HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/20/2005 HEAR 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B O 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
January 20, 2005
. 12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
v
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
(Arrival time : 1 : 00 p.m. )
18
MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19
LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
20
21
22
23 F®RICINAL'
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE . (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Welcome to our
meeting, it is Thursday, January 20 , 2005 , and I' d
3 like a resolution saying that the Type II actions
and no SEQRA review is needed.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is
5 Constance Beebe, and they want a lot line change,
is there somebody in the audience that would like
6 to speak to this?
MS . BEEBE : My name is Constance Beebe,
7 and I ' d like to have a property line change to
move my line east, and then I own property behind
8 my son and -- actually, what I want to do is make
a straight line .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just want to even
out what you have?
10 MR. BEEBE: Tom Beebe . We' re both
commercially zoned and I'm under the way it is
11 now, and she' s over.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you zoned now,
12 H or H B?
MR. BEEBE: I think it' s small business .
13 So she' s coming under the desired amount, and I'm
over now. We just want to straighten that line
14 out .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re R80 also,
15 residential . It looks like it' s all R80
residential .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You might just have a
home business, hom6 occupation. What business do
17 you have, by the way?
MR. BEEBE : Small construction, actually
18 they' re both small buildings .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Actually it looks
19 like it' s on residential, just so you know.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just to clarify,
you have three existing nonconforming lots, you' re
21 creating two larger non-conforming, but they' re
more conforming than the other three, right? No
22 questions, makes logical sense .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
25 the audience wish to speak on this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion closing the hearing
January 20 , 2005
3
1
2 reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for details . )
3 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
4 Jon and Kathleen Marino on Sandview Avenue . They
want to put a proposed porch and second-story
5 addition at less than 35 feet from the front lot
line . Is there someone here who wishes to speak
6 on this?
MR. MARINO: Good morning, I'm Jon Marino.
7 MRS . MARINO: I'm Kathy Marino .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re the ones who
8 have the picture of the house that you want to
make it look like?
9 MR. MARINO: Yes, The proposed addition
is what we feel is necessary to accommodate our
10 family and enhance the neighborhood. It will be a
beautiful job when it' s done . As far as
11 detriment, it isn' t . There' s like 10 feet of
missing property along the way. From our
12 property, which is 20 feet, it' s 1913" to our
property line from the road, so, after the
13 proposed porch it will be 42 feet to the road, so
there are six houses within that thousand foot
14 area of mine that are closer to the road even
after the proposed porch. So it' s not like it' s
15 out of the ordinary.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw all the pictures
16 that you took.
MR. MARINO: Redundant, I 'm sure .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We've gone
18 through many, many times Mr. and Mrs . Marino, and
I, in fact, just looked at one that we dealt with
19 in Laughing, Waters, I think on Nikomis Avenue .
The Board at that particular time -- and I'm not
20 speaking for the Board -- asked for a front yard,
and I think the front yard at this time would be
21 23 ' 1" so we asked that the porch on the part
facing the road be reduced to five feet . And I
22 looked at that porch to see if that had great
validity because there were some questions during
23 the hearing regarding that validity, and although
the house is not built front to back the way yours
24 is presently -- it' s not sarcastic statement ; it' s
not meant to be any other than constructive -- I
25 would rather see a 25 foot setback, which is a
five foot porch, I don' t care what you do on that
January 20 , 2005
4
1
2 one side -- I don' t mean that sarcastically.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you would like the
3 five foot in the front then you can continue the
eight foot on the side?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . You
still have the same aesthetic look.
5 MR. MARINO: Right . My question to that,
because originally I thought I would like to do
6 eight or nine foot but I thought I'm stretching it
as it is, I had taken out a lounge chair and
7 twisted it and it kind of like seemed -- seven
foot seemed like the minimum I could get away
8 with. Five, I guess we' d have to work it a little
differently.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with
10 Mr. Goehringer, your drawing here has a great curb
appeal . Technically you only have a 23 yard
11 setback. Actually to the road, it' s not your
property, but visually it' s closer to the 50 . I
12 was there and stood where your porch is going to
be and I looked left and right to your extension.
13 You' d be out a little further than anybody else
when you look to the left and right . So I agree
14 with Mr. Goehringer, I like the curb appeal, but
25 foot is where we' d rather be .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure if the
16 house that is shown in these pictures that we just
received is the same house I was looking at a few
17 days ago.
MR. MARINO: No. Those pictures are
18 neighborhood pictures of houses that are closer to
ours .
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, then is your
house sideways to the road? The front door way
20 faces to the side?
MR. MARINO: Correct .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your house is closer
to the road than the house on either side, left or
22 right, all right?
MR. MARINO: The house to the left is at
23 the same back set, the house to the right is five
feet further back.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you' re proposing
this porch is going to be -- how many feet did you
25 want to have?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 2311" .
January 20, 2005
5
1
2 MR. MARINO : Twenty-three feet off the
property line, 42 feet off the road.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet closer
to the road is it going to be; how wide is your
4 porch going to be?
MR. MARINO: Seven foot wide porch, closer
5 to the road. And both of our neighbors have seen
the plans and both have no problems with it .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would agree with
Mr. Goehringer.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:, Is there anybody else
in the audience that would like to speak to this
8 application? Do you have anything else you would
like to add?
9 MR. MARINO : No. I would just like to
thank you for your time.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, thank you.
Then 'I make a motion closing the hearing and
11 reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is T. and
13 M. Kostoulas on Aquaview Avenue, East
Marion. They need a side yard variance also .
14 Yes, ma' am?
MS . WEILE : My name is Reggie Weile, I'm
15 the architect representing the Kostoulas
family. The Kostoulas family would like to put a
16 porch on the front of the house . Being in that
location, the back, the other side of the house is
17 only really usable in the summer, the south side
of the house is used all year around. And they
18 would like to sort of be able to sit in the front
of the house with a porch. The new porch will not
19 come any closer to the road than the existing
piece, and I brought little models . And in lieu
20 on each side, on the current photographs it shows
that they have a little gate, and that would be
21 moved in, and we would build a stone front porch
and turn it at the house that would match the
22 stone that' s in the front of the house because it
goes up an embankment, and put a pergola over the
23 top where it turns on either side, east and west .
But we' re not going to come any closer to the
24 yard. It' s just a side yard that' s a problem with
zoning. There' s a shed on one side, on the east
25 side, that will be coming off, that' s a little
bicycle shed, so that the house is out on that
January 20 , 2005
6
1
2 side already five feet . As you see on the site
survey.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would your side
yard setback be after construction?
4 MS . WEILE: It will be 8' 7" on the east
side, and actually 316" on the west side, but
5 actually it' s 819" to the house because the bottom
of the porch is actually built as -- the first
6 floor porch is built as landscaping. That .will be
a stone wall around and that will be open then a
7 pergola on top as it turns, and they wanted the
house to be symmetrical . They will also be
8 changing the siding and put cedar on it to make it
look better on that block.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
statement?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We agonized over
11 this property, I have to tell you, five hours in
1992 . It may not read it in the minutes, over the
12 lot coverage the amount of decks, close to the
SCZM line . It' s a beautiful house. It' s a
13 wonderful neighborhood, and the bluff appears to
be moderately stable at this time . And I realize
14 the construction that your client is anticipating
in a proposed manner adds to the ambiance of the
15 house and the overall decor of the house . It' s a
beautifully done piece on a very small piece of
16 property. My concern has always been fire rescue
and emergency. The closing up of any side yards
17 are tantamount to my thoughts, my concerns and I
would be opposed to any turns . I'm not positive
18 that I'm enthralled with any additional lot
coverage and with the two-story aspect of this
19 proposal, however I can find that much more
palatable than I can see with these turns, which
20 encroach further into the side yards . Your client
has encroached with the decks into the side
21 yards . I realize they are close to ground
level -- and meaning the walkways, I'm not
22 referring to the decks, excuse me -- and which are
okay, but I think there' s a maximum that I can
23 vote for, and I think the turns are just
substantial overkill . As I said, I'm still trying
24 to get the feeling for the second story aspect of
it . If your client had 30 feet more, I don' t
25 think there would be any question in reference of
width of the property from my standpoint . But
January 20 , 2005
7
1
2 it' s very, very difficult . Again, it just further
exacerbates the ability to get into the rear yard
3 and that' s just my opinion.
MS . WEILE : Which is the problem that' s
4 existing because on one side you have the shed and
the other side you have the gate and the stair
5 down to the basement . So you really are not
encroaching on anything that was available before .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that but it' s construction, and that' s the issue .
7 There' s no question about it . As I said, it' s a
beautifully done house, there' s no question about
8 it . Mainly because this Board allowed that to
happen in 1992 , based upon working with the
9 client, and we really thought in 1992 that that
was the end of it, and it appears that --
10 MS . WEILE: I wasn' t here .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- and it
11 appears that that was not the end of it . That' s
just my opinion. We don' t have a total lot
12 coverage issue here, do we?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn' t say anything.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we need
to look at it from a lot coverage standpoint .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a big piece
MS . WEILE : The lot coverage is not a
15 problem on the calculations, like all the
properties on that side they own the cliff and the
16 beach up to the high water mark, so the lot is
very long.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that but I don' t think the decks were taken into
18 consideration when the lot coverage was
determined. I think what we need is an analysis
19 of lot coverage so we know we' re under if we' re
under.
20 MS . WEILE : That' s on the architectural
site plan, there' s a table of lot coverage .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
copy of that? I don' t think that takes into
22 consideration all the decking on the north side .
MS . WEILE : I think it will still be under
23 the --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board
24 granted in 1992 a substantial amount of decking
and the majority and the reason for that decking
25 was basically aesthetics for your client and the
ability to -- what we thought at that particular
January 20 , 2005
8
1
2 time, or what I thought at that particular time --
I 'm not speaking for the Board -- was erosion
3 control . And it was probably the first step in
erosion control that we've ever done, but because
4 of the uniqueness of the area that was the reason
why we dealt with it . I'm just telling you.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, it says here
that the existing lot coverage now is 9 . 97 percent
6 and the existing plus the proposed porch is 11 . 5
percent lot coverage .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, I 'm not
questioning anything you' re saying to me . The
8 two-tiered deck encompasses the entire rear yard
of this property, and I can tell you that deck was
9 not taken into consideration with that lot
coverage .
10 MS . WEILE : I think we' d still be under
the 20' percent .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At least we know
what it is from now on and for future to go . As I
12 said, the turns are the only questions that I have
at this particular time . I think it' s nicely
13 done, but I think the turns are overkill .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re talking
14 about the sides on the closest point on the
corner?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking
about these entire corners on both sides . They
16 only further exacerbate the nonconforming side
yard setbacks .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The two extensions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That does make it tight
on the side yards . Vincent?
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As you' re aware,
both houses adjacent to this property are
20 single-story ranches, so already this house is
very large compared to that, and this would just
21 dwarf the other ones .
MS . WEILE : Yes . But then there' s one
22 down on the other side of the next door house is
just as high.
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s one down the
road, second removed from the cousin. . These are
24 adjacent properties . I agree with Mr. Goehringer,
I wouldn' t have the problem with your
25 double-tiered front porch, but it would have to be
the width of the house, not including the shed,
January 20 , 2005
9
1
2 the width of the house, which is 30' 3 " because
it' s already both variances for total and single
3 are over 60 percent reduction in the code, which
is substantial . I don' t know how your clients
4 would feel about having it that way. You' d still
need a variance because it' s nonconforming to the
5 side yard setback, even if you went with the width
of the house . I would be in favor of that .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Taking the turns off?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The width of the
7 house, pretty much the turns off .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide were those
8 turns?
MS . WEILE: Five feet .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would help.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
10 mention one other thing before you go to
Mr. Simon, I would respectfully request from the
11 architect, again, the lot coverage with the decks,
and I would respectfully request the Board to wait
12 until the February regular meeting to vote on it
so we could look at all that aspect of it, and
13 she' s not rushed in getting it prior to the
special meeting, which, by the way, I will not be
14 at .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s fine .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else, Vince?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I had not been aware
17 of the history of this project, but in listening
to what my colleagues have said, I agree that part
18 of the increase of nonconformity which includes
the wraparound deck is probably putting too much
19 pressure on the sides of the house . I would
support the plan to allow the project only as wide
20 as the rear of the house and not the wraparound.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we all agree .
21 Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes
to speak on this application? So I' d like to make
22 a motion to keep this hearing open until the
February meeting.
