don' t think that is the best location. Specifically, the lot, the whole 15 area is relatively open It' s not like it' s a wooded area. It' s an open area. There are no 16 other pools in front yards in this area, so I believe that putting the pool in the front yard, 17 it would be out of character. I believe it would have an negative impact on the neighborhood as 18 well as not be being very neighborly, and it ' s not really a practical location, and I don' t know that 19 it ' s a great precedent to set to put the pool in the front yard in this particular instance . 20 So given those concerns, our proposal at this point is to demolish the existing garage on 21 the side of the house to gain us more room, obviously, and to place the pool on the side yard 22 and to build a detached garage in the front yard, which will basically screen the pool from the 23 neighborhood. It will not only give privacy to my clients, but it will also not have a visual impact 24 in my opinion to the neighborhood and no detrimental or adverse affects to the quality or 25 character of the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You will put screening May 20 , 2004 28 1 2 on the east side? MR. STRANG: We will put screening along 3 the east side, there will be a fence required by code, and we will put .some screen planting along 4 that fence as well . It' s really the most practical location given the fact that that side, 5 once the garage is demo' d, that side of the house is where the living and dining and kitchen area 6 are, so it' s readily accessible to the pool area, and I don' t know that we have another practical 7 location. I think this is the best practical location given the fact; that the Board did object 8 to the pool being in the rear yard. So that being said and not to belabor the issue, I' ll address 9 any questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . I was one of the 10 ones that really objected to that 3,0 foot from the bluff . But this really I think is a better 11 location, and I compliment the people on redoing the whole plot that' s more conforming and better 12 for the bluff . Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions just a 13 comment for you to please pass on a thank you to your client . 14 MR. STRANG: My client is sitting in the room. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Typically it ' s easy to file an Article 78 against us once we deny 16 something, but he and she took the time to redesign it, so I commend them for that . Thank 17 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Likewise, I commend you. I have one question. Why did, instead 19 you' re going to take down that garage area, why not bring the pool over closer to the walkway and 20 the house then, just get it a little further off the property line . I know five foot is five foot, 21 but you do have a nice nine foot expanse there now. 22 MR. STRANG: I can appreciate what you' re saying. The reason we' re holding it that distance 23 is that nine feet is really not all that much, maybe from here to the wall . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s actually nine feet less the four feet for the walkway. So you 25 have symmetry, you have five and five? MR. STRANG: To a certain extent yes, May 20 , 2004 29 1 2 but , again, as I mentioned earlier, there' s a lot of activity happening in that area, coming out of 3 the kitchen and living area, and I believe it ' s safer to have as much distance between the house 4 and the edge of the pool and to hold it to that easterly property line, so as not to have a 5 mishap, especially with grandchildren and the like maybe darting out the door, not paying too much 6 attention, so we' re trying to keep as much space there as practical and still maintain the required 7 five foot setbacks . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the walkway' s 8 going to come up to the house and then will the walkway extend? 9 MR. STRANG: No, that will 'be terrace at grade . The walkway' s only up to the corner entry. 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the garage area, that nine foot area, running along the pool will 11 be -- MR. STRANG: That will be open. The 12 walkway is -- actually, it' s a covered walkway but it' s not enclosed. It' s still going to be an open 13 feel, but again my concern is minimize, reducing that nine feet I think is not a good situation. I 14 think we' re better holding it closer to the property line . 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay. It was just a question. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I walked by this, 17 walk by this every day, quarter to 7 : 00 I go by this house, and I am just wondering how the 18 neighbor feels about this in that this is going to be right next to what looks like his master 19 bedroom. I 'm just wondering if any comments were made by this, or if the neighbor' s here and 20 they' re commenting on it . MR. STRANG: I'm not sure if the neighbor 21 is present, obviously the neighbor was notified. I .don' t know if my client has had any 22 conversations with the neighbor to the east . MR. PAPAS : I am the neighbor. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You are the neighbor to the east? You have no objections? 24 MR. PAPAS : Dimitrius Papas, P-A-P-A-S, 2100 Sound Drive . I have no objections . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking out for you. If you have no objection to it, and May 20 , 2004 30 1 2 it ' s duly noted, then I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in 3 the audience wish to speak for or against this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 4 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ----------------------------------------------- -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 6 Robert and Joann Hegermiller, they wish to build a new house . I have two front streets, one side, 7 one year. MS . KOWALSKI : It' s an addition to a new 8 house that' s being built . MR. HEGERMILLER: Good morning, my wife 9 Joann and I , we' re building a new house on the corner of Green Hill Lane and .Inland Pond Road. 10 The house is currently under construction. The foundation has been poured, it has been framed; 11 however, we have postponed construction of the garage I guess really two reasons, financial as 12 well as the foundation for the garage, an error was made when it was poured, and it' s 13 approximately eight inches too close to Inland Pond Road, it doesn' t meet the minimum setback. 14 It was not done intentionally. It was an error, and we' re requesting a variance . 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How did that occur? 16 MR. HEGERMILLER: The contractor I had hired -- I did it separately, I had the garage 17 foundation poured first, subsequently I had the house foundation poured. But when the contractor 18 that poured the foundation for the garage I thought he would have ' the equipment to stake out 19 the dimensions for the garage . He did not . I took off that day, I was actually at the site, I 20 made an error_, and I did my best to see where that should go, and I made an error. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you' re here over less than half a foot? 22 MR. HEGERMILLER: It' s probably about seven, eight inches . 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have absolutely no objections . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t either. Looks like it' s going to be a very nice house . 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just out of curiosity, what was the setback that you gave him May 20, 2004 31 1 2 that you wanted to be; did you want to be at 35? MR. HEGERMILLER: Yes . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I know that that construction site of the industry is not very 4 accurate, tight tolerances like that, it' s tough, and I feel bad for you. I have no questions . 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: . In the future give yourself about six inches room on either side that 6 way if there' s an error, kind of protect yourself . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say, if 7 you measured the cement you' re going to have seven inches, and I walk by this house around 20 minutes 8 to 7 : 00 every day, and I was wondering why it didn' t start on that garage and, of course, I saw 9 the sign out there . I just have, because I have been looking at it every day, and it looks like 10 you' re only putting one car and the other part is 11 MR. HEGERMILLER: That' s correct . Is guest quarters . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What' s it going to be? 13 MR. HEGERMILLER: Guest quarters . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, is there 14 going to be a stove and refrigerator? MR. HEGERMILLER: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sleeping? . MR. HEGERMILLER: Yes, with an upstairs . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' m glad .I asked that question, that' s all I have . No objection. 17 As I say, I do walk by every day. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The garage is attached 18 to the house? MR. HEGERMILLER: It is, an enclosed 19 breezeway. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll have the garage 20 downstairs and living quarters upstairs? MR. HEGERMILLER: Correct . I had 21 originally wanted the garage 20 feet from the line, however, since it has the kitchen, the 22 Building Department required me to attach everything with an enclosed breezeway between the 23 main house and then the garage with guest quarters, which I'm doing. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you have two 25 kitchens in your house, the guest -- MR. HEGERMILLER: It is so far down the May 20, 2004 32 1 2 road, but that is the plan, yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience 3 have any opinions about this application for or against? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the 4 hearing, reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. - ------------------------------------------- - - --- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Anchor Lane, LLC because you' re less than 75 feet 7 from the bulkhead. MR. REESE : Bill Reese, I 'm the architect 8 representing the owner. I just want to summarize the reasons for this . . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You had that staked out too? 10 MR. REESE : Yes . We' re asking for a variance of less than 75 feet . from an existing 11 bulkhead. The closest dimension to the bulkhead is the bulkhead on the adjoining property, that 12 bulkhead was built after the existing structure was in place . In other words, the bulkhead was 13 already built too close to the house . The existing house is very small, one story structure, 14 and it' s squeezed on three sides . The front of the house has specimen trees, which I think was 15 actually part of the original estate of that development . The east side has the septic system, 16 and the west side we' re actually going to give up, I don' t know exactly what it is, two, three feet 17 of existing structure that' s non-complying and make that complying on that side . We' re asking 18 for a four foot addition on the back of the existing house, which puts us 61 . 6 feet to the 19 existing bulkhead on the neighboring property and 69 . 75 feet on this property. 20 The DEC has no problems when it' s over 10 foot elevation, which this is, and the Board of 21 Trustees have approved this . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quite a slope from the 22 house . And out of curiosity, your easement is on the east side for you to get down to the dock 23 there? MR. REESE : The legal easement , yes . 24 There' s a retaining wall down at the bottom that we have to go down around through the stairs . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It says May 20 , 2004 33 1 2 reconstructing, are you going to just take the house down? 3 MR. REESE : Keep as much as possible but I would say probably 75 percent of it will go, 70 4 percent, be working with the existing foundation. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You' ll keep the foundation? 6 MR. REESE : Keep the foundation and the additions will be on a crawl space . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience 10 wishes to speak for or against this application? If not, I ' m make a motion closing the hearing 11 reserving decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much, sir, for coming in. We will not make a decision 13 today, decisions will be made about two weeks from now and the actual written decision will be done 14 about a week after that . - - - ----- ------------------------------- ----- - --- - 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Mark and Carla Haynes, which is on the Long Way in East 16 Marion. MR. HAYNES : Good morning, I'm Mark 17 Haynes, I'm the architect and owner. I have some drawings that I would like to issue, is that all 18 right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 19 MR. HAYNES : There' s also photographs with these . When my wife and I began designing 20 the house, we decided to set the house as far back as possible, and if you look .at the plot plan that 21 I just gave you folks, the house is actually almost mid plot, it' s about 80 feet wide by 350 22 deep . So by setting the house so far back it was great because the privacy issue that we have and 23 just good design. It worked out very well with the design that the garage is in the front yard, 24 and I really didn' t think it would have much of an impact on the neighborhood, if any, because many 25 of the homes in Pebble Beach have these two car garages that are basically right up on the May 20 , 2004 34 1 2 property, on the setback line and some of those photos indicate that . Whereas this garage, it ' s a 3 very small unit, it' s 18 by 12 . I designed it to have the same proportions and elements as the main 4 house and that' s why I brought these drawings here to show that . It' s setback quite a ways from our 5 property line, about 97 feet from the property line, and the intent was that a passerby looking 6 at the property really may not be able to determine if the garage is attached or if it' s 7 connected in some way, that actually becomes part of the main house . What I also submitted today 8 was a drawing with a proposed deck, an entrance deck. I originally had an entrance deck designed 9 for the house . It' s made of teak, and what I was proposing today was maybe pulling that deck out 10 even further and connecting it to the garage . That' s basically where we are . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t see any big -- I mean, you have a long, narrow lot there . It ' s 12 kind of hard to go around and put something in the back. You've built out pretty much to the sides . 13 Vincent, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . It states on 14 the bottom you were issued a building permit ; was this on your survey? 15 MR. HAYNES : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: . How many 16 inspections did you get on your house before they finally saw this? 17 MR. HAYNES : Just one . When they came to do the survey of the foundation they saw it . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : When you resubmitted the foundation survey? 19 MR. HAYNES : Right . When they actually came out to inspect for the parging of the snap 20 ties and they saw that the garage was in the front yard and they called me said, Mr. Haynes, we have 21 some good news and some had news, the foundation parging is wonderful, but your garage is in the 22 front yard, and you' re not allowed to do that . They said you cannot build the garage, and .you 23 have to go for a variance, and it was a mistake . It should have been picked up during the 24 examination period. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: At least they were 25 nice enough to let you continue with the framing. MR. HAYNES : They were, the house is May 20 , 2004 35 1 2 almost complete, the outside is . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I was 3 curious how long before they actually picked that up. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you coming straight into the garage from the street? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, side, as per the drawings . ` 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re pretty narrow right here, it looked very narrow. 7 MR. HAYNES : This is a narrow driveway, this is the portion of the garage you can see from 8 the street , it has a very large overhang that matches the overhang on the main house . We did 9 leave a lot of vegetation between ourselves and our neighbors, Mike and Ann, and it' s a real nice 10 buffer and the garage doors actually face their home, but there' s a tremendous buffer between the 11 two properties . Which we didn' t clear the entire property and build a home . I actually paid a lot 12 more money to do more of a surgical cut of the property. It' s worked out well, and this is where 13 I am right now. