Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/14/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H O 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 September 14 , 20-04 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present .15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 17 GERARD P . GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 19 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 Absent : LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member 22 23 rORIGINAL 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of 3 Appeals of September 14th to order. I need a resolution declaring the following applications as 4 Type 2 actions . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll second, if 5 you make the resolution. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make the 6 resolution. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- .8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for James Gemmill on Smith Road in Peconic . He 9 wants to make a small addition to his house . Mr. Fitzgerald, I think that' s yours . 10 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes, good morning, I'm Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Gemmill . 11 As you say, it is a small addition. He would like to expand the existing footprint of the 12 house by about 100 square feet, and of that 100 square feet, about 10 squarelfeet will be closer 13 to the architectural side property line, which is technically a front yard because of the existence 14 of a pedestrian right of way. Only 10 feet will be closer to the property line than the existing 15 nonconforming setback. And it will be about one foot closer. 16 I have a larger photograph of the area which you have a smaller one (handing) . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . So it would only come out this far. 18 MR. FITZGERALD: This stake marks the corner. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that going one story or two? 20 MR. FITZGERALD: One story. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Just extending the 21 porch. MR. FITZGERALD: It' s an extension of the 22 porch, but it will not be a porch. It will be enclosed and will be a mud room. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the porch stays as is? 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Essentially. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you see the 25 picture? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I saw the September 14 , 2004 3 1 2 picture, and I was at the property last week. I wanted to stay because it was a magnificent 3 afternoon and evening, truly, Mr. Fitzgerald, a magnificent piece of property, and we can see 4 because the sagging of the decks and all the rest of the house, it has some significant functional 5 obsolescence, and I can see why the present property owners want to do what they want to do . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have any other questions? 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further questions . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was looking at 9 the notice of disapproval from July 6th; it says you' re not going to increase the setback more than 10 12 . 1 feet; is that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: It' s not going to be 11 increased. It' s going to be decreased by a foot . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going 12 any closer to the property line? MR. FITZGERALD: One foot closer. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re going to be at 11 . 1 feet? 14 MR. FITZGERALD: No, it' s going to be at 12 ; the existing is at 13 . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The notice of disapproval says existing single-family dwelling 16 has a front yard setback of 12 . 1; is that right? MR. FITZGERALD: I don' t think -so. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at what he disapproved. I assume he saw that somewhere 18 and he wrote that down. If that' s the case then I - don' t know why -- 19 MR. FITZGERALD: It' s going to be here (indicating) . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see 12 . 1 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the porch 21 that' s there right now. MR. FITZGERALD: It goes to this porch. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That is how far away? 23 MR. FITZGERALD: This is 14 . This is 12 . We think we' re going to say it' s 13 . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be your worst case right now. Okay. I don' t have any 25 further questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Jim. Is September 14 , 2004 4 1 2 there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to this application? If not, I ' ll make a 3 motion to close the hearing and reserving decision until later. 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Gordon and Diane Tyrer on Oriole Drive in 6 Southold. That is for a garage that is supposed to be in the rear yard but is now in the side 7 yard. Is there someone that wishes to speak to this application? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I had spoken to the homeowner, and I think Craig was coming to 9 represent them. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll make the 10 motion to adjourn the hearing until 11 : 15 . (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Kevin 12 Miller on Wunneweta Road in Cutchogue . Is there anyone here who wishes to speak 13 on behalf of this application? Mr. McCarthy, would you like to speak to a 14 this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. McCarthy, before you speak, I need to mention something to 16 the Board and to the Chairperson. This is a very nice piece of property, but it unfortunately needs 17 a 280A. Unfortunately, I tried to come up it from the Broadwaters Cove side, thank God I nixed that 18 thought . So I came back the following time and went down from the extension of Wunneweta. It 19 needs a 280A. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was badly gutted. 20 I wouldn' t take the car. I walked down to where I thought the garage might be. The road was in 21 terrible, terrible shape . MR. MCCARTHY: I was there this morning, I 22 agree with you from the southernly side . MR. FLEMING: May I ask what a 280A is? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: An access to your property. You have to have some sort of road and 24 there have to be specific qualifications that have to be met to make it a 280A access . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have to ask that anyone who speaks to please state your name for September 14 , 2004 5 1 2 the record. MR. FLEMING: My name is Xavier Fleming. 3 MR. MCCARTHY: I did bring some photos that I would like to submit for the record 4 (handing) . As you can tell by looking at the survey and looking at the site, the reason why 5 we' re here is there' s some practice difficulty in building on the site . The owner, Mr. Kevin 6 Miller, has asked us to come here today and represent him. I' d like to go over some facts on 7 the topography of the site . The topography, if you look at the survey 8 in the northwest corner is an elevation 90 . It increases to elevation 130 to 132 in the center of 9 the house . It' s 40 feet difference in elevation. What Mr. Miller is proposing is to put his garage 10 approximately two-thirds of the way back from his house to the street and kind of split the 11 difference there, and it' s really because of the difficulty of topography and elevation. 12 The issue of where the garage could be solved if the house was moved closer to the 13 street . It' s not the location of the garage that' s the problem, it' s perhaps the location of 14 the house . So if we leap frog the house over the garage the garage could stay exactly the way it is 15 because it would be code compliant . We' re about 450 percent of the setback of the house of what is 16 really code required. We' re setback quite a ways from Wunneweta Road and the purpose of putting the 17 house where it is is to really get on top of the hill to get the most flat topography so the yard 18 surrounding the house as usable . If we were to bring the house closer to the street we' d have a 19 tremendous problem with grading, with water coming into the back side of the house . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next door neighbor had the same problem he built on top of the -- 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Exactly. And there are various similar situations throughout Nassau 22 Point, which I believe we have submitted pictures for the record so that the application would not 23 be something that would stand out in the neighborhood. It was very similar to other 24 applications and other properties already existing within Nassau Point . I think that the location of 25 the house on the top of the hill is going to be less of an impact to any of the neighbors than September 14 , 2004 6 1 2 perhaps bringing it forward into another compliant position and leaving the garage where it is . 3 So the request for relief is because it' s real difficulty in building the lot, that' s why 4 we' re in front of you today. I' d be happy to answer any questions . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The nature of 6 these applications, Mr. McCarthy, for these garages in the front yard really need some 7 significant screening. So in the past, and the most recent one we did on Broadwaters, we did a 8 significant screening request as a condition, and I think we should leave it up to the option of you 9 at this time as being the agent for the applicant to come up with some screening for this garage and 10 we' ll either enhance it or de-enhance it based upon on whatever you come up with? 11 MR. MCCARTHY: We' d be happy to do that and at the same time, it' s not -the applicant' s 12 position to clear cut the entire hill . They' re going to leave a lot of the native vegetation and 13 as you look at the driveway, it' s kind of an "S" design; it' s not straight at the garage . It will 14 be meandering through woods that will remain. If you' re standing on Wunneweta Road, you won' t have 15 direct view directly up the driveway to the garage . It will meander around and a lot of that 16 natural buffer will stay. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern 17 usually is the property owner that is most exposed, and that is going to be the property 18 owner while standing in front of the property will be on the left-hand side or southeast side, and he 19 or she may be here, we' re not sure, it appears he is here . And so was the case with the Broadwaters 20 Cove situation, which we recently did. So, please give us a landscape plan on 21 that and tell us how high the garage is and all that . 22 MR. MCCARTHY: Very good. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I wouldn' t say it' s typical in Nassau Point this scenario, but I would 24 say it' s common in this area. Putting the garage further down the slope just makes it a hazard for 25 the person walking up to the house, and I wouldn' t want to do that . I did drive up the neighbor' s September 14 , 2004 7 1 2 driveway to access this instead of hiking through the woods, made it a lot easier. I see the 3 difficulty. I don' t have a problem with it as long as the screening comes and also the 280A. I 4 had a Jeep, and I almost got stuck in that one runoff . 5 MR. MCCARTHY: I understand. We' ll deal with that . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think this happened in the past . We had another applicant just the 7 next house down, but the road was in better condition. I guess all the rains that we've had 8 it just completely eroded out . I was able to get down to the other one but not this time . 9 MR. MCCARTHY: I'm sure Mr. Miller is going to want something that' s safe for he and his 10 family. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s going to have to. 11 Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any 12 objection. I think whatever road or pathway or whatever goes to it is fine . The landscaping 13 thing, I just I don' t see it . This place is going to be a good 200 percent beyond the principal 14 setback of any buildable lot and to force this applicant into any kind of major screening I think 15 we should probably temper that a little bit . The fact that it is a wooded lot, maybe if we ask them 16 to not take down too many trees, that should be the extent of it . Certainly that' s only my 17 opinion, but again he being tear down his house and build it a good 75 feet closer to the road 18 right now and he could have two story, 45 foot high building there; of course, I wouldn' t like to 19 see it, and I 'm sure the neighbors wouldn' t like to see it . I think some consideration as far as 20 landscaping, I would hope that the Board would not be too stringent on that requiring expensive 21 landscaping due to the fact that the lot exists, and there is a house there already, and the 22 building he' s going to put there is not in any way in a nonconforming location other than the fact 23 that there' s not a house there. So I just ask the Members of the Board to take that in consideration 24 with this landscape plan, and perhaps, Tom, you could also hopefully take some comfort in the fact 25 that someone' s up here not requiring you to have $1, 000 trees . September 14, 2004 8 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say one more thing? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What utility 4 will the garage include, just the utility of electric? 5 MR. MCCARTHY: He may have water in there at this point . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to let us know. 7 MR. MCCARTHY: Is there a difference? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, the garage 8 is for an accessory use . I hate to keep mirroring the application on Broadwaters Cove, but we said 9 we have no problem with an outside water spigot, but we would like to know why a person needs to 10 add water to their garage internally. Is there going to be a potting shed? 11 MR. MCCARTHY: With all due respect, isn' t that a building code question for the building 12 inspector, what' s going to be in there? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it' s ours . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Accessory building. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can set the conditions for what should be in there and not . 15 MR. MCCARTHY: I will supplement the application with a letter as to what' s to be 16 there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And in no way am 17 I personally going, am I as one Board member going, to put any extensive screening on this 18 piece because of the nature of where it' s going back, but I do have neighbors concerned based upon 19 these buildings that are being built forward of the house . So in answer to Member Dinizio, 20 nothing to the extent that the other application was . 21 MR. MCCARTHY: Your concern with water would be what, if there was water within the 22 building? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for a hose? 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern, to answer your question is, that people have been 24' using these buildings for habitable purposes . Weekend habitable bunk houses and that is a 25 situation that I myself do not condone . That is an accessory building used customarily and September 14, 2004 9 1 2 incidental to the main dwelling. MR. MCCARTHY: I agree . So whatever he' s 3 allowed, if he happened to have a sink in there, if it was a potting shed, or if he was working on 4 the vehicles to get cleaned up over the summer -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the 5 question, tell us what it is, we' ll supplement the application with a letter. Clearly it' s not his 6 intention to make it a second house on the property. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this 8 application? MR. FLEMING: Xavier Flemming, I own a 9 house at 555 Wunneweta Road. I ' d like to hand you a expanded site plan here, plot plan (handing) . 10 On that map I just handed you, my house is located on Lot 201, which is high on the hill on 11 the right-hand side as you go down Wunneweta Road from Vanston Road, directly across from the 12 applicant' s lot, Number 297 . I ' d like to speak to you and represent myself as owner or inevitable 13 owner of the three lots owned in red. My late brother and I jointly owned Lot 200, which is 14 single and separate and not built on. My late brother owns Lot 202 , which contains a 15 single-family dwelling down further on the dirt road closer to Broadwaters Cove . Some day Lot 200 16 may be developed, I have a right to put a house on it if I chose to, it' s a single and separate 17 lot . I'm concerned of the view of seeing a garage out of a potential building on Lot 200 . I think 18 it will have a negative affect aesthetically, and it will depreciate my property value there . My 19 Lot 201, which contains my house now, has a small deck in front . I don' t know if you can see it 20 from the road or not and that' s the beauty of my house, it' s rather hidden, it' s the tan Cape Cod 21 up on the hill, and I have a bay window in my living room, which looks directly out on Lot 297; 22 and an out building such as a garage, again, I believe will have a negative effect on the 23 aesthetic appeal of my view and consequently, a negative value ,on my property. 24 Lot 202 , which contains my late brother' s house, has a full width elevated porch, that is 25 also going to look down on this garage, that is relatively close to the road. The applicants September 14 , 2004 10 1 2 represented that the erection of a garage in the front of the property is commonplace, and I take 3 issue with him with one exception on Nassau Point, and the one exception would be waterfront homes 4 where they really don' t have a front yard. The water is their front yard and the garages are in 5 their street side, if you will . The other homes on Wunneweta Road built to 6 accommodate the terrain, this is not the only house that' s on a hill there, Mr. Asciutto, the 7 applicants' s next door neighbor, his home contains a garage under the house on the side . Joe Decker, 8 who is one house farther to the south, has a garage under the house . My brother Joe' s house on 9 201 built a garage under the house . And my point is these other homes recognize the topography 10 problems, and they built houses that conformed with the code that didn' t require the erection of 11 out buildings down hill from their properties . It' s my position that -- and tell me if 12 I ' m wrong -- when you come before a Zoning Board meeting, you' re supposed to display a hardship to 13 have your application considered? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 14 MR. FLEMING: My position is that the applicant has created his own hardship by putting 15 a house plan that would be great for a .more level lot, on a lot that won' t accept the structure that 16 he wants to put up, and by doing so, I believe that he' s putting a hardship on me, his neighbor, 17 and I suggest that the Board recommend that he amend his plans to be consistent with the 18 buildings on the road, and I encourage you to reject this application. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. MR. FLEMING: Thank you. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir? MR. ASCIUTTO: My name is Basil Asciutto, 21 A-S-C-I-U-T-T-O, I live at 620 Wunneweta. I ' m the neighbor directly adjacent to this piece of- 22 property and on the left side . Since there is not a house on the right side, I 'm at lot 298 on your 23 map . This house is my primary residence . I spend more than half the year here and I plan on 24 retiring next year and be here full time . As Mr. Fleming said, all the houses on 25 Wunneweta are built with the same topography and most of them have the garage underneath the September 14 , 2004 11 1 2 building. The owner of this property, Mr. Miller, is a builder, so he knows full well exactly the 3 topography and what can be built and what can' t be built . When I look out my sliding doors in my 4 living room, 20 feet away from my property line will be the back of this garage . I don' t see a 5 hardship on the part of the new buyers of this piece of property because they can put the garage 6 in the rear. There' s no problem, it' s a new construction. These are very narrow pieces of 7 property; they' re 100 feet wide by 350 feet deep. We' re all kind of built along the same path, so we 8 don' t really see each other' s house . Where he plans to put the house way up in the back, I don' t 9 think conforms to the other houses that are there, of course he has the right to do so, but if he' s 10 asking for an exception for the garage for the front, I would have a problem with that . 11 So I would ask you to reject their application for a variance . I think there is a 12 variance required because there' s a reason why you want the garage in the rear. There' s not an 13 existing structure where he can' t build the garage in the rear if that' s what he chooses . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One quick question? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why Member Goehringer and myself kind of recommended some 16 landscaping with screening, would that help if they camouflaged the garage with dense 17 landscaping? MR. ASCIUTTO : I don' t understand why -- 18 would it help? It would help a little I guess, but I have natural woods there right now. In the 19 winter time you' re not going to screen anything unless you put in 50 foot pine trees in there, --- 20 then I won' t see it . Other than that I don' t see the purpose of putting the garage in the front . 21 He can put the garage under the house, he can put the garage in the rear. He' s a builder. He knows 22 what he bought . I don' t see why he needs to do this, personally. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you another question, please? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It sounds to me 25 like it' s more aesthetics than anything else . You don' t want to look at this thing? September 14 , 2004 12 1 2 MR. ASCIUTTO: I'm like every other person. You get spoiled, you have beautiful 3 surroundings, and the guy next door buys the piece of property, and he wants to build a house on it ; 4 we all have a right to do that . But if there is a code which basically says the garage should be in 5 the rear and someone is asking for an exception because there' s a hardship, there' s no topography 6 hardship that he couldn' t put the garage under the house so yes, would it bother me? Absolutely. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If he put the house there it would be much worse . 8 MR. ASCIUTTO: I' d rather see the house . MR. FLEMING: Just a comment to the 9 gentleman on the end here, aesthetics is clearly a primary concern, but I think that having a garage 10 close to the street within full view as I described the houses has a property value 11 consideration too that has to be considered. Thank you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Any other Board Members? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I want to add one thing to the record. I think we' re 14 failing to look here that there is practical difficulty. The practical difficulty is that 15 exists here is if he puts the garage under the house, he' s either going to significantly alter 16 that very nice plateau area that Mr. Orlando was referring to to cut the driveway down enough to 17 get up that hill, and I happen to live on a hill and I have to tell you it' s not a fun thing in the 18 winter, I realize there' s a great deal of that topography in this immediate area, so there is 19 some degree of practical difficulty in this application. And I'm just throwing that out . 20 Doesn' t mean I'm in favor of it or not in favor of it, as you know we vote as a Board, Madam 21 Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish 22 to speak on this application? Tom, did you have anything more to say? 23 MR. MCCARTHY: I just would like to reiterate the fact of the difficulty that' s 24 created of coming in and out of the winter time would be quite difficult, and the further you push 25 the other building back, the longer the driveway becomes and it becomes more costly as well . And I September 14 , 2004 13 1 2 respect both these gentlemen' s opinion, if he brought his house close to the street, he could, 3 in fact, leave the garage exactly where it is . So this gentleman who lives next door would be 4 looking at the same thing if Mr. Miller decided to hopscotch the house over the garage, the garage 5 would remain in the same location, and it could be conforming if he chose to bring his house closer 6 to the street . Although I can understand exactly what he' s saying he doesn' t want to look at it, 7 perhaps if the house were closer to the street, the garage would be in the rear yard, it would 8 still have the same effect on this gentleman and his view. I just wanted to add that to the 9 record. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to go over 10 that, that' s what I wrote down when I first saw this thing. The setback you' re asking for is 118 11 feet and required on that lot is 40 feet . MR. MCCARTHY: The front yard is 40 feet 12 and to the house is 194 feet BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house, leave 13 that out . You could take the house and build it within that 70 , 80 feet of space, build it right 14 up to 40 feet and not even ask us for a variance . MR. MCCARTHY: That' s right, and I feel 15 that would have a bigger impact on the neighbors and across the street and what have you because 16 the house would be directly on the road and would have a big impact on Wunneweta. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How far is the garage being set off from the side yard? 18 MR. MCCARTHY: 20 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not 19 accessory setback, it' s principal. MR. MCCARTHY: Principal . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How high is the garage going to be, is it single story, 15 feet , 21 20 feet? MR. MCCARTHY: I believe the code maximum 22 is 18 feet, so within that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Two car garage? 