HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/03/2005 Hear 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
March 3 , 2005
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13
14 Board Members Present
15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
21 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
22
23
i
24 O6` IGINA-
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call to
order the regular scheduled meeting of the Zoning
3 Board of Appeals for March 3 , 2005 . I' d . like a
motion to declare all our applications a Negative
4 Declaration and do not have any effect on the
environment .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
(See minutes for resolution. )
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is a
carryover from Kostoulas, is there anybody here to
7 speak to that? Good morning.
MR. WEIL: I'm Reggie Weil, architect for
8 Mr. and Mrs . Kostoulas . I submitted the
information that was requested on lot coverage and
9 also a survey of one and two story houses on that
block.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Mr. Goehringer has
some comment on this .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know,
Miss Weil, I discussed this with you and had been
12 present at the hearing in 1991 . I have no
specific objection to the application in general
13 except for those side areas that we were referring
to -- some of us were referring to, I'm not
14 speaking for the Board -- however, ,- the lot
coverage aspect is way off based upon what the
15, calculations are that I made . I can either share
those calculations with you at this time, we can
16 fax you a copy of those calculations tomorrow, you
can run over them. I'm not an engineer. I've
17 been doing this for a little while but there are
some odd decks . I just want you to be aware that
18 every deck that is raised is a part of lot
coverage, and primarily those decks that we dealt
19 with in 1991 is a part of lot coverage .
Notwithstanding that fact, I don' t have any
20 objection to this application, as I said. I am
telling you I'm coming up with a lot coverage of
21 1 . 4 percent . So we' re at 21 .405 . And quite
honestly, you can review mine . I' d be very happy
22 to make the motion granting this application to
this Board at 21 . 4 . But we have to go down on
23 record that we are dealing with a 10 , 872 square
foot lot, and that we have a substantial amount of
24 lot coverage based upon these decks, and that' s
the story. So I would say you can take mine, you
25 can review it, you can come back, but I have no
objection to the addition, which is almost
March. 3 , 2005
3
1
2 diminimus based upon the size of the decks in the
back of the property, meaning toward the water
3 side . And I didn' t even take into consideration
the deck at the bottom of the stairwell; I just
4 dealt mainly with the buildings at the bottom,
which are also part of lot coverage . This happens
5 all the time when surveyors look at these things,
because unless they do an actual field inspection,
6 and this is not in any way derogatory or sarcastic
toward any surveyor or engineer that does work in.
7 this town, they wouldn' t know, and foliage has
grown up around them and so on and so forth, but
8 those are the issues that we' re dealing with. And
I just need to have that on the record that it
9 does exceed the 20 percent, and when the time
comes, which I guess is next Thursday when our
10 special meeting is, I will deal with it .
MS . WEIL: I would appreciate a copy of
11 your calculations, and I will align mine and see
where the discrepancy is,. thank you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have
any comments?
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My opinion stays
the same as last time. I don' t have a problem
14 with the front deck as long as it doesn' t expand
beyond the original footprint in width. I was
15 looking for the number off the top of my head,
whether it was 20 feet or 30, I don' t remember,
16 but not to exceed either side of the existing
house now.
17 MS . WEIL: 3013 " .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 30 ' 311 , that' s
18 the width of the house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the lot
19 coverage issue, I' ll let you fight it out with
Mr. Goehringer.
20 MS . WEIL: We won' t fight, we' ll figure it
out .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I concur with
Mr. Orlando.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would we expect
24 that you may dispute that lot coverage that
Mr. Goehringer gives to you?
25 MS . WEIL: As long as it' s not a problem
1 . 5 percent over.
March 3 , 2005
4
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re not
objecting to the 1 . 5 percent?
3 MS . WEIL: No, what' s there is there . If
you don' t approve the extension beyond the
4 property, do I need to resubmit for the new side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
5 MS . WEIL: Okay. Just by letter I can
indicate that we stay within that restriction?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like to
7 speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
8 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
9 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is'
10 Dorothy Faucon, which was a one-family house and
now became a two-family house, and now the
11 building inspector decided it was always a
one-family house . Mr. Lark?
12 MR. LARK: Good morning, Richard Lark,
Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the
13 applicant . I believe you have the affidavits of
posting and publication, so I think we' re all set
14 there .
As you said, the building inspector, it' s
15 a shame he didn' t look at this two or three years
ago when the upstairs was occupied by a Section 8
16 tenant and the downstairs by an elderly couple .
You can clearly see it was a two-family house .
17 The issue before you really is was it
converted prior to the enactment of zoning in
18 1957, and if you find from all the proofs
submitted there we are with the pre-existing. The
19 building inspector has looked at everything that
you have, and he just felt that he could not make
20 a determination because originally, and I agreed
with him, that the house was built in 1849, and it
21 was a single family because it was like the manor
house of a very large parcel . In fact, it went
22 all the way back to the railroad and before the
railroad was put in, because in the early title
23 they gave a right of way for the railroad to run,
to bisect the farm up on the north end. If you
24 haven' t been in the house, I invite you to go. In
the back rooms in the upstairs, you can see that' s
25 where the servants had lived because that' s
typical of the construction at that time . And the
March 3 , 2005
5
1
2 garage, � just so you know, was built in 1899 ,
that' s back on the back property line there . It
3 was purchased, as you have in your papers, in 1942
by the applicant' s mother-in-law. And she, at
4 that point, used the upstairs as a tourist
home . It was a tourist home, and individual rooms
5 were let out either to school teachers or tourists
during the summer. In fact, on the property
6 there' s an old tourist sign that I did see .
The key here is that in 1954 and 1955 and
7 it was used all through the 140s and the duration
of the war as a tourist home and also people who
8 worked in the Greenport shipyard during the war
also lived there off and on. But the key was in
9 1954 and 155 when Dorothy Faucon, who' s here
today, and her husband completely renovated the
10 upstairs and made it a complete independent
apartment with the ]kitchen, bathroom, living room,
11 bedrooms and so on and so forth and lived there
until they built their home and moved out in 1958
12 and 1959, and ever since that time, the mother,
Dorothy Faucon' s mother, Elizabeth Faucon, rented
13 the upstairs out and she lived in the downstairs,
and you have all the affidavits for that with
14 people who were actually there .
The whole point there is since it was
15 prior to ' 57, you can ask the question, why didn' t
they do it . My personal knowledge, if I was to
16 testify personally, in 1968, I visited Elizabeth
Faucon, I used to work for Bill Wickham at that
17 point, I visited her, he represented her at that
time, and I was in the house and had gone through
18 the house with her, it was between tenants, it was
another matter, and I said why don' t you get a
19 certificate from Mr. Terry, Oh, I don' t need to
bother, I don' t need to bother. And of course,
.20 she didn' t bother and when she died in the mid
180s, 1986, she still hadn' t got it, and Brewster,
21 her son, continued with renting both the upstairs
and the downstairs at that time . That' s the way
22 it was .
We wouldn't have to be here today if it
23 was going to remain in the Faucon family and the
sons continued to lease it out and so on and so
24 forth because it is pre-existing, but with the
requirements of banks and Mrs . Faucon can' t keep
25 the home anymore due to not only physically and
financially, so she has made arrangements to sell
March 3 , 2005
6
1
2 it, and the buyer fortunately. Wants to renovate
it and bring it back to some of its original glory
3 because he' s taking great pains to redo the
moldings and take it apart and put them back, and
4 if you've been to the place and modernize the
kitchen a little bit . So that' s where we are, and
5 I did speak personally to Mr. Verity. And he just
won' t make the decision. He says leave it to the
6 Board to make it . He understands where you' re
coming from, but he says just leave it to the
7 Board. I was concerned, and I think you have to
be -- he will be eventually, with the ingress and
8 egress, but the upstairs both has a back entrance
and a front emergency entrance, that door is not
9 sealed, you can get out and go downstairs and go
out the front door, and, of course, the downstairs
10 has the entrance off the kitchen and then the
front entrance .
11 That' s the way the home is operated. If
you have any questions, Mrs . Faucon' s here, one of
12 her sons is here, who actually lived in the house
right through high school and then onto college,
13 so if you have any questions at all, I don' t want
to belabor the record, you have those affidavits
14 before you. Each and every one of those people,
except the fellow that lived in New Jersey at the
15 time would be glad to come here today, but I
thought we would be here for an hour.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are the new owners
trying to use this as a two-family or a
17 one-family?
MR. LARK: I understand two family. I
18 think he' s here today. Ray, do you want to
address that question she has?
19 MR. BLUM: Hello, good morning, Members of
the Board, Ray Blum from Southold and
20 Peconic . I'm the contract vendee on this property
as well as the adjacent landowner, and I have no
21 problem with the application obviously, and we do
plan on using it as a two family.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
comments?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, as long as
the house remains in the original state and
24 there' s no major additions .
MR. LARK: No, there can' t be, due to the
25 configuration in the side yards, rear yards,
everything has to be contained. As you know, they
March 3 , 2005
7
1
I
2 have gradually started to work on it by painting
it and restoring it .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Looks beautiful, by the
way.
4 MR. LARK: And everything has been just a
repair; there' s been no structural changes at all .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If they do get a permit
to do that, will they have to put a fire escape on
6 the outside for a two family or are they allowed
just to use the other entrance?
7 MR. LARK: I would think you could use the
existing ingress up and the ingress down because
8 there is an in and out on the second floor. I was
concerned about that also, but that' s the way that
9 always was, that door was shut but you could use
it as an emergency exit and whenever they would
10 move furniture in and out, obviously the back
stairwell is too narrow so they had to use the
11 front stairwell, which, of course, is quite wide,
as it would be in an old house like that .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . I
13 just agree with Mr. Goehringer, as long as it
stays as is .
14 MR. LARK: You' re talking about footprint?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Footprint, yes . As
15 long as you' re not going to double it in size and
make it a multifamily --
16 MR. LARK: You have no problem with that,
do you?
17 MR. BLUM: No, the lot size doesn' t
accommodate going much larger than it is .
18 MR. ORLANDO: You' d be surprised what
people come back to the Zoning Board for.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the garage will
remain as a garage just for storage and for cars?
20 MR. LARK: Yes . That' s completely
accessory. Storage on the second floor loft and
21 for vehicles and other lawn implements and so
forth on the ground floor.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions,
23 just for clarification, has it been a single
family house alone during any time since 1957?
24 MR. LARK: No . I think you have ample
testimony before you and I have Mrs . Faucon who
25 lived right next door to it -- well, lived on the
property since 154 and would verify that isn' t
March 3 , 2005
8
1
2 that correct, Dorothy?
MRS . FAUCON: Yes .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I imagine this
4 is going to be used probably as an affordable
alternative for workers and things like that .
5 MR. BLUM: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you' re a
6 businessman Mr. Blum, so I'm assuming you' re going
to put looking for an affordable place to put some
7 people?
MR. BLUM: Sure . And it does blend in
8 with what I own around it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a beautiful house,
9 by the way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak for this?
11 MR. WALKER: I'm Garrett Walker, I 'm .
Mr. Faucon' s oldest son, and I just wanted to
12 address, the house has always been a two-family
house . I'm 52 years old and I can remember living
13 in it, watching my parents' house be framed, and
the other reason I know it was always a two-family
14 house is there were always tenants in and out of
there, constantly various time lengths, but the
15 symbol for us, we couldn' t slide on the banister,
inside the house, the front stairs is the wide
16 stairs, it has one of the old fashioned wooden
banisters, I don' t think it' s mahogany but it' s
17 really nice looking, and it' s round at the bottom,
and you can slide from the top and not going
18 shooting off and rocket out the front door, but
close to it, that was always how we knew there
19 were tenants in there, we weren' t allowed in the
door that that allowed, it was the old fashioned
20 parlor-type entrance, and when there were tenants,
we couldn' t go in there because it would disturb
21 the tenants because we' d have to go up to their
part of the house to access the banister to get
22 the full slide .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If nobody else wants to
23 speak on this application, I' ll make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until
24 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
March 3 , 2005
9
1
2 Michael and Karen Catapano, who wishes to raise
some goats on less than 10 acres . Yes, sir?
3 MR. CATAPANO: I 'm Michael Catapano, this
is Karen, my wife . We have some notes for you if
4 that would help you.
We currently own the goat dairy in
5 Mattituck, and after being there for two years, it
has become evident that to be able to operate
6 efficiently and properly, we need profitability,
we need more space . We have some space and
7 storage restrictions there, so we have been
seeking a larger property.
8 We come before you today seeking relief
from the Building Department' s disapproval of our
9 plans for a property at 333705 North Road in
Peconic . This property is a five acre piece with
10 an existing house . We plan to live in the house
and run our goat dairy at that location. In order
11 to do that we need to construct a barn, which
would serve as storage, as livestock housing, it
12 would also contain a milk house for milking goats,
and a cheese making facility for making cheese .
13 In addition, we would need a small farm stand in
order to sell the dairy products that we make on
14 the farm.
The plans were disapproved for two
15 reasons, the first was that 10 acres are needed
for keeping and breeding of goats according to the
16 Building Department . We asked for interpretation
of this ruling, the code states that 10 acres are
17 required for horses, domestic animals and fowl,
but does not specifically include goats . Also in
18 the code, goats are defined as livestock and not
as domestic animals .
19 The second reason for disapproval is that
five tillable acres are .required in order to have
20 a farm stand.
We believe that. the intended agricultural
21 use of the property is in keeping with the
community. It is zoned agriculture . There are
22 numerous farms and farm stands located on that
stretch of County Road 481 both to our east and to
23 the west . Furthermore, we believe that the goat
dairy will be an asset to the community. Our
24 plans include public access to the cheese making
room and to the milk house . This will make the
25 farm both an educational and recreational
destination.
March 3 , 2005
10
1
2 In Mattituck, we have hosted 4-H, school
groups, youth groups that are interested groups,
3 but we' re fairly limited by the lack of facilities
for that purpose . We think that there would be
4 minimal if any negative consequences for our
neighbors . To our east is a very large farm, 40
5 acres, to our west is a seven acre parcel of
preserved land, to our north is a residence on
6 about five acres I believe, and the barn that we
would construct would be no closer than 300 feet
7 to that property line to the north, and we plan to
maintain the existing vegetation along that
8 property line to act as a visual buffer.
As anybody who' s come to our farm in
9 Mattituck knows, we keep it very clean. It' s very
neat and very quiet as well . To our south, the
10 property abuts County Road 48 , which at that point
is a four lane divided highway and access to the
11 property is via County Road 48 . And in front of
the property there' s a turn-around that allows
12 eastbound traffic to turn around and come into the
property very easily. In Mattituck, even at our
13 busiest times on weekends, traffic flow is fairly
minimal, and I think the existing roadways could
14 easily handle that number of cars that we would
generate at the farm stand.
15 Parking we don' t believe would be a
problem. All parking would be located on the
16 property. There would be no need for on road
parking.
17 So we ask the Board to rule favorably on
our proposal and request . We believe it coincides
18 with the Board' s mission to promote and preserve
agricultural nature of Southold Town, and protects
19 the surrounding community, and we think represents
sensible relief from the code .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many goats do you
intend to keep?
21 MR. CATAPANO: We would anticipate 80 to
100 .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many do you have
now?
23 MR. CATAPANO: Sixty, we have 68 babies
also. The babies are always temporary.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How big is your
property in Mattituck?
25 MR. CATAPANO: One . '
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You keep all those
March 3 , 2005
11
1
2 goats on one acre?
MR. CATAPANO: Goats don' t need very much
3 room. We don' t pasture the goats, they don' t eat
off the ground, we bring in food. If you were to
4 require pasturage for the goats, you would need
quite a large place . But as long as they have
5 food and water they really don' t roam; they just
lay and be quiet . So they don' t need that much
6 space .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the question
I had, 100, I read it in there . It seems like a
8 lot of goats to be laying around on a piece of
property. That' s all I have .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question
about domestic animals versus livestock; are cows
10 livestock?
MR. CATAPANO : According to the code, I
11 believe so, yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is
12 whether goats are to be classified like cows or
horses .
13 MR. CATAPANO : I'm not sure what the code
states, I know that domestic animals is not
14 defined. I know and goats are listed as livestock
and horses are listed as horses, domestic animals,
15 apparently horses aren' t domestic animals, I'm not
sure what that means . We' re just asking for an
16 interpretation.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does anyone know what
17 domestic animals comprise, besides dogs?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. There' s never
18 been a definition.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one thing
that has been done, Michael, that this Board in
20 1978 or thereabouts granted an interpretation for
a gentleman by the name of Brian Sheehan in
21 Mattituck, and I just thought about this, when
this gentleman was doing his presentation.
22 Mr. Sheehan was very similar to what these nice
people are proposing, except he really wanted to
23 have an entire farm. So he came before the Zoning
Board and requested an interpretation of how many
24 animals he could have on a piece of acreage
similar to your piece . In fact, if I'm not
25 mistaken it was only in the early ' 80s that the
piece that you are dealing with at this time in
March 3 , 2005
12
1
2 Peconic was subdivided, about the same time,
believe it or not, that the Mattituck piece was
3 done . At that time in the real estate business
those were called farmettes, because they were not
4 as big as a farm but they were sizable pieces of
property for the one acre zoning that existed at
5 that time .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was a different
6 code too.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it was a
7 different code . So I' ll reflect on that after.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No other questions .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A few questions .
9 You have a goat pasture noted on your plan, but
you said you really don' t have a pasture .
10 MR. CATAPANO: They don' t eat off the
property, we bring in food, but they need some
11 space to roam, but they just don' t roam. As long
as they have food and water, they just kind of lay
12 down.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What size area do
13 you keep the 60 goats in now?
MR. CATAPANO : I' d say it' s a third of an
14 acre .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have 60 goats .
15 now?
MR. CATAPANO: Yes .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Also, is the waste
and the straw and the hay. I know driving by your
17 place every day going home, it seems to have been
dumped down that hill on the side, it tends to
18 accumulate quite large . I think we need to define
on the property where you' re going to put that so
19 it' s not on the corner that that vacant lot
becomes a house and next thing you know it' s next
20 to their property.
MR. CATAPANO: I believe the code states
21 it needs to be 100 feet from the property line and
there' s plenty of space on the property to do
22 that . As you know, the goats don' t make much
manure, the major waste is excess hay.
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I guess that' s what
I saw driving by. But you know decomposing hay
24 can create --
MR. CATAPANO : I think there' s enough
25 property linear feet to keep it 150 feet away from
any property line .
March 3 , 2005
13
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What do you do with it
now, just push it off someplace, the extra straw?
3 MR. CATAPANO : Well, it decomposes and
flattens out fairly quickly, and we have been
4 using it to make flower beds and vegetable beds .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good. You use it for
5 compost, that' s what I wanted to know.
MR. CATAPANO: Yes . And people come and
6 take it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How many goats do
7 you plan on expanding up to?
MR. CATAPANO: I think 80 to 100 will .be
8 the top . I think 60 to 80 is probably in keeping,
but 80 to 100 I think would be our range .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon that
10 interpretation, and again the clerk of the Board
did mention it was a different code, this is
11 probably one of the premiere applications that I
have seen recently in any case . I live in
12 Mattituck, I'm aware of the property that you
have . I 'm aware of the situation that existed
13 prior to you people buying the property, and I
concur with you this spot you have is small, it' s
14 also quite dangerous being on that turn going down
into that ravine area, which there are substantial
15 accidents and problems, one of which was that huge
tractor trailer that turned over last year. So I
16 am somewhat content with your application, but I
think we have to discuss what the maximum amount
17 of goats you would have, similar to what my
colleagues were saying.
18 MRS . CATAPANO: May I say something?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
19 MRS . CATAPANO: Two things about the
number of the goats . One is that cows you can get
20 a lot of milk from a cow, like a gallon or two;
you only get a small amount from a goat, so you
21 need a lot more goats to make a little bit of
cheese . So I know 100 sounds like a lot, but if
22 you look at the amount of milk you get it' s really
not . And the problem is in the winter, it' s not
23 really in the summer having the goats, they need
to come in in the winter. So that' s why we need a
24 bigger place because they need to have their
babies inside .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s where the
steel barn will be, you' ll put them in the steel
March 3 , 2005
14
1
2 barn?
MRS . CATAPANO: Right . Because the
3 problem is when it' s cold out and the babies are
born and they' re wet, and if you don' t get to them
4 then they die.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see if somebody
5 else wants to comment on this application?
Ms . Dotie?
6 MS . DOTIE : I'm Debra Dotie, I represent
the sellers so clearly they support the
7 application. I just want to refer the Board to
two sections of the code . The denial, my
8 understanding the denial is based on 100-31 2 (b) ,
which says the keeping, breeding, raising and
9 training of horses, domestic animals, fowl, except
ducks on lots of less than 10 acres --
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right
MS . DOTIE : -- I think the question is
11 whether goats are domestic animals . They' re not
horses, you' ll grant me that, and they' re not
12 ducks and they' re not fowl . So, when you go back
to another section in the zoning code that' s
13 100-221, it defines livestock as including cattle,
sheep, hogs, goats, horses, poultry, fur-bearing
14 animals, milk, eggs and fur. A contention is that
10 acres doesn' t apply to goats, and that' s the
15 point I wish to make, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Does
16 anybody else wish to speak on this application?
Yes, Mr. Catapano, there was no information about
17 we must require 10 acres instead of five acres; do
you wish to address that, the variance for the
18 five acres?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You have two
19 requests, also for a variance on the five acre
requirement?
20 MR. CATAPANO: I'm not sure of the
question. I did mention the second reason, the
21 reason why the farm stand was disapproved was
because of five tillable acres .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . You mentioned
it .
23 MR. CATAPANO : I'm not sure of your
question.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If that' s all you
wanted to add, I thought there was more you wanted
25 to add.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I comment?
March 3 , 2005
15
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, I heard
3 from the gentleman and from Miss Dotie, that the
10 acres doesn' t apply toward the Section
4 100-2221, so that' s their contention and I think
they addressed that . I think the code does .
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I believe the
question regarding the variance vis-a-vis the farm
6 stand was since you' re supposed to have a number
of tillable acres either there or elsewhere, so
7 you are explicitly asking for a variance on that
question. Do you have anything further to add in
8 justification of that part of your request?
MR. CATAPANO : Just that the whole area
9 has farms and farm stands . I don' t think the
traffic generated by the farm stand would be a
10 problem for the existing roadways, and if there' s
a particular question, maybe we can address that .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I believe also
there' s a note in the file an adjacent landowner
12 objects to this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . You have a copy
13 of that letter, Miss Hubbard; have you spoken to
Miss Hubbard?
14 MRS . CATAPANO: I called her and left a
message that I wanted to explain what we were
15 doing because the letter is very vague . She said
contrary to any -- I don' t know the exact wording
16 but contrary to --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: -- arguments to the
17 contrary, I see no reason why the Building
Inspector' s notice of disapproval should not be
18 upheld and the request for variances denied.
MRS . CATAPANO: Right . And I think we
19 made a good argument to the contrary and that' s
what I was just going to describe .
20 And the five tillable acres, the only
thing I want to say about that, I mean it is five
21 acres but they' re not tillable because the house
is there, which I 'm glad because I love the house,
22 but --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s pre-existing.
23 MRS . CATAPANO: It' s pre-existing, so it' s
going to be all used -- as much as is not house --
24 for this purpose . If it was seven acres and two
was allotted for the house then we wouldn' t have a
25 problem but it' s not, it' s a little bit smaller,
but everything else it' s a perfect location. So
March 3 , 2005
16
1
2 we are asking for that variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. If there' s
3 no further questions or comments on this
application, I ' ll make a motion to close the
4 hearing, reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing
6 is for Mr. Whitney Armstrong to rebuild his house
on Fishers Island. Mr. Lark.
7 MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road,
Cutchogue, New York for the applicant .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've been there, by
the way, at least Jim and Vincent and I visited
9 there last summer. It' s a gorgeous piece of
property.
10 MR. LARK: It' s something else . The
application before you has to do with Section
11 100-239 4A Paragraph 1 . And I believe I've given
you the posting affidavit and the required mailing
12 affidavits .