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions 14 for me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No . You are almost 100 feet from the Main Road. The architectural 16 plans look beautiful, and I think it' s going to be a tremendous asset to the neighborhood. 17 MR. HAYNES : Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the 19 audience who wishes to speak for or against this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 20 the hearing reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wish you lots of luck. MS . KOWALSKI : Two weeks before they make 22 a decision on it . Thank you. ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Leona White on Harbor Lane to add a one story porch, 24 adding 140 square feet over the code limitation of 20 percent for a total of 21 percent . 25 MS . BISHOP : That' s correct . Stacy Bishop from Future Surroundings representing the May 20, 2004 36 1 2 interests of Mrs . White . We do propose a new construction of a two bedroom one story home with 3 an attached two car garage which does conform to all codes offsets, setbacks and lot coverage . 4 There are DOH permits in place . Mrs . White would like to incorporate into her building project an 5 eight foot porch overhang off the front , it would be eight feet out and 37 feet across the front 6 elevation. This proposed porch does conform to all codes and does not impede upon offsets and 7 setbacks, however it does bring the allotted lot coverage from the maximum 20 percent allowed up to 8 approximately 21 percent . The porch will not impede upon the character of the neighborhood, it 9 will add aesthetic value to the house and there is no other proposed decking out the rear or side 10 yards of this home . So she' s asking for a favorable decision by the Board to allow this 11 porch to be incorporated into the building project . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One quick 13 clarification, Leona White, is she the daughter of Mr. White living next door? 14 MS . BISHOP : Actually, they are one and the same . They have the adjoining lot, it was 15 merged, under 125 they got the waiver of merger. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So her parents live 16 next door? MS . BISHOP : No, they live next door. 17 That house is on the market and this is the proposed home is what they intend to live in. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was just trying to recall when we gave the waiver of merger on 19 that one, they did follow through with the plan, they were planning on building it and then she 20 did. MS . BISHOP : Yes, she is . She' s planning 21 on building this home . That home is on the market, it' s for sale by owner until we get this 22 squared away and get a little further along. I don' t know if they have any intentions of listing 23 with an agent at that point . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other 24 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? May 20 , 2004 37 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any 3 questions either. Anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this application? If not , 4 I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) (A brief recess was taken. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 7 Steve Vesey and Cheryl Schlitt on Dogwood Lane, . they wish to make some additions to their house. 8 Ms . Steelman? MS . STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels and 9 Steelman Architects . I ' d like to give you a little history. We 10 starte`d on this project about a year and a half ago . My clients originally approached me about 11 adding a two car garage in the rear of their property with a driveway along the east property 12 line going back. They have about 14 and a half feet from the edge of their existing garage to the 13 property line . We felt that was very narrow to approach it that way. So we went through various 14 options possibly locating a second floor addition and different things . 15 What we came to was the plan that you currently have, we have taken over a portion of 16 the existing garage for a new dining room, added a portion to the existing garage to maintain a two 17 car garage, and have added a living room in the rear of the property, felt this was a more 18 sensitive approach to the whole project . Once we decided on a concept, we then started looking a 19 little closer to the site plan and realized we were approximately 300 square feet over the 20 20 , 000 , which then bumped us into more restrictive setbacks . We were required to have a 15 and 20 21 with a total of 35 feet total . Based on our understanding of the code, there wasn' t anything 22 that said that those setbacks had to be applied one way or the other. So, we applied the 15 feet 23 to the east property line, and located our addition accordingly. We wanted the dining room 24 and living room to work out with the garage addition. We then did a series of working 25 drawings, didn' t think there was any problem with that approach and got a, notice of disapproval from May 20 , 2004 38 1 2 the Building Department stating that they wanted us to put the 20 foot setback on the west property 3 line - - I 'm sorry the 15 on the west property line and the 20 on the east property line . So that was 4 a little surprise to us . We didn' t realize that this was something that the Building Department 5 had been requiring and their rationale, as I have spoken to them several times, is that because the 6 existing footprint has on the west property line, has 10 feet, that we needed to use the smaller of 7 those setbacks on that side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 8 MS . STEELMAN: We' re wondering why that is stated that way. In the zoning code, there' s 9 nothing that states how those should be applied to an existing property. We reviewed the Waltz 10 interpretation, there' s nothing in there at that point, we acknowledged that we needed to use those 11 setbacks on these non-conforming buildings and lots, but nothing in terms of how they would be 12 actually applied to a piece of property. So we are in the process now of actually looking for a 13 variance for that location of that dining room, I ' m sorry, the living room on that side, but at 14 the same time and/or an interpretation of how these setbacks should be applied to a 15 nonconforming lot with a non-conforming building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re asking us to 16 make an interpretation of why they said that the 10 foot had to be the smallest and -- 17 MS . STEELMAN: Correct . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- and the 14 . 6 , which 18 is almost 15, which would be a total of 25 feet which is required, right? 19 MS . STEELMAN: We need a total of 35 but they are utilizing the 10 foot on the one side of 20 the existing house . Our understanding was that those setbacks dimensions were independent of the 21 existing structure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It doesn' t state in the 22 notice of disapproval that you' re asking for an interpretation. 23 MS . KOWALSKI : It doesn' t have to say it in the notice . 24 MS . STEELMAN: In our cover of the . Zoning Board we did request that . It is affecting this 25 particular application, but it affects many other projects that we' re involved in, and we' re looking May 20 , 2004 39 1. 2 for some -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Guidance . 3 MS . STEELMAN: In our eyes we have met the code, and we are not increasing the 4 nonconformance; we are maintaining 15 feet . We are respecting the setback at 15 feet and the 5 Building Department has determined that we need to i switch those . 6. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask a question? Nancy, you're 14 . 6? 7 MS . STEELMAN: Yes, existing. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, the existing 8 is 14 . 6 , the new living room addition, is that at the closest , when it attaches to the house, that 9 would still. be 14 . 6, or are you actually -- MS . STEELMAN: The property line angles 10 over, so we' re at 16 . 6, we jog over two feet right at the existing garage, then we go out, it' s that 11 far corner that' s at 15, that' s the worst case scenario at 15 . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: At the worst case scenario let' s assume for argument' s sake that the 13 Board agreed with you that there' s no determination in the code that says one side or 14 the other may be the larger of the two, in theory, you would still need a six inch variance for an 15 undetermined portion of the living room addition or is it because -- 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it' s not that . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re over 20 , 000 so they need 35 . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not on that line at 15 feet . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s my question, no part of the new addition would be 20 less than 15 feet? MS . STEELMAN: No, not at all, we made 21 sure, and there' s a note there, even for the contractor to verify that location. 22 MS . KOWALSKI : I think the reason that maybe the Building Department did that is because 23 when you add the 15 feet proposed and on the opposite side it' s 513 " is it? I can' t read it . 24 10 feet on the opposite side? MS . STEELMAN: On the existing building 25 edge, correct . MS . KOWALSKI : 10 and 15 is only a total May 20 , 2004 40 1 2 25 , and they' re saying you don' t meet the 35 total . 3 MS . STEELMAN: But I think the question is does the location of .the existing building have 4 anything to do with applying those nonconforming setbacks? 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s right . MS . STEELMAN: They' re now saying if this 6 house was zero on that side, what would the setback be . So I think if I have 10 and then 7 there' s 15 , that' s 25 . You' re utilizing the existing building as part of those setbacks and 8 that' s the question. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Your addition is 9 attached to the nonconforming building, if it were detached from it, it would be okay: 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : May I ask a question? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s obvious that 12 we are making some assumptions here as to the building inspector, and I hate to do this, but I 13 have got to do this, he has to come in here and answer those questions because obviously when I 14 looked at it and this is my application -- I thought that you did not need a variance in any 15 way, and that is the way that I would have written it, but I also would probably not have tried to 16 interpret why he made that decision. I think that that interpretation does need to be made, and I 17 don' t think that is his purview. I don' t think he has the right to make that interpretation. So I 18 would like to ask the Chairman to have the building inspector come in the next time we meet , 19 I know it' s going to hold you up and I ' m sorry, and have the building inspector be prepared to 20 explain to us, to convince us that this application needs to be before us . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I actually agree 22 with Jim, because I'm not going to second guess what he' s said. Let' s go back a couple of 23 scenarios, if the 15 foot side, which is the east side, there is no increase in the degree of 24 nonconformity because you are conforming. MS . STEELMAN: Correct . I 'm meeting the 25 setbacks . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I rather agree Nancy May 20 , 2004 41 1 2 too, because if you come straight back on the west side and straight across, then I would say yes . 3 But the way it is here, your new deck is quite a ways away from that west line, and with the 15 on 4 the east line, I would agree with the rest of the members I think the Building Inspector come in. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The new deck is 20 feet and so is the new porch. So assuming that 6 the east side is 15 and the west is 20 , I ' m kind of baffled. 7 MS . STEELMAN: That' s my understanding too . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We could try -to postpone it until this afternoon to see if we 9 could get the building inspector to come in. MS . STEELMAN: I just spoke with Mike . 10 We could see if he' s around. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The living room 11 addition, does that have a full basement? MS . STEELMAN: No, crawl space . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The new addition is one and-a-half stories to match? 13 MS . STEELMAN: It' s one story. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your plans say one 14 and-a-half story frame house . MS . STEELMAN: The existing one 15 and-a-half, but the addition is one story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautifully landscaped. 16 Could we recess it for you for five minutes? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. You know 17 there' s a person here that disapproved this, it' s Daemon Rollins, it' s not the building 18 inspector. It' s permit examiner and he is the person that wrote this, he' s the person that made 19 this decision and Mike is only going to suppose what this gentleman had in his mind when he did 20 it . This is the man we need to speak to, honestly. I know Mike' s here, but honestly - - 21 MS . STEELMAN: I just want to tell you one other thing that happened in this, once I got this 22 determination, I immediately put a phone call into the town attorney for his interpretation 23 initially, and I only had a draft notice of disapproval, so I didn' t want. to pick it up to 24 make it acceptable . Mike met with the town attorney and myself in that meeting, so Mike is 25 very familiar with it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But he' s not the May 20 , 2004 42 1 2 signer of this . MS . STEELMAN: But he didn' t write it, 3 you' re correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think all we' re 4 going to hear from Mike is this guy made a decision. So I don' t think that' s fair to any of 5 us . So if Daemon' s here . MS . STEELMAN: You want me to check? I ' ll 6 be back in a minute . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Call for a recess . 7 I ' ll make a motion to recess the hearing for five minutes . 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - ---- ---------------------------=----- -- -- ------ 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is Mario Rivelli on Hobart Road. 10 MR. RIVELLI : Yes, good morning.. I made a little model here, I don' t know maybe I should 11 leave it up here . Basically the corner in question is this one . Essentially I got 12 permission to do a renovation, and I ' m both the owner and the architect, then because I didn' t 13 meet the requirements, the 10 foot side yard setback and an existing condition I propose not to 14 go through the hearing process to pull it back . So essentially I will leave the existing roof 15 line, come back nine inches, and being an architect and an owner, I'm very sensitive to 16 these things . I told my wife, you know what, why don' t we take some time and go to the hearing. 17 All we really are asking at its closest to the property line ie' s 9' 3 " basically it' s nine 18 inches, then it tapers up to nothing as it goes about 10 feet back. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a narrow lot there too. 20 MR. RIVELLI : Basically it' s a little less than four square feet because the house is not 21 even set parallel . MS . KOWALSKI : Four square feet? 22 MR. RIVELLI : Yes . So I just said let me present it to you. That' s -all I need to say. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I have no 24 questions . You have an irregular shape, maybe two percent of the side yards need a variance . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is extremely May 20 , 2004 43 1 2 minimum. I have no objections . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no objections . 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Our other question is, can we hold the model? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does ,anybody in the audience have any questions or remarks about this 6 application? If not I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. _ 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for 8 coming in and good luck with your house . ---------------------------------------------- - -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nancy? MS . STEELMAN: Daemon was at lunch, they 10 said he should be back around noon. