Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/16/2004 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 December 16, 2004 12 9 : 30 a.m. _. 13 14 Board Members Present 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Chairman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 18 LYDIA TORTORA, Board Member (arr: 11 : 12 a.m. ) 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 21 Absent Member: Ruth Oliva 22 23 24 �. 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing of December 16 , 3 2004 , and before we begin, I ' d like to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance . 4 (Pledge of Allegiance) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. On our 5 agenda today is the SEQRA review. A resolution declaring the following declarations with no 6 adverse effect on the following new applications, Type II Actions . 7 . (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : First application 5621 Ellen Schultheis is a carry-over from last time, 9 and Miss Moore? MS . MOORE : Good morning. I provided to 10 you before the hearing a new survey for a revised survey by Joe Ingegno. What we did was based on 11 the last meeting, the Board was inclined to reduce our lot coverage to no more than 25 percent . My 12 client went back to the drawing board and what we did is we shrunk the garage, reconfigured some of 13 the lot coverage and we got it to 25 percent . It was tough, but we were able to do it . 14 The only thing I want to make sure, we' d like to leave open the possibility that if you see 15 over what is the existing one story frame house that put it to the left, facing Illinois Avenue, 16 the westerly side, Joe Ingegno had, because the original design had the second story over the 17 existing one story, we want to try to erase the little dash line that says "proposed second story 18 addition" and allow for the flexibility to go to two story, that was part of the variance 19 application, so it was all included in your lot . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That little -- 20 MS . MOORE : Yeah, that little jog, not that we' re going to push out to two stories, but 21 that actually could give us some flexibility of design and additional storage . So I don' t, down 22 the line when we go for the building permit, the Building Department will look at your Zoning 23 decision that will have this survey attached to it, and read this to be just limiting the second 24 story to that space . We just want to leave some flexibility to have a second story over the entire 25 existing west side of the building. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Less the garage? December 16 , 2004 3 ` 1 2 MS . MOORE : Yes . What we did was we can make two story the garage, but to the extent that 3 it is set back from the side conforming, it' s a conforming side yard. And we reviewed with the 4 Building Department and they said if our gable end over the garage is at the conforming setbacks, 5 -it' s not a variance with this Board. So that' s why the second story addition is partially over 6 the area that was the original garage . It would not have come to you for a variance for that . 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay. MS . MOORE : That' s it . 8 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What did you originally start out percentage wise, the house now? 9 MS . MOORE : The existing lot coverage is 23 . 4 . So it' s already -- it' s shown on the survey 10 as existing lot coverage . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: 23 .4? 11 MS . MOORE : Yes . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio, any 12 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . Well, on this 13 new map it has one-story frame garage . So that dash line, that' s the 10 foot? 14 MS . MOORE : Yes, 12 foot -- yes, I'm sorry, it' s 10 foot at its closest point and then 15 it kind of angles . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s why you can 16 go up, I understand that . Is that going to be two-story at that point? 17 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A long two-story or 18 is it going to be where the roof comes in? MS . MOORE : You know what, they've had to 19 go back because of the stringing of everything, the original plans have been scrapped, so they 20 have to go back to the architect . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At that point you 21 want the full 35 feet? MS . MOORE : Whatever the code would allow. 22 Realistically, I think you had a Cape Cod style peaked roof, original design, so you' ll be dealing 23 with peaks and gables . MRS . SCHULTHEIS : It' s not going to extend 24 past where the existing house is now. I mean, it' s not going to be two-story over the new 25 garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s going to be December 16 , 2004 4 1 2 probably over the new garage? MS . MOORE : I guess whatever is 3 permissible as far as eves . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . I see a 4 dashed line at 10 feet, from that point toward Illinois Avenue it' s going to be two story? 5 MS . MOORE : Yes . In the rear yard? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Anywhere along that 6 line? MS . MOORE : It potentially could be, yes . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This says one-story frame garage, someone reading that -- 8 MS . MOORE : Look at the other language, "garage to be converted to living space proposed 9 two-story addition. " He has little arrows, you see that in the center he put those little arrows 10 to try to clarify that . The only portion that is -- 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One story is that little piece in there? 12 MS . MOORE : Yes . That architecturally it' s possible . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to be clear on that . 14 MS . MOORE : The only area that would deviate from this survey on the westerly side, 15 right now it' s next to the brick patio behind what' s called the stone area, you see that Joe had 16 originally, because the original design had made that the two-story over top of the main structure, 17 that portion behind is kind of a porch entrance and things like that . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So you went from 29 percent lot coverage now you' re down to -- 19 MS . MOORE : 25 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s actually 25? 20 MS . MOORE : Yes . That' s what the surveyor of the job got, start cutting away until you get 21 to the 25 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s all I 22 have, thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All these setbacks are nonconforming anyway, right? 24 MS . MOORE : You have Illinois Avenue which is a street, so that' s nonconforming because it' s 25 considered a front yard, it' s a corner lot, but as you recall from my testimony last time, Illinois December 16, 2004 5 1 2 Avenue there are LIPA lines, I put the pictures in your file . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see it . Okay, I don' t have any further questions, thank you for 4 doing that . MS . MOORE: Sure . 5 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this application? Is 6 there anyone opposed to this application? I see no hands, so I' ll make a motion to close this 7 hearing and reserve decision. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next hearing is 9 Application 5630 Mortimer Kelly. MR. KELLY: Good morning, I 'm Mortimer 10 Kelly. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Good morning, what 11 would you like to tell us this morning; what are you doing? 12 MR. KELLY: I have a one-story ranch, the objective is to make it a two-story ranch, expand 13 out the front, put a porch there, Referring to the survey that' s been updated, put a 14 proposed addition there . There is a screened porch there now. We' d like to enclose that and 15 then that will stay the one story that it is now, then in the back there is an entrance into the 16 basement, an open space, then there was an old porch there by a prior owner; they tore that down 17 and put a storage shed there . We tear that all off, square it off and make that a one-story 18 addition out the back. We proposed this and had a building permit a couple years ago, but for 19 various reasons we couldn' t execute on it . Coming back to start on it we found out that the zoning 20 had changed and that what was acceptable then is not acceptable now because we need I guess 25 21 feet, and 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on our side . It looked like the house today so we' re 22 requesting a variance because the right side is not conforming. 23 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: In total setbacks? MR. KELLY: Yes, right . 24 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Have you spoken to your neighbors about this application? 25 MR. KELLY: Yes . I've spoken to all the neighbors across the street, the Heads, in fact, December 16, 2004 6 1 2 they just had something done, and I've spoken to them. I got Steve and Suzy on Denny, and Jeff on 3 the right hand side, and in the back. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The survey doesn' t 4 show it but your one neighbor, because your house is on an angle and your topography you' re much 5 higher, you' re really going to tower over the Denny house or whatever their names are . 6 MR. KELLY: Steve and Suzy, their house is to the left of ourselves . 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Facing the house to the right? 8 MR. KELLY: If I'm standing here, their house is about where, actually, if you come back, 9 their house starts where my house ends . That' s where they are . 10 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And they didn' t have a problem? 11 MR. KELLY: They had no problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was to the site, it' s a very unique area over there . And I 13 have to tell you it' s very difficult to visualize the impact of this one story going to two stories, 14 Mr. Kelly, I'm certainly not going to voice any noticeable objection to it . I'm just telling you 15 it' s difficult to visualize because it' s a fairly low one story house right now. I 'm sorry, I'm 16 certainly not going to voice any objection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: What is the total 18 height to the ridge, are you aware? MR. KELLY: I sent a letter notifying what 19 the height was going to be, I'm trying to find it . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Height confirmed by 20 letter, 26 to the top? MR. KELLY: Right . You asked for that and 21 Linda called. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is that to the ridge? 22 MR. KELLY: Yes, the mean is 22 . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Kelly, I' ll see 23 if there' s anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application; is there anyone opposed 24 to this application? I see no one, I' ll make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. 25 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- December 16 , 2004 7 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Next application is for 5634 , James Pappas . 3 MR. PAPPAS : I'm here today basically for a pool variance for an undersized lot . Basically 4 I'm over it by 2 .4 four percent . I'm allowed a maximum of 20 percent of the lot coverage . I know 5 that this lot is 100 by 150, which is basically in today' s standards an undersized lot, and the only 6 thing I have here is when I sent out the letter of mailings, Lot Number 54 never responded, and 7 Jerome and Patricia on 45 Pasker Lane, the address was 45 and I put 645, but I spoke to Linda, and I 8 hand delivered the notice into the mailbox, which she had a ton of mail in there, so I don' t know 9 maybe they' re away for the winter season. But I put it into their mailbox and that was it, 10 basically that' s what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I was at your place, 11 and I really don' t have any questions . It' s hard to imagine putting in pools when it' s this cold 12 out, but you have to look to the future . I have no questions . Mr. Dinizio? 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I walk by this house every morning, I live in the 14 neighborhood. It seems like a reasonable request . That' s all I have . 15 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any 16 questions . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It seems to be 17 nicely placed in the rear yard. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See if there' s anybody 18 else here to speak for this application? Is there anyone here opposing this application? I see 19 none, I make a motion closing this hearing and reserving decision. 20 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 21 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is for 5629 Alex Koutsoubis . Good morning, Mr. 22 Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. It' s 23 pretty straightforward. The Koutsoubises would like to put a pool in and there isn' t 24 regulatory-wise sufficient room between the house and the edge of the bluff, so we would appreciate 25 your consideration. One thing, I think it' s important it December 16 , 2004 8 1 2 should be noted that the Trustees issued a permit, approved a permit for this project, although it 3 turned out later that they determined it was outside their jurisdiction in the coastal erosion 4 hazard area consideration, so they rescinded the permit simply on the basis of it being beyond 5 their jurisdiction, but from the environmental standpoint, they did approve it . 6 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don' t recall, maybe Linda can help me, what is the closest -- 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 71 feet . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: 71 feet? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pool is 71 feet from the bluff . 9 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: No, that' s a remeasurement, it' s 41 now. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now it' s 41? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Correct . Mr. 11 Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Correct . 12 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, I was wondering in the past, historically, 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Usually it' s more than 60 feet . 14 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Because I visited the site and the stakes, it' s very close to the bluff . 15 My recommendation to your client is to maybe have it parallel to the bluff, closer to the house so 16 we can get more room between you and the bulkhead. I 'm not opposed to the pool, I'm just opposed to a 17 tight 41 feet and that' s not including the bricking or whatever' s going to be around it . I 18 was there . It was close . Have you spoke to them about putting it parallel instead of perpendicular 19 to the bulkhead and bringing it closer? MR. FITZGERALD: I will do that . It' s 20 probably a good idea. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other thing 21 we usually dictate is that no large equipment be placed in the rear yard area during the 22 construction of this pool, and the pool will be dug mainly by a backhoe? 23 MR. FITZGERALD: What do you mean by heavy equipment, Jerry? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking about bulldozers and -- 25 MR. FITZGERALD: I don' t think there' s access to it by any large equipment . December 16 , 2004 9 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a very unique area in the fact that Pebble Beach has 3 multiple bluff areas, and I think the Board -- and I 'm not speaking for the Board -- but I think the 4 Board has always been concerned about the movement of earth on top of these bluffs . So I would like, 5 when we get some confirmation from you that the Board consider the possibility of limiting it to a 6 backhoe on the construction, preferably, and all backhoes usually are rubber tired, that' s what 7 we' re referring to. