HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/07/2005 HEARING 1 .
" 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 -----------------------------------------=--X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6 .
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
July 7, 2005
12 9 : 30 a .m.
13
14 Board Members .Present
15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
16 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman
17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
21 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
22
23
2 5 - SEP 8 2005
®Pd4Zlrs 504pD 6F APPEALS
COURT REPORTING• AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to call to
order our regular meeting of the Zoning Board of
3 Appeals of July 7, 2005 . Our first hearing is for
Boccios up on Plum Island Lane in Orient . They
4 wish to make an accessory apartment for their
in-laws I believe . Would someone like to address
5 this application?
MS . BOCCIO: Jennifer Boccio . We' d like
6 to make an accessory apartment for my .
mother-in-law at our current residence . We have a
7 garage structure that we want to renovate into an
apartment for my mom.
8 1 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that renovated now?
It looked to me that you had a window, and just a
9 door in it and not a garage door.
MS . BOCCIO: We began some renovation work
10 on it . It initially started out as an office
space, then when mom decided to come and live with
11 us, we kind of changed our plans and thought this
would be a better utilization of the space itself .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, have any
questions?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
objections . The only concern in all these cases
14 is the backing out on the road. I realize the
road is not a terribly busy road, but one of my
15 main concerns is I realize this is an accessory
apartment and not a bed and breakfast use, and I
16 don' t know if your mother drives or not but
depending on the amount of cars we would expect
17 you provide some parking that would not require
the backing out of all cars at all times .
18 MS . BOCCIO: The existing space is like
that . When I purchased the property that space
19 was built as a workshop. The original owner had
an ironworks company in there, and he would bring
20 in pretty big trucks . The overall acreage is just
under an acre there' s actually a pretty wide
21 parking area . We also have a barn in the back so
periodically we have feed deliveries . So there' s
22 actually quite a bit of space on that side .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I just wanted to go
24 over the numbers with you because there are
requirements of code with certain square footage .
25 It says total house is 1, 458 square feet .
MS . BOCCIO: That' s my estimate .
July 7, 2005
3
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is that including
the apartment or without?
3 MS . BOCCIO: That' s the existing house,
without the apartment .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the apartment
is 744 square feet?
5 MS . BOCCIO : Right . That' s adequate?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Actually, I forget
6 the numbers off the top of my head, but .I know
there' s a specific code requirement . Do you know
7 the code requirement?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It has to be over
8 450 and over 40 percent of the total area.
MS . BOCCIO: I also have these returns
9 signed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you give those to
10 Linda, please?
MS . BOCCIO : Sure (handing) .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Because it looks
like you have 50 percent of your total -then. 744
12 is about --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One-third.
13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' d add it .
It' s about one-third. About 2 , 250 total if you
14 add the two up.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You add the two up,
15 it can' t be more than 40 percent . No other
questions .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long ago was this
17 garage built?
MS . BOCCIO : The permit dates from ' 98 .
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a building
permit from 2004 .
19 MS . BOCCIO: That' s my permit .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the permit for
20 doing what you' re doing now.
MS . BOCCIO: The interior work. The
21 exterior work was built in ' 98 , and was used as an
ironworks workshop and storage area by the
22 previous owners . I purchased the property in
September of ' 99 , and that structure was already
23 built . So what we just want to do is basically
renovate and remodel the interior.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it currently used
as a garage?
25 MS . BOCCIO: It had been. We' re
constructing it, yes .
July 7, 2005
4
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish
to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a
4 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ---- --------------------------------- -----------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
Caracciolo on Mill Lane in Mattituck. That' s that
7 nice old house there, yes . .
MR. CARACCIOLO: Good morning, my name is
8 Lou Caracciolo .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re opposite those
9 big houses with the five acre lots . Yours is a
rather old house, I take it?
10 MR. CARACCIOLO : Our home is 1906 . We
propose to put a one-story addition on the north
11 side of the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the old
Sidor house, correct?
13 MR. CARACCIOLO: Yes, Ruland originally
and then John Sidor.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
objection to this at all .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The line of birch
16 trees on I guess that' s the north side of your
property, is that your property line?
17 MR. CARACCIOLO: Well, we own the nursery
next to it as well . The property line I think
18 extends about 30 to 40 feet past where those birch
trees are .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It looks like the
traditional property line . The survey shows 85
20 foot side yard setback from that addition. The
birch trees are much closer than that . I just
21 want to make sure your survey is adequate .
MR. CARACCIOLO : I believe off the house
22 it' s 90 feet, I have to look at the survey again.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the
23 survey if the birch trees are your property line
then --
24 MR. CARACCIOLO : They' re not . The
property line actually extends out into the
25 nursery.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
July 7, 2005
5
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Since the birch trees
are there, was the property line at one point
3 where the birch trees are now?
MR. CARACCIOLO: When we purchased the
4 property, what we did was subdivide out the
building lot from --
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The nursery?
MR. CARACCIOLO : I believe so. I' d have
6 to look back. I'm not sure if that property when
we purchased it had one tax map number or two . I
7 believe what we did was separate out the building
envelope for 'the house, and then we preserved the
8 rest of the farm. So, originally I don' t think
there was a property line .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further
questions .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak to this application?
12 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
--- ------------------------------------------- ---
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Pologeorgis on Soundview Avenue in Southold. Good
15 morning, Pat .
MS . MOORE : Mr. Pologeorgis is here and
16 we' re here to answer any questions you might
have . This is an existing residence that they
17 just want to add a garage addition. I 've given
you the elevations . It' s a one-car garage onto an
18 existing house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have taken the
19 porch off, right?
MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s going in the area
20 where the porch is presently. I ' ll point out for
the record, I'm sure you have it already, the
21 adjacent property to the east had obtained a
variance also to build their house at seven feet
22 from the property line . So there' s a recognition
here that these properties are non-conforming and
23 they create a situation where many times you do
have to come in for a variance .
24 The acreage, if you exclude the beach
areas you would meet the non-conforming lot size
25 requirement with the 10 and 15 foot side yard
setback. Most of these properties run to the high
July 7, 2005
6
1
2 water mark, so it gives you a lot of extra land
but without the actual usage of the land. So many
3 times they' re before this Board for a variance
because they can' t meet the code requirements .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just wondered
6 looking at the property, as you say, the property
to the east has a very narrow setback, and that ' s
7 where they want to build their addition; is there
a good reason why it couldn' t be on the west side
8 of the house where there' s more room?