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We - could recess it 11 to quarter of 1 : 00 . MS . KOWALSKI : Do it at 1 : 00 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t want to back up this afternoon' s hearings . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Recess it to 12 : 45 . MS . STEELMAN: I' ll let his office know. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Motion made to recess it to 12 : 45 . 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) ----------------------------------------------- -- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Patterson over on Fishers Island. Go ahead. 17 MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the applicants . I have the 18 affidavit of posting and just a brief written presentation. 19 The Pattersons would like to refurbish an existing accessory building. We've given you 20 plans of what they propose to do . We' ll be in the same footprint, however, because the roof line is 21 only about four or five feet in the rear portion, the roof line will be raised to and some extent 22 and therefore under your Walz decision, the Building Department rejected the application 23 because while we' re not increasing the two dimensions of length and width, the height is 24 increasing, and, therefore, I guess the volume of the structure . They would have the right to 25 rebuild in its precise location, but because of the height increase to make the building more May 20 , 2004 44 1 2 useful for them for a garage and a playhouse, we require a variance . 3 My written memorandum sets forth the arguments under the town law why we believe this 4 should be granted. I 've spoken with the architect and hope that I can answer questions that you may 5 have, if any, concerning the proposed construction, if not, I can bring him back next 6 month. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much higher are 7 they going to go? MR. HAMM: The one foot eight and-a-half 8 inches the ridge will be, and in the rear portion it' s three or four feet but the actual height of 9 the structure itself is being increased one foot eight and-a-half inches . 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Hamm, maybe I ' m missing something here, you were not disapproved 11 on the height of the building unless I 'm missing something here, you were disapproved. because of 12 the location. So it says the location is in the side yard. 13 MR. HAMM: That' s correct. It ' s a side yard location, and, therefore, under the Walz 14 decision because -- the reason why we were denied is yes, the location, but had we not been 15 increasing the height, we would be entitled under Section 100-242 to rebuild it in its precise 16 dimensional space . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Your permit is to 17 construct ; is that correct? Your notice of disapproval says to construct an accessory 18 building; is that incorrect? MR. HAMM: Well, we' re reconstructing, 19 we' re refurbishing. We' re not going to tear it down. It' s going to be rebuilt in place so we 20 don' t lose more than 50 percent of it . We' re proposing to renovate a building which is 21 currently in the side yard location. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you' re not 22 proposing to construct? MR. HAMM: To reconstruct . Except for the 23 increase in height, we would be within the zoning code provision 100-242 which allows a 24 non-conforming building with a conforming use to be enlarged, reconstructed, it goes through a 25 whole litany of types of actions which are permitted. I would say what we' re doing is within May 20 , 2004 45 1 2 that section, but for the fact that height is being increased, so height is really the issue not 3 so much -- well, side yard location is obviously an issue . 4 MS . KOWALSKI : If it doesn' t say it on the disapproval . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It doesn' t say it on the disapproval . Your side yard is pre-existing, 6 all you' re doing is going up in height . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I say 7 something? MR. HAMM: Maybe I can have Daemon back 8 in here . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We may need Daemon 9 again. When I read this at first, my assumption he denied you because you' re a waterfront lot . 10 MR. HAMM: Well, no, I think what he' s saying and the way I read his disapproval is 11 number 1, accessory buildings are required to be in the rear yard, we' re not that . Two, you may 12 have an exception in certain cases when you' re waterfront , which we are, however we don' t meet 13 that either. I think he' s saying you don' t meet either of the two standards by which you' re 14 entitled to have an accessory building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But my 15 understanding is here, you keep referring to this Walz thing, so I' m assuming that at some point in 16 time you had a discussion with Daemon that said Walz is telling me to do this . 17 MR. HAMM: I had proposed this floor plan to Daemon well before Oliver Cope the architect 18 applied for the building permit . He thought it was okay. He later called me to say cops, sorry, 19 under Walz I have to deny you because you have a side yard location which is non-conforming, under 20 Walz you' re increasing the degree of non-conformity by violating the existing three 21 dimensional space . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But .he doesn' t cite 22 that in his disapproval . MS . KOWALSKI : He' s saying the entire 23 accessory building is in a non-conforming location, all the construction, not just the 24 height . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But he doesn' t say 25 that here either. . MS . KOWALSKI : He does on the first May 20 , 2004 46 1 2 sentence, permit to construct nonhabitable accessory building. The whole building is denied. 3 MR. HAMM: The argument is going to be the same . We have an existing building which we 4 would be entitled to reconstruct as a matter of right in its existing three dimensional space . 5 However you would like to phrase it or if you would like me to get a revised notice of 6 disapproval these are maybe distinctions without a difference as far as I can see, will this affect 7 the neighborhood, the arguments are going to be the same, we' re going to raise. the roof a little, 8 The immediate neighbor attached to my memorandum is a letter from Alfred Ferguson, who is the 9 neighbor most impacted, he approves the project . In fact, if we moved it back farther back on the 10 lot it would be a worse impact on him. CHAIRWOMAN OLI.VA: Mr. Hamm, what is there 11 now, is it a garage? MR. HAMM: It' s a garage/shed/storage 12 building, which pre-exists zoning. - It' s height in the rear is only about four or five feet . The 13 footprint is the 491 square feet roughly 20 by 24 . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not enlarging that? 15 MR. HAMM: Not enlarging the footprint, the footprint will be exactly as it now is . The 16 only reason we need a variance is because of height . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it' s not in the notice of disapproval . The notice of disapproval 18 says it' s because it' s in the side yard. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have a CO 19 on this building? MR. HAMM: Yes . I don' t have it with me, 20 I submitted it when we had an application for an office, you may remember from three years ago, but 21 yes, I can get that for you, if you need it . But their pre-CO covered a house and the garage and 22 there have been subsequent building permits for a renovation for the house itself . Everything is 23 legal here . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would suggest maybe 24 that when Mr. Rollins comes in at quarter to 1 : 00 we ask him about this one too. I don' t 25 understand. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let' s get some May 20 , .2004 47 1 2 things on the record. Does the height of the building exceed the 18 foot? 3 MR. HAMM: No . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Walz doesn' t say 4 that . Okay. Walz says if it' s nonconforming, you can' t increase it . I understand the reasoning, 5 but it' s not here in the disapproval . Walz says if you have three feet and you want to go four, 6 you can' t if it' s a nonconforming location, and this building is in a nonconforming location. It 7 says you can' t increase it, that' s what Walz says . But it' s not in this disapproval. in any way. All 8 he denied you for is because you' re -- actually he' s stating the obvious . 9 MR. HAMM: I rely on the. Building Department to interpret what we need, and I will 10 ask for an amended notice of disapproval if that' s something that would be helpful . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think he needs to answer the question. 12 MR. HAMM: You' re quite right, I did have a conversation with him prior to the application 13 for the building permit being made and he and I discussed it when he' s called to say, oops, I ' m 14 sorry, under Walz I am going to have to deny. It' s clearly by reason of Walz that' s it ' s being 15 denied. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hamm, are you going 16 to come back quarter to 1 : 00 , he has to come back. I don' t know about the rest of you, I ' d 17 like to ask Daemon his reasoning for this . MS . KOWALSKI : Mr. Hamm, are you adding 18 and renovating to the existing building? MR. HAMM: No . We' re raising the roof . 19 We are adding volume if you want MS . KOWALSKI : And you' re altering the 20 existing building for the roof line, so on the first line of the disapproval it says permit to 21 construct it should say there alterations for raised roof rather than constructing a whole new 22 building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, but that' s the 23 building inspector again. MS . KOWALSKI : Right . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Whatever his application is is what it is . 25 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s the first line on that notice of disapproval . May 20 , 2004 48 1 2 MR. HAMM: There is a clearly a pre-CO for this building and it' s clear in my mind that 3 the reason for the denial was Walz, not because we are planning to put a new building in here . As I 4 say, under 100-242 we would be entitled to this except for the roof, except for the height . 5 MS . KOWALSKI : He doesn' t mention anything on that . 6 MR. HAMM: It' s based on the same plans that you' re looking at . I guess I should read 7 those a little more carefully maybe . I mean, I have sent things back to him before when it was 8 the wrong section, but I assume that' s the way they -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the Board agree to recess this until 10 minutes to 1 : 00? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' d like to get to KEYSPAN today. 11 MR. HAMM: And I have things in Southampton but I will stay. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you want to wait until the next meeting, I can' t let it go . J 13 MR. HAMM: I appreciate your position. I can' t say I disagree with you. I just assume 14 that' s how they would write something like this up based on the plans . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, this is wrong. MS . KOWALSKI : Would you want to adjourn 16 it to another date, Mr. Hamm? MR. HAMM: I ' d rather have it closed. I 17 guess, I ' ll come back at quarter to 1 : 00 . MS . KOWALSKI : Adjourn it to 12 : 50 . 18 MR. HAMM: Will do . Thank you . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion that we 19 recess this hearing until 12 : 50 . (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is the Laurel 21 Links Country Club for. a height variance for the fence around the tennis court? 22 MR. PAPP : Good morning. Joseph Papp for Laurel Links Country Club. 23 As part of our approved project we constructed two Hard True tennis courts and put 24 f"encing .that is normal height for tennis courts measuring 918" around the court black, vinyl 25 coated, heavy duty fence . We have also around two sides done retaining wall work to make it more May 20 , 2004 49 1 2 attractive and started landscaping and planted many new cedars . The fence is normal height for a 3 tennis court . I've measured others in town, North Fork Country Club, Mattituck High School . I 4 understand there is a six foot fence ordinance in town, but I believe for a tennis court six foot is 5 not high enough for safety reasons and to be adequate to contain tennis balls of the people 6 playing tennis . So I'm respectfully asking for a variance to accept the 9' 8" height of our fencing 7 around the tennis courts . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jim? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you' re right . I mean, you hit a tennis ball and if it goes over 9 the fence you try to contain it . I have no objection to this whatsoever. I know that it said 10 that at some point in time on the plan it was six feet when you applied for it . 11 MR. PAPP: The retaining wall we did, at one point it looked like the fence might go on top 12 of the retaining wall, in which case the fence itself might have been less than six foot, I think 13 that' s where that confusion came, but because Hampton Tennis did our installation, and they did 14 drainage outside the fence, and we couldn' t get the wall close enough to put the fence on top of 15 that, there had to be an area for drainage . And therefore, the fence itself where the retaining 16 wall is, is less than six foot above the wall , but it' s not contiguous to the wall, so we had to put 17 in a normal fence . I think that' s where the confusion came . 'At one point we thought the 18 retaining wall was going to go around the court more and maybe the fence on top of it, but when we 19 came to the actual construction plans we couldn' t do that . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Place looks great . CHAIRWOMAN .OLIVA: Lydia? 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no objection. It' s required for tennis courts , that 22 kind of height . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . Several comments . ' I visited the site as everyone 24 else, and you can' t see it from the road and even driving up, the screening on that side you can' t 25 even see it until you almost get in front of it . I see no reason to deny. May 20 , 2004 50 • 1 2 MR. PAPP : We' re going to do even more landscaping. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no further questions . I don' t think anybody in the audience, 5 I don' t see anybody' to object to this or comments . So I will make a motion to close the hearing and 6 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Make a motion to end session and to adjourn to 12 :45 . 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re back to Vesey 9 Schlitt on Dogwood Lane, and we' d like to have some clarification from the Building Department on 10 the notice of disapproval because from what we can determine that the way it looks to us on the site 11 plan is that they meet, if you look at the new addition which is really 15 foot back. Hi, 12 Daemon. MR. ROLLINS : Daemon Rollins, Permit 13 Examiner. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The way we see it , the 14 new addition is about 15 feet back from the east side, and if you look at the new deck it' s well, 15 at least 20 feet, which makes 35 feet . MR. ROLLINS : That' s correct . The issue 16 was -- and I don' t have it in front of me -- do you have a copy of the survey? Thanks . 17 You see, when the house was originally constructed, we had a different set of setbacks, 18 for side yards.. It was a single side yard of 10 and a total of 25 . Our feeling was because they 19 had maxed out that original, when they built the original house they chose 10 on one side, 20 on 20 the other, by choosing .that 10 that made it the smallest yard. Now that the setbacks had changed 21 to 15 and I believe it was 35 -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . Total . 22 MR. ROLLINS : -- now they' re asking for essentially two single side yards . Now they have 23 15 here and they' re creating a nonconformity on the other side; do you see what I mean? 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The 10 was nonconformity? 25 MR. ROLLINS : The 10 was conforming until we changed side yard setback rule . Almost as May 20 , 2004 51 1 2 if, if you think about choosing a rear yard when you have a corner lot, you put a garage in a 3 certain area, it now .becomes the rear yard because it has an accessory there . It' s almost like 4 you' re coming back later and saying, well, I want to put a pool in the other area. Well, you can' t 5 because that was chosen to be the side yard, sort of the same situation here . 