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I was going to basically say you probably could gain about 20 9 feet just by turning that pool around. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it would make it 40 . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . And I mean, I was fully prepared not to grant this application 11 if it was going to go this way. So, if you want to come back with a map that has that, say make it 12 no closer than 60 feet to the bluff? I don' t know how you feel about that . It' s either that or you 13 have to wait another month to get on the agenda, or you can kind of agree now -- how does everybody 14 feel about no closer than 60 feet, if we write the decision that way? 15 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I was going to say 70 feet . I think you can easily get 30 feet . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s up to you. MR. FITZGERALD: 70? We only gain 20 feet 17 by turning a 40 by 20 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could cut the 18 deck or whatever it is on that side too. You know, Mr. Fitzgerald, it' s a compromise . I looked 19 at it and said I don' t think we have ever gone closer than 60 feet with a pool and that' s 20 something that' s easily accomplished by just changing on the map, and we can make a decision 21 when we make our decisions on it, which would be in a couple of weeks, or if there seems to be not 22 a consensus on the Board then maybe you should wait and come back again. 23 MR. FITZGERALD: I would certainly prefer not to come back, but I think that 70 feet -- 24 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think you can do it . I think you can turn it and pull this . 25 MR. FITZGERALD: How about if we say we can do 70 feet and if not, we' re going to do the December 16, 2004 10 1 2 best we can. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re going to 3 grant a certain amount, and when we make our decision, it' s going to be a compromise one way or 4 the other. If we make a decision, we' re going to say we' ll grant you this amount of footage, that 5 number' s going to be a hard number. So if two people say 70 and I say 60 , it' s going to be 70 , 6 and then you' re going to be stuck with it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you 7 make it 68 , Jim, thereby giving him the advantage of two feet if he needs it . 8 MR. FITZGERALD: 68 you said? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s up to you, you 9 want to come back with another map, maybe we look and see, try to do the numbers and see if you can 10 get it close to 60 . MR. FITZGERALD: Can I have it both ways? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you can' t, unfortunately. I mean, I was kind of surprised at 12 70 and you have to have a consensus, and 41, there' s no way I can do 41 . I thought real easy 13 you can turn that box around and we can grant 60 easy. 14 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Jim, let' s do 68 and we' ll close the hearing, and we' re okay then, and 15 you don' t have to come back; does that sound like a plan? 16 MR. FITZGERALD: Sounds like a plan. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re going to 17 give us a plan that has 68 feet? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And he should probably do that before what? 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If he can submit it to us the Friday before our meeting, then the 20 Board can get it on the agenda. MR. FITZGERALD: When will that be? 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The meeting is set for December 29th, that would mean next 22 Friday. If you need more time, -then it will go on for the meeting after that, which will be January 23 20th, so the Friday before that will make it the 15th or something like that . 24 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or 25 against this application? I see no one, I' ll close the hearing reserving decision until later. December 16 , 2004 11 1 2 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Our next application is for 5627, Nancy Louise Carroll . 4 MS . MOORE : Good morning, I have Miss Carroll here, so if we have any questions that I 5 can' t answer, I have Miss Carroll with me . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a 6 questions, Vince, may I? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Of course, go ahead. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was down at the site and of course, we were here for the prior 8 variance, what has changed from that prior variance? 9 MS . MOORE : I'm glad you asked that question. The prior variance entitled Miss 10 Carroll to build the back deck or replace the deck that' s there and/or relocate it and put a new 11 garage . What happened in the meantime is that she worked with an architect who suggested having the 12 front porch to give a better, kind of softening the look of the building and give better 13 circulation because they can put French doors in the front and open onto the covered porch also 14 gives them the use -- because this is primarily a summer home -- gives the use of the front porch, 15 gives the flexibility of the use of the house, so we' re only dealing with the front covered porch. 16 The house will be started and there' s going to be renovations to it, and all your previous 17 deliberations are appreciated and still in place, but now we' re just dealing with the front porch. 18 What we' re proposing with this front porch, I gave you the elevations of what they would like the 19 house to look like, and this front porch will enable that to occur. As I look at the site data, 20 I don' t know why the architect provided so much information here . Somewhat in a sense at least 21 just creates a little confusion. The filed map with respect to the lot coverage, the filed map 22 brings us just slightly -- well, actually keeps you 2 . 6 over the lot coverage requirements . When 23 he uses the tie line as the measurement, I think it just creates confusion. Because this is a 24 filed map, you get the ownership of the lot that is shown on the filed map. So I believe that the 25 measurement we should be referring to is the filed map lot coverage calculation but for some reason I December 16, 2004 12 1 2 guess early on in the calculation, before I was involved, they used both measurements and probably 3 the Building Department gave a notice of disapproval that referred to either lot coverage 4 calculation. So rather than being inconsistent at this point and confusion on the second round of 5 variances, we just applied for the same, under the same numbers that were used in the original . 6 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I thought this looked familiar I finally found the site . 7 MS . MOORE : I'm glad you were all there because West Lake is very difficult to get to. 8 It' s a dead end. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There are two West 9 Lakes? MS . MOORE : I went to the wrong West 10 Lake . I went to the south side, I guess, or north side, it' s on the other side of the water, West 11 Lake, and sure enough this property' s on the other side . So this neighborhood consists of maybe six 12 houses all together. Each house little by little is being renovated. House when you' re facing the 13 Carroll house is on the right, has had major improvements, it' s behind a privet hedge so it' s 14 hard to tell exactly what the distance is from the' front yard, but we were able to get a measurement 15 of the house, the adjacent house which has an attached garage that pops out and the adjacent 16 house is 22 . 5 from the street line, from the property line . So we are actually extending 17 towards the front less than the neighboring home . So that' s why it seemed that this application was 18 reasonable . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask 19 another question? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Please do. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, it' s always intrigued me on waterfront, if you' re 21 paying taxes on the filed map lot, then why can' t you claim it? 22 MS . MOORE : You can claim it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But then we get 23 into the issue of subject to flooding. MS . MOORE : I guess technically you could 24 have rights' of access, riparian rights of access and so on up to the high water mark or the tie 25 line, whichever is applicable . Here you have bulkheading. So unless you have a really low December 16 , 2004 13 1 2 tide, you probably have trouble walking seaward of the bulkhead. This is kind of a unique area in 3 that Cedar Beach was built out many, many years ago, and it incorporated into the water to some 4 extent . So the filed map actually kind of pops out, I believe, into the water, and that' s why the 5 bulkhead was built in at the time the DEC or prior to the DEC would have approved this . The dock 6 builders wouldn' t be building right into the water, they had kind of cut into the property some 7 and built the bulkhead. So the measurements are taken from both. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are we raising an issue here on lot coverage or not? 9 MS . MOORE: You are because the notice of disapproval included it but to the extent that 10 it' s part of your rationale for going over your magic 25 percent rule, you are in fact at 22 . 6 11 when it is based on the filed map. So numbers-wise it' s a little over what your general 12 policies are. In fact, it' s not consistent with the ownership with the property, which is a lot on 13 a filed map. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, excuse my 15 confusion now, I'm looking at the architectural site plan, and you have a proposed garage that has 16 already previous approval . MS . MOORE: Yes . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have proposed deck that has previous approval? 18 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the front 19 porch is an addition, eight foot by the size of the house and that was not previously approved? 20 MS . MOORE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, I'm looking at 21 the lot coverage and I'm trying to understand, it says here per filed map, says 17 . 3 percent, that' s 22 without the proposed garage, without the proposed deck. 23 MS . MOORE : That' s existing. In fact, existing also includes a deck in the back, which 24 is to be removed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Then 25 previously approved, I see . So they actually had been previously approved for over lot coverage? December 16 , 2004 14 1 2 MS . MOORE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you just intend 3 to go 1 . 2 percent more? . MS . MOORE: Right . It depends which map 4 you use . Let' s use the filed map number which had it at 20 . 8 . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm using that . MS . MOORE : Then it' s 1 . 8 . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 1 . 8 percent? MS . MOORE : Yes, 1 . 8 , just over the 7 previously approved. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, increase 8 that' s on the porch, away from the environmentally sensitive area? 9 MS . MOORE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s all I 10 have . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: All right . My concern 11 is a minor also, the lot coverage is insignificant, but I would like you to really push 12 back the front yard setbacks to the eight foot, square it off, I know it' s kind of jogged out a 13 little bit . So it' s probably two feet or something like that? 14 MS . MOORE: That might be just the stairs . Because the elevations show a straight 15 porch then steps down. So if you want to limit it to steps, the encroachment beyond the eight feet , 16 to only steps . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is 17 do the steps exceed 30 square feet? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The setbacks to the 18 house is 36 . 6 minus 8 would give you like 28 . I mean, the house may not be perfectly parallel . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You see, Pat, if that was two times 14 it would be 28 . So it 20 appears to be much more than that . MS . MOORE : I interpret it to be steps 21 down but because they' re kind of the wide steps, open, kind of an entry way. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : He didn' t show steps on the design. 23 MS . MOORE : That' s not a problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I show some sort of 24 fancy design coming out . MS . MOORE : It' s like an archway. 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Some pillars or something like that? December 16, 2004 15 1 2 MS . MOORE: That' s not a problem. It' s a minor, if they want to keep the arch, they can 3 keep it inside the eight feet . That' s not a problem. 4 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So we' ll call it 26 . 74 or do you want to come back with us? 5 MS . MOORE : Why don' t you just make a note that it' s straightening it out, and I ' ll have the 6 architect submit a drawing that will be part of your file . 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Can we say not to exceed eight foot front porch, then you can 8 massage the details, whatever you would like . MS . MOORE : Yes, just be careful Linda 9 will know what you' re asking for because the house kind of jogs in. I don' t want it to be 10 interpreting -- the Building Department not knowing might say, oh, it' s got to jog in eight 11 feet to where the house exists now. So I' d rather just straighten it out and give you a drawing that 12 is correct . It shouldn' t be difficult for Bob Tass to redo this . 13 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else that would like to speak for this application? Is 14 there anyone here opposed to this application? I ' ll make a motion to close this hearing and 15 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------------.------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is 17 5631, Peter W. Gaillard. Is there anyone representing Peter Gaillard, 5631? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who was the attorney involved? 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There is no attorney. Why don' t we recess it for a while, see 20 if he shows up. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to go look 21 at it anyway, why not, if there' s no one here, put it to the next month' s meeting; is that all right? 22 Can we grant it without? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s up to the 23 Board. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If you' re going to go 24 there anyway because you want to look at something else . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you take a picture of it for us, Jim? December 16 , 2004 16 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t we 3 close it on the 29th, unless we let him go there in case we have any questions that we' d like to 4 put into the hearing. Let' s set it at the 29th, I' ll make the motion. 5 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Special meeting December 29th. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Okay, 6 : 00 p .m. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 ------------------------------------------------- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I ' ll make a 8 motion holding this off until Mr. Dinizio gives us a full inspection. 9 CHAIRMAN 0RLANDO: On December 29th, how' s that for you? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That might be a little tough for me to get over there . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you don' t do it by the 29th, then we' ll just close it and do it 12 after it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It might be after 13 the first of the year. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not to hold you 14 to that . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is 15 5616, Charlotte Dickerson. MR. DICKERSON: My name is Allen 16 Dickerson, spouse of the applicant here . We' re doing our application, the only thing I can say is 17 that we had a previous hearing, and the other Board gave us the dimensions and their surveyor 18 come and located the foundation, the mason said he` could locate it, and it was put in, and then the 19 Building Department found out it was six inches too close to the south line and 24 inches too 20 close to the embankment on the northeast corner of the property. So I asked what the procedure would 21 be, and they said I' d have to come back and reapply, and that' s why I'm here . I did have a 22 call from the neighbor to the west, Mr. Alinodina, he called me last night around dinnertime and 23 asked me if he could send out an email which I could take with me today, which he fully supports 24 our application. So I' ll just say that one of the four neighboring property owners, the other one 25 another one to the south, Patricia and Kenneth Homen, that' s my daughter and son-in-law, they December 16 , 2004 17 1 2 couldn' t be here today to support the application. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: But they' re not 3 opposing it, right? MR. DICKERSON: They' re not opposing it . 4 So I would just hope that the application prevails, and we can leave the foundation as it' s 5 presently put in, and we' ll proceed with the construction. Nothing has been done since it was 6 given the disapproval by the Building Department . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Has your mason reduced 7 his cost in half? MR. DICKERSON: Well, he hasn' t been paid 8 in full . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: There you go. What 9 did we start off originally with, Mr. Dickerson? MR. DICKERSON: It was going to be 36 feet 10 from the embankment on the northeast corner. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: No, the original 11 preexisting site. MR. DICKERSON: Where the house was 12 originally located? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Right . 13 MR. DICKERSON: It was about six feet from the embankment . Now we' re back behind the coastal 14 erosion zone line . And we' re a little out of sync with the previous approval . 15 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I have no other questions . Mr. Dinizio? 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I mean, in light of the fact it' s there and everything, I ' d 17 like to see if we can vote on it today and let the gentleman go on his merry way. 18 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just as lots 19 aren' t completely flat, nor are bluff lines, and I have absolutely no objections . I've been up there 20 to see it, as you know, the other day in dealing with the right of way. I think the foundation is 21 well done and well placed. MR. DICKERSON: They did a nice job. Is 22 there anything else you need me for? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone else 23 here in favor of this application? Is there anyone here opposed to this application? If not, 24 I ' ll make a motion closing this hearing and reserve decision. 25 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- December 16, 2004 18 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Dickerson, have a good holiday. 3 MR. DICKERSON: You too. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application 5624 , 4 Grace Kehle . MS . MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf 5 of the applicant, Grace Kehle . Mrs . Kehle is proposing to convert an existing garage on a 6 single and separate lot into a principal use on the property, which would be a small residence . 7 The property, the subject property, which is located on the northerly side of Strohson Road is 8 owned by Mrs . Kehle, as is the house across the street . Mr. and Mrs . Kehle purchased the property 9 about three or four years ago, undertook a renovation on the house, and the garage was in a 10 state of disrepair, and being an accessory structure on a single and separate lot, it gave 11 them some options . They propose to convert it into a residence. The building is structurally 12 sound, which is the primary reason for leaving it in its existing location. We' re maintaining an 13 existing front yard setback of, I believe, 10 feet, and we propose no alterations to the 14 exterior, no additions to the exterior. I have photographs of the garage that were taken before 15 the new shingles were put on and so on. They were taken when they bought the property, actually. 16 And they' re maintaining the character in that the garage doors on the front have been reconstructed. 17 The building was deteriorating quickly, so they have done the roof, they have done the siding, 18 they fixed the doors but the interior renovations are not underway yet . I would like to give you 19 these photographs from when they purchased the property. I have photographs I would like to 20 submit to the Board, I had problems with my printer, I couldn' t print them, so I would like to 21 be able to submit them as soon as I can have them printed, if I might, to show the garage today. 22 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think we all saw the garage . 23 MS . MESIANO: I just wanted to be able to give them to you as well as the neighboring 24 property. One thing I ' d like to note as well, if one looks at the other properties on Strohson 25 Road, it' s obvious that the similarities are there, a number of homes have either attached or December 16, 2004 19 1 2 detached garages and the garages are not a car' s length from the road. Fortunately, Strohson Road 3 is a minimally improved road, there aren' t curbs and other structures, so when the car sticks out 4 of the driveway into the roadway, it' s not wholly apparent but it' s a situation that' s common in 5 that area because Strohson Road is minimally improved. I believe it' s a Town owned road 6 becaus,e I do see drainage structures and -- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I believe it' s 7 dedicated. MS ., MESIANO: I do too, it shows on the 8 map as a road. It doesn' t have a tax map number associated with it . So I do believe it' s a town 9 owned road. So basically we' re just asking for a change of use of the structure and actually 10 decreasing the degree of nonconformity in that we have an accessory structure on a separate lot . So 11 we would like to convert the accessory structure to a principal use, and everything else remains 12 the same . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a 13 question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What intrigues me about this one is that if the driveway remains 15 in its present position, you have a backing out issue onto this private road and more importantly, 16 and I do agree with you that there are existing garages and there always have been in the older 17 areas, I think the driveway should be done away with. I think it should be put on the west side 18 of the building. And I think there should be some screening in particularly in the 10 foot area? 19 MS . MESIANO: They have every intention of doing that . They have already started the 20 plantings in that area. They have got a row of rhododendrons started. They have got some other 21 plantings and other shrubbery in there . But they intend to further landscape that area to provide 22 for screening along that radius, that closest area. They have every intention of doing that . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if the Board was so inclined, I 'm not speaking for the Board, 24 that we reserve the right to look at the screening when it' s done, I suspect this property would not 25 ba sold without the sale of the other property anyway? December 16, 2004 20 1 2 MS . MESIANO: No, they have every intention of maintaining both properties because 3 they have a large extended family and when children and grandchildren come to visit, it' s 4 nice to have a guest area. It' s really more of a guest house associated with the big house, and 5 they have no intentions of separating the property. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because there is another driveway and the boat' s kept in that rear 7 yard. But there' s plenty of room for driveways . MS . MESIANO: They wouldn' t have a problem 8 with that nor the screening that they intend to do at any rate . 9 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you will not be utilizing this as a garage anymore? 10 MS . MESIANO: They wanted to maintain the character of the structure and not have any 11 apparent change to it . They will probably have some storage space in there, but no, they don' t 12 intend to use it as a garage that you would be pulling a car into . 13 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So losing the driveway' s not a big issue? 14 MS . MESIANO: No, it' s not a big issue . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are these separate tax 15 lots? MS . MESIANO : Yes . 16 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Are they in separate names? 17 MS . MESIANO: No, Mrs . Kehle owns both properties I believe in her name individually. 18 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: But they' re separate lots? 19 MS . MESIANO: They' re separated lots, separated by the roads, separate tax map numbers, 20 and separate deeds for each parcel . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So I don' t see any 21 reason why you couldn' t convert it to a dwelling? MS . MESIANO: No. It' s not as though they 22 were adjoining parcels and we were looking at a waiver of merger. It just so happens that they 23 bought them at the same time from the same individual, and that I believe the prior owner, if 24 I dredge really deep I could come up with the name but I don' t think it' s relevant . 25 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Not necessary. MS . MESIANO: That had been owned in that December 16, 2004 21 1 2 family for many, many years in that same configuration. And they bought that property out 3 of that estate and tend to hold it the same way. That' s really part of the value of the larger 4 house .because that property is somewhat compromised because of the setback requirements . 5 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Out of curiosity is the vineyard part of that lot or is that' s another 6 lot next to it? MS . MESIANO: No, that' s separate . 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That was just \ curiosity. No other questions . Mr. Dinizio? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I just need a little clarification. This is a separate lot, 9 single and separate . We' re going to grant a house out of this garage? 10 MS . MESIANO: Yes . We' re going to convert a garage to a house . We're going to take a 11 nonconforming single story, nonconforming accessory structure on a lot where no principal 12 structure exists and convert it into a principal use on the property, a principal structure . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Beyond that, 10 years down the road that lot could be sold as a 14 single and separate lot? MS . MESIANO: That' s right . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to clarify that that is not going to have any 16 restrictions on that? MS . MESIANO: I see no reason why it 17 should be because they' re separated by a Town maintained road. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be agreeable to that . That' s all I have . 19 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I agree that' s what I see . I' ll see if there' s anyone here opposing 20 this application today? Or anyone like to speak - in favor of this application? I see none, so I' ll 21 make a motion to close this hearing, reserve decision. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 23 MS . MESIANO: Thank you, and I will submit the other photos for the record so they' re in the 24 file . Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Make a motion to take 25 a five minute break. (See minutes for resolution. ) December 16 , 2004 22 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I ' d like to make a motion to reconvene . 3 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is 4 Marco Anticev. Good morning, Mr. McCarthy. MR. MCCARTHY: Good morning. Yesterday I 5 received a fax from Mrs . Kowalski regarding a letter she received in opposition from the 6 Lathams, and I had my response to that, which I need to pass out to you. 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you. Also, Mr. McCarthy, we got an internal letter from the 8 Planning Board. MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, I'm aware of that . 9 First of all, this is a kind of unique situation inasmuch as there is a previously 10 established subdivision, and we' re requesting a further subdivision of that by virtue of 11 Mr. Anticev' s subdivision of his property. He owns approximately a three acre lot and the house 12 sits on -- the piece that we would like to split sits on approximately an acre, just shy of an 13 acre . We would like to split two acres off of that that' s in the back, and so there is 14 confidential information in there as far as medical information, that' s for this Board' s 15 perusal, I'm happy to address that with you, I don' t know if that could be done in public or 16 not . Regarding the letter from the Planning 17 Board, I met with Anthony, I met with Val Scopaz, discussed different ways that this might proceed 18 and the least objectionable ways to go . And it seems the application has to go forward on its own 19 merits, as far as the subdivision goes and how we' re asking to subdivide further in a subdivision 20 that has covenants and restrictions on it previously. 21 So what we have is a situation where there is two houses on either side of this lot that 22 we' re requesting to subdivide . One is significantly smaller and one is about the same 23 size as the remainder lot . The remainder lot being approximately one acre after we would take 24 the two acres in the back and make that the lot that we' re creating. The house to the left, or 25 immediately to the east, is a house that' s been there for many years, has been part of the December 16, 2004 23 1 2 neighborhood, was there long before the subdivision was put in. The house to the -- 3 excuse me, to the west . The house to the east is the one that is on approximately the same size as 4 the remainder piece, which would be approximately an acre . So it' s not out of conformity with the 5 neighborhood. In addition to that, we have mitigating factors that are presented to you 6 in the confidential paper regarding the Health issues . We do have a hardship case we 7 believe . We believe that deserves very particular attention. 8 ' We have received a letter from Scott and Allison Latham. In this letter I have given you 9 my response to it, and I have gone point for point in their opposition and I'm here to discuss any of 10 that that you might think relevant for discussion. On the aerial map, I have indicated where 11 the Latham' s house is in relation to where the remainder lot is for Mr. Anticev where the 12 proposed two acre lot is, where Mr. Krecheviski' s lot is and Mr. Siracazano' s lot is, as well as 13 Tony Gregones, across the street . It would appear by looking at the map that 14 this would not be anything that would be harmful or injurious to the neighborhood. It would not 15 reduce any scenic vistas . The house could be placed so that it' s in the back of the lot inside 16 the building envelope . There is already a very large line of mature evergreen trees separating 17 this proposed property from the Lathams on one side, who wrote the objection, and it could be 18 further ameliorated as far as a buffer zone goes if this Board decides that' s the way to go. 19 Any questions you have for me, I will be happy to answer. 