HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/19/2004 Hearing 1
P 3 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
}` COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N . 0 F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 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
August 19 , 2004
12 9 : 00 a.m.
q j 13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
17 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member
18 LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
19 Absent : Board Member Gerard Goehringer
20
21
22 �
rORIGI MA
23
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first public
hearing is for Kevin and Susan Ferrell for an
3 above-ground pool on their deck. Is there anyone
here who would like to speak for or against this
4 application?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you for
5 submitting the affidavits .
MS . MESIANO: Yes . Catherine Mesiano on
6 behalf of the applicants . We' re here today
because the Board has seen fit to re-open the
7 hearing at the request of the neighbors, and I
would like to make a few statements . First of
8 all, I think we need to focus on the purpose of
our being here, and the reason that we are before
9 this Board is because the Building Department
denied our application for replacement of an
10 existing deck and a deck extension within which a
pool was to be built . Nothing in the code or our
11 disapproval raises the issue of whether or not an
in-ground or above-ground pool is mandated or is
12 necessary. The issue of the pool has been raised
by the neighbors . That matter is a civil matter
13 that should not be taken up by this Board as was
stated in an earlier hearing. Covenants and
14 restrictions, this Board doesn' t have neither the
obligation or the right to enforce private
15 covenants and the issues that are arising deal
primarily with the pool issue; that' s a matter for
16 the homeowners association and the applicants .
The delay in this application, simply put, means
17 that the Ferrells can' t replace the existing deck
that is, at this point, unsafe . They've found
18 from their engineer' s reports that it was
improperly constructed in the beginning. So the
19 deck cannot be replaced at this point, even though
it is existing, was there at the time the house
20 was built . They have to come to the Board to
reconstruct it because of the proximity to the
21 bluff .
As far as the extension goes, we' re asking
22 for a setback to allow an 85 foot setback from the
bluff to the extension of the deck, within which a
23 pool is proposed to be constructed.
Now, Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell and I have gone
24 over various options and there are different ways
that a pool can be constructed. We have attempted
25 to have more and better data for you at this
hearing, but because of the scheduling of our
August 19, 2004
3
1
2 surveyor and our engineer, we were unable to bring
all the data together. What I would request is
3 that the Board, upon the conclusion of today' s
meeting, again close this hearing to any verbal or
4 oral , testimony, reserving the right for any
written testimony, of course, and we would like to
5 submit to the Board our engineered plans . I
understand although the pool is not something that
6 we require this Board' s approval for per se, it' s
just the setback, that we' re here for, that we
7 recognize the concern of the Board and the concern
of Soil and Water, and the North Fork
8 Environmental Council and the neighbors, et
cetera, to any risk to the bluff as a result of
9 any activity on the bluff . Therefore, what we are
planning to provide to the Board is an engineered
10 design that would create a plan that would assure
the safety of the bluff to the extent that is
11 possible and practical . I know that earlier it
was stated that a decision was being written and
12 that conditions were to be imposed, and it was
alluded to that those conditions pertained to
13 containment of the water from the pool in the
event of that catastrophic occasion in which
14 11, 000 gallons of water would go spurting forth;
that' s a highly unlikely occurrence, and we would
15 like to have the opportunity, than rather than
have a layperson impose what might seem like
16 reasonable covenants or conditions, or conditions
that seem to be the right thing, we would rather
17 have the experts in that field provide to the
Board a plan that is workable, reasonable,
18 feasible and practical . Therefore, we would like
to request the Board focus on the reason why we' re
19 here, which is the request for a variance for a
reduced setback from the bluff . The pool issue is
20 not a matter for this Board to focus on because
that is not the essence of the disapproval from
21 the Building Department . Yes, we intend to
construct a pool . There are variations in the
22 design that we discussed, I would be happy to give
you the copies of the various options that we have
23 drawn up to address the various concerns of the
neighborhood; if the Board would like to have
24 those, I 'm prepared to give them to you now. But
we would like the Board to focus on the issue,
25 which is the setback to the bluff and allow us to
present an engineered plan to the Board for your
August 19 , 2004
4
1
2 consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand that even
3 though our jurisdiction does not really apply to
the pool, may I just ask why the pool could not be
4 placed in ground in the front yard?
MS . MESIANO : In-ground in the front yard
5 is highly impractical because much of the front
yard is paved with the driveway. There is a lot
6 of rolling topography in the front yard. The
front yard is heavily treed. The septic system is
7 in the front yard. It would be highly impractical
to put this pool in the front yard. It would be
8 unattractive at best . Another covenant that
restricts the placement of hedges would prohibit
9 us from planting to be able to conceal the pool
for privacy from our perspective, and from the
10 sight from others' perspectives . The front yard
is impractical, as far as placing the swimming
11 pool there really isn' t a reasonable place to put
the pool .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Vincent or
Jimmy, do you have any questions of Cathy?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I guess just a
couple . One would be, are you saying that the
14 reason why you didn' t put it in the front is
because you're not allowed to put hedges?
15 MS'. MESIANO : No, I didn' t say that that' s
the reason, that' s a contributing factor. The
16 reason we have not proposed the pool in the front
yard is because the topography of the front yard
17 is not conducive to the installation of the pool .
The fact that the. front yard has an extensive
18 driveway and parking area is not conducive to
constructing a pool in the front . The septic
19 system is in the front yard. The front yard is
heavily vegetated. There' s lots of mature trees .
20 All of those reasons combined constitute the
reason for us not wanting to put a pool in the
21 front yard. Coupled with the fact that if there
were a pool in the front yard, it would be clearly
22 visible from the road because the only area that
is somewhat open, even though it' s heavily wooded,
23 is visible from the road. Therefore, for the
privacy aspect, you' d want to have fencing or
24 hedges to conceal the pool . The covenants
prohibit the planting of hedges . So if we' re
25 faced with this issue of covenants and this
selective enforcement of covenants, would then not
August 19 , 2004
5
1
2 the homeowners association object to the planting
of hedges to conceal the pool . So you can' t have
3 it both ways. We found that since you' re talking
about covenants, there has been an ongoing
4 practice of selective enforcement of the
covenants . We don' t want to take the risk of
5 putting a pool in the front yard -- if it were
practical, which it is not -- and then being
6 confronted with the fact that well now we can' t
obscure it from view and maintain privacy. If you
7 visited the site, you would see that the front
yard is highly impractical for placement of a
8 swimming pool, have to wipe out most of the trees .
It just is an impractical location, and it would
9 not be enjoyable . It would not be aesthetically
pleasing. Were I a neighbor, were I living in
10 that neighborhood, I would object to having the
pool in the front yard because I think it would be
11 unsightly. So, is that the reason, no . It' s a
contributing factor.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it wasn' t your
original reason why.
13 MS . MESIANO: No. We talked about the
options when we first met to discuss this issue,
14 and one of the options is putting a swimming pool
in the front yard, and we looked at the front yard
15 and said, yes, but where would you put it? You' d
have to dig up the driveway. The septic system' s
16 here; that area has a steep grade; that area is
heavily vegetated. There is not a practical place
17 in the front yard to put a swimming pool without
destroying the integrity and the aesthetic nature
18 of the front yard.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s all
19 I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' ll comment .
MS . MESIANO: Please .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with you,
the Zoning Board does not have the power to
22 enforce covenants and restrictions . And I also
agree with you that the variance is insignificant
23 and very minor, but have you thought or considered
for harmony in the community about taking the pool
24 where it is now and just putting it right down and
then putting a grade deck around it?
25 MS . MESIANO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that an option
August 19, 2004
6
1
2 then?
MS . MESIANO: Yes . We have considered and
3 we are exploring those options to drop the pool
down. One of the problems that we have is that
4 you can' t come too close to the foundation when
you' re doing major excavation. So we have to get
5 that balance as to how close can we come to the
foundation, how great does the excavation need to
6 be, but we' re working on a plan where we would
drop the pool so you would step down from the
7 existing deck to a lower level where it might not
be submerged 100 percent beneath the grade --
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the majority
would be below ground?
9 MS . MESIANO: Significant, yes . You know,
a matter of semantics is it above ground? Well,
10 anything above ground is above ground. Well, if
that statement holds true because that statement
11 was made at a prior hearing, then anything that is
below ground is in-ground and yes --
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You are exploring
that option?
13 MS . MESIANO : We are exploring that
option.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you still need
variances for the setbacks but --
15 MS. MESIANO: Yes . And we' re exploring
that because aesthetically it would be pleasing
16 from our perspective because I think our
perspective counts somewhat in this equation.
17 It' s a practical solution. I think it' s a
reasonable method for resolving the problem and
18 that' s what we' re exploring. But again, because
we couldn' t get our surveyor and our engineer
19 because of their work and vacation schedules, we
couldn' t coordinate them and present you with a
20 final engineered plan. That' s why I'm asking for
the ability to be able to provide that to you, but
21 that is primarily the plan that we' re exploring
because it makes the most sense . I know we've got
22 lots of arguments going on, but I' d like to be
practical, and that' s a practical solution to
23 something that shouldn' t be a big problem.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it' s a fair
24 compromise . I can' t speak for the community,
speaking for myself .
25 MS . MESIANO: Yes . I think it' s very
reasonable, and I suggested that to the Ferrells,
August 19 , 2004
7
1
2 and they were very receptive to the idea. And
that' s the area we' re going with our engineering
3 because it solves a lot of the issues if you start
talking about the hypotheticals and having an
4 11, 000 gallon above-ground pool spontaneously
erupt . Well, if it' s significantly below ground,
5 as you know being in the business that you' re in,
it' s going to be contained beneath the grade
6 before anything sinks its level . There would be
no deluge runoff, and we wouldn' t be looking at
7 someone imposing a condition for containment of
11, 000 gallons, which is something that is not a
8 reasonable solution, if you will, to the problem.
So the compromise is being strongly considered.
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Great . So we' ll
see what the opposition has to say. Thank you.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there someone else
who would like to speak for or against this
11 application?
MS . CAPPOLINO: Good morning. Louise
12 Cappolino, I'm the lady to the east . I addressed
a letter to you a couple of weeks ago about some
13 corrections about a written letter that was sent
to you, and I assume you received it .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MS. CAPPOLINO: All right . That will be
15 in this package here (indicating) . This was
written prior to what this young lady was saying.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand.
MS. CAPPOLINO: Okay.
17 "Miss Oliva and Members, I would like to
thank you for your time and patience with regards
18 to this matter. My husband and I believe it is
important for us to continue our opposition to the
19 installation of this structure and proposal for a
variance . Doris McGreevey and I took the
20 opportunity to present our concerns about this
request to our neighbors, those people who own
21 homes on the bluff . The response was incredibly
overwhelming against the granting of this
22 variance . The homeowners that live on the bluff
and have pools, have installed underground pools,
23 and unanimously agreed to the potential disaster
that could occur from gushing water flowing from
24 an above-ground pool . George Peck was an example
of variances granted without thought and
25 appreciation of what could occur. His bluff is a
disaster and the stress he has endured is not a
August 19 , 2004
8
1
2 healthy situation. We do not want to be in a
similar situation. I am sure Mrs . McGreevey will
3 affirm what I have said as well as providing
further documents . My previous statements are
4 being resubmitted as well as pictures so that you
can well understand better our concerns about
5 topography also . There are other options open to
Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell, the same options that the
6 neighbors on the bluff had when they installed
underground pools .
7 "This request for variance has caused many
problems for the Ferrells, however we didn' t
8 create this situation. We want to live in peace
without the worry of losing more property to the
9 ravages of water, including the chlorinated type . "
And I will submit this with the pictures
10 (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
11 Mr. McGreevey?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I have a prepared
12 statement which I' ll read, so we won' t be going on
and on with this . But I must comment first on
13 what the expediter said. She wants to do again
what she did the last time . Close these hearings
14 to all further public input but yet continue to
furnish you with documentation from engineers,
15 architects, from whatever. I beg you to close
this hearing here and now after you have heard,
16 make your decision. But, if you want to accept
documentation, then postpone this hearing and
17 reopen it because that' s not fair, that' s what I
have to say to comment on that . As far as
18 engineers knowing about that bluff, I have been
heavily involved with Long Island Sound since the
19 late ' 80s, heavily involved, and I think some of
you know that . Thank you. Now I' ll read my
20 statement .
"The decision by the Zoning Board of
21 Appeals to continue the dialogue concerning a
variance for an above-ground pool on the bluffs of
22 Mattituck leaves me to examine the file in detail
and I have very poignant questions regarding
23 certain issues . (1) Have elevations as promised
on 6/17/04 ever been furnished? (2) Where are the
24 nonjurisdiction letters from DEC and the Trustees
that were mentioned? (3) As the C of O does not
25 list the existing deck 91 foot from the top of the
bluff, is it then considered nonconforming? If
August 19, 2004
9
1
2 this is the case, then by granting this variance,
are you not changing its status from nonconforming
3 to conforming? (4) In a letter from Mr. Ferrell
dated July 1, 2004 , he states that the inner liner
4 is 22 millimeters width; what does that mean as
one inch equals 25 .40 millimeters, I really doubt
5 the vinyl liner is one inch thick. (5) No where
did I said see mention of the phrase
6 inkind/inplace, which is customary when rebuilding
someplace. (6) This is without exception a
7 self-created difficulty. Mr. Ferrell has more
than six-tenths of an acre in front of his home .
8 There' s plenty of room to build an in-ground pool
like everyone else on the bluff . (7) These bluffs
9 are unique . They exist in only three places on
the face of the earth.
10 " It takes quite a while to learn how they
react to different situations both natural and
11 man-made . Most, if not all, of the blunders made
are made by people new to the area who have not
12 had the time to learn what can and cannot be done,
an above-ground pool in a bluff area is a disaster
13 waiting to happen. Hurricanes and nor' easters
occur with hammer blows in the area. If this
14 proposed above-ground pool ever bursts, it would
send 11, 500 gallons of water, that' s 48 tons,
15 cascading over the bluff face and down the gully
carrying away everything in its path. It would be
16 a true disaster. This proposal lacks the support
of just about everyone living on the bluff from
17 Bailey' s Beach Road to the end of Soundview Avenue
in Mattituck. Collectively they signed a petition
18 that the ZBA should have on file .
11 (9) It is an unwise idea to construct an
19 above-ground pool only 85 foot from the crest of
the bluff . Common sense needs to be used when
20 dealing with environmentally sensitive areas such
as this . " I thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
Mr. McGreevey. Is there someone else who would
22 like to speak? Yes, Mrs . McGreevey?