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s March 3rd.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you can bring the
24 calculations .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we close it
25 subject to submissions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Close it subject to
January 20 , 2005
10
1
2 admissions but --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jerry just needs a
3 copy of the total lot coverage, so we can close it
subject to --
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me say, the
only thing is the clock starts to run once you
5 close it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to keep it
6 open. Make a resolution to keep the hearing open
until the March 3rd meeting at which time we will
7 have your new calculations, about 9 : 30 in the
morning.
8 MS . WEILE : Fine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
9 the audience wish to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution. )
10 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
11 the Coffeys who wish to have a bed and breakfast
in East Marion. I must say just to start out with
12 that this application is unusual in the fact that
there' s no internal circulation in the house
13 between the bed and breakfast and your own home .
Every other application that we have had, the bed
14 and breakfast part of it is all part of the home,
and it does give the appearance, which you
15 probably do not intend to, of a two-family house .
So if you would like to speak to that, I' d
16 appreciate it .
MR. COFFEY: I guess on the first floor of
17 the house we do have doors leading into where the
guests will be staying. I guess on the second
18 floor of the house the reason we do not have
access to our side of the house as it exists now
19 is because we just didn' t want people
inadvertently walking into our private space . We
20 have no intention of anything other than a bed and
breakfast .
21 MRS . COFFEY: Guests will have access
through our kitchen and in our office there will
22 be a connecting door between where our residence
is and where the guests will be staying.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also on the first
floor, I believe there was quite a walk between
24 the guest bedroom and the bathroom.
MRS . COFFEY: Each room has a private
25 bath. There' s a powder room downstairs that the
guests will have access to if they' re in the
January 20 , 2005
11
1
2 breakfast area. We figured it would be easier to
have a half bath near the breakfast area so they
3 wouldn' t have to go back to their room.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Have you ever run a
bed and breakfast before?
5 MR. COFFEY: No. I'm a retired detective
from the New York City Police Department, and I
6 just thought what would be a nice thing to retire
to was a bed and breakfast . I went to cooking
7 school when I retired from the police department
so I would be able to run a bed and breakfast .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you' re not
opposed to strangers in your house?
9 MR. COFFEY: No. We grew up in Ridgewood,
Queens and her mother was a landlord in a six
10 family apartment .
MRS . COFFEY: So we don' t want to do any
11 kind of apartment situation, but we do like having
people in our home to enjoy our cooking and just
12 meeting people from different areas .
MR. COFFEY: Walks of life.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So hence the reason
for the question for the wall dividing it, it
14 gives the illusion it' s a two-family house, and
since you don' t have reservations with strangers
15 in your house.
MR. COFFEY: I prefer to meet them on the
16 first floor instead of in my bedroom. It' s not a
typical B & B setup you have here . The Building
17 Department wrote us a letter saying this is built
as a two-family house, without a hallway in there
18 as a typical B & B which is open to everyone to
kind of wander around and be part of the family
19 for the weekend. So you're building it more as a
two-family house than as a bed and breakfast . So
20 that red flag popped up, that' s why we' re
discussing this .
21 MRS . COFFEY: Linda had suggested that we
run our plans through the Building Department when
22 we submitted them to the Zoning Board, and I spoke
to Damon. He said they' re actually constructing
23 single-family homes with a solid wall upstairs,
and he didn' t think there was a problem with it
24 which is why --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There was a further
25 conversation with Mr. Rallis' boss, who is Mike
Verity, who said he would like to have a hallway
January 20, 2005
12
1
2 and some other alterations on the interior setup
of the house to meet the zoning code requirements
3 for a one family circulation.
MRS . COFFEY: Could we put a door in
4 upstairs between the two?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
5 was going to suggest .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re not opposed
6 to the bed and breakfast, and it may not be you,
when you sell it in five years, someone can make
7 it a two-family house, it' s not a typical B & B .
We' re not opposed to the B & B idea, it' s just the
8 design is not typical B & B.
MR. COFFEY: We' re not planning on selling
9 it in five years . My wife' s burying me out --
MRS . COFFEY: There will be only one
10 kitchen so there is no way you can turn it into --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've seen new kitchens
11 pop up out of magic . I think it would be nice if
you went back and spoke to Mr. Verity about
12 that . I don' t have any objections to a B & B, but
it does give the appearance of a two-family house,
13 for that you would need four acres . I know you
have a large piece of property there, I pass it
14 every day.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my
15 suggestion to clear up the issue : You see where
this walk-in closet is right here? Create a
16 hallway going across here . It can .be locked.
With a locked door here and a locked door here,
17 and a locked door here. And I think the issue is
taken care of on the second floor.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where would you put the
door?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There can be a
door here with a solid hallway and a door here, if
20 you so choose to.
MRS . COFFEY: There' s a chimney here .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You slant it off
a little bit, it can be moved.
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jerry, there is
also a change on the first floor that Mr. Verity
23 wanted also.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
24 that .
MRS . COFFEY: So we would amend our plans
25 and then submit an alternative .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
January 20 , 2005
13
1
2 MR. COFFEY: Do- we need to go through
another hearing also?
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I would
suggest to the Board in granting a special
4 exception is that we reserve the right to look at
the property and inspect it prior to the issuance
5 of a CO.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, and also from
6 the second floor we do require that you have those
rope ladders or chain link ladders, so people can
7 get out in case of a fire . I don' t think it' s in
the code .
8 MRS . COFFEY: I know we' re aware that the
windows have to be of a certain size .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re just trying
to work with the Building Department so this runs
10 smoothly for you.
MRS . COFFEY: Downstairs what would you
11 suggest?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever the
12 Building Department suggests .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand you' re
going to manage this bed and breakfast yourself?
14 MR. COFFEY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you have any
15 experience with bed and breakfasts except perhaps
staying at them?
16 MR. COFFEY: Yes, we stayed at the
Homeport .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I ask is
this is a special exception, and it' s a very
18 attractive building and I see a lot to be said for
granting it, but it' s a special exception upon a
19 special exception, and that' s the issue regarding
the wall of separation between where the guests
20 are and where you are . That' s why I support , my
colleagues that say this modification -probably
21 ought to be made . If you' re going to do a bed and
breakfast at this point since it requires a
22 special exception anyway, is to do a more orthodox
one rather than an original one because the latter
23 does raise the possibilities that I would say
never occurred to me of being used as something
24 else later on, but I would support the plan as
amended.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think I' d like to
make a motion that we close the hearing with the
January 20, 2005
14
1
2 reservation that we have the right to inspect it
before a CO is granted.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the right to
look at the new amended plans .
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Please submit a new
5 set of plans .
MRS . COFFEY: Seven copies with cover,
6 letter?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
7 audience that would like to speak?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Where is it?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s the white house
that Rutkowski used to own. Thank you very much
9 for coming in.
MRS . COFFEY: Do we submit the affidavits?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
-------------------------------------------------
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
the Graysons, have a notice of disapproval
12 concerning an as-built accessory shed located less
than five feet from the rear lot line . Is there
13 someone here to speak on this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road,
14 Cutchogue, New York. I'm pitch hitting for
Mr. Grayson' s architect . Mr. Grayson is here
15 today to answer any questions the Board may have,
but Mr. Leonard couldn' t make it today.
16 I' ll ,give you a history of this because I
think it' s important for you to understand what
17 happened here . Mr. Grayson and his wife purchased
the property on May 21, 1996 -- and I have all the
18 exhibits to hand up for your consideration -- from
a Charles Jantzen. At the time of the purchase,
19 Mr. Grayson did his due diligence . I did not
represent him at the time with his attorney, and
20 they received a CO for Number 3144 on 7/9/68 for
the home issued by Howard Terry. They also
21 received a CO 7119 dated July 9, 1976 .for a
private swimming pool with fence, and the CO says
22 accessories that also was issued by Howard Terry.
At the time they purchased, they had a survey
23 dated 7/16/68 , which just showed the newly built
house which I just referred to for the ' 68 CO.
24 There was no surveys done when the pool area was
built with the building permit in 174 and then
25 completed by Mr. Jantzen -- he did it himself, I'm
told -- in 1976 . At the closing when Mr. Grayson
January 20, 2005
15
1
2 bought the premises he was issued a title policy
issued by the Fidelity National Title Insurance
3 Company and that referred to the 7/10/68 survey,
and the survey inspection done on April 5th that
4 year of ' 96 showing the in-ground pool, which I ' ll
hand to you, referred to as a cabana. Mr. Grayson
5 tells me that the time when they went to contract
to buy this place and the time they went to close
6 that Mr. Jantzen told him about the pool and the
fact that he started it in 174 and then completed
7 it in ' 76 . I know from my experience with COs
issued by Howard Terry, which was our original
8 building inspector until about 1978 that the COs
were typical, and when Howard would give a
9 building permit, and I understand it from what I
got from the architect, that when Mr. Jantzen
10 applied for the building permit in 174 , he just
showed a rectangle in the backyard, and it was in
11 the backyard and typical Mr. Terry would wait
until the thing was completed to get the CO where
12 he would measure the distances, check out the
fences, measure the distances from the fences, and
13 also the fire underwriters for the pool and so on
and so forth before he would grant the certificate
14 of occupancy.
When you look at the layout, I believe the
15 architect gave you that, you can see the cabana or
storage building as he calls it an integral unit .
16 There' s no afterthought there . But when
Mr. Grayson went to sell the property to the
17 current owners Mr. and Mrs . Watson, they had a
west end attorney who also represented the bank.
18 they got a brand new survey, and guess what, the
survey showed that the cabana at its closest
19 point -- you got a property line running on a bias
to the construction -- at its closest point was
20 4 . 5 from the property, and the survey showed it as
you see it there is 23 ' by 11' storage building.
21 And because it wasn' t labeled on the CO, the west
end attorney representing both the bank and the
22 purchaser refused to accept it . If that was done
prior to the closing, that would have been fine .
23 This all occurred at the closing table and I know
that because I was present, and no matter what
24 Mr. Grayson said to him, it didn' t make any
difference and Mr. Grayson was in a bind. His
25 furniture was en route to Sarasota, Florida. He
moved out of the house, and they raised this at
January 20, 2005
16
1
2 the last minute on him. So I was able to
negotiate an escrow agreement wherein Mr. Grayson
3 agreed that he would come back and get it squared
away with the building department . I thought at
4 that point at the closing there would be no
problem because I thought they would honor Howard
5 Terry' s certificate of occupancy especially since
he had written the accessories, so there was
6 obviously more than just the pool there . But I
guess I should have known better. Then I also
7 thought the Building Inspector could see this was
an integral part, it was done as a unit, it wasn' t
8 done separately. Again, I guess I should have
known better because at the time, and the reason I
9 thought that, because at the time that the pool
was built, we only had three foot setbacks in
10 Southold Town for any accessory buildings in a
residential district . In fact, the three foot
11 setback took place right from the inception of
zoning and I went back and got certified copies of
12 the zoning code when it was amended in November
23 , 1971 we still had a three foot setback on
13 accessory buildings in a residential area and
January 10, 1989, when they adopted the R40
14 district, which Nassau Point was incorporated, it
still remained as a three foot setback. The
15 notion of increasing the setbacks due to the size
of the lots didn' t occur until February of ' 91,
16 and that' s why when they have roughly 30, 000
square feet here, 29, 900 , you needed a five foot
17 setback.
Having said all that, Mr. Grayson is here
18 to confirm what I just said, but my point is this
Board can do one of two things if they would grant
19 the application. They could grant it as a
pre-existing condition, which can be recognized by
20 the Zoning Board of Appeals at the time it was
constructed in the ' 74- ' 76 time frame, which was
21 three feet and which it conforms under that; or
applying the balancing test under the Town Law 267
22 and looking at everything, the entire project, the
4 .4 , which it is, from the fence or the property
23 line from the five foot is not substantial, and
then they could, instead of recognizing a
24 pre-existing condition for all factors given in
the town law you could grant a variance that this
25 is not substantial, and it is in conformity and
will not change the residential character of the
January 20, 2005
17
1
2 neighborhood especially since it existed since
1976 . So I will hand up so you have it for your
3 file, I know you have the notice of disapproval
and the current architect' s things, but I will
4 give you Mr. Grayson' s deed. Iwill give you the
two certificates of occupancy that you can look at
5 because the key one is the one on the pool and
accessories, and the survey that they purchased at
6 the time, so he had no knowledge of it . And I ' ll
also give you a copy of the title report -- title
7 policy, which is an official document, that shows
it was there at that time . And if you want, I'm
8 just extrapolating, they are from the official
code at the time, the one that was in effect in
9 the 170s and then subsequently was in effect when
Mr. Grayson had purchased. So I' ll hand that all
10 up as one exhibit and then you can have that for
your records, and Mr. Grayson is here to answer
11 any questions you may have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Lark.
