Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/04/2005 HEAR 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 5 ------------------------------------------'--X 6 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 7 8 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A. P P E A L S 9 10 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 11 5309.5 .Main Road Southold, New York • 12 May 4, 2005 l 9 : 30 a .m. 14 Board Members Present 15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 22 23 . 24 ORIGINAL 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call to order our usual meeting of Wednesday, May 4 , 2005 { 3 at 9 : 30 . First we need a resolution declaring the following negative declaration determined there 4 are no adverse effects for the following projects as applied. 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is 6 for Reeve and Foster as a carry-over from last time . Is there anybody who wishes to speak on 7 this? I think we just needed to show a line, if I remember. 8 MS . MARTIN: Amy Martin here on behalf of Valerie Kramer and Foster, Reeve . Basically we 9 have come to the conclusion we just wanted a new survey done because the survey was quite an 10 antique, and the property was strangely marked because of its prior sale from the church to the 11 subdivision that happened behind it, and also the property card that was needed for the accessory 12 structure of the garage to prove that that was already on the tax roles and did have a CO, and we 13 have submitted that and hope that that meets your expectations on what we were worried about . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As far as I'm concerned, yes, fine . Are the Board members happy 15 with it? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does , anyone in the 17 audience wish to speak on this? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 18 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 19 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 20 Clifford Schriefer on Gardiner' s Lane in Southold. This is two pieces of property that are 21 merged and they wish for a waiver of merger; is there anyone here to speak on this? Mr. Olsen? 22 MR. OLSEN: Good morning, my name is Gary Flanner Olsen, I'm an attorney having my offices 23 at Main Road in Cutchogue . I represent the applicant Clifford Schriefer, Junior who is the 24 executor of the estate of his mother, Helen Schriefer. 25 The applicant is seeking a waiver of 3. merger under Section 1000-26 of the Southold Town May 4 , 2005 3 1 2 Code for tax lots Number 1000-10-8 , Lots 8 and 9 . There is currently a one family dwelling on Lot 9 . 3 The applicant' s parents, Clifford Schriefer and Helen J. Schriefer, purchased Lot 9 on September 4 26 , 1967 from Southold Development Corporation, which deed was recorded in Liver 6230 Page 5 439 . Mr. and Mrs . Schriefer built a house on this parcel pursuant to Building Permit 3658 and a 6 certificate of occupancy was issued by the Southold Town Building Department, 3299 , and I 7 have a copy of the CO. I have made six copies and I ' ll pass it up shortly. 8 This house parcel contains 19 , 756 square feet or 0 . 435 acres . When this lot was created 9 the zoning code required 12 , 500 square feet and a width of 100 feet . This house parcel has a width 10 of 100 feet and accordingly when the lot was created it met the bulk schedule as far as area 11 and width requirements . The applicant' s mother, Helen J. 12 Schriefer, purchased Tax Lot 8 on November 3 , 1969 also from Southold Development Corporation, which 13 deed was recorded in Liber 6656 , Page 302 . This lot is currently vacant . This lot contains an 14 area of 20, 836 square feet also with a width of 100 feet . Accordingly, when this lot was created 15 it also met the bulk schedule as far as area and width requirements . This lot was taken only in 16 Mrs . Schriefer' s name in an effort to keep it in single and separate ownership and to avoid merger. 17 You have a copy of that deed in your file when I made my application and you will note that the 18 deed originally contained both Mr. and Mrs . Schriefer' s names, and then someone I guess prior 19 to or just at the time of the closing crossed out Mr. Schriefer' s name, which obviously was on the 20 advice of Leffert Edson, who was their attorney, in order to keep the lot single and separate 21 ownership from the house parcel . Mr. Schriefer pre-deceased his wife . Due 22 to the fact that Mr. Schriefer pre-deceased his wife the result was a merger of Tax Lot 8 and Tax 23 Lot 9 by death, therefore necessitating today' s hearing. It had always been the intention of the 24 applicant' s parents to keep these lots separate as evidenced by the way title was held to both 25 parcels . It is unlikely that Mrs . Schriefer was aware that the lots had merged upon her husband' s May 4 , 2005 4 1 2 death, particularly since she received two separate tax bills, one for the house and one for 3 the lot . Following the criteria set forth in the 4 Town code for a waiver of merger, I respectfully request that the Board grant the waiver for the 5 following reasons': One, the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of 6 the neighborhood. This is a residential community with homes on the majority if not all of the 7 surrounding tax lots . I am submitting a list of all the surrounding tax lots which list whether or 8 not each lot is improved or vacant . Virtually every lot in the neighborhood is improved and all 9 are of the same size and shape of Tax Lot 8 . Accordingly, granting the waiver will not create 10 any significant increase in density. The grant of this waiver will provide for future construction 11 of not more than one dwelling with single-family, occupancy. 12 I have made this list up of about 43 surrounding parcels and I think on this list 13 there' s only three vacant lots in this area and I ' ll submit that . Rather than coming up I' ll do 14 it in the end. Two, the waiver would recognize a lot 15 which is consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood, as it evident by looking at the tax 16 map of the surrounding properties as well as the list that I have submitted, this lot is consistent 17 with the size of many and probably all of the surrounding properties . The neighborhood and 18 district is well-developed with single-family residences and consists of almost exclusively of 19 older lots that do not conform to the R-40 minimum for this zone district . The 20 , 836 square feet 20 size of the vacant lot in question is clearly consistent with the average size of lots in the 21 neighborhood and district . Three, the waiver will avoid economic 22 hardship . This lot is significantly more valuable to the owner as a separate lot as opposed to two 23 lots being merged into one . We have three separate appraisals prepared by Phyllis Atkinson 24 at Stype Real Estate, which I will also submit, showing that the properties being sold together 25 as merged lots have a current market value of $480, 000 , however, the value of the lots being May 4 , 2005 5 1 2 sold separately are $430 , 000 for the house parcel and $250 , 000 for the vacant lot; therefore the 3 economic loss to the applicant should the waiver not being granted is $200 , 000 . Accordingly, the 4 waiver will avoid economic hardship to the Schriefer estate . 5 Four, the natural details and character of the contours and slope of the lot will not be 6 significantly changed or altered in any manner and there will not be a substantial filling of land 7 affecting nearby environmental or flood areas . The waiver of merger will allow for construction 8 of one single-family dwelling on the original deeded lot, which will not result in a significant 9 increase in the density of the neighborhood. There will be no need for significant change in 10 its contours or slopes and the lot would not require filling affecting nearby environmental or 11 flooding areas . Granting the waiver will not result in any 12 alteration of the natural details, character, contours or slope of the parcel . Pictures of this 13 lot showing its flat topography are included in the appraisal" prepared by Phyllis Atkinson, which 14 I ' ll be submitting shortly. Five, finally the waiver should recognize 15 the original lot lines as set forth in the deed originally creating this lot . The identical lots 16 were created by deeds recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk' s office before June 30, 1983 and 17 both lots conform to the minimum lot requirements set forth in the bulk schedule as of the date of 18 lot creation and there have been no changes to the deeded descriptions since the lots were created. 19 Accordingly, I feel we have met all the criteria mentioned in Section 100-26 of the Town 20 code and respectfully request that the Board grant the waiver of merger. The Board has consistently 21 granted waiver of merger where the merger has occurred by death. Two examples are the decision 22 made on behalf of the Estate of Marie Hiller, Application Number 5229 , granted on June 30 , 2003 23 and the Leonard file, Application Number 4541, I am submitting copies of these decisions for the 24 record to illustrate the similarities with the application before the Board today. 25 It is my understanding that the Town has for some time considered the possibility of May 4 , 2005 6 1 2 amending the code to exempt from the merger law . mergers created by death, which would prevent 3 situations where property owners obviously intended to keep the lots separate from having to 4 appear before the Zoning Board. Thank you for your consideration. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 6 comment at this time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I only have one comment . So far I don' t see any problem with the 9 application, but the claim that it is not affecting the density depends on how large a 10 neighborhood you' re considering. If you' re considering three lots, it increases it by 50 11 percent ; if you' re considering 50 lots, it' s about two percent, but that' s a small point in the 12 presentation. It' s relatively trivial, but I thought I ' d point that out . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Schriefer 14 passed away in 1997? MR. OLSEN: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So they have only been in common name the last seven years? 16 MR. OLSEN: Yes . And she didn' t realize because when her husband died, the house parcel 17 that was in both names as tenants by the entirety, as husband and wife, once he passed away that 18 property automatically just became hers, although she continued to get tax bills for both parcels, 19 and I would imagine, probably -- I haven' t checked it -- but I think probably the tax bill that she 20 was getting for the house piece was probably still coming in her name and her husband' s name . . 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The deed for 23 that house parcel even though it was originally in both their names that probably hasn' t changed, 24 correct? MR. OLSEN: The house parcel deed has both 25 names, there was no reason to change it because on his death -- May 4 , 2005 7 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: By operation of law. 3 MR. OLSEN: By operation of law it became her piece . There was no deed after he died 4 putting title in her name alone . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have no questions . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I ask a question? 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seems to me when 7 you went to the Building Inspector, however you got to us, you handed him two deeds and the deeds 8 had two names on them, how did you come before us? MR. OLSEN: Because I knew as an attorney 9 when Mr. Schriefer came to me to handle his mother' s estate, once his father passed away and 10 that house piece ended up being owned by his mother and the lot was also always just in the 11 mother' s name, and I said to him I think we should go and do it the right way, notify the Town, get a 12 notice of disapproval so we can go for a waiver of merger. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So it' s an action on your part, not the Building Inspector? 14 MR. OLSEN: It was prompted by me in making an application. We did submit a single and 15 separate ownership search, actually that would not show that the house piece -- it would still show 16 it in both names . But we have to be upfront and tell the Town. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, assuming you' re taking an action with this lot . You' re 18 selling it? MR. OLSEN: I don' t know that that' s the 19 ) intention of the family but everything went to her son, but he has children, and, I don' t know, maybe 20 one would want the house and one would want the lot, we just want to make sure we preserve the 21 integrity of the lot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Better to do it now 22 than later, right? MR. OLSEN: That' s right . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 24 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for May 4 , 2005 8 1 2 the Rubins who wish to reconstruct a conservatory which would make it three stories instead of 3 two . MR. NIMCHIK: Hi, my name is Ray Nimchik. 4 I 'm an architect representing the Rubins . Basically in front of us right now the existing 5 observatory that is the two and-a-half story or third story as it' s considered at this point, 6 basically it exists . The structure is of metal with a wooden surround and in-fill of plexiglas 7 panels, and it' s an observatory. I have a picture of the existing structure if the Board would like 8 to see . It' s basically a greenhouse on top of the second story, which is the third story now. The 9 Town permitted it back in 185 gave it a CO; the Rubins bought it in the late 190s . Basically all 10 they' re looking to do is replace a dilapidated roof at this point with wood and copper in place 11 of the glass and steel . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This one would have a 12 roof on it where it does not have one now. MR. NIMCHIK: Right now it' s glass . It 13 does have a roof, but the existing condition of the structure is dilapidated at best . The panels 14 are cracked and the metal structure itself I think it would be I guess in their matter of right to 15 replace it in-kind, but I don' t think it would be. the greatest thing, either an eyesore or even just 16 for the sake that it' s not as safe as the structure we' re proposing. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What. was contained in that observatory? Do you have furniture up there? 18 MR. NIMCHIK: It' s always been an observatory, nothing up there right now. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But in the past when they were using it? 20 MR. NIMCHIK: They've never utilized it when they bought it because it was always in a 21 state of disrepair. I think it was always a greenhouse because it has a tile floor. We' re 22 looking to maintain it as an observatory; it' s not going to be an occupiable space . It' s not a 23 bedroom or any kind of quarters they' re going to sleep in. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : As I recall it' s 25 not big enough to be a bedroom and you are right about the -- back in its day it was neat . May 4 , 2005 9 1 2 MR. NIMCHIK: It must have been fantastic but at the point when it was permitted, they got a 3 CO for the house, and since then, when I got involved in the project in June with the Rubins 4 they were looking to do renovations which are currently performing now on the project site 5 unbeknownst to myself or them when I looked to pull a permit, we entered into this and they said 6 it' s "considered a third story and I also had Rich Smith of the state out there as well and he 7 basically got me through a routine variance at this point . So it should be a matter of course at 8 this point . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no 9 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No question, just a comment . You made the statement so you wouldn' t 12 mind putting in the condition nonhabitable space? MR. NIMCHIK: Not at all . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I hate to be the 14 cog in the works, but we have had about four of these . We probably could give you the names of 15 the people or at least the tax map numbers . Started out with a piece across from the beach in 16 Southold where the person actually superimplanted a very similar type of architecture on an existing 17 house, and I' d have to look at that decision, but then we went from there to Orient to a very 18 similar type of construction, which was actually the observatory was raised above a master bedroom 19 and in that particular case, the builder already prepped it for a sprinkler system. Then we have 20 had a variety of other third story actions, some of which are habitable, some of which are 21 nonhabitable . The question I have is, and I don' t know how the Board feels about it, how difficult 22 would it be to propose a sprinkler? MR. NIMCHIK: We are . I 've already 23 proposed a sprinkler system, that' s why the state is so amicable to granting it . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it partial to that room or the rooms underneath it, localized to 2_5 that area, or is most of the house going to be done? May 4 , 2005 10 1 2 MR. NIMCHIK: It' s partial to a means of egress as a matter of course basically I 'm going 3 to protect the third story, the observatory, also the second story stairwell and out through the 4 first story so there is a path of travel and egress annotated to get out of the front door, 5 that' s all sprinkled. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any 6 objection to us looking at it prior to the issuance of the C of 0? 7 MR. NIMCHIK: The sprinkler system? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, the entire 8 finished project . MR. NIMCHIK: Not at all . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran, any comments? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 11 Yes, Mrs .- Moore? MS . MOORE : I 'm here on behalf of the 12 adjacent property owner to the west, which is the Whitehead Marital Trust . It' s interesting you 13 made a comment of how interesting it looks, in the ' 80s when this was built, the Whitehead family, 14 which has been the long time family, the Gillespies on the east and the Whiteheads on are 15 on the west, they' re all related in some way, when that got built it certainly caused some raised 16 eyebrows, to say the least, because of the way it fit into the character of the area. At this point 17 it' s going to be reconstructed and the volume is going to be increased and there is a concern that 18 the property should be properly screened. There have been ongoing issues between the 19 property owners because there is privet along the boundary between the properties, however that 20 privet was planted by the Whitehead family and the parcel just directly, adjacent parcel to the west, 21 the privet is mostly on their property and some day in the near future that property may be 22 developed at which time the privet will most likely go, and also, the privet sits on what is a 23 right of way and I do have the original subdivision maps that were approved by the 24 Planning Board and I have the subdivision which the Rubin property how the parcel was created from 25 the Gillespie subdivision back in ' 71 and some of you probably remember these subdivisions and the May 4 , 2005 11 1 2 Whitehead parcels, the four lots, the manor house and the three lots which was approved in the 3 1980s . Both of these subdivisions have a 15 foot right of way that is to the west, and you see it 4 on the Rubins' survey. The 15 foot right of way provides access to the beach to the landward 5 properties, the Campbell property has access to the beach through Rubins on their 15 foot right of 6 way and the Whitehead parcels, Lots 3 and 4 derive their access to the beach over the adjacent 7 Whitehead property, the waterfront piece, and they' re two abutting 15 foot right of ways . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, you' re doing a wonderful presentation but it means 9 nothing to me unless I see that map. Why don' t we just make a copy of it right now? 10 MS . MOORE : I wasn' t sure we were going to get into this . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is not really -- MS . MOORE : It is very relevant, but I' ll 12 get to it . I'm trying to give you a description. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It looks as though the 13 right of way I am looking at is going more through the Rubin' s property than the Gillespie' s . 14 MS . MOORE : Are you talking about the right of way on the Rubin property? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MS . MOORE : That right of way is the right 16 of way that gives Campbell access to the water. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the privets 17 then? MS . MOORE : The privet is actually on our 18 property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the Gillespie 19 property? MS . MOORE : On the marital trust property. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Which was the Gillespie property? 21 MS . MOORE : Whitehead. Did you get the top one and the bottom one? 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Who submitted this to the record? 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She gave it to you. 24 For the record I would like to know what you' re submitting? 25 MS . MOORE : Sure, I ' ll put it on. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How it' s relevant? May 4 , 2005 12 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask a question before you continue . 3 MS . MOORE : Sure . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Since the thrust of 4 your presentation is to ask for screening, is there a greater need for screening in consequence 5 of this project? MS . MOORE : Yes . The volumes, the look of 6 this structure is now changing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it higher? 7 MS . MOORE : It' s higher by two and-a-half feet . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not higher. MR. NIMCHIK: It' s not higher. 9 MS . MOORE : It' s a different volume . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You cannot ask for 10 screening if somebody is, for example, painting the house; you have to change the dimensions of 11 the house . MS . MOORE : Keep in mind, and I have 12 applications where, if there' s a neighbor that objects and the reasonable way of solving the 13 objection is to provide for screening between property owners, and certainly the look of this 14 building has never been -- it' s a matter of taste they were never thrilled with that piece . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying the client prefers it the way it is? 16 MS . MOORE : They didn' t like the way it was . You don' t have a way of asking a neighbor to 17 screen. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I ' m not sure why this 18 has bearing on this application. This looks like an old problem and you' re piggy-backing the old 19 problem on a somewhat irrelevant application. MS . MOORE : I would take the position that 20 since they came in and asked the Board for relief, a variance, if they took the whole thing off then 21 there would be nothing to talk about . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: By your argument 22 there might be . You can say they always loved this thing -- 23 MS . MOORE : They never liked this thing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But if they did, you 24 could make the same legal argument . MS . MOORE: When an applicant is asking 25 for relief from the zoning code it' s appropriate to ask for screening at that time when it can May 4 , 2005 13 1 2 mitigate at least the look between the properties . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even though it' s 3 mitigating the old look not the new look? ' MS . MOORE : It' s a matter of space . It' s 4 still a third-story space, you still have volume . Let' s imagine that the lot next door has a house 5 built on it . You have a large three-story, two and-a-half but under the state code three-story 6 house, you have my client who may build a very nice home there as well, two properties that are 7 close to each other at that point . And the screening would mitigate and continue the privacy 8 between the properties . The reason I say that there is zoning presently, but it is all on my 9 client' s property, and it' s only because the Whitehead family is the common owner of those lots 10 and there' s no reason -- there hasn' t been any development . The day will come when Lot Number 3 11 on the Whitehead subdivision, that' s the small piece that I have submitted to the Board, the 12 subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board November 24 , 1980 , that subdivision must 13 provide access to Lot 3 via that right of way. At that time it will become necessary for us to 14 remove the privet . If I were to buy Lot 3 , I would say it' s very nice, but unless you give me a 15 different access, that' s my access to the beach and that' s why the Planning Board approved the 16 access, and that' s the access for record. There is screening there presently but it won' t stay 17 there forever, and what we' re asking is that given the fact that this is the appropriate time to do 18 it -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that 19 if the applicant had decided to leave the observatory exactly the way it is in perpetuity 20 there would be no reason whatsoever for coming before us to complain about the inadequate 21 screening in the future? MS . MOORE : We would have no way of asking 22 this Board to make that as a condition of the variance . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t know if the applicant or your next door neighbor is going to 24 sell that other piece of property and if the people might want to leave that privet up . 25 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, I disagree . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, I'm sorry, I don' t May 4 , 2005 14 1 2 see what that has to do with this application. MS . MOORE : Honestly, every time I have 3 had an application where there' s been two property owners and there has been an request for screening 4 that it' s generally been an accepted condition of this Board. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But this is a pre-existing, nonconforming piece of this house 6 that' s been there . It' s not changing the height or anything else it' s just changing the shape of 7 it . MS . MOORE : But if this had been built 8 today, it wouldn' t have been allowed to be built because it' s still a third story. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s true of hundreds of properties in this town. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have granted exceptions, two people that have made 11 observatories, on Ruch Lane, we have done it . We did not ask people to put up screening so the 12 neighbor didn' t see this thing, nor did the neighbors ask for it . 13 MS . MOORE : Had the neighbors asked for this you might have considered it . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the long and winding road you go down when all this person 15 wants to do is straighten, up a roof and he gets denied because he' s increasing the nonconformity. 16 Now, Pat has every right to present her case because this is the time to do it . 17 MR. NIMCHIK: How are we increasing the nonconformity? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You got denied, didn' t you? You' re here for that . We can make 19 any decision we' d like to make . The Building Inspector said you were raising the roof, you' re 20 here because of that . Now we can make the decision we' d like to make, but Patois here 21 because there' s a variance asked for by a neighbor. Now, her argument and I won' t comment 22 on the validity, but certainly this is the place to do that, and we decide as a Board whether or 23 not Pat' s argument is good, bad or indifferent and she can take it from there . I know all the people 24 involved here . I know Mr. Whitehead, and I don' t know these people so long, but I know this house . 25 I can tell you this was a family compound, and when the house, when this was laid out, it was May 4, 2005 15 1 2 laid out as a family compound, and there is some privacy issues, and may be we have to listen to 3 what Pat has to say, but it doesn' t necessarily mean that we have to accept her explanation and 4 give screening, but let her have her say. We can just go on and make our decision concerning what 5 appears to be about a six inch or pitch on the roof that we' re adjusting, it' s not even that I 6 don' t think, but it' s definitely something that is a result of a decision this Board made back when 7 concerning nonconformity and it is definitely a way that it seems the Building Department that 8 they seem to go with this, that everything seems to get denied. 9 Now I know on the loth we' re considering something that might affect this, and in that if 10 you want to put a dog house kind of thing on your house you don' t have to come before the Board in a 11 nonconforming area. I think the gentleman has every right to make the application. We should 12 just listen to what Pat has to say and take into consideration and we can make our own decision on 13 it . Let her have her say. It sounds kind of tedious to me, Pat, but, you know. 14 MS . MOORE : Sorry, we have been working with this property owner on various issues since 15 2001 . We have found that this property owner has misrepresented things in the past to us . There' s 16 a lot of history here . MS . MOORE : I did not want to make this 17 those issues of history in front of this Board. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Make this cogent . 18 MS . MOORE : Exactly. When you have a structure that' s being altered and certainly 19 there' s a tremendous amount of money being invested in 'this property, and if I may I ask what 20 the budget is for this type of project because reasonable amount of this could be used to provide 21 proper screening, fixing driveway that has been an encroachment issue that we are very close to 22 ending up in litigation over, we have been for four or five years trying to work things out 23 between property owners and we have been stonewalled by the Rubins, and since there has 24 been -- I want to say -- bad blood generated here by -- the correspondence, I have volumes of 25 correspondence asking them to review, get us a document, to have a boundary line agreement set May 4 , 2005 16 1 2 up', have things worked out . We have been stonewalled. Given the fact that this Board has 3 an opportunity to review an application, and it' s an appropriate time for us, a neighboring property 4 owner to say listen, we' re not happy with this family, we have had trouble with this family, and 5 a reasonable request is that it be properly screened in such a way that the screening has to 6 be on the east side of the right of way. There is a right of way that Mr. Campbell has the right to 7 use and our property, which is the hedge that has been providing the privacy that everyone is 8 relying on is a right of way that tomorrow could be cleared. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The argument would be a very good one if that were what were relevant to 10 this particular application and certainly this is not the forum to deal with bad blood that is 11 unrelated to this particular application. Contrary to what my colleague has said, this was 12 not denied by the Building Department for increasing non-conformity, it was denied because 13 it said the proposed construction constitutes a third story. And we are here to decide that 14 question. And if the Board decides that it does not constitute a third story, then none of this 15 being the bad blood, the screening has any relevance insofar as jurisdiction of the ZBA' s 16 concern. MS . MOORE : If you were to choose that 17 this was not a third story I have several applications that will never have to come in. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were a hard case, if it was undecideable as to whether it was 19 really a third story maybe these external considerations would be brought to bear, but what 20 we need is some evidence that it' s at all problematic whether it is or is not a third 21 story. This Board may very well decide in the absence of any evidence that it is a third story 22 and in the presence of testimony that so far hasn' t been challenged that it' s not a third story 23 there' s no opportunity for these other considerations to come before us . 24 MS . MOORE : I rely on the Building Department' s interpretation whether or not it' s a 25 third story. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They deferred it to May 4 , 2005 17 1 2 us . MS . MOORE : With respect to allowing a 3 third story to be built . MR. NIMCHIK: The Building Department has 4 stated that as a matter of right we could replace in-kind without even coming across this Board. 5 MS . MOORE : You would be able to replace the glass panels and keep it the .way it is . 6 MR. NIMCHIK: The entire structure the Building Department has said we can replace 7 in-kind. They would have no jurisdiction, the state has said the time . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Miss Moore' s 9 request for screening is appropriate, this is the time to make it . Obviously it doesn' t mean the 10 Board has to grant it . What the Board has to consider if it does grant a variance aside from 11 the issue of determining whether or not this is a third story as opposed to a second story. If it 12 does decide a variance is necessary, it should look at the nature of relief requested, is it so 13 substantial that screening would be appropriate, whether or not it would be appropriate . The Board 14 could overrule the Building Department and say no, this isn' t a third story and no variance is 15 necessary in which case you don' t get to that determination. As I see it that' s what it kind of 16 distills down to. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say one 17 thing, Michael? In reference to the situation of the prior variances that we have had regarding 18 this, the key issue here is it occupiable; that' s the key issue . If it is occupiable we have 19 determined it to be 'a third story. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I meant . 20 I should have separated out the question as to whether we are meant to decide whether it' s a 21 third story or whether we overrule what the Building Department is suggesting, that it is a 22 third story. MS . MOORE : Just as a matter of 23 information that occupiable space is whether or not you have access to it . Not whether you can 24 put a bed in there or furniture in there, there have been applications, I have had clients who 25 tried to build this type of thing and they have had to actually block off with sheetrock so it May 4 , 2005 18 1 2 cannot be accessible . You can access it via a pull down stairs, but as soon as you put any kind 3 of access to it it' s considered occupiable space . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The term in the code 4 is habitable; are you using these words interchangeably? 5 MS . MOORE : I don' t know how he' s using them but -- 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . Let' s use the issue of the attic that she just raised, and 7 let' s take the issue as preposterous as it might be, putting a garage on a third story. A garage 8 is not habitable space, an attic is not habitable space, so therefore regardless of what the access 9 is to the attic it' s not habitable space . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . And the issue 10 is not accessibility, it' s habitability. MS . MOORE : No, it' s occupiable versus 11 habitable, correct? MR. NIMCHIK: No. State code is very 12 clear on this, habitable space, like a bedroom or some place that requires egress in the state code . 13 The Board is correct as far as ,a garage is nonoccupiable space although it' s still enclosed; 14 that' s what the issue is . I'm not proposing this as habitable space, I'm proposing it as enclosed 15 space . It' s an existing condition and we' re trying to remedy a condition where the existing 16 condition is such that the Rubins have to spend time, effort and money to remedy this situation, 17 and in doing so, we' re creating from the rendering, we' re creating a structure and a house 18 that fits in more so to the neighborhood, the shingle style that abuts from the west as opposed 19 to the tudor style that it was before . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 20 the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to ask, you made a comment about you could replace 22 in-kind, to my mind that would mean it would be another greenhouse? 23 MR. NIMCHIK: In-kind meaning it would be the same structure but it would be the same 24 structure . Replace in-kind means it' s the structure not the aesthetics . It could just as 25 well be a greenhouse, a roof, but it does not mean that it has to have the glass panels . May 4 , 2005 19 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . The reason you' re here is because the shape of the 3 roof is going to change; that' s what I ' m saying about this whole non-conformance part . If you 4 just kept the roof the same, you wouldn' t be before us but because you' re filling in that space 5 you have like an L-shape or J-shape kind of roof that goes up in the middle, and you' re going to 6 cut that angle and make it like a straight 60 degree angle instead of that little dip in the 7 roof and because you' re filling that space in, you' re not increasing any, you' re not going up any 8 higher you' re not doing anything other than giving the roof a different angle, you' re before us . 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Changing the roof line . 10 MS . MOORE : Is it being .converted to a heated space? 11 MR. NIMCHIK: It' s heated at present . What does it being heated have to do with the 12 conversation? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Habitable space . 13 MR. NIMCHIK: If we want to talk about if it' s heated or not heated we can talk about that . 14 I don' t understand kind of the screening issues as far as what' s been presented. We' re not changing 15 the existing height . We' re actually being very conscious to the neighborhood. The Rubins have 16 been gracious to renovate a house that was in dire need of it . They've created a structure that' s 17 going to be much more attractive in probably everybody' s opinion as it was prior to this . So 18 I ' m having a hard time understanding where this is all going. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a question? MS . WHITEHEAD: My name is Margory 20 Whitehead. Again, you may question why we' re doing this . As Pat mentioned, the Rubins are 21 spending a considerable amount of money to renovate this property. I live in the house, 22 Marion Gillespie' s house, and I see because I'm right there on the hill I see everything that goes 23 on. I also have to take care of everything that goes on. In the five years that the Rubins have 24 owned the house we've tried to be good neighbors . The Rubins have always known the privet hedge is 25 the Whitehead/Gillespie property. She' s insisting that we keep the privet hedge up, that she May 4 , 2005 20 1 2 maintains our privet hedge, yet her landscapers even now are asking for the Rubins benefit to 3 clear our empty estate lot so that the Rubins can enjoy the sound views better from their new third 4 story. I really do feel that the Board needs to address the fact that the Rubins have to correct 5 the encroachment, and if they want privacy in one portion but no privacy on the other portions due 6 to Whitehead property, they want the benefits of our property, they don' t want any of the trees on 7 the Whiteheads on the Sound but they want us to maintain the privet as they come into their home, 8 and all we' re asking you is to have some of the money that the Rubins are spending applied towards 9 the driveway. Correct the driveway, bring it in line with their true property border, and if they 10 want to screen forever, if our privet has to go, that they can put their own privet up or fence or 11 anything else that they want . We' re not asking them to put a screen so much today, but allow for 12 now, the time they' re going through all their renovations the ability to put it in without any 13 problems or changes down the road. We feel we have legal grounds to say that 14 they are encroaching, and so we' re not bringing that to the Board for a reason, that' s not what 15 we' re saying. We' re saying, please, if the big trucks have been coming in, they've knocked down 16 my fences, my signs, other neighbors, their porta-john has rested on my property, I have 17 picked up all their garbage. I have done a lot to try not to create problems, but this is an 18 opportune time to ask the Board to please get it so if the Rubins want it all, do it on their 19 property, keep the peace, let' s move forward. I just would like it so we' re not always giving and 20 they' re always getting, and that' s why Pat is here today. If you have any other questions for me . 21 MR. NIMCHIK: I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re to address the 22 Board. MR. NIMCHIK: I just want to make a 23 correction, it' s not a new structure we' re proposing. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've all been up there . Thank you, Mrs . Whitehead. 