MRS . MCGREEVEY: I have a letter I would
23 like to read to you as well as respond to some of
the statements made . First I' ll read the letter.
24 "Dear Miss Oliva and Board, as neighbors
of Mr. and Mrs . Ferrell, we will be directly
25 affected by the addition of an above-ground pool
placed less than 100 foot from the top of the
August 19, 2004
10
1
2 sound bluff .
"This proposal lacks our support for a few
3 important reasons . Firstly, we reside in an
extremely fragile bluff area that is subject to
4 extreme weather conditions . Having an
above-ground pool with a potential of bursting
5 allowing 11, 500 gallons of water to cascade off
the cliff or down our association property,
6 destroying our path and stairs to the beach, is
not far from reality since extreme weather
7 conditions have caused much damage to the cliffs
in the past .
8 "Our family has lived in this area since
the 1950s, and we have invested much time and work
9 maintaining our environment for future generations
to enjoy. It' s important to respect our
10 environment, and we feel very strongly that this
variance, if approved, will create negative
11 result .
" It' s admirable that the Southold Town has
12 instituted provisions in our code to protect our
shoreline . They are necessary codes and need full
13 care and consideration when altering them.
"Secondly, it was mentioned at one of the
14 work sessions that this above-ground pool would
add to the property value of the house . I have
15 made an inquiry at the assessor' s office in
Southold and spoke to Mr. Scott Russell . He
16 informed, he that he couldn' t remember when he last
assessed an above-ground pool in Mattituck;
17 however, if he did assess it, it would not be
valued near as much as an in-ground pool since
18 above-ground pools do not have longevity. The
assessment will be minimal .
19 "Lastly, this above-ground pool would
change the character of the neighborhood. The
20 petition that was sent from the residents along
the bluff that support the community disapproval
21 of this variance has been sent to the ZBA and
should be in your possession. "
22 We would be happy to take Mr. and Mrs .
Ferrell to visit their neighbors homes to see the
23 elegant in-ground pools in our area. And I ' d like
to say that when we went around to the different
24 people in the area, one person in particular
stands out in my mind and because they recently
25 had a pool put in in the front of their home,
in-ground, that' s Mr. and Mrs . Levy, so you may
August 19 , 2004
11
1
2 want to go back and check. But she made some
interesting points . She said, first of all, she
3 wouldn' t want to spoil the view of the Sound with
this concrete thing facing the Sound anyway
4 because the natural view is so much more
picturesque ., But anyway, she put her pool on the
5 side of the house and it happens to be very
beautiful . Now, I can go on and tell you the
6 Deckingers have a pool in the front of their
house . The Stritchlers have a pool in the front,
7 meaning road side, the Landaus have a pool in the
front on the road side -- I'm just doing this from
8 memory. Those are specific examples and I think
right now the Rosinis are in the process of
9 putting a pool in the front area on the road
side in their house . I 'm not sure, but I see that
10 it looks like they' re planning such a project .
These things, that' s the pattern that we
11 have lived with. I also wanted to say a few
things concerning the expediter' s points . She
12 says this is selective with the C and Rs, that' s
not the case. If you make statements like that,
13 substantiate it . Don' t just make allegations like
that . It should be just not spoken and then
14 dropped because that leaves people to think the
wrong thing.
15 The other thing was, the trees in the
front of their home, they have a perfect place in
16 the front . They have . 6 acres in the front and
you don' t need bushes, you don' t need hedge lines
17 because it' s heavily treed anyway, and it' s right
alongside a walkway, so it has a lot of trees
18 there anyway and bushes and so forth.
Just to finish this up, I think we' ve said
19 it all . I appreciate your time with this . And I
hope you come to an amicable decision, thank you.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mrs . McGreevey,
maybe you can comment because no one else has
21 commented in your community, what is your feelings
towards putting an in-ground pool in the place it
22 is now, the location?
MRS . MCGREEVEY: Knowing my neighbors all
23 along the bluff for a long while, most of the
people, and this is over time, usually if there' s
24 a place in the front of the home and it is
available, that' s choice number one, and I think
25 you can review the past variances for that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are there pools?
August 19, 2004
12
1
2 MRS . MCGREEVEY: There are two, there are
two on the bluff side and the reason -- and this
3 is a personal reason I think -- that they came up
with is they have no room on the front .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The question was,
what is your feeling if they put it in-ground in
5 the place it is now?
MRS . MCGREEVEY: If it' s in-ground and
6 tucked in and safe, I have no problem with that .
I really don' t .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
who would like to speak for or against this
9 application? Mrs . Mesiano, do you have anything
else?
10 MS . MESIANO: Yes, with respect to
Mr. McGreevey' s comment I wasn' t suggesting that `
11 the Board should close the hearing and only accept
information from us . I was suggesting that the
12 hearing be closed to verbatim testimony, and that
since we have not been able to reconcile our
13 engineer and our surveyor, we would like to give
you properly engineered plans . We would like the
14 option to do that . I wouldn' t suggest that we be
allowed to submit written documentation without
15 anyone else being afforded the same opportunity.
I just wanted to clarify that point . And again, I
16 stress, we' re here for a setback variance .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was part of
17 the problem last time when we had the hearing, the
Board closed it pursuant to receiving additional
18 information. Both sides did not get to comment,
it was not properly in a hearing form when it was
19 all submitted, so we had to reopen the hearing to
receive the new information that was submitted
20 between June 22nd and today. So now you' re asking
the Board to extend the time for new submissions,
21 and I 'm going to recommend to the Board that the
hearing really be postponed. So everybody can
22 comment on it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Adjourned to receive
23 the new information.
MS . MESIANO: My motivation for asking is
24 that I don' t see the need to have to keep
repeating the same things over and over again, all
25 of the objections we've heard are the objections
we heard last time .
August 19, 2004
13
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Board has not
seen the plans, if you' re saying you want to
3 submit something new, then it has to be in a full
hearing forum because it' s an appeal process .
4 MS . MESIANO : That' s fine . As far as a --
again, a new submission I think what I'm referring
5 to is a more detailed rendition of what you have
seen. And Mr. Orlando' s discussed our compromised
6 plan, if you will, and that' s what we' re
developing. Again, it was out of our control that
7 I couldn' t bring it to you today.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Cathy, could you
8 provide us with documentation on the
nonjurisdiction for the New York State DEC and the
9 Town Trustees? Could you also provide us with an
elevation plan that was mentioned, and could you
10 also clarify the question that Mr. McGreevey
addressed as to the thickness of the liner? Those
11 are three .things I' d like to see .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
12 motion adjourning this hearing until September
14th so that both sides have an opportunity to
13 review the new documentation as well as the Board.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Second.
14 (See minutes for resolution. )
MS. MESIANO: Can we put it until October,
15 they would prefer it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make an amended
16 resolution adjourning this hearing until the
October 21st meeting.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
MS . MESIANO: Thank you very much.
18 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . Next hearing is for
19 George Penny V for a setback less than 70 feet
from the property line on Kerwin Boulevard in
20 Greenport . Good morning, how are you?
MR. PENNY: Good, how are you?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
tell us, anything extra?
22 MR. PENNY: It' s pretty
self-explanatory. We' re proposing a one-story
23 addition to our house off of Kerwin Boulevard.
Basically just to make more room, add another
24 bathroom, add another bedroom, make room for a
baby. We' re over our setbacks . It' s a light
25 industrial property. My family, through the
corporation, owns all of the property surrounding
August 19 , 2004
14
1
2 on three sides, and this structure is really small
in comparison to the other buildings surrounding
3 it . It' s residential .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s been there a long
4 time . It' s a nonconforming building in a light
industrial .
5 MR. PENNY: That' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any Board Members have
6 questions of Mr. and Mrs . Penny?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' d like to go over
7 it . I have to write this . It' s in the LI
district, so you' re restricted by the larger
8 restrictions of LI as opposed to residential, you
have a house there, and if you had a house in
9 residential zone, you' re talking 55 or 50 feet, in
a zone that requires 70 feet so that' s the basic
10 reason; that' s your hardship so to say. I just
would like to ask you, I see on the survey that
11 you have, looks like a basement door in the back?
MR. PENNY: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm assuming you
don' t want: to rip that out that' s why you went
13 beyond it and then came out . It would cost you a
lot of money to relocate that, and that' s the
14 reason for doing that?
MR. PENNY: Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If not, you could
put it on the back of the house, it would be only
16 60 feet, you' d still need a variance . It would
probably be a little more .
17 MR. PENNY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see no problems
18 with this . That' s it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I have no
objections . I see no problem with this .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There may be a time
problem, right?
21 MR. PENNY: Yes . There is a time
constraint .
22 MRS . PENNY: Thirteen weeks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There may be a problem
23 with that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes, first of all
24 considerations, and I don' t think your neighbors
will complain, so no other questions .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Is there anybody
in the audience that would like to speak on behalf
August 19, 2004
15
1
2 or against this application? If not I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
3 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
4 --- ------------------------------------ -------- --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Janet
5 Larsen and Carol Witschiebein on Sound Beach Drive
in Mattituck.
6 MS . RIVERA: My name is Christine Rivera
and I 'm representing Carol Witschiebein and Janet
7 Larsen. I'm prepared to give the Board, I
received yesterday a fax from the ZBA questioning
8 the sanitary system at the Larsen residence, and I
have a letter from Artco Drainage, they inspected
9 the site, and some photographs (handing) .
The Larsens and the Witschiebeins are
10 requesting a side yard setback of approximately
three feet . The restraints of this property are
11 confined by the coastal erosion line on this
seaward side, and they have ample enough room in
12 their front yard to bring this extension that
they' re requesting forward in order to accommodate
13 the two-car garage that they' re planning to build
there .
14 Basically, you have no problems with
either neighbor to the east or west, both have
15 writt.en a letter to the Board stating that they
have no objections to this proposed extension with
16 the side yard setback that has been requested.
Both the neighbor to the east and west also have a
17 two-story addition, so it would basically be very
conducive to the neighborhood for this proposed
18 addition.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could I just ask why
19 you couldn' t make the addition on the other side
where you have more room, on the west side?
20 MS . RIVERA: There is an existing
structure there now on the east side that is going
21 to be knocked down and incorporated into this
addition.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the porch with
the stairs there, correct?
23 MS . RIVERA: Yes . That is going to be
knocked down and incorporated into this addition.
24 On the other side is an existing bedroom and we
wouldn' t be able to get access into the home from
25 that side and there' s the existing driveway
and the water line and septic system are closer
August 19, 2004
16
1
2 thaN that driveway that exists there now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No comments at this
time .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I notice on the
5 amended notice of disapproval it would be a three
foot side yard setback on that side .
6 MS. RIVERA: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s kind of
7 tight for this property, and the real question is
why the existing setback is about 11 feet?
8 MS. RIVERA: Yes, approximately.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I 'm very familiar
9 with the property. I 'm just curious as to why you
couldn' t come in to get your addition on the east
10 side . I know that there' s a concrete stoop there,
but since you' re going to add on to that section,
11 why you have to extend out another eight feet .
This really isn' t to scale because if your
12 existing setback is 11 feet and you' re going down
to three, this extension in green on your survey
13 would actually be eight feet from the existing
wall . So I 'm kind of curious as to why you can' t
14 come in more.
MS . RIVERA: We came in as much as we
15 could for the garage . We needed at least 18 to 19
feet for the garage . If we brought the garage any
16 more over, we would be across the front entrance
as it exists now. The property goes a little
17 beyond that wall that' s existing now, there' s a
cement wall with all the shrubbery and privet
18 hedges, they go approximately a foot beyond that .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I' m confused. How
19 are you going to access the garage from the
existing driveway?
20 MS . RIVERA: There' s going to be a door
from the garage into the new structure that we' re
21 going to be building.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The driveway will be
22 moved then?
MS . RIVERA: We' re eventually going to put
23 probably a circular driveway in.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No further
24 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold up the roof
because I have to tell you, this looks like it' s
August 19 , 2004
17
1
2 too much for me . I think that you could do a
little better as far as the setback is concerned.
3 And a two-story structure that close to the
property line that' s just -- this is just my way
4 of thinking on this particular lot -- isn' t
warranted. You could take whatever living space
5 you wanted to and just go up on the house, I would
assume . I wouldn' t see any reason why, then all
6 you would need is the garage . You could move that
garage to the 11 foot and it wouldn' t make a
7 difference in the front, as I see it . And I would
personally like to see you come back with
8 something a little less intrusive on that side
yard.
9 MS. RIVERA: I am open to suggestions and
so are the Witschiebeins . Three foot would be
10 ideal but you know, if you have a suggestion, I 'm
willing to bring it back to them and see .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would suggest to
you that three foot is too much. You know what
12 you can live with absolutely. Let me see that . I
see this big green thing on this lot . In all
13 honesty I'm not prone to this . It was my
application, I looked at this, and to my mind it' s
14 just too much. There are other ways you could go
about achieving the square footage that you need
15 to live on the property without doing this . I
don' t know how long that is, but if it were just a
16 garage where you' re going to park cars I probably
would have no objections to that . But everything
17 else, the pink part, the green in the back the
proposed addition, I think you can find other
18 places on that property for that living place .
MS . RIVERA: Jim, I 'm restrained by the
19 coastal erosion line .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You can go up
20 another story. The line doesn' t say that you
can' t do that . I'm giving you my honest opinion.
21 So that when it comes to the point where we vote
on this, it' s no surprise how I might vote if I
22 don' t hear further explanation.
MS . RIVERA: I 'm not quite sure if indeed
23 I go over the existing structure, if I ' m running
up against some engineering problems or piling
24 restrictions or whatever.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm open to that .
25 MS . RIVERA: Our engineer and architect' s
here who' s familiar with the project, maybe he can
August 19, 2004
18
1
2 comment on that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Instead of having the
3 garage where it is, why couldn' t it be on the west
side of the house, and then you could just go up
4 on the other side and then bring it further in.
MS . RIVERA: If we put it on the west
5 side, it would be access into the dwelling. They
want to have a garage that they can access the
6 dwelling from. And being it' s a bedroom, they
wouldn' t have access into the house other than
7 going through an existing bedroom at this point .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Here' s the thing,
8 this is a three foot variance, and it' s a 28 , 000
square foot lot with or without the coastal
9 erosion hazard. And the required setback on this
lot is 15 feet, you' re asking for three, that' s a
10 huge, huge variance .
