Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/22/2004 Hearing S 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, New York 11 June 22 , 2004 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member 17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary 20 21 ��oo AA 22 rORIGINAL UD 23 2004 24 L7ZONIrCIAROD OF F9PAFP c P 25 _��, COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The first hearing is Debra Victoroff . Is there anybody here to 3 represent Miss Victoroff? Move to adjourn for now. 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our second hearing is 5 Steve Axelrod and Sandra Schpoont, and we have received a letter asking for a withdrawal of their 6 application. I' d like to make a resolution accepting their withdrawal of their application. 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) -------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here that is for the Saunders' application on 9 Franklinville Road? Otherwise it' s going to be rescheduled for 11 : 05 . 10 Our next hearing is the VanBergens on Horton Avenue . They just need two front yards ; is 11 there someone here who would like to . speak to this application? Yes, ma' am. 12 MS . VANBERGEN: I 'm Jeanne VanBergen, owner of the property and I made the 13 application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you proposing 14 to do? MS . VANBERGEN:. Proposing to add an 15 addition to kind of extend my living space . It' s 120 square foot, one of the rooms on the end of 16 the house is only half the width of the house . I ' d just like to take that the full width of the 17 house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Square it off? 1'8 MS . VANBERGEN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have two front 19 yards so you' re rather confined in what you can do . 20 MS . VANBERGEN: Yes . It' s nonconforming to the 35 foot setbacks . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando, do you have any questions? 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The house is a one story house; will the addition be a single story? 23 MS . VANBERGEN: The addition is going to conform to the existing roof line . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The existing ridge line? 25 MS . VANBERGEN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . June 22 , 2004 3 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: This is a 10 ' 9" by 3 12 foot addition? MS . VANBERGEN: Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any questions . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the audience have any questions on this application? 8 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 9 (See minutes for resolution. ) -------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for David and Jane Starwood on Sun Lane 11 concerning an as-built deck addition at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. 12 MR. STARWOOD: I 'm Mr. Starwood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My understanding is 13 that you' re just trying to replace the deck that' s already there? 14 MR. STARWOOD: No. The deck was built by the previous owner and they were misinformed or 15 something and thought that the deck didn' t need a CO if it wasn' t attached to the house . When I 16 looked into it, I found it needed more than a CO, it needed a variance because it was close to the 17 bulkhead. Though I. don' t intend to change the deck at all, I just want eventually to get a CO 18 for it and have it legal . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Starwood, could you just go over with me the size of the 20 deck, because I have to write this decision. The deck protrudes out from the house what depth 21 approximately? How far does it go out toward the bulkhead? 22 MR. STARWOOD: Fifteen feet I believe . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far is it 23 across? MR. STARWOOD: Twenty feet . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shall remain open, you have no intentions of enclosing it? 25 MR. STARWOOD: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have no June 22 , 2004 4 1 2 objection to a restriction that it remain open to the sky? 3 MR. STARWOOD: No, I don' t . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When did you purchase this house, sir? 5 MR. STARWOOD: Going on five years now, the deck was built about ten years ago . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the lawyers didn' t pick up with the CO? 7 MR. STARWOOD: They picked up about the CO, but apparently there was a bit of confusion. 8 They thought all I needed was a CO, and it wasn' t until I got into the paperwork that I saw that it 9 also needs a variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in 12 the audience who wishes to speak for or against this application? Hearing none, I would like to 13 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) -------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Mr. Mourounas on Central Avenue in Mattituck, 16 and he wants to put a little porch on his -- do you have the affidavit for the receipts? 17 MR. MOUROUNAS : Yes (handing) . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 18 MS . KOWALSKI : Did you hand in the white certified receipts too? 19 MR. MOUROUNAS : I have those . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s my understanding 20 that you really just want to put a porch on that little niche on the house? 21 MR. MOUROUNAS : Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which will put you a 22 little closer to the front lot line than you were and a little bit further in front than your other 23 neighbors I believe, correct? MR. MOUROUNAS : Correct . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is an 25 enclosed porch; is that correct? MR. MOUROUNAS : Just have a roof . June 22 , 2004 5 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Roof but open on the -- 3 MR. MOUROUNAS : Open on the sides all around. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? MR. ORLANDO: This was an afterthought 6 after the construction started? MR. MOUROUNAS : Yes . Because what 7 happened was when we went for the original permit, the house was supposed to be squared off, if you 8 look_ at the house . Then they said we couldn' t do it, then the architect decided to drop it back, 9 then we kind of switched our plan and said how about we try to apply for a variance and kind of 10 make it a little different in that area just to make the house look square, put a porch on the 11 outside . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Give more 12 architectural detail? MR. MOUROUNAS : Exactly. 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The house wasn' t supposed to be jogged on an angle, you' re saying 14 originally? MR. MOUROUNAS : The house, you can' t tell 15 from the street, I think there' s pictures . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It gives the 16 illusion it'.s parallel to the street . MR. MOUROUNAS : That' s what it does . The 17 property line sits back I think 12 feet and then the other side there' s eight feet, that' s why the 18 house looks like it' s sideways for some reason. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The survey you had, 19 is that an updated survey? MR. MOUROUNAS : Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width of the house is five feet? 21 MR. MOUROUNAS : From the house to the end of the porch would be five feet exactly. 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re requesting a setback, according to your plans, the Building 23 Department says plus/minus 30 feet so you' re requesting 2916"? 24 MR. MOUROUNAS : Exactly. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No further 25 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? June 22, 2004 6 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in 3 the audience that wishes to speak for or against this application? If not, do you have any other 4 remarks to make to us? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 6 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 -------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is 8 Bryan Villanti and Inger Boyajian. This is for the property on Bay Avenue in East Marion that you 9 wish to cover 75 percent of the lot with a deck addition? 10 MS . MOORE : Here they are, I was looking for my green cards that came in. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 : 00 a.m. I ' d like to open the hearing for Bryan Villanti on Bay Avenue 12 in East Marion, Pat? MS . MOORE : Yes . Good morning, this is a 13 very unusual case in that we have a building permit for the renovation of the house . This has 14 been a long process . The prior owner started the process and my client, when he purchased the 15 property, continued the process . The house was damaged during one of the severe winter October 16 storms and at that time the decking was damaged, and it was known that we were going to need to 17 repair it, replace it . As we got through the permit process, the DEC stated to us that we 18 needed to do certain work that had been required, which was gabion, it described -- it required mesh 19 PVC gabion structures all under the decking that was there . All this work had to be done prior to 20 the renovation of the house . Because under the FEMA regulations the gambian walls, the bulkhead, 21 had to be in place to protect the structure and there were helical screws that were put under the 22 house in order to meet the FEMA guidelines for the height of the first floor elevations . 23 So all this work was done, it was time consuming, very expensive and we finally got to 24 the point where we could submit the building permit application. We submitted the building 25 permit application and the Building Department said because we had to remove the deck to do all June 22 , 2004 7 1 2 the underlying structural supports for the house that we had lost the right to have the deck there . 3 I don' t believe that' s an accurate reading of what the code requires . When you make a repair 4 to the house and you have to take out the part of the structure to make that repair, it' s not an 5 intention to eliminate the structure . It' s for the other structural alterations, you sometimes 6 need to move things around, move them, out of the way, and it was obvious to the Building 7 Department, to everyone who knows this property that the deck was there, and there were multiple 8 pictures in the file of the deck and the conditions of the deck, which, obviously had been 9 damaged by the storms . What my client has given to me, which I 10 would like to put on the record, is a 1992 aerial photograph and the property is -- I' ll put an 11 arrow to the north on the back -- on the far top right is the end of Bay Avenue, that is the house, 12 and you can clearly see the deck that was there in 1992 , and was there in various states as time went 13 on and the permit process got longer and longer, the condition of the deck and the condition of the 14 house continued to deteriorate right there next to the water. So we ultimately had to come before 15 this Board but just for the variance for the replacement of the deck. 16 As you probably saw from your inspection, this house is somewhat elevated. The structure of 17 the gabion and the sand that goes as the underlying support of the structure is designed 18 with decking on top to put a cap essentially on the gabion and the sand. So it' s a full 19 integrated structure, and not to have a deck on top of it undermines the rest of the structural 20 design. What I have also for your file is section 21 8A, which is a vertical/horizontal drawing of the underlying structure . This is what the DEC and 22 the Trustees approved, the gabion baskets with the PVC and it says rebuilt deck on top . So I have 23 these two documents for you (handing) . Here' s the cross-section so that you can point out . Here' s 24 the arrow in the front . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm familiar. 2-5 MS . MOORE: We have also a photograph right across the boat ramp, are all the June 22 , 2004 8 1 2 properties, the waterfront properties that are developed along this corridor, and they are all 3 similarly designed with the bulkhead to protect the house and with decking on top, and we have the 4 neighbor right directly across from the boat ramp directly across .from us, which has the same 5 structure with fencing across it for privacy. Here' s a photograph of that . 6 It was very frustrating to have to be here for this variance given the hard work that we took 7 to get the house renovated. My client did not ask to increase the size of the house to try to avoid 8 the delay factor of getting variances for the renovation of the house . He' s been doing this 9 work on his own, as a GC for himself so the work progress is slow. As you can see, there' s been a 10 tremendous amount of work done to the house but you don' t see it because it' s not aesthetic yet ; 11 it' s all underlying supports and structures . The deck is kind of the final piece of this 12 renovation. If you. have questions, we' ll try to 13 address them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, we just had one 14 question, which map is the official map? We have several here . 15 MS . MOORE : The survey you' re talking about? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . There' s one from 10/22/02 , that shows the deck, but there' s one 17 from ' 04 , but that doesn' t have the deck. MS . MOORE : I have here the proposed 18 gabions, which is 03/03/03 . MS . KOWALSKI : We have a later one than 19 that that doesn' t show the deck. Which one should we be using? 20 MS . MOORE : They' re all the same survey. They just show different aspects of 21 construction. MS . KOWALSKI : Which one is the one with 22 the deck, March 3 , 2003? MS . MOORE : The decking is going to the 23 gabion structure and to the wood bulkhead, I think 3/3/03 , that one has the gabions installed at that 24 point and the wood bulkhead. So now we know what the wood structure' s going to be on top . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Ma' am, Chairman, I don' t have a survey showing the deck. June 22 , 2004 9 1 2 MS . MOORE : We' re sorry for the confusion. We just wanted to show you that the 3 deck was there before the gabions went in. When the gabions went in, obviously the deck had to be 4 removed. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The survey that is 5 dated 1998 , is this the survey that you would like us to put in the record as to what you are 6 proposing? MS . MOORE : Yes . This one shows the wood 7 deck on top. Wood deck with wave attenuation gabions, which has the decking on top of the 8 gabions . This one would be probably the easiest to use in writing a decision. 9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I guess the real question here is, is this map with the deck, the 10 exact deck that you are proposing? MS . MOORE: It has the existing plus the 11 proposed. At that time, the existing plus the new deck as the total deck. So, yes, that is the one 12 that reflects where the end of the deck is going to go, which is on top of all the existing 13 structure . MS . KOWALSKI : What about on the sides? 14 MS . MOORE : At the sides it was already there . I believe the decking was shown on that 15 survey as existing. It' s replacing what was already there . 16 MS . KOWALSKI : Talking about the March 3 , 2003 survey, correct? 17 MS . MOORE : The March 3 , 2003 is the one that has the proposed gabion. The March 3 , 2003 18 has the proposed gabions, then the 6/11/03 has the revised notes and ultimately the 1/20/04 says 19 "snow cover, " is the one where the bulkheads and the gabions have been installed. 20 MS . KOWALSKI : And the 2004 doesn' t change the deck? 21 MS . MOORE: None of them change the deck. The deck is always on .top of that structure . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is the deck? 23 MS . MOORE : It covers to the property line . This property is only a 30 by 75 . 86 , so it 24 goes, it' s certainly 30 feet in width, the deck, because it goes around the house; then it' s just 25 short of the length of the property because the wood bulkhead was setback three, four feet from June 22 , 2004 10 1 2 its original position. So the original deck was actually to the bulkhead that was originally 3 there, which was four feet seaward of the existing bulkhead. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the deck is actually on top of the gabion? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . the gabion' s what' s holding the house and .the deck in. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm confused because if we have a notice of disapproval which 7 reads lot coverage of 76 percent, and if you filled in that deck, you've got to be in 90 8 percent . MS . MOORE: I didn' t do the calculation, 9 he did. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've got to be 10 90 percent, there' s only one little part and that portion in the back that' s out of it . 11 MS . MOORE : He may have excluded the house from the lot coverage . 12 MS . KOWALSKI : Who is he? MS . MOORE : I think Damon wrote the 13 decision. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: May I , Ma' am 14 Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You may. 15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One, I' d like to see a breakdown of the lot coverage, certified 16 breakdown of the lot coverage . MS . MOORE : From the surveyor? 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . With the deck. Two, you mentioned before that the deck is 18 similar to others in the neighborhood, your adjoining property owners . The square footage of 19 this lot is 2 , 299 square feet . MS . MOORE : 2, 299, yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You are seeking multiple variances to maximize this lot ; we have 21 never approved lot coverage of 76 percent . MS . MOORE : That' s why this is unique . 22 It really doesn' t require a variance . It' s a replacement . There was no intention -- had the 23 Building Inspector honored the discussions that we had, multiple discussions before getting to a 24 building permit, because he saw every step of the way because obviously the FEMA issue was discussed 25 with him early on in the beginning. The issue of whether or to what extent we could renovate the June 22 , 2004 • 11 1 2 house was discussed earlier in the beginning, to have him believe that the deck wouldn' t be damaged 3 and wouldn' t need to be replaced immediately. We were in shock when he told us, I'm sorry, you have 4 to go to the Zoning Board for this decking. I don' t think that you need to issue a variance 5 because I think that' s something that maybe you don' t want to do. I think given the 6 circumstances, the need for the structural alterations and the need for the DEC and the 7 Trustees regulations, our need to remove the deck temporarily while this underlying structural 8 repairs was being done, should give us the automatic right to put it back in. There is never 9 an intention to abandon the structure . It was getting it out of the way for the construction 10 then putting it right back. The only reason we haven' t put it right back is because the Building 11 Department stopped us from doing that . So you don' t need to go to all the extreme measures of 12 all the variances that the Building Inspector required at the notice of disapproval . That' s why 13 we limited the size of the house . We kept everything exactly the same . In fact, the deck is 14 four feet less than the original structure . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Wait . You said 15 the deck was four feet less than the original structure . Twenty minutes ago I asked you is this 16 the deck that is before us; twenty minutes ago you said yes . 17 MS . MOORE : May I answer your question? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 18 MS . MOORE : In 1993 the Town received the original survey. The original survey had the 19 decking that went the entire length of the property. When the DEC and the Trustees had us 20 replace the bulkhead after the, storm, they didn' t allow us to replace the bulkhead in-kind and 21 in-place; they had us move the bulkhead four feet back from its original position. So the new deck, 22 the replacement deck is going on top of the bulkhead. The bulkhead is now four feet less than 23 its original position. So I 'm not directing you to these surveys . It' s still the same request we 24 had made and presented to the Building Department day one . It' s less than the original structure . 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Which was built when? June 22 , 2004 12 1 2 MS . MOORE : Which was built before zoning. It was there in 186 when this survey was 3 done . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s been there since 4 I remember. MS . MOORE : This house was probably built 5 in the 140s or 150s as a cottage . MR. VILLANTI : It' s been there since the 6 ' 20s . It' s originally a Ketcham house . If you look at the 1972 Van Tuyl survey, we have the same 7 exact footprint of the deck and the house as it stands today with the exception of the bulkhead 8 being four foot landward of where it was originally, and that was because it was a Trustee 9 decision to move it landward. Originally this property was 92 feet in length, over the course of 10 time it' s eroded due to .a problem with the bulkhead and all the paperwork that' s gone through 11 over the course of time . This has been initiated since 1992 to preserve the right to renovate this 12 house in-kind/in-place with the deck that existed at least until 1972 that shows on the Van Tuyl 13 survey. MS . MOORE : Actually up through 186 . 