25 MS . MOORE : Just for the record, there is new construction taking place, there is a new May 4 , 2005 21 1 2 foundation in the back of the property which is not subject to this Board' s review, but there is 3 an expansion of the house . So there is a lot of activity going on. The house I'm sure will be 4 lovely in the end, but it' s very frustrating to property owners who have been trying to work 5 things out and then see that they keep growing without trying to be a good neighbor to us, and, 6 yes, you do see a driveway that has been an encroachment since the Rubins have owned it, and 7 we are counting down the days that we' re going to end up in litigation because the trust has a 8 fiduciary obligation to have that driveway removed. This is for your information, it has 9 nothing to do with this variance, and we acknowledge that in an appropriate time, given 10 that there' s a subdivision approval . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This is not 11 the forum to air all neighborhood grievances . It' s a private dispute, it' s not before us . 12 MS . MOORE : I understand that . This is the volume of grievances . 13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The court does not have jurisdiction to that . We' re talking 14 about the new observatory and whether and how it affects the neighborhood. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to make one final statement, and this is probably one of 16 the most interesting hearings I have had in the last 25 years . This is how it comes down in my, 17 mind, and I need you to correct this if I 'm incorrect in saying this, Mrs . Moore . The Rubins 18 do not have a scenic easement over the Whitehead property, but you' re asking them to reimpose a 19 screening easement on their property or not an easement but the institution of some sort of 20 screening, and that is absolutely, I am just trying to justify that in my own mind, and I 21 understand what you' re saying, but I just don' t know about that . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I comment on that? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This has gone on long enough. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Our Board has done that quite often. We have listened to neighbors 25 and said you have a cogent argument about screening, I understand that part, I do . The May 4 , 2005 22 1 2 neighbors should not have to provide their own screening when a person puts a greenhouse on top 3 of their house that' s going to peer down onto their property, and I think that' s the argument 4 Pat' s trying to make . Whether or not we take that into consideration and then require $20 , 000, 5 $40, 000 of screening because the guy' s changing the pitch on his roof, I don' t know, but I want 6 you to know that I understand. MS . MOORE : I know the Board has faced 7 this before and understand this is an observatory, what you observe on the water you can also observe 8 on your neighbors . So I have had situations like this where people have put in balconies and 9 because you recognize there' s got to be privacy between property owners, appropriate screening is 10 a reasonable request . I don' t want to say we object to them renovating their house . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s enough, please . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Mr. Dinizio' s comments and yours have to do with the likely 13 effects of new construction, and without a showing that these undesirable effects -- and I ' m very 14 sympathetic to Mrs . Whitehead' s comment -- unless these are a consequence to the newness of the 15 construction, I don' t know how we could do this . I would be willing, if there are substantive 16 questions to sort out, to extend this hearing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But here' s the 17 issue, Mike, here is the true issue that I was posing, and that is that the second you close this 18 hearing without instituting something on the neighbor' s presentation that Miss Moore is dealing 19 with of what kind of screening, we' re not talking about eight foot pine trees, we' re talking major, 20 major screening. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What year did Mrs . 21 Whitehead buy their house? MS . MOORE : They' re the original owners of 22 that piece, 1920s . The Whitehead family was the original owners of that whole area . Jahir is the 23 predecessor in title that built the house, and he built in 185 . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm making sure that they were there before it was built . 25 MS . MOORE : Absolutely. And about the impact, I find that there has to be some May 4 , 2005 23 1 2 reasonable minds on the Board to say what do you see when you sit on an observatory. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What do you see new that you couldn' t have seen before . 4 MS . MOORE : The fact is that that observatory is not in use now. It is in 5 dilapidated condition and what you' re doing is you' re converting it to much more enjoyable, 6 useable space . It' s got a roof now and solid windows and construction it would give it 7 some -- the Rubins will enjoy that space . Whereas right now it is in poor condition, the windows are 8 open, but it' s really just the equivalent of what a skylight is to us today. Today it' s a skylight 9 with windows all around. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mrs . Moore, 10 we get it . MS . MOORE : I know you get it but in 11 fairness to the Whiteheads, I want to make sure it' s all on the record. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 13 later. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Abstention. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Abstention. (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What was the vote on that? 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 3-0 with two abstentions . 17 ------- ------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 18 Declan Meagher at 750 Blue Marlin Drive in Southold. Mr. Meagher? 19 MR. MEAGHER: I'm Declan Meagher, the applicant . Contrary to the last hearing, I have 20 reached out to the neighbors, and I have submitted information in the application indicating I think 21 their approval of the plans on either side . The lot across from me is owned in common by the 22 Southold Shores Civic Association, and I have submitted the plans to the president on behalf of 23 the civic association. I think I have made a complete application 24 to the Board, if there' s any questions or issues, I do have proof of mailing. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As to your May 4 , 2005 24 1 ' 2 property, I was to your property on a very rainy, wild day. 3 MR. MEAGHER: Of which we have had many. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really don' t 4 believe I have any particular problem with this time except that when you' re referring to the 5 lower patio, are you referring to a patio at grade? 6 MR. MEAGHER: Yes, it will be an on-grade terrace . That nomenclature used on the plans I 7 don' t think are appropriate . I think the architect who happens to be my neighbor who is 8 doing the plans for me put that on there . It' s on grade . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask you that question is because it' s rather 10 substantial, and I have no objection in any way, but sometimes these things come back to haunt us 11 in reference to lot coverage and possibly setbacks, so those are issues that I think you 12 need to be really sensitive on during the construction process . 13 MR. MEAGHER: Right . We actually showed the outline with no particular determinant as to 14 where the eventual outline will be . We show that as pretty much the maximum size of the terrace 15 area that we could contemplate . I 'm actually thinking of pulling that back because there' s a 16 tree we want to preserve . So we' ll probably pull the patio back a little from the tree . 17 As far as the patio, we do intend it to be a hard surface, but we do intend it to be set in 18 at grade and on the earth, so we hope it will also provide some drainage . Thinking about the lot 19 coverage on the hard scape area for the entire site, is one of the reasons why I'm removing the 20 asphalt driveway in total and providing, in effect, some additional drainage on site where 21 there isn' t now, there is a very long asphalt driveway; that would be an impervious gravel 22 survey that we plan on putting in. So I think we' ll offset some of that built area, so to speak. 23 But it will be a. terrace . It won' t be very large . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I notice that you did 24 try to get the pool as close to the house as possible . 25 MR. MEAGHER: We tucked it in as close to the house as possible . Three feet is the bare May 4 , 2005 25 1 2 minimum, I can take the pool back to the columns for the pour, so that dictated the three feet, 3 it' s a bare minimum. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Couple quick questions . I didn' t walk in your backyard when I 5 looked at it . You have on the decks on the survey, you' re going to remove those decks? 6 MR. MEAGHER: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have two 7 proposed patios and a screened in porch? MR. MEAGHER: Yes . 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My next ques'tion is for the Board, Linda and Jerry for their 9 knowledge . I recall the sound side, I don' t recall the bay side . What was the closest? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is in range . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 48, 50 . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not so much a concern on the bay side as it is on the sound side 13 with the cliffs and bluffs . MR. MEAGHER: I pulled it as close to the 14 house, some of the local pool installers indicated to me that your working number was somewhere in 15 the 50 foot range . So I downsized the pool width to bring it as close to that 50 foot setback. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 16 by 32 is your basic Chevy pool size, it' s not the Cadillac size? 17 MR. MEAGHER: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question was the same as Mr. Orlando' s, I think you are to be 19 commended for trying to squeeze this in. MR. MEAGHER: Thank you. 'I also did, as a 20 member of the civic association, I did reach out to all the neighbors not just the two on either 21 side of me but the other neighbors on the block via email and contacted them all to let them know 22 what I was doing. I did get response back, I submitted some of the emails to you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 25 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. May 4 , 2005 26 1 2 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a motion to 3 adjourn to July 7th the hearing of Corbley for a bed and breakfast . 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Don Tison, Laurel Avenue for a new house basically 6 to replace an old house . Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? 7 MR. TISON: I 'm Don Tison and Patricia will be here . 8 MS . MOORE : Good morning. Mr. Tison called me in because originally we were looking at 9 the code . He originally submitted the application. There is a very straightforward 10 variance for the roof line that changed. This was a two story house but the second story had limited 11 use because of the state building code . They raised the dormer and so the result of the raising 12 of the roofline slightly created the need for this variance under your Walz decision. So that issue, 13 if you have any questions, we can talk about it, but it' s very straightforward. 14 He has also asked for an interpretation, I thought this was also a very interesting issue 15 because it' s something that impacts the town or impacts property owners, when you' re dealing with 16 the average setback rule . The code speaks within -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 300 feet? MS . MOORE : 300 feet, right . Mr. Tison 18 had submitted to you a survey that showed from -- the surveyor had marked the side yard setback of 19 the adjacent property, which was 23 feet to the street -- we' ll use a common denominator, to the 20 street, the Tison property is 27 feet to the street, then the issue came in on the corner lot, 21 the corner is on Main Road and -the house actually fronts the Main Road but because it' s a corner lot 22 it' s considered to have two front yards . The section with respect to the average setback rule 23 only makes sense, it' s application only makes sense, if you take as the worst-case scenario 24 whatever the code says as far as setbacks . Let' s say a house, your average setback on the street 25 let' s not a take a corner lot let' s take three houses, house number one which is at 50 feet, and May 4 , 2005 27 1 2 two other houses at 35 . If the code were to allow the 50 foot house to go a setback of 35, then our 3 position is that the average setback rule should apply what the combination whatever the zoning 4 code stats is the closest point and the existing structures that are actually closer or at the 5 appropriate setback, that interpretation -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, I don' t see that 6 in the notice of disapproval or even in the application to ask for that . 7 MS . MOORE : Yes . The application asks for an interpretation, you paid for and applied for 8 one of the things was an interpretation because originally -- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know that you mentioned it, I read that part . 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We sent you the legal notice about three weeks ago, you accepted 11 it as it' s been advertised. It was not put in there for an interpretation under a different 12 section of the code because it' s not on the notice of disapproval under Section 100-230 . So you 13 would have to have the Building Department amend that before a formal interpretation would be done . 14 You can still present your information using that as part of your testimony to ask for a formal 15 interpretation of the section, you' d have to have something on the disapproval . You can ask the 16 Building Department to amend it . MS . MOORE : I know it was talked about I 17 guess informally by the Board because we didn' t think we needed a variance, so the reason they 18 gave for the setback was we were increasing the nonconformity but because we' re at a certain front 19 yard setback, the interpretation is no we have the average setback that allows us to come closer, so 20 I think you could address that issue whether or not it appears on the notice of disapproval, 21 because we' re saying the code says we can come up to 23 , 25, whatever the average . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you take the average but I don' t think we've ever done it that way. 23 MS . MOORE : That' s why I 'm saying I think it would be reasonable for you to look and take it 24 that way. Because when you' re taking properties, let' s say the example I gave you with a house 25 that' s at 50 feet, they could put an addition that brings it to code or as close to the property line May 4 , 2005 28 1 2 as the code would allow which, which in my example was 35 feet, so that' s actually what occurred 3 here . This is in your packet already and I highlighted for you, this drawing here that 4 Mr. Tison submitted, had the house showing the closest point, then his house at the closest 5 point, and it was the corner lot that -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But there' s no 6 building here, the house faces the Main Road, and that' s where the nonconforming setback is on a 7 different street than what Mr. Tison' s property is . That' s what I 'm saying where Ruth is saying 8 we've never done that before because the code doesn' t say that . You can use it as part of your 9 presentation, but it wouldn' t be a formal interpretation. 10 MS . MOORE : I think it' s a reasonable interpretation of the code to say when there' s a 11 building because you have a corner lot, the building is there . 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You can say that . MS . MOORE : But the Town still considers 13 it a front yard. If you' re going to consider it a front yard, you can' t pick and choose on the code . 14 If it' s going to be a front yard, then you should be permitted to go to the closest point of a front 15 yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the same side as 16 that same street . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not around the 17 corner. MS . MOORE : But there is a house on that 18 corner lot . It is within 300 feet BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what the 19 code says . MS . MOORE: I think so but for whatever 20 i reason the Building Department -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you use that 21 street that Mr. Tison lives on, it does have two front yards, the corner lot . It has that 28 foot 22 setback and probably 80 or 100 foot setback on the same street as Mr. Tison, so, yes, I think it 23 would help his case using that front yard setback. MS . MOORE : Because there' s a house on the 24 corner -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re taking the 25 lesser of the two? MS . MOORE: You' re taking the closest May 4 , 2005 29 1 2 point that the code would allow, which in this case, would allow 40, 35 foot front yard setback; 3 in other words, if you' re going to take a front yard setback, because there' s a building there, 4 yes, the fact that it faces the other side it' s still within 300 feet, it' s being counted against 5 us in that it' s there . Just instead of using the closest point, which is what the zoning code says, 6 we' re applying the corner lot, it' s 150 feet, which is where the house is . I'm saying, if this 7 person built an addition, they could build a massive addition going all the way to 35 feet, 8 then you would have him complying with the code, this corner property owner, would comply with the 9 code and we would be using 35 feet, which is what the zoning code allows . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re increasing it from 27 feet as it is now to 30 feet, correct? 11 MS . MOORE : Our application? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Decrease it . 12 MS . MOORE : No . We maintained it in a sense . I don' t think it' s decreased. 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Twenty-seven but their structure starts at 31 . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Increasing the setback. 15 MS . MOORE : We' re increasing it up not out . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. You' re still better than you were before . 17 MS . MOORE : I don' t think he needed a variance here . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Hence the reason for the interpretation. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I thought you said this was going to be easy? 20 MS . MOORE : The variance itself is easy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you have to go 21 to the Town Board, you go to the code committee and have it changed. 22 MS . MOORE : I think the code already says we can do it, that' s the issue . For the record I 23 have Emily Heche, the neighbor, in favor of this application for your file . 24 My client was a building inspector in Maine . He read the code and said why are we 25 reading it this way. I said you' re absolutely right . My reading of the code is you should apply May 4 , 2005 30 1 2 the closest point being what the zoning code says, and then any houses that encroach closer, because 3 that' s the whole intent behind that average setback rule, is when you have the neighborhood 4 that' s developed and everyone' s at 25 feet or whatever, it will eliminate the need for variances 5 and your interpretation of taking a building that is far behind and not taking the zoning code is 6 that you can have one house, in this instance it' s a corner house -- 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What if you had two houses with excess setback? 8 MS . MOORE : Then you wouldn' t have an average, you' d have to take the three . 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have 300 feet, if you' re going to exclude one house because it' s 10 farther away than suits your client' s interests, why couldn' t you do it if there were two houses? 11 MS . MOORE : The zoning code says you have 40 or 35 . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The law is there because there are nonconforming setbacks . Because 13 a person has a conforming setback, that' s not included in this equation at all . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have a house and you want a nonconforming setback or you want 15 to do something and one of your neighbors, but only one of your neighbors is right where you are, 16 but the rest of them are way far back, you can' t simply go and ignore the ones that are conforming 17 and only compare this with the other nonconforming one on the block. 18 MS . MOORE : But the one that is further away has the right to build right to the zoning 19 code -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It affects your 20 average . MS . MOORE : No . It shouldn' t affect your 21 average . The minimum is what you should apply. The reason that provision of the code is in there 22 is because we created nonconformity when we upzoned, that provision of the code is to give 23 relief to all the existing subdivisions that are already built out . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there are houses that have excessive setbacks, you would count them 25 as if -- MS . MOORE : As if they had conforming, May 4 , 2005 31 1 2 exactly. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is really 3 supposed to be when you' re standing on the street and looking down that street, you' re not seeing 4 one house stick out any more . I have seen this Board interpret that a couple of different ways 5 too . The average setback, we have in a couple decisions when Lydia was on the Board, say if you 6 had one at 40 and one at 35, and it was a 40 foot setback, the next house that wanted to go could 7 only go to 37 and-a-half . MS . MOORE : Because they' re taking the 8 average of the two. ' BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s right . Now 9 I understand your argument, and, of course, we' re in this again because of what I said keep harping 10 on. MS . MOORE : Yes, the Walz decision. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The fact that a former building inspector can' t understand it 12 certainly lends credence to my argument . We' re talking about everything beyond 35 feet or 40 feet 13 from that road? MS . MOORE : Whatever the code says . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thirty-five . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Everything on the 15 other side of that line doesn' t count because it' s the Town' s limitation, it' s not the person who 16 built the house limitation, beyond that if we' re talking 35 and someone' s at 31 and another 17 person' s at two, the Town has a problem. This person' s not increasing that setback. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There are two issues . This looks as though it could be decided favorable 19 to the applicant because this is not the kind of case that the Walz decision was intended to 20 embrace . MS . MOORE: Walz decision was two 21 neighbors close to each other with a -- . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The argument is 22 what' s right for Walz himself is not necessarily right for this case, but the argument that is 23 being made here about average setback has nothing whatsoever to do with the Walz decision. 24 MS . MOORE : It' s a separate -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying even if 25 there were no Walz decision, you should drop that altogether because what May 4 , 2005 32 1 2 MS . MOORE : The average case of -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You wouldn' t worry 3 about average setback if you' re going to say this was a misfiring of the Walz decision. Average 4 setback don' t get taken into account at all, that' s why a former building inspector could be 5 confused about this because of bizarre zoning in this town. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm not going to 7 touch interpretation at all . I spoke to Mr. Tison, I have no problem. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD ,MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the audience that has anything to say about this 10 application? I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Annino at Hiawathas Path, proposing additions 13 and alterations at less than 50 feet from the rear property line . 14 MR. ANNINO : Good afternoon I'm Don Annino and we' re here for a variance to add a small deck 15 to the rear of our house, a depth of 12 feet from the existing porch to 21 . 7, constructed according 16 to the building code . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you proposing 17 to build? MR. ANNINO: A deck. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a deck? MR. ANNINO: Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : May I start off? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just noticed on your survey, your house originally now is 42 foot 21 back, rear yard setback. MR. ANNINO: That' s correct . 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Already you have a pre-existing, nonconforming house . It' s a 12 foot 23 by 21 foot deck. I don' t have a particular problem with it . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would you be prepared to say that this problem has emerged because of 25 the unusual shape of your lot? It' s not very deep, it' s wide? May 4 , 2005 33 1 2 MR. ANNINO : That is correct, sir. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as you leave it open to the sky I don' t have an objection 5 to it . MR. ANNINO : That we will do, sir. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody wish to speak to this application? I ' ll make a motion to 7 close "the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mr. Bozzo, who was here before us before about the 10 deck in the rear of the house match the front of - the house, waterfront property. You want to raise 11 the grade on it and not keep it at grade level? MR. BOZZO: Yes, very simply, I' ll just 12 take a moment of your time, this is a picture of the front of the house or the water part of the 13 house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is as it' s 14 done now? MR. BOZZO: This is as is done, this is 15 the back, which you have the back -- all I'm asking is that I would like to be able to have the 16 new deck be at the ground level because architecturally -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ground level or above ground level? 18 MR. BOZZO: Same level as the front deck, which is equal to the first floor of the house . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it' s raised? MR. BOZZO: Same level because it makes 20 good sense, architecturally it looks good, it keeps in the keeping of what we did with the house 21 when we renovated back 20 years ago . Safety reasons I felt that also because we' re in a flood 22 zone, if it was in grade level it could pose a problem, I could suffer damage . Going up and down 23 at grade level it would cause us inconvenience coming from inside the house if we go up and down. 24 And as we get older, it could cause a problem. So I just wanted to have it all the same . I 25 submitted a new plan to you showing you it on the plan, and I think you would agree that it looks May 4 , 2005 34 1 2 very good, it will make the house look perfect rather than if it was at grade level then because 3 then there would be a 13 foot space between the grade level and the balcony you approved at the 4 last hearing. This way it would be only eight and-a-half and be symmetrical to the front of the 5 house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what I thought 6 you wanted to match the front of the house to the' back of the house . 7 MR. BOZZO: That' s right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You still have a second floor deck? 9 MR. BOZZO : That' s correct, a balcony above it . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want you to be aware, Mr. Bozzo, you are now probably the 11 greatest lot coverage that we have ever had on a waterfront property this size . 12 MR. BOZZO: I complied with that and I cut back the size of the deck, if you recall . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know but you' re at the maximum. You' re 20 percent above 14 the maximum. I'm just telling you, so the specifications have to be built, if the Board 15 approves it, to those exact measurements . MR. BOZZO: I commit to you I will do 16 that . I went back and had the plans redone, I submitted them to you, that' s all I want done . 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If I recall last time, you lost square footage because you lost 18 property. You were at 24 and you went to 28? MR. BOZZO: We were at 7, 900 feet when the 19 original house was renovated back in 1985 it went down to 7 , 655, therefore it created a difference 20 in the lot coverage, so that caused us a problem. If you remember, my house is a very narrow piece 21 of property and very long. We had setback issues, but the big thing is to have it match and to look 22 correct, and I had to reduce the proposed deck that I turned in the last time which is 12 by the 23 width of the house, which is 27, and we reduced it down by three feet and come up with what the lot 24 coverage was at the last meeting. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not changing 25 the lot coverage from the last? MR. BOZZO: No. May 4 , 2005 35 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you all know that the result of compromise amongst us all, 5 and I'm really not willing to upset that compromise in all honesty. I gave you my opinion, 6 being out front with you, I think the Board made a decision based on a hearing, and I'm willing to 7 stand up to that decision. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 8 audience that wishes to speak on this application? I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 9 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is the 11 Krause family who wishes to re-do the barn, which is an accessory building on their lot . Ms . 12 Wickham? MS . WICKHAM: Good morning, Abigail 13 Wickham on behalf of the Krauses, who are here with me today to answer any questions I cannot . 14 We' re asking for two separate determinations, one has to do with the addition of 15 a garage structure on the east side, which meets the side yard setback but does not meet the front 16 yard setback of a principal building, which is required because this property is on the water and 17 does permit front yard structures which meet principal building setbacks . And the second has 18 to do with the renovation of the carriage house in terms of a determination by the Building 19 Department that it is a dwelling unit, and I' d like to address both of those . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re saying that the framed garage is a principal dwelling and not an 21 accessory dwelling? Is the barn an accessory building or principal building? 22 MS . WICKHAM: It' s accessory. It has to meet the principal building setback is what I 23 said. I want to start by saying that as a 24 backdrop to this application, that Mrs . Krause and I do have one thing in common, and that is that we 25 are both married to aging athletes, and what that means -- forgive me, Mr. Krause -- what that means May 4 , 2005 36 1 2 to those of you who are not, is that we are blessed with an entire assortment of bikes, 3 kayaks, wind surf equipment, all things that take up a lot of volume . The difference between Mrs . 4 Krause and I is that she has a carriage house in which to put him and it, and I do 5 not . Fortunately she doesn' t have to deal with ' bikes in the living room and wet suits in the 6 shower. They do want to restore the carriage house to its prior condition because it has lapsed 7 over the past several generations in a rather haphazard storage facility. 8 Typical of the older homes in the area, and this is one of the oldest probdbly, there was 9 typically this type of structure . It was used as an accessory to the main dwelling. This one in 10 particular had living quarters in it at one time . It was used as a work shop, a garage, a barn. 11 What they want to do is maintain the workshop use and barn character and restore the upstairs to an 12 exercise and storage facility for Mr. Krause' s equipment, as well as the game room, which was 13 typically found in these accessory buildings in the older home type storage . 14 They are fortunate in that their residence on the property is quite large and that will be 15 sufficient to house guests . This is not a disguise for another dwelling. 16 You may be aware that originally the main house was divided into two building units at one 17 time, and when the Moore family, which is Mrs . Krause' s family, sold the property several years 18 ago they subdivided off one acre, and at that time your Board approved the division with the 19 condition that the second dwelling unit in the main residence be removed, and that was done . 20 This particular facility will not have a kitchen; it will have a bathroom; there will be a 21 game room, which will have a sink and a small refrigerator for probably Gatorade and other types 22 of things that will be going in there . The shed extension itself which will be on 23 the east will be low. It will be setback 16 and-a-half feet, which is considerably more than 24 the carriage house itself from the highway. It will be architecturally similar to the extension 25 that has been there for many years on the west side, so the building will be balanced, and it May 4 , 2005 37 1 2 will be shielded by attractive landscaping in the front . The cars that are going to be stored in it 3 are frequently housed in the driveway now and they are collector' s cars so they do need to be 4 protected from the elements . The sanitary system is going to be improved somewhat just because it' s 5 extremely old. The water supply is public and that is on the same system as the house, there' s 6 not a separate meter. So, if you have any particular questions, 7 I ' d be glad to try and answer them. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the area that would be converted basically to an athletic area, 9 or game room both meaning probably used both at the same time, will be a heated area? 10 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . There was originally heat in the building in the upstairs and in the 11 workshop. So the upstairs will have heat, the downstairs on the west side in the workshop will 12 have heat and the garage will have low heat to keep things from freezing, will have low heat to 13 keep the cars from freezing on the east side shed. The central portion of the first floor will not be 14 heated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not the 15 writer of the decision but if I were the writer of the decision I don' t think there is any objection, 16 based upon your presentation, to say it is strictly an accessory building for nonhabitable 17 space; is that correct? MS . WICKHAM: Yes, for not dwelling space, 18 sleeping quarters I think is what you had used in the past . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Mr. Goehringer had 20 my one quick comment . Also, Miss Wickham, I want to hear the truth, how do you really feel about 21 aging athletes? MS . WICKHAM: Are we on the record or not? 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I was waiting when you were talking about heated space that aging 23 athletes need warm places . MR. KRAUSE : Hopefully this is off the 24 clock. MS . WICKHAM: Tick, tick, tick. 25 MR. KRAUSE : No other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? May 4 , 2005 38 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is the main house the house that' s known as Park Neck? 3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, it is . This was Stuart Moore' s home, which was Mrs . Krause' s 4 great-grandfather. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re related to 5 Barbara Butterworth? MRS . KRAUSE : Yes, she' s my cousin. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know there' s going to be a second floor built on the Butterworth 7 house, that doesn' t have to come before this Board. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have to write 9 this decision, so I have a couple questions, I just want to clarify a couple things . One is it' s 10 definitely not going to be habitable, we' ll say no sleeping quarters? 11 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And it is going to 12 have water in it . It is going to be heated. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Partially. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay, put partially. 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And put no kitchen. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Right . That was my 15 thing, there will be no kitchen, right? MS . WICKHAM: Right . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How do you spell aging athlete? 17 MS . WICKHAM: E-R-I . . . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think, Miss Wickham, if you were to bring more of these 19 applications in with a little frivolity as this one is we' d be much happier. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gail, there was water in the barn to begin with, right? 21 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 22 audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 23 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a resolution 25 to take a short recess . (See minutes for resolution. ) May 4 , 2005 39 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to reconvene . I' ll make a motion to close the 3 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Donna Cook, who wishes a waiver of merger. 5 MS . COOK: I'm Donna Cook. I put in the application for the unmerger of my lots . I would 6 at this time like to request -- I ' d like to withdraw my request for a lot line change . I ' d 7 still like you to consider unmerging the lots for me, but I don' t want to move the property line, 8 I ' d like to keep it where it is . I understand this would require me to meet certain variances or 9 there might be other requirements or recommendations to do that which I will absolutely 10 follow through with. I did bring a letter and seven surveys so that you can see what it was . 11 This is actually the survey that you have but on the one you have I had handwritten in where the 12 lot line would be . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where would the 13 garage be then? I mean, where would the line be? MS . COOK: It' s like inches from the 14 existing lot line . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that be on the 15 one that was on the road? MS . COOK: That was on the back lot, if 16 you see, I think a couple of times over the past month or two I've requested different lot line 17 changes . I was trying to figure out what would be the most appropriate thing to ask. What I found 18 out, after talking to the Health Department, the most appropriate thing to ask for is the unmerger, 19 and then, of course, once you consider that, if you do allow me to unmerge it, if there is any 20 problem with the garage, I can address those issues at that time, whatever it may be, even if 21 it' s removing the' garage . I have no problem with that . I may need variances, of course, I' ll 22 follow-through with all of those . So at this time I would just like to request that you allow me to 23 unmerge them so I can follow through with my plans for the property. I'm responsible for a lot of 24 children, and I need to make sure that I can follow-through with the plans that I had when I 25 purchased the property 11 years ago. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' re May 4 , 2005 40 1 2 looking to create two lots now? MS . COOK: Yes . The Town, from what I 3 understand, is the only entity that considers it a merged property. The Health Department and county 4 and such consider it already unmerged. It' s separately taxed, but I do need your permission to 5 formally unmerge it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I continue 6 with this? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran, the original 7 lot line then the garage would be on the second lot? 8 MS . COOK: It' s on the rear lot, yes . That' s why I originally thought moving the lot 9 line would make the front lot more conforming by putting the garage with the house . But what I 10 found out from the Health Department, is that that would not be the case . So when I was trying to 11 figure out where to ask you to allow me to move the lot line, it seemed as far as the Health 12 Department was concerned it would still be a problem and that it would need to be left as is . 13 That' s why I say if necessary I will even remove the garage . I think it may need variances, I 14 don' t know, I will let you decide and let me know what to do if you allow me to unmerge it . 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You would have to decide if you want to remove the garage first . So 16 you have to make that decision before we can go forward. 17 MS . COOK: I would prefer if the garage would remain and if I am eligible to apply for a 18 variance to do that, but if variances aren' t going to be something that I would be able to look for, 19 then I would remove it . My preference would be to leave it, but if this Board has a problem with 20 that, I would remove it . I don' t know how to answer that . Would I need to apply for variances 21 first and find out whether or not that would be the issue and take it from there? Is that how I 22 would approach it? Apply for the variances first and then if it' s denied, remove it? 