MS . RIVERA: The existing structure was
11 approximately 10 or 11 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I know. But you
12 want to go from 10 or 11, the required is 15 , you
want to go from 10 or 11 to three, and I think
13 what we' re saying -- at least I 'm saying -- I
think you have other options that you really need
14 to look at . This not only would close this
property off on this side and it' s very tight down
15 there anyway, but it' s not particularly good
utilization of the space that you have . You've
16 got 61 feet setback to the front yard to what
you' re proposing, so you have a lot of options to
17 create the space you need without this kind of
encroachment .
18 MS . RIVERA: We were trying to balance it
in conjunction with the other two houses also, the
19 house to the east and the house to the west,
especially the house to the east has the extension
20 almost identical to this where he comes forward to
the front yard.
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: How far is his
setback from what you' re proposing, his side yard
22 setback?
MS . RIVERA: I think he' s 10 or 11 feet
23 from his property line .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s the issue .
24 You' re going to close off that entire stretch.
What is the entire length of that green area that
25 you' re proposing?
MS . RIVERA: This whole thing is 78 feet .
August 19, 2004
19
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re proposing 78
feet of building three feet from a property line,
3 what I'm saying is, we have not been inclined to
look favorably on this in the past, and would not
4 like to see 70 feet of a wall three foot from the
property line .
5 MS . RIVERA: What would the Board be
comfortable with?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That was my
objection too . It' s not necessarily the three
7 foot, it' s the amount of three feet that you want,
you' re asking for. There are other places that
8 you could put the living space that you want to
put there on your property. If you need to say
9 have the garage there, I understand that for
practical sense you want to have a garage off the
10 kitchen not off a bedroom, that' s perfectly
reasonable, but the rest of the stuff I don' t
11 think necessarily you couldn' t do someplace else
and make match to your house . If it were just to
12 say 20 , 18 or 19 feet in the garage, I probably
wouldn' t be saying what I'm saying, but it' s not .
13 And I 'm offering to you come back with something
more reasonable, you' re still going to have to
14 come back to us, that takes into consideration the
fact that it' s 78 feet along that line and that
15 needs to be reduced somewhat . That is my
opinion.
16 MS. RIVERA: Would it help if I brought
the portion of the garage which is approximately
17 21 and-a-half feet, if I perhaps brought that over
to the west side?
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If you don' t need a
variance on the west side .
19 MS . RIVERA: I meant move the garage over,
more of an L. In other words, take the garage
20 portion and kind of bring it towards more of the
front door entrance .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just move it over to
the west?
22 MS . RIVERA: Right, move it to the west a
little bit .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That still leaves you
to the three foot setback.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn' t do
that whole thing, move everything west to eleven
25 feet?
MS . RIVERA: No. Actually, I would be
August 19, 2004
20
1
2 covering, there' s an existing -- the dining area
and kitchen are right there, I would be moving it
3 right over to the water side .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is going to be two
4 stories, isn' t it?
MS . RIVERA: Correct . And once I do that
5 I' m involved in piling issues and engineering and
foundation issues . I already went to the DEC
6 prior to developing these plans, they told me with
this plan I would probably not have to go on
7 pilings because I am outside the existing
structure and that 50 percent rule . If I start
8 putting on top of the existing structure, then I'm
running into all kinds of engineering problems .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your plans you have
a two-foot cantilever, now the three foot setback
10 is that to the cantilevered side or is that to the
grade measurement?
11 MS . RIVERA: The grade measurement .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The second floor,
12 which is continuous two-foot cantilever or a small
portion?
13 MS . RIVERA: A small portion, window seat .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So a portion of
14 your addition will be one foot off the property
line but elevated?
15 MS . RIVERA: Yes . It' s to accommodate a
window seat .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Don' t you think
that' s a little extreme?
17 MS . RIVERA: Yes . I am open to
suggestions with what the Board will feel
18 comfortable with, so I can take it back to them
and see what you would be comfortable with.
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The members here
are thinking eight feet no cantilever because
20 that' s just cheating so to speak.
MS . RIVERA: Okay.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would suggest that
you come into the office with the least amount
22 that you could for a variance . We need different
plans . It' s just too close and it' s too long.
23 MS . RIVERA: My understanding you would
probably feel comfortable if I went back to the
24 architect and engineer and said eight feet, would
you feel comfortable with an eight foot setback as
25 opposed to a three foot setback?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you asking me?
August 19 , 2004
21
1
2 I honestly think in light of the fact that a
recent decision that was made a year and-a-half
3 ago, two years ago concerning Walz, that the bulk
of this particular application is just entirely
4 too much; 78 feet at eight feet is something that
again, I don' t think it makes much difference,
5 eight feet, three feet . I' d like to see something
that breaks that up.
6 MS. RIVERA: The existing structure is now
approximately 10 . If I'm going eight, I 'm only
7 asking two.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio' s
8 saying 78 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s just too long.
9 I thought I indicated that the part that' s the
garage would not be objectionable to me, but the
10 rest of it I' d like to see it someplace else or
I ' d like to see a strong argument why it can' t go
11 someplace else .
MS . RIVERA: You' re suggesting either on
12 top of the existing structure or to the west?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not an engineer
13 so I can' t tell you. Certainly you alluded to the
fact that you may have an engineer that could
14 testify, that could say we can' t do it for this
reason.
15 MS . RIVERA: Let' s say I brought it to the
west, it looks like it' s 20 feet setback there,
16 let' s say for argument' s sake I brought the whole
structure to the westerly portion, so it would be
17 19 feet, so that would be 11 as opposed to eight
on the other side, you' re suggesting perhaps eight
18 feet on the easterly side, and it' s wrong to say
if I took the whole structure and put it on the
19 westerly side, it would be a difference of three
feet . I think they could probably live with the
20 eight foot on the easterly portion and it would
solve a lot of problems . We have the septic, the
21 engineering and setback problem on either side no
matter how we go . So it would be 11 feet on one
22 side as opposed to eight on the other.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think they have
23 to see it on paper first .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Suppose we just adjourn
24 this to -- would September be enough time or
October?
25 MS. RIVERA: September would be fine .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Chris, if you want
August 19 , 2004
22
1
2 to, you can give Plan A, Plan B and Plan C. You
can come up with a couple options .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And don' t cantilever
one foot from --
4 MS. RIVERA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
5 for or against this hearing? Hearing none, then I
make a motion that we adjourn this hearing to
6 September 14th at approximately 11 : 15 .
(See minutes for resolution. )
7 -- -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
8 Jeffrey S . Smith on Pequash Avenue in
Cutchogue . They want an addition exceeding the
9 code limitation of 20 percent .
MR. HAMM: Good morning, my name is Mike
10 Hamm. I'm here on behalf of the Smiths .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you have the
11 green cards, we' re waiting for receipt on that?
If not, could you get that to us in a day or two?
12 MR. HAMM: Sure . Basically the proposed
structure to be built fits within the setbacks
13 allowed and it' s a matter of being over by two
percent .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re adding a porch
of about 24 by eight feet in the front?
15 MR. HAMM: Yes . And a little bit on the
side too. They have an existing deck that is
16 being converted into a living space, it' s being
torn down and rebuilt .
17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is that where it
says new construction?
18 MR. HAMM: Yes . That' s now going to be
a former deck hopefully, and the porch will be in
19 the front or aesthetics .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: All of that area
20 that you' re going to expand into, what is the
actual area that is going to be living space, the
21 dimensions of that, 5 by what?
MR. HAMM: The living space that' s being
22 added?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
23 MR. HAMM: It' s 13 feet by 15 feet, that' s
what' s there now with the deck, so that will be
24 the living space .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the side . I see 5
25 foot by 77 . 3 feet to the end of the deck.
MR. HAMM: I'm looking at the living
August 19, 2004
23
1
2 space . I 'm looking at the foundation plan, giving
the dimensions of the extension.
3 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The deck is what
you' re --
4 MR. HAMM: The deck is what brings it
over, there' s a side deck that' s being extended,
5 it' s 28 feet by 5 feet, and then the front porch,
which is 24 feet by 8 feet .
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You could cut back
on some of that decking, couldn' t you?
7 MR. HAMM: On the front porch?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, you' re almost
8 at 23 percent lot coverage, and I really
understand the need for more living space . It is
9 a small lot, I'm sympathetic with that .
MR. HAMM: The reason they went with the
10 eight foot is the afternoon sun comes in and it' s
fading all the furniture in the house, that' s why
11 they wanted to go a little bit further than the
six feet, which is your typical front porch. They
12 wanted to allow that shade so it doesn' t come in
the living room.
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That is south
exposure .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you mind coming
up and clarifying something?
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the plan it
shows the whole deck. We' re not sure what is new
16 and what is existing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, because on the
17 survey we' re not sure . You' re just going to build
over?
18 MR. HAMM: Yes, there' s no change to this
and this and this part here is new, and this is
19 new and this is the deck that' s being converted to
the living room, basically.
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Certainly that
deck' s going to wrap around into the porch?
21 MR. HAMM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can you cut it at
22 all? I'm not talking about the living space .
MR. HAMM: Right now they have a shed in
23 the backyard, and if they got rid of it, that
brings them in compliance . That' s what it comes
24 down to, the amount of square footage . It' s a
matter of a shed.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a very narrow
lot .
August 19, 2004
24
1
2 MR. HAMM: Yes, that' s why we' re trying to
keep the setback within the code . The problem is
3 we' re just that much over, two percent .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this the survey
4 you submitted to the Building Department?
MR. HAMM: Yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They accepted a 32
year old survey? Mine is dated 1972 .
6 MR. HAMM: Yes . They' ll probably have to
get an updated prior to starting anyhow because
7 the surveyor needs to do the staking.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : This house is going
8 to be demo' d?
MR. HAMM: No. Just an addition they' re
9 putting on to the house .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: If the survey is
10 this old and we grant a variance to you, and
you' re making this addition based on the existing
11 survey, it' s very possible that when you get the
new survey that you go over to the building
12 department that you may need additional variances
because the survey is so old, that has happened
13 before . Just a little warning.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That certainly is a
14 liability that they take on, and they could reduce
the porch themselves . It' s not necessarily that
15 you have to come back to us, you just have to
comply with the law. Even if the setbacks are not
16 right, if they' re not right and the survey is
wrong, and they decide well, we don' t want to
17 apply for a variance, they' d have to build it
within our decision and our decision is only on
18 the lot coverage, which, if we' re talking about a
shed basically, that the reason why you' re here,
19 and it' s a narrow lot, small lot the house doesn' t
exceed the 20 percent, it' s that shed that' s
20 giving you a problem. I' d hate to see them remove
the shed, and obviously they don' t want to because
21 they' re here. So I have no objection to that .
Certainly you just have to be aware that it' s an
22 old survey. Back when they took a look at them
they just drew them up. Now it'.s more accurate
23 GPS stuff . You should be aware of that . I have
no objections . We need a clarification on that
24 living space, you said it was 15 by what?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : By 13 .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks to me like
it goes back 13 feet, which way is the 15 feet?
August 19, 2004
25
1
2 MR. HAMM: Front to back, 15 feet from
left to right 13 feet . Basically squaring off the
3 house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because there' s a
4 porch there now?
MR. HAMM: Yes, there' s a porch there now,
5 we want to remove and square off the house and put
a porch in front of that .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia, anything else?
7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have a
8 contractor survey yet to start?
MR. HAMM: They contacted Mr. Ingegno in
9 Riverhead who is supposed to come out and do the
survey. But I don' t know at this point when he' s
10 coming out .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When you do, we would
11 appreciate a copy for the file . Is there anybody
in the audience that would like to speak for or
12 against this application? Any further questions
from the Board? I ' d like to make a motion to
13 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
14 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next -hearing is Edward
Kavanagh on Sound Avenue in Mattituck for a
16 nonconforming garage, which will be 35 feet from
the front line . Would someone like to speak on
17 this application?
MR. BUTLER: Jeffry Butler, Professional
18 Engineer, on behalf of the owners, Ed and Mary
Kavanagh. The applicant is proposing the partial
19 demolition of an existing nonconforming storage
structure and the construction of a conforming
20 single-family residence in its place . The storage
structure to remain is nonconforming at 33 feet 9
21 inches from a front yard, and the proposed
residence is located at 35 feet which is in
22 conformance with the code .
I would like to point out that the
23 existing nonconforming distance is to an
unimproved 18 foot right of way. This proposal
24 doesn' t increase the degree of nonconformance nor
does it create any new nonconformance .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Maybe the town
August 19 , 2004
26
1
2 attorney can help me with this . You' re building a
new structure that conforms but the preexisting
3 garage that' s existing, that you' re not touching,
you need a variance for?
4 MR. BUTLER: Evidently.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For the existing garage
5 you don' t have a pre CO or a CO?
MR. BUTLER: They didn' t mention that . l
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only guess is
maybe because you' re attaching the old structure
7 to the new structure .
MR. BUTLER: That' s the only thing I can
8 figure . You can see the outline of the existing
structure to be removed, and we' re beyond that
9 existing structure to the right of way, the
unimproved right of way.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which almost looks
like a driveway.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Barely.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It doesn' t go
12 through.
MR. BUTLER: And the applicant had looked
13 to relinquishing his rights to the right of way,
that was another option, so that it would no
14 longer be a front yard; so that everything would
conform then. But he wanted to maintain the right
15 to the right of way because of the garage
structure in the rear. He wanted to maintain his
16 rights to it; that was the other option according
to the Building Department which he looked
17 into . He decided it seems like he should be able
to --
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Did you ask the
Building Department why you needed this?
19 MR. BUTLER: They said because of the
existing structure being nonconforming.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: All right, no other
questions . I don' t have a problem with the new
21 structure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I really don' t
understand the nature of this application because
23 under a prior appeal, September, 12 , 1985 , I
believe a variance was granted for this structure .
24 So that' s number one; and number two, you are not
doing anything to the structure in question.
25 You' re not changing it in any way, you' re not
altering it, so, what is the variance for?
August 19 , 2004
27
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Million dollar
question.
3 MR. BUTLER: I have a Building Department
denial .
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In my opinion a
variance is for construction, reconstruction
5 something.
MR. BUTLER: That' s the way I interpret
6 it, but they gave me a denial nonetheless and here
I am. My issue is they will continue to deny me
7 unless I have documentation from you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re correct on
8 that .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think the Board
9 needs to review this . My quick review indicates I
can' t see the reason that you' re here . A variance
10 is for something. You' re seeking a variance for
something. You are not reconstructing, altering,
11 changing, you are not doing anything to the
structure in question. What you' re doing to an
12 adjacent structure is a different matter. So I
personally do not see the need for any variance in
13 this particular case . I' d also like to review the
prior decision on this where a variance was
14 clearly granted on this property
MR. BUTLER: Probably for that -- because
15 that' s a newer structure in the rear and it' s
about that vintage, that era construction.
