HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/31/2005 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 31, 2005
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
i
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
1.5 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 ®RQGINAL
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call
together our ZBA meeting of March 31, 2005 . And
3 we' d like to have a motion to declare a Negative
Declaration on all our applications as a Type 2
4 Action.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is
for these good people on Koke Drive, Springsteel
6 and Pollak, would anybody like to address
the Board on this? Mr. Springsteel .
7 MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
8 tell us?
MR. SPRINGSTEEL: I guess the reason for
9 the room and why we need the variance . As I
stated on the copy that you have there, we would
10 like to have a computer and library room. Also
because we' re getting older, we would like to have
11 a downstairs room in case one of us becomes
incapacitated or confined, and there' s already a
12 full bathroom on that floor, so it makes it
convenient .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the reason you need
the variance is because you have two front yards?
14 MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes, right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you need less than
15 40 feet?
MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes . And the extension
16 would be 20 feet from the road.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Excuse, me, 20 feet
17 from Koke Drive?
MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Right . Much farther
18 than the front road.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re quite a ways
19 back from the road.
MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes, must be about 60
20 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
21 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
22 time, Ruth.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
?23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No particular
r
questions, just a comment for the record. You' re
24 set back to the private road, Koke Drive is just
about 20 feet, but you' re actually about 30 feet
25 to the right of way, the actual stone gravel?
MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Right . There' s an extra
March 31, 2005
3
1
2 piece of land there .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Right . So looking
3 at it, you' re more like 30 feet from it . No other
questions .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . Is there any
6 reason you can' t put this addition on the other
side of the house?
7 MR. SPRINGSTEEL: Yes . The other side of
the house has three septic tanks, and it' s the
8 nicest side of the house already, the way it
looks .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The septic tanks
are fine . I just wanted to get that on the
10 record. I'm assuming that the room configuration
has something to do with it too?
11 MR. SPRINGSTEEL: There' s no real room,
the dining room, which is the only possible place,
12 the light would be blocked.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you, I just
13 wanted to get that on the record.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, I ' ll see if
14 there' s anybody else who would like to say
something about this application. Is there anyone
15 that would like to say something about this
application for or against? If not, then I make a
16 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll be making a
18 decision by April 14th.
-------------------------------------------------
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
Gregory and Barbara Wood on Marlene Lane in
20 Mattituck to build a new dwelling there .
MS . MARTIN: Good morning, I 'm Amy Martin,
21 I work for Fairweather Brown. I'm here on behalf
of Barbara and Gregory Wood.
22 They currently have, as you see in our
application, two pre-existing nonconforming
23 dwellings, actually it' s a dwelling and an
accessory apartment on this property which has
24 been joined, and they would like to remove those
two and build a single-family residence in the
25 center of the property.
The designer of the house likes to make
March 31, 2005
4
1
2 his houses not look like boxes and not have an
appearance to be overwhelming to the neighborhood,
3 and therefore, the house is stepped in different
directions to give it a more welcoming, more
4 cottage effect . And due to this fact, the two
joined lots make the lot kind of square, rather
5 than the usual deep and long lot, and we have a 50
foot setback required from the backyard. The
6 screened porch, which is in the most appropriate
location for the house, off the living room, which
7 is the south corner for air and light, then
therefore extends into that 50 foot setback from
8 the backyard rear line, and it' s --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would give you
9 41 . 7 feet?
MS . MARTIN: Yes . It' s 8' by 20 ' of
10 screened porch, which would be over the line, and
we' re asking for relief from that setback.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a nice lot . Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So if you
12 built a house without the porch, you wouldn' t need
any variances?
13 MS . MARTIN: Exactly.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like the
14 house is maybe two feet from that line .
MS . MARTIN: Right . And another thing is,
15 this is not someone who has just bought the
property. This man, my age, has been a summer
16 kid, and they haven' t chose to move to a
waterfront lot or anything. They would just like
17 to make what they know -- the community they live
in is where they would like to stay. He has
18 growing kids and wants an area with a screened
porch on the back.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And my
understanding is that you' re taking down two other
20 buildings?
MS . MARTIN: We' re taking down two that
21 are on property lines, and putting this in the
middle of the lot .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that the
23 front setbacks will be increased because of the
removal of the existing building, and that will be
24 a conforming setback.
MS . MARTIN: Everything but the screened
25 porch will be conforming setbacks, whereas right
now there' s quite a few -- the existing buildings
March 31, 2005
5
' 1
2 are all nonconforming setbacks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I would like to
commend the architect, if that would be you, for
4 designing a very nice house for the neighborhood.
One of the criteria is, is it in character for the
5 neighborhood? This is very much in character with
the neighborhood. There are not many two-story
6 very tall buildings, where he has a very large
piece of property, he could go very big and still
7 be in the guidelines of the code . And he did keep
it quite conservative, and in keeping with the
8 character neighborhood. It is a minor variance in
the back for the sun porch in the south side of
9 the house, which would be most pleasant . I have
no objections to this .
10 MS . MARTIN: My husband thanks you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was first
going to ask you, Amy, why you couldn' t put that
12 screened porch in the niche, but then I guess that
would be too close to the swimming pool?
13 MS . MARTIN: It wouldn' t have any air and
light in the niche . The idea there is it' s the
14 south corner, and it gets the air and light, and
it would be useable all day rather than just late
15 afternoon.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was down there, it' s
16 a very nice lot and I think what you' re doing
looks very, very nice .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Even though you' re
asking for a variance, in the whole you' re making
18 the lot more conforming than it was if you left it
as-is .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see if somebody
else has something to say. Does anybody else wish
20 to comment on this application both pro or con?
If not, I' ll make a motion to close this hearing
21 and reserve decision until letter.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
23 Reeve and Kramer on Front Street in Greenport .
You' re just trying to fix up an old lovely house
24 and make it a little more conforming and livable .
MS . MARTIN: Yes, again, Amy Martin,
25 Fairweather Brown.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautiful house .
March 31, 2005
6
1
2 MS . MARTIN: Yes . And they've restored it
quite nicely. It was in fairly bad disrepair when
3 they bought it quite a few years ago. I'm not
sure when the porch was added on, but that was
4 before our involvement . And that needs a CO, as
it was not -- it has only one little corner that
5 is non-conforming of the previous -- it' s not in
conformance --
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the deck
that' s in the back?
7 MS . MARTIN: Yes . It' s not in conformance
to the real setbacks but only one little corner
8 exceeds the existing distance to the fence, to the
property line . The new addition is they have a
9 growing family of three children, and they need
more bathrooms . So the new addition is right
10 against the side of the old building, between the
deck, and it' s just a two-story, two bathrooms,
11 one on the first floor and one on the second
floor. And we' re asking for relief from the
12 setbacks to add a very traditional, appropriate,
small bump-out that will achieve that purpose .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the drawings it
will just fit in.
14 MS . MARTIN: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
15 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The property
16 line is just that dotted line in the back?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That was my
17 question, it looks like, is this a lot line
application as well, because there is a lot line
18 through the back of the house .
MS . MARTIN: This property years and years
19 ago belonged to the Catholic church, and the lot
lines were changed when the lots for the houses on
20 Brown Street were built . There are four small
cottages in the back yard. This whole property
21 was one property at one time, and I'm not sure,
this is a very old survey, so I'm not sure when
22 the lot line was changed, but it was prior to this
person' s purchasing of it, and that they just
23 don' t have a new survey.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I suspect what
24 happened, Amy, was when they bought the property
they found out there was an encroachment and they
25 changed the lot line at that time .
MS . MARTIN: I assume .
March 31, 2005
7
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this survey was
dated February, 2005, so it' s a new survey.
3 MS . MARTIN: I'm sorry, this is a new
survey, I think you' re looking at a site plan.
4 The survey is a Van Tuyl survey so it' s quite
old. But the property has existed in this shape
5 for quite some time .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the Van Tuyl
6 shows the exact same thing. I was confused when I
was there as to which property line was the real
7 property line .
MS . MARTIN: The real property line was
8 that strange tie angle added.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA:. They must have done it
9 because the house encroached on that and they made
some sort of arrangement .
10 MS . MARTIN: Yes . It was a --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did the Kramers
11 build that deck or was it before they purchased
it?
12 MS . MARTIN: I think they did. But way
before we were involved, but right after they
13 purchased it without a permit . I'm not involved
in that .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My other question
was on the site plan because it wasn' t on the
15 survey, they didn' t include that detached garage,
that accessory building. I know it didn' t have
16 anything to do with the application but it' s not
on the survey.
17 MS . MARTIN: It does have a CO but it' s
not on the survey, but we' re not involved with it,
18 so we try to not cause the client more time
drafting, putting things on. If you would like a
19 site plan with the whole thing on there, we can do
that .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I just wanted to
make sure this person was not trying to hide an
21 illegal structure .
MS . MARTIN: That structure does have COs
22 and does exist and we' re not trying to do anything
to that . He works a little bit out of that area
23 and it is a home office kind of thing.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s what that
24 is?
MS . MARTIN: Yes .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other
questions .
March 31, 2005
8
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a case where
3 the rear boundary line is on an angle, and there' s
only a corner, how many square feet is that?
4 MS . MARTIN: I think it' s eight square
feet that' s over that exceptional line that is
5 further back from the original wing of the
building.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I hate to throw
cold water on the project here, but I think we
7 need an updated survey, one that has all the
buildings on it, and any of the Cos that are on
8 the building. The Town' s going in that
direction. I know our Board is even asking the
9 Town that they require updating surveys before
they make an application to us; the reason for
10 that is that so we don' t run into problems later
on. The moment I looked at this, I actually
11 attended school in that building when it was
Mother McCauley Hall, and as I recall it had
12 something to do with the Mazzafaros giving back
some of their lots, whenever the diocese sold that
13 piece of property. Honestly I think we need to
see that transaction.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Jimmy' s made a
good point . Just for your own sake, have a paper
15 trail, I think it' s a good idea.
MS . MARTIN: I think at the time we were
16 surprised that it was accepted in any form the way
it was .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I asked
these questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you mind if we
keep this hearing open until we receive the
19 updated survey?
MS . MARTIN: I do not mind at all .
20 MS . KOWALSKI : How much time do you need?
MS . MARTIN: I'm not sure what surveyor
21 they will use and what their backlog is at this
point . It' s fairly straightforward, and the
22 weather has changed now so they may be catching
up, but they were seriously delayed. So I would
23 try for the four weeks, and I will let you know as
soon as I get a commitment from a surveyor.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That will be May
4th at 9 : 30 in the morning.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone that
would like to comment on this application either
March 31, 2005
9
1
2 pro or con? If not, we will keep this hearing
open until we receive the updated survey.
3 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is for Burts
Reliable . Good morning, Mr. Romanelli .
5 MR. ROMANELLI : You do have my application
up there for a rear yard setback. There is a
6 small change to it, which I did bring an updated
plan. The original plan that was given to you
7 guys was for a single-story building along that
setback. The single-story building was going to
8 be changed to a two-story building, setback stays
along the same line . That is the one change . The
9 setback is staying in line with the existing two
'buildings that are there, following the same line
10 down.
MS . KOWALSKI : Do you have new maps that
11 you wanted to give the Board?
MR. ROMANELLI : Yes .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: John, why did you
decide that you needed a two story?
13 MR. ROMANELLI : As my business has grown
over the years, I have storage scattered
14 throughout town in different barns and garages,
and I would love to centralize my location to one
15 part . As I put the application together, you
start squeezing things in and then you realize if
16 I get the second story, I can move everything
under one location, that' s my one goal .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have to compliment
you, over the years you have dressed that place
18 up.
MR. ROMANELLI : We keep trying, we keep
19 running out of space too. It' s strictly storage,
garage space, metal fabrication space, there' s no
20 office space going in this addition, no bathrooms .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just storage . You have
21 no objection if we put that as a condition of our
approval?
22 MR. ROMANELLI : That' s fine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jimmy?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I see you have
this door on top, is that how you' re going to load
24 upstairs?
MR. ROMANELLI : That' s how we' re going to
25 load sheet metal to the second floor.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have no
1
March 31, 2005
10
1
2 objection to just storage, anything else you' re
going to be doing?
3 MR. ROMANELLI : With this addition I've
maxed out my lot coverage . I 'm at about one
4 percent below the maximum lot coverage for the
zone . So there will be no other additions to this
5 property. Would I take that as a condition, at
this stage I could say yes, but you never know,
6 things change . I would prefer not to have that
condition on it, to be honest with you, but at
7 this particular moment this is being strictly
built as a storage facility, garage space, no
8 plumbing involved.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Behind this
9 building is the parking lot, right? So no
building is ever going to be constructed there?
10 MR. ROMANELLI : Agway' s parking lot,
right . No building constructed there unless they
11 move their building, that could happen.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the record,
12 you' re still under the lot coverage?
MR. ROMANELLI : I just make it . The lot
13 coverage for LI Zone is 30 percent, I think this
works out to 28 . 6 percent lot coverage, so we' re
14 right there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I
15 have .
CHAIRWOMAN 'OLIVA: Vincent? Michael?
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . While
you' re building it, you want to expand a little
18 bit . When my friend was helping me put a skylight
in the kitchen, I was going to put a little one
19 in, he said, you' re cutting the hole you might as
well cut it big. You have to think down the road
20 a little bit, and I 'm sure you' re going to get
bigger.
21 MR. ROMANELLI : That was the thought . To
be honest, once I had the site plan done and saw
22 the lot coverage, that' s when it hit me, I said,
hey, this is it, there' s no additions going back
23 on this property. So that was really the step
that said let' s do it and do it once .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon the
25 maneuverability and everything you need for the
terminal aspect of the storage facility, you
March 31, 2005
11
1
2 really had no other choice than to do what you
did; is that correct?
3 MR. ROMANELLI : Yes . Any other spot I put
this building would require a variance on another
4 lot line . The thought process here was let' s keep
all our buildings on one side, it' s only really a
5 two foot lot line at this point, keep that all the
way down.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
7 audience wish to comment on this application
either for or against? If not, I' ll make a motion
8 to close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Bruce and Mary Bollman, who wish to demolish their
11 house and rebuild another house on the property on
Truman' s Path in East Marion. Is there anyone
12 here who would like to comment on the application?
MR. BERTANI : Hi, my name is John Bertani,
13 I 'm here for Mr. and Mrs . Bollman.
As of two days ago, we were made aware of
14 that the school, Miss Gould, the neighbor, has
made some comments . So I have some things for
15 rebuttal .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you just like to
16 go over some of these points?
MR. BERTANI : Yes, just one or two.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Mr. Bertani .
MR. BERTANI : All I have to say about this
18 is Mr. Bollman' s owned this property, it' s been in
his family since 1947 . It' s always been his dream
19 to have this home there, it' s his own personal
home, fix it up. He basically worked on the
20 footprint that' s there . The house is only going
to be a two bedroom, two bath, living room, eat-in
21 kitchen. Unfortunately, the lot size is only 50
feet wide, and that' s what causes the encroachment
22 on the side yards . Mrs . Gould, if you look on --
there' s a picture and also a survey showing the
23 proximity of the two houses . Mr. Bollman' s house
is I would say 90 percent behind Mrs . Gould' s
24 house . I don' t think we' re going to interfere
with her light, her ventilation, her views by
25 going up two stories .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have a CO for
March 31, 2005
12
1
2 the Bollmans for that garage with the deck
upstairs?
3 MR. BERTANI : Yes, we do.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that garage
4 inhabited?
MR. BERTANI : It' s being used, yes .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For living quarters?
MR. BERTANI : Yes . It' s only because the
6 house is unlivable . There' s no cooking facilities
in there, it' s just a bathroom and one room.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is enclosed in
that plastic covering in front of the garage?
8 MR. BERTANI : There' s an old car and some
small boats, a sail fish type of thing,
9 kayak. And that would be gone as soon as the
house is ready. The contents of the house is in
10 the garage at this time and 'that was put outside
and covered.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand that you
took any furniture that you wanted from the house,
12 stored that in the garage, they' re living
upstairs, and they covered up the two cars they
13 have outside?
MR. BERTANI : Yes, one car and one boat
14 and that will be gone as soon as that can go back
in the garage and the other stuff can go in the
15 house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The other question I
16 have is why does this ridge of the new house, if
you' re really only making a small house, have to
17 be 30 feet high? It will be larger than any other
house in that whole neighborhood, and I have
18 problems with a 30 foot high house, 28 or 26 would
be far more acceptable .
19 MR. BERTANI : I understand that, and I
made a mistake . I took the elevation heights off
20 of the plan, and the grade of the property is
higher. So it wouldn' t be that high to begin
21 with, and also, we could lower the pitch of the
roof and bring it down also. And we could
22 probably get it down to 28 feet or less .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Mr. Goehringer?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you
answered all the questions that I had. I
24 appreciate your doing that . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The question with
the CO, you may not have this or know it, the CO
March 31, 2005
13
1
2 for the accessory garage, does the CO say it' s
habitable space or is it just an accessory garage?
3 MR. BERTANI : I really don' t know.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It really looks
4 like there' s two dwellings on the property.
MR. BERTANI : It' s not meant to be . It' s
5 meant for just an office .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s relatively
6 new, isn' t it?
MR. BERTANI : Yes .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the drawing the
house is offset . It goes up and then it comes in
8 and goes up?
MR. BERTANI : Yes, that' s on the north and
9 south.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the second floor
10 is closer to 10 foot on the one side and then 15
foot, 10 and 15?
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MR. BERTANI : No, I don' t understand the
12 question, I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s two side
13 yard setbacks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12' 7" and 5' 911 .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But then it has the
10 foot right there .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t know what that
is .
16 MS . KOWALSKI : The existing house is 10
feet on the north side . They' re proposing 5 . 6?
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Those are existing
side yards, 10 and 15, and you want to go even
18 closer?