14 MR. VILLANTI : I have one from ' 72 also. I 'm not trying to ask for anything 15 different . Along with the Building Department since day one, I 've been told as long as I stay 16 with the same footprint of the deck and the home of what it is today, which I have never tried to 17 enlarge or ask, I always reserve that right . Now I wouldn' t have spent all this money 18 over the course of time over the last 20 months to always reserve that deck, then the one day I have 19 to take it out to do work on the house, under the Trustees permit, which was allowed to do for the 20 bulkhead and the Helical screws, to raise the house and also with the DEC, with those rights 21 with those permits, and what happened was the deck had to be removed in order to do that work. I 22 wouldn' t have gone down and just threw the right to reserve the deck right out the window. It' s 23 always been there . MS . MOORE : The use of this house doesn' t 24 make sense without the decking. The gabion, the sand, all of this is designed with a top to 25 protect the sand and gabion, otherwise rain and storm will erode the structure underneath. This June 22 , 2004 13 1 2 whole design with decking on top puts a cap, almost like a lid on a pot to keep the underlying 3 structure safe and in place . So I was quite flabbergasted when the Building Department said, 4 no, go for a zoning variance because I appreciated the fact it was a significant variance because 5 it' s everywhere from end to end, property line to property line just about . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would like to see 7 a breakdown of the lot coverage . MS . MOORE : I can have the surveyor break 8 it down. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: . Miss Moore, did you 9 represent your client with the Trustees? MS . MOORE: I did. I have been in this 10 process since early 190s, late ' 90s . It' s been so long. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No one' s disputing that the deck existed. We can see pictures . The 12 question here is it was removed without a permit as per the notice of disapproval . When you spoke 13 with the Trustees, did they say you can remove it, or did you tell them? Do we have it on testimony 14 that you say, you' re on podium, and you said, we' re going to remove the deck, lift up the house 15 and do all the stuff like that? MS . MOORE : I can' t go back and think 16 whether or not the testimony was as clear as that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your client' s 17 saying you told everyone you were going to remove the deck. 18 MS . MOORE : The Trustees know how Costello raises a house . They have to lift the 19 house up, put the helical screws . It' s pounding. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No one' s disputing 20 that . I think it' s how it went about . MS . MOORE : I think it was always 21 understood that the decking, one, had to be repaired because it was leaning, it was all -- 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When you- think it' s a given, it' s not always a given. 23 MS . MOORE : It was obviously clear that the decking there had collapsed and needed to be 24 repaired and replaced. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t know if 25 it ' s their jurisdiction that tells you to lift up and put it back on, the Trustees . June 22 , 2004 14 1 2 MR. VILLANTI : I don' t think there' s any such permit in the Town. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which building inspector have you had conversations with? Maybe 4 we can talk with him. MS . MOORE : I was dealing with Mike 5 Verity throughout the whole time . To me, I assume that people understand construction when they are 6 a building inspector. So to me, I don' t go through the whole process of we have to move this 7 out of the way because we have to put the helical screws we have to put the bulkheading. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We brought Mike in last public hearing to clear up a gray area like 9 this, because you' re saying we had many conversations, and he knew we were doing this . We 10 should ask him. MS . MOORE : He believed somehow or 11 another, I have learned my lesson with Mike, I now confirm everything in writing. Everytime I meet 12 with him I do a confirmation letter. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s not a bad 13 thing. MS . MOORE : That' s not the right way to 14 operate . You should be able to come in and know what the rules are, they' re pretty 15 straightforward. You come in and say I 'm doing this renovation I have to replace, I have to fix 16 this, fix the deck. The building permit' s going to come with, they say you have to dolfull 17 drawings, engineering, you have to submit everything; that' s what we did. It was quite 18 extensive . This underlying structure doesn' t work without decking top . Plus the fact, if you saw 19 it, the house is here -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Back to the 20 decking, this is going to be your standard deck with planking? 21 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What' s going to be 22 going to stop water going through it? MS . MOORE: You don' t have an open, 23 exposed sand and gabion structure . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The rain' s still 24 going to go down, the snow is still going to go down. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s going to drip down instead of pouring down, because it has to June 22 , 2004 15 1 2 hold those gabions in place . MR. VILLANTI : Another thing is, without 3 that decking, small children or whoever, I mean it creates a hazard of playing on the rocks or going 4 underneath the house, .you' re preventing the hazard by having that deck because what you did was seal 5 any possibility of having that hazard. And also, I don' t know if there' s any permit in this town in 6 regards to removing that deck. It' s like I tell you for 10 years I'm going to replace this deck 7 one day, I finally get my permits and 'everything, I go one day, tear it down, next day I apply 8 because I have to go through steps to do it the right way, and the next day you tell me, well, you 9 tore it down yesterday, so you can' t have that . Now you have to go before the Zoning Board of 10 Appeals, which if that' s the way it might be then that' s the way it is . But it' s something that' s 11 always been there, always with the intention of preserving those rights of what was there . Not to 12 try to expand or anything. And in regards to lot coverage, if you 13 have 2 , 299 on the square foot of the lot, if you minus out the house, that' s about 900 square feet 14 of that . So right there, you' re not at 76 percent of lot coverage . If you look on the northern 15 side, I think that' s another maybe 150 square feet minus out of the equation, then a little bit on 16 the west end, north side of the home on the north and east and the west . So it' s definitely 17 nowheres near 76 percent lot coverage . MS . MOORE : You' re including the house 18 into the lot coverage . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I didn' t do the 19 calculations, the Building Department did. I'm asking you to. 20 You' re submitting testimony about what the Building Department said and what they didn' t say, 21 it' s kind of a one-sided affair, and I would ask the Chairwoman, if we' re going to take that 22 testimony into consideration, that we also listen to the Building Department so that we can hear 23 their version of what happened. MS . MOORE: I just find it somewhat 24 ludicrous to have a building inspector expect us to put helical screws and gabion without removing 25 the structures on top. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: He' s not here to June 22 , 2004 16 1 2 defend himself . MS . MOORE : Common sense. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Suppose we get Mike here about 11 : 30 . 4 Jim, do you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I do have a 5 question for the building inspector. I' m wondering if having a removal permit preserves the 6 right for them to have a deck. And I 'm wondering where in our code it says that because I had 7 always thought traditionally if you had something and you would be maintaining something, then that 8 you always had it . . MS . MOORE : Actually the code does say 9 that even nonconforming structures -- not nonconforming uses, but nonconforming 10 structures -- are permitted to be repaired, replaced. The language has been in the code, and 11 over the couple of years we've eroded away that right to the point of absurdity. The Town Board 12 has even legislated five years ago for nonconforming uses allowing them to expand. So if 13 the Town Board allowed nonconforming uses to expand, why are we treating nonconforming area 14 setbacks almost more strictly than the nonconforming use . So over time it' s just getting 15 to a point where we lose kind of the common sense factor in zoning. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Jerry has one more question, then let' s adjourn this to 11 : 30 . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only statement I want to make is it' s very difficult to 18 determine what you had when you don' t see it later. You' re not submitting pictures to us of 19 what the decks look like except for the front deck, that' s Number 1; and Number 2 , I really 20 don' t buy the issue that the deck needs to be replaced to protect the gabion because you can put 21 a surface on that property, and I don' t care if it' s bluestone, I don' t care if it' s stone in 22 general, that will retard the same procedure that a deck would do. 23 MS . MOORE : I would respectfully disagree . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not an engineer. 25 MS . MOORE : Exactly. Then I would want to have an engineer' s testimony on whether or not June 22 , 2004 17 1 2 the gabion and Costello, the way it was designed, everything here was designed with the decking on 3 top . Now you have a whole set of speedy' s regulations that have just been adopted. I'm sure 4 you've heard about it, 'which talks about prevention, it' s erosion control and prevention, 5 and there' s a whole section on what rainwater does to erode topsoil . And now we have to go through 6 erosion control, pollution control, plans at the Planning Board process for anything over an acre 7 because of the concern of topsoil storage, of material storage, construction process, of how 8 rain causes erosion and ultimately the runoff problems that are created on roads and in 9 sensitive wetlands areas . So, you know, it' s a recognized principal . So I don' t agree with that 10 analysis, that, in fact, rainwater does cause a great deal of erosion. And here you are next .to 11 the water, so you've got storm damage, which is even more prevalent, so you've got a lot of wind 12 action and tidal action that you've got to protect against, that' s why the gabion and that' s why the 13 bulkhead were put in place . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is Mr. Costello 14 an engineer? MS . MOORE : I don' t think he' s an 15 engineer._ BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we need to 16 get an engineer here . MS . MOORE : I need to know whether you' re 17 going to honor a pre-existing structure . I have a survey from ' 86 , which shows the decking from end 18 to end. I, gave you a photograph from ' 92 , which is before the storms hit and started damaging the 19 structure . So I believe you have in your record proof that it was there . You .have old surveys 20 that talk about dilapidated decking that has to be replaced. So, I don' t know .what more to give you. 21 I have old photographs that were submitted back in 2002 as part of the permit process, probably the 22 DEC or the Trustees, which show the decking all along the side of the property and the back of the 23 property, the front, the landward side has never been an issue so I don' t know that anybody' s taken 24 pictures of it . But you can see that this is part of the collapsed structure . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, most of the work that this Board has done zoning-wise June 22 , 2004 18 1 2 was done in the mid to latter ' 90s, and at the time of looking at this structure and comparing it 3 to the surrounding neighborhood, I have to tell you that the dilapidation of this building was so 4 severe that I couldn' t believe that the building was still standing and that was my particular 5 opinion. We can give you the names of those people, 6 they were not necessarily on this side of the street, but we looked at both sides . They were on 7 the Rabbit Lane side, and I can tell you, this is a relatively good depiction of what I had seen, 8 and it didn' t even look like a structure to me at that point . I have to be honest with you. 9 MS . MOORE : Actually, the roof has not needed to be replaced. The structure has a great 10 deal of integrity because there was a building permit in the renovation of it, but most of it is 11 remaining in place . Structurally it looks horrendous, the shingles are beaten up by the 12 elements, and he has been going through the process of renovating or attempting to get all the 13 permits in place to renovate this structure since the ' 90s . So it hasn' t been his fault . He has 14 wanted to go and fix it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re not saying 15 it' s anybody' s fault . MS . MOORE : You understand the 16 deterioration of the structure continues while you' re going through the permit process . There' s 17 probably $50 , 000 worth of underlying structure for gabion -- 18 MR. VILLANTI : At least . MS . MOORE : So he' s had an investment of 19 over $50 , 000 in putting the underlying structure to protect this house because this house is very 20 close to the water, as are all the other homes off of Rabbit Lane . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How come they didn' t make you go to a flood plain level? 22 MS . MOORE : They did. That' s why the helical screws were put in. The Building 23 Department said do it precautionary. The elevation, the FEMA standards when you' re 24 renovating a house as long as you' re not increasing the structure more than 50 percent, 25 which is not the case here, we' re exactly in-kind/in-place, you can keep to the existing June 22 , 2004 19 1 2 elevation; rather than take that approach, he put in the additional investment of raising the house 3 24 inches, the helical screws were put in underneath, and they had to be brought to a height 4 of 24 inches for FEMA standards . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the house was 5 raised 24 inches? MS . MOORE : Yes, for the FEMA standards . 6 He complied with all the DEC regulations and permits . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could we keep this? MS . MOORE : Of course . 8 MR. VILLANTI : I agree with you that the house is in horrible condition, but I'm not the 9 one who left it in that . I'm the one who purchased it recently in the hopes of trying to 10 better it . The neighbors have even told me that they will sign petitions when I was working down 11 there two weeks ago . Some of the neighbors came over to get the right to put back the deck and 12 whatever they can do in regards to helping. It' s only bettering the area. I'm trying to stop a 13 hazard that existed for 20 years . I won' t deny any of that . But I'm not the one who left it in 14 that condition, I'm just trying to improve what we have . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If we just adjourn this hearing until 11 : 30 to see if we can get the 16 Building Department here . (See minutes for resolution. ) 17 -------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is we 18 need a resolution to adjourn Thomas and Laura Nigro application to July 15th to 10 : 05 a.m. 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 21 Debra Victoroff on Dogwood Lane in Southold. It' s the building of a new house and this application 22 has been going on for a year, and we have the new map, and I thought it looked very -- frankly, I 23 think you fit it in very nicely, but let' s see what everybody else has to say. Mr. Goehringer? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s my understanding there' s no swimming pool . 25 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes . We took out the swimming pool . We took out the surrounding deck. June 22 , 2004 20 1 2 We made the house smaller. We reduced the size of the deck behind the bedroom and moved the house as 3 far as necessary, according to the Trustees, away from the quote, wetland, area. It' s the best we 4 can do. The house is a minimum size, the lot coverage is about 12 percent . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. And we are still going with that original 6 disapproval -- the reason I'm asking this question is because I have to write this decision. The 7 April 20 , 2004 approximately? MR. FITZGERALD: That' s approximately. 8 No, wait a minute . April 20th. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It started 9 February 11, 2003? MR. FITZGERALD: The latest date is June 10 14th. MS . KOWALSKI : That came in last week. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have a look at that? 12 MR. FITZGERALD: It says Damon sent it . MS . KOWALSKI : It' s part of the file . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to copy this before you leave, and I' ll give you a 14 copy. MR. FITZGERALD: Sure . You' re going to 15 hold it now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have 16 any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, I think you've 17 done a fine job massaging it, moving it all around. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Only took a year. MR. FITZGERALD: The designer is Miss 19 Victoroff herself . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It has a 10 foot 20 front yard setback, is that where we are now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, the Trustees 21 moved it up. MR. FITZGERALD: And, of course, that' s 22 with most things in the Town that' s from the property line, the edge of the pavement is another 23 12 feet beyond that . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So that' s the only 24 variance you actually need from us today would be a front yard setback? 25 MR. FITZGERALD: Front and rear. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How far is your June 22,. 2004 21 1 2 rear yard setback? MR. FITZGERALD: I have to look. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t . see . it on that survey. 4 BOARD MEMBER. GOEHRINGER: It' s not mentioned. 5 MR. FITZGERALD: It' s not indicated, but it scales to 37 feet . 6 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s only disapproved for the front yard from the Building Department . 7 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. It' s 37 feet . MS . KOWALSKI : You don' t need a rear yard 8 variance . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It should be 35 and 9 35 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s been a long haul, but I really think you have done a very good 11 job. It' s an extremely long haul . MR. FITZGERALD: Miss Victoroff, we've 12 done whatever we can. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think you've done 13 a very good job over the years . MR. FITZGERALD : It' s her doing. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a notice of 15 disapproval that disapproves both. The disapproval says you need a rear yard and -- 16 MR. FITZGERALD : That' s not the latest . We have June something ' 04 . April 22nd. 17 The latest is -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: June 14th. There' s 18 a list of them here . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you don' t need a 19 rear yard? MR. FITZGERALD: That' s correct . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this 21 application? MS . ROSENBLUM: Helen Rosenblum, 1287 East 22 Main Street, Riverhead, for some of the neighbors of the applicant . You have to excuse me, I didn' t 23 expect to be here today so my file is in Riverhead. 24 I haven' t seen the notice of disapproval . I did note that the line was not even sketched in 25 on the survey showing the rear yard measurement . I wanted to put a couple things in the June 22 , 2004 22 1 2 record. It' s going to be unartfully done because, as I say, my file is in Riverhead. I wrote to you 3 concerning first and foremost what I consider to be the problem with this lot . I don' t think it 4 has been addressed. I talked to the Building Inspector, Miss Victoroff did as well, and I think 5 you need to have some kind of ruling from him as to whether or not this is a valid lot . 6 The lot in your Section 100-24 is very specific as to how a lot is recognized that is 7 non-conforming, and this is significantly substandard. It says if any one of the following 8 apply, and if the lots have not merged, and if the identical lot was created by deed on or before 9 June 30 ,, 1983 ; this lot that' s before you was created by deed in like 2002 ; and the lot 10 conformed to the minimum lot requirements as of the date of lot creation; certainly, it did not as 11 of 2002 . Was this approved by the Planning Board? I don' t believe that it was, but I could be wrong. 