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Those are my
thoughts at this point .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think I know the
18 answer, and honestly, saying the answer probably
puts you two months behind in all honesty. I 'm
19 not willing to do that .
MR. BUTLER: I can take it, Jim.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t know that
you want to in all honesty.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think maybe we do
an interpretation on this or grant the gentleman
22 his variance and let him go build his house .
That' s the way I feel about this . If not, we
23 could have the discussion, again, you know what
I ' m going to blame it on and let' s just let
24 Mr. Kavanagh go on his way and build his house . I
think that' s what he wants to.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vince?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I made my
August 19 , 2004
28
1
2 comments .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have a problem
3 with it at all . Just let me see is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or
4 against this?
MS . RICHARDS : My name is Marjory Richards
5 and I own the house to the back of this property.
My question on this is it' s telling me I have
6 public water, I don' t have public water, that' s a
well there . On the front on Sound Avenue it says
7 existing water main, the water main does not come
down that far. Where are these people getting
8 their water from? That' s my only complaint on
this .
9 MS . MOORE : Just a comment for the record.
I know nothing about this application as far as
10 against or for. I just think as a policy matter,
when the Board does not need to grant a variance
11 please send a message to the Building Department
so the next guy presented with the same issue
12 doesn' t have to spend $400 or $500 plus time of
the professional to be here before you. If you
13 can get to that issue really quickly, it' s better
to send back -- because the Building Department
14 takes a position if you grant a variance even when
you don' t feel one is necessary, they will say you
15 have ratified their interpretation
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s protocol now.
16 MS . MOORE : That' s why you' re getting as
many applications as you are on things that used
17 to be pretty straightforward. Please, I get much
more business than I really deserve because of
18 applications that really do not require to be
here . Thank you.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak?
20 Yes, sir?
MR. RICHARDS : Good morning, my name
21 Alfred Richards and I 'm co-owner of the property
in the northeast corner in the back. I am really
22 looking for a clarification, it seems to be a
question as to why there is an issue here with the
23 Board, and the notice I got indicated that the
problem had to do with the front yard setback.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To the garage?
MR. RICHARDS : To the garage or to the
25 house?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They have two front
August 19 , 2004
29
1
2 yards, with the right of way that constitutes two
front yards .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because of Sound Avenue
and the right of way that constitutes two front
4 yards .
MR. RICHARDS : That was my second
5 question, why the front yard was on the right of
way.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They consider the
right of way on the front yard, and this
7 application, the house that exists there is only
33 feet from it, it' s supposed to be 35 , but what
8 they' re proposing is 35 feet; what they' re
proposing .is allowed by law. If the existing
9 garage were not there, they wouldn' t be before us .
So the structure that' s already built they denied.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re just looking into,
there was a previous variance given to that
11 garage, which would make it legal, and if the
variance was given previously by the ZBA to this
12 property, then they shouldn' t be in here at all .
MR. RICHARDS : I see, thank you very
13 much.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick comment, is
14 there a response to the water; are you using a
well?
15 MR. BUTLER: The information I have came
from the surveyor. I do have a water availability
16 letter from Suffolk County Water Authority stating
that water is available in the street . In terms
17 of the surrounding neighbors, I' ll have the
surveyor check that again.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA. We have our town
attorney here .
19 TOWN ATTY. FINNEGAN: I agree that the
message needs to get to the Building Department
20 not by way of a variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
21 MR. BUTLER: What would I have to do at
this point to expedite this?
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think the Board
is inclined to try to expedite it . I just have
23 one question for you on the new construction
because the record does indicate that a variance
24 was granted for the existing one-story concrete
block garage, I just read through the prior on
25 this . When you' re going to deck that part of the
new house and bring it back to 35 feet, the little
August 19 , 2004
30
1
2 part that attaches that to the garage is that new,
old, what is it?
3 MR. BUTLER: It' s just a breezeway.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Were they attached
4 before?
MR. BUTLER: No .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because there was a barn
there . They were completely separate .
6 MR. BUTLER: Yes, wood frame barn and a
concrete storage structure .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So if you
eliminated the breezeway you probably wouldn' t
8 have been denied.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re speculating
9 that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say that
10 that' s pretty good, from past testimony from the
building inspector, to him a nonconforming
11 building is not what we consider nonconforming
setback. He' s saying at 33 feet that entire
12 building is nonconforming. We've gotten that from
him clearly a number of times, and if that' s the
13 case and he looks at Walz he' s saying you' re
increasing the bulk, just like the person that was
14 here before, Mrs . Mesiano, that is the whole crux
of the problem with Walz, that he assumes any
15 nonconformity if you increase the bulk of it, it' s
going to be denied and he doesn' t want to go the
16 other way because it' s not his responsibility. So
we make people go through months and months of
17 applications to us, in my opinion needlessly, I
think we could clear this application up just by
18 getting it back to him tomorrow. I'm willing to
write the decision tonight if we could vote on it .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, I think we can make
a resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
20 the Building Department stating that there was a
prior variance given to the block building, which
21 made it really conforming and that there is no
nonconformity in the proposed -- and it has
22 nothing to do with it?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. A
23 nonconforming setback is a nonconforming setback,
Ruth.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll make a
deliberation later. Make a motion to close the
25 hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
August 19, 2004
31
1
2 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
3 Lawrence and Joan Anderer on Strohson Road in
Cutchogue for a side yard setback. Is there
4 anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
5 MR. ANDERER: Good morning, my name is
Lawrence Anderer, and I'm here on behalf of myself
6 and my wife Joan, we are the applicants . We are
looking to do an addition, alteration to our
7 current residence at 950 Strohson Road in
Cutchogue in anticipation of permanent residence
8 in that location and the proposed change includes
a modest extension to a nonconforming
9 setback. The changes include relocating two
bedrooms presently located on the first floor to a
10 second floor addition. Moving one bathroom
presently located on the first floor to the second
11 floor, that would serve those two bedrooms that
we' re hoping to build on the second floor; and
12 relocating one existing bathroom presently on the
first floor to another location on the first
13 floor. There will be no new bathrooms . We are
looking to create an existing space on the first
14 floor, a dining room as well as the den. We are
looking to relocate two staircases that are
15 presently non-code compliant, one to the basement,
one to the second floor, and finally to make a
16 two-car garage from the present one-car garage,
the back portion of which had been converted by
17 previous owners as an entranceway, rendering it
essentially useless as a garage at the present
18 time . There are no changes proposed for the water
side of the property. A DEC exemption letter is
19 on file with the Building Department . I just want
to say we tried to be very sensitive to the
20 neighbors surrounding us in working with the
architect and put in our proposed project
21 together. We involved three of the four
neighbors, it was just three because we have a
22 relationship with them; we don' t really have a
relationship with the fourth neighbor. We
23 involved them in the design drawings from the
beginning. We attempted to make the proposed
24 changes as compact as we could while meeting our
own needs and objectives in doing the project .
25 For example, we rejected an early proposal from
our architect to go closer to the road on the
August 19, 2004
32
1
2 front side of the property and make the location
of the two upstairs bedrooms one behind the other.
3 Rather, we said no, let' s try to build them side
by side as it' s presently proposed, so the project
4 would not go closer to the road than is presently
the proposed situation. No views are obstructed
5 to the best of our knowledge and we worked with
the architect to attempt to make changes
6 especially to the front of our building that would
be aesthetically pleasing and an enhancement to
7 the neighborhood and its values . I think that is
what I wanted to say to the Board this morning.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically you' re not
increasing your setbacks whatsoever; you' re
9 keeping all the existing setbacks, in fact, you' re
even increasing the side yard setback from what
10 you have now at 19 feet to 23 feet for the total
of the combined setback. That' s in your notice of
11 disapproval .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think that' s
12 incorrect . You've got 14 on the south side,
correct, 14 foot setback from the deck? And then
13 you have five feet on the other side .
MR. ANDERER: It' s the five foot setback
14 that I think caused the problem because we had to
put a modest extension of seven foot to
15 accommodate the building of the garage so it would
extend that nonconforming five foot setback by
16 seven foot .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I think what' s
17 confusing things on the hand-drawn plot plan it' s
showing 18 feet on that side to the existing
18 dwelling, but when you look at the survey you can
see that the deck actually extends out and you've
19 got a 14 foot setback for that deck. So what
we' re looking at really is there' s not going to
20 be -- correct me if I'm wrong -- we' re looking at
virtually no change on the side yards
21 whatsoever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just going up and just
22 rearranging things basically.
MR. ANDERER: On the second floor we' d be
23 pushing forward versus where the present building
goes, but we' re not going any closer to the
24 neighbor on that side .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I understand that .
25 It would be helpful on your plot plan here where
you have the 18 feet to the house, which is
August 19 , 2004
33
1
2 probably correct, you also indicated, just for our
records, that this is 14 as per the survey for the
3 deck.
MR. ANDERER: I just gave you a copy of
4 what the architect had given to me .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The 14 feet is a
5 contour line.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: On the survey it
6 is, that' s where the Building Department is in 19,
14 and five, 19 feet .
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The architect has
an error then.
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He went to the
house instead of the steps .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Did you want to
take a look at what we' re referring to?
10 MR. ANDERER: The side of the building
here would be no closer than what this line is
11 already.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was just
12 trying to verify that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vince?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have a
basement in this?
14 MR. ANDERER: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your footprint is
15 not going to expand on the side yard setback
beyond the foundation?
16 MR. ANDERER: I haven' t really talked to
the architect . I think most of it like the garage
17 is going to be built on a slab.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I'm talking side
18. yards .
MR. ANDERER: No. It' s not going to go
19 any further than it is now.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you' re coming
20 forward to your front yard, or closer to the road
since you' re on the water. It doesn' t really say,
21 about four feet, five feet further than it is now?
MR. ANDERER: About seven foot .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s going to be
a two-car garage?
23 MR. ANDERER: Two-car garage, and I
included photos that outlined that on the actual
24 property itself .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s that little
25 L-shaped area adjacent to the garage that you' re
going to fill in. That' s all . Thank you.
August 19 , 2004
34
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I looked at the
3 drawing that shows the new addition, this part
here, and it looks like you' re going all the way
4 across the front of the house with building.
MR. ANDERER: I did that in order not to
5 go further toward the road. The original project
had bedrooms one behind the other with a hallway
6 running the entire length, and we could make it a
lot less compact and not move it further toward
7 the road and keep it within the footprint
requirements but doing that we what we did, yes .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That little thing
that says "stoop" there, is that going to be built
9 over?
MR. ANDERER: Part of it will be, not the
10 entire length. If you looked at the side-view of
the structure, you can see that the garage comes
11 out further. We tried to break it up in the front
to make it something other than just the wall with
12 a huge two-car garage door. We tried to break it
up by the eves and breaking the depth the way we
13 did.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see the two-car
14 garage, and the two doors . This door here
(indicating) , how far back is that going?
15 MR. ANDERER: Can-I come up and show you
the plans? The front of the building would come
16 out like that (indicating) . So this would be
running in that raised deck underneath the second
17 story and this part would be open in the front .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There would be no
18 second story over the top of those steps?
MR. ANDERER: Nothing forward of this
19 except the front part of the garage .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : From where it says
20 garage there, how far is that from the dotted line
to the front?
21 MR. ANDERER: From here to there . The
existing garage comes out this far. It would push
22 further along this five foot setback toward the
front of the property. The water is down in this
23 side .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The second floor is
24 that dotted line?
MR. ANDERER: The second floor would come
25 down and you see you can see it in here . That
would have pushed the whole project out .
August 19 , 2004
35
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The second floor
will go over that stoop, right?
3 MR. ANDERER: On this portion right here .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But that' s still
4 going to be in line with the existing setback.
MR. ANDERER: Yes .
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is there any change
on the site map, Jim, just filling in that corner?
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Filling and
expanding towards the road.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right, seven feet?
MR. ANDERER: Seven foot extension of the
8 nonconforming five foot setback.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Are there any
9 other questions for the Board Members? No. Is
there anybody else in the audience that would like
10 to speak for or against this application?
MR. HOFF : Yes, my name it Arthur Hoff I 'm
11 the adjacent neighbor on the north side to the
Anderers, nine years . I've seen the plans . I
12 have absolutely no objections to anything. I
think it would be helpful to the neighborhood to
13 expand the house in that way without going to the
sides or anything like that . So I'm in support of
14 what their plans are . I have no objections .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
15 anybody else that wishes to speak to this
application? If not, I' d like to make a motion
16 closing the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
for the Fitness Advantage on Youngs Avenue and
19 North Road, Mrs . Moore?
MS . MOORE : Good morning, I was brought in
20 a little late in the process, but I did submit the
drawings by Mr. Ciccadowicz . And I also provided
21 some written comments that go in line with the
standards of the special permits so that I
22 wouldn' t have to go through and rehash all the
issues that support the standards that are in the
23 zoning code with respect to special permit . I
know you' re all very aware of the standards and of
24 the law of special permits .
Before I start I would like to introduce
25 the owner here, Mrs . Hufe, we also have Sarah
Hagerman, who is the operator of Fitness Advantage
August 19 , 2004
36
1
2 and I think she has a whole contingency of members
and supporters, and I'm sure many of them will
3 attest to the well-run facility where she has the
Fitness Advantage now is on Youngs Avenue . There
4 is going to be a significant interruption of
business by the relocation of this building,
5 tenancies changed and that' s all recognized, but
we' re trying to get them through the process as
6 fast as possible . Not only are we dealing with an
existing business, an existing entity that will
7 be -- the interruption of business will affect
their business, but we' re also dealing with a use
8 where people with health needs are members here,
and the interruption of business is going to
9 impact them individually. So I would ask for your
cooperation in expediting this application to the
10 extent you can.
I had provided you with the drawings and
11 you can see that the existing building, which
was -- all of you are members of the community so
12 you know the different uses that have been
undertaken here -- but it' s mostly a warehouse,
13 and it' s miscellaneous retail uses and warehouse
combined uses . The reuse of this existing
14 building, which is of limited reuse potential,
this use is ideal in that when you have a fitness
15 center, you need the open spaces, you have large
equipment . It will be an ideal location for the
16 relocation from Youngs Avenue a couple of -- less
than a mile, 500 feet away to this new location.