As you know, that section of the code
13 requires the building to be setback 100 feet from
the top of a bluff . If you recall, this applicant
14 and this property was before this Board at a
hearing on 8/19/04, and you rendered a decision on
15 9/7/04 , basically allowing the two and-a-half
story dwelling that had been destroyed by a fire
16 that previous December to be built in the existing
footprint . And the closest point, the question
17 there was there were 79 feet from the top of the
bank, just for the record, that was your ZBA file
18 5577 . Recall that the property was located at
Clay Point over in Fishers Island, the evidence in
19 that hearing before you there was little or no
erosion on the shoreline in that particular area
20 of Fishers Island Sound since that home was built
in 1927 . And I think there was survey evidence
21 and other evidence that was introduced before you
in spite of the fact that there' s no rock
22 revetment, bulkheading or anything else there' s
just no erosion there which amazes me . But that
23 having been said, when the applicant went to
redesign or design his replacement home, Mr. and
24 Mrs . Armstrong came up with the design that you
have before you, I think I've given you ample
25 pictures of everything that' s proposed there with
the site plans, and I gave you some additional
March 3 , 2005
17
1
2 photos of the particular area that we' re going to
be talking about on the easterly side, that
3 embankment or bluff area. And when I saw the
unusual nature of the architecture, I had what you
4 call a pre-submission conference, if you will,
with the Building Department just to see if it
5 would comply with the -- I was assured by the
architect that it was -- but that it would comply
6 with New York State Building Code and so on and so
forth before we proceeded any further. And
7 between myself and them and the architect, we
worked out everything so that the plan that you
8 have before you as far as the building code is
concerned so we didn' t have to come back for
9 something, that' s okay,
The question then came up with this bluff,
10 because the surveyor, and you have his letter
there, Richard Straus, surveyor and engineer,
11 believes that on the easterly side of the
property, once you get to the middle and start
12 going over to the east, that' s not a bluff because
of the gradual incline to the water to Fishers
13 Island Sound, whereas on the westerly "portion
there' s definitely a bluff because you have a
14 steep incline there, but this other one is
gradual . And he kept pushing me to ask the
15 Building Department to use, which is Subsection 2
of 239 4A, the hundred foot setback from the water
16 as opposed to the top of the bluff . So I finally
just gave up and said, okay, where do you want to
17 show me where you determine to be the bluff line,
that' s the word he was using, building inspector,
18 and he drew the line around and got to the point
where you have there now where it' s the 60
19 foot . So I said okay, there was no sense hassling
it anymore because again we got into the
20 definition of what' s the bluff, what' s an
embankment, and, you know, I don' t use the word
21 "bank" because the dictionary does clearly say
that has to do with a river or creek, whereas the
22 bluff has to do with the sound or ocean or
something of that nature . So I just let it go and
23 said okay. He again admitted it was a close
question, the building inspector, Mr. Verity, when
24 he looked at it and reviewed it, but he didn' t
want to make that determination. He felt he
25 should leave it to the Board. So he carried the
line around to the 60 feet . So again, does that
March 3 , 2005
18
1
2 sound familiar, we' re here before you to make that
determination?
3 Parenthetically, the DEC and the Trustees,
since the Building Inspector took. that and I know
4 eventually we' re going to have to go for a
Building Permit that I figured that I better get
5 the DEC on board and the Trustees on board because
they had approved it before but they had not seen
6 this extension to the east, and they submitted on
February 25th from the DEC and February 15th from
7 the Trustees, and they had no problem with it . -
They moved the 100 foot back and the elevation,
8 and they said it' s no problem. And they both
submitted letters of no jurisdiction. So we have
9 no problems with those agencies .
Now, I bring all this up because when you
10 get under 267 B of the Town Law, and you' re faced
with the balancing test on considering the five
11 mandated factors, I think what I just said has a
great deal of relevance; otherwise, if you don' t
12 consider all of that you have an application
before you there' s 100 foot requirement; they want
13 a 40 percent reduction for the variance --
boom. But I don' t think that' s true . I think you
14 have to look at the whole property and what' s
being done there, and the fact that that' s not a
15 sheer bluff subject to erosion and all the other
kind of problems to make the determination, and
16 the Building Inspector agreed with me . He said
it' s a close call whether I use 100 feet or I use
17 the top of this bank or whatever. He said I don' t
know what to do, that was his wording to me .
18 So that' s why we' re here, and I believe
the photos, and some of you have been to the
19 property so you know what' s going on there . But
when I sat down then, faced with that after the
20 pre-submission conference with the Building
Department, I sat down with both Mr. Armstrong. and
21 the architect and I tried to rearrange the
reconstruction of the house utilizing the existing
22 footprint, which you had given approval of, but
try to blend it back a little bit so I wouldn' t
23 have to have this variance request that I 'm here
today and satisfy the Building Department . Well,
24 that meeting took about an hour, hour and-a-half
and no matter what we did, I got outgunned.
25 Turned out that the architect pulled rank on me .
He designed some of the World Trade Center
March 3 , 2005
19
1
2 reconfiguration, that he had done this type of
work before, and it turned out that Mr. Armstrong
3 is the Director emeritus of the Whitney American
Museum of Art, and so I got outgunned. Because
4 any time that I tried to move the house, I ended
up -- and they showed me empirically -- I was
5 ending up destroying trees . Finally Mr. Armstrong
wrote a letter and said, if you want to move it
6 the way you want to move it, we' re going to be
taking out irreplaceable trees . We cannot move
7 these trees . They' re too huge . So it got then
that they were going to keep the axis of the house
8 basically on an east-west direction -- because I
tried to even move it west and that was
9 interesting, I thought I had sold that to them,
but when I pointed out when I moved them west not
10 only did I destroy that retaining wall that they
had, that landscaped retaining wall,( I also
11 destroyed some trees, but guess what? I had to
come back for a variance because clearly now I was
12 closer than the 79 feet that you had approved. So
I lost out on all scores .
13 Then I made the application, which you
have before you, and I submit to you when you
14 consider all the balancing tests -- and I' ll just
run through them real quick -- will it change the
15 character of the neighborhood? That' s a
no-brainer; it was residence before, it' s
16 residence after. Both Fitco, who has oversight as
to house siting and everything, they have approved
17 it because it' s in the covenants there on the east
end. The next door neighbor Mrs . Sturgis, she
18 approved it, she was enthusiastic about it . I
talked to Mr. Kashel, who' s on the east, he has
19 absolutely no objection, I spoke to him
personally. He' s away in Florida so I didn' t get
20 anything yet from him, but I expect to . Can the
house be replaced by some other method? I think I
21 explained that to you, yes, but you destroy the
landscape of what they have done there . And what
22 the architect has done is, they explain to you in
Mr. Armstrong' s letter a little bit, but more
23 importantly, he' s interfacing the house, he' s
lowering it to some 13 feet below the tree line
24 there, and he' s making only a one-story situation.
And the house when you look at it you' re in the
25 garden, the landscaping becomes the more dominant
effect, and the house is more segwayed in between
March 3 , 2005
20
1
2 it . They assured me that the construction of it
could be done with digging of the foundation and
3 so on and so forth without any destruction of the
trees if it' s sited with the east-west access that
4 they have there . So what you see there is on the
footprint of what they're proposing is what it is .
5 So if you' re going to replace it without
destroying the gardens or the landscape, then
6 there is no other method.
Then we had, is it substantial? Well,
7 they' re asking for 60 feet . If you take the
Building Inspector' s interpretation, it' s like 113
8 feet from the high water at that point, measured
at the angle, you did grant 79 feet, but because
9 of the fact that it' s so well vegetated, and it' s
such a gradual incline, I don' t think it' s
10 substantial where I would have felt that way if it
was right up on the bluff where you had erosion
11 and you have to bulkhead or do a revetment and
stuff .
12 Coming into the next one, which is kind of
segwayed in there, will it have an adverse effect
13 on the environment or physical portion of the
property? Well, physically to the property, no,
14 because of the uniqueness of the topography and
the existing vegetation and the trees and the
15 gardening that' s there, it fits right in; and as
to the neighborhood, no, because as I say, for
16 several thousand feet --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s got over three
17 acres .
MR. LARK: And for several thousand feet
18 on either south side there' s been no erosion or
anything there . Self-created, yeah, guilty with
19 an explanation. This portion of the application
is; the first part was not because the house got
20 burned down. So this portion is, but considering
everything, I don' t think it' s an outlandish or an
21 unreasonable request to ask this, and taking all
. the factors and balancing them like you have to
22 take those five factors and do that . Unless you
have some questions, the photographs do not do
23 justice to the property for those who have been
there, but it was the best I could do in the
24 winter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
25 comments?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
March 3 , 2005
21
1
2 objection to the application. It' s just very
important for the Board, and I'm not speaking for
3 the Board, but when we were over there in August,
we would like to see the construction as it' s
4 commencing.
MR. LARK: That goes without saying. And,
5 in fact, the public there is welcome too, which is
very unique for the east end, because he., being in
6 that business of a curator of a museum and
everything, he wants the public to see the
7 specimen trees and everything that he has there .
So when he' s in residence, people do come when he
8 puts the sign up to come look at his gardens .
He' s very proud of them.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He should be .
MR. LARK: But you' re more than welcome to
10 come, that is not a problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only question
is, did I interpret your writing, correct, it' s
12 going to be a one-story structure, the whole
thing?
13 MR. LARK: Yes . They lowered everything
' down. It' s one story, it' s not two and-a-half
14 like the old house was .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This legend, part
of the record, the numbers on here, do you have a
17 legend for that? I couldn' t find that .
MR. LARK: The photos should be numbered.
18 It' s just to show you where they took the angle of
the photo, otherwise you' re lost . It was
19 anticipated, the reason that I do it that way,
that when someone goes to the property they can
20 compare, they were standing here and that' s what
I'm seeing.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I did visit
the property. I have to write the decision, this
22 one seems to be the clearest, you have a solid
existing residence; that' s that piece that was
23 left over that didn' t burn, and then to the west
of that towards that retaining wall there' s like a
24 shaded gray area, that' s the old house, that' s the
footprint of the old house?
25 MR. LARK: Yes, and it' s outlined with
those ribbons that they require .
March 3 , 2005
22
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Now you have a
striped area that appears to be three times as
3 large as the existing house that' s there now,
that' s the footprint of the house?
4 MR. LARK: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Now, that outside
5 line, that large rectangle, what is that like an
overhang?
6 MR. LARK: Yes, if you have the pictures
of the proposed house, you' ll see that, there' s
7 like that 10, 12 foot overhang where you have the
walkway all the way around. That' s part of the
8 living in the garden concept there . With that
roof at that point is like lattice .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I saw the pictures,
I wanted to be clear that the actual distances, to
10 the bluff to the actual wall to the house is
within that rectangle .
11 MR. LARK: Yes . That' s to the edge of
that 60 feet . If you were to go to the foundation
12 wall, you would probably have another 10 feet
back, more or less .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. I
notice this gentleman doesn' t do anything that is
14 not perfect because his property is perfect .
MR. LARK: You' d pick up another 10 feet,
15 but that would be disingenuous to this application
because the way the architect designed the
16 roofline that' s really part of the house, although
it' s outside of the conditioned living space .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand that .
As far as excavation is going, if you' re going to
18 go down eight feet, you' re probably going down
eight feet to make a wall or basement, 10 feet
19 away from where you actually have this line .
MR. LARK: That' s right .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the rest can
just be footings, three feet or whatever it is .
21 MR. LARK: That' s right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
22 the audience that would like to comment on this
application? If not I' ll close the hearing,
23 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
24 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application
25 is for Wallace and Walters on Washington Avenue in
Greenport . I believe they want to make a
March 3 , 2005
23
1
2 two-story house . Is there anyone here to speak on
on this application?
3 MR. WALLACE: Good afternoon, I 'm Gregory
Wallace . Unfortunately, my wife could not attend
4 today. We have approximately just under a 1, 000
square foot house on a . 28 acre lot . We want to
5 put on a second story to accommodate a family. We
do not want to change the footprint of the
6 building because of the financial restrictions of
digging and the zoning of the neighborhood is very
7 dense; the lots are a 100 by 150 -- I 'm sorry, 100
by 50 . My lot happens to be 100 by 120 , and I' d
8 like to keep the side yard open to keep some open
space in the neighborhood.
9 The original plan did call for a four foot
cantilever. Mr. Verity had a lot of objection to
10 that . It could be done, so I just recently
reduced the plans from a four foot cantilever to a
11 two foot cantilever to accommodate Mr. Verity' s
wishes .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have a problem
with that . Jerry?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the
cantilever off the second story?
14 MR. WALLACE : Yes, sir.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it includes
15 2 feet by 37 feet; is that correct? Which is
basically the width of the house, so it' s the
16 whole width of the house?
MR. WALLACE : Yes, but I believe it' s 36
17 feet, yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask
18 you• that question is similar to what Mr. Dinizio
just said, I have to write the decision. However,
19 I am still referring to it as an in-place/in-kind
replacement of the existing footprint of the house
20 because that' s a cantilever and it doesn' t affect
the first story. Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: For the record, so
22 you' ll. be maintaining the 11 foot one front yard
and the 28 foot other front yard?
23 MR. WALLACE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And may I ask why
24 Mr. Verity talked you out of the four foot
cantilever, was it safety or structure?
25 MR. WALLACE: Traditionally you don' t do
four feet, usually the standard is two feet . They
March 3 , 2005
24
1
2 could be done with the special untreated lumber,
but he has not really seen four feet and in his
3 opinion it was maybe a little too much, and after
looking at it, I kind of agreed with him.
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the record,
Gregory is a distant relative . Not necessarily of
7 mine but by marriage; his mother and my wife are
cousins . I wanted to disclose that and the plan
8 actually says on here that your house is 37 feet
wide .
9 MR. WALLACE: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If Jerry puts 36 ,
10 you' re going to be cut off a foot .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm referring to
11 it just as I said, right on the existing
footprint .
12 MR. WALLACE : I forgot .to carry the one .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Besides that I have
13 no objection to this application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
14 in the audience that would like to make a comment
on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion
15 to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
for Ryan and Kramer on Bungalow Lane, Mattituck.
18 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor
of this application?
19 MR. KRAMER: Good evening, Steven Kramer
and there' s a very small garage there right now,
20 and we' d like to make it bigger.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And turned in a bit?
21 MR. KRAMER: Right . Because the door is
now facing the house and there' s a tree now that' s
22 grown in the way, and it would be very difficult
to use that entrance . 'We just want to have a
23 place to put a lawn mower and cars, bikes and
family stuff . And you can' t put the garage behind
24 the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, no I know. Jim?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
March 3 , 2005
25
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s going to be just
a garage; is that correct?
3 MR. KRAMER: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . Just
a comment that you' ll have the three foot setback
5 on the one side and the 3 . 1 foot on the side
yards?
6 MR. KRAMER: Whatever I said, first time
here .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You actually have
three garage doors, but it' s a two-car garage .
8 MR. KRAMER: There should only be two
garage doors .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have two shaped
like a barn door and one looks like a standard
10 roll up.
MR. KRAMER: That' s 'the old, that' s the
11 one that' s there now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just going to be
12 using this for storage?
MR. KRAMER: Yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But just
electricity and no water in that?
14 MR. KRAMER: Right .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
16 objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
17 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
18 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
20 for Jensen on Sunset Way in Southold, a porch
addition. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf
21 of this application?
MR. JENSEN: Edward Jensen.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hi .
MR. JENSEN: Yes, what I wanted to do is
23 go off the existing footprint that' s there and
come out for a porch.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' ll be less than
35 feet where a lot of the houses on that street
25 are set further back, you' re fairly close to the
road as it is . How wide did you want to make that
March 3 , 2005
26
1
2 porch?
MR. JENSEN: I wanted to come out six feet
3 from the furthest part of the house . Right now
the stoop is coming out five feet anyway, there' s
4 a brick stoop there . And I want to have the
entrance coming along from the driveway to walk
5 across the front of the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want the entrance
6 from the driveway to go this way?
MR. JENSEN: Yes . In other words, you' d
7 be walking along the porch. , I have a picture if
you want to see that .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? j
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had had a
9 substantial amount of these applications,
Mr. Jensen, and we in many of the cases -- and I'm
10 not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for
myself -- have requested that the applicant reduce .
11 the depth of the porch. I just don' t know -- I
was there two Saturdays ago, and I just don' t know
12 if it' s viable for you to do so at this time and
decrease the depth of that porch. The existing
13 steps that you' re referring to are exempt in the
code . I certainly would like to see it no closer
14 than 30 feet to the front property line, and
that' s the story.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that a feasible
16 thing, the five and eight? To reduce it to five
and eight? You have six foot as the shorter side
17 and eight foot on the longer side, correct?
MR. JENSEN: Right . And Mr. Goehringer is
18 saying a five .and seven.
MR. JENSEN: Yes, I guess I can do that .
19 It' s basically for the aesthetics and the fact
that I can walk from the driveway, and it would
20 cut down coming around. It would reduce the front
lawn, actually. If I came out with a stoop
21 because we' re moving the doorway.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
22 questions .
MR. JENSEN: But also I'm doing a second
23 floor on that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is a covered
24 porch, not to be enclosed, correct?
MR. JENSEN: No, not enclosed.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When I looked at the
March 3 , 2005
27
1
2 property, it sort of struck me that even with the
front stoop and no porch, it' s already closer to
3 the road than the neighboring houses .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And because there are
hedges at the edge of the property, it' s perhaps
5 less noticeable than it otherwise might be .
However, since there is a lot of land on the water
6 side of the house, I was curious as to why a porch
was being built on the side where there is already
7 a nonconforming setback. What is the motivation
for building the porch at that point in that
8 place?
MR. JENSEN: To gain access from the
9 driveway to walk underneath the porch to the front
of the house, and the layout of the way they
10 designed the house that they thought it would look
better to be some sort of design than just a flat
11 front .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Curb appeal .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would think that
it would add some charm to that big wall you' re
14 going to be building with that second story. I
think that would perhaps make it look better.
15 Now, is that five foot of the porch, or is that
five foot to the overhang of the actual roof; do
16 you know? The roof has to come out a little bit
beyond where the deck is going to be, and I'm just
17 wondering
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s probably
18 without it, Jim, because the overhang could be 18
inches .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It can be, I'm just
wondering if that' s the case .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Usually it' s not
counted in the setbacks when they give that .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask
you a question, Jim?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that 29 feet
24 to the house or is that 29 feet to the deck, the
porch?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think it' s to the
house .
March 3 , 2005
28
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it' s to
the house also. So my first request is that -- I
3 got a 21 on the other side, and I think I
meassured that by ruler, so my request is out the
4 window.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The math should be
5 23 foot setback I think. You have initially of 29
minus 6 .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . I just
wanted to clear that up, Jimmy, I'm sorry.
7 MR. JENSEN: Yes . One side is 29 and the
other side I think is 21 .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s your
existing setback without putting the porch, then
9 you have to add another six to that, so actually
it' s 23 feet that you' re requesting.
10 MR. JENSEN: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then Jerry proposed
11 that perhaps instead of six feet it could be five
feet, and you have no objection to that?
12 MR. JENSEN: No .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that would make
13 it a 24 foot setback.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be a little
14 bit better.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what I was
15 getting at with the overhang thing, it would bring
you to almost to 20 feet if it, were 18 , and I
16 don' t want that Building Inspector coming back and
saying I can' t have that . So we' re going to say
17 24 foot to the edge of the deck, and we' ll grant
you that, and the overhang, if Linda' s correct,
18 can probably be 18 inches, it will be a little
more than the deck, I would imagine . r Again, I
19 think you' re doing it mostly for aesthetics more
than anything else .
20 MR. JENSEN: Yes, more than anything else,
and the fact that I can come in from the driveway
21 side with a covered porch. But mainly the
aesthetics of it .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s definitely a
curb appeal asset and I don' t think it' s a very
23, highly trafficked road down there .
MR. JENSEN: No, it' s private road.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jim, what about
steps?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They' re on the
side, right? ,
March 3 , 2005
29
1
2 MR. JENSEN: Yes . I left a picture of the
proposed --
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is it proposed on
the front or on the side?
4 MR. JENSEN: On the driveway side .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the north side
5 of the deck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone
6 else here that wishes to speak on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
7 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
9 North Fork Realty in the hamlet business zone in
Southold. You wish to change a roof line?
10 MR. SHANNON: Kevin Shannon for JKJ, North
Fork Realty. I'm here to answer any questions .
11 It started out as a repair, and as we ripped off
the seven layers, a lot of the roof was rotted.
12 All we did was really, the building is split in
two and one side was peaked so we took the peak
13 over to the other side, it was actually the best
way to repair the roof in terms of getting water
14 off the roof and not creating any snow drifts or
anything like that .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
problems . Jerry?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I again have to
write this decision, and in looking at it, I'm
17 dealing with a second floor as being an area -- I
don' t have the numbers in front of me -- but the
18 back of it you have doors going on the second
story into what I assume is somewhat of a storage
19 area; is that correct?
MR. SHANNON: Yes, on the first story you
20 mean?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the second
21 story. I have roof over existing or existing roof
no change in the rear of the property; do you want
22 to look at this?
MR. SHANNON: That' s part of the area
23 there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that' s
24 usable area?
MR. SHANNON: Yes, and that' s flat .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s flat?
MR. SHANNON: Yes .
March 3 , 2005
30
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what are we
actually producing then, this area in here as a
3 second story?
MR. SHANNON: No, it' s existing. All we
4 did was in trying to replace a portion of the roof
that was terrible so we ripped that off, and in
5 replacing it we peaked, if you look at the
building on the left side, the same as the
6 building on the right side, and there' s a flat
portion in the back --
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Weren' t you trying to
make that peak so that you get a better water
8 drainage?
MR. SHANNON: I 'm sorry, if it peaks off
9 the -- the back portion I think is the storage
area -- is this the whole second floor?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the
whole second floor.
11 MR. SHANNON: I suspect this is the front .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what the
12 problem is with the plan
MR. SHANNON: This is the front .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the front
porch?
14 MR. SHANNON: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what are
15 these depicting windows or doors?
MR. SHANNON: Those were doors which are
16 probably going to be --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Replaced by a
17 windows?
MR. SHANNON: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So again, this
doesn' t exist .
19 MR. SHANNON: No . I'm sorry, this does
exist . This side of the building comes all the
20 way forward to the street . This side has a
porch.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
MR. SHANNON: So this is showing an
22 internal wall with doors leading into this room.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that room
23 does exist?
MR. SHANNON: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because of the
nature of the very, very close nonconforming side
25 yard, in my proposition of writing this decision,
my concern is water runoff toward the neighbor' s
March 3 , 2005
31
1
2 property. So I'm going to ask you to contain that
water runoff to the best of your ability.
3 MR. SHANNON: I think we've done that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll come down
4 and look at that again, all right?
MR. SHANNON: Yes .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
6 You' re not going beyond the footprint, you' re just
doing a second story renovation?
7 MR. SHANNON: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The water runoff
was my concern too, so please have him address
10 that with dry wells or something.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
11 put . My last question is what is the second story
going to be used for?
12 MR. SHANNON: Hopefully we' re going to
rent it out for a business office .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
14 in this audience who wishes to speak on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
15 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
17 Mr. Schetman in Orient . Is there someone here to
speak on behalf of this application?
18 MS . MOORE : We have Mr. and Mrs . Schetman
and the architect here . Good morning, for the
19 record, I 'm Pat Moore 51020 Main Road in
Southold.
20 I have Mr. and Mrs . Schetman here and the
architect here as well to go over the plans if you
21 have any questions . They were very kind to
provide me with a large photograph of the house,
22 which I ' ll refer to, as well as a visual of what a
neighbor, what the public would see from the
23 street .
So I would start off with I know that you
24 have received a letter from a neighbor, and I
. believe you got a follow-up letter after a meeting
25 that Mr. Schetman had with the neighbor, and I
believe his concerns at least as far as
March 3 , 2005
32
1
2 understanding why the notice of disapproval, we
are not asking for a second dwelling on this
3 property.
The house right now is a single-family
4 house . It has historic value in that it was
relocated. It' s an 1800s house and it was
5 relocated from another site . I know Chairman
Oliva is very familiar with Orient but for the
6 benefit of the others of you, the house was moved
to this site, and Dr. Schetman pointed out that
7 this house originally had two wings on it . There
would have been at the original site, it had the
8 wing that' s showing today. It also had a wing on
the other side . So there was a reconfiguration of
9 the original house when it was moved to this
site . The Schetmans loved the house dearly. They
10 have invested an enormous amount of money to bring
the house up to its condition today. They have
11 planted enormous amounts of vegetation. Mrs . .
Schetman is an avid gardener, and you can see from
12 the look of the property that it is very
beautifully vegetated and there are some
13 additional natural vegetation that I' d like to
show you in the next panel (indicating) . You can
14 see that this is the street, the private road that
is the common road to the few houses that are
15 developed in the small community, and the house
right now is right here . This portion is the
16 porch, the screened-in porch, that was added
within the last two years . And the reason why
17 there has been a great deal of thought in how this
addition was going to be built is they just spent
18 a good deal of money on this screened-in porch.
It' s very lovely, very useful, and it would be a
19 shame to remove it in order to build the
additional living space .