23 MR. MCCARTHY: Two car garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then the doors are 24 opening -- MR. MCCARTHY: The doors are opening to 25 the north, .away from this gentleman' s house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : From the street September 14 , 2004 14 1 2 you' re going to see the side of the garage . MR. MCCARTHY: You' re going to see the 3 side of the garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you' ll drive in 4 and have a turn. MR. MCCARTHY: From the street it may even 5 look like the two are connected because that' s what you' re going to see in the foreground is the 6 side of the garage and the house behind it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 7 distance between the house and the garage? MR. MCCARTHY: I would say at this point 8 it' s approximately 50 to 60 feet between the front steps and the back side of the garage . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, Tom. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are there any other 10 further comments? MR. ASCIUTTO: Yes . I think the question 11 was there' s not going to be an accessory apartment above this? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not allowed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Only electric and may 13 be just water for a potting shed. MR. ASCIUTTO : As far as aesthetics are 14 concerned, all the houses are in a row, I would be much more comfortable having a house pretty much 15 placed where all the other houses are, and looking at a backyard without an oversized house sitting 16 150 feet to my view in the rear. So as far as aesthetics are concerned, it does make a 17 difference to me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No one else? Then 18 I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before I say second, we are going to receive this information 20 from Mr. McCarthy. And Mr. McCarthy is going to address in that letter the 280A aspect? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . The 280A, landscaping, the height of the garage, electric, 22 water, if any. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 23 rehabilitation of the road in front . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on then, maybe 24 we could discuss that right now on the 'record. Tom, the 280A I assume you' re going to 25 have to go into the Building Department again; is that what your understanding is? September 14 , 2004 15 1 2 MR. MCCARTHY: The 280A is a surprise to me because we enjoy a building permit for the 3 house already. That' s been issued by the Building Department without the need for a 280A. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I will not grant anything and I will suggest to this Board 5 that nothing be granted, Tom, unless that driveway is done because an employee on that house could 6 get hurt and I assure you you will never get an ambulance into that property. 7 MR. MCCARTHY: I don' t disagree with you. I ' m stating for the record the fact that the 280A 8 is a surprise to me at this point because the Building Department did grant a building permit 9 that the applicant currently enjoys on that road for the house . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The ZBA can make certain conditions . 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : For the house, this is the garage . 12 MR. MCCARTHY: For the house . We' re happy to address the issue . I recognize there is a 13 safety issue, we will deal with that to the satisfaction of -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN -OLIVA: A car cannot get down there, Tom. 15 MR. MCCARTHY: I understand. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not your 16 fault, Tom. The Building Department I don' t believe goes out and does a visual inspection on 17 every permit before they issue, they see a survey, they see a dedicated road. 18 MR. MCCARTHY: I believe it' s improved up to this gentleman' s property, then it becomes a 19 rut just beyond it in front of ours . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t even 20 know if that meets standards to be honest with you. 21 MR. MCCARTHY: It looks like this gentleman or his predecessor improved it in order 22 to get access to their property. It' s incumbent upon us to do the same and we will do the same . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Tom. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not going to 24 let that go. The 280A is a requirement that has to come to us through the building inspector, and 25 this Board, although we can encumber an applicant with certain restrictions, I don' t think we can September 14 , 2004 16 1 2 require him to have a 280A. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We certainly 3 can, 150 percent, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t believe 4 that that is our purview. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is our main 5 purview. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If the building 6 inspector finds during the course of the inspection that this needs a 280A, then he' s going 7 to tell us; then the proper course of action will happen, which is, the applicant will be required 8 to submit the paperwork to file for a 280A and meet those requirements . If that hasn' t been done 9 for past applicants, that' s a sin that this applicant is probably going to have to pay for. 10 But I mean, to make our ruling contingent on a 280A, I 'm sorry, don' t see us having to do that . 11 And if the building inspector, the person who' s in , charge, the person who makes decisions based on 12 the code requires a 280A, then we' ll be more than happy to require that of the applicant . Beyond 13 that, I don' t understand any reasoning behind this Board' s decision not to grant him something 14 because he hasn' t been disapproved for it yet . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn' t say 15 that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I heard you say 16 that . You said you' re not going to grant this man a variance unless he has a 280A. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I said unless his road is brought up to standards . I said 18 nothing about him having to have the 280A at this moment . At the moment that the house is 19 completed, since he has a building permit, and whatever the traumatices we go through and the 20 decision that' s rendered by this Board, and before a CO is granted on that garage, regardless if it' s 21 in the house, out of the house, in front of the house, below the hill, it doesn' t make any 22 difference, he' s got to have a 280A. In other words, the road in front of the house has got to 23 meet 280A specifications . And that is what I 'm referring to . 24 MR. MCCARTHY: We' re saying it has to meet specifications without going for an official 280A 25 request from this Board? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the September 14 , 2004 17 1 2 Building Department' s happy with that, and that' s basically the issue . And that is the only concern 3 that I have . Because I tell you one thing, somebody' s going to get killed going down that 4 road at night . I tried to do it, and I want to tell you that is just earth shattering. I am 5 presently not driving my car today for that reason. My car is in the shop because of that 6 road. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is the 7 gray area you' re creating, Jerry. I want the applicant to be clear as to what his course of 8 action is . So he' s not three months from now still trying to get a variance for the garage in 9 the front yard, which is what they came to us originally for. I can give him some direction, 10 let' s tell him he' s got to go back, write a letter to the building inspector, whatever has to be done 11 so this applicant doesn' t have to guess what his next course of action is . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to make a motion adjourning this hearing until we receive 13 all the information we have requested until October 21st . 14 MR. MCCARTHY: What you are requesting is that the road in front of this parcel continuing 15 past this gentleman' s parcel is brought up to the standard that you' re looking for. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A reasonable state of repair. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s usually 15 foot wide, filling pot holes and putting some bank 18 run or gravel, it depends on what' s there and what you would like to offer first . 19 MR. MCCARTHY: We will offer to you in a letter that we will do those improvements together 20 with the type of screening, we' ll give you the height of the garage and offer to you what the 21 utilities will be within the building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s 22 reasonable . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it is . 23 MR. MCCARTHY: I' ll offer that in a letter, and if you want to make that a condition. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would prefer to adjourn the hearing until we receive all the 25 information until October 21st at 9 : 30 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. September 14 , 2004 18 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Aye . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Aye . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Nay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 6 Alec Smith for a lot line change on Main Road in Cutchogue . 7 MR. SMITH: My name is Randy Smith, I 'm Diane' s husband, and we would like to change the 8 property line on the lot in question. We' d like to square it off with the Main Road and all the 9 surrounding properties . We would like to basically eliminate the flag part of the lot that 10 runs behind the lot that our home is on. We' d like to do this for a couple reasons . 11 I guess the main reason being if we ever find it necessary to have to sell this property, that flag 12 on that property is really not large enough to do much with other than possibly unsightly storage or 13 something along those lines . And we' d like to run the property line along the crest of the hill 14 which is really the natural break in that property. It looks like that' s where that 15 property line should be, and in the meantime, right now, we don' t find it necessary to have to 16 sell this property, and what we would like to do is have a horse fence and turn it into a horse 17 pasture and have a permanent fence put around it without having to jog the fence all the way down 18 to the pond and around. Basically that' s it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want to put the 19 horse fence -- MR. SMITH: On that lot . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Lot 1 or Lot 2? MR. SMITH: Not on the lot that the 21 residence is on, the vacant one . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, to the east . 22 Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : County tax map 23 shows one lot, but you' re saying it' s two lots now? 24 MR. SMITH: It' s been subdivided. MS . KOWALSKI : They had prior variances 25 and they haven' t finalized with the Planning Board yet and are now back to change the variance to September 14 , 2004 19 1 2 alter the lot line again before they finalize the planning; is that correct? 3 MR. SMITH: I believe so . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like you got two 80, 000, 88, 000 square foot lots . They' re 5 odd shaped? MR. SMITH: Aesthetically it doesn' t make 6 a lot of sense . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Land-wise it 7 wouldn' t either. MR. SMITH: Right . Because there is a 8 crest right there along that property line . The land falls away quite a bit down to the pond, and 9 it' s kind of silly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not much for 10 placing conditions, but I understand your argument, and I think it wouldn' t hurt the town 11 just to divide it the way it is . But you will be creating a much larger lot on that other side 12 106, 000 square feet instead of 88 , 000 , and I was wondering how you would feel -- you would be 13 allowed to fill up 20 percent of that lot now, 80 , 000 square feet, I don' t know what that comes 14 to, 4 , 000 square feet, something like that . I have to write this decision, and I was thinking 15 that if we didn' t allow you to go any more than the 20 percent of 80 , 000 square feet in filling in 16 that larger lot of building space, would that be acceptable to you? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There are a lot of buildings on that . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There is, I agree . It doesn' t look to me that it goes over 20 19 percent now, doesn' t come close really, and it' s going to get larger. I was just hoping that you 20 would agree to at least not being able to increase it any more than what you would be allowed to 21 increase it now without coming back for a variance . 22 MR. SMITH: You' re putting me in kind of a -- 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have plans, tell me, if you have plans . If you have plans -- 24 MR. SMITH: I have no plans for it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just hate to see 25 a huge horse barn on that . MR. SMITH: We' re not going to put a horse September 14 , 2004 20 1 2 barn. We were going to make it a pasture . We have stables on our other property, we were going 3 to use the current stables . It would be nice some day, if we could turn the barn -- my wife' s a 4 professional artist . She would eventually like to turn that into a studio, and she didn' t want to 5 look back and see the back of the barn, look out onto where this potential junk yard might be . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with all of that . My point is that by increasing the size of 7 that lot, you increase the size of the amount of buildings that can go on there also, for lot 8 coverage . MR. SMITH: You' re talking about the lot 9 with the buildings on it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The larger lot, 10 it' s going to be a lot larger. MR. SMITH: We certainly would never put 11 anything there . There' s no way we would put anything on there . I mean, if we had to, if I had 12 to compromise with you, I would do it because I don' t like the way it' s set up now, I would almost 13 rather stipulate on the deed that nothing be built back there, if that could be done . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No further buildings back there? 15 MR. SMITH: No further buildings back there, cause that' s not -- 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t want you to go that far. What I don' t want to find 17 that you made this lot larger -- this is not you, I 'm not accusing you of anything -- 18 MR. SMITH: I know property changes hands . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I don' t want 19 is to find later on I drive by you made this lot larger and you made the other one smaller so that , 20 you could do something that required a larger lot . That was my thought, and again, this Board will 21 tell you, it' s not normally my way of thinking, but I am coming to the conclusion that sometimes, 22 when you look at a piece of paper, things aren' t always what they seem to be, and 20 percent of 23 80 , 000 square feet, whatever that is, that would be the allowable lot coverage that you would be 24 able to have at 106, 000 square feet and that is due to the fact that you got a variance, actually 25 a number of variances on this property. Would that be something that you could consider? September 14 , 2004 21 1 2 MR. SMITH: Yes, I guess so. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You could still 3 come back to this Board for a variance, say you were going to go 21 percent or 25 percent of the 4 lot coverage at 80 , 000 square feet, you could come back to this Board and get a variance for that . 5 I'm not guaranteeing you a variance, but that' s part of that process . But as a condition to this, 6 my preference would be that some way, , you' re going to have two two acre lots ',that the amount of 7 building that goes on there, still be consistent with two two acre lots . I'm just throwing that 8 out there . If you didn' t agree with it, it wouldn' t change my mind one way or the other. 9 MR. SMITH: It' s a little foggy. I'm not sure that I got what you're saying. Are you 10 saying that the property line would still -- the side lot would still be flagged? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The property line would be what you want it, which is that nice 12 straight line back on the lot to, what, the east? MR. SMITH: Yes . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The smaller lot . Then that lot' s going to be reduced to 60 , 000 14 square feet . And the other lot, which is another 88, 000 square feet, whatever it is, is now going 15 to have a nice little square off there in the back where the barn is, and that land is going to 16 belong to you now, you live on that, and you can sell the other lot or whatever; and what I would 17 like to see is that the amount of lot coverage that is required there or you are allowed to have 18 there remain the same as if you had the two lots, and they were two equal lots . So if you had -- 19 it' s 80, 000 square feet and 10 percent of that is 8 , 000 -- so 16 , 000 square feet of lot coverage, 20 you' re allowed to have that right now, and at the end of this you' ll still be allowed to have the 21 16 , 000 instead of 20, 000 . ' MR. SMITH: That would be fine . We' re not 22 going to be building, in fact, we' re going to be taking. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think you could, honestly, I tried to figure it out . You 24 are well under, I believe about 10 percent lot coverage, maybe a little more than that . 25 MR. SMITH: We' re actually considering taking down some of those old buildings . September 14 , 2004 22 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I wouldn' t make that a condition of this . Just my thought was I 3 didn' t want you to be able to have lot coverage for 100 , 000 square feet . 4 MR. SMITH: That' s perfectly okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then I'm going to 5 put that in as a condition. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did Jerry have 6 anything? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to this application? Hearing 7 none, then I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) -----------------7------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Eugene and Georgene Bozzo down on Camp Mineola Road in 10 Mattituck. MR. BOZZO: My wife Georgene and I are 11 here this morning to ask this Board to review and understand our request for adding decks to the 12 rear of our property. We live in a private community that really was founded about 60 years 13 ago as really a summer community, has evolved over the years into half the families living there year 14 round. And my lot is a very narrow, long lot, as most of the lots are in there . While we enjoy 15 living on the water and living on a waterfront piece of property, there are some disadvantages, 16 although some might not think so, but there are some disadvantages to living on the water and 17 there are some hardships that we really encountered in the last number of years since we 18 have both retired. And I' d like to review them for the Board this morning. 19 One is that we have a direct adjacency to a beach right next to our home that is used by 12 20 families in the community, those families .that are not directly on the water have access to this 21 beach, and since more and more people are moving there permanently, it gets quite crowded on this 22 beach. The other is the difficulty with the size of our lot . It is long, narrow and really it has 23 an angular shape . The other one is that waterfront exposure while great, we have a direct 24 southern exposure, which we get a lot of wind in the afternoon and direct sun, which makes it very 25 difficult out there to enjoy sitting out and eating, and it also does not give us any privacy September 14 , 2004 23 1 2 because the beach is right next to us . The other thing is that since 1988 when we initially 3 renovated the house and did this, our total lot area has been reduced to the high water by about 4 235 square feet, therefore increasing a lot . We are not asking to expand our home . We 5 will leave our home alone . We are just asking to put a deck on the back which is 360 square feet, 6 and we would hope that the Board would consider that this morning. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Vincent, do you have any questions? 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: According to this notice of disapproval in 1986 you were given a 9 variance not to exceed 24 percent of lot coverage . MR. BOZZO: That is correct . 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Apparently now you have 28 . 5 percent lot coverage . 11 MR. BOZZO: Part of that, Mr. Orlando, is that one, as I mentioned, we lost total property 12 to the high water mark. When the survey was done in 1988 we had approximately 7, 900 feet . Now the 13 survey that was done recently shows us to be 7, 655, so that accounts for a difference in terms 14 of a percentage . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No expansion, just 15 loss of property? MR. BOZZO: There has been nothing changed 16 to the property at all . We' re right near James Creek there . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've had bad erosion there . I did some work with Mr. Wombach. 18 MR. BOZZO: It just flows right into the creek, and they have to dredge the creek every so 19 often. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But they haven' t put 20 the spoil back on your side at all . MR. BOZZO: They did this year. They put 21 the spoils up front, but this survey was done in December, and the spoils were not done at that 22 time . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was down at 23 the property, sir, I find this an -extremely tight piece of property. And I just have a problem with 24 encroaching more into that area between the frame garage and the house, the existing house as it' s 25 been built for many, many years . I apologize, but I just think it' s too tight, I really, really do. September 14 , 2004 24 1 2 MR. BOZZO: Every piece of property down • there really is tight . If you were down there and 3 looked at it, and I have pictures of it if you would like, what we' re asking for I think is 4 reasonable, it' s only 12 feet coming from the house . And while you may think it is tight, it is 5 a hardship for us because we can' t enjoy sitting out front and after 2 : 00 , forget it, you can' t 6 enjoy any meal out there, you can' t sit out there, the wind just comes up. And we really have no 7 privacy, and to us it' s an issue . And while it may -- I can' t change the piece of my property, I 8 can' t adjust that, I wish I could but I can' t, and I 've asked for what I think is a reasonable deck, 9 which is only 12 feet, and I would hope that you would consider that . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll go back and relook at it, I ' ll do another physical inspection. 11 One of the areas, as being past captain of the rescue squad in Mattituck Fire Department, is that 12 area, we can' t even turn an ambulance around down there, that' s how tight it is, and of course this 13 deck is not going to impact that in any way. MR. BOZZO: No, not at all . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However, I have to tell you that the percentages of lot coverage 15 far exceed my estimations of what they should be, not only on your piece of property, again, which 16 is a very nice piece, by the way and a very beautiful lot, but on many of them down there . I 17 have expressed that to many people down there, including the gentleman at the end who just 18 rebuilt Marcie Allen' s house, Mr. Tufano, and that' s just my opinion. 19 MR. BOZZO: While I recognize that the lot coverage is high and it' s more than is allowed, I 20 think you have to recognize that it' s a piece of property that has existed that way, and it' s a 21 home that' s been built over 70 years ago. We are not changing the character of the home . We have 22 not changed that even when we renovate it we didn' t, and when we renovated back in 1986 , we 23 moved the house back from the bulkhead and bought the house and raised it up to move that . We 24 didn' t touch the garage except - for changing the entrance on one side . We have tried to comply 25 with everything. While, yes, there is difficulty coming down the street, that has nothing to do September 14 , 2004 25 1 2 with the deck. The deck is going to be off the back of the house . I don' t see it as an issue and 3 if it is, and you would like us to consider possibly reducing it slightly, I would agree to 4 that, if that would help in helping you agree with us in that we have a hardship. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I can see you do is making a ground level deck on 6 the back of the house with an awning over the top of it, and not an extensive second story deck over 7 the first story of the deck. When I say ground level, I realize it' s going to be raised a little 8 bit above the ground, but it' s going to be something very close to the ground for you to 9 utilize and the ability to keep the shade off would be one of those retractable awnings, that 10 type situation that' s the only thing that I could possibly see . 11 MR. BOZZO : The issue I would have with that, and I thank you for considering that, is 12 that the design we have used and the plans all show the deck upstairs and show everything. I 13 would have to change my complete plan for what I want to do, and I think that' s a hardship having 14 spent a considerable amount of money to develop the plan and everything. I do have a building 15 permit, as you know, to add the room upstairs and do some modifications . My purpose here today is 16 to ask for relief and get decks that I need in the back. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: First and second floor deck: 18 MR. BOZZO: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And for the record, 19 what is our maximum lot coverage we have -- isn' t it 28 . 5 , maximum Zoning Board has approved. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Every neighborhood is a little different . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sigsbee Road approximately -- 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Approximately 28 percent . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 28 . 5 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it' s a little high too myself, the lot coverage . You 25 know, you could get- away with a patio out front, some awnings or something. I'm looking at the September 14 , 2004 26 1 2 front of the house now, if you feel like you have to sit you out there, that' s certainly a way to 3 get around that, and it wouldn' t cost you any more to redo the plans than it does now because you 4 just wouldn' t have to build what you require . If you could find some way of cutting it back a 5 little bit -- MR. BOZZO: Cut back the plans to move the 6 deck in, both of them you mean? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I honestly don' t 7 see any reason for it . Again, if you feel you want it, that' s fine, but the thing is it' s pretty 8 high lot coverage, and you know you could do other things; you have other avenues to' pursue, and one 9 of them is just to put cement blocks down on the ground, whatever, cement pad, and cover it up in 10 the summer when you have that sun glaring on it . MR. BOZZO: If you don' t agree with me on 11 it, and you don' t agree with me reducing it back, and I did go ahead and put let' s say a deck down 12 below, that would have to be even with the ground; is that what you' re referring, it would have to be 13 flush? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you put the deck 14 and didn' t have the second story on it, I probably wouldn' t have a problem with it whatsoever, if 15 that looked like a porch. MR. BOZZO: If you did that and on the top 16 I put just a balcony, in other words, I did an alternate plan just in case I would have an issue 17 I did an alternate plan just showing a balcony up the deck, would I be allowed to do that? That 18 should not hinder anything because that does not change the footprint of the house . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going to cover the second story deck? 20 MR. BOZZO: I would just have a balcony coming out from the second story. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Like a railing. MR. BOZZO: I could show you, if you want 22 to see it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. 23 MR. BOZZO: In other words, you would just have up here on the top and there would be no 24 change in the bottom. That way I wouldn' t have to change the architecture and the way I designed the 25 windows and the way I designed that . It would not change the footprint at all . September 14 , 2004 27 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Change the footprint of the house . 3 MR. BOZZO: Then I could do what Jerry mentioned, I could go ahead and put something 4 ground level in there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Keep those 5 windows high enough that you could put an awning over, if you need to put an awning over. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be better than what you' re asking for. 7 MR. BOZZO: I would like to. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon 8 the size of the deck. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the size of 9 that deck? MR. BOZZO: Four by 17, because it doesn' t 10 go the full length of the other one . It' s five by 17 . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does this overhang the area? 12 MR. BOZZO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By how much? 13 MR. BOZZO: By five feet and in the front of my house I have a small, similar little deck 14 like that overhanging over the front deck I have . It looks like when there' s a deck below it, but 15 you know. MS . BOZZO: In due respect to what Jerry 16 says, with the awning, that would be a possibility, but for me personally, cosmetically, 17 I just don' t think that would look cosmetically as doing the charm of the house, the look of the 18 house, the aesthetics of the house, I think we have an awning in the front and to put another 19 quite large awning in the back aesthetically would not look -- and the other thing I would like you 20 to take into consideration in the front because the beach adjacent to us has grown, families have 21 grown, people are living there all year long, virtually no privacy in front, the wind factor is 22 very, very large, and we could not put any dense landscaping there, because we've tried that, it 23 would never last to give some privacy in the past . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re talking 24 about the water side of the house . MS . BOZZO: We' d like to entertain -- '25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand what you' re saying, but you' re also asking for a second September 14 , 2004 28 1 2 story to that . We' re denying people decks just out of hand decks because of that, and you' re 3 asking for a lot higher, I'm looking to perhaps give you what you need, which is you want some 4 protection from the weather, which would be that awning, and a place to sit in the front, which you 5 could do with patio blocks, and it could be raised a foot or so, if you want to put the awning out, 6 it would look okay. I think that plan is a nice plan and you obviously put some thought into it . 7 MR. BOZZO: I would like what I originally asked for, but I also realize that the lot 8 coverage is high, and I wanted to have an alternative to try to accommodate what we would 9 like to have . This doesn' t completely do it except I put a patio on the bottom, and I could 10 put one down on the bottom. We have to run an awning under this coming out . 11 MS . BOZZO: See the upper deck does also give you screening from the sun. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If it' s a 12 foot deck, the awnings' s going to give you seven feet, 13 which is not something this Board approves or disapproves honestly. That' s all I have . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is, will you submit that plan to us, Mr. Bozzo? 15 MR. BOZZO: If you would like it I' ll submit it today. 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I note that it is plan 8/6 amended 11/7/03 by architect' s name is 17 David Berz . MR. BOZZO: If you want me to submit this 18 today, I will . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes 20 to speak to this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision 21 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 23 McCance on Fishers Island on Cottage Place for the porch. We did see that when we went over there . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Fox Avenue has become a very popular area for our applications . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Lark. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, September 14 , 2004 29 1 2 Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant . So the Board has seen the property? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . We measured it all off, and saw there were porches on the other 4 pieces of property on that street too. They just wanted to re-do what was there originally. 5 MR. LARK: I think the application that you have before you is pretty self-explanatory. I 6 submitted the architectural drawings showing the increases, what' s being proposed as well .as the 7 surveyor situation. Basically to refresh you, they' re just really extending the kitchen and 8 laundry room area. As shown on the survey the laundry room 9 footprint is 34 . 7 feet westerly from the legal right of way, whereas the proposed extension to 10 the closest point is where the extension itself is going to be it will be 59 . 8 feet from the right of 11 way. The building inspector determines that the right of way, not the property line, is where you 12 have to measure it from. This is a paper 50 foot requirement because, as you see, if you have been 13 to the property, most of the right of way that' s on the applicant' s property is a parking area for 14 the applicant, whereas the driveway itself is only nine to 10 feet wide as it meanders on the 15 easterly side to get access to one' lot to the north. As you see on the photographs, what 16 they' re proposing will have absolutely no impact on the right of way area or much less the 17 neighbors . As you see in the survey, the closest as it exists today is 111 . 1 feet from the property 18 line . So the impact is really minimus . However, zoning does require the 70 foot rear yard, and he 19 has interpreted you have to measure it from the closest point on the right of way, but as I say, 20 the pictures clearly demonstrate that this addition will be seamless . 21 The surveyor shows the new footprint will be 88 square feet increase; the architect shows it 22 at 81 . 22 on the first floor and 92 . 79 on the second floor for a total increase of 174 . 01, and 23 using the existing house of 38-11, according to the surveyor, you get . 04 and according to the 24 architect if you do a calculation, you get . 045 increase in the living area . So it is minimal . I 25 think the pictures show you that the second story impact will have virtually nothing, although the September 14 , 2004 30 1 2 work is being done in the area of the 75 feet, so it does require the variance . The roof line, by 3 pushing the dormer out, the roof line will basically stay the same and I think that one 4 photograph that was taken from the driveway where the existing house is with the existing laundry 5 room and kitchen and what the proposed is, you can see that the change is basically seamless . So I 6 respectfully move for the reasons in the application, that the variance be granted to 7 increase this footprint by 80 some-odd square feet . J8 If there are any questions, I ' ll be glad to answer. Otherwise I ' ll just be belaboring it . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any questions, Vincent? 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We all saw the site . No questions . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has a beautiful view. 12 MR. LARK: Yes, it does . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They have a bee 13 problem too. I have no questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection. This is one of those modest 15 applications that we see when you' re trying to take something that was more summery and make it 16 part of the house . It' s a magnificent piece of property and probably in addition it' s going to 17 enhance the property immensely. MR. LARK: Make it more efficient . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this 19 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 20 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for John and Marion Brandvold, which is on Bay Shore 22 Road in Greenport . MS . KRAMER: Hi, I'm Meryl Kramer, I'm the 23 architect for the homeowner. Basically this is a beach bungalow that 24 the owner wants to renovate and make additions to. The existing construction is very substandard. In 25 order to bring the building up to code, energy code, structural codes, we made a decision to September 14 , 2004 31 1 2 rebuild the entire house . The owner is trying to stay within the existing setback violations, which 3 is 13 . 5 and nine feet, so we' re just trying to straighten out and go parallel to the property 4 lines to maximize the square footage . So the deck and the two side yards we' re not encroaching any 5 farther than the property already is as it stands now. 6 We have designed the house so that the second floor consists of dormers so as to minimize 7 the height on the side yard so we have a nine foot plate height on this first floor, then the roof 8 slopes up and the second floor spaces are just dormers sitting on that, so you don' t have a full 9 two-story wall anywhere along the side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not demolishing 10 the house? MS . KRAMER: We' re keeping the foundation 11 as much as possible, but anything that can be saved will, but a lot of times the contractor 12 will, by the time they' re finished taking down what' s not needed, you might as well start over 13 again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been to the site, I understand what you' re doing, I really 15 don' t know how to evaluate this one . I have to tell you again, this is not a sarcastic statement, 16 but I think again, we' re going to have to require renderings of these paper mache .models because we 17 are just unable to visualize, Meryl, the impact of what these houses are going to do on these lots, 18 particularly these smaller lots . Either that or some sort of physical view, either done by camera 19 computer, because it is very, very difficult to imagine what this house looks like; I know what it 20 looks like now, but in its future sense . I do applaud the fact that you' re not changing the 21 footprint of the house in any way, but the impact, and I do appreciate the dormer aspect rather than 22 raising the roof to a full two and a half stories, so to speak, but the impact is very difficult to 23 visualize . MS . KRAMER: Is it the hip roofs that are 24 posing a problem in terms of visualizing in three dimensions? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it' s the ability to see what the height on the existing September 14 , 2004 32 1 2 structure is going to look like, and how it may impact not only the two neighbors on either side 3 but visual impact from the road. This appears to be a relatively modest plan that you' re doing from 4 the outset, but I'm certainly going to go back after you've done it, and you've done many of 5 these plans, and we kid around with you calling you the Bay Shore Road Gal, well, architect, 6 because you are the Bay Shore Road gal, there' s no question about it, but in general, it' s difficult 7 to show the impact . It really is . MS . KRAMER: Okay. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s not a criticism of you or your work. 9 MS . KRAMER: I understand it' s complicated with the idea of the hip roof and then adding 10 dormers to that in order to minimize the impact . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even a roof line 11 cut down would be interesting to see because then we would be able to notice that . 12 MS . KRAMER: Do you mean building sections? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . From a cardboard rendering? 14 MS . KRAMER: We can do either a model or maybe a little 3-D. I don' t know how to do a 3-D 15 rendering, but the woman who works with me does . So I ' ll talk to her and see if we can get that, so 16 one or the other. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do agree it' s 17 difficult to imagine what it' s going to look like . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We sit here in a room and superimplant in our mind what we had 19 seen, and it' s a very nice piece of property. It' s not a terribly large piece of property, but 20 that' s the nature of that area, there' s no question about it, but it' s just very difficult . 21 MS . KRAMER: Okay. I think we can do that . And maybe what I could also do is look 22 around at some other similar roof configurations in the areas because it is a basic hip with some 23 dormers on top, so I' ll take some pictures so that might help you too to visualize that from the 24 road. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had a 25 tremendous problem with a similar application except the roof line appeared to be much higher on September 14 , 2004 33 1 2 Ruch Lane, and we had some great, great opposition on that one, and it was unfortunate, , we had 3 offered an alternate plan and the people actually became so upset with the neighbors' concerns that 4 they withdrew the application and that is not the intent, my intent . 5 MS . KRAMER: We still have a letter from one of the adjacent property owners in favor of 6 the project . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s never 7 been my intent to do that, to discourage . It' s only been to add or possibly lessen the impact . 8 But in this particular case, it' s difficult to visualize it . Again, it' s no reflection on your 9 work because you do very, very nice things . It' s just the inability to perceive it on how it' s 10 going to look. MS . KRAMER: Okay. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : This construction 12 full basement, half basement, crawl space? MS . KRAMER: Full basement I believe . 13 MR. BRANDVOLD: I have a full basement down and the elevation' s sufficient to keep the 14 basement . MS . KRAMER: We' re at 11 feet . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a full demo . MS . KRAMER: We' re leaving the existing 16 basement, then where there' s new foundation, we' ll just put in a crawl space where we' re going to 17 adjust the angles of the footprint . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a block 18 foundation now? MS . KRAMER: Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the height to the ridge, approximately 28 feet? It doesn' t 20 seem that high, 28 , 27? MS . KRAMER: I believe that' s what it is 21 to the ridge, 28 . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The house adjacent 22 to you, that' s quite tall? MS . KRAMER: You' re very tall . 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They' re the ones that gave the letter it' s okay, right? 24 MS . KRAMER: Of course . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How wide is this house? I have 27 . 9? September 14 , 2004 34 1 2 MS . KRAMER: Let me grab the survey to make sure . Yes, 27 . 9 . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have like a striped area, it looks like a deck? 4 MS . KRAMER: The striped area is the area to be added onto the existing footprint, so the 5 dashed line is the existing footprint of the house, then the solid line is the new and the 6 dashed area is the area that' s proposed to be in addition to the old footprint . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It says proposed deck, stairs and additions . 8 MS . KRAMER: Proposed deck and stairs addition, yes, because that area is not part of 9 the house, if you will . It' s not a structure, it' s the deck, I was trying to distinguish between 10 the deck and the house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On what side would 11 that be? MS . KRAMER: The water side, north. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the side yard there' s a distance that looks like a deck, that 13 deck is going to be new? MS . KRAMER: Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And it' s going to be larger than a porch, right? 15 MS . KRAMER: Yes . It' s basically an entrance to the house . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not covered? MS . KRAMER: It' s not covered by the 17 second floor, we just have a shed roof to project you. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the difference between that and the lot line? 19 MS . KRAMER: It' s 9 . 5 , that side and that is the 9 . 5 that we' re maintaining where the 20 existing deck is . We' re not going beyond. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going 21 beyond that? MS . KRAMER: We' re not going beyond the 22 9 . 5 that' s already existing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just making the 23 house a little larger though? MS . KRAMER: Yes . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, 25 I just want to mention that, of course, I know that it' s an existing footprint from the point of September 14 , 2004 1. 35 1 2 view of side to side and you' re squaring the house off . 3 MS . KRAMER: But we are expanding toward the road. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Toward the road, right . So in effect, it really is not the same 5 footprint because you' re filling in where that angle effect is? 6 MS . KRAMER: We' re not maintaining the same footprint . We' re just maintaining the side 7 yard setbacks . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this application? 9 MR. BRANDVOLD : I would. I'm John Brandvold, and Meryl has worked with me very much, 10 and I just thought since I came to see you, having served ten years on a zoning appeals board in my 11 village in Manhasset, Plandome Manor, I appreciate all the work you people do, and I know these 12 hearings take longer than you thought . I am always appalled at how much time it does take to 13 go through and how diligent you all are . I just wanted to comment . You commented 14 about how the house might look, and I' ll have Meryl do a small model of the house, and George 15 Braun, my next door neighbor who wrote the letter, his house, he received a variance I think about 16 four years ago and if you visited the lot that very, very tall house, and I don' t know who 17 approved that, but that' s kind of strange; but we' re very, very close friends, I'm close friends 18 with all the neighbors . I tried to minimize the plan working with Meryl, and we' re looking for a 19 cottage design. We' re hoping to eventually move out here permanently and we wanted to have enough 20 space so the grandchildren can come out . It' s been a hardship. I looked at trying to build onto 21 the existing structure, and I'm in construction. The construction that was used in the ' 40s, all of 22 the timber is undersized. The floor joists are undersized; there' s nothing in the house that 23 could support any addition going up the second floor; that was what brought me back. I had 24 originally wanted 30 feet across and realized after speaking to the Building Department, I said 25 the easiest way is to just leave the setbacks the way they are, which was only asking for a foot and September 14 , 2004 36 1 2 a half on the south side and one foot on the north side . So I 'm trying to comply as much as I can to 3 make this an easy situation for you to hopefully approve, but I' ll have Meryl do the little box 4 plan. But I was going to mention that there is a house on Bay Shore Road that just sold not too 5 long ago . It' s 1385 Bay Shore Road. If you drive down Bay Shore Road and look at 1385 , it is nearly 6 the identical plan that we chose . We didn' t chose it -- I happened to notice after we did our work 7 that this house is almost identical . So that house is very representative of having a garage on 8 the left and dormers on the south and the north side, and the width of the house is the same as 9 mine would be with the exception that the garage is offset . So it gives the appearance of a 10 slightly wider house . But it gives the same appearance in terms of- the hip roof, there is a 11 little hip dormer facing the road, and there is a small dormer on both sides north and south. And I 12 thought I' d mention, if you drive down that' s a brick house, I'm not going to build brick. It' s 13 almost identical in the design, and it' s a house that you can see angular, you can see it from both 14 sides . So you can kind of see how those dormers would look. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? 16 MS . PECORARO: My name is Louise Pecoraro . I was just curious, is there a height requirement 17 that is allowable? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, maximum height is 18 35 to the ridge when it meets code . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Maximum height is 19 to the mean. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s 35 feet to the 20 mean height of the ridge . So it could be 40 feet high if the peak -- 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This is not 35 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is not in any 22 way going to be that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is about 28 . I 23 make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision until later, with the condition that we 24 receive the model . (See minutes more resolution. ) 25 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for I September 14 , 2004 37 1 2 Ellen McNeilly on Vincent Street in Orient . MS . MCNEILLY: Good morning, I'm quite 3 flummoxed. I don' t have a building plan with me . I 'm quite surprised, I had no idea that I 4 needed -- I don' t have it . It may be with the Building Department application that you have 5 copies of . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We do have copies . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like to tell us what you want to do? 7 MS . MCNEILLY: Yes . Again, being one of the people who seems to delightfully spend much 8 more time out here than I have in the past having retired as well, but also being very occupied out 9 here . The house, while it was very amenable for a weekend house essentially is not as accommodating 10 for more full-time use, and my partner is doing considerably more work out here than had been done 11 previously; and we find that the upstairs second bedroom has turned into a drafting studio, the 12 downstairs living room has turned into a computer area, and we don' t have the room to exist . The 13 downstairs of the house is 954 square feet, which is smaller than many of the houses even in the 14 neighborhood per se . So we wanted to put an addition onto it that would be a slightly larger 15 living room and a dining room and something that functioned almost as a screened in porch but, in 16 fact, was a dining area with many windows on it that allowed us to catch the light and the breeze, 17 and then turned the existing living room into an effective den and work space because we are both 18 very active and need the space to do that and not to have the dining room table turned into meetings 19 and plans and conferences and things like that . So that is what we intended to do, but we didn' t 20 want to encroach on the garden to make it not viable . We didn' t want to turn the entire 21 property into any kind of building space . So my partner' s brother who is an architect had set it 22 kind of -- the existing house goes this way, the addition would go this way, but part of it is 23 cocked so that it doesn't impinge too much on the setback; there' s only a corner of it matches the 24 existing setback, which turns out to be 5 . 8 feet of the rest of the house . So that was our intent 25 was to minimize the existing grape arbor there that we would be hoping to save part of . I think September 14 , 2004 38 1 2 you, Mr. Orlando, were looking at that to see we may be able to take some sprigs and bring it 3 around to the cocked area, so that it nests in there . It' s a hundred years old and I really 4 don' t want to demolish that if I can avoid that . But the addition would basically replace the 5 footprint of the existing arbor, and then come into the side yard toward the existing garage, 6 about at the level of the existing deck on the front of the house . So it wouldn' t exceed the 7 overall coverage in the property, it barely skims under at 19 and a half percent . 