20 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, Mr. McCarthy, for the record I want to say that my comments are not 21 directed at you personally or at your applicant personally, but at the application itself . I did 22 read the confidential historical medical reasons, and I have sympathy towards that but I need to 23 look at the big picture outside the box, the repercussions that could go beyond that, and I 24 personally believe indirectly where you' re asking us to rezone it, two acre area to one acre, 25 indirectly, and I personally feel if this application was approved, I think the result could December 16, 2004 24 1 2 be catastrophic and chain reactive, and the other lots would follow suit, and I' d have a mile long 3 line down the line here looking for other people for the same relief . So that' s what I'm saying, 4 I'm not directly attacking you or your applicant, but I'm looking outside the box for this 5 application because what could happen after this if it was approved. I have a problem with this, a 6 big problem. MR. MCCARTHY: I understand it' s a serious 7 concern for this Board, and I understand that there could be repercussions . However, I believe 8 that this Board takes each case on its own merit and I don' t believe that it should be a blanket 9 type approval, opening the door for other applicants for the same reason. This is a very 10 specific application with very specific reasons, and they' re set forth in the confidential 11 statement as well as the public part of that . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I understand every 12 application is unique and different on their own, but when we, if we did approve this one and deny 13 the next one, an Article 78 , the judge turns around and says you did that one, why not this 14 one, and it would snowball . And I personally think it would be catastrophic to start this . 15 MR. MCCARTHY: If it' s a political situation that' s being addressed, I'm not prepared 16 to address that . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s not a political 17 thing. You' re basically indirectly asking us to change the zoning. 18 MR. MCCARTHY: What we' re requesting is to form a two acre lot in two acre zoning, by default 19 that creates an almost one acre lot . That' s in between a half acre lot and a one acre lot, one on 20 each side . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They' re all 21 preexisting. MR. MCCARTHY: They are indeed. 22 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : If we start a precedent now, then it' s no turning back, and I 'm 23 afraid that that -would be catastrophic to this . But I want to see what the other Board members 24 have to say. I'm just one vote and it' s my opinion. Mr. Goehringer? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regarding this application, I was over and spent some time December 16, 2004 `2 5 1 2 looking at the neighborhood and spent some time looking at the lot itself to be basically 3 separated, I ' ll use that phrase . I am still up in the air regarding it . I have no real qualms about 4 the granting of variances on a lot this size . Certainly not granting the lot that size you' re 5 granting the variance on the house piece . And it could be made more conforming thereby taking some 6 property away from the 80, 000 square feet . And creating an actual one acre lot for the house . 7 And all I can say is that we've done it before, and there certainly is a hardship and we are aware 8 of that . I' ll leave it at that .point . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just looking at your aerial picture here, Joe, seems to me like 10 Mr. Latham' s lot probably benefited from a similar subdivision at some point in time, and that' s Mr. 11 Kuhn, that may have been one square piece of lot at one time, and they had an existing house there, 12 and they just cut off a little piece, and then this larger lots exists . I don' t know if that' s 13 the case but seems to me like exactly what happened on that piece of property is going to 14 happen on yours . MR. MCCARTHY: That' s not the case . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In any case, I have no objection at all to it . I didn' t read your 16 confidential letter, I just got it and I would like to have some time to read it . 17 MR. MCCARTHY: Understood, sure . I apologize for that, I did not get that until 18 yesterday afternoon. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s just going to 19 hold you up . I mean, I'm going to need to read it . The point is, I don' t see where approving 20 this would give any precedent at all, because we have done this in the past and certainly, you know 21 a three acre parcel in a two acre zone can be a hardship. It' s not going to necessarily change 22 the character, I don' t see that happening. If you can maybe make it an acre and-a-half, an acre 23 and-a-half -- MR. MCCARTHY: We could work with the 24 Board on that if you decided to give us the opportunity to do that . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That may help your application. Right now I have no objection to the December 16, 2004 26 1 2 way it is but that may be something that you might want to look at 3 MR. MCCARTHY: If I could just suggest to you that the reason why we went with that size is 4 because it' s naturally landscaped and bordered and it' s almost a custom cut as far as separating the 5 two. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn' t have 6 to landscape it, you would just own it . The only thing that it would affect is probably setbacks of 7 a house that' s built on the empty lot, and I understand why you did it because the aerial 8 photos shows that, but that may be something that I'm just suggesting that may be helpful to you to 9 get this approved. That' s all I have . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Is there anybody else 10 who would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here opposed to this 11 application? Yes, sir? MR. KRECHEVISKI : Good morning, my name is 12 Mark Krecheviski . I own an adjoining lot and I am opposed to this . I do think it does change the 13 character of the neighborhood. I would also like to address what I believe is some inconsistencies 14 with Mr. McCarthy' s application. I've seen that down at the clerk' s office where it' s on file . 15 In there he states that he currently has no buyer for this piece of property. I feel that 16 that is inaccurate, that there is a proposed deal in place to spin this piece of property off right 17 away. Also, in our deeds when I purchased my 18 lot, which is an adjoining lot, there was a covenant in there that there be no further 19 subdivision, that was part of what made me decide to buy my lot, that I would have nobody directly 20 behind me . This house in the proposed building zone would put a house directly behind me, and 21 vehicles coming and going, the headlights would be right into my back windows of my home, and it will 22 completely do a number on the privacy that I currently enjoy. 23 Also when I bought my lot, I went around to the area residents and just checked on the 24 water supply and just if they' re having problems with temic in the water and what have you. I 25 spoke with Mr. Anticev and his house on that lot, if you look at -- I'm not sure if any of your December 16 , 2004 27 1 2 drawings currently show where his house is stationed on his lot, it' s all the way over to the 3 west border line of his property, and I asked him about the placement of his house and he told me 4 that he intended to subdivide the lot some day and by keeping the house there, he would be able to 5 build another house and subdivide it and sell the piece off . It' s unfortunate there may be some 6 health problems or whatever that have brought him to this point, but I think it was his idea all 7 along to subdivide this at some point, and I just feel that unfortunately for him that now' s the 8 time he chooses to do it . I think this prior planning really casts doubt on the whole 9 application filed by Mr. McCarthy. I don' t think that it' s really above board because there' s one 10 of the questions in there is do you currently have anybody interested in purchasing the property; he 11 says no, that he doesn' t . Well, that' s incorrect . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I comment? 12 MR. KRECHEVISKI : Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anything 13 that would satisfy you as far as screening is concerned? 14 MR. KRECHEVISKI : No, it really wouldn' t because in the winter there' s going to be a 15 problem with leaves off the trees . And the nature of this lot, this flag lot is going to put a house 16 back directly behind me, and I feel that down the road if I were to choose to put up a barn or 17 utilize the back area of my property for any reason that I would be in here facing you folks 18 trying to do what I'm currently able to do because he may not want to look at a barn, or if my kids 19 want to ride mini bikes or go carts out in this farm area that I' ll be restricted in some way 20 because this house is placed there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you just 21 tell me where your lot is? MR. KRECHEVISKI: Sure . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it this one? MR. KRECHEVISKI : Yes . And also the lot 23 that Mr. Dinizio spoke of, the Kuhn residence, that was preexisting, that was an old time farm 24 house and when the subdivision was put in place they went around that lot . It wasn' t spun off 25 from Mr. Latham' s lot, it was just an old time farmhouse . December 16 , 2004 28 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I was just looking at a photo. What about the Anticev house is that 3 old, new? MR. KRECHEVISKI : It' s after the 4 subdivision, it' s a relatively modern house . That' s why that little parcel there was just an 5 old time farm house that was not part of the subdivision. Anybody have any other questions? 6 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, Mr. Kresheviski . Would anybody else like to speak 7 opposing this application? MS . LATHAM: Hi, my name is Allison 8 Latham. My husband and I. are here . We adjoin the Anticev property immediately to the west of the 9 yard, the 3 . 3 acre lot, which I believe is the -- 54-326 . 5 is the tax map number. 10 We wrote a letter to the Board in opposition of this application, which I trust the 11 Board has reviewed. We' re just really here in case the Board has any questions or comments for 12 us here today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion 13 that Mr. McCarthy said regarding this high greenery that' s on the subject property, is that 14 on this gentleman' s property or is it on your property? 15 MS . LATHAM: That' s on Mr. Anticev' s property. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is it well on his property or does it over shadow your 17 property? MS . LATHAM: I believe it' s just on the 18 other side of the property line . I would have to look at the survey to see where they' re placed. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did see the greenery from the road, but is it relatively -- is 20 - it maintained, or does it run wild; how does it look? 21 MS . LATHAM: I think it looks nice . It' s not high enough to screen a,viewing, my lot . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t get that impression either. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you a question. I'm looking at an aerial photo . When 24 you drive by the place, you have the Kuhn house, you have your house, which is in back of the Kuhn, 25 then you have Mr. Anticev, then you have what looks like a flag lot, that' s what he wants to December 16 , 2004 29 1 2 create? MS . LATHAM: That' s what he wants to 3 create, un-huh. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The front portion 4 of that to what he proposes as his backyard, if you drew a line all the way across, 'you would have 5 approximately an acre there, maybe a little less, but would you be opposed to -- say if we were so 6 inclined to grant this -- would you be opposed if we restricted the house to being built in that 7 area and forever make the whole backyard green, that nothing can be done in there, no pools, no 8 barns, no whatever, would you be opposed to that? MS . LATHAM: I think I would because 9 there' s still going to be a house that' s either next door to my house or in my back yard. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it' s not going to be anywhere near your backyard. It' s going to 11 be on the Main Road, right alongside Mr. Anticev' s house . 12 MS . LATHAM: No, absolutely no. I would not want that . That would really change the look 13 of the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s why I'm 14 asking. MS . LATHAM: You mentioned before, I think 15 you were talking about the similarity between the Anticev property and -- 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I got that answer to that from Mr. McCarthy. 17 MS . LATHAM: ' It was very old. That lot existed since before 1945 . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just looking at the lines . I was thinking it would be a very 19 similar situation, but it' s not, obviously not . MS . LATHAM: No. 20 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Would anybody else like to speak? 21 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, I'm Abigail Wickham. I am representing the Lathams . And one of the 22 beauties of being an advocate, and Mr. Corcoran would appreciate this, is that I can and I am 23 going to strenuously oppose this application on behalf of the Lathams because, quite frankly, I 24 can' t believe you' re entertaining it given the subdivision, the covenants and the layout of the 25 neighborhood. But I will guarantee you that if granted, I will be in Mr. Orlando' s line with many December 16 , 2004 30 1 2 clients who would be very happy to abrogate the subdivision and zoning code regulations that they 3 bought under and that they subdivided under if they can carve yet another lot out of their 4 property. This is an incredible precedent if you grant it, and I'm really shocked that you are even 5 frankly considering it, and I' ll tell you why as far as preexisting Tax Lot 25, that' s really the 6 only basis on which he is event broaching you, other than the personal matters, which I will 7 approach in a minute, and that was one small preexisting lot in a neighborhood. And when 8 people came in to subdivide this, I guess it was approximately eight or nine acres, I don' t believe 9 that lot was part of it, and they got a minor subdivision of four large lots, that' s how the 10 people who owned this particular lot that we' re talking about bought, that' s how everyone else in 11 the neighborhood bought in reliance on that, and I do think the Lathams and their neighbors have a 12 right to object to another dwelling unit being imposed in that neighborhood, that' s not what it 13 was supposed to be . It' s clear that it was intended to be one lot . 14 Also, I don' t think their lot particularly benefited, if I understood what you initially said 15 on that, Jim, because it was preexisting. And it' s unfortunate, you do have in neighborhoods 16 little, tiny lots that have been there for a long time, but that doesn' t mean that everybody else in 17 the neighborhood gets that all the time . It' s just the way it is and you have to work around 18 that, and I think the Planning Board did work around that in a specific way when they subdivided 19 the property. A three acre parcel in a two acre zone is 20 really not a hardship because that' s the way they- bought it, that' s the way they understood it . 21 And I would have to object to two things with respect to the confidential information that 22 was submitted. Number one, when you' re dealing with a real property variance, and this is not a 23 waiver of merger, this is a variance, personal factors are not supposed to be determinative of 24 your decision. And I would also have to object strenuously to any information being included on 25 the record or given to the Board that was not public . I don' t think that that is appropriate in December 16, 2004 31 1 2 a public hearing of this nature . I'm not trying to pry into their personal matters, but I don' t 3 know what they told you, and I don' t know that it' s appropriate that you rely on it in any way 4 and without it I have no way of commenting on that . 