12 Vincent, do you have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would be in favor
13 of the big, nonsubstantial eight inch variance
you' re looking for here . It obviously has been
14 there for quite some time . It' s not habitable,
there' s no window in it . I would like to put a
15 condition that it stays nonhabitable .
MR. LARK: It' s strictly a cabana storage
16 for the deck chairs and pool equipment, stuff like
that .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s fine for me,
no other questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would agree with
19 Mr. Orlando . If faced to choose between the two
theories that Mr. Lark has offered us, that it was
20 not nonconforming or the unsubstantial change, I
would choose the latter because if you choose the
21 former you can let into all kinds of horrible
things that might have been allowed to continue
22 but for that historical event . However, I agree
that it is an insubstantial change and it
23 satisfies the balancing test so I would approve
it .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What utilities
25 exist in the shed at this time?
MR. GRAYSON: The building at the time of
January 20 , 2005
18
1
2 purchase and continued throughout my ownership as
an unfinished interior housing the pool filter and
3 storage for the chairs and loungers that resided
around the pools .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No water for showers?
MR. GRAYSON: No. There are no pipes, no
5 mechanics for anything other than the filter for
the pool, no bathroom facilities .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just electricity.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You intend to
7 leave it that way?
MR. LARK: He doesn' t own it . You want to
8 put that in as a condition. The only reason I
brought up the first theory is if you knew the
9 building inspector at that time, Mr. Terry, he was
very thorough when he gave a CO, -a little casual
10 on building permits but very thorough when he gave
a CO. You can put that in a condition that was
11 represented not only to Mr. Grayson, because I was
at the closing, it' s just a storage or accessory
12 to the pool area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
13 would like to speak on this application? Hearing
none, I ' d like to make a motion closing the
14 hearing and putting as a condition of our approval
that it remains without any water, bath and so
15 forth.
MR. LARK: Any habitable features .
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is James
Leydon on Parsons Boulevard, East Marion for a
18 deck addition partly in the side yard. Is there
anyone here representing James Leydon? The
19 proposed deck is partially located in the rear and
side yards?
20 MR. STAUTENBORG: Good morning, Board, my
name is Peter Stautenborg.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The porch that is
contemplated is enclosed, will it be enclosed to
22 the elements as well, that is to the cold; will it
be useable in the winter?
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, is it
open to the sky at all times?
24 MR. STAUTENBORG: Yes . This is to give
them a couple flat places in the back yard for
25 picnic tables and stuff .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in no sense is
January 20 , 2005
19
1
2 this going to turn into a heated addition to the
house?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s always going to
remain open, in other words, you' re never going to
4 enclose it to make it part of the existing house?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This deck is not
6 attached to the dwelling?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It does come very
close to your neighbor' s yard, is there any reason
8 for the octagons and not making an attached deck
nice to the house?
9 MR. STAUTENBORG: Basically sun because
it' s on the north side, shadow from the house if
10 it were attached, so it would be sort of a cool
location.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Then only one deck
is in the sun, the other one would be shadowed by
12 the house .
MR. STAUTENBORG: It' s off the house by a
13 certain amount, so by mid-morning it would be in
the sun.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I think it' s very
close to the neighbors back there, when you stand
15 there and you look at the stakes right there .
It' s right on the neighbors -- if you dropped a
16 glass off the deck, it would roll off the
neighbor' s yard almost .
17 MR. STAUTENBORG: We talked to the
neighbor yesterday. He said he would drive out
18 from the city if necessary because he liked the
neighbors, he helped to stake it . They have all
19 been notified. I don' t know if you heard
anything, the only thing we heard the neighbor
20 closest to it said they would drive out from the
city if they thought there was an objection.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' ll see what the
other Board members have to say.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was the
grade elevation above grade?
23 MR. STAUTENBORG: It will be less than 14
inches because we' re not expecting to do anything
24 but put a step on the high side, there' s no rails
planned.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It elevates a
little there, at its highest point it' s going to
January 20 , 2005
20
1
2 be 14?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Right .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn' t
require you to put railings around it because it' s
4 less than 18 inches; is that correct?
MR. STAUTENBORG: Right . Use it for sort
5 of platforms, one for lounge chairs and stuff and
one for a picnic table and a grill . They lived in
6 the previous property that they owned about a
block away, and we just basically duplicated a
7 design they already had.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I was just
mentioning it' s an accessory structure also . It' s
10 not attached to the house, right?
MR. STAUTENBORG: No. We have a permit
11 for the decks that are attached to the house . One
of these is in the rear yard, but we've asked for
12 both of them in case there was any concern, but
only one is in the side yard that the variance
13 would be required for.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you're not going
14 to build one of the decks, is that what you' re
saying?
15 MR. STAUTENBORG: No. We have a permit
for the attached, everything that' s attached is
16 legal, and we already have a permit for. We
haven' t started any construction because we wanted
17 to wait to see what the Board said, the two
octagons that are accessory in the rear yard would
18 be legal; one is in the rear yard, the other
isn' t, but we put them both in the package just to
19 make sure that the Board had some question or
problem that we modified them both the same way.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
21 application? If not I ' ll close the hearing,
reserve decision until later.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
for Douglas and Karin Constant on Village Lane,
24 Orient, who wants to make a small addition
enclosing a deck in the rear yard.
25 MR. CONSTANT: Good morning everyone . I
have things to give you, Mrs . Kowalski . This is
January 20, 2005
21
1
2 the letter from the neighbor who will be staring
at the proposed building.
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re in favor of
it?
4 MR. CONSTANT: Very much, so. I think you
have everything.
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This letter is in
favor signed by Peter Hagen and Ken Arthur, 455
6 Village Lane .
MR. CONSTANT: They are our new neighbors
7 that bought the house formerly owned by Susan and
Tom Madigan, it' s the house just to the north. So
8 my proposed roof and two screened walls would be
facing that house .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically you just want
to make --
10 MR. CONSTANT: When I wrote to our
neighbors when I sent the letter, the first
11 paragraph of my letter said we' re seeking
permission to enclose a portion of our existing
12 deck with screened walls covered by a roof, and
this will allow us to use the deck despite
13 mosquitoes, sun and rain. It is on the side of
the house that in the winter time is perpetually
14 damp, and we have had problems with rotted sills
and the decking never thaws in the winter time .
15 The house blocks the prevailing winds; and in the
summer time, because of its orientation, the house
16 blocks the prevailing winds which are from the
west and southwest, so we tried to mitigate that
17 by putting up one of those awnings that falls down
and all that accomplished was to make it really
18 still back there, sort of like camping in a pup
tent in the middle of a farm field, there' s
19 absolutely no air. Then to fight the mosquitoes
because we have an undeveloped field behind our
20 house, which we love the privacy of it, so we
bought one of those mosquito magnets, which does
21 work, but it' s overwhelmed by the number of
mosquitoes that come in that are laying in damp
22 areas . So we've done everything we possibly can
to enjoy the deck, and we' re not moving, so we
23 thought this would be a way to make the house a
little more enjoyable .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we' re talking
25 about a partially roofed-over deck with screening?
MR. CONSTANT: On two sides . The other
January 20, 2005
22
1
2 two sides are formed by the house itself .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the entire
3 deck is roofed over?
MR. CONSTANT:' No. Only a portion of it .
4 The deck measures 16 feet wide by 20 feet long.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 23 by 21, even less
5 than that .
MR. CONSTANT: Whatever. The architect we
6 hired to draw the plans up is going to cover the
length of the deck, which I measured at 16 feet,
7 and he has a roof proposed for 14 feet of the
length of the deck.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s going to be
14 by 16?
9 MR. CONSTANT: Correct, sir.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to
10 write this, that' s why I'm askng. Leaving that
portion of the deck that faces that area that
11 you' re referring to.
MR. CONSTANT: The woods, that' s where we
12 put the grill outdoors .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This will be
13 open on two sides with screening only.
MR. CONSTANT: A knee wall .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOERINGER: And then
screening the rest of the way?
15 MR. CONSTANT: Yes, sir. We have no
intentions of putting storm doors back there .
16 It' s a big house, just the two of us . Our
children live away. We' re not moving, so we don' t
17 need any more living space other than we can' t
enjoy the outdoors .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand,
thank you.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It says it' s a
20 seasonal covered porch, you' re not going to have
heating or air conditioning?
21 MR. CONSTANT: Might put a fan in.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s acceptable .
22 Not to be habitable . No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
24 in the audience that wishes to speak on this
application? If not, then I make a motion to
25 close the hearing reserving decision until
later.
January 20 , 2005
23
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
---------- ------------ -------- -- -------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Mark
and Ellie Gordon on North Road or Middle Road, in
4 Greenport . They want to put a swimming pool less
than 100 foot from the bluff . Yes, ma' am?
5 MS . STAGERBERG: Good morning, my name is
Jane Stagerberg. I 'm an architect and I' m here to
6 represent Mark Gordon. I have some cards to give
you and also I received a fax requesting that we
7 submit an alternate design to be considered
(handing) .
8 It was suggested that we rotate the
orientation of the pool . So what you see on the
9 revised plan is we did, in fact, rotate the pool
90 degrees, and we moved it westward on the site
10 so that by maintaining the edge of the deck with
the steps going down to grade, we increased the
11 distance from the sound and from the edge of the
bluff by 13 feet .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the edge of the
deck how far is it then to the top of the bluff?
13 It only shows here to the coastal erosion zone
line .
14 MS . STAGERBERG: Actually, if I could
refer to the extra set of plans .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Looks like it' s
47' 8" to the top of the bluff to the deck.
16 MS . STAGERBERG: That' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason
17 that you couldn' t move the pool entirely to the
side yard?
18 MS . STAGERBERG: Well, the side slopes off
to the west, and it' s- moving the pool to the west
19 there, would put it behind those trees that you
see, the existing trees . The site steps down at
20 that point so it becomes difficult, the pool
lowers and it' s kind of in sort of a belly on the
21 site . So it' s not a very advantageous place on
the site in terms of view or location. It also
22 gets close to the neighboring property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because your bluff is
23 not in terribly good shape . Vincent, do you want
to comment?
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We had a similar
application to this last month, and the long and
25 short of it is that the Zoning Board in the past
has drawn a line in the sand, and we have not gone
January 20 , 2005
24
1
2 any closer to the bluff than 64 feet . So we' re
not going to draw a new line in the sand, so
3 that' s the number you need to meet . How you come
up with that is your creative mind to do that . We
4 can' t start at 47 now after we have been doing 64 .
Then we' ll go to 24, 17, then there will be none .
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that the distance
from the edge of the deck to the bluff or the edge
6 of the pool?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pool .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pool .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: From the pool to the
8 bluff .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael, just
9 let me rephrase that, if 'you had a ground-level
stone patio, that may not be part of the
10 calculation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is that a raised
.11 deck around the pool?
MS . STAGERBERG: It is a raised deck, yes .
12 If we are to revise our proposal and make some new
considerations, do you have any comments in terms
13 of building a deck on this side of the house
within the footprint that we have shown on this
14 revised plan?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What exactly do you
15 mean by that?
MS . STAGERBERG: I guess I'm wondering
16 given that the 64 feet is a number that we can' t
violate in terms of its proximity to the bluff,
17 and if we chose to look for a new location for the
pool either to the west or the south of the house,
18 would an application to build a deck only within
the footprint that we have shown here, the deck .
19 extending out the 31 feet from the face of the
house, that would that be considered if it didn' t
20 have a pool; if it were a deck only?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s still very
21 close, even for a deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We really do not like
22 to see any weight put near the bluff at all .
These bluffs are not stable .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re suggesting
the footprint you have now with a deck without a
24 pool at 47' 8"?
MS . STAGERBERG: Yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: She was suggesting 31
January 20 , 2005
25
1
2 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I heard that .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s come to
5 the construction of this; is this a gunite pool or
liner pool?