MR. BERTANI : No. The shaded area is what
19 it would be if we had to go to the 10 and 15 . The
existing house is at 5 . 9 .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re just showing
the setbacks .
21 MR. BERTANI : Yes . The surveyor had to
show the square footage of the noncompliance .
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is there an older
survey that shows the existing setbacks?
23 MR. BERTANI : Yes, it' s in there .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you have one
24 with you?
MR. BERTANI : Yes . It' s in the packet I
25 just gave you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I apologize for
March 31, 2005
14
1
2 having to ask this question, the side on which the
addition to the original footprint, that is on the
3 west side?
MR. BERTANI : The addition to the house
4 would be to the north.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The water' s on the
5 south, right? So there is no increase in the
footprint on either of the side setbacks, right?
6 But the difference is there' s going to be a second
story, on which side -the east or west side?
7 MR. BERTANI : The second story, on the
east and west side, it goes straight up .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions
at this time .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is the house
10 that has a dormer on top already?
MR. BERTANI : No.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re bringing
from a bungalow and going up two stories . What is
12 the height from the story on the ground near the
side yard up to where you' re going to see the
13 angle of the roof?
MR. BERTANI : Probably about 18 feet .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Just approximate,
it' s not 28 , 30 feet there? The 30 feet is going
15 to be close to the middle of the lot?
MR. BERTANI : Right . On that side of the
16 house we brought the windows up very high so we
wouldn' t be really looking at the neighbor' s yard
17 so on and so forth.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The actual wall
18 your neighbor is going to be looking at is about
18?
19 MR. BERTANI : About 18 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are they
20 looking at now, about 10?
MR. BERTANI : There' s a peak on that side,
21 they' re probably looking at 14 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s two
22 variances going on here . One is for the
additional amount of footage, not footage but
23 actual ground space you want to take up in the
front of the house, extend that a little bit; and
24 the fact that you want to go higher in a
nonconforming area.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a little bit
more, he' s rebuilding the first floor also.
March 31, 2005
15
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that .
I understand he' s tearing the house down. That' s
3 one thing, but we' re talking about just the
footprint and what he' s adding.
4 MR. BERTANI : Right . And it wouldn' t be
our choice to tear this down but the Town would
5 not accept the house the way it is if we just went
up in sections and changed windows and doors, it' s
6 very poorly constructed.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s 2 ' by 4 ' s and
7 2 ' by 61s .
MR. BERTANI : That' s correct . That' s the
8 floor joist 2' by 41s .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re going to
9 keep the basement, the foundation' s going to be
the same, there' s not much digging other than this
10 new area --
MR. BERTANI : That little section on the
11 north side .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then the garage
12 itself will be returned back to the original . I
was surprised to hear that somebody was living
13 there . He' s living there because he likes to go
out on weekends . It' s not a seven days a week
14 proposition year round, he wants to come out and
enjoy his property. He' s preparing to do without
15 the construction he has now. All right, I guess
that' s all .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are exceeding the
20 percent lot coverage to about 22 . 9?
17 MR. BERTANI : That' s correct . But many
homes in the area are also in that same boat
18 because we now are counting sidewalks, docks and
ramps, and so on, which I don' t think we ever did
19 before in lot coverage . So I know the neighbor
right next door is definitely also in the same
20 boat if we came today before you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Bertani .
21 Would anyone else like to comment on this
application? Ms . Gould.
22 MS . GOULD: Hi, my name is Jennifer Gould.
I live at 1820 Truman' s Path, which is directly
23 west of the Bollman line; and first. I would like
to apologize for getting my paperwork in so late,
24 which is March 30th; Mrs . Bertani did get me
notice on March 9th or somewhere thereabout, but I
25 had a vacation planned, and I was gone 10 days .
So trust me, trying to work and getting back, I
March 31, 2005
16
1
2 went and saw -- I got back on Wednesday, I went to
the Building Department on Thursday, I looked at
3 the plans, I went out and measured from his house
to the property line on Saturday, called my
4 surveyor on Monday, they came out yesterday, I
asked them to rush the calculations, and my survey
5 print, and I don' t think it' s a real imposition on
the Bollmans if the hearing stays open a week or
6 so for me to get my final survey in so that you
get a whole view of this thing. This happens to
7 be a very big deal to me, and I might add that the
property' s been in this condition -- I' ll give you
8 pictures -- for 18 years . I've lived with this
kind of dilapidated structure, so if we have to
9 wait another week to get this sorted out, I don' t
think it' s a big deal .
10 These are pictures that I would like to
enter into the record with my statement I made
11 yesterday (handing) . I assume that goes into the
record if you will . I numbered each one of them,
12 they' re all in order, and I just wrote a little
comment on the back of them. So you can see what
13 I tried to do. I saw the application that went
into you. You saw just a snapshot of the front of
14 the house they want to redo and the back of the
house, but I think you have to see the entire
15 property. As Mr. Bertani said, this property' s
been in the Bollman family for a long time . I
16 know that Bruce has an attachment to the land, we
all do. These three parcels were all one at
17 once .
In Exhibit A on the paperwork I put in, I
18 put a 1970 survey of the property, and his mom
owned all three parcels and now they have been
19 divided, and Bruce' s is in the middle, it' s 50
feet, Purettes is to the east, he' s 50 feet, I'm
20 40 feet . I have the smallest lot, the smallest
house, and, Mr. Dinizio, you asked -- I didn' t
21 want to bring this up because to me how he uses
the accessory building is really not the issue .
22 He does live there full time . It' s him, he' s my
neighbor, that' s fine . The issue for me is, in a
23 nutshell, is you have two structures on one piece
of property which is less than a quarter acre that
24 look like houses, whether you call it a house or
not, it looks like a house and you've got the
25 pictures here .
This is the CO, it says accessory garage
March 31, 2005
17
1
2 in front yard with nonhabitable storage area above
as applied for, and I said in my letter that I
3 wasn' t sure if it was already exceeding lot
coverage for the steps and the decks, just because
4 it' s not in the CO, I don' t know. I'm just saying
that if it exceeds lot coverage already there
5 needs to be a variance for that part . Also, the
canvas shed, I don' t know why it' s necessary, he
6 has covers on the things that are in there and he
has had in the past . The boats were always neatly
7 stacked at the side of the yard, but visually you
can see from the first picture, it' s a lot to hit
8 your eye to have a 10 ' by 18' storage shed smack
up against the garage, which is already the size
9 of most houses in the neighborhood, that accessory
building is 1, 485 square feet, and I take those
10 measurements off the Ingegno survey. That
1, 485 -- I haven' t had a chance to read
11 Mr. Bertani' s letter but, when you get my survey,
my whole house and my accessory building is not
12 1, 485 . The house that was reconstructed on the
other lot is 2 , 000 square feet; the accessory
13 building is 23 . 3 wide . My house is 20 feet wide,
the Purret' s house is 20 . 2 feet wide . I don' t
14 know what it is to the peak of the Bollman
garage . I think the Board should know what that
15 is because the peak of the garage, it' s a
cathedral, it' s a nice design, don' t get me wrong,
16 but what I thought was going to happen in 1977,
when this building went up, was that the house
17 would come down, he' d have a big beautiful lawn,
and that maybe he would add on to the accessory
18 building in terms of a residence . And from the
aesthetic point of view, that would be great . But
19 what he wants now, and frankly, what he' s legally
entitled to, he has his footprint, he can keep the
20 house he has and remodel that, but he does need a
variance to go up two stories . It' s substantial .
21 To my roof is I think 20 feet, that' s one reason I
had a surveyor come out so you could know what it
22 is to the peak of my roof, I don' t know. He' s
talking about going up 30 . There' s no other house
23 in the neighborhood especially the six houses
around that are anywhere near that, and you have
24 to consider that the distance between our houses,
his surveyor says it' s six feet from his house to
25 the line, and there are pictures in there that
show the shrubs along the property line . I
March 31, 2005
18
1
2 measured it and it' s 65 inches, to me that' s 5 . 5
feet . But I'm not a surveyor, when surveyors say
3 half a foot doesn' t make a lot of difference, well
it does make a lot of difference to me because it
4 just means that our houses are that much closer.
So no matter what way you cut it, we have
5 two structures on a piece of property. It' s maxed
out on lot coverage already and this was by
6 choice . This accessory building is . 44 percent of
the total lot coverage . He' s at 8 . 82 percent with
7 the accessory building; the house right now is I
think 10 . 67, whether you count the walks and all
8 that stuff, that' s for you to decide, I don' t
know, but it looks like it' s maxed out or close to
9 maxed out right now, and I just do not see the
need for a variance to increase the footprint or
10 go totally up two stories to 30 feet where there
are design alternatives .
11 As an addendum to this, I gave you six
pages, and that' s only from 2004 and 2003 , out of
12 McKinney' s Case Law about the factors you' re to
consider for a variance, and what the person wants
13 to do with their land is not a controlling factor,
and you' re supposed to look at the land itself,
14 and there are reasonable alternatives here . All
I 'm asking for is some compromise . I don' t want
15 to live next to this shack any longer either. But
I think design-wise, everything in the
16 neighborhood is one and-a-half stories, why
couldn' t he bump it in so the second story doesn' t
17 go straight in like a box. I don' t know, I'm not
an architect . I'm going to ask Glennis Barry to
18 come in here, she' s in another meeting, she' s an
architect, she looked at this for me and tried to
19 come up with some alternatives that I did put in
my letter. I'm just asking that they consider
20 some alternatives to this . I 'm open to other
types of variances, but I think just to come and
21 put the biggest thing you can on the thing, and
then -- I just don' t think that that' s the way to
22 do it . I think there should be some compromise on
this whole deal because the fact is, it' s close,
23 it' s two houses on one lot, looks like two houses .
There is nothing else in the neighborhood like
24 this . If you do your balancing test from 267 B3 ,
the detriment to the neighborhood, to me as an
25 adjacent neighbor, to Bob O'Brien, the neighbor on
the other side, to Jessie Purrett, it far
March 31, 2005
19
1
2 outweighs any personal gain he gets for having a
real big house . Something' s got to give here .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani had
mentioned that he could lower the 30 foot height
4 to something like 26 , 28 . Would that be
acceptable?
5 MS . GOULD: I think we need to see how
high my house is .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I agree with
you 30 feet towers over anybody in the
7 neighborhood.
MS . GOULD: John Bertani said it was
8 like -- if you look at pictures I think it' s 19,
20 , and there' s 17, 18 , 20 and 29 it shows the
9 roof line of the current cottage, okay, it' s
between 12 and 14 feet . Glennis has scaled that
10 for me . If that goes up 18 feet you can get an
idea from those pictures it' s going to be massive
11 from the road. It' s not going to look very nice .
It' s already there' s one house and then there' s
12 going to be another house . I don' t see why
something couldn' t be designed that' s comparable
13 to the out building that would kind of match it,
have like twins or something, and that would still
14 give them space .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want varying roof
15 lines?
MS . GOULD: I think varying roof lines
16 would be something to look at as an alternative if
they don' t want to bring it back and hook it into
17 the other house or go smaller into the existing
footprint; after all, their existing footprint is
18 29 . 5 across, that' s 50 percent larger than mine
and the next door neighbors and we all have
19 similar size lots . So already they have something
pre-existing that' s bigger.
20 Also, we' re talking about adopting a new
code here in May, the pyramid roof law, and small
21 lots increasing setbacks to 15 feet . That' s going
to mean this variance is even more substantial
22 than it already is .
I know my letter' s in the record, I put my
23 calculations in there, maybe they' ll change or
you' ll change them when you see my survey because
24 it' s based on what I think the distances are from
the property line, and I'm estimating those
25 because I don' t have a survey. My old survey is
in there, but you' ll see, it doesn' t have any of
March 31, 2005.
20
1
2 those distances, which is why I requested a new
one .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two comments, one is
4 I gather you would be happy if they made this
existing cottage into a beach front cottage rather
5 than a primary house given the size of the
existing garage?
6 MS . GOULD : I think it would look real
cute .
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One point about the
question of how important is one foot to a
8 surveyor, or less than a foot? Surely I think one
foot compared with what? One foot out of six feet
9 is a lot more than one foot out of 20 feet .
MS . GOULD: That' s my point .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where this becomes
relevant is we' re talking about the effect on the
11 neighborhood, small increments add up to a lot if
the setbacks are already small . Clearly you have
12 a number of ideas, would you be willing to
negotiate this with Mr. Bollman?
13 MS . GOULD: Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Regarding something
14 that would be mutually acceptable .
MS . GOULD: I said that in my letter if he
15 had come to me with the plans before this, we
could have talked about it then. But my notice of
16 this whole deal has been just like yours . I got a
card in the mail . So there hasn' t been any
17 negotiation yet . I said to Linda Bertani that I
thought that there should be some compromise here .
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think glancing at
the survey, we missed another variance . The
19 Building Department missed another variance, it' s
35 feet to the bulkhead, the house . But you' re
20 demo-ing the house, so they missed that
variance . That will be caught down the line .
21 MS . GOULD: There' s lots of potential
variances . I leave that to the Board to determine
22 what those are . I don' t personally think he has a
variance for the canvas storage shed, I think he
23 should get- rid of it . He' s not going to get a
variance for it anyway. Get rid of the mound of
24 dirt that' s been sitting there for 10 years from
when the garage went up.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
March 31, 2005
21
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been down
3 there twice, I observed it with snow, without
snow. I have to tell you, that we recently got an
4 application before us in New Suffolk which was
exactly the same situation occurred, the house was
5 demolished, or partially demolished, the house was
not livable, the people lived in the garage
6 presently, temporarily; and the same exact
situation occurred where at that time it was the
7 applicant who, by the way is an attorney, said
we' re going to move out of the garage, we had no
8 other place to live, the house was unlivable .
Mr. Bertani said that . What I need you to do
9 because of this median roof line issue that we' re
constantly discussing, the roof line really
10 doesn' t go -- it goes median to the center of the
roof, I need you to address issues that refer to
11 the ridge line itself, because I don' t understand
when you' re talking height to a median roof
12 line . We ,have to talk to the ridge so we
understand exactly what the situation is .
13 MS . GOULD : You' re asking me what the
ridge of my house is?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you' re
addressing ridges, let' s talk ridges . We can' t
15 visualize mean roof lines, that' s the issue .
MS . GOULD: So far all I 've been able to
16 do is visualize because I don' t know what the
height is to his accessory building' s ridge
17 line . I do remember when it went up I was a
little alarmed at the height . I think I asked the
18 Building Department, this is 18 feet, now an
accessory building is supposed to be 18 feet . I
19 believe you' re allowed higher than that to the
ridge line .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Twenty-two .
MS . GOULD: So the other thing that you
21 have to factor in is that the property takes a bit
of a dip, and you' ll see that in his elevations .
22 Where Bruce' s accessory building is, I think it' s
only 6 . 3 , so whatever it is, he' s a little bit
23 lower than what we are up front, which I think the
elevation is about 17 . But if you look at my
24 ridge line and Bob O'Brien and Ann O'Brien' s ridge
line, they have a one and-a-half story house,
25 they' re about 20 feet from me on the other side,
his is a little bit lower than mine visually.
March 31, 2005
22
1
2 Then my ridge line I think is going to be in the
area of 21, 22 feet .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To your base
elevation of where your house is at that time?
4 MS . GOULD : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s a
5 credence factor we can understand. This median
situation I can' t understand.
6 MS . GOULD: I don' t understand it either.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me share one
7 thing with you. Number one, there is a CO on the
back building, notwithstanding whatever the
8 determination of the Building Department was at
that time . We have an admission from the builder
9 that they are going to move into this house . We
do not have a pyramid law, at this time . We are
10 going to have a pyramid law in a very short time,
I assume . I don' t know how much you can push the
11 envelope at this time based upon what you are
requesting because we are here mainly for lot
12 coverage and a small addition, which my
understanding is for the purpose of a heating
13 system to be placed in the basement and so on and
so forth, a mud room type of effect in the rear of
14 this new proposed house . I just don' t know how
far we can push it . I appreciate all of those
15 cases you have given us, many of which we have
seen before, and I'm not saying I am blanking
16 these out . When we make a decision, as you know,
we agonize a long time over some of these
17 decisions . But exactly as my colleague Mike said,
speak to them, see what you can do and get back to
18 us and that' s where the issue is . And we will
accept any further information, assuming the
19 Chairperson wants to leave the hearing open, from
any other data and then we' ll go back for another
20 inspection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jenny, how about we
21 leave the application open and you and Mr. Bertani
get together with your new survey and come up with
22 something that would be more equitable to both of
you and come back in a month?
23 MS . GOULD: That' s fine with me . I just
want to address your statements about me pushing
24 the envelope .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have the
25 perfect right as a property owner, and please,
that may have not been the best choice of words .
March 31, 2005
23
1
2 Based upon the fact that we do not have a pyramid
law, and it has not been addressed in the notice
3 of disapproval, that' s all I'm mentioning.
There' s nothing against you or yourself as a
4 property owner.
MS . GOULD: I understand. But when you
5 consider a variance you don' t just look at the
structure, you have to look at the whole property
6 and you have to look at the neighbors, that' s what
I'm asking. That' s not what you have in the file,
7 you got a front and the back of a house . I don' t
have an objection to 105 feet back, we' re talking
8 about increasing a nonconforming house not just by
100 percent by adding a second story, we' re
9 talking about taking a house that' s only 12 feet
high and going up another 18 feet, no matter how
10 you cut it that is substantial .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a comment for
11 the record. First of all regarding the pushing of
the envelope, my understanding that is that first
12 of all unlike appealing a case to a higher court
which you' re prohibited to raise issues that
13 weren' t brought up earlier, we are not limited to
things that were specifically cited in the notice
14 of disapproval when we review these cases, but
with regard to the so-called pushing of the
15 envelope, since we do have some discretion in
granting a variance if a variance was required, we
16 can certainly pay attention to the kinds of
considerations that ' are going into the possibility
17 of adopting a pyramid law. We' re not invoking the
pyramid law as law, but simply the kind of
18 reasoning which is in our scope of discretion, I
believe . So I don' t think it' s irrelevant for you
19 to mention this as long as you' re not citing it as
having legal precedential light .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I agree with you,
Michael .