5 I would also like to mention that aerial photos are really not how we live . They' re very 6 helpful to get everyone to get a picture of what it really looks like, but that' s not when you 7 drive in and out of your driveway and up and down your road, that' s not really how you' re living and 8 how the zoning code has to be interpreted. So I would like to ask that you consider those things 9 very, very carefully before you make a decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham, 10 you raise a very interesting issue regarding confidentiality of this . I really think, and in 11 the past I think it has to be made part of the public record but not necessarily part of the 12 public hearing, and I think you do have the right personally to read it, that' s my particular 13 opinion, and not necessarily to comment on the specific elements of it, that' s my opinion. So I 14 think you should be able to read it, and I think you should be able to comment on it, again, not 15 necessarily to that particular point of confidentiality. 16 MS . WICKHAM: Just to a general . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To a general 17 broader point . And I think we should give you the opportunity to do so. 18 MS . WICKHAM: I appreciate that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I think we 19 should recess it until the 29th until we could do that . 20 MS . WICKHAM: I may say nothing more than what I have already said, that it' s not 21 appropriate to your decision, and I understand I would want to respect privacy. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel' s here, I'm not speaking for counsel . 23 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: If the Board were inclined to take that position, I think 24 they should offer the applicant the opportunity to receive the information back because the applicant 25 did submit it under the assumption that it would be treated confidentially. So I think the December 16, 2004 32 1 2 applicant should have the opportunity to make a more general statement if they would like about 3 medical issues, but if the Board is going to as a part of its decision rely on information, I think 4 that information should be made available to the public . If it' s not going to rely on it, it' s 5 privacy protected information that does not need to be disclosed, but it may not be appropriate to 6 rely on information that' s not made available to the public . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I would like to ask if the confidential portion of this is going to be 8 accepted because I would normally return it . All written documents have been made part of the 9 record in the past . So if the Board does not want to accept it, I would return the top sheet that 10 says confidential . MS . WICKHAM: Has the Board read it yet, 11 though? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We just received 12 it . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: We just 13 received it . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: We just received it . 14 MS . WICKHAM: I would say if you' re inclined to deny the application, I' ll withdraw my 15 objection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. McCarthy, did you 16 want to come up? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . Even given the nature 17 of the strenuous objections from Mrs . Wickham, I spoke with my client and we would have no 18 objection to removing the confidentiality of this providing that it stays within this realm, and 19 does not go out to the general public . For the sake of discussion, for the sake of your 20 entertaining our request, I think it' s appropriate that you have that, and as long as she can 21 guarantee that it doesn' t go out to the public, that' s fine with us . 22 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We can' t do that . 23 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: We can' t do that . Once it' s in the record and it' s been 24 disclosed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Once it' s part of 25 the record, Joe, anybody can go in there and see it . The reason why I didn' t read it is because December 16 , 2004 33 1 2 you have this first paragraph asking that, that' s why. 3 MR. MCCARTHY: Fair enough. We thought that that was not precedent setting, that that had 4 been done previously. That was the information that we were given, that' s why we went that 5 way. We withdraw the confidentiality factor of that, and we submit it as part of the record. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You' re going to submit it as part of the record? 7 MR. MCCARTHY: We withdraw the confidentiality part of the request . 8 Secondly, I would like to take exception to Mr. Krecheviski' s objection stating that there 9 was a buyer when we first approached this subject; there was not . When we first approached it and I 10 filled out the application, there was not a buyer. The same as Mr. Latham alleges that there was an 11 active listing on the real estate market; there never was . There was never an active listing. I 12 had hoped that this wouldn' t be necessary, but I find that I should go point for point with their 13 objection letter as I have delineated in there because that would explain in great detail, and if 14 there' s any further questions, then we could address them here, if that' s okay with the 15 Board. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Also if it' s all right 16 with Mr. McCarthy and Miss Wickham, I' d like to adjourn this to our next hearing. We' re two 17 members short today, I' d like to get them up to speed and they may have other questions that we 18 may not have . So we' ll have a full Board vote on this one . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to read over the information. 20 MR. MCCARTHY: If that' s the case then there' s no need for me to go point for point on 21 their letter and my counter on their letter because you have that information in front of you. 22 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next public hearing is January 20th. I' d like to adjourn it 23 until then. MS . WICKHAM: May I ask one more question? 24 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: You may. MS . WICKHAM: I just want to make sure 25 that you have in the record the Planning Board covenant that was recorded, I believe you do? December 16, 2004 34 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, we do. Is there a time for that, Linda? 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, I would suggest, we have so many other adjournments that 4 are going on the agenda, I would recommend 11 : 00 . 5 MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. I would just like to call particular attention to the Board' s 6 attention, if you would, that the last couple of paragraphs in my response is quite pertinent to 7 the Latham' s objection. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So noted. 8 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. 11 : 00 on January 20th? 9 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Yes, I make a motion to adjourn this meeting to January 20th, 1100 10 hours . (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application, Nick 12 and Olga Diakun. MS . DIAKUN: Hi, I'm their daughter, I'm 13 speaking on behalf of my father and my mom because they have limited English, and that' s my dad, and 14 my mother' s in the car with my other two year old. We' re here to request a waiver of merger. 15 They purchased two separate lots back in the 170s, two half acre lots, and unbeknownst to them, the 16 lots were merged. So they just want to basically unmerge the lots on Stanley Road. 17 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is the house, your parents' house now facing the road, that' s their 18 little ranch on the right that' s there now, and the lot next door? 19 MS . DIAKUN: Right . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just raise 20 an issue here? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes, please do, 21 Mr. Goehringer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This property 22 belonged to my father-in-law, who has since deceased. 23 MS. DIAKUN: The Slejeskis? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . Does this 24 have any bearing on this issue? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Not to me . 25 ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t think so unless you feel you can' t be partial . December 16, 2004 35 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I ' ll stay with the hearing, and I' ll still ponder that issue 3 until we actually go and vote, thank you. ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: There' s no 4 technical rule that will prohibit you from taking part . 5 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: No ethic . They bought in same names? 6 MS . DIAKUN: Yes, they' re both jointly owned by my mom and dad, Nick and Olga Diakun. 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Your mom and dad 8 bought the property together because they' re married and they share everything and 9 unfortunately what happens is this . I have a lot of problems with this merger law, so and I can 10 fully agree that you should get what you' re asking for, but unfortunately, that doesn' t happen like 11 that . The lot, there' s a house on the lot? MS . DIAKUN: On one lot, there' s a raised 12 ranch on one lot and then a vacant lot . (Whereupon, Board Member Tortora entered 13 the hearing. ) BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does the house have 14 anything on it that supports the house? MS . DIAKUN: He plants vegetables there, 15 tomatoes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No shed? 16 MS . DIAKUN: Very little shed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the vacant lot? 17 MS . DIAKUN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No swimming pool? 18 MS . DIAKUN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it fenced in? 19 MS . DIAKUN: He has bushes . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It' s defined with 20 evergreens . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically I'm just 21 putting this on the record. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : It' s defined with 22 evergreens you can see . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There are no 23 cesspools that you would have to move? MS . DIAKUN: No. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The setbacks of the house now, with this divided it would still meet 25 the proper setbacks . I always ask this question, do you read the Suffolk Times? December 16 , 2004 36 1 c 2 MS . DIAKUN: I don' t live here, and it' s limited English, Polish. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Polish? So he doesn' t get the Suffolk Times in Polish? 4 MS . DIAKUN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ask that question 5 because the only place that they would find the place to know that they would have a lot merger 6 would be the Suffolk Times because I 'm sure the Town still sent them separate tax bills on this . 7 MS . DIAKUN: Right, they still do . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With separate tax 8 numbers and probably at no part during this did they realize that it was merged until they went to 9 sell it ; is that correct? MS . DIAKUN: Again, with estate planning 10 issues now and in the event, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So up until 11 recently that' s when? MS . DIAKUN: Yes, they had no idea the 12 lots were merged. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . 13 Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Also I' ll add for the 14 record that the property is clearly defined with evergreens . It' s bordered off . Looks like it' s 15 somewhat been maintained as cleared and the lot size, I'm looking for the tax map, it is typical 16 of the neighborhood, it' s not larger or smaller, but it' s about the same . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: . If it were divided it would be typical . If two separate lots are no 18 larger or smaller than any lot that was there, the merged lot is larger. 19 MS . DIAKUN: Well, the merged lot is an acre . 20 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: If they were unmerged. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I just want to 21 make that clear. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Goehringer, do you 22 have any other questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I only raise 23 that issue because this was part of my father-in-law' s farm. This is how these 24 properties were sold. He held mortgages on most of them. These very nice people pay these 25 mortgages off, and those were the issues in those days, in Sunset Knolls Section One . And I still December 16 , 2004 37 1 2 haven' t decided if I 'm voting on it or not . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And the improved lot 3 is Lot Number 34, and the lot to be unmerged would be Number 35? 4 MS . DIAKUN: Yes . The home is on Lot 34 . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Miss Tortora, are you 5 prepared for any questions? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm familiar 6 with this application. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there anyone here 7 who would like to speak on behalf or opposed to this application? I see no one, I' ll make a 8 motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. (See minutes for resolution. ) 9 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application 5615, 10 John and Joanne Gouveia. MS . MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano for the 11 applicants . Mr. and Mrs . Gouveia owned this house for several years . They' re proposing a minor 12 addition on the back of the house . The purpose of the addition is so that they can gain some 13 headroom in the bedroom. Anything that they would do on the inside brings into question the issue of 14 conformity with the building codes because the ceilings are low. So, if I might just refer you 15 to the survey, and the sketches that I submitted with the application, I' ll point out that would be 16 the northeast corner of the existing dwelling is the area where the proposed addition is . They 17 would like to make an addition of approximately 8 . 8 feet by 17 . 6 feet thereby squaring off the 18 back corner of the house . That will allow them to gain some headroom on the interior of the 19 house . We do not propose coming any closer to the bulkhead than the structure presently exists . 20 We' re looking to close in a corner and meet the existing setbacks . 21 I ' d like to add too, that there' s a strange configuration under this house in that 22 there are existing concrete walls, so it doesn' t even appear that excavation will be necessary 23 because there are concrete piers and foundations under this property, we' re not sure why, they 24 haven' t gotten the history on it, but it appears at one time there may have been a ramp from the 25 beach before the bulkhead was extended so it' s possible that that may have been how this came December 16, 2004 38 1 2 about . There is a wood deck that exists in the area where the proposed addition would be . 