6 MS . STAGERBERG: Gunite .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some of the
7 construction that we have seen recently from the
pool standpoint is that of a lap pool in the front
8 with a lazy "L" going around the corner. And in
gunite you can do anything, in liner you can only
9 do what you can buy a liner in. That' s the reason
why we ask the question. Again, I'm not speaking
10 for the Board, but I think in gunite you can
narrow the aspect of the pool . If you want to
11 make it part of the deck area in the front based
upon the setbacks that my colleagues are referring
12 to, it can be done, there' s no question about it .
So, if you want to make it a pool, if you want to
13 make it a deck, whatever you want to do. If you
want to make it "L" shaped and wrap it around.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a very large
piece of property. It' s two and a half acres .
15 MS . STAGERBERG: It is . I think one of
the issues that we' re facing with the property is
16 that the relationship between the house and the
yard on the north side of the house is rather
17 disconnected from the bluff . So it comes down, it
steps down, and I think the desire on the part of
18 the owner was to really utilize that south side of
the house and enjoy the credible view. Because it
19 sort of ends up bellying towards the house, there
really isn' t the opportunity to build an on grade
20 deck, which is what I understand is something that
is allowed and that doesn' t require a variance,
21 but because of the topography of this site, it' s
not possible to build an on grade deck. And so I
22 think what we' re struggling to find is a way to
appreciate that side of the house and sit on what
23 is really the natural side of the house that you
want to be on, to enjoy the environment and the
24 view. So that' s why we located the deck where we
did, and we were hoping to build it in such a way
25 that it would be lightweight, wood construction
and have minimal impact on the existing condition.
January 20 , 2005
26
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no trouble
with the argument that says that it' s important
3 for them to enjoy the access . to the sound from
that side of the property and all the reasons you
4 state, none of which implies a pool . A pool isn' t
built in order to help enjoy the view. The pool
5 is built because, in part, there' s a lot of room
there and why not put a pool there . I would make
6 a sharp distinction between building a deck and
building a pool, and if you can' t squeeze the pool
7 into the 64 foot rule, then the pool will have to
go someplace else is what I think.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we' re all
agreed on that . Somehow you will have to fit it
9 into that 64 foot rule.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you would like
10 you could submit an alternative plan and adjourn
this .
11 MS . STAGERBERG: I think we would like to
submit an alternative plan. Would we submit that
12 to you and would that consideration be part of
this hearing?
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You could do it
either way, either adjourn it and discuss it at
14 the next meeting, which would be March 3rd, or you
could submit it and close the hearing at this time
15 so you wouldn' t have to reappear and just let the
Board make a decision on that plan.
16 MS . STAGERBERG: I think we would like to
do that in an effort to speed up our
17 decision-making. So we will go back to the
drawing board, and I will submit a plan to you
18 early next week.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Unless the new plan
19 creates a new variance . If you create a new
variance there would have to be a new public
20 hearing so another neighbor would be notified.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' d have to get a
21 new disapproval, you' d have to make an
application.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you stayed
within this variance, which is just the setback to
23 the bluff, we could do that .
MS . STAGERBERG: So I understand fully,
24 you' re going to require a 64 foot setback from the
edge of the bluff to the edge of the deck.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you give an
alternative plan and the Board closes the hearing
January 20, 2005
27
1
2 today, and they don' t agree with the plan, they
could also give an alternative to that plan and
3 tell you what setbacks you would have to meet, if
you wanted to accept that .
4 MS . STAGERBERG: All right . Then I did
have a question about the other aspects of our
5 proposal, which was the balcony on the second
floor facing the sound, what it is is an extension
6 of a balcony that runs on the second floor on the
east side of the house and our proposal wraps that
7 that deck around the front of the house, around
the sound side of the house .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That wasn' t
mentioned in the notice of disapproval .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a permit to
construct a deck, pool and upper level porch. It
10 just doesn' t go into it any further.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s on the
11 construction diagram that you gave .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it' s not
13 part of the notice of disapproval, is it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At the top, it is
14 Jerry.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was on the
15 construction diagrams .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That second floor
16 balcony only extends out past the existing
footprint two, three feet, if that?
17 MS . STAGERBERG: That' s correct . The
existing balcony, which you see on the right-hand
18 side of the drawing, that' s the existing balcony
and it ends at the north face of the house . And
19 what we' re proposing to do is wrap 'the corner
around by four feet and extend it along a portion
20 of the north side of the house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Above the
21 garage?
MS . STAGERBERG: Yes . The portion that
22 exists now is above the garage and the portion
that would extend on the north side is over the
23 living room on the first floor.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s only four
24 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That balcony is
25 probably 80 feet from the bluff if not close to
100 .
January 20 , 2005
28
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that' s
kind of diminimus .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s probably about
r
4 77 feet from the bluff .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to make a
5 motion to close the hearing, reserve decision
until later until we receive the alternate plans
6 for the pool and the deck. .
(See minutes for resolution. )
7 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Diane
8 and Scott Mulvaney at 225 Marion Lane, East Marion
for a second floor addition and alterations to the
9 dwelling at less than 40 feet from the front lot
line . Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in
10 favor of this application? Would you like to tell
us what you would like to do?
11 MS . MULVANEY: We purchased a house in
East Marion that apparently has two fronts because
12 it' s a corner lot, and the house is an existing
two story that has a hard roof line, you know, a
13 cape, so the area above the garage, which is
currently an attic will become bedroom space . It
14 turns out through the application it was denied
because the setbacks you have to. be 40 feet from
15 the front of your house to the street . Where the
front door is located, which is the actual front,
16 I have no problem there as far as the setback. On
the side yard, the house measures 40 feet to the
17 existing split rail fence, then there' s an
additional 17 feet of property but the original
18 owner dedicated it to the Marion Lane Association
because it' s a private road. So I fall under the
19 issue of needing four additional feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re stuck because
20 you have the two front yards .
MS . MULVANEY: Correct, but not to mention
21 we' re not moving any exterior walls already up,
we' re going from this to this, further up .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
any questions?
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My understanding is
that this would ordinarily be a fairly simple
24 improvement converting a one and-a-half story cape
to a two-story house, and turning attic into
25 living space within the footprint, a kind of
construction project which I would think improves
January 20 , 2005
29
1
2 the appearance of the house and hence the
neighborhood.
3 MS . MULVANEY: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I am not aware of any
4 objection to improve on this in this case .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
You' re on the same footprint?
6 MS . MULVANEY: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
comment .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
objections either. Is there anybody else in the
9 audience that would like to speak on this
application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
10 the hearing, reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll have two weeks
we' ll have a special meeting, you' re welcome to
12 come then you can call after that and see whether
you' re ,approved or not .
13 MS . MULVANEY: Is there anything I could
do to expedite that because I have a huge
14 construction issue, I'm at a complete standstill
right now. I have a house that' s been gutted with
15 heat eking out the windows waiting to move on an
application that I put in before Thanksgiving.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whose is this?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This is
17 Mr. Simon' s . Would you have any objection to
drafting this up in the next few days?
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. I can draft that
in the next few days .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. I make a motion
that we grant this application for the variance of
20 less than 40 feet as applied for.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Peter
22 Cosola, Opechee Avenue, Southold down in Laughing
Waters, for a second story addition and
23 alterations to the dwelling, which will constitute
an increase in the degree of nonconformance with
24 front yard setback at less than 35 feet .
What else do you want to tell us, if
25 anything?
MR. COSOLA: Nothing. We are just
January 20, 2005
30
1
2 extending the roof line actually over an area that
is a closed-in porch right now.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just going to
cover that in?
4 MR. COSOLA: Currently it' s at two
different heights . We' re also going to renovate
5 the house, but we' re going to stay on the same
footprint .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s one and a
half story?
7 MR. COSOLA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s going to
8 remain a one and a half story, it' s not going to
be a two story house as was stated. Plans are
9 accurate, yes . I 'm not sure what the survey
reads .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It said one and a
half story.
11 MR. COSOLA: It' s. accurate . It will
remain that way.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What in effect
is going. upstairs? What is the addition for?
13 MR. COSOLA: It' s a storage loft in the
house, it currently has that on the opposite side
14 of it that we' re going to cathedral it on the side
that has it is loft now and then put the loft over
15 the area that has the porch now.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
17 questions .
MR. COSOLA. Thank you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience that would like to speak on this
20 application? If not, I' d like to make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until
21 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the
23 Koehlers on Bay Shore Road in Greenport making a
deck addition at less than 75 feet from the
24 existing stone riprap.
MR. KOEHLER: Good morning.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask a
question, Ruth?
January 20 , 2005
31
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Koehler, is
3 this deck going to encompass some of that cement
area that exists there? I mean, is it going over
4 that wall?
MR. KOEHLER: The deck is going to the
5 edge of the existing concrete retaining wall, and
underneath it is all the concrete sidewalk.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That will stay open
as it is on the other side next to it?
7 MR. KOEHLER: Correct . Are you looking at
that --
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The room over it
will stay open underneath?
9 MR. KOEHLER: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How is it being
10 constructed; are there pilings going in there to
hold this up?
11 MR. KOEHLER: The way we' re going to do it
is we have, I think they' re four by four columns
12 that will rest on top of the existing concrete
retaining wall, that' s what we' re using as our
13 existing footings, if you will . And on coming
back to the house, we' ll have a ledger on the
14 existing house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the openness
15 that we feel and see when we walk down will be
covered by deck; is that correct?
1`6 MR. KOEHLER: Correct . Right now there' s
a set of brick steps that go down to that area,
17 we' re going to level that off right up to the door
that' s leading into the house . I have a brick
18 walk that -- I don' t have the survey here with me,
but that goes out to the driveway now, so I ' ll
19 have the deck will start from the brick walk and
go straight out .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why you' re going all the way to the wall?
21 MR. KOEHLER: We originally were going to
hang out two feet past the wall to match up with
22 the existing room that' s there now, and the DEC
restricted us to the wall . Our neighbors on the
23 left side and the right side of us have a deck
that is beyond us already, they' re closer to the
24 water, so we didn' t think that was a problem but
the DEC didn' t want us to encroach over the
25 retaining wall .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In a flood or a
January 20, 2005
32
1
2 storm high tide, does the. water come up to the
wall?
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm sure it could.
MR. KOEHLER: Very rarely in a storm
4 you' ll see seaweed come up to that wall, but it' s
kind of rare .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a unique
piece of property in the respect that you don' t
6 necessarily have a bulkhead there or anything
there the way the property just lays down right to
7 the beach area almost .
MR. KOEHLER: This wall is a bulkhead.
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it' s a
bulkhead but it doesn' t give you the appearance of
9 one .
MR. KOEHLER: No, because it drops down
10 before that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Picking up on your
comment, your one adjacent neighbor with the large
12 house has a pool, yes, I don' t know how he got
that one, you can almost step in the pool and the
13 bay at the same time .
MR. KOEHLER: Yes .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you were to
imagine the footprint as including your wall, then
16 you would be building this deck on the existing
footprint .
17 MR. KOEHLER: Basically, yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in the audience 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
F .W. Koehler and Osprey Dominion on Main Road in
22 Peconic who wishes to build an accessory to the
principal use with a location in the front yard
� 23 instead of the code required rear yard for
accessory buildings . Is there anyone here to
24 speak on behalf of this application?
MS . WICKHAM: Good morning, my name is
25 Abigail Wickham and I have just been recently
retained on the matter. Mr. Koehler is out of
January 20 , 2005
33
1
2 town, his son is here and there' s a gentleman here
from the winery. As I spoke to Linda this
3 morning, there are a number of details that I do
need to review with the applicant to give this
4 application a little bit better definition and
examination. So I just really want to speak very
5 briefly to you today, see if you have any
preliminary comments and then ask that it be
6 recessed to a later date to better zero in on what
we have to deal with here . We want to look very
7 close at the Board' s edification as to whether
there are alternatives and whether they' re
8 feasible to this particular location that' s
proposed. We are going to be examining in
9 connection with that some traffic and site issues
and try to give you more precise details as to
10 specific use of the building and the various parts
of it .
11 We are aware that the map that I have seen
doesn' t completely disclose the wetlands . I
12 understand there is a pond in the rear that takes
up a significant part of the northeast of the
13 property and does extend southward along the
swale . We understand it is a mapped freshwater
14 pond so it can be identified and shown that it is
unfortunately full of invasive species and
15 apparently a tremendous amount of garbage, only a
portion of which has been dealt with. I
16 understand the prior owner made quite a mess
there . They have done some clean up with the
17 Trustees approval and the neighbors have
apparently gone through the property to clean up
18 their property, but we do need to examine how that
job is going to be finished and how that' s going
19 to impact on his project as well .