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Let' s back up a little bit . When the house was constructed, the 7 10 foot on the west property line was a conforming side yard; correct? 8 MR. ROLLINS : Correct . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then the 10 went to 9 a 15? MR. ROLLINS : That is correct . 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you' re saying that because 10 went to 15 on that side that the 11 15 now has to stay on that side? MR. ROLLINS : That continues to be the 12 smallest side yard and therefore, the other side would have to maintain 20 feet . 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The living room and the deck on the other side, the 20 and 15 would be 14 okay you' re saying? MR. ROLLINS : Sure . In other words, if 15 you look at their survey I contend that their building envelope is incorrect . Where it says 20 16 side yard setback, that should say 15, the other side should say 20 . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would create more of a nonconformity than you have with it the 18 way it' s situated now. MR. ROLLINS : Yes, that' s correct . That 19 is true . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house should be 20 at least nonconforming. MR. ROLLINS : I agree but that' s up to you 21 guys to decide, but the bottom line is I have to follow the correct building envelope and this 22 building is incorrect, and .therefore, it needs a variance . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I guess that' s your interpretation. 24 MR. ROLLINS : Of course . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To me a house 25 should be at least nonconforming as it possibly can be, and with the setbacks and the envelope May 20 , 2004 52 1 2 that' s here it is the least nonconforming. MR. ROLLINS : That' s correct . But they' re 3 sort of picking and choosing which side is what . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. They' re 4 saying, and I think correctly so, that the 15 foot is 15 feet, and it' s not picking and choosing, 5 it ' s actually their envelope and the house is as the envelope is drawn on this map, less 6 nonconforming -- is that the right way? -- than if they had two nonconforming side yards, which would 7 be in his interpretation, he would have two nonconforming side yards, now they only .have one . 8 That' s the way I see it . MR. VERITY: Mike Verity, Chief Building 9 Inspector, Town of Southold. Jim, and you Ruth both looked at this, 10 you' re familiar with this . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I didn' t look at 11 it . I think we had the discussion. I never really saw the map. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MR. VERITY: Okay. We had the map, I 13 apologize, I thought you saw the map. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I might have . 14 MR. VERITY: Actually, the Building Department ' s -- for lack of better words -- 15 requesting that this is the side yard of 20 , how would we be making that more nonconforming? We 16 would be pushing that further from the property line and causing that to be more conforming. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not saying that, Mike . I'm saying that the way they have it 18 drawn right now, they have a single side yard nonconforming setback. One side_ yard that doesn' t 19 conform. If you interpreted it another way, they will have two side yards that are nonconforming. 20 MR. VERITY: That are nonconforming? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re including -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Because there will 22 be 20 feet on this one side, there will be 20 feet, so that will make the 14 ' 6" side will be 23 5 ' 4 " -- 611 , and the other side will be five feet because now it' s 10 feet, it will be five feet . 24 So we' ll have two and to my mind, and looking at the code because that' s what I looked at last 25 night, there' s nothing in the code that says one way or the other you can interpret that . What it May 2.0 , 2004 53 1 2 does say is that the house has to be the least nonconforming. 3 MR. VERITY: Would a 15 or 20 yard meet the least nonconforming? 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe the way they have it drawn on the map is the way that it 5 should be drawn on' the map. My understanding was this, house was built, not before zoning, nothing 6 was really changed on that, they thought they had a smaller lot than they actually have . 7 MR. VERITY: Again, that' s our feeling also. We agree with that and unfortunately, we' re 8 talking just a matter of two or 300 square feet, and somehow, that either got lost or gained over 9 time, and that now put them into, yes, a different schedule, which would be 15 and 35 . But that ' s 10 the Building Department' s point, basically the 10 yard is your smallest yard already. The other one 11 would have to be now the larger yard. Historically that' s the way we've always done it, 12 and we've never been -- I don' t want to say challenged on it -- but challenged on it . 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Mike, I kind of came in this thing new today, but I do have enough 14 familiarity with the code that there is, to my knowledge, nothing in the code that dictates which 15 yard must be the smaller of the two yards . It merely talks about minimum on one side and total 16 both sides . MR. VERITY: That' s correct . 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t think this Board can even -- other than saying what I ' ve just 18 said, we can' t create an answer there . That' s something that needs to be codified, if it needs 19 to be codified. However, let' s go to the other section of the code that reminds us constantly to 20 always look to the least amount of creating new nonconformity. In this case I 'm going to agree 21 with Mr. Dinizio for the reason that he' s brought out : If we were to designate the east side as 20 22 feet, . then we would not only be taking in the new addition, but a portion of the existing house as 23 well, and creating that entire side would become nonconforming because it' s not 20 feet . What 24 would we have gained by that? Would we have gained a conforming side on the west side? No . 25 We would still have part of the house, at least five feet of that house, the existing house, which May 20 , 2004 54 1 2 would be nonconforming. So in trying to look at the overview of this of which to choose, you say 3 do we choose a plan that is going to create one nonconforming yard, the total side yards aren' t 4 going to change or do we accept a plan that is only going to create one nonconforming side yard? 5 And this is strictly my opinion because there is nothing in the code that directs either your 6 department or this Board. That' s what I would look for in that part of the code that always 7 tells us try to find the most nonconforming solution. That' s my opinion. 8 MR. VERITY: What about the combined yards? 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The combined yards, it' s not going to matter whether .we make the east 10 side or the west side, the 24 or the 15 . MR. VERITY: But you' re getting closer on 11 to that number. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The combined yard 12 number total is going to be the same . The side yard total is still going to be the same . 13 MR. VERITY: The point I ' m making, if you use 20 and 10 , that' s 30 ; if you use 10 and 15 , 14 that' s 25 , so you' re making more of a nonconformity. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I ' m using 20 and 15 . I 'm using 35, the requirement . 16 MR. VERITY: I'm doing combined. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not going to 17 matter if you switch to one side or the other, the total side yard required is 35 , correct, that ' s 18 it? MR. VERITY: But you have an existing yard 19 of 10 , correct? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 20 MR. VERITY: And if we choose the other side at 20 , that' s putting our yards at 30 . If 21 you choose that at 15, that' s putting your yards at 25 . 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you choose the east side as 20 , you' re going to take not only the 23 existing house -- MR. VERITY: Which is already 24 nonconforming -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t get it . 25 MR. VERITY: 14 . 6 is nonconforming. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Talking about six May 20 , 2004 55 1 2 inches . MR. VERITY: Nonconforming, though, 3 correct? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re talking about 4 requiring a building permit . I think that' s what we' re talking about . You' re denying a building 5 permit because, from what I can see, you' re saying that they' re going to increase the nonconformity 6 in some way, and according to what they have on the map, they are not intending to increase that 7 nonconformity one iota. They are building within the allowed 15 foot limit . There is no side yards 8 come into effect here at all in any way. They' re not increasing, they' re not going into the 9 nonconforming part . They have adjusted their house to meet the code, that 15 foot setback. 10 They' re not changing the setbacks in any way. MR. VERITY: Just explain to me, Jim, I 'm 11 not trying to be ignorant . Lydia said I couldn' t choose that as the 20 because there' s nothing in 12 the code, so how can I choose that as the 15? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 15 meets the code . 13 15 is one of the setbacks required for this size lot, and that meets the code . They' re not 14 increasing any nonconformity here in any way. The house already exists . You can' t deny them for the 15 10 feet because they' re not doing anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re not extending 16 that 10 foot . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My opinion, they 17 don' t need a variance . That' s I guess the point to me and the reason is because that 15 foot 18 setback is part of the requirement for the size of the lot that they have here, and we' re not going 19 to add any new nonconformity here . That ' s my opinion, that' s from looking at the code that says 20 that . Not only can she really not pick and choose, but neither can you. In other words, you 21 know, the house has to be the least nonconforming. That' s what we' re trying to get down, I don' t know 22 if that' s part of the code, but it' s certainly part of our decision process . 23 MR. VERITY: So the interpretation from the Building Department, the 20 feet would be more 24 nonconforming? I' d say the 20 feet would be less nonconforming than the 15 feet . You' re actually 25 creating more of a nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, .you' re not . May 20 , 2004 56 1 2 MR. VERITY: You don' t agree? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not conforming 3 at one foot, and it' s not conforming at 40 feet . It doesn' t make a difference how big it is, it' s 4 nonconforming. If you then require them to move their other side yard, then you' ve got two 5 nonconforming setbacks . Now two setbacks . What I ' m saying is our code for this size lot provides 6 for a 15 foot setback, that they have to have . If they don' t, then that' s nonconforming. It 7 certainly is . 141611 , that' s a nonconforming setback. They propose not to encroach on that in 8 any way. They' re not adding a nonconformity here . They wanted 14 ' 611 , and you got problems . That ' s 9 how I see it . And honestly, I looked in the code if I could find -- when I did that, I thought 10 there was something in the code, but at the beginning of our code it doesn' t necessarily, it 11 certainly doesn' t mention nonconformities, but it does say that the least always prevails or . the 12 most restrictive always prevails and -- MR. VERITY: So you' re going against what 13 you' re telling me, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not . 14 Because we' re only going to have one nonconformity not two. 15 MR. VERITY: Use that yard as the single yard, don' t put anything else into play, and 16 explain to me what you just again. You said the least, right? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s right , yes . MR. VERITY: If you want to be at 15 feet . 18 We would like them to be at 20 feet . You' re telling me 15 feet is less? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You can' t make the law. 20 MR. VERITY: I 'm not making the law. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can only say 21 what the law says, and the law does not say that you get to choose what their side yards are . 22 MR. VERITY: Is that the case for both building and zoning? I don' t understand 23 that . Explain that to me . If I can' t choose, how can the Zoning Board choose? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : She gets to choose . 25 MR. VERITY: How come they can choose? We could have eliminated the whole thing. May 20 , 2004 57 l 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, pay attention. They are in their zone, the size lot 3 they have, they are required to have one 15 foot side yard and one 20 foot side yard. Guess what, 4 what do they have? They have one 15 foot setback, they do have that . 5 MR. VERITY: They' re required to have one 15 foot setback. They' re not required to have a 6 20 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They are required 7 to have a 20 . If they were building a new . house, you could tell them they can' t do it . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just to the addition. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It ' s 9 preexisting. You can' t deny them for something they already have . What I 'm saying to you is a 15 10 foot setback, if they already have it, I don' t think you can deny it . 11 MR. VERITY: That' s the reason why we had the discussion prior to, I know that the Board, 12 but we have been going over this along with the architect back and forth, but historically as I 13 got an indication from Ruth and yourself, that ' s the feeling I got . This had to go . It was an 14 unofficial meeting we were talking about zoning in general . I understand that, I would not have put 15 the applicant through the time if I had an indication from the Board. So I do have to 16 apologize to you, Nancy. That' s the indication that I did get from the Zoning Board, the two 17 members that I spoke to. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: For the record, I 18 need some clarification, you got an indication from who to do what? 19 MR. VERITY: That was from Ruth and from Jimmy in a meeting in reference to zoning. We had 20 some particular questions to nonconformity, the town attorney was there also . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was different . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This was this application? 23 MR. VERITY: Everybody saw the exact map . I would not have put the people through this if I 24 did not get that type of feeling from the two Board members . I understand it was unofficial, it 25 was not the whole Board acting -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I was not made May 20 , 2004 58 1 2 privy to any of that, I was not aware of it . MR. VERITY: Again, historically I was 3 told this is the way it' s always been done . This is the indication I got from the two Board 4 members, and they agreed with that . I still don' t understand the reasoning because it' s still not 5 convincing to me . I mean, we' ll be happy to write the permit if the Board feels -- 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They had asked for, an interpretation of the code and yes, the Board 7 does have the right to render an interpretation. As I said to me, just looking at this -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why it ' s better to just come before the whole Board because I 9 honestly just don' t remember this exact one . MR. VERITY: That' s fine . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I really don' t . MR. VERITY: Again, we could still write 11 this on a combined yard. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Absolutely. 12 MR. VERITY: That' s the way the disapproval -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mike, the way I understand, you got the 15 foot on the west side 14 and to me, on the east side, if you go from the edge to the new deck, which is the new addition, 15 you' re way over the 35 . So therefore, why do we need -- they don' t need anything. 16 MR. VERITY: I don' t understand how you' d be way over the 35 . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a new area . I 'm not counting in the existing, that' s existing, 18 it' s there . But they' re putting the new addition, and that would be why you would come to us for 19 something if it hadn' t increased the nonconformity. If it had gone straight back at 20 the 10 foot, then I would say, yes, come to us, but to me your new deck is so far over, you' re 21 probably over the 20 foot side yard -- I mean 35 combined. 22 MR. VERITY: At this point in time, if they come back, they have an established combined 23 yard and 24 . 6 . So at any point they can build at that combined yard of 24 . 6, or do they have to -- 24 this is just another question. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Separate two issues 25 here . Number 1, the house has a CO for what ' s there . In the existing footprint everything' s May 20 , 2004 59 1 2 intact . MR. VERITY: That' s correct 3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re not going to go into -- 4 MR. VERITY: I'm not going back on that . I don' t know how it was written, why it was 5 written. We' re just making guesses . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s Number 1, so 6 discussion of any variances are on the existing house that' s out of the picture . . So, 2 , they' re 7 proposing a new porch, a new deck, if you look at the setbacks from the west property line and look 8 at the building envelope at 15 and. at 20 , you' ll clearly see that they' re within that building to 9 20 foot setbacks . The new porch to the west property line is clearly 20 feet, but the new deck 10 is clearly, so there' s no variances required there, correct? Agreed. As to the issue of the 11 west side of the property, there' s no variance, are we on track? 12 MR. VERITY: Take the building away, I agree with you 100 percent . 13 BOARD MEMBER. TORTORA: We just said the buildings' s out of picture, that' s got the CO. 14 Now go over to the east side of the property. The east side of the property, the new garage addition 15 . is within the building envelope is setback more than 15 feet from the east property line; correct? 16 MR. VERITY: Correct . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The new living room 17 addition on the rear of the property on the southeast side is setback at 15 feet; is that 18 correct? MR. VERITY: That' s correct . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where' s the variance? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : To answer your other question, Mike, if they came before us on 21 the 10 feet and the 14 . 6 , they would be, before us . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They' re not doing 22 anything over there . Because both of them, the deck addition on the front and the back meet the 23 20 feet, on the west side of the property, the issue of a variance is moot . 24 MR. VERITY: So basically interpretation, or if you' re going to make it is interpretation, 25 that they could still choose their yards regardless of what they have established? May 20 , 2004 60 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think we' re going to do a lot of thinking about this, and that one 3 of the reasons that you' re here is really has never surfaced for you or for us before and it is 4 interesting. MR. VERITY: That' s correct, and that ' s 5 why it ' s here, and like Jimmy said, I have to deal with black and white . Unfortunately, I can' t make 6 the decisions, which the Zoning Board can. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s not cut and 7 dried but it does happen to be a very good example of a balance : Two variances no variance, and to 8 me, no variance because I'm looking at a proposal that will conform to the code as much as possible 9 and how we interpret this, and how we can go forward with this so that it' s easy for you and 10 the applicants, and it may need a code change or code clarification. I'm glad you' re here so we 11 can hack these things out . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s the 12 stumbling block, which is side is dedicated or not dedicated. 13 MR. VERITY: That was our concern. . Just for argument' s sake, if the 10 was actually one, 14 our feeling is the other side would have to be the larger side . Now we would have 21 feet . The way 15 you' re doing, you' re only requiring the people to have 16 feet, if you' re going to allow them to go 16 to that yard. So we' re actually -- you know what , you had your cake on this side, but you know what, 17 you have to comply with the larger requirement on the other side because you' re actually allowing 18 them to go even closer. They' re already taking advantage of one side, not because it' s their 19 fault . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: On that west side, 20 they can' t do anything on that west side unless they' re 20 feet . We' re saying no, you' re not 21 going to have 15 over there, we don' t care if your house is 10 , you' ve got to go to 20 feet and 22 that' s why that new deck is at least 20 feet . MR. ROLLINS : Will the same thing be said 23 down the road, five years from now when they come up with a new envelope and say, okay, now we want 24 to build 15 over here, are we going to have the same discussion? 25 MR. VERITY: Why can' t they? They can do that, that' s what you' re saying. May 20 , 2004 61 1 2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Because your variance is going to say this side yard is 15 and 3 the west side is required 20 . Now, I don' t know -- 4 MR. VERITY: That' s if there was a decision made on it, but you just said there was 5 basically not going to be a decision made on it . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then how do you keep 6 track of it in your building records? MR. VERITY: As I explained to you, the shorter side, 7 historically, it' s just like when you' re picking a rear yard, the one where the pool is dictates your 8 rear yard, but if there wasn' t a pool and you had one that was 50 feet and one that was 30 , could 9 they really say the 30 foot, which was their rear yard even though it doesn' t meet the 10 requirements . That' s what you' re telling me now, you' re going to actually change 'the entire view of. 11 the way it' s done . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mike is saying if 12 , the living room was on that side, 15 and 20 , they wouldn' t have had a notice of disapproval . If 13 they had swapped them. MR. VERITY: That' s the point I ' m making. 14 It' s very simple, but it could create problems in the future . We really have never come across a 15 case like that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I need to have that 16 discussion with you, if you don' t mind. Let ' s go through what Daemon just said. Let' s say that 17 they come back saying what, comeback and what? MR. ROLLINS : Five or 10 years from now 18 when all of us are gone or you guys are gone . What' s preventing this architect or another 19 architect from creating a new conforming envelope 15 on one side and 20 on the other, and then 20 building as close as 15 on that side . MR. VERITY: That' s what you' re allowing 21 them to do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' m not getting -- 22 I don' t see how they can make the other side , anything less than 20 right now. 23 MR. VERITY: Why couldn't they, Jim? If this is gone and nobody ever knows about this 24 again, and they come in with a new application -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because then they 25 would be making this side here nonconforming. They would be making two nonconformities on this . May 20 , 2004 62 1 2 One side they have 15, the other side they need 20 they got 10 . So what are you saying, they' re 3 going off the 15 side, they' re going to move to 20 . That' s making a nonconformity, right there, 4 that' s making another nonconformity. They' re going to have two nonconformities now, they' re not 5 going to have a single . This house as built right now has one nonconformity. That' s the way we' re 6 going to look at it . That' s the way everybody should look at it . The house should be built 7 least nonconforming, and with the way that this lot line, this setback drawing is made that is 8 what it is right now. And if they' re going to come to you, someone' s going to come to you later 9 on and say, no, no, I want the 15 to be 20 , he' s creating another nonconformity. Now he has two 10 nonconformities because the house. is never going to -- the 10 foot is never going to move, it' s 11 always going to be 10 foot, but he' s going to have two nonconformities . I don' t know how you could 12 possibly say that someone can come in and you' re going to miss that . I can see the confusion here, 13 although I don' t, because I know we look at it from a different perspective than you do. I 14 happen to think my perspective is right and you think yours, -is right . 15 MR. VERITY: We' re just trying to do the right thing for the applicant, Jim, that ' s all . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sometimes you can' t do things for the applicant, sometimes you've got 17 to just do things . My knee jerk reaction was no, no, they can' t do that but after looking at the 18 code, yes, yes they can do that . My reason to have you in here is to put your side of the story 19 on the record because too often that' s what happens . The building inspector said this and the 20 building inspector said that, and you' re over there, and in all honesty, I don' t want to hear, 21 we need to hear from you. And I believe in that same meeting, we had that discussion: 22 MR. VERITY: That' s correct, any time . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And . I insisted upon 23 it, and it' s not that you need to apologize, it' s not a question of apology, it' s a question . of 24 clarity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Interpretation. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you need, I can interpret this very easily, if that' s. what the May 20 , 2004 63 1 2 Board intends to do, but in my opinion this applicant shouldn' t be before us, that' s how I 3 feel about it, and I don' t think this applicant should pay for that interpretation. And that' s my 4 opinion and that' s not a reflection on Mike or Daemon, on the building inspector or even on the 5 town, it' s just how it is . Thanks a lot for coming, Mike . I think we have one person. 6 MS . STEELMAN: Can I make one statement here? I think what the issue was when I started 7 working on this was I assumed that the nonconforming setbacks requirement pertained to 8 new construction. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree . 9 MS . STEELMAN: That it did not reflect the existing building, which in some areas we have 10 properties that are right on the property line, that any new construction had to fall within those 11 two setbacks, and that in this situation we were maintaining 35 feet, we have a total of 35 feet , 12 if we included, if as with Mike and Daemon, say 10 feet, if that' s included into the calculation of 13 determining those setbacks, we would have 10 feet on one side, and we would be required then to have 14 25 on the adjacent property to get 35 . So we' re saying we really would be 25 feet off that east 15 property line, and I don' t believe that' s correct . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think if you were -- 17 MS . STEELMAN: On the eastern property line because he' s taking the 10 and then coming 18 off the other property line at I'm sorry, you' d have 10 , then you' d have to maintain 25 to total 19 the 35, correct? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s in new 20 construction. And honestly, I think that from the Building Department it comes that. way sometimes 21 that they consider existing new construction, they confuse that . My contention here is that you' re 22 not asking the town for anything, you' re meeting the code . In the least intrusive way for the lot, 23 and to that point you' re not denied for your side yards because it doesn' t come into play, that 10 24 foot doesn' t come into play because you' re not asking him to increase that in any way. The Walz 25 decision is what confuses this whole thing. I think that' s where the confusion honestly comes . May 20 , 2004 64 1 2 This is to me what I just said. We need to take all this paperwork and put it on the side and let 3 them go, and I' ll do an interpretation. I just think that the building inspector and Daemon deal 4 with the Walz decision all the time, and I think that it is confusing for them. It' s not a 5 question, it' s not even mentioned in here . MR. ROLLINS : This has nothing to do with 6 that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, we' re running 7 late, let' s just say that we don' t have a problem of granting the Building Department permit and Jim 8 and Mike and Daemon and all of us getting together at some point in time and really hash this out . 9 MR. VERITY: It really does need to be resolved, you do have the question of the combined 10 yards, like Nancy had mentioned, that is in the code . We historically again, never really view 11 that, but there is a separate column for combined yards, and it doesn' t say that it' s existing, new 12 construction doesn' t tell you additions, alterations, doesn' t tell you where you have to 13 be . We don' t have a column for that, but we do have to lump all that in. But historically, we' ve 14 never bothered anybody on combined yards . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let.' s get together. 15 Make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. 16 (See minutes for resolution. ) - ---------------------------------------------- -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next one is Mr. Hamm. This is the hearing for Patterson and 18 Central Avenue on Fishers Island for the proposed raising of the garage, though on the plan here it 19 shows a dotted line then a straight line around it ; are we expanding that garage? 20 MR. HAMM: No . We' re raising the roof line, that dotted line is existing. You can see 21 how low it is in the rear four, five feet . MS . KOWALSKI : The walls are staying the 22 same? MR. HAMM: Yes . There is some 23 conversation before, it is a preexisting structure and has a CO as such, and I ' d like to put this 24 into the record. You had questions of Daemon as to how the notice of disapproval was written up . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Daemon, are you familiar with it? May 20 , 2004 65 1 2 CHAI'RWOMAN OLIVA: Because you' re saying in case the waterfront parcels accessory buildings 3 structures may be located in the front yard provided that such buildings meet the front yard 4 setback (inaudible) is noted as being in the side yard, which is preexisting in the side yard, 5 pre-CO in the side yard. MR. ROLLINS : That' s correct . And had 6 this been after a certain date where we started putting the Walz notation in the notices of 7 disapproval, I" would have done that on this one because we believe this to be an increase in 8 nonconformity because it' s in the wrong place and now they' re going up. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : On the disapproval it says construct accessory building. He says he' s not 10 constructing an accessory building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It should be 11 reconstruct, just going up. MR. ROLLINS : Adding to a nonhabitable 12 accessory building. But it' s in a nonconforming place . I don' t believe he' s making it two 13 stories, simply raising the height of the building. 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does the height of the building exceed the code limit? 15 MR. ROLLINS : No, it does not, not to my knowledge . 16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does it exceed front yard, side yard, rear yard setbacks? 17 MR. ROLLINS : No, it does not . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it' s not going 18 outside the nonconforming setbacks, building envelope; is that correct? 19 MR. ROLLINS : Correct . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So if this came 20 before you today you would write the interpretation that you have been doing lately 21 with the Walz decision? MR. ROLLINS : Yes, and in addition to that 22 I would also write -- and a mistake on my part -- what was also' left out, was a nonconforming 23 building with a conforming use shall not be enlarged such that it does not create a new 24 nonconformity. Then I would go into the fact that based on the Walz decision, it is increasing in 25 height, and there is already a nonconforming building in the side yard. May 20 , 2004 66 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think to clear that up, it sounded like it was a brand new 3 construction. MR. ROLLINS : I see that from the wording. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Are you increasing height, you are not exceeding the height, the code 5 required height limit so you cannot be increasing nonconforming height when there is .none . 6 MR. ROLLINS : I'm not talking about nonconforming height, I'm talking about 7 nonconforming placement . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Say that again. 8 MR. ROLLINS : The placement of the building is nonconforming. It' s in the side yard. 9 It' s not permitted to be in the side yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you have a pre-CO 10 on it . MR. ROLLINS : That' s correct . 11 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you saying alterations can' t be done? 12 MR. ROLLINS : No, I'm saying you can' t create a new nonconformity, and if you look at the 13 Walz decision, and more specifically, what' s given to us with the Walz decision, the diagrams that 14 are given, you clearly state in your decision that going up -- 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you go into an area, a height area above the code limit . This 16 isn' t going above the code limit . MR. VERITY: I don' t think it reads that 17 way, Lydia. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? 18 Daemon, you' re exactly right . You followed that Walz decision to a T. And in all honesty this is 19 where I thought we would be . Because you have the person that wrote it doesn' t understand it because 20 there' s a problem with that law. Now, I would only say one thing, I think it' s unclear from this 21 application whether or not this actually exceeds the setback limits for a principal structure on 22 the property. I 'm not sure about that . I didn' t see that . I understand how you' re interpreting it 23 because if they' re going up, Walz says you can' t do that, that increases the nonconformity. The 24 accessory structure is a nonconformity, whether it' s setback, whether it' s a still a 25 nonconformity, you write on all your notices of disapproval, can' t increase, can' t do this, can' t May 20 , 2004 67 1 2 do that . I see that all the time . I burn every time I see it, but that is the crux of the problem 3 that we face when you put that Walz decision on there that we need to -- definitely, I have my own 4 opinion on. But I look at this notice of disapproval, I listened to Mr. Hamm come in and 5 he' s talking about Walz . He' s saying you know, it ' s at the Walz decision, but it' s not on the 6 notice of disapproval . MR. ROLLINS : I agree, and I believe -- 7 and I could be incorrect -- but I believe when we wrote this March 9th, we had not had that meeting, 8 we had not started putting that in there . BOARD MEMBER .DINIZIO: . You couldn' t put 9 Walz on this piece of the code . In other words, Walz applies -- 10 MR. ROLLINS : You' re .right because I have left out another piece of the code, which is a 11 nonconforming building -- I can' t say it off the top of my head. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. It ' s 100 -- 13 MR. ROLLINS : -- 242 . . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A or B, whatever it 14 is . MR. ROLLINS : Right . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The point is this notice of disapproval that you have here, I think 16 that he can do that . I don' t think -- you looked at the application, but when I look at this I 17 think he' s allowed. to do it according to this part of the code, but not according to the other part 18 of the code . MR. ROLLINS : Correct . And this is 19 insufficient . I agree . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think you 20 can cite this in this instance, that' s the way I feel about this . 21 MR. ROLLINS : That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, what do we do? 22 MS . KOWALSKI : Get an amended disapproval . MR. ROLLINS : I could do that today. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Problem rectified. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you do me a 24 favor? MR. ROLLINS : Absolutely. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Be specific about the setbacks . Why you' re citing Walz in the May 20 , 2004 68 1 2 decision. MR. ROLLINS : I' ll warn you ahead of time, 3 I won' t reference setbacks because it' s in the side yard. I often get people coming in saying 4 well, how far do I have to be from the road. It could be a foot, you could be 100 feet, if you' re 5 in the side yard you can' t be there . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I may have a 6 problem with you citing Walz . MR. ROLLINS : I understand that . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we can agree that this notice of disapproval, this 8 article that you cite doesn' t apply. MR. ROLLINS : It still has to be cited 9 because we still have to , get to the fact that this is located in the side yard not in the required 10 rear or front . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even with a pre-CO? 11 MR. ROLLINS : If we take that away, then there' s no reason to send them for a variance for 12 an increase in nonconformity. MR. VERITY: Actually, I know it' s not in 13 the code just because it has preexisting status you wouldn' t be able to eliminate that . You made 14 a decision like this before, it wasn' t on an accessory building, but there was another property 15 in East Marion. Same idea, just went up a little bit, and you did make a decision on it . They 16 added dormers . Something the Building Department would not normally send, but again, I don' t want 17 to say the Walz decision was based on that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Was that an 18 accessory structure? MR. ROLLINS : No, principal . 19 MR. VERITY: But it was still under the height requirement . It met everything else . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was just recently. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You did another one too down on Oak Avenue . You did another one down in 22 New Suffolk. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We just need to 23 throw in here the addition, the alteration. MR. ROLLINS : I'm going to take care of 24 that immediately. MS . KOWALSKI : When the plan proposed a 25 garage it sounded like nothing was there . MR. ROLLINS : Thank you. May 20, 2004 69 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for coming down. 3 MR. VERITY: If we could work together on it to streamline it . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hamm, then I guess we could close the hearing and reserve decision 5 until later? MR. HAMM: Yes . I have nothing to say 6 other than I hope you can appreciate how hard it is for lawyers to give advice on zoning matters . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why would you close this? We may need to have another hearing. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : I have to say when I advertised it, I advertised it as if it ' s a whole 9 new building. It' s covered 100 percent for the construction. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s why I 'm asking. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If it doesn' t have to be readvertized -- 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: She says in the legal notices it says concerning the proposed side 13 yard location of a new. MS . KOWALSKI : That' s right because that' s 14 what the plans said. MR. HAMM: We' re going to rebuild it in 15 place, I was concerned about having more than 50 percent . 16 1 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you rebuilding the whole thing in place? You' re going to take the 17 walls down and rebuild it? MS . KOWALSKI : Yes . That' s why I 18 advertised it that way. We' re not .doing just an addition. 19 MR. HAMM: I .caution them again, because various provisions of the code, all of a sudden a 20 building inspector may say it' s more than 50 percent gone and therefore you've lost it , so -- 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we made the decision. 22 MR. HAMM: If I have a decision from you that it permits that, then I think we can do it in 23 a sensible way, yes . Initially, before I thought we needed a variance, I had suggested that they do 24 that . In any event, thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to 25 close the hearing reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) May 20 , 2004 70 1 2 --------------------------------------- --------- - I CHAIRWOMANOLIVA: Next hearing is for 3 Briarcliff Sod concerning two lots that are less than 80 , 000 square feet in land area . 4 MR. FITZGERALD : Jim Fitzgerald for, Briarcliff Sod. We were here several years ago on 5 this same project, and I would like to, with the appropriate updates, read to you the same 6 information that I gave you then, with the changes that have occurred since then. . In 1994 7 Mr. Cicanowicz, in preparing to sell the development rights to part of his property to 8 Suffolk County while retaining a parcel to be divided into two building lots on Leslie Road, 9 arranged for a survey to be completed. The surveyor was instructed in a general way to 10 accomplish this on paper. Lot Number 1 and 2 were drawn in the appropriate width of 175 feet but the 11 lot depth that was drawn is insufficient to provide lots of the size required in the AC 12 District . Since the surveyor is deceased, we can only speculate that the error had its origins in 13 the geometry of the lots . If they were rectilinear they would be more than adequate in 14 area. The round number depth of 500 feet seems like a figure that might have been chosen with the 15 thought that even with the non-rectilinear shapes it ought to be more than enough, but obviously the 16 arithmetic was never done . In discussing the project with Suffolk County, Mr. Cicanowicz 17 learned that the county was not interested in acquiring the barns in the northern part of the 18 property. The map was drawn excluding the barns . Since there were no plans to do anything with the 19 property the barns occupied, a proposed lot Number 4 was drawn in to maximize the area available to 20 the county and minimize the area occupied by the barns . The resulting map was used to prepare the 21 deed of development rights and the development rights for Lot Number 3 , an area of 19 . 415 acres 22 was sold to Suffolk County and the tax maps were modified accordingly. When Mr. Cicanowicz took 23 the first steps to officially subdivide the property, the error in the calculated geometry 24 came to light, and it was noted that Lots Numbers 1 and 2 were each other 74 , 336 square feet in 25 area, while the minimum lot size of the AC District is 80 , 000 square feet . An attempt was May 20 , 2004 71 1 2 made to remove the discrepancy by requesting that the county sell back the development rights to a 3 small area necessary to bring the two building lots up to a minimum size . I went to the Suffolk 4 County Planning Department in Hauppauge who spoke to Bob Rickert who said that there was no way that 5 the county would be willing or able to sell any of the development rights back. And so we find 6 ourselves before the Board of Zoning Appeals . The required width of a lot in the AC 7 district is not less than 175 feet . The total width for the two lots 350 feet of the area 8 comprising both Lot 1 and 2 was perceived to meet this need when the original map was drawn. If the 9 combined area were rectilinear, the height of the rectangle would be the same 350 feet . The 10 non-rectilinear area however has height of only 297 . 3 feet because of the angle shown by the 11 intersection of the front and side property lines . The area of each is 74 , 336 square feet . The 12 difference between this and required minimum is 5, 664 square feet, a deficit of 7 . 1 percent . The 13 difference viewed from the standpoint of the 19 . 415 acre parcel for which the development 14 rights were sold to Suffolk County is 0 . 6 percent . Mr. Cicanowicz states that he did not 15 achieve any financial gain as a result of the incrementally larger property for which the 16 development rights were sold. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted is that he 17 will be the owner of the two building lots that he contemplated owning when the survey was undertaken 18 by a licensed professional expert . The variance if granted will not be a detriment to the health, 19 safety and general welfare of the neighboring community. The surrounding properties are devoted 20 largely to agricultural pursuits . The nearest existing residential properties are 1 . 1 acres in 21 size while the proposed lots here will be more than 1 . 8 acres in size . Because Suffolk County 22 will not sell back to Mr. Cicanowicz the development rights to any of the land already 23 transferred to the county, the total area intended to provide two building lots can' t be increased in 24 size . If the variance is not granted, 25 Mr. Cicanowicz will suffer a severe financial burden by reason of being able to sell only one May 20 , 2004 • 72 1 2 building lot . The relief requested is not substantial, as I mentioned earlier, the area 3 deficit of each lot amounts to only 7 . 1 percent . We' re sure that the small deficiency in lot size 4 will not be even be noticeable in the area because not only because of the relatively large lot sizes 5 on an absolute basis, but also because of the number of smaller lot sizes of the closer 6 residential lots . The impact on. the environment will not be any different from that expected if 7 the two lots were of the required minimum size . It should be noted as a result of the sale 8 of development rights of the county, the proposed subdivision includes only two building lots ; the 9 property originally, of course, could have included many more building lots, but 10 Mr. Cicanowicz chose to sell the development rights to a major portion of the property. 11 when we first appeared before this Board on 9/20/01, the Board expressed concern about the 12 anonymous Lot 4 and asked that we discuss it with the Planning Board. On 12/15/03 in a Planning 13 Board work session, it was suggested by the Board that Lot 4 be eliminated and that the area of Lot 14 4 be included within the property lines of Lot 3 , that' s the one that went to the county development 15 rights, but that the area be designated on the survey as, quote, outside the limits of Suffolk 16 County development rights . This change was made and the Board has the resulting map before it . 17 Lastly, this should be noted that this proposed subdivision is in substance identical to 18 that which this Board approved after a public hearing on 1/13/2000 for the adjacent property to 19 the east, except for the configuration of the two individual buildings lots . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically what you' re saying is that the surveyors made the mistake when 21 they laid out these two building lots? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, as far as we can 22 tell . Yes, it was Van Tuyl did it, and, of course, he' s not around to ask about it . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I actually 25 remember this one very well . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? May 20 , 2004 73 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience 3 wishes to speak for or against this application? If not, .I' ll close the hearing and reserve 4 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 --------------------------------------- - ------- -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 6 Bremer' s Market and Deli on Main Road in Mattituck. 7 MR. CONDIN: Good afternoon, my name is John Condin, Condin Engineering in Mattituck. I 'm 8 the agent for Mr. Bremer, the owner for North Fork Deli . 9 We' re proposing before you to rebuild the existing deli currently on the existing lot . 10 Approximately at the end of year 2000, the building had a fire, which destroyed a portion of 11 the building. We filed at that time for a building permit, and we were granted a building 12 permit in June of 2001 . At that time the previous owner started some repairs on the building, but 13 those repairs were stopped as a result of some litigation that was going on and the building had 14 laid vacant and in disrepair from that period on. As a result, the building permit that had been 15 issued had expired. When Mr. Bremer bought the property just within the last, couple, three 16 months, he planned to rebuild the deli, we tried to get the building permit reinstated. The 17 Building Department told us that they would not, that we would have to submit a plan for rebuilding 18 the existing structure under the new codes . We submitted a site plan for that, . and it was 19 rejected because of setbacks . Setbacks for this particular property are 100 feet on the western 20 side of Legion Avenue, and 100 feet on the Main Road. And it also has a backyard setbacks of 35 21 feet and a side yard setback of 20 feet . The lot is 128 feet deep and 75 feet wide . . 