3 And the second part of the proposal is to extend the wood deck to meet the addition by 4 creating a radius and that radius would hold the existing setbacks . So basically we would just be 5 building over the already disturbed area because there' s concrete piers and a concrete floor under 6 this area, so they would be filling in with decking an area that' s already essentially 7 improved. It' s hard to describe it, and again I would request, make the same request as my earlier 8 hearing in that my photographs I ' d like to submit because I had a problem with my printer at 11 : 00 9 at night, you push the button and it just says no. So I realize, although it hasn' t been stated 10 by the Board, I realize that in reading the notice of disapproval it has the appearance of being 11 substantial in the number of variances that are requested here, but because of the fact that this 12 is a small lot, it' s approximately 50 feet in width, with a depth at the most 134 feet, 110 on 13 the easterly side . And the setbacks are nonconforming presently, both in side yard -- 14 well, everything about the house is nonconforming because it is an old structure, it' s an original 15 Sears house, as an interesting aside, for which they have the original plans . But anyway, we' re 16 looking to make a minor addition to a small house for the purpose of gaining a little bit of 17 livable space and some headroom because these ceilings are low. We' re not looking to further 18 increase the degree of nonconformity in that the setbacks that presently exist will be held. Do 19 you have any questions? CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Yes . Actually I just 20 wanted to confirm it is a one-story building and it will stay a one-story? 21 MS . MESIANO: Yes, we' re not proposing to go up. 22 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I think-it' s a modest addition. The only problem is you' re maximizing 23 our leaps and bounds lot coverage by a couple of percents, and I don' t think we' re ready to raise 24 the bar, we've never gone any higher than 29 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 28 . 5 on Sigsbee 25 Road. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On a tiny lot . December 16, 2004 39 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And this is a tiny lot . And your lot coverage now is 31 . 3 you' re 3 saying? MS . MESIANO: Our lot coverage now is 29 4 and we' re proposing the increase to 31 . I have some question in my own mind as to how that number 5 is derived because the area that we' re proposing to create this extension is presently covered by 6 deck and foundation area. So is it truly an increase in the lot coverage? And I'm having 7 difficulty reconciling that myself because there is foundation under that area although it' s 8 exposed and there is decking in the area where the addition would be placed. So is that truly 9 increasing the lot coverage? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: You know what may 10 have happened here, if you look at the notice of disapproval they' re calculating that your total 11 lot coverage is 31 . 3 , so maybe they calculated that you just said it, you had calculated at 29, 12 so perhaps they had already calculated that area in the lot coverage, and that' s because I was 13 trying to figure out how come if you' re adding just what you said, if you' re adding an addition 14 to the deck, and then the 8 by 17 addition, how it ended one percent on their notice of disapproval . 15 So it would appear to me that what they did, the Building Department, was they included that 16 concrete part in the initial calculation. MS . MESIANO: That' s really the only 17 explanation because it' s an irregular situation. How often do you have concrete foundation exposed 18 to the sky actually? It' s a very unusual situation. I don' t know if you went around the 19 back of the house, and again, I apologize I have very descriptive photos showing the improved area 20 underneath, so I guess the bottom line is the question, are we really increasing the degree of 21 lot coverage because it' s already covered by foundation even though that foundation is not 22 under habitable space or impervious areas . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you want to clarify 23 this or adjourn this a little bit? Clarify your lot coverage, whether they counted it or didn' t r 24 count it . MS . MESIANO: Sure, sure, I' ll come back 25 before you break for lunch. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you want to make it December 16 , 2004 40 1 2 right after lunch? We have some adjournments in the afternoon. 3 MS . MESIANO : Okay, I' ll come back at 1 : 15, make sure all the numbers are worked out . 4 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Okay, so I ' ll make a motion to adjourn this to 1 : 15 . 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Mesiano, I 6 did go around the water side and it was kind of difficult to visualize . 7 MS . MESIANO: I'm sorry, I had the problem getting the pictures . 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application is 9 Elizabeth Peyton and Anthony Just, 5632 , on Village Lane in Orient . Mr. Cuddy? 10 MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy here on behalf of the applicants . I'm handing up my notice of 11 posting (handing) . This is an application to install a lap pool on Village Lane in Orient . 12 Zoning there is R-40 . This is non-conforming. It' s a small lot, less than 1, 400 square feet . 13 I 'm handing up a copy of the tax map in which I colored in the lots so you could get a feel for 14 it . The reason for giving you the tax map is so you can look at the lot immediately to the north 15 of this lot, which is the corner of the Main Road, Route 25, and Village Lane . The house that' s on 16 that lot is certainly forward of where we would normally expect a house to be. It' s virtually on 17 the Main Road. So what that means is that the yard that faces their side where they' re putting 18 the pool in, it' s an extensive yard. It' s not a side yard to a side yard; it' s virtually a 19 backyard to a side yard, and that makes a difference because I think the problem is we' re 20 putting a pool in a side yard, but we' re not facing a neighbor' s side yard, we' re essentially 21 facing a neighbor' s backyard. And there really isn' t anyplace else to put this pool . 22 I'm handing up a copy of a survey completed recently from Peconic Surveyors to show 23 the distance of the cesspools and the well, is the distance that' s shown on this map from the well to 24 the cesspool is 110 feet . There isn' t any other place that you can put the cesspool and get it 25 further away than it presently is from the well or from where the swimming pool would be . December 16 , 2004 41 1 2 The Health Department has standards, which I think you' re aware of, which they publish. The 3 most recent standards was published in 1995 . There' s also one in 1985 . I have copies of both 4 to show that the distances required for the distance between the well and the cesspool is 5 initially 100 feet but the leaching pools must be 150 feet . So we can' t move the cesspool anyplace 6 on the site . You' ll notice that the garage is in the rear yard; the cesspool is in the rear yard, 7 so we' re constrained as to what we can do with the site . 8 This is not a regular swimming pool, it' s a lap pool, so it' s only 12 feet wide and 55 feet 9 long, but there isn' t any place on this particular site looking at the map, realizing what the 10 standards are -- and I' ll hand those up to be part of the record -- that we can put this pool . If 11 you have seen the house, the house is fenced in the back, sides, on the side yard, which would be 12 adjoining the pool there are arborvitaes that are planted. They' re approximately five feet high, 13 they will get much higher over a period of time . So they would be screened from the neighbor, but 14 basically we don' t have any other place that we could put a pool on the site . That' s why I was 15 showing you the Health Department requirements, but we would have to move it but moving it 16 wouldn' t help us because we would be less than we are presently. We' re the maximum distance we can 17 be at any one point so we don' t have an alternative, which I think is the question that is 18 the main question here . Again, I' ll hand up both copies of the 19 1995 rules and the 1998 rules . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Is there public water 20 down Village Lane available? MR. CUDDY: I don' t believe that there is, 21 not that I 'm aware of . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Do you know, Jim, if 22 there' s public water? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t know out in 23 Orient, but I don' t think there is . MR. CUDDY: My clients are here, Miss 24 Peyton and Mr. Just, and they said no, there isn' t . And I didn' t believe that there was . So 25 we don' t have that possibility either. So it really leaves us in a position of trying to put it December 16, 2004 42 1 2 in a place where we certainly would like to put it in the backyard, but we can' t put it in the 3 backyard because as soon as we do that we end up going to the Health Department, and we' re not 4 going to get approved by the Health 'Department . They' re going to say to us that this is the best 5 you can do. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They were changed from 6 100 foot to 150 feet? MR. CUDDY: What they do is they tell you 7 if you put a new pool in you have to do it two ways . You put in the septic unit, which has to be 8 at least 100 feet away. You put in the leaching pools, and they have to be 150 feet away. So to 9 do a whole new unit by the way is an expense, an enormous expense, but even doing it we still don' t 10 meet their requirements, and that' s the problem. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I did visit the site . 11 I got the impression it was almost in the front yard. You felt that impression because I could 12 look over the fence and see the stakes . It was real close . The arborvitaes, as I 'm facing that 13 fence, it' s your client' s shrubbery? MR. CUDDY: That' s right . 14 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don' t know if they were five feet, but they were pretty low 15 because I was looking around it .' MR. CUDDY: I measured them about this 16 size, I'm six feet . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I don' t know, when you 17 come around the corner it' s right there . I 'm not in love with this idea. I have no objection to a 18 lap pool, but it' s just also with lot coverage . Do they talk about lot coverage with this? 19 MR. CUDDY: They noted that the lot coverage was within 20 percent, which is yes . 20 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: See what the other Board Members have to say. Mr. Goehringer? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have a particular problem with this application. I know 22 that it is in the side yard, and you, of course, clearly stated the reasons for the placement of 23 the pool . The fence surrounds the yard. I don' t know if you' re going to surround the pool . There, 24 of course, could be additional screening toward the road so that the pool couldn' t be seen through 25 the fence . MR. CUDDY: We would propose that by the December 16, 2004 43 1 2 way to put additional screening. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Outside the 3 fence? MR. CUDDY: Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s an area that would either be garden or something else . I 5 don' t have a particular problem with it . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. You know, you probably won' t see it from the road because there 7 is a fence there . Can the pool be moved back closer to the house three feet? 8 MR. CUDDY: It could, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That way it would 9 basically meet at least the minimum. MR. CUDDY: The normal side yard. Yes, we 10 could do that . We tried to figure out where to place it because I think, yes, because it is three 11 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then it would give 12 you a 10 foot setback. You could build your house to there if you wanted to so why not the lap 13 pool . And it' s not going to be lighted;, covered, anything like that? 14 MR. CUDDY: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about decking? 15 MR. CUDDY: It' s not proposed to have a deck there . 16 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So you wanted to move it 10 foot off the side yard? 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just three feet more . He could take his house and build that . He 18 could build it 55 foot and still come within the lot coverage, so what we' re doing is maybe adding 19 a little more in the summer, that' s swimming, it' s not going to be that much further away. 20 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : How deep is a lap pool? 21 MR. CUDDY: Four to six feet . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: It averages or it 22 could be either or? MR. CUDDY: I think it starts and 23 gradually goes towards the center, that' s my understanding is that it' s between four and six 24 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s no diving 25 board? MR. CUDDY: No. December 16 , 2004 44 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Uniquely to a lap pool I assume the reason for no decking is 3 that you probably enter the pool at one specific source location and you continue to enter it and 4 exit it from that location I assume? MR. CUDDY: Yes . Because it' s swimming 5 back and forth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : Are you good, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I don' t have 7 any other questions . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? 8 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I tend to agree that the 10 foot would be better, and also give 9 your arborvitaes a chance to grow and give your neighbors a little privacy. 10 MR. CUDDY: We don' t have a problem, and we can get some taller bushes too . 11 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don' t see anybody else here, so I don' t think there' s anyone here 12 opposed to this application. I' ll make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision. 13 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 14 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' ll make a motion to take a lunch recess, to reconvene at 1 : 00 p .m. ) 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO : I' ll make a motion to 16 reconvene . (See minutes for resolution. ) 17 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: First application Peter and Mary Jacobs, 5604 . Is there anyone here 18 representing Peter or Mary Jacobs? This is a carry-over? 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I believe we left it where she only had to submit the amended survey 20 at the Board' s request for a 31 foot rear yard instead of a 31 foot front yard, and she did 21 submit it . So I'm not sure if she understood she was going to have to be here . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Actually had to come back. 23 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I don' t think she needs to come back. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The front yard would have been nonconforming. We asked her to 25 move it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was something to December 16, 2004 45 1 2 do with the neighborhood. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: We did ask her to 3 do this and she did exactly what we asked. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It is two variances 4 because of the lot coverage . She had to amend the application, and we had to readvertise it because 5 we had it posted for a front yard setback before, and now it' s a rear yard setback and the lot 6 coverage so it' s complete now and ready. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Looks a lot better. 7 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: They pushed it back. Any questions, Mr. Goehringer, internally? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Dinizio, any 9 further questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. 10 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No. 11 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 12 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I ' ll make a motion to approve application 5604 . 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: With a 35 foot front 15 yard, 31 foot rear yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Alternative relief . 16 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application we have 5626, C.D. Reiter' s, Old Barge Restaurant . 