MS . MOORE : I think either way it would be
9 impacting, the property' s almost ,identical . The
property owner from the west side is about seven
10 feet also from the property line . So you would
impact both properties, either adjacent property
11 owner, equally._ With respect to the design of the
house, the kitchen is on that side and the
12 entrance porch it makes more sense as far as the
functioning of the house to have the garage come
13 in from the east side . Also where the driveway
is, just the layout of the house it works better
14 for the homeowner to have the garage on the east
side. It' s an equal impact on the adjacent
15 owner.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As it would be with
16 the addition, there would be a very close distance
between those two houses because it' s close to the
17 property line and then a much larger distance on
the other side . From an overall aesthetic point
18 of view, it looks as though those two houses were
built cheek by jowl, with much more space on the
19 west side of the two houses .
MS . MOORE: The way they were originally
20 positioned, this particular house has an
interesting history. It actually was closer to
21 the water, and in the 180s it was picked up and
moved toward the road. So these houses have been
22 reconfigured over time just as the way the beach
front community has developed. These houses have
23 withstood many northeasters . A lot of them have
been built in the 1930s and renovated thereafter.
24 So just from the look of the community, you can
see that they' re pretty sturdy. They were well
25 built at the time . This was renovated in 2000 by
the prior owner. It' s a very new construction.
July 7 , 2005
7
1
2 We hope it will withstand as well as the old
construction did.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is it a single car
4 garage?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : A wide single car
garage?
6 MS . MOORE : 15 feet, that' s kind of
normal, most of them are 20 by 24 , something like
7 that .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Single car garage
8 door is maybe eight foot, nine foot .
MS . MOORE : It' s their only source of
9 storage also, keep in mind there is no other
storage space on this property.
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Logistically and
also topography on the west side there' s about a
11 three to four foot topography grade change, and
the showers over there . I saw that I thought it
12 was maybe the lesser of two evils . So this is
storage above it or just one-car garage, nothing
13 above it?
MS . MOORE : One-car garage, I don' t think
14 originally we had thought maybe a second story
space, but I don' t think that' s -- that ' s not the
15 plan right now.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other
16 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let us know what
the height is .
18 MS . MOORE : There' s a drawing in your
file, it was 15 by 15 .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wishes to speak on this application?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
mention one other thing, Miss Moore, as you know
21 with all these waterfront lots, my concern and I
can' t say the Board' s concern, my concern is' the
22 development of the other side yard.
MS . MOORE : The westerly side yard?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, mainly for
access purposes . As you know, there' s multi
24 topographical situations that are involved. So
even though you have 10 ' 6" still left on that
25 side; is that correct?
MS . MOORE: 10' 5" is after the garage,
July 7 , 2005
8
1
2 that' s what' s left and on the other side is 18 . 9 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Less whatever
3 other?
MS . MOORE : Yes, the porch and shower.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm going to
propose to the Board that the other side yard
5 remain open in the granting of this application.
MS . MOORE : That' s not a problem, but keep
6 in mind that anything we do on that side, would
require a variance from this Board anyway. So you
7 would have an opportunity to review it, so you
don' t really need to say that because we' d be
8 before this Board.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, that does
9 happen. But there are times when it may not
happen.
10 MS . MOORE : Okay. Any problem with
keeping the westerly side open? Okay.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MS . MOORE : Thank you. Any other
12 questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . Does anybody else
13 wish to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
14 deci-lion until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
15 --------------------------------------- ------ - - --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Robert
16 and Celia Swing on Island View Lane in Greenport
who wish to enclose their deck. Good morning.
17 MR. SWING: Good morning, my name is
Robert Swing, and I'm here with Glen Chernis who
18 is the builder who we propose to do the work. My
wife and I have owned this property for 34 years .
19 Two years ago we made an application before this
Board for a variance to do a major project which
20 we received approval for. We didn' t go ahead with
that . At this time we' re asking to have the Board
21 approve an application to screen in our porch.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: With a roof?
22 MR. SWING: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, I
saw the site . It' s a screened-in porch, obviously
24 not heated?
MR. SWING: Right .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I noted that even
July 7 , 2005
9
1
2 with the screened-in porch it still would conform
to the setbacks of the other properties, which
3 already have built out their houses, so I don' t
see a problem.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
who would like to speak on this application? If
7 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
8 (See minutes for resolution. )
BOARD MEMBER) DINIZIO : Would it be
9 possible for us to vote on this, I ' d write the
decision? It' s very simple .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t mind, are you
all agreeable?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would make a
12 motion that we grant it as applied.
(See minutes for resolution. )
13 --------------------------------------- ------- ---
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
14 Sawicki on Marratooka Lane in Mattituck with three
front yards . What do you have it to tell us?
15 MR. GOGGINS : Good morning, on behalf of
Edward and Beatrice Sawicki . Mrs . Sawicki has
16 aged on in years and she is now in a wheelchair
due to diabetes and other problems she has . Being
17 in a wheelchair it' s very difficult to get her
into a bathroom. They want to put an addition
18 onto the house big enough to put a handicapped
bathroom in. So it' s big enough to get the
19 wheelchair in and have the railings and have her
accessible to the toilet and the sink and the
20 shower. So they would like ;to put this addition
on, they would put. in a rear yard where it' s not
21 facing any of the three roads they' re up against .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s only 96 square
22 feet?
MR. GOGGINS : Correct, very small just big
23 enough for a handicapped bathroom. They' re both
retired. They don' t work. They don' t have an
24 income . They have had this house for a long time
and they can' t go elsewhere, anywhere they would
25 go, they' d have to put in a handicap bathroom
anyway.
July 7, 2005
10
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
3 objections to this, and I ask the Board if they
will vote on this after the presentation.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a single
5 story house with a single story handicapped
bathroom?
6 MR. GOGGINS : Yes, it' s a three bedroom
ranch.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very well screened too
I might add. Michael?
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have a
problem. This is a case where but for this
9 bizarre circumstance where houses had to have
three front yards, this would not be a problem at
10 all, right? Otherwise it would be a side yard?
MR. GOGGINS : Yes, which would be well
11 within the limits .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I agree with Jerry.
It' s my application. I would like to make a
13 motion that we grant it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, Jim,
14 I thought it , was mine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who' s making the
15 motion?
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 - -- --- ------------------------------------- ------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
17 Daysman and Morris at 245 Brown Street, Greenport .
MS . DOTY: Good morning, Deborah Doty, I
18 represent Daysman and Mr. Morris is with me today.