20 On the other side of the property you can
see that the pool is on the other side of the
21 property, the east side of the property, and it
wouldn' t make sense really to extend additional
22 living space on the opposite side as an extension
of the wing on the easterly wing, that would just
23 compromise the architectural integrity of the
structure, so that would not be an option.
24 Given the architectural design of the
property, the architect and the owners planned an
25 addition in the back, which I equated to a typical
New England charge house type of addition. It' s
March 3 , 2005
33
1
2 intended to be matching in character in
architectural style, matching shingles, white, and
3 I ' ll have the architect describe in more detail
the design. But you can see from the footprint
4 that the addition will be placed right behind some
very large natural evergreens,. So the architect
5 placed it in silhouette in a sense from a
perspective of where a neighbor might be standing
6 if he was standing in front of his house . You can
see the silhouette, the addition is going to be
7 behind the vegetation, so you will not see
anything. It' s still very private . There is also
8 a shed that is towards the end of the vegetative
line of evergreens and that is being removed. So
9 again, they' re improving on the property.
If there is further need to vegetate and
10 screen from view this addition, certainly, they
are willing to do that . It may not be needed, but
11 if it is, they' re willing to plant some more
evergreens to the south side of the property.
12 At this. point, I think it would be helpful
to address any questions you. might have . I think
13 the photographs speak for themselves . We also
have what' s in your file already is .a footprint,
14 and, just for the record again, because this
information wasn' t provided to you, the Building
15 Department didn' t have an issue with lot coverage,
but you should know for the record that the
16 proposed addition is 1, 074 square feet . The
existing lot coverage is at 4 . 64 percent; with the
17 addition, the total lot coverage of this property
will be 6 . 22 percent . So this property is very
18 reasonable in its lot coverage . That wasn' t an
issue for the Building Department, but certainly
19 with respect to other considerations you might
have, it' s relatively small change to the
20 footprint .
Also a small clarification, we provided
21 interior layouts of the first story, which is the
garage, and at the time wasn' t there but it was
22 identified as a storage potting shed area, Mrs .
Schetman again is an avid gardener, so she' s
23 constantly planting and storage of chemicals and
storage of materials for her hobby, and what they
24 had proposed to do, and it didn' t show on your
plans, is that there' s going to be a partitioned
25 wall to isolate some of the chemical storage, the
topsoil and that kind of stuff . So that' s the
March 3 , 2005
34
1
2 only change, it has no impact on the application,
but for clarification, the first story is garage,
3 including the potting area, storage shed then
obviously there has to be a connection to the
4 existing house in such a way that, again, it keeps
to the architectural character of the house, the
5 existing structure connecting to the new addition.
With respect to the second floor, no
6 kitchen, obviously, there' s what we call a family
room, the living room, it was identified as a
7 living room, but it' s really a family room. The
existing house, and when the architect came to the
8 existing house is an 1800s construction. It' s
very small . Everything is compact, it' s very
9 quaint, but it does leave some room for kind of
today' s living style, computer age and kids and
10 all the activity that occurs, you need to have
some privacy. And this living space will provide
11 a family room without compromising the original
structure . And then provide a guest room. The
12 separation of the guest room from the family room
by virtue of the bathroom and the closet will
13 enable a guest to come to stay and be in the guest
room while the family room you can still have
14 activity going on in there . So that' s why it was
designed the way it was . It' s a typical addition
15 if you 'were to place an addition on anybody' s
property, a family room addition with an extra
16 bedroom for guests .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How large is that
17 breezeway, and is it going to be heated?
MS . MOORE : The problem is it' s not really
18 a breezeway.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is it then?
19 MS . MOORE : I ' ll have the architect
explain, very briefly. It' s a connection, a
20 heated connection in front of the --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you please go to
21 the mike and give your name?
MS . HELFAND: Good morning, my name is
22 Margaret Helfand, and I'm working with the
Schetmans on this project . The firm name is
23 Helfand Architecture . I'm also a part time
resident of Orient, so I'm quite familiar with the
24 wonderful history of the area, which is why I 'm
there in the first place . And I'm the proud owner
25 of one of the homes in the historic district in
downtown Orient .
March 3 , 2005
35
1
2 Let me just explain the breezeway
connection, which I will point to. There' s an
3 existing screen porch, as was just described, and
we are proposing to put as small a link as
4 possible in front of that to allow us to have a
common entryway for the main part of the house
5 that will connect into the family room area and
guest quarters . So we have a very narrow passage
6 that' s around five feet wide and it extends the
length of the screened porch and then a few feet
7 further to allow us to separate this new carriage
house structure from the screen porch and the main
8 house . Although this means more construction for
the Schetman family, it does allow us to create a
9 better architectural solution which separates this
house from the original historic house . And it' s
10 been our intent to create as sensitive as possible
an extension to this historic structure . So
11 that' s the explanation for this other little
link.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Will that passageway be
heated?
13 MS . HELFAND: No. Because it' s contiguous
with the screened porch.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When I was there the
screened porch also had windows in it, no?
15 MS . HELFAND: They' re just wind break and
they' re not -- no, this is not a heated structure .
16 MS . MOORE : That' s actually why we' re
here . The Building Department said if the
17 screened porch was heated, it would be a standard
addition to an existing residence, but to heat the
18 screened porch is a waste of money for the
Schetman family because they like the screen porch
19 to use in the summer time as a non-heated area.
It' s their summer residence in a sense . So to
20 have it heated seems like several thousands of
dollars to spend to satisfy the Building
21 Department rather than because it' s a utilitarian
value for the family. It made more sense to come
22 in and ask for relief from that position of the
code because why waste the money. We' re here
23 anyway with regard to the front yard setbacks, so
we might as well try to keep everything as it is
24 functioning. And ask that this heated connection,
this heated space be allowed to be connected to an
25 unheated space, which is just a technical quirk in
our code .
March 3 , 2005
36
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I caught myself
3 wondering why you didn' t just heat that thing.
MS . HELFAND: Let me talk to that from a
4 technical standpoint, because we did discuss it
because that we did realize that would relieve
5 some of the concerns and issues as far as the
zoning resolution goes .
6 First of all, and I think most
importantly, the room is there because that' s
7 where they live in the summer, and to not have it
as a screened porch doesn' t really answer the
8 program, as we call it in architecture . The
second thing that I can explain, again from a
9 technical standpoint, is to create that as a
heated space and comply with all the New York
10 State energy requirements, we would need to
dismantle the entire structure to insulate it and
11 change some of the foundation because it was
really built as a porch and there are different
12 requirements for porches and heated space .
MS . MOORE : Also window treatments, to
13 heat the space, you now have to comply with window
hurricane resistant window standards .
14 MS . HELFAND: So that really means you
dismantle the entire structure to heat it . It
15 seems like not a huge thing to do, but, in fact,
it' s a substantial undertaking.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the addition will
be heated?
17 MS . HELFAND: The addition is heated for
the habitable space not the ground floor.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just the upstairs?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a number of
19 questions, I find some of it confusing. Having
lived much of my life in New England I'm very
20 familiar with the notion of a carriage house .
It' s a stretch to use that analogy, that may not
21 be very important . It does raise another
question, a carriage house, in what it comes to
22 mean in the northeast, is a separate dwelling. In
fact, first of all it' s a separate building,
23 traditionally it' s over the garage . Historically
it was over the barn where the horses were kept .
24 But the idea of building an addition to your
existing house which is continuous with it and
25 calling it a carriage house does raise the
question of is it really going to be a one-family
March 3 , 2005
37
1
2 house . I have no evidence except for this
terminological quirk.
3 MS . MOORE : Then I would withdraw that
description of a carriage house . In my mind a
4 carriage house in New England Vermont where I
usually hang out, is part of a barn, and most of
5 the barns in New England are connected because of
the weather. You can' t get through the snow
6 drifts to get to your horse, your cows or whatever
without a connection. So forgive me, I don' t want
7 to imply any kind of thought that this is going to
be a second dwelling.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I want to talk about
something perhaps more substantive . The breezeway
9 or quote, breezeway, is in fact a connection.
When you say the family lives there in the summer,
10 you mean essentially spend their time there . It' s
not a living space; there' s no bedrooms or
11 anything like that?
MS . MOORE: I'm sorry. Correct, the
12 screened-in porch is connected to the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in effect, you' re
13 building an addition to the house which is
separated from the rest of the house by this
14 screened-in porch?
MS . MOORE : Right.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask how many
square feet, upstairs, downstairs now exists and
16 how many will exist once this project is complete?
MS . HELFAND: The total area should be on
17 here . The main house certainly it' s around 2 , 500
square feet .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 2 , 500 square feet?
MS . HELFAND: And the addition --
19 MS . MOORE: That' s including the
screened-in porch.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would exclude it,
but it wouldn' t include the garage, I would
21 assume .
MS . HELFAND: That' s existing, there' s no
22 garage . The habitable area of the existing house
is about 2 , 500 square feet and we' re adding about
23 1, 000 feet of habitable space and about 1, 000 feet
of garage and ancillary downstairs unheated
24 space .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . So the only
25 heating in the addition will be on the second
floor?
March 3 , 2005
38
1
2 MS . HELFAND: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And how will that be
3 heated?
MS . HELFAND: We are at the moment
4 debating between heat pumps, which would be our
preference, and gas fired furnace system.
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A separate furnace
from the rest of the house?
6 MS . HELFAND: Absolutely. There' s a lot
of concern about energy issues as well here . So
7 they can operate that independently.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t have a
9 particular problem with the whole thing except
your scaled drawing shows your addition garage
10 actually taller than the original house to the
ridge . That gives me a perspective that it' s not
11 in proportion, that the extension is much higher,
garage is higher than the house . I think for an
12 historical house that would just be out of
character in my opinion.
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Either way, I ' d
like to see that come down to the same height,
14 same ridge . What is the height of the existing
house to the ridge?
15 MS . HELFAND: Well, we have the median.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Either way I would
16 like to see the ridges the same, there would be
more symmetry.
17 MS . MOORE : Let us answer that before you
come to that conclusion because there' s a
18 technical problem with that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Technical problems
19 can be fixed, we know that .
MS . HELFAND: We wish. The existing house
20 is one and-a-half stories . The second floor is
kind of a habitable attic, if you will . You could
21 not build that house today because the eve line is
about four feet . The interior, where the ceiling
22 meets the wall is around four feet. The current
state code requires you to not be under six foot
23 eight . So we are as low as we can be in the
addition.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: How high is your
garage ceiling?
25 MS . HELFAND: The garage ceiling is eight
feet .
March 3 , 2005
39
1
2 MS . MOORE: We have the median at 20' 6"
on the addition, which is significantly below the
3 35 foot .
MS . HELFAND: Let me answer the question
4 about the difference in heights . The difference
in eves line on the ceiling between the two
5 buildings is three feet, because one is at four
feet, the other is at 61811 , closer to seven.
6 We've actually pushed the first floor of the
addition down about 18 inches to help reduce the -
7 height of the ridge, so the actual difference
between the two now is 18 inches, and we can go
8 another --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you need by code
9 to have the ceiling of the garage eight feet?
It' s just a garage, not living space .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Fairly
impractical, sheetrock is sheetrock. They' d have
11 to cut every board they put in there .
MS . HELFAND: Right now our eve line is at
12 seven feet, what we can do, and I 've been
discussing this with the Schetmans to make sure
13 that this is acceptable to them, we can drop
another four inches and still be within the State
14 code . We would be happy if we could go under 6 ' 8 "
because it creates more of a traditional interior
15 with the low eve line, but unfortunately to do
that we' re in trouble with the State code . And we
16 would have to go to them for a variance . If you
could grant the variance, that would be fabulous
17 but I know you can' t . So we' re prepared to go
another four inches .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You can' t reduce
the pitch of the garage?
19 MS . HELFAND: We looked at it, and --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it wasn' t you
20 couldn' t do it, you didn' t like the appearance .
MS . HELFAND: Well, the appearance is what
21 this is all about ultimately.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The appearance of
22 the garage higher than the house is out of
character.
23 MS . HELFAND: But a flatter roof is also
out of character.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : But it will be
hidden behind the evergreens, so no one' s going to
25 see that .
MS . MOORE : But so is the height of the
March 3 , 2005
40
1
2 whole structure, so why bastardize the
architectural design.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But from the front
you can see it .
4 MS . HELFAND: We have matched the slope of
the original house . That has been our goal . We
5 can make it a lower, flatter roof shape, but if
you look around at buildings, and if you get a
6 glimpse -- the highest part of the building is the
most visible thing you see, I just feel and the
7 Schetmans also feel that' s a little out of
character, and they' re really trying to work with
8 the architectural integrity of this new structure
and keep it in tune with the original house .
9 MS . MOORE: It' s only four inches and that
brings it down to 14 inches difference, the
10 difference between the two peaks .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just wanted to
11 clarify what the total height, once again, of the
existing and the proposed with the new addition,
12 you said 20' 8" --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The mean in the old.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What would the new
be?
14 MS.. MOORE : That is the new.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the
15 existing mean height then?
MS . MOORE : The existing structure is 18
16 inches below. Again, it' s not a full second story
per se .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And to the top of
the ridge it would be approximately what height
18 then? About another five feet higher, would you
say? We just need it for the record.
19 MS . HELFAND : Approximately.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not even
there in reference to height in this presentation
21 and I 'm going to tell you why. The reason why the
code is so explicit regarding additions for --
22 you' re going to call it a breezeway, I'm referring
to it as a link, it' s a link between one structure
23 and another structure, there is no link unless
that structure -- and this has nothing to do with
24 the Schetmans who appear to be very, very nice
people -- is heated and part of the original
25 house . I don' t care if it' s added as a separate
building and you leave the porch area as it
March 3 , 2005
41
1
2 exists, and my suggestion to you is that that is
the only way you will garner my vote for this
3 application, regardless of the word "carriage
house, " a house or building succinct from,
4 regardless, either way. It has got to be added to
the house . It has got to be part of the new
5 structure . So that has to be heated along with
the second floor, if you' re considering it to be
6 living area of this particular area. There' s no
other way. And the reason why the code is so
7 explicit is in the 180s the word "trellises, "
"breezeways, " et cetera, were abused. And that is
8 the reason why the code reads as it is today. And
that' s Number 1 .
9 Number 2 , in the sophistication in the
heating systems that exist today, there is no
10 reason why that particular link can' t have heating
below the surface of the room and that same
11 heating be used for the second story of the new
proposed area, radiant heating.
12 MS . MOORE: Are you talking about --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm referring to
13 the link.
MS . MOORE : Just the new portion in front
14 of the screened-in porch?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct .
15 MS . MOORE : That little --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we
16 discussed this two years 'ago, Mrs . Moore, on a
house in Nassau Point on Broadwaters Road, if I 'm
17 not mistaken, okay.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you don' t want
18 the screened-in porch to be heated, but the
breezeway?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
reason for the screened-in porch to be heated, but
20 the breezeway -- which is not a breezeway, it' s a
link because it is part of the existing house .
21 The breezeway is normally a phrase used for a
building that is open on three sides .
22 MS . MOORE : I will wait until the
Schetmans have -- but I don' t think that solves
23 the problems because assuming that it was
acceptable, because I don' t know how they feel,
24 you still don' t have the old building, which the
original, the heated portion, habitable portion,
25 you still have a wall, maybe a ' five foot wall,
eight feet between the new corridor, the heated
March 3 , 2005
42
1
2 corridor, and the existing structure because you
still have that screened-in porch that' s there .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Referring to the
interpretation of the building inspector?
4 MS . MOORE : Right.. So if we were to make
that compromise about heating that corridor space,
5 then we' d still need to understand that what
you' re granting us, the Building Department still
6 wouldn' t consider that to be the solution because
you still have that unheated space between it .
7 Whether the Building Department would consider
that a breezeway or not .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not a
breezeway. It' s a solarium if it' s anything.
9 MS . MOORE: I know it' s not a
breezeway. But maybe the porch that' s only got
10 less than 10 feet between it, would they consider
it a breezeway or not .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But otherwise, Pat,
according to the code if it' s not heated, you' re
12 really having two separate buildings .
MS . MOORE : I disagree .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be an
accessory building
14 MS . MOORE : I disagree because the reason
that we' re here for the variance is that the
15 Building Department, when you have a heated space
connected to an unheated space, they look at it as
16 a second dwelling. What I say is we don' t have a
kitchen, it' s not a second dwelling, it' s all
17 connected, it' s an integrated space, and it' s
really no different than servants quarters or
18 whatever you used to do when you had one area
segregated from another.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Pat, we have
nothing in the code as to guest cottages .
20 MS . MOORE: They' re connected.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unless it' s heated to
21 me, it' s not connected. It' s two separate
buildings, two separate living areas .
22 MS . MOORE: We' re drafting and revising as
we speak here .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll let Jerry speak to
that in a minute .
24 MS . MOORE : Jerry, can I show you what
we' re thinking about?
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you have
to go to the Building Department with this anyway
March 3 , 2005
43
1
2 prior to us closing this hearing. So you probably
can do that today.
3 MS . MOORE : I can walk it over. This is
heated space . We have to connect it to this
4 heated space . So what we would have to do is some
kind of a length between the two, whether it' s the
5 whole way or whatever portion of it . So we have
to take some portion of the screened-in porch and
6 heat it to connect it to the other heated space .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . The
7 other question I had is why are you boxing in this
porch; why aren' t you taking this line and going
8 all the way across with it? I realize it
encroaches a little bit more into the tree area
9 and going straight across with it . Instead of
creating this little jog in here .
10 MS . HELFAND: We were trying to minimize .
MS . MOORE: We had no problem with it .
11 That would have been a logical --
MS . HELFAND: Wait a minute, wait a
12 minute . We were also trying to not interfere with
these trees .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care .
It doesn' t make any difference to me . I was just
14 wondering why you did that .
MS . MOORE : If you wanted to put up to
15 whatever that distance is, and we could then, when
we' re on site, as long as the contractors don' t,
16 because certainly there' s backfill required and we
don' t want to compromise those beautiful trees .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t either
because we want them as screening.
18 MS . MOORE: Right . So if the Board wants
to push us towards the front yard setbacks by two
19 feet, whether or not we use it, we have the
discretion of not using it and therefore, I don' t
20 think the Building Department would care if we are
less than the maximum variance that the Board
21 allows .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So how many square
22 feet of added space would you be adding to the
proposal?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 5 . 7 times
whatever the distance of that link is .
24 MS . MOORE : Why don' t we supply you after
the hearing with a drawing, the footprint we gave
25 you originally of where the actual corridor, so
you can have it in your file .
March 3 , 2005
44
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone
else in the audience that wishes to speak on this
. 3 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later,
4 pending the review, your permission from the
Building Department .
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Bruce
Garritano, who wishes to have a bed and breakfast
7 in East Marion. Is there anyone here who wishes
to speak on behalf of this application? What
8 would you like to tell us?
MR. GARRITANO: Good morning, I would like
9 to tell you that I'm applying for a B and B
application at 8100 Main Road in East Marion.
10 The Board has come down and reviewed the
property. I had applied for five units, they had
11 made a recommendation for four. I have agreed
with that recommendation, and I am hoping to
12 proceed forward with this application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our problem is that our
13 code does not address guest suites . It is really
primarily for a bed and breakfast, and you have
14 come back and forth several times with different
arrangements of your suites and your rooms .
15 I would suggest that you come back to us
with really what we want to see is really just a
16 bed and breakfast of no more than five bedrooms
that are internally connected, and also we do have
17 a question about that stairway.
MR. GARRITANO: About what stairway, the
18 existing stairway in the back?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The rear stairway
19 cannot be an entrance to a bedroom.
MR. GARRITANO: Okay. That is the owner' s
20 suite . That is my room, a sitting room and a
bedroom there .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir. When we were
there you said you wanted the downstairs, then you
22 came back the next day and wanted the upstairs .
MR. GARRITANO: I' ll take the upstairs to
23 simplify. And the other room only has the sitting
room. There' s only one room aside from the
24 owner' s quarters that has a sitting room. And we
do have rooms that accommodate more than two
25 people, you have people that come out here from
all over the world, that come out with a husband,
March 3 , 2005
45
1
2 wife and a child, and they need room to set up
their crib or whatever.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you,
Mr. Garritano, but our code specifically says bed
4 and breakfast . It doesn' t say efficiency or suite
and breakfast .
5 MR. GARRITANO : Okay. If the wall is
removed in between those two units in the back,
6 the two that you are considering suites, they' re
sitting rooms but you' re considering them suites,
7 if I take that wall out adjoining the bedroom with
the sitting room on those back two units, will
8 that then work for the Board? Will that work if
that wall comes out and it becomes one big room
9 instead of two small rooms?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And then you' ll still
10 have the suite upstairs?
MR. GARRITANO: Yes .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the downstairs
would just take that wall out also and then that
12 would be one large room? That would be
preferable .
13 MR. GARRITANO: Okay. We would love to do
that .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see what
everybody else has to say. Jerry?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know,
Ruth, I did not see the interior of this, but if
16 that is okay with you, it' s okay with me .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we would need a
17 revised plan.
MR. GARRITANO: Absolutely.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I didn' t go inside
19 either, I just was outside of it . Can you clarify
which walls you were talking about taking down?
20 MR. GARRITANO : Certainly. First floor
right here is a small bedroom, we' re going to take
21 this whole wall out . There' s no electric, no
phone, nothing in this wall . We' re going to take
22 this out and make this one large room. We' ll do
the exact same thing on the second floor. Right
23 here there' s a wall here and take that right
out . There' s no electric in the wall .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also the two bedrooms
that you have on the top floor will have a shared
25 bathroom?
MR. GARRITANO: Yes . Those two will have
March 3 , 2005
46
1
2 a shared bathroom and the other two will have
their own bathrooms .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now that you have
4 moved upstairs from what you told us and showed us
several days ago and agreed to turn suites into
5 large rooms, I am not aware that these objections
have not been answered. I think the objections do
6 seem to be answered.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I prefer that he
not have to remove the walls . I am familiar with
8 this house growing up in the area, as a kid and
hanging out down there, that you' re going to find
9 a bearing wall there .
MR. GARRITANO : Actually that is not a
10 bearing wall .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re
11 comfortable with that, I'm comfortable with it .
MR. GARRITANO: I' d rather not take down
12 the walls, I' d rather have two room suites, one
for myself and one for a guest that has children,
13 but if the Board would like me to go ahead and
take down those walls, they' re two by three
14 construction, they' re not bearing to anything
whatsoever, and we can easily take those walls
15 down.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have
16 anything else?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I want to
17 explain to the applicant a special exception is a
special permit . Everything has to be perfect by
18 this Board for it to be approved and the Board
does have a right, apart from what one colleague
19 may have -- and this is not sarcastic to my
colleague -- we can pull that permit at any time .
20 So we want you to come up with a plan that we
appear to have a compromise on, and we need that
21 permit to be standard when the decision is
granted.
22 MR. GARRITANO: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
in this audience that wishes to speak on this
24 application? Yes, sir.
MR. ZIZZO: My name is Joseph Zizzo. I
25 own the house across the street from the building
in question at 8245 Main Road. I would just like
March 3 , 2005
47
1
2 . to give you something from an ad Mr. Garritano put
in the Suffolk Times, if I may? This is an aerial
3 photograph of the three properties Mr. Garritano
owns . It would imply to the casual viewer that
4 they' re all of a piece, which they' re not . Local
residents and I have been suffering with what I
5 would .call a pushing of the envelope of the zoning
regulations as I understand them for a
6 resort/residential . Mr. Garritano closed on his
property a couple of months before I closed on
7 mine, and let me assure you had I known what the
gentleman planned to do with that property,
8 there' s no way in the world I would have ever
bought my house.
9 Currently, Mr. Garritano is operating a
night club on the property, which is composed of a
10 tent with outdoor amplified music, which can
sometimes be heard for a mile away. Now, I am
11 right across --
MR. GARRITANO: This has nothing to do
12 with the application at hand.
MR. ZIZZO: It does .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do agree with
Mr. Garritano. If you want to complain about the
14 other, then you will have to take that before the
Town Board for some sort of noise ordinance or
15 call the police for the disturbing of the peace .
But the Blue Dolphin has nothing to do with this
16 one application. It is merely that one house on
the corner.
17 MR. ZIZZO: I understand. I agree with
you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I heard complaints
about that, but that is not under our jurisdiction
19 today --
MR. ZIZZO: I understand that . The only
20 point with respect that I'm trying to make is that
Mr. Garritano' s been pushing the envelope in terms
21 of zoning where he already is, and there is no
reason to believe that that won' t be the case in
22 the new home .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can assure you that
23 if we grant that bed and breakfast that it can be
inspected every month if necessary. Okay?