18 Mr. Angel MR. ANGEL: For the applicant, Esseks, 19 Hefter and Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York, Stephen Angel of Counsel . I have an 20 original affidavit of posting (handing) . I had a conversation with Linda yesterday 21 and we neglected to send out the written notices by certified mail, purely my mistake . There are 22 only three that have to be sent, and I would respectfully request that you listen to the 23 application, then adjourn it, and I will send out notices with an appropriate cover letter for 24 whatever adjourn dated you set, and give the people an opportunity to come in and say their 25 piece, either object, approve or say nothing. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That would be fine . December 16, 2004 46 1 2 MR. ANGEL: This is an application in substance put a second floor mezzanine on top of 3 the Old Barge Restaurant . It' s been kicking around before the Building Department and the 4 Planning Board on site plan applications for a few years, and the reason we' re before you is that 5 when the applicant and her engineer and architect went before the Planning Board on the current site 6 plan application, a determination was made by the Building Department that a rear yard setback 7 variance was necessary. The property' s in the Marine 2 District . The use, which is needless to 8 say nonconforming, nevertheless is a permitted use by special exception in the Marine 2 9 District . And there is, along with my application I gave you, a copy of the notice of disapproval 10 from the Building Department . As it turns out subsequent on that, the Building Department 11 changed its position and has measured the rear yard line from the old subdivision deed line and 12 has determined, which I believe is 29 feet from that line, has determined that no variance is 13 necessary. Though in conversations with your staff, I wanted to retain the notice for the 14 variance in case the Board disagreed with the building inspector. I wanted you to have 15 jurisdiction to entertain a variance if necessary, but there is, you' ll see, there' s a notice of 16 disapproval then a subsequent memo from the Building Department in effect withdrawing it . 17 The second aspect of the application is a special exception, which when I made the 18 application, that was the secondary aspect of it . We were concerned that when we go back to the 19 Planning Board, since we are adding a little bit of bulk to the building -- by the way there' s no 20 additional seating capacity -- that the Planning Board may say that any additional bulk would 21 necessitate a special exception, even though the underlying restaurant has been there legally as a 22 nonconforming use so we made also an application for a special exception. So hopefully when we go 23 back to the Planning Board, we' re only going to deal with site plan issues, not issues of 24 variances and special exceptions . Now, your code has probably -- well, it 25 has A through F, that' s six basic factors you have to take into consideration on a special exception December 16, 2004 47 1 2 application, and A through P, probably about 20 other general factors that have to be taken into 3 consideration. And I don' t think in this particular application what we' re really doing is 4 putting a mezzanine or second floor within the boundaries of the existing building. Unless you 5 want me to, I can discuss each one of the factors because they' re pretty self evident . Nothing' s 6 changing on the site, the capacity' s not changing. I went to look at the site, it really looks like a 7 barge . If you've been there, the sides are moving. In case you' re questioning how we' re 8 going to put a second floor on there, there' s apparently a type of foundation called the helical 9 structure that will be put into the space of the downstairs portion and properly anchored to put 10 that second floor on it . It will stablize both the building and the second floor. 11 So, if you have any questions, I' d be pleased to answer them. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say something? 13 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Please, go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This I guess 14 probably is the confines of the special exception, and we don' t normally do construction, but it 15 amazes me how this could be done in a wood frame building. 16 MR. ANGEL: You mean code? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . 17 MR. ANGEL: Well, if the second floor is small enough or the mezzanine is small enough and 18 the square footage of the mezzanine related to the existing square footage of the restaurant, it will 19 meet code . So what we' re asking you to do is to approve the concept of the second floor within the 20 confines of the existing building. We still have to deal with a whole bunch of issues on the 21 design. One, we have to deal with code requirements that they' re dealing with with their 22 engineer and architect and your engineer and Building Department; and two, we have to deal with 23 flood plain requirements because the construction and the retrofitting that' s proposed. And the 24 reason I say second floor or mezzanine is that I'm not sure how it' s going to work out when 25 ultimately building code compliances is complied with. December 16 , 2004 48 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was thinking, and again, only from a safety point of view -- and 3 please in no way am I trying to shoot this project down, I'm actually extremely interested in knowing 4 how this is going to occur because I thought you needed cement block construction, which I believe 5 in New York State Building Code is referred to as Type 5, again, this is just hypothesis on my 6 part -- to create a second floor in a building that serves alcohol in the State of New York? 7 MR. ANGEL: I don' t think that' s correct . I think if there' s a mezzanine construction, I 8 believe that you don' t need to do blocks, and I don' t even believe that -- 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Steel anyway, right? 10 MR. ANGEL: I don' t know what it is, but that' s been discussed and there are memos going 11 back and forth going back five years because there was a plan for an architect that was an out of 12 town architect that was discussed. I was involved three or four years ago on issues of that nature, 13 Jerry, with the state architect, but really, you' re right, there are all sorts of technical 14 code compliance, but the code does permit in actuality what they propose . They would not have 15 proposed it and put all this money into the application process and the plans without that 16 expectation. It is doable with the existing building. 17 The other constraint, which is also a code constraint, which I alluded to is the flood plain. 18 And the flood plain you can' t do new construction, I think it' s more than 25 or 50 percent of the 19 value of the existing structure . So whatever we build within that envelope that we hopefully get 20 approved will have to fall within that requirement so ultimately it may even be more modest 21 internally. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in dealing 22 with the special exception if one was writing this decision, I assume since we' re dealing with a 23 commercial structure which is a restaurant, and which serves alcoholic beverages, that it would 24 not be improper in saying that it would have to meet all New York State code requirements? 25 MR. ANGEL: Absolutely not . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that special December 16 , 2004 49 1 2 exception would be predicated on that situation? MR. ANGEL: It has to meet it anyway. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I 'm not trying to shoot this down in any way or cause you 4 any dismay as the agent for the applicant . MR. ANGEL: No. While we' re speaking here 5 and while this has been going the person for C.D. Reiter' s whose handling it is Carol Denison, and 6 Carol has been in touch with your engineer on numerous occasions and has had meetings concerning 7 code compliance and the compliance with the flood plain regulations . So this is an ongoing concern, 8 and I have no objection to you if you write a decision in our favor that it has to comply with 9 all codes, because it has to anyway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why 10 I'm so concerned about this, not concerned, but it makes me interested is because I think it is the 11 first one that we've ever done on an existing restaurant where we've actually had a second story 12 application. I know it' s been done in the Village of Greenport and what they have done, I have no 13 idea, but in this particular one it' s the first one that I have seen. 14 MR. ANGEL: There are substantial constraints in the building code . I didn' t 15 prepare myself for them, but I know at one point Carol had hired, although she grew up here, lives 16 in Delaware, and she had hired a Delaware architect in the late 190s to do a plan that did 17 not comply with code . It was too much of an expense, so that plan sort of died along with 18 the -- there was a prior site plan approval, a conditional site plan approval that was given, I 19 think in the late ' 90s or around 2000, then she hired a local architect and a local engineer who 20 have been working I believe pretty much on and off, and now fairly actively with your staff over 21 here to deal with those code compliance issues but it' s doable . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Miss Tortora? 23 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does the existing restaurant have a special exception or is it 24 preexisting? MR. ANGEL: Preexisting. There' s a CO 25 for -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I saw the CO for December 16 , 2004 50 1 2 the restaurant that was I think September 1989 they enacted the zoning. It was very close in 3 there . MR. ANGEL: I mean the new code, it would 4 have needed some sort of approval in the past . As far as I know it' s nonconforming and that CO was 5 issued as a result of that . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s interesting. 6 Maybe we could clarify that because if it' s not nonconforming, I'm having a hard time 7 understanding why we' re here . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Actually I checked 8 the record, and there' s no special exception that' s been applied for over the years until now. 9 So the restaurant use has been preexisting. MR. ANGEL: Why if it' s preexisting am I 10 here, is that the question? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: For the special 11 exception. MR. ANGEL: There' s a memo in the file 12 that Carol got as part of her meetings with the Planning Board and it' s staff which indicated the 13 need of a special exception under these circumstances . So I felt it was prudent when we 14 had to make the application for the variance to include that also. I didn' t want to be in a 15 situation where we went back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board would make an 16 interpretation that when you add bulk to the building it' s a special exception application. 17 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask the town attorney something? Is there a provision in the 18 code that permits a certain amount of expansion to the business that would apply here? 19 ASST. TOWN. ATTY. CORCORAN: I' d have to look it up, I don' t know. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought it was primarily in the parking area. 21 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That provision that was added a couple years ago to the code . 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you talking about the 15 percent? It doesn' t apply to the 23 Planning Board site plan review. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: No, exactly. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This doesn' t fall under that because you' re not increasing the 25 percentage of the lot coverage at all . You' re staying the same footprint, correct? December 16 , 2004 51 1 2 MR. ANGEL: We' re staying the same exterior footprint, we' re not creating any 3 additional lot coverage, correct . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Does it refer to 4 lot coverage, Linda, or a percentage increase in the size? 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Member Tortora is talking about another provision of the code 6 regarding businesses where you' re allowed to increase by 15 percent . 7 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It was added in there a couple years ago it was 100-244 , I 8 believe . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I thought that was 9 when you changed the footprint of the building? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I don' t know. 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building Department didn' t deny it for that reason. 11 MR. ANGEL: Well, we' re in the nonconforming area here . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It talks about the exceptions . 13 MR. ANGEL: I think I found it, Nonresidential Uses in 192-43 . 14 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Where it talks about an increase of 15 percent? 15 MR. ANGEL: Right . I have it right here . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The restaurant 16 never got a special exception, right now it' s a preexisting nonconforming use. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, maybe that' s why they told you. 18 MR. ANGEL: I think you' re referring to 100-243 AlA, which has nothing in this article 19 shall be deemed to prevent the remodel, reconstruction or enlargement of a 20 nonconforming -- do you want to see it? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 21 MR. ANGEL: While I bring this up, I think -- 22 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Mr. Angel, also on your site plan, here, can you show me where that 23 29 foot setback would be for the rear yard? MR. ANGEL: It' s not on that, it' s on a 24 separate survey, and I have that use somewhere . I 'm going to hand up a survey (handing) . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The survey submitted is dated September 20th. December 16 , 2004 52 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is the question whether a special exception is needed at 3 - all? There' s no prior special exception. It' s just a preexisting nonconforming. 4 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Correct . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is it a 5 nonconforming building with a nonconforming use? MR. ANGEL: The use is technically 6 conforming. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s the 7 reason why you' re here . MR. ANGEL: I ' ll tell you exactly why 8 we' re here, there' s an internal memorandum that my client got probably three months ago, four months 9 ago, dated May 19, 2004 , and there' s a statement the Planning Board staff refers to the necessity 10 of a special exception, it' s not 100 percent clear it' s going to be a condition, then Mr. Verity said 11 the use permitted by special exception site plan required. When we looked at this, we didn' t want 12 to be in the situation coming for a variance going back to the Planning Board and saying well, you' re 13 adding onto it, you need a special exception for the addition, and we' re back here again. So, if 14 you make a determination that the special exception is not necessary under your code for 15 this particular project -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, that 16 would control . MR. ANGEL: Right, that would be 17 sufficient . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . 18 MR. ANGEL: Or it can grant us a special exception. I just don' t want to not address the 19 issue . BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I understand. 20 What' s your reading on that, Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Back to my 21 question, this use is only permitted via special exception; is that correct? 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: And there is 23 no special exception? BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes . 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So in essence, it could be considered a nonconforming use, but 25 it' s preexisting, nonconforming use in the absence of a special exception, right? December 16, 2004 53 1 2 MR. ANGEL: I haven' t done the research on it . 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Logically? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building 4 Department says it requires a special exception. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, but you 5 could say they' re wrong. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: That' s right . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t think you want to do that . I think you just want to grant 7 the special exception. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Be done with it? 8 MR. ANGEL: My preference would be to have a determination that a special exception is 9 granted to the extent necessary for the addition, that sort of addresses it . 10 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: And move on? MR. ANGEL: And move on. But, like I said 11 before, if you wanted to deal with the issue and say that under these circumstances, which you' re 12 probably better off, rather than digging yourself a hole because it' s such a diminimus application, 13 granting the special exception rather than -- BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: I agree with you, 14 because I know what you want, you want to move on. I would like, though, that maybe the Town Attorney 15 could look at it, because we' re going to adjourn this anyway, so that for future applicants, if it 16 is not needed, that the determination isn' t rendered by the Building Department and the 17 Planning Board and that this provision in the code is looked at . 18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s clear, there' s a little wrinkle to this application, it' s 19 clear that if it' s a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use, you can expand it by 15 percent 20 as of right . The only question is, as I mentioned, is it a nonconforming use given the 21 fact that it' s permitted by special exception but you don' t have a special .exception? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO,: I would say they' re clearly going more than 15 percent anyway. 23 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Expansion-wise? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That makes it a moot point then? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly I think the building inspector looked at this as you' re December 16, 2004 54 1 2 increasing this, therefore you need a special exception; in other words, you' re enlarging the 3 business . All right, now is the time to have a special exception. Nothing really is clear here 4 other than the fact you' re adding a second story to the business, you' re increasing the size . The 5 Town always looks at it that way, and I think you can grant the special exception then you' re 6 blessed by the town and you' ll go no further than that . 7 MR. ANGEL: That' s the way I looked at it . I didn' t want to be in a position where I was 8 going back and forth. I felt that this was a . stealth problem because of that internal memo. 9 That would be my preference, but you are the Board. 10 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: It' s unusual . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d like to just 11 ask a couple questions . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Go ahead, Mr. Dinizio. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is issued, and 13 if you' re not adding any more seats, what exactly is going on in there? 14 MR. ANGEL: I think they' re going to put tables up there to look on the water better. I 15 think that' s the idea, no capacity addition. It' s not anticipated because when I -- actually, I took 16 it upon myself to be the agent and I prepared the papers for her, and I did a short form EAF, and I 17 said the one potential impact was there might be a slight increase in some solid waste due to 18 increased usage. I got criticized by the client saying that she doesn' t intend to increase the 19 capacity. She just wants to probably make it nicer. 20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are they going to move from downstairs to upstairs? 21 MR. ANGEL: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They may lose some 22 room just from having to put the addition. MR. ANGEL: I think they' re going to lose 23 room for the structural members that are going to have to come up through the downstairs without 24 changing the envelope, and I think they' re probably going to have an open mezzanine, and they 25 just want , to put tables with a better view. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . December 16, 2004 55 1 2 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I ' ll make a motion to adjourn this application to January 20th at 1 : 00 3 p .m. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application FITF, 5 LLC, application 5617, upon request from the applicant, they would like it postponed, adjourned 6 to January 20th at 1 : 15 . I just want to ask if there is anyone here to speak on behalf of or 7 opposed to that application? Seeing no one here to speak. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER I' ll make the motion. 9 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: The next hearing was an adjournment for John and Joann Gouveia. What 11 did you find for us in your diligent search for lot coverage? 12 MS . MESIANO : Yes, I went to visit Mr. Metzgar and I had him recalculate everything. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We went to the site . 14 MS . MESIANO : Good. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was cold. 15 MS . MESIANO : Yes, it was . I asked Mr. Metzgar to look at everything again and do a 16 recalculation, and this is what we've come up with. The existing house, decks and sheds is 17 1, 924 square feet . He' s also given the coverage for the brick walks, the asphalt walks, the 18 patios, everything that' s on this site so it' s a whole picture, that contributes another 848 square 19 feet . So the total existing coverage is 2 , 772 , but I think 1, 924 square feet is the number that 20 we' re concerned with or -- correct me, please, if I 'm wrong -- 21 CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: I think historically if you could push a lawnmower -- 22 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: The concrete slab is raised or flush? 23 MS . MESIANO: It' s flush with the ground it' s underneath everything, it' s like an open 24 basement area. BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: So you' re at 1, 924? 25 MS . MESIANO: Now, if you then consider our addition, which is 155 square feet, however December 16 , 2004 56 1 2 that 155 square feet will be in the area we've already considered in the first calculation, 3 that' s part of the 1, 924, so there' s no net change as a result of that . We' re taking that space 4 that' s presently deck, and that becomes enclosed habitual space, but there' s no net change in lot 5 coverage . The deck itself, the deck extension is that radius on the northeast corner, part of that 6 is over the concrete slab that' s already considered in the total lot coverage . So the area 7 that is not over the area already considered is calculated to be approximately 28 square feet 8 according to Mr. Metzgar. So, whether you back out the driveway, the brick walk, et cetera, and 9 deal just with the deck, house, et cetera, whether you back that out or look at the gross number, the 10 difference is the same, it' s a half a percent . That' s the net difference in the existing lot 11 coverage to the proposed lot coverage . CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: So your house, deck, 12 and shed is what percent of lot coverage? MS . MESIANO: Right now the house, deck 13 and shed is 1, 924 divided by 6137 is 14 percent . 14 . 04 . And at the end of the day we 14 would have to back into this number -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That can' t be 15 right . MS . MESIANO. 1, 924 divided by 6137 is -- 16 I'm sorry, 31 . 3 . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then with the extra 17 28 square feet it makes it 31 . 8 percent? MS . MESIANO: Yes . So that' s the net 18 difference is one half percent . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the Building 19 Department had in their disapproval a similar figure? 20 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that' s right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought they 21 calculated 29 percent . MS . MESIANO: The amended disapproval says 22 existing lot coverage 31 . 3 , proposed 32 . 7 . So I don' t know how they got to that point . They 23 probably weren' t taking into consideration the slab underneath. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So you' re asking for 31 . 8? MS . MESIANO: 31 . 8 , correct . 25 While we' re waiting, I' ll hand you up a letter from a neighbor. December 16, 2004 57 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : From Mr. Lark and Maria Casagorges, they have no objections to the 3 proposal . They feel the extension would enhance the value of their home and turn their home into a 4 more valuable building as well . Please give them the utmost consideration when they apply for their 5 variance . MS . MESIANO: This is the property 6 immediately to the east, and, just as another aside, if you have been to the site, I 'm probably 7 being redundant, but all of the houses in that stretch of beach are of similar size, character, 8 condition in that they' re built very close to the property lines, and they' re built very close to 9 the bulkheads, some of them have been expanded and are full two story houses, so I think their lot 10 coverage is at least equal to our situation and their floor area ratio would be significantly 11 greater because of the area of the houses some of them are a full two stories . 12 BOARD MEMBER TORTORA: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this 13 application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll make the 14 motion to close the hearing. (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Next application 16 5408 , Orient Fire District, both attorneys defending both people have requested an 17 adjournment to January 20, 2005 at 1 : 15 . But we will take comments and statements from anyone here 18 who would like to speak on their behalf, sir? MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes, my name is William 19 Schriever, I live in Orient on the Main Road near the park there, East Marion, Orient Park 20 District . I want to speak about this proposed tower on the fire department property. As you 21 know, my wife held that fire department property for about a generation, then we sold it to the 22 fire department, and they took what they wanted, and we sold the other parcels as lots, two acre 23 house lots at the time . They were half acre lots when we bought the property, so we took a 24 punishment for holding that property. But anyway, I plan to be in Orient . My 25 _wife and I have a lot in the cemetery that' s just south of this property, so I'm going to be there December 16, 2004 58 1 2 even after I'm dead so my concern is that maybe the issues that are being talked about are not the 3 real issues, so I just want to give you my view of the thing. 4 As far as the fire department' s concerned, and I was a member for 16 years, if they need the 5 antenna, then they should get the antenna. I mean, I can' t imagine that that would be denied. 6 Maybe there' s no way you can deny it . But at any rate, I want to speak on that issue . I 'm in favor 7 of that . If the town police need an antenna, then they should get it . 8 What I 'm really here to- speak about is the cell phone aspect of this thing which originally 9 was incorporated into the application, and I don' t understand what the objection is . I had an . 10 objection about them putting a flag up there because of the noise of the thing flapping around. 11 I don' t know if you go to Peconic Landing and listen to the flag out in front of the 12 administrative building there in the wind, I mean it' s terribly noisy, and I noticed in the last 13 time I heard them present the thing they said they weren' t going to put ,that up there except on 14 special occasions, which was my request . So that was my objection. 15 The thing that concerns me is I don' t understand why people want to run this thing out 16 of town, which apparently is what they want to do . The cell phone technology is such that you need a 17 tower every two miles because the range of one of those towers is about a mile . So they showed here 18 a couple times ago, that when you put the cell phone antenna in Greenport that you reach about 19 the Orient, East Marion Park District, you don' t quite get to my house . So we need something in 20 Orient if we' re going to have cell phones in Orient, in fact, we need two towers . We need one 21 on the west end and one on the east end. And I heard somewhere that there was an offer by the 22 Ferry District to allow one to go up there . So I'm just trying to anticipate the future here . I 23 hope that you will allow these towers to be built because we desperately need them. 24 Now, as far as the cell phone technology is concerned, this technology is spreading all 25 over the world and a lot of countries are developing without land-line phones, they' re doing December 16 , 2004 59 1 2 it on cell phones . So this is very important . And I heard that there' s about one cell phone for 3 every two people living in the United States, which seems incredible, but anyway, there' s a lot 4 of cell phones, and it' s here to stay. They' re going to be three companies, three major 5 companies . There have been some mergers recently and Sprint is one of the ones that' s going to 6 survive, and they have a tower in the church so there would be two more needed in Orient, and I 7 don' t see why they couldn' t go in this tower as proposed originally. I guess they were thinking 8 about there might be three in there, but I doubt it now with these mergers . So we need to make 9 provision for two more antennas in the west end of Orient, and it seems to me this is the logical 10 place to put them. We need the tower anyway, - you' re not going to see them except for the 11 hardware that goes at the base of the antenna. I have a Verizon cell phone and the service is 12 barely acceptable . I have to go to my second floor to get reliable communication, or I have to 13 go outside . I can' t sit in my living room and use the cell phone, which is amazing. I have an 14 apartment on Peconic Landing, and that' s a steel building. Believe it or not, the cell phone will 15 work inside that steel building and it won' t work in my living room. It' s because you' re so much 16 closer to the source, and that' s what we need in Orient . We need a cell phone antenna, we need two 17 of them actually. So, I have reached the age of irrelevancy 18 already, but, you know, please try to help us get the technology we need so we can live in the 19 modern world. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: Thank you, sir. Is 20 there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of the Orient Point cell tower? If not 21 I ' ll make a motion to adjourn this application to January 20th at 1 : 15 p.m. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRMAN ORLANDO: That would be the end 23 of our public hearing. 24 25 December 16, 2004 60 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 5 State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 7 the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am not related by 9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 10 action; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 12 of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand this 16th day of December, 2004 . 15 16 17 18 c i Florence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 16 , 2004