I have an affidavit of posting here for the Board
19 (handing) . Mr. Orlando is correct, we've seen
this before only in a different version. We were
20 here in January or February or March, I don' t
remember when, requesting a waiver of merger.
21 Apparently the Board found that this lot was not
eligible for a waiver. I'm not going to go down
22 that route but anyway, we' re here today to
essentially correct something that was done, it
23 somehow wasn' t done apparently in 1979 and
1989 . The application is to quote/unquote
24 undivide two parcels, which my clients understood
were two parcels . I think the Zoning Board
25 understood were two parcels, the Planning Board
understood were two parcels, the Health Department
July 7, 2005
11
1
2 understands it' s two parcels, and, in fact, the
subject parcel is on their exempt list from 1981,
3 and the taxing authorities also felt were two
parcels . But somehow it would appear that the lot
4 was omitted during the applications of 1979 and
1989 . The Board and Mr. Morse in 1979 clearly
5 from the transcript were talking about the four
lots on Linnet Street and not the Brown Street
6 lot . The application said the Brown Street lot
was to the south of the four lots on Linnet
7 Street . Mr. Morris at that time thought it was a
separate lot, always intended the Brown Street lot
8 be a separate lot because he could build on it .
The Planning Board didn' t include it in its
9 determination of a lot line change . Parcels to
the north on Linnet Street have now been
10 transferred, no longer owned by the Morrises and
they are left with the Brown Street lot, which in
11 my mind is a separate lot, but I don' t count . So
we' ve made an application for, among other things,
12 a variance on the size of the lot because it' s a
non-conforming lot, this is according to the
13 Building Department, and the Tax Lot 7 . 1, which on
the tax map doesn' t include this lot, is less
14 conforming, and we' re also making an application
for a variance on the side yard setback, which
15 combined will only be 24 feet instead of the
required 25 feet .
16 I'm not going to go through everything in
the application. I think it' s pretty clear. I
17 have a couple of things to add however. With
respect to the side yard variance, the buyers who
18 are in contract to purchase the property for
$160 , 000 and are patiently waiting we hope, need
19 that variance of, I discovered today, a little bit
more than a foot.. They are building a modular
20 home and the plans of the first floor of the
modular home indicate that it is 26' 4" wide as
21 opposed to 26 feet . I have the plans here . I am
submitting copies to the Board. The buyer
22 incidentally was kind enough to provide these
extra copies . But if you look at Page 2 and the
23 width is only on one side, but it says, if you can
read it, 26 ' 41' , and it is a modular, so a foot
24 four inches is required to construct this house on
this lot . I understand, incidentally, that they
25 have Health Department approval and they got it
last fall, winter, sometime .
July 7 , 2005
12
1
2 So we' re requesting that the Board correct
what apparently was an oversight that has existed
3 for, depends on how you calculate it, 16 or 26
years . Clearly my clients will suffer substantial
4 damage if they' re left with an unbuildable lot,
and they have believed, and I 've spoken to
5 Mr. Morris several times about it, that this was
always a separate lot, they understood the Town
6 treated it as a separate lot . They got separate
tax bills and nothing in the 1979 or 1989
7 determinations goes to negate that belief . So
we' re requesting that you grant the variance, and
8 I ' m also going to request that you vote on it
today because we have been here once before .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I went through the
10 file and I'm looking at this survey from 1979 .
MS . DOTY: The one that was received?
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I guess so . It
shows it as one lot including Linnet and Brown,
12 that concerns me . I 'm not quite understanding how
that is not -- how that wasn' t merged then. I
13 don' t see anything after that that says that there
was a line there; is there anything?
14 MS . DOTY: There' s a tax map, the original
subdivision, there' s the tax bills .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : All of that is
fine .
16 MS . DOTY: Also the testimony of
Mr. Morris and the comments of the Board and the
17 determination of the Board in 1979, which is
pretty much limited to those four lots on Brown
18 Street . I have said to various people that when
the depth of those lots are discussed in that
19 final determination it says 112 feet . It doesn' t
say 112 on one side and 225 on another. So
20 Mr. Morris, I believe, gave that to the Board in
1979 at the hearing to show the new 'line between
21 what is now 7 . 1 and 7 . 2 , and at that point in time
he thought that 24 was a separate parcel and the
22 surveys were inaccurate in that the garage is
shown overlapping substantially more .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s my concern.
We have a survey here . This one survey I agree,
24 if you' re saying it' s wrong, then it' s wrong.
MS . DOTY: I don' t want to disparage the
25 surveyor, the garage is in the wrong place, the
garage I think is over a foot, I think.
July 7 , 2005
13
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s on the
current survey.
3 MS . DOTY: Yes, on the current survey. I
think there were mistakes on that survey, that
4 survey was only received, it wasn' t approved.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But it was in the
5 file .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are we talking
6 about the John Ehlers survey?
MS . DOTY: No, we' re talking about the Van
7 Tuyl survey from 179 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the
8 encroachment you' re referring to .
MS . DOTY: Yes . Mr. Morris has told me,
9 and I asked him several times, he said the garage
has never been moved. They didn' t lop part of it
10 off . It does encroach by a foot, approximately a
foot .
11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are you before
the Planning Board right now?
12 MS . DOTY: I am waiting for a
determination here before I go before the Planning
13 Board, however, I had a pre-submission conference
with Anthony, and I spoke to him again yesterday.
14 And he has a, copy of the application that was
presented here .
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Obviously this
Board can' t create a new lot .
16 MS . DOTY: I understand that . But in
fact, I spoke to him yesterday about how fast that
17 could move because obviously we do have buyers who
would like to get a foundation in the ground and
18 get going.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I agree with Jim a
little . It' s a little convoluted. You submitted
21 surveys. that disagree with what your comments
are . They are what they are, so you submitted
22 them.
MS . DOTY: I did not submit them, they
23 were submitted at the time of the hearing and the
Morrises were not represented by an attorney at
24 that point in time .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It doesn' t show
25 the line subdivided at the time. I know you' re
looking for a decision today. But I'm not going
July 7 , 2005
14
1
2 to vote on it because there' s more research that
we need to do because it' s not black and white to
3 me that it' s separate .
MS . DOTY: I would like to point to the
4 Board in addition to that survey which is a
document that was received that day, the
5 transcript in which on Page 18 , Mr. Morris was
asked, "Do you want to divide four lots into two
6 lots? " And further on the chairman asks him,
"Someone told us your wife owns one of these
7 parcels of land. " Mr. Morris said, "She owns a
lot on Brown Street . " The Mr. Chairman said, " I
8- don' t think it' s pertinent . " The lot on Brown
Street, I guess . Further on he says, "Okay, this
9 is your wife' s lot here, Lot 18 . " He said yes .