12 Was it on a subdivision map approved by the Town Board prior to 1983? Again, I don' t believe that 13 it was . Was it approved by you prior to 1983? The Building Department file and the assessor' s 14 file didn' t have any indication of that . I think this is something that as 15 representing the neighbors, they have a right to know whether this lot is a valid lot; it' s 16 something that should have been resolved before you even heard the issue of the variances, and I 17 would ask that a determination be made by the Building Department in writing, so that that can 18 be appealed to you as well . All of that is in my letter. I don' t want to take a lot of your time 19 by going through that . Again, my understanding was that there was 20 a rear yard request for variance, apparently that isn' t the case . There are other problems . We are 21 reading the house presently as a larger structure, that is 23 percent larger than the structure that 22 was before you before we went to the Trustees . There is an addition to that 104 square foot deck, 23 there are stairs that are 48 square feet from the side of the house . So that the house is larger 24 than the one that had been before you; although, the patio and the porch that were on the prior map 25 had been removed. In the map that was before you, the porch June 22 , 2004 23 1 2 was bordering the front yard, .was parallel to the front yard for 20 feet, now the house is there . 3 So it' s like I'm not sure that the 10 feet is in keeping with the neighborhood. I think most of 4 the houses on the Dogwood Lane have setbacks of the houses themselves is considerably more than 5 that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Rosenblum, we do 6 understand that the Trustees pushed the house forward because of the wetlands . 7 MS . ROSENBLUM: Yes, they did. It was their suggestion for wetlands reasons . Their 8 jurisdiction is wetlands and yours is obviously something else . There were a couple of other 9 things I just wanted to put into the record. The proposed house is on piles, I don' t think if it' s 10 in the notice of disapproval from the Building Inspector that they reviewed that . I' m assuming 11 yes, but I didn' t know there was a new notice of disapproval until just now. Again, it may not be 12 in keeping with the neighborhood. The test hole has been moved about 30 feet 13 from the initial survey to the present survey and the calculation of the groundwater based on this 14 test hole on the latest survey is incorrect by one foot, and if our calculations are correct, the 15 retaining wall would have to be raised by an additional foot, which would make it 4 . 7 , while 16 four foot maximum is what is required in the zoning code . This might require another variance, 17 and I think that the footings encroach on your property and also on the Rosackis' property. 18 There' s no indication for enough room for two parking spaces as is required by Town code . 19 That' s really pretty much it . I think the main concern really is the issue is this a legal 20 nonconforming lot for you to be entertaining anything on. And I think we' re entitled to have 21 that passed on by the Building Inspector in writing. Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? MR. FITZGERALD: Just briefly, the 23 property card for these properties in an entry dated 1/27/03 says, "Combined two parcels as per 24 deed. " I think that the reference that Ms . Rosenblum referred to in the Town code talking 25 about nonconforming lots is not addressing the question of combining lots but rather of making June 22 , 2004 24 1 2 them further or less conforming than they are now, and, of course, the merging of the two lots, as I 3 understand it under New York State law, happens automatically when they are both owned in the same 4 name, and, of course, that' s the way it has been. The things that Ms . Rosenblum has been referring 5 to are all paper, and they don' t address, I don.' t think, the spirit of the zoning regulations and 6 what it is we' re trying to do. So I think it is a legal lot, any one of several ways . And the last 7 point is the question' s peripheral in my mind, questions about the sanitary system are matters 8 which the Health Department I'm sure will examine very carefully. And, of course, that will be our 9 next step and we will meet there at some time in the future -- not you folks -- but the neighbors . 10 MS . VICTOROFF: I ' d also like to speak, if I can. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . MS . VICTOROFF: I'm Debra Victoroff and at 12 the Town Trustees meeting, when we came before them to get the wetlands variance this issue of 13 the merger of the lots was brought up at that time, and the morning of that meeting I went and 14 spoke to Mike Verity in person. I told him that this was potentially an issue . He gave me a copy 15 of the portion of the code that refers to this issue, 100-24 and 100-25 , I have .a copy of it . 16 Part A says a lot created by deed or Town approval shall be recognized by the Town if any one of the 17 following standards apply and if the lots have not merged, but they are merged because, as defined in 18 Section 100-25, a merger that a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or 19 nonconforming lot which has been held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after 20 July 1, 1983 . The lot was owned by the same two people in 1952 , and it was sold in 1987 to Sandra 21 Rave, who owned both pieces of property. So according to 100-25, these lots were merged. The 22 reason that it didn' t show up until 2003 was because I wrote a letter at Jim Fitzgerald' s 23 instruction to the Board of Assessors, which I have a copy, and, of course, they do too. " I 'm 24 writing to you as the new owner of two adjacent lots of vacant property in Southold, New York. 25 This letter is to acknowledge that the two above-referenced lots are merged and are June 22 , 2004 25 1 ' 2 considered to be one single and separate building lot for building purposes . I request that the 3 assessor' s office recognize that they are combined as one lot . " 4 So it' s because of me that this showed up on the tax chart, and not because they decided to 5 merge it because it was considered so in the deed. I also have, if you would like to review 6 it, my title search, which shows the owners, traces back the owners to 1952 and who owned it , 7 and the transition from 1952 to me in 2003 . With regard to the setback comparison 8 between my house at 10 feet and the other houses in the area, I went to the Town clerk' s office, ' 9 and I got 16 surveys of the 16 houses which surround me, including Mr. Rosakis, who is the 10 chief objector to my building there, his house sets back 14 feet, mine sets back 10 feet . He 11 does not have a driveway, I understand it might be required, I am not asking him to get one . I do 12 have a driveway, perhaps it' s smaller than it should be, but I guess it' s better than not having 13 a driveway. I would also like to read a letter that I 14 didn' t have a chance to send to you, but it is addressed to the Zoning Board and the Chairwoman 15 and the Members of the Zoning Board, if I may? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 16 MS . VICTOROFF: This is in response to statements that have been made about my 17 presentation and Jim' s presentation and what the information that we brought before you and 18 especially a letter that was read before the Trustees at the last Trustees meeting by 19 Mr. Rosakis in regard to my application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just don' t make it 20 personal . If it' s_ personal then I will not accept it . 21 MS . VICTOROFF : I would like to say at Jim Fitzgerald' s defense, that at the last statement, 22 it was said that we made incorrect representations on our application to the Department of 23 Environmental Conservation, and I would just like to say that the Department of Environmental 24 Conservation, we applied to them to find out if they had jurisdiction on the wetlands . They 25 responded that they didn' t . I was concerned -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the Board June 22 , 2004 26 1 2 feels this is irrelevant . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Miss Victoroff, as 3 to the issue of whether this lot is a legally recognized lot, 100-25 states the Building 4 Department upon request shall issue a written determination of merger; you say you have a title 5 search. Did the Building Department issue you a written determination of merger? 6 MS . VICTOROFF : I don' t know what that is . It ' s on my tax card it is considered merged. 7 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s my understanding that the Building Department will address it later, 8 that was up to Mr. Fitzgerald. MS . VICTOROFF: May I respond to that in 9 another way? - When I spoke to Mike Verity when I told him this was an issue and he gave me this 10 sheet, he said any issue of that type would be addressed when the Building Department looked at 11 my survey again. According to Jim, he' s given him my new survey. 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s kind of backwards . How can we issue you a variance on a 13 piece of property -- MS . VICTOROFF : Mike implied that if we 14 got the disapproval letter then it was considered a merged lot . 15 MS . KOWALSKI : A recognized lot? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That issue is not 16 before us, and there' s something very wrong in this process . What' s wrong is you can' t get a 17 building permit, and you can' t get a variance until you have a recognized lot . It is incumbent 18 upon the Building Department to clear the way for you to do that by issuing a written determination 19 of merger, not after we have given permits to build something on a lot . We have to know this . 20 MS . VICTOROFF : I don' t know what I needed to do to ask them to merge the lot . 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t know how this process got backwards, but right at this 22 point it is very much backwards . MS . VICTOROFF: We have followed the 23 procedure . I can' t imagine where it went wrong. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm not questioning 24 you, I 'm saying that the Building Department cannot say, well, we' ll issue a determination 25 whether you've got a legal lot after you get a variance to build the house . June 22 , 2004 27 1 2 MS . VICTOROFF : According to the code, this defines a merged lot as one that has been 3 held in common ownership. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know the code . 4 The Board Members know the code, but it' s not our call at this point . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you need a letter from the Building Department . 6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Say here' s the code, this is what it says, it' s not your 7 responsibility . It' s the Building Department' s responsibility to issue a written determination on 8 whether you have got a legal lot or not . That' s , the law. It' s cut and dried. 9 MS . VICTOROFF : Isn' t it their responsibility then to do so? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: . Yes . If you ask they are responsible . You say you have a title 11 search, then you' re half-way home . MS . VICTOROFF : May I go get that letter 12 from them? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, if you can get 13 that letter within the hour. MR. FITZGERALD: Two sentences, the Board 14 in the past has always focused very directly on the notice of disapproval from the Building 15 Department, what has been and what has not been disapproved. And it seems to me that if that was 16 a question with the Building Department, something about it would have shown up on the notice of 17 disapproval . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But counsel for 18 adjoining neighbors, who have raised questions specifically to that issue, have brought this 19 before this Board. It would be remiss not to address counsel' s concerns . 20 MS . ROSENBLUM: Thank you very much. First of all I want to say as far as if 21 Mr. Rosakis said anything inappropriate in his letter, I apologize for it . He' s recovering now, 22 I ' m not going to get into what' s wrong with him, but I don' t think if Miss Victoroff ends up as his 23 neighbor, I don' t think he wants a bad relationship with her. He' s a very intense man. 24 I think this is a matter of importance to him. I think it' s now assumed he' s putting it back into 25 context .. I just want to say first of all some of June 22 , 2004 28 1 2 the issues Mr. Fitzgerald indicated were Health Department issues are Town code issues, like the 3 height of the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Retaining wall? 4 MS.. ROSENBLUM: Right . That stuff and the other thing is the merger issue is an issue, but 5 100-24 is really the issue . It' s clearly a nonconforming lot . I know that the lots existed 6 in some form way back, but if you look at the provisions under A, which I asked Mike to do, it' s 7 very specific . And it' s not like it' s the question of the spirit of the zoning code . This 8 is what a zoning code is here, it either meets it or it does not . And I understand because I have 9 explained to my clients, that it' s very hard for a zoning board or town board, or any agency in a 10 town to say this lot is not a legal lot without buying it . I understand the issue having my own 11 municipal background, but if the lot is slipped through the cracks and the Building Department 12 should not have sanctioned it or something should have been done, that happens all the time, and if 13 it' s not a legal lot, it' s not a legal lot . That' s all I'm asking. I asked Mr. Verity to 14 consider it . We are entitled to have those questions answered because, quite frankly, looking 15 at 100-24 it doesn' t meet anything that I can see if you parse out the word spirit or not and so 16 forth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s very 17 interesting. This is a very interesting issue . You know, we have made decisions on this 18 Board for 25 years subject to Health Department approval, and conceivably, if the Health 19 Department doesn' t approve something, then you don' t get the building permit . We could also make 20 a decision based upon the fact that it was a legal lot and there was a determination made by the 21 Building Inspector that this was a legal lot . You could make it subject to that too . 22 Let me just explain something to you, at the time that I walked out here, Madam Chairperson 23 asked me to walk out and contact the Building Department regarding another matter, there are 24 only two building inspectors at the Town Hall at this time, the other gentleman had retired. So 25 the present chief building inspector is out doing inspections, so it' s difficult . Just so you' re June 22 , 2004 29 1 2 aware of that situation. So that' s why I raise that issue, subject to, because that' s an issue 3 that the Building Department will research prior to the issuance . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about make a resolution to close the hearing with a written 5 reply from the Building Department before July 1st . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t think you' re going to get it, Ruth. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: By July 1st? MS . KOWALSKI : If you don' t get it, then 8 you could make your decision subject to . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Subject to what? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Subject to a written determination from the Building Department that it 10 is a legal lot . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That it' s a legal 11 lot in accordance with 100-24? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 12 MS . VICTOROFF : Can I said ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 13 MS . VICTOROFF : When you were just saying that you didn' t think it could be gotten before 14 July -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was my 15 opinion. MS . VICTOROFF : You don' t think I could 16 get it today? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re short-handed. 17 One inspector retired, and I think they' re all running around down there . 18 MS . VICTOROFF: Would it have to come from Mike Verity? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, he' s the chief building inspector. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We really need to clarify this issue . It' s your call, we can close 21 the hearing -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Subject to the -- 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: As far as rendering you a determination, I'm not inclined to do 23 that . MS . VICTOROFF: How long will the hearing 24 continue today? I' d like to try to get it . I ' ll try to come back. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: About another two hours . Do you want us to hold anything open until June 22 , 2004 30 1 2 you come book by say 1 : 00? MS . VICTOROFF : Sure, or if you can hold 3 it off until the end of the hearing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have a short day. 4 I don' t think we' ll be here let' s say 12 : 00 to 12 : 30 . 5 MS . VICTOROFF : If I 'm not able to get it then -- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Otherwise we' ll just _ make a resolution holding it over until July 1st . 7 MS . KOWALSKI : Close the hearing subject to a written submission by July ist . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a comment? Seems to me that you' re getting bogged 9 down in semantics here . She' s come before us with an application. She did so with full faith that 10 we would listen to her application. Whether or not this lot is merged or unmerged or not is the 11 determination of the Building Inspector, I believe that it is . But I don' t think that that has any 12 bearing on the decision that we may make in that we can' t force the Building Inspector to now give 13 a building permit to them if those lots are not merged or have been merged, if they' re not legal 14 lots . None of that is subject of the hearing that is before us, that I understand. I realize that I 15 wasn' t on the Board prior to 104, but it just seems to me like if we could look at the 16 application and make a decision based on the application that we have before us, yeah, this 17 lady may be back before us because someone' s to say that the lots are merged, and she' s going to 18 have to prove that it' s not . We have no obligation to her just because we granted or 19 didn' t grant or restricted what this lady wants to do now to grant her a waiver of merger, if that' s 20 the case that happens to follow here . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think she 21 wants a waiver of merger. Am I correct or not? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the subject 22 of this application, I don' t believe that that is . I believe that our application here is setback. 23 Beyond whether it' s a legal lot or not is not before us, and to hold her up in any way to me 24 doesn' t seem proper, that if other agencies in the Town don' t want to make the decision or they' re 25 going to take too long to make the decision, that' s not our purview. So I think we ought to June 22 , 2004 31 1 2 get on with this . Later on she' ll come back to us if that' s the case . She doesn' t have an 3 application one way or the other with us and regardless of what someone in the audience may get 4 up to say, guess what, they don' t have the power to determine whether this is a lot or not, any 5 more than we do. I think that this lady should go. away from here today with us deliberating on the 6 application she has put before us and amended seven times . So beyond that, I mean, the 7 neighbors and this applicant can do whatever they feel is necessary to make their own lives happy, 8 but it' s just not before us . Whether this is a lot or not is not before us . So I don' t think we 9 should be making a determination one way or the other on it; that' s my opinion. I would hope that 10 we could do that . MS . VICTOROFF : I agree with you. If you 11 could make a determination on the survey then I could contingent on my ability to get confirmation 12 from Mike Verity as to whether it is a legal lot . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It wouldn' t be 13 contingent, ma' am. We are making the decision based on the facts that are presented to us and on 14 the application presented to us based on the notice of disapproval . Beyond that, I feel, it' s 15 only my opinion, that we make a decision, it doesn' t mean that you' re going to get that house; 16 it just means that we made a decision based on the application before us and the building inspector 17 may find something -else that' s not proper, but our decision doesn' t force him to allow you to build 18 that house or give you a building permit . This is a very small piece of what looks like a huge pie 19 here of litigation or .whatever is going to happen, and we just need to make a decision based on these 20 and our decision doesn' t, to my mind, doesn' t hinge on whether these lots are merged or not . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s move along. I ' d like to make a resolution closing the hearing 22 subject to the submission of a determination of the legality of the lot from the building 23 department . (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 MR. FITZGERALD: What does that mean? If we present this documentation to you, you will 25 continue as if you had it here and now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . June 22 , 2004 32 1 2 MS . KOWALSKI : If there' s a determination that there' s a problem, then it will be a separate 3 application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much 4 for coming in. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 6 Kevin and Susan Ferrell, who wish to extend their deck and build a pool at less than 100 feet from 7 the bluff in Mattituck. MS . MESSIANO: Good morning, my name is 8 -Catherine Messiano. I'm here on behalf of the Ferrells, who are the owners of property located 9 at 130 Lloyds Lane in Mattituck. We are here before you requesting a 10 variance for a setback' from the bluff of less than 100 feet . Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell purchased this 11 property a couple years ago; at that time they were given a CO for the structure that was issued 12 in 1984 .. At that time the final survey shows a house with an attached deck, but the CO was 13 written, for lack of a better term, very poorly, and it just states a new dwelling. It didn' t 14 illuminate the pertinences and attachments . The final survey shows a deck, however, the Building 15 Department didn' t specifically state a deck. That' s part of the reason why we' re here before 16 you. Mrs . and Mrs . Ferrell are proposing to replace their existing deck. They haven' t taken 17 it down yet, it' s still standing strong. They found in doing some exploratory surgery, if you 18 will, they found that the deck was not or is not structurally sound enough in that its footings are 19 deficient, and therefore, they want to rebuild the deck in-kind/'in-place with new conforming 20 structural supports with new conforming structural supports . In conjunction with that, Mr. and Mrs . 21 Ferrell would like to extend. the existing deck easterly and within that deck place a pool . I 22 would Pike to give the Board a copy of the plan because I understand there' s been some confusion 23 as to what is the proposal . I have a submission here that I'm going to give you that has a number 24 of other things that I ' ll get to. The existing deck is approximately 25 91 and-a-half feet from the edge of the bluff, and ' Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell are proposing that deck June 22 , 2004 33 1 2 extension easterly of the existing deck and a slight extension seaward that would give them at 3 the nearest point 85 feet setback from the bluff . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: With the pool . 4 MS . MESSIANO: That will encompass the pool in the decking. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s going to be an above ground? 6 MS . MESSIANO: That would be technically a an above-ground pool because they' re not digging 7 it down into the earth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How deep is that 8 pool? MR. FERRELL: The pool is 52 inches in 9 height . MS . MESSIANO: Four and-a-half feet . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS . MESSIANO: Does the Board have 11 questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, 12 comment . They did a nice job putting it in and angle, putting it in close to the house . I 13 commend them. MS . MESSIANO : That was our intention to 14 try and snug it up as close as we could. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm glad you looked 15 into the footings of the deck. My son has a deck sitting at the edge out in Seattle, very cognizant 16 of the fact of having it structurally sound because when you have parties on them, they've 17 collapsed. MS . MESSIANO: I had 30 people at my house 18 last week and I decided to entertain down on the lawn rather than 12 feet up. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Smart . Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How high is the 20 decking? MS . MESSIANO: Four and-a-half feet high. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And the decking is going to be flush with the pool? 22 MR. FERRELL: Actually the decking is going to be up five and-a-half feet, six feet . 23 MS . MESSIANO: Depending on the contour of the ground, but yes, it will be flush with the 24 pool . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, you' re okay. June 22 , 2004 34 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection to it as long as all of the decking 3 remains open to the sky. MS . MESSIANO: That is our intention. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: See if anybody else in the audience wishes to speak on behalf of this 5 application? MS . MESSIANO : Before you do that, I know 6 that there will be comments from the audience, and I would like to address that . It came to our 7 attention after our application was submitted and our notices were mailed out that Honeysuckle Hills 8 has covenants and restrictions that prohibit the installation of an above-ground swimming pool; 9 that was brought to Mr. Ferrell' s attention. We did some research. Mr. Ferrell has met with some 10 of his neighbors who are officers of the Honeysuckle Hills Homeowners Association. He has 11 prepared a letter and the board has prepared a letter to be sent to the property owners asking 12 them to vote on the issue . They didn' t want to send them out until the Board had rendered its 13 decision. So we' re aware that there is and will be comments to that effect . But I would just like 14 to say that I've been before this Board in the past where in specifically it was stated that it 15 is not the Board' s position or purpose to enforce covenants . So that is not an issue that needs to 16 be expounded on in this hearing. I think the two issues should stand separately because without 17 your permission a building permit will not be issued and without the permission of the 18 association, the building permit will not be issued. So I just wanted to state that so that we 19 didn' t drag this out any longer than necessary. Attached to the map that I gave .you is the 20 letter from the property owners association to its members requesting their vote and Mr. and Mrs . 21 Ferrell' s cover letter explaining to their neighbors what their intention is . And I would 22 just like to say that at the time that those covenants were constructed, I think it was 23 probably the intent of those individuals to eliminate the possibility of having that very 24 attractive large blue plastic thing in the middle of the backyard perched precariously close to the 25 bluff, and at the time the setback was at 75 feet . There is a setback restriction of 75 feet June 22 , 2004 35 1 2 so in no case could it have been built closer, but the thought processes at the time these were 3 constructed and the thought processes now are a little different as is the zoning. We would have 4 been allowed this under the zoning at the time this house was constructed. So I would just like 5 not to drag it out any farther than I have already. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else who would like to -- 7 MS . CAPPELLINO: Yes, I would like to speak. My name is Louise Cappellino, 65 Soundview 8 Avenue . I am east of the Ferrell property, which. is directly next to them. I have a prepared 9 statement which I wrote, and I will give you a copy of the statement . My husband was not able to 10 be here, so I speak for both him and myself . "We have lived in Mattituck for 25 years 11 and still can remember when the property west of us was all wooded. Over the years the property 12 was developed, and we realized that our neighbors were seeking the same life we were seeking in 13 Mattituck. "With regards to the proposal for the 14 above ground pool, we would like to state the following: According to the plans it is our 15 belief that this structure will diminish the scope of our view we have enjoyed over the years . The 16 proximity of the structure raises tremendous doubt as to the adverse effects this will impact on our 17 property values . The Ferrell deck is high and our property has a more sloping and hilly effect 18 thereby making the structure' s elevation higher than what is being shown. This plan lacks fact, 19 elevation of this structure lacks definition. There is contradiction in measurements pertaining 20 to pool and deck size . Perhaps this is the reason for lack of stats pertaining to elevation. Pools 21 have drainage collars; where would these be placed and where would it drain into? The proximity of 22 the structure also raises an additional threat as the potential of a water leak. 23 "As stated, our property is naturally sloped. The water would then run east creating 24 catch basins for thousands of gallons of chlorinated water. For those of us who have lived 25 here long enough are well aware of the intense nor' easters that have hit this area and the June 22 , 2004 36 1 2 subsequent destruction. Twice we lost our stairs to the beach and three times we watched the cliff 3 cascade down taking with it all the vegetation. We replanted and also hoped that it would never 4 occur again. The winter the ice and snow is formidable . These above-ground pools have been 5 known to burst when the ground is frozen. Where will this water go? What environmental crisis 6 would we face for the .bluff and surrounding properties . The site selection for this structure 7 is ill conceived and not a wise choice . Their front property offers a better advantage and more 8 area. It has been our belief that an above-ground . pool was never an option for recreation such as 9 proposed. The aesthetics for this proposal is not conducive to life on the bluff . The structure is 10 an eye sore . We do not seek to lessen the enjoyment Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell seek, however it is 11 our opinion that our life will change, and the view that we have come to love will be compromised 12 as well as the potential for damage to the property. 13 "We are asking the Board to deny the request and hope this will not cause our neighbors 14 to look unkindly on us . Thank you, Louise Cappellino. " 15 MS . KOWALSKI : Could we ask for a copy? MS . CAPPELLINO: Yes, I have one, I have 16 six copies . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone else that 17 wishes to speak for or against? Mr. McGreevy? MR. MCGREEVY: My name is Ron McGreevy, 18 250 Lloyd' s Lane . I ' d like to give these to the Board so they can look them over as I speak. 19 I want to address this on three separate levels . One, the Town does not, nor should the 20 Town, enforce private covenants and restrictions, but if informed of legally recorded covenants and 21 restrictions, they should be respected. This is just such a case . Honeysuckle Hills Property 22 Owners Association does not allow above-ground pools, period. Also, our covenants and 23 restrictions do not allow for a variance to go forward unless it has been approved by one hundred 24 percent of the property owners . This particular association has 18 properties . To go back even 25 further, nothing can be done to the property unless it' s approved by the association and its June 22 , 2004 37 1 2 architectural committee, of which I am a member. Now, that' s one, they have been reenforced 3 by our constitution that states, and I've given you a copy of it, proposals impacting deed 4 covenants and restrictions must be reviewed with and approved by legal counsel before they can be 5 brought to a vote, they require unanimous approval of all property owners without exception. I 6 think that the Board here should respect those covenants, and I have put the liber and page 7 number on there, they are recorded. Moving on from that, I got a notice from 8 the Town that this was taking place . I went there to look at the records, the paperwork that the 9 Ferrells and their expeditor have forwarded to you, and I find they don' t even know the size of 10 their pool and deck area. I have three separate numbers -- or you have -- in the paperwork. On 11 5/12/04 , they state the pool and deck area will be 350 square feet, then on 5/14, in a letter from 12 the expeditor to Ruth Oliva, they state 860 square feet, that' s an increase of 510 square feet in two 13 days . I wonder what they' re going to build. In that packet, you also have paperwork stating that 14 it' s going to be 800 square feet . In all that paperwork this. is an 15 above-ground pool in a very delicate area, every one of you are aware of that . Nowhere do I see 16 any elevations of the property recorded; although I do see a piece of paper from the expeditor 17 saying that they will be provided. Have they ever provided it? This deck is not an above ground 18 deck, it is really above ground, because where the pool is going if it' s only four and-a-half feet, 19 what' s happening to the other foot under it . I think on that it should be disapproved. 20 Now, on the main issue, the sensitivity of the bluffs, most of you are aware of the 21 tremendous problems that have happened east of Mattituck Inlet to those bluffs, they get denuded 22 of vegetation over and over again. To allow an above-ground pool where there is a possibility of 23 lightning strike or lightening strikes hitting trees going down on the pool and releasing all 24 that water will definitely carry the top of the bluff away and probably most of the vegetation on 25 its way down to the beach. It should be disapproved on that reason. June 22 , 2004 38 1 2 I have owned by property since 1985 . My yard facing the Sound has been struck by 3 lightening twice . Once it blew out the sprinkler system, the second time is blew up a tree and I 4 had glowing lumber all over my yard. If that same scenario were to happen and hit an above-ground 5 pool, it would be disastrous to the bluff . The flood plain area in this area is a 6 good deal higher than the bluff, on that alone this also should be disapproved. That' s all I 7 have to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. 8 McGreevy. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, Doris? 9 MS . MCGREEVY: Doris McGreevy. I am the Ferrell' s neighbor, and it' s unfortunate that we 10 have to speak in this arena at this time over this because in our covenants we do have a process, and 11 the Ferrells have been in the association or been living there for a few years, and have been 12 invited to the meetings and so forth. So, as I say, I feel very uncomfortable, but having said 13 that I do have to just speak my mind. I feel and my husband, also, that it' s not 14 in keeping with the neighborhood. Having an above-ground pool in that location along the 15 bluff, it' s unheard of . So this would be a very significant variance because once something like 16 that is accepted, there may be other people on the bluff who feel, well, you know, or the Ferrells 17 have now begun a new trend. And that disturbs me too, because we have spoken about the fragile 18 nature of the bluff, and environmentally, we really have to consider that . 19 The other point I want to make, and I 'm responding to their expeditor' s words, Mrs . 20 Messiano, she said that now, today, the flood processes are different about above-ground pools, 21 maybe, but I think they are different in the fact that they' re susceptibility to endangering the 22 cliffs is very, very, significant here . I don' t really believe that the above-ground pool, the big 23 blue thing, I don' t think that' s the question here . I don' t care what color it is personally, 24 but I do know that living on the bluff and loving living in Mattituck and having this lifestyle, 25 they can find a place where it' s safer for the environment and the people that are alongside it June 22 , 2004 39 1 2 because it may be an unsafe situation if somebody walks by, and it breaks or something like that, 3 even during the warm whether. During the cold, whether the bluff freezes over so if that should 4 burst during a -very cold day, the land does not absorb it . It runs right off the cliff, and we've 5\ seen blowouts a couple of doors down. They built some sort of wall and there was a blowout and the 6 cliff took a great deal of damage . So I 'm asking - you to consider this seriously. 7 1 And there is also room in the front of their home where most of the people on the bluff 8 do locate their in-ground pools . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else 9 who wishes to speak for or against this application? Any more questions from anyone on 10 the Board? Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to ask one 11 of the homeowners, I .guess I could ask you, I don' t know. These covenants and restrictions, the 12 rules that the gentleman handed me, how does that work? You purchase the house; do you have to sign 13 on to this? MS . MESSIANO: No. What happens is when a 14 property is developed during the development process covenants are designed that are 15 appropriate, for lack of a better word, at that time, and those covenants and restrictions are 16 imposed upon that land by recording of those covenants . And it' s a recorded document, like a 17 deed would be a recorded document, so it sets forth, you know, you shouldn' t have clothes lines, 18 no garbage cans in the front yard, you can' t park boat trailers in your driveway, or house trailers, 19 you can' t have flat roofs, et cetera. So it will restrict or direct the development of the lots in 20 that property. So that process occurs at the time that the property is developed. 21 Now, you don' t seek membership . It' s not as though you went to a yacht club and said, gee, 22 I ' d like to buy into that and I want to be a member of that and pay dues . It runs with the 23 land. So when you buy a house in an area there are covenants and restrictions attached to that 24 deed. Now Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell and I had a discussion with about this and at no time -- 25 because they have reviewed their paperwork -- were they ever made aware that there were covenants and June 22 , 2004 40 1 2 restrictions or to the extent that the covenants and restrictions had reached. 3 So this was something that came about during this process, but to answer your questions, 4 covenants and restrictions are designed, constructed by the developer of the site . They 5 are recorded with deeds to the property, and it' s a condition that runs with the property just like 6 an easement would run with the property. Have I said answered your question? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to get to how do you get to know about these restrictions? 8 There is a restriction in here that says you can' t sell it unless your neighbor says so. So, my 9 assumption is if I'm going to purchase a house, I would want to know that . I just need to know what 10 process it is -- MS . MESSIANO: I can answer that in a 11 generalization, when you are in the process of buying a piece of property, it should be incumbent 12 upon the seller to disclose everything about that property. It should be incumbent upon the 13 purchaser or purchaser' s attorney through their title processor the title company to uncover these 14 things and the purchaser should make this known to the purchaser: If there' s a real estate broker 15 involved it should be incumbent upon the real estate broker to educate the purchaser as to what 16 he' s buying besides the four walls . So that' s the mechanism for that . Since it runs with the deed 17 and it' s a recorded document, when the title work is done, it' s something that should come up, 18 that' s why you buy title insurance . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I don' t 19 know, did it come up? MS . MESSIANO: The Ferrells told me that 20 they were not aware of this, and that they have been told that their title company could be 21 responsible or liable for their not having been made aware of this . 22 MR. FERRELL: Excuse me, may I clarify something here? Kevin Ferrell . We were made 23 aware that there is an association. We were told that there was a $50 annual fee and in essence it 24 was to insure and take care, maintain the property going from the street down to the bluff, down the 25 stairs between our house and Mr. and Mrs . McGreevy' s house . Never were we made aware that June 22 , 2004 41 1 2 there were any other covenants or anything of that sort . We simply assumed it was a $50 annual fee 3 for maintenance of the path going down to the bluff . We were never given a copy of the 4 covenants, never given anything. Do I have an issue with the title company? Yes, I think I do 5 have . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And your closing 6 lawyer. MR. FERRELL: This just came up last 7 Wednesday, so this is certainly all new to all of us . Thank you. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t know what, an attorney probably is going to have to tell you 9 this, but if I they' re saying a house can' t be sold, what I guess I'm getting at is were these 10 covenants and restrictions enforced entirely, or are they just pulled out when the association 11 wants to pull them out? If a house can' t be sold there without the acknowledgement of the 12 association, then how are these people supposed to know? That' s my thought . 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is this number 2 , Jim? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just read it somewhere . 15 MS . MESSIANO: When you purchased the property did Dr. Morrell obtain approval from the 16 association to allow him to sell you the property? MR. FERRELL: No. There was only a letter 17 from the association saying that Dr. Morrell, the previous owner, was in good standing and his dues 18 were paid to date . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the assumption I 19 guess was he must have made them aware that he was selling the house, and they approved it? 20 MS . MESSIANO: If he got a letter in good standing, that would be the assumption. I would 21 just like to go back to my earlier statement, that it is not this Board' s position or authority to 22 enforce covenants . That' s something that is under the purview of the Building Department . If you 23 see fit -- why are you shaking your head, Mrs . Tortora? 24 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm shaking my head, actually when I purchased myself, a number 25 of years ago, I researched this whole subject, and I was told -- my attorney may have been wrong -- June 22 , 2004 42 1 2 that it is not up to the municipality to enforce covenants and restrictions . Likewise, the 3 property they purchased did have covenants and restrictions on it and I asked the logical 4 questions that' s fine, who enforces them? It' s a civil matter. That was the answer that my 5 attorney gave me . Not the Building Department, no one . 