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' have applied for a waiver of merger and you' re before the Board 24 right now. It' s probably a good idea to start with that, first . You haven' t gotten into that 25 and you might want to start your presentation with that first . May 4 , 2005 f 41 1 2 MS . COOK: Okay, I bought the property 11 years ago with the intentions of separating it, in 3 fact, when I bought it I thought it was already separated. I am a special education advocate, and 4 I have four disabled children, various degrees of disability and responsible for other children in 5 my family. And being responsible it limits the amount of time I'm employed. I spend a lot of 6 time with my children and my family. I have done probably 80 percent of the work to my home myself . 7 I ' m learning along the way. But now I'm at that point both because of unforeseen circumstances 8 which another house went up in the neighborhood and it was regraded and it caused flooding on my 9 rear property so I've had to start a lot of work back there trying to remedy all of that, and now 10 that I've gotten past a couple setbacks with whether or not it was wetlands and also the winter 11 coming on, now I'm able to remedy and mitigate all that water back there and follow through with it, 12 it' s created a lot of financial hardships . So now it came to the point to find out whether I can use 13 that property to benefit my family financially, and hence all these other things came into play. 14 I have some neighbors who are okay with the idea. I have one neighbor who is not okay 15 with the idea. The Town Trustees had gotten involved thinking that the water that had started 16 to accumulate on my property was a wetland 'area. They have since decided that it was not and they 17 do not have jurisdiction over it . So I'm allowed to continue to mitigate the water over there . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How do you plan to mitigate that? I was down there yesterday and 19 it' s really like a lake . MS . COOK: It' s awful . With the help of 20 two contractors and another neighbor last year, we got out there and really tried to figure out where 21 all the water was coming from. You can' t see it running to the property but you can see where it 22 sits ., What we have all decided or what they decided would be the best way to remedy it would 23 be to eliminate all the brush and thistle back l there, which I started last August, and then to 24 take out as much of the clay that I can. There was a layer of clay there that was right under. 25 So I removed some of that clay already and used it around where my construction is where my house is, May 4 , 2005 42 1 2 to fill in some areas and put fill on it, places I don' t need to worry about water. Some of it I'm 3 going to have to remove out of there . Once I do that I can lay in a series of layers of gravel and 4 sand. This way once I put fill on top of that and regrade the property back to grade level because 5 right now it does this (indicating) like a pool . Once I get all of those trenches or dry wells in 6 there, which I have already looked into, both of those are good alternatives and Artie Foster said 7 that was a good idea to do that, that will allow all the water to continue to come to my house from 8 where its coming from, but rather than move to somewhere else, it will go straight down and have, 9 somewhere under the layer to reside or whatever it does, probably perk back into the aquifer, right 10 now the clay is the biggest problem there . These are my intentions, and I think three 11 weeks ago I received a letter from the Trustees removing themselves, and so now I'm able to get in 12 there and finish doing what I started to do . Hopefully in the next two months it should be 13 gone . So between the two landscapers and Artie Foster and the Health Department, they all seem to 14 think this is the best way to mitigate the problem, rather than just regrading, which is what 15 my neighbor did, which would, of course, cause the water to go everywhere else, and that' s not a good 16 idea. So I'm hoping this water problem will all be mitigated. 17 Right now the unmerger is the big thing because funds are caught up. I received a series 18 of setbacks due to contractors I had in the house, and it' s been one headache after another. So 19 right now I'm looking at trying to get my funds back in, which would mean using the equity or the 20 property, which was my plans originally when I purchased the property. Again, right back to why 21 I 'm asking you to unmerge it . So � can figure out how to manipulate my funds both on the house and 22 to mitigate this problem that has just occurred in the backyard. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just continue? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What you gave us 25 back was a survey indicating the house lot without the garage, proposed as Lot Number 1 at 10 , 448 May 4 , 2005 43 1 2 square feet? MS . COOK: Yes . That proposal, when I 3 gave you this map back, this was originally done with the proposed lot line change in there; so 4 with what I'm giving you back now, there will be no proposed lot line change on the survey, it' s 5 simply to show you exactly where the existing lot line is . That proposal would have been for my 6 original lot line change request, which I am no longer requesting. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 don' t exist anymore? 8 MS . COOK: No . It' s existing Lot 1 and 2 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in my opinion 9 what you need to give us, and it happens to be my application to write, you need to white-out the 10 line and white-out words "proposed Lot 1" and you need to add the 10, 448 square feet to whatever the 11 total lot area is . MS . COOK: I think what would be better -- 12 I know what you need -- is to give you the original survey I got two years ago that showed 13 exactly what I have, which is exactly what I want to keep . I didn' t bring it with me today, I 14 thought I did. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There is one in the 15 file, Jerry, because originally Mrs . Cook had applied for a lot waiver based on the original lot 16 line and it does breakdown the sizing. So there is one' in the file . I can find it and make 17 copies . MS . COOK: If necessary, I do have them at 18 home . I thought I grabbed them to give to you today, but what I did grab was the new one for the 19 lot merger. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re going to 20 know what the total square footage is of Lot 2 , which is what you' re proposing to unmerge? 21 MS . COOK: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When you purchased the property, as I read the deed, this was 23 transferred under one lot, it sounds like you knew that, you stated in your presentation you bought 24 it knowing it was one lot hoping to -- MS . COOK: No . I bought it knowing it was 25 one deed, but I had two tax maps . And I was in touch with the assessor' s office at that time and May 4 , 2005 44 1 2 I was in touch with other departments here in Southold, that was again in 1994 , so the answers 3 then may not apply today, but I did touch base with some Town boards and the assessor' s office to 4 ask if it was feasible to have it formally separated. I thought because it was already 5 separate in the eyes of the county it would be an easy thing to do . I didn' t realize it was so 6 complicated. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : In ' 94 did you do a 7 single and separate search on the parcel to see if they were? 8 MS . COOK: No, I did not . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: After reviewing the 9 deed with counsel he also perceives that the deed shows the description as one lot . 10 MS . COOK: Yes . It was actually three deeds . My two properties actually started out as 11 three pieces of property. So there was a 50 by 60 piece of property that was added to the 250 by 60 12 piece, that whole area back there, which is all houses, my neighbors and myself, was all owned by 13 two families, I believe, that eventually started breaking off little pieces, and I ended up with 14 three that turned to two just before I received it . So it was very confusing to me . I just 15 assumed, and, of course, I 'm probably wrong, that it was something that could have been done . So 16 I 'm here to ask you whether or not I can continue to follow through with that . I think I did give 17 you the deeds that go back when it was three deeds, back in the ' 50s, might have been farther 18 back than that . There was a lot of things that happened with 'that land. It' s all Greek to me . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a couple 21 questions . First of all, if I you get this waiver of merger, the small lot where your house and this 22 large lot is, I presume it' s your intention to sell that lot? 23 MS . COOK: It may be . Right now I have a whole bunch of options . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First glance you look at it and not knowing about this change you just 25 introduced, it looks like you' re dividing a large buildable lot into two lots, one of which is May 4 , 2005 45 1 2 unbuildable, because of all the water. MS . COOK: If it' s one lot it' s all 3 unbuildable because there' s already a house there . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your house is on a 4 buildable lot, but the lot you want to sever from your lot would be essentially created as a new lot 5 which would presumably be buildable . Whoever would want to buy it would want to buy it not ` as a 6 place to have a pond, but to put a house on it . Have you had an engineer? You said you had the 7 Health Department and so forth looking at exactly what is involved in mitigating the problem. 8 MS . COOK: The Health Department didn' t come and look at it, these are all phone calls . 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is what I'm getting at . Whoever was going to buy it or if you 10 wanted to put a house on the second lot, would need to know sampling and so forth whether this 11 lot is buildable at all . Do you know what you' re getting in for? 12 MS . COOK: As far as the physicalness of the lot, I was getting confused with buildable, 13 whether it' s okay with the Town Board to be buildable, whether it' s physically buildable . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I mean in terms of getting a building permit . 15 MS . COOK: This is something I did not get an engineer for but I did speak to the Health 16 Department, am I going to get to you guys and find out it was for naught . They said they already 17 considered it a separate residential lot and that they do not foresee any problems at all with 18 building on there, as far as they' re concerned. Not that doesn' t mean that the ZBA or the Town -- 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not for us to decide whether the building lot that is 20 essentially being created is buildable or not . It' s okay to have a large lot half of which does 21 not sustain a house as long as you have a house on the other half, but when you sell it to somebody 22 else who' s buying it to build a house on it either they' re going to find out afterwards it' s 23 unbuildable or they' ll find out at the time, in which case you' re stuck with a second lot you 24 can' t be used. MS . COOK: I think the word you' re using 25 there that led me to believe that it would be okay -- actually, I forgot what it was . They May 4 , 2005 46 1 2 consider this already single and separate residential; they' re not considering it being 3 subdivided or being separated, they' re not considering this creating -- that was the word, 4 creating -- I'm not creating a lot as far as they' re concerned. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re asking, what I call creating a lot would be to unmerge it, to 6 unmerge it would in effect create a lot . MS . COOK: They' re saying that' s at your 7 level but not at their level . At their level they already consider me owning two single and separate 8 lots, that have one deed. And the deed is what they would consider me having a problem to build. 9 Once you allow me to unmerge them, the deeds become separated and then the Health Department 10 and apparently the county feel -- in fact, that is the garage thing and the lot line change, that 11 conversation is what brought that about . I had called them again, and said I'm doing this with 12 the garage and the lot line and all this stuff and what is your position. They said, if you ask for 13 a lot line change, the minute you change the lot line we' re going to consider you a subdivision 14 because you have made a change . If you leave the lot line where it is, this is already two separate 15 lots as far as we' re concerned, so there' s nothing you need to do for us . If I move the garage, if I 16 say okay the garage needs to be put in the middle of the back lot or move it to the front lot, again 17 it creates a subdivision in the eyes of the Health Department . As long as the garage remains where 18 it is or is removed, if you decide that' s what I need to do, then they have no problem. If I move 19 the garage and move the lot line, move anything, I become a subdivision because I 'm changing what 20 they consider an existing lot . Their position is that this is the only board that considers it one 21 lot . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For better or worse, 22 people have the right to buy and sell land that is permanently under water if it turns out to be that 23 way, and the owner of the land is the one who takes the risk. 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think what Mr. Simon' s trying to say when he says it' s not 25 buildable is will it sustain a septic system and a well for the county? Because you don' t have May 4 , 2005 47 1 2 county water down there . MS . COOK: I can have county water down 3 there . In fact, I had to give up the well that was on that back lot for my neighbor to put in his 4 septic system and regrade and flood my property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But he has a well? 5 MS . COOK: No . Everybody has town water except for me . There' s only two neighbors in that 6 area that have well water, myself and Mr. McConnell, and I had one well on the lot with 7 the house, one well on the back lot, and Mr. McConnell had a well . When the Werthner house 8 went up, he couldn' t put his cesspools anywhere . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s what 9 Mr. Simon' s getting at, can you build on it with all those wells and septic systems? 10 MS . COOK: But they' re not there anymore . I had to give up the right to my rear well in 11 order for Mr. Werthner to be able to put in his septic system. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When they go to put a house on this lot, it' s going to be county water 13 so it' s not going to make a difference . There won' t be any wells around. They can put it 14 anywhere they want to put it . Of course, they have other problems but that' s besides the point . 15 MS . COOK: The septic system' s not an issue, that' s why I called the Health Department a 16 few days ago. Because I 'm getting ready to mitigate this problem, I have the choice of 17 putting in trenches or putting in dry wells, which I already ran past the Building- Department, and 18 everybody' s okay with it . So I have that choice . So I called the Health Department and said if I 19 want to put in cesspool wells instead of dry wells, can I use them in the future because it 20 will have all this water going down, and that' s when all this conversation about the lot line 21 change came up. So as far as the Health Department' s concerned, I won' t need anything from 22 them to put cesspools on this property because I 'm the only one with a well within 150 feet of it, 23 and the last well anyway, just close it and hook up to public water, and the new lot -- so to speak 24 new lot -- can hook up to public water. There is plenty of room to put in cesspools, the Health 25 Department had no problem with it . As far as the Health Department, the only thing they expect me May 4 , 2005 48 1 2 to comply with are the Town setback codes and lot line coverage -- is that what you call it? How 3 much house I put on the lot -- they said they have absolutely nothing to concern themselves with this 4 lot because I own the other well, and they already consider it two separate lots . Of course, if I 5 change anything then it' s a problem, I'm subdividing. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you' re not on well water anymore? 7 - MS . COOK: No. The back lot is no longer on well water, I closed that well because Mr. 8 Werthner put his cesspool 75 feet from that well, or 80 feet from that well . So if I do build 9 anything on that back lot, it will automatically go on public water. The front house is still on a 10 well, but there' s no cesspools within 150 feet of that well so I can use it out until it gives me a 11 problem, then hook up to water on the front lot . And there is water, and if it does affect the 12 front lot, then I' ll close it too. It is feasible . I don' t know how easy it will be, and 13 my whole point when I said there' s so many different options that I have is to either put a 14 small cottage back there . I have a lot of children. 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Not to interrupt you, we went off on a tangent in regards to 16 buildable . You are here before us on a waiver of merge . Let' s stay focused back on track about the 17 waiver of merger. MS . COOK: That' s the reasoning for all of 18 that . Most of it is so I can fix my finances in order to finish all these things that occur in 19 such a large family that I have, and all these other things that have happened because of 20 neighborhood things . It' s a money thing. I think it' s a space thing, it' s a lot . If I could 21 unmerge it it would mean a lot . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you have any 22 more questions, Mike? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There is I think 24 four criteria for unmerging a lot in the code . I ' d like for you to address that . Honestly, I 25 think -- I'm just going to throw this out there -- I think you need someone other than yourself to May 4 , 2005 49 1 2 represent you. MS . COOK: So it' s going to cost me more 3 money. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty, if 4 you want my opinion I don' t think you' re going to qualify. 5 MS . COOK: Can you tell me which of the criteria it is? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think just about every one . I think you can' t come before us with 7 a lot merger like you' re doing. Believe me, I sympathize with you very much concerning this 8 because you think you see a line on a map that everybody assumes that' s what it is, but plenty of 9 people have stood before us with a lot more hardship than you' re saying, not considering your 10 family, but considering property, and they have been turned down. 11 MS . COOK: It seemed like everybody except the Town considers it single and separate . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to meet certain criteria. The first one you have to 13 address is the waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density of the 14 neighborhood. MS . COOK: I thought that was addressed in 15 the beginning. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Number 2 , the waiver 16 would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of the lot in that neighborhood. Number 3 , 17 the waiver will avoid economic hardship; the natural details and character of the lot and the 18 character of the contours and slopes of the lot will not be significantly changed or altered in 19 any manner; and there will not be a substantial filling of land affecting nearby environmental or 20 flood areas . MS . COOK: I'm sorry, I thought those were 21 addressed in the application. When I sent in my application, I addressed the size of the lot, 22 which is consistent with all the lot sizes in my neighborhood except for one, my next door neighbor 23 is the only one who has a very large lot next to me; it' s not as long as mine is, but it' s wider 24 than mine by about 40 feet . It does conform. I think that back property, at 250 by 60 is bigger 25 than some of the neighborhood lots . To avoid economic hardship I thought explained that . I May 4 , 2005 50 1 2 thought I had met those criterias, is what I' m trying to say. So if I didn' t, let me know. I 3 thought that was addressed in the application. So I wasn' t prepared to go over that today, but if I 4 need to readdress it or reexplain it -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our problem is that it 5 is deeded as one lot, and it was always held in your name for that one lot . Actually in order to 6 divide that you really have to go to the Planning Board. 7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: A waiver of merger is an appropriate vehicle . They were 8 previously two lots that probably merged as the clocked ticked in 1983 , they were merged prior to 9 when you purchased them, and you purchased them in one deed, two tax parcels but one piece of land, 10 so you do need to meet the criteria in the code . And this is the opportunity. You may have 11 addressed them in the application, but this is your opportunity to sort of explain why you think 12 you meet them. I think that' s what the Board is asking of you. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s Number 4 that you have a problem with. 14 MS . COOK: The details and characteristics of the lot? 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Contours and slopes of the lot will not be significantly changed or 16 altered in any manner, and there will not be a substantial filling of land affecting nearby 17 environmental flood areas . I think it' s because of that lake in the back there . 18 MS . COOK: What you have seen in the past -- anybody that' s gone to my property in the 19 past eight months has seen the result of my ripping out vegetation and taking some of the clay 20 out . So what you see actually looks like a pool . That' s not what the slope of the property was 21 originally when I bought it or for nine of the 11 years that I have owned it . This is something 22 that has happened within the past couple of years where it flooded like that, and last summer is 23 when I started to make it look the way it does now. You have to make it worse before you can 24 make it better. I wish it was easier. Once it' s done, whether or not I unmerge the property, that 25 is going to look the way it did two years ago or as close to it as possible minus all the poison May 4 , 2005 51 1 2 ivy and all that junk. I mean, I even left it there, the Town Trustees came out and looked at 3 what I had taken out . I said it' s still there, I never moved it . Winter came and the stuff sat 4 there . So after they decided that there was no ,"wetland vegetation there, freshwater wetlands 5 vegetation, I could continue, I just got that later, a few weeks ago. If you had seen it prior 6 to Werthner putting his house up, you would have seen a different lot . The way it was graded at 7 that time is what it' s going to look like whether or not I do the unmerger. To say if one of the 8 criteria is that this does not affect the neighborhood or the lot or the characteristic, 9 then it won' t be, in fact, it will be exactly the way it was but better because now I 'm almost like 10 a recharge area, willingly, and I'm going to continue to collect the water, only find someplace 11 else for it to go . So I think it will be better than it was before considering what' s happened in 12 the neighborhood. As far as the changing the detail and the 13 characteristic of it, the only characteristics that have been changed is that all scrub bush and 14 junk and rose bushes that was growing back there has been taken out and will remain out . If I do 15 or when I do put vegetation, I have one neighbor who wants a whole row of bushes put back on her 16 side; she owns the whole road. I've been talking to her and her husband as long as I've lived in 17 the house about anything I do out there . Once I get all those trenches and dry wells out of there 18 and get all that water mitigated, we' re going to go ahead and put that wall or some sort of life, 19 something back up there for her. So that is really going to be the only characteristic change 20 on that property.' To say that the characteristic and the contours of my property, what it is now, 21 is inaccurate, so if it needs to stay the way it was now, that would be horrible, to say the least, 22 not even for the unmerger. You have seen it, it' s awful . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw it . MS . COOK: That is not the original 24 characteristic of that property. So the characteristic is not going to be changed. It 25 will be what it was . So as far as the size of the lot is May 4 , 2005 52 1 2 concerned it does conform with the other lots in the neighborhood. The hardship is, again, I 've 3 gone through a phenomenal amount of money repairing damage to my property from other 4 people' s actions, including some contractors that I had do existing work to my house, with my 5 children it limits my availability to work. I've worked part-time throughout the years as an 6 educational advocate, I find myself doing a lot of volunteer work for families who are very low 7 income and just can' t say no sometimes . So there is the hardship part, the characteristics we just 8 addressed. And there is not going to be any filling in of the land outside of grading the 9 property back to the original grade, not any higher, and it cannot remain any lower because I 10 have this wash off . I have drainage problems from Mr. Werthener' s property. But on the easterly 11 side of my house I have another neighbor whose property just slopes to my house from the front of 12 her all the way to the back tree line, all the water just runs and hits my house and makes a 13 river. It has caused an enormous amount of erosion on the side of my house and has exposed 14 all of her tree roots . She has three big maple trees within six, seven feet of my property, my 15 house actually. You can see the tree roots are starting to go into my foundation. It needs to be 16 regraded to what it was in order to prevent further problems . 17 I think I may have addressed everything. If there' s anything that you need 18 I can make it available . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 19 audience that would like to speak on this application? 20 MS . SACAMANO: My name is Cathy Sacamano, and I live at 6990 Main Bayview, and I ' m the 21 neighbor who abuts Mrs . Cook' s property for about 300 feet . 22 Originally, years ago, the two properties were owned by sisters so they' re kind of equal 23 house size and so forth, and just for the record, I want to say Miss Cook and I have been good 24 neighbors, and she' s had her variance to increase her house and all that, we have had no problem 25 with it . We do, in fact, have a problem with May 4 , 2005 53 1 2 unmerging the lots . In 1983 or thereabouts, your Article 2 , Section 1025 merged the lots because 3 they were held in common ownership and both were considered nonconforming lots, and to try to 4 create a lot that was conforming to the bulk schedule at the time . Miss Cook did, in fact , buy 5 the property in 1994 , and as you all went over, she should have been aware that the lots were 6 already merged. By unmerging the. lots, you' re going to, whether you keep the garage or move the 7 garage or change lot lines or what have you, you' re going to take a 20 , 000 square foot lot, soy 8 to speak, and create two 10, 000 square foot lots or one 7, 000 and one 12 , 000 or whatever the 9 arrangements are going to be . And my husband and I are concerned with separating these lots that 10 you would create a new, if she tears down a garage or whatever, it becomes another nonconforming 11 buildable lot, and with the north fork land being at a premium, we' re thinking of a possible future 12 contractor coming in and creating yet another McMansion in the neighborhood. I know they have 13 to take all the setback things into consideration, but still the characteristic of the 14 neighborhood -- my family lived here for 80 years, it used to be little bungalows, waterfront 15 bungalows, little dwellings, and as we get newer construction, newer neighbors, the characteristics 16 of the neighborhood are changing. As for the swamp, flood, whatever you want 17 to consider the southern lot now, we don' t have problems with Miss Cook filling it in or getting 18 rid of a mosquito problem or what have you; what we are concerned with is to bring it up to grade, 19 so to speak, in her terms, who makes the determination what grade is? In the area we' re in 20 it' s a flood zone . I can get affidavits from many former, old time neighbors that her little, what 21 was once a little kind of lake, nuisance problem, has always been there, for at least 40 years, what 22 I remember as a child playing in the field. And as I said, we' re concerned with the lot . If it 23 was to be unmerged, to become a buildable lot, you know, it' s an environmentally sensitive area, and 24 the new house addition could result in my land, my abutting land becoming flooded and/or 25 contaminated. And with the new home you can have the cesspools, you have the churning up of the May 4 , 2005 54 1 2 underwater flood table, so to speak, and right now, I ' m just getting people to kind of come and 3 look at my land to prove right now that prior to Donna' s good intentions of these contractor and 4 the wells and the gravel and what have you. Right now we are high and dry and have been for many 5 years, just due to the contours of the land for the past 40 years that I can honestly say I've 6 seen. That' s why we don' t want an unmerger. Thank you. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I don' t see anyone else here to make any comments . I make a 8 motion to close the hearing reserve decision until later. 9 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------"------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Joann Walker on Town Harbor Terrace for a proposed 11 addition, swimming pool and other construction. Lovely place . 12 MS . WICKHAM: Well, we think we have it straight now, what we want to do and how it has to 13 be done . There were a number of amendments, but the plan is to construct a pool on the east side 14 of the property, sufficiently far from the sideline that does not violate the setback, and 15 whether the pool will actually be of that size or not it may be built smaller. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a nice size pool . MS . WICKHAM: It' s a nice size pool . It 17 very well may be built smaller but Miss Walker wasn' t quite sure what she wanted, so I asked her 18 to put down the most she would want . She will work with her design professionals to finalize it . 19 The extension on the waterside, I am tempted to call it the front, but it' s technically 20 in the rear, will be in keeping with the existing building as will the patio and the pergola. 21 This house, interestingly enough while we would consider it a modern house, was probably 22 built in the ' 30s, 1937 . It did withstand the hurricane of 1938, although I think it did sustain 23 some damage . I believe this lady that' s here is a member of the families of the properties around 24 it, so she knows much more about it than I do . But the extension will be designed as will 25 the landscaping to blend into what' s there as much as possible . May 4 , 2005 55 1 2 If the Board has any specific questions I ' d be glad to try and answer them. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you actually 4 have two structures with a 64 foot setback? You have the pool and the patio/pergola? 5 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, that' s correct . And my understanding is once you approve one of them, 6 we' re entitled to the other, so I think it could be either. There' s technically one variance being 7 requested on that subject . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So I' ll attack the 8 pool . You' re saying a 20 by 60 pool, you were just saying it may not be that large? That' s as 9 big as a house . MS . WICKHAM: Yes . It may not be that 10 large . But she would like it to start in that position, which would be comparable to the water 11 side of the house, whether it would go back that far is yet to be .decided. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So she' s only willing to shorten the pool from the landward side 13 as opposed to the water side? MS . WICKHAM: If you would like us to 14 consider that, I think we could, although that' s not where the variance is being sought, and I 15 think that portion of the structure as proposed is conforming to the zoning code . 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The 64 foot setback on the pool? 17 MS . WICKHAM: No, the length on the--pool . We would not like to have to move the pool further 18 back from the bulkhead. That being said, if you' re asking would we make the pool at the other 19 end shorter -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s what I'm 20 saying is you' re not willing to shorten the other end? 21 MS . WICKHAM: I ' d rather not shorten either because the back part isn' t something 22 that' s the subject of a variance . Is your concern the length of the pool? 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm concerned that it' s 64 feet from the bulkhead instead of 75 feet . 24 The pergola/patio I don' t have a problem with but the pool we' re trying to keep them as far as we 25 can away from the water side . MS . WICKHAM: I do think that setback is May 4 , 2005 56 1 2 comparable to the setback of the dwelling, two dwellings actually two and three properties 3 respectively to the east . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I didn' t actually 4 get to see this one, so I don' t know how severe the bluff is . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, there isn' t much. MS . WICKHAM: The bluff is very stable . 6 It' s very well planted, and as I say it' s been there since the ' 30s . And it' s a wide beach; it' s 7 not one of those narrow beaches that laps up. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 8 We' ll see what the other Board members have to say. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Question is, is that 64 feet from the edge of where it slopes off or to 10 the bulkhead? MS . WICKHAM: To the bulkhead. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The bulkhead must be about 12 feet beyond where the hill goes down, the 12 top of the bluff . So the distance from the edge of the pool to the top of the bluff is about -- 13 MS . WICKHAM: About 50 feet, but the code dimensional requirement is from the bulkhead. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . No further questions . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll reserve at 17 this point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the 18 audience that wishes to say something on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 19 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to take a lunch recess, it' s 12 : 10 p.m. 21 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to reconvene . It' s 1 : 00 P .M. 23 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is 24 for the Bollmans on Truman' s Path. Mr. Bertani, would you like to fill us in on cutting back on 25 the roof, et cetera? MR. BERTANI : Yes . I took the plans and May 4 , 2005 57 1 2 we modified them by taking the west side of the house and moving it back three more feet, which 3 therefore, increased the side yard setback. We also lowered the ridge line of the house to a 4 , minimum of 27 feet . Also if you notice on the elevation, the way the house is set up on the last 5 page, you have quite a few different heights on the house itself . The only portion in the center 6 is 27 feet . We have other lower heights, so it' s only 15 feet in the very front of the house, then 7 it goes to 24 , the back goes to 10 feet, then to 18 , then up to 27 . So it' s quite a variation and 8 we moved it in from the sides . I met with Miss Gould as you requested, showed her the plan. She 9 said it was a good solution and we resubmitted it . Any questions? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any questions? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a quick comment . The new side yard setback 519" ? 12 MR. BERTANI : No. That was five, now we kicked back the top, so we added another three 13 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The setback is the 14 same -- MR. BERTANI : Just moved the second 15 floor. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The pre-existing is 16 the same . MR. BERTANI : We' re not going straight up 17 as we originally proposed. We moved the second floor back. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going right over the existing foundation? 19 MR. BERTANI : Yes . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the new 20 setback for the second floor? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 819"? 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Eight foot nine, minimum of 8 ' 911? 22 MR. BERTANI : It' s close to nine feet right now, inches . 23 MS . GOULD: My name is Jenny Gould. I thought John said it was going to go 24 back 3 . 5 feet, because I think it was like 100 square feet . If you take 29 times 3 . 5 isn' t that 25 about 100 square feet would be knocked off the second floor. In my mind it said, okay, it' s only May 4 , 2005 58 1 - 2 a variance now of . 5 feet, so and I and Jack, my husband, we were happier with that and also with 3 the varying roof lines that John talked about . It breaks up that block effect . Ideally I' d like it 4 back four feet to the line, but 3 . 5 is fine . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Actually the 5 setback figure we would need is it 819" or 9 ' 311 ? MR. BERTANI : We have two different 6 surveys . MS . GOULD : We have two different surveys . 7 It' s off by -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You said you were 8 going to get a new surveyor. MS . GOULD: I did. When I first came in I 9 was concerned because I thought the distance was only 5 . 5 feet, and the reason I thought that was 10 because on the Bollman survey it said that the fence post up front was . 2 feet west of the 11 property line, which meant in on my line . But when my surveyor went out, he said it was . 2 feet 12 east of the line, meaning that my fence is . 2 feet on the Bollman property. So he shows, if you go 13 to the bay side, I call it, a distance of 5 . 9 feet, where yours is only six, it' s only . 1 14 different . The rear measurement, the Bollman survey shows 5 . 9 and mine shows 5 . 7 . So I thought 15 that was a better way to say how we' re doing it . MR. BERTANI : So our survey is also new 16 and the monuments are there, so we don' t understand where they measured. 17 MS . GOULD: Yes . He said he measured from the monuments . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bertani, I think you have to confirm where the setbacks are, that' s 19 whatlwe' re going to have to go by. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Mr. Bertani 20 submitted his survey. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Not for the second 21 floor. The second floor is the part that we don' t have . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We don' t use the survey for the second floor. 23 MS . GOULD: This is the difference between US . The Bollmans are looking for a variance of . 6 24 and . 5, and I say by my survey that they would need a variance of . 8 and . 6 . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we' re splitting points now? May 4 , 2005 59 1 2 MS . GOULD: It' s to accomplish the same goal; do you know what I'm saying? If there' s a 3 different way you can say it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: His is based on his 4 submittal . MS . GOULD: It' s fine with me . It' s the 5 same thing. MR. BERTANI : So you want a clarification 6 for the second floor? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It just helps so 7 you don' t have to come back later. MS . GOULD: From my understanding it' s , 8 going to be 3 . 5 feet back, recessed and not including that roof overhang, that' s a 9 totally separate issue . We know there' s going to be a roof overhang. It' s not going to be 1 . 5 10 feet, it' s only going to be one foot, and if it could say, like John said, of not more than 27 11 feet to the highest point of the ridge, I took that right out of this new proposed code . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It gets so confusing, Jenny, if you don' t do that . John, 13 anything that you can depict for me that I can place in the decision on that roof line would be 14 greatly appreciated as this discussion that you' re having right now, because it becomes very 15 difficult when you' re sitting at home at night to do it and not have that very articulate plan. 16 MR. BERTANI : I think it shows that on the last one I submitted, the last page . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I unfortunately didn' t get that, I was away. 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You mean on the site map? 19 MR. BERTANI : No. I submitted another one on the elevation. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the height is 27 what, 27 even? 21 MR. BERTANI : Right . MS . GOULD: The only other thing I would 22 request is that the canvas shed be removed from the front yard, otherwise that needs a variance, 23 and they don' t want a variance for that, and I would prefer it wouldn' t be there . And the only 24 other thing, when I had an architect look at the initial plan for me she said, you better make sure 25 that this isn' t going to be an asphalt driveway because of little flicks he put on the survey, and May 4 , 2005 60 1 2 the reason she said that the Bollman' s property it ' s a sharp drop-off . And she said if it' s 3 impervious there will be incredible runoff and so it would be better if it' s pervious . That' s what 4 Bruce has told me before, but I would rather not have runoff because I have gardens down .there and 5 I would prefer there wouldn' t be a runoff problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It just makes sense to 6 put a pervious driveway in because you are near the water anyway. 