17 The process goes from here to site plan review and
they received at the same time you did these
18 drawings, which shows the landscaping that' s going
to be added; the parking calculations are based on
19 the use, and we have adequate parking. That was
not known at the time that you got your letter
20 from the Planning Department because they did not
have this drawing. I just wanted to be assured
21 that when the calculations were done that it would
comply with the code, and it does .
22 We can address any questions that come up .
I' d rather address your questions than go through
23 the whole litany of the standards of the special
permit because it' s already in your packet ' in
24 writing. I also want to submit letters that Miss
Hagerman received from supporters and members, and
25 they are all individually written to the Board and
I ' d ask you to read them. Some are quite
August 19 , 2004
37
1
2 humorous, but they are all very supportive
(handing) .
3 Do you have any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One question, would the
4 entrance from Route 48 , do they have the curb cut
approval from DPW for that, or do they have an
5 approval just for the exit or entrance on Youngs
Avenue, which would be far better?
6 MS . MOORE : The problem with the entrance,
only an entrance off of Youngs Avenue, there' s an
7 existing house and trees and privacy issues, that
was one of the first things when I looked at the
8 plan I said, can you get some circulation coming
off of Youngs Avenue, and Mr. Ciccadowicz did a
9 fine job in drawing it in, but he said
realistically a one-way access is the only
10 practical access . You can come in from Youngs and
we' re actually going to propose to the state and
11 or county, I guess, exit-only out on Route 48
because of the traffic circulation patterns there
12 on the corner. There is an existing curb cut
there .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why I asked.
MS . MOORE : There is an existing curb cut
14 but you have to submit to the DOT for a curb cut
permit anyway. That is being done . I think one
15 of our problems in the whole site plan process is
this started with a Van Tuyl survey and we all
16 know Mr. Van Tuyl is not around anymore .
Ciccadowicz, everybody here is trying to do their
17 part to try to keep costs down, and Mr.
Ciccadowicz did a very good job with what he had
18 but now we' re at a point where we need an engineer
to give us the drainage and the curb cut detail ,
19 and unfortunately, no engineer can do it without a
new survey and topos . So we' re . at that point now
20 where we have to make the difficult decision of a
very costly survey, and we will have to address
21 that issue . That' s not your problem. I think
it' s unfortunate that the reuse of a building like
22 this one puts you in the same position as if you
had a vacant piece of property and the same
23 process that I described to Miss Hagerman. I said
the same process Home Depot undertakes for a use
24 of a vacant property building a Home Depo is the
same process that you and I would have to do for
25 the expansion of an existing
building. Unfortunately, that' s the way the code
August 19 , 2004
38
1
2 reads . Maybe someday we' ll correct it, but for
now that' s the process . So we are going to move
3 through that process as quickly as possible and
try to address each issue . But I would suggest
4 that if you would forego on directing how the
accesses are going to be undertaken because we
5 don' t know what DOT is going to say, we don' t know
what the Planning Board -- we' d like to keep it
6 flexible . I think if you address just the use, we
certainly have provided landscaping, if you want a
7 condition that it be landscaped, that' s already
there . We' re trying to minimize impacts with what
8 you say may be inconsistent with what the next guy
says . We' d appreciate that consideration as
9 you' re deliberating.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The person who
lives in the dwelling, the two-story house, do
11 they own the house, are they renters?
MS . MOORE : Hufe is the owner of the
12 entire parcel that contains the residence and a
storage building in the back.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Who runs or uses
the florist back there or are they were selling
14 flowers?
MS . MOORE : Mrs . Hufe' s daughter. Son
15 lives in the house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That business will
16 still exist, stay there?
MS . MOORE : I don' t have an answer for
17 you. We can only control this business here . I
can talk to Mrs . Hufe and give you an answer, but
18 I don' t want to put her on the spot without
talking to her husband.
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The build-out will
not go beyond the existing?
20 MS . MOORE : Right . It' s an occupancy from
wall to wall of the existing building. Which
21 you' re probably seeing some activity under a
building permit for a renovation of a storage
22 building. In order to keep the process going they
were able to tweak the building with renovations,
23 plumbing, electrical, those kinds of things for
the ultimate use, but all under the storage
24 building.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The build-out that
25 shows on the drawing is up to date and accurate,
so no locker rooms, no showers, just bathrooms?
August 19, 2004
39
1
2 MS . MOORE : There are bathrooms in there
now. The inside layout is right now being worked
3 on with the partitions and so on. So you' re going
to have, and Sarah can testify to that, inside the
4 building what they' re working on as far as layout
of the rooms and exercise areas . There' s
5 definitely one bathroom there now. Whether or not
we' ll add a second bathroom, I think they' d like
6 to add a second bathroom, but if it triggers a
whole delay factor with the Health Department,
7 they may be using one bathroom for as long .as they
need to, and then to open up. Because the key
8 here is to open up as quickly as possible so as,
again, not interrupt their business but also not
9 interrupt the regime of their members .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' ll find out
10 about the second use on the property?
MS . MOORE : I will give you a letter to
11 that effect .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Will the proposed
13 use create any more traffic/noise than' the
permitted uses in the business own zoned district?
14 MS . MOORE : No . You' re going to have
actually the potential, because this is a business
15 zoned property, the potential retail uses that
could be undertaken in this building you could
16 convert this building into a strip shopping center
with some creativity, that would be a much more .
17 intensive use here . The proposed use is limited
traffic impact and use . Because obviously people
18 that are exercising come at different times . A
lot of times they' re prescheduled, you stagger it
19 so everybody has the benefit of the equipment .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: In viewing all the
20 businesses in the B Districts, such as you just
mentioned, restaurants and other similar uses, is
21 this use less demanding in terms of noise,
traffic, impact to the community and surrounding
22 area than other permitted uses?
MS . MOORE : I think that the answer is
23 yes . I know all of you as members of the
community would input your own feelings about
24 that, but certainly the permitted uses in the
business zone, as I stated before, are some that
25 are much more intensive, more traffic generation,
more noise, more activity than one use . In fact,
August 19 , 2004
40
1
2 this is one tenant for the entire building, so the
use of a fitness center is a really -- I don' t
3 want to say under utilization, but it' s limited
utilization of this building.
4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
other questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I just think we
6 ought to concentrate on the permit itself, and not
necessarily on parking.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can' t, that' s up to
the Planning Board.
8 MS . MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Pat . Is
9 there anybody in the audience that would like to
speak for or against this application?
10 MS . KALICH: Hello, my name is Mary Monto
Kalich, I grew up here in Laurel, went to
11 Mattituck High School, and after about a decade I
just recently moved back to Southold to raise my
12 young son with my husband. When I moved back to
town in January, I joined the Fitness Advantage
13 gym run by Sarah. And being a member of Fitness
Advantage has been really invaluable to me in
14 maintaining both my health and also, more
importantly, helping me with my diabetes .
15 In addition, to offering valuable health
services, Fitness Advantage also serves as an
16 informal place where people of all ages from young
moms to senior citizens come together a few times
17 a week, and' I think it has the effect of
strengthening the bonds of our community. For
18 example, it was one of the cornerstones of how I
started to get Mark to know more people and really
19 felt at home again in our town.
I see in Sarah an excellent example of a
20 young person who' s working to build a business and
a life here in Southold town. I have been very
21 impressed with how she runs her business in a
professional and yet friendly and supportive
22 manner.
I am very excited for her as she goes to
23 take the next step in moving to a new, bigger and
better location. I strongly think as Southold
24 town we should be very supportive of her and other
young people like her, and I would like to ask
25 that you not only grant the special exception, but
that you also do it as quickly as possible since
August 19 , 2004
41
1
2 Fitness Advantage will have to close until they
reopen in their new location, and everyday will
3 mean a loss of business and a potential loss of
clientele to a business I believe deserves our
4 full support.
Thank you very much for your time .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody
else like to speak?
6 MS . FARR: Hello, I 'm Pauline Farr from
Southold.
7 I too have been a client of Fitness
Advantage for four years at my doctor' s
8 recommendation, and I never exercised in life and
it was extremely hard to get into a routine of
9 going two or three times a week to the gym, and
now that I have that routine, every day that I
10 cannot go because it' s being closed, weakens my
resolve to go back. I need this gym to be open,
11 and it is true that I 've made a lot of
acquaintances in the town. And Sarah is really to
12 be admired, she' s a very young woman, I think
she' s 24 , and a native daughter trying to make a
13 living and trying to eventually marry and have a
family here . So I think the faster we can help
14 her -- and she has a record of ownership, of
noise, of traffic, no one has ever complained
15 about her current gym, and this one will be
better, not worse . So I hope you will help her.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir?
MR. ,ANGA: Good morning, I 'm Richard Anga,
17 and my wife and I are members at Sarah' s
club. You mention noise, we get yelled at if we
18 put the weights down too much, or if somebody has
a cell phone. So I don' t think you have to worry
19 about that . The reason I'm here this morning is
first of all, I think it' s we all feel sorry for
20 Sarah because as of this week she' s going to have
to close, and many of us are going to have to look
21 to go elsewhere, which it' s not too easy to find a
place, if you go through the yellow pages of the
22 phone book, which I have done, there' s not too
many places on the north fork nearby that we could
23 go to . They' re certainly not going to take me
Curves, but my wife has some pulmonary problems,
24 she has asthma and we just took a physical with
our doctor, and since we have been going to the
25 gym, both of us have shown a vast improvement .
And we also go the gym, and we meet people who
August 19, 2004
42
1
2 have similar medical problems . One guy goes there
he' s there four, five times a week. He has
3 diabetes . He works very, very hard and he' s
managing to keep the blood sugar down.
4 We ask you please to act as quickly as
possible because I think by this place closing up
5 for any length of time is going to create a real
hardship for many of us . Thank you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
that wishes to address?
7 MS . MOORE : I just want to point out
tomorrow is the last day, unfortunately her
8 existing tenancy ends tomorrow so the urgency is
emphasized.
9 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You have to get
site plan approval?
10 MS . MOORE : Yes . We go from here back to
the Planning Board.
11 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the time
frame there?
12 MS . MOORE : I don' t know. I don' t want to
scare anybody that' s in the audience . I ' d rather
13 not comment .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s no other
14 remarks to be made, I would make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision until later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Whitney Armstrong on the north side of Clay Point
17 Road, Fishers Island, for a rebuilding of his
house that burnt down on Fishers Island. Mr. Lark
18 is here . We had the privilege of going to this
house and the grounds, which are absolutely --
19 MR. LARK: So you have seen it, so I don' t
have to comment on it? It' s something special .
20 Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New
York, for the applicant . I don' t believe the file
21 contains a letter from the Trustees waiving
jurisdiction on the application which is nothing
22 more than permission to rebuild the house in the
existing footprint . As you know from the notice
23 of disapproval we' re here under 239-4 of the
Zoning Code, which requires an area variance to
24 rebuild it because the footprint is within 100
feet of the top of the bluff area on Fishers
25 Island Sound.
As you know from the application and the
August 19, 2004
43
1
2 pictures that you have in the application, it' s
fairly complete, it speaks for itself, so I won' t
3 dwell on it . 100-242 of the Zoning Code requires
us to be here because on December 15th the
4 building was totally destroyed and to be rebuilt,
even though it was built in 1927 in that
5 footprint, it requires a variance . So, for all
the factors that I have stated in the application
6 and the most important being is the stability of
the bluff, I talked to the surveyor and I was able
7 to get surveys as back as early as the 1950s to
compare with what is there today, in the survey
8 they have before me, and it' s exactly the same .
The neighbors also told me, not the Armstrongs but
9 the neighbors on both sides, on Fishers Island
Sound facing the north, there has been zip for
10 erosion there, which is amazing, because on the
south side of the island it' s a different story.
11 It' s huge when we get the storms . So for some
reason there is none and everything has stayed the
12 same as it was originally built . So considering
all the factors under 267 of the Town Code on the
13 balancing and the application for the area
variance to rebuild in the existing footprint, I
14 ask your permission to grant that application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . I have no
15 problem. Vince?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . We
16 visited the site . We were at the site the other
day. We saw the pictures the other day, it
17 brought it to life . And we got all the details of
what happened. It was very unfortunate for those
18 people .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I didn' t see it but
I did look at the picture . It' s heart breaking.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to say it' s
21 a fabulous piece of property. The absolute
restoration of the footprint that he did is
22 unbelievable.
MR. LARK: They were concerned about the
23 safety issues, believe it or not, because the fire
damage was so extensive and massive they figured
24 get rid of everything, put dirt on it, put grass
on it . It' s going to take a couple years to go
25 through with everything, for the architect to
rebuild, settle with the insurance company and
August 19 , 2004
44
1
2 everything you have to do.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
3 audience that wishes to speak for or against this
piece of legislation? If not, I ' d like to make a
4 motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
5 (See minutes for details . )
-- -----------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Fishers Island Club, they had wish to build a
7 tennis pavilion near the tennis court . Mr. Hamm.
MR. HAMM: Steve Hamm for the applicant,
8 38 Nugent Street, Southampton. I have an
affidavit of posting.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three of us have been
there .
10 MR. HAMM: I understand you have . So you
know that the tennis pro at the club is operating
11 out of a shack right now and the membership wanted
a little nicer facility. It' s not going to be too
12 extreme . They' re going to hook up to existing
septic, it will not be heated, it will be drained,
13 used five months a year, will not result in any
increase in membership, and, of course, it' s being
14 reviewed by the Planning Board by such things as
parking, lighting and so forth. I believe it
15 meets the standards of 263 and 264 , which largely
deals with environmental issues . And the only
16 people that are going to see will be club members
and guests . As you know it' s out on the extreme
17 east end of the island. There are a few homes to
the east of the club, but most of those are
18 probably members anyway. So its impact, given all
these circumstances, I hope you' ll see is rather
19 slight .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We did look at the
property, and it' s well within your property
21 bound. There were some questions, not really
questions, statements about setback for this
22 building, and I don' t see them. And I want to
state that for the record that I don' t see this
23 building having any problem with any setback on
this piece of property. Lot coverage is fine .
24 MR. HAMM: The building inspector was
originally going to write it up as an accessory
25 structure as though it was on a residence and it
had to meet a certain setback being waterfront and
August 19, 2004
45
1
2 so forth. And then he said special exception, I \
pointed out the 100 foot rule, and so forth, and
3 he said, well, the Zoning Board can take care of
it . And he didn' t deny it for that reason. I
4 will, just for the record, this whole property is
owned by Fishers Island Development Corporation,
5 that club is a tenant . That road is owned by
FIDCO.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that road a
right of way, or is that road just a place where
7 cars drive?