22 What we' re asking the Board for is for some relief so we can rebuild the deli and get 23 Mr. Bremer back in business . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can you answer me a 24 question, is there any cellar underneath that? MR. CONDIN: No. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a crawl space or what? May 20 , 2004 74 1 2 MR. CONDIN: The back part of the building was kind of an addition that was put on to the 3 building and it' s on slab on grade . The front of the building has a combination of pilings on one 4 side of the building that's used as a foundation and then there' s some concrete block that was put 5 in along the front and eastern sides . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would .just ask a 6 question that the other member that' s not here today had wanted to know, if you could not move 7 that building back and lift the cesspools that are in the back, and put them in the front so it would 8 be setback from Route 25 because it' s so close to Route 25, and that perhaps your ingress could be 9 from Route 25, then egress could be on Legion Avenue, because we certainly do not want to have 10 the cars backing out into Route 25, as we've done in the past because you' re taking your life in 11 your hands . MR. CONDIN: We understand that . In fact , 12 in this particular site plan, we had made provisions for parking in the back of the 13 property. There' s enough room on the eastern side of the building also to add two more parking 14 spaces, as well as anotherlparking space adjacent to the building where one of the septic systems is 15 located. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would there .be any 16 difficulty in moving that, going to the Board of Health and asking to understand that the cesspools 17 are back there and that it would not be difficult to ask them to pop them up and put them in the 18 front . MR. CONDIN: We understand that and yes, 19 if that was a requirement, yes, we would conform to that . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you going to 21 demolish the building, just level it and start over again, correct? 22 MR. CONDIN: It' s one of those things that the building is so far from being in conformance 23 with the current codes that just to abide by the current codes would require it to be leveled, not 24 to say the existing structure also is at the state, at least the foundation, that it ' s not 25 salvageable . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So on your site May 20 , 2004 75 1 2 plan here, you really don' t show the egress and ingress . 3 MR. CONDIN: Maybe that wasn' t shown clearly. What we planned on doing .was coming in 4 on a curb cut that would be at the lower right-hand corner on the Main Road. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: East side? MR. CONDIN: East side, that ' s 6 correct . Go around the building to park in the rear, exit the property onto Legion Avenue . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where? MR. CONDIN: If you take a look at the 8 site plan, you' ll see a notation called telephone pole . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right next to it : MR. CONDIN: The curb cut would be just 10 south of that particular telephone pole . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The blacktop on the 11 east side of the building is for what? MR. CONDIN: On the east side of the 12 building that would be a driveway, that would allow people coming in from the Main Road to get 13 to the back of the building for parking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to have to 14 go to the DOT for that curb cut, correct? MR. CONDIN: Yes, we understand that . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I see your point . It' s surrounded by blacktop, it' s all parking? 16 MR. CONDIN: We had no intention of having any parking except in the back. However, I think 17 when we get done with computing -- we have been working with Planning on this, by the way -- after 18 we get done with an agreeable floor plan as far as space and requirements for parking, there' s a 19 possibility we may need two additional parking spaces, and they had suggested that along the 20 eastern side, which is approximately, the least dimension there is 2611011 , we could probably fit 21 two parking spaces adjacent to the property and one that' s parallel . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Parallel to the line . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You are planning to 23 having access from 25? MR. CONDIN: There would be a door on the 24 front of 25 for people walking in from the street, but there would be no parking in the front . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And there would 'be no vehicle egress or anything? May 20 , 2004 76 1 2 MR. CONDIN: No, we had not planned for egress out of that driveway on to 25 . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What is your required parking? 4 MR. CONDIN: The parking for this, this was designated as retail deli space and based on 5 200 square feet per space we required four and-a-half parking spaces . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s all? MR. CONDIN: That' s all . I'm sure we' re 7 going to be required some more because some spaces required for employees so it will be at least 8 another two. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there going to be 9 any expansion of the existing footprint? MR. CONDIN: No. The only difference -- 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Using the existing foundation? 11 MR. CONDIN: Using the existing footprint . The way it' s set up right now is there' s a very 12 narrow alley between the addition that was put on the back of the building and the front building 13 and what we' re planning on doing is closing that in and using that as the overall footprint . So 14 this is the footprint of the existing building. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My personal opinion 15 I think I need to see a revised site plan showing your required parking. We' d like to .tweak it back 16 as far as we can for a safety factor, not any other purpose . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also I ' d like to see how far back you could move the building then 18 accommodate the parking and driveway to exit the deli . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Right now you have it surrounded by blacktop, which is like a free 20 for all . We want to avoid chaos and mayhem at that intersection. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sure the Planning Board is going to require some kind of 22 landscaping. That' s not in our jurisdiction. . MR. CONDIN: We could show that on a 23 revised plan. This plan was set up primarily because we wanted to -- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Get it before us? MR. CONDIN: -- get it before you as soon 25 as we could, but also to try to salvage the septic system. Mr. Bremer had put in a new grease trap May 20 , 2004 77 1 . 2 and septic tank in the not too distant past . In fact, it was right before the fire . So we 3 figured, let' s try this one . We certainly don' t want to have to dig up the entire septic system, 4 which part of it would be required if we moved the building back. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My understanding is it ' s not that difficult to pop them out and put 6 them -- I mean, I' m not one paying for it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My opinion, before 7 we can come up with a setback, we would want to know parking. We don' t want to restrict you, 8 maybe now you need more, now you need less . If we have a better idea, we don' t want to put you in a 9 corner. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything further? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. MR. CONDIN: If I might add another thing, 11 when we were working with Bruno, we were trying to make this particular site plan conform as much as 12 we could, and what was neat about the fact that we had the parking in the back was there' s also a 13 requirement that they had for deliveries a certain distance of, I don' t recall the exact amount of 14 space, but this particular distance between the back of the building and the back property line or 15 the back of the parking area allows a truck to come in and deliver without disrupting the entire, 16 or at least most of the parking areas back there . So it was a combination of trying to hold onto the 17 existing septic system and also meeting that particular requirement. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I personally wouldn' t have a problem if you actually moved that 19 building closer to 25, but you put the door access on the opposite side to alleviate the confusion on 20 the Main Road, if you pulled the building a little closer on 25, but you know you have your ingress 21 there right, / but that' s all grass, no access there, have everything over there . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s not a bad idea. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just want to avoid 23 the activity in the front there . It' s a dangerous intersection. You don' t want to enhance that . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s gotten worse . Jim? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t know, I think you' re going in a direction I think this May 20 , 2004 78 1 2 gentleman really doesn' t need to go in. As I see it the front, there' s not going to be parking 3 there . My assumption'.s there' s going to be a curb there that people aren' t going to be able to go 4 over. I'm assuming that there' s going to be something in this 25 feet to Route 25 that doesn' t 5 allow the person to pull a car up there . The fact . that it' s blacktop, I don't know about that . 6 MR. CONDIN: We could remove the blacktop and maybe have a walkway. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Every business should have a front door on the Main Road, that 8 would be not very helpful to you. I guess I ' d like to see the parking too, if you can get it . I 9 think that just the fact that you will be parking cars -- I 've eaten there many times, in fact, as a 10 matter of fact, I waited for the fire department to come, and it may not have been my phone call, 11 but we saw the smoke and called. It' s only my opinion and everybody else has their own say, but 12 that helps tremendously the fact that you' re not going to put that in there and hopefully you don' t 13 have to move it . MR. CONDIN: Thank you. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think we' re all trying to say we don' t want to deny you. We want 15 to create a safe atmosphere . MR. CONDIN: I' ll submit a revised site 16 plan that will show the parking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Generally speaking 17 we' re not disapproving of the whole project . MR. CONDIN: I understand. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What Mr. Dinizio was saying, you need to show curbing. 19 MR. CONDIN: Curbing on the property? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also landscaping and what have you, and grass on the front, and make 21 sure the driveway that will say entrance is there, and just go around the building. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I said ask one more question? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand this 24 building is scheduled to be torn down, whether they do it or the Town does it, on June 1st? 25 MR. CONDIN: Yes . .BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What can ,we do May 20 , 2004 79 1 2 between now and June lst -- listen, they could have taken it down the day after the fire as far 3 as I was concerned, as long as they can save the setbacks that this gentleman has . If they take 4 that action and take down that building, is this gentleman going to be before us for a setback 5 variance? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have 6 anything from the Town Board giving us those instructions . Do you have anything you would like 7 to share with us? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I ' ve heard hearsay. 8 MR. CONDIN: That' s a fact . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Could somebody give 9 us -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s none of the 10 Boards' business, really, read the paper, you' ll ,see it . But the point is, if they tear down that 11 building, he loses those setbacks . I'm interested in preserving those setbacks . I'm sure this 12 gentleman is too . MR. CONDIN: Absolutely. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, the way things go in this town, the moment that that wall 14 is not there, and there' s a person behind you that may have some experience in that, I think you' re 15 treading on real thin ice . You' re going to be asking for a 100 percent variance on it . That 16 basically could be the excuse . I don' t know. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They' re denying 17 them already for those setbacks that you just mentioned, 23 and 1 . 3 . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If he wants to build on existing setbacks they no longer exist . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if the Town Board knows it is our desire to work with the 20 applicant to approve something of a site plan for him. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just waiting on more completed site plan -- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- and that we have every intention of trying to work with the 23 applicant to approve . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just wanted to 24 find out how you guys felt about it . I don' t think we need to . I don' t want him to get caught 25 between taking that building down, and I can see that happening. This has happened before . May 20 , 2004 80 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t know if we can say he' s not going to- get caught . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : . I agree . But I think there' s a sense here -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of our intention. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: . He' s going to give 5 us a revised site plan to show the parking and what' s the next date? 6 MS . KOWALSKI : June 22nd and the deadline would be the Friday, before the hearing would be 7 June 22nd, but the deadline for the submission would be the Friday before, please, seven prints 8 of the map. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion that we 9 are awaiting the revised site plan and it should be in by the Friday before the 22nd. I think it' s 10 the 18th of June, and we will reschedule the hearing for June 22nd. 11 MR. CONDIN: As far as tearing down the building I was a little confused. 12 MS . MOORE : If I can make a comment' on that, generally zoning actions stays the action of 13 an enforcement proceeding. However, I ' m not sure which section of the code they' re applying. So it 14 probably would be advisable for you to send some communication to the Town Board advising them -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will send a letter. MS . MOORE : -- if you stayed the 16 proceeding, the prosecution of this case or whatever it is, because you' re working it out with 17 him. It ' s lack of communication mainly end up with exactly what Jimmy suggested. 18 MS . KOWALSKI : They have been communicating verbally between the two offices? 19 MS . MOORE : I think in writing would be advisable . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience that would wish to speak against this application? 21 MR. SAWICKI : John Sawicki . I own the property to the north and east of the deli 22 property. 35 years of traffic' s been horrendous and it' s worse this last three years . Over these 23 35 years, for people to get into this deli, they either park in my parking lot, they' re blocking my 24 parking lot if there' s deliveries, the trucks never pull in the back of that thing. They pull 25 in the side of that Legion Avenue . They block my driveway there . They block access for the people May 20 , 2004 81 1 2 of the church. So parking is a -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A concern. 3 MR. SAWICKI : -- a big thing here . Whatever you decide to do with this property with 4 Mr. Bremer, fine, I would ask that somewhere incorporated is a stockade fence on the east and 5 the north side, blocking this deli off from my property. I've been burglarized many times, 6 people come in from behind there . I 've put up with it for 35 years, and I 'm tired of putting up 7 with what' s been happening there .