8 I would prefer to answer questions if I could rather than -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you explained it . I think we have all been there, and I 10 understand it' s going to take place in the arbor, but you want to save part of that grape arbor if 11 you can, but your extension will be in that area. MS . MCNEILLY: Yes, it will be replacing 12 it . It' s a 443 foot or slightly larger than that addition, and the existing arbor is about 200 13 square feet . So it would be doubling that by coming into the yard between the garage and the 14 house slightly more than the arbor does, but it wouldn' t substantially increase the going into the 15 backyard much further than the arbor itself currently does . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just 17 wondering since you have a significant degree of nonconformity on the one side, why you didn' t 18 really want to pull that addition back a little farther from that? 19 MS . MCNEILLY: Because it would limit its livability and where basically you have a corner 20 only of the addition that we' re proposing, that hits that existing setback because it actually 21 goes at an angle so that there is like a basically 70 square feet of the addition itself 22 would be at that setback point and the balance of it goes further back. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just wondering is that an open porch which is in 24 between that that you' re filling in there? It looks to me it' s an enclosed porch. 25 MS . MCNEILLY: Where are you referring? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm referring to September 14 , 2004 39 1 2 the part in the rear of the house that' s being filled in basically between there and the new 3 addition. MS . MCNEILLY: The addition would be 4 butting up against to the existing house and replacing an arbor that is currently -- 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that little jog there, what is that? 6 MS . MCNEILLY: That will be a doorway going out to the wood pile . So it would have a 7 little platform to bring it level with the floor of the addition and the existing house and to step 8 down two steps to be able to get down to the ground level, and to enable us to have light going 9 in that bathroom window, which is on the east side of the house . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In effect, that corner that we' re referring to, which is 11 significantly nonconforming, could be clipped. . You could give us more relief on that side -- this 12 is not a sarcastic statement, it was meant to be pragmatic . You could clip that corner, since you 13 have some rather unique design on this already, to give us a little more footage between there and 14 the property line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She' s got four foot to' 15 the existing anyway, 5 . 8 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s still too 16 close . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a big house . 18 MS . MCNEILLY: Big house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a tall 19 house? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not big or tall . 20 MS . MCNEILLY: Tall house? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The way I'm 21 looking at it, it looked tall to me . I was there Saturday. 22 MS . MCNEILLY: It' s a story and a half house . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it' s four feet from the property line . 24 MS . MCNEILLY: No, it' s not, it' s 5 . 8 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Five foot is the 25 greatest and four foot on the back of the house . I 'm just trying not to increase the degree of September 14 , 2004 40 1 2 nonconformity. MS . MCNEILLY: I brought the 5' 8" is 3 exactly at the end of the existing house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct . 4 MS . MCNEILLY: And I mean at back end of the existing house, not the front end, the back 5 end, may I point that out to you? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I am aware 6 of that . I appreciate it, thank you. MS . MCNEILLY: So, if we did that, it 7 would change the shape of that room terrifically. Right now it' s two rectangles, one 8 of which have been offset . This is the corner, only that one corner that basically I think it 9 comes back seven feet because we did drop it back already in order to not get it to be too close . 10 That is where a fireplace would be; that is where it would significantly alter how we use that -- 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wasn' t referring to the fireplace wall in toto . I was 12 referring to that particular point where those two pieces go together. That could be clipped, that 13 could be a diagonal between those corners so as to create a greater distance between there and the 14 property line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, a 15 diagonal instead of a square . MS , MCNEILLY: But that diagonal would 16 have to be right into the fireplace . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely 17 not . Three feet on both sides with a diagonal in between. 18 MS . MCNEILLY: I 'm sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Come up here . 19 I 'm referring to this little diagonal here could be clipped right .across here, which would give you 20 a greater distance in the back. You could even put a window in there to make it look more 21 aesthetic, either a floor to ceiling window, that would give you a greater distance to the property 22 line . MS . MCNEILLY: Yes, this is the 518" right 23 here now, and this has been brought back to be matching that particular corner or exceeding, it . 24 So I wouldn' t be increasing the nonconformances . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are now, 25 because you' re adding onto it at the same distance . If you clipped this and gave us the September 14 , 2004 41 1 2 difference of, what this would be, whatever the greater amount would be you also have more room to 3 get in, but the same token the degree of nonconformance would not be increased to the point 4 of what the existing house would be, it would be lessened to that effect . 5 MS . MCNEILLY: It' s possible . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What are you 6 clipping out there? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This little 7 section right here . Which would then add to this distance and give you a little more room. As I 8 said, this nice lady, you could put a window in there . 9 MS . MCNEILLY: We' re referring to that as the cozy end, and this other end is the light 10 end. I guess to me it' s a difference between if we' re not taking it all the way back to the 11 setback, we' re talking about 70 square feet, which is the 36 square feet of the porch and about 12 another 35 square feet of the room itself, and we had hoped that by having that particular corner be 13 the only point of impact on the existing property line, that it wouldn' t be a sufficient increase in 14 nonconformance to be problematic . Whether or not that is the case is something you all will have to 15 determine, I can' t, but that was the reasoning we all had when we did that was to make an absolute 16 minimum impact on the degree of nonconformance relative to setback, whether that is satisfactory 17 is another issue . Whether we can accommodate that view, it' s hard for me to imagine quite what that 18 would look like at this point without referring back to the architect to see how he would deal 19 with that . I can understand where you' re going with it, I can see it' s a possibility. Obviously 20 we would prefer not to do it if it isn' t a requirement, but if it becomes something that is 21 contingent upon that, I suppose we could figure it out in some way that is meaningful . But we 22 attempted, as I said, just to keep an absolute point of nonconformance rather than a mass of 23 nonconformance . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate 24 that . I just wanted to tell you that if I didn' t have that thought, it would be unkind of me not to 25 mention it to you because if it came out in a decision -- September 14 , 2004 42 1 2 MS . MCNEILLY: I understand what you' re saying. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The garage, did you 4 have a variance for that? MS . MCNEILLY: In terms of what, it having 5 been built? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s going to be in 6 a side yard? MS . MCNEILLY: No, it wasn' t requested. 7 It was a pre-existing condition when I bought the house in 1987 . I didn' t know that I would have to 8 go for -- are you -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The addition would 9 put the garage in a side yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just inquiring, 10 that' s all . Just I foresee that that may be a problem for you when you go to get your CO. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If so then you' ll have to come back for another variance . 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s up to the Building Department also. 13 MS . MCNEILLY: Right . And the Building Department, we asked about that at the Building 14 Department and they said because the arbor was there, that the arbor was considered by them on 15 some level to be a structure and that there was already the nonconformance with the hundred year 16 old arbor and the 40 year old garage, it was already placed that way. So since we' re not 17 changing that, I think that they left it, because we did raise the issue with Damon at the Building 18 Department and there was no request to go any further with that . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else 20 in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there a dwelling above the garage? 22 MS . MCNEILLY: No . There' s a working studio that has a bathroom, but it' s not a 23 dwelling per se . We have used it for guests, and then they schlep across to eat, but it' s not a 24 dwelling per se . It' s quite comfortable, but it' s not a dwelling. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion 'to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. September 14 , 2004 43 1 2 (See minutes for resolution. ) (Whereupon, the public hearing was 3 adjourned for 20 minutes . See minutes for resolution. ) 4 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Evan 5 Akselrad at 1355 Shore Drive in Greenport . MS . MESIANO: Katherine Mesiano on behalf 6 of the applicant . Good morning, I am representing Evan Akselrad, who is a contract vendee in the 7 purchase of the property located 1355 Shore Drive in Greenport . 8 MS . KOWALSKI : You had submitted some elevation maps? 9 MS . MESIANO: Yes . I submitted elevations and a survey depicting the project as proposed. 10 The subject site is a . 3 acre waterfront lot located at the south side of Shore Drive in 11 Greenport . The property is zoned R40 . It' s a vacant waterfront parcel, bulkheaded, upon which 12 the applicant proposes to construct a 30 by 62 two-story, single-family dwelling and attached 13 garage, an approximately 504 foot square deck, pervious driveway and on-site sewage disposal '14 system. The proposed setback from the existing bulkhead at its nearest point is 48 feet . The 15 septic system is setback 100 feet from the bulkhead, which is also the high water mark. The 16 proposed structure is placed in such a way that it conforms to all other parameters except the 17 bulkhead setback. The septic field requires the area and the front yard that is proposed. I would 18 add though, we plan to put the septic system in the opposite corner because the only trees on the 19 property are in the area where the surveyor proposed the septic system. We' re attempting to 20 save those trees, so the septic system will be equidistant from the bulkhead, however, in the 21 left, the northeast corner of the property. But I don' t think that has any bearing on our 22 proposal . The proposed structure would be in line with the existing dwellings on either side . I 23 have a couple of statistics that I can give you. Shore Road is comprised of 19 lots, 17 of which 24 are improved with single-family dwellings, all of the lots have approximately 100 foot frontage . 25 There are nine waterfront lots on Shore Road, seven are improved. One appears to be owned by an September 14 , 2004 44 1 2 adjoining lot owner. And the approved waterfront lots appear to have similar setbacks to the 3 bulkhead as is our proposal . I have only one copy, I'm afraid, of an aerial photograph that 4 shows a section of Shore Road with all of the improvements, and you can see that the setbacks 5 are similar to that which we propose . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This house is a mite 6 bigger than most of the other ones though, I would say. 7 MS . MESIANO: It is somewhat . It takes on the appearance because of it' s configuration. 8 However, there will be no basement in the house, therefore having young children, Mr. Akselrad is 9 designing the house in such a way that he has adequate recreation area for the children above 10 ground. We' re not exceeding the lot coverage . The house is inclusive of the garage, so while the 11 mass may appear to be large, keep in mind that there is an attached garage within the 12 configuration of the house . The house is only 30 feet deep, that is not an exceptionally oversized 13 lot for the property. A house much shallower than that really becomes a functional problem. 14 Mr. Akselrad is here . Mr. Akselrad is an architect . He can speak better to the design than 15 I . The house has been designed for the lot . We' re maintaining the appropriate side yard 16 setback, as well as the technical information I've given you. I have letters from the neighbors, 17 who, Linda, I think they were in that envelope . I have a letter from each adjoining neighbor. 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s only certified receipts in the envelope and affidavits . 19 MS . MESIANO: Then I will read these letters . The first letter is from Barbara B . Dye 20 at 1465 Shore Drive, I believe this would be the house to the right of the subject property. 21 "My husband Joseph Dye and I are the neighbors of the property of 1355 Shore Drive . 22 Our property adjoins the property under appeal on the west side, and we are fully aware of 23 Mr. Akselrad' s application in front of the Zoning Board. We support Mr. Akselrad' s application and 24 urge the Board to approve it as applied for. ,, And the neighbor to the left, John Schatt, 25 in a letter dated September 9th, writes, "To the Board of Appeals : My wife Mary and I are adjacent September 14 , 2004 45 1 2 neighbors of the property designated as 1355 Shore Drive . Our property is contiguous with and 3 directly to the east of the property under appeal . We are fully aware of Mr. Akselrad' s application 4 before the Zoning Board. We support Mr. Akselrad' s application as a fitting use of the 5 property and urge the Board to approve application. " Signed John G. Schatt . 6 So I think the people who might be most affected by a house that one might think is 7 oversized, don' t have a problem with this . They are fully aware of the application. Mr. Akselrad 8 has met with them, shown them his house plans . He' s holding his side yard setback appropriately, 9 and he' s designed a house for the site . If you have questions regarding the site, 10 the siting of the house, the design, I would certainly defer to Mr. Akselrad. Are there other 11 questions from the Board? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No particular questions, just comments . Yes, I believe you can 13 only build a small cottage if you applied to the 75 foot setback and the septic . So I mean, I 14 think he' s pushed it back as far as he could toward Shore Road. 15 MS . MESIANO : Even if we built a small cottage . 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I also concur that without a basement you lose a lot of storage, I 17 have a lot of storage in my basement, for children, my wife . The only thing I will ask for 18 a little bit, though, it looks like the back deck is about 12 feet; can we put that at 10 feet and 19 45 . 7? MS . MESIANO: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Otherwise, I think it' s a good job. I was there where these trees 21 were . I parked right in there . Those are nice, mature trees . I don' t blame you for trying to 22 save them. MS . MESIANO: When we saw the surveyor' s 23 placement, I immediately called him and said, no, we can' t do that . That' s the only place we have a 24 tree . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the bulkhead 25 looks in great shape . MS . MESIANO: Yes . The bulkhead is in September 14 , 2004 46 1 2 good condition. The adjoining property owners, everyone there is very close, they use the 3 property to visit back and forth. Mr. Akselrad is going to put a walking path so that they can 4 continue to do that in the back yard. It' s a nice situation, and he' s looking to meld into the 5 neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 6 MS . MESIANO: But yes, we certainly are willing to reduce the size of the deck, if that 7 will make a difference . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that will 8 increase the setback to 4517"? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Correct . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Deck is to remain open to the sky? 10 MS . MESIANO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, it' s covered. 11 MS . MESIANO: It' s an open porch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Not to be enclosed? 12 MR. AKSELRAD: Just on the right side where it says proposed deck, that' s 10 feet by 16 13 feet, and that' s a screen porch, but the rear part that' s open, but it does have an overhang. 14 MS . MESIANO: The elevations that I provided you will demonstrate that . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The part that' s facing the bay is going to have a roof over it? 16 MR. AKSELRAD: That' s correct . It will have an overhang which will come out to the edge 17 of the deck, so if the deck was cut back to 10 feet, then the overhang will come back as well . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The deck on the west side is going to be an open deck? 19 MR. AKSELRAD: That' s a screen porch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that' s 20 conforming so we' re not interested in that, I mean, we' re interested but it' s not part of the 21 application? MS . MESIANO: Correct . Yes . The rear 22 elevation indicates that that porch on the side is screened, and if you study the rear elevation, 23 you' ll see that the deck does have a roof overhang. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, anything else? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . September 14 , 2004 47 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to comment on 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: Next hearing is Mr. Tapp and Mr. Ellis on West Road in Cutchogue for 6 two principal dwellings on one piece of property. MS . MOORE : Good afternoon. I have 7 Mr. Tapp, Bob Tapp here with me, I also have Tom Samuels, and I would actually defer mainly to Tom 8 Samuels because most of the reason for the application the way its been submitted is because 9 of the condition of the house as it presently exists . You have in your file the CO or the pre 10 CO for the house . It was issued in July of 1978 probably during one of the transfers of title, but 11 the house itself was built in 1902 . So given the condition of the structure, it' s lasted a good 12 long time, but it is in need of significant repair or replacement . It seemed when we were reviewing 13 the application that to repair this house in its present condition may not be the wisest of 14 alternatives . We would certainly need a variance from this Board if we went larger, even if we kept 15 it to the same, I don' t know what the Building Department would have done . Certainly we would 16 have needed to repair it . The location of the house to the bluff is 17 only at best a foot off the top of the bank. The property is bulkheaded and it' s very stable . As 18 you can tell from the vegetation on the bank, there is no erosion. It' s been here for a very 19 long time and in very good condition. The owners have carefully maintained the property, vegetated 20 the property, really do a very good job with the property, and that reflects in the letter you have 21 in your file from Mr. Frost, who is the neighbor to the west . He gave a little bit of a history as 22 well in his letter because his family had been the original owners of this property, the Tapp 23 property, and he recalled, and he' s a mature individual now, probably in his 50s, 60s and 24 recalls the existence of this house and the fact that there have been two houses on this property, 25 maintained two houses on this property with various tenants and various occupants . September 14 , 2004 48 1 2 What I' d like to do is get right to the structural because I'm sure you have questions 3 about that . I'm sure you have questions, I've given you a lot of written material already. I ' d 4 like to have Tom Samuels come to the dais . Originally we had put in writing the need for the 5 recommendation to have a new basement or foundation put on this property. Maybe you could, 6 generally the condition of the house as it is and what would need to be done, then what our proposal 7 is, as far as the square footage goes, just the slight difference in the square footage, which is 8 based on state building code standards and the need for appropriate space . 9 MR. SAMUELS : The condition of the house as you saw, it' s 100 years old. It' s a cottage . 10 It was always a little cottage . It' s sitting on piers . It probably could be renovated, but it 11 would be almost a reconstruction given what it is, which would probably require the variance anyway. 12 It' s in pretty tough shape, and also I think our clients were looking for a certain amount of 13 additional square footage as well, and we wanted to move it back from the bluff a little bit, 15 14 feet to decrease that nonconformity and also because it seemed better to be back a little bit, 15 and unless there' s specific questions about the house, it' s in tough shape, you saw that . It has 16 no foundation to speak of, there' s open stud work inside, and there' s water infiltration and insect 17 issues . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bird issues . 18 MR. SAMUELS : Yes, all kinds of issues . MS . MOORE : We pointed out that there' s 19 some electrical code issues, the water heater is not ventilated properly, and these were things 20 that we noticed right away and we' re not experts, but you would notice just by looking at it . The 21 water heater is right there as you come in and there are wires and exposed elements that just 22 creates a condition that what the client wants to do is improve upon that and make it safe . The 23 square footage, it' s slightly larger. It' s a difference of 194 square feet between the existing 24 house and the proposed house; can you clarify why the need for this slightly larger square footage? 25 MR. SAMUELS : Basically just looking for a three bedroom house . We tried first off to build, September 14, 2004 49 1 2 fulfill their programmatic requirements within that footprint, and it just meant rooms that were 3 impossibly small . It simply needed to be bigger in order to be the minimum that they were looking 4 for, and like I say, we were trying to keep it as tight as we could. 5 MS . MOORE : I think the stairway -- MR. SAMUELS : Yes, well, it doesn' t meet 6 current code anyway. The eves come down very low. It' s just altogether insufficient as a stand alone 7 residence . We tried to make it as small as possible . That difference in square footage is 8 the best we could do under the circumstances . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . Mr. Tapp and Mr. Ellis 9 gave me a tour of both the buildings, and I do agree that that building is near the edge, it' s a 10 charming little cottage and what have you, but I think a big wind will blow it down. The main 11 concern of this Board is that there' s two principal dwellings on one lot . I will ask if my 12 friends here have some questions first . MS . MOORE : I want to clarify, with 13 respect to the house that' s along the front, there was a garage placed on it, however the house 14 itself was not changing in its size, it' s a one bedroom, three room cottage . So practically, it' s 15 really an opposite . You have the front house being a very small one bedroom house, and you' ll 16 have the rear house, which is presently three bedrooms, continue to be three bedrooms and the 17 reallocation of space . Yes, you have two dwellings on one property, they are legal in that 18 they are pre-existing and there are COs for those structures . We want to preserve what is there . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? Beautiful spot I might add. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I visited the site as well, there was no one home at the time . I 21 have to say the cottage is absolutely adorable . Pictured myself sitting on the back deck having 22 coffee, But that' s the only good thing I had to say. It' s pre-existing, nonconforming and once 23 you remove the building, we all know now, it' s nonconforming anymore . You are building it larger 24 than it is . Yes, it is a contractor' s nightmare . There' s probably not one level piece of wood in 25 that house. I have no other questions, but the code was put there for a reason. It stops two September 14 , 2004 50 1 2 family dwellings on one lot, and it' s supposed to eliminate them as they come about . 3 MS . MOORE: I understand. But the reason for a variance before you demolish is to preserve 4 that non-conformity. We' re not demolishing -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I commend you for 5 that . Most people would ask for permission later. MS . MOORE : We don' t want to do that . We 6 want to preserve it . The reality is, you see the kind of the wink and the nod that goes on with 7 taking one wall at a time, that' s kind of a ridiculous way of proceeding through zoning. 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I commend you and your applicant for coming 9 forward. MS . MOORE: We are also reducing the 10 nonconformity in the sense that you do have non-conformity as to the use but the location of 11 the structure, it made sense that if we',re going to do the renovations here, push the new building 12 back, and we' re improving on a nonconformity. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Took one and gave 13 another, you made it larger but moved it back. MS . MOORE : Larger by 194 square feet . 14 That' s less than -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Larger is larger, 15 smaller is smaller, it' s either right or wrong. No other questions . 