21 MS . GOULD: And also as to his use of the
accessory building, it never came from me in a
22 piece of paper that I put in or in this hearing
except as a rebuttal how he was using it, because
23 frankly, that is not the issue; that' s an issue
for another day, another place . The issue is what
24 type of buildings are on this property, and there
is an accessory building on this property that
25 looks like and is bigger than a lot of the houses
in the neighborhood, and you' re being asked to
March 31, 2005
24
1
2 grant a variance for another structure on this
property that will be twice as big as an accessory
3 building that' s already there because this is
1, 486 and I believe the house will come out to a
4 little under -- between 22 and 24, but you' re not
counting this distance to the peak, maybe the
5 footprint' s only going to be 22 or 23 , but the
peak, the physicalness of this house going up 30
6 feet is a lot . That' s really the issue, how it
looks in the neighborhood, how it affects the
7 neighbors, not the use .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
8 question about it . I just want you to know that
we appreciate the pictures that you gave us, and
9 I 'm not speaking for my colleagues but I've been
there twice and I certainly know the area and I
10 certainly appreciate the area and I certainly
accept all the comments that you have made, but
11 you need to try and work it out at this point .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani, are you at
12 the moment willing to negotiate a little bit with
Ms . Gould?
13 MR. BERTANI : I' ll speak to Mr. Bollman,
I'm sure he' s willing to speak with Mrs . Gould
14 about this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Suppose we keep this
15 hearing open and schedule it to the May 4th
hearing?
16 MS . COULD: I think there are other people
that would like to make a comment on this . I'm
17 going to ask Glennis to come back in.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Just on
18 clarity' s sake, I would like to expound on
something Mr. Goehringer raised and Mr. Simon,
19 while there is a law that' s been set for public
hearing, which we have been referring to as the
20 pyramid law, there hasn' t, been a hearing on it
yet . It is not a law. It may or may not be a law
21 as currently drafted or some other form. So this
Board will not be applying that law. However, in
22 applying the balancing factors in ruling for an
application on a variance some of the same
23 considerations are necessary, including obviously
the effect on the neighborhood and the overall
24 change in the property.
MR. O'BRIEN: My name is Bob O' Brien. I
25 live next to Jenny and two houses west of Bruce .
My main objection is the height . My house is a
March 31, 2005
25
1
2 little lower than Jenny' s and I had been thinking
of adding additions to the house, and I had
3 considered going up 35 foot limitations and so
forth, and I felt it was just not in keeping with
4 the neighborhood. So I 'm never going to apply for
that : So the height is the main issue I think to
5 me .
I think the Board also has to consider
6 that this house is right on the coastal erosion
zone, the foundation basically, and I don' t know
7 if there' s going to be other variances needed
besides your Board because the house is
8 substantially, the only thing that' s going to be
kept is the foundation at this point . So all bets
9 may be off as far as heights and so forth, you' re
probably more informed on that than I am.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He just makes it inside
the coastal erosion.
11 MR. O' BRIEN: But the code states if the
house is substantially deteriorated or a fire
12 occurs, that it' s supposed to be set back so far
from the bluff .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s from the bay.
MR. O' BRIEN: Unless there' s a reasonable
14 alternative .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s only from
15 the sound front .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s a setback
16 from the bulkhead on the bay, 75 feet from the
bulkhead.
17 MR. O' BRIEN: From the coastal erosion
zone too .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The coastal erosion
zone is basically just on the sound side not on
19 the bay.
MR. O'BRIEN: Why is it shown on the map?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s shown what his
zone is, which is Elevation 9 . So he has to be
21 nine feet up, which he makes . He just would have
to have maybe a variance again from the bulkhead
22 itself .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If there is an
23 issue with the coastal erosion line, that is
something that the Building Department has to pick
24 - up, and if there is an issue that will be sent to
the Trustees for a determination. This Board
25 doesn' t have jurisdiction over the coastal erosion
law.
March 31, 2005
26
1
2 MR. O'BRIEN: My main concern was that you
say you really don' t have jurisdiction on the
3 height limitation, I think that' s the gist of what
you have been saying.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The gist is
exactly what you said when you started your
5 conversation, Mr. O'Brien, and that is regardless
to the application, that generically in my
6 opinion, the code reads 35 feet . In my discussion
with Miss Gould really that' s 42 feet because
7 we' re talking mean height, that' s the reason why
an issue of disapproval was not a nature of this
8 particular application. And, of course, one of
the reasons 'why I think the Town Board is coming
9 before us with this new law that Counsel is just
talking about, and I do concur with what exactly
10 Miss Gould -- she may have not have understood
when I referred to the situation of pushing the
11 envelope, which might have been a poor choice of
words -- that everything we do is taken into
12 consideration on these pre-existing nonconforming
lots, everything, and we've done that I 've been
13 here 25 years and I have to tell you that front
yard garages, everything is taken into
14 consideration. And we understand the factors that
you' re concerned with. We understand everything
15 that goes on today regarding those factors, I 'm
speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself;
16 so let me rephrase that and say I understand. The
question is, in order to get the needed square
17 footage that some people need in reference to
construction sometimes it becomes the law of
18 diminishing returns and not do anything with the
structure if you' re not going to get a house
19 that' s habitable to live in. The issue that I
referred to also, and I don' t mean to be redundant
20 on this issue, that you've got to live somewhere
if the place isn' t habitable and by admission they
21 said they' re living there it doesn' t have kitchen
facility, and so on and so forth. That' s the
22 issue . We weren' t here . We were not part of that
CO that has been issued on that back garage . And
23 we understand that based upon the admission from
the attorney we understand that things are going
24 to change once the house is constructed. But I 'm
saying that we need to discuss ridge line, then we
25 need to discuss median roof line if we' re going to
discuss those issues .
March 31, 2005
27
1
2 MR. O'BRIEN: That' s my main thing too .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As Mr. Corcoran said, we
3 don' t have a pyramid law in place, but according
to the balancing test we can take some of those
4 issues that are in the pyramid law into account in
our decision.
5 MR. O' BRIEN: Because the house has to be
in keeping with the neighborhood.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani?
MR. BERTANI : I would just like to add
7 that we have a nonjurisdiction from the DEC and we
have a Trustees Permit and a Health Department
8 Permit also, so we have had all those agencies
there already, and they have no problems with it .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you give us
copies of that for our file?
10 MR. BERTANI : Yes, we can.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have another
11 question you may want to speak to the Building
Department about that just to save you another
12 trip back here .
MR. BERTANI : The bulkhead, it' s way down
13 at the foot of the high water mark. There' s
numerous tiers, so I' ll check and see .
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So just to save you
a trip back, you can get it amended. Also I
15 didn' t look when I was there, but I'm sure that
foundation' s a block foundation.
16 MR. BERTANI : Yes, it is .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Any thought about
17 removing that and since you' re demo-ing it, just
come into conformity on the side yards?
18 MR. BERTANI : The only problem is the
expense, it' s expensive to --
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the foundation
structural?
20 MR. BERTANI : Yes, it is . We were going
to do very little work to it, just to have the
21 basement there for the heating system on the north
side, that would be the only work we' re going to
22 do on the actual existing foundation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further comments,
23 then I' ll make a motion to keep this hearing open
until the May 4th hearing pending the two people,
24 Ms . Gould and Mr. Bertani, getting together for an
amicable solution.
25 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
March 31, 2005
28
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Roberta Elwell on -Fishers Island on Montauk
3 Avenue .
MR. SCHWARTZ : Good morning, my name is
4 Mark Schwartz, I'm an architect for the project .
The Elwell project is an existing structure with a
5 first floor of 670 square foot . The owner would
like to add 270 square feet to the footprint with
6 a new living room on the south side . We want to
extend the existing roof line in keeping with
7 what' s there . And the issue is the front yard
setback, which is existing as 32 feet and proposed
8 is 28 feet . So that' s what we were hoping to do
here .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How big is that porch
you' re adding on?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ : It' s not a porch, it' s a
two-story addition, 270 square feet . That' s the
11 footprint so it' s double that for the second
floor.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my
13 application, I just for the life of me can' t
visualize how busy Montauk Avenue is, but I
14 suspect that the difference between the
existing -- I mean, it' s all existing anyway, but
15 I think 28 feet is probably adequate to
accommodate a front yard, Mr. Schwartz, so I don' t
16 have any comments on it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I actually
drove by this, and I don' t think this will make
18 much difference . There' s already a porch on that .
I have no objection.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a statement
21 for the record, it' s 28 feet to the property line,
but actually it' s probably over 50 feet to the
22 actual road?
MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes, it is .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just wanted to put
that on the record. No other questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to comment on this application? If
25 not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing,
reserve decision until later.
March 31, 2005
29
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is John
and Joy Gallagher, who wish to construct additions
4 on Bayview Drive in East Marion. That' s an odd
lot .
5 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes . It' s a very strange
lot .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We spent 'a lot of time
trying to decide who owns that right of way.
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : I know they own the
property beside that .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Unknown owner.
MR. SCHWARTZ : As you know from the file,
9 they' re looking to expand a second floor bedroom
with a central dormer. It' s going to add about 70
10 square feet to the bedroom and there' s an existing
porch on the first floor with a flat roof, they
11 would like to change that and do a deck, so you
can walk out the bedroom onto the deck, and that' s
12 the scope of the project .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
particular objection to this based on the fact
14 that the right of way does exist, and it' s
probably a walking path right of way. If you
15 drove in and parked next to them, there' s no real
way you could turn around anyway.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not unless you want to
go into a tree .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are no
encroachments on that at"all, that house is
18 strictly on it, it' s not over the right of way in
any way?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ : Correct .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just want to
20 mention that Joan Egan dropped off a letter in
opposition.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know
where she lives in reference to this?
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She lives at 330
Knoll Circle .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She' s a fair distance
away.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She mentions
that -- I' ll read the letter if you want me to .
25 "I am more than concerned with this application
being submitted by Mr. and Mrs . John Gallagher for
March 31, 2005
30
1
2 several reasons . One, it is on our deeded right
of way and will put more weight on their bulkhead
3 and the existing bridge to Fox Island. Two, I am
also concerned with the fact that it could be
4 turned into a two-family house, which so many
homes in Gardiner Bay Estates is doing. Three, at
5 this point, I do not know if they have submitted
their plans to our real estate committee . "
,6 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes, we have .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : "Four, by deed
7 restrictions, two-family houses are not permitted.
Five, it is also more than probable they will
8 enlarge upstairs bathroom and need more drainage
for that . Number six, we have had numerous
9 problems with their dog and children being
frightened. I am against the application. "
10 Signed Joan Eagan.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Noted. Vincent?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . I
walked down the right of way, took the walk to the
12 bridge, I thought that was so cool . I don' t have
a problem with that .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions,
14 what is the effect on the side setbacks?
MR. SCHWARTZ : We' re going straight up,
15 we' re encroaching.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re not going to
16 be increased, right?
MR. SCHWARTZ : No, not at all .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . This is not
18 going to be a two-family house?
MR. SCHWARTZ : No. We' re just expanding
19 the bedroom and there' s an existing bathroom in
that bedroom now, we' re just expanding the
20 bathroom.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not
21 expanding the size of the drain or putting an
extra toilet, just what is there is going to be
22 there .
MR. SCHWARTZ : It' s just a dormer.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this? Yes, sir?
24 MR. LUSHER: My name is it Charles Lusher,
I live at 820 Bayview Drive, I'm Gallagher' s
25 immediate neighbor, and I spoke to the real estate
committee this morning, and Gardiner' s Bay has no
March 31, 2005
31
1
2 objection to the addition and I certainly don' t .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much,
3 sir. Any other further comments from the
audience? If not, I make a motion to close the
4 hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
6 Miss Healy on Matthew' s Lane in Cutchogue for a
sunroom.
7 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mrs . Healy would like to
add a 315 square foot one-story addition. There' s
8 an existing deck there now the same size, the
existing rear yard is 48 feet . With this addition
9 it would be reduced to 44 foot rear yard, 50 is
required, and that' s what the owner would like to
10 do .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
11 question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jerry.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a heated
room, Mr. Schwartz?
13 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes, it would be .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One story,
14 right?
MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a swimming
pool in that backyard, right?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will this addition be
17 between the swimming pool and the house?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s adjacent to the
18 house just behind the garage, actually.
MR. SCHWARTZ : It' s not directly between
19 the pool and the house, no.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it' s not on the
20 far side of the pool?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s on the west side
21 of the pool .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
24 audience that wishes to speak for or against this
application?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I' ll make a
motion closing the hearing and reserving decision
March 31, 2005
32
1
2 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
4 a waiver of merger for Daysman and Morris on Brown
and Linnet Street in Greenport .
5 MS . DOTIE : Deborah Dotie for the
applicants . This is an application to unmerge two
6 parcels that have been in separate ownership for
almost 15 years . Mr. Morris and his wife
7 purchased about five lots in Greenport in 1957 .
They were conveyed in one deed as two parcels,
8 one, the subject lot, on Brown Street, which is
still vacant and four on Linnet Street . In 1989
9 they went to the Planning Board got a lot line
change and moved the lines on the Linnet Street
10 parcels so that the sizes were pretty equal, and
the Planning Board at that time approved it,
11 didn' t even discuss Brown Street at all .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So they just did the
12 ones on Linnet Street?
MS . DOTIE : Yes . Mr. Morris then sold
13 that property, meaning the 7 . 1, which is the one
directly north of that vacant lot, to his daughter
14 in 1990 and in ' 99 sold the other parcel to his
son. The only thing they own in the area is that
15 one parcel on Brown Street . They went into
contract to sell the Brown Street property,
16 Building Permit application was submitted, and it
was denied on the grounds that Lot 24 , the one on
17 Brown Street merged with his daughter' s property
to the north. They have been receiving separate
18 tax bills all these years to retain 24 as a
separate lot, it' s consistent with many of the
19 lots in the neighborhood. I did a quick count, I
think there are 41 lots in the immediate
20 neighborhood, of which 27 are about the same size
as 24 if it were left alone . Selling it to I
21 assume a young couple, I don' t know that, a couple
in Southold, they' re going to build a house .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As far as we can see
the 7 . 1 and the one on Brown Street are still in
23 one ownership.
MS . DOTIE : No, they' re not . Laurie
24 Latney owns 7 . 1, I gave you the deed for that and
Mr. Morris and his wife own 24 .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have it here,
Ruth, if you need it .
March 31, 2005
33
1
2 MS . DOTIE : There was a deed in 1990 to
Laurie Latney and her husband, and I gave you the
3 most recent deed, which is 2001, when Mr. and Mrs .
Latney transferred it to Laurie alone .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is, of
5 course, a little different because it' s already
been deeded out, meaning the properties adjoining,
6 Miss Dotie .
MS . DOTIE: It' s not the first one I have
7 had like that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know.
8 MS . DOTIE : And the deeding out occurred
in 1990 , too, before the current merger law.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, which was
in 1995 .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Lot 24 --
MS . DOTIE : Lot 24 is the Brown Street
11 property.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It shows a 1953
12 deed to Morrises . It' s still in the name of
Mr. Morris .
13 MS . DOTIE: Right . There were various
things carved out of that .
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the 7 . 1 is --
MS . DOTIE : Laurie Latney.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In 1990 you gave
to Laurie Latney?
16 MS . DOTIE : That was the original deed to
Laurie Latney and her husband. There' s a
17 subsequent deed in 2001 from Laurie and her
husband to Laurie alone .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So she still
resides there?
19 MS . DOTIE: Yes, she does . And a small
house with a garage which overlaps a little bit .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, some of the
houses in that neighborhood are really upgraded.
21 MS . DOTIE : Yes . There are a number of
Dinizios living there .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, you' re more
familiar with this whole area.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, I don't
have any objection to this . I can ask the usual
24 questions about did they read the Suffolk Times
and would they have known if this is merged or
25 not .
MS . DOTIE : How could they know it was
March 31, 2005
34
1
2 merged after the fact, if the law went into effect
in 1995 and they didn' t own the two adjoining
3 parceling in 195?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our Town seems to
4 think that everyone should read the Suffolk Times
and understand what the legal ramifications are,
5 and it' s an objection I had to this law all
along. Do these lots share anything in common?
6 MS . DOTIE : The only thing is the overlap
on the garage, which is depicted on the survey,
7 and the contract provides that that will be
allowed to remain.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s no
cesspools, no rights of way?
9 MS . DOTIE: If there is I think we could
arrange to get one put in.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm talking about
the cesspool for the house now doesn' t sit on that
11 lot?
MS . DOTIE : I don' t believe so.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there sewage down
there?
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s sewage down
there, but I don' t believe this house has it .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They may not have it on
9th Street, I think they extended it to 7th years
15 ago . The sewer goes to Linnet?
MR. DINIZIO: Paul Dinizio, 637 Brown
16 Street . The sewer goes from 9th to Linnet to 6th.
There are a lot of properties on Brown Street that
17 are merged, have their sewer going from Brown
Street to Linnet Street .
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question, there
is an existing condition that is that that lot, as
19 I identify it, is some sort of a mini junkyard at
the moment . Are you suggesting this is a remedy
20 to that condition by getting a Building Permit so
that a house can be built there to replace the
21 garbage that is on the lot?
MS . DOTIE : I wasn' t suggesting that .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that be a
consequence?
23 MS . DOTIE : I assume so.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And probably a
24 desirable consequence .