Then they went on to talk about the truck barn and
10 the division line and he said, "One parcel will
have a frontage on Linnet Street of 113 feet and
11 the other will have 87 feet on Linnet Street . "
There' s no mention of, Brown Street . "Two large
12 lots rather than four smaller ones . " That was
Mr. Tuthill' s comment . The Board finds -- and I'm
13 cutting out some here -- two lots out of four
existing lots . And further on on Page 19, "The
14 easterly lot to be created will have 113 feet in
frontage and will be 112 feet in depth. The
15 westerly lot will be 87 feet wide on Linnet Street
and 112 feet deep . " Doesn' t say 225 .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Even though they
say this in the hearing, if nothing' s filed then
17 nothing happened.
MS . DOTY: You' re using the survey, and
18 I'm telling you the evidence - -
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You also say one
19 survey' s right and one survey' s wrong, .so how do
we know the right one you say is right is not
20 wrong? You understand where I'm coming from?
MS . DOTY: I am not going to make comments
21 about the prior survey, however, the Board' s
determination, again, talks about creating two
22 lots out of four existing lots, not five, four,
and that the easterly lot will be 113 feet wide
23 and 112 deep and the westerly lot will be 87 feet
wide and 112 feet deep, not 225 . So I think your
24 determination, the testimony, the application,
everything is limited to the four lots on Linnet
25 Street and the Brown Street is totally disregarded
and omitted from the determination. And I think
July 7, 2005
15
1
2 it was a mistake, I think it was an oversight and
we' re trying to correct it .
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If I can
remind the Board that you' re here today for a
4 variance determination, not to unmerge lots or to
create lots, but to look at the character of the
5 neighborhood, look at the extent of the variance
granted, hardship, et cetera, and the way the
6 variance criteria in dealing with the variance . I
think this Board obviously can' t create a lot and
7 that would be up to the Planning Board to decide,
is this an oversight , what should have happened,
8 did it happen, and do we need to clarify that they
are, in fact, two lots or not . So while this is
9 all important background, your decision needs to
be grounded in the right considerations, which are
10 the variance criteria.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think this is
11 very similar to another case we are talking about,
can we vote on a variance on a lot that doesn' t
12 exist?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You do it in
13 the subdivision review as a routine matter. When
people come in with subdivision plats and certain
14 undersized lots will be on those and the Planning
Board can' t create the lots until you give an area
15 variance . This is akin to that . I would like it
if you actually submitted to the Planning Board
16 right now, but since this is your second time here
we can get past that, I think.
17 MS . DOTY: I did have the preliminary
conference about a month ago, right after I made
18 this submission. I 've got more than $10 , 000 in
fees that I have to pay to the Planning Board,
19 that' s a lot of money, and I would prefer to know
that we' re going to get our variance on area
20 before we spend $10, 000 at the Planning Board,
it' s actually more than that .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Orlando, I
just want to make one statement . Just remember
22 one thing, this happens to be a filed map as
opposed to the other situation which was
23 described.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t want to
confuse the two. Can I ask a question of Miss
25 Doty?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
July 7, 2005
16
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Doty,
there' s no doubt that we' re dealing with a
3 variance aspect as Counsel just mentioned. I just
want to allude to one thing, anything today with
4 any family that wants to build on anything,
particularly smaller lots I look at it as an
5 affordable housing situation. I realize that' s
just one of the guise of the issue we' re looking
6 at , not necessarily under the subdivision aspects
of this . However, I grew up and still own the
7 original house on a 50 foot lot subdivision.
Subsequently I had built another house and I
8 always made my houses 24 feet . I 'm a little
confused about .this map because the map says 14
9 feet, and then 10 feet on the other side . Then it
shows 15 feet in reference to a side yard. I
10 think you have a 114" in question here, not
necessarily four inches, whatever the. case may be .
11 I think it' s a 16 inch issue here .
MS . DOTY: You are correct on that .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know how
the Board can deal with that . I 'm raising that as
13 an issue .
MS . DOTY: I believe I 'm asking for an
14 amendment of the application so that the side yard
variance will be reduced even further by those
15 four inches . In fact, I know I'm asking for
that . As I said I have been trying to get the
16 plans, and I finally got them this morning.
That' s why I gave the Board the evidence, that it
17 is a modular home . This is a couple that have
been in Southold for a very long time . I know
18 they' re renting. She works at North Fork Bank, he
works at the hospital, and they' re building their
19 first home . And the way they' re building their
first home is on a small lot in Greenport, which
20 is affordable to them.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Deborah, do you have a
21 map of the whole area of the subdivision?
MS . DOTY: A 1989 subdivision?
22 MS . KOWALSKI : Not a tax map . This is
what , Lot 3 in that subdivision?
23 MS . DOTY: 18 .
MS . KOWALSKI : The subdivision lot number
24 that --
MS . DOTY: On the driving part subdivision
25 that was filed in 1909 this is Lot 18 .
MS . KOWALSKI : When you go to the Planning
July 7, 2005 y
17
1
2 Board and do a resubdivision because the property
was merged, this would be Lot 3 , I believe, in
3 that subdivision, right?
MS . DOTY: You mean 7 . 3?
4 MS . KOWALSKI : No . I mean, you have Lot
1, Lot 2 , that were done in 1979 , and this would
5 be Lot Number 3 in that because you' re correcting
a subdivision that goes back to ' 79?
6 MS . DOTY: If you call it a .subdivision, I
agree with you.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So Ruth was
wondering if you have a map that would encompass
8 the three lots on one?
MS . DOTY: The only one I have available
9 unfortunately, is the one from the 1979 , I don' t
have it . I can certainly get it .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is the Planning
Board asking for that?
11 MS . DOTY: The Planning Board has asked
for nothing. As I say, I have given them the
12 application I have here with all the supporting
documentation, obviously except for the plans of
13 the house, and I will make an application. But I
will tell you that it has been a separate lot
14 since 1909, and when I went to the Health
Department, it is deemed a separate lot .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Deborah, I know it' s
been a foul up for a long time .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would add to
Mr. Corcoran' s remark and Mr. Goehringer' s remarks
17 that we are limited to the Zoning Board functions .