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : At the conclusion of this there will be one dwelling on the property 8 and the other one will be an accessory garage? MS . GOULD: Right . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this application? If 10 not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) —----------------------------------------------- 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Hellenic, who wishes to put an addition on the 13 rear, if I 'm not mistaken. MR. GIANNARIS : My name is George 14 Giannaris, I 'm representing the Hellenic Restaurant, I'm actually representing John 15 Giannaris . I'm considered the project manager. The restaurant is actually situated 26 feet away 16 from the highway, and any changes that are being made on the sides are going to basically be a 17 front variance, that' s what I was told. So, when we built the restaurant, when we renovated the 18 restaurant 1983 , we hadn' t moved to the foundation. It was built right in the location of 19 the snack bar, so I'm asking for a variance so that we can accommodate the changes that we' re 20 requesting. The reason for the expansion is basically to allow for a better flow of customer 21 usage . Right now, the general spot where everyone comes in from is very, very, congested, and it 22 becomes very difficult for customers to wait for a table, to get take-out orders and for us to 23 accommodate them. Another issue is, for lack of a better term, is we don' t have such a warm spring 24 and not such a great fall and even in August, the weather does get kind of cool, and we have 25 mosquito and yellow jacket problems, and we would like to be able to enclose the existing patio with May 4 , 2005 61 1 2 sliders so people can sit outside without worrying about insects, and if it gets cool, we can close 3 the doors, stop the rain, things of that nature . That we' re making are actually just to better the 4 overall flow of the restaurant which has been there for a substantial amount of time . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going to keep the same ingress and egress, or are you going to 6 close the one by the east side of the restaurant, or are you still going to pull into the east side? 7 MR. GIANNARIS : No. We just received approval from the DOT. That' s going to be closed 8 because that' s a hazard. On the last survey you' ll see that it' s not curved, we' re going to 9 put plantings there . There' s going to be a two-way entrance on our property but adjacent to 10 the golf course . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The one that you have 11 now but make it wider and more visible to people . 12 1 MR. GIANNARIS : Because we lease the land next to us, we feel that the overflow of traffic 13 is still going to be on that parcel . So it makes the most sense and just general layout of the 14 restaurant is to have that east entrance there . So the handicapped parking will be close to that 15 east entrance and any overflow of parking, it would all be basically centered around that east 16 entrance . The reason why we want to expand to the right eight feet is to allow for a walkway and 17 also to allow for a better flow inside the restaurant, because what is now considered the 18 back room will be a waiting area, where people will sit down and wait for a table or place a 19 take-out order: CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where the bar is now 20 will be just a waiting area? MR. GIANNARIS : There will still be a bar 21 there, but our intention is we don' t want to have a bar crowd. ' We just want to have a place where 22 people can wait for a table, have a cocktail or sit down and have a quick bite or appetizer while 23 they' re waiting for a table . Our seating arrangement, the amount of seats we' re allowed has 24 already been approved by the Health Department . We' re not asking to increase our seating, we' re 25 just basically asking to allow for it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the proposed May 4 , 2005 62 1 2 addition to the north and west? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He' s only before us 3 for the front yard setback. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm just curious . 4 MR. GIANNARIS : North west? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Proposed building 5 addition? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The back. 6 MR. GIANNARIS : The back, I'm sorry. The northwest is basically going to be the room we 7 have in the back now, those seats are going to get bumped closer back, further back, and the kitchen 8 we need to accommodate . One of the big problems we have at the restaurant is the bathroom 9 facilities, they' re not conducive for my employees . So we' d like to make arrangements for 10 them for bathrooms in the back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just before us 11 for the front yard setback which really is pre-existing. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re covering a walkway? 13 MR. GIANNARIS : That' s going to be more aesthetic . If there' s an issue with that we 14 really don' t mind not doing that . If you look at the preliminary architectural design, it' s going 15 to create the atmosphere -- we' re basically going to keep the same style of the building. If people 16 are walking to the patio for seating, at least they will be under a canopy. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The last time .you were here before us, we were saving a house on the 18 property; wasn' t it saving the house? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The original one was to 19 give them permission to do cabins in the back. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You got rid of all 20 the cabins, and I thought you were going to save another house . 21 MR. GIANNARIS : The house is no longer there . 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe it' s reversed that was coming down, I don' t know. 23 MR. GIANNARIS : There was an old house that caught fire, and when we knocked down the 24 cottages that were there, we also eliminated that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But at this point in 25 time, you' re not thinking of doing any cottages? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: , It' s all parking May 4 , 2005 63 1 2 now. MR. GIANNARIS : No, if you .look at the 3 survey, we have allowed for a certain amount of asphalt parking so we can plow in the winter, but 4 we would like to keep the integrity of the property. We don' t want to turn it into a strip 5 mall kind of environment . So the remainder, we have changed our plan significantly, to French 6 drain so we can allow for grass parking with cells, I think it' s appealing, and I'm all for 7 that . I love Southold town. I don' t want to make it another Smithtown, not that there' s anything 8 wrong with that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The patio is going to 9 be enclosed? MR. GIANNARIS : Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Heated in the winter? MR. GIANNARIS : Yes, there' s a heating 11 element there that we turn on to take the chill off . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the walkway is going to be covered but not enclosed? 13 MR. GIANNARIS : Not enclosed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How many seats do you have there now? 15 MR. GIANNARIS : Indoor? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whatever you' re 16 approved for now. MR. GIANNARIS : By the Health Department 17 we' re approved for 260 seats seasonal, we have the septic system in place and that should be in our 18 file, but by the Building Department we' re approved for 71 seats inside, which is what we 19 have . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not including the 20 patio . How many more on the patio? MR. GIANNARIS : Right now on the patio 21 we' re about 100 seats . There' s about 75 under the canopy and 25 outside the canopy. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Enclosing the patio, how many more seats are you going to put on 23 the patio? MR. GIANNARIS : Approximately about 1, 000 24 square feet roughly when it' s enclosed, 33 by 30 , and that would be divided by 15, and that would be 25 what we' re allowed. I believe it' s 15 per square feet per seat is what the Building Department May 4 , 2005 64 1 2 allows, whatever they allow is what we' ll do . We' re not asking for more . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Those are permanent seats, right? 4 MR. GIANNARIS : Those are permanent seats . They' re not part of our seasonal seats which have 5 been approved. We' re allowed 60 seasonal seats as approved by the Department of Waste Water 6 Management . So, after .the building' s expanded, I believe we' ll have enough square footage to cover 7 200 seats . Throughout the total enclosed area of the restaurant, we should be allowed 200 seats . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have some more questions . I 'm looking at this and I 'm seeing a 9 lot of parking. Now, the parking that you have on this map, is this the parking that' s required by 10 the Town? MR. GIANNARIS : Yes . Actually, after we 11 allowed an easement for the golf course -- we' re supposed to have 84 stalls; we' re requesting 83 12 because that easement will take away one of the stalls . So, yes, that' s what needs to be . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what is this solid line that comes through the middle of it? 14 MR. GIANNARIS : The solid line represents the asphalt paving, behind that will be grass . 15 We' d like to do some kind of grass with cells to sustain it, otherwise it will wash away. The 16 reason we don' t want the whole area to be asphalt is because we' d like to retain some of that 17 natural environment . Plus, the asphalt' s only really useful because of plowing. So we figured 18 that' s how many parking spaces we need for the winter and the rest could be for the summer. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And I guess the entire building, is it still going to be the same 20 layout where you have the counter front? It' s not going to be a huge building? 21 MR. GIANNARIS : No. The actual grill area, which we call the grill, and then behind 22 that is the kitchen. The grill area is going to remain exactly the same, except obviously more 23 aesthetically pleasing, and the kitchen area is what gets expanded. If you look at the plans we 24 have a bathroom for our employees, a liquor room, a back office, plus a little bit larger prep 25 area. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then how many more May 4 , 2005 65 1 2 seats go into the closed building addition? MR. GIANNARIS : I think only 20 more 3 according to the square footage calculation. There will be approximately 100 inside give or 4 take a couple of seats, then approximately 100 outside depending on the square footage we have . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Basically you' re adding 20 seats to the square footage? 6 MR. GIANNARIS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that' s all 7 I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to know for the record what the proposed addition in 9 actual square footage is; do you know? MR. GIANNARIS : I have written it down. I 10 believe the actual addition that' s going with the new foundation is somewhere in the area of 11 about -- I' d like to say I think 2 , 700 square feet, but I don' t have it in front of me . 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: One more quick question since I'm writing this decision. The 13 other part of the variance, I'm guessing is the other part that' s less than 100 feet from the 14 road, the entranceway, you' re elongating it? MR. GIANNARIS : Towards the east? 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes, the northeast corner, next to the entranceway? 16 MR. GIANNARIS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What' s in there or 17 is that just a bigger waiting area? MR. GIANNARIS : That' s going to allow for 18 a larger waiting area. That is going to be the main entrance, and as people come in if we leave 19 it that narrow, it becomes a very awkward room. We need to expand that a little more . We have 20 actually done that according to the calculations by the surveyor so we don' t need a side variance . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the front walk, does that lead to a door? 22 MR. GIANNARIS : Yes . It actually leads to the patio and then another entrance that leads to 23 the dining room. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: From the patio? 24 MR. GIANNARIS : From the patio, yes BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for your presentation. May 4 , 2005 66 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody that wishes to speak to this presentation? 3 MS . EGAN: Good afternoon, Members . I can' t say enough good things about the Hellenic .. 4 They have been wonderful to me and my family since it first opened. I've been out here since 1959 , 5 and then in my home here permanently since 1987, but I hope you will give them any consideration 6 because they are a family, and when a family runs a restaurant, it' s entirely different than having 7 strangers come in. So they' re not only taking care of their restaurant, they' re taking care of 8 their family and that' s what Southold needs . Thank you very much. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mrs . Egan. I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 10 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next is for a 12 resolution. This is on Kanaras, we are opening up the hearing in case someone is here today to speak 13 on this application. If not, I' ll make a motion to adjourn it to July 7th at 1 : 00 p.m. 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is Witschiebein. 16 MS . RIVERA: I'm here on behalf of Janet Larsen and Carol Witschiebein on the application 17 before you for a side yard setback for a Sound Beach Drive residence for the benefit of Mr. Simon 18 who was not here previously for the various proposals that were here before this Board, I' d 19 like to remind the Board that this is going to be the fifth revised plan, and we have had three 20 architects and many of thousands of dollars later for what I hope to be the final plan for you. 21 The original proposal, as some of you may remember, was for a 78 foot extension to the east 22 of this residence with a three foot yard setback. The current plan is reduced almost 50 percent and 23 we' re asking for a 42 foot extension with only a 9 . 7 foot setback and nine foot . So we are only 24 asking for two additional feet of a setback out of the original footprint of the house . We currently 25 have 11 feet now and the new structure will be at 1 . 9 foot setback then 9 . 7 . May 4 , 2005 67 1 2 I'm sure you' re aware that the current setback regulations is combined setback of 39 feet 3 and we will be between 34 . 9 and 35 and-a-half foot combined side yard setback on this property. We 4 completely have redone the front yard foyer entrance, we' re pulling out the foyer and putting 5 a carport instead of a garage as was on the original proposal . We don' t need a variance for 6 that, but we have eliminated the need for a garage by putting a carport in the front yard. We 7 changed the roof line from an original gable to a hip to minimize the overall structure height . We 8 would also like to remind the Board that the majority of homes on Sound Beach Drive have 10 9 foot or less side yard setback on one because most of them were on 50 foot lots . And there are many, 10 many homes there now that are two-story structures as this will -be, and the home to the east and west 11 of the Larsen home are both two-story structures . So really the neighborhood characteristics will 12 not change at all with this structure . The Larsens and Witschiebeins are intending to retire 13 out here within the next few years; so we have been trying to be sensitive to their future living 14 needs as well as the need for handicapped living, since Miss Larsen is physically impaired at the 15 present time, and we so we have tried to accommodate for the need for possibly a 16 wheelchair, chairlift, et cetera on the new addition. 17 I would like to ask, Miss Witschiebein is here, if she' s has anything to say to the Board, 18 or if you have any questions to ask of me, I' ll be happy to answer them for you. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, this plan is 20 very nice . It' s very palatable and I support it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My understanding is that the side yard setback is 15 feet there . 23 MS . RIVERA: Yes . It' s a minimum of 15 . We currently have 11 now. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have 11 but 10 or 12 foot running along that property. 25 MS . RIVERA: It varies, 11 to 11 . 7 or something. May 4 , 2005 68 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As far as the actual existing setback. 3 MS . RIVERA: Is about 11 feet now. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . But how 4 long does it run along this property? MS . RIVERA: About 37, 38 feet right now. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Are you adding another 42 feet to that? 6 MS . RIVERA: No . The total will be 42 feet . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Another 12 feet in addition to what you have? 8 MS . RIVERA: Not quite . It' s adding about five to six feet more . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You' re going up two stories? 10 MS . RIVERA: Yes . On part of the structure, not the entire structure to the west . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is ,a stairway. MS . RIVERA: That' s going to be removed. 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s going to be removed? 13 MS . RIVERA: Yes, it goes to a deck right now. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know we were aware we have had a hearing on this, but you did 15 have a reason for not being able to put it in another place . 16 MS . RIVERA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You ought to put it 17 on the record. MS . RIVERA: Yes . To the west where we 18 have a 25 foot setback right now, I think the Board asked why we couldn' t do it over there 19 originally, and right now that is a bedroom to the west, and if we were to put an entrance and 20 stairway to that we' d have to go through a bedroom, through a hallway, through a kitchen in 21 order to get to the living part of the house . Also the septic system and the water lines come 22 into the westerly side of the property right now. The septic system is to the west . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My understanding now, I have seen the house, it' s a bungalow kind 24 of a house MS . RIVERA: Yes, as most of them are 25 there . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . It' s a nice May 4 , 2005 69 1 2 neighborhood. And you' re going to go to a two story on that side? 3 MS . RIVERA: Yes . And it' s going to come towards the existing front entrance, we' re going 4 to pull that out, take the front door out, take the granite steps out, add an additional foyer so 5 we can move the stairway into that area that exists now, so we don' t have to take up the 6 stairway to the easterly portion of the new extension that we' re building. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The reason you need - to go more nonconforming, is there a reason you 8 can' t stay with that line? MS . RIVERA: By the time you put the 9 furniture in, as I said, right now it' s about 11 feet wide . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The room that you' re going to create? 11 MS . RIVERA: The room there now, it' s approximately 11 feet wide, and also depending on 12 the DEC, whether or not we have to elevate that . If we have to elevate that it will be at least 13 three steps . So the three steps will have to be taken inside the current living space now, and it 14 really is determined whether the Building Department requests that we go up depending on the 15 formula of the 50 percent rule, et cetera. Right now you see on the plan we have the foyer, the 16 entrance is elevated right now because that is going to be new space, but it really depends on 17 the determination of the Building Department whether or not they send us to the DEC to elevate 18 that space or not . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you elevate it, 19 that means more height on that side also? MS . RIVERA: We' ll just have to lower the 20 roofline . Right now we' re at 11 something and the bottom of the floor joists have to be at 13 . 6, 21 because we' re in a VE 13 zone . We would bring the steps inside the current -- I would call for lack 22 of better word right now it' s foyer -- den, and we' d have to bring the three steps into that space 23 and elevate the other space by approximately two feet . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The outside of the house, to the ridge, you would have to elevate 25 that? MS . RIVERA: Not by much. We would reduce May 4 , 2005 70 1 2 the hip of the structure if we had to . We would still go to the mean of 35 at the ridge . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re aware that they' re going to change that law? 4 MS . RIVERA: I don' t know when. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want you to 5 know that . MS . RIVERA: Do you know when that' s going 6 into effect? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They' re having the 7 hearing on the loth. MS . RIVERA: Is it 32 to the ridge? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You should read the law. 9 MS . RIVERA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any 10 questions of Chris? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Not at this time . 11 MS . WITSCHIEBEIN: Good afternoon, I'm Carol Witschiebein. I'm very glad to be here and 12 see some of you this afternoon. I ' d just like to put in some comments . As you may or may not know 13 my family have been long time residents out here dating back to my grandfather, who were the civil 14 engineers since the last century and dredged the modern day Greenport harbor and the Mattituck 15 inlet . From that point on my grandparents and my parents have been out here . My parents retired 16 here . My sister and I grew up here . Her kids grew up here . Now her son is living out here and 17 my sister and I, with the love that we have for this area, really want to retire out here and make 18 this our home . This has been a very frustrating process 19 for us in trying to get a design together that will fit everyone' s needs . It' s been very 20 frustrating, upsetting in the sense that we have also had to put our retirement plans on hold 21 because we can' t begin the construction. So that' s kind of been the burden and the financial 22 burden of redoing all the plans and so on. So it' s been very, very stressful to us . I just 23 thought that you should know that . We are hopeful that you will approve this 24 present plan. We have tried very, very hard to' improve so it is comfortable for us as a family to 25 continue, hopefully have more grandchildren here and live here as well . But also for my sister who May 4 , 2005 71 1 2 does have some problems that they expect to get worse as she gets older. One gentleman commented 3 about the width of the room to the side that we are asking for the little additional two feet . 4 One of the reasons is it' s a very narrow and very small room as it exists now. If we put furniture 5 in, if we have a wheelchair, if we need to put a bath on that side of the house, there' s no space 6 for it . So that is a concern. If we have to raise the house and put a couple steps in there, 7 that' s going to leave no space at all, and if that happens it' s going to be a very, very difficult 8 situation for us at all, so that is a concern. I think you have mentioned your concern about the 9 height of the house . We were certainly trying to minimize that as much as possible so it will be a 10 very lovely and architecturally pleasing design. We want that, we want it for the neighborhood and 11 we want it for ourselves . I certainly wouldn' t want to live in a house that looked like a 12 monstrosity. So I think this plan really does accommodate a lot of what we are trying to 13 accomplish. So I do ask the Board to seriously 14 consider this and approve it so we can move on with our lives out here . Thank you. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak on this? Chris, 16 anything more? MS . RIVERA: No. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other Board members? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to stress about the height of that house, I do 19 have no objection to the height, but I do see you' re going to run into trouble with that law. 20 They' re not talking about mean anymore . MS . RIVERA: What are they talking about? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They' re talking about the ridge . Depending on the size of your 22 lot, about how wide it is, they're talking about that also . That comes up on the loth, 30 days 23 from the loth it could be law. MS . RIVERA: Right now we' re 32 to the 24 ridge right now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But your front yard -- 25 MS . RIVERA: My setback will be at 55 with the carport . May 4 , 2005 72 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The width of your front is? 3 MS . RIVERA: 100 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 100 feet . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You should look at that law, honestly, I think you would benefit from 5 knowing exactly what' s going to be up on the 10th. It' s not just that . Ruth knows well . You guys 6 did it, right . It' s all coming before us . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He' s correct . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s going to render our decision useless . 8 MS . RIVERA: Can you advise me what it is? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to read 9 the law. MS . RIVERA: Is it published anywhere yet? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It should be in this week' s paper. 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Based on the width of the property, it restricts how high you can 12 build. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : For an example, 13 you' re 10 feet and you have 100 foot width lot, you can build that house 15 feet high. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. ) 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . Read the law. It' s probably posted right out there . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you can get a copy here . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to close the hearing, reserve decision until later. 18 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Cacioppo, and I believe Mr. Fitzgerald is 20 representing them on Inlet Way in Southold. MR. FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon, Jim. MR. FITZGERALD : Since we submitted this 22 application, the Trustees had it and they are displeased. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why? MR. FITZGERALD : With the court of the 24 proposed addition being too close to the wetlands on the east side of the house . So Mrs . Cacioppo, 25 who is . a designer of buildings, drew a new, smaller, they wanted it eight feet further from May 4 , 2005 73 1 2 the wetlands, so this is eight feet further from the wetlands, essentially the same but it' s set 3 back further from the front property -line so that now there' s a -- 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 20 foot front yard setback. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you determine the lot coverage for us? 6 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . It' s more than 20 percent . I'm embarrassed to say I can' t tell you 7 the exact number because I couldn' t find my calculator. 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Did you say more than 20 percent? 9 MR. FITZGERALD: More than 20 percent . How much more exactly I can' t tell you, 20 10 percent . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Big lot . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it' s not . The building envelope is extremely small . It' s down 12 in Cedar Beach and it' s all dredged canals . MR. FITZGERALD: 20 percent of the lot 13 size would be 4, 099 square feet . And this proposed addition, the one that I have just given 14 you adds up to, with the existing structure, to 4 , 345 square feet . And I don' t know what the 15 arithmetic means . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You know what that 16 means procedural, right? MR. FITZGERALD: I think what you' re 17 alluding to is that the disapproval does not mention the coverage, so we' ll have to get that 18 straightened out . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What are the numbers 19 again, the square feet and the lot size? MR. FITZGERALD: The lot size is 20, 499, 20 say 20 , 500 . Twenty percent of that is say 4 , 100 and we have 4 , 345 . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to have to have the notice of disapproval fixed. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have to readvertise it, yow' ll have to renotice it, and 23 we' d have to adjourn it to another session after today' s meeting. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: Now I guess I can go home . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does this have wetlands on the property? May 4 , 2005 74 1 2 MR. FITZGERALD': Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I wonder if you 3 have to take that out of the calculation. MR. FITZGERALD: It' s not included in 4 that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I thought you said 5 the lot size was a certain -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That includes -- MR. FITZGERALD: They' re not wetlands in 7 the sense that I think you mean. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s buildable 8 land, then they take the yield of the land, they take out the wetlands . If there' s anything that 9 meets that criteria, you' ll probably have to take that out also. 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s only for subdivisions . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I don' t want you to have to come back again because of eel 12 grass or something. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s phragmites . I ' d 13 like to make a motion to adjourn this to July 7th. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: 21 . 6 percent 14 coverage . (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: July 7th at 1 :40 . ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is George Kofinas on East Road in Cutchogue . 17 MS . MOORE : This is an existing house . Certainly from the site plan you see that most of 18 this property is all waterfront property. So all the additions or at least the one that you' re 19 reviewing is on the landward side . The only portion of this whole addition that is not in 20 conformity is 38 square feet that is the corner of the proposed addition. Obviously because the 21 house is on an angle and we have straight lines, it just encroaches that amount . I have Craig Arm, 22 who' s the design professional on this, and if you have any questions, he' s here as well, and I ' ll 23 wait to answer any questions that you might have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I went to visit this, it was enjoyable to come down someplace else 25 where you' re not allowed to go but you can if you' re Zoning Board. You cut a line through May 4 , 2005 75 1 2 there, there' s only a small portion that' s not conforming. It' s a beautiful house now, I guess 3 you can only improve it . I have no other questions . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question about the neighboring property, which is 5 undeveloped at this point . It' s a chain link fence on the north side . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the north? MS . MOORE : Where our fence is, the in and 7 the out? Yes, I've actually been in touch with the Linns, a very nice family, they took title 8 from their parents . I think there' s four kids and I have been talking to them. They were asking us 9 about the access down to the water and we were dealing with those issues, and there were no 10 problems . They had no opposition to this application whatsoever. And I pointed out that my 11 observations that the Kofinas fence because of the topography of the property, if you look at it, you 12 can' t tell it' s not a straight line because the way it' s vegetated. It kind of cuts in and was 13 probably just following topography by the fence installer, so it cuts into the property then cuts 14 out of the property and Mr. Linn, and I laughed and said it' s a wash. So we' re actually 15 discussing getting a no claim of right letter between the two owners so there' s no problems in 16 the future if for some reason the families are no longer there . Everyone' s in agreement there . I 17 think it benefits both sides . They've encroached on them and we' re ready to correct that, and we've 18 lost some of our property by the encroachment back into ours . So it creates a title issue that any 19 title company will raise . It really has nothing to do with this application, but it' s already been 20 observed and dealt with. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It happens that the 21 point where the proposed addition will come closest to the property line is where the chain 22 link fence and the property line are close to together. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 . 3 feet? MS . MOORE : Yes . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The northern lot is a fairly large lot, and what the Kofinases are 25 calling their side yard, which is on the long side of the house, is coming 10 feet from the very edge May 4 , 2005 76 1 2 of the property. If that were called a front yard or rear yard it would be out of the question. In 3 other words, this exists only because they' re claiming that the front yard is the house, the 4 side that' s on the right of way. MS . MOORE : It' s a flag lot so by code 5 it' s defined as where the front yard and the house was originally built, it was built right on close 6 to the bluff . We have a situation where you don' t want to expand a house towards the water side, the 7 only logical place is on the landward side . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Or to the east or 8 west . MS . MOORE : Keep in mind to the east we 9 have a pool, and to the west you have a front yard. So we' d be getting a variance if we pushed 10 into the front . The house is already there . The addition is actually a match to the existing 11 conditions of the house, so that where the kitchen is will be where the family room addition is 12 going, and in the front where the entrance is there will be a bedroom for their parents, on the 13 first floor everything handicapped accessible for their older parents . So the addition works . As a 14 design professional, he' s got to try to limit the impact on the existing house . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The existing house is 34 feet . 16 MS . MOORE : It' s a box, right . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The addition is how 17 much? MR. ARM: Roughly 18 feet . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have much room to work with. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don' t have much room to work with, you have an extension on an 20 already good-sized house . MS . MOORE : We have a floor plan showing 21 the existing house with the only addition being a family room and a guest suite, the first floor 22 bedroom. When you look at this, let me bring it up . We' ll bring over additional copies . We 23 didn' t know you were going to want this . This is the existing house right now, right here the 24 addition is attaching to the family room, here' s the kitchen, so the family room will open into the 25 kitchen, and this is the existing entrance and foyers and so on, the guest bedroom is here . So May 4 , 2005 77 1 ' 2 you can see that the rooms are reasonable size rooms but not excessively so . 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What is the second floor? 4 MS . MOORE : Bedroom suite . MR. ARM: Actually three bedroom suites . 5 I think their main goal is the first floor for when their parents come to stay, and the second 6 floor is for their son and his children also. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Do you have any 7 written correspondence with the neighbors, the Linns? 8 MS . MOORE : Actually the only thing I have is where we were dealing with respect to right of 9 way and getting the encroachment, I just got it yesterday. You haven' t gotten the opposition and 10 I sent letters out to all the neighbors . They were notified, and they called me, and I explained 11 what we were doing, and they said we have no problems with it . Our only question was a 12 retaining wall that the prior owners, not the Kofinas, had put along the right of way so they 13 didn' t want to have that further encroached or changed. I said, no, absolutely, we' ll get 14 clarification on that . We' re working that out . The addition itself they had no problem with. As 15 you remember everything is very vegetated, neither side can see the other. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s because there' s nothing on the other property. There' s no 17 habitable house there . MS . MOORE : Yes, there is . There' s houses 18 all around. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Talking about this 19 area. MS . MOORE : It' s so vegetated. It' s the 20 privacy. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That line is their 21 rear yard, you' re talking about at least 40 feet that they can build. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Rear yard plus side yard. 23 MS . MOORE : There' s only one house to the north of us, that' s Linn. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was closer to the road. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Build one? MS . MOORE : No, that' s there . May 4 , 2005 78 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think Michael was getting at he thought that was a side yard that 3 you could have potentially two houses 20 feet apart . It' s not so because the house that' s on 4 that lot, that' s their rear yard. MS . MOORE : Correct . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to say, 6 if you could just give me a calculation on how many square foot is all actually over that line? 7 MS . MOORE : We have that there, 38 square feet . 8 MR. ARM: On each floor. MS . MOORE : That' s the only encroachment . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like you' ll gain a little more if you look at that 10 fence . MS . MOORE : Really the fence belongs on 11 the property line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The fence is 12 actually straight . MS . MOORE : Visually it is straight, the 13 angles of the property line . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it indicates 14 they don' t have much interest in that edge of their property anyway? 15 MS . MOORE : Correct . Their concern, as I stated on the record, was their access to the 16 water is through the right of way. As you can see there' s a set of stairs to the beach; do you see 17 it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which right of way 18 do they have? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The one on the west? 19 MS . MOORE : Yes . The one on the west on the right side, there' s a pedestrian right of way 20 for access to the beach and the neighbor has his stairway going down. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s to the east? MS . MOORE : Yes, to the east . And that' s 22 the only thing we have been dealing with with the neighbors . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did we request anything from Mrs . Moore? 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Copy of the floor plan, seven copies . 25 MR. ARM: I can get them to you within the hour. May 4 , 2005 79 1 2 MS . MOORE : Just in case, keep in mind that because there is a pool here, the whole 3 property is fenced in and we' re keeping that because, in fact, that' s why the fence we' re not 4 doing anything with it because it' s meeting code . The pool when it was originally built in the 180s, 5 the permit that was issued, the fence is actually compliant with the pool permit . So don' t start 6 fiddling with that because we' re going •to be in trouble . That' s why we' re working it out through 7 common agreement with the neighbor. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the fence 8 automatically closes? MS . MOORE : It met the code in ' 85 , if it 9 needs a different latch today, I don' t know. MR. ARM: They' ll make us address that 10 when we get the building permit . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No further questions . 11 Nobody else in the audience, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 12 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 4 , 2005 80 1 2 3 4 5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 6 7 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 8 State of New York, do hereby certify: 9 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 10 the testimony given. 11 I further certify that I am not related by 12 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 13 action; and 14 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 15 of this matter. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 17 hand this 4th day of May, 2005 . 18 19 20 21 LIZ�` Florence V. Wiles 22 23 24 25 May 4 , 2005