MS . DOTIE : I assume the debris is a
25 result of Douglas Morris' business that he may
store things there on his father' s property, and
March 31, 2005
35
1
2 that' s a big assumption. I don' t know that for a
fact . Looking at what was on the property, I
3 would guess that . I did notice a trailer on the
property, but I think it was on the neighbor' s
4 trailer that was overlapping.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree that this
lot is the typical size of the neighborhood. But
6 also, I would like to defer the interpretation of
the deeds to our Counsel so he may remove it .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that would like to speak? Mr. Dinizio?
8 MR. DINIZIO: Paul Dinizio, 637 Brown
Street . I currently reside across the street from
9 the parcel, and it' s kind of a double edged sword,
I 'm for the house because I know young people need
10 a place to live, but on the same token, there' s
all kinds of merged lots in that area. My lot
11 happens to be an acre, and if I tore down my
house, I' d have eight lots; would this variance be
12 made part of the law, I would assume, allow me to
do that? Would it allow people who own two lots
13 side by side to split them in the neighborhood
that are currently merged? Would it allow an
14 owner in the neighborhood that owns three lots
that are currently merged to split them? Would it
15 allow other people who own houses that are
currently merged with the houses be able to split
16 them, which by a rough count plus or minus three
or four, there are 20 situations like that in the
17 neighborhood. I think if you want to unmerge
lots, you would should do throughout Southold
18 Town, not just in Greenport or not just in the
neighborhood in Southold, and not just in a
19 neighborhood in Mattituck. It should be town-wide
law.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio, we've had
many requests for waiver of merger and usually our
21 rule of thumb is if it has been owned since before
1983 and since 1983 and they' re merged, that they
22 never unmerged it when the merger law came into
effect in 183 , ' 84 , than it is still one lot and
23 we rarely grant a waiver. Does that answer your
question?
24 MR. DINIZIO: The key word is "rarely, " so
apparently you must do it once in a while . If you
25 said we never do that then it' s a moot point .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll let Jerry go, as
March 31, 2005
36
1
2 far as I remember, at least since I 've been on the
Board, we don' t .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : A merger from
death.
4 MR. DINIZIO: I'm not talking about the
merger, I'm talking about the unmerger.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Unmerger if there has
been a death or extraordinary circumstances, but
6 as a rule of thumb, no, we do not .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There are also
7 standards in the code book.
MR. DINIZIO: Like what standards?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have the code
book in front of me .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You can get a copy
of it from my office .
10 MR. DINIZIO: Like the lot can' t be
bigger -- smaller than 50 by 100 or something like
11 that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it doesn' t mention
12 any specific dimensions .
MR. DINIZIO: I live in this neighborhood
13 and I 'm worried about my property values . If I
can make eight lots, you' re going to increase the
14 price of my property considerably.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not unless the Town
15 Board decides to change the zone in which you live
to say R 10, 000 .
16 MR. DINIZIO: Eighth acre lots that' s what
you' re talking about . That' s what you' re talking
17 about changing here . You' re talking about making
an eighth acre lot, which, like I said, it' s a
18 double edged sword, and I kind of have no problem
with it on one side and on the other side I do
19 because there are a lot of lots in the
neighborhood that are separate and that are
20 buildable . They' re in different names so they' re
allowed to be built upon. It' s as simple as that .
21 And are you going to start a flood for people
asking for lots to be unmerged now that are
22 currently just alongside another house or there' s
three together.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think so.
MR. DINIZIO: I would like to know that
24 you' re not going to do it . That' s my whole thing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One can never say
25 never.
MR. DINIZIO: Whoever' s got the most money
March 31, 2005
37
1
2 and can hirer the best lawyer is going to win.
It' s as simple as that .
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Board' s
ruling on this application right now. There are
4 standards of the law it has to follow. It can' t
speak as to what it' s going to do on applications
5 that aren' t before it in the future . But your
question as to setting the precedent it' s
6 well-founded. People could refer to any decision
the Board makes and say you should have to act
7 consistently.
MR. DINIZIO: I have to be frank with you.
8 My own nephew owns the lot next to it, and it ' s
the same thing except his house is on Brown Street
9 and the lot' s on Linnet Street and he owns another
house on Linnet Street with the lot next to it,
10 and he' s just itching for this to go through.
BOARD .MEMBER SIMON: This Board doesn' t
11 have the powers to enact a law or rule that says
we cannot or can always do this; that' s the not
12 the jurisdiction of this committee . We can only
deal with cases as they come before us . Yes,
13 precedents are taken into account, but they' re not
automatic, they' re always distinguishable, and we
14 cannot enact a general rule that says you can
never do this or you can always do this .
15 MR. DINIZIO: My concern is that you as a
Board seeing this take place, you should either
16 tell the Town Board that you' re for breaking up
unmerged lots or you' re against it . Because this
17 is where the people have to come to get them
unmerged.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me comment on
that, Paul, and I ' ll put it in context of yours .
19 If you came to me, to this Board with -- I'm only
speaking for myself and I vote consistently on
20 this particular law because I didn' t like it when
it was there -- if you came to me before this
21 Board with eight deeds, one for each one of those
lots that you say you own, I ' d seriously consider
22 that, and that' s what Mr. Morris is coming here
for. I feel like he really had no opportunity to
23 know at the time that this law was enacted that
his lots were being merged. Before 1983 if he
24 wanted to sell those lots and put houses on it , he
would have done it . What the Town basically did,
25 in the notices that you read in the paper that are
so dull and you can' t possibly know the
March 31, 2005
38
1
2 ramifications of that unless you' re a lawyer or
unless you participated in, making that law, what' s
3 going to happen 10 years from now that to mind,
they get it automatically, but I can tell you if
4 you look at the merger law;, they don' t meet the
criteria. Very few lots in the town meet the
5 criteria for unmerger.
MR. DINIZIO: Jim, , I found out this same
6 thing. I was before this Board in the early 180s
asking for the same thing, ' I had three separate
7 tax deeds to a parcel in the same neighborhood,
and I was turned down to have a separate and
8 distinct lots .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s
9 relevant .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That was for area
10 variance, it wasn' t for a lot waiver. They only
put the lot waiver provision in in 1997, so this
11 application is a little bit different by the
standards .
12 MR. DINIZIO: Linda, you can call it
whatever you want . You can call it three
13 different shades of green. It' s making a separate
piece of land the same size .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: .At the time you
made your application, Paul, there wasn' t anything
15 in the law that said the Board could grant it to
you, there is now. It was Bill Moore, they all
16 got together, it was such 'a bone of contention
between us that we brought it to committee and
17 said no lots would be unmerged by the way we were
going currently at that time, and they changed it
18 to allow some relief . Two people die at the same
time . One owned the lot next door, they died,
19 they ended up merged, that' s not a fair taking of
of the property, that' s an exception. If you sat
20 down and read the merger law, and read what these
people are asking for, they don' t meet the
21 criteria from the Town. Very few lots would.
It' s not founded what you',re talking about .
22 MR. DINIZIO : I' d like to comment on a few
other things too. We were always living in the
23 neighborhood in the contention that this was a
nonconforming lot, and it was being used as a
24 business which Mr. Morris :was in for years . I had
no problem with it . The things on that property
25 don' t talk back to me, so I had no problem
whatsoever, so is it still a nonconforming lot or
March 31, 2005
39
1
2 not?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What they suggest
3 to do is make it conforming. So just because it' s
nonconforming that Mr. Morris ran his business out
4 of there doesn' t make it not a residential lot .
Doesn' t restrict him from building a house on it
5 in any way. Certainly if he stops doing business
and cleans the lot up and after two years doesn' t
6 use it, then he no longer has that nonconforming
use . He can' t put cesspool covers on it anymore,
7 he has to go someplace else . Now he' s entitled to
it because he' s been doing it for so long. It
8 doesn' t go the other way around.
MS . DOTIE : If I may, I' d like to address
9 one particular part of the merger law that is
causing this problem, and it' s one that I have
10 discussed with this Board before, that' s the fact
that by the way it' s written it' s retroactive . It
11 went into effect 1995 or 1997 and applies back to
parcels that may have merged in 1983 , and that' s
12 just plain not fair to the people, and there
should be an exception in the law where those
13 should be exempted. Particularly in a situation
like this where you have adjoining parcels that
14 are owned by two different people . And, add to
that the fact that Mr. Morris went to the Planning
15 Board in 1989, nobody said it had merged with the
adjoining parcel; it was not even addressed in the
16 lot line change . It was a separate parcel as far
as the Town is concerned.
17 With respect to the possibility of perhaps
unmerging your three lots, I believe you probably
18 get one tax bill --
MR. DINIZIO: I'm talking about a parcel
19 that I got . I'm talking about a piece of land
that I owned that was three lots .
20 MS . DOTIE : In this instance there were
separate tax bills . There was no notice to
21 Mr. Morris that there was any issue of merger
until I got the notice of disapproval . I have to
22 admit I discussed it with him, but the Town never
said anything. It' s the retroactive nature of the
23 law. I've been here before on this issue . It
really should be changed, and there should be an
24 exception for merger by death, which there isn' t
yet .
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe there is
now, no?
March 31, 2005
40
1
2 MS . DOTIE : I don' t think so.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think so.
3 Thank you, Miss Dotie . If there' s no further
questions, I' ll make a motion closing the hearing,
4 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
6 Scripps down at Pine Tree Road in Cutchogue . Mr.
Fitzgerald.
7 MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Scripps would like to
make some renovation to the house, most of which
8 will be interior and no change in the footprint,
but it turns out that some of them enter into the
9 air space that the Walz decision said we need to
talk to you about . There' s a shed dormer at the
10 rear of the house where they have the side facing
the water that they want to extend on both sides
11 to the existing first floor wall, and on the south
side of the building, that would extend into the
12 prescribed 15 foot setback. The existing setback
of the existing building is only nine feet . On
13 the front of the building, they propose a gable
dormer, the corner of which extends into that six
14 foot area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jerry.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
objection to the application, even though there is
16 an insufficient side yard. It' s my application,
so I' ll write the decision for the Board as they
17 so choose .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No objections .
It' s a minor alteration, I believe the reverse
19 gable in the front will give it nice curb
appeal .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree with Vince .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience who wishes to speak on this application?
23 Hearing none, ' I make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
24 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Timothy Steele in a right of way on Oregon Road.
March 31, 2005
41
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: Gail Wickham for the
applicant . It is complicated and one reason it
3 took us so long to get here is because the
Building Department found it so complicated.
4 I' d like to start by saying Mr. Steele is
somewhat of a rare breed now, he' s a local
5 lifetime young resident of Southold town who is
engaged in what I call real farming. He was able
6 to purchase this farm as a vacant piece of
property a few years ago, sold the development .
7 rights to a considerable portion of it to finance
it and decided that rather than putting the house
8 up on the front by Oregon Road, he would rather
maximize his farming potential and saved out four
9 acres at the back of the farm to house his
residence, which he has since built and his
10 accessory buildings . What he didn' t realize at
the time was he situated his house, and actually
11 all of these buildings and proposed buildings are
situated so they are geographically and visually
12 appropriate . But by putting the house in the
middle of the lot, and on a corner lot because of
13 the configuration of the Oregon Road and the
driveway, he doesn' t technically meet the setback
14 requirements of the Town of Southold. And he also
has taken into great account, as you have seen,
15 he' s in the nursery business as well as general
farming and his yard is his office to some extent,
16 so he has done an awful lot of landscaping but he
has also been able to restore in the rear of the
17 property a wild cherry grove of trees, which are
pretty concentrated along the sound front shore,
18 but most of which have either been overgrown or
ruined. In fact, his neighbor just clear cut a
19 lot . So he' s been able to preserve a lot of that
old growth cherry in that area just east of the
20 garage . So in situating his buildings, he has
tried to take both the screening that he has put
21 in with the landscaping as well as some of the
natural features of the property and the overall
22 aesthetics into account .
Like most farmers in this town, he also
23 has to have another job, and he is a salesman for
a nursery company which makes him travel a lot,
24 and anybody that knows farming knows it' s a tough
business; you have to have your stuff when you
25 need it, you don' t know when that' s going to be
because of weather and what most guys do they just
March 31, 2005
42
1
2 leave it around outside . He was able to get a
storage container very quickly, and so he put it
3 in the back thinking it was a temporary structure
and didn' t need a permit to put some of his stuff
4 in, a lot of his stuff is still out . He hopes to
build a barn some point soon to build a barn when
5 he' s able, but the Building Department advised
that we apply for that now because of the yard
6 criteria so you could get the overall picture .
So that' s what we' re doing to be specific
7 about what we' re looking at, because of the
juxtaposition of the two fronts yards, the rear
8 yard is very, very small . So we are encroaching
with the proposed barn into a 1, 500 foot front
9 yard. We are encroaching into the westerly front
yard with the garage, and the proposed storage
10 facility, into a front yard that is several
hundred feet back. We' re not right up on a
11 road. Really the only thing I think that is
_affected is the very rear, and as you can see from
12 being up there, he has already planted that with
arbivitae .
13 When your Board asked that screening be
effectuated by screening like arborvitae you
14 usually specify four to six feet . He put 10 foot
arborvitae back there . There' s also a very large
15 Leland cypress tree where the proposed storage
area would go. And it is his intention to keep
16 that well screened and landscaped.
One thing he pointed out to me, which I
17 hadn' t thought about, is if he were to bring
storage facilities back in to 20 feet, the natural
18 tendency of people is to pile junk outside them.
So he actually thinks this will make it look
19 neater rather than bringing them closer in from
the rear yard and piling junk out . He wants to
20 have storage facilities and then the arborvitae
screening behind it .
21 He had intended to dress it up quite a
bit, put siding on it, barn doors so it would look
22 nice, but was advised not to proceed with that
until such time they were approved, and that can
23 be a condition that they not be I think it' s like
a gray siding material . It would be made to look
24 attractive like his other buildings . It' s where
he conducts his business, where he sells to some
25 extent, he has people come look out of there, so
we want to make it look attractive, and they live
March 31, 2005
43
1
2 there so they want it to look attractive .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ma' am, Chairman?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell
4 you I had a great deal of understanding this
application. I blew this up to 400 percent, and I
5 would like to make a copy of that for each of the
Board Members . So if you excuse me for one
6 second.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I' ll jump in there .
7 Building 4 as noted on the notice of disapproval .
That is what I would call a sea container; is that
8 correct, a steel structure? There will be two of
those?
9 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, the as-built, that is
the one directly behind the garage .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And that' s what
you' re trying to duplicate with three, and there
11 will be two of those?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And they will be
located as you drive up the 25 foot right of way,
13 the property is very heavily landscaped and the
trees will remain, so you won' t even see that from
14 the access .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then you propose an
15 addition to that garage .
MS . WICKHAM: The addition would be on
16 what is on Mr. Goehringer' s map, Building 2 ,
framed garage, the proposed addition is 16 feet to
17 the east -- to the west, excuse me . And that is
partially in the front yard because of the angle
18 of the house .
MR. STEELE : Mr. Orlando, it' s not a sea
19 container, it' s a truck body.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Okay, so are you
20 planning on using another truck body, something
similar to?
21 MR. STEELE : Similar.
MS . WICKHAM: The purpose of those two
22 buildings is to house his pots, his stakes, his
tools, his potting soil, all of those types of
23 equipment that he uses on a regular basis in the
nursery.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No herbicides,
pesticides in that container?
25 MS . WICKHAM: He does not keep pesticides
at the property. They are kept at his brother' s
March 31, 2005
44
1
2 farm at another location. Pesticides are not kept
on this location. I don' t believe he' s permitted
3 to do that under DEC regulations . That does not
include fertilizers, there may be fertilizer as
4 part of the ordinary gardening, but pesticides are
not there .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The proposed barn
is that black and white picture that you
6 submitted?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . That is a photo of a
7 beautiful New England style barn in another
portion of Cutchogue . He would like to duplicate
8 that, although the size specifies 30 by 80 . It' s
a 28 foot to the ridge line, 22 feet to the
9 midline . It would be a very attractive barn. It
will essentially be in line with the other
10 buildings . I don' t think it would protrude . It
would look nice from Oregon Road.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s before us
because part of that is past the front of the
12 house .
MS . WICKHAM: That is a partial front yard
13 on the Oregon Road side, 1, 500 feet away, yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Wickham, I
have absolutely no objection to your clients .
15 And, of course, you have presented cases before
this Board for many, many years, but I don' t ever
16 remember us ever dealing with truck bodies or what
I refer to as temporary structures, structures
17 that are not necessarily affixed to the ground, as
permanent accessory structures before this Board,
18 I could be wrong on this, and I understand the
nature of operations of farms . My father-in-law
19 being a farmer at one time in his life and being a
part of that farm during the period of time I went
20 with my wife prior to getting married. So it' s
important for me to understand why those
21 particular -- I 'm going to refer to them as even
though the code doesn' t address -temporary
22 structures -- why they have to be in that
location?
23 MS . WICKHAM: Probably the reason you
haven' t dealt with them is most guys just put them
24 up and don' t come to the Town. We will have to go
to the Building Department to do whatever they
25 require in terms of affixing, tying down,
whatever. To answer your exact location question,
March 31, 2005
45
1
2 the reason they are ,there is he would certainly
not want to put them out in what is the real front
3 yard, where everybody driving up and down the road
would see them, if he puts them any further back
4 in what is actually the rear yard, which is the
northeast corner over behind the pool, he' s
5 interfering with a tremendous amount of screening,
both natural and planted, and the houses that are
6 up there or will be up there would probably
benefit from keeping that screening intact . There
7 are some very tall evergreen trees back there,
immediately to the west of the garage, north of
8 the pool, which is where they would be able to put
in a complying locatilon, that' s where the old
9 growth cherry is, and he' s done a lot of work to
trim those trees and make them attractive .