One of the reasons I have nothing to ask before
18 was I didn' t feel it was our role to get into all
the details that are clearly right in the middle
19 of the purview of the Planning Board. And our
decision in a case like this is subject to
20 concerns of equity and affordable housing and so
on. I do believe, however, that while it' s
21 plausible to amend the application at this point
for four inches, to amend for another 1' 4 " becomes
22 a problem because of the lateness of this .
MS . DOTY: It' s in there for one foot
23 already, so it' s just four inches .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s four more
24 inches, there' s a 14 foot, 15 foot discrepancy.
MS . DOTY: The 15 foot is the building
25 envelope, and the 14 foot is the setback from the
actual structure .
July 7 , 2005
18
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You actually have
applied for that?
3 MS . DOTY: It has not been applied for.
The plans have not been submitted to the Building
4 Department, that' s the buyer' s responsibility but
they have their plans for the modular.
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In any case, I do
believe that it would not be appropriate to delay
6 this too long. The Planning Board will have to
deal with the questions that seem to be tangling
7 us up .
MS . DOTY: I understand, and I do intend
8 to go to the Planning Board, I just need to find
out whether I'm spinning my wheels because you all
9 are going to deny me .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I also don' t see any
10 problem with a conditional granting of a variance,
hypothetical, that is if this were the property
11 that were approved by the Planning Board, would a
variance be approved. And I think it' s
12 appropriate for us to make that kind of decision.
MS . DOTY: I believe that' s what I 'm
13 asking for. I expected that from the Board. I
didn' t expect to be able to walk out of here or
14 from your office with a determination and say to
the buyer, okay, here you go . I 've got to get
15 Planning Board approval . Good news is I don' t
have to get Health Department approval . And with
16 regard to the amendment of the application, it is
only for four inches .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Deborah, Counsel
advises me that you will still have to supply the
18 neighbor with the information that it' s still the
four inches, it' s an additional notice .
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s an additional
notice .
20 MS . DOTY: One of the neighbors is here .
You mean the immediate neighbors?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The immediate
neighbors . The ones you sent to for the
22 application anyway.
MS . DOTY: I did not get three of them
23 back, by the way.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : As long as you have
24 the receipt that you mailed them. But for the
additional relief, you haven' t done that yet?
25 MS . DOTY: I want to make it clear to the
Board, I 've been asking for the plans for four
July 7 , 2005
19
1
2 weeks now. I got them this morning.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I think as
long as you make the proper application that the
4 Board is requesting, maybe we can go forward with
this thing after some further research is done .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Because there' s
two variances we' re looking for, correct?
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They have
advertised, she' s requested that already.
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : For the two
variances?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The variance right
now is just for the --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is for the area
variance .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was advertised
for both. It' s all advertised and in the
11 application.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s requested for a
12 combined side yard area variance too .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: With regard to
13 the four inches, I think if the Board found that
not to be a substantial difference, then I don' t
14 think you need to re-advertise it . I think you
can properly consider it, whether you consider it
15 to be appropriate or not is another story, but I
don' t think that' s necessarily a substantial
16 change in the application that requires
re-advertising. --
17 MS . DOTY: Obviously I like what the Town
attorney just said. I would ask that the Board if
18 you don' t consider it substantial, that we go
ahead, that we bifurcate this somehow, and do the
19 area variances on the lot, so I can get on my way
with the Planning Board, and then we' ll deal with
20 the four inches at some other time that would be
my request of the Board. And I certainly don' t
21 want to give up the request for a variance on the
2614" but I also don' t want to delay the other
22 part of this, that is the area variance .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the issue
23 here is all the Board is requesting that you
inform those three other property owners that
24 there' s an additional four inches . I think that
can be done almost simultaneously.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a mailing
that' s required for the code . We' d have to
July 7 , 2005
20
1
2 receive something in writing with a time limit .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you' ve got
3 that time limit already, even if we don' t vote on
it today, because we' re not going to vote on it
4 until the 21st anyway.
MS . DOTY: All you need is evidence of the
5 fact that there' s four more inches on the variance
for side yard.
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes . Then on July
21st the record would be closed.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just trying
to facilitate this, that' s all I'm trying to do .
8 MS . DOTY: I appreciate that . I would
like to get the bulk of this decided so the
9 Planning Board, we can proceed there . I don' t
mean to say it this way, but the structure is the
10 buyer' s, and I 'm concerned about the land, and
because there was a three-part variance here, I am
11 doing and requesting the 12 foot or whatever it
is, and now I don' t remember.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 13 ' 811 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if there' s
13 anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on
this . Yes, sir?
14 MR. DINIZIO: My name is Paul Dinizio, 637
Brown Street . With all this variance on the house
15 I don' t have any problem with that . The problem
that I have is the word "subdivide . " You do this
16 on one lot in the neighborhood, how many more lots
do you do this to?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not going to be
doing the subdivision. We' re just doing an area
18 variance . They have to go to the Planning Board
with a subdivision. As Kieran said, we can' t
19 create a lot . We' re just giving an area variance
on this piece of property that they can put a
20 house on it . They have to go to the Planning
Board to subdivide it or get the authority. for a
21 subdivision. The whole transcript from ' 79 and
the ' 80s is so muddled that it' s really just an
22 oversight on everybody' s part, quite frankly. It
was always intended --
23 MR. DINIZIO: If it' s a single and
separate lot that' s fine, but what I 'm trying to
24 stop is any board in the Town setting a precedent
in this neighborhood by letting people subdivide
25 lots . If you are then fine, let me subdivide mine
and build three houses on my lots too, or do it
July 7, 2005
21
1
2 all over Southold town. Let Southold town be
loaded with quarter acre lots, or eighth acre
3 lots, whatever, just don' t pick one neighborhood
out and do it in Southold town. Thank you.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir?
MR. KRAZNER: Peter Krazner resident at
5 730 Brown Street, and I concur with the gentleman
that just spoke that I moved into the neighborhood
6 in 1985 and built a house on Brown Street
restricted to the small lot concept, affordable
7 housing, and as an architect I maximized the
property all within legal boundaries . I just
8 wanted to express an overview that issuing
variances really has to be a real hardship for
9 someone that needs to build on a lot that ' s small
to abdicate the whole concept about the small
10 neighborhood. They' re basically eighth acre lots,
50 by 112 , whatever, and I' d just like to say that
11 I hope the Board understands that as a resident
for 20 years there, I moved in and built because I
12 liked the character of the neighborhood.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
13 MS . DOTY: I just want to address the
issue that Mr. Krazner just brought up. This lot
14 is no smaller than any of the other lots in the
neighborhood, and, in fact, 7 . 1 without this is
15 larger than most of the lots in the neighborhood.