24 MR. ZIZZO: Sure, I understand that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll have a permission
25 or not have a permission for a bed and breakfast
and nothing else, and this is the only thing
March 3 , 2005
48
1
2 before us today, and I don' t want to hear any
comments about anything else .
3 MR. ZIZZO: Can I just comment on
Mr. Dinizio' s --
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MR. Z,IZZO: Then I would just say in
5 conclusion then that we as neighbors feel that the
granting of this bed and breakfast would
6 substantially change the character of the area,
would continue to substantially change the
7 character of the area, which has already been
going on for three years, and we feel it' s one
8 more step in transforming what was a quiet,
residential area into a very busy, loud business
9 district . And we feel it' s being done quietly and
slowly, but we feel that this bed and breakfast --
10 not talking about anything else -- but this bed
and breakfast is just yet another step in
11 transforming this area from a quiet residential
neighborhood into a loud, busy business district .
12 That' s why we oppose the bed and breakfast . We' re
going to have increased traffic . We' re going to
13 have increased noise . I have had people by
Mr. Garritano' s establishment --
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t want to hear
about any of his other --
15 MR. ZIZZO: -- excuse me -- fighting on my
lawn with police car headlights shining in my
16 front window. Now, ' I'm from Brooklyn and that
doesn' t shock me, but I was hoping that in East
17 Marion I could get away from that . And my fear is
that, ma' am, that the same thing is going to
18 continue to go on in the bed and breakfast . I
understand in your mind it is not an expansion,
19 but trust me, if you lived across the street, you
would see it very clearly as an expansion, and I
20 only ask you to look at that photocopy as proof
that it is an expansion of the Blue Dolphin. And
21 any denial of that cannot be taken seriously.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your objections will be
22 noted. Thank you for coming.
MR. GARRITANO: Can I make one comment on
23 that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm only concerning
24 your bed and breakfast .
MR. GARRITANO : These people who are
25 complaining bought houses on a state highway where
a million passengers pass by their front door.
March 3 , 2005
49
1
2 Barbara and Robin' s house is 30 feet from a state
highway where a million passengers pass there
3 front door, 18 wheelers, motorcycles, everything
else . The noise from 7 :45 in the morning to 11 :45
4 at night .
MR. ZIZZO: From Saturday --
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do not want to hear
this .
6 MR. GARRITANO: The Blue Dolphin has been
doing the same thing since 1957 .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are out of
order. Sir, sir, you will sit down. If you have
8 any comments about the bed and breakfasts, fine .
I don' t want to hear anything else . Ma' am.
9 MS . IMANDT: Robin Imandt, I live at 7835
Main Road, East Marion. All I would like to say
10 is that from that ad that we passed around, it
clearly shows that Mr. Garritano is referring to
11 those other two properties as part of the Blue
Dolphin resorts . It' s clear. So my point is that
12 to me it seems obvious that this bed and breakfast
will be absorbed into the main section originally
13 called the Blue Dolphin Motel . I know you don' t
want to talk about the Blue Dolphin, I'm .just
14 saying if you look at that photograph that they
prepared, they' re clearly stating from that
15 photograph that the bed and breakfast, private
residence, which Mr. Garritano does not live in
16 now, I don' t know if that' s what he' s saying, is
part of that parcel . So all I 'm saying is that.
17 the problems that we' re having with the property
that we' re not going to be discussing here, we
18 could be having with that because it' s clearly
stating from their photograph that they are
19 calling this the Blue Dolphin Resort .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ma' am, again, I'm
20 saying we control the bed and breakfast . We can
inspect it at any time we so desire . He has to
21 meet special conditions in that special exception
permit, and if he doesn' t meet it, he' s out .
22 MS . IMANDT: And I assume there' s no
entertainment or music allowed?
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s nothing in
there at all .
24 MS . IMANDT: Hopefully that' s what will
happen.
25 MR. ZIZZO: Will the patrons of this
nightclub at the Blue Dolphin be able to park on
March 3 , 2005
50
1
2 the property of the B and B?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The B and B is only for
3 the residents of the B and B . We can put that in
our conditions .
4 MR. ZIZZO: As a homeowner I put close to
$100, 000 into my house . The property values have
5 not kept pace around this lovely establishment . I
would just like to know what the recourse is
6 should that start to be used as parking for the
nightclub.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We could be very
specific with that . All right, is there anybody
8 else wants to make any comments on the
application?
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a quick
question for Mr. Garritano, do you plan on
10 residing in that house?
MR. GARRITANO : Yes, I do, absolutely.
11 And last year we had 14, 000 guests that shopped in
your shops and drank in your wineries and ate in
12 your restaurants, and on the south side there' s
3 , 500 rooms, and on the north side there' s 350
13 rooms . There is a need for housing for the
transient people who come and stay in our
14 community. None of these people live off of the
tourism dollars that are out here . Blue Dolphin
15 was for sale for many years --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re here for the
16 application
MR. GARRITANO: B and B application is
17 what I 'm here for today, and I knew they would
bring up this issue .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re running late .
Thank you very much for your thoughts .
19 MS . IMANDT: Does he have to live in the
space in order for it to qualify?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
21 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
23 for Janice and Bill Claudio about a set off on
Gull Pond Lane .
24 MS . MOORE : Mr. and Mrs . Claudio are here
today, and we are here to get a variance for the
25 lot sizes for a proposed subdivision of this
parcel into two parcels that each parcel will
March 3 , 2005
51
1
2 result in a lot that is at least an acre each.
What we had provided for this Board in the
3 packet submitted to you, the written packet, is a
colored rendering showing where the parcel is, how
4 the surrounding homes are developed on this
property. And you can see from the colored
5 rendering that this area has been developed fully,
this lot is one of a five lot subdivision that was
6 done at one time, where conservation area was on
the north, Lot 12 . 1 and 12 . 4 are oversized large
7 parcels . The owners are here today. I happen to
know them very well . They have done a wonderful
8 job, one has a log home on it . . These lots have
covenants and restrictions that prevent further
9 development . 12 . 8 I believe is the only other lot
that came from that subdivision, and then this
10 parcel as well .
There was at one time, and there was some
11 confusion, there was a lot line change in 186 that
took some of the land from 12 . 8 and added it to
12 12 . 6 , there was an exchange of some land, and that
is the configuration that showed on the tax map
13 for some time as two separate tax numbers is
actually one lot, it' s 12 . 9, and I think you have
14 a letter from me trying to clarify that
chronological tax map issuance .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 12 . 6 and 12 . 7
are one .
16 MS . MOORE : 12 . 6 and 12 . 7 are now 12 . 9 and
is one parcel, and that' s the parcel we' re dealing
17 with.
The. applicant was able to obtain here, the
18 Claudios did a very nice job here on a tax map
that shows the actual lot sizes of all the
19 parcels . It' s very impressive as you can see from
this diagram, it' s taking the tax map then
20 identifying the actual acreage of all the parcels .
The zoning line really falls exactly at this
21 parcel . To the north along what are designated
16 , up to the north and east are zoned one acre,
22 this parcel to the west is zoned two acre, but
this parcel is adjacent to a one acre zoning
23 district . You can see the way the code was
adopted at one time we didn' t go below one acre,
24 and every single parcel to the east is on average
half the size of one acre zoning, and we similarly
25 want to take this parcel, which is directly
adjacent to the one acre zoning district, and make
March 3 ; 2005
52
1
2 each lot one acre .
So we are taking this waterfront parcel,
3 we gave you a survey that shows that the parcel
can be developed with two building sites . When we
4 are finished with you, we go back to the Planning
Board and the Planning Board designates the
5 building envelopes on each parcel . So we will go
back to them and have them identify front yard,
6 side yard, rear yard setbacks, as they often do on
lots when they' re created. So that' s our next
7 step in this process assuming this Board will
agree with us that this property will not change
8 the character of the area and can be subdivided
into two.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a
10 clarification anyway. Can you tell me, according
to the zoning map, it looks like there' s a line
11 there now; is that line going to change?
MS . MOORE: On the 12 . 6 and 12 . 7? Yes,
12 that line doesn' t technically exist anymore .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But it was there?
13 MS . MOORE : It was there and originally
when we looked at it, it had me stumped for quite
14 some time because it looked like it was a waiver
of merger issue, but, in fact, it was due to , a lot
15 line change that at the end of a lot line change
you do confirmation deeds that take -- when you
16 take a little from one, give it to another, you do
a confirmation deed that takes the entire
17 perimeter of the new parcel as it' s been added to
or subtracted from. That was never done here
18 until recently. So when 12 . 9 once that was done
got re-established.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When was that done?
MS . MOORE : I think last year.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Until that time it
was two separate --
21 MS . MOORE : Two separate tax lot numbers
that were merged. But actually merged not just
22 because of title, it was merged because it was a
lot line change application which was the
23 condition of that particular agreement was we' re
going to merge those two properties, and, in fact,
24 they effectuated the lot line change . So Marcus
took some of Brader' s property, merged it, and
25 Brader took some of Marcus' s property and merged
it . And that was the agreement, it got approved
March 3 , 2005
53
1
2 and was done . It just took a long time to get
that last deed done to get the appropriate tax map
3 number. So what we' re dealing with now is the
total acreage of 12 . 6 and 12 . 7 as shown on this
4 map.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do I understand that
5 the east-west line on the old map is going to be
replaced by a north-south line if they get their
6 variance?
MS . MOORE: No.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
MS . MOORE : Let me come up to you, if
8 that' s all right . The map is in your packet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So only one of them
9 is going to be on the water.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They both are .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re going to
11 make them equal in square footage?
MS . MOORE : That' s the goal unless the
12 Planning Board prefers otherwise, but your
variance, we have 40, 913 , Lot 1, and 41, 000 as Lot
13 2 , those two are pretty even.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Close, equal size
14 lots, and if I look at the map you gave us today,
it looks like it' s probably, each one of those
15 lots would be twice the size of most of the lots
in the area.
16 MS . MOORE : Yes, correct, adjacent lots
included.
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To the west, those
lots, a couple of those lots, those large ones are
18 preserved?
MS . MOORE : The one that' s preserved is
19 identified as 12 . 3 on that map. Lot 12 . 1 and 12 . 4
are right now improved, the 12 . 1 has the house .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If I read the
record right, they' re restricted from further
21 subdivision?
MS . MOORE : Correct .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: By covenant?
MS . MOORE : By Planning Board covenants,
23 yes, and they were very specific as to which one .
This one did not get included.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question.
It' s been suggested by a person who corresponded
25 with the Board that there' s a disagreement with
the claim that this variance would not change the
March 3 , 2005
54
1
2 character of the area; would you care to comment
on that?
3 MS . MOORE : I' thought that all the
documentation that I provided for the record
4 disputes that . It contradicts that opinion.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Specifically. It has
5 to do with the question of what is now an open
expanse of view of the bay, which will be altered
6 if the variance is granted.
MS . MOORE : That is to begin with so many
7 fallacies there, I don' t know where to begin.
12 . 9 , the new 12 . 9, formerly 12 . 6 and 12 . 7,
8 permitted to have one very large house with tennis
courts and swimming pool and everything else, all
9 the amenities they would desire to have . This is
not a park; this is not an open space; this is a
10 private single and separate lot . If 6 has
waterfront, they are also on Gull Pond Inlet and
11 they have a nice waterfront parcel . They' re not
entitled to views, no one' s entitled to a view
12 unless you pay for a view, and the Claudios are
paying for this view, and they' re buying this
13 property.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So they' re contract
14 vendees?
MS . MOORE : Yes . The lot was available,
15 if 16 wanted to preserve their views, they
certainly could have ponied up the money and
16 bought it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They could plant
17 evergreen borders all around there .
MS . MOORE : Absolutely. There' s no
18 prohibition on a fence, as long as Trustees okay
it, within their jurisdiction; obviously, I
19 preface everything with you can do everything as
long as you have a permit . The view is not a
20 guaranteed view for Lot 16 .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Currently the
21 character of the neighborhood, you would have to
take in marine place and osprey, and if you look
22 at this map, the character of this neighborhood is
half acre lots .
23 MS . MOORE : Absolutely, if our zoning code
was a little less creative: and actually provided
24 for zoning that conforms with existing area.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s why you have
25 Zoning Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What you' re
March 3 , 2005
55
1
2 saying, Mrs . Moore, is similar to what you heard
me saying at other hearings, is that you reviewed
3 the title on the piece of property that the
Claudios are buying and there are no scenic
4 easements over this property; is that correct?
MS . MOORE: Absolutely.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a further
comment, what you' re saying is you' re suggesting
7 that the character of the neighborhood is no more
damaged by replacing an empty lot where there
8 could be one house surrounded by half acre lots
than having two one acre lots . One acre lots
9 would -make it more in conformity with the rest of
the neighborhood rather than one single two acre
10 lot?
MS . MOORE : Yes . And thank you for your
11 statement, that is quite accurate . In fact, I
would say that smaller lots result in smaller
12 houses that probably match the character of the
area more so than an oversized lot that allows for
13 the 20 percent lot coverage that .you' re entitled
to. So to the extent that it is actually creating
14 a situation that encourages conformity to the
character of the area, the smaller lots -- smaller
15 by virtue of double the size of everything else
around you -- but the house is going to be placed
16 on a one acre lot certainly has more restrictions
on its size and lot coverage than a house that
17 could be placed on two acres .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Just a quick
question, and I could be wrong on this, but did
19 you not win in Supreme Court on East Marion maybe
a lot that could no longer be subdivided with
20 covenant restrictions, and you were able to
overrule that?
21 MS . MOORE: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So even though 12 . 4
22 says C and Rs no longer subdivided, you won in
Supreme Court to overrule that on another case,
23 something like that?
MS . MOORE : Yes . But that would be as to
24 12 . 1 and 12 .4, but not as to -this one, this one
has no such restrictions
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But covenants and
restrictions say not to be subdivided?
March 3 , 2005
56
1
2 MS . MOORE: No, let me clarify. The
Planning Board, when they approved this one lot of
3 four lots, specifically said, well, the fifth lot
was a preservation lot, the fifth lot was
4 sterilized in the subdivision process . Lot 1 and
2 cannot be further subdivided, that would be the
5 equivalent of 12 . 1 and 12 . 4 , those large four acre
parcels . I don' t recall at the time whether 12 . 8
6 has that restrictions, but certainly our property,
12 . 9, does not have that similar condition. So
7 the Planning Board very specifically said to the
other one, which are four significantly larger
8 than the zoning requires, and that certainly could
be an issue that could be appealed, whether or not
9 that condition is a legitimate condition and
enforceable, I would leave to another date, but it
10 doesn' t apply to this at all .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would comment
11 that there' s a lot of wetlands on these lots and
it appears to me that that' s the reason why they
12 require the covenants .
MS . MOORE: I think I would have a hard
13 time --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you would
14 not have --
MS . MOORE: Never say never.
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Getting back to the
application then, so with this 80 , 000 square foot
16 lot, we' re looking for a 40, 000 square foot
variance?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These lots do
19 have Town water, right?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In any way is
the topography of these proposed parcels going to
21 be compromised in any way from a topographical
point of view if construction was to exist?
22 MS . MOORE : From my observation of the
topographic features shown on the survey it
23 doesn' t appear to be because, in fact, we have a
very flat parcel — it' s already cleared that' s
24 why the complaint from the one neighbor -- it' s a
cleared property, so you can see right from the
25 road the water that shows it' s flat and there' s
not a lot of natural vegetation, that wooded
March 3 , 2005
57
1
2 vegetation. In fact, the. topography is such that
from the water you don' t really have a lot of -- I
3 want to call it slopes . You go from elevation 1-0
water to 9, again, on-.a very slight incline . So
4 it' s really flat . There appear to be no
environmental reasons why this couldn' t be
5 developed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any FEMA
6 restrictions on this lot?
MS . MOORE: Coastal Zone there' s no
7 issue . We are in the AE Zone and F. So those are
not FEMA issues . We can actually build with, I
8 think AE 9 , as long as finish floor elevation is
at nine feet there' s no issue .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My only other question
is you' re having the right of way go across one of
10 the properties .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which lot are the
11 Claudios interested in, 2 or 1?
MS . MOORE : Lot 2 . What we show as Lot 2
12 is where they would immediately build. Lot 1
would be one where kids, family, there is a
13 potential to put a small house next to you. It ' s
going to be a family compound if everything goes
14 well in life . Certainly as time goes on, things
can happen, and it does also plan for estate
15 planning issues down the line . They are too young
to think of these things right now, but the right
16 of way really has no impact . If you see where the
right of way' s actually on the west side of the
17 where cul-de-sac is .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm just saying whoever
18 owns that Lot 1 maybe not now but may in the
future, may not be too happy to have a right of
19 way going across it .
MS . MOORE: But they would be buying it
20 knowing that . And it' s usually not an issue . A
waterfront property the right of way, the
21 driveway -- actually the Planning Board very
commonly asks for common access . So the reality
22 is even if we somehow or another had a way of
providing a driveway that wasn' t a right of way,
23 the Planning Board would most likely make a common
access point on Gull Pond Lane . The only
24 alternative is to do it as a flag lot, and it
still requires some form of common driveway
25 access . So it actually works well . And the
Planning Board did get a copy of this
March 3 , 2005
58
1
2 application. There' s been informal discussions
and there really didn' t seem to be any
3 disagreement with the right of way. I don' t
believe it will affect, our decision here as far as
4 the area of the lot if, for some reason, the
Planning Board in their review says, you know, I ' d
5 rather you move the right of way further west,
wherever. We' ll deal with wherever they think in
6 their opinion the right of way belongs .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
7 on the Board that has any questions? If not, is
there anybody in the audience that has anything to
8 add to this application?
MR. WITT: Richard Witt, W-I-T-T. I own
9 with my wife the four acres adjacent on 1900 Gull
Pond Lane and the four acres adjacent to that,
10 1710 .
MS . MOORE : 12 . 1 and 12 . 4 now.
11 MR. WITT: Just as a little bit of
history, my wife and I are ex-south forkers . I '
12 grew up in Lazy Point, a place in Amagansett, she
grew up in Southampton. It' s finally turned into
13 an area we didn' t want to live, and we moved to
the north fork, so if we could save a little bit
14 of the north fork before the most beautiful place
on the Earth disappears .
15 When we moved to Gull Pond, the first
thing that got us it looked beautiful, pond with
16 all these little lots . It was planned. It was
laid out beautifully. It had some half acre lots
17 and two acre lots and four acre lots; it just
looked like a lot of planning went into that
18 division around Gull Pond, as opposed to the south
fork that over the last 50 years has become this
19 hodgepodge of property lines, right of ways, roads
going no where, cul-de-sacs that never existed.
20 No planning went into the south fork because they
didn' t know what was going to happen because it
21 took 30 years . You people have a big job ahead of
yourselves because what happened there that took
22 50 years is going to happen here in the next five .
It' s not going to take the momentum. There it was
23 started in the ' 70s . It' s here . So it' s
something the Board has to look at .
24 The property is a beautiful piece of
property. The size is wonderful, the views are
25 wonderful . It' s definitely an estate quality.
One thing the Town should put in its mind while
March 3 , 2005
59
1
2 it' s deciding this, on the south fork we've seen
them divide up. pieces and also leave what we call
3 "estate areas . " Where estate areas are a little
larger, they go for a lot more money, and they' re
4 not really at the whims of the real estate market .
The smaller houses, the market goes down, the
5 market goes up, the properties sell, they don' t
sell, people buy them, people go bankrupt, they
6 get left, people knock them down, and people put
up estates . The estates, regardless of the
7 market, regardless of .what happens, these people
always seem to have money. They just buy them. I
8 believe in the long run, the Town would have
larger net tax proceeds from the place being left
9 as a whole instead of it being subdivided.
Personally, it doesn' t destroy my water view. I
10 won' t even know the houses unless I go down to my
dock. It makes no difference . This is something
11 the Board will have to decide on the direction of
the Town, which way we want the Town to go .
12 If we start subdividing, I can almost
guarantee you, if they subdivide that lot, and I
13 see this place getting all torn .up and subdivided,
I have four acres; I may have to go to the Supreme
14 Court, but it' s adjoining these two and I have
four, and I'm between two roadways . I have no
15 wetlands . I don' t have hundred feet setbacks .
I ' ll go for a subdivision on that whatever it
16 takes, make my money and leave the area, which I
really don' t want to do. This is one of the best
17 places to live and we try to preserve a little
more .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you opposed to
this or are you for this? I'm confused.
19 MR. WITT: I think it' s up to the Town
Board to decide the direction they want the Town
20 to go in. We' re deciding large parcels of land,
whether we should subdivide it, and here we' re
21 deciding whether we should subdivide that' s
already divided. The property is big enough, if
22 you subdivide it you can put in two small houses .
If you put one large house up 6 , 000 square feet,
23 I 'm sure you' re allowed, it would be the same
square feet as two small houses and it would
24 retain its value more . And it would be much more
pleasant . But it' s not my call . It' s not my
25 piece of property; what a person does to his piece
of property is between him and his Board.
March 3 , 2005
60
1
2 If you subdivide this property will I
immediately go down and say, oh, I want to
3 subdivide my property? No . It has to be the
direction the Town takes . How they' re
4 subdividing, how many things they' re cutting down,
what' s happening to the north fork. I' d hate to
5 see this turn into the south fork. Granted, it' s
hard to live in a place like this . Buying four
6 acres like my wife and I did and opting on one
just to develop it as four acres not subdivide it
7 like normally they would do on the south fork, cut
it in half, sell two acres, I can put my house on
8 the two acres, that way I. can live and have some
extra money in my pocket .
9 It' s very hard to live in these areas . In
order to pay the taxes on these properties, my
10 wife and I have no health insurance now. It' s a
balance now. We live in a nice place, so we don' t
11 get caught by too many diseases . It would be
easier to cut the piece of property in half, sell
12 it and then have the money to build our house .
Then we would destroy the character of the town.
13 I don' t want to do that . I would rather keep it
as a four acre parcel . Which it' s not easy. In
14 order to do it in town, especially on the east
end, is very hard to preserve, and we hear a lot
15 of the rhetoric about voluntary preservation.
We' re trying. The ultimate decision is yours . If
16 I was going to vote on it, I would vote no. But
the ultimate decision is yours . It doesn' t
17 destroy my water view, it doesn' t do anything to
me . It just happens to be the neighboring piece
18 of property. It' s half the size of my property
and he wants to cut it in half . I think it' s a
19 beautiful piece of property. I think the Town
should also put into their mind the net taxes they
20 will he receiving from this property. The south
fork, let' s face it, the estates pay a lot of the
21 taxes . You have people that go in and out of
their little houses but the estates pay for the
22 school .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there is
23 there anybody else that wishes to speak on this
application?
24 MR. AHLERS : My name is Paul Ahlers, I
live at 1905 Gull Pond, Lot 1 on the survey that
25 we have .
MS . MOORE : Tax Lot 16, I believe to the
March 3 , 2005
61
1
2 north.
MR. AHLERS : Yes . My question to the
3 Board is this just a variance or is it a zoning
change since it' s two acre zoning, and then
4 they' re going to break it down to one acre?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Indirectly you.' re
5 correct . The variance is so large it would be
almost a rezoning, indirectly.
6 MR. AHLERS : Okay, for a note of the
record, I'm opposed to it since I'm the adjoining
7 house . You know, crowding two relatively narrow
lots, with the waterfront property they' re not
8 going to be smaller homes . They' re going to build
to the building envelope as much as they can and
9 that' s going to crowd me more .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Is
10 there anyone else who wishes to speak on this
application?
11 MS . CLAUDIO: Hi, I'm Janice Claudio . I
guess I want to digress for a moment and tell you
12 what brought Bill and I here today. I grew up as
a summer person, I know that' s not a great thing,
13 but since the 1940s my family' s been coming here,
which is before I'm born, and my grandfather
14 literally built a house on the bay in Jamesport .
He and my uncle -- I'm not talking like an
15 architect, they built the house -- my uncle and my
aunt honeymooned there . My mother and my father
16 honeymooned there . We grew up there with
barbecues and birthday parties and
17 everything. It' s a living bittersweet memory to
me . My grandparents died in the early 1990s and
18 to settle their estate, the house was sold in
1996 . It has been a goal of my life to get back
19 to the water. So this is that . We' re going to
live there . It' s not anybody else . We' re not
20 going to sell it . We' re going to live there until
we die .