So if I could ask that the Board give me
20 some time to do those things, I would appreciate
it and see if you have any preliminary comments
21 that you would like to ask me to specifically
address other than those that I just mentioned.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you' re going to
have some problem with an accessory building for a
23 use where you propose to do it . We would be more
inclined to look at an extension of the tasting
24 room itself to do something like that .
MS . WICKHAM: That' s why I wanted to look
25 at that alternative . I do know that one of the
reasons that it was proposed by the applicant here
January 20, 2005
34
1
2 was because there was an existing building here .
He has apparently already voluntarily merged the
3 two parcels in an attempt to facilitate this . I
think he felt that the landscape setting here,
4 because it would be more extensively landscaped
and made private, might be more conducive to the
5 artistic flavor of the project and it would be
less congested than up at the winery, which is
6 basically a retail/wholesale sales facility, and I
don' t think that this is intended to be retail as
7 much as it is cultural and artistic . So we do
have to define that for you and see if that site
8 is appropriate and if not, why we think not and
let you make that decision.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think if there was an
accessory building down there in an AC zone, you
10 might need a use variance?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know there are other
wineries here and out at Napa that have art
12 displays and just to the side of their tasting
room and done attractively and very interestingly.
13 MS . WICKHAM: It very well may be the way
to do it, I just haven' t explored it with them,
14 and I know there are liquor license issues as well
too . We' ll have to look at it closely.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, any questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I 'm glad
16 you' re going to look at those issues because those
are issues difficult for us as the application
17 stands right now to deal with.
MS . WICKHAM: Pretty bare bones .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The only thing that
19 popped in my head right away, but you have 40 , 50
parking spaces, isn' t that a little excessive for
20 an art gallery?
MS . WICKHAM: I think we have to examine
21 the site plan issue, as I had mentioned that
traffic site plan.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a number of
questions, and I think these have to be addressed
23 before the fine-tuning of the actual site plan is
reviewed. It is clearly seeking a use variance to
24 run a non-vineyard activity in, in fact, a
separate building on a winery' s plot of land. And
25 from what I read, it' s not just simply for
display, it' s an operation. They' re talking about
January 20 , 2005
35
1
2 an art framing operation, a business, and as I
understand the code, if you have permission to
3 operate a winery, that doesn' t automatically give
you permission to operate another retail business
4 and especially not on another building which may
happen to have on the same plot of land. Is it
5 artistic or is it artistic plus commercial?
MS . WICKHAM: I think that' s exactly what,
6 when I said we have to give you a better
description of the proposed uses, that' s exactly
7 what I have to zero in with them on because to the
extent there' s any primary retail use, I
8 understand you' re going to have a concern. To
what extent you would consider accessory to more
9 of a cultural facility, again, we have to come up
with a more cogent plan that gives you definition
10 of what we would like to do, and see if that' s
amenable to you or if it isn' t . I do have to
11 agree with you that we have to explore those
aspects very carefully. I think the applicant
12 came up with this very nice plan keeping in mind
what he had envisioned for it because he had
13 communications with an educational facility to
help augment the cultural aspects of this . And I
14 think the whole project has to be defined to
address those issues .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some questions I ' d
like for you to address -- I'm not asking you to
16 address them now -- is this because it' s a high
cultural activity, does this qualify for a special
17 exemption?
MS . WICKHAM: That' s a very good question.
18 I think this is the first time I get it to examine
the iliomascinary position of your code . I
19 definitely need time on this one .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If this is good for
20 the soul rather than good for the body, then
you' re going to look for some sort of legal basis
21 for this . There' s a suggestion to have a
spiritual center, well, there' s a slippery slope
22 and not a very steep slope from there to having
yoga lessons, schools and all sorts of
23 good-hearted activities, which are commercial but
of course are extremely valuable . From my point
24 of view, I'm not sure what the difference between
having that is and having a studio where you teach
25 people how to take apart their motorcycles .
MS . WICKHAM: I ' ll try to define that one
January 20, 2005
36
1
2 for you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, would you prefer
3 March 31st at 11 : 00 a.m. , or postpone it to April
28th?
4 MS . WICKHAM: I think March, yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At 11 : 00 a.m. Would
5 anybody else like to speak on this application?
MR. BAUER: George Bauer. Thank you for
6 letting me come and express my views on this
situation.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d be more than happy
to listen to you.
8 MR. BAUER: Firstly about two to three
weeks ago before this came out in the mail, I
9 looked up in my backyard and there was two men
standing there . So I went up to see them, first
10 they wouldn' t talk to me . I thought they were
measuring and like they always do, you know.
11 Finally, one said to me, whose been destroying the
wetlands . I said what are you talking about?
12 Finally they said, someone cut a swath through the
wetlands, cut down the bushes, the trees, the
13 cattails and piled big rocks in order to make like
a bulkhead. I said I know nothing about it . I
14 don' t go near the place, there are too many deer
ticks there, I don' t want to get them on me . So I
15 thought they were surveyors, but they had cameras,
and they had measuring tape and they' re writing
16 down everything. That' s the last I saw of them.
I don' t know who they were . I saw a car parked
17 across the road, looked like they had some kind of
sticker across the side . I don' t know who it
18 was . Where do you consider the measurement from
the wetlands to the project, could someone tell
19 me?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You need to be 100
20 feet from the wetlands . The wetlands are defined,
you hire a team of people they go and survey it
21 and they flag the wetlands. They define the
wetlands based on vegetation. It doesn' t
22 necessarily have to be water. If there' s
vegetation in the area where it' s moist they
23 consider that wetlands and they flag that and the
surveyor measures from there, 100 feet and that' s
24 the area you cannot build on.
MR. BAUER: When you get the runoffs
25 through the winter and the spring, the water comes
up maybe 25, 30 feet higher, do you consider high
January 20 , 2005
37
1
2 water or low water, cattails, right?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s based on
3 vegetation because the water goes up and down.
MR. BAUER: If you fill in that covers up
4 it that, right? Has the Board of Trustees looked
into this or has the DEC from Stony Brook or
5 Albany checked this out? They used to all the
time .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It sounds like the
Trustees were there that you were talking to.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Either the Trustees or
if it' s a green car and had some marker on the car
8 it might have been the DEC.
MR. BAUER: Now that I look back, this
9 could have been DEC but maybe it would be wise to
have them come back and look at that because
10 there' s a lot of stories with this
property. Richman Creek used to run up to that
11 years ago. There used to be a wood bridge across
the road so horses and wagons could get
12 across . I've been there over 40 years, so I know
everyone that' s been there in all that time . I 'm
13 adjacent right to this property. I'm very
concerned. He told me that the story was that the
14 Indians used to live back in there and they have a
burial ground right on the slope where that slopes
15 down. Now, I don' t know. The only thing you
learn this is from old timers who were here many,
16 many years ago. Considering where this proposed
building goes, 100 feet long by 80 feet deep
17 that' s a big building.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mrs . Wickham said
18 she was going to address the wetlands issue . She
was going to have this flagged.
19 MR. BAUER: Those maps are vague . They
never show you the wetlands, they never show you
20 where the cattails are .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Miss Wickham is
21 going to address that now.
MR. BAUER: They say that all the time .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They will have to
because they cannot get permission if they are
23 within 100 feet of the wetlands . They will not be
able to build.
24 MR. BAUER: Wetlands come way up, but
suppose this is filled in?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The DEC has maps .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The DEC has maps .
January 20, 2005
38
1
2 MR. BAUER: From years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. They have recent
3 ones . A lot of the wetlands have definitely been
mapped.
4 MR. BAUER: They can check what it was
like back compared to what it is not . It' s
5 beautiful, there' s all kinds of birds, ducks,
geese, swans and it' s terrible to destroy this .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We agree .
MR. BAUER: Now, up on the road, we' re
7 going to have 40 parking spaces right next to my
property, dumpsters, music playing all weekend,
8 lights . Now on the weekend when they have
weddings, the traffic is way past my house . I
9 have had it so I can' t get out of my driveway. So
we park our car there, so we park at the head of
10 my driveway. I've had people come in my driveway
and say, where is this place, and they turn around
11 and go out and the smell and fumes and
all . That' s my complaints .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand.
MR. BAUER: And I don' t think anyone of
13 you would like that big tin building next to your
house .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Miss Wickham is
saying they' re going to revise their plans and
15 look at what they can do.
MR. BAUER: All through the season I have
16 people stop from around town, they' re familiar
with this, and they tell me it' s starting as a
17 warehouse and it' s going to end up a wine tasting
and a gin mill . This is the rumor around town.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MR. BAUER: I want you to take it into
19 consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else like to
20 speak on this application?
MR. STEVENSON: Tom Stevenson, I 'm the
21 vineyard manager, the farming side not necessarily
the building side, but I figured I' d just come
22 down. And George is our neighbor, I talked to
him. He tells it like it is . I never heard about
23 the Indian burial ground before . If we had heard
that we probably would have been researching that
24 already, but obviously it' s a sensitive spot . If
we' re able to get this variance, we want to work
25 within, let the site tell us what is going to be
there . It' s a really beautiful, scenic spot and
January 20 , 2005
39
1
2 we've tried to improve that with Mr. Koehler
bought the decrepit house four or five years ago,
3 structurally was unsound, termite ridden and that
came down. But we tried to clean up the area .
4 George didn' t point out this time, but he' s
pointed out in the past that there was a septic
5 guy who lived there and he used to run his truck
into the wetlands and there' s all sorts of --
6 we've cleaned out dumpsters and dumpsters of trash
that' s gone in there and DEC aside, that' s up to
7 five years ago people were dumping trash in-there
and there' s so much in there, there' s still so
8 much in there . We've cleaned so many dumpsters
out of there it makes me sick, regular household
9 trash, beer cans, refrigerators and things like
that, like they didn' t know what a dump was; it
10 was their backyard. So we' re trying to improve
the area. I think the wetlands are as vital as
11 probably it' s ever been. It' s a really special
spot, probably some sort of kettle hole pond. And
12 the back part of the wetlands, the north side is
like year round water, like in a real .draught like
13 102 there was still a little water there but
almost all gone, now it' s back up. And the
14 southern part it can fill but usually it' s more
like a marsh, phragmites, Japanese knotweed,
15 Norway maple, all that kind of stuff . We have
herons, blue herons, the great egrets . I 've seen
16 20 of them all at once, it' s like a roosting site,
it' s a great spot . So I think the art gallery
17 would add to the appreciation of such a nice spot .
You have Richmond Creek. There' s educational
18 aspects I think would be great for us to work
with. More a community center and point out the
19 history of the bootleggers who used to bring their
booze up through the creek. And George is
20 definitely a great resource for some of those
stories . I know he' s got a lot of concerns we
21 want to work with. It' s very preliminary, and
certainly not going to end up. So thanks for
22 letting me speak.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion
23 adjourning this hearing to March 31st. at 11 : 00
a.m.
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make a motion to
recess for three minutes .
January 20 , 2005
40
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
3 Alan and Teresa Sucher, Fisherman' s Beach Road.
They are in need of a few variances . Go ahead,
4 Pat?
MS . MOORE : This is Sucher. Actually, the
5 house is there . It' s an existing house . The
property is on Haywaters Road and the subdivision
6 is from 1931 . So this house has been there a very
long time . The first CO we find is from 1969 , but
7 the house looks older. In ' 69 Howard Terry
wouldn' t issue a pre CO. If you did a renovation,
8 it was a CO, he incorporated whatever you had done
into a certificate of occupancy. When they
9 started off with when they bought the house, it
really needs some upgrading, I think if you have
10 seen the house it has not been upgraded in a long
time . What they plan to do is put some small
11 dormers, keep the same roof line, adding some
dormers because it' s a one and-a-half story, the
12 half-story needs some small pop outs to bring the
ceiling heights to code and that' s all well within
13 the existing footprint . The only new area is the
decking in. the back that extends along the back of
14 the house, and there is a stoop I guess is being
replaced, architecturally. they' re making a little
15 front porch area where I guess now a cement stoop
exists . What we found, and this isn' t conclusive
16 in that town records at the building department
from the 160s were not always as clear as they
17 could be, and it looks like there was a building
permit that included, I called it a shed because
18 it wasn' t really to scale, it showed a
construction on the side, but ultimately, it was a
19 garage . And the assessor' s office showed it as an
existing garage, so conservatively I thought let' s
20 clean up the record now, have the garage get
legalized, clarified so that for future purposes
21 it' s on the property, it' s reflected on the
property. So we need to grandfather a garage that
22 appears to have been there since 1969, whether or
not it had a permit at the time is really unclear.