We' re not asking for that lot, meaning 24 which is
16 on Brown Street to be subdivided; we' re just
asking the Board to recognize a lot that conforms
17 with almost everything else .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand. I ' ll
18 make a motion to adjourn this hearing until the
21st for any other written information.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The written
information is she' s going to supply the neighbors
20 with the written information that they need to be
supplied within the guise of the law.
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is she going
to supply the neighbors?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The variance is
four inches more, and if they have any comments
23 they can comment, please submit it in writing by
July 21st .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If you' re going to
give people something else in addition you want to
25 give them .time to comment .
MS . DOTY: And if they wish to make
July 7, 2005
22
1
2 written comments that the variance is for an
additional four inches on the combined side yard,
3 and that if they wish to make any written comments
that those written comments should be submitted to
4 the Board before July 21 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . I ' ll make a
5 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
6 (See minutes for resolution. )
-- ------------------------------ -----------------
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Peter Schembri for a new dwelling on Seawood Drive
8 in Southold.
MR. SCHEMBRI : Here' s the posting
9 affidavit (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you the owner or
10 the builder?
MR. SCHEMBRI : Both, ma' am. This is just
11 a lot on Seawood Drive . We were issued a permit
back on 1/20/04 , about a year and a half ago, and
12 we started the lot and there was water that was on
the scene to the rear, it was ponding up, so we
13 went to the Trustees and it' s not considered a
wetlands with the DEC, just the Trustees, so we j
14 went to the Trustees and they asked us to do
several things. We did a replanting to the rear
15 where we started clearing originally, and we had
Werner' s Nursery come in and do a replanting of ,
16 the rear of the lot; then they had asked us, we
were going to do a ranch, they asked us if we
17 would do a two-story instead because it disturbed
less land by doing a two-story house, so we told
18 them whatever they liked, then they asked us on
top of that would we consider taking the garage
19 off, take even more of an area of less
disturbance, so we took the two-car garage off the
20 house, so there is no more garage there . So we
went from a ranch, to a two-story with garage, to
21 two-story with no garage; and then we gave them a
new planting of the area that they wanted us to do
22 and Werner' s Nursery did this planting over for
them. They were very happy with the plan and they
23 had asked us if we would move the house up a
couple feet more, and I told them we would if that
24 was their request, and they issued us the permit,
but when they issued us the permit they didn' t
25 realize they were four and a half feet off from
what they asked us to do . So I believe they sent
July 7, 2005
23
1
2 you a letter for us to come here to move the house
a little closer to accommodate the rear.
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It didn' t say that
exactly. There' s a letter but it' s worded
4 differently.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does say given the
5 proximity to the valuable wetland area, the Board
required the 50 foot buffer resulting in a 30 foot
6 setback from the road instead of the required 35 .
MR. SCHEMBRI : That' s why we' re here . And
7 we kept the house, we kept the design of the house
in conformity with the neighborhood. I did go
8 knock on a few doors to see if I could take a
look, and I did measure a few houses and some were
9 in the 20 foot range on Seawood. I don' t think
we' re far off here .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have that very
steep setback practically behind you. Everybody' s
11 kind of built up on pilings .
MR. SCHEMBRI : It will come out real nice .
12 We need to get started because the Trustees wanted
to have the planting done by the fall, so that was
13 the only thing we wanted to \get going quickly.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Schembri,
what are we going to see when we see the second
15 story? Is the house going to be a reverse house
with the living area down and the bedrooms up?
16 MR. SCHEMBRI : No . It' s going to be a
Cape Cod house with a little front porch, regular
17 straight roofline, just a nice, simple looking
house to keep with up with the neighborhood, we' re
18 not going to be putting any hip roofs . We
understand to keep in conformity with what the
19 neighborhood looks like now. We don' t want it to
be an oddball in the neighborhood.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a point of
clarification. The notice of disapproval says
22 about 25 feet, but you' re actually a 30 foot
setback, correct?
23 MR. SCHEMBRI : Yes, 30 foot setback what
they had said to me was to go off the survey
24 because there' s a little overhang porch that ' s
over --
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Square footage of
exemption?
July 7, 2005
24
1
2 MR. SCHEMBRI : Yes, so she said, Pat at
the Building Department, said that it would be per
3 the survey that I'm handing you, that this is how
we would put the house, exactly as it' s shown on
4 the survey.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So what is the
5 front yard setback, is it 30 to the front step?
MR. SCHEMBRI : No . Thirty to the corner
6 of the house, where the lot goes on an angle to
the road, so it will be probably a couple feet for
7 the porch itself .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s really just an
8 entranceway for the steps .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I looked on the
9 plan, I couldn' t see the dimensions on that .
MR. SCHEMBRI : It' s eight feet across the
10 front is the porch.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How deep?
11 MR. SCHEMBRI : I would say a five by
eight .
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It could be six
feet because of the steps . It looks like it' s six
13 by eight so your setback would be 24 feet?
MR. SCHEMBRI : We just want it to look
14 right when we put it up .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We just want to
15 write it up right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you have the
16 surveyor amend the survey and send it to us, or
confirm it by letter.
17 MR. SCHEMBRI : The amount of steps
determines where the final grade goes, so it
18 wouldn' t be exact . So the platform itself would
be approximately that five foot, but, as you
19 see --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If you come up
20 less that' s okay, if you come up more that' s where
it' s bad. If you can have the surveyor write us a
21 letter saying it' s 24 whatever.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Later on, if you don' t
22 have the house and or you want to do something
else, you can get into trouble . You don' t want to
23 come back again.
MR. SCHEMBRI : So I' ll have the surveyor
24 place that on there and bring it back and submit
it to your office?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Before the 21.st .
Michael, do you have any other questions?
July 7 , 2005
25
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I'm writing
this decision so just give me that .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak on this
5 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
6 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------- -----------------
7 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
Shoreline Development Corporation at 55 Brown
8 Street in Greenport for a proposed dwelling at
less than 35 feet from the front yard. Brown
9 Street is very popular these days . Yes, ma' am.
MS . TOTH: I have the posting and I
10 received back another. I have some photos of the
area for the Board then I have a map . -
11 Good morning, my name is Vicky Toth, I ' m
an agent for Shoreline Development and they' re
12 before the Board today requesting a variance .