16 MR. TAPP: May I say something? My name is Bob Tapp . I'm a homeowner here . We have lived 17 there for six years . We used to live across the street and swapped properties actually with the 18 owner then. We were the ones who took this property out of a two-family circulation. There 19 had been tenants in the one bedroom cottage, which is the one by the road for 20 plus years, then 20 they rented the house that we' re proposing to change for summer after summer, and there were at 21 many times that was a family of four on the water, and it was a family of three in the one bedroom 22 cottage by the road with two large dogs . So we have really reduced the population on that 23 particular parcel, and we, have no plans to rent the cottage by the road. The only garage on the 24 property is attached to that cottage . We would not want to give up that garage . We would use it 25 as a guest cottage and an office perhaps, but the population, because of us, on that piece of September 14, 2004 51 1 2 property is now much lower. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So if the Board was 3 in favor of this, you wouldn' t mind a condition not to be rented? 4 MR. TAPP : If it were worded in such a way, but I wouldn' t want to give up future rights . 5 We may rent it to an ill parent or something. MS . MOORE : We can make it as an accessory 6 to the main house . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because you weren' t 7 going to rent it, now you might rent it . MR. TAPP : We have no plans to rent it . 8 MS . MOORE: He volunteered that without talking to counsel . Two dwellings on the property 9 is his legal right, you would be exchanging something that really was not -- he would be 10 giving up something that he' s really not legally obligated to do. He stated for the record that he 11 has reduced the intensity of the use . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in 14 the audience that wishes to comment on this application? Yes, ma' am? 15 MS . BURNS : Good afternoon, my name is Evelyn Burns . I live on Pequash Avenue . I would 16 like to say that Bob and Nick, the owners of this property, are an asset to this community. Using 17 their landscaping talents, they have voluntarily beautified the Peconic Beach and the Pequash Beach 18 and the Peconic Bay surrounding the bluff . Their talents in landscaping the north fork golf course 19 on Route 25 and the Cutchogue Presbyterian Church, of which Bob is a trustee, are also noteworthy. 20 They are always there to help their neighbors and I sincerely hope that this Board will grant their 21 application. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish 22 to speak on behalf of this application? MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon, my name is 23 Abigail Wickham, and I'm here representing the Pequash Recreation Club, which owns the property 24 to the east . Walter Krupski, Junior, who is one of the younger members by far of the club was 25 here, he had to leave, I don' t know if he' ll be back, so I hope to make the statements that he had September 14 , 2004 52 1 2 intended. Pequash Club is a very modest clubhouse . It' s been there since 1890, which is 3 well over a hundred years, and we just want to make a few comments about the project . Originally 4 the CO for the property in question was a cottage and a seasonal one and a half story cottage with 5 no heat, and that I don' t think the increased density now will be for two year round houses and 6 that was not at all reflected to the notice to the adjoining owners . Nonetheless, we really think 7 that what you decide we' re going to leave that entirely to your determination and not take a 8 position on it . The reason the club asked me to come today 9 is that their only concern is that this new and increased usage not impact on the continuation of 10 the clubhouse or the expense the clubhouse has to bear in order to operate because it is on a very 11 minimal budget . So we ask that your decision in this matter reflect and specify just a few factual 12 simple circumstances . First, that this is a private recreation 13 club adjoining this property, and that there are parties and recreational activities regularly 14 conducted at the club by the members individually as well as club events . Because when you increase 15 your density and usage, we don' t want that to become a factor for future complaints of future 16 owners . These gentlemen are very familiar with the club, and they know what the activities are,, 17 but we want to make sure that down the road when you have two families there that that would be 18 something that owners would be aware of . Second of all, it is a significant relief 19 they' re requesting, and we would ask that if the club should ever upgrade that they be given the 20 same considerations and that any relief here be considered a precedent as far as what the club 21 might want to do later on. Thirdly, there are some Health Department 22 concerns we have, and obviously have to be worked out with their Health Department approval . 23 Fourthly, and I believe Walter Krupski has discussed this with the owners, there is a large 24 tree between the two properties in the area where the house would be, and we would just like ,to make 25 sure that that is protected, and we think that they would do that, but we' d like that to be a September 14 , 2004 53 1 2 part of your decision. MR. TAPP : May I say something? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MR. TAPP : From our perspective, our 4 relationship with Pequash Club has always been very, very neighborly. 5 MS . WICKHAM: That' s true . MR. TAPP : We know some of the members 6 personally, I've been to the meetings, some of the members store their kayaks on the beach in front 7 of our house, which is fine with us, they asked before, and indeed, we feel it' s in the neighborly 8 spirit in which we both live . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone 9 else wish to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 10 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for details . ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is 12 for Michael Pisacano on Cox Neck Road in Mattituck. Pat, there' s some information that I 13 think we have requested and not received? MS . MOORE : Why don' t you tell me what 14 that is . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I called your 15 office and asked if you could please complete the file by confirming what the nature of your appeal 16 is, and we have not received your paperwork to complete the file . Right now it' s still 17 incomplete . 1 MS . MOORE : The request was whether or not 18 we amended our application to reflect the notice of disapproval, if I understood the request 19 correctly. Our appeal was based on 277 of the Town Law which is an application to create an 20 undersized lot, which is a direct appeal . What we could not get was a notice of disapproval from the 21 Building Department . The final version that was correct today, which you got today as well, is the 22 one where it says a proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to -- 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We haven' t received that from you, though, to confirm that that' s what 24 you' re appealing. MS . MOORE : I have it based on one is the 25 277, which is the area variance on a lot creation from the Planning Board. September 14 , 2004 54 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s the only one we have right now. 3 MS . MOORE : I can' t appeal something that I don' t know what the notice of disapproval is 4 about . The notice of disapproval says that the required lot size, it' s an area variance for the 5 lot size, which is what the 277 is about, it' s creating a lot that is undersized, and that' s the 6 area variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The question is, Mrs . 7 Moore, is it a lot? MS . MOORE : I believe it' s a lot . 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think we need to be clear that while you did take appeal under 9 277, I think it' s probably the best move to take the appeal from the notice of disapproval as well, 10 because I think there is a question as to whether 277 actually grants the Zoning Board jurisdiction 11 here inasmuch as this is not technically from a subdivision. So I think it would be safer to be 12 sure that the ZBA had jurisdiction to at least state for the record and include in your 13 application the notice of disapproval . In sum and substance it' s the same thing, you' re seeking an 14 area variance based on lot size, for us all to be confident that the ZBA has jurisdiction, you act 15 on the notice of disapproval as well . MS . MOORE : That' s fine . We will amend 16 our application to reflect that area variance as well . The notice, the appeal process is 17 identical; both of them are based on an area variance . If the Planning Board takes the 18 position that their action does not result in a lot, I would strongly disagree with that position. 19 You have the variance as of today, the notice of disapproval that reflects it' s an area variance 20 for the parcel that is in existence that is undersized. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you could clarify that in writing for us even after the 22 hearing, something for the file . MS . MOORE : That' s fine . I' ll follow-up 23 with it in writing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Also, there were 24 two disapprovals, we need to know which you are appealing or if you are appealing both of them? 25 MS . MOORE : No, I only have one disapproval, which is the notice of disapproval September 14 , 2004 55 1 2 last amended September 14th, today. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You may want to 3 check with the Building Department . MS . MOORE : I spoke with them today. 4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s two dates on that, right? 5 MS . MOORE : They originally had September 2nd that raised two other issues, which we have 6 clarified. One of the issues was whether or not we had access over the northerly right of way 7 that goes along Hilliker to the north. We gave them a letter which says the northerly right of 8 way is not ours, we don' t have access over the north. Let me give you my packet of papers . 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re familiar with the first one, you' re not familiar with the 10 second one? MS . MOORE : It' s the amended one, the 11 September 14th, the final version that I'm aware of . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There was a question before we get started, Linda noticed on the County 13 tax map that you do not own the right of way or from the road to the rear of that property. 14 MS . MOORE : That' s incorrect . We own fee title from Cox Neck Road, the 50 foot flag is our 15 fee title . It goes from there to the balance of the 125 by 200-some parcel . We actually own, my 16 client is the owner of that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have the deed to 17 that? MS . MOORE : Yes . It actually is 18 reflective in my tax map book, I have the current book that shows it not as a dashed line but as 19 part of the other. But for the record, we are truly the owner. Let me get these papers 20 distributed first . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I make my 21 statement now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past for the people that are aware, I did recuse myself on 23 the prior application that was before us in this gentleman' s name . And the purpose of that was 24 that I have held a broker' s license in the state of New York since 1975, and in and about 1986 I 25 voluntarily took it upon myself not to sell property in Southold town for the sole purpose of September 14 , 2004 56 1 2 any conflicts that might exist with my position on the Zoning Board, which I have held since 3 1980 . It was the office that was holding my license, I still contend that I do not sell real 4 estate in Southold town as either being a salesperson or a broker; I am not a salesperson, I 5 am a broker. Since then, I have switched offices . I am no longer licensed by that office as an 6 associate broker, and discussing this with the town attorney yesterday, not the assistant town 7 attorney sitting next to me but the town attorney, only because you weren' t in. 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I 'm aware of the situation. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t honestly believe that there is any conflict anymore . I did 10 mention to the town attorney that I would very simply lay it out to everyone present and say that 11 if anybody thinks that there is a conflict or if there' s any reason why I should not sit on this 12 particular hearing, please voice your opinion now, and I will recuse myself at this particular point . 13 So I'm throwing it out to anybody on the Board, anybody in the audience, and I am presently 14 licensed by Suzanne Hahn. The broker' s license has not come back to date . It was sent on August 15 20th to the state, as any broker' s license renewal is up on August 31, 2004 . And that' s where it 16 presently sits . We have not received it back again, however, Mrs . Hahn' s new corporation, of 17 which she is a part of, is mentioned on, my license and not the prior license that was held by a 18 gentleman and a good friend of mine in Mattituck, for many, many years, Mr., Robert Celic . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does .the Board have any problem? 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no problem with Jerry participating in it . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience? I guess not . 23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So you clarify, you have no relationship with any party 24 or entity that has a financial interest in the outcome of this appeal? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Never did and never will . It was just the same office at September 14 , 2004 57 1 2 that time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Mrs . Moore . 3 MS . MOORE : Thank you. What I did was I started off with the tax map to put an overall -- 4 I know you' re very familiar with this property, so to the extent ,that some of it will be repetitive, 5 I apologize . So now we' re addressing the area variance . What I started off with the tax map is 6 to show you the overall development of the area which I have included as part of the packet just 7 some of the property cards for the parcels that are in tax map areas 113 block 10, that shows the 8 size . It' s actually parcels that to some extent, some are still remaining single and separate, 9 others have merged but the parcel size is there; we' re about 50 feet in width and -- well, they 10 vary but 200 to 50 feet in width. That is directly across the street from the subject 11 property. Then to the south you have parcels that are approximately an acre in size . They are down 12 Cox Neck to the south, and to the north you have additional parcels that appear to have been 13 created approximately the same time that the adjoining parcels to the Pisacano piece may have 14 been created and these lots tend to be about a quarter acre in size approximately 100 feet in 15 width by 150 feet in depth. So you can see that the development of this area to the extent that 16 they were lots created through later date or earlier, preexisting lots, as well as lots that 17 have been probably created in the 180s, down to the south, one acre lots, those are certainly 18 smaller than the proposed lot that Mr. Pisacano owns . 19 I also want to put on the record that creation of this lot, because again, there is a 20 history with respect to the size of this parcel, and an understanding that we have a piece -- and 21 this is where I differ with the Planning Board' s position -- Chudiak, the prior owner, Chudiak 22 owned, and what I did I took one of the surveys and I highlighted what Chudiak owned prior to the 23 lot line changes that occurred in 185 . Mr. Chudiak at one point in time set off, 24 all properly with the Planning Board' s involvement, the Miloski property, which is along 25 the southwest, it' s the adjacent property to the southwest and along the flag portion. That September 14 , 2004 58 1 2 Miloski property ended up needing a variance from this Board with respect to 280A area access, 3 because they used the southerly portion of the flag as their access, and this Board granted the 4 280A for that piece . That piece Chudiak developed a two acre piece of property. He left behind from 5 that set off a parcel that was approximately 120 , 000 square feet in size . The way I came to 6 that conclusion is by taking the existing property and adding to it the square footage that was 7 granted in the lot line change to Wells, which is about 15, 000 square feet that was added to the 8 adjacent piece and about 32 , 000 square feet added to the Wanat piece . When I look at what the 9 Planning Board -- had Chudiak at the time, this is obviously before Pisacano, because none of this is 10 a record of covenant, so Mr. Pisacano bought the property, Chudiak sold the property; there were no 11 covenants on this property that put any limitation on this property that is before you today on the 12 development of this property. But we are going back in time and treating this property as if, had 13 Chudiak presented himself to the Planning Board in 1985 and said, Wanat and Wells are the only ones 14 that are participating, which is what ultimately 15 happened, had Wanat and Wells come before the Planning Board at the time would the Planning 16 Board have found that reducing the size of the Chudiak piece, that was two and-a-half acres in 17 size, would be appropriate to reduce the size of the Chudiak piece in order to make the Wanat and 18 Wells piece more conforming. I think the answer to that would have been yes, and we don' t know the 19 thoughts and the Planning Board keeps raising the intent . The intent in a sense is irrelevant 20 because unfortunately properties transfer title . Again, there is no document on record to disclose 21 to a good faith purchaser of what the intent was, of the intent to sterilize this property. Because 22 essentially what the Planning Board keeps sending as far as memos go is that the intention was to 23 sterilize by creating lot line changes and made the adjacent properties larger. While that 24 intent, while well-intentioned as it was, ultimately didn' t take place . So if we were to 25 come today, pretend that 185 never happened and Wells and Wanat came before the Board and said we September 14 , 2004 59 1 2 have a quarter acre piece of property, a piece 100 by 200 , our piece is very small, we would like 3 to take some of the two and a half acres that Chudiak owns and sell it to us and lot line 4 changes, I think that all of us would agree that given what we see as far as lot line changes 5 historically in this town, it would make sense to make those two developed properties along Cox Neck 6 a little more conforming, both for Health Department reasons because Health Department 7 requires the size of a property at least an acre -- just made all the general policies of this 8 town would have been met, again, if we were to come today and authorize what is today before this 9 Board. So that' s 1985 or today had none of this occurred. 10 The size of this property today is consistent even with the subdivision processes 11 that occurred in ' 85 and then back in Foster' s subdivision in ' 97 . This is interesting. I put 12 it on the record because one, the Planning Board in 185 approved properties of similar size to the 13 piece before you. The piece to the north, and I ' ll go back to the tax map because it' s a little 14 odd in its shape . The parcel that was originally the Simchik' s piece included 19 . 17, 19 . 15 and 15 combination of 19 . 27, 19 . 28 and 19 . 29 as well as the Hilliker piece adjacent to ours of 19 . 10, so 16 you can see it' s a very odd shaped parcel . Again, it' s 19 . 10 , the combination of the total of 19 . 27, 17 19 . 28 and 19 . 29 and then 19 . 15 and 19 . 17 , all of these parcels have a 50 foot flag, or right of 18 way, that runs, I' ll show you, we have a right of way that runs as the access for all these parcels 19 all the way to Cox Neck. What occurred during the Simchik subdivision, and I have, .even though it 20 was in your original two year ago file, I put the subdivision in your file so you would have it . In 21 1985 the Planning Board approved a four lot division of this property and put a condition that 22 covenants and restrictions would be recorded that no further subdivision of this property was to 23 take place . I want you to remember that because it' s important . I don' t know whether a covenant 24 was filed or it wasn' t, but in 1997, most of the board members were still there, Mr. Foster, comes 25 in to the Planning Board and asks to take those combined parcels 19 . 27, 19 . 28 and 19 . 29, he comes September 14 , 2004 60 1 2 before the Planning Board and asks to subdivide that property to essentially two lots and the 3 piece along Cox Neck to be dedicated to the Town as a drainage area. Again, the lots were 4 undersized or the resulting lots that Foster would create would be undersized -- it' s not a flag lot 5 like ours, remember we own the fee title to Cox Neck. They had the property that had the right of 6 way that bisects the property and what results is that one of the parcels, the center one, has to 7 come before this Board for a variance for a substandard lot depth and width according to the 8 Planning Board resolution and unfortunately the computers were down, so I couldn' t pull 9 application of your records Appeal 4423 on October 17, 1996 . That appeal, so the Board at that time 10 in 1996, for a subdivision approved in 197, approved an undersized lot very similarly designed 11 to the Pisacano piece to what' s left of the Chudiak piece, and here the Planning Board says, 12 wink and a nod, despite the covenants, whether they' re recorded or not, we know of something that 13 is not of record is not binding on a purchaser. We know that from the Ianu case that went to the 14 Appellate Division that the Planning Board now recognizes or should recognize as binding 15 law, certainly that they should be operating under that law, and that case is actually cited in 16 zoning periodicals that we get and it' s good law. It has not been overturned, certainly. 17 That the interesting -- again, on the Foster subdivision is that when I checked, because 18 what concerned me is that I didn' t see 19 . 29 as identified as owned by the town, and when I 19 checked with the assessor' s office, the assessor' s office said Foster sold the property, including 20 what was to be dedicated to the town on Cox Neck for a drainage area, this was raised last time 21 this Board saw the application or saw the owner there were concerns about drainage . Well let me 22 tell you that the concerns about drainage could easily be satisfied if the town took the drainage 23 area that they acquired or they negotiated as consideration for creation of the second lot on a 24 lot that was never to be subdivided. So we' re being treated in such a way that the Planning 25 Board is saying our intent, our intent, our intent almost blaming the owner, the applicant, everybody September 14 , 2004 61 1 2 except themselves for why we are here today, the creation of a lot that is undersized, based on 3 what they claim they never knew about or would never have approved it . 4 I find that to be offensive, and I know I 've been very passionate about this all 5 throughout because it seems very unfair given the history of the development in this area. 6 I asked the assessors for a copy of the property card because when we didn' t find the tax 7 map number in their assessment records, they had to research a little further, and they found that 8 Robert and Denise Navarra are the current owners of the parcel that is 19 . 29 . It does say split 9 for minor subdivision of ' 97, and says includes . 48 acres, 19 . 29, to be deeded to the town. But 10 that never took place . I just want you to have that in your file . 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 19 . 29 is a developed lot, is what you' re saying? 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a developable lot, but it hasn' t been developed. 13 MS . MOORE : Here' s another one where we' re going to have, I hope that the owners took the 14 time to go looking at the Planning Board files because that certainly that' s not an obligation, 15 that' s not part of a title search, nobody thinks to go looking at the Planning Board files because 16 you presume that the lot you' re buying is what the records show. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Excuse me, Pat, here it says 19 . 28 is the lot number and you said 18 19 . 29 ; is that the same lot? MS . MOORE : The assessors records have two 19 separate tax map numbers, 19 . 28 and 19 . 29 . The owner of both of those -- 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This one says 2 . 8 . MS . MOORE: They don' t have a card for 21 19 . 29 . The only have that card that reflects 19 . 29 to be dedicated to the town. So again, this 22 is our town records that are creating a history that down the line, I hope that that individual 23 knows enough that to not sell off that property and think it' s a building lot because the 24 assessor' s records seem to imply that that should be a property that could be developed. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This property card is really for 19 . 28, but with the condition in there September 14 , 2004 62 1 2 that 19 . 29 is to be deeded to the Town. MS . MOORE : Right . But minor subdivisions 3 are not filed with the county center. I don' t know how this 19 . 29 is identified as something 4 that would put somebody on notice that they' re going to be putting a house in a drainage area, I 5 hope that' s not the case, but it gives you an idea of how our record keeping is in this town and how, 6 again, the consideration on Artie Foster getting the subdivision was the dedication of that piece 7 to the Town. It never happened. Second point which I wish to stress is the 8 Planning Board in their recommendation to this Board talked about drainage well, that' s again a 9 false issue because the Town planned for taking care of the drainage problems in this area by 10 19 . 29 . It' s there, it could be developed, there' s no reason to make my client' s property a natural 11 drainage Swale for the community when the property to the north was developed just for that 12 purpose . So I am in a sense responding to some of the issues that I know you haven' t dealt with but 13 comes by way of recommendations through Planning. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Just to 14 clarify, the lot recognition issue will not be dealt by this Board. We' re here today for the 15 area variance issue . I understand you' re responding to the memo of the Planning Board and 16 so it is in some sense relevant and you feel the need to discuss it, but what we really need to 17 spend the time on today are the issues for the criteria for area variance . 18 MS . MOORE : I understand. I have given you the tax map that shows the development of the 19 area, the character of the area. You know that from your inspection, the houses that are designed 20 around this are relatively modest homes . The proposed house is a modest home . The houses along 21 Cox Neck Road and the property is essentially facing their backyards . I've given you the 22 Simchik subdivision that has a lot that is similarly developed with an area variance or 23 variances. from this Board to grant relief for the creation of an undersized lot, and the Board is 24 certainly aware of the community. They know that I personally live on a property that' s a half acre 25 in size . Most of you, if you consider the size of the properties that you live on may be anywhere September 14 , 2004 63 1 2 from an acre but certainly under two acres in size . This piece of property, if you include the 3 fee title to the flag is just about two acres, just under two acres . 4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you talk any specific acreage? How big is it if you 5 include the right of way, exactly? MS . MOORE: if you include the right of 6 way, it is 1 . 7 . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If you don' t 7 include the right of way? MS . MOORE : If you don' t include the right 8 of way, it' s 125 by 300 , and we have a proposed building envelope that meets zoning. 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: About 36 , 37, 000 square feet . 10 MS . MOORE : 37, 000 square feet . We also have a proposed building envelope that needs no 11 variances, and we have a Health Department approval for this property that' s been granted. 12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Was this parcel the exact same size when Mr. Pisacano 13 purchased it? MS . MOORE.: Yes . 14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So it was substandard in size when he bought it? 15 MS . MOORE : It was the size that it is . But again, we' re going back to the creation of 16 this lot . It' s a pre-existing lot . It was not created by Mr. Pisacano. It was created by, 17 again, the Planning Board' s lot line change . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: - We' re here 18 today because you need a variance . So my question is was a variance required when this was 19 purchased? And I think the answer is yes . MS . MOORE: It was not raised as an issue . 20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Nothing has changed in the size of this lot since it was 21 purchased. MS . MOORE: Right . The question is 22 whether or not an area variance was noted. Remember, two years ago an area variance was not 23 the direction that the Building Department sent us in. So keep in mind it' s up to the Building 24 Department and the Building Department determined whether or not an area variance was required and 25 that was not even an issue after -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the September 14 , 2004 64 1 2 court said you need an area variance at the very least, so we' re here . 3 MS . MOORE : So we' re here . But I don' t want it to be used against my client for buying a 4 property with an area variance that was required when, in fact, he wasn' t aware that an area 5 variance would have been required. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s his 6 lawyer' s job. MS . MOORE : That' s right . I would ask to 7 refer back to the other file that had his title report on it, which had no covenants, no 8 conditions on this property, so you know for the record that there were no limitations, no 9 conditions on this lot when he purchased. So as far as whether an area variance was .required for 10 the creation of this lot, given the fact that nobody expected this lot to ever have been 11 challenged in its creation, I think that Mr. Pisacano -- he was represented by 12 Mr. Caminiti, Mr. Caminiti reviewed the record and there was no indication that this was going to 13 need an area variance . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The issue of 14 lot recognition and lot size are somewhat segregable . It' s clear that it was less than 15 80 , 000 square feet when he bought it and in order to build on a lot less than 80, 000 square feet, 16 you need an area variance . MS . MOORE : No. You need a single and 17 separate search, a single and separate search was done and it was found that the property was single 18 and separate, so to that extent he had everything from the record to reflect that he should be able 19 to get a building permit . And, in fact, until he closed, the Building Department, just after 20 closing is when the Health Department and the Building Department started raising issues because 21 of comments that were made from staff people from other departments, phone calls that were made . 22 Otherwise, the owner, Mr. Pisacano, certainly the sellers had no idea that other agencies were going 23 to accept the position of the planner. And the planner was the only one to my knowledge at the 24 time who was making an issue of the lot and that, for the record, the planner attacres a memo that 25 was sent to, I believe it was sent to the Building Department and to the Town attorney at the September 14 , 2004 65 1 2 time . The planner knew that Mr. Pisacano was represented by an attorney certainly the planner 3 knew that Mr. Chudiak was represented by an attorney; no one received a copy of the -- I 'm 4 sorry, August 13 , 2001, there was a memo by Valerie Scopaz that went to the Building 5 Department, Planning Department and Town attorney' s office, none of which forwarded that 6 memo to anyone who had interest in that property, either as contract vendee or as seller. So the 7 issues that were raised were kept in-house and only came to light after Mr. Pisacano had already 8 closed on the title . So, again that goes to the good faith purchaser. 9 We' ll try to answer any questions . It' s a shame that it has to go before this Board, and my 10 position' s always been that the Planning Board should have cleaned this up long ago, but it keeps 11 coming back to this Board. I hope that this time we have submitted an application that you will 12 find in our favor. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Excuse me, we 13 still need the written application as to what we' re appealing so we can include it in the 14 file . MS . MOORE : Can you explain to me what 15 exactly you want? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t have an 16 application for your area variance based upon your notice of disapproval by the building inspector. ' 17 MS . MOORE : I have to look at my application and see . I know it was under 277 18 because that was a direct appeal . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s not the 19 application we' re talking about . You' re asking for an area variance based on disapproval, and 20 that we don' t have . MS . MOORE : I'm asking under two theories . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right, but we don' t have the second. Just letting you know we need 22 seven setback of that, please, then the original will be made part of the record. 23 MS . MOORE : Given that the application is identical it' s just an amendment to the 24 application already before the Board. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s right . It' s 25 just something that we need in writing. MS . MOORE : I don' t want to create paper September 14 , 2004 66 1 2 that' s unnecessary. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: She' s saying 3 it' s necessary. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s necessary. 4 MS . MOORE : You' re telling me that a whole new application as if none had been submitted -- 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right now we have an application only on the first theory. We do 6 not have your second application. You don' t have to pay a new fee, get a new file number, all we' re 7 asking you to do is supplement your file so that we can close it and seal it and make a decision. 81 Without your paperwork, how is the Board going to render a decision? 9 MS . MOORE : That' s fine . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Easy enough. 10 MS . MOORE : I don' t know whether it' s by way of a letter or a full application form. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re an attorney. MS . MOORE : So you' ll accept whatever I 12 submit . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Quick little 13 question for Miss Moore . MS . MOORE : Fee title, when you own a 14 piece of property; you own property in fee, fee title is you own the underlying property. You can 15 have rights over someone else' s property as a right of way, that means you don' t own the 16 underlying title . So you can have right of passage and you can have both right of passage -- 17 actually they merge, when you own the underlying title and you have right of passage, they merge. as 18 one, so that' s why I say, we own as if the property were road frontage, pretend that the 19 property faces the road, we actually own to Cox Neck. And we own by way of a flag. It' s a flag 20 lot . We do flag lots in this town all the time, which, rather than through a right of way, which 21 creates all kinds of separate issues, you actually own a strip to a larger piece . 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Wouldn't the other lots in the back have the same fee title? 23 MS . MOORE : No. The only one that has a right of way is the -- 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 19 . 19 and 19 . 18 , wouldn' t they have fee titles? 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Not necessarily, they might have a right to use it or September 14 , 2004 67 1 2 right to access it but they don' t necessarily own it . 3 MS . MOORE: The only one to my knowledge that has a right to use it, that' s the Miloski 4 property, that' s 19 . 18 , which you have granted a 280A. The reason why Miloski needed a 280A is 5 because they own to a road. They relied on access through a right of way. Then it looks like 6 there' s a little spur that goes to 19 . 23 , I can' t tell if that' s a right of way or not because it 7 has road frontage, so whether or not on the south end, it shows a little -- our deed doesn' t reflect 8 the piece to the south, but it doesn' t seem necessary or because it' s a 37 acre piece that 9 fronts Cox Neck. To our knowledge the only one that has is Miloski . Remember Hilliker got 10 developed through the Simchik subdivision to the north. That right of way, Hilliker right of way, 11 is strictly Hilliker, Simchik, those set of properties that were the northerly development, 12 kind of an odd-shaped piece . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, I 13 hate to differ with you but I believe that 19 . 18 and 19 . 19 both have right of way over this right 14 of way, and the reason I know that is because I reviewed that, actually, when I was sitting 15 outside at the last hearing. MS . MOORE : After driving it, I 'm sure 16 you' re right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He is right . 17 MS . MOORE : If you researched it, the reason I didn' t think so is because they have road 18 frontage but the back yards of those properties could essentially use that passage . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So they have right of way but not fee title . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding that three people, Miloski, Wanat 21 and Wells all have rights of way over that right of way. 22 MS . MOORE : That may be the case, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Who granted the 23 right of way? MS . MOORE : Chudiak would have been the 24 only one . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Give me the tax 25 number of the property owner that granted that right of way. September 14 , 2004 68 1 2 MS . MOORE : Remember Chudiak owned everything at one time . So if 19 . 18 -- I mean the 3 lot line changes that were done, they wouldn' t have had a right of way until that lot line change 4 occurred, so I didn' t see in their lot �line changes a right of way to the back, and I could 5 pull those deeds, I have it in here, I ' ll double check, but when Chudiak split off the portion of 6 land from his piece to the adjoining pieces, I ' ll have to check and see if that also granted them a 7 right of way. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask it this 8 way: Say Mr. Pisacano wants to put a fence around his property, the property he owns, a chain link 9 fence with no gate, does he interfere with these people' s right of way? 10 MS . MOORE : Only if they have a right of way. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Who granted that right of way? 12 MS . MOORE : I 'm trying to answer it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it 13 Mr. Pisacano' s property that supplies that right of way? 14 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s his property, 15 he owns it, he doesn' t need a right of way it' s his . 16 MS . MOORE : That' s what I said. It' s as if you had this property right on Cox Neck. 17 Imagine instead of the flag, the full width of the property being to Cox Neck. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the shape of the property is such that it' s 1 . 9 acres of land 19 whether this was shaped like a teddy bear or if it' s shaped like it is now. 20 MS . MOORE: You could have a Mickey Mouse shaped face and you would still own the whole 21 piece . In addition, I think what the Assistant Town Attorney is trying to point out is what is 22 the balance exclusive of the flag is still large enough to develop, and that' s the point I was 23 trying to make before, which is, even if we exclude the flag, that the parcel still has in 24 some areas 175 in width, but to the north 125 in width at its smallest point and 300 in depth. So 25 that area has been, because that was something Mr. Pisacano when he bought was concerned about September 14 , 2004 69 1 2 and he did put a building envelope, and he got health department, and he wanted to be sure that 3 he wasn' t creating a lot that he wouldn' t be able to build on. You can have overlapping front yard, 4 rear yard, side yard, you get them all the time where you end up with a property that gives you no 5 room to put a house without a variance; that' s why the notice of disapproval took so long to get to a 6 final version because the Building Department kept raising everything, what are our potential 7 problems here . It was our job to answer back why it wouldn' t apply, and our final answer was who 8 has these right of ways and where is the lot width and depth and so on. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm asking that question because it seems to me that there' s some 10 concern that this is an undersized lot that' s going to have a house on it eventually if 11 everything goes well . Yet 200 feet to the north, the people who have rights of way on their 12 property, they own that property yet they have to grant right of way to the next lot, that right of 13 way was included in their lot size . MS . MOORE: Even though it' s excluded. 14 It' s actually more encumbering than ours . Whether or not a variance for the construction of a 15 dwelling on that -- I don' t know the Building Department at that time didn' t think it was 16 necessary. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you 17 this, the lot itself is just slightly undersized for the zone; am I correct? It' s two acre zones, 18 it' s 1 . 79 acres, whatever square footage that is, certainly if it was a square piece of property on 19 Cox Neck Lane, this would not be before us, it would not need a variance, because you could 20 purchase a lot one acre in a two acre zone and build a house on it if you meet the setback. Is 21 there anything in the record anywhere that says this is not a buildable lot? 22 MS . MOORE: No . The only issue, the planner relies on a memo that is an internal memo 23 that none of us could have known about . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is that part of the 24 record today? MS . MOORE : They attached it to their 25 recommendation, that' s the only reason I raise it and respond to it because in the memorandum that September 14 , 2004 70 1 2 came to this Board from Jerry Woodhouse, they go through the background and intent, and again that 3 intent well-intentioned as it may be is not of record as far as a title record here . Then they 4 go on and on and on. But they attach a memo and r they refer back to it August 13 , 2001 . And that' s 5 the only memo -- and again, it' s not of record because an internal memo may not be subject to 6 FOIL. In particularly where it goes to the town attorney. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern -is that if it' s done in an orderly fashion, when a person 8 goes to purchase that piece of property, they should be able to go to the county or wherever and 9 get all the information that pertains to that piece of property. 10 MS . MOORE : That' s precisely what the Appellate Division said on the case where a 11 covenant was filed by the Planning Board to no further subdivision, where we presented that there 12 was clear title, no issue of it and the Appellate Division recited what is kind of real property 13 law, which is unless a document or restriction appears in a chain of title, it' s not binding on a 14 good faith purchaser. That' s the point here today is the same point . There was nothing on record 15 and, in fact, there was a single and separate search. Everything led everyone to believe that 16 it was buildable . Everyone had lawyers . We all looked at it, and went, it' s a 1 . 7 acre piece, 17 what do you mean it' s not a lot? That' s why I went back, and I hate to repeat myself, but I went 18 back to Chudiak, what he owned when the lot line change was made . He owned two and a half acres, 19 no doubt met zoning, and not doubt that he was going to put one house on that property. The fact 20 that neighbors benefited from lot line changes shouldn' t -- everybody won. If the application 21 were done today, it would still be a win-win. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So get this back 22 and forth about two applications and the Article 277 which deals more with Planning Board, right? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MS . MOORE : Right, we go back to pretend 24 this doesn' t exist . How on do we make it exist? It has to be by looking at what Chudiak owned 25 before a lot line change was done, and they told us that was a suggestion on how to proceed with September 14 , 2004 71 1 2 this . We paid $250 application fee to essentially approve two out of the four lot line changes 3 because the other two never got done and now my client owns the property. So we' re resubdividing, 4 and Valerie makes a point it was resubdivided, well, yeah, it was resubdivided. in ' 85 and this is 5 what' s left . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s one . 6 MS . MOORE : And an area variance for us to build on the lot that' s undersized. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t know who answers this question, but can we consider an area 8 variance on this lot; do we have to consider the 277? 9 MS . MOORE : I' ll defer to your Town attorney. 10 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: My recommendation would be to deal with it directly 11 with a notice of disapproval . I think it' s the cleanest way and the most protectable way. So 12 that' s my recommendation, you know. Obviously, you know and the applicant knows that they still 13 need to get Planning Board approval for the lot recognition issue . 14 MS . MOORE: I guess that' s where I 'm confused. . 15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Why are you confused if you made an application to the 16 Planning Board? MS . MOORE : I made an application to the 17 Planning Board. The Planning Board says we can' t consider this application because it' s an 18 undersized lot . I 'm here for the area variance for the undersized lot . I go back to the Planning 19 Board and say, Planning Board, now the lot is legal in size, approve it . 20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right and they will make their decision. 21 MS . MOORE : What you' re asking me to do is appeal in the notice of disapproval . The notice 22 of disapproval says, regardless of what the Planning Board says, that this lot can be built 23 on. Should the Building Department, if that' s -- the only notice of disapproval they've given me is 24 that if you grant this area variance, does it mean that the Building Department will give me a 25 building permit? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, they will September 14 , 2004 72 1 2 not . Because, as they did two years ago which resulted in litigation, they said it' s not a 3 recognized lot, as you well know. So until that decision is overturned 4 MS . MOORE : So I guess that' s why I was confused on why am I appealing a notice of 5 disapproval -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s the 6 necessary step because the court said the Planning Board cannot create a lot that' s undersized, so 7 you need this . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But we can. 8 MS . MOORE : You can? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . So we' re 9 going with this one that' s amended September 14th. That' s the one that we' ll write the decision -- 10 MS . MOORE : No, please refer to both. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Under the 277, I 11 really have a problem that we jurisdiction under that because that applies to a subdivision and a 12 plat . We do not have a plat in this application. It is not a recognized plat as far as the Planning 13 Board is concerned. MS . MOORE : That' s where I disagree . You 14 have Chudiak, Miloski got subdivided from what Chudiak owned. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. MS . MOORE: Chudiak owned all of this . So 16 what they' re saying, if the lot line change and our codes says a lot line change is a lesser than 17 a subdivision, but fine we' ll call it a subdivision because the Health Department and 18 everybody these days calls it a subdivision. What the Planning Board did is split off land from a 19 larger tract, larger plot . Isn' t that a subdivision or resubdivision? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s that one piece left over that was not included. 21 MS . MOORE : What piece? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The one we' re talking 22 about . AST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The one we' re 23 talking about . MS . MOORE : You have to own something to 24 give it away, don' t you? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It existed but not in 25 the way the Planning Board -- MS . MOORE: No . You have land, it' s the September 14 , 2004 73 1 2 intent . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t think we need to get into today. May I clarify? 4 MS . MOORE: Yes . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think it' s 5 certainly arguable and you have made the argument that that 1985 decision could be construed as a 6 subdivision, a resubdivision, what have you. The problem is what is your application before the 7 Planning Board today? It' s for an approval . It' s not really subdividing and or changing anything. 8 So, to be clear and correct with the ZBA' s jurisdiction, I think it' s most prudent that they 9 act according to the notice of disapproval . They can consider your application under 277, but I 10 think the ZBA would be most comfortable, unless I hear otherwise, that they base their jurisdiction 11 on the notice of disapproval . Quite frankly, I think that' s the safest course for the applicant 12 as well . MS'. MOORE : I have no problem with that . 13 What Jimmy just asked me is we' re only approving it under the one notice of disapproval, and I said 14 no, please don' t do that, under both scenarios because if the Planning Board says no, I'm going 15 to be in an Article 78 on both issues because we' re starting with a property that somebody owned 16 and then resubdivided, and the planner says so in her memo she says it was resubdivided. Whether 17 it' s resubdivided in four lot changes or two lot line changes, what' s left behind is owned by 18 somebody. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What you need 19 from this Board is to consider your relief for the size . 20 MS . MOORE : Consider my relief for the size of the property that is less than two 21 acres . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have 22 anything? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I 'm going 23 to reserve at the end here . But we do need to get this proper application going from Mrs . Moore 24 regarding this notice of disapproval . MS . MOORE : I' ll go back this afternoon. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would suggest at this time to adjourn this, and let her come September 14 , 2004 74 1 2 back with the application so we have it, and let' s hear the rest of the two other persons that are 3 here, then we' ll reconvene in an hour or so. Let' s get it done right . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. and Mrs . Wells are here, I ' m sure they have comments . Mr. Wells . 5 MR. WELLS : My wife is going to present this to you. This goes to the Chairperson. This 6 goes in the file, which is all our deeds with the right of ways in there from Chudiak. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MRS . WELLS : On December 16, 1985 the 8 Planning Board approved four separate applications by William Chudiak for lot line changes to in 9 effect subdivide a 2 . 