6 MS . MESSIANO : I ' ll back up and restate what I was going to say. It has been my 7 experience in the past that the Building Department of this town does look into such 8 matters, and I have known them to make decisions based on the contents of the covenants and 9 restrictions that are recorded against a property and are part a subdivision approval . Whether or 10 not they' re supposed to legally is a matter that I don' t even want to touch, but I do have personal 11 knowledge of the Building Department of this town taking that position. But I would like to go back 12 to my original statement and say that we are spending a lot of time on this covenant matter and 13 that' s not a matter for this board to adjudicate . We' re talking about. a setback 14 variance for an existing structure that we believe that the Building Department was remiss in not 15 specifically listing on the original building certificate of occupancy in 1984 and we' re asking 16 for a setback variance for 91 and-a-half feet for the existing deck; and we are asking for a 17 variance of 15 feet to construct a proposed deck that is approximately 300 to 350 square feet, 18 within which a pool will be set . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry has one 19 question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Messiano, 20 you have come before us with numerous pool applications; how would you compare this pool to 21 someone wanting to construct a lap pool, only the difference in design -- and I' m answering the 22 question for you -- is the fact that these walls are supported by steel rather than cement ; is that 23 correct? MS . MESSIANO: That' s my understanding. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the towns of East Hampton and Southampton, they require 25 cesspools/sanitary type system adjacent to their pools for the purposes of pumping the pool off, June 22 , 2004 43 1 2 both in the winter time and when and if the pool needs to be drained totally for the maintenance of 3 the pool? MS . MESSIANO: . Right, dry wells for 4 backwash. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board could 5 place that on restrictions on the pool if they were so inclined to grant this application. 6 MS . MESSIANO: I believe the Ferrells would fully anticipate putting in such a dry well 7 because they would not be so shortsighted as to pull the plug and let however many gallons were 8 contained in the pool run freely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Secondly, this 9 Board could impose some sort of lattice work underneath the deck so as not to see the pool . 10 MS . MESSIANO: That is already proposed if you look at my sketches, that there is lattice 11 proposed the entirety of the face of the decking so as not to have an open exposed site . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thirdly, this is the most unpopular one because we don' t like to 13 breach this issue, and I 'm referring as a general statement but I'm going to .cite specifically and 14 say it' s from me, is it your understanding that there is any scenic easement over this property? 15 MS . MESSIANO: I have no knowledge of any scenic easement over the property, and I would 16 like to further state that Mrs . Cappellino, who made the first statement, spoke about her scenic 17 views, et cetera, the area between their property and the Ferrell' s deck and proposed deck is 18 wooded. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I 19 noticed. MS . CAPPELLINO: No, it' s not . In the 20 fall the leaves fall and it' s all open. There used to be woods, there is no woods, it ' s not any 21 more . It' s all open. MS . MESSIANO : This proposed structure and 22 the existing structure conforms to the required side yard. We' re not requesting a side yard 23 variance, nor are we requesting a height variance . We' re not proposing a structure that is solid and 24 obstructive . It also angles away from, if you look at my sketch, I take that back, it does 25 not . But subtlety, it' s probably not visible to the naked eye, but subtlety it does angle away June 22 , 2004 44 1 2 from the side yard as the lot line travels in a seaward direction because the house is not 100 3 percent square on the lot . My other comment is that the front yard is not a viable alternative 4 for the pool because of the (a) location of the septic system, the contours, the vegetation. 5 There would be major construction necessary to wipe out the front yard of that property, take 6 away the driveways, et cetera, in order to put a pool . In that would be more deleterious to the 7 nature and character of the area, I think, then to extend the deck because except for this pool 8 issue, I don' t think any of these neighbors would be here . To extend this deck -- I forget the 9 width, Kevin. MR. FERRELL: The existing deck is 13 10 and-a-half feet . MS . MESSIANO : From side to side, from 11 east to west, the new deck .is how big? .BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s an 12 irregular shape . MS . MESSIANO: 28 feet . If we were 13 overall to extend the existing deck without a swimming pool in it, 28 feet by 30 feet in a 14 north-south direction, I don' t think we' d have a neighbor here to comment on this because it does 15 nothing but increase that horizontal plain at that five and-a-half to six and-a-half foot level, so I 16 really don' t support the contentions that were made . And again, we' re here to discuss a setback 17 variance of 85 feet and 91 feet for the existing deck to be reconstructed. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lastly, Mrs . Messiano, I need the exact gallonage of that pool . 19 It doesn' t have to be given to us today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a 20 resolution closing this hearing and reserving decision until later. 21 MR. MCGREEVY: I 'm going to make it very short . First of all, I heard the expenditor say 22 that when the house was built the setback was 75 foot, that' s completely in error. In 1984 it was 23 100 feet, just like it is now. I'm a founder and an officer in an organization that is made of up 24 of practically every Sound front homeowner all around the inlet and from the inlet east, all 25 around Cutchogue . I do not know of one above-ground pool . . It is tough to build a pool on June 22 , 2004 45 1 2 the bluff not in the front yard not in the back yard, you always wind up with variances . Every 3 variance that has been granted, people have put them on the side and in the front yard. To say 4 the front of this property is not a place to put a pool, there' s well over half an acre on the front 5 of their property, well over 27, 000 square feet . You can find an area to put a pool there . 6 Further, everyone in this association has known about these covenants . Practically all with the 7 exception of one have put variances in for bulkheads and received them; and they also put 8 into the association and received 100 percent approval to put the variance in. Now, if everyone 9 else can do it, I think the Ferrells can. Personally, I have no objection for them putting 10 in a variance for an in-ground pool because to say that above-ground pools doesn' t affect a 11 neighborhood is a lot of baloney. We don' t want Mattituck, we don' t want Lloyds Lane to start 12 looking like western Nassau County with all those above-ground pools . They do have an effect on the 13 neighborhood; in-ground pools, not so, but above-ground pools have an effect on the 14 neighborhood. I've seen my bluff blowout four times, every bit of vegetation gone . Madam 15 Chairman, you know that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, thank you. 16 MR. MCGREEVY: It' s very dangerous up there and water, especially in the winter when 17 those bluffs are frozen, the erosion is tremendous . I don' t care what vegetation you 18 have, trees, shrubs, bushes, ground cover, it all goes . Thank you. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Sir, I just want to ask you a few questions . Going towards these 20 covenants and restrictions . Do you guys meet regularly? 21 MR. MCGREEVY: Yes . The Ferrells have never been to a meeting. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All I want to do is you handed up something, I want to make sure that 23 they' re valid. If you' re meeting regularly, it sounds to me when the gentleman sold the house 24 must have somehow contacted you; is that true when they sold the house to these people? 25 MR. MCGREEVY: No. I just copied certain sections of those covenants; I highlighted them June 22 , 2004 46 1 2 because they pertain to this, the others don' t . The association only issues something not 3 that you can or can' t sell your property, they just sell it, they write something that says they 4 have paid all their dues . We just finished with a property in Fairleighs Beach Road. Woman who sold 5 the .property was named Scaratt, never paid dues . They were forced to pay dues when the house was 6 'sold. The new owner had to pay the dues . Now the dues are not set at X amount . They' re not for 7 beautifying the gully; they' re for paying taxes, paying insurance and for maintaining the 8 property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We need a break right 9 now. So if Jim wants to carry on the conversation with you -- 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I've made a resolution 11 closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) --------- ---------------------------------------- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reconvene our public hearings . 14 MS . MOORE : Do you want to finish up on Villanti? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. MS . MOORE : These are important points 16 that I don' t want him to lose, but to begin with, I want to emphasize the fact that the property 17 right now is a dangerous condition. The house is there, the gabion and the bulkhead is exposed, and 18 it' s right next to the boat ramp, so the boat ramp is a public facility. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The boat ramp is closed off . 20 MR. VILLANTI : The boat ramp is closed off, but it' s an enhancement that more people come 21 down there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You cannot launch your 22 boat because of the guard rail . MS . MOORE: But it is a public facility 23 that people use . So it is open and a hazard to the owner as well as to the Town. 24 What I did is I took from my files several documents, the first one ,here are photographs 25 taken 11/24/02 . This is one of the October storms and this is when the town boat ramp, the end June 22 , 2004 47 1 2 collapsed and caused further damage to my client' s property. It shows the storm damage that can 3 occur there and that' s why the gabion, the bulkhead, all the structures that have been placed 4 there have been required by the DEC, the Trustees and the owner wants them. Let me start with this 5 document, one by one . Here are photographs, the October storm. Mr. Orlando asked whether or not 6 the deck was discussed at the Trustees, it was; in fact, the original ' 93 permit that was issued by 7 the Trustees which had then later been -- because DEC took so long, you only have two years on these 8 permits, you have to go back and re-hear and extend it . We were before the Trustees once 9 before in 2000, 2002 , you have the permit in there . The permit itself was to reconstruct the 10 deck and home within the existing footprint and add a wave attenuation gabion revetment within the 11 footprint of the same . So here there' s a permit issued by Bredermyer and Board Members that were 12 in place. in June of 1993 . I have that, I ' ll just list the documents I have . I also pulled out from 13 my file, B . Lange Associates it' s environmental consultants . He was originally retained by Sandra 14 Zatarian, who is the prior owner. He recites the history of this property, and that in 1992 the 15 northeaster had torn out a bulkhead which occurred on the southern end of the property opposite the 16 southern end of the Town boat ramp . This bulkhead was evidenced on the 172 survey, and had just been 17 replaced in 1991 . A second wooden wall or bulkhead was apparent at the southern end of the 18 deck; it was intact at the time . The survey in the photographs were part of the evidence of a 19 case that was at the DEC. The DEC back in 1992 gave Zatarian the prior owner a real hard time 20 about rebuilding the bulkhead. They apparently didn' t see it on their maps, but it was there . So 21 they ended up going to court, and the court, Index Number 92-11934 , granted the applicant the right 22 to replace, reinstall the bulkhead in its original location. 23 He goes on and on and talks about the fact that the storm has caused damage . Do you have 24 this letter? MS . KOWALSKI : No, but we' ll get the 25 letter from you. MS . MOORE: He goes into the history. June 22 , 2004 48 1 2 The other documents I found in my file in 1971, the Building Department issued a permit to build 3 an addition and make alterations to the existing dwelling. That permit shows actually the 4 enclosure done in 171, which was enclosing a roofed-over part of the structure, the main 5 structure, but it also shows the open deck that was part of the original permit . So you have 6 evidence that the Town actually recognized in application processes that showed that the deck 7 was there . I'm submitting everything one by one . I think there might be some confusion and 8 maybe it' s my doing, I apologize, with respect to the lot coverage issue . The deck doesn' t go along 9 the entire property line . It begins, and I have a deck survey here that might be more helpful, it 10 says survey 10/22/02 , _C-E-H-L added 1/13/02 , and the deck there shows where it begins and it 11 actually starts with a little stoop going to the front . It doesn' t include the decking. There is 12 no decking on the north end of Bay Avenue on the north side of the property. The decking is the 13 original decking that was in place so that' s consistent with the lot coverage that was 14 calculated. The deck begins here and it begins on this side here . This area to the north is not 15 decking. Maybe that' s what, I think, Jerry, you and I were -- 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, does the property line go to the bulkhead? 17 MS . MOORE : On the south side . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s got to 18 be more property than that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There isn' t . 19 MS . MOORE : There were two bulkheads, yes . The bulkhead, the current bulkhead is placed 20 four feet landward of the property line . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the 21 question, though, was the 76 percent calculated on the old in-place/in-kind, or was it calculated on 22 the new in-place/in-kind bulkhead? MS . MOORE: It was on the new 23 in-place/in-kind. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Supply that to us . 24 Does anybody else have any questions? MS . MOORE : Wait, wait, wait. I have 25 more papers . I want to show you as much as possible . June 22 , 2004 49 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Submit it to us in writing. 3 MS . MOORE : I only have two more sheets . In ' 71 you have the building permit I gave you. 4 The Town actually took a photograph in I believe ' 71, after the alterations, the renovations to the 5 house, and it actually shows the bulkhead -- excuse me, shows the decking which incorporates 6 the bulkhead that was there at the time . So you have the Town pictures that show the decking in 7 place . And finally, I have the set of plans that the Building Department, we were using for the 8 Building Department that shows the area of the decking what' s being replaced and hopefully that 9 will assist you as well . So here' s everything I have from my file that I think adequately supports 10 our position that the decking was there . We' re replacing what was there and the Board could 11 actually overturn the Building Department' s interpretation that when you take a deck out 12 temporarily to put in underlying structures and the 242 section of the code says you can repair 13 and replace what' s existing, that we shouldn' t be here for the variance . Otherwise, you granted us 14 the variances we' re requesting, but to not have a deck there where it' s been proposed really does 15 end up with a very unsafe structure under the house and expose the bulkhead. 16 MS . KOWALSKI : I had one question. You made statements about the building inspector; are 17 you withdrawing those statements about what the . building inspector said or do you want the Board 18 to adjourn it so we can have that clarified by the Building Department? 19 MS . MOORE : If you feel there' s adequate proof in your file to support our position, then 20 we don' t need to have the building inspector here . MS . KOWALSKI : You have to furnish other 21 copies that we don' t have . MS . MOORE : You want me at the mike or 22 you want me to hand you the copies? Any other questions? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision 24 until later. MS . KOWALSKI . Subject to the breakdown on 25 the lot coverage . MS . MOORE : For. the record I want to put June 22 , 2004 50 1 2 in photographs of the open structure right now so we can have in the file the conditions that are 3 presently existing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before I second 4 that, Ruth, assuming a deliberation situation, there are questions that we still need to ask the 5 building inspector, we may need to reopen the hearing. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : Of course . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that case 7 I ' ll second. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 =------=----------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 9 Wolleben on Bridge Lane in Cutchogue . They wish to do a new accessory garage . 10 MS . MESSIANO: Catherine Messiano on behalf of John Wolleben, the owner of the subject 11 property. Subject site is a 1 . 06 acre waterfront lot located on the southwest corner of Bridge Lane 12 and Bayberry Road in Nassau Point . Property is zoned R40 . We' re before you requesting relief 13 from the required front yard setback for an accessory structure that is proposed to replace an 14 existing accessory structure, an existing legal accessory structure . The existing structure is 15 presently 40 feet from the front lot line, and the existing structure is set caddy-corner to the 16 front lot line . We' re proposing. to replace that accessory structure with a 24 by 30 two car 17 detached garage with storage above . We' re meeting the required side yard setback of 10 feet, and we 18 are requesting the 35 foot setback from the front . This being a waterfront lot, we are allowed an 19 accessory structure in the front yard under your code, and we are asking for relief of that 20 required front yard setback. Do you have questions? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The garage is going to be as the 21 feet to the ridge? 22 MS . MESSIANO : That' s correct . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The upstairs is going 23 to be used just for storage? MS . MESSIANO: Just for storage . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any electricity or water in the garage? 25 MS . MESSIANO : There will be water in the garage . It' s waterfront property, boating, June 22 , 2004 51 1 2 fishing; there will be water to the garage for those purposes associated with the recreational 3 use of the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I visited the site and spoke to the owner. He has a nice little, I 5 guess a guest cottage there now. MS . MESSIANO : What' s there now was there 6 when he bought the property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I spoke to him 7 about that . He said he has no intention of making an upstairs guest room on this one . It' s strictly 8 the garage, upstairs storage . His garage is attached to his house now. After this is built 9 and approved, he will make that the more extension of the house . So at this point, not that we' re 10 opposing an upstairs apartment in there, this application is not for that . 11 MS . MESSIANO: Not for that purpose . And I want to add too, the existing structure doesn' t 12 have footings and foundation; it sits on the dirt . So it' s quite mouldy and musty, so even though it 13 has the appearance of a quote, guest cottage, it' s not really useable as such because of the dampness 14 and the musty condition in there . So he' s seeking to improve that completely because it is a 15 structure that' s sitting on the dirt without foundations and footings . 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO:. You' re aware of the letter from the neighbor? 17 MS . MESSIANO: I am aware of the letter from the neighbor, and we've done additional 18 research, and I can present to the Board a copy of the survey that I picked up from our surveyor this 19 morning. I asked him to show us where the asphalt driveway of the neighbor to the south -- that 20 would be Noey -- I asked him to demonstrate that, so I ' ll give this to you as well (handing) . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS . MESSIANO: I note that on the 22 neighbor' s letter of objection, she makes reference to obstructing the view when exiting her 23 driveway, thus causing a hazard, and I need to point out the fact that at the point at which one 24 would clear the road side, the front side of the proposed garage, there is still 35 feet from that 25 point to the intersection of the existing asphalt driveway, and Bayberry Road, and Bayberry Road is June 22 , 2004 52 1 2 not a heavily traveled public thoroughfare . It is a private drive for the residents of Bayberry 3 Drive . I don' t think you have major traffic there, but regardless of the traffic condition I 4 don' t believe there' s a sight obstruction occurring because you do have 35 feet from the 5 nearest point of the garage to the intersection of the driveway and the road. And property -- 6 another point I' d like to make as well, is that from the front, that front corner, the 35 foot 7 distance from the road to the garage, the land, the elevation drops about four feet, I think we' re 8 at about 12 foot elevation at the garage and we' re at about an eight foot elevation at the road. So 9 the lands drops .away, so it' s not as though one were about to peer up a mound or a hill or around 10 a bend, there' s a straight line of vision from that point, I just wanted to make that point . Are 11 there any questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further questions . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The question I have 14 is that the existing garage is 20 feet from the side yard and 40 feet from the front property 15 line, and the proposed one would be 10 feet from the property line and 35 feet from the front yard; 16 why can' t you meet code? MS . MESSIANO: Why can' t we meet code? 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Right . MS . MESSIANO: If we were to move the 18 structure back to (a) meet code or at least meet the existing setback, we' d have to take down a 19 significant tree that' s on the property that really benefits to the aesthetics of the property. 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: One tree or two trees? 21 MS . MESSIANO: One large tree . Vinnie, you were there and I think there was some 22 discussion between you and Dr. Wolleben. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He discussed that 23 he liked that tree . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How far is the tree 24 from the proposed garage? MS . MESSIANO: I'm sorry, but I don' t have 25 that information. I would say it' s a matter of feet, but I don' t think we would build it closer June 22 , 2004 53 1 2 to the tree because you don' t want to run the risk of having the roots affecting the foundation, the 3 footings, you know, you don' t want to get too close to the tree and disturb the root system of 4 the tree either. And I would point out that this Board has seen fit to grant a variance on this 5 property on the Bridge Lane side granting a 35 foot setback for an accessory swimming pool on 6 that side, so the 35 foot setback was found to be approvable on the Bridge Lane side, and this side 7 I see nothing different on this side than the other side . We' re not asking for more than we've 8 already been granted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any questions . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this 12 application? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re having 13 electric in this garage but no running water? MS . MESSIANO: There will be water but the 14 reason for having water to the garage is being waterfront property and having a boat on the 15 property and so on, when people come off the boat, they can use water and wash their hands, clean 16 their fish, et cetera without having to go in the house to do that . 17 MS . KOWALSKI : Is that for a sink, then? MS . MESSIANO: That' s my understanding. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t mind if that' s a condition for the approval? 19 MS . MESSIANO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion closing 20 the hearing and reserving decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 21 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is 22 need a resolution Graham Head. This is Graham Head. This is for a new addition with a 15 foot 23 minimum on the side yard at Goose Creek Lane on the side yard. They want to make a resolution to 24 open the hearing and adjourn it for continuation for July 15th, correct? 25 MR. GORMAN: My name is Bill Gorman. I 'm here for Graham and Barbara Head. We' d like to June 22 , 2004 54 1 2 connect the house to the garage, with a breezeway, and then raise the garage, put a second floor on. 3 We' re asking for a variance of 12 feet, we' re three feet from the property line, and that would 4 be it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody have any 5 questions now or rather wait until July 15th? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I guess we' ll wait . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is how do you get to it? 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s the one by the bridge . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that has come to speak for or against 9 this application? If not I' d like to make a motion to adjourn the hearing until July 15th. 10 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is Racanelli for a piece of property at 3300 12 Manhasset Avenue in Greenport . It' s a small lot . Hi, Pat . 13 MS . MOORE : Yes, it is a small lot . It' s one of many of the lots in that neighborhood. 14 They' re all converting to less seasonal and more year round homes and this family has four children 15 of their own. They need the space, this house is quite small . 16 There is flexibility with respect to the location of which side of the house should have 17 the garage . I think the original application and the design the architect prepared has the garage 18 when you' re facing the house on the corner of Manhasset and Wood Lane . There would be certainly 19 no objection to reversing it if that would be what the Board and the neighbor might prefer to see 20 because the garage is a one story garage and probably more similar in size to the adjacent 21 house . So, that certainly we kind of debated that issue and we really leave it up to the neighbor 22 and the Board. I think the preference was on the other side, but they could live with it reversed. 23 You can see that the setbacks were established by the original structure, and they 24 have this other accessory building next door, which is also close to the property lines, both 25 property lines; that structure is being removed and giving more room, 7110" to the side property June 22, 2004 55 1 2 line of the house adjacent to the neighbor on Wood Lane . No matter where you put this house, there 3 are variances in all directions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I assume that the setback with the jog toward Manhasset 5 Avenue is 6 ' 811 ; is that correct? MS . MOORE : It' s I'm not sure which jog 6 you' re talking about . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right here, 7 Pat . MS . MOORE : The original setback? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm looking at it as -- 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 613 " it looks like . MS . MOORE : Yes, that' s what it is, 613 " . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re proposing 7' 10" on the second house in on Wood Lane; is that 11 correct? MS . MOORE : Correct, 7' 10" to the 12 neighbor on Wood Lane, right . Now there' s a lot of room to Manhasset Avenue, you could certainly 13 move the house towards Manhasset Avenue, and particularly if you reverse the garage, the main 14 house it would be, you could treat just about -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a demo, 15 Pat? MS . MOORE : The foundation is being 16 reused. So the existing foundation is being reused. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Partial? MS . MOORE : Partial, well, at the time 18 they' re going to put a basement underneath the portion that' s not already a slab. So they' re 19 going to dig a little bit deeper, create a storage area under the house for a basement but whatever 20 is -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Demo to grade . 21 MS . MOORE : Except for, as I said, the foundation stays because it' s still in good 22 condition. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need the exact 23 square footage of the footprint . MS . MOORE: Which one? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of the new proposed, which places it at 44 percent . 25 MS . MOORE : It says 3514" by 5715" . That' s the footprint on the survey. June 22 , 2004 56 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, again, we've known you many, many years, why is 3 there not a proposal to put the garage underneath the house and reduce some of this? 4 MS . MOORE : Under the house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Under the house . 5 There is no reason why this garage could not go under the house with a garage on the Manhasset 6 side? MS . MOORE : You mean basement level? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MS . MOORE : The groundwater is pretty 8 high. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Build the ground 9 up . MS . MOORE : You' re going to be towering 10 over the other houses . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to 11 be ,towering over any way, it' s two .and-a-half stories high. 12 MS . MOORE : You have neighbors on Manhasset that' s actually 27 to the mean and just 13 under 35 so it' s a true two story. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a new 14 survey indicating what the groundwater situation is there? Because the houses across the street on 15 Angler, those houses have basements on the opposite side . 16 MS . MOORE: I' d have to discuss it with the owner about putting a garage under the house . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm. not speaking for my fellow Board members but this Board is not 18 granting a 44 percent lot coverage, it' s just not going to. happen. The easiest way to deal with it .19 is to either eliminate the garage or put it under the house . That' s my opinion. 20 MS . MOORE : I' ll ask the client . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s to 21 eliminate an immediate 10 percent in my opinion, then we can start talking the 34 percent . 22 MS . KOWALSKI : You' re still going to need square footages . His question was not answered, 23 he wants the square footage . MS . MOORE : There is a survey that was 24 submitted in your packet that has the surveyor' s calculations of all the square footage . I just 25 have to find which one it is . MS . KOWALSKI : Send it in a letter June 22, 2004 57 1 2 separately. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, all the 3 questions that we have . MS . MOORE : You have a survey that has 4 writing on the side that came from the surveyor. Those are the square footage calculations . 5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could I ask what the date is on that survey? 6 MS . MOORE : April 12 , 2004 . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We have that survey 7 but there' s no lot calculation. MS . MOORE : I think I got a call from 8 Linda asking for specific square footage, which is when I asked the surveyor to please break it out, 9 and I finally submitted it . MS . KOWALSKI : It' s not in the file . 10 MS . MOORE : I don' t know what happened to it , actually I have -- 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you could read them to us . 12 MS . MOORE : I can make a copy for your file . You' re going to need it in your writing. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I would like to know what the existing square footage of the 14 structures on the lots are, and what the proposed square footage is . That' s all . 15 MS . MOORE: I don' t have the existing square footage, .so I' ll have to get that, or I 16 don' t think I do. I have proposed. What I ' ll do is I ' ll ask the surveyor and I ' ll put it all in at 17 once . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: . We could sit here 18 and do the calculations, the existing house is 24 by 27 and now you want a house that is 35 by 57 . 19 MS . MOORE : Right . And also the other structure, which is 11 .40 by 24 . 20 MS . KOWALSKI : I have seven copies of a sample diagram on the house but there' s nothing on 21 the lot coverage, we never got that . MS . MOORE : I' ll get that to you. I tell 22 you, I got it and thought I submitted it . It may be attached to your notice of disapproval . 23 MS . KOWALSKI : No, we checked that too . MS . MOORE : Doesn' t matter, I' ll get . it 24 to you. Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . The adjacent 25 property just west of the property in question is a very modest two-story but is a two-story, but June 22 , 2004 58 1 2 that is the only two-story house on Wood Lane . I took a thorough drive down, and maybe the largest 3 single-story building there was 1, 200 square feet, give or take, they' re very small houses 4 there . This would be a very out of character house on Wood Lane, 11' 8" front yard setback with 5 the height of this house would be overbearing. MS . MOORE : I just do want to point out 6 for the record, I gave you photographs of other houses in the neighborhood. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I drove it . I didn' t need to look at pictures . If you go 8 further down Manhasset east -- MS . MOORE : There have been 200 feet of 9 this Inlet Manhasset is all a similar development, you' re getting over time as the homes are being 10 sold or the family members are taking over for the older owners, these houses are getting renovated 11 and being enlarged for their needs . So right on Wood Lane is a house that I think I was here on a 12 variance on this one, is kind of a modern looking house that is right on Wood Lane, and you have the 13 neighbor right next door, which is a two-story beautifully done . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Modest two story. MS . MOORE: This house actually looks 15 very elaborate, but size-wise, it' s not that big. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re going to get 16 back to the 44 percent as I think Mr. Goehringer has stated. And I think we need to push back the 17 setback on Woods Lane . That' s very close . MS . MOORE : Okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Just my opinion. MS . MOORE : I am going back to the owner 19 and see if there' s something that would be more agreeable to this Board, I' ll speak to Racanelli . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Go back to the 21 owner I think, Pat . There' s no way this is happening. 22 MS . MOORE : The fact that it' s a house with the garage I think it adds a lot of square 23 footage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The neighborhood is 24 mostly houses like mine, bungalows, if you want to call them. Five foot, I'm surprised that this 25 notice of disapproval is not like three pages with the Walz thing. That' s just an opinion, of June 22 , 2004 59 1 2 course, I don' t sway the Board. I' ll be honest with you. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many variances are there, four? 4 MS . MOORE : The existing structure right now is already nonconforming. 5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I just did some rough calculations, you' re talking about over 6 2 , 000 square foot footprint on this 5 , 000 square foot lot and that' s just' for the first floor. 7 MS . MOORE : Okay. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think the easiest 8 way to do this is what I do on the last one, is we come up with a percentage over the 20 percent and 9 you' d be able to massage and mould whatever you like . I don' t want you to go back and forth. 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Linda, the largest variance issued to date? 11 MS . KOWALSKI : Everything is different, what time frame do you want? We could research 12 it . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: They' re looking at 13 2 , 000 plus square foot . MS . KOWALSKI : I 've seen 25 percent 14 granted, I 've seen 26 percent . This area could be researched. I could find out, but it takes 15 time . I don' t know if Pat did the research on that already? 16 MS . MOORE : I did some research on variances that were granted. 17 MS . KOWALSKI : Were they higher than 26 percent? 18 MS . MOORE : They were mostly area variances because at the time existing wasn' t a 19 variance . So this area has been developed and improved over time without variances . It' s only 20 in the more recent time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Cut it down to 24 21 percent? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house as it 22 exists is probably 24 . MS . MOORE : I' ll give you the square 23 footage of what' s existing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Suppose we just 24 adjourn this to the August meeting, which is the 19th and have the information in by July 22nd. 25 MS . MOORE : Lot coverage, square footage is what you requested so far. Any other question June 22 , 2004 60 1 2 requests? MR. DWYER: John Dwyer, 550 Wood Lane . 3 MS . MOORE : Whose house is this? MR. DWYER: I 've been there for nine 4 years, there hasn' t been any house enlarged on that block, and there' s two other neighbors here, 5 so get your facts straight if you' re going to make representations to this court . 6 MS . MOORE : I have photographs on the record that houses that have been enlarged and are 7 part of the neighborhood, and I ' d ask that you just incorporate it into the record. I limited my 8 photographs to Wood Lane and within a block of the house . As far as what the address, I' d have to go 9 compare to the tax map, I assumed that you would drive down and see the same houses I did. 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Madam Chair, run this by the others, 1, 200 square foot 11 footprint . How does that sit with you? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not prepared. 12 I 'm not going with the box that' s there now, let' s see what they come back with. 13 MS . MOORE : I ' ll talk to the client . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Let your client be 14 creative and come up with something. You know the guidelines kind of the parameters . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, ma' am? MS . TZANNES : My name Coralee Tzannes, I ' m 16 the next house from Dominick, and I ' d like to see the photographs the lady she has, because I think 17 one of the, house doesn' t belong to our block. This is two blocks away from me -and this is four 18 houses, it doesn' t belong next to me . Exactly my house is right here, if you have the picture, this 19 is my house . MS . MOORE : Very nice house . 20 MS . TZANNES : Thank you very much. MS . MOORE : Did you need a variance for 21 this house? MS . TZANNES : Let me finish. Next to me I 22 have a property with no houses . Dominick is next to me, Dominick has, as you know everybody here, 23 is a very, very, small property. He has to build a house, yes, of course, I like him. I don' t say 24 not, but you have to go with the existing house . Here now is exactly nine years, the house is in 25 terrible, terrible condition. As a matter of fact, my husband every summer time he put plywood June 22 , 2004 61 1 2 to get it off the holes of the house . Number 2 , in the back, he has for 15 years 3 no legal, all glass, a big story, one-story. Every week I clean his because he' s exactly in my 4 side, the grass in all these 15 years because this house is nine years nobody lives, before nine 5 years one family was live, and they didn' t have a toilet inside . So I don' t know what animals in 6 that house . Now, as I see, that house between my property, in my driveway, he wants to come three 7 feet, which the existing house, I measure is eight feet . So, I'm sitting here, all these 15 years 8 and I'm watching this horrible house, and I pay my taxes . I work very hard to have a clean house, as 9 I hear before, this gentleman went around our neighbors, okay, now, he can build as you know, in 10 this small property that huge house, the two story. We bought the house to live in country, 11 not in Manhattan, not in Queens . I have a house in Bayside and even in Bayside I don' t have this 12 small property. I have 100 by 80 in Bayside, not in Greenport, I have this small property, and he 13 likes to come all the way up. If you see in the pictures the lady she has, of course, she doesn' t 14 take my front area, okay, I have to show. And thank you very much because I can show here very 15 good job you did, okay. Here, this is my house and this is my driveway, this here is existing 16 house here is eight feet . This part is legal, is not legal, okay, he likes to come three feet here 17 all the way in the back, which the back is all glass is no legal . Now, let me tell you, you can 18 see how big driveway I have for my house, yes, it' s two-story but two -- 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many square foot is your house? 20 MS . TZANNES : I'm sorry, I don' t answer you. 21 MS . MOORE : It would be helpful , to put on the record what size house she has because 22 actually it' s comparable of what my client wants, exception of the garage, maybe very similar in 23 square footage . MS . TZANNES : If this is a two story house 24 it' s raining, all this water, where is it going to go? If God forbid something happens with the 25 fire; what' s going to happen? We are at 1, 000 feet from the water and now all these insurance is June 22 , 2004 62 1 2 very hard to get insurance . As a matter of fact, Dominick, he show up once every year and he say to 3 us, I like to build a house because I have growing kids, which I like to have a party, next to my 4 nose, three feet away from my house, if four kids which 20 years, 18 years, if I live, if I want to 5 live, I can live in Manhattan, not in Greenport . I pay my taxes, a lot of taxes . to have my grass . 6 If he' s going to build, over here you see I have that tree . This tree belong to me . If he' s going 7 to build a two-story, why I going to lose my tree? This tree make 100 years to grow, we need country. 