Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/02/2005 HEARING 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 - 4 --------------------------------------)------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P. P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 June 2 , 2005 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present . : 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 16 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 17 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 19 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 20 Absent : Vincent Orlando, Board Member 21 22 23 rOP1IGINAL 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call to order our regularly scheduled meeting of June 2 , 3 2005 at 9 : 30 . I' d like a motion to declare all our following resolutions as a negative 4 declaration. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is Diane Lessard who wishes to construct a new porch 6 and a second story. Is there someone here to speak to this? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would like to disclose that Diane is married to my wife' s cousin 8 and I was also a partner with her husband some time ago, I 'm no longer affiliated. Thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS . LESSARD: Diane Lessard, and I am the 10 owner of the home at 4505 Main Road in Laurel . I am here to request a variance under Section 100-32 11 concerning a new front porch and second story addition at less than 60 feet from the front lot 12 line . When this house was purchased by my father 13 in 1966, already at that time there was only a setback of 56 feet from the road. In 1986 the New 14 York State Department of Transportation straightened out the curb at the west end of the 15 property and took a portion of his front yard. If you compare the old survey and the new survey it 16 looks like at the point of my non-conformity they took approximately nine and-a-half feet . Although 17 this created a hardship to my father by removing a portion of his front yard and creating a banking 18 effect to the yard, I am still very happy that the state straightened the road since from -that point 19 on there were no more accidents in this area. Prior to this there were numerous accidents, even 20 the deaths of two of my friends . I am proposing to erect a second story 21 addition directly over the existing footprint of the existing home . So as not to make it look like 22 I put on an addition, I would like to install a six foot open front porch to make my home look 23 pleasing to the eye . My addition will conform to the neighborhood as there are numerous one 24 and-a-half and two-story homes along that section of the Main Road, and the setback that I am 25 requesting is not unusual to the area as there are several homes to the east of the property which June 2 , 2005 3 1 2 are even closer than my proposed 39 feet three inch setback including the Southold Town 3 Information Center. Therefore I am requesting that you grant my request for a variance to allow 4 me to build my second story addition at a setback of 45 ' 9" and my front porch at a setback of 3913 " 5 so I can move in and have my children grow up in the house which I grew up in. Thank you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Michael do you have any questions of Diane? 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes . I looked at the property, it' s a lovely property. Isn' t it the 8 case that while to the east this is this park, the public land but to the west, the properties to the 9 west are setback a good deal further than your property is? 10 MS . LESSARD: Correct . But those houses were built I don' t know what year, there was an 11 existing large two-story house there at the time that my father purchased the land, which was in 12 line with my father' s property. That house was bulldozed down. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Now it' s nonconforming in a visual sense too for historical 14 reasons, but then what is already a small setback is going to be reduced further by the porch that 15 you propose . One wishes, of course, that your house were designed in such a way so the porch 16 could be on the back side, you have lots of land. Is there any conceivable way in which this 17 porch, which would probably be more commodious from the point of view of the residents and of 18 your own house, that the porch be put on some other side of the house, the rear? 19 MS . LESSARD: I am already putting a screened-in porch on the back, reason being that 20 the mosquitoes are so bad there being that the lake is there that if I want to be able to sit 21 outside at night, I am going to be able to in a screened-in porch. I was putting on the front 22 porch mainly for the looks of the house . I have seen numerous houses where someone goes on and 23 puts on a second story addition and that' s just what it looks like . It looks like someone put on 24 an addition, straight front, like a salt box. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would this be 25 screened? MS . LESSARD: No . It' s going to be June 2 , 2005 4 1 2 totally open, it is more for looks, you put a couple of chairs on it, and that' s all it' s going 3 to be . My main entrance into the house is going to be through the back and through the garage . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It isn' t there so you can sit out and watch the cars go by? 5 MS . LESSARD: No, even though I may once in a while, but, I mean, it is, as you know, 6 traffic on the Main Road is quite heavy especially during pumpkin time it' s at a standstill there . 7 It' s more for the looks of the house . As you saw the plans I want it to look nice . 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would it be fair to say that you would be interested if the cars are 9 standing still in traffic to have them have an attractive look at your house, it' s purely 10 aesthetic? MS . LESSARD: Purely aesthetic . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Also it . is the line of the front of the house . 12 MS . LESSARD: Yes . That portion that comes out a little bit on the house, the porch is 13 only going to be on that one section on the house, it' s not going across the whole front . When the 14 state had taken the property, the house was always parallel to the road. When the state took the 15 property, they took a pie-shaped portion of the property starting at the middle at a very narrow 16 section and going much wider, towards the western portion. Therefore, the house now sits a little 17 caddy-corner to the main property on the Main Road. When you look to the east side of the 18 house, there is a much larger setback than at the point where the surveyor put in, which is the 19 nonconformity, he made it the most dramatic . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand Michael' s questioning and I understand Mrs . 21 Lessard' s plight, and I really don' t have an objection to it . Having lived in this house for 22 many years, Diane, I know what you' re doing and I know it' s primarily purely aesthetic . You know, 23 in the past we've asked people to reduce the porch to five feet, I think you' re better off with a 24 straight 40 feet rather than 39' 3 " or whatever the case may be, but we' ll leave it at that, see what 25 the Board feels . MS . LESSARD: I have spoken to numerous June 2 , 2005 5 1 2 people who have a front porch of five feet, and they all say that they wish they had gone the 3 extra because even if they just put a chair there for looks for getting around those chairs is 4 difficult . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the six foot porch is really the minimum you could build 6 anyway, I know we have had that . But again you have to consider the hardship some of the land was 7 taken away and back when the house was built it wasn' t considered that you had to have such a 8 large setback. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any 9 questions . Let me see if anyone in the audience has any comments? If not, I ' ll make a motion to 10 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Gary Laube, who wishes to put the shed in a side 13 yard. Is there someone here to speak to this? Yes, sir? 14 MR. LAUBE : My name is Gary Laube, 310 Ackerly Pond Lane, Southold. The house has been 15 put on the state national register of historic places . We are working right now with the state 16 to put that whole section on the national historic district because there many old homes in that 17 area, and my plight right now is I have no out buildings for storage or a natural cellar whatnot, 18 and I have a lot of garden tools and whatnot, and we have to cover with tarps and it just doesn' t 19 look right . We purchased an 18th Century shed in Connecticut, it' s all post and beam, and that' s 20 what we want to put up there . The thing is the house was built 300 years ago . The house now 21 Ackerly Pond Lane goes straight across past our house . It never did 300 years ago. Ackerly Pond 22 came down, which was Main Road, which went to Lawler Road and that was all Main Road. Now 23 Ackerly Pond is put there . So even though my front door is the front door, which originally was 24 my back door, is the back door, because the road is going past this now it' s my side yard. If I 25 put anything on my back yard, which is really my side yard, it' s all wetlands, and we already took June 2 , 2005 6 1 2 an old building down there because of that, we volunteered to do that because it was right in the 3 middle of the wetlands because it was an old building from the ' 20s that we offered to take 4 down. So we wanted to put this shed right behind our house, which the Town is saying it' s our side 5 yard. And it' s the only place to put it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How large is that shed? 6 MR. LAUBE : 10 by 16 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was all wetlands, 7 originally, Jerry, it was part of the creek. MR. LAUBE : Yes, there was a lot more 8 water than there is now, actually our house is in the wetlands . There' s nothing we can do about 9 that now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions . I was there this weekend. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 13 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to 14 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Frank and Bertha Raynor, who have proposed an 17 addition less than 40 feet from the front line on Wickham Avenue in Mattituck. Yes, sir? 18 MR. RAYNOR: Frank Raynor. I ' d like to make an application for a variance . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. RAYNOR: I ' d like to apply for a 20 variance for about three and-a-half inches front porch setback. It' s three and-a-half inches over 21 what the setback should be . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that 38 feet to the 22 stoop or to the house? MR. RAYNOR: I think it' s to the house . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no comment 24 on this . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is this addition 25 going to be accessory apartment that' s accessible to the house? June 2 , 2005 7 1 2 MR. RAYNOR: It' s a just great room attached to the house . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there going to be bedrooms? 4 MR. RAYNOR: Yes, bedrooms downstairs in the cellar. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No kitchen? MR. RAYNOR: Not in the addition, no . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 7 objection, no comment at all . It' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any 8 problems either. You have a fish pond. MR. RAYNOR: Yes . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Koi? MR. RAYNOR: Yes . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish to comment on this application? If not , I ' ll make 11 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Lockwoods up on North Drive . They want to make a 14 lot line change, right? MS . DOTY: Yes, we' re seeking a lot line 15 change between two large lots that have been there since 1914 . It' s one of the first maps filed in 16 the Suffolk County court . Debra Doty, for the applicant, Lois Patricia Lockwood, also known as 17 Lesnikowski, we use Lockwood because it' s simple . We' re seeking a lot line change on two lots that 18 were created as part of a 1914 map. There is a house on each lot . My client' s been receiving tax 19 bills on two separate lots . We have COs for everything on two separate lots and we just 20 received thanks to the Board, because they insisted upon it, pre COs for the two residences 21 on the two lots . Each parcel has its own well, septic, heating and electrical system. We have a 22 small problem in that the lot line cuts through the garage and the residence on the southern 23 lot . There is an application pending before the 24 Planning Board to approve the lot line change, however they referred it to the Building 25 Department . At their work session in March they said they had no -- I think they said they had no June 2 , 2005 8 1 2 objection to what was proposed, and that we should go to the Building Department because we had a 3 width problem; and the width problem is caused by the fact that the property' s depth exceeds 618 4 -feet, more than 40 , 000 square feet on each lot . And we are here seeking the lot line change to 5 make the lot line go north of the residence and the garage on the southern lot, as well as a 6 variance with respect to the setback on the garage where it' s nine feet rather than 10 feet . I have 7 here the affidavit of posting. Given that there are already two lots 8 there, we' re not changing anything in terms of the character of the neighborhood, there' s no 9 detriment to the neighboring properties . We' re seeking to correct a non-conformity that has 10 existed for a number of years and the two lots are among the largest on North Drive . I think the 11 only one that may be larger is the one that belongs to the Town of Southold that runs up to 12 Mill Road. As I said, we' re trying to fix an existing 13 non-conformity, and the only other way to get your width, I think, and depth is to run a line 14 north/south, approximately north/south, so you have a waterfront lot and an inland lot , but then 15 you have a problem because you have two houses on one lot . I did some calculations on whether or 16 not the relief was substantial or insubstantial . In the worst case, the northern lot, that' s lot 17 620 , the rear lot, there is a negative difference of 17 . 