39 acre parcel so that the majority of the parcel would be merged into and 10 become part of a four existing lots and the remaining portion would be a deeded right of 11 way. The applicant was to sell 8, 800 square feet to the Wannats, 12 , 5.00 square feet to us, 12 , 500 12 square feet to the Beckers and 25, 000 Zibicki, now known as Siderakis, leaving a right of way 13 containing 35, 474 square feet . A condition of the lot line approvals was that the existing lots with 14 houses would merge with the new property to be added by the lot line change, and that only one 15 residence would be permitted on the newly created merged lots . Therefore, Chudiak sold 8 , 800 square 16 feet to my mom and dad, 12 , 500 to us, but as I understand it, he refused to sell the 12 , 500 17 square feet to Becker and the 25, 000 square fee to Zibicki, also now would be Siderakis . Although 18 both Becker and Zibicki (Siderakis) were ready to buy the land and complete the lot line change on 19 August 27, 2002 , Chudiak sold this land to the applicant for $81, 000 . I believe both Chudiak' s 20 completion of the lot line changes with the Wanats and us, combined with his failure to complete the 21 lot line changes with Becker and Zibicki, is an illegal subdivision of land, that the entire 22 parcel that applicant now owns is an illegally created lot . I also believe the effect of the 23 Planning Board approvals for Zoning purposes was to create four new lots . So even though Chudiak 24 did not sell to Becker or Zibicki, for zoning purposes, the land owned by Becker and Zibicki 25 merged with the land owned by Chudiak. For Zoning purposes I believe the Town September 14 , 2004 75 1 2 should only recognize as building lots the existing parcel owned by Becker together with the 3 12 , 500 square feet owned by the applicant that was to be sold to Becker and the existing parcel owned 4 by Zibicki (Siderakis) together with the 25, 000 square feet owned by the applicant that was to be 5 sold to Zibicki and Siderakis ., The remaining part of the applicant' s land is a deeded right of way 6 that cannot be built on. To my knowledge, Chudiak never applied to the Planning Board to unmerge the 7 newly created lots or to annul the prior approvals therefore I believe the property owned by the 8 applicant is not a lot recognized by the Town and cannot be built on, period. The Building 9 Department was correct in refusing to issue a building permit . The applicant needs the Planning 10 Board to create a legal lot and he should be before them and not you. 11 Now, as I understand it, this Board reacred the same conclusion in the prior 12 application by the applicant . When he sued, the Supreme Court agreed with this Board dismissing 13 his lawsuit . So I'm actually wondering how or why the applicant is back here seeking a variance for 14 a lot that is not recognized by the Town. I just don' t think the Zoning Board can grant the 15 variance requested. The Zoning Board cannot legalize this lot 16 by granting an area variance . However, assuming for argument' s sake that the applicant did have a 17 lot recognized by the Town and this Board could grant a variance, the applicant is not entitled to 18 a variance anyway. I have reviewed the application submitted by the applicant . He 19 indicated that the Town law requires the Zoning Board to consider certain factors in reviewing 20 this application. I will review these factors with you. 21 The Board must consider whether the relief requested is substantial . The applicant says no 22 claiming that the so-called lot has 72 , 974 square feet and therefore the applicant only needs a 23 variance of 7, 026 square feet, or about 10 percent relief . However, of the 72, 974 square feet, 24 35 , 474 square feet compromises a 50 foot wide deeded right of way which appears on the tax map . 25 The town code defines lot area as that area of a lot less any portion within a public or September 14 , 2004 76 1 2 private right of way. Therefore, the applicant is actually seeking a lot variance for a lot with 3 37, 500 square feet, that means the applicant is seeking a variance of 42 , 500 square feet or a 4 relief of over 50 percent . In my opinion the actual relief the applicant needs is quite 5 substantial . The Board must also consider whether the 6 variance will have an adverse imimpact on the physical or environmental conditions 7 inneighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties . The subject property is well below 8 the grade of the property it adjoins . In order to be developed it would require that a kettle hole 9 be filled and the right of way leading to the property be raised. Currently, the natural 10 contours of the land surrounding the subject' s property results in water runoff all leading to 11 the below grade portions of the subject property. Granting the variance permitting construction on 12 the substandard lot will result in terrible flooding for all adjoining property owners . 13 The Board must also consider whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved 14 by some feasible method other than a variance . The applicant says no, claiming that the property 15 is left over land from a Planning Board action in 1985 and that the applicant purchased the 16 buildable lot, that he paid a lot for it and now suffering financially because he cannot build on 17 it . This factor shouldn' t be given any weight by this Board. Contrary to the applicant' s 18 misrepresentation, this property is not a legal buildable lot . Would or should this Board give a 19 lot area variance to someone who purchased an illegally created substandard lot? I think the 20 answer is no. The Board must also consider whether the 21 alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicant says no, stating that the property was purchased 22 with clean title and a pending approval for construction. He also falsely states that the lot 23 was created by the Planning Board. He goes on to state that no one knew or believed that this lot 24 was not an approved lot when we bought it . This property was not a lot created by the Planning 25 Board, and therefore the property was not a legal lot when the applicant bought it . September 14 , 2004 77 1 2 Now, as I understand it, the applicant and his family are land speculators and are 3 experienced in buying property and then developing them or flipping them. Therefore, I believe he 4 knew or should have known that the lot was not buildable . Now I also understand he bought it for 5 $81, 000 , half of what the building lots were selling for at the time . Perhaps he was taking a 6 calculated risk that he could get a building permit . It is also my understanding that it is 7 customary to make vacant land sales contracts conditional upon the buyer obtaining a building 8 permit prior to closing. Obviously, he did not obtain one . Regardless of whether the applicant 9 gambled, was duped or did not do his homework or had an inexperienced attorney represent him, he 10 purchased property he could not build on, and therefore the hardship was self-created. 11 The applicant also states that the variance requested is the minimum variance 12 practicable because the only way he can request less relief would be to buy additional land to 13 make the lot bigger, and that my mom and us would not sell the land back to him. First, the 14 applicant has never asked to buy the land back; and second, he would need approval from the 15 Planning Board to undo the original lot line change or to do a new lot line change . The 16 applicant further stated in his application that you must perform a balancing test, balancing the 17 benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 18 The relief requested is substantial . The development will result in flooding to adjoining 19 properties and the hardship was self-created. I believe that these factors lead to the 20 conclusion that the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community outweighs the 21 benefit to the applicant . The variance should therefore be denied. 22 I completed the lot line change process with Mr. Chudiak because I thought I was buying 23 both additional land and security of knowing that no homes would ever be built on that property. I 24 relied in good faith that Mr. Chudiak would fulfill his promise by completing the lot line 25 change with Becker and Zibicki, now Siderakis . The town should be mindful of this . I remind you September 14 , 2004 78 1 2 that I will remind the Planning Board should the applicant seek relief there . 3 In conclusion, the subject property is not a legally recognized lot by the Town. The 4 applicant, however, is asking this Board to grant this lot legal status by granting an area 5 variance . Only the Planning Board can do that and therefore, the applicant must go to the Planning 6 Board for that relief . Then and only then can the applicant return to this Board to seek a lot area 7 variance . It is then and only then that this Board can consider the area variance sought here . 8 MR. WELLS : I have just a comment . Artie Foster' s name was brought up, and on that 9 property, the reason why they let him build, what he did was, with Simchik, he made a deal with 10 Simchik. When it was broke off to five two acre lots for a mini subdivision with a private road, 11 Artie Foster made a deal that whatever properties were left , he would take it for the price of 12 building the road all the way in and around. He did it . He took two acres on that property. He 13 built his own house on it . When he got completely done, he decided, well, me let me see if I can go 14 back and dupe the town. So he promised the Town that hole if they give him a building permit for 15 another piece of property along side the one he just built, and he built it, and he sold that . 16 That' s how that came about, that little piece down in there . And that hole is on the other side of 17 Nudeck, as far as drainage . It' s completely way away from this one . This is way on the other side 18 of this piece of property. So that' s how that came about . Because I remember Artie Foster 19 coming and doing that . The other last one I want to say is when 20 he broke off the property Chudiak did, when Kevin Miloski wanted one acre, he come back, the Town 21 says no, you have two acres, two acre zoning, that' s what Chudiak broke it off,. two acres, he 22 had to create a right of way from Kevin; it was not only in from Cox Neck Road to his house, but 23 also ran along his property of two acres all the back to Hilliker' s house, where it is now. He has 24 the right to use that right of way all the way to Hilliker' s house to the end of his property, but 25 so do I and so does my mother-in-law, and you' ll see it in that paperwork because we wield it off . September 14 , 2004 79 1 2 Chudiak give it to me because he knew I had a trailer and when I came in the back I' d have to 3 pull all the way down and back back-up . I' d have to use part of that right of way to get that 36 4 foot trailer in there . That' s the reason that right of way was created for him. 5 The property then, I was using it, Chudiak let me use it, and I purchased it, it was only a 6 strip of 125 feet by 500 feet long, that' s all that was left . That' s when he went to the 7 Planning Board and the Planning Board said you have to do lot line changes . You cannot sell it 8 for another house, we don' t want any more houses back there, because it' s two acre zoning and we 9 don' t want them on top of one another. That' s how all that little strip was left, and, of course, 10 what happened on the end, happened on the end, that' s all . Thank you very much. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Wells . Thank you, Mrs . Wells . 12 MS . MOORE : For the record, because a lot was said in that presentation. To begin with for 13 the record, I reported Chudiak family on this property. I started a process of the permit 14 process . Then Mr. Pisacano came along and he took over the permit process, but nowhere during any of 15 the time that the property was either on the market before it went to contract with Chudiak or 16 during the time that Mr. Pisacano was in contract till the present have we ever been approacred by 17 Becker or Zibicki' s predecessor in title; no one has ever offered to complete the lot line changes 18 that were approved in ' 85 . In fact, when I first met the Chudiaks we 19 had an option with proceeding finishing up the lot line changes and the only way you could do that 20 was by doing deeds and confirmation deeds . Every lot line change application says this lot line 21 change is not effective until a deed and a confirmation deed is recorded. That is a final 22 step in a lot line change . Those things were never done because obviously Becker and Zibicki 23 didn' t proceed with the sale . Whether it was Chudiak who didn' t sell to Becker and Zibicki or 24 Zibicki and Becker, we don' t know. To my knowledge, Chudiak never said to me, I refuse to 25 sell to those people . He just said, and, in fact, I think one of the past hearings somebody admitted September 14 , 2004 80 1 2 that Becker didn' t have the wherewithal to finish, to complete that purchase . So for whatever reason 3 it doesn' t occur. So, for the record, there have never been 4 any offers, and in fact, the Planning Board hearsay was that the lot line changes could still 5 take place . I would say that none of us have ever been extended an offer, me to my client or the 6 client directly. So I want to dissuade the Board from thinking that that is an option 7 As far as the price of $81, 000, that was the fair market value in 2001 for a developable 8 property. This was not bought or sold at a discount . So, let me assure you, because property 9 values are certainly much greater now and you and I all know that the values of property are 10 probably significantly increased at this point . $81, 000 was, in fact, the fair market value . This 11 was not bought as a property on speculation in any way, as far as, oh, we' ll take our chances, I get 12 what I get, that was not the case . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Wells? 13 MR. WELLS : I have a rebuttal . If you go back in your record in the other file, you' re 14 going to find letters in there in 1988 that was sent to Chudiak and his lawyer to buy that 15 property for lot line changes . It' s in there, black and white because I've seen it . So as far 16 as saying there was nobody wanting to buy it, people still ask me, the reason why it wasn' t sold 17 because when the time came somebody got involved and says we want a lot more money. When it was 18 originally purchased it was $10, 000 an acre, that was going rate in 1985 for property. He broke it 19 off and that' s what we paid. We paid full price, we didn' t get any cheaper, but now when somebody 20 else was handling it, as far as Chudiak was concerned, they wanted a lot more money. It 21 started off that piece of property at $285 , 000 , that' s what that property went to market for by 22 the real estate when Chudiak was trying to sell it, not him, Chudiak. 23 MS . MOORE : I am the attorney, that was never a number that was ever contemplated at the 24 time . MR. PISACANO: About the drainage problem, 25 I don' t plan on changing any contours of the land. The foundation goes in, it' s going to get September 14 , 2004 81 1 2 backfilled. The drainage isn' t going to go anywhere different from where it' s going. It' s 3 not going to be a problem as far as that goes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How can it not? 4 MR. PISACANO: I don' t know. They' re saying it goes down to this hole . I'm not 5 building on the hole . So the water' s going to go wherever it' s going it' s going to continue to go . 6 Why would there be any more drainage if I built a house on it? 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine, but you might experience erosion because I was down at Mr. 8 Wells' house and even since the previous rain you could see the gullies coming down from the south 9 really or the west, it just runs down. The natural slope of the land is this way. 10 MR. PISACANO: The Health Department asked me to get contours done on the land, and I did. 11 The house is going to be built up on the higher land, and I just don' t see it being a problem. 12 They said if I were going to take the trees down, I mean, that can happen any way, whether I build 13 on it or not, the trees not necessarily have to stay there . I don' t see that being a problem. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the Board' s pleasure? 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only the point of view to make the application whole, that' s it . 16 MS . MOORE : What time do you want to reconvene? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Half an hour. Adjourn it 2 : 30 . I ' ll make a motion to adjourn the 18 hearing until approximately 20 minutes to 3 : 00 . (See minutes for resolution. ) 19 ------------------------------------------------- (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. ) 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application, I do believe, is Mr. Schultheis . 21 MR. BRESSLER: Upon a review of the minutes of the last proceeding, this matter was 22 adjourned and kept open for the Board going down to the parcel, making observations, reviewing our 23 last submission and putting questions to the applicant, to paraphrase the last several lines of 24 the minutes . Therefore, we stand ready to address any concerns you have or to answer any questions 25 which may have arisen as a result of your examination of the documents and the property. September 14, 2004 82 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to say 3 that we had a very nice inspection of the property. What Mr. and Mrs . Schultheis put 4 together in reference to their conforming location was initially narrow, I don' t mean they are 5 narrow, I mean the location was narrow, they were very nice . 6 I want to reflect back, I have to tell you, I could keep this hearing going for the next 7 four hours; based on what we did today, I don' t think that is going to happen. 8 I just want to reflect back on the character of the neighborhood. We know that there 9 is an old boat yard next to them. We also know that there was extensive work done in reference to 10 two-story houses in the immediate area and so on and so forth. 11 I was actually going to go back block by block, house by house and mark them out on the 12 entire tax map, but I can tell you from my knowledge of New Suffolk, and the period of time 13 that I had spent, which is from 1971 to present in real estate in the town, not in reference to 14 selling real estate from 1986 to present, . but that two-thirds to three-quarters of the houses in New 15 Suffolk--are nonconforming. They were built prior to zoning. So regardless if they are one-story, 16 two-story, whatever the case might be, and why does that have merit, not to be offensive to the 17 Schultheises who, by the way, are very nice people, it very simply tells me that their house 18 is not nonconforming because it was a bait shop prior to zoning, and it was actually reconstructed 19 or constructed after zoning. I still stand that it is on a peninsula, a very fragile piece of 20 property, and I do understand Mr. Schultheis' s examination of the bulkhead and the construction 21 of the bulkhead as it exists today, which is substantial . I am very simply going to say that 22 had I been more aware of the fact that I think this Board should hold the application in 23 abeyance, and I realize this is another reaffirmation application as opposed to a brand 24 new application, and allow them to go back to the Trustees, thereby filling in their house where 25 their open deck is, and building the necessary rooms that they need to support family members, September 14 , 2004 83 1 2 and taking that spoil area in the front, and reconstructing a new deck with Trustee approval, 3 and any other variances they need, I think that' s what the Board should do, and I think that' s what 4 the applicant should do. I have no objection to them raising roof 5 lines . My entire objection to this application was basically the construction of a second story. 6 I have no offense to them in any way, manner or form. I construe them to be very, very nice 7 people, I' ll reiterate that again. But that' s my suggestion, that they should fill in their 8 existing deck area which faces the Peconic Bay, make that house, raise any roof lines that they so 9 chose to do, so they don' t have different elevations of roof lines, but again, still to make 10 the house a one-story home and thereby adding on to it in that spoil area of the remaining lot that 11 they purchased across the front of their property, an existing deck, a modest existing deck attached 12 to the house with the necessary support pilings that you have to put in into that spoil area, and 13 away from that drain area that they have, which was delineated by Mr. Schultheis . That' s what I 14 think they should do . And I can say that, as being a past chairperson of the this Board, that I 15 don' t think they have necessarily exhausted their legal right in that benefit, and I think that' s an 16 area that would have great merit . And their house would be almost square or rectangular, whatever 17 conformity you would choose it to be, rather than a little more "L" shaped, as it is now, and that 18 would be my suggestion. That is the maximum I 'm going to say today unless there are any other 19 issues and we go from there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any questions . I kind of wonder why we' re still here, 21 but I think that it' s not unreasonable what the applicant' s asking for. I mean, I did not take 22 part in the first part of this application, so I didn' t get the whole nuance of the whole thing, 23 but I did go down there and take a look at it, go by it on the boat . I don' t think it stands out 24 any more than any other house in the area, and it won' t when it' s done, that' s my opinion, I 'm one 25 member. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? September 14 , 2004 84 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to clarify, it wasn' t putting a second story, just two dormers 3 on, correct, two dormers on the existing dwelling? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s an 4 extremely shallow roof line . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . 5 MR. SCHULTHEIS : Specifically it' s raising the wall with about a four foot high knee wall 6 with a new roof on top. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Reduce the pitch. 7 I don' t believe the ridge changed. MR. SCHULTHEIS : There would be a new roof 8 put on. It wouldn' t be a full eight foot wall for the second floor, just a four foot knee wall with 9 a new roof and dormers in the front and the rear. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That expanded the 10 height? MR. SCHULTHEIS : The height of the house 11 would increase . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay. Any response 12 back to Mr. Goehringer' s suggestion? MR. BRESSLER: I think I would like to 13 address them in the first instance, if that constitutes the substance of the members' concern. 14 We have been through the approval process . We are at the end of the line . I think it probably goes 15 without saying but since we' re making a record, I will say it anyway, we don' t want to start again. 16 What the suggestion is as a practical matter is that we have to go back, we have to reapproach the 17 Trustees; we have to reapproach the Department of Environmental Conservation; we have to reapproach 18 everyone and then come back here again with another plan after, from an environmental point of 19 view, these things have been approved. That' s the first problem I see with that particular approach. 20 Secondly, it was our intention to design this project in such a manner that it minimize the 21 environmental impacts . And quite frankly, I don' t think that the suggestion of engaging in 22 construction, which in some way is going to move us closer to the water and encroach further on the 23 wetlands, is something that is desirable, let alone whether DEC and whether the Trustees are 24 even going to entertain such an application when an environmentally sounder alternative has already 25 been approved. Now, with regard to the second floor September 14 , 2004 85 1 2 itself, I think that there is no dispute regardless of when the second story dwellings in 3 the New Suffolk area arose, this is not inconsistent with the character of the 4 neighborhood. ' I think that if we also were to expand 5 toward the water on the first floor, we' d be back to you with further variance applications because 6 of the location of the lot lines . The Board is aware there are two separate lots there, and I 7 think that as between the two alternatives, I think adding the four foot knee wall, changing the 8 height in a modest fashion is the soundest way, but I leave, obviously members of the Board have 9 their own approach to this, I think when you consider all of the factors that are involved here 10 and the fact that the applicant' s request is modest overall, I think that the method by which 11 the applicant has chosen to proceed and the approvals he' s gotten to date militate in favor of 12 this particular application, the way it' s structured. We don' t want to go closer to the 13 wetlands . So I also could be here until 6 : 00 , Jerry and I could argue until 6 : 00, but neither of 14 us wants to do that, and we could debate this ad infinitum. I think the issues are fairly clearly 15 drawn, Board Member Goehringer has made his position very clear about what his objection is, 16 and I think that we have mentioned the fact that we can militate and hopefully overcome, in the 17 minds of at least the remaining Board Members . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You certainly 18 are much more articulate than I am. However, I just want to say to that you the environmental 19 issues, as you know, from the DEC are pretty much taken care of because you have a substantial 20 bulkhead, that' s Number 1 . The situation in reference to the Health Department are pretty much 21 taken care of with the DEC and the Health Department because there is no change in the 22 cesspool/septic tank issue because they' re being untouched; and Number 3 , if the Army Corps of 23 Engineers is involved, we' re talking about squaring off the house, that' s what I'm talking 24 about, taking the "L" out of the house and making that part of the house . 