8 He likes to build a house, big, he can build it, be my guest, go get one acre property and build 9 it, don' t come one by one and build it . Did anybody from you wants to have next to you 10 somebody like that? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You heard our 11 comments . MS . KOWALSKI : Can I get the spelling of 12 your last name, please? MS . TZANNES . T-Z-A-N-N-E-S . One more 13 thing, before they' re going to build any cement , any nails in that property, I like to see it, 14 please . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can come to our 15 next hearing. MS . MOORE : I will also research at the 16 Building Department if they have a survey, unless she has a survey she can provide to the Board, it 17 would be helpful to know your property lines and the size of your house; so you have a survey? 18 MS . TZANNES : I don' t have it with me . Next time I'm going to bring it with me . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does somebody else want to say something? 20 MR. DWYER: John Dwyer. I' d just like to reiterate what this lady has put forward here . I 21 live across the street . Right now that house, and for the last 10 years, has been an. eyesore . We 22 are giving somebody or granting somebody a request fo,r a larger house, a bigger piece of property 23 that will encroach on their neighbors when the house that they have now encroaches on their 24 neighbors because it isn' t being taken care of . One major factor that you have to watch out for 25 here, and I 'm speaking on behalf of my neighbor Larry, who lives next door but has a little bit of June 22 , 2004 63 1 2 a hearing problem, he' s the adjoining house, and that' s fire . These are careless people .( You've 3 driven by this property. I don' t think I 've sat here all day about people complaining of this, 4 that and everything else, I don' t think there' s anybody in Southold with a worse situation in a 5 neighborhood as this house . I said defy you to say that . To allow this person who has shown no 6 consideration for 10 years to go closer to a neighbor is crazy. He has a right, yes, to the 7 existing property. And the last factor is we are having a rough time there getting insurance 8 because of the location to the water. Now the problem there with the house relation of fire when 9 close, the wind blows we' re right off the bay, 700 feet my house is, and I 'm telling you this with my 10 experience with the Massapequa Fire Department for 35 years, put that houses close, and you' re 11 risking every neighbor around there; the two adjoining houses with a fire, with a very careless 12 person. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. 13 MS . MOORE : For the record, the owner Racanelli, who is before this Board acquired this 14 property in August of 2003 . The prior owner was George Taliambouris, that was the prior owner. So 15 I think the complaints about the condition of the house was the prior owner. The owner Racanelli is 16 trying to fix the house . And I hope will be a much better neighbor and care for the property 17 much more carefully than the prior owner. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We are adjourned then 18 to August 19th. Have the material in by July 22nd. 19 MR. DWYER: Clarification on ownership here . 20 MS . MOORE : George Taliambouris was the prior owner until Racanelli bought it, I have a 21 title survey which shows he took title in -- MS . TZANNES : Racanelli take it from the 22 father-in-law. MS . MOORE : But the father-in-law was the 23 prior owner. The current owner is Racanelli, and he' s the one who' s going to put all the money in 24 this house and is responsible for it since August of 2003 . So in the past year he' s been the 25 father who' s elderly and hasn' t maintained it . MS . TZANNES : I understand, but all these June 22, 2004 64 1 2 years, in 10 years he doesn't come to cut the grass . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Resolution to adjourn to August 15th. What' s the date? 4 MS . KOWALSKI : There' s another gentleman. MR. SAVEGLIA: I'm Larry Saveglia, I live 5 at 475 Wood Lane in Greenport . I'm on the south side of this house in question. I have property 6 there for 50 years, and had no problem with space or anything until just this time now. There' s 7 three houses on this corner and just a small space that everybody has . Now, if they want to come and 8 make the space smaller yet, it' s really going to be a problem. My two bedrooms face the property 9 in question, and they want to make an extension on their house another 25 or 30 feet which would put 10 them within seven or eight feet from my house . The two bedrooms would be directly across the way 11 from it, that is no privacy at all . Furthermore, I think if this goes through, the value on these 12 houses are going to drop down, not only on the three houses on that corner, but on the three 13 blocks . But I sit there and it' s pretty busy in the summer time and a lot of people come down and 14 go to the beach, and if this goes through, they' ll see this conglomerate of houses together and 15 probably think it' s one unit . And it' s really a shame, we' re in the country, we live in the city, 16 we go to the country, and we expect to have a little breathing room, but now as it is, 17 everything is getting closer and closer, if the Town doesn' t stop it . There' s still a lot of lots 18 in Greenport, my area, that are 50 by 100 ; if this goes through, other people are going to do the 19 same thing, they want to expand their houses . Where is it going to leave us? We might as well 20 pack up and go back to the city. Thank you. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Adjourned to which 21 date again? (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Elaine 23 Nesin, on Gull Pond Lane, Greenport . MR. SAETTA: Good afternoon, I'm Richard 24 Saetta, I'm representing Elaine Nesin. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like to give 25 us the background on this piece of property? MR. SAETTA: First we' re going for two June 22 , 2004 65 1 2 variances . One is an area and one is a usage . Usage first, there was a restriction on four lots 3 in this area that were considered not buildable . Since then three lots have been built on. We also 4 have gone to the DEC, the Board of Health and the Trustees, and all those permits are in place for 5 this piece of property. Any other questions on that particular variance I would answer, if I can 6 help . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I believe even though 7 the houses were built, the original covenants were that people came there really just to have a dock 8 so they .could sleep on the boats and have an accessory building for shower and a bathroom. But 9 my understanding is if you wanted a house then you would have to give up the ability of having the 10 large boat there because they were sleeping on the boats . 11 MR. SAETTA: There seems to be some question about the covenants in one it seems to be 12 a .phantom one because no one can find it, not even the title company. So if we can get a copy of it, 13 the title company can' t find it . The Town doesn' t have it, so who has this restriction? When I went 14 to the Board of Health, they had the restriction. They told me, wow, these other three lots were 15 built on. They shouldn' t have built on any, so I guess I 'm going to have to give it to you because 16 these were all built on. And so, if you allow three to build and not the other, I mean, forget 17 about being fair, it' s just not right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any of the Board 18 members have any questions on this? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I do. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Boat slash, 20 whatever. You said you found somewhere where there is a covenant on this? 21 MR. SAETTA: No, I think there was one that came before the Board in the past, they gave 22 to them, the title company, the lawyers, nobody could find this covenant . 23 MS . KOWALSKI : A zoning covenant is what it is, it' s a Zoning Board covenant . 24. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the Zoning Board made a decision at some point in time? 25 MS . KOWALSKI : Yes . And it was accepted by the owner and they used it . They went and June 22 , 2004 66 1 2 built what they were going to build, they accepted it , but they never followed it up with filing a 3 covenant with the county clerk' s office . The Zoning Board covenant is still in effect under 4 zoning. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When was that? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 1978 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Have you owned the 6 property since then? . MR. SAETTA: They have, yes . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : She got the variance from the Zoning Board? 8 MR. SAETTA: They were in partnership with other people . There were two groups of people 9 that owned it together, then they bought them out . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They were there? 10 MR. SAETTA: They have been there since 1978 . They were there . 11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have a copy of the prior. Do we have a copy? 12 MS . KOWALSKI : It was with the inspection package with Jessica. 13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, the other one they mentioned there was a prior, we didn' t have 14 that in our packet either. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We' re going to 15 research that . MR. SAETTA: I was going to answer a 16 question with a question. If they accepted this, was there a restriction put on the people that 17 built on their lots, because the boats have arrived there, so apparently they have boats . 18 That ' s why you' re on the canal, that' s why you build a dock. 19 MS . KOWALSKI : . There was a prior, yes, they came to the Board and asked for relief from 20 the condition, but they also agreed to void that prior covenant, and void the prior use in exchange 21 for building the house . MR. SAETTA: That' s basically what we' re 22 asking for. MS . KOWALSKI : What are you giving up? 23 MR. SAETTA: If the other people came in and they have a house and they have a dock and a 24 boat, what did they give up? MS . KOWALSKI : There' s a Zoning Board 25 file, and what you might want to do because you have not been in to examine the file or to become June 22 , 2004 67 1 2 familiar with the property covenants that have been on the record for over 25 years . So you 3 should take the time to come in and examine the file, and you may want to go over it with an 4 attorney, we had suggested that when you filed your application. I don' t know if you consulted 5 anyone about it . It' s a covenant in the record, become familiar with it, and you can decide what 6 the owner wants to give up. MR. SAETTA: Can you give me an idea what 7 you want them to give up? MS . KOWALSKI : This is an appeal process . 8 You have to find out what you have first . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just comment? 9 I am going to read the decision, because when I read the application, there is no indication how 10 that came about . So there' s no way I would have asked the question that there was a prior on this . 11 It should have been on there . I 'm going to read that decision. If that decision says that this 12 was a buildable lot, a lot that could have a house on it, but these people wanted to put their boat 13 there and live on their boat, which is like a gray area of the Town, you can' t have two residences on 14 one piece of property, and you agreed to, no, we won' t build a house, we' re going to live on the 15 boat . And as long as we' re living on the boat, we won' t build a house . That' s what that decision 16 says, I'm not sure that it does, but if it does, then to my mind it is just a question of you' re 17 not going to live on the boat; you' re not going to have permission to live on the boat anymore . To 18 me now, may be not the other members, it may mean to somebody you can' t have a 40 foot boat . To me, 19 I don' t think that that' s correct . I believe, it would make sense with my experience, if they 20 agreed they wanted to live on the boat, they needed to have water and electric down to that 21 boat, and they still didn' t want to build a house in order to do it, which is probably required by 22 our code back then, and to my mind it' s just a question -- 23 MR. SAETTA: The picture' s very clear. They were the only couple of the four lots that 24 actually accepted and put something there . So now that has to be revisited as to what they' re going 25 to take out as far as boat size, there' s a 43 foot boat next door. I think it may be the possibility June 22 , 2004 68 1 2 of giving up whether they can live on the boat or not . They wouldn' t want to live on the boat if 3 they had a house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, it could be 4 that the decision was made to allow them to live there without having a house on there . My mind, 5 once the house is built, who cares . MR. SAETTA: As far as, now there' s the 6 second variance, which is an area variance? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Setback. 7 MR. SAETTA: We' re asking for 51 feet at the closest point . The neighbor was granted it in 8 2003 , 38 to 40 foot . The house, we have a setback from the DEC to the wetlands to the cesspool is 9 100 feet . We have a freshwater wetlands across the street, and you' ll see the line where the 10 pools are set right on it . We managed to keep the front yard and the two side yards, so we' re asking 11 for a variance of 51 feet to the closest point of bulkhead, which is actually further away from the 12 neighbors . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s absolutely 13 impossible to grasp this without seeing the priors on this, and I don' t have them, so. 14 MR. SAETTA: I don' t understand what you mean by priors . ' 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: , In other words, the whole history of this piece of property from the 16 late 170s, when these people were given permission to have really kind of a private marina so they 17 can live on their boat and have some onshore facilities for bathrooms and so forth and so on. 18 At that time they had to go even for a site plan to the Planning Board and the Planning Board 19 deemed that because they had more or less a semi-marine use that the lot was not a residential 20 lot . I do realize since that time the other properties have been built, and I know you do have 21 the permits from the DEC and the Trustees, and from the Board of Health and so on, but we have to 22 go back and research all that . If the rest of the Board members are not familiar with it, in order 23 to reach some sort of decision. MR. SAETTA: You' re saying. they actually 24 had a commercial marine use? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Semi-commercial . 25 MR. SAETTA: So can we expect to hear from you about what you would like them to give up? June 22, 2004 69 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, let us go another month. I know it' s more time . 3 MR. SAETTA: These people are also in their mid 70s . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We don' t have the information before us . Just the decision alone 5 it' s going to help you one way or the other if we can clear that up. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a better clear title to your property and what the conditions or 7 covenants were that some time in the future other owners don' t have to go back and scratch their 8 heads and wonder what was going on. This way if we can straighten it out now it' s to your 9 benefit . What might be a good idea too, look back 10 in your title and see if there' s any covenants in your title, and if there are, could make copies 11 for us and give them to us? MS . KOWALSKI : Have the attorney' s office 12 send it to you and then send it over. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a 13 clarification question, just on the setback from the bulkhead, I have a copy of the survey, I don' t 14 s-ee the 51 feet, I see a setback of 75 -- MR. SAETTA: No, it' s 67 and 51 . You' re 15 looking at, it looks like . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no comment at this time . I need to see that some 17 time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the Board' s 18 pleasure? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I' d like to recess 19 this until -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: August . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : July. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s our fault . It 21 should have been included in our packages, so we could have addressed that . 22 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s not exactly because I had a lot of communication with them on what we 23 needed. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: She asked them to 24 address this . MS . KOWALSKI : It wasn' t submitted with 25 the application. He didn' t do the research. We' re trying to help you along with it too, but at June 22 , 2004 70 1 2 the same time if somebody can research the file . MS . GALLAGHER: Courtney Gallagher. I 3 work for Rich Saetta. I did come in and I was told to look on the computer, and what I did find 4 on the computer had nothing to do with the covenants . I had spoken with the secretary that 5 works in the office and we did research, and I found one thing. It was Jessica. 6 MS . KOWALSKI : Did you look at the original files? 7 MS . GALLAGHER: Yes . She pulled them for me . The only one in there was Cerveni, who 8 applied for a setback for a deck of 38 feet from the bulkhead. 9 MS . KOWALSKI : Nothing on the Sarah Rouch. MS . GALLAGHER: Linda had faxed something 10 to me asking reasons for the use variance and we had worked for those . 11 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s all part of this file . Let me know when you' re coming by. 12 MS . GALLAGHER: Maybe we could sit down together and look into it because in the computers 13 there is nothing according to tax map ID. MS . KOWALSKI : Not the computer, there are 14 files . MS . GALLAGHER: This is what I was 15 instructed to do, to go onto the computer. MS . KOWALSKI : I wasn' t there when you 16 came by. So I guess you didn' t get all the assistance that you could have . Sorry about that . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Nesin? MR. NESIN: My name is Arthur Nesin. 18 There' s a lot I don' t quite understand about what' s going on here . Could I give you a little 19 background about what went on? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 20 MR. NESIN: In ' 75 this ,particular piece of property which extended, I'm not sure how many 21 feet, was subdivided by the Village, I guess it was the Village or Town, into four separate 22 parcels, all the same . Now I've heard about this covenant; I have never seen anything about a 23 covenant at all . Our neighbor Helen Rakowski, who is on the south side of us, she never heard of it 24 and she has a house . Helmut Spitzenberger, who was the last piece of property on the north side., 25 he had no trouble . He had a local builder who built the house up. When Helen Rakowski put her June 22 , 2004 71 1 2 house up, there were two partners in that piece of property. They had two 40 foot boats, and they 3 asked for permission to put in docks for the two 40 foot boats, this was around 1975, and for 4 permission to put up a house, and it was granted to them, so far as I know nothing about a 5 covenant . About 1978 a friend of mine, Dr. Marvin Rouch, was a very good friend of ours, asked me if 6 we wanted to go in on another piece of property. Talk about property now, I'm astounded it was 7 quite inexpensive at that time . There was a lot of property available along Gull Pond, along 8 Fordham Canal . We said, yes, .we would go in, and we took a mortgage on the property. Then Sarah 9 Rouch was Marvin Rouch' s wife, we applied -- I was working, I'm a school teacher. I was working in 10 New York City. My wife was working as a registered nurse with the West Hampton School 11 District, and Marvin had a dental practice in Far Rockaway. We didn' t want a house at that time, 12 but we loved it out in Greenport . As a matter of fact, we had been out .five or six years previous 13 to that in a little private marina, I think it' s owned by Bruer now, all the way at the head of 14 Sterling Basin. Anyway, we applied for permission to put 15 in a small utility shed and for permission to put docks in so we could bring our boats there . And 16 well, Marvin ended up buying a house, but we were living on the boat all these years, it was a 17 different boat at that time . We lived on that property for about 25 years . The first piece of 18 property on the north side was purchased by Helmut Spitzenberger. As I mentioned, they put up a 19 house, that' s two houses, our property made it three, and Bob Wisman put up a house in the ' 80s 20 and this is the only time I heard mention of the covenants . It' s not on our deeds, never saw 21 anything at all about a restricted piece of property. Marvin, who' s 90 , sold his boat a few 22 years ago. Sold his property to my daughter Nancy, moved to a retirement village in 23 Pennsylvania. Anyway, we' re retired now, and we decided we love Greenport . We spent almost all 24 our available time out here . We would like to move out and live permanently in Greenport on this 25 property. Now I don' t understand this give back June 22 , 2004 72 1 2 thing. You' re going to make me sell my boat for what reason? Certainly I'm not going to live on 3 my boat . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, let us sort this 4 thing out . MR. NESIN: I 'm 76 years old now, my wife 5 is 74 . It' s not so easy to say let it go for another month, another two months . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is someone living on the boat now? 7 MR. NESIN: Yeah, my wife and I , we' re staying on the boat now. We have the building, 8 which gives us our sanitation facilities, and we sleep on the boat . 9 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you going to live on the boat after you build the house? 10 MR. NESIN: Of course not . I don' t understand why we have to get rid of our boat . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Nesin, we just want to sort out the different covenants that were 12 put on your property or on all those properties years ago so that we can straighten it out so 13 everything is free and clear as far as you' re concerned. So you don' t have worries that some 14 day one of your heirs is going to suddenly find something that they don' t want to find. 15 MR. NESIN: We have to wait another month? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . On July 15th, 16 that' s not so long, three weeks . MR. NESIN: I guess I have no choice . 17 There' s nothing I can do about it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll see you on the 18 15th. Hopefully we' ll get everything straightened out for you. Thank you. 19 Make a motion to adjourn the hearing. (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 -----------------------------------=------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is 21 Mr. John Carway. Smith Drive North, who wished to have a proposed deck at less than 35 feet from the 22 rear property line . MR. CARWAY: My name is John Carway, 1350 23 Smith Drive North. We have some more of the cards that came back. Hopefully, this is relatively 24 straightforward. We've had the house since 1987 and we lived around the corner since 1971, and 25 there is a small concrete patio right outside in the back of the house, and we' re just proposing to June 22 , 2004 73 1 2 just go over that and make a regular deck. The house is only 35 feet from the rear property, and 3 we just wanted to go out another 10 feet, which would make it a 25 foot setback. That' s 4 essentially it . We' d like to have a little bit larger house and be raised up so I wouldn' t have 5 to go up and down the steps right now. It' s kind of hard to use the patio as it is . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no 7 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The size of the deck is 20 by 27? 9 MR. CARWAY: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: With the house, 10 what is, if I 'm facing the site plan, which is looking at it from the rear yard, what is on that 11 side of the house that would be on the -- MR. CARWAY: The small side? 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where the deck is . MR. CARWAY: Right in the back there is a I 13 stockade fence which abuts a vacant lot on most of the area, and then there is another stockade 14 fence, there' s a house behind us to one side, but right behind the deck itself there' s a vacant, a 15 small vacant lot which I'm told wasn' t buildable, but you never know. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True, never say never. MR. CARWAY: There is a house, there is 17 about 13 . 8 , 13 . 5 foot setback to the property line, and then probably another 15 or 20 feet on 18 the other side of that there is another house . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only other 19 question I had for you to get access to it, you show a ramp coming down toward the rear yard; is 20 that going to be -- MR. CARWAY: There' s steps, there would be 21 steps coming down from the -- at the rear. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it won' t be a 22 ramp? MR. CARWAY: I can manage it . The big 23 problem that I have is going, when you' re outside you' re constantly going back and forth to get 24 something. Every time I go up and down those stairs it kind of knocks me for a loop. 25 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any other questions . June 22 , 2004 74 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This deck is to be open to the sky, no enclosure? 4 MR. CARWAY: No enclosure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 5 audience who would like to speak for or against this application? If .not, I make a motion to 6 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing for Riverhead Building Supply for the placement of the 9 third wall sign, yes, sir? MR. VON EIFF: Good afternoon I 'm Bill Von 10 Eiff for Peconic Sign Company on behalf of Riverhead Building Supply. Basically applying for 11 a third sign, but it said third wall sign, it' s actually a second wall sign. A third sign being 12 there' s one road sign, sign over the entrance way and this is an additional sign -- 13 MS . KOWALSKI : Third sign all together. MR. VON EIFF: Third sign all together. 14 MS . KOWALSKI : Code only allows two although. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The only sign in question is the illuminated one recessed in the 16 building. MR. VON EIFF: Yes, that' s the only 17 question. , BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you' re 18 proposing what? MR. VON EIFF : To be able to have a third 19 sign where you see that picture . It' s basically a illuminated sign. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the Anderson sign? 21 MR. VON EIFF: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is that 22 sign? MR. VON EIFF: That sign is 14 inches by 23 six feet long. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s going to be 24 placed where on the building? MR. VON EIFF: As you see on that picture 25 of the building, it shows the placement of the sign over that window, and that' s in a recessed June 22 , 2004 75 1 2 area, and there' s also a picture there that shows the complete building with the existing signs and 3 that additional sign, where it' s not too overwhelming or anything. It actually will work 4 very nice . And the reason for that sign is because that whole end of the building has been 5 dedicated as a window and door showroom, so they really want to indicate that for people to know 6 that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Why does it have to 7 be illuminated? MR. VON EIFF : At night time we have the 8 road sign lit, and it would look very nice to have that one lit as well because the cut letters that 9 over the main entrance they' re lit . It' s just to make it uniform looking. During the day it 10 basically looks like a white sign, but at night it would be nice to have that lit . It would be 11 uniform to have that lit; the road sign' s lit, above the door' s lit and that one would be lit . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are all your signs 13 lit 24/7? MR. VON EIFF: Yes and no . Probably the 14 road sign comes on about 9 : 00 in the evening and would shut off in the morning. But yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: During the -- MR. VON EIFF: During the night hours . 16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Both internally lit, the other two you have? 17 MR. VON EIFF : No. The lights are in the roof, so you don' t see them, and the cut letter 18 sign over the entranceway has fixtures that light that . 19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Because I was trying to figure it out, it' s not permitted in the 20 Town, internally lit signs . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Internally lit signs 21 are not allowed because I was on the code committee when we put it in. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Depends on the zone . 23 MR. VON EIFF: This zone is business . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe it' s 24 permitted. MR. VON EIFF: It is permitted because 25 we've done other lit signs . We did Southold Flooring, which is in light industrial, that was June 22 , 2004 76 1 2 permitted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For internally lit _ 3 signs? I have to look at it again. MR. VON EIFF: There' s a bunch of them 4 around town, it depends . They don' t look, all it i is is. a different way of lighting them up . It 5 doesn' t look bad at all . As I say, during the day it ' s very nice looking. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the 7 size and magnitude of the building, I don' t see that that balances out of character. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a beautiful building. 9 MR. VON EIFF: It is . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I said, yes, the building is beautiful . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Such a nice addition down there . 12 MR. VON EIFF : I was very happy about it, I'm across the street . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. I 14 don' t think there' s anybody here against it . (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 16 Patricia Buerkle, Private Road in Southold. She' d like to put a porch on her front there . Hi, 17 Marge . MS . STEVENS : I'm Marjory Stevens, I ' m at 18 335 Private Road 3 , and I 'm here for Pat Buerkle and as a neighbor. I don' t know what I'm supposed 19 to do . As I understand it, Pat wants the porch which infringes a bit on her property line . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I like the way she has this marked out in the pictures with the 21 newspapers . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I was over there . It' s a nice little community. I really 23 have no problem with this . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not going to ask your standard question? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it going to be open to the sky? It' s going to have a roof? June 22 , 2004 77 1 2 MS . STEVENS : No. It' s going to have a roof . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will remain open on three sides? 4 MS . STEVENS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s the Jerry we 5 know and love . I have no questions . It was very nice . I like the way they put the addition offset 6 in the back. MS . STEVENS : It seems to me I 've seen her 7 plans in all her exciting stages and she kept in keeping with the neighborhood. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You still may lose one or two of those big oaks, but it happens . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any 10 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 ' BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to 12 close the hearing, reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 -------- ----------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 14 the lot line change for Saunders on Franklinville Road. 15 MR. GOGGINS : Good afternoon, William C, Goggins, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York. 16 Good afternoon to Members of the Board. We submitted an application for a lot line change 17 with the Building Department, and they sent us here for a variance. 18 MS . KOWALSKI : Can I have the affidavits? MR. GOGGINS : Yes, I have the affidavits . 19 I 'm still waiting for one . And a comment as to the sign posting, there is a pavement from the 20 street to the front of the two structures that we' re talking about, so I was unable to post 21 within 10 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You posted, I saw. 22 MR. GOGGINS : I posted on one building, one building is 17 feet from the road, the other 23 building is 20 feet from the road. History of the property Lot 4 . 1, the 24 property to the east is the Elbow Two Restaurant . It' s been owned for over 40 years by 25 the Saunders' family. It' s now in a corporate name . The property to the west, Lot 3 . 1, is now June 22 , 2004 78 1 2 an upholstery shop; that was purchased over 30 years ago by Joan Saunders' late husband and then 3 transferred to Joan Saunders . The purpose of buying that ,property was primarily to extend the 4 parking lot of the restaurant, which was done at about that time . So for the past 40 years or so 5 the restaurant has used the property to the west as part of their parking lot without ever 6 separating the properties, and that' s kind of how Cliff Saunders did things, he was a little loose 7 with how he did things . And Joan is different . She likes to straighten things out . So what we 8 propose is moving the lot lines to conform to the parking lot location. While sitting here waiting 9 for us to be called, Mrs . Saunders and I had many conversations about the lot line and as we had 10 proposed, and we thought the lines should be moved to be more conforming. And in sitting here 11 waiting, we thought it would be a good idea that if the line that we had proposed that we move it 12 to the east from the street site, 13 feet ; then that would conform to the total side yard 13 setbacks, and it would also conform to the side yard setback to the west on the property of 3 . 1, 14 and that would avoid two of the, concerns and also move the lot line on the rear end of the property 15 12 . 5 feet, then draw a straight line from the two points . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s a good idea. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re still talking about the setbacks for the two-story 18 building would then conform? MR. GOGGINS : Correct . That would conform 19 with the lot line change and to the side yard setback as well as the total side yard setbacks . 20 ' BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long will it take you, Bill, to submit that to us? 21 MR. GOGGINS : Two weeks . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we address 22 this as a final on July 1st? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hopefully. If you do 23 it before July 1st we can do it . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have to go 24 to the Planning Board for this? MR. GOGGINS : The process is now you go to 25 the Building Department, then they send you to where they think they should send you. At least June 22 , 2004 79 1 2 there' s some direction now. So we went to the Building Department and got sent to both places . 3 So I did have a work session with the Planning Board, and they said it was fine with them, 4 subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and they kind of started giving me a hard 5 time, and my response was, you know, I don' t need approvals, I could do an easement and not have to 6 go through any of the process . But we didn' t want to do that . We wanted to do it right and get the 7 property line so it' s there forever. At the end of the meeting, they sort of agreed. 8 MS . KOWALSKI : Are you talking about the Planning Board? 9 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Sound very good. 10 If you could just submit some modifications so we know exactly what the size of the lots are . 11 MR. GOGGINS : We will give you brand new, full size survey of the line we' re proposing for 12 everybody. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re going to 13 move that back 12 feet? MR. GOGGINS : Yes . On the street side on 14 Franklinville Road, we' re going to move the proposed lot line change 13 feet to the east . 15 Then on the rear of the property, we' re talking about 3 . 1, the width is 32 . 5 feet, and we' ll 16 extend that width to 50 feet . So we' ll be moving it 12 . 5 feet to the east in the rear and 13 17 feet -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 17 . 5? 18 MR. GOGGINS : We want to do 12 . 5 . So it would be 45 . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Move it 12 feet . MR. GOGGINS : 12 . 5 feet . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So that' s going to make it 45 . 21 MR. GOGGINS : Right . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Straight line, 22 right? 1 MR. GOGGINS : Straight line from that 23 point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Make a motion 24 to adjourn this to July 1st . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Subject to Mr. Goggins giving us new lot lines . June 22 , 2004 80 1 2 MS . KOWALSKI : About 6 : 00 p.m. on the 1st . MR. GOGGINS : Thank you. 3 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing was the Southold Fire District/Omnipoint Communication, et 5 cetera . I do believe they wish an adjournment until July 15th because they have new information 6 as to the horns on top of the proposed cell towers . 7 MS . KOWALSKI : For the decibel levels . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here 8 that wants to speak about this now? Okay, make a motion to adjourn the hearing until July 15th. 9 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is Bremer' s Market and Deli, also known as North Fork Market 11 and Deli . MR. CONDIN: John Condin for Henry Bremer, 12 who is the owner of North Fork Deli . This is our second trip before the Board. Since last month we 13 revised the site plan, hopefully to your satisfaction. In addition to that, we also 14 presented the same site plan to the Planning Department . They formally accepted it, and we' ll 15 act on it pursuant to your decision. The new site plan has several new changes . 16 First of all, the asphalt that was shown in the front of the building has been replaced with 17 grass . We' re proposing grass there as well as an entry walk from the side of the building to the 18. front of the building. The parking spaces, as you requested we 19 put in nine parking spaces on the lot . The Planning Department based on the square footage 20 and size of the building requested eight, and we found room for nine . 21 Another change that we had made was the adjacent owner had expressed some concern about a 22 fence that was along the property, what we' re proposing is to put a stockade fence along his 23 property that would be on the eastern side of the lot as well as the northern side . 24 And last but not least, we have a one-way entrance to the property coming off the Main Road 25 and a two-way entrance and exit on to Legion Avenue . There' s two on the eastern side of the June 22 , 2004 81 1 2 building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I found eight . 3 MR. CONDIN: Then the handicapped over on the end of the building. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So the setback to the property line, would be 23 feet there? 5 MR. CONDIN: 23 feet . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Right here you've 6 got -- it' s an improvement, no question about it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where are the 7 septic systems going to go? MR. CONDIN: In the back corner of the 8 lot, back western corner, there' s five leaching pools, and where the building makes an "L" there' s 9 a grease trap and septic tank right at that location. 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are those proposed? MR. CONDIN: No, those are in there . The 11 septic and grease trap are brand new. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The only question I 12 have, and I'm sure the Planning Board must have addressed this, you' re going to have deliveries 13 coming in here, and where are the delivery trucks going to -- 14 MR. CONDIN: I believe they require something like 45 feet in the back of the 15 building, and if you take a look at the back of the building to the back of the lot, we have a 16 total of 54 ' 511 . So, we figure that any deliveries that would be required, they could maybe take up 17 one of the parking spaces while they' re doing the deliveries and then have enough room to pull out 18 and back on to Legion Avenue . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That would be the 19 only thing I' d say is that this is going to be tight in here because the delivery trucks are 20 coming in here and historically with a deli, 8 : 00 in the morning everything is very busy, actually 21 7 : 00 , 6 : 00 too, pretty busy, delivery trucks are going to be coming in, and I don' t know where 22 they' re going to park, and hopefully you' re going to have customers, and how the customers would get 23 out around the delivery truck. I 'm not sure that there' s sufficient room there . 24 MR. CONDIN: It' s a very limited lot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No worse than it 25 was before . MR. CONDIN: It' s a little better. June 22 , 2004 82 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a 100 percent better. Maybe that curb cut on Legion 3 Avenue could be opened up a little bit . MR. CONDIN: The only thing that restricts 4 that is there' s a telephone pole right on the northern edge of it . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Couldn' t the delivery trucks go all the way straight in almost to the 6 other side and then back into one of the stalls and come out? 7 MS . KOWALSKI : Behind the building. MR. CONDIN: Sure . There' s enough room to 8 do that and back the truck in. I don' t think we' re talking about tractor trailer type trucks as 9 far as deliveries . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mostly two by fours or 10 whatever. MS . KOWALSKI : They have- always gone in 11 the back anyway for that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re not going to 12 alleviate that problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 15 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) '16 (Time ended 1 : 37 p .m. ) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 22 , 2004 83 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 6 State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 8 the testimony given. g I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 11 action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 22nd day of June, 2004 . 16 17 18 1 19 t Florence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 22 , 2004