21 How this came about is that in late fall
we decided to take a boat ride, another digression
22 here, and we drove up the bay to Riverhead to see
what was going on there, and we thought we' d look
23 at the house, see how it was looking. And as we
got close -- we know this, it' s ingrained in your
24 brain -- as we got close to the house, there was
nothing standing but the chimney. It had been
25 resold and it' s a hole in the ground with the dirt
on the sides, and I guess the chimney' s required
March 3 , 2005
62
1
2 for something so the chimney' s there . So mom, my
aunt and I, we had a little cry felt and that led
3 me to go and see what was out there, just to do
this . If we' re going to do this, we got to do it
4 now, we' re getting a little long in the tooth and
it' s time to do it if we' re going to do it . So
5 that' s what brought us to this property. It' s
what we want to do with the rest of our lives . I
6 think you know we are community people . I sit on
the Long Island Hospital Board. I'm on the BIB .
7 I run the Greenport merchants for years and
years . We are community people . What you see is
8 what you get . You all know us . We have been here
forever, and I hope you see it our way because
9 this is just a dream of ours .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have a letter
here asking for a postponement .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We usually allow out of
courtesy allow one postponement, so that would be
12 held over to March 31st, not that you' ll have to
be here, if you wish to be here that' s fine, for
13 this person to voice their objections or comments .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : At 1 : 15 March 31st .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s no further
comments from the audience, I make a motion to
15 close the hearing reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
17 Warns on Peconic Bay Boulevard, an expansion of
the house, just really making it bigger, keeping
18 mostly the same side yard setback of 3 . 5 feet on
one side, and then expanding on the other side to
19 kind of even the whole thing out .
MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I also have letters
20 from the adjacent property owners, John Abbott to
the west and James Abbott to the east, they' re
21 brothers, and they own the houses on either side .
And I have seven copies of each letter. Neither
22 one objects . The only other noticed person was a
person from across the street, and we haven' t
23 heard from them. I'm not sure if the Board has
either. That' s it . If you have any questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there last
25 week on a very beastly day. Would you please
inform Mr. Warns that I will be back to do another
March 3 , 2005
63
1
2 inspection or continue the inspection? The one
concern I have is water runoff based upon the
3 proximity to the westerly property line . So when
writing this decision I will indicate that water
4 has to be contained on-site .
MR. GOGGINS : I think there' s intent to
5 put in the dry wells and gutters and so forth.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good. Vincent?
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a complete
demo start over?
7 MR. GOGGINS : No. It' s an addition,
maintaining some of the original foundation, some
8 of the original walls .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far beyond the
10 original footprint is the construction going to
go?
11 MR. GOGGINS : According to the surveyor
it' s not much. It goes off to the east about 14
12 feet and that' s it . The rest of it goes up .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the southwest
13 side yard stays the same?
MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that has any comments to make on this
16 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is at
Walnut Place, Giardiello.
19 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I also have the
affidavit of posting. I apologize for not getting
20 these things here earlier. I was on vacation. We
just got back. This is a total renovation. They
21 want to knock down and renovate it . It' s an old
community on Walnut Place . The houses are close
22 together. I think they all started as summer
bungalows, and now the Giardiellos want to retire
23 and move out and renovate this whole cottage into
something that' s new and improved. And they want
24 to make it a little bigger as you can see from the
drawing.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My only question is
couldn' t they move the house back just a little
March 3 , 2005
64
1
2 bit to get it off the street?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes, I think they
3 could. Presently all the houses are that close to
the street but certainly --
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do have some room
in the back?
5 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that an in-ground
6 pool in the back or above-ground?
MR. GOGGINS : Above-ground.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be my
suggestion.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet do they
have in the back from the existing structure?
9 MR. GOGGINS : I believe it' s 60 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have enough room.
10 MR. GOGGINS.: There' s enough room. They
could go back a few feet .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 20?
MR. GOGGINS : 20 foot setbacks from the
12 street?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just make it look more
13 attractive . If they ever had to sell it, make it
more attractive to sell too. Some of the houses
14 they have back there they have upgraded them to
some degree .
15 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I don' t think that
would be a problem, 20 feet .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It could set a good
example for other people to do similar things on
17. that street .
MR. GOGGINS : It' s an interesting
18 street . There' s a dirt road and there' s no
apparent demarcation from where the road ends and
19 where the front yard begins . It' s one of those
tough areas in town.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re going to go
21 from 13 feet to 20 . That doesn' t affect the
cesspools, water?
22 MR. GOGGINS : That' s something we need to
find out, I don' t think it will .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re happy
with that, I'm happy.
24 MR. GOGGINS : Yes, we' re fine . When I
spoke to them I said you know, still close you' re
25 increasing a nonconforming use and the Board' s
probably going to want a little bit of a setback.
March 3 , 2005
65
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this
3 application? I ' ll make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
Welch and Guidoli on Vincent Street in Orient .
6 MR. GUIDOLI : We try to add the porch to
our house . We f.elt our house is very simple
7 looking, I mean, it' s faceless . We were trying to
create something that is aesthetically pleasing
8 and also respect the look and feel of the historic
district .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wanted that porch
to go not only around the front but to the side
10 also?
MR. GUIDOLI : Yes .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that going to be
covered?
12 MR. GUIDOLI : Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not enclosed?
13 MR. GUIDOLI : Not enclosed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I spent some
time on Vincent Street . We had some applications
15 in the past year. My only concern is, and I don' t
know if you were here during the discussion on
16 Sunset Way, but my concern is that Vincent Street
being a very, very narrow road and your house
17 being, there' s no doubt that what you want to do
adds tremendous amounts of aesthetics, and we
18 discussed that before in the other hearing,
however, the problem is that the house is the
19 closest house to the road, there' s no question
about it . You' re going to have to cut that porch
20 down if you want my vote, in reference to depth.
MS . GUIDOLI : How many feet would you need
21 us to cut it down to make it work?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I' d like
22 to see it cut down three feet to 5' 611 . The
thing --
23 MR. GUIDOLI : We are very social people
and we expect to spend a lot of time on that porch
24 and I picture a table with chairs . I picture a
lot of furniture on that porch, and somehow I
25 think that it will be very crowded to make it that
size .
March 3 , 2005
66
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not
agree with you more but what you need to do is
3 emphasize the social area to the side and make
that porch a little deeper.
4 MS . WELCH: Would it have to be 5 , 6, is
that what you' re saying?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I think
six foot would be the max that I could go .
6 MS . WELCH: The one thing we realized when
we were actually driving is that the house further
7 down on Vincent Street, the McNeeley, they have
just it' s not necessarily a porch, but an entrance
8 and it felt to me that it was almost the same
depth but --
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did look at
that; I think it' s a little farther away. I think
10 we had an application on that if ' I'm not mistaken.
MS . WELCH: May I ask another question?
11 The existing stoop that' s there now --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s exempt .
12 MS . WELCH: I' understand that, but I think
we could easily go cut down a foot or so, so the
13 porch equals -- my worry about doing a six foot
porch is that it does make it cramped, and I'm not
14 sure it would be worthwhile to put the money into
building a porch if we couldn' t actually use it
15 comfortably. So would we be able to maybe come
out to where the stoop is as it exists now? It
16 seems to me like that might be seven feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember
17 I'm only one vote on this Board, and I' m the first
one to be asked. And I don' t really like to do
18 this to people, but I have to tell you that we
have become an authority on porches, primarily on
19 the Main Road, and I think if you take a rocking
chair and you measure the entire width of the
20 rocking portion of the rocking chair, you' ll find
that at six feet, you' ll have plenty of room to
21 walk through the porch. This is exclusive of the
overhang, remember. But, again, the concentration
22 should be on that side, but that' s my opinion.
MR. GUIDOLI : Let me ask you a question.
23 You have a set of photographs in front of you.
There is quite a huge tree, very, very close to
24 the road, how that affects whatever can happen
near the road compared to what we are trying to
25 do?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm sensitive
March 3 , 2005
67
1
2 about trees, but I don' t know what the question
is .
3 MR. GUIDOLI : What I'm saying is you are
concerned that we are building closer to the road
4 and somehow that tree is closer to the road than
our house . So you are concerned that if perhaps
5 the fire department has to come to our house, they
have no space; what is the concern?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern is
very simple . The Town may choose to widen that
7 road, and the Town really has a seven foot right
of way for the first seven feet of your property,
8 they have a right of way on everybody' s property.
And most of those things are for easements . What
9 are the easements there for? They' re easements
for sidewalks, and any other utilities that may go
10 into the property. So if we have 17 and take 7
off that, now you have a 10 foot setback. As I
11 said, it' s a very narrow street, and I don' t know
what the Town' s intentions in the future are, but
12 I can tell you this, as Orient further develops,
just as every place develops, you will see
13 eventually the elongations of these rights of
ways, the rights of way I'm referring to other
14 towns . I work for the County of Suffolk; the
County of Suffolk presently owns at this time
15 about 4 , 000 private roads, all of which are under
my jurisdiction. And I have to tell you we are on
16 constant review by individual property owners to
do something with those . This is not in my
17 opinion a private road, however, this is a public
road. So it' s up to the Town to make that
18 decision. But I can tell you that as activity
occurs, that may be a situation. The fire trucks
19 that exist today by OSHA standards are in excess
of 10 feet wide, and I have to tell you I am not a
20 fireman in the Hamlet of Orient, I'm a fireman in
Mattituck, and I have to tell you it takes
21 approximately 12' 9" to make an average turn with
the present fire trucks we have which are Number
22 1, Number 2, Number 3 , Number 4 , Number 5 pumpers,
we did that based upon a building that was being
23 built next to Penny Lumber, which is presently a
brick storage building. So those are the issues
24 that I'm telling you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
25 BOARD .MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re the first
I 've seen a deck in six inches, 8 ' 611 . I don' t
March 3 , 2005
68
1
2 know how with dimensional --
MS . WELCH: I think it' s eight feet . .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that with the
overhang?
4 MS . WELCH: With the overhang it' s 816" .
It sounded funny to you?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, with
dimensional lumber why would you have a six?
6 MS . WELCH: I think she drew it with the
overhang; does that make sense?
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with
Mr. Goehringer. I have a six foot front porch and
8 my family and I, we enjoy it . We have plenty of
room. The problem is, you' re the first one on the
9 block that' s close in that way, and the precedent,
so then the other guy wants to come to ten foot
10 closer and so forth. So I 'm going to agree with
him that a six foot or 616" .
11 MS . WELCH: If we were to do something
like that, we would have to take it back to our
12 architect and redraw the plans and come before you
again? Or we would just agree that that would be
13 okay. That would change probably the side porch
as well . I don' t know. I would have to talk to
14 the architect about it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your side porch is
15 seven foot or is that 7' 6" with the overhang?
MS . WELCH: 7' 6" with the overhang I
16 think.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building
17 Department might require a revision on that plan.
MS . WELCH: I don' t think we have gotten
18 to that point yet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far out does the
20 existing stoop go?
MS . WELCH: The existing stoop now is I
21 think it' s about 716" down to the last step, the
actual stoop itself .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s about 7 feet?
MS . WELCH: Yes .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A six foot deck that
would replace that would not .stick out any further
24 than that front stoop would be .
MS . WELCH: Correct .
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I also agree that a
six foot deck, from personal experience, that
March 3 , 2005
69
1
2 while it doesn' t do what a 10 foot decking will
do, is quite adequate . I have a four foot deck
3 which is limiting. That was my only question as
to whether it would be appropriate to build past
4 the distance of the front stoop. And as I say,
what you want to do on the side, six foot in the
5 front or .eight foot on the side, that' s between
you and your architect .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we' re going to
7 allow him to go further out on the side, I think
we ought to say so.
8 MS . WELCH: I think the reason that the
architect drew it at eight feet was when we
9 originally talked about a porch, we envisioned a
porch swing, and I think she literally went to our
10 neighbor' s house, they have a porch swing and
meassured it based on that . So out on the side, I
11 think we decided seven feet because we thought it
would be nice to maybe do an outdoor dining table
12 or to have that as an option. We were trying to
figure out how we were to use it, and if we were
13 to shrink it in the front, I don' t know how that
would affect the side . I' d like to discuss that
14 with her if it' s okay.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Here' s the problem
15 I see you running into . Say you reduce the front
by six and you increase the side to eight, then he
16 could deny you because you still are in a
nonconforming area, and that' s going to be an
17 increase in that nonconforming. So you need to
decide . Let' s say we decide we' ll grant you 10
18 foot side porch, but no further than six feet out
from the house, the front yard, , would that be
19 acceptable? We need to state that so the Building
Inspector doesn' t say, oh, look, you' re increasing
20 it again by say a foot, but you' re still doing ,it,
you' re going to be back before us .
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you don' t have
to build 10 foot side, but if we say ten and you
22 build eight --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can tell you six
23 feet is more than enough, even with a swing.
MS . WELCH: Clearly you know more about
24 porches . To us, we love our house, we love it
dearly, but it is the plainest house on the block
25 and we thought a porch would really enhance it,
and I 'm sure you've seen the drawings .
March 3 , 2005
70
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I live in Orient so I
know.
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You want ten foot
on the side so we can confirm that in the decision
4 or do you want seven?
MS . WELCH: Let' s ask for 10 feet on the
5 side now, and then we don' t have to use it . That
makes sense .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
7 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re going to ask the
Board' s and public' s indulgence to take Susan and
10 Curtis Rand because Susan has to make a ferry
back, and she won' t make it unless we go now.
11 MS . YOUNG: My name is Susan Young on
behalf of Curtis and Susan Rand. They would like
12 to rebuild their front porch and legalize their
back deck, and the front porch would be just like
13 all the other front porches down that row of
houses . Eight feet in depth, which is identical
14 to the usual, the historic setback, although it
doesn' t conform to the zoning law setback. The
15 houses were built just after 1900 by the Army, and
so that' s the way they were built, and then before
16 the Rands bought the house, the back porch had
turned into a deck, which is more appropriate for
17 recreational use because you look out to the
sunset in that direction and all of the houses
18 have back decks in that location. So they would
like to legalize that . And we asked all the
19 neighboring property owners and they all, we have
letters from every single one of the four of them,
20 the Ferry District, the school district,
Robertson' s and the Graves on the other side, and
21 there' s pictures in Exhibit A, although maybe some
of you have seen this when you went out to Fishers
22 Island in August for your meeting, there are some
gray houses across the street between the school
23 and the ferry district and those are the ones
we' re talking about . So I shouldn' t take up too
24 much of your time . Do you have questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I did actually see
that house, and actually they' re built to the
March 3 , 2005
71
1
2 military standards . You can take a string of line
and run right down. They' re all pretty much
3 uniform. And the back deck, is that a subject of
this application?
4 MS . YOUNG: It is the subject because we
wanted to lock everything in because there was
5 something there originally, there was a back
porch, but none of houses have back porches
6 anymore; they have back decks . But this back deck
has no C of 0 now. It should have been done
7 before, and we thought as. long as we' re going to
put the front porch on, let' s legalize the back
8 deck too. We feel it' s the appropriate size,
there' s plenty of rear yard still between that
9 house and the Ferry District, and you can see that
in the pictures, in Exhibit 8 , on the second page,
10 you can see a large sort of play yard that goes
between all of the houses that' s about equal
11 distance between the back porch and the hedge, and
this is right in keeping with that . And I think
12 people are happy with it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We did see it, and
13 we saw the back deck too, and I have no objection
at all .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not having seen it
15 but what I can see from the photos, I have no
objection to it .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My question here is
17 your exhibit here as a nine foot front porch and
this one has an eight foot .
18 MS . YOUNG:' Yes . Originally we had been
toying with the idea of trying to set a new
19 precedent in the neighborhood of making a larger
front porch, that maybe when the other front
20 porches were built maybe they should be nine feet
because we thought the eight feet wasn' t big
21 enough, but anyway we .brought it back down to
eight feet to keep it the same as the others .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because I measured
the other one when I was out there last summer,
23 and they were all eight foot . No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to
find this hard to believe, but I don' t have any
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
March 3 , 2005
72
1
2 questions either. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
3 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
Martorana, the new house on Deep Hole Drive . Is
6 there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application? This is another one, Jim, that I was
7 thinking couldn' t move that back another five
feet?
8 MR. FITZGERALD: The problem was it was
set at a 35 foot setback from the front yard, but
9 at that location, the DEC, who says 75 feet from
the wetlands no development, we would have been 45
10 into their 75 feet . So they said they would ,
approve it if we moved it 10 feet closer to the
11 road, and that' s how it got to be where it is .
And they didn' t seem like they were willing to
12 discuss it any further.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem that I
13 have is given the limitation on the back and the
size of the house, this is going to be pretty
14 imposing to have something that big and .that close
to the Main Road. That' s what I' d like to see
15 addressed, whether that could be mitigated in some
way.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also, Jim, the way the
point comes out there, there' s only one point that
17 comes 25 feet from the road, can' t they cut that
back a little bit so it will be another five feet?
18 It' s just this one little edge that comes out and
it is a big house.
19 MR. FITZGERALD: Just by cutting that back
wouldn' t give us five feet more because it sticks
20 out on the other side of the house also.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
21 MR. FITZGERALD : But I'm sure it' s not
cast in stone the design.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It seems to be the
consensus of the Board it needs to come back a
23 smidge . If you come back with a number and the
architect can be creative and design whatever they
24 want to design. Fair enough?
MR. FITZGERALD: What is the number?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' ll let the
Chairwoman decide .
March 3 , 2005
73
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jim, what are the
dimensions now on that one side?
3 MR. FITZGERALD: Dimensions of the house
or the setbacks?
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The setbacks on the
front part of the house, not the setbacks, the
5 dimensions of the structure on the angle where the
steps go out, which is how far out is it at this
6 triangular section, and how far of a platform; do
you have any idea?
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We could just make
a 30 foot setback if the Board agrees .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I'm
proposing.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, 30 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s my file and
10 that' s what I'm proposing.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak?
12 MR. FITZGERALD: Should we make it 30 feet
and show you, or do we have to have another
13 hearing?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re just granting
14 it at 30 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it' s up to you to
15 figure it out .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s relief . Is .
16 there any change in the design of the deck, Jerry,
or would you go 30 feet straight across?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He can do
whatever he wants as long as it' s 30 feet . The
18 impression I have is that the old house is going
to be totally removed?
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Is there anybody
else in the audience that wishes to comment on
20 this application either pro or con? If not, I' ll
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
21 decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application
23 is for Kellc on Locust Lane in Southold. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
24 application?
MS . MOORE : This is for an outdoor shower,
25 which is on the property. The reason there was no
intention to violate the code or ordinances in any
March 3 , 2005
74
1
2 way, the owner had gone to a garden tour and seen
this structure during one of the garden tours and
3 asked Cottage Gardens in Mattituck if they
wouldn' t mind being able to build something
4 similar on her property because the property is on
Locust Lane and LaMadue, a corner lot . The only
5 real rear yard she has is the area around her back
deck and patio and she wanted to make it look as
6 nice as possible, and also she' s an avid gardener,
she wanted to have a sink to wash her hands
7 instead of the hose, you have something a little
more formal .
8 When this was built, the Building
Department came out and took a look and it was
9 their position that because it has plumbing it
needs a permit . There are lots of outdoor showers
10 all over town, and I'm not sure if that in fact is
the case, but certainly the fact that it was too
11 close as an accessory structure as a shed, let' s
call it a shed with running water, a shed has to
12 be at least three feet from the property line, and
when the survey was done it proved to be a little
13 too close . So given the options, the owner came
in and we' re asking for a variance because the
14 cost of removing this structure, one it would be
undermined, the cost is really expensive given the
15 cost of the structure originally, it' s almost the
same price as building the thing because you have
16 to actually take it apart completely since it
doesn' t have structural walls per se, it' s
17 equivalent to a shed and four pieces of fence put
together. It doesn' t have that structural
18 integrity that you can pick it up and move it . It
would have to actually be taken apart and move it .
19 That option was one they would prefer to come in
and ask for a variance .
20 I know that the neighbor I believe is here
to oppose this application. I would point out for
21 the Board those who haven' t seen this or just for
the record if you have seen it, that on the other
22 side, the common property line there is a six foot
fence that is on the property line, that is
23 actually my client' s fence that replaced an old
dilapidated fence that had been there all along,
24 and the owners were very pleased that Mrs . Kellc,
when they replaced the fence, that it was done so
25 and kept the privacy between the property.
There' s also, unfortunately right now in the
March 3 , 2005
75
1
2 winter time, the lush greenery that surrounds this
but there is an avid amount of landscaping, I
3 believe I gave you a photograph in your file that
shows the landscaping, but I will show you another
4 picture which pretty much gives the same
view. You can see how lush it is . With respect
5 the fence is still there and the fence does block
the view of the structure . A trellis above is an
6 architectural feature no different than if you
were to put a garage and the eve would be showing.
7 So that comes to mind because in one of my
photographs that I took in winter time to try to
8 get an idea of things, I notice that the neighbor,
the northerly neighbor, has a garage that seems to
9 be about a foot off the property line, it' s an
existing structure, no problem, but they have an
10 eve for a peak of the structure that you see over
the fence line. So it' s not uncommon that you
11 have an accessory structure that you see over a
fence . The fact that it' s there, as long as it' s
12 on your property, we've made -- or my client has
made, every effort to mitigate any impacts, again,
13 by the fence and by the greenery around it .
I will answer any questions that you might
14 have, and I'm sure that there will be someone else
wanting to speak.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is in that shed?
MS . MOORE : In that shed is just an
16 outdoor shower, the spigot of the shower and there
is say like a little sink, actually a copper, a
17 low basin copper sink that' s built into a little
platform. It' s very lovely inside, and it' s the
18 equivalent when you have the outdoor spigot at
your house you have the equivalent .
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does it include a
dressing room shower?
20 MS . MOORE : No, when you walk in you have
the little sink, then when you walk beyond it you
21 have the shower. The dressing area is the
combined space of the sink.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s not just the
shower it' s plus --
23 MS . MOORE: Right, there' s a small area
it' s only a 6 by 9 structure .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which is big for a
shower.
25 MS . MOORE : Personally I have a shower
that' s bigger, because when they were little --
March 3 , 2005
76
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s basically a
shower stall .
3 MS . MOORE: I guess that' s a matter of
subjective opinion.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t think you
could buy a shower stall that' s 6 by 9 .
5 MS . MOORE : One that you could put in your
house?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes .
MS . MOORE : No. This is typical outdoor
7 shower. Used to be that the Town called them
fences, a fence enclosure, in fact, because I know
8 when I got a building permit fence enclosure at
the time my husband was a public official, I
9 didn' t want to have anything going on without a
building permit whether it was needed or not, so I
10 got a spigot out of the back of my house and the
fence that goes around it is considered a fence
11 enclosure .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The reason I'm
12 suggesting -- and I don' t mean this as an
objection -- I think this whole structure is very
13 attractive, but many of what people call outdoor
showers are just essentially a 4 by 4 because
14 that' s all it is continuing all around the town
and you see these little showers that people have
15 in the back, it' s not a 6 by 9 room. I don' t have
any particular problem with that .
16 MS . MOORE: I think it depends on the
neighborhood you go to . Where we are in our
17 neighborhood, you tend to take off your bathing
suit and dry off and so on with a little more
18 space because you don' t want to track all the sand
into your house. In particular at this property
19 it' s very important to have that space because
they are on a corner lot, very visible, 7-Eleven
20 is about one hundred feet away further property,
two hundred feet away, it' s a little more
21 practical in particular of the circumstances of
this corner lot,.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One more question.
This may not be a problem, but part of the reason
23 why it works as well as it does has to do with the
existence of the fencing and your trees, which are
24 on your client' s property; is there any way in
which it' s either necessary or desirable or
25 possible to insure that the fence would not be
removed, the trees cut down maybe with a
March 3 , 2005
77
1
2 subsequent owner to have this structure sort of
sitting out there six inches from the property
3 line?
MS . MOORE: You' re going to be there for a
4 long time, but I guess -- the fence definitely,
absolutely no doubt, the fence will remain there,
5 and you can make that a condition of the approval,
and the trees you, but again, we could have that
6 it continue to be vegetated, whatever that might
mean at the time depending on whatever vegetation
7 works so that' s an acceptable condition.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Essentially if it
were two feet closer to inside then you wouldn' t
9 even be before us .
MS . MOORE : Correct .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where does the
water go when you take a shower?
11 MS . MOORE: Well, they actually did it the
right way but we found out it can' t be done that
12 way. They actually had the water going down into
a dry well, so therefore it doesn' t run into the
13 yard. We were told that it has to run down and
pipe onto the property. So we are disconnecting
14 the pipe that goes into the dry wells,
disconnecting it so it' s not a direct connection,
15 still have the dry well there, have_ a natural
seepage, and all the water is running and the
16 grade of the property is running so it all runs
toward the dry wells . Joe Fischetti, the engineer
17 here, after the fact he looked at it and said, oh,
you can' t do this because we can' t have the actual
18 pipe connected to the dry well system. We have to
cut off the pipe at grade then let the water run
19 in and we were doing that, that' s fine .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If I were to get
20 down on the ground, would I be able to look into
this; does,- this fence go all the way into the
21 ground?