65 feet, which is 20 . 9 percent, a negative 18 20 . 9 . On the other hand, on the southern lot, Lot 600 , the rear lot increases by 17 . 65 feet, which 19 is a 17 . 9 percent improvement . With respect to the setback, the garage has been there for years 20 and it' s a one foot difference . So we' re requesting that the Board grant the variance in 21 terms of the width; then we go back to the Planning Board. 22 A similar application had been before the Town in the ' 80s and ' 90s and at that time, Health 23 Department approval was obtained, DEC approval was obtained and the Trustees wrote a letter saying 24 because no work was being done we don' t require anything. I am aware of the fact that none of 25 that is valid anymore, I ' m just offering that to the Board for your information. Additionally, my June 2 , 2005 9 1 2 client recently received an offer from somebody to purchase the northern lot for $650 , 000 all cash. 3 We' re not in contract, but I 'm just offering that . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You won' t have ' 4 any merger issues once the line is moved, right, they will both be properly sized? 5 MS . DOTY: Yes, they' re both in excess of 40 , 000 square feet . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I looked over 7 the application. I thought that the notice of disapproval was just a little off in that it said 8 the first lot will measure 66 feet because I think that has to do with road frontage, and when I 9 write the decision I 'm going to mention both the lot' s going to be 118 . 6 feet in the front and 66 10 feet in the back. I think the 66 feet doesn' t apply to the lot width because you can have a 11 pie-shaped lot, you need road frontage . Beyond that, I read your application and I'm probably 12 going to copy a lot of it in my decision. It may be word for word. 13 MS . DOTY: I would be delighted, Jim, except would you do me one favor, correct the 14 spelling of "planning. " CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My. only question is how did it happen that the boundary runs through 16 one of the houses? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nobody did anything 17 back then. MS . DOTY: Nobody knew, nobody did 18 anything. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that a recurring 19 problem throughout the town? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 20 MS . DOTY: Actually on another issue on another matter, there was a house that was over 21 the line by about two and-a-half feet, and my clients who own the encroached property entered 22 into an agreement with the other side saying that if the thing ever falls down, you have to repair 23 it, you have to get it off my property. The lines were drawn. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Lockwoods 25 are both neighbors of mine . I have known them for years . I have no objection. June 2 , 2005 10 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no objection either. Is there anyone in the audience that 3 wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 4 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 6 Reed and Schubert in East Marion for an accessory shed less than 40 feet from the front lot line . 7 MS . BROWN: I'm Amy Brown from Fairweather Brown, representing the Reed and Schubert family. 8 There was an existing shed there on the site plan from the survey that was done in 1988 that was 43 9 feet from the property line, and our client was doing work at the house next door and decided he 10 needed more storage space for the furniture in the other house, and contracted to have an addition 11 put on the shed. It was at that time that they found out that the existing shed, although was 12 conforming, the addition would be not conforming; it would be closer than 40 feet to the front 13 property line . There is an existing pump house that is three feet from the front property line 14 and what we' re asking for is permission to keep the addition that they made as a separate shed 15 because they thought that that' would be an accessory structure, not realizing that it was the 16 front yard line because it' s a waterfront property, and that that was not an acceptable 17 location to put this there, too close to the line . 18 So, I 'm before you to ask that this eight foot by 11' 3 " addition be allowed to be placed 19 where you saw it on your inspection and the slight change from my original is actually from the 20 builder is that it' s a very heavy structure and it' s on proper support now so that it won' t rot 21 out as the existing shed has done, and that we be allowed to reconstruct the existing shed, 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want to use the existing shed and then add that other shed onto 23 the existing shed? MS . BROWN: What they need to do is the 24 existing shed is termite ridden and they need to replace it, and the permit was to rebuild the 25 existing and add this to it . What we would like to do is move the location of the existing shed up June 2 , 2005 11 1 2 to where the new part is, which would make it 32 and-a-half feet from the front property line 3 rather than replace the existing shed, .which is up against the only nice tree in the area, and 4 rebuild it there, and then try to move this other large structure to it . So we' re asking for relief 5 to put it 32 and-a-half feet from the property line rather than I think I applied for 34 feet . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 35? MS . BROWN: Okay. Actually, everything is 7 riding on the fact that the measurement on the original 1988 survey that the existing shed is 43 8 feet from the line because the line is out at the road, and it' s hard to get through the woods to 9 measure everything so we' re measuring if from the existing shed. It' s not less than 32 feet from 10 the existing line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought I was going to get arrested going up here . It was 12 unbelievable to find. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This wasn' t that hard 13 for me . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think I found 14 it, Amy, I 'm not really sure . MS . BROWN: You have go into the one house 15 and you make a right turn and it has flags on it and the shed is there and it had flags on it . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I actually looked at it from the neighbor' s 17 property. Needless to say I can' t honestly say that this would cause any problem to anybody so I 18 have no objection, as long as it remains as a shed. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed seems to be 20 buried in the woods, wasn' t even clear where the boundary line was; was there actually a road 35 21 feet from there, an unpaved road? MS . BROWN: On fire road number 3 , the 22 front edge of the property line, the pump house that' s there is on their property, and that' s only 23 three feet from the line . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the unpaved 24 portion of the road. It looks like it' s in the middle of the forest . 25 MS . BROWN: It is . It' s all unpaved. And there' s only one neighbor who owns the two June 2 , 2005 12 1 2 properties next door and they own the other property on the other side, so it wouldn' t really 3 affect any of the residences because it' s in the woods . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess I think if someone were to object there would be a fairly 5 heavy burden of proof to be lifted by the neighbor, who apparently we haven' t heard from 6 MS . BROWN: And the pump house that they own is three feet from the property line so this 7 is well in from that . And they don' t want to disturb the tree in any way. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about putting 9 it to the west of that building? MS . BROWN: That' s where the existing 10 driveway is, and they felt that that was not an option, and in as much as getting to the other 11 residence, that makes it so you can' t get into that driveway. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else 13 who wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 14 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is David 16 Kollen and Lauren Albertson in Cutchogue on Track Avenue . We will receive testimony today but some 17 of the neighbors have asked for a postponement, so we will keep the hearing open until July 7th. 18 We' ll be happy to hear from you right now, though. MR. KOLLEN: Can I give you the new 19 survey? MS . KOWALSKI : This is a copy of one of 20 the letters from one of the neighbors . MR. KOLLEN: Thank you. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to tell us? 22 MR. KOLLEN: My name is David Kollen and my wife and I would like to put an addition to the 23 front that has to be I think it comes out to 10 feet by 18 wide, and we would like to go up a 24 second story. Some of the concerns I think my neighbors 25 have -- I spoke to a couple of the ones that are for it, compared to the ones that are kind of June 2 , 2005 13 1 2 against -- it was that the second story had been too high to the other residences that are in the 3 neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high will it be to 4 the ridge? MR. KOLLEN: We were going to do a cape so 5 I think the max peak was going to be 30 feet . I have a second structure right now which is my 6 garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s pretty high. 7 MR. KOLLEN: 30 feet is pretty high? Isn' t 36 the maximum? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 35 . We' re trying to keep things scaled down if possible . 9 MR. KOLLEN: Originally we were going to do a full second story and then an attic, what we 10 did is we cut it down to I guess you would call it a half second story of living space . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the neighbors basically are objecting to the height of the house 12 rather than anything else? MR. KOLLEN: That' s what it sounds like 13 when I spoke to the neighbor that wrote this letter last night . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There was a 15 variance granted for that deck, you' re not going over that deck, right, the deck is going to still 16 remain where it is? MR. KOLLEN: We were going to put a porch 17 I think half way over that deck. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There some 18 restrictions in that decision that you couldn' t do that . That' s not in here, that' s not covered by 19 this . I don' t know if anybody else read that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . That the deck 20 was open to the sky. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . That it 21 could not exceed 24 feet . I don' t know what the legal terms are, but you go to build it and they 22 find that, and you' re in the middle of construction, not another nail gets hammered until 23 that gets hammered out . MR- KOLLEN: As far as the deck goes too 24 on the porch, we' re going to have a continuous porch to come across the front to the existing 25 deck and just have a roof to come over the front to kind of match everything up, and then the June 2 , 2005 14 1 2 closed addition would be the same distance out as far as the deck goes . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You would be the same distance . You' re not going to encroach on 4 that 24 foot? MR. KOLLEN: No. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There were some additional restrictions in that decision made in 6 ' 96 or ' 98 , something like that . I kind of wanted you to be aware of that and because I can' t tell 7 from your plans if you are doing anything that concerns that, and you may want to come back to us 8 and clarify that or you want to tell us now that nothing is going to affect a decision that was 9 made . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It says right here the 10 deck shall remain open and unenclosed to the porch or with any other type of enclosure . The setback 11 will not be closer than 24 feet at its closest point to the front property line on Track Avenue . 12 MR. KOLLEN: The deck would still remain open. The only thing I would like to do with the 13 deck is put a porch roof over it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you have a 14 problem. It has to remain open. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not open to the 15 sky. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you may want to 16 redesign your addition or put that in the application that you want relief from that 17 restriction. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would add that 18 that ' s not trivial because once you start putting a roof over the deck, turning it into a porch, 19 then the question comes is it going to be enclosed, is it going to be screened? 20 MR. KOLLEN: It' s not going to be enclosed, it' s not going to be screened. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It is this incremental problem of turning a deck that is only 22 open to the sky to a deck with only a roof over it, one wonders, it has to be made fairly 23 explicit . MR. KOLLEN: I think it' s going to look 24 funny having no roof over it when the rest of the house is going to tie into it . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the porch addition, it' s just a one story, the porch coming June 2 , 2005 15 1 2 out on the front of the house? MR. KOLLEN: The new addition, yes . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not going to be a two-story porch? 4 MR. KOLLEN: It' s not a porch, it ' s an addition. The porch would become what the deck is 5 now. MS . KOWALSKI : Is it one story? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The porch is but the addition will be -- 7 MR. KOLLEN: Two stories . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The addition is two 8 stories but the porch will come one story? MR. KOLLEN: Yes . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' ll have to do something about that deck, if you' re going to 10 enclose it, I have to reapply to change that decision, otherwise we can' t do it . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to go 12 back and reinspect this so I' ll hold my comments until the July meeting. 13 MS . KOWALSKI : There' s extra paperwork if you want to keep that roof over the deck area so 14 if you want to come back next week if you decide to do that . It' s more notices to the neighbors 15 and things like that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here 16 that wishes to speak on this application today? If not I' ll make a motion to adjourn this hearing 17 until July 7th. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Nicholas Zannikos on' Sound Beach Road, he wishes 19 to make a little addition there . You' re kind of the small house on the block there . 20 MR. ZANNIKOS : We don' t know what to call it , large bungalow or small house . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a nice area. MR. ZANNIKOS : My name Nicholas Zannikos . 22 My wife and I purchased this small home six months ago, and with the reason that we purchased it is 23 , because we would like to make this house our primary residence, we' re going to move from 24 Queens, New York to Mattituck. And although it' s kept in very good condition, and it' s what we call 25 very clean, it' s the original condition and it needs a complete renovation and since we are next June 2 , 2005 16 1 2 door neighbors left and right and front and back they have beautiful two-story homes, we would like 3 the permission of the department of buildings to add a second story. I have a daughter and a son. 4 They have two children and they' re going to be visiting us . So we' re actually looking for a 5 total of three bedrooms and an addition in the back. And, of course, it shows here an open deck, 6 like an open porch, and that' s all I have to say right now. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re proposing a first and second floor deck, a deck on the ground 8 floor and a second floor deck going out in the front? 9 MR. ZANNIKOS : Right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high would your 10 house be to the ridge; do you know? MR. ZANNIKOS : I would say about 29 feet . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it absolutely 12 necessary to have the addition on the rear two story? 13 MR. ZANNIKOS : Not necessary. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessary? 14 MR. ZANNIKOS : I would like to have at least one floor that we call a den or sitting 15 room. It' s not a problem if we don' t have a second floor addition. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason being that as you know with that cliff area in the back, 17 the farther you stay away from that, I realize the addition is important because you need to have 18 that extra bedroom and such -- MR. ZANNIKOS : That would be a den, 19 sitting room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, but that' s 20 the only thing that I'm concerned about is creating that big "T" off the back or the foot of 21 the "T" based upon that cliff situation, and that' s one reason that I would like to see it 22 reduced to one story. MR. ZANNIKOS : That' s perfectly all right, 23 and I think I like it better myself . I don' t like to create an eyesore . We need it also very 24 pretty. So a one-story addition in the back is absolutely okay. And I know the neighbors in the 25 back will not be so happy with excavating, so they also sitting on the bluff so taking away ten feet June 2 , 2005 17 1 2 of the turf . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to be 3 very careful with that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, you do have to 4 excavate some of that bluff in order to put on the addition in the rear? 5 MR. ZANNIKOS : Yes, about ten feet . But on the left side the bluff is high, and as it 6 comes from my house it' s like three feet , so it' s not creating any condition. If you go 20 , 30 feet 7 back you need a large retaining wall . This can be done without a retaining wall . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you refer to as 9 the deck, you say it' s going to be covered? MR. ZANNIKOS : No, it will be open. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Open to the sky on the roadside? 11 MR. ZANNIKOS : Front deck, totally open. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Top and sides? 12 MR. ZANNIKOS : Just columns as aesthetics, no screens, no roof . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No roof on that porch? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The first story will have a roof . 15 MR. ZANNIKOS : The roof of the floor is going to be the deck on the second floor. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck on the second floor will not have a roof on it? 17 MR. ZANNIKOS : No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just be careful when you dig into that bluff in the back. I agree with 19 Jerry. It' s kind of scary. Is there anyone else in the audience who 20 wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 21 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is 23 Laurence and Lillian Simpson on Brigantine Drive in Southold, a new addition of less than 40 feet 24 from the front lot . Mr. Strang? MR. STRANG: I don' t know if the Board 25 needs it for the record, I have a mailing that was returned, one of the certified mailings, returned June 2 , 2005 18 1 2 undeliverable . MS . KOWALSKI : What' s the name on that? 3 MR. STRANG: Harbor Lights Association. MS . KOWALSKI : We noted it for the record, 4 and, yes, we need that . MR. STRANG: Our application here, as you 5 stated, is for a relief from the front yard setback requirement for a portion of the width of 6 the house . The home was originally built mid ' 60s by my client' s father, and it was used as a second 7 home, vacation home . It was a small two bedroom one bath home typical of that era for use as a 8 vacation home or second home . The use is presently changing. My client' s family is 9 growing. They' re planning on actually coming out here living full time in the not too distant 10 future, and it now necessitates that they enlarge the house to make it more livable so they have 11 three bedrooms and two baths and additional living space . 12 The living room itself is relatively small, and in order to make the living room 13 livable, they need to expand it, and the only option we have to expand that is to come forward 14 toward the road with it, which is what we' re proposing. We' re trying to come out the minimum 15 necessary to accomplish that, what they would like to have there, and, of course, you see we' re only 16 going across 26 feet of the house with that expansion and encroachment . 17 Part of the challenge is that the lot has two front yards because it has what would be 18 deemed a private road and one of the other challenges is the fact that this lot, this 19 specific lot, is very unique in the fact that it' s only 133 feet deep . Most of the other lots in 20 Harbor Lights are 200 feet deep . So we' re kind of scrunched in there . We don' t have the land, the 21 depth as many of the other lots do to expand and go forward and not have the encroachment . 22 So that being said, it' s sort of before you asking for your relief and your consideration 23 in this relief and I' ll answer any questions that the Board members might have . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How is the expansion 25 of the living room going to deal with the need for more living space; do they need more bedrooms? June 2 , 2005 19 1 2 MR. STRANG: Yes . There is an addition on the back of the house that will accomplish the two 3 additional bedrooms they need. One of the existing original small bedrooms is becoming a 4 utility area, laundry room, so to speak. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will be a two story 5 house? ) MR. STRANG: No, it' s a one story and it 6 will remain a one story. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With all the talk about two-story houses, you' re to be commended for 8 building a one-story house . MR. STRANG: Yes . We' re not going up, 9 staying on one floor. I know the neighbor next to them is two-story home, couple large two-story 10 homes are going in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks like you' re 11 doing the minimum necessary in the front, I ' m talking Brigantine . You could have gone all the 12 way across . MR. STRANG: Again, we' re trying to be 13 sensitive to the road side of the community. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That Paradise 14 Shores Road is not a well-traveled road. It' s more of a right of way situation, and it does 15 appear that the lot is a minimum depth in the area, so I think you have a real problem. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I hate to ask 17 this question, Garrett, but this doesn' t violate any covenants and restrictions? 18 MR. STRANG: To the best my knowledge, it does not . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know there are houses that were existing properties within the 20 original subdivision_, that existed prior to the subdivision, I should say, that are very close to 21 the road. I don' t have any objection. I just wanted to ask that question. 22 MR. STRANG: I 'm not aware of covenants and restrictions that we' re in violation of with 23 this application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 24 audience that wishes to speak to this application? MR. JENNER: May I? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . MR. JENNER: My name is Richard Jenner, I June 2 , 2005 20 1 2 live at the house next to the Simpsons . We' re not necessarily against this expansion. It just kind 3 of caught us off guard, and that' s why we' re here today. After speaking to the Simpsons a number of 4 times and this not being mentioned at all . Two weekends ago Mr. Simpson mentioned that the front 5 addition was going to go out six feet and we would barely notice it, and never made mention of the 6 back addition, and when I got this in the mail, frankly we were a little bit taken aback from the 7 fact that he' s going from 2 , 300 square feet to over 4 , 000 , and it' s a significant increase . We 8 bought the house last October, the house at 265 Brigantine, with an eye towards moving out here 9 and retiring in a few years . We were just worried aesthetically as to how our property value -- and 10 my apologies to zoning restrictions and laws and stuff as far as the setback going from 44 feet to 11 34 feet, and just simple things that we' re going to live with from day to day like water view, 12 which is going to be obstructed as a result of the front addition, and I guess we just felt compelled 13 to come here and listen to what was involved in this and how easily something like this is 14 allowed. This kind of caught us very much off guard and we just felt that our concerns as future 15 full-time residents as well as people who invested in this area and now we' re going from a house that 16 is practically doubling in size next to us, and we' re just not sure that this is going to have a 17 negative impact . We' re not looking to sell the house in a couple of years, but we' re looking to 18 , live there . And one of the things that we liked about it is the fact that we are near the water, 19 and we did have access to looking out of our windows and seeing it, and this is going to 20 effectively shut that view off . We just felt compelled to be heard here . We' re not trying to 21 block their plans to make their plans better. We wanted to understand what kind of restrictions 22 exist as far as setbacks and things such as that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, we have a 40 foot 23 setback regulation, but people can come in and ask for relief of that 40 feet for extenuating 24 circumstances, and if they want to make that living room bigger, they' re going to push it out 25 to make it 34 feet . MR. JENNER: I guess I would ask for you June 2 , 2005 21 1 2 to collectively understand that it caught us off guard to be told that it' s going to go out six 3 feet, and then to get plans that are increasing the property by 1, 700 square feet . I felt that 4 there was some misrepresentation with no disrespect to Mr. Simpson, but basically that' s 5 what he told us, and the fact that our view of the water is effectively going to be cut off by the 6 front extension. The back extension, I understand it' s bedrooms and such and it' s kind of necessary 7 if he wants to live there and, in fact, and have children come out there . But the front we thought 8 was unnecessary and would affect the aesthetics from our perspectives . Thank you for allowing me 9 to speak. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As you face the house 10 from Brigantine, is your house the one on the left? 11 MR. JENNER: As you face the house it ' s on the right . It' s the water, the Simpsons and our 12 house . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the things 13 that happens is that people can do things which do not require a variance which may work to the 14 detriment of neighbors, there' s nothing anybody can do about that . But the issue here before you 15 is solely not the matter of the fact that they' re expanding the house, but the fact that they' re 16 asking for a variance to expand that particular portion of it, that six feet . I think it would 17 probably be appropriate to have another look, for us to have another look at the house and see what 18 kind of effect this variance has on your view, the part that is referred to here . So I appreciate, 19 but your reasons for coming here are perfectly legitimate . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would object to that . This gentleman' s view has nothing to do 21 with this variance . He could plant hedges there tomorrow and this gentleman' s view would be gone, 22 and we could do absolutely nothing about it . We' re concerned about the health and 23 welfare of the community, and this doesn' t include someone sitting at this bathroom window and seeing 24 the water. I can see if he was building a house right in front of this gentleman' s house . He' s 25 asking for a little more room on a small lot . The house is already there . They' re restricted by June 2 , 2005 22 1 2 what they can do by the layout of the house . To my mind this applicant came before us with the 3 minimum on that side that would be required. He could have come, like most applicants, with a two 4 story all the way across that house, and he 1 didn' t . And while I understand your surprise, 5 sir, I can' t sympathize with the fact that a 10 by 26 foot addition is going to do any harm to your 6 house or to the value of your house . MR. JENNER: Okay. I understand what 7 you' re saying. I'm sorry that you feel the need to denigrate what was important to us as far as 8 our concerns about the house and the fact that we' re being told one thing and then coming here 9 and getting something in the mail that is significantly different . And our concern was what 10 can be allowed and what can be done by just putting in an application. But I do understand 11 your point of view, and I do understand the Board' s point of view, but we needed to come here 12 and hear this for ourselves . And I wish the Simpsons well . It sounds like it' s going to be 13 allowed, and I thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank, sir. I ' ll make 14 a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Jozic on North Sea Drive in Orient, who need an 17 okay for an as-build deck. MR. JOZIC: Yes . I make addition on the 18 back of the house 12 by 10 and I think that' s the only problem. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you get a CO for the other part of the deck? 20 MR. JOZIC: No, I didn' t . I have original deck in the back first time and sketch then all of 21 a sudden I made the deck and I have problems . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I take it this house 22 is perhaps sold, and in order to sell it you need to have a certificate of occupancy; am I correct? 23 MR. JOZIC: I put house for sale but does not mean problem that the small part of the deck 24 in the back. MS . KOWALSKI : They need variances for 25 both decks . MR. JOZIC: What both decks? June 2 , 2005 23 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have the deck, then the stairs, then the extension. You need an 3 exception for both decks . MR. JOZIC: Why? I think the first deck 4 is original deck for the house . MS . KOWALSKI : We don' t have a CO for that 5 deck, and it doesn' t meet the setback requirement for the code . So we included it . It doesn' t meet 6 the setback for the code, so we included it . You' re showing both decks because they both need 7 approval for the decks . MR. JOZIC: When I bought it they have 8 that down. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even though you bought 9 the house that way, when you come to us then for an extension or something you still need a CO for 10 that original deck even though it was there . The people that built the deck beforehand did not get 11 a CO for that deck and you have to have it . MR. JOZIC: So is that a problem I don' t 12 have enough footage from the neighbor? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s just to your rear 13 yard. MS . KOWALSKI : That' s why you' re here . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re supposed to be 35 feet and you' re 26 , 27 feet . I understand you 15 have a rather shallow lot . Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the house is 17 quite a. bit away from the street . So understand, you purchased a house it didn' t have a CO on that 18 original deck and you added on to it and it looks nice . All we' re saying here is we need to bless 19 them both. Both of those decks regardless of when they showed up there, they' re not in conformance 20 with zoning and you couldn' t build a deck there without having to come to us . You couldn' t build 21 a two foot deck there without having a variance . So we' re attending to that and we will make a 22 decision one way or the other. The old deck doesn' t effect your application other than the 23 fact that it' s non-conforming. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objections as long as it remains open to the sky. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak on this application? June 2 , 2005 24 1 2 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 3 (See minutes for resolution. ) -----------------------------------7------------- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Robert Manley on Orchard Lane in East Marion, and 5 they wish to construct dwelling. MR. MANLEY: Based upon what we submitted 6 so far, we are in the process of applying for a variance to .take down our existing home in 7 Gardiner' s Bay Estates and to construct a new home, which will be made eventually for our 8 retirement . This is where we plan on retiring. It ' s going to be a two-story farmhouse style home 9 approximately 2 , 200 square feet . We will be taking out the existing foundation, and I guess 10 the variance that we are applying for is to use our existing footprint and extend it five feet 11 west toward Old Orchard and five feet south toward Locust . As you can see from the survey it' s a 12 corner plot . We have plenty of room on all sides to use that five feet . I think we were also 13 applying- for a variance for total lot coverage as to percentage to the size of the home and the most 14 current survey shows 20 . 5 is the most current . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 20 . 5? 15 MR. MANLEY: 20 . 5 . So originally it was I think 24 and we made some alterations to get it as 16 close to the 20 percent as we could. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How did you do that? 17 MR. MANLEY: Actually what we did was we reduced the porch size, the depth of the porch 18 size, I think that' s primarily what got us close to that 20 percent . And actually we reduced, the 19 porch would have wrapped around to the back and we eliminated that portion of it, and then reduced 20 the size of the depth from an eight foot depth to I think a seven foot depth. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have plans 23 on what this house is going to look like? MS . MANLEY: We have preliminary 24 plans . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' d like to see 25 a copy of that . MR. MANLEY: You can keep that . Would June 2 , 2005 25 1 2 anybody else like to see? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 3 MR. MANLEY: We have extra. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I mention 4 something? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Manley, I realize this is a private road. This is a pretty 6 narrow private road. I just have a problem with 20 feet in reference to a setback to Old Orchard. 7 I'm going to have to go back and re-inspect and I may reserve the right of objecting to 20 feet on 8 Locust . But I probably will not object to that . And I realize that some of that is porch and some 9 of that is garage based upon your plan, but it' s pretty ambitious, I have to tell you, that' s just 10 an opinion of mine . If you' re going to reconstruct this entire house, I don' t understand 11 why you can' t slide it back five feet . MS . MANLEY: That' s a very good question 12 and our primary concern at this point is our neighbor behind us . The way this works out on Old 13 Orchard is that' s at least 10 feet of Old Orchard Road is actually grass right now, so visually it 14 does not appear like it' s looming out of the pavement there . Our neighbor to the rear, we' re 15 concerned that we' re going to be putting up a two-story home and the closer we get to her, the 16 more she' s going to be able to look at a wall . This is a life-long friend of ours; that' s our 17 primary reason there . She has a one-story home there, and she is going to lose daylight the 18 closer we get to her. The way the sun goes through the sky during the day and where it goes 19 through the road on Old Orchard, it' s least offensive to anyone . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going pretty high to the ridge, 31 feet . 21 MS . MANLEY: That' s correct . It is just a two-story home, we' re not doing any attic with 22 gables or anything like that . There will be a basic attic, but not living area. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, that road on the tax map is 30 feet wide . I don' t think 24 it' s paved 30 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No way. 25 MS . MANLEY: You can see it on the survey. On the survey it shows . June 2 , 2005 26 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Maybe 18 feet wide . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because almost 3 two cars can' t pass at the same time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . You have to move 4 over. I was just down there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just 5 reiterating my concern about the ambitiousness of a house, it' s a pretty big house, I realize that 6 it looks bigger on the print than it probably is in reality but it' s pretty ambitious on this size 7 lot in reference to those setbacks, that' s just my opinion, doesn' t mean I'm against it in any 8 way. I 'm just raising that issue to you. MR. MANLEY: I appreciate that . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I thought the same thing. Michael? 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought the same thing as Jerry. I assume when you say your 12 backdoor neighbor, is it -- MS . MANLEY: Gunderson and Shand. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : On that side you can build a house 10 feet away from that property 14 line without a variance . So I would object to anybody saying to this Board or us writing in this 15 decision that the reason why you want to do this is because you' re going to block the sunlight from 16 that property. MR. MANLEY: It goes beyond that . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm sure that it does . We have to set standards, and if you' re 18 taking this down completely, now is the ideal opportunity for you to come into compliance . And 19 that would mean that if you set that house back five feet or you lopped five feet off the 20 property. I understand Locust Court side, but certainly this is the opportunity now to make that 21 setback on the other side right . And again, you could do a lot worse there . You' re good neighbors 22 to your neighbor for thinking that way, but someone could come and they could build a house 23 legally 10 feet away from there and not come before this Board. So I don' t want us to consider 24 that to be a reason for you to have a variance on the other side . 25 MR. MANLEY: There' s advantage and disadvantages to having a corner piece of June 2 , 2005 27 2 property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I couldn' t agree 3 with you more, sir. We see them every day. MR. MANLEY: What we' re also trying to 4 accomplish is whether a sense of privacy or whatever in the backyard, what is a side yard 5 trying to accomplish making it a back yard. Without putting up fences which we would never 6 consider doing, we' re trying to save as much of that side yard for our use . Whereas, you can' t 7 use the Old Orchard side for your barbecues; you can' t use the Locust side because of traffic . 8 We' re trying to accomplish two things, having enough space to make the side yard a backyard and 9 not to offend our neighbor, and to keep it all within the fittingness of our community. If you 10 have driven through our community you can see a lot of the homes are close to the road, they' re 11 not the setbacks that are currently in place, not conforming. The goal here is to -- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a big house . If you can set. it back even five feet, .which isn' t 13 terrible . MR. MANLEY: That' s not terrible either. 14 We' re going to obviously comply with whatever decision you make; and then we' ll have to make a' 15 decision whether or not it' s fitting for us to attempt this aggressive project that we' re going 16 to be undertaking. But certainly, if you said that if we were to maintain our current setback 17 from Old Orchard, we would find that probably a good compromise for us . 18 MS . MANLEY: I could see the five feet going back. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what I 20 would do, I' d reduce the garage size, that' s number one; and I would go five and five from both 21 Locust and Old Orchard. MS . MANLEY: We hear what you' re saying 22 about the garage, that' s an excellent point . We have been trying to work with the architect on 23 that . We do need two garages, one for each of our cars, but the depth of it is what is difficult . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you would still have that because what is that setback 25 determined on the north side? I know it' s at 151511 , but that could probably go down a little June 2 , 2005 28 1 2 bit, and I would put a straight 14 foot garage door in, a single garage door, and reduce that 3 area on the side of the house thereby reducing lot coverage too, and then push the house over a bit . 4 That could be achieved very easily. You' re showing two eight foot garage doors on there, and 5 I realize it' s more colonial, but sometimes you have to give a little . 6 MS . MANLEY: Could two cars fit in there? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure . They make 7 the doors 14 by 18 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re saying go back 8 five foot from Locust and five foot from Old Orchard? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MS . KOWALSKI : What is that setback equal 10 to? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 25 and 25 . 11 MS . MANLEY: Right now on Locust the Shand' s property is at 17 . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He' s not here for a variance though. 13 MS . MANLEY: I understand that . I 'm just saying if we try to stay within existing, some of 14 the neighbors -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The reason you' re 15 before us is that exact reason; these are nonconforming houses and the Town tries to make 16 them more conforming when they possibly can. You can' t use 17 feet as an excuse . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s still a 10 foot reduction, which is still a major 18 percentage of reduction. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we agreed five 19 foot back from Locust and five foot back from Old Orchard. 20 MR. MANLEY: So where would that leave us? MS . MANLEY: You' re saying we don' t 21 necessarily have to cut the house size down but shift the whole thing over to the north? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And take a couple feet away from the garage, that' s all . 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : As long as they meet this setback on the north side . 24 MS . MANLEY: The setback is at 15 ' 5" , what -is the minimum there, 10? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it' s 10 . MS . MANLEY: So we have a couple of feet June 2 , 2005 29 1 2 that we can go there? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You may still be 3 able to achieve the same thing if you slide it over. I would suggest taking a couple feet off 4 the whole length of the garage, iand put a one single door in instead of that double door 5 situation. MS . MANLEY: The length of the garage I 6 can see . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just wiggle it 7 in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You might want to come 8 to our special meeting, which will be on next Thursday, because we will deny this and then grant 9 you alternative relief . But you might want to hear the exact specifics so you' re clear in your 10 mind what we have in our mind. MS . MANLEY: I'm not sure I follow. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have our special meeting next Thursday, a week from today where we 12 do our decisions, this way someone will prepare the decision with the alternative relief . It will 13 be all in writing so you get a general idea then it will be written up by our legal secretary here, 14 so you will have it in writing. So at least you will get an idea about what we have in mind. 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You can hear how they arrive at their decision. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At least you will be here to know about what our thoughts are, then it 17 will be written up very clearly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can' t speak at 18 the hearing, whatever you want to say, say it now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we understand 19 one another. Is this anyone else in the audience that would like to speak at this hearing? 20 MR. PETER: Yes . My name is George Peter, 615 Dogwood Lane, Gardiner' s Bay Estates . I 'm the 21 president of the homeowner' s association. I ' m just here to say as of this moment, we have no 22 overall objection to their plans going forward in relation to your variance adjustments . Thank 23 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much. 24 If that ' s no further questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 25 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) June 2 , 2005 30 1 2 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a resolution 3 to recess the hearing for five minutes . (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a motion to reopen our hearing. 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 6 for Robert Rothberg and Carol Palmieri, for an accessory apartment up on Aldrich Lane Extension 7 in Mattituck. Hi, Kathy. MS . MESIANO: Good morning, I 'm Katherine 8 Mesiano on behalf of the applicants, Drs . Rothberg and Palmieri are requesting a special exception 9 for this accessory apartment for Dr. Rothberg' s mother who is elderly. The only thing that makes 10 this an apartment is the fact that there are appliances in it rather than no refrigerator, no 11 stove, et cetera. We more than comply with parking requirements . From an aesthetic point of 12 view, there' s no indication from the exterior that anything other than a regular single-family 13 dwelling exists . The property isn' t even visible from another piece of property so as far as impact 14 is and so on, it' s a pretty straightforward application, so if you have questions, I' ll defer 15 to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that addition or portion that' s to be used as an accessory 17 apartment an addition to the house? MS . MESIANO: That was an addition to the 18 existing garage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that' s why 19 you' re seeing newer shingles on that side? MS . MESIANO: Yes . The entire place was 20 refurbished. I have photographs in the file . I should have thought to bring you the old 21 photographs . I can submit that at a later date if you want them. But there was an old, quite run 22 down structure on the property, and this is a total renovation. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the accessory apartment will be within the confines of that? 24 MS . MESIANO : Yes, it' s above the garage area . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And those two buildings were never attached before; is that June 2 , 2005 31 1 2 correct? MS . MESIANO: They were separate 3 structures and they were separated by, maybe the corners are maybe four feet apart . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask you that question, I 'm speaking from a visual 5 aspect of the building, not speaking for the Board, we very rarely go up there, except we had a 6 lot line change there at one point . MS . MESIANO: Right . That lot line change 7 was their property. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s an area -- 8 and I have to tell you that the enhancement of the road was beautiful because it used to be a 9 terrible, terrible ride, and you talk about increase of property values, the increase of 10 property values just to be able to get there and mainly from a rescue point of view it' s been 11 tremendous, and I was elated to see that, but I just needed to clear that up in my mind. 12 MS . MESIANO: Yes . The footprints that exist, I believe are the original footprints and 13 they put the second stories on both structures and joined them with that tower that you see, this 14 tower is what ended up adjoining. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This house was 15 subsequently moved back? This house was originally the Matregine house? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was moved back. MS . MESIANO : Not by us . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not by you. MS . MESIANO: The apartment is handicapped 18 accessible . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else, Jerry? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, that' s it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question. It' s noted that this right of accessory apartment is 21 going to terminate with any transfer of the property; is that correct? 22 MS . MESIANO: I think that is in general that the special exception runs with the 23 ownership . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn' t matter 24 what the law is, it would allow them to rent it out if the resident stopped living there, as long 25 as they owned the property? MS . MESIANO: That' s my understanding. June 2 , 2005 32 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no 3 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 4 audience that wishes to speak on this application? I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 5 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is 7 Susan MacKenzie at 675 High Path, Southold. MS . MACKENZIE : I 'm Susan MacKenzie, I 'm 8 applying for a variance on my front porch. I currently have a stoop that' s six by three, it' s a 9 wooden stoop. And I ' d like to build an overhang porch which is nine by six, and I 'm applying for 10 the variance on the setback on the front . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m looking for a new survey forwarded. 12 MS . MACKENZIE : It was with the application. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see the new covered entry, the setback will then be 44 ' 6" to 14 the property line? MS . MACKENZIE : Right . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What will be above 17 this porch? MS . MACKENZIE : It will just be an 18 overhang. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not an extension of 19 the house? MS . MACKENZIE : No . It will just have 20 columns, it will look like a doorway as opposed to standing there getting wet while you' re looking 21 for your keys . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And I understand you 22 have a letter? MS . MACKENZIE : Yes, letter from the 23 neighbor in the back accepting it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 25 audience that wishes to speak to this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing June 2 , 2005 33 1 2 and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 3 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 4 Patricia Milone at 3500 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue . 5 MS . MILONE : (Handing) I did fax that in. . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One thing, why is your 6 address on Nassau Point Road when you can' t see a thing, you had to go all the way around Robin 7 Hood' s Barn to get to Wannaweta. MS . MILONE : When I bought the house from 8 Dr. Horowitz, he put a pool in so that was his front yard. When he put the pool in he made the 9 entrance from Wannaweta. It' s. very confusing, nobody can find me . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s nice sometimes . What would you like to tell us? 11 MS . MILONE : I' d like to ask permission to put an accessory garage on the property, and I 12 know this was a problem because they were saying I had two front yards or two back yards so. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have two of everything, right . And you' re going to make the 14 driveway going into the garage from Wannaweta? MS . MILONE : That' s a driveway there now. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And make a right jag to go from your driveway to go -- I wasn' t sure . 16 MS . MILONE : The driveway's already there, it would just be an extension to the garage . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It appears as though since the supposed front yard on Nassau 'Point is 18 more like a rear yard, you' re asking that the other front yard be both a front yard and a back 19 yard because the driveway will be there and the garage will be there, not that there' s any 20 objection to that, but that' s sort of the odd situation. It' s as though there is no rear yard 21 at all . They' re both on that side of the house . MS . MILONE : I know the people on the 22 beach side of me and along that area have the same problem. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the shed was there already, and that' s been demolished, right? 24 MS . MILONE : Yes, it was taken down. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry. June 2 , 2005 34 1 2 BOARD MEMBER G08HRINGER: What is the actual use, Mrs . Milone, for the second story of 3 the garage? MS . MILONE : I don' t have any storage in 4 the house, so I wanted to have it for storage . I ' m going to be moving out here this year 5 permanently, he and -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the garage 6 will only be used for storage purposes? MS . MILONE : Yes . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the garage? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To the median 8 height it' s 9' 9 . 5" plus eight feet, and that almost raises to the gable end peak on the rear 9 elevation, and you probably have another six or eight feet above that because it' s a relatively 10 steep roof, similar to like a little tudor roof . MS . KOWALSKI : But the overall height is 11 18 feet to meet code . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this application? 13 MR. CHIARELLI : Good morning, my name is John Chiarelli, I'm an attorney from Chiarelli and 14 Dempsey, 737 Roanoke Avenue in Riverhead. And we represent Richard Winge who owns the property 15 adjacent to the south, and he' s away on business in California and he apologizes for not being here 16 personally today. He' s opposed to the application. This 17 structure will overlook his swimming pool, which is in his side yard. There are four lots 18 altogether, and in this immediate vicinity that go to two road frontages, Nassau Point Road and 19 Wannaweta. On Miss Milone' s side there are three lots and on 'the other side there' s one . The three 20 on her side all, as a practical matter, have their front yards on Wannaweta and their rear yards on 21 Nassau Point, and so one of the things I think Mr. Simon observed is that the practical difficulty is 22 really nonexistent here because what' s happening, is Miss Milone is going to get two rear yards and 23 is not burdened by the code which says you can' t put an accessory structure in the front yard 24 because there' s a swimming pool, which is the accessory structure in the other front yard and 25 that' s just as it is the rear yard for the person l next door to her to the north. Mr. Wingy' s June 2 , 2005 35 1 2 swimming pool is in his side yard. He has a wider lot . He had room to put his swimming pool in his 3 side yard so he doesn' t impact either the front yard or rear yard depending how you want to look 4 at it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Excuse me, do you have 5 the lot then that really has three front yards? MR. CHIARELLI : Yes . That' s a different 6 story. There' s some litigation going on with respect to that right of way. Yes, if that' s 7 considered a road, then that would be three yards, right . 8 Our point is there' s no difficulty, no problem with compliance . For that reason alone 9 there is no two front yard burden, there is a rear yard and a front yard. And what the applicant 10 wants is two rear yards . The other impact issue is that since this 11 thing is going to be so close to my clients, where he enjoys his accessories, and there' s no reason 12 to make it so close, there' s plenty of room to put this garage nearer the house, where if it was 13 going to be a garage, and I don' t know that the plans really suggest that it' s going to be a 14 garage . This is an elaborate structure, two stories . The only thing that' s missing from the 15 plans, in all due respect, is a kitchen and bathroom to make this thing a beautiful guest 16 house or cottage . If it was truly a garage, I think for practical reasons, one would want to 17 have their garage near the principal residence for convenience purposes, transporting grocery bags 18 and things that are incidental to the use of a garage as accessory to a residence . 19 So we object to it because it' s easily convertible to a habitable structure according to 20 the plans that have been submitted to the Building Department . 21 Even if conditions are imposed as Mr. Goehringer suggested, you' re not going to use 22 this for anything but storage or a garage, even if conditions are imposed, my client doesn' t believe 23 that those conditions are going to be practical in terms of enforcement . The shed that was there was 24 previously a shed. It looks like a shed. It has an opening in the front that could have been a 25 garage door, but it was converted to a structure even though it was much smaller and much more a June 2 , 2005 36 1 2 garage-type structure than certainly the plans suggest here . And I ' d like to offer these 3 photographs (handing) . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a 4 question, Ruth? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel, what do you propose, if anything? 6 MR. CHIARELLI : We propose that the variance be denied for this particular plan in 7 that particular area. I don' t know that Mr. .Wingy would have an objection if the garage were located 8 nearer the house and away from the impact on the enjoyment of his property. It' s unnecessarily 9 near his property since that' s so much -- if we' re going to make that front yard another rear yard, 10 there' s a lot of room there to put this garage away from his property and not necessarily impact 11 the owner to the north either. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to 12 mention something which is not germane to this hearing, I was taken back to have to take the 13 chain down on Old Manhaven to get in there . As you know, there' s private roads which should 14 remain open for accessibility. I've been a fireman for 38 years in Mattituck, and we do a lot 15 of cooperative rescue work with Cutchogue, and I am going to speak to the chief of Cutchogue 16 regarding that . I literally had to take two chains down to get to Wannaweta to get over to 17 that area, which I was really taken back by, I have to tell you. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw that sign private property posted, that' s why I said went all the 19 way around. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That upset me 20 dearly. MR. CHIARELLI : I think you have a point 21 well taken as far as access and rescue . I 'm familiar with that issue because as attorneys 22 we' re involved with that litigation representing both Mr. Wingy and the owner of the property 23 across what has been identified as Old Manhaven Road. And certainly no one has ever presented 24 this problem as an access and emergency services problem, and certainly my clients would not have 25 any objection to providing access for that purpose . But the Supreme Court has decided that June 2 , 2005 37 1 2 that is private property, and the local residents and I believe the Nassau Point Property Owner' s 3 Association is appealing that to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court . And' that will be a 4 matter decided by the courts, and you' re right, it' s not an issue that affects this applicant . 5 This application doesn' t create a greater impact on my client' s property because of what' s going on 6 in that litigation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just 7 digress here and not be too lengthy here . I 've been to the property only once . I was there a 8 week or ,so ago. There is definitely a topographical issue here in reference to this 9 ahead placing this garage in another location. I can see some setback issues here, and I can see 10 that gable ends could be taken away from your client' s property. I can see that the storm 11 drains can be put in or whatever else you want to say, that water runoff can' t be placed on your 12 client' s property and so on and so forth. But I don' t know about an alternate location for a 13 garage, maybe not this ambitious, okay, that much closer to the house based upon that particular 14 area. That area looked to me to be a pretty good area for a location for a garage . And that' s just 15 my opinion on the whole situation. So that when I asked you that question, and I'm not asking you to 16 come up with an answer at this particular point, I think we need to know some alternate situations 17 after you speak to your client of where and what other changes could be made . And this may require 18 you to do another site inspection yourself so that we could come up with something. The lady purely 19 needs a garage . She' s telling us that . And give us an idea of what would make your client happier 20 for her to do so . That' § just an opinion. MR. CHIARELLI : I can recall like a 21 general slope up to the house, and I don' t know that that really precludes -- I. don' t want to 22 argue with you, but I don' t know that that precludes the relocation of the structure . I 23 think the house may have had a garage, and I have no reason to doubt her statement that the access 24 was from Nassau Point but that' s also very sloped, it' s a significant slope in the back, and I didn' t 25 really see evidence of any driveway that existed there . June 2 , 2005 38 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your client though has a garage very close to the line here too . 3 MR. CHIARELLI : It looks like a -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because this whole 4 area where they propose the garage is quite heavily wooded and we could certainly insist upon 5 proper screening. MR. CHIARELLI : I 'm sure you recall it, 6 that' s like a clearing in this immediate area, which is problematic . You look at it and it looks 7 wooded, and you go to that area and it just happens to be clear. It creates a problem for 8 this particular type of application. But the real problem is that we think it' s going to be a guest 9 house . And we think for that reason it' s going to have a greater impact on Mr. Wingy than a garage 10 would have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I could assure you I 11 think we could put proper conditions and inspections on our condition of approval that 12 would prevent that . MR. CHIARELLI : I know that and I respect 13 that, but that creates more work for another agency of the Town. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can say that we can do it . We don' t mind. 15 MR. CHIARELLI : And I want to reemphasize that from a zoning perspective it' s 16 unjustified. Look, I think certainly a garage is an appropriate amenity to a residential structure . 17 The problem here is that every time I've heard the argument that I need a garage, the argument is 18 that it needs to be near the house because it' s not practical if it' s so far from the house . I 19 don' t think that this is the only place on this lot that the garage could be located. When you 20 ask what my client wants, my client would like the garage to be located as far away from this house 21 as is reasonably practical given safe construction and topographical . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean his house . 23 MR. CHIARELLI : As far away from his house and as close to the principal structure on this 24 property. And from a zoning point of view, I think if you' re going to invade the front yard, 25 you want it as great a setback as possible as close to the house as possible . June 2 , 2005 39 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir, we've seen it both ways for our applications, garages are further 3 away from the house, others want to be right next to the house . 