Actually, I'm here on behalf of both cases, it' s
13 by -the same owner.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do one at a time .
14 MS . TOTH: Okay, so the first one is a
request for --
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A dwelling at less than
35 feet front yard from Brown Street .
16 MS . TOTH: The problem with that is it ' s a
corner lot and because it' s a corner lot it makes
17 it difficult for them to be able to maintain 35
feet on both roads . They' re requesting that they
18 get relief from the front yard setback on Brown
Street . They' re maintaining the 35 feet on Ninth
19 Street as you can see . They have no rear yard.
This is an underlying map that was part of the
20 Greenport Driving Park that was filed back in
December 1909 . I provided the Board with photos
21 of lots in the area, and as you can see, I took a
section, just that section and I counted 19 lots,
22 of the 19 , 15 of them were equal or smaller to the
lots that this house would be on. So that' s
23 giving us a conformity of the area that' s like 79
percent . I also provided you with photos showing
24 you other houses in the area that have their front
yards basically on the street . The houses we' re
25 proposing would be affordable homes . They' re not
overly sized homes . They' re in keeping with the
July 7, 2005
26
1
2 area .
On the map that I provided you, it shows
3 you two lots that are behind the lots that we
have . They' re 27 and 26 on Brown Street and the
4 photos show you that they' re two houses that are
pretty much exactly the same, they' re a
5 contemporary style, and you can see their front
yards and side yards are very close proximity to
6 each other. So our request isn' t something that
would be abnormal for the area or something that
7 you would not find in this area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I beg to
differ with you about the abnormal for the area
9 because I don' t think there' s any house on that
road that' s 12 feet from the property line on the
10 front yard.
MS . TOTH: In the photos that I provided
11 you --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I tell you, I grew
12 up there . I ride by this corner at least once a
week now, I'm just wondering if you can' t make the
13 house just a little smaller, maybe get 15 feet on
that side .
14 MS . TOTH. So you would like the house to
be instead of 34 go to 31, and make it a 15 foot .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t want to
tell you how to make the house . I'm just thinking
16 that the setback itself is extreme, and I would
like to see that someway, I don' t know, is this
17 going to be a two-story house?
MS . TOTH: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We in this house
are struggling with people coming before us with
19 two-story houses on small lots and complaints all
the time about people looking at other people' s
20 yards and the whole nine yards and although I 'm
not opposed to that, I think that the house just
21 may be just a little too big for this lot .
MS . TOTH: You did see the two
22 contemporaries that are right behind this house?
Yes, the gentleman sitting behind you grew up with
23 me right there . We both have the same last name .
Honestly, I grew up on a 50 foot lot myself . I
24 agree with you 100 percent, corner lots are always
hard.
25 MS . TOTH: It' s hard for people to have
corner lots because you have two front yards .
July 7 , 2005
27
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, only
government can make that kind of geometry.
3 Normally I think 30 foot whatever it' s going to
be, I ' m just asking that 12 feet is extreme . If
4 you can somehow make it less, I'm thinking 15
feet, turn the house around, maybe cut a foot off .
5 It' s a two-story house and I can recall on that
side, really the only two-story houses are these
6 two houses that my mother complained about all the
time because they' re so out of place . I just
7 don' t really want to see that happen again.
MS . TOTH: We' re not doing contemporary.
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: They' re set back,
too .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What are the setbacks
of the two modern houses?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They' re further
back.
11 MS . TOTH: They' re further back, they' re
not 12 feet from the road obviously from the photo
12 I provided you. I would be stretched to say that
they' re 35 feet . I don' t believe they' re 35
13 feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any two
14 story houses that are very small setbacks?
MS . TOTH: Do you consider a one and a
15 half the same as a two?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I consider it between
16 a one and a two.
MS . TOTH: I provided a photograph of a
17 couple of houses, one' s right next door then one' s
right around the corner on Linnet . You can see
18 the one gentleman with the blue house with the
fenced in yard, he opens that gate and he' s on the
19 street . And then the house that' s right next door
you can see their front yard. If I have had to
20 give a guess on it, if you take what the Town owns
in the front to where the road is to the house,
21 you' re probably looking at 15 feet . So the 15
feet that Jim' s requesting is not an unreasonable
22 request . It' s really hard when you' re on the
corner to try to maintain the required setback.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would point out
that the Freddie Dawson' s house is on Ninth
24 Street, that used to be I think the subject of
your next hearing was used to belong to Freddie,
25 that house is probably 15 feet, the front .
MS . TOTH: I would agree with you.
July 7 , 2005
28
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But that' s
wondering on Brown Street, that' s on Ninth Street .
3 Your proposal here would be better if you had
matched that front yard as opposed to --
4 MS . TOTH: Although if you look at our
survey our front yard is on Ninth Street and we' re
5 at 35 feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what I 'm
6 saying to you. But what you' re setting here is
not necessarily a precedent because we could make
7 a lone decision, but if you look down Brown
Street, you' re going to be 12 feet, everybody else
8 on that street is probably 25 feet .
MS . TOTH. That' s why this is so
9 difficult . It' s a narrow lot on a corner.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is a large
10 house on this lot . Maybe a ranch house that you
stretch out a little bit, you got 41 feet on the
11 east side, 35 feet on the other side, you build a
ranch, you stretch out the house instead of going
12 up, you don' t have to be 34 feet wide . Just a
suggestion, certainly from a person who' s probably
13 prejudiced I grew up there . In any case, I have
always wanted to grant, I have always erred on the
14 side of the person building the house . So don' t
consider me that I 'm against your project, I ' m
15 just saying you may be a little over ambitious
asking the Board for as much as you' re asking for
16 on this particular lot . Maybe you want to come
back with something that' s a little less
17 ambitious .
MS . TOTH: This is actually Schembri
18 Homes, so the houses they build are not
overwhelming, as you know.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm quite familiar.
Like I say, honestly, that square on the piece of
20 property means more to me than a house that
Schembri built . What I'm saying is the footprint
21 that I see here --
MS . TOTH: So instead of a 12 foot front
22 yard setback from Brown, would a 15 be more in
keeping?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My opinion, maybe .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, can I
24 make a suggestion?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The internal
flow in a house is a minimum of 27 feet wide to be
July 7, 2005
29
1
2 able to get a central hallway down a house, 27,
28 . Twenty-six, you don' t end up with a big
3 hallway, you end up with bedrooms on one side and
a hallway down either outside wall . So you could
4 literally go down to 28 .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Jerry, my house is
5 22 feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you
6 what the internal flow is . Your house is also two
stories . This situation that they' re proposing
7 here and you' re actually right on track with the
ability to stretch the house, even if you go one
8 and a half stories as you were suggesting, and do
a little modification of this plan, you can pick
9 up an easy five, six, seven feet in setback on
this plan. That' s just my suggestion.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you,
Jerry. We' re looking at a square, maybe we
11 need --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need to look
12 at a rectangle .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Let' s come up with
13 a number for us, so we have a number to go with.