23 I think from the drawing that was attached to the
plans because at the time in 169 there really
24 wasn' t a need under the state code for elaborate
plans .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So we' re calling
the shed a garage?
January 20 , 2005
41
1
2 MS . MOORE: On the plans from 1969 there
was a little box, the size of the box looks like a
3 shed, but at the time they built a garage . So I
would presume that the building inspector when he
4 was making inspections under the existing 169
building permit would have noticed that a garage
5 was built .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I want to mention
6 in 1972 there was an application for variance and
the Board required a setback, and the map that was
7 submitted with that application showed that there
was no garage existing in 172 .
8 MS . MOORE: I wasn' t aware of that .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s in the file .
9 It must have been built after ' 72 .
MS . MOORE : It may be after 172 then. I
10 only had the Building Department records and
that' s the only thing I found in microfiche, then
11 I stand corrected, so your records -- either way,
it was built prior to setback conditions .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s been there a
long time .
13 MS . MOORE : Yes, and they would like to
keep it . So at this point we've got the drawings
14 that show what they propose to do, and I' ll try to
answer any questions that you have . It' s pretty
15 much a built-out community. I think if you look
at everyone' s house there, they are built
16 similarly on small properties, very close to
property lines . The area is all bulkheaded. Last
17 night we were at the Trustees . This got approved
by the Town Trustees so the project has approval
18 last night . I believe the DEC application is
pending but they shouldn' t have an issue because
19 it' s landward of a bulkhead more than 100 feet and
the bulkhead was built prior to ' 77 I believe, so
20 do you have any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question I have,
the increase is lot coverage, it says from 23
22 percent to 31 . 7 percent, is that mostly taken out
of by including garage?
23 MS . MOORE : Yes, correct . As I said the
only square footage addition that isn' t already
24 built is the 257 square feet of wood decking in
the back and 47 square feet of front stoop, porch
25 area. Aside from that, everything is as-built,
it' s there . So the garage is what brings it over
January 20, 2005
42
1
2 the lot coverage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you don' t have a
3 number of lot coverage .
MS . MOORE: That excludes the garage?
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes or would have
included the garage in the first place?
5 MS . MOORE : Existing lot coverage, 28 . 7 .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s really from 28 . 7
6 percent to 31 . 7?
MS . MOORE : Right . I take it back, in the
7 28 . 7, the surveyor included the garage . So we
would have to calculate 22 . 6 by 24 . 3 , come up with
8 a square footage and subtract it out from the
first number, the existing lot coverage .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there a CO for
10 that garage?
MS . MOORE: From what you said the Zoning
11 variance from the 170s, if the survey didn' t show
that garage at the time I'm assuming they used an
12 accurate survey.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : In fact they had
13 restricted the side yard at that time to about 24
feet, so he couldn' t have had his garage there .
14 MS . MOORE : Did they say the east side or
the west side? Because there is 24 feet on the
15 west side, not having read it .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Dated April 20 ,
16 1972, allowed to build an addition provided that
the garage be now wider than 22 feet by 24 , and
17 then when you look at the map it' s a different
location than what' s there .
18 MS . MOORE : Where did they have the garage
at that time, on the other side, because there' s
19 not much property there?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those dimensions
20 are what the garage is ., We' re sure it' s on this
property, right?
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could you come over
and take a look? It' s an odd map.
22 MS . MOORE: This is the same that was
attached, that' s what I found in the microfiche .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s the one you
found for the shed?
24 MS . MOORE : Yes, looks like it' s got a
garage .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Setback to the shed
is 22 feet, but there' s no garage showing.
January 20 , 2005
43
1
2 MS . MOORE: But the description for the
variance is for a garage? That' s why I'm asking
3 to correct it now because I couldn' t make heads or
tails of the description.
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The description of
the variance calls for a 22 by 24 garage .
5 MS . MOORE : That would be wonderful
because it sounds like we got it, but the drawing
6 doesn' t match it, that' s the only drawing I found
from way back in 169 . So I'm wondering, could
7 they have used the same 169 survey toward that
application?
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was appeal
number -- there were two variances, one in 169 and
9 another one in ' 72 . Apparently the one in 172 was
for the garage but they didn' t submit a new map is
10 probably what happened.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The garage shall be
11 no wider than 22 feet .
MS . MOORE: Surveying has gotten a little
12 better but that eliminates one of your -- so all
we need now is your dormers, if you can refer back
13 to that variance .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the
14 dormers that you' re proposing?
MS . MOORE : Yes . The dormers increase the
15 degree of nonconformity under our interpretation
and the decking in the back and this little
16 decking in the front .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
17 purpose of the little deck in the front?
MS . MOORE : I think it' s architectural .
18 They look to have a little -- it' s already
existing notch -- existing house it probably has a
19 typical old fashioned covered canopy for a step
in, and I have the plans in your file, I just have
20 to find my set . I think it' s just making it all
kind of cohesive in design.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And all the reverse
gable dormers are within the footprints?
22 MS . MOORE : Yes . I believe the height of
the structure is less than 35 feet for sure, I
23 think it was 22 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 2114" .
24 MS . MOORE : Here you can see the front,
what is called the south elevation shows a little
25 front porch. It' s already under existing roofline
so the setback already establishes just putting
January 20, 2005
44
1
2 porch underneath
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Existing ridge
3 stays that height .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is that
4 porch?
MS . MOORE : It' s an extra 47 square feet .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I would
like to see done, Miss Moore, looking at the rear
6 of the property where the 19 . 9 hits the proposed
wood deck, I' d like to see that deck 45 at that
7 corner there, creating approximately another foot
or two . The back of that property is extremely
8 crowded when you walk around the garage area,
getting another couple feet in there would be
9 greatly appreciated.
MS . MOORE : So kind of angling the deck an
10 angle?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where the 19 . 9
11 hits the bulkhead, proposed wood deck, 45 it on
the corner. It actually will look pretty
12 decorative too.
MS . MOORE : Okay. I don' t think the
13 applicant will object to that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Dormers I have
14 no problems with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no further
questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, you' re all
finished?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All finished.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
19 in the audience who wishes to speak on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion closing
20 the hearing and reserving decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 -----------------------------------=-------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to open the
22 hearing ,for Donna Cook and ask if anybody wishes
to- be heard on that application? If not, I' d like
23 to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to March
31,' 2005 at the applicant' s request .
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Mark Anticev for a waiver of merger. Mr.
January 20 , 2005
45
1
2 McCarthy. Good morning.
MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning, Ladies and
3 Gentlemen of the Board. We have two concerns
going forward. First is that Mr. Anticev has
4 consulted with an attorney and the attorney
unfortunately could not be here this morning to
5 represent him. Second of all we agreed with the
Board to continue today from last month because
6 you only had three members present, this morning
you have four. I'm just wondering is it normal to
7 have a full slate or a partial slate?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We usually have a
8 full slate .
MR. MCCARTHY: We would ask for the
9 Board' s indulgence in postponing this until the
next meeting so that Mr. Anticev' s attorney can
10 get up to speed on this and have all the facts
necessary to adequately present it . And we would
11 hope that there would be a full slate next
meeting.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is everybody agreeable?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When would be our next
available date?
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : March 3rd or March
31st . March 3rd is pretty much full .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 31st what time?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I would say
16 approximately 11 : 00 , 11 : 10 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, I' ll make a
17 motion to adjourn the hearing until March 31st
about 11 : 00 .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that all right
with you, Miss Wickham?
19 MS . WICKHAM: I have no objection to that
adjournment, but I would like to make, if I could,
20 a very brief presentation on a legal issue . Is
that okay with you? Are you finished?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MS . WICKHAM: I'm not going to address the
22 variance issues because apparently that will be
deferred to the next hearing and we have no
23 problem with that . But I would like to ask the
Board in the interim to review the issue of the
24 jurisdiction it may have to grant this variance in
the first place . Obviously you have a Planning
25 Board letter, which while it does not make a
recommendation in favor or against, does give , you
January 20 , 2005
46
1
2 a very clear indication of how they feel about the
matter. And I would submit that they probably
3 don' t have jurisdiction to make a recommendation
to you.
4 If you look at the Marx v. Zoning Board of
Appeals case and cases in that line, and I have
5 that for you today if I might hand that in. It' s
an Appellate Division Second Department case which
6 was decided in 1988, and I' ll just read the first
paragraph: "In this case we are called upon to
7 determine the question of whether a village zoning
board of appeals has the authority to modify the
8 conditions imposed by the village planning board
upon a subdivision plan approved by the village
9 planning board. For the reasons set forth herein,
we conclude that it does not . "
10 The last paragraph of the decision says
essentially the same thing, and there' s a very
11 good reasoning in there . It' s based on the
village law, which is pretty much mirrored by the
12 town law under which you have your authority. I
ask that that be considered and reviewed by your
13 counsel, and then we defer until March. Thank
you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The hearing should
15 be probably adjusted to approximately 10 :45 that
morning.
16 MR. CORCORAN: Gail, may I ask you one
question? Is it your view that the ZBA has no
17 authority to modify conditions of subdivision
approval, or that it has no authority to grant the
18 variance? Because those are somewhat different
things in the presence of conditions and
19 restrictions that relate to the granting of
variance .
20 MS . WICKHAM: The effect of granting the
variance would be a modification of the
21 subdivision approval in my opinion.
MR. CORCORAN: Without speaking for the
22 Board on what they would or wouldn' t do, one could
take the view that you could grant a variance, but
23 you' re still subject to the conditions of the
subdivision approval, which would then need to be
24 addressed by the Planning Board.
MS . WICKHAM: I think in this case it is
25 pretty much on point . It talks about substandard
lots being created. We do have two substandard
January 20 , 2005
47
1
2 lots which would be created here; one is
substandard in terms of area and width, maybe
3 more, I don' t remember and the other is
substandard in terms of width frontage . So I
4 would like you to address that .
MR. CORCORAN: I understand and I will .
5 MR. MCCARTHY: If I may?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead.
6 MR. MCCARTHY: In discussions that
Mr. Dinizio had, unfortunately he' s not here, we
7 expressed a willingness to recreate lot lines so
we could eliminate at least one of the points Miss
8 Wickham has just brought up. There is
approximately three acres there . We request to
9 build a two acre lot in the back with a flag. We
could reconfigure the one acre piece to be a two
10 acre piece, thereby creating a one acre piece in
the back to eliminate one of those objections that
11 she has . If the Board finds that they are willing
to work with us on that, we would be more than
12 happy to do that . Additionally, I would request
that the Board examine any previous decisions that
13 they have made that might be similar in scope to
this or in legalities as far as legal issues go
14 with the point that Miss Wickham has just brought
up. Because if, in fact, there are some, and we
15 believe that there are, then they would need to be
revisited as well . Thank you.
16 MS . WICKHAM: I would like to say if
there' s going to be a new plan submitted, I' d like
17 to see it ahead of time . I'm not sure it would
change my opinion of the legality. And I
18 apologize for the size of our print . It was done
on our copier at a 64 percent reduction, which I
19 might note, is less of a reduction that the
applicant is asking for in this variance . I' ll
20 give Mr. McCarthy a copy also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
21 adjourn until 1 : 00 p .m.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is CD
23 Reiters, Old Barge Restaurant . Mr. Angel .
MR. ANGEL: I neglected to send out notice
24 to the adjoining owners . I have an affidavit with
the copy of the notice and a copy of the letter we
25 sent with it, I' d like to hand that up (handing) .
I should probably give you my appearance .
January 20 , 2005
48
1
2 It' s Steven R. Angel, Esseks, Hefter and Angel,
108 East Main Street, Riverhead for the applicant,
3 CD Reiters .
We pretty much discussed this application
4 for a special exception when I was here last
time . Carol Denson, who is the partner of CD
5 Reiters most involved with the project, is here .
Last time she was on a trip I believe . If you
6 have any questions, I'm sure Carol could answer
them or would try to answer them. Certainly if
7 you have any legal questions, I' d be pleased to
answer them myself, but I. really have nothing to
8 add to our prior presentation.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I always have
9 questions . You told us in the last application
they' re actually going to suspend in steel this
10 second story from the first story; is that
correct?