4 MR. CHIARELLI : Right . But in this particular case I 'm saying on behalf of Mr. Wingy, 5 the location of this particular garage is the location of the greatest impact on the enjoyment 6 of his property when there' s other places to put it . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have a question? 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question of Miss Milone . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would have to 10 have a discussion with the attorney here . I 'm looking at the survey, I think they could put an 11 extension on their house, run it right down to that garage where it' s built and still not exceed 12 lot coverage . They wouldn' t have to be before us, they had meet all the requirements of the code . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s true . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, they have 14 to dig into the hill . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly, and 15 that' s difficult . This land is sloping, and this particular slope, part of this lot is where you 16 would naturally put a building, and it looks to me like your client thought the same thing because 17 that' s a former garage there, two feet away from the property line . So this is the most logical 18 place . I 'm just trying to get from you, barring what someone might do illegally, what objection do 19 you have to it . Your client seems to be enjoying the comforts of a garage in that vicinity, seems 20 to be like the slope of the land tells you that it should be there, barring an apartment or another 21 house there, which basically we can' t control if someone' s going to do something illegally; we can 22 control enforcing that, but we can' t make our decision based on that . This person' s telling us 23 it' s a garage, and the building itself meets all the codes that we set forth. So using your 24 argument that we think it' s going to be something, doesn' t hold a lot of water with me, and if you' re 25 saying to me that you don' t think it' s a good place for a garage and then your client has one June 2 , 2005 40 1 2 two feet from the property line, doesn' t hold much water. If you can come up with a decent reason 3 why a garage shouldn' t be in that location, other than he doesn' t want to look at it . He can look 4 at a lot worse, because, like I say that house, right where it is he can build a livable addition 5 10 , 12 feet long all the way down to the end of this and never be before us . 6 MR. CHIARELLI : Let me respond to that . First of, all, that structure doesn' t invade 7 whatever front yard you' re going to decide is his front yard. It' s within the lines so that, as I 8 read your code, your front yard is the line created by where the building is at the lot 9 frontage or something like that towards the roadway, so it' s a parallel line to the road. His 10 garage doesn' t invade the front yard or the rear yard or the other front yard or even the front 11 yard on Old Manhaden Road if it' s determined in the future to be a public right of way. Number 12 two, for whatever reasons and Miss Milone' s predecessor decided to locate his or her house 13 where it' s located and have this long, nice-looking approach, and build a swimming pool, 14 which has identified a rear yard in the premises, so now you have a rear yard and what she' s asking 15 for is to have another rear yard because what your code says you can' t have an accessory structure in 16 the front yard, and it' s an accessory structure . This is not a determination, oh, we think it' s a 17 great idea and you can get around the law by building a really unsightly extension down to this 18 structure, and with all due respect, I understand your argument, you' re saying I don' t think this is 19 going to hurt anybody, but it is going to hurt people because there' s no reason for it under your 20 code and under the zoning law. Secondly, I don' t think you would seriously encourage her to build a 21 long narrow addition down to the road; and secondly, there' s no reason to have a structure, 22 whether it' s a garage or cottage, looks like a beautiful structure from the plans, but whether 23 it ' s a garage or cottage, that' s no reason to have it at the point of maximum impact on the 24 neighbor. There' s no reason for it, and that' s really my argument . I understand your position, 25 but our opinion is there' s no reason to put it in this particular location. I can' t respond to it June 2 , 2005 41 1 2 in any other way. She' s not here saying I want to build an extension, she' s here saying I want to 3 build this two-story garage with a stairway and a sort of like a vestibule area, and to me you can' t 4 hide your head in the sand. You have to say this doesn' t look like a garage . And B, she wants to 5 build it overlooking where my client enjoys his property; and C, there' s plenty of other places to 6 place it . That' s my argument . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we please adjourn this hearing and just close it as a matter 9 of information at the special meeting on the 9th, and I will go back and reinspect and I will 10 reinspect with any Board Members that want to go with me . Just in case we got out of synch, I want 11 to give you my findings . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question was, having seen the photographs of the now demolished 13 shed, the question occurs to me why was the shed demolished rather than simply made into the 14 garage? It wasn' t an old beat up thing that was totally rundown. 15 MS . MILONE : It really was in total disrepair. The roof, the whole thing was starting 16 to disintegrate from termites . I had bad advice, and someone knocked it down for me . I didn' t 17 realize I should have kept it as the original plan and then build the garage there . 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s one thing to demolish an old thing to build a house, and quite 19 another thing to demolish it to build a garage, which one could think could be adapted to almost 20 anything that was there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you be agreeable 21 to lowering the height of the garage? Right now I think it' s 26 feet to the ridge . 22 MS . MILONE : We had to change the elevation to the plumbers . I' d like to say 23 something for the record. This with Mr. Wingy is a personal issue . I 'm on the board of the Nassau 24 Point Property Owners, and I just want to say that for the record with the Old Manhaden problem. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Did you want to adjourn? June 2 , 2005 42 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to adjourn to the special meeting to come back with my 3 findings . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: She won' t be able to 4 speak. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The hearing would 5 be closed for -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s open for my 6 oral testimony. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry, when we make 7 a decision, you' re entitled to give your report . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, so we' ll 8 close it pending my report . MS . MILONE : Can I say one more thing? 9 While you' re over there inspecting it, I believe that Mr. Wingy' s garage is out of compliance . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s two foot from the line, that' s why I asked. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you Mrs . Milone, I don' t know what kind of 12 security systems people have in houses today. I don' t know if they have impression sensors in 13 driveways, I don' t know any more . Just knowing that I'm going to be over there is what I want you 14 to be aware of . Sure I drove into the driveway, yes, I saw the location of where the garage was 15 going and the approximate location of where it was before, but I just wanted you to know that I was 16 going to be over there and look at it . That was basically the situation. I was unannounced when I 17 came, and that' s one of the major problems we have today when people aren' t home . 18 MS . MILONE : I just want to say one thing, as far as building the garage closer to the house, 19 I have some beautiful trees in that area. So we tried to make it somewhere where it would be less 20 offensive to my property and the beautiful trees that I have . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to close the hearing subject to a report from Jerry 22 Goehringer at our special meeting and reserve decision until later. 23 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to 24 adjourn for lunch recess . (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 --------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our hearing this June 2 , 2005 43 1 2 afternoon is for Angelson. Tom, would you like to tell us exactly what you' d like to do? 3 MR. SAMUELS : Sure, Tom Samuels, I 'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs . Angelson. Mrs . Angelson 4 is also here today. Basically if you have been to the property, you know it' s an original 5 estate/farm, country house, with a lot of out-buildings with the house built around the turn 6 of the century. With enough out-buildings to basically be self-sustaining, a barn, a garage, a 7 shed, the water tower; the water tower was used basically there would be a pump in the basement, 8 pump water to the top of this tower, there' s a big tank, and then that would maintain pressure in the 9 house without the need for a pump . I don' t think there was a windmill on it, but it was basically 10 for that purpose . The barn/garage was used to store cars and basically be a maintenance building 11 for the entire property. The house was owned for basically 50 , 60 years by one family, that 12 basically didn' t use it for those functions anymore, just let the buildings exist, they 13 maintained them, kept the roof and windows on them, but they weren' t really being used for those 14 purposes so much anymore . Now the Angelsons own the property and 15 we' re in the midst of a project to renovate the house and reuse or use, if we can, these accessory 16 buildings which don' t meet the required front yard setback. We do not intend to turn them into 17 habitable structures in any way nor to heat them. But we do look forward to being able to use them 18 in a productive fashion. The barn building is adjacent to where we' re planning to put a swimming 19 pool . They would like to use it for a support structure for that . But in order to do that, of 20 course, it would be helpful if there were a half bath there and outdoor shower, probably. The 21 Building Department considers that an expansion of a nonconformity, which is why we' re here . 22 The same is true for the water tower. It' s hard to think of what you can do with a water 23 tower, but we've sort of hit on. the notion of it being a kind of studio/study on the uppermost 24 floor for the Angelsons, who are both professional people and would like to have that capability to 25 use this thing, which they are needing to do some work on, and they certainly don' t want to take it June 2 , 2005 44 1 2 down, but like I say, there is no productive use for this water tower structure other than a kind 3 of nonhabitable conforming use accessory building, which would be very handy to have a half bath in, 4 just in order to not have to go up and down three flights of stairs . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many stories is it? MR. SAMUELS : Three stories with a full 6 basement . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The stairways are 7 pre-existing? MR. SAMUELS : They are pre-existing, but 8 not close to any kind of code, so we' re probably going to have to upgrade the stairs, just so you 9 don' t fall down the stairs . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are the stairs going 10 to have to be replaced? MR. SAMUELS : Replaced. But all interior 11 for all these buildings, we might be adding a window or two but in all ways, they are going to 12 remain as they look today. I would say if we don' t have an opportunity to add a bathroom to one 13 or either of them, we' d probably have to build a structure to accommodate that same use . It would 14 obviously be a conforming structure as far as setbacks . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You were planning on using the old barn or the existing garage as a -- 16 MR. SAMUELS : As a playroom/pool house . It' s a recreation building. 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is no plumbing right now? 18 MR. SAMUELS : There' s plumbing in a sense in the water tower because there is a pump in the 19 basement that' s plumbing to that extent but not domestic plumbing, no . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautiful piece of property. Jim, have any questions? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : When I first read the notice of disapproval I thought they did some 22 pretty creative writing here . \ MR. SAMUELS : The Town? 