You want 18 feet?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think you need
28 .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I 'm talking,
setback.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking
setback. I 'm talking about 28 feet in width for
17 the house . The house is 34 now.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it' s 18 feet
18 setback.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what you
19 need to have an internal floor plan?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Submit some plans say
20 for a ranch style house?
MS . TOTH: I' d have to talk with --
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or even a one and a
half story. Because even the height to the ridge
22 on this house is really pretty tall, except for
the modern ones over here .
23 MS . TOTH: I was just going to say, the
houses behind. This house would not even be close
24 to the house -- these are three-story houses
practically.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Those are tall .
Because everybody else in the neighborhood seems
July 7 , 2005
30
1
2 to have one, one and a half story houses, maybe
two-story, but not 35 .
3 MS . TOTH: This location is right next to
these two homes is what I'm saying too . Those are
4 right next to us .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think maybe we' ll
5 adjourn this to the August hearing contingent on
you supplying us with several different ideas of
6 what the setback should be and what the house
should be .
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think one is
going to directly affect the other. I think
8 Pete' s idea, as I can see, is he wants to do exact
houses .
9 MS . TOTH: But it' s not a corner lot on
the other one .
10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t know what
he' s thinking, but I was thinking affordability,
11 he can do identical houses . that' s something you
can ask him.
12 MS . TOTH: Just so I can go back and tell
them, what would be this Board to accept front
13 yard setback on Brown Street?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 18 .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 18 , yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What you might want
15 to do is come up with a couple of different plans,
three or four, and then the Board would decide
16 when they get those to review it . They might say
18 and a half, you don' t know, you have to submit
17 it first . It depends on the height and elevation.
MR. KRAZNER: Peter Krazner now, I 'm
18 actually the neighbor that this gentleman' s mother
hates because of those two-story houses . I
19 designed them, I build them, I live in one of them
for 20 years and if you really tour the
20 neighborhood, yes, they maximize the height, but
absolutely legal, every setback conforms to your
21 Town regulation. And when I presented these 20
some-odd years ago, I came with renderings and
22 plans, not just like to build a house, it' s going
to be sort of this, sort of that . So I try to say
23 that while it' s contemporary I considered it a
modern version of a Victorian because of the
24 sloping roofs are very steep, the lattice work,
things that wouldn' t be like a modern concrete or
25 glass and whatever building. It actually does, in
my opinion, fit the neighborhood. Plus the
July 7 , 2005
31
1
2 landscaping around them is overwhelming. So
there' s a blend.
3 But a couple points I would like to bring
up . The hardship issue, corner lot, very
4 difficult, no question about it. I just created
this little diagram. Actually starting from the
5 bottom that' s their small survey, that' s what they
were proposing. I'm going to cast a shadow of an
6 approximate /two-story house . This in green would
actual meet your code . If it' s only 12 and a half
7 foot house, I take exception that this gentleman
that 28 works, mine' s 25, I could do it in 20 . It
8 depends on the architect, it depends on the type
of plan the owner wants, open plan, lots of room.
9 There' s a lot of things, you can' t make general
statements .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can make
general statements . The difference is if you want
11 to have internal rooms that are functional, you
built a front to back house, this is a side to
12 side house .
MR. KRAZNER: You' re more than welcome to
13 come and visit the house . I have rooms side to
side, and legal hallways, I have a dining room, a
14 kitchen, a living room. The point is I think it' s
arbitrary to say the dimension of the house . I
15 think you' re right on when you talk about
setbacks . And I think the other point is is that
16 this woman is right that the house up in this
corner, I actually reduced it to showing that
17 house and the two houses that I built, live in
this one, is about 15 feet in the front yard and
18 there is another one on the corner, I didn' t draw
it, but there' s nothing on Brown Street less than
19 35 feet, nothing. And there are two two-story
houses that are considerable . The one that' s the
20 lot next to this house and is further down,
someone added a full second story, not a half
21 story. The point is is that if this person wanted
to legally build on this lot, they could probably
22 do it . It' s a house that would be very different,
probably not the type that they would want to turn
23 around and sell . I was curious that if the person
who owns the lot that' s going to build is actually
24 going to live in the house or if it' s a spec
house?
25 MS . TOTH: It' s. a spec .
MR. KRAZNER: So again, I guess in a sense
July 7 , 2005
32
1
2 I was a developer, always knowing I was going to
live and retire here one day, and either family or
3 a turnover whatever, but I don' t know anyone else
in the neighborhood and maybe Mr . Dinizio can
4 speak that actually moved in and built something
and didn' t live in the house . This to me almost
5 sets a little bit of a precedent because there' s
an attitude because land prices have skyrocketed,
6 houses, et cetera, and now is the time to either
kind of build as much as you can on a small piece
7 of lot and sell it . As I said earlier, I love
Greenport . I plan to retire here not too far in
8 the future . And there' s a character to the block
albeit the houses that I have designed and live in
9 are different looking but they're not eyesores
either, and it has also helped the property,
10 development .
The point I 'm making is if you' re going to
11 grant any variance along Brown Street you should
think a little bit about the rest of the block and
12 the setbacks . You should either drive there or
have photos .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Sir, what does the
yellow rendition house represent?
14 MR. KRAZNER: If you consider this a side
yard, which it isn' t now, that you would need a
15 minimum of 25 total . So you would need to at
least move it back two or three feet . That would
16 be the biggest you could build it . I would argue
as someone else said, that it should probably be
17 thinner or elongated, whatever the design may want
to be . And I'm here to present a design for these
18 people, that is their business not mine, but there
is a certain setback that' s been there forever and
19 I hate to see that violated. I certainly honored
that . And I don' t know if you wanted to speak,
20 Paul, but on the corner of Ninth and Brown there' s
a stop sign and there' s. a large hedge around
21 there, and cars come speeding around there and
there were some kids on the block and one of the
22 fears I have is that this house is too large, too
forward of Brown. It might present some sort
23 safety hazard. It' s just a speculation because
having