11 MR. ANGEL: That was my understanding but
has that changed, Carol?
12 MS . DENSON: No .
MR. ANGEL: This is Carol Denson?
13 MS . DENSON: The design is such that the
upper level will be sitting basically on its own
14 bottom, which will be a base or substructure
consisting of pilings . And then steel beams will
15 go on top of the piling then the upper level will
sit on those steel beams . This will be all
16 independent of the current or the existing
building that' s there now.
17 MR. ANGEL: Structurally independent or
connected interior.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stairway or something?
MS . DENSON: Yes .
19 MR. ANGEL: But there will be a separate
structure for the second floor.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are those
pilings going to be outside the original structure
21 or inside?
MS . DENSON: Within the existing
22 footprint .
MR. ANGEL: So there will be a slight
23 decrease in the existing --
MS . DENSON: We don' t have the actual
24 construction drawings at this point, but the way I
understand it, we would have the piling encased
25 almost like columns .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just as much space as
January 20, 2005
49
1
2 is required for the support?
MS . DENSON: Exactly.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
asked that question is there is no doubt in my
4 mind, as we all know -- and this is not a
sarcastic statement, nor does it mean to degrade
5 that building -- but that is an existing old
barge; is that not?
6 MS . DENSON: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s been
7 great settling there, there' s been great movement,
and so on and so forth.
8 MS . DENSON: And that' s exactly the reason
why we were designing the upper level with its
9 own, self supporting --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s own independent .
10 MS . DENSON: Yes, exactly.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My other
11 discussion with counsel was, it was my mistake, I
guess, I had always thought that anything new that
12 was constructed to an existing building that
served alcoholic beverages in the state of New
13 York needed to be of masonry construction, and
that' s what I mentioned to counsel . Again, this
14 was not for any other reason other than the point
of view of my own personal thoughts and beliefs .
15 And counsel -- I'm not speaking for counsel
because he' s here and we've known counsel for
16 many, many years -- but he said he didn' t think
that was correct . Am I putting words in your
17 mouth, Mr. Angel?
MR. ANGEL: Yes . My understanding is to
18 add the second floor or mezzanine area depending
how it' s finally designed out of regular wood
19 frame will be consistent with the state building
code, and I believe Carol has examined that up,
20 down and sideways over the years; isn' t that
correct?
21 MS . DENSON: We have . And the building
code was changed a couple of years back. So we' re
22 in compliance with the current building code . So
we' re okay.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally
have to write this decision, and I didn' t want to
24 write something that was in noncompliance -- not
that we control the building code, we don' t .
25 MR. ANGEL: What I told you the last time
was that there has been over the past four or five
January 20 , 2005
50
1
2 years there have been continuous discussions with
the local building department, even with the
3 regional architect from the State Construction
Board of Review and the design and the genesis of
4 this application was certainly generated after all
those discussions . I don' t think that there' s any
5 doubt that this type of second floor can be
constructed on this building and be in compliance
6 with the code . We have an engineer; we have an
architect; it' s our second architect .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sure . And
this particular room that you' re constructing is
8 like any other dining room area that would be in
the building itself; is that correct?
9 MR. ANGEL: What does that mean?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s being used
10 as a dining room, regardless of its being used to
augment the existing dining room as an overflow,
11 you put people up there, and they would come back
downstairs after the upstairs was filled, that' s
12 the purpose of it?
MS . DENSON: Yes . It' s basically a shell,
13 open area design so we can accommodate some of the
tables upstairs, move them from the lower level
14 upstairs .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very
15 interesting, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no further
questions .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further
18 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to
know, because you said last time you weren' t
20 adding seats so how many seats do you have now,
whether seats or tables?
21 MS . DENSON: It depends how you' re
counting but our occupancy is for 120 seats .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could
accommodate that many now?
23 MS . DENSON: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And when you' re
24 done you can accommodate that many and no more?
MS . DENSON: That many is what we' re
25 proposing. I think we lost one seat . In the new
design it' s 119 . We lost one seat .
January 20 , 2005
51
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not
increasing any?
3 MS . DENSON: No, we' re not .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Angel, the
4 actual square footage of the new addition is what?
MS . DENSON: I think it' s about 1, 300 ,
5 it' s approximately one-third of the existing
footprint .
6 MR. ANGEL: And you know, I should submit
one other thing, which I neglected to submit last
7 time . Linda asked me to have it prepared, which
was a letter from the architect measuring to the
8 highest roof line, and it' s 26 feet will be the
top of the elevation.
9 MS . DENSON: That proposed square footage
on the addition is 1, 397 .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very
much.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish
to speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a
12 motion closing the hearing reserving decision
until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d like to open the
14 hearing of FITC, and then if there' s no one here
to speak about it, we will adjourn it to
15 approximately 11 : 00 a.m. on 3/31/05 . But what we
were thinking is this is something that should be
16 heard on Fisher' s Island, the one on Silver Eel,
Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was my
request .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I agree with you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it should
19 be done before August .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re saying doing it
20 maybe April . Yes, let' s adjourn it to April 28th
and send a memo to the Supervisor' s office asking
21 us if there' s money in the budget to send us over.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It will be a
22 special meeting.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which one is
23 that?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Fisher' s Island
24 subdivision, ferry terminal and --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to
January 20, 2005
52
1
2 ask, if we' re going to do this thing, do it on a
Saturday. It seems like the people over there,
3 just speaking to a couple people, most of them
work off the island.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s fine with me, I
don' t mind.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:' I'm more than
willing to help set that up if you guys tell me
6 to.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
7 problem setting it up.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Good.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because then, by that
time we may have a couple others over there . We
9 can do it at the same time .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can do it in a
10 day. It wouldn' t be that difficult for us to go
over there in the morning and get back.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I comment on
that? I have to tell you that I am unable to go
12 on a Saturday, and I'm also unable to go during
the week most of the time . So it appears I am
13 unable to go. I have too many people in nursing
homes and too much activity to deal with. My
14 Saturday mornings are devoted to the Zoning Board,
and at 11 : 30 I'm away, I'm gone . And I apologize,
15 but I can' t do it .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Well, you need at
16 least three members . Who would like to offer that
motion?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll offer it . We' ll
try for the 28th.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s our regular
meeting, what we' ll do is have it a week or so
19 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d like to re-open
21 the hearing from the Orient Fire District, the
carry-over from 12/16, for coordination between
22 the applicant and the concerned citizens . I would
first like to hear from Mr. Reale to see if he has
23 gotten the information that he has requested from
the fire district .
24 MR. REALE : Good afternoon, Members of the
Board. Well, just by way of background, the
25 representatives of the Orient Association did have
a meeting with representatives of the fire
January 20 , 2005
53
1
2 district . We met on December 15th at the fire
house, and I thought that was a very productive
3 meeting. Mr. Boyd was present at that as well .
It was a good start . There were a lot of
4 questions that were asked by John Turner, who is a
resident of Orient who has a background in
5 communications .
There were a number of questions that came
6 from that meeting. We eliminated a number of
questions, I think Mr. Boyd will agree . The view
7 is narrowed. It' s not as broad based as it' s
been. Mr. Schiebel had given some answers to
8 questions there . There was a series of questions,
about eight or ten questions, that were posed by
9 Mr. Turner that he only received answers to the
day before yesterday, and his feeling is -- I have
10 a letter here from him. He couldn' t be here
today, unfortunately. His feeling was there
11 wasn' t enough time for him to respond to those
questions . I was myself at the December 15th
12 meeting. I think we made a lot of progress . We
eliminated a lot of probably unnecessary issues
13 between the two entities, but really, Mr. Turner
and the Orient Association do feel as though they
14 need a little more time to look at those answers
that Mr. Schiebel had provided just this week. It
15 actually came through Mr. Boyd on the 19th, and
Mr. Turner didn' t have enough time to respond to
16 that being yesterday or the day before that he got
them. That' s where we' re at at the moment . What
17 the association would like to have one more month
to see if we can bring this to some sort of
18 conclusion.
I think Mr. Boyd will acknowledge that the
19 issues have been narrowed substantially, there' s a
recognition of some of the problems, there' s been
20 pledges of mutual support and cooperation, but we
don' t have all the answers to answer your question
21 in brief .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Mr. Turner feel
22 that a month would be sufficient for him' to get
the information he needs then to pass it to on to
23 Mr. Boyd and also to this Board?
MR. REALE : Yes . In fact, I won' t say
24 that every question was answered precisely the way
we would like it to be, but we just got a bunch of
25 information yesterday that he hasn' t been able to
really respond to or analyze . I'm not saying that
January 20 , 2005
54
1
2 that was necessarily anyone' s fault with the
holidays and everything. We met before the
3 holidays there were questions, it was back and
forth, but he did just get that information
4 yesterday. So we would like to put it off another
month hoping to avoid making this into a
5 controversy and making it more into a community
solution.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to see
this brought to a conclusion as long as you have
7 the proper information that Mr. Turner can answer
or look into any questions that he has .
8 MR. REALE : I will say for the benefit of
everyone, at least my personal reaction and the
9 people who have been working for the Orient
Association, feel that they have been enlightened
10 as to some things, I've seen that, and also the
range of questions and range of doubt has
11 certainly been narrowed. And Mr. Schiebel had
given a lot of information that I think helped
12 eliminate that at this meeting. I feel like we
made a lot of progress, but we would like another
13 month.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would hope it will be
14 done in another month. It' s just been dragging on
too long. And I'm sorry that Mr. Boyd wasn' t able
15 to get that information to you earlier, but be
that as it may, we would consider with Mr. Boyd' s
16 approval to move it to March 31st at 1 : 15 p .m.
MR. BOYD: March 31st?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the earliest we
have .
18 MR. BOYD: That' s hardly enough --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, we have
19 accommodated you for many months that you didn' t
have enough information, month after month after
20 month.
MR. BOYD: We have answered Mr. Turner' s
21 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we have not seen
22 Mr. Turner -- we have seen his questions, but we
haven' t seen --
23 MR. BOYD: We haven' t seen Mr. Turner
either.
24 MR. REALE : Mr. Turner was at the meeting
at OFD that Mr. Boyd was present at also .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, if he just
got the answers yesterday, I hardly think he' s had
January 20 , 2005
55
1
2 time to review everything, fair is fair.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is this the feeling of
3 the Board or just yours, Ruth?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I think it' s the
4 majority of the Board. We' d like to see this come
to a fruition. We don' t like this going on.
5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: It' s been delayed and
delayed and delayed.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stash, would you get to
the mike and say what you need to say?
7 AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, I've said what I had
to say.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think the Board is
addressing everybody' s input . If Mr. Turner needs
9 some time to review, you can' t ask a man who' s
only gotten the information yesterday to come
10 prepared today to say fine, yes or no or what have
you.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why we can' t meet as the last hearing on
12 March 3rd?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a special meeting.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : March 3rd is okay.
Do you expect it to be an hour and a half hearing?
14 MR. REALE : Just so it' s clear, we' re not
asking for March 31st .
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : March 3rd would be
available, but if it takes a whole afternoon, then
16 we have to knock off ten or twelve other
applicants and push them over to March 31st, and
17 they have been waiting a while .
MR. BOYD: The length of the hearing would
18 depend entirely upon how much information the
Board needs to feel comfortable with this . I
19 intend to put Mr. Schiebel back to present the
technical information that we did not get to in
20 our last presentation, which claimed exactly why
we' d need a 120 foot tower and why we need the
21 tower in the application we made the application
for. If we can streamline this matter with the
22 loose group that is objecting to it, and there are
no objections at that time, the presentation would
23 obviously be shorter and we' d take less time .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can we do that
24 presentation today?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this just for the
25 equipment that the fire department needs for their
communications not for the cell tower?
January 20, 2005
56
1
2 MR. BOYD: That' s correct . It has nothing
to do with the cell tower whatsoever.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I would agree to
it if the Board' s agreeable .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are we going to
accomplish anything with that?
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They may have
questions about your testimony.
6 MR. BOYD: If we have questions about the
testimony and Mr. Turner who seems to be such a
7 vital part of this decision-making process is not
present, then I wonder whether we' re just backing
8 ourselves into a situation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Board Members
9 may have questions about the testimony.
MR. BOYD: I would be more than happy to
10 go ahead today. That' s what we' re here for,
that' s what I have Mr. Schiebel here for with his
11 presentation ready to go.