MR. HAMM: As far as I know it' s a place
8 where cars drive . In deeds to the residents, to
the chains to the residences out there, there are
9 references to roads 40 feet wide and so forth. As
far as I know they could put that road anywhere .
10 So you can' t really measure a setback from it, you
could measure it from the pavement, I suppose, and
11 say it' s a road. To the extent it' s an issue, I
would say that you either find that it' s a
12 driveway and not a road or grant whatever relief
would be appropriate in that circumstance .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think I may
mention that' s within their distance but the Board
14 finds no reason --
MR. HAMM: Right . And the owner of the
15 property, FIDCO owns both sides of the road and
the road, so.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t have any
17 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO :' No questions . We
discussed it in detail at the site . We noticed
19 the setback but it wasn' t noticed in the notice of
disapproval .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 'I have no further
questions . I think it' s negligible . Is there
21 anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this application? If not, I ' ll make a
22 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
23 (See minutes for resolution)
- ------------------------------------------------
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is Fishers
Island Club.
25 MR. HAMM: Island Health Project .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I 'm sorry. We all
August 19 , 2004
46
1
2 saw that too.
MR. HAMM: Again, for this hearing Steven
3 Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the
applicant . And I have the two more cards and the
4 affidavit . And I've prepared a memorandum, save
some time in my presentation. I understand the
5 three of you who went out there did meet with Mrs .
Parsons, so you do have some history. Fishers
6 Island, to put it bluntly, is in dire need of a
new doctor' s office . The office being used now
7 was built in the 1950s by volunteers . I
understand that one of the exam rooms you have to
8 step down into . It' s difficult obviously for
wheelchair purposes . They did try to expand to
9 the neighboring lot a few years ago, ran into
problems with neighbors, litigation and so
10 forth. They have looked, as I point out in the
memorandum, at other sites, but they are all
11 problematic for one reason or another, and it
turned out that last year the utility company had
12 two lots, and they have offered one on which this
proposed doctor' s office and residence is planned,
13 and that in terms of the cost and so forth and
building something new that' s modern and adaptable
14 to the needs of the people on the island is just
the best overall solution.
15 Now we have two road blocks in front of us
in terms of the Building Department . First
16 obviously, we well exceed the square footage
allowable for home office under the pertinent
17 section of the code; that one I' ll deal with in a
second. I deal with that in the memorandum as
18 well . The other issue raised by the Building
Department is that even if we were to meet the
19 home office square footage requirements, we' re
told that we' re designed as a quote, clinic, and
20 that I 've given you some definitions in my
memorandum. Also I can point out my doctor in
21 Wainscott on the south fork, he has at least this
much of a facility, different waiting rooms and
22 areas for his staff to do insurance and so forth.
I think that one is pretty easily disposed of, a
23 clinic, to summarize, really implies multiple
doctors or specialist under one roof .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also I think it implies
too of having some sort of medical beds or
25 hospital beds .
MR. HAMM: To some extent I think it
August 19 , 2004
47
1
2 implies that too. I think the building inspector
is clearly wrong in that regard. Insofar as the
3 variance is concerned to allow us to have more
square footage and I address each of the reasons
4 under the Town Law in the memorandum, but this is
a case where the public, you' re allowed as a Board
5 to weigh the public benefits of an application,
and this is one that is clearly the biggest
6 issue . The down side that you would have to
address, perhaps, is the substantiality of the
7 variance . We acknowledge that on its face it is a
substantial -- the number of square feet asking
8 for does well exceed the amount that' s allowable
under the code . However, there is one very strong
9 mitigating factor here, and that is the generosity
of a neighbor, Mary Goss, whose letter you've
10 received, I've attached it to my memorandum also
attached to the memorandum is the composite tax
11 map, which shows the property which she has
volunteered to donate to Island Health should the
12 project be approved. Her donation, and I 've
talked to her husband about this as well, would
13 come with strings attached so that Island Health
could not use it, for example, to sell it to
14 someone to raise money; there would be a reversion
in that donation. It could be used for maybe
15 future expansion or parking or just to be held
vacant . The reason I say that helps with a
16 substantiality issue is that here we will be
neutralizing another lot that theoretically could
17 support another 500 square foot office, so we' re
up now to 1, 000 square foot, and the
18 substantiality issue is not as great .
I've addressed the other issues in terms
19 of the neighborhood, it is a residential zone but
there' s a baseball field across, and it' s between,
20 not too far away from two business zones, a hamlet
business and a limited business . The impact on
21 the one neighbor who has a house that adjoins is
minimized by the fact that that house is quite a
22 bit to the north on that property.
There' s great support for this project on
23 the island and I would just ask you to approve it
if you could, and if I can answer any questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I feel you have really
unique circumstances here, being it is on an
25 island and they' re desperately in need of a doctor
or another doctor to come and stay there to
August 19, 2004
48
1
2 provide bedrooms for them to sleep over. I don' t
have a problem with it but somebody else might .
3 Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a stretch but
5 I can understand it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She had mentioned --
I think her name was Suzie .
7 MR. HAMM: Suzie Parsons .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: -- how close it
8 was to the emergency boat that you have, some sea
stretcher.
9 MR. HAMM: She didn' t mention that to me .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : She pointed to a
10 location, it' s only down the road.
MR. HAMM: Probably near the ferry, that' s
11 another reason that would support is that as
opposed to other locations .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no trouble
at all with it . I think saying this is a clinic
13 is a stretch, and justifying it as a clinic in the
context of an island.
14 MR. HAMM: That' s the key thing. When we
get hurt we can go to the hospital .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There is no place
to go here but that doctor. And my understanding
16 is that there are no employees .
MR. HAMM: No. There is a receptionist
17 and one doctor. At any given time there' s no more
than one doctor, and I just confirmed with her
18 there are no other doctors on the island, not even
a private individual who' s retired, no nurses
19 either.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
20 audience who wishes to speak for or against this
application? If not I' ll make a motion to close
21 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution)
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing, Elizabeth
23 Twomey on Caleb' s Way in Greenport for an as-built
deck of 8 ' by 12 ' . Mr. Weiser?
24 MR. WEISER: George Weiser, Cutchogue for
the applicant .
25 Basically this is just a simple request to
amend a variance that was given back in 1997,
August 19 , 2004
49
1
2 which was a setback variance . In the permit an 8
foot by 12 foot was defined; in reality an 8 by 15
3 deck was built . Somehow this fell through the
cracks because this is a condominium, and when we
4 built all the other condominiums, standard deck
was 8 by 12 , some were larger, but this unit is
5 the only unit in that community that has two front
yards . So that' s why we had to go for the
6 variance . The variance was granted to a 28 foot
setback. When the building inspector came out to
7 inspector because the unit' s in contract for sale,
it came up on the title report that there was an
8 open building permit . So in order to correct this
issue, we had to have the Building Inspector renew
9 the permit . The Building Inspector came out, felt
everything was okay, but he noticed there was
10 three feet more than what was specified in the
variance permit . So we had to go back through
11 this entire process . What I 'm asking this Board
to do is either amend or grant the new variance
12 permit stating it' s an 8 by 15 deck as opposed to
an 8 by 12 . The intent of the original permit is
13 not violated. This deck is still 28 feet off the
road.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sir, you' re the
15 builder of this complex?
MR. WEISER: Yes, I was the developer.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And everyone has an
8 by 12?
17 MR. WEISER: 8 by 12 was standard. Some
were in the rear, some were in the sides . Some
18 people have much larger decks, but the way it
worked was the deck was built with the
19 condominium, and everything was under the same CO.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you came for a
20 variance because of the two front yards for the 8
by 12 , got the building permit and the variance,
21 but never went for the CO for the deck?
MR. WEISER: We had a building permit for
22 the condominium --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Whose
23 responsibility was it to file for the CO on that,
the occupant?
24 MR. WEISER: No. The subcontractor is
usually the one that does that, people who work
25 for me . We go out and fill out the applications
and the Building Inspector will come out and do
August 19 , 2004
50
1
2 his due diligence and get the CO. The decks were
always combined with the building' s CO, this was
3 the only exception, and somehow it fell through '
the cracks . When we realized we had to get a
4 variance setback because the deck was too close to
the road, we had to file a separate. building
5 permit for this deck, and we put down on that
standard 8 by 12 , but what was built was an 8 by
6 15 . Simple as that . So at this point in time, as
I said, it' s in contract and an open building
7 permit came up on the title report .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You didn' t file for
8 the CO because you built it too big?
MR. WEISER: No, it slipped between the
9 cracks . We always felt that everything was
incorporated in the CO for the condominium •
10 building itself . It was just an oversight .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. We approved an
12 8 by 12 deck in 1997 for 28 feet . The deck ended
up being 8 by 15 ; it' s still at 28 feet . So
13 you' re essentially back here for three feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t see it that
way because you didn' t go any closer, but I can
15 tell you that I walk by this every morning, and I
can' t see it . It' s not offensive, and I didn' t
16 know it was the subject of an application until I
saw this . I have no objections .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against
18 this application? If not, I make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve the decision until
19 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 ----------------------------------------------- --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
21 a new home on Gillette Drive in East Marion, and
your dwelling will be less than 35 feet from the
22 rear lot line, also the lot is very shallow.
MS . MOORE : Good morning. I have the
23 principal of Cleaves Point Construction, who
happens to be a lawyer but he does criminal law.
24 MR. KENNEDY: Robert Kennedy, for the
record.
25 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry that you didn' t have
any paperwork from me in advance . What I did is,
August 19, 2004
51
1
2 I checked the original submission that was done to
the Building Department, and something came up
3 that I want the Board to know about . Apparently
when the permit application was made to the
4 Building Department, they didn' t notice that
there' s a small porch that the garage -- the
5 proposed house is a modest house in keeping with
the neighborhood, but there is a small two and a
6 half feet out where there is a porch that' s
inserted in part of the garage and front
7 entranceway, and that two and a half feet doesn' t
seem to be reflected in the notice of disapproval .
8 I want to raise the issue and there is different
alternatives to this, which is that the
9 application has already been made for a rear yard
variance, which is obviously needed here, because
10 in order to build a house here, you' d have a 10
foot wide house . So there is obviously a need for
11 a variance . The question is whether you would
prefer to see the house begin at the 35 foot front
12 yard setback and push back an additional two and a
half feet, or we would push towards the front but
13 we' d have to come in with a second variance . We
want to start the house but come in with a second
14 variance for the small protrusion of the deck.
That we can discuss, just keep it in the back of
15 your mind for alternatives .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The two and a half
16 feet is -- right now what you' re proposing is 15,
the two -and a half you' d be at 12-5 on that side?
17 MS. MOORE : Right . The front of the house
starts at 35 feet, which is conforming and the
18 only nonconforming was the rear yard. So, yes, 15
and a half, I think.
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Your survey
indicates that on that side where the two and a
20 half foot jut is, if I'm looking at it right --
MS . MOORE : That' s the jut .
21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Which would be the
east side?
22 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry. The front of the
house only, the side yards are conforming, there' s
23 plenty of room. It' s a very wide but narrow depth
lot . I circled two and a half, the front, if you
24 look at where it says A at the bottom.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So the house is 32
25 and a half feet deep instead of 30?
MS . MOORE : In part, 30 foot is the
August 19 , 2004
52
1
2 majority of the house, but as you can see the
garage is 30 from the front of the garage to the
3 back of the house it jogs back and forth. There' s
a two and a half foot -- here, I' ll come over and
4 point it out. It changes the footprint by two and
a half feet on the one portion.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Front setback would
be 32 and a half .
6 MR. KENNEDY: Exactly. If we leave it as
is .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not to interrupt to
ask a question, I have two surveys, I have one
8 with a 15 foot rear yard setback and one with a 17
foot rear yard setback.
9 MR. KENNEDY: The 15 foot is correct . I
had to re-do it . The original one said 17 feet .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In the notice of
disapproval was 15 feet .
11 MS . MOORE : It' s covered now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the rear
12 yard.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The front yard has not
13 been addressed.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have to
14 advertise it and notice .
MR. KENNEDY: I bought the lot with my
15 parents . They live down Gillette Drive . They
have been there since 1970 . In fact, my father
16 was president of the association there, Marion
Manor Association. So we' re trying to keep the
17 house in fitting with the neighborhood and be an
addition with the neighborhood.
18 First, the Building Department said that
the lot was not single and separate, so it took me
19 about six months to figure that out with Mrs .
Moore' s help. Then I went with the plans and they
20 said you need a rear yard setback. That' s all I
asked for. I didn' t realize that those two steps
21 constitute a front yard.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because of the
22 square footage of the steps .
MS. MOORE : So the existing notice of
23 disapproval and the existing construction could be
granted with having to come back to advertise for
24 a front stoop. In fact, right next door you
granted in support of this application, you may
25 have it in your files already, there was an
application that was granted in 2001 for the house
August 19 , 2004
53
1
2 next door. It was Appeal Number 4915 , I' ll give
you a copy, Manner Grove and Peter DiNicola . That
3 was a variance granted for the original house
constructed at 22 foot rear yard setback. Then
4 they came in again in 2003 , and they got a
variance for a new front porch, which is five foot
5 front yard encroachment, so it brought the setback
to 31 . 8 . So you have right next door an example
6 of an identical situation developing. I ' ll put
that in the record so you have it .
7 As your own precedents and neighbor, Miss
Collins was the person who wrote the original
8 decision, and it stated clearly in that decision
that these shallow lots require a variance; that
9 any house that would be constructed would end up
with a 10 foot depth of a house .
10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The decision you' re
speaking about was for what in the rear yard?
11 MS . MOORE : I believe that house got a
rear yard setback of 22 , Linda has it now, but
12 again they ended up with a five foot front porch.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Still and all, the
13 variance they were granted because I happen to
remember the lot, that 22 feet is substantially
14 different than 15 , and I know that we granted a
five foot variance on the porch, but what you' re
15 asking for is more than was granted there . I just
wanted to get that on the record.
16 MS . MOORE : Yes, it is . The size, the
depth of this house as you can see on the plans is
17 only 30 feet. Mr. DiNicola was building a spec
house . It wasn' t a concern to him as to the depth
18 of the house and somebody came along and bought it
the way was . For Mr. Kennedy and his family, a 30
19 foot wide house is more in keeping with his
desires . Nonetheless, the rear yard is still
20 sufficiently large for a proper setback, but it
gives, in particular -- the side yards that' s
21 really on these properties tend to be the back
yards on most of the houses, and that' s the
22 useable area.