` I don' t like his garbage disposal system sitting a foot from my 8 property, 20 foot from my dental office . In the summer time it stinks . The perishable food goes 9 in here . They don' t clean the Goddamn thing -- excuse me . People in the church can' t 10 open their windows . I can' t open my windows . It ' s had. Coupled with the grease coming out of 11 his chimney in the summer time, it hangs there . If anybody here ever walked the chow hall in the 12 army smelled that bacon, it just hangs in your throat all day. That's what happens . It' s not 13 just my little piece of property. It goes over to the church and my other neighbors . I don' t know 14 where he' s going to get parking in the back. They already destroyed my fence that' s there . That' s 15 why I want them to put up their fence . And I certainly would wish that as garbage container 16 goes someplace else . It' s one thing if he' s throwing cardboard -- that' s other thing, he' s 17 going to have a cardboard container there, so that' s more space taken up. I ' m not against him 18 having a deli there other than these problems, but it' s not beneficial to the neighborhood, I can 19 tell you that . So I would like to see his garbage container go someplace else, and a stockade fence . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe the garbage could be up on a more regular basis to eliminate 21 that . MR. SAWICKI : What' s going to happen when 22 he' s there? Am I going to go out and blow my stack and get arrested? Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Sawicki . Bruno, sorry. 24 MR. BRUNO: Madam Chairman and the Board I 'm Bruno from the Planning Board, a senior site 25 planner, reviewer. Just two things I want to comment on, you May 20 , 2004 82 1 2 guys addressed some traffic issues on State Road 25 . The permit is going to or the Planning Board 3 conditions are going to require New York State DOT approval . I'm sure the applicant' s in the process 4 of doing that . Most likely everything on 25 is going to be eliminated, maybe there' s going to be 5 an entrance . They' re in .viohation to DOT guidelines so one of the things that we' re going 6 to be forced to do is deal with whatever the DOT says is going to happen on 25 , it would be great 7 that it' s in sync with what' s submitted to you whether or not there will even bean entrance or 8 any parking, I believe the entire paved area is going to have to go away with some curbing and 9 other issues . Just for the record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Bruno . I ' ll 10 make a motion that we will adjourn this hearing until June 22nd. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a reminder that 12 Debra Victoroff is being canceled until June 22nd. (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 -- ----------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next one is 14 Matt-a-Mar Marina. They wish to construct a new building for the purpose of storing boats . 15 MS . MOORE : Thank you, Madam Chairman, Patricia Moore . I have Mr. )and Mrs . Raynor here 16 today, and hopefully we can answer any questions that might come up. 17 The site plan, which I have submitted to the Board actually does a good job in the 18 depiction of what is intended here . This is an existing marina with an existing boat storage 19 building which the owners would like to enlarge to put the activities that are presently being 20 conducted in that same area inside the building. In order to accomplish the repairs and the boat 21 storage the building has been designed in such a way that it will be a continuation of the existing 22 building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Attached to it, Pat? 23 MS . MOORE : Attached to it, yes . It will be its own structure because structurally I don' t 24 think you' re attaching to the existing structure . So it will be wall to wall . The office will be 25 incorporated into the proposed addition, and it will be replacing the existing office and shop and May 20 , 2004 83 1 2 some storage containers that are presently on the . property, so essentially cleaning up all the 3 activities within this new structure . The variance is required due to the fact 4 that the existing boat storage building predates the setbacks to the bulkhead and is at 65 feet and 5 because of the angle of the bulkhead, I guess the bulkhead, the person who built the bulkhead didn' t 6 have a level -- as it goes towards the west, it angles back slightly. So it goes from its 7 easternmost point at 62 feet to the bulkhead and at its easternmost point, the closest point being 8 58 . 5 feet from the bulkhead. I've given you a survey that gives the exact measurements . 9 This project is before the Planning Board. It has been referred to the Mattituck Fire 10 District . The Matti tuck Fire District, I ' ll give it to you for your records, responded with just 11 one comment, which is to install a hydrant on the street at the Suffolk County Water Authority main; 12 so there will be a water hydrant here for firematic purposes . And the Town Trustees have 13 approved this structure as it' s been proposed, and that approval was granted January 21, 2004 . The 14 project is also before the DEC for review, and it' s in the process of being reviewed by that 15 agency. It is also being reviewed by Health Department and because the sanitary systems are 16 going to be replaced when the new structure is constructed. Let me put in your file these two, 17 the letter from the Mattituck Fire District and the Town Trustees' approval so you have a 18 completed file . We have submitted to the Board some 19 photographs that document to a certain extent what is occurring on the property already. The 20 photographs that are numbered 1 and 2 shows that the area that is now being proposed at the 21 addition is housing the storage of winter boats, some of them are shrink wrapped some are not , and 22 any boating activity, any repairs are going on inside that same area. 23 Let' s see, there' s some other photographs in your file, Photograph 3 that was provided to 24 you shows the look of the existing building, which is a nice clean building for a boat storage 25 building, it' s tidy. Photographs 4 , 5 and 6 shows the existing office building and the setbacks of May 20, 2004 84 1 2 where it' s going to be incorporated into the new building as an office space, and Photograph 8 is 3 the existing building, again, in the area where the expansion is going to occur is what you see 4 from the west side of the property. . MS . KOWALSKI : Are the photos labeled for 5 us? MS . MOORE : Yes . They are already in your 6 packet and already numbered. For the record it describes what' s going on here . 7 We' d like to discuss any ideas you have . I know that the Planning Board had sent you some 8 comments about the site plan. Obviously the site plan is early in the design stages . We need your 9 variance before we can tweak the final version of the site plan. One of the issues that was raised 10 by the Planning Board which is a good comment and we are intending to address it, and might actually 11 be addressed here, the traffic circulation that comes off Wickham Avenue and goes towards the 12 south, to the left of the building, takes you to the parking area along the bulkhead, that was a 13 concern, well, two issues . One was fire access around the building, which we think we can solve 14 just by a fire lane along the south side of the building. We don' t have one there now, but we can 15 make a provision for maintaining clear access . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s only 10 foot, 16 right? MS . MOORE : No. You have 62 feet, you 17 have about 16 feet . I got these measurements from the architect . If you start at the bulkhead, you 18 have about 18 feet of landscaping, then the parking space is 20 feet in length, and it leaves 19 about 27 feet to the edge of the building. So that' s certainly adequate access for vehicles 20 going in and out . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then there would be 21 enough turnaround space at the west side of the building for say turnaround for these large fire 22 engines? MS . MOORE : Yes, if I could come up. 23 Maybe what' s misleading are those retaining walls . Those retaining walls are going to be removed. 24 There' s no retaining walls on the final version of the site plan. What you' re going to have is 25 graded either gravel or blacktop access around the entire building so there will be access around the May 20 , 2004 85 1 2 entire building from east to west, north to south. With respect to private cars, you and I going in 3 there, one thought we had was to limit the access of the private vehicles to however number of 4 spaces we can land bank on the south side of the building. And what we thought was possibly 5 eliminating those 20 spaces starting from the left and working your way out to the right, from west 6 to east . If I come up forward, I think it might be easier. Here' s the parking area on the south 7 side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But there are boats 8 there now. You store winter boats . MR. MOORE : We wouldn' t be able to store . 9 The storage will replace all the storage on the site as it' s presently being operated. 10 What you' re going to have is the access of the cars coming in, they can come in here and a 11 cul-de-sac of some type, it' s not going to be with a barrier because we want to maintain adequate 12 access throughout the 24 hours a day every day of the week, but it will limit, it will say no 13 passing beyond this point give the opportunity for somebody to turn around and come back out . So 14 their ingress/egress for the south side parking area will be strictly limited, so you don' t have 15 the traffic traveling all the way around and in a sense interfering with the forklifts and the 16 activity of the boat yard that occurs at the entrance of the new building. 17 Also we' d like to suggest to the Planning Board land banking these spaces along the west 18 side of the marina because that too seems to me to be somewhat interfering with the activities that 19 are planned for the standard boating activities, the marina activity that occur. So we' d like to 20 keep this area open without parking. The parking as shown, because it shows that there' s certainly 21 adequate parking for this use and for all the proposed uses, what we would hope is that the 22 Planning Board applies some common sense on how much parking we actually need to build out . When 23 I asked the Raynors about the winter and summer parking needs, really the parking at this point in 24 the summer, in the high summer months, is really on the north side where it says marina parking, 25 and it' s gravel right now. Right now there are temporary boat racks stored, and the area that is May 20 , 2004 86 1 2 around the restaurant . Aside from that, there really is no other parking, there' s no demand for 3 parking; there' s always adequate parking. They have shown a great deal more parking that we hope 4 they' ll be as successful as this plan shows . So with respect to some of the Planning 5 Board issues, we could put in a fire lane and we would like to limit some of the activity all the 6 way around the building. What else? Oh, the other comment the 7 Planning Board had was handicapped accessible parking spaces . Those are already shown here . 8 They are marked with a "H" . They are large spots . . They are shown as wider spaces . The architect 9 felt there was so much writing, so much activity on this plan he was trying to limit the amount of 10 writing on, but if the Planning Board wants us to identify them a little more clearly, we can do 11 that . We've already made provisions for handicap accessibility. 12 Also, asphalt area is limited. Any time you have a marina by the water, the DEC also 13 intentionally limits the amounts of non-pervious materials . So we' re going to have the handicapped 14 parking spaces in the area where the blacktop will be continued. There' s blacktop there now and 15 we' re going to continue with the blacktop after the renovations . The marina parking on the 16 northeast side, again, where the temporary boat racks are, that' s gravel pervious materials and 17 we' d like to keep it that way. Do you have any specific questions? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I looked at 19 the notice of disapproval . It' s only for the 65 feet . 20 MS . MOORE : It' s the existing setback that' s being maintained. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . I want to try to apply Walz to it . 22 MS . MOORE : Not this time . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems like it' s 23 increasing a nonconformity. MS . MOORE : I ' ll let you grapple with 24 those issues internally. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see . I think 25 that the building is much better than what you have there now. I mean, I guess the rack storage May 20 , 2004 87 1 2 is going to stay? MS . MOORE : What' s going to happen is 3 those racks are for some of the smaller boats . MR. RAYNOR: _ They' re removed for the 4 summertime . MS . MOORE: Purely seasonal . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not losing any storage outside other than where the building 6 is going to be? MS . MOORE : No . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going to add any more rack storage outside? 8 MS . MOORE : No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. Lydia? 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don' t have any questions . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a quick little 11 sum up . The south side parking will now become outside winter storage? 12 MS . MOORE : That' s not the intention, correct? 13 MR. RAYNOR: Correct . MS . MOORE : Is there a but to that? 14 MR. RAYNOR: That' s mainly used for the marina parking. 15 MS . MOORE : It' s not boat storage? MR. RAYNOR: No. 16 MS . MOORE : Then the answer is no. .BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a curiosity, 17 you went through a lot of gyration with us for 15 feet, is there any reason why you didn' t just 18 shove up the building a couple feet and meet the 75 feet? 19 MS . MOORE : Two reasons . One is matching the building to the existing building we' ll really 20 lose some space . You' re going to lose about 10 feet, you could offset it . So that being the 21 functional aspect of the building is somewhat undermined. ` You'-re also pushing the building 22 closer to the north, and there are some nice landscaping there between the restaurant and the 23 buildings right now, we' d eliminate a great deal more landscaping. As we push out 10 feet, the 24 parking gets pushed out 10 feet and you' re pushing closer to the restaurant building. It' s kind of 25 nice the way it' s set up, you' re isolating the boating, , the marina, the boat repair from the May 20 , 2004 88 1 2 restaurant, and we thought it was worth seeking a variance to try to preserve to the extent possible 3 the landscaping that we .don' t have to change post-construction. 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was curious . And picture Number 8 , the access to the old boat 5 storage is going to be the same side on the west side of the construction as well? 6 MS . MOORE : Yes . It will match what is currently there as an opening. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' re going to remove this wall, make it one big, huge astrodome 8 inside there, or are you going to keep those walls? 9 MR. RAYNOR- I'm torn between the two. It really boils down to the engineers, what they tell 10 me . MS . MOORE : Structurally whether or not 11 they need that wall or they don' t . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Those were 12 curiosity questions . . No other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the 13 audience that has any additions or corrections or comments to make on this application? If not , 14 I '.11 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a motion to postpone the Axlerod hearing to possibly June 22nd 17 at 9 : 35 a .m. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 -------- ----------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to 19 adjourn the public hearings . (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 (Time ended: 2 : 30 p.m. ) 21 22 23 24 25 May 20, 2004 89 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 5 State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 7 the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am not related by 9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 10 action; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 12 of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 20th day of May, 2004 . 15 16 17 18 Florence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 20 , 2004