10 They' re not just straight trees, they have bent
trunks, they' re very nice looking, and he would
11 have to rip that out in order to do that .
MR. STEELE : That' s also where all the
12 utilities for us and the neighbors, and there' s a
number of overgrown cherries on either side of the
13 structure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
14 objection to the position of where the new barn is
going. I think it' s an excellent choice and I
15 don' t care what yard it' s in, I have to say that
and I shouldn' t say that as a Zoning Board member
16 because, of course, that determination is done by
the Building Inspector and not by you or I . But I
17 would think that, although it' s farther away from
the home, and it' s farther away from some of the
18 other storage areas, I would think it would be a
perfect spot to put it on either side of the
19 proposed barn and screen it by way of fencing
screening by other method to get it out of the
20 way.
MS . WICKHAM: If he put it north of the
21 barn --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: South of the
22 barn.
MS . WICKHAM: South of the barn is visible
23 from the road, and I don' t think the neighbors
would like it . He planned it back here because
24 nobody really sees it . The only thing north of
the proposed storage containers now is a line of
25 arborvitae and cypress, then a driveway, then
there' s a big, big area before the buildable area
March 31, 2005
46
1
2 of the lots to the north.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any way
3 that we could -- that this Board could give him a
temporary situation to allow him to construct
4 something over, south of the barn that would be
more appealing to put these implements in, and
5 then eventually get rid of the storage containers,
be them truck bodies or what we refer to those
6 containers that just come off of trucks . I really
think that' s the area to be in, to be honest with
7 you. I mean, if it takes him six months to do it,
if it takes four months to do it, that' s the way
8 to do it .
MS . WICKHAM: That would involve as well
9 ripping out quite a bit of nursery stock. He uses
as much of his property, the southern part of his
10 residence and the eastern part of his residence as
for nursery stock as well .
11 MR. STEELE : The reason it is where it is
now is you can' t see it, and I would challenge
12 anybody to drive down my driveway and find it
without looking exactly where it is . You can' t
13 see it . That was my purpose for putting there .
It' s behind the garage, we can' t see it . It' s out
14 of sight and out of mind of my children, which was
another reason to put it there, and to have a
15 locking door on it . We keep the fertilizers and
we have a couple rambunctious boys and it' s out of
16 their minds, and it' s nearly invisible to the
neighbors where it is now.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm just telling
you as a point of fact that I cannot as a Board
18 member vote to place something that should be
probably a minimum from a lot line, I know not
19 addressed in this notice of disapproval, which I
think is inaccurate because it doesn' t address the
20 20 foot setback on a two acre --
MS . WICKHAM: I thought that was one of
21 the -- I think it does . I think that' s one reason
we' re here is because it' s within the 20 feet .
22 The garage is not . The garage is conforming as to
side yard. The storage structure is not as to
23 side yard and --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shows the
24 section but it doesn' t say the 20 feet .
MS . WICKHAM: Yes, we are talking about 20
25 feet . That' s true .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The skeleton of a
March 31, 2005
47
1
2 greenhouse that is being put up? Because that
looks like where the barn' s going to go?
3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, it is . But the
Building Department has confirmed in writing that
4 a permit was not required for that and that' s to
keep undercover until he can get his permanent
5 structure up. -
MR. STEELE : It' s all done with nuts and
6 bolts and screws . I can take it apart .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm still having a
hard time with this lot line in the back. I see
9 the right of way; if I look in the survey it looks
like the right of way is wholly on their property;
10 is that right?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We got a letter
11 from Miss Wickham, Mr. Corso bought that right of
way.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where is their lot
line?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is their
line .
14 MS . WICKHAM: Mr. Goehringer, I spoke to
him about the proposed future storage container
15 about locating that on either side of the barn,
and that is something that he would be willing to
16 do. He' d prefer to leave the existing one where
it is because that' s where his utilities are and
17 he would have to rip out some trees to get it out
at this point . If he has to, he would have to do
18 that but then he' d have to replant . If you would
like to have us amend our application to move the
19 future storage container over to the barn side,
north or south, we' d be glad to do that .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the Board
doesn' t mind, I'm just going to talk to the
21 Building Department because this whole storage
container thing is brand new to me . The ones I've
22 seen are all temporary. I'm trying to understand
this as a Board member, and I understand that
23 there' s a need for storage . Everything I have
ever seen that people have done have put them in
24 back of these stockade fences with arborvitae or
any other type of greenery in front of them, and
25 quite honestly, you' re absolutely correct, Miss
Wickham, you don' t even know that these are there .
March 31, 2005
48
1
2 The problem is that these are visible and the
problem is that I suspect that there are going to
3 be more people utilizing more rights of way up
there because there' s going to be more houses up
4 there .
MS . WICKHAM: I think that there will be
5 one house . The guy that clear cut .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the
6 concern I have as a Board member.
MS . WICKHAM: That' s why he was careful to
7 screen it . If you would like to go back and have
him go over the property with you, he' ll be glad
8 to do that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will be back,
9 I just don' t know how you can grant an accessory
structure to something that' s not permanently
10 affixed to the ground.
MS . WICKHAM: That' s one question and the
11 second is the location.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
12 Certainly you can drive 4 ' by 4' s around it, you
can side it and you can roof it, and then it
13 becomes a container within a storage building, and
I'm talking about in this particular case, it' s
14 just there .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re talking about
15 the existing storage building?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . That' s the
16 reason why I blew it up so I could understand it
because I have to write the decision, that' s
17 number one; and number two, I have a question with
reference to the validity of a container.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with Jerry,
we've never -- storage containers .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think they are
a really great permanent storage facility but they
20 need to be sided and roofed.
MS . WICKHAM: The only thing I can tell
21 you is that the Building Department has been up,
down and around this a hundred times, and that has
22 never been an issue for them. So I assume they
are going to treat it as a shed, declare it be
23 anchored properly, and as I said, he would want to
side it so it looks nice . Did you plan on putting
24 a roof on it? I guess he wanted to keep the
elevation on it low so he hadn' t planned on
25 roofing it over, just making it look nice from the
outside, but whatever they require, we would do.
March 31, 2005
49
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jerry, I think what
happened was when they applied for a Building
3 Permit, on the form it said that their proposed
accessory building, is existing as proposed. So
4 it' s almost as they were going to make them into
buildings, I guess . So the Building Department
5 probably thought you were going to convert the
structure into a building. Which you' re not
6 doing, right?
MS . WICKHAM: Mr. Steele took these
7 pictures this morning. This one was into the sun
so it' s not that clear. This would be taken from
8 it says on the back.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Taken from that lot
9 behind you, looking toward your garage . The
container is here . There' s another container over
10 here (indicating) .
MR. STEELE : There' s one container.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the proposed.
MS . WICKHAM: This is coming up the
12 driveway, you don' t see it and you wouldn' t see
it . This I did want to show you, this is his
13 neighbor to the west, his sheds, so we' re really
compatible with the neighborhood, shall I say?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But that' s a building.
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . If we have to make it
15 into the building, we would. Whatever the
Building Department requires, we have to come to
16 you for location, then we have to go to them for
structural .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that would like to speak to this application?
18 Miss Moore?
MS . MOORE: Thank you, I have written
19 material that I' ll put in the record, and I' ll go
over the points in my address . I represent the
20 Corso family and also Morrell, LLC. For placement
here, the Corsos own the house north of the
21 property, they also own the tennis court, and
Morell LLC, who Corso is the principal of the LLC,
22 that is the conservation subdivision that is in
the process of being finalized. So we anticipate
23 the homes that are, certainly one home that' s
going to be about at the same line as the Steele
24 residence, and that' s part of a conservation
subdivision, those are my clients with respect to
25 this application.
Just so you understand, I put in a lot of
March 31, 2005
50
1
2 documentation here with respect to the opposition,
but Mr. Corso has been upset about these
3 containers in particular since 2003 . I' ve been
asking the Building Department with respect to
4 acting on the fact that these containers as Miss
Wickham points out, they got put on the property
5 it seemed like overnight, and then there was no
building permit, when we asked the Building
6 Department to look into it, they found all kinds
of other issues and violations because of
7 placement of structures; a garage that was
originally built here didn' t get built in
8 accordance with the building permit that had been
issued. It was placed in a different location,
9 and that too was a violation. So this has been an
on going complaint of my clients, as I said, since
10 my written correspondence to the Building
Department October 20, 2003 , and we have been
11 patiently and not so patiently I guess asking the
Town to get compliance, and finally we' re here and
12 we appreciate the fact that they' re here because
this is what we have been asking for.
13 The survey that I gave you to begin with
shows what is the actual property line, and where
14 the right of way actually is located. The survey
that you have in this packet is inaccurate in that
15 the land that is like a triangular piece shown on
the surveys that are submitted to you and on my
16 survey was acquired back in 1997, this was after a
lot line change before the Planning Board and a
17 relocation of the right of way that was done
through Planning Board action, and all the owners
18 now get access via the 50 foot right of way that
does run along this common property line . We have
19 access, my clients and all the property owners to
the north, use this as a common access .
20 Mr. Steele does use this right of way for his
utilities, it continues, and, in fact, I have a
21 copy of the deed transferring from Steele to Corso
back in 197 and it does make the reference for the
22 utilities . I only have one of those, and I ' ll put
that in for the record. So with respect to the
23 setbacks, given the distances to a right of way
and the fact that Mr. Steele does have use of this
24 right of way, the variance should not be for an
accessory structure to a side yard, it should be
25 for an accessory structure to a front yard because
we are adjacent to a right of way. That is
March 31, 2005
51
1
2 something that in looking at the code it depended
on whether or not Mr. Steele had use of this right
3 of way, and it he does have use of it . It' s for
all of the utilities that are commonly used by him
4 and also by the neighbors . So that' s an issue
that you should consider with respect to whether
5 or not you should grant this variance, one for the
garage in an as-built location.
6 Going back to my notes, this 60 foot
setback that would have been required for
7 accessory structures I believe was recognized when
Mr. Steele put his pool in because the pool does
8 conform. So there was at one point in time some
recognition that the appropriate setback was 60 ,
9 feet . So I use that as a point with respect to
what kind of setbacks are we dealing with.
10 As to the storage containers, these are
commercial grade storage containers . The storage
11 container that is there presently is illegal .
It' s an 8 ' by 20' structure that you don' t see in
12 residentially zoned properties . I 've only seen
them on other people' s properties as commercial
13 properties . They are commonly used for commercial
purposes as temporary storage . But they have not
14 been, to my knowledge and I spoke to Damon this
morning, I said, Damon, I don' t understand why
15 didn' t you address this as a commercial structure .
He said it' s the first time he' s seen it in a
16 residentially zoned parcel . That' s something I
think you should address because if, in fact, it' s
17 possible for residences to pick up these
commercial storage containers, which are
18 relatively easily obtained, they can drop them as
an oversized shed anywhere they want on any
19 residential property. That' s not where I think
the Town wants to go. And I believe, one, the way
20 it' s used here, Mr. Steele, and I'm sorry, he
didn' t mention whether he' s a landscaper --
21 MS . WICKHAM: No, he' s a farmer.
MS . MOORE : Don' t you have a landscape
22 business?
MR. STEELE : No.
23 MS . MOORE : Is that your brother?
MR. STEELE : No.
24 MS . MOORE : Well, I stand corrected, I
thought he was a landscaper, actually, but in any
25 case, he' s already stated that he' s a wholesale
nursery business, and that is, in fact, a business
March 31, 2005
52
1
2 and it is listed in certain zoning categories and
these structures are used primarily for the
3 landscape nursery business, that' s where he stores
all his whatever he uses for the wholesale nursery
4 landscaping that is obviously there on the
property.
5 We would ask you to take a look at those
containers, I don' t believe they' re allowed on
6 residential property at all, and if that' s, in
fact, the case, which has been the serious
7 complaint by the neighbors throughout which is,
wait a second, how could these things be here,
8 they' re a commercial structure, whether or not
they store hazardous materials, Miss Wickham says
9 that he holds not pesticides but fertilizers, I
think under the Health Department regulations,
10 they might still be considered hazardous
materials . I'm taking my information from what we
11 could see from the property line . So to that
extent when you do these inspections, I would like
12 you to take a look at what' s inside these
containers and see what' s in there . I think
13 you' re going to find it' s where he stores his
business materials .
14 With regard to the placement, one, we
object to having these containers at all, but two,
15 certainly the placement behind his garage as soon
as he makes it so he doesn' t see them, but the '
16 people that are most affected are not on Oregon
Road, because it is about 1, 500 feet from Oregon
17 Road, it' s all the property owners to the north of
him, and they' re the ones that have been most
18 affected by this and are opposing this . So as far
as the testimony that was presented that it' s not
19 bothering anybody, they' re vegetated, they' re
there, you can see them, they' re too close to the
20 property line, and the neighbors strenuously
object .
21 In addition, the area that is to the north
of the existing garage and the storage containers,
22 he does use that area as well for the equipment
storage for his business, and he also stores a gas
23 tank where he has a gas tank there, so it is an
actively commercially used property, and the area
24 that is right adjacent to our property line that
is very obvious, very visible and there isn' t a
25 great deal of landscaping, in fact, Lot 2 just did
the clearing and they' re in the process of going
March 31, 2005
53
1
2 to do some landscaping of their own, but it
shouldn' t be the neighbor who has to landscape
3 away an illegal use or even a variance condition.
So at minimum, we would ask that with respect to
4 the garage, do the landscaping, take the garbage
out from behind the garage . The ,gas tank is
5 there, I don' t know if it' s connected or not, but
there' s a gas tank there . It' s been an eyesore to
6 those neighbors and it' s been a real source of
contention.
7 With regards to his hardship of front
yards and so on, he had 16 acres as of ' 97 . He
8 had a large piece of property and he could have
chosen to put his structures anywhere he wanted,
9 certainly in what he considered the real yard. He
made a reserved area after selling off the
10 development rights . He' s kind of created his own
situation. We' re now having to deal with what
11 he' s left behind for himself . With respect to the
barn, the barn could go anywhere where he' s
12 proposed it . He could also put a barn if it' s
part of the agricultural operation on the sale of
13 development rights parcel . It' s permissible use,
all you have to do is go to the County' s ag
14 committee and get permission. So the barn could
go anywhere .
15 We also point out that as I said before,
the garage was issued a violation because it was
16 the building permit of ' 96 was ultimately not used
or he moved it to a different location, so he has
17 an illegal structure . The expansion of a
nonconforming illegal structure is certainly that
18 we would oppose as well . The garage is large .
It' s in a nonconforming location. It was built
19 without a permit and now he' s asking to expand on
it . There' s a problem with that for obvious
20 reasons . The Board sees illegal condition
as-built structures all the time, usually people
21 don' t ask to expand on them, so we certainly would
oppose the expansion of that garage .
22 There' s a greenhouse there, Miss Wickham
says that the Building Department claims to be a
23 temporary structure, I wonder how that is possible
because from the property line I could see a
24 foundation. My understanding of the Building
Department' s analysis of barns is if it' s on a
25 permanent foundation it needs a permit; if it' s
not on a permanent foundation, it' s a hoop house .
March 31, 2005
54
1
2 So they' re somewhat inconsistent here, and that' s
been a problem for us to understand what
3 Mr. Steele built and what he hasn' t built . It
leaves everything, as you yourself pointed out,
4 this is a confusing application but in part
because the Building Department has been somewhat
5 inconsistent .
I know you've heard enough about this .
6 It' s obvious the neighbors oppose this . The
containers are the most serious objection here .
7 They don' t belong on this property, they don' t
belong anywhere in a residentially zoned parcel
8 and we would hope that you take that very
carefully into consideration and you do do some
9 research on it because you' re going to find the
Building Department' s going to say we have never
10 issued a permit for these in a residential zone,
and they will make you apply for a permit as a
11 structure because it kinds of falls under that
definition, but you have to kind of look at it .
12 And you have treated other applications like that,
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck,
13 then it' s a duck. So I ask you to look at these
structures, if it' s a commercial grade container,
14 it' s a commercial use, it does not belong in a
residentially zoned parcel .
15 I have a copy of the deed (handing) .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Worst case
16 scenario, Mr. Goehringer' s research, the Building
Department says okay, they can stay in a
17 residential neighborhood can you ask your client
if that would be acceptable where Mr. Goehringer
18 was suggesting?
MS . MOORE : I think what Mr. Goehringer
19 suggested was that if it was enclosed in a
structure or fenced in some way or another with
20 arborvitae or whatever so you don' t see them, it
would be the equivalent of a fenced in storage
21 area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He wanted it south of
22 the barn.
MS . MOORE : I understand south of the
23 barn. It seems to me that he' s always been
promising that something was going to get -- it' s
24 temporary, it' s only while I 'm building something,
it' s only when I'm doing this -- if he builds the
25 barn he' s essentially eliminated the need for
these containers, just build the barn. That' s the
March 31, 2005
55
1
2 simple solution, and that certainly belongs in
both an agricultural and residential area. No one
3 has an objection to that . I will ask the client
how he feels about it being relocated south of the
4 location of the proposed barn. I 'm sure
Mr. Steele doesn' t want to see it, so maybe he
5 will enclose it in some kind of screening of some
kind, and he should propose to this Board exactly
6 what he' s proposing to do. So I 'm discussing it
with some intelligence as far as what is it he' s
7 suggesting, picking them up and leaving them as
metal boxes south of the barn? I don' t think
8 that' s acceptable . I don' t think it will be
acceptable to my client, and certainly nobody on
9 Oregon Road who' s been given a hard time about the
development along Oregon Road, they' re certainly
10 not going to want to see these sort of structures
in what is considered their view shed. I think
11 it' s a serious problem. Please have him submit in
writing some description of what he' s offering.
12 I ' ll pass it on to the client . I 'm not sure that
they really belong at all,,, so, please keep that in
13 mind as well .