MR. KENNEDY: If I could just offer one
23 thing. The people that are right in the back that
are going to be affected the most, when they
24 bought their house they didn' t have access to
Suffolk County Water. So I gave them an easement
25 through this property, so they could hook up. I
hope they' re not here to complain about this .
August 19 , 2004
54
1
2 MS . MOORE : It wasn' t quid pro quo at the
time . He was being a good neighbor.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I look at it a
4 little differently, if this was not a corner lot,
say there was a lot where Gillette Drive is --
5 MS . MOORE : I don' t think it' s a corner
lot .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right, how does
it make it a rear yard then?
7 MS . MOORE: It' s the rear yard. The front
door is on Gillette Drive .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see . There' s a
lot on one side then it' s -- Okay. It is a
9 little harsh. Moving it towards Gillette Drive is
a better alternative .
10 MR. KENNEDY: That' s fine with us .
MS . MOORE : We' re certainly willing to do
11 that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think the
12 front yards there are 35 feet in any case .
MS . MOORE : I was looking for an average
13 setback, but because some of the other lots have
actually merged, that they have put very large
14 houses on the center of two merged properties .
The one right next door has a similar situation as
15 ours, Tax Lot 14 , then 15 I 'm not sure may be
vacant . I was looking at the assessor' s office,
16 23 . 1 is front and back, so that they have a lot
that two houses down. They actually have two lots
17 that merged, the front and back, so they have a
lot that is 125 in width smaller than ours, but is
18 172 in depth. So they' re able to put a house
further back without any difficulty, without any
19 variances . I thought about that because certainly
my first option to any client that walks through
20 the door is, let' s see if we can avoid a variance
and we go looking for the adjacent properties
21 within 300 feet to see if their front yards are
nonconforming. We take an average of those front
22 yard setbacks .
MR. DINIZIO : I would say that the
23 majority of the homes in that development are not
35 feet from the property line . I 'm very familiar
24 with it, maybe 30 feet . I mean, I have no
objection to a rear yard 15 feet . But if we' re
25 looking to make it conform to the area, maybe
that' s the way to go .
August 19 , 2004
55
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The average square
foot of this house is probably about 2 , 800 square
3 feet give or take . I don' t think this is typical
of Gillette . Typical of Gillette they' re modest
4 houses . Lately they have been throwing a lot of
big houses up there .
5 MR. KENNEDY: I think it' s 21 not 28 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also the house down
6 the road, Dinizio, I don' t know if it' s
related --
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it is .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It was a ranch, it
8 was a modest house, and I think it still had a 20
foot setback in the rear. There was another
9 house, just north of that, there' s two ranches,
they probably have 15 foot setbacks, and let me
10 tell you, Pat, it is so close I actually thought
it was a garage in the back yard. So I drove
11 around the other side . It' s really close . If
this was a ranch, I wouldn' t be as concerned, but
12 it' s a two-story house with a small back yard.
It' s towering. My opinion is you need to cut that
13 back, the 32 .5 in the front that will come before
us eventually, not a big deal, but it' s --
14 MS . MOORE : A 30 foot depth house to you
is too big?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s not typical of
the area. I know you said it wasn' t too big.
16 It' s a 3 , 000 square foot house, give or take, a
decent sized house for a modest neighborhood. A
17 two-story house 15 foot off the line is
intimidating for a back yard. You have to look at
18 those two houses . I thought that was a garage it
was so close. ,
19 MR. KENNEDY: I think I submitted all the
plans to the Board. I think it' s only 2 , 100
20 square foot or 2 , 000 . It' s a small house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t have the
21 plans, I just have the footprint .
MR. KENNEDY: The plans are there . I gave
22 seven copies . I 'm pretty sure it' s 2 , 100 at the
most .
23 MS. MOORE : We could redesign so the
garage is a detached garage . Right now the garage
24 is part of the existing structure .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Does that affect
25 the rear yard setback at all?
MR. KENNEDY: It wouldn' t -- by about two
August 19, 2004
56
1
2 feet, that' s all . It would make the house two
feet thinner.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Let' s see if
there' s anyone in the audience?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this
5 application?
MR. KENNEDY: As I said, I know all the
6 neighbors in the neighborhood, we have been there
about 30 years .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I can say this,
that Dinizio residence is a standard Dinizio
8 house . We've probably built seven of that, those
same plans .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think they were
close to 20 foot setback. It' s a modest ranch.
10 This is the same thing, it' s a two-story, 15 foot
is tight .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I ' m just
saying if the Dinizios were building two-story
12 'houses, that would have been two stories .
MS . MOORE : If you want to shrink us down
13 a little, just give us a footprint because at that
point we' re going to have to go back to the
14 , architect anyway for the footprint . Unfortunately
these plans you have to scrap . If that' s how the
15 whole Board feels . If Mr. Orlando' s in the
minority then that' s okay.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that that
footprint' s fine, just maybe move it forward a
17 little bit . I think the neighborhood is conducive
to that just simply because I can' t think of a
18 house that is built in the ' 60s and ' 70s that' s 35
feet . I can' t think of any. I think they have
19 all, they' re smaller houses, agreed, but on the
east side of that road are quite a few capes .
20 Relatives, Mr. Campbell and they' re capes, but
they still look like two-story houses, maybe 30
21 feet, but basically the same size yard. Again, if
you pulled it up five feet, seven feet, I don' t
22 think you' d notice it and the gentleman could
enjoy the comforts of a 30 foot house and still
23 have a backyard. But that' s my opinion.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I 'm not sure if
24 you' re aware of this, the Board had applications
to go 30 feet and the Board has denied them and we
25 gave alternative relief, about 32 feet . So you
might want to stay around 32 and a half .
August 19 , 2004
57
1
2 MS . MOORE : Whatever the Board wants . As
I said many times, when you have gone this far
3 with plans at some point, the architect' s going to
pretty much charge you again.
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do rough diagrams,
we don' t have to have the architect' s seal .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We've heard your
concerns and the Board will discuss it and
6 establish a footprint .
MS . MOORE : Fine and we' ll work within
7 that footprint . However, if we have to go back to
a front yard setback variance --
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: New survey too .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We can make a
9 decision based on their application. They don' t
have to come back in.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : ' The procedure would
be tomorrow, I ' ll give you a list of things . I
11 know there' s an additional filing fee involved.
We really should readvertise it .
12 MS . MOORE : I know that . I'm not
questioning that . I 'm just saying would it make
13 more sense to adjourn this to next month in which
time we can get the revisions done?
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t have time
to do that, it' s only three weeks away.
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width of the
porch that you' re going to be proposing is?
16 MS . MOORE : If using this same footprint
is a two and a half protrusion beyond the existing
17 garage . Because it kind of caddy-corners the side
of the house.
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 32 ' 5" in the front
yard?
19 MS . MOORE : Right, with the existing rear
yard of 15 .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Okay, this is my
opinion. I 'm not willing to increase the width of
21 the house to 32 ' 511 , period. And there' s concern
to get you off the rear property line, it' s the
22 total width of the house that we' re looking at .
And I don' t think we have to go to 32 ' 5" in
23 here . If you want to come forward a couple of
feet to 32 feet, that' s one thing to get 17 in the
24 back, but now what we' re really talking about
looking at the second variance that' s going to
25 move the porch to go 32 ' S" .
MS. MOORE : That' s an option.
August 19 , 2004
58
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That is an option
which is --
3 MS . MOORE : Well, if the Board is not in
favor of, that' s not an option. We have one who
4 would rather not see that alternative .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You've got 30 feet,
5 then you' re going to tack on, then the width of
that house is 32' 511 , so that gives you no leeway
6 to go front or back because as Linda aptly pointed
out, we set a standard on Gillette Drive at 32 .
7 That was it . So we' re stuck in there . So to
encourage them to go ahead and look for another
8 variance, unless all of you are in favor --
MS . MOORE : Next door you did 28 ' 511 , when
9 the next door they got a variance .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the name on
10 that one?
MS . MOORE : That was DiNicola.
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was rear yard,
right?
12 MS . MOORE : No. They came back for a
second variance for a front porch.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' ll have to
research it at the office another time .
14 MS . MOORE : There is a 28 . 5 next door.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: There' s no
15 comparison. Do you want to give us a rear yard of
22 feet?
16 MS . MOORE : No.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Then let' s not
17 discuss what the neighbor has .
MS . MOORE : Do you want to deliberate and
18 come up with a majority opinion, and we' ll go back
and draw with a majority opinion?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I like that you do
that, honestly. You've done that in the past,
20 just tell us the dimensions, and then we can tweak
it .
21 MS . MOORE : When we can, that option' s
there . Thank you.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve discussion until
23 later.
(See minutes for resolution. ),
24 ----------------------------------------------- --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Ronnie
25 and Janice Soffer for a B and B on Main Road in
Orient .
August 19, 2004
59
1
2 MS . SOFFER: Good morning -- good
afternoon, Janice McCabe Soffer, and this is my
3 husband Ronnie Soffer, and we' re here to apply for
a special exception to open up a B & B in our
4 house in Orient . We have a very charming
historical house, and we' d like to share it with
5 the public . And I guess that' s it in a nutshell .
I'm also a nutritionist and a diabetes
6 ' educator, and I've always wanted to open up a B
and B where I can share some healthy recipes . My
7 aunt actually inspired me; she has the Top of the
Morning B and B in Cutchogue . I've had good
8 training under her. We moved here about a year
and a half ago. We . love the area. We love the
9 history and we would like to open it up to the
public and share it .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many bedrooms will
you be renting out?
11 MS . SOFFER: We only did two bedrooms .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does each bedroom have a
12 bath?
MS . SOFFER: Two bedrooms, but sharing a
13 bath at this point .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where is the
14 owner' s bath?
MS . SOFFER: Downstairs on the main floor.
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Even though your
bedroom is adjacent to the guest?
16 MS . SOFFER: Yes . Our bedroom is very
close to the stairway where you just go down and
17 around to the bathroom downstairs .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s a half bath
18 in the kitchen downstairs?
MS . SOFFER: Yes .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: And I see you have
kind of indicated places for parking; how would
20 the guests be getting out of that; there' s four
parking spots there?
21 MS . SOFFER: We have quite a bit of land
in the back and there is an L that you can easily
22 back up on to the grass and then go forward out
the front entrance .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you will have the
windows at the appropriate size?
24 MS . SOFFER: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And exit signs and some
25 sort of ladder from the second story?
MS . SOFFER: Yes, we do .
August 19, 2004
60
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the width
of those stairs, the stairway going to the two
3 guest rooms on the second floor?
MS . SOFFER: I have the plans here .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the scale
on that?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : One inch equals one
foot ; no quarter inch is a foot, so it' s about
6 three and a half feet, I guess . So you don' t plan
on expanding your driveway, you' re just going to
7 tell people park on the grass . I was there . I
was able to turn around, but there was no one in
8 the driveway so it made it easy for me . I thought
there was a lot of vegetation on the side . I
9 don' t know if you can pull on the lawn.
MR. SOFFER: We can expand.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Human nature people
don' t park on people' s back lawn when they turn
11 around.
MS . SOFFER: We have grass that they can
12 pull into, there' s no vegetation behind if they
were going back and then forward.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was able to back
into one and two, and then back into three and
14 four, but I was trying to envision a few cars
there . And you have two cars, one car?
15 MS. SOFFER: One car.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you' ll be
16 occupying the same driveway?
MS . SOFFER: Yes . We certainly can expand
17 the driveway if it becomes a problem, but we have
had four cars in there . It was no problem.
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would rather not
see people back on to Main Road.
19 MS . SOFFER: No way. We require everybody
goes back and then out forward.
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Are the people
going to have a separate entrance? I saw you had
21 two front doors .
MS . SOFFER: Yes . ' The entrance on the
22 right would be for the guests, and our entrance
would be the kitchen.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. As long as
25 it' s clear, and you' re not going to park cars on
Village Lane. You may have to throw some
August 19 , 2004
61
1
2 bluestone down so people don' t park on your grass,
if you' re successful, it would be great, but
3 besides that, no .
MS . SOFFER: I know there' s quite a lot of
4 ferry traffic, it' s been thought about .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t know if
5 you' re aware that we did have a letter from your
neighbor across the street?
6 MS . SOFFER: Yes, I did see that
letter. You know, because we' re only going to
7 have two rooms, I don' t see it as being a noise
factor.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just wanted you to be
aware of it . Frankly, I asked Linda too, I don' t
9 think we ever had a complaint of noise from any
B & B in town. Let me see is there anybody in the
10 audience that wishes to speak for or against this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
11 this hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 --------------------------------------- ----------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Sarah
13 and James Garretson. They wish to make a small
addition on a porch on a lovely old house on
14 Village Lane.
MR. GARRETSON: I'm Jim Garretson, also an
15 architect, and we propose there' s an existing
landing on the back porch of 56 square feet, and
16 we' re going to fill that out and make an open
covered porch of 70 square feet, basically
17 increasing the coverage of the property by one
percent .
18 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re at 24
percent lot coverage right now?
19 MR. GARRETSON: Between 24 and 25 percent,
and we' d go between 25 and 26 percent . Goes from
20 1, 905 to 1, 975 square feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to keep
21 that porch open?
MR. GARRETSON: Right, always open.
22 There' s a screen porch next to it . Right now we
go from the screen porch around into the kitchen
23 this way we go right to the kitchen.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You' re expanding
24 the porch you have now?
MR. GARRETSON: No, no. The screened
25 porch we have now stays exactly the same . This is
an outside porch.
August 19 , 2004
62
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re making a
deck not a porch?
3 MR. GARRETSON: Deck with a cover, covered
deck. It appears to be one long thing because
4 we' re evening out the roof . It' s functionally
different . It' s a utility. It' s where you
5 arrive, you drive in, you take your stuff out of
the car and you go in the porch, into the kitchen.
6 So the people in the screened porch can stay there
and not get bothered.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The 56 square feet
8 increase is about -- you' re figuring, you' re
estimating that' s going to be about?
9 MR. GARRETSON: I think the coverage when
you have a landing, I don' t think that counts as
10 coverage, unless you' re covered with something,
you have something over you. We' re saying we' re
11 increasing our coverage by 70 square feet, but in
terms of that little area there, there' s already a
12 56 square foot, a small landing there that we' re
removing to build a new landing. So it' s not as
13 big an increase as you might think.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the actual
14 figure on what you' re putting in?
MR. GARRETSON: 10 by 7 .
15 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 70 square feet .
MR. GARRETSON: 70 square feet of covered
16 area we' re putting in and replacing the 14 square
feet of uncovered area.