MR. REALE : I don' t think that solves the
12 original problem, but the suggestion made by
Mr. Dinizio which was to try to get community
13 consensus on this . We' re not in a position to
come to a conclusion. All that leaves us to is to
14 create opposition to what' s going to be said.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment?
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The applicant and
16 the other people who oppose it are not the only
ones that have dragged this on, okay, because we
17 have too. We can accommodate these people also .
We' re supposed to be public servants so why can' t
18 we have -- today' s the 20th, why can' t we have a
meeting on the 3rd of February for these people?
19 There won' t be any extra work for Linda to do
other than this one legal notice .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jim, there' s no
legal notice involved.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn' t change
their application.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Great . I assumed
we had on announce that we' re having a public
23 meeting at some time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 3rd.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : February 3rd.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What day is
25 February 3rd?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unfortunately,
January 20, 2005
57
1
2 Jimmy, I 'm not going to be here .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Why can' t it be at
3 night?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t have a
4 recording machine.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I cannot make a day
5 time meeting on February 3rd.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re probably
6 talking a half hour.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I thought he wanted
7 to have it at the bank annex building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm not concerned
8 with the logistics . It seems to me like we meet
month to month here . These poor people sit around
9 and wait for us . Quite honestly, I'm not for
that . If it' s going to be 2 : 00 in the morning, I
10 don' t care, it' s got to be done . I'm hoping this
gives you enough time, Mr. Reale, to have this
11 gentleman preferably have him here and whatever
comments he has, if he could reduce them to
12 writing so perhaps maybe we could review it . I
don' t know if he can, but it would be nice if we
13 have already looked at what he' s going to comment
on.
14 MR. REALE: Actually, I was going to make
the same suggestion, I think that probably both
15 sides should do that in advance .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand
16 there' s going to be back and forth. Today I would
like to spend a little time and find out exactly
17 what direction you did go in, and what exactly is
it that you have agreed on, and where is the
18 sticking point, and I' d like to know that before I
leave this room today, if I could. You say you
19 sent a response back to a gentleman that we
haven' t met yet, but I don' t even know what he
20 asked.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long would the
21 meeting take on February 3rd?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Depends how long
22 would your presentation be, Mr. Schiebel?
MR. SCHIEBEL: I have a tendency to,
23 technically, ramble .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I may make a
24 comment before we go through all these gyrations,
Mr. Dinizio and myself last time said to everyone,
25 one month that' s fine, everyone agreed. That was
three months ago. So before we jump through hoops
January 20 , 2005
58
1
2 February 3rd, is this really going to happen or
are we going to get another letter for
3 adjournment?
MR. REALE : I think it has to. We've
4 played it out .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there will be no
5 more letters for adjournment?
MR. REALE : I don' t know if we' re going to,
6 agree on everything but we won' t ask for another
adjournment .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment
again?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : As I understand it,
9 we' re here basically for a tower that' s 120 feet
tall, and we' re listening to people who volunteer
10 in the community to respond. to calls day and
night, and they don' t have the time necessarily or
11 the wherewithal financially to invest in a lot of
sophisticated gear. They want to throw an
12 antennae up, get it up as high as they possibly
can and be able to speak on it . No guarantees it
13 will work everyplace, but it seems that they think
it will work for them better than what they have
14 right now. Am I clear that that' s what we' re here
for?
15 MR. BOYD: That' s very accurate .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Shy of that, and
16 I'm coming from a perspective that I just
witnessed a pretty high pole go up in Mattituck
17 about an hour ago, that' s at the fire department,
and I can recall absolutely no opposition
18 whatsoever to a tower that we approved in Southold
at the fire department .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It wasn' t as high as
this one .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Height is a
relative thing to where you are . What have you
21 gotten to that allows them to build this tower;
are you any closer to realizing that there is a
22 need for it?
MR. BOYD: Yes, I think that' s. accurate .
23 May I speak for a moment? We had a very lengthy
meeting at the Orient firehouse with Mr. Reale and
24 members of the Orient Association. We went
through the entire communications problem from
25 start to finish, explaining the system we were
laboring under at the present time, the reasons
January 20, 2005
59
1
2 why the present system .is not able to be upgraded
to give us the coverage of the area that we want .
3 At the end of the meeting, Mr. Schiebel was very
forthcoming with lots and lots of information, I
4 think it was agreed and I 'm sure I' ll be corrected
if I misspeak here, that we need a new
5 communications system in Orient .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Agreed.
6 MR. BOYD: And that communication system
is going to have to be in. the 450 megahertz
7 range . The questions that remain in Mr. Turner' s
mind and in the Orient Association are basically
8 two in nature . One, the physical location of the
tower, and two, the height of the tower.
9 Mr. Turner proposed a number of questions
relating to towers at remote locations, some as
10 remote as being in the Village of Greenport, these
are not acceptable to the Orient Fire District,
11 even if they were to work, which they will not and
Mr. Schiebel can explain why they will not work .
12 We' re down to basically the question of how high
must the tower be at the Orient firehouse
13 location. We supplied information about that . We
supplied these various propagation maps to show
14 what the coverage would be to the various parts of
the Orient Fire District . We are constrained by
15 several things, the license that we are operating
under, and, of course, the topography of the
16 district .
Orient is shaped a lot different than
17 Mattituck, you just saw the pole go up in
Mattituck they can get by with slightly less
18 height because they' re basically a round area . We
have to get all the way around to the (inaudible) .
19 What we have agreed upon, to get back to the
original question, we need new communications,
20 we' re trying to find the best way to do it . The
question is site of the tower and the actual
21 height of the tower.
MR. REALE : That's why they' re in front of
22 the Zoning Board, and we have narrowed some of
those issues . Questions that Mr. Turner had had
23 to do with alternatives and whether that height
was really necessary for the service that was
24 presented. There are a number of questions that
are still there . That is the question is the
25 height, we don' t disagree on that . I' ll be happy
to come back in two weeks and try to bring this to
January 20 , 2005
60
1
2 a conclusion.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But I don' t see
3 where you got anywhere . Those were the questions
that were given to us in November. And you' re
4 saying you came closer, but I don' t see where
you've come any closer on that .
5 MR. REALE : Then we have to get into the
details of the application. The question was
6 whether this will be an upgrade in equipment . Mr.
Schiebel' s telling us that there' s not going to be
7 an upgrade in the hand-held equipment, only go
higher. The question whether there' s a need to go
8 up to 120 feet . There' s full support among the
association for whatever needs the district and
9 the fire department have . They' re not trying to
stifle that in any way. The question more is
10 whether you need to go that high in this
particular spot . That was why we wanted two weeks
11 to respond to the information that Turner got
yesterday.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me see if I 've
got you clear. You have no objection to this spot
13 as long as the tower is not 120 feet; in other
words, you' re saying technically you' re saying
14 this is probably a good location for the tower.
It' s just a question that the tower is too tall?
15 MR. REALE : No, there' s a tower in
Greenport, there' s a possibility of alternative
16 sites, there' s possibility of other methods of
sending out the signal . For example, in East
17 Hampton it' s done in a different way. There are
other solutions to the problem.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hate to take up
too much time here, but it' s of concern to me .
19 Isn' t that more a question for your district
personally than for the town, for the Zoning
20 Board? We' re here basically, if we agree that
this has a public need, that it would be in the
21 best interests of the Town that they have this, we
don' t necessarily need to have negotiations or
22 allow negotiations as to what type of equipment
that you' re going to use .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I speak to that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you think the
question is, does the district need this, the hard
25 question is what is the "this, " and that question
cannot be avoided without knowing how far, how
January 20, 2005
61
1
2 high and where it' s going to be . This is too
general . It' s not the role of this Board to give
3 them cart blanche to make it as high or as close
as they want to because they need it or this .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have to
determine that they need it . I agree . But the
5 applicant is the fire department . And the fire
department needs to prove they have need to us,
6 not to people who object to it . We' re supposed to
determine whether this is in the public interest,
7 that they have a need for better communications,
how they go about doing that, honestly, is not our
8 purview, and we certainly have to take into
consideration, cost; we do all the time, and we
9 should in this instance. Now, if I am hearing
from the two parties that they' re not any closer
10 than what they are before then --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think they are .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then maybe we meet
in two weeks and we vote, and that' s the end of
12 this .
MR. REALE: Just to be clear, the first
13 first thing I said was that we thought the meeting
was very productive . We narrowed the issues
14 considerably, at least from the way the Orient
Association saw it . The questions are much
15 narrower, I think they' re much much closer. They
have a much better understanding of the needs of
16 the fire department . I can tell you all these
things . I don' t think we haven' t gotten here . We
17 didn' t sign off on 120 feet, but it' s a much
different dynamic than it was two months ago.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You think
Mr. Turner can come up with a better alternative?
19 MR. REALE : I'm not saying -- Bill
Schiebel' s very capable and did a very good job of
20 explaining a lot questions, we' re not questioning
that or challenging him, we' re just trying to get
21 this closer and see if we can' t work this out .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we meet in two
22 weeks that' s more than enough time for you?
MR. REALE : If that' s what you want to do.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I ' d like to
see the stuff if I could. If she emails me the
24 night before, I ' ll stay up and read it .
MR. REALE: We' ll get the stuff in.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Freddie, did you have
something to say?
January 20, 2005
62
1
2 MS . WACHSBERGER: I ' ll save it for the
actual hearing.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Boyd, did you have
anything else to say?
4 MR. BOYD: There are some documents that I
want to present to you at this time in line with
5 the request of having everything in advance .
First off, I have seven copies of a revised
6 elevation which removes any reference to the
cellular tower. It simply shows what it is that
7 we plan to erect on the scene . And also I noticed
in past discussions that a great deal had been
8 made of a report made by a one David Weyerhauser,
an analysis that he' s had done of communication
9 needs . Mr. Weyerhauser' s analysis was based upon
the continued use of our 46 megahertz
10 communications system. This is simply a letter
from Mr. Weyerhauser saying that he had based his
11 opinions solely on that 46 . He had not taken into
account the hire frequencies, the 450 and that
12 really, the earlier part of this report should be
disregarded because he did not consider the 450
13 megahertz (handing) . There are seven copies of
Mr. Weyerhauser' s letter.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question, Ruth?
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Boyd, as you
16 know, I was missing a couple of meetings in and
out of some appointments that I had, and I
17 apologize for that . This is a very important
thing to me having been a fire person for 35
18 years . I share the frustration that my fellow
Orient firefighters share with lack of
19 communication. Is the construction of this
antennae that this gentleman is discussing that' s
20 sitting before us today, still going to be on a
monopole cell phone type of tower or is this going
21 to be something succinct from that?
MR. BOYD: It' s going to be on a monopole,
22 yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that
23 monopole is going to be in the same general
location as the application was that was going to
24 come before us at that time?
MR. .BOYD : Yes .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what happens
to this monopole later, it will be dealt with
January 20, 2005
63
1
2 later in a different sense; is that correct?
MR. BOYD: We are making application to
3 put the fire department communication at 450
megahertz at the top of the 120 foot tower. At
4 the 90 foot location, there is going to be a
location cross arm and basic north/south
5 direction. One of those arms will be used for 46
megahertz communications for the fire department .
6 The other will be used for hire band communication
by the Southold Town Police Department and the 155
7 megahertz range. There is a large public safety
component in this application that covers the
8 police department communications, which I 'm sure
you' re aware talking to the police department that
9 they' re woefully inadequate in the far east end of
the town and also with regard to the increased
10 marine responsibilities that the Southold Town
Police has picked up relative to Plum Island and
11 the patrolling of the -area around Plum Island. So
there' s a great need for that type of
12 communication enhancement . That' s what we' re
planning to erect .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The question is the
17 date and when.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: February 3rd, if this
18 meeting hall is open. Would that be agreeable to
everybody?
19 MR. BOYD: 6 : 30 on the 3rd of February.
We appreciate that .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hopefully we can draw
this to a satisfactory conclusion to everyone .
21 I' ll make a motion to adjourn this hearing until
February 3rd at 6 : 30 .
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
(Time ended: 1 : 55 p.m. )
23
24
25
January 20, 2005
64
1
2
3
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
5 State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true record of
6 the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
7 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
action; and
8 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
of this matter.
9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 20th day of January, 2005 .
10
11
12
13 Florence V. Wiles
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January 20, 2005