MS . WICKHAM: May I very quickly respond
14 to those points which I don' t think are valid?
First of all the violations are cleared. The
15 Building Department and I spent months trying
figure out after they issued the permit for the
16 swimming pool and built it where the lines were .
This was not something that was easy to figure
17 out . We've got six maps with different lines .
As far as commercial building goes, this
18 is a farm, and it' s farm building, and that is
clearly within the zoning. Miss Moore keeps
19 referring to "neighbors . " The neighbors she' s
representing are Mr. Corso who owns property to
20 the west . The property on the map shown as
Maudlin, which didn' t technically have to be
21 notified, is the most affected, they' re not
adjoining owners so they weren' t technically
22 notified but the Steeles did give them a copy of
the notice, and they have absolutely no objection,
23 that' s shown on the map as Maudlin, now it' s other
people . The lot to the north of these proposed
24 buildings now are Nina Stevens, it' s no longer
owned by own Mr. Corso. I understand that
25 although Miss Moore maintains that' s an eyesore to
that lot, Mr. Corso was able to sell it a couple
March 31, 2005
56
1
2 of weeks ago for a $1, 050, 000 .
The situation was not created by him
3 intentionally; it was done to effectuate effective
farming and aesthetics and the barn that' s being
4 proposed is not on his side, I don' t think it
affects him, and if she' s suggesting that we put
5 it on farmland that' s been preserved, I do think
that' s poor policy, and certainly the large
6 buildings that Mr. Steele is proposing are dwarfed
by some of the buildings that Mr. Corso owns . And
7 the foundation she referred to on the little hoop
things are merely stacked 8 by 8s for wind
8 stability, and that was, as I understand it, okay
with the Building Department, but we will
9 certainly clarify that as well as the issue with
the temporary structures and what has to happen to
10 them. And I take it you all want us to come back
for another hearing.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I had one question.
The two containers, one' s already there and one is
12 proposed. Is there a reason why they have to be
containers? Could you take that square footage
13 and put it in the barn and there' s no reason for
the containers, or is there a reason for the
14 containers?
MS . WICKHAM: To put up a barn he' s got to
15 come up with some money to do that, and he' s
intending to do that but it' s not going to do that
16 overnight . Once the barn is constructed, he may
still need the containers just because that' s
17 where his farming operation is .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that additional
18 storage or does the stuff that' s inside need to be
in containers, not in a barn?
19 MS . WICKHAM: As opposed to a barn, I
don' t know. Once you get his equipment in the .
20 barn and some of his other supplies and stuff in
the barn, you expect you will still need storage .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: More space, yes .
But say he made the barn bigger?
22 MS . WICKHAM: That' s an economic problem,
also it' s a massive building. So he didn' t want
23 to make it real big, he thought it would look
better to have these smaller temporary storage
24 structures, and then they can come and go . If he
doesn' t need them he can get rid of them.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s no valid
reason why you have to have these types of storage
March 31, 2005
57
1
2 containers on the property? It could be a
building. The material that' s inside doesn' t
3 require that it be in a storage containers?
MR. STEELE : It' s economic .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. Why
are these containers, is there some reason they
5 have to be separate from everything else, some
law, but there isn' t .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s economic?
MS . WICKHAM: It is economic, and the
7 reason why she said they went up overnight, the
guy across the street at Oregon Salvage called him
8 one day when he was leaving for one of his
business trips and said I've got this thing,
9 you've got to take it today or you don' t get it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand. I
10 know who it was that towed it up there and put it
there probably, I'm just hunting for a reason why
11 he needs these containers . It was economic .
MS . WICKHAM: One other thing, Pat
12 mentioned that the right of way along the top on
the piece that Mr. Corso acquired I thought was 16
13 feet for access to the two properties to the
northeast . She says it' s 50 feet, I 'm not really
14 sure . Mr. Steele does not have access over that
except I think one utility cable line . His power
15 comes up the east side . But my point is if it' s a
50 foot right of way --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does say that --
MS . WICKHAM: Does it say that? Well, if
17 it' s a 50 foot right of way from Mr. Steele' s
north line, there' s a 50 foot buffer now before
18 these guys front yard even starts . So that gives
us more space I feel to further justify the
19 requested relief .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks to me like
20 it' s 70 feet to the other side of the right of
way.
21 MS . WICKHAM: That' s not a right of way
anymore . It' s a 50 foot right of way, according
22 to Pat, along the north end of his property, and
then the rest is his yard space .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, I think this
whole space with the right of way, and it seems to
24 be that triangular piece right behind his
structures there .
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pat said that' s
incorrect . Pat submitted this new piece . Pat,
March 31, 2005
58
1
2 you' re saying the right of way is parallel to his
rear property line?
3 MS . MOORE : Yes . Because it was a 50 foot
on the subdivision map, the Planning Board
4 relocated the 50 foot right of way as it had been
previously approved. It used to be Mr. Steele
5 owned this land, and he had everybody going over
the property as a right of way. In ' 97 he sold it
6 to the north property owners so it wouldn' t be a
liability to him. So there is by mapping a 50
7 foot right of way. The road itself is 16 feet,
and it' s staying at 16 feet, and for the most part
8 on the south end --
MS . WICKHAM: So that to me creates 50
9 feet of buffer from where he' s proposing the
storage buildings, and I ' d also mention that that
10 is clearly stated in the agreement with Mr. Corso
that Mr. Steele does not have vehicular access
11 over it, and we went through that with the
Building Department, and that' s one reason --
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, I think we need a
new survey. It' s so messy. The right of way
13 looks unclear, it looks like they still have the
triangular piece that could be still his . It' s
14 very confusing.
MS . WICKHAM: I will ask him again.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We need the actual
setbacks from his property line . They look as
16 though they' re two feet; they' re saying it' s five
feet and five feet .
17 MS . WICKHAM: It' s five feet . I ' ll ask
him to blow up this area of the map.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t recall ever
granting a building five feet from a right of way.
19 I don' t recall ever doing that .
MS . WICKHAM: It' s not a street .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you.
• People have come to us and said we want to put our
21 two-story house next to a right of way and we have
said no .
22 MS . WICKHAM: This is a temporary
structure .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Gail, is it
possible to show the two sheds too that you' re
24 talking about, I wasn' t sure which one' s the shed
and which one is the container? Some of the
25 paperwork refers to two sheds here in the project
description.
March 31, 2005
59
1
2 MS . WICKHAM; They' re both containers .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But then there' s a
3 third structure that was given in the project
description that' s an accessory structure .
4 MS . WICKHAM: That' s the garage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we need
5 something from the Building Department as
clarification of a container and whether or not
6 that' s allowed. I would like to see something
like that .
7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you also
respond -- Mr. Goehringer, pointed out in the Use
8 regulations in the AC Zone and R80 , that storage
of fertilizer is supposed to be 150 feet from the
9 property line?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They didn' t
10 raise that issue, Gail .
MS . WICKHAM: Then there won' t be
11 fertilizer in there. What he' s got is what we
have in our garage .
12 MR. STEELE: It' s organic fertilizer.
MS . WICKHAM: It' s organic but I' ll look
13 into that .
MS . MOORE : It depends on who you talk to
14 at the Building Department, but the sense I get
from the Building Department they' re going to rely
15 on you to determine whether or not it' s a
customary accessory use to a residential zone ..
16 Here he' s using it for his business, but is it
customary and accessory to a residentially 131 and
17 133 .
MS . WICKHAM: It' s a farm.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It doesn' t say that
on disapproval .
19 MS . MOORE : They don' t say what it is, but
what I'm saying is these containers whether it' s a
20 farm or not, it' s in a residential zone .
MS . WICKHAM: It' s in farm zone .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s AC.
MS . MOORE : Which also includes
22 residences .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It also
23 includes residences .
MS . WICKHAM: I' ll get back to you with
24 that information.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s make it to June
25 2nd. Then I' ll make a motion adjourn this hearing
until June 2nd.
March 31, 2005
60
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. ) .
-------------------------------------------------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll need a resolution
on Donna Cook for a carryover to May 4th at
4 10 : 50 a.m.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We also need a motion
6 to adjourn to 1 : 00 p.m. on June 2nd for Koehler
and Osprey Dominion
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And we have another
one, we need a resolution to extend the Kellc
9 application to April` 8th for a written reply.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s the shower,
10 the neighbor didn' t get to have a response by the
attorney, it came in late, now she wanted time to
11 respond. April 8th is the deadline to submit the
written.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
adjourn for a lunch recess .
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Marko Anticev for a waiver of merger.
15 Mr. McCarthy, I believe you are representing them?
MR. MCCARTHY: Good afternoon, Members of
16 the Board. When we last met, there was an issue
that Miss Wickham brought up relevant to
17 jurisdiction, and I believe that has to be
followed up before we go any further.
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think last we met
you were postponing it because legal counsel was
19 representing your client .
MR. MCCARTHY: According to the minutes,
20 Miss Wickham states, "I'm not going to address the
variance issues because apparently that will be
21 deferred to the next hearing, and we have no
problem with that . But I would like to ask the
22 Board in the interim to review the issue of the
jurisdiction it may have to grant this variance in
23 the first place . Obviously you have a Planning
Board letter which, while it does not make a
24 recommendation in favor of or against, does give
you a very clear indication of how they feel about
25 the matter, and I would submit that they probably
don' t have jurisdiction to make a recommendation
March 31, 2005
61
1
2 to you.
I think we need that information before we
3 go further. Because if we' re fighting an uphill
matter here, and you don' t have the jurisdiction
4 to make this decision, then we need to know which
way to go .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Planning Board has
already made more or less their determination,
6 than what they had said in the past, that there be
no further subdivision of this land, and I would
7 assume that that is their position today.
MR. MCCARTHY: Okay then, is it your
8 position then that the point that Miss Wickham
brought up has no merit, and you have not looked
9 into it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just go by what the
10 Planning Board has said.
MR. MCCARTHY: So. it did not go any
11 further than that as far as what Miss Wickham
said?
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are you before
13 the Planning Board right now, or will you be
before the Planning Board for lot line change or
14 some sort --
MR. MCCARTHY: We consulted with the
15 Planning Board and they deferred to this Board
before they took up the issue again.
16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If you do
receive relief from this Board then you will still
17 have to go to the Planning Board as well?
MR. MCCARTHY: That' s my belief, yes . My
18 question was, if that' s the case, what Miss
Wickham alluded to is that the Planning Board
19 might not have the ability to make that decision,
and that' s where we came up against a little
20 stumbling block here .
MS . WICKHAM: Would you like me to address
21 that?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Please .
22 MS . WICKHAM: I read the memorandum of
December 14 , 2004 from the Planning Board to the
23 ZBA as indicating that the Planning Board believes
that they should address this matter before the
24 Zoning Board of Appeals addresses it, and the word
"before" is in bold. I don' t know if you have had
25 any further correspondence with the Planning
Board, I'm not aware of it . Mr. McCarthy' s
March 31, 2005
62
1
2 correct, they make some comments which indicate a
disfavor with the proceeding based on the
3 covenants and restrictions and the major versus
minor issues that were discussed at the
4 subdivision phase, but I do believe that it
indicates that the Planning Board should meet and
5 decide on the amendment of the covenant and
restriction at a public hearing before the ZBA
6 makes a decision. That' s how I read their memo .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I read it both ways,
7 Gail, frankly. If the ZBA grants this request it
will open the Town to criticism that it' s not
8 honoring its own covenants and restrictions .
Then again on the next page, they say the
9 application to be advised that the issuance of the
variance are also not undue the need to obtain
10 subdivision approval?
MS . WICKHAM: That' s correct . That' s what
11 they' re saying. I think my point at the last
hearing which Mr. McCarthy is referring to is it' s
12 my understanding that once the Zoning Board of
Appeals grants an undersized area 'variance relief,
13 the Planning Board is bound to consider that in
terms of the lot size . I don' t know that it binds
14 them as to whether the covenant can be
invalidated, but I think the granting of relief in
15 and of itself would invalidate the covenant and
you get a mess . That' s why I think it should go
16 to the Planning Board first, I would actually
agree with him on that .
17 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s certainly
complicated and it' s certainly messy. It would be
18 my advice and my view that granting of a variance
would not -- well, I do have a view that has and
19 will be expressed confidentially to the Board as
to certain legal issues here if they were to grant
20 a variance, I do not think that would bind of
hands of the Planning Board as to whether it can
21 and will and should enforce its covenants . It
does take away the issue as to whether or not they
22 can approve an undersized lot, whether they can or
not, not whether they should and must . If they
23 have other reasons why they would decline to
approve such a lot, they can certainly express
24 them and enforce them.
The reason I asked the applicant whether
25 they' re before the Planning Board or not is
because if you go before the Planning Board for a
March 31, 2005
63
1
2 subdivision or site plan application, you have the
right to come here directly, immediately in any
3 event, whether or not the Planning Board wants you
to seek your variance . It looks like you' re here
4 off a notice of disapproval, though. I don' t
quite understand how you could have applied for a
5 building permit on a lot that doesn' t yet exist .
MR. MCCARTHY: We didn' t apply for the
6 building permit, we applied for the actual
structure of the lot per se . We didn' t say we' re
7 looking to build a house on a nonexistent lot; we
said we' re looking to subdivide this property.
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Did you submit
a subdivision application?
9 MR. MCCARTHY: We submitted an
application, and we were told to go to the
10 Planning Board. We met with the Planning Board
informally and they referred us back to you
11 formally.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you got a
12 notice of disapproval from the Building
Department, correct?
13 MR. MCCARTHY: That' s correct . I still
feel we' re caught in the middle here and we don' t
14 know which way to go.
MS . WICKHAM: I want to address the Board,
15 was a subdivision application submitted to the
Planning Board?
16 MR. MCCARTHY: Actually originally it was
a lot line change application.
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was a fee paid and
file number issued?
18 MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, there was . And
somehow when this was brought to Damon, I believe,
19 and he bounced it off of Mike Verity, they changed
it from a lot line to a subdivision because the
20 rules and regulations and code changes had
transpired in the meantime . I don' t think that
21 was the right thing to do because we originally
applied for a lot line change; that should have
22 followed through in the application and then
brought to your attention that it was a lot line
23 change, and it might have been brought in under
the rules and regulations of pre-existing code
24 instead of the mess that we have right now.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Lot line change
25 wouldn' t change the number of the lots in a
subdivision, and you are asking to create another
March 31, 2005
64
1
2 lot . So that would not be a lot line change .
MR. MCCARTHY: That' s how the application
3 went in to begin with.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We have a new
4 code, and the new code applies now.
MR. MCCARTHY: This application actually
5 started in 2003 .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Be that as it
6 may, dozens if not hundreds of people in this town
are in the same situation.
7 MR. MCCARTHY: I agree . I still think
we' re caught in the middle here because we' re not
8 getting correct guidance .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Because this
9 is an appeal from a notice on disapproval, I think
the Board does have jurisdiction to consider the
10 application. Again, I don' t think that' s binding
on the Planning Board. Depending on what this
11 Board does, you' re going to have to go to the
Planning Board anyway to get your subdivision. So
12 at one point or another this Board is going to
have to make a decision.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t we do
it after the Planning Board?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re only going to
end up here anyway. The Planning Board is going
15 to say subject to a variance from the Zoning
Board.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t know
what they' re going to say, historically.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If he made application
to the Planning Board, the Planning Board said no,
18 go to the Zoning Board first, and then we' ll
consider it .
19 MS . WICKHAM: Mrs . Oliva, I don' t think
that' s what this memo says .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not saying that' s
what the memo says, I'm referring to what Mr.
21 McCarthy just said.
MS . WICKHAM: I will say historically this
22 has always been a confusing issue, it' s never been
a clear case, but I think here they should go to
23 the Planning Board first .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think the reason
24 it was going to go to the Planning Board also it
was a question as to whether they' re going to
25 amend their covenant because nobody else could
answer that, and that' s where the last question
March 31, 2005
65
1
2 was left at the hearing.
MR. MCCARTHY: In my informal meeting with
3 the Planning Board they said we could decide
whether or not to amend the covenants, but you
4 have to go to the ZBA first . Understand my
position that we' re caught in the middle .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are, I'm sorry.
MR. MCCARTHY: We do need resolution.
6 Mr. Anticev is not able to be here today, nor is
his attorney who happens to be his son. His wife
7 was rushed to the hospital yesterday, so they' re
all at the hospital . Regardless of the outcome
8 with Mrs . Anticev' s health and the outcome of this
Board' s decision, Mr. Anticev asked me express to
9 you that he plans on going the full length of
this, whether you decide yes or no, we go to
10 building, or no we go to an Article 78 , but he
wants that expressly delivered to you. He asked
11 me to tell you that . I still don' t know where we
are with this, though.
12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think it
would make some sense to get an official position
13 from the Planning Board on how -- this is really
that' s the driving issue, is the Planning Board
14 issue, as to how they' re going to treat the C and
Rs, and I think they need to decide whether it' s
15 heard here first or there first . I don' t know if
we can keep the hearing open until we' re advised
16 by the Planning Board on that issue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . I feel badly
17 you' re caught in the middle . I didn' t know you
were so caught in the middle .
18 MR. MCCARTHY: This has been going on
since ' 03 .
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think part of the
reason why it' s so confusing, maybe I'm not sure,
20 is it came to us as a lot line change . A
consequence of the giving of that lot line change
21 would be then to consider an application for a
building permit on a nonconforming lot, less than
22 one acre .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This will be
23 conforming.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They want to sell the
24 big lot and keep the small lot . Those are two
separate issues . There is case law, we have been
25 apprised, that we may not have the jurisdiction,
the power, to decide the question of the division,
March 31, 2005
66
1
2 the creation of a subdivision, this is not the
Zoning Board of Appeals is what this Marx case is
3 about . So there are a lot of reasons why it' s
very awkward for this Board to take any position
4 at all at this time until those questions are
resolved. We cannot make a decision if there is a
5 significant legal challenge to this our power.