MS . MOORE : Yes . The fence goes into the
22 grade . In fact, on our side it' s landscaped so
it' s a little tiny -- I don' t want to call it a
23 berm because it' s not that big -- it' s a slight
landscaping mound, and if it' s something we need
24 to mound some more --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I'm just
25 concerned. The inside . is just what, like blocks
or?
March 3 , 2005
78
1
2 MS . MOORE : Are we talking about the fence
or?
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I 'm talking
necessarily about the structure itself .
4 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, I thought you were
talking about the fence .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is a fence,
really.
6 MS . MOORE : Okay. The structure sits on
posts, but there' s a stone floor that it' s above
7 grade by half an inch or so, so there' s light and
air so it' s not a sealed structure .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not public .
MS . MOORE : No, no. It' s actually --
9 that' s why it' s difficult to move because
everything is independent and what you' d have to
10 do is you take apart the walls and you still have
the flooring there, so you' d have to tear out all
11 the flooring that' s there and move it over.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I wanted to
12 get an idea. This is just four pieces of whatever
and 4 by 4 posts . There' s no roof other than that
13 pergola looking, the roof is not solid?
MS . MOORE : No. It' s an open pergola. It
14 matches, there' s a fence entrance on LaMadieux
that' s a terrace and you go through that . It kind
15 of matches the landscaping plan of the property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I
16 have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions?
17 Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to
speak for or against this application? Yes,
18 sir.
MR. DIPIETRO: My name is Arthur DiPietro,
19 I 'm an attorney. I maintain offices at 41 Sunset
Avenue in West Hampton Beach, and I'm here to
20 represent the property owner immediately to the
east, Jean Sanford.
21 I would like to preface this .to say that
Miss Sanford has asked me to immediately say, .
22 acknowledge that she and the applicant are
neighbors . She was pleased by the erection of the
23 fence; she advises me she even gave her neighbor a
present in acknowledgement of how pleased she was
24 about the erection of the fence . This application
may seem minor. It certainly has nothing to do
25 with hostility, it has to do with the zoning code,
it has to do with self-imposed hardship . It has
March 3 , 2005
79
1 ,
2 to do with your specific requirements of the
zoning code, and it has to do with the fact that
3 prefacing it by the acknowledgement that it is a
self-imposed hardship however unwittingly or
4 innocently it was done, that' s an important factor
in your determination. It may not be the only
5 factor. There was a point in zoning law where a
self-imposed hardship was deemed to be fatal,
6 however, now it' s a presumption against the
applicant which the applicant can overcome . One
7 of the most important considerations is what are
the alternatives and how substantial would be the
8 removal, and whether or not this is a fence and
I ' ll be presenting an exhibit, some members of the
9 Board have already personally gone to the site and
viewed the structure . Even though technically
10 since it' s open to the sky it may qualify as a
fence, it' s got shingles on it, it' s a little more
11 substantial than a fence . There are two or three
very important, in descending order, provisions of
12 your zoning code that I believe mandate you to
deny this application.
13 First off, the specific provision applied
for in the application a variance from the three
14 foot setbacks . And at first blush you say what
are you making a mountain out of a mole hill for,
15 Arthur, three feet, six inches it' s not a big
difference, but when you think about it, it is a
16 big difference, and I' ll point to a question the
Board asked of the applicant' s attorney. You
17 said, can you make some kind of assurance or
covenant that the fence will always be there, and
18 she said well, maybe, maybe not .
MS . MOORE: No, we said yes .
19 MR. DIPIETRO: But a fence according to
your yard for a side or rear lot line has to be no
20 more than six and a half feet . The structure is
more than six and a half feet . Another important
21 thing, even though, in my opinion, three feet for
an accessory structure isn' t a lot of room, but
22 I ' m only here to recommend, not ask the Town to
change the code . What' s important with three feet
23 would be instead of a fence, you could as a
reasonable condition of approving this variance
24 impose a condition to put landscaping between the
structure and the neighboring property, which
25 would have more permanence than a fence, would be
legally taller than a fence and would do a better
March 3 , 2005
80
1
2 job of screening. The other thing I' d like to
direct you to is I believe your zoning code in the
3 same section says that accessory structures must
be in a required rear yard. And although there
4 may be other considerations that would make the
applicant less than thrilled from her standpoint
5 about using the property, there' s a lot of room on
this property to the north, back to the garage,
6 which is in the 35 foot required rear yard in this
zone where this structure could be . So I think
7 there are two variances here, and only one was
applied for and one was advertised. The variance
8 from the three foot setback requirement from the
yard but this structure isn' t even in a legal
9 location on the property. An accessory use as I
read your code has to be in a required rear yard;
10 the applicant has asked for it to be in a side
yard, the applicant has apparently elected for the
11 north back of the property to be the legal rear
yard so that' s where this structure has to be .
12 And finally, as I mentioned before, the
Section 100-231, which regulate height of fences
13 says that a fence can be no more than six feet in
a side or rear yard, six and-a-half feet, I
14 believe it' s four in your front yard. So if
you' re going to say this structure really is no
15 more than a fence, I would submit it violates that
provision in the code . And what I would like to
16 offer up into evidence as part of the record are
some photographs taken by my client from her
17 vantage point, and although we had no intention
whatsoever to damage or deface our neighbor' s
18 fence, a section was removed and replaced in order
for the photograph to show what we' re talking
19 about .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
20 question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DiPietro,
you are asking apart from the issues in the
22 beginning, the issue of the replacement of the
fence with live greenery?
23 MR. DIPIETRO: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that correct?
24 MR. DIPIETRO : Not necessarily. What I 'm
saying is that I think to emphasize the point of
25 why three feet is substantially more significant
than six inches is that if it had been built in
March 3 , 2005
I
81
1
2 the conforming location, I' m not admitting that
this is a conforming location even for three feet
3 away because of the provision in the code that
requires an accessory building to be in a required
4 rear yard, and as I read it in this zone that
would mean it would be limited to some position 35
5 feet south of the north property line, that' s
another issue -- but to go back to yours, then
6 whether or not there were a fence, there could be
the additional screening and buffering and
7 landscaping of natural vegetation with a fair
expectation of growth that would provide height .
8 It would also provide some acoustical buffering,
because here we not only have a visual issue, we
9 have kind of, although it may not be like the Blue
Dolphin disco sounds, there is noise and activity
10 and so on, very proximate to my client' s back
yard, which constitutes an audible and physical
11 intrusion, in addition to the visual intrusion,
because this was placed in a way that may have
12 been very considerate of the applicant' s needs and
desires for her property, but somewhat
13 inconsiderate of Mrs . Sanford' s and that' s why
we' re here today.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I took it as a
rhetorical question, and that' s the reason why I 'm .
15 asking the question. The point in question would
be that any type of greenery would definitely have
16 to go on your client' s property at present?
MR. DIPIETRO : Now, yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And be
continuously maintained without the person
18 transversing the property or in effect the person
trespassing?
19 MR. DIPIETRO: In effect, my client would
have to solve the problem on her property and pay
20 for it and maintain it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I didn' t say pay
21 for it, I'm saying maintain it, that' s the
issue .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think he was
getting at, Jerry, if it were three feet off the
23 property line, you could put shrubbery in between.
- MR. DIPIETRO: Yes . The applicant could
24 solve ,it herself and your Board would have
available to it a reasonable condition that you
2.5 could impose as an element of the approval
process .
March 3 , 2005
82
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In no way are
you accepting any of that; is that correct?
3 MR. DIPIETRO: To put it on my client' s
property, absolutely not . So I ' ll be brief, I saw
4 your little notation at the head of each page and
I tried to submit some documentary proof but to
5 reiterate, there' s a required rear yard issue here
which is in Section 100-33 , there' s the lack of
6 any opportunity to buffer, there' s the
self-imposed hardship and there are many, many
7 other places on the applicant' s property where
this could be located legally as a far less
8 intrusion into my client and still not really
adverse effect the use and enjoyment of the
9 property by the applicant .
And finally, although Miss Moore has
10 stated about an extensive removal, there were no
specific numbers given, and it would seem that
11 common sense would force anyone to conclude that
taken in the context of her comments about how
12 insignificant the structure is, therefore removal
and relocation would also be an insignificant
13 expense . Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to ask you
14 something, I don' t get the rear yard at all . I
see where they put it except for the one foot
15 setbacks but that is a rear yard.
MR. DIPIETRO: No, it'-s a side yard.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I think that
you ought to look at the code .
17 MR. DIPIETRO : I have looked at the code,
and when you have a corner lot, you have a double
18 front yard and you can elect your rear yard and
the applicant has elected the north to be their
19 rear yard.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, sir,
20 that' s not the case . It' s behind the house in
both instances .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That is in the rear
22 yard, it' s behind the house from both streets .
MR. DIPIETRO : If that' s the case, sir,
23 then why would the application itself say three
feet from the side yard and the side lot line?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has to be three
feet from any lot line .
25 MR. DIPIETRO: I agree with you
completely, and I disagree with your conclusion
March 3 , 2005
83
1
2 that there can only be when you have a corner lot
by the definition of your code, you have two front
3 yards then you elect your one rear yard to
determine what the fourth one by process of
4 elimination becomes your side yard. This is now
in a side yard.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. All it has to
be is behind the house from both streets, that' s
6 all it has to be .
MR. DIPIETRO: The code as I read it, it
7 says an accessory structure must be in a required
rear yard.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, I' d like to refer
it back to our attorney, Town attorney.
9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It just
appears that in either case, the shower or the
10 proposed structure, no matter which is elected as
a rear yard, it' s in whatever that rear yard is;
11 it' s behind the house in any direction, no matter
which way you slice it, it' s in the rear.
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Another way of
putting that is, unless there is evidence that
13 some other place is designated as the rear yard
there' s no reason why this couldn' t be the rear
14 yard.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Either choice
15 behind the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can' t have two
16 rear yards in any case, but that' s not the issue .
MR. DIPIETRO: I don' t want to beat a dead
17 horse, your Board certainly has the benefit of
advice of counsel and also the benefit to
18 interpret provisions of the code, but it' s my
experience as a zoning attorney and municipal
19 attorney that once in a corner lot, a rear yard is
elected by a property owner for one purpose, that
20 rear yard gets locked in, you can' t have a rear
yard in one place for one purpose and another
21 place for another purpose and put it on roller
skates and move it around to your convenience .
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The point is
that the rear yard extends to the line of the
23 house so even if the rear yard that you say is
chosen was chosen, it' s in that rear yard.
24 MR. DIPIETRO: Again, the way I read and
it may be an anomaly that literally the provision
25 in your code that talks about the location of
accessory structures it doesn' t say a rear yard,
March 3 , 2005
84
1
2 it says accessory structures must be located in a
required rear yard. And the word "required" makes
3 a big, big difference because you only have one
rear yard here and the required rear yard is 35
4 feet from your rear property line into the
property. And that' s not where this shower is
5 located, and that' s my opinion, my interpretation,
but, of course, you feel differently, but I would
6 like to note for the record that I strenuously
disagree with that .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have another
question. If we took the door off of this, and we
8 only let it go up to six and-a-half feet say
without the pergola thing, we wouldn' t be here .
9 It would just be a fence with a couple of pieces
of fence hanging off the end forming a box.
10 MR. DIPIETRO : If it were just two
partitions sticking out from the existing fence no
11 higher than the fence, you' re probably correct .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I object to the
12 piping being on that side, I think that' s pretty
crass .
13 MS . MOORE : They don' t see that
piping. Just for the record they vandalized my
14 client' s fence to remove it and the pipes are
behind, we could agree, a permanent fence so this
15 is quite disturbing to think that a neighbor would
take down a structure that was ours to make a
16 point that there is pipe there . That' s ,,a serious
problem. That' s borderline criminal .
17 MR. DIPIETRO: I want to get my violin out
here . I guess two wrongs don' t make a right but
18 let' s be perfectly clear that the first wrong was
the wrong, and illegal and improper siting and
19 location and building of this structure without a
permit .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s no doubt
about that, sir. That' s why they' re before us
21 now. We' re looking for some kind of half-way
point, obviously, that your client' s not happy
22 with that maybe this structure can stay in the
place that it' s in. I don' t know that we can
23 require that the applicant plant stuff on this
lady' s property.
24 MR. DIPIETRO: I'm not asking for that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t know that
25 that can happen, maybe you don' t want it to
happen.
March 3 , 2005
85
1
2 MR. DIPIETRO: I don' t want to it to
happen.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was going to ask
that question.
4 MR. DIPIETRO: , It' s a utilization of my
client' s property to solve their problem.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Thank you, I guess
that' s all I have .
6 MS . MOORE : Can I just respond to a few
things?
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quickly.
MS . MOORE : I think we' re pretty set on
8 the rear yard issue that you pretty much said what
I was thinking.
9 With respect to the structure, if it was
three feet off the property line, you' d be seeing
10 the exact same thing over the fence and there
would be no vegetation, nothing, it would be legal
11 and we wouldn' t be here, the only thing we need to
do is after the fact get a building permit because
12 of the interpretation of needing a building permit
due to plumbing, but you would seeing exactly the
13 same thing. Realistically, a foot gives us
difficulty in planting shrubs that are trees or
14 you' re going to have a root system. Even at three
feet the root system is a problem. So my client
15 will certainly make the offer, and has before this
date, that if she wants to put some evergreens on
16 her side, we' ll pay for those evergreens, we' re
not opposed to that . In fact, if she were to
17 build or her next owner were to build an accessory
garage at 18 feet above grade, she could build it
18 three feet off the property line, and we' d have no
say about it, so understand the rules are, yes,
19 three feet, but the objection is what they see
over the fencing and you' d see the exact same
20 thing, the only difference being that instead of
being three feet it' s at one foot and that was a
21 problem. If they want us to build a little box
around the plumbing behind it, I don' t know what
22 purpose that would be because you still 'have the
fence in front of it and we would hope that they
23 would put the fence back where it was .
BOARD MEMBER S.IMON: The actual question
24 of the neighbor' s attorney, if you say the purpose
of the setbacks was three feet or five feet is to
25 allow for the planting of vegetation, unless the
person chooses (inaudible) setbacks exists had to
March 3 , 2005
86
1
2 be mandated to build the vegetation, how is that
going to serve the purpose of this setback law if
3 that' s what you say the reasons were? If, as Miss
Moore says, if she had put it three feet back,
4 there would be room for vegetation, but if Miss
Kellc didn' t want to put up the vegetation, she
5 couldn' t be required to do so. So what does that
do to your rationale for the setback rule?
6 MR. DIPIETRO: It' s just that the
vegetation would be an alternative to the fence
7 that the property owner could voluntarily put up
to exhibit some degree of sensitivity to the
8 neighbor that apparently exists because her
attorne-y has just volunteered to put it on my
9 client' s property.
But there' s another very interesting
10 thing, and I'm going to ask Miss Sanford to clear
up my error and I apologize, about the removal of
11 the section of the fence, another thing, even
where the plumbing is, a little bit of wiggle room
12 between the structure and the fencing would make
it a lot easier to maintain the structure, and if
13 you have any other questions of me, I' ll come back
but I' d like Mrs . Sanford to come up and talk
14 about the circumstances under which that
photograph was taken.
15 MS . SANFORD: Jean Sanford, I 'm the
neighbor next door. You know the Founder' s
16 Landing area, it' s R40 I think, it' s a very
densely populated place and we have to always be
17 considerate of each other' s privacy and rights and
everything, and it' s very, very, close; that
18 shower thing is right by my garden, right by my
side entrance to my home, right by a sitting area
19 where we like to sit �out, and to have shower
activity going on as Pat described, you know
20 because they want to disrobe and they don' t want
to have all this sand stuff in their house, all
21 that kind of activity is a loss of privacy on my
side of the fence, on my side of the side yard,
22 which I don' t know what the law is, , but her
mailbox is on Locust Lane and that is the front of
23 her house, and so I'm not arguing the point but
that is Locust Lane and even Pat Moore' s letter
24 said the side yard, that this structure was on the
side yard, and it' s where the two side yards come
25 together and the property is very close . We' re
all close there . It' s six residential 20 , 40 , I
March 3 , 2005
87
1
2 think we' re 40 and that' s pretty densely
populated, and we have to be careful how we treat
3 each other.
As far as the fence, in order to fix up
4 their pipes they had to come on my property and
dismantle, they took the fence down and in order
5 to work on the pipes, because they had no access
to the pipes for this shower unless they come on
6 my property, and that' s when I took the picture .
I didn' t take that fence down, I don' t vandalize .
7 I have never vandalized my neighbor' s
property. And I was very pleased when she put up
8 the fence . We went over, we thanked her. I
thought it was very nice and before she put it up,
9 she came over and told us they' re going to be
putting a fence up, but she never once came and
10 said, I'm going to put a shower right here in your
face, never discussed beforehand what they were
11 going to do, and I just think that it' s nine feet
high, it' s intrusive . If a pipe breaks all that
12 water' s going to be on my property. It' s my
headache . The loss of privacy is the main thing,
13 you know, that' s the thing. She could have put it
anyplace else and she put it right where on our
14 side yard, where you use our back door. I don' t
have a picture of my house but it' s the loss of
15 privacy that I feel the worst about, ,and I think
that' s about all I have to say. It' s just I hope
16 I don' t think of anything later. I just think
that she could have put it someplace else or at
17 least discussed it before she put it in. Thank
you.
18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat, do you
have an estimated cost for moving the structure
19 back?
MS . MOORE : It was hard to tell . I know I
20 did ask the contractor. For the walls it' s about
$2 , 000 , then I have to remove the base, the
21 material, you have to take the --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Foundation?
22 MS . MOORE : It' s not really foundation,
it' s flooring.. So you' re going to have demolition
23 costs of that, refuse removal cost, and then
whatever else you want to replace in the wherever
24 you move the structure . So it could be anywhere
from $2 , 000 to $5, 000 . They couldn' t really
25 tell . It' s time and money and materials .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We just wanted
March 3 , 2005
88
1
2 a ballpark.
MS . MOORE : I did ask and they gave me a
3 range . They couldn' t give me anything more
specific than that because they didn' t want to be
4 pinned down, you know, oh, $2 , 000 then yeah, it
cost them $5, 000 to do . So he gave me a range of
5 $2 , 000 to $5, 000 .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What kind of wall
6 is it?
MS . MOORE : Wall?
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is it made of?
MS . MOORE : It' s plywood with the fascia
8 cedar shingles .
MS . MOORE : What's on the inside?
9 MRS . KELLC: Bead board, all weather bead
board.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not insulated
but there' s four inches .
11 MS . MOORE: Yes, it' s air space, yes, but
it' s not insulated space .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further questions?
MR. DIPIETRO: I would like to submit one
13 other thing to the Board, it was submitted to the
Building Department, but I don' t know if it was
14 part of your record. I would also just note for
the record that the speculation just stated as to
15 cost of removal is not sufficient evidence upon
which your Board can make a determination.
16 MS . MOORE : We can provide a written
verification. He gave it to me verbally but I can
17 provide it in writing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one more
18 question, Mr. DiPietro. Mr. DiPietro, again, bits
and pieces of your presentation are issues that
19 I 'm hanging on trying to provide .a solution with
this rather than a demolition of this structure or
20 the removal of it and then reconstruction of it .
You referred to the area in back of the structure
21 as being wiggle room, so it is my understanding
that upon the erection of this fence, this fence
22 was not erected on the property line?
MR. DIPIETRO: No, it is on the property
23 line according to the survey, which was part of
the application.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the survey
says one foot off the property line?
25 MS . MOORE : The shower is one foot off the
property line .
March 3 , 2005
r
89
1
2 MR. DIPIETRO : I don' t think the shower is
even one foot .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because this
fence is directly against it, and I would say that
4 if the fence was on the property line --
MS . MOORE : No. It' s the fence then
5 there' s about a foot, I saw there' s about six
inches or so, six inches or a foot . There' s a
6 foot between the fence that' s on the line and the
wall of the shower.
7 MR. DIPIETRO: We' re dealing with such
close tolerances, Mr.. Goehringer, that I would
8 have to have the surveyor here to find out which
side of the fence because you have 4 by 4 posts,
9 you have the fencing, I notice the fence was -- I
don' t know, does your code have a requirement that
10 the finished side of the fence is supposed to
benefit the neighbor?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I always thought
it did, but --
12 MS . MOORE : Now with pools and now fences
don' t require a building permit if they' re on the
13 line .
MR. DIPIETRO: I don' t point that out to
14 whine about that but rather since the unfinished
portion of the fence is on Mrs . Sanford' s side,
15 the posts are on Mrs . Sanford' s side, and if you
measure them from the post, then we've got the
16 4 by 4s, plus the thickness of the fence; I would
submit from the photographs with all due respect
17 that the distance between the wall of the shower
enclosure and the applicant' s side of the fence is
18 no more than six inches, so there really isn' t a
lot of room and as you heard Mrs . Sanford say and
19 I apologize to the Board and Mrs . Moore for
creating a non-issue when I talked about removal
20 of the structure . It was removed by the
applicant' s contractor in order to gain access to
21 the plumbing, which is another issue your Board
should consider.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I am a
great believer in compromise and yourself being a
23 litigator, I'm sure you have some feeling toward
that also . The point in question is if the posts
24 separate the fence and are not placed either in
front or in back of, there' s wiggle room. If the
25 survey is correct, there' s got to be 12 inches
there, 12 inches less the fence and you've got to
March 3 , 2005
90
1
2 have 10 inches back there somewhere .
MR. DIPIETRO : I don' t know if there is or
3 not looking at the photographs but in any event,
and I will concur in everything you said about
4 characterizing me, although I haven' t seen you in
a long time and it was worth the trip up here just
5 to see how good you look.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Millions of
6 years .
MR. DIPIETRO: After all these years .
7 MS . MOORE : For the record, no schmoozing
with the Board.
8 MR. DIPIETRO: If you can do it, I can do
it, I 'm not here every week. In any event, you
9 know me well, and you know that number one I
represent property owners and applicants a lot, as
10 well as a neighbor such as Mrs . Sanford, and I've
been a municipal attorney, and I believe that a
11 bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit, but
having said all that, there is so little
12 maneuverability here that it makes it difficult .
If I could see an opportunity to address Mrs .
13 Sanford' s concerns without -- I'm not here to be
vindictive, just to punish the applicant, but it
14 would also seem to me that given the nature of
this structure, there are no footings, there are
15 some posts that you could get a fork lift in here
and pick it up and move it, and commonsense says
16 it would be back down in half an hour and we' re
not talking about $3 , 000 or $4 , 000, that' s just my
17 layman' s -- obviously since I' m an attorney
inaccurate conclusion about construction, but I've
18 been around construction enough to know that
common sense compels me to believe that there' s a
19 simple solution on the applicant' s side too .
MS . MOORE : If I may share with the Board
20 my client' s attempts to mitigate, we have that
trellis above, we could cut the posts of the
21 trellis, it compromises the look of it, but so be
it . Where the posts may be on my picture we take
22 off the arbor on the top so she wouldn' t see it or
she' d see this portion, we' d cut it off, put the
23 top posts and just cut it off .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How would that
24 benefit the neighbor?
MS . MOORE : Just visually. Other than not
25 whistling in the shower, I don' t know if we could
address the noise because if we had just an
March 3 , 2005
91
1
2 outdoor shower with no building, nothing around
it, it would still be the same water noise .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Another
compromise would be exactly what I said to
4 Mr. DiPietro, that is do not put the posts on
either side, put the posts next to the individual
5 pieces and attach the pieces to it . Instead of
putting the 6 by 6s on both sides, put it in the
6 center and attach the posts, the fence to that,
therefore you' ll have 10 inches of room in which
7 you don' t have to bother Mrs . Sanford when you go
over to work on the back side of the unit .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You still have to
get in there, Jerry.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not getting
in there with any fence .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You attach the
posts to the fence this way, whichever way the
11 fence runs and you don' t overlap it, either in
front or in back.
12 MS . MOORE : I see . What Mr. Goehringer
suggested was that the post you see how the fence
13 is on the inside of the posts, take the fencing
and put it as a connection between the post
14 here -- it' s just taking the fence and pushing it
so that you have the outside, the fence and the
15 post on the same line, correct?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Giving as much
16 room as you possibly can between.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you going to
17 submit a new diagram; what do you want to do?
MS . MOORE: It' s up to the majority of the
18 Board, whatever you want us to do, we' re willing
to take off the top, if that satisfies anybody.