25 The only issue is for the Town Trustees are sinking a couple pilings into that spoil area September 14 , 2004 86 1 2 in the front, you' re absolutely correct, but for all intents and purposes, really within the lot 3 line of the existing house and not proceeding into that property in the front, which is in a separate 4 lot areas, which really has no significance because it' s in the same name . I have to tell you 5 that I feel so badly about the way I worked and discussed this application with the Schultheises 6 on the first hearing, that I would be willing to go to the Trustees with you, and go down to the 7 property with them and explain to them after Mr. and Mrs . Schultheis came up with an agreeable 8 plan because I don' t normally like to do those things, however, I was extremely upset by that 9 statement which said that we were discriminating against either parent that was going to live in 10 the house with them, because, again, this Board does not discriminate and I just want you to be 11 aware, that I feel badly about that, badly that I attacked these nice people . And, of course, I 12 apologized in doing so. MR. SCHULTHEIS : You did. We appreciate 13 it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would even go 14 to the Trustees with them and with you to approach them and say this is what we really need; this is 15 what we will like to have and after much field visit and review of this application. So that' s 16 just my opinion, and I have to tell you that that' s the way I feel about it . 17 MR. BRESSLER: We respect that . But we ask the Board. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have one member missing, but I think I ' d like to close the hearing 19 and have us discuss it at our October 7th hearing. MR. BRESSLER: Before you close the 20 hearing, I think the applicant would like to make a statement . 21 MR. SCHULTHEIS : As far as the suggestion to square off the house . It' s something that was 22 looked at and it creates some very unwieldy situations . It' s a square with very little -- 23 with access to light only on the outside . It makes for not a pleasant living experience in a 24 square . And that' s based on the layout of the house now, where the kitchen is, where the other 25 rooms are . The other part of that is that increasing the deck out further towards the water, September 14, 2004 87 1 2 I 'm sure Mr. Hartung, who lives to the north, is not going to be happy with the view that he is 3 going to have as he looks to the south now, and I'm sure Mr. Gonzalez who lives to the south, when 4 he looks to the north is going to lose his view of a big part of Cutchogue . I appreciate the 5 suggestion. My personal feeling is that it' s an unwieldy situation. There are, in addition, there 6 are old cesspools under the deck which were never accounted for in any of the material I gave you, 7 I can refer to Artie Foster, who put the new cesspools in, and you can ask him about the 8 cave-ins that he' s experienced in putting them in, and we do know that there are other cesspools in 9 that area which we prefer just to leave alone . It' s a very fragile area under that main portion 10 under the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will take your 11 comments into consideration. MR. SCHULTHEIS : I had brought up the fact 12 that in some of my previous material that one of the things that we considered doing was basically 13 looking for some additional living area for guests and family when they come visit . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Understood. MR. SCHULTHEIS : One of the things that 15 was considered was basically raising the garage and making some bedroom area up there but we were 16 precluded from doing that because when the Cremminses that owned the house before us, they 17 had to get a variance to build that garage and it was for storage only. So that was considered as 18 an alternative, couldn' t do that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was the 19 reason, Mr. Schultheis, why I suggested adding on to the house to the garage, that was my first 20 suggestion for that particular reason. Because now it becomes part of the garage, and you could 21 ask this Board to waive that particular option. Again, assuming the garage doesn' t become 22 outlandishly large . That was the main reason for that . 23 MR. SCHULTHEIS : One of the options we considered was taking the existing garage -- 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can' t do that because it stands alone from the house . It 25 has to be attached to the house, that was the reason I made that suggestion of adding it to the September 14 , 2004 88 1 2 house . MR. SCHULTHEIS : Attached via -- 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Via a room, a heated part of the house . 4 MR. SCHULTHEIS : With the closeness to the water in the rear, one of the things I layed out '5 where the Trustees have that 75 foot jurisdiction, one of the things I laid out for you was where all 6 those 75 foot lines were . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. I 7 understand that and, of course, you have bulkhead on that side also, some of which you just 8 replaced, but having bulkhead and having open beach is a little different when Trustees look at 9 applications of this nature . There are certainly houses down there that are extremely close -- as 10 well as the back of your house -- when I say the back, the part where you keep your boat -- I 11 understand, but that was the purpose of my saying to you let' s add a room on from there to the 12 garage . I don' t know how this Board would feel in reference to the waiver of that condition. 13 MR. SCHULTHEIS : I go back to the challenge we had when we had to put the cesspools 14 in, and the material was given. We got feedback from both the DEC and the Trustees . And the 15 Trustees basically drew their 75 foot line, and where the cesspools were put in were beyond the 75 16 feet from the beach, they were beyond the 75 feet from School House Creek itself, and their feeling 17 was it wasn' t within 75 feet of that creek but that was a location that they felt more 18 comfortable with for the cesspools . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand 19 that, but I want you to be aware of the fact that just as there is a new chairperson for the 20 Planning Board, so is there a new Trustee organization from the time you had gotten those 21 Trustee permits . And whatever you chose to do, I did not feel the impact of another story on top of 22 your existing home was a benefit, when you talk about -- from my point of view, okay -- when you 23 talk about other people not having proper water views, I would counter that by saying if they 24 don' t have a scenic easement over your property, I realize you want to be a good neighbor but that' s 25 out the window, unless a person has a scenic easement over your property, that' s the way it is . September 14 , 2004 89 1 2 Certainly they can come to a meeting and express their opinion, as other people you've seen today, 3 and I said that a hundred times, unless you have a scenic easement . 4 I don' t want to debate this anymore . , I understand your situation, and I do thank you for 5 explaining the property to us . MR. SCHULTHEIS : Just one last comment, 6 taking that approach, I take a nonconforming situation now, and basically I make it more 7 nonconforming. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, you' re 8 actually correct . MR. SCHULTHEIS : I'm trying to minimize 9 this, and I feel that the alternative of basically adding that minimal second floor, reducing the 10 impact of changing the lot lines, et cetera . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I ' ll make 11 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Carol Witschiebein and Janet Larsen. 14 MS . RIVERA: This is the existing survey on Larsen/Witschiebein, and these are photos of 15 just some of the homes on Sound Beach Drive together with the photos I previously gave you. I 16 ask that you look at proposal number one, which is the six foot setback for the 58 feet; I marked it 17 with Roman Number I up in the corner. As you requested, I gave you several proposals, but I 18 would really like to concentrate on Proposal Number 1 . I reduced the overall length of the 19 extension by 20 feet . The extension now is 58 feet in length, and I drew it back further from 20 the coastal erosion line . By reducing it by the 20 feet in length and reducing it by the width, 21 reducing the overall square footage of 240 by a third, almost 1, 000 square feet overall, and when 22 1 frame this house, I 'm going to have to frame it in two by six. For obvious reasons, by framing 23 two by six, I put the foam insulation first and put R13 giving me R26 on the walls and on the 24 water there we really, really do need it, desperately need it . So by reducing the house in 25 the width and the two by six framing, it' s giving me approximately 15 feet of internal space, and September 14 , 2004 90 1 2 then I'm further going to have to elevate this space to be flood compliant; so I'm going to have 3 approximately four risers going into the space, so that' s additional three feet I'm going to lose in 4 internal space . And even if I split the difference and put two stairs in the existing 5 space and two more, it' s still reducing the space . Then I have to add a stairwell in order to go to 6 the second story, and the stairway' s going to have to be approximately three and a half feet in 7 width. So the reason for the three and a half foot width stairway is I have to be able to put a 8 handicapped chair rail mechanism to get to the second story because one of the Larsen women is 9 handicapped. So we need to have a stairway that can accommodate this chair lift and not have too 10 many landings and turns for obvious reasons . So I can' t really reduce the width of this 11 extension any more than I'm asking for, the six foot setback. 12 The house is on a waterfront piece of property, as you well know, and if I were to put 13 an accessory garage or accessory building up there, I would only be required to have a five 14 foot setback in the side yard and not be restricted on the length except to meet a 40 foot 15 setback and I'm now about 74 feet back with a six foot setback. So what I'm asking for is certainly 16 not out of character of certainly George Calageris to the east because he has an addition almost 17 identical to what we' re doing except his is higher because it' s on pilings, and checking with the 18 DEC, I would not have to be on pilings . Also the internal space is important because I have to make 19 it ADA compliant and also handicap-friendly as far as placement of furniture and being able to 20 maneuver in the space . So I really can' t reduce it much -more because I'm using three and a half 21 feet of internal space for a stairway. I 'm using anywhere between 18 inches and three feet for the 22 elevation change from the old to the new. So I really can' t reduce it by much more than I 'm 23 asking from this Board. If you look at the existing survey I just 24 gave you now, you' ll see there' s a shed there and - a stairway there, which is preexisting, which is 25 much closer to the property line than the extension. I 'm further back than those structures September 14 , 2004 91 1 2 as they are now. I also have worked on nine of the 19 homes 3 on the waterfront property there, and there' s a total of 25 homes on Sound Beach Drive, out of the 4 those 25 home only five, mine being included, have more of alleyway, so to speak, lack of a better 5 term, between the houses . Right now if you grant the six foot setback the distance between the 6 Calageris' residence and Larsen residence would be 26 feet between the structures . There are only 7 five other homes on the entire block that has a minimum of 20 feet, all the rest have less than 8 that . And you can see by the pictures I gave you, I didn' t take pictures of everything but only five 9 have more of an alleyway than the 20 feet and we' re asking for a 26 foot alleyway between the 10 two structures . I addressed your issues about perhaps 11 moving some to the other side . Again, that would be elevating two buildings two set foundations and 12 there' s no transition from the bedroom space to the (inaudible) space . And I'm trying to be 13 sensitive to the Cypress people to the west because I don' t want to obstruct their view, and 14 by doing it to the east, I'm really conforming with the Calageris residence ' as it stands now. 15 I think I addressed your concerns . I didn' t put any overhangs . I drew it back and cut 16 it by a third, and I don' t think I can do much more than that . Any questions? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Doesn' t look as 18 drastic as I thought it was going to look. It' s a little better. 19 MS . RIVERA: A third is a lot better, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Plan 3 is the one 20 that' s acceptable? MS . RIVERA: No, Plan 1 .. 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jim and I were talking 3 . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Why we didn' t go through 2 and 3 . Plan 3 looks pretty good to me . 23 MS . RIVERA: Giving me an eight foot setback? And then I have an internal space of 24 maybe 10 feet . Then I have to put the stairway in and then the elevation, I' d have six feet of 25 living space . I can' t possibly have six foot of living space . September 14 , 2004 92 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Why can' t you make it wider towards the house? 3 MS . RIVERA: Then I will be encroaching on the entrances both to the beach and to the front . 4 See where that stoop is, I would literally be covering the front entrance there, and I can' t 5 build over that structure as perhaps maybe one of you had suggested because that structure was built 6 in 1950s and it' s only on a slab and structurally the engineer was here before, but, of course, he 7 had to leave, but he said there' s no way, we could build over that structure, and if I were to build 8 over that structure, I would literally have to knock it down and build a new foundation. And 9 right now there are pipes underneath that slap for heating and for water for the addition that we 10 were contemplating putting to the east . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The total length of 11 this building now? MS . RIVERA: Is 58 feet . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 58 feet . MS . RIVERA: As opposed to 78 . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at the pictures, and I don' t see any buildings that look 14 like they' re 58 feet . MS . RIVERA: The Calageris residence, 15 right next door, which this would be almost mirror, I built that so I know that it is very 16 close to that, I mean. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s 20 feet from 17 the property line? MS . RIVERA: They' re 20 feet from the 18 property line, right . And the overall side yard setback that we' re asking would be a total of 19 31 . 8 , when only 35 is required, so the total side yard setback I'm asking for is three feet . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you' re asking for six feet . 21 MS . RIVERA: Yes, six feet on one side but the total side yard setback is 31 . 8 . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the total is not relevant of this, it' s not a subject of this 23 variance . MS . RIVERA: I realize that . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re talking about you wanting to add another two-story building six 25 feet away from the property line . MS . RIVERA: Right . As I said, the September 14 , 2004 93 1 2 Calageris' to the west, have a two-story building much higher because he has more pilings because of 3 his garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But they' re 10 feet 4 or 20 feet away from the property line . MS . RIVERA: But if I were to go on the 5 other side, which I can' t really do because of cesspools and water main and no access, remember I 6 have to have access and elevation to go to 13 . 6 , which I cannot do from that side, I really 7 can' t . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' ll have to have 8 the discussion. You' re not going to discuss 3 , right, we don' t need .to discuss that? 9 MS . RIVERA: You can' t expect internal space of five, six feet because it will be -- you 10 can' t even put a sofa and cocktail table there . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Plan 3 can only 11 give you seven, eight feet? MS . RIVERA: Internal space . 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s 15 feet wide altogether, right, the new area? 13 MS . RIVERA: Right now it' s approximately 16 feet wide with a six foot setback, 14 approximately 16 from foundation to foundation. So if you want to take another two feet of that, 15 that' s 14 ; then you take another foot, that' s 13 of internal space; then you take three and a half 16 feet for the stairway, another three feet for the stairway to get to the elevation, I'm taking six 17 feet away of internal space, and there' s just no way you can maneuver a wheelchair with furniture 18 and even contemplate getting up to the second story with maneuvering. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: With six feet? MS . RIVERA: No. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you can do it with eight feet? There' s only a two foot 21 difference, six foot as opposed to eight foot internal . 22 MS . RIVERA: It gives me a lot more space, two feet is two feet as far as setback is 23 concerned. If two feet doesn' t make a difference internally, why would it make a difference on the 24 external side? Look at it both ways . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s also 250 25 square feet more, two stories, two feet by 60 , approximately. September 14 , 2004 94 1 2 MS . RIVERA: But you' re maneuvering it by a story at a time . 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Chris, where is the staircase inside this? 4 MS . RIVERA: The staircase has to be in such a position as to not have .too many turns . So 5 we' re thinking of putting it on the back wall, so we can be an easy transition. When I say back 6 wall, I mean side wall, the Calageris side . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Being on the road 7 side of it? MS . RIVERA: No. On the easterly side . 8 Because in 1992 I had to put a stairway in my house, one of those chairs for my mom, and I had a 9 tudor, , it was straight up, and in those days, it cost me $10, 000 then, and that was just a straight 10 run, and every time you turn or the risers change, it makes a drastic difference in the pricing of 11 the chair lift . So the easiest way for maneuverability and access would probably be on 12 that easterly wall . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? Are you finished, Jim? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm not really finished. 15 You have a certain amount of square footage right now on this lot; how much is that? 16 What is your current lot coverage? MS . RIVERA: Part of the old space is 17 coming down, and I'm building right on top of that . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is your current lot coverage right now? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If she can' t answer it now, she can submit it . You could 20 submit it, Chris, you don' t have to do it right now. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It be might be on the disapproval too. 22 MS . RIVERA: A lot less than the 20 percent . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to compare the two . 24 MS . RIVERA: Don' t forget, Jim, there' s this 10 by 10 , 10 by 11 space that' s existing now, 25 I'm going to incorporate that in the new space . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see that on your September 14 , 2004 95 1 2 plan, but when I write the decision, approval or disapproval, I'm going to want to be able to 3 justify, or whatever I do, the reasons why the additional space has to go into this nonconforming 4 area. There has to be some reasons for that . I know the house has this much square footage, when 5 we' re done we' re going to have this much. What is that going to be? 6 MS . RIVERA: It' s going to be a living and dining room downstairs . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINI-ZIO : That I know. Square footage wise, how much are you going to 8 gain that you don' t have now? You can give it to me later but if you want, we could probably vote 9 on this next week if we have the information. MS . RIVERA: 16 by 58, that' s 928 square 10 feet of the footprint, less about 110 that' s existing now that I' ll be utilizing that, is about 11 818 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we' re going to 12 be adding 818 additional square feet to the -- MS . RIVERA: To the existing footprint . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: -- footprint . MS . RIVERA: You also have to understand 14 that because of the fact that this is waterfront property and I'm restricted by the coastal erosion 15 line to the north, I did .pull it back. I'm still 75 feet set back from the road, and I still have 16 to accommodate the flood compliance of the elevation to go to 13-6 , floor joists, so no 17 matter how I do it, whether to the east or to the west, I ' ll still have those restrictions upon me . 18 So even if I were to go on to the other side, I 'm still nonconforming because it' s right now only 19 11-2 on that side . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you on 20 that . Just what I see here on this plan is a single, an existing one-story residence, well 21 within limits of zoning, meeting all the setbacks . Now I have an applicant that says, I want to build 22 a two-story, six feet away from my property line . (Whereupon, Board Member Orlando left the 23 hearing room. ) MS . RIVERA: You have to understand, being 24 on the flood zone we don' t have the luxury of going over the existing space . There' s no way you 25 can go over the existing space in the flood zone . They force you to go outside the existing September 14 , 2004 i 96 1 2 parameters of your home . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t understand. 3 Is this thing, one-story home you couldn' t tear that down and put up another house, two stories? 4 MS . RIVERA: No. Then the whole entire structure has to be on pilings . Please, I know I 5 was the first one that got involved in that one . I actually was the first home to be built because 6 originally I was just going to put an extension on my home . Then they wanted me to convert the old 7 elevation to meet the new because it was more than that 50 percent formula. You just cannot build 8 over the existing structures in the flood zone . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The new 9 construction doesn' t need to be built on pilings, why? 10 MS . RIVERA: It depends . This has to be elevated but based on my conversations with the 11 DEC, I have to elevate it with a flow through foundation. I will not probably have to put it on 12 pilings because the formula is that the existing structure has the kitchen and the bathrooms in it 13 now, and that' s where the so-called money -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, utilities 14 are there . MS . RIVERA: Right . But that comes into 15 the formula, the 50 percent rule, and it has a value of money or something. So they told me I 16 would have to elevate the space because it has to be flood compliant, and I can do that with a 17 flow-through foundation. When you put a garage as I did in Calageris, the garage has to be on 18 pilings . This just has to be elevated to the 13 . 6, and when you build over an existing 19 structure, that structure has to be then elevated also. So I have to knock down and then elevate it 20 on pilings . But I still have to have the transition from the old to the new. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From grade right now, you've got to go 13 feet? 22 MS . RIVERA: The first floor elevation as the house exists now is 10-7 . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to go two and a half? 24 MS . RIVERA: I have to go 30 inches . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Question of a 25 couple two by six' s,. it' s a question of a foundation? September 14 , 2004 97 1 2 MS . RIVERA: Right . I have to put a foundation. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you' ll cover that up, and from there that' s floor level? 4 MS . RIVERA: That' s floor level . Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you' re going 5 up two stories, 20 some-odd feet for the wall, 22 feet just the wall that someone will be looking 6 at . MS . RIVERA: Right . As opposed to 7 Calageris' where I had to go up higher. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, I saw it . 8 MS . RIVERA: I try to be sensitive not only to the area but also to both their neighbors 9 because right now the Cypresses, he built out on his side that' s to the west; so we have held back 10 for obvious reasons building on that side because one we have a Bilco door to the existing 11 foundation, septic line there and the sewers there and the water' s there . So to the east was really 12 the only feasible way to do this . It also is characteristic of the Calageris' right next door, 13 and I gave you pictures of that from before . And you also have the survey with the new footprint of 14 the Calageris' on there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no comment . 16 MS . RIVERA: Do we need to wait for the October 7th meeting? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 18 later. (See minutes for details . ) 19 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to make a 20 motion to reopen the hearing for Michael Pisacano. (See minutes for resolution. ) 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Moore . MS . MOORE : What I did was I took the 22 application, amended the application, included in the notice of disapproval, included notice of 23 disapproval, put a little extra writing to reflect some of the things that were discussed here today. 24 I gave you a hand-out today in my hearing, handwritten but nonetheless all the calculations 25 and everything. If you could make it also part of the record, I didn' t redo everything, the other i September 14 , 2004 98 1 2 subdivisions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion closing 3 the hearing reserving decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to adjourn the Tyrer hearing until October 21st . 5 (See resolution for details . ) 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 September 14 , 2004 99 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 5 State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 7 the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am not related by 9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 10 action; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 12 of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 14th day of September, 2004 . 15 16 17 18 jFlorence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 September 14, 2004