MR. MCCARTHY: Would that reflect back on
6 previous decisions that you've made?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s a
7 jurisdictional matter as Mrs . Wickham has said.
It' s sort of darned if you do, darned if you
8 don' t . The Planning Board can' t create an
undersized lot without this Board' s approval; and
9 this Board can' t actually create the lot, it can
give you the variance for it . It' s a chicken and
10 egg thing.
MR. MCCARTHY: I would suggest that you
11 two Boards sit and talk about these things so the
public isn' t caught in this position in the
12 future . I think that would be to the public' s
benefit .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did send a letter up
there asking for their comments, and you have a
14 letter of their comments which is rather ambiguous
to put it mildly.
15 MR. MCCARTHY: It is indeed. They didn' t
want to make a decision. I was told that there
16 might be a possibility that this might go through,
and in the letter, the opinion they issued it
17 seems to cast a negative slant on it which Miss
Wickham has represented.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the reason it
should go back to them. If they' re ambiguous or
19 even self-contradictory, they' re the ones who have
to sort this out before we can react to it .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is the Planning
Board which made the covenants and restrictions,
21 not us .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Miss Wickham is
22 making suggestions that she' d rather go back to
the Planning Board, correct?
23 MS . WICKHAM: I think that' s what the
Planning Board memo says .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does and it doesn' t .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You said you' d
25 rather go back to the Planning Board. You made
that statement a little while ago.
March 31, 2005
67
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: I think that' s the
appropriate way to handle it, yes .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Do you have a
problem with that, Mr. McCarthy?
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think you' re
just going to be hung up?
5 MR. MCCARTHY: I don' t see how we have a
choice if that' s what this Board decides is the
6 best course of action. We' re at your mercy.
We' ll do what you decide .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I don' t have a
problem with just continuing on with the
8 application and making a decision, but if both
applicant and defendant want to go to the Planning
9 Board, I don' t have a problem letting you go to
the Planning Board either, if you' d rather go
10 there first .
MR. MCCARTHY: Are they going to give us a
11 decision?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At the very least
12 they can issue a clarification of their memo .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which is not very clear
13 at all . I agree with you, Joe, at one side it
kind of says take it to the ZBA, and then it says,
14 well, no maybe the Planning Board should have it
first, well, make up your mind.
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Do you have an
official application on record with the Planning
16 Board with a subdivision or lot line change?
MR. MCCARTHY: No . We were told to go to
17 them and have a discussion with them first . And
they suggested that we go to you.
18 MS . WICKHAM: May I suggest that you go to
the Planning Board for pre-submission conference,
19 which I think is their procedure, and discuss it
with them and get a clarification.
20 MR. MCCARTHY: I would ask then if that' s
their procedure, why wasn' t I informed of that to
21 begin with? I'm not asking you because you' re not
that board.
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s why we
should leave this hearing open.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s leave it open.
MR. MCCARTHY: I have a lot more that I
24 have to offer, but I will do that at the
appropriate time . I would ask that you work with
25 us as far as getting this done as fast as possible
after we get done with the Planning Board.
March 31, 2005
68
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was there a letter
to the Planning Board asking those questions
3 recently, since the last letter; did you send them
another letter?
4 MR. MCCARTHY: No.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But they have
5 nothing in writing to reply to .
MR. MCCARTHY: No. But this Board' s just
6 telling us now, or this Board' s telling us now
that we should go before them.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Give them something
in writing so they have a map to look at and they
8 can discuss it .
MR. MCCARTHY: I thought you' d be giving
9 us some sort of decision, that' s why that hasn' t
been done .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I was a betting
man, I would say you have to go to the Planning
11 Board and they' re going to write you a letter and
say come back on here .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This has been going on
since 2003?
13 MR. MCCARTHY: Yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But there are no
14 letters in writing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just been
15 pre-submission conferences?
MR. MCCARTHY: Yes . It' s just been
16 discussions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hate to see you held
17 up one way or another.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They' re going
18 to do one of two things, either they' re going to
say yes, we' re willing to override the covenants
19 and restrictions and allow you to proceed, and in
such case, you need a variance from the Zoning
20 Board so go get it; or they' re going to say, no,
we' re not willing to allow you to proceed in the
21 face of the covenants and restrictions, in which
case you can then bring your Article 78 .
22 MR. MCCARTHY: It' s not a landmark case,
it' s been done before . The relief requested has
23 been granted before . I'm at a loss to explain why
we have to go through all these motions, but we
24 will if we have to.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you do
25 need that relief from the Planning Board to move
forward, either from the Planning Board itself or
March 31, 2005
69
1
2 from the court .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll keep the hearing
3 open until such time that you can get back to us
with a date that either they' re sending it back to
4 us or they' re going to amend their covenants and
restrictions . We' ll just leave it open ended.
5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Do you want
to allow him to put more information on the record
6 now?
MS . WICKHAM: I am prepared to do that,
7 but my experience, Mrs . Chairman, is that we' ll
say it all today, and then we' ll say it all again.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is your attorney
going to be at the next hearing?
9 MR. MCCARTHY: We certainly hope so .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So you' re
10 going to need another hearing in any event .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we' ll postpone it
11 for another two months and hopefully you' ll have
something from the Planning Board. And we will
12 write a letter to the Planning Board asking for a
decision as expeditiously as possible .
13 MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re going
14 to need to fill something out officially for them
to schedule that conference .
15 MR. MCCARTHY: I' ll go in for a
pre-submission conference first, and then we' ll
16 take to the next level .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
17 adjourn this hearing until June 2nd.
(See minutes for resolution. )
18 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing' s a
19 carryover from March for William and Janice
Claudio for a lot line change from the Planning
20 Board review letter, which we have .
MS . MOORE : Pat Moore for Mr. and Mrs .
21 Claudio, who are here today. I saw that, just for
the record, on March 22nd you did get a
22 recommendation from the Planning Board that was in
support of this application or at least made no
23 comments in opposition to the application, just
placing that in the record although it' s already
24 in the your file .
Last time we were here, there were
25 comments made, and I know you were talking about
the covenants and restrictions, I think Mr. Witt
March 31, 2005
70
1
2 raised an issue which I want to clarify for the
record. He was under the impression that he could
3 go ahead and subdivide his property, and I think
from the previous hearing it sounds like you' re
4 experiencing what it would take to resubdivide a
parcel that has a covenant and restriction. The
5 Iannou case that we went to the Appelate Division
was a situation where a property had this
6 restriction that appeared in the file, but it was
never a covenant filed on record and the Appellate
7 Division said that' a condition on a property or
covenant, a zoning restriction, whatever it might
8 be, if it is not made of record it is not binding
on a good faith purchaser for somebody that buys
9 with a title report and finding no such
restriction on record. So a situation would be
10 somewhat different, and I think that the lower
court has held that a covenant for no further
11 subdivision was not warranted in the case that we
dealt with, the Appellate Division reversed or
12 upheld the lower court decision with slightly
different terminology. So it left open whether or
13 not it is an unwarranted restriction in total as
far as no further subdivision if the zoning' s one
14 acre and you place a restriction no further
subdivision on a parcel that' s two acres or more .
15 That' s the situation. I think Mr. Witt' s
situation would be one of those where there is a
16 covenant on record, the covenants you have on file
affected the larger parcels . The conservation
17 parcel, which was to be in conservation, then
Mr. Witt, who owns the two oversized parcels,
18 those have a covenant and restriction of no
further subdivision. This parcel is specifically
19 not listed in that covenant, and therefore could
be further subdivided, or put it this way, there' s
20 no restriction or prohibition on further
subdividing. I wanted to make that record clear.
21 I think there was some confusion at least from his
testimony last time .
22 Also there were comments from neighbors
with respect to zoning issues, is this a rezoning
23 and so forth. I thought given the value of the
property and the circumstances here that are very
24 strong already, I have asked Thomas Kramer,
Mr. and Mrs . Claudio have Thomas W. Kramer, he' s
25 from Kramer Consulting Group, he' s going to be
testifying with respect to the zoning issues as to
March 31, 2005
71
1
2 the subdivision of this property, he' s going to be
presenting you with some written documentation,
3 then testifying on the record. But I do want to
introduce him to you. He is the principal at
4 Kramer Consulting. He is also very familiar with
the Town of Southold as he was one of the planners
5 or the planner with respect to the Route 48 study.
So he' s is very familiar with Southold, its zoning
6 and its policies . His office is in Miller Place .
He was formerly the commissioner of Planning and
7 Environmental Development in the Town of
Brookhaven. His credentials certainly west and
8 even in Southold are recognized for his expertise .
So I would ask Tom to come to the microphone .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I've known
Mr. Kramer for quite a few years .
10 MR. KRAMER: Good afternoon, as Pat said,
I have been retained by the Claudios to provide
11 expert testimony on this particular case .
I will just run through some of my report
12 as far as the history of the site and get into the
character of the area and how it relates to the
13 zoning and land use in the area.
The site was originally part of a 1984
14 minor subdivision by Leon Marcus that was approved
by the Planning Board. The total subdivision
15 contained 18 . 5 acres and was divided into four
building lots and also one 7 . 3 acre parcel for
16 preservation. The four building lots ranged in
size from almost 3 . 9 acres to 1 .4 . These parcels
17 totaled 11 . 14 acres . The subject site is part of
the building lots, which I believe was Lot 1 on
18 the subdivision.
In May of 1984 , as part of the approval
19 were five conditions . The first one, there be no
further subdivisions of Lot 3 and 4 , these are the
20 two larger lots further to the north, and those
parcels contain wetlands . Second condition was
21 the building envelope will be set back 100 feet
from the shoreline on Lot 2 ; the third one would
22 be that the Nature Conservancy accept the parcel
for dedication. It goes on to say that if they do
23 not accept it that covenants be placed on the
property. Currently it' s on the tax rolls for
24 the -- well, South Fork Land Foundation, which is
the Peconic Land Trust is posted by. The required
25 covenants to be filed with regard to conditions 1
through 3 and that also a bond be posted. Parcels
March 31, 2005
72
1
2 1 and 2 are the two southernmost lots . As Pat
said before, these have no covenants on them for
3 further subdivision. Lot 1 had a building
envelope located on the western portion of the
4 site had approximately 105 foot frontage on Gull
Pond Inlet, Lot 2 had approximately 360 feet
5 frontage on Gull Pond Inlet . The two lots, Lot 1
represented 94 . 3 feet and -- 94 , 300 square feet
6 and the second lot was 61, 000 square feet
respectively. In 1986 there was a lot line
7 modification of Lots 1 and 2 . On Lot 1 all the
land and the waterfront east of the existing
8 tennis courts that are on site were transferred to
Lot 2 , and then Lot 2 transferred -a small portion
9 of land just north of the tennis courts to Lot 1 .
So essentially it was Lot 2 represents the
10 majority of the parcel that we have here today,
and this lot line change represents the lot line
11 configuration that exists today on the site .
In the back of my package I provided some
12 illustrations; one is a tax map superimposed on
top of the aerial, which will give you the
13 character of the area around. And the second one
is the tax map that I have colored up to
14 illustrate the existing land use characteristics
in the area, which I will discuss in detail .
15 At present the site is vacant . It does
not have any residences on it, but it is improved
16 with two sheds and two docks on the property.
There are no natural habitats on the site with the
17 exception of tidal wetlands along the eastern
property line and shoreline . In the handout I
18 gave to you I have a couple photos that
illustrates what the site looks like . The
19 elevation of the site raises fairly quickly from
shoreline to maximum elevation about 10 feet above
20 sea level . The building envelopes, as required in
the original approval, are setback 100 feet from
21 the mean high water line . Within these building
envelopes the elevation is between eight and 10
22 feet above mean sea level .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you in any zone for
23 FEMA?
MS . MOORE : I' ll check that . I don' t
24 think so. We' re certainly not in a velocity zone .
MS . MOORE : We' re in Zone X.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The whole parcel
is?
March 31, 2005
73
1
2 MS . MOORE: I 'm sorry, AE.
MR. KRAMER: With an elevation of nine
3 feet . So with the existing conditions it will not
require any grading or filling to bring it up to
4 meet the flood plain elevation.
The site is located within R80 District,
5 and under the Town code, as you are aware,
requires a minimum lot size of 80 , 000 square feet
6 and minimum lot depth of 250 . Since we are below
that, we require variances for this land division.
7 The size of the two proposed parcels do
conform to New York State Department of
8 Environmental Conservation Regulations with
regards to construction or regards to subdivision
9 and construction on lots adjacent to tidal
wetlands, their minimum requirement is 40 , 000
10 square feet . Both these parcels are above that .
The building envelope and also the sanitary system
11 would be able to be located greater than 100 feet
from the wetlands; again, this is in excess of
12 their various requirements .
Likewise, Suffolk County Department of
13 Health Services setbacks can be met . They require
minimum of 100 feet setback for sanitary from open
14 water, as well as the elevations on the site . The
sanitary system can be put on to the property
15 without any significant additional filling or
grading on the site . Suffolk County Water
16 Authority will be providing the site with potable
water.
17 Lot 2 is proposed to be accessed by a 15
foot wide right of way across the building
18 envelope of Lot 1 . Given the configuration of the
lots and their relationship to Gull Pond Road,
19 this is only the realistic alternative to provide
access to the proposed Lot 2 .
20 The proposed right of way, although it
will cut across the building envelope, the
21 building envelope is still buildable . It still
provides significant area to be able to locate a
22 house and sanitary system without being impacted
by the right of way.
23 Given the existing habitats and elevations
on the site and proposed lot sizes, we do not see
24 any potential impacts to occur to the environment
nor surrounding area.
25 With regard to the surrounding area, I
have carried out several field inspections on the
March 31, 2005
74
1
2 site and have also reviewed various maps and
aerial photos . that relate to this area. As I say,
3 I've attached the two figures to my document . The
existing land use figure, which is the colored up
4 tax map, graphically illustrates the size of the
individual parcels within the area, the vast
5 majority of the parcels are shown in light red;
those are parcels that are smaller than the
6 proposed lots in the area -- proposed lots in the
project . There are within the area and again, I
7 pulled a larger area than what the Town usually
looks at, but I think it' s very representative of
8 the character of the area. I went from Route 25
south down to the other side of Manhasset
9 Avenue . And within that area there is 208
parcels, 184 of these are smaller than the
10 proposed site or 88 . 6 percent . The lots that are
colored in in dark yellow represents lots that are
11 approximately the same size as the subject parcel;
of these there are four, with two of these
12 immediately adjacent and south of the subject
parcels .
13 The larger lots within the area are shown
in the pale yellow, there' s 11 of these which
14 represents only 5 . 29 percent of all the lots in
the area. Three of these were those lots created
15 as part of the regional 1984 subdivision and the
1986 lot line changes that occurred as part of the
16 Marcus subdivision. Two lots immediately to the
south of the subject site, and adjacent to the two
17 parcels I mentioned before that are the same size
as the subject parcel, the building envelopes are
18 the same as the subject site, however they
abandoned two roads sometime in the past, and they
19 were added to the subject -- those two parcels
that we' re showing as large at this time . So the
20 original configuration was about the same size as
the subject parcel . The building envelopes
21 represent a configuration that are the same size
as the subject parcel . However, as a result of
22 the abandonment that extends all the way down to
the Manhasset Avenue, the square footage from the
23 old roads have been added to those lots . That' s
why they appear as a light yellow, but in reality
24 and as far as the character of the area, the
actual building envelope and the building area
25 with all those lots are comparable size to the
proposed lots on the subject .
March 31, 2005
75
1
2 The character of the area then is such of
single-family homes on relatively small lots, lots
3 either equal to or the same size as the proposed
lots . This extends from Route 25 south on both
4 sides of Gull Pond Inlet to Sandy Beach Road, and
if you look beyond that, all the way down to
5 Young' s Point . It' s the same character as what' s
being proposed. In fact, this particular parcel
6 if it was left in its present state would be out
of character with the area. The proposed
7 subdivision brings it into character with the
area.
8 I 've also shown eight parcels that are in
public or quasi-public lands . These include lands
9 owned by the Town as well as cemetery, the two
cemeteries, Sterling Cemetery, that is the large
10 one that' s developed and also the land owned by
Peconic Land Trust . This is principally the area
11 that' s west of Gull Pond Road and east of
Manhasset Avenue . This is also an area of
12 extensive wetlands in the back that runs up
through the area and indeed wraps around and comes
13 into the cemeteries .
As I have stated, the proposal is
14 consistent with the character of the area. With
regard to the zoning, the site is indeed zoned
15 R80 , that would require the variances on it .
However, the proposal is to create two lots at
16 40 , 000 square feet . These lots are essentially
the same as the three lots that are to the south,
17 same in size . The question I know came up whether
the Town, whether this could be considered a
18 rezoning. At the time when the Town did their
rezoning on their own motion to rezone these areas
19 to R80, those lots did exist . I believe those
parcels were created in by this Board in 1975 and
20 I did have a copy of the minutes, but if I may for
the record (handing) .
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There was a prior
variance on one of these lots?
22 MR. KRAMER: All three .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The applicant' s
23 lots?
MR. KRAMER: In 1975 these were one acre
24 zoning. At that time the variance that was
granted was for access to these lots . These lots
25 didn' t contain any frontage on it . These lots do
not contain any frontage on a road and 280A was
March 31, 2005
76
1
2 approved in the February 27, 1975 Board of Zoning
Appeals decision. So those lots did exist back in
3 1975, however in 1983 , the Town on its own motion
rezoned the property to the R80 designation and
4 the rezoning included these three lots and as such
made them nonconforming. But I think it goes to
5 illustrate that there has been precedent set of
lots of this size within the R80 zoning, even by
6 the Town' s own motion.