19 We are willing to give well --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, why don' t you
20 just talk to the neighbor and we' ll leave this
open for written stuff for a week or two .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. Let' s get
this ironed out now.
22 MS . MOORE : It' s only a shower. Let me
just go back. We' re willing to take the arbor
23 portion of our shower feature off and bring it to
the height of the wall of the shower. We' re
24 willing to put the fence in between the posts, or
if the owner would prefer, have the posts and the
25 fence, since we could take this piece down,
reposition the fence so that it, the good side
March 3 , 2005
92
1
2 faces them, therefore it' s on her side of the
posts so you can put --
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The whole fence or
just that portion?
4 MS . MOORE : Just that portion. Or we
could put the fence in between the posts in
5 addition or any of those a la carte menus, we also
offer some evergreens or whatever plants that they
6 would choose on her side of the property. But
that' s again it' s up to them to maintain, you
7 would hate to see and pay for shrubs that somebody
takes down later on, but so be it .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s one
other thing you could do, you could put high
9 density styrofoam on the back of the fence towards
the applicant' s property and see if that mitigates
10 the noise issue .
MS . MOORE : Is there a foam that is
11 weather --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Put it right on
12 the fence .
MS . MOORE: Will it survive the weather?
13 If you want us to put foam on the back of it , we
will .
14 MR. DIPIETRO : I have perhaps a
recommendation along the lines that the applicant
15 and her attorney have just talked about with the
Board, and I prove as this by saying that I have
16 advised Mrs . Sanford that even if you were to deny
the variance, the applicant could pick this
17 structure up and move it two feet away based upon
your rear yard interpretation and put it back down
18 and there would be some of the other issues of
intrusion that she' s concerned about . So rather
19 than punish the applicant or take a position of
looking like we' re trying to punish the applicant
20 to force her to an expense of moving it, I would
much rather see us pursue the offer of expending
21 some money to mitigate the impact, and what I
would recommend is if the pergola is removed and
22 the height of the structure is reduced so that
it' s no higher than the fence and that --
23 MS . MOORE : We can' t do that
structurally.
24 MR. DIPIETRO: I don' t know if you can or
can' t, and it' s up to the wisdom of the Board to
25 tell you what you can do and tell me what you
can' t do, fortunately I 'm here to argue and
March 3 , 2005
93
1
2 they' re here to decide, they have the tougher job,
but if -- and this is a Chinese menu, I'm offering
3 ideas, you can pick some of them, all of them or
none of them. If they were to remove the pergola,
4 as has been offered, getting a little greedier, if
they could reduce the height of the structure a
5 little bit, then on the issue of buffering the
landscaping, the distance, perhaps the plumbing,
6 the intrusion and everything else could be
mitigated with or without styrofoam, if they
7 agreed to double face the fence, it would be to my
client' s advantage to have a finished side on her
8 side and the double fencing with the air space in
between -- again, lawyer playing engineer, which
9 is dangerous -- might do something from an
acoustical and intrusion standpoint .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Interesting
point, you could put Styrofoam in between that
11 fence .
MR. DIPIETRO: You love that styrofoam,
12 I ' ll leave that up to you and that fellow on the
other end who doesn' t like it . And I would like
13 to offer, as I started before as an exhibit, Mrs .
Sanford' s letter of April 26, 2004 to the Building
14 Inspector with the same photographs I have
previously offered. Thank you for your patience .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
MS . MOORE : My client will let you decide
16 what we should or shouldn' t do with respect to the
pergola . As far as the double facing of the
17 fencing, we could do that, I think there would be
like three pieces' in the area, it' s two but
18 there' s overlapping, assuming two to three, each
piece is a six foot piece --
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Eight .
MS . MOORE : I don' t know. So we put up a
20 fence that is double in the area where the shower
is, we have no objection to that . If they wanted
21 us to put a higher piece of fencing in front of
the shower, we could do a double piece . This
22 Board could give us relief as mitigation an eight
foot piece that goes in front of the shower of the
23 outdoor shower as a second piece .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That might be a good
24 idea.
MS . MOORE : Would you --
25 MR. DIPIETRO: We want the fence to be
consistent across the back of the yard.
March 3 , 2005
94
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you going to
give me a new diagram?
3 MS . MOORE: No, you' re going to tell me
what you want . I don' t know that we have a
4 diagram. It' s very simple, the pictures pretty
much identify, you cut the shower .at the level of
5 the wall, which is our request as a mitigation, if
you think that' s what we have to do.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
anything to say about this application? I' ll make
7 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
BOARD MEMBER,.GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, I
9 have to go back to your applicant' s property on
Saturday morning, so if she sees me there, that' s
10 what I 'm doing.
MS . MOORE : You' re welcome to come on.
11 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Robert
12 Heintges on Strohson Road, Cutchogue . Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of this
13 application? You want to put an accessory shed on
your property across the street?
14 MR. HEINTGES : Yes, we live at 280
Strohson Road, across the street, and we bought
15 this property about six years ago . I planted a
small vineyard, it' s a hobby of mine, and I want
16 to put a little storage shed to put the
rototiller, the sprayers and lawn mowers and stuff
17 like that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unfortunately,
18 according to the code, we cannot put an accessory
structure on a vacant piece of property. Put a
19 principal dwelling with an accessory, but not just
an accessory structure by itself .
20 MR. HEINTGES : I understand that that' s
the code, but I was hoping for a variance .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We had just turned down
someone in Orient who wished to build a tennis
22 court on an empty piece of property just across
the street from her, which is classified as an
23 accessory structure and we denied it . So we
cannot set a precedent .
24 MR. HEINTGES : I can' t afford to build a
house in order to build a storage shed. All of my
25 neighbors enjoy my property. They come help me
pick grapes .
March 3 , 2005
95
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a nice piece of
property by the way.
3 MR. HEINTGES :. Architecturally with
shingles, everything else . It' s removable . It' s
4 not going to have a permanent foundation. By the
way, the post office returned these because they
5 had post office boxes instead of the addresses,
but I went to one of the neighbors and he signed
6 it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does this
gentleman know why we don' t allow them?
8 MR. HEINTGES : I can understand you don' t
allow them because people take advantage, and they
9 might try to live in them, but I live across the
street . I have no reason to live in this 8 ' by
10 12 ' storage shed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I also explained to you
11 that we denied a tennis court in Orient .
MR. HEINTGES : I'm not building a tennis
12 court . I think a tennis court would be a far more
offensive use to my neighbors than my little
13 storage shed. As you can see on my map, I tucked
it in behind trees there . It' s not going to be
14 offensive to anyone . I would really, really
appreciate your reconsidering.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s really a
Use Variance . I don' t know how to deal with it
16 any other way.
MR. HEINTGES : I just can' t afford to
17 build a house in order to build a shed right
now.
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t have a
problem with it, sir. I don' t think it' s a tennis
19 court . I think it' s an 8' by 12 ' shed for your
tools for your vineyard. I ,particularly don' t
20 have a problem with this .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a Use
21 Variance no matter how you slice it .
MR. HEINTGES : How do you see that?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it was an
agricultural piece of property, under the AC law
23 and the Ag and Markets Law, we probably could let
you build a small barn there . It is a residential
24 piece of property. Certainly under the
residential auspices of what we could do, it' s not
25 primary to anything.
MR. HEINTGES : I understand that and in
March 3 , 2005
96
1
2 the spirit of zoning in where my house is and
where my lot is next to my house with residences
3 all around, this is consistent visually and
everything else with that . I 'm not building
4 something that is going to obviously look like a
change of use or is going to offend anyone .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We didn' t say
that it causes offense .
6 MR. HEINTGES : I pay taxes on this thing
and you' re telling me I can' t enjoy the use of
7 this property the way I should be able to. I
don' t think that' s fair.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have one board
member that' s just returning now.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you could
build it on wheels?
10 MR. HEINTGES : I'm going to put it on
concrete blocks and you could get a forklift and
11 move it . We hope to build a house there some
day. But I just can' t afford to build a house now
12 in order to build this shed. So when we build a
house, obviously, I 'm not going to have the shed
13 stay right in the middle of the property where I ' m
locating it now, I 'm going to stick a forklift
14 under it and move it to the side . I mean, the
irony is, if I had a house on here, a huge, 5 , 000
15 square foot house, which I would be permitted to
build to the distress of all my neighbors, then I
16 could build 20 sheds all the way around, and I
would be fine . I really appeal to your common
17 sense to let me build this little shed so I can
put my garden tools in it, please .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I've been on the
19 Board for such a short period of time that I'm not
completely devoid of common sense yet .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thanks Michael .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm blaming an
21 institution maybe, not people . But when I look at
this, I thought there is something strange about
22 what I hear about your remarks is that you somehow
cannot put a garden shed on a buildable piece of
23 property which could then be sold to somebody who
wanted to build a house, tear down the shed and
24 put up a house with very little loss . But there
are zoning limitations, apparently, which may have
25 to be decided ultimately by a code committee . I
don' t know. I'm not sure what our jurisdiction is
March 3 , 2005
97
1
2 on -this Board of Appeals .
It was mentioned to me at one point would
3 be that technically you could probably, instead of
putting up a garden shed- put up a trailer and use
4 it for a shed. That to me sounds very bizarre .
MR. HEINTGES : I'm not sure the neighbors
5 would appreciate that .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I 'm
6 saying. That' s exactly the point . I 'm not
recommending that . My argument is sympathetic to
7 you. If that' s what the law allowed then there' s
something strange about the law. A shed would be
8 less offensive than a trailer would be . But I
don' t know, and I defer to others whether there is
9 any way around your predicament given what the
code says, but I have a general unhappiness about
10' the idea of having to turn you down.
MR. HEINTGES : I'm an architect myself . I
11 understand you don' t want people building
accessory buildings that they' re going to sneak
12 into later; it will be hard to live in an 8 ' by
12 , shed, but really, we can' t afford to build a
13 house, and it would really be nice so that on my
garage, which is full of all the vineyard stuff,
14 I ' d like to move it into this little shed. Put a
little sketch there, it' s .going to be shingled,
15 it' s not going to be an obtrusive thing, it' s
friendly architecture really to the neighborhood.
16 We've done everything possible, it just never
occurred to me .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, you don' t have
room on your own property?
18 MR. HEINTGES : No, we don' t . It' s a very
tiny lot . It' s probably as of right the garage --
19 it' s private road so the garage is almost right on
the road. So there' s no room at all .
20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s the use
issue . The code does not allow accessory uses on
21 their own without a primary use . So he' s coming
in for a Use Variance, which is a very difficult
22 thing to get, among other things he' ll have to
show that there' s no other economic use of the
23 property, which is tough.
This is just like the tennis court case
24 that was denied some time last year. Someone
wanted a tennis court without' a house and this
25 Board decided to reject that application because
they viewed it as a Use Variance and an accessory
March 3 , 2005
98
1
2 use, someone had an empty lot across from their
house and they wanted to consider it accessory to
3 the lot across the street, and the Board refused
in that instance to grant the variance .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s precedent .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael, I would
5 suggest to this gentleman that he bring in his
survey, and select a spot across the street on his
6 own piece of property, no matter how small it is,
and see if we can find one no matter how small it
7 is, and see if we can find one and put one in
there for him.
8 MR. HEINTGES : There' s absolutely no way,
sir.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s always a
way.
10 MR. HEINTGES : There' s no room for an 8 '
by 12 ' shed. I' d have to put it between the house
11 and the water, which I don' t think you' d go for,
we wouldn' t either. It' s not a permanent shed,
12 it' s portable .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We understand that .
13 MR. HEINTGES : It has no foundation. It
can be a canvas tent .
14 MS . KOWALSKI : It' s for tools?
MR. HEINTGES : It' s for a lawn mower,
15 sprayer and rototiller.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to
16 follow this a little bit and ask Kieran, am I
correct in assuming that if you own a vacant lot,
17 you cannot use it for anything except building a
house?
18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can use it
for whatever permitted uses are in the zone . You
19 have to start with primary use before you get to
an accessory use .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For example, could he
put up a tent?
21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If a tent is
permitted under the code, I don' t think that it
22 is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A tent is not a
23 structure .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So if he wanted a
24 garden shed, he' d have to put a non-structural,
something minimal .
25 MR. GEINTGES : The point is it' s not going
to have a permanent foundation, it' s less than 100
March 3 , 2005
99
1
2 square feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For example, boats,
those are not permanent structures, a geodesic,
4 put up a dome; would that be permissible?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a
5 structure, it doesn' t make any difference
architecturally how it' s built, Michael .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It just seems to me
like if you had a house, you wouldn' t even need a
7 permit to put this on the house . It' s not even
accessory anymore . The town . doesn' t consider it
8 accessory.
MR. HEINTGES : But frankly, all my
9 neighbors told me I was crazy when I got this
letter. They said you should have just built it .
10 My wife didn' t want me to do that . She said you
got to do the right thing.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t know why
the Board can' t look at it that way either. This
12 is 100 square feet and I believe not too long ago
we made a rule as long as it was within 100 square
13 feet that they didn' t even need a permit .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was on your own
14 property if you had a primary structure . It was
10 .by 10 or something.
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t think the
law says that .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Miss Moore, would
you like to say something?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes, I have a solution, maybe .
For one, you' re permitted to have an agricultural
18 use on the property, why, if he plants a couple of
tomato plants, and he puts a shed for his
19 maintenance of his agricultural use, he could do
it .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it' s not in an
agricultural zone .
21 MS . MOORE: In every residential zoning
district you' re permitted agriculture . It' s
22 always a permitted use . So if you had a garden,
you could do that .
23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t know
that a garden would qualify, couple tomato plants
24 either.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : He has a vineyard.
t 25 BOARD MEMBER. GOEHRINGER: He' s got
grapes .
March 3 , 2005
100
1
2 MS . MOORE : So he actually has a vineyard.
MR. HEINTGES : I have grapes, I make wine
3 in the basement . All the neighbors come and help .
It' s a fun neighborhood thing.
4 MS . MOORE: I think you' re allowed an
agricultural structure, it' s permitted as of
5 right .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are the grapes
6 on this piece of property?
MR. HEINTGES : Yes .
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This part of
the property is planted?
8 MR. HEINTGES : Yes . I cleared the
property myself . I laid the land myself, and I am
9 working on --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is not a
10 stretch at all to say he can' t have this building.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not sure
11 why it was denied in the first place . He' s got
it . Let' s not speculate on what would be
12 sufficient .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Let' s say what he
13 has, he has a small little vineyard there .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It looks like
14 it' s planted, and he has an agricultural use .
MR. HEINTGES : And I will give each one of
15 you a bottle of my homemade wine . The lot is . 85
acres . The vineyard is exactly one-eighth of an
16 acre .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How big is the lot?
17 MR. HEINTGES : . 85 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll investigate it
18 further, but in the meantime, is there is anybody
else in the audience that wishes to speak for or
19 against this hearing? If not, I' ll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision until
20 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for CDR
22 Mattituck on Stanley Road. Mr. Bressler?
MR. BRESSLER: Thank you, Madam
23 Chairwoman. We are here this afternoon, very
briefly, hopefully, on a matter that we trust will
24 be relatively simple . I know that the Board is
familiar with the application. I would ask
25 whether the Board has in its file the plans that
were submitted to the Building Department?
March 3 , 2005
101
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have been
3 jumping back and forth, which ones?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one
4 better, Mr. Bressler, I inspected the property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I did as well .
5 MR. BRESSLER: This is an application to
make improvements to a basement . If you look at
6 the stamped plans from Jeffrey T. Butler, appears
they comply with all code requirements . The
7 improvements consist of the office, laundry room,
bath, exercise room, recreation area, egress .
8 There are no plans for a kitchen, and the
application was denied on the basis that this is
9 really a two family.
It has always been my understanding that
10 in determining whether or not a two family is
planned or existing, we look for the existence of
11 a kitchen; in determining whether there' s a
kitchen, we look for a stove . There are none .
12 There are no plans for it, they' re not there .
They don' t exist . When the application was
13 denied, it was denied, you can see the reasons, it
was denied based up the fact that there was a
14 feeling that maybe somebody might in the future do
something. Well, if this Board adopted that rule,
15 I think that' s a road we just don' t want to go
down. I' ll leave . it at that . This Board approves
16 all the time improvements above garages, third
floors, whatever, and it' s just something you
17 can' t do. And I don' t think that the Building
Inspector, based upon a feeling or whatever he
18 had, was authorized to do this . We' re not here
for a variance . We don' t want a second dwelling
19 unit . We don' t have plans for a second dwelling
unit, we don' t want a variance . We just want to
20 do what the plans say, no more no less .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was down there, I saw
21 the big windows and it doesn' t give the effect of
being in the basement at all .
22 MR. BRESSLER: We were told that we needed
those by the Building Inspector. We were told we
23 needed them, so we put them in. Why would we have
gone to that expense if we didn' t need them? They
24 weren' t there before . We were told to put them
in, we put them in.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say
something?
March 3 , 2005
102
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past for
3 the people -- this has nothing to do with your
applicant -- who legitimately go to the Building
4 Inspector, and I 'm not speaking for any of them,
I'm telling you my past practice, they would allow
5 you to finish the basement and have the
underwriters come in and look at the electricity
6 and put the heating, and so on and so forth, but
it would always be stamped non-habitable . And the
7 reason it was stamped non-habitable was because
there was only one means of ingress and no other
8 means of egress . In this particular case upon
looking at this, I concur with Madam Chairperson,
9 indicating that the windows have been elongated so
that any one of those windows in the front of the
10 house, if not the windows in the back of the
house, could serve as a secondary exit for the use
11 of this basement area.
Secondly, this is what I construe to be a
12 high-level ranch as opposed to a high ranch, and
that means approximately three or four feet of
13 this house is built out of the ground, which gave
you the advantage of elongating those windows . So
14 therefore, I don' t see any reason why we can' t
address the issue . That' s it .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t know what
16 the issue was, you left me hanging there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll tell you
17 what the issue is, the issue is to reverse the
Building Inspector' s determination and that' s it .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t think it' s a
two family.
19 MR. BRESSLER-: There are no plans for a
kitchen. If the Board is going to speculate on
20 what might happen there, then the Board would
never approve any improvements over garages or
21 anyplace . This Town has always regulated that on
a catch-is catch-can basis, and this plan does not
22 call for another dwelling unit . And I don' t want
a variance because I don' t want another dwelling
23 unit .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you file for a
24 building permit and then build? I see a stop work
permit ordered; some neighbor dropped a dime, or
25 quarter now, to have it stopped.
MR. BRESSLER: There was a stop work order
March 3 , 2005
103
1
2 put on because there was fire damage down there
and my client went in and started repairing the
3 fire damage, tearing up tile, cleaning walls,
doing things of that nature, and was stopped. In
4 fact, she can address that directly. I'm not
getting into that one way or another. We have
5 come here to this board to get the issuance of the
permit . It was our position now that what was
6 going on down there was clean up, and we don' t
need a permit for clean up, but we have opted not
7 to bring that to this Board as well . We have
opted to get our permit . If you want to know what
8 I think about that, I think it' s wrong. I think
when you have fire damage, you can go in there and
9 you can pull up the and you can remove fire
damaged things, and you' re not subject to a stop
10 work order because you need a building permit for
those things . But what we want opted to do was ,
11 bring in a unified plan and address everything
here all at one time and if this Board sees fit to
12 direct the issuance of a building permit, that
problem goes away. Is that basically so?
13 MS . RIVERA: I asked the Chief Building
Inspector if I could clean up, and he advised me I
14 could. And All State came in and did a primary
clean up, and I continued to do it which entailed
15 painting the studs that were scored by the fire
and lifting the tile and putting new tile down on
16 the floor, which I clearly understand you do not
need a permit for, to paint and put tile down, and
17 he came down and put a stop work order on me for
doing that .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not uncommon,
a lot of my friends have large windows in the
19 basement, not that they have second dwelling, but
it' s nice to have natural light .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Doesn' t make it look
dark.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I wish I had large
windows in my basement .
22 MR. BRESSLER: I wish I did too. I take
Mr. Goehringer' s point . I don' t think that proves
23 anything.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Doesn' t necessarily
24 mean a second dwelling.
MR. BRESSLER: I think this Board has
25 uniformly taken the view that whether it be above
a garage, a pool house, we can .cite the examples
March 3 , 2005
104
1
2 over and over again, if there' s no kitchen, it' s
okay, and the Building Department has routinely
3 taken that position, which is why I 'm taken
aback.
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There are some
things crossed off on my plans, the proposed
5 baths, the proposed closets .
MS . RIVERA: No, they' re on there too.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The word "proposed"
is crossed off, it just says bath.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay. Proposed
means it' s not built yet .
8 MS . RIVERA: No, it' s existing. It always
was existing. So when the Building Department said
9 I had to go for a Building Permit to restore the
existing space, they advised me I needed to change
10 the windows to make them egress, they were double
double hungs, twin double hungs, which I changed
11 to elongated sliders to meet the egress code and
basically just cleaned the place up. I was denied
12 on the feeling that it could possibly be a
two-family dwelling in time, and that was the
13 reason given to me .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In order for the
14 disapproval by the Building Department to be
defended, I would need to hear a defense, and I
15 haven' t heard any. I haven' t heard any at all,
any defense of the disapproval . And if there is
16 no objection to the points that are made as to
what counts as a second unit and what doesn' t,
17 having cooking facilities and having a stove,
without any rebuttal to those claims, I think we
18 have no choice but to override the disapproval .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly the
defense is the disapproval .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s not a defense .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What he says is
21 there, and he' s pretty clear on what he says it
is, and we just make our decision on what we think
22 it is .
MR. DRESSLER: I would have to agree that
23 is an assertion but it' s not evidence . So that' s
our position, it' s very simple . I said I ' d be
24 brief . I trust I was if no one has any more
questions, that' s our case .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We can put as a
condition no bedrooms in the basement .
March 3 , 2005
105
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think honestly --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No kitchen.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No kitchen, right .
MS . RIVERA: It is our understanding that
4 all these years a stove was the condition of the
kitchen. If it has a stove, then it' s a kitchen.
5 You can have cabinetry, you can have a sink, but
you cannot have a stove and the stove makes it a
6 kitchen, and that has been the position of the
Building Department and this Town for years .
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it can' t be
denied on the basis of a possible stove .
8 MS . RIVERA: Exactly.
MR. BRESSLER: In answer to your question,
9 Mr. Orlando, I'm not sure on a reversal that the
conditions that are normally applicable to
10 variances apply, and, in any event, the law is you
can' t have a kitchen. So it would appear to be
11 largely superfluous, we haven' t planned for one
and that' s our position.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the end of
the rainbow you' re looking for a CO for the use of
13 this bottom half; is that correct?
MR. BRESSLER: Yes, but finished basement,
14 non-residential .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s exactly
15 what I said before; that' s why those other ones
that I was referring to with the small windows
16 were stamped non-habitable because there was no
egress . Now you have egress with these elongated
17 windows, so that' s what you' re looking for at the
end of the rainbow.
18 MR. BRESSLER: That' s correct . So it' s
actually part of the house, and that' s correct .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not really a
finished basement . It' s more than that, it' s
20 livable space . If you call this a basement, then
they' re going to stamp it as non-habitable .
21 MS . RIVERA: Finished living area .
MR. BRESSLER: If you have a laundry room
22 in the basement, I feel maybe we' re arguing about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
23 We have a laundry room down there, does one live
in a laundry room? No. Does one use a laundry
24 room as part of the dwelling? Yes . Can you
habitate in the laundry room? No.
25 MS . RIVERA: I really do think it' s about
time, and I don' t know maybe the Board has
March 3 , 2005
106
1
2 addressed it, but it has to be very clear of what
this Building Department determines is a second
3 dwelling. A kitchen determines a second dwelling
is my understanding and --
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what they have
always used.
5 MS . RIVERA: And it cannot be based on a
feeling, and this is what I was turned down on, a
6 feeling that it could be used as a second
dwelling. Well, down the road maybe if I sell the
7 house and the applicant wants to put a kitchen
down there and make it a second dwelling, that' s
8 his prerogotive .
MR. BRESSLER: And they can come back
9 here .
MS . RIVERA: But it has to be determined
10 once and for all and make it clear that the
Building Department cannot turn down applicants
11 based on a feeling what something could be down
the road. And we clearly stated before we came
12 here that this is ridiculous, that there' s not a
kitchen here and it cannot be a dwelling.
13 MR. BRESSLER: I think the Board
understands our position and we thank you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do. Is there
anybody here to address this application? If not,
15 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
17 Cingular Wireless . This is basically just to
add another shed on to what' s already existing.
18 MS . FLEMING: Yes, Jacqueline Fleming,
Munley, Nielson and Ray for the applicant . I
19 represent New Cingular Wireless, PCS and ATT and
,Wireless .