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . They make reference to the change in intensity of use, but 24 that' s in business zones . MR. SAMUELS : We have had this discussion 25 before, Damon and I , and Michael and I . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But for you to get June 2 , 2005 45 1 2 the blessing, it serves its purpose . I guess you' re not going to change any of the footprints 3 or do anything like that? MR. SAMUELS : No. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As I recall that tower is already sided all the way up top. 5 MR. SAMUELS : Needs a little bit of work. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Even replacing the stairs, like you say. 7 MR. SAMUELS : It' s rickety. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think if the Town 8 is going to give you a CO for it, they' re going to want the stairs to be proper. 9 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Besides that, the 10 barn never had any kind of plumbing or anything in it? 11 MR. SAMUELS : No evidence of it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You said it was mostly 12 like a maintenance building? MR. SAMUELS : I wouldn' t be surprised if 13 maybe a chauffeur lived there . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s kind of what 14 I thought . MR. SAMUELS : It' s all paneled but no 15 plumbing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And cesspools? 16 MR. SAMUELS : We' re into the Health Department, and they have public water. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no further questions . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further 19 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It would be important, Tom, if the Board were so inclined to 21 deal with these aspects or these amenities -- I'm going to refer to it in an accessory sense -- to 22 use this as a model for future situations, not only for the Building Department but for this 23 Board and when we' re dealing with future applications, I don' t mean to necessarily go over 24 and look at it, but say that that' s what the Board was willing to do based upon this set of criteria, 25 okay, so I think that would be the way that I would view this; and, of course, we' ll deliberate June 2 , 2005 46 1 2 on it and discuss it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What I like, they' re 3 not changing anything or moving , it, it' s all in the same spot that it was, they' re just upgrading 4 it to make it usable for this generation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t 5 understand why you would build an another accessory structure adjacent to the pool when you 6 already have one there . MR. SAMUELS : There is an accessory 7 building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s a shed there . 8 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . We may look at making other modifications to the accessory buildings on 9 the property, but there in all ways conforming locations on the property. I agree that the 10 Building Department is being very conservative here . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But at the same time they don' t have the ability to put reasonable 12 conditions, so I can see their reasoning for doing what they' re doing. 13 MR. SAMUELS : Are you talking about coming and visiting on a regular basis? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I would at least like to inspect it prior to the issuance of 15 the C of 0 so it' s impregnated in our minds exactly what we have done, so we know exactly how 16 far we can go in future situations . MR. SAMUELS : That' s entirely acceptable, 17 I suppose, to me . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I 18 would propose to the Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 19 the audience that wishes to speak on this application? I ' ll make a motion to close the 20 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 21 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is 22 Gary and Kathleen Zuar on Bay Shore Road, Greenport . Yes, sir? 23 MR. TORKELSON: My name is Tork Torkelson, I'm a builder and representing the Zuars on this 24 project . What they would like to do is they have been through the DEC process and also Trustees but 25 when it came down to doing -- they actually did some clean-up on the beach and other things, they June 2 , 2005 47 1 2 have a little deck out on the back of the property that they want to remove and put a screened-in 3 porch, and also add a deck, which is actually one step up. It' s no hands rails, but about 16 inches 4 above the ground. And because of the length and area of the property they have a side yard 5 problem. And the DEC and the Trustees didn' t have a problem because the water is set so far enough 6 back but because they have the retaining wall, that' s how they viewed it . We also have the rear 7 yard also . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any 8 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand this 9 is just like the patio, and screened porch, it looks to me that they denied this for both side 10 yards too. MR. TORKELSON: It' s because it' s the 11 total side yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But the addition 12 doesn' t cover both side yards, does it? MR. TORKELSON: No. It goes out about 13 four feet past the side of the building. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : On the 10 foot 14 side? MR. TORKELSON: 10 foot side . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the other side you have more than 15 feet . i 16 MR. TORKELSON: The other side doesn' t have much room. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Look at the house, Jimmy, 917" . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm looking at the survey. 19 - BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s one side yard and total side yard. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not getting the total, one is less than 10 . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s like 24 -- MR. TORKELSON: You need a total side yard 22 setback of 35 feet . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The code requires 23 35 but they' re asking what are you proposing as the total, 24 . 3? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Again, let' s just forget about it . They it didn' t even cite 25 Walz here . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the side yard as June 2 , 2005 48 1 2 far as I'm concerned is not the issue, the issue is, as I understand, the 29 foot setback from the 3 bulkhead where the code calls for 75 feet, that' s a huge reduction. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But this is more of a retaining wall . 5 MR. TORKELSON: It' s really a retaining wall . The water is far back. The DEC and 6 Trustees viewed that not as a bulkhead but as a retaining wall, and to them they didn' t view the 7 retaining wall as something that would matter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If they had called it 8 a bulkhead, it would have been within the scope of their activities? 9 MR. TORKELSON: Yes, it would have been. But there' s quite a bit of beach in front of it . 10 In fact, the house the way it stands, the deck isn' t out that far. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ignoring this retaining wall, how many feet from the house to 12 the mean high water mark? MR. TORKELSON: I think it' s more than 13 100 . It' s quite a way. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have the picture 14 of what it' s going to look like when it' s finished or a schematic? 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There was a construction diagram that you were going to bring 16 also. You said you had copies . MR. TORKELSON: I have a copy here also . 17 These are stamped plans from the architect . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any 18 questions? MR. TORKELSON: I do have some other 19 pictures . That' s where the bulkhead is -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there . It was 20 helpful for me, if I had them in my folder to see what you plan to do from what was there . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This one has me tongue tied, Ruth, because of the wood retaining 22 wall issue that Michael was bringing up . And it makes it difficult for the person that' s actually 23 writing the decision. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a retaining wall 24 because the water' s way far out . It' s really holding the sand. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a formal definition of bulkhead? June 2 , 2005 49 1 2 MR. TORKELSON: According to the Town code they call it rip rap or anything there' s no 3 reason, they could take the retaining wall out and grade . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, no problem at all . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think it' s 5 discretionary to us . I 'm writing the decision, I was going to scale off the high water mark from 6 the deck and mention that also there' s a distance there . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s good. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you wanted to go 8 as grade, do you have any idea from the bottom step to high water mark, what that grade would be 9 approximately? MR. TORKELSON: Six feet . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That picture you can see about six feet . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not a cliff . It' s just a grade . 12 MR. TORKELSON: The actual wall you can see right there is four feet . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm familiar with this . I ' m happy. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just ,want to mention for the retaining wall, the way the code' s 15 written, the Board would still have jurisdiction on it, regardless whether it' s a bulkhead or a 16 retaining wall . Both of those structures still keeps you here . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will you explain that? 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The way the zoning code provision is written, the restriction is from 19 the retaining wall structure or the bulkhead or similar rip rap structure . We still have 20 jurisdiction, it' s not a question of jurisdiction, it ' s a question of the 29 feet and what the 21 character of the neighborhood is like . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far away are your 22 neighbors on both sides; how close are they to the bulkhead? 23 MR. TORKELSON: Roughly the same . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: . Without the deck, so 24 the deck would extend it out beyond where the neighbors are . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How far out, do you think? June 2 , 2005 50 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As far as the deck is, as far as I saw the houses as they now exist 3 are pretty much even. MR. TORKELSON: The house -- to the house 4 further down the road, that house was built by the same person, by the same family at one time; so 5 those houses are roughly identical . And I believe he went for a variance already, but he also has 6 plans for building up . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, 7 sooner or later everybody is going to be asking for a deck of that width to extend from the house 8 and the water. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not necessarily. 9 MR. TORKELSON: But again, most people that live on the water want to be able to sit 10 outside and enjoy the water also . So most people would like to have some kind of structure out 11 there to barbeque, to enjoy the view that they purchased. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The way I look at this, the deck if they took one, two steps and put 13 a porch on that house, regulation porch, this type of deck they can lay right on the ground and not 14 be before us . We' re talking about a step . It' s not like they' re building a deck and the whole 15 nine yards, they' re basically laying it into the ground. And I suppose we could force them to do 16 it that way, take the step from one side and put it closer to the house . 17 MR. TORKELSON: I did propose for them to bring it down to ground level and you wouldn' t 18 have a necessary problem. It just creates more steps coming down. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: With the ground level deck, you wouldn' t have the slippery slope from 20 deck, to uncovered porch, to covered porch, to enclosed porch, and not necessarily this house but 21 the next one down the beach. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? I 22 don' t see anyone in the audience, so I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 23 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for coming in. 25 (Time ended: 1 : 55 p.m. ) June 2 , 2005 51 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 6 State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 8 the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 11 action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 2nd day of June, 2005 . 16 17 J 18 19 f Florence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 2 , 2005