The other question comes up whether this
7 proposed subdivision is affected by the zoning.
If we look back at the original approval of the
8 subdivision, this is the Markus subdivision in
184 , the land division, it was considered a
9 cluster application, which the Town is allowed to
do is go back and look at the yield. The Town at
10 this time excluded wetlands out of the area . So I
ran the numbers and took a look whether any
11 additional lots could be gained instead of the
original configuration whether a different
12 configuration could have been laid out in
conformance with the R80 . And indeed it could be .
13 I excluded the Peconic Land Trust property because
that is in essence all wetlands . I then looked at
14 the parcels within the 11 . 2 acres that represents
the four building envelopes that were approved at
15 that time . Within those parcels there are
sections of the site that is wetlands, and from
16 aerial photos and topographical maps, I would
estimate there' s approximately 8 , 300 square feet
17 of the 11 . 2 acres that would be considered "
wetlands, and that would not count to yield on the
18 property.
In considering the access that the site
19 has from the various roads in the area, I think
that is straight arithmetic computation could be
20 done dividing the total of 479, 572 square feet and
dividing that by the 80 , 000 square feet would
21 result in a yield of approximately six lots that
could be done on the overall subdivision.
22 Essentially that would have been the density for
the original Marcus subdivision. As I said, there
23 were only four lots approved on that subdivision,
there was the density that could have been
24 achieved on the property where six and only four
were approved. So there' s two kinds out there .
25 Under the proposed land division this would create
an additional lot on the subdivision site . If you
March 31, 2005
77
1
2 look at it hypothetically if it were a cluster,
we' re not changing overall R80 density on the
3 original piece of property.
In addition, you can look at it another
4 way. If you consider all the large parcels that
are R80 between Manhasset and Gull Pond Road, or
5 Gull Pond Lane, the total is approximately 42 . 9
acres that would include cemetery sites and the
6 open space, Peconic Land Trust, the church
property, the cemetery, if you look at whole
7 parcel or it' s a total of 61 . 4 acres that are
zoned R80 , there are only five houses that would
8 be located within the entire parcel right now,
which result to approximately one house per
9 534 , 916 square feet . It' s another way of looking
at the overall densities of the site at R80 .
10 In conclusion, it' s my opinion that the
proposed action would not have an adverse impact
11 on the physical and environmental conditions of
the site itself, the district, the neighborhood or
12 the site itself . The site is presently in lawn
and landscaping, no natural habitats exist and
13 with the setbacks greater than 100 feet for the
proposed construction of the homes and sanitary
14 system on the two lots, the setbacks will meet
both the New York State DEC and Suffolk County
15 Department of Health Service regulations .
Granting of the variance would not produce an
16 undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood, nor would they be a detriment to the
17 nearby properties . The proposed lot size are
equal to or greater than the vast majority of the
18 lots within the area. And the character of the
area is that of small lots . In fact, most of them
19 are smaller than the proposed action. The ZBA
previously granted similar lot sizes and
20 configurations on lands immediately to the south
of this property. Under the original minor
21 subdivision that created the parcel, a great
number of the lots, a number of other lots could
22 have been created, as I said it' s estimated to be
about two . So the creation of one more additional
23 lot on the property would not effect the overall
density of the R80 zoning category.
24 If the Board has any questions, I ' ll be
glad to try to answer them.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t . I'm familiar
with the area.
March 31, 2005
78
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I do. That was a
lot to digest there. Obviously the lot in
3 question is the lot they are looking to subdivide,
where are the three lots for the minor
4 subdivision? There' s four including the site; are
they south of them?
5 MR. KRAMER: No. If you look at the map,
it' s listed as 12 . 1, 12 .4 , 12 . 8 .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was a cluster done
by Marcus?
7 MR. KRAMER: It was a minor subdivision by
Marcus .
8 MS . MOORE : Ones to the south were those
Marcus?
9 MR. KRAMER: The subdivision approved by
the Planning Board in 184 that included the
10 Peconic Land Trust property, is Tax Lot Number
12 . 1, 12 . 4 , 12 . 8 and the subject site as well as
11 the Peconic Land Trust property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then Marcus gave that
12 to the Peconic Land Trust?
MR. KRAMER: Yes, Marcus gave 12 . 3 to the
13 Peconic Land Trust, that was a condition of the
original approval . But as I said, the four
14 parcels that were created at that time are
principally upland but they do include some
15 wetland of about 8, 300 square feet . Again, the
wetland were deducted out and still six lots could
16 have been created on the parcel meeting the R80
code .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
18 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
19 any questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. My questions
20 have been answered.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any
22 questions?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
Pat?
24 MS . MOORE: Unless the Board has any other
questions, we' ll respond to any comments that are
25 made .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
March 31, 2005
79
1
2 audience that wishes to comment on this
application, either pro or con? Yes, sir?
3 MR. AHLERS : My name is Paul Ahlers, and I
live at 1905 Gull Pond. First of all, I would
4 like to know why originally back in 184 the Board
did create two R80 instead of R40 and what is the
5 reason to go back?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can' t answer that .
6 The Board on its own motion back in ' 83 , ' 84
started to create two acre zoning, and then it was
7 codified in 1989 . I can' t answer you exact
reasons probably because there were some wetlands
8 in the back. That is my only justification.
Otherwise, I don' t know why the planners did that
9 at that time .
MR. AHLERS : Also I was under the
10 impression that in order to get a zoning change
that there had to be either a configuration
11 problem with the property or a hardship other than
just giving someone the right to build two homes
12 instead of one .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The ZBA is here as a
13 quasi-judicial board that you can come for an
appeal if you want to divide or change something
14 that is in place . But if you want to have a
variance from that one way or the other this is
15 the board you come to. , Just as an Appellate
Division of the county or the state or what have
16 you, that' s what we act as .
MR. AHLERS : What is the justification for
17 a subdivision for this, then?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean to divide
18 this?
MR. AHLERS : That, yes .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what they' re
trying to --
20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There are
several factors that the law requires the Board to
21 consider including effect on the neighborhood,
size of the variance, whether or not it' s been
22 self-created, any hardship, et cetera. There' s a
balancing test that this Board considers .
23 Applicant was trying to reach some of those, and
you can certainly dispute whether they meet .
24 MR. AHLERS : By subdividing this he said
it was out of character, at the same token he was
25 talking about the Peconic Land Trust that has the
four acres that are not going to be allowed to be
March 31, 2005
80
1
2 subdivided.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the Peconic
3 Land Trust property is wetlands . That' s probably
why Mr. Marcus gave it to them.
4 MR. AHLERS : Right . But the ones where
Mr. Witt lives on the log cabins, that can only be
5 like four lots I think, and they' re way over the
80 , 000 per square foot per lot . I'm disputing his
6 saying it' s out of character to leave that two
acre, that' s my point .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine, thank
you. Is there anyone else that wishes to comment
8 on this application? Yes, sir.
MR. PASAVETTI : Hello, my name is Donald
9 Pasavetti . I live at 1775 Gull Pond Lane . I 'm
going to be very brief but I want to go on record
10 as being opposed to this subdivision. I think one
of the major concerns when they made this zoning
11 must have been the environmental issue . Allowing
a division of this property I think is taking a
12 step backwards . If they' re allowed to build two
homes here, we' re going to have two cesspools,
13 we' re going to have two heating systems, we' re
going to have two wood burning fireplaces, all of
14 these things create negative impacts on the
environment, and I ' d like to have these people
15 consider that . I believe you owe it to us in the
community to uphold this two acre zoning. I want
16 to welcome the Claudios to the community. I feel
they shouldn' t make a negative impact on us .
17 Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Is
18 there anyone else who wishes to comment on this
application?
19 MR. CRANDENETTI : My name is Ralph
Crandenetti, I lives on the other side of the pond
20 at 445 Osprey Nest Road. I feel similar to
Mr. Pasavetti, based on Mrs . Claudio' s desire to
21 one day be in the Greenport community, she can
have that, it' s just that why must they divide the
22 property and create double the impact on Gull
Pond. Not only would there be more cesspools in
23 an area that was once filled land, there will be
another probably home and all of that drains into
24 or seeps into Gull Pond, a negative aspect,
probably bulkheads we' re trying to do away with
25 CCA. There will be more docks, more boats, more
pollution. I can' t see where this situation is
March 31, 2005
81
1
2 able to go this far. I would imagine this Board
is concerned with extenuating circumstances . What
3 are the extenuating circumstances? They want to
be there, buy the property as it is, not change
4 the rules . The rules are there for all of us .
Thank you.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Is
there anyone else that wishes to comment on this?
6 MR. KRAUSE: My name is Tom Krause, and I
occupy the lot directly to the south of the
7 southernmost of the two lots that might be
created. So I'm the next door neighbor on the
8 south. I do not have an objection to this
request .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much.
Anyone on the Board have any other questions?
10 Mrs . Moore, do you have anything else to say?
MR. KRAMER: With regard to the zoning
11 issue, this particular piece of property at the
time of the rezoning included, it was total Marcus
12 property was the subject of the rezoning. I think
from when they come in and do the rezoning, they
13 would have taken the whole parcel, that would
include the environmentally significant areas,
14 which are to the west of this particular site, as
well as while it would have made a lot more sense
15 from a land use standpoint of just dropping it
straight down from Gull Pond Lane and including
16 that as the one acre, because that' s really the
character of what' s happening in there, the
17 planners most likely just pulled in the entire
parcel and brought it as one particular parcel
18 rather than split zoning an individual parcel .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree . Any other
19 Board members have any questions? If not, I' ll
make a motion to close the hearing reserving
20 decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
22 Papadopoules on Miriam Road. Concerning an
addition at less than the code required 35 feet
23 rear yard setback. You have two front yards .
MS . RIVERA: As you can see from the site
24 plan it is a corner parcel and the Papadopoules
are requesting to build a single car garage to the
25 west . And for all intents and purposes, their
existing rear yard as existing is 15 . 9 and the
March 31, 2005
82
1
2 garage will be at 14 . 6 because the building is
slightly skewed and with the topography of that
3 lot if you have seen it --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have seen it .
4 MS . RIVERA: We see there' s no other place
to put this single car garage extension. To the
5 east it drops of significantly, and again, you
need a variance no matter where you put this
6 extension, and it' s currently an existing
two-story residence .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Mr. Goehringer?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No objection.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Orlando?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this is not just
9 a garage, this is a dwelling above the garage as
well?
10 MS . RIVERA: Yes . There' s an existing
bedroom upstairs now and this would be an
11 additional single bedroom.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A master bedroom suite?
12 MS . RIVERA: A master bedroom suite .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When I looked at the
13 property I noticed there were red markers in a
couple of places, and there were some half the way
14 to the embankment red markers and Mr. Papadopoules
was there and he said he didn' t know what they
15 were for either.
MS . RIVERA: I put four flags for where
16 the outline for where the garage extension was
going to be . It was 15 . 5 feet from the existing
17 dwelling now, and it went back 27 feet . It was
just a square, actually. It was just four flags
18 that I put . I only had four flags, like
irrigation flags, the other red markers may have
19 been when they had done the survey. There was
several pink markers .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think I counted
Six.
21 MS . RIVERA: Those were from the
surveyor.
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re going to
have a total five bedrooms in this house, that' s
23 what the survey says?
MS . RIVERA: Proposed may possibly be five
24 but right now it' s going to be for the sanitary
system we put in for five bedrooms because we
25 changed the sanitary system, but when it' s
completed it will probably be only four. The
March 31, 2005
83
1
2 master bedroom suite is going to encompass a
dressing/office area. You may or may not consider
3 a bedroom, depending on how you open it up to the
other space . You have to have an opening. You
4 can' t have a closed door. But right now, there' s
an existing bedroom/den downstairs . They use it
5 as a den but it could eventually be considered a
bedroom, but there' s a very small bedroom in the
6 rear- behind the new set of steps, and there' s
going to be two upstairs, the master bedroom suite
7 and the existing master bedroom the way it is now.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you raising the
8 roof line actually above where the roof line is
now, above all those windows in the front,
9 according to the plans?
MS . RIVERA: In the center?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . You' re raising
the roof a bit over there?
11 MS . RIVERA: If at all very slightly
because it' s existing now.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a
demo/rebuild?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s an add-on.
MS . RIVERA: No . Just an addition over
14 the garage, the addition will be the garage and
new space over the garage .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the audience
wishes to speak on this application either pro or
18 con? If not, I' ll make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later.
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
--------------------------------------------------
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing now is
for the Scannells who wish to open a B & B at 5405
21 Rocky Point Road, East Marion.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on
22 behalf of this application? Yes, sir, are you
just completing building that house or is it
23 finished?
MR. SCANNELL: It' s finished.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was late yesterday
afternoon, and I didn' t get a chance to come in.
25 I would appreciate if I call you in advance, I
would like to see it before we make a decision.
March 31, 2005
84
1
2 MR. SCANNELL: Okay. I have the
affidavit, do I bring them up to you?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . Give us any
information you want to give us; you have three
4 bedrooms?
MR. SCANNELL: Three bedrooms and two
5 bathrooms upstairs . We have a master suite
downstairs . We don' t have any kids so we rarely
6 go upstairs except when we have visitors . So we
figure we may as well be a bed and breakfast . We
7 just got certificate of occupancy about six months
ago, everything is up to code.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What about kitchen
facilities for additional people, six more people?
9 MR. SCANNELL: It' s a big house . There' s
no problem.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re only doing
breakfast anyway.
11 MR. SCANNELL: It' s just for six guests .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no
objection.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Traditionally,
14 Mr. and Mrs . Scannell, we are always mandating,
which is really part of a special exception
15 purview, that the Board has the right to look at
it . And this is very important in this situation
16 because you have a magnificent house, absolutely
beautiful, but we don' t want to get sued and we
17 don' t want you to get sued. We don' t want anybody
backing out on Rocky Point Road.
18 MR. SCANNELL: You mean backing out onto
the road?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . They have
to be able to turn around in your driveway, if you
20 have to elongate those parking spaces to make that
happen.
21 MR. SCANNELL: That' s no problem. We have
plenty of room before the septic . We can prolong
22 that another 10 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not an
23 objection or a sarcastic statement, but it' s nice
to draw them in but until you actually get to use
24 them, that' s what I'm saying.
MR. SCANNELL: There' s no problem in doing
25 that because the septic system is another 12 feet
beyond, so probably over another 10 feet, then
March 31, 2005
85
h
2 they should have over 40 feet to pull in and back
out .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
4 the audience wish to comment on this application?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So there will be a
5 condition and that will be that all your people
that stay there must be able to turn around in
6 your driveway and go out forward, no backing out
onto the highway; it' s going to be a condition on
7 this .
MR. SCANNELL: Will we have to put it on
8 the final survey or somebody come out and see?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll come out and look
9 at it next week. I' ll give you a call first .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
10 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
11 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Dash on
North Parish Drive.
13 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, for the Dashes . I 'm
14 going to hand you up some photographs showing
their house from the neighbor's house .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there this
morning.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there the other
day.
17 MR. ANDERSON: Basically the Dashes own a
ranch house on North Parish Drive . They' re
18 proposing an addition. We are here because they
have a pre-existing nonconforming setback with
19 regard to the westerly lot line and that is at
11 . 8 . As a point of interest, this is a lot that
20 inadvertently merged in 1977 or sometime prior to
that, and the Board granted a variance Number 2635
21 to resubdivide the lot maintaining the same side
yard setbacks of 11' 811 . The construction is for a
22 one-story addition and that addition is
essentially tucked behind the existing house . The
23 screened area in the front is converted to a
one-car garage . So there' s no further
24 encroachment towards the side yard in any way.
The house next door to the east is owned
25 by Crosdale and setback similarly from the road.
The house to the west is owned by Salsman and
March 31, 2005
86
1
2 setback considerably from the road about probably
to a distance of about 100 to 120 feet .
3 Across the street is the house owned by
Parella, which is probably setback something in
4 the area of 60 feet . So you have in the immediate
neighborhood three ranch houses and one two-story
5 house . Again, the addition is to provide some
additional living space . Fairly obvious to us
6 that there be no change in the neighborhood. It
won' t be really visible, and it doesn' t impact any
7 of the neighbors including, for example, the
adjacent neighbor to the west being so far setback
8 off the road and towards the water.
If you look at the photo and compare it
9 with the building plans prepared by Penny Lumber,
you' ll see that there is really no change to the
10 roof line at least facing the street; what happens
is that you have a reverse gable that goes towards
11 the water. The property, the project already has
DEC permit that has a statement from the Trustees
12 that no permit is required, and it' s about as
straightforward as can be for a zoning variance .
13 But I 'm here to answer any questions you may
have .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
15 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Partial is already
constructed, that little porch you' re going to
17 rebuild over that?
MR. ANDERSON: Instead of the screening
18 comes as a garage door.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Part of the side
19 yard setback is already existing?
MR. ANDERSON: The setback doesn' t change .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right . The new
part will go beyond that .
21 MR. ANDERSON: Towards the water.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you show a deck
22 on your picture here, but we' re not really
addressing the deck?
23 MR. ANDERSON: The deck is not an issue .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: For us .
24 MR. ANDERSON: No . And the addition' s
substantially over the deck.
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And it' s a single
story. No other questions .
March 31, 2005
87
1
2 MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
5 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? Then I' ll make a motion to close the
6 hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
7 (Time ended: 2 : 17 p.m. )
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 31, 2005
88
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
5 State of New York, do hereby certify:
6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
7 the testimony given.
8 I further certify that I am not related by
9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
10 action; and
11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
12 of this matter.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
14 hand this 31st day of March, 2005 .
15
16
17
18
19
20
UGC''/mac
21 Florence V. Wiles
22
23
24
25
March 31, 2005