17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s going to
bring us to approximately --
18 MR. GARRETSON: 1, 975, approximately
between 24 and 26 percent, if you want to round it
19 up, you should probably round it up to 26 percent .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re going to
20 extend or continue with the pitched roof, flat
roof over --
21 MR. GARRETSON: We' re continuing the roof
of the kitchen back over everything, so it will be
22 one type of roof over both the porch, the kitchen
and the new porch we' re adding. So it looks like
23 it' s together.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is the same
24 height it is now?
MR. GARRETSON: Yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
August 19 , 2004
63
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this
3 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Racanelli on Manhasset Avenue in Greenport for
6 a single side yard.
MS . MOORE : Mr. and Mrs . Racanelli and two
7 of their three children are here watching, their
first experience with government .
8 We had gotten from the architect the
dimensions which we had the surveyor confirm and
9 all the dimensions have been confirmed by the
survey that' s in front of you. We have an
10 existing lot coverage of 1, 343 , 25 . 3 percent lot
coverage . The proposed lot coverage is 1, 547, 29
11 percent lot coverage as you recall from our
previous application. This is a significant
12 reduction from its original proposal . We have
tried to address the concerns of the neighbors,
13 which I relayed to Mr. and Mrs . Racanelli . What
we are dealing with here is a difference in only
14 204 square feet between the existing square
footage and the proposed square footage . I put
15 together a written description as well as all the
exhibits with the Exhibit A shows the existing
16 structure . You can see that the lot is quite
narrow, it' s only 44 . 93 in depth, 100 feet in
17 length, two front yards because of Manhasset and
Wood Lane . So we have restrictions from
18 everywhere here, and we' re trying to work within
the guidelines of the code and the restrictions
19 that are in place .
The neighbor came in last time and
20 expressed her views, which as I said, we tried to
address . I also looked at her property card,
21 which reflects that the original house that was in
place here in 1990 when they came in to renovate,
22 essentially do what the Racanellis are trying to
do here today, they were able to do without
23 variances because at the time, as long as you
stayed within your existing footprint, you didn' t
24 have to go for a variance . They got what they
wanted with no variances whatsoever. Lot coverage
25 was never addressed, and there are sheds and so on
that are not shown on this tax property card,
August 19, 2004
64
1
2 which again don' t address lot coverage . So I
can' t tell what the lot coverage is on this
3 neighbor' s property but we have very_ comparable as
far as the house goes, a comparable house trying
4 to be built here . There is an existing house, it
is in poor condition. It' s stayed in the family a
5 very long time . The daughter of the original
owner and her family want to fix it up. I know
6 that was an expressed concern at the last hearing
about the condition and how bad it looks . That' s
7 precisely why they're here, which is to make a
major investment and renovate, redo what is a
8 house that needs some attention.
So we' re here to try to answer your
9 questions . I have the family here so if there' s
anything that comes up that I can' t address or you
10 want to ask them specifically, we' ll try to
address all the questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no
12 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lydia?
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s a little less
than you originally proposed because now you don' t
14 have that huge -- this is two stories, isn' t it?
MS . MOORE : It still remains as a
15 two-story, but all the rooms have been shrunk.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: My question is very
16 simple : So the basic footprint of the two-story
footprint, one floor is what now square footage?
17 MS . MOORE : The first floor is --
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 42 by --
18 MS . MOORE : No, 33 , take a look at this
one, here .
19 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 42 . 6 .
MS. MOORE : Yes, which is the existing
20 length presently. The difference is in the depth.
The original has the encroachment -- I want to
21 call it an encroachment, the house goes to about
three feet off the back property line . That is
22 being cut off so that we have the greater setback,
6 ' 3 " taking the majority of the existing footprint
23 that' s there, that being the closest point . Keep
in mind that the adjacent property owner, again
24 we' re on a corner lot, so we have the difficulty
that the house is already positioned facing Wood
25 Lane, so that is our considered setback that we' re
keeping to the existing foundation.
August 19, 2064
65
1
2 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the width
of the house?
3 MS . MOORE : The only additional width is
the difference between 27 and 33 . 3 . It' s
4- architectural features going towards Wood Lane
which add some additional building footprint .
5 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So it' s 27 by
42 ' 6 " .
6 MS . MOORE : The existing house if you
don' t include the stoop that protrudes out . We
7 talked about that the existing footprint is 24 ,
which protrudes towards the rear neighbor and the
8 new footprint protrudes towards Wood Lane . So we
have switched it to minimize the nonconformity, at
9 least to the rear yard, I don' t know, rear side in
this kind of combination.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is that proposed
addition 6' 3" on that jog on Wood Lane?
11 MS . MOORE : Six foot three to be exact .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you. The
12 overall width of the house would change from 37 to
33 at that point?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes . With that bow window or
bow architectural feature.
14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s what' s
confusing me.
15 C MS . MOORE : It' s irregular feature, that' s
what' s confusing, irregular shape .
16 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where you have this
jagged line, where the bow window is, there is no
17 distance so it' s not 27 .
MS. MOORE : No, it' s 11' 611- to Wood Lane .
18 We took the closest point .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What about the
19 other side?
MS . MOORE : The other side is 16 ' 8 . 511 .
20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: What is the width
of the house there?
21 MS . MOORE : I'm not sure I understand,
which width?
22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The width of the
house?
23 MS . MOORE : Is a total of 27 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: 27 plus what?
24 MS . MOORE : 27 that' s it, 27' 611 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is this going
25 to be?
MS . MOORE : Take a look at Exhibit C. We
August 19 , 2004
66
1
i
2 had the architect give me a diagram. The mean,
which is the measurement for the town, the mean
3 roof is 27' 10" to midway, then it goes to the
peak, another 33 ' 10" .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : At the widest point
three 33 by 42 . 6 .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 33 feet to the peak?
MS . MOORE : Yes . To the tip top.
6 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re going to end
up 11 feet from Wood Lane?
7 MS . MOORE : 11' 6" is the protrusion that
is not to the peak, it' s an architectural feature
8 that it' s kind of a double bow window.
MR. RACANELLI : It' s a cove, in reality
9 it' s a room which is so small in order to give it
a little design for it . It' s a little cove
10 designed by the architect to give the lighting
coming from all sides . Because the room is too
11 small, and just a little small window in the
front, it would be like almost like a walk-in
12 closest .
BOARD SECY KOWALSKI : Is it one-story?
13 MR. RACANELLI : No. It' s two-story, it
picks up the bedroom up above because with my
14 three kids I've added four bedrooms because
originally the one frame house everybody was
15 squeezing on top of each other, and my kids were
small, it was fine . But now that my kids are
16 older, the oldest one is 22, they all want their
rooms . So we' re trying to --
17 MS. MOORE: Give them each a bedroom
that' s a little larger than a closest .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I can understand
19 your compassion to the house, everyone has their
fantasy house they want to live in someday.
20 Unfortunately you've picked a 5, 000 square foot
lot to put a beautiful house on, unfortunately
21 it' s one-eighth of an acre . It' s very small, and
everywhere has reservations on setbacks here and
22 lot coverage as well . Is there any possible way
to stay -- I have no problem with the proposed
23 garage there -- is there any way to stay within
the 19 feet setback on Wood Lane?
24 MR. RACANELLI : What we did was the reason
why we came forward a little bit in the back we
25 had the little jagged, which was in back of the
property to the neighbor, which is only a three
August 19 , 2004
67
1
2 foot space in between. So when we came with the
first applications and they told us that the house
3 was enormous whatever, so I went back and shrunk
the envelope . What I did was on the original
4 application you had jagged to the back coming off
the kitchen, which was about two foot .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Cantilevered a few
feet out .
6 MR. RACANELLI : Right . We got rid of that
and I pushed the frame straight with the existing
7 foundation of the basement . So I got rid of that
3 ' 2 " foot by 15, and what I did was I brought it
8 forward and brought it in here because you
originally had the stoop, if you look at the inlay
9 you had the stoop that goes beyond that point of
the house itself .
10 MS . MOORE : It' s 5' 9" by 517" .
MR. RACANELLI : So I understood the
11 concern of the neighbors, and I understood the
Boards .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : This is going to be
a multiple variance house no matter what? It' s
13 going to be two front yards actually. It' s going
to be lot coverage .
14 MS . MOORE : Yes, if you take under the old
rules, building within your footprint, you' d still
15 be a variance .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re not trying to
16 stop you from living here, just my opinion, we' re
just trying to have something compatible to this
17 lot to this neighborhood. If you could shrink the
front back to that, you' re still going to need
18 your variances it' s only 19 feet, still going to
be lot coverage, I don' t know what the lot
19 coverage will be, maybe down to low 20s maybe, I
don' t know. Right now you' re about 30 , 29
20 something.
MS. MOORE : 29 period. Look at the survey
21 we verified, it' s only 1, 547 square feet .
MR. RACANELLI : 1, 547 . The difference is
22 between the old and new is 204 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Of the first floor?
23 MS . MOORE : Yes, so double it, 400 .
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s still a very
24 big house on a very small lot .
MS . MOORE: True . But look at your
25 neighbor that has built identically, the only
difference is it wasn' t a corner lot and it built
August 19 , 2004
68
1
2 up, and it' s right on top of this property.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So in other words,
3 we just continue the pattern; is that what you' re
saying?
4 MS . MOORE : I think that realistically the
values of properties are there . These are small
5 one-story cottages that to buy a house like this
is a $300, 000 price tag.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think you've just
said what our concern is . We give you 11-6 here,
7 we can' t stop anyone else down the whole road
doing 11-6 . So we need to draw a line in the sand
8 someplace .
MS . MOORE : I understand. The character
9 of the area, look at the houses .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm saying myself
10 personally, I'm not denying the person to build on
their own footprint plus the garage there . What' s
11 good for them is good for you, in my opinion, and
that' s still 19 feet from the road. No other
12 questions or comments from me .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they did 19 feet
from the road, I don' t think they need a variance
14 for that because the house next door seems to be
about the same . You might be right .
15 MS . MOORE : The setback?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Member Dinizio said
16 the 19 . 7 feet is the same as what the neighbor is
next door, so he might not need a variance if he
17 stayed at- that .
MS . MOORE : I think we' re here regardless
18 on variances .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We' re looking to
19 minimize that .
MS . MOORE : I understand that .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I agree that some
of those houses down there is larger, but even
21 two-story on that original footprint is larger.
MR. RACANELLI : They also built a new one
22 three or four houses down on Wood Lane, which went
two stories . Everybody' s been building up. Once
23 the kids get older, you have a cottage, when it' s
husband and wife and a little baby, you put her in
24 a little crib, you' re fine . But once the kids get
older, you can' t confine them to a smaller room.
25 I understand you have variances, I understand you
want to keep conformity with the area, like you
August 19 , 2004
69
1
2 said, if I give you 500 , I should give him 1, 000 ,
or I should give him two, which I really do
3 understand that . When we first came with the
application, because right now the plans that were
4 originally brought in are really worthless . So I
would have to go back and redo everything all over
5 again because the room sizes, the changes, the
space of the hallway and the rooms upstairs, I
6 still have to do four bedrooms, but they' re going
to be minimized. I understand about the cove,
7 which gives you 11 . 6 to Wood Lane, that ' s why I
was hoping with the giving up of the extra three
8 feet in the back to the neighbor on my rear and
also pushing 15 away because there was an existing
9 structure that my father-in-law built, which was
only about three feet away from the neighbor, from
10 Larry, so I 'm willing to pull back 15 so it would
give them more room on that . I was hoping coming
11 to an understanding that that little cove, which
is only about eight feet wide, which sticks on to
12 1116 " because the rest of the house is back
further, wouldn' t be so much of a problem.
13 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You' re trading one
variance for another. I think what you' re hearing
14 is that' s not what -- we just think it' s too
much.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know the neighbors are
here, they would like to speak.
16 MS. MOORE : We' ll let them speak.
MS. TZANNES : Carlina Tzannes . Thank you
17 very much for faxing me the papers . I like the
house . It' s nice . The only question is, the
18 existing foundation he' s going to build in the
existing foundation, right, the house?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: In the rear.
BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: But in the front
20 he' s proposing to come out closer to the road.
MS . TZANNES : Let me start on my side and
21 I' m going to come on the front . He' s building in
the existing foundation, and they have a small
22 outgoing -- a small thing so this is going to be
removed as I see in the plan, right? Okay. So
23 they say here 6 . 3 , okay, my fit is going 7 . 3 , I
have a small fit, that' s fine . Absolutely I don' t
24 have a problem with that, and I 'm glad he' s going
to build a house because my area, our street is
25 going to look better. I don' t have a problem with
the garage, really, and as I see here, the plan
August 19 , 2004
70
1
2 with the architecturally is really cozy house,
cozy nice house, which I don' t have a problem even
3 if he' s going to come out with this curve .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bay window.
4 MS . TZANNES : It' s really cozy house and
nice house because I'm a decorator. I'm doing
5 this job too, so I can see that is going to look
good. For me, I don' t have a problem. Just only
6 my concern is for my house and my driveway, I
need -- the build house in existing foundation, go
7 up, that' s all I need. After that, I don' t have a
problem. If he' s going to do this in the front of
8 the house, looks good, cozy, nice, we going to
look all good. All we try to look good, right,
9 everybody. Me, personally, I don' t have that
problem. The only thing I need, the old
10 foundation' s going up for my section, period.
That' s it . He can do whatever you decide, okay.
11 Thank you very much and I'm glad he' s going to do
it . So I 'm not going to cut the grass for 15
12 years . Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions from
13 the Board? Anybody else out there wish to speak
for or against?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat, did you want
say something?
15 MS . MOORE: I think what was pointed out
is we have tried to design with the neighbors in
16 mind, that Wood Lane is not going to impact
neighbors; it' s an architectural feature; it' s
17 designing, as she said, trying to design something
nicer than a box. So, if you keep that in mind,
18 we understand your reluctance to give a little
bigger, a little bigger next time around. This is
19 trying to design a plan that will be in keeping,
but in the positive way, improving the
20 neighborhood. So just keep that in mind when
you' re considering this application.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re not targeting
you.
22 MS . MOORE: I've been here enough, I know
your philosophy.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until
24 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 (Time ended: 12 : 45 p .m. )
August 19 , 2004
71
1
2
3
4 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
5
6 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
7 State of New York, do hereby certify:
8 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
9 the testimony given.
10 I further certify that I am not related by
11 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
12 action; and
13 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
14 of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16 hand this 19th day of August, 2004 .
17
18
19
20 ��
Florence V. Wiles
21
22
23
24
25
August 19, 2004