20 In this application Cingular seeks an area
variance from the rear setback to locate wireless
21 telecommunications equipment on the ground near
the base of the existing monopole in Cutchogue .
22 As a site plan shows that was previously submitted
that Cingular' s equipment will be further away
23 from the rear setback line than the existing
equipment of another carrier that was previously
24 approved by this Board for a rear variance .
This is an industrial zone . It' s an
25 industrial park, and the property across the rear
property line is actually the Town landfill . The
March 3 , 2005
107
1
2 monopole' s been there since 1991 or thereabouts .
And at the site Cingular is generally proposing to
3 collocate antennas below the antennas of the three
other existing carriers at the site . Collocation
4 of the antennas on the existing monopole ,in an
industrial district is a permitted activity
5 pursuant to the Town' s wireless regulations
subject to site plan approval . We have submitted
6 an application for site plan review and the
Planning Board has recently issued a letter saying
7 that they have no issues with the application at
this time .
8 As you know, Cingular is licensed by the
FCC to construct, maintain and operate cellular
9 telephone systems in Suffolk County and throughout
the United States and is considered a public
10 utility for zoning purposes in New York. We
strive to provide reliable service, and in this
11 part of Cutchogue, .there' s a gap in coverage, if
you look at the coverage maps that we previously
12 submitted to the Board in our application, there' s
an existing .map for existing coverage and what
13 would the, coverage be with the proposed facility
at this site, and this site fills in the gap in
14 coverage between the antennas that Cingular
maintains in Mattituck and those in Peconic . So
15 this is a needed site to fill in that coverage
gap, and we submitted those maps . If you have any
16 questions, I know this Board is fully familiar
with how these maps are prepared and their
17 interpretation, but if you do have any questions,
we have a radio frequency engineer who prepared
18 the maps here to answer any questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell me
19 at what height this antenna is going to be placed?
MS . FLEMING: Seventy feet . It' s about
20 100 foot pole and the other three carriers are
above that, and it' s about 10 feet between the
21 carriers .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is only for the
22 shed.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it' s only
23 for the shed.
MS . FLEMING: The reason the equipment
24 needs to be where it is is it does need to be as
close to the monopole as possible for efficiency
25 reasons . The length of the cable and the diameter
of the cable is reduced the closer you are to the
March 3 , 2005
108
1
2 monopole, but not only that, the code in your town
does try to have a goal that these sorts of uses,
3 these types of facilities in the rear of the
building without encroaching on parking or
4 planting buffers, and that sort of also limits
where we can put this equipment on the property.
5 The way that this is designed, it' s very
unobtrusive because the Omnipoint equipment that' s
6 located even closer to the rear line and the
Nextel equipment that' s located next to it, it' s
7 all tucked in there and it will fit right in
there, and it won' t be any significant difference
8 visually. We-' re going to plant some trees, some
evergreen vegetation along the south and west side
9 that will screen the equipment compound further.
At this time I. know that you like to have
10 us submit reports for the records in lieu of oral
testimony. I' d like to submit three reports, a
11 planning report that considers the environmental
and land use perspective of the application and
12 the report concludes that there' s no significant
adverse impact to the environment . And a report
13 by Michael Lynch of Lynch Appraisal, he' s a
licensed real estate appraiser, and he prepared a
14 report on the potential effects of property values
in the area, and that based on his studies in
15 seven Long Island communities that the proposed
facility will not have an adverse impact on the
16 surrounding community, and a report by Pinnacle
Telecom Group prepared an FCC compliance report
17 demonstrating that the cumulative emissions from
the whole site, with all the antennas from all the
18 carriers, including this new proposal, would be
less than two percent of the FCC standards, and at
19 this time I' d like to submit those reports in lieu
of the testimony, but if you do have any questions
20 about any of those issues, we can get those
addressed with our experts if needed.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
questions?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I
understand. I was really inquisitive, Ruth, to
23 know how many more of these could be located on
the site .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have
any questions?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a comment that
your unit is a 10 foot high unit or is the fence
March 3 , 2005
109
1
2 10 foot you' re putting up there?
MS . FLEMING: It' s a six foot fence and
3 the equipment tends to be around seven feet
tall .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm getting to the
landscaping. For some reason, the last time we
5 approved the adjacent with Nextel, we had proposed
and put in a condition landscaping and somehow it
6 just vanished.
MS . FLEMING: Nextel just recently got
7 their CO, and I think the planning report that you
haven' t had a chance to read because you just
8 received does indicate that Nextel just recently
got its CO and Bruno Simone made sure all the
9 plantings were alive and well and at least six
feet tall and evergreen. Now we are going to take
10 those evergreens out, unfortunately, that' s just
how this is going to be set up. So we' re going to
11 replace the vegetation on. the west and south side
in an L shape . We have submitted a landscape
12 plan.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not adding,
13 you' re just replacing.
MS . FLEMING: Yes, we' re moving it over
14 basically because we' re going to be in the area
where Nextel' s landscaping is . If you have been
15 to the site, you know there' s a bunch of trees on
that west side too; then there' s the building on
16 the south side and the landfill on the north side,
there' s not a lot to actually view; no one' s going
17 to view the equipment except people in the parking
lot of this particular site.
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' ll be
putting six foot evergreens on that southwest?
19 MS . FLEMING: Yes . That' s part of our
proposal that we' re going to complete . Bruno will
20 make us complete it if we' re going to get our
Certificate of Occupancy.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
24 the audience who wishes to comment on this
application, pro or con? If not,- I' ll make a
25 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
March 3 , 2005
110
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Francis Kestler.
4 MS . KESTLER: Good afternoon everyone, , I'm
Christina Kestler residing at 40 West Mullen
5 Drive, Shelter Island, New York. My husband
couldn' t be here today. . He' s been activated for
6 one day, Army Reserve .
We' re just requesting a variance to
7 enclose our front porch and the existing footprint
and to put in a handicapped ramp for our patients .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That porch will be
heated to make that as a waiting room?
9 MS . KESTLER: Yes, it will be same heating
system, forced hot air.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
questions?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I have to
write this decision. What portion of the lower
12 half of the building will be utilized as the
dentist area?
13 MS . KESTLER: The whole portion is going
to be utilized as the dentist' s office and the
14 upstairs is storage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Am I right from
15 looking at this, the porch only occupies a portion
of the part of the building that fronts on Main
16 Road; it' s an L-shaped building out the porch?
MS . KESTLER: No.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does the porch go all
the way across?
18 MS . KESTLER: No. It' s a little square on
the corner. It looks like, and I don' t know if
19 this is indeed what happened, it looks like maybe
when the house was originally built, there was a
20 front porch and way back when, because the house
is old, the section was closed in. And when we
21 bought the house, it was a closed in partial front
porch, and we just want to extend that enclosure
22 so that we can enlarge the waiting room.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I meant .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re going to
enclose that and incorporate that square footage
24 as part of your first floor?
MS . KESTLER: Yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no
March 3 , 2005
111
1
2 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, are you
3 satisfied?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to speak for. or against this
5 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
6 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Archer.
MS . MOORE : Mr. and Mrs . Archer are here
8 and Tom Samuels the architect is here as well .
For the record I will get this to you, I have a
9 letter that Mr. and Mrs . Archer, when they first
started this process Kimogenor Point, as you know,
10 is a condominium -- excuse me, co-op ownership .
It consists of two sections, altogether there are
11 12 structures, dwelling units all within the
common areas . So that' s the way this is set
12 up . This predates our zoning code I believe by
many years .
13 When they began, they sent out a letter to
all 12 property owners in addition to the
14 corporation. The corporation itself sent you an
authorization, but they also got from everyone
15 individually an approval . So I' ll get that to you
for your records because this is the only copy we
16 have . I ' ll give it to you right after the
meeting; I' ll make a copy with your permission.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The only problem we
have had is you have one lot with many principal
18 uses . So what we have come up with is that the
Archers and anybody else that wants to expand what
19 have you in that whole area be a co-applicant with
the applicant, and then the application will be
20 signed by one of the officers of the corporation.
MS . MOORE : Okay. We did modify it so
21 that you could have -- in fact, we actually did
that in advance of putting in the application, we
22 got permission from the corporation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t want it as
23 permission, I want it as a co-applicant .
MS . MOORE : I believe, didn' t we say that?
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes .
MS . MOORE : They joined in the
25 application.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Something with the
March 3 , 2005
112
1
2 post office, there was a delay before we got it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
3 MS . MOORE : The reason for this 'is that
this is an old building to begin with. It was
4 last renovated I believe in the 1970s, and in
order to do a small amount of renovation, you have
5 to actually end up meeting certain provisions of
the present New York State Building Code . So the
6 footprint itself is just being boxed in, a
diminimus expansion of the footprint . The
7 property itself is large, 5 . 6 acre parcel, so
there' s no issues of setback or lot coverage, it' s
8 just the enclosure or the expansion of the
nonconformity because you choose to say that the
9 use is multiple dwellings, rather than the
residential use, which is a permitted use, but
10 that' s one way of avoiding variances in the
future .
11 The Archers wish to put in a master suite
so that the second story dormer is an expansion of
12 the roof line to meet the ceiling height
requirements, state code requirements . In
13 addition, the FEMA, because of the flood zone
here, we have to elevate the basement by 18
14 inches . So there has to be some work done to
bring all the mechanicals above, the flood zone .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They don' t have to
raise the house?
16 MS . MOORE : Yes, Tom, why don' t you come
up and give the specifics? It' s concrete block,
17 raise the house, put an extra number of blocks and
bring the height of the finished floor elevation
18 to the FEMA code . I guess finally, the addition
still keeps the houses smaller, both in height,
19 volume, less than many of the homes that have
already been renovated there and the way they' re
20 existing. So this is well in conformity with the
character of the area. Kimogenor Point, I think
21 all of us recognizes, is a very unique set up.
The character of the area is Kimogenor Point, it
22 is its own distinct area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very lovely.
23 MS . MOORE : Yes . Beautiful area. If you
have questions, I don' t want to prolong the
24 application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t .
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question
about the legal status of Kimogenor Point
March 3 , 2005
113
1
2 Corporation. Is it, as far as New York State Law,
identified as a co-op, like a New York City co-op?
3 MR. SAMUELS : Co-op in the State of New
York.
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think to
expand on some conversations we had in the past, I
5 think the best way we can look at this is not as a
nonconforming use, it' s a little misleading, and
6 that might require a Use Variance, obviously,
which would be tricky, but as a pre-existing
7 nonconforming lot --
MS . MOORE : Pre-existing, nonconforming
8 structure .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So they' re all
9 conforming uses, but it' s a nonconforming lot, and
so even though it doesn' t sound exactly right,
10 . it' s more aptly an Area Variance and those are the
points you've hit upon.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need Tom to
just give me an idea, since I have to write the
12 decision, what actually is being bumped out . When
I looked at it, I looked at the porches, meaning
13 the ingress and egress areas .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is the whole point
14 are you filling in that notch?
MR. SAMUELS : Yes . A 2 ' by 3 ' notch. The
15 northwest corner, we' re squaring that off .
MS . MOORE: I have a red marker, would it
16 be helpful to you to draw on your plan the area?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll just refer
17 to the plan then. Pat, one of the problems that
we had from the prior reconstruction of one of the
18 houses, I believe it was the first one coming in,
is the ability to identify the property. And that
19 is, it' s very nice to say it' s 590 XYZ Road, but
there was no number on the house . So I think it
20 would behoove us to identify it other than just by
name . If you want to start with the westerly
21 house, is it the third house from the inlet or
something of that nature in a very trite, -
22 easygoing way, we need to identify it .
MS . MOORE: Do you remember how many
23 houses back? It' s the third house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the third
24 house from the inlet, and it' s so much easier to
do that because in years to come, hopefully you
25 won' t sell the property, and I 'm sure you won' t,
but subsequent owners it' s just so much easier.
March 3 , 2005
114
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fire department
must have some way of designating that .
3 MR. SAMUELS : 855 , it' s not an official
address .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not an
official address because I tried to coordinate
5 that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The houses coming
6 up in on Jackson, I came in, the houses on the
left, are they part of it also?
7 MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s all Kimogenor Point,
it' s like Section 1, Section 2 .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three parcels I
thought, you' re 1, 2 , 3 , you' re on Number 3 ,
9 Mr. Archer? It doesn' t make any difference anyway
because it' s all one corporation anyway.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But they' re single
and separate?
11 MR. ARCHER: The units are all single and
separate .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They own the house --
MR. ARCHER: Lifetime lease .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions
for me .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any
questions? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
15 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
17 William and Patricia Moore on Main Road in
Southold.
18 MS . MOORE : What I have here before you is
a special permit because our luck as always is
19 what we want to do with our office always is one
step before the code changes . When we first put
20 in the office in the RO Zoning District, it was by
special permit . Then they changed the codes and
21 now it' s a permitted use . So our office is a
conforming permitted use .
22 What the situation developed is that my
family, my parents who happen to be the architects
23 on the office and all the plans, they' re ready to
relocate . They' re getting older, and they want to
24 come close to their oldest daughter. So I guess
to keep them here, which they love Long Island
25 greatly and because his business has been
developing, he kind of gets a nice little niche in
March 3 , 2005
115
1
2 Southold with the kind of work that' s required,
every other day I have somebody who needs an
3 as-built something. Thank goodness the Building
Department' s interpretations, architects have a
4 lot of work out here, it' s been working out very
well and they' re out here more so than just
5 traveling back and forth.
In order to give them the apartment, we
6 have to put in, I call it an accessory apartment
because our principal use is our office . The
7 uses, you' re allowed to have apartments with
businesses . My business is the law office . The
8 architect who is going to occupy the apartment, my
dad, is the architect also with a professional
9 office, and it works out very nicely. But when
somebody wants to -- my father wants to be on the
10 end of the building, it kind of forces me to try
to think ahead of my children or whatever. I
11 don' t want to block myself out that if I give them
the end, I now am stuck because we can' t
12 professionally do renovations or expand the office
however we need because once you put the end on
13 the building, you' re stuck to that footprint . It
would be difficult to build out any other place .
14 So we tried to think ahead. And given that
they' re ready to do the addition of the apartment,
15 what we thought was, as far as our office is
concerned -- and this is the permitted use part of
16 it -- but just as far as context goes, our office
was an old house . So that setting it up for
17 professional office for the confidentiality we
want to preserve for our clients, it' s a little
18 difficult . Our secretaries sometimes have to walk
through a conference room because of the way the
19 set-up of the old house was . So what we thought
was let' s bite the bullet and fix the office the
20 way it should be . So what we are going to do is
change the entrance of our office to the new
21 portion, you come in on the side as you do now,
but instead of coming right into the secretarial
22 space, we' re actually going to build a secretarial
waiting area, secretarial space, have the
23 conference room, that .is now where the secretary
is, and provide a privacy for Bill and I . Now
24 Bill is no longer fiddling around with Town Hall,
he is in the office, and we need two legitimate
25 conference rooms . So the space that is now our
entrance to the office and where our secretary
March 3 , 2005
116
1
2 sits, now can be a conference room. It' s a
beautiful old original living room of the house
3 with the fireplace. It' s very lovely, very
stately. Our efforts here are to try to minimize
4 the change to the office because the office itself
was built in the late 1800s, early 1900s, so we' re
5 trying not to touch the existing structure . We
are putting the renovation and the addition in
6 such a way that we are going to match it to the
existing building.
7 So in order to do that, we unfortunately,
when the contractor looked at it, we have our file
8 room in an area of the building that is very old
and probably was an old outside porch that got
9 sealed up 1920s, it' s not structurally adequate,
so they said take it down. So my bathroom on the
10 first floor gets removed, but in a way it' s good
because we will be able to provide a handicapped
11 bathroom on the first floor as well as having
adequate space for our file cabinets .
12 So that brings us into the office, then
there' s a space for growth between the apartment
13 and the immediate space of our office, our
secretarial space . And that expansion area can
14 either be -- my life' s dream would be to find a
surveyor or somebody that can work with me with
15 some of these site plans and all of the
subdivision regulations that now we can make a
16 fortune because of the code the way it' s been
adopted, I can find somebody to take that space,
17 but if it doesn' t work out, and I have no
other professionals that can work out here, then
18 it' s possible that 500 square feet of space
between the apartment that my parents will occupy
19 and the immediacy of my secretarial space could be
also an accessory apartment . I' d rather not use
20 it as an apartment because just as a landlord I
think it' s easier to have a business tenant or a
21 business relationship than to have a residence,
but the going ways of town, apartments are
22 needed. I just need to have that space, and
because it' s a special permit, rather than ask for
23 one accessory apartment, I ask for one that I
absolutely know is going to be my parent' s
24 occupancy; the second one is maybe an accessory
apartment but preferably office space . Either
25 way, the same space is used. I just have to take
that box and decide which way to occupy it .
March 3 , 2005
117
1
2 So as far as special permit criteria,
there is absolutely no change in the criteria of
3 special permit . Whether it' s an office or a
residential use, it would have to be a very
4 limited occupancy, 500. square feet is about the
size of an efficiency, and it would have to be
5 able to work well with an office that' s running.
So it' s going to be a relatively minimal impact on
6 us, the owners and neighbors of that apartment,
and any neighbors .
7 We have notified all our neighbors .
Everybody was welcome to come and see the office .
8 Nobody had any objections . In fact, on the one
side, Dr. Pasco, they' re good friends of ours, and
9 they were thrilled when we bought the office, we
took down, I know you remember Pete Wymeth, who
10 used to own this building, we took down a stockade
fence between our properties, and we landscaped
11 and it' s a beautiful park-like setting, and we
want to keep that . So our addition is really
12 straight behind the building so we can preserve as
much landscaping because we love the landscaping
13 as well . Right now Dr. Pasco is the only one who
sees all the landscaping; now with this addition
14 actually we' ll get the benefit of it because we' ll
have windows facing that as well .
15 Site plan issues, we pretty much can meet
all the parking requirements . In fact, our
16 driveway is going to change in some ways in that
our parking is going to be all the way in back of
17 the property behind the existing garage . So we
have the handicapped spaces in the front, but
18 aside from that, it will be less intensive a use
because the parking' s going to be in the backyard
19 and nobody will see it, nobody, that is, from the
Main Road, Dr. Pasco' s parking is similarly
20 situated in the back and the residential neighbor
on the other side in that area is a second lot in
21 the back, which is, he passed away but the
gentleman collected fire engines . So there' s a
22 very long large garage in the back there that used
to house old fire engines and fire trucks, and
23 there is no activity back there whatsoever. We
back the school, so our property goes quite far in
24 the back. We have a whole acre . We have about an
acre and-a-half of back yard. So, the existing
25 building is a traditional Southold architecture
close to the road, the typical Main Road look. Do
March 3 , 2005
118
1
2 you have any questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
know again for me, Pat, so I can understand it,
4 the apartment for your father is going to be
downstairs in the back of the building?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes, everything is one story
here .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One story?
MS . MOORE: Yes, one story. It has to be
7 handicapped accessible . My mother is ill and
she' s been in a wheelchair, so she needs
8 handicapped accessibility.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in looking at
9 the plan, the apartment, the second apartment that
you may or may not use is the one just in front of
10 that?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Which is also one
story?
12 MS . MOORE : It' s all one story.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we go to
13 the existing new area or the existing area, but
redone based upon the office changes that are
14 made, and five sided area that will be the
reception area and the covered deck, and so on and
15 so forth.
MS . MOORE : Right . Right now it' s a
16 covered .porch and utility porch that houses our
boxes and garbage, so that all comes down and gets
17 rebuilt with office space .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The front of the
18 building stays exactly the way it is?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second story
of the building as it exists now, where you have
20 that stairway that goes up, stays exactly the
same?
21 MS . MOORE : Yes . In fact, when we did the
design of the entrance, we had to keep it somewhat
22 low because of the windows that face the south
side of the yard, the backyard, and we have to
23 keep that pitch and everything. So, yes, we' re
not touching the original structure, the only part
24 we' re touching because of construction issues what
is a pop-out now where our file cabinets are and a
25 little utility bathroom. The bath room barely
fits a toilet and a sink.
March 3 , 2005
119
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You think, this
is the only thing that I was looking at -- I have
3 no objection to the plan, I think it' s very nice,
and I'm happy you have the parking to accommodate
4 that plan -- but do you think that area is small
enough? I notice that the destruction of a garage
5 today is a very expensive thing to reconstruct it,
but do you think you' re going to have enough room
6 between the building and the garage?
MS . MOORE : Oh, yes . What we did is we
7 had the site plan, that was an issue planning
asked about . We actually have from the existing
8 garage, we have clearance of 15 feet for the
driveway and that' s with providing about the
9 equivalent of almost 15 feet of landscaping in
front of the building. So we can certainly shrink
10 the landscaping closer to and have 20 foot
passageway. We have plenty of room.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
understand it .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any
13 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just was wondering,
what is driving this project? I ,take it is that
15 you couldn' t find an adequate apartment for your
parents, if your parents had decided to move, to
16 live with one of their other daughters, how much
of this project would you be doing; would you
17 still be building the additional office?
MS . MOORE : Yes . That was a plan at one
18 point or another. Our office really doesn' t work
as professional for privacy and handicap
19 accessibility and so on. When we first moved into
the office, we made do with what was there . Over
20 time, this is probably six or seven years ago, our
practice has grown, our clientele is older. We' re
21 at a point now where we really do need to deal
with the office and the layout of the office . So
22 either way we would have had to pop-out in that
direction. The accessory apartment, really
23 financially, my parents are selling their house
and they' re paying for their accessory apartment .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where do they live
now?
25 MS . MOORE : Pennsylvania. They' re
relocating completely. He' s licensed in New York.
March 3 , 2005
120
1
2 That' s what it is . He' s paying, that' s why I kind
of let him decide what he wants to do with the
3 dimensions and the architectural features of the
accessory apartment . I 'm paying for everything
4 else . And that space in between makes sense .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is not a case of
5 building an accessory apartment for your parents,
getting permission, and, oh, by the way, I want to
6 add another unit to my office; it' s not that way,
it' s more the other way around?
7 MS . MOORE : The timing is the issue . We
ultimately need to do something with our office,
8 but the design would have been one way or another
something similar to this . The apartment for my
9 parents is very customized to their needs . So the
dimensions and the interior layout is their thing.
10 I gave them carte blanche to do whatever they
wanted. They' re paying for it . It' s our
11 property, but as far as an investment goes, it
makes sense to invest in our property here . It
12 wouldn' t work to give them an accessory apartment
in our home . There' s no room for it . It' s not
13 appropriate in the neighborhood we' re in. So
really the choice, you' re all going to face some
14 family members that you might have to take care of
one way or the other, could be children that come
15 back or parents, and it makes sense, if you have
the ability, if you have the property that' s
16 suitable and large enough, why not . And some day
down the line when my parents -- God willing, not
17 too soon -- but my children, I have two daughters,
one of them might come back and need an apartment .
18 So I'm hoping I'm kind of leaving room for future
needs, and that' s kind of why that accessory
19 apartment law was put on the books . A lot of
people, home occupancy and stuff like that, it' s
20 not really for the income that' s not the issue .
It' s really for the need, the extra family or the
21 family needs . And that' s really one of the
intents behind the ordinance .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You finally moved
23 your parking lot in the back, you could have saved
your big tree .
24 MS . MOORE : I had a beautiful old tree
that the first time we did this site, we did our
25 landscaping and everything here . We made every
effort to save it . You don' t know how many little
March 3 , 2005
121
1
2 old ladies and not so many little old ladies hit
that tree . I have glass under my tree many, many
3 times, but that tree actually became decayed. So
we had to take it down.
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You justified it .
MS . MOORE : Yes . We figured nobody sued
5 us for hitting our tree because the tree hadn' t
moved. Everybody was pretty good about it . But
6 we' re going to try to preserve whatever we can.
That' s why any parking that we can land bank,
7 we' re going to do it do that . We' d rather see a
garden setting than we would parking. So we' ve
8 really tried to reduce down, thought about exactly
what our needs are . The carport covers the
9 apartment use . The garage that' s there now
provides two parking spaces, but really we use it
10 for our own personal use . I have a car that I pop
out in the summer, and I' ll put my car in. So it
11 eliminates one of my parking spaces for me
personally, for professional use . It works
12 well . This really does work well for us .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further
13 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody want to
14 speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
15 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 3 , 2005
122
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
6 State of New York, do hereby certify:
7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
8 the testimony given.
9 I further certify that I am not related by
10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
11 action; and
12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
13 of this matter.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand this 3rd day of March, 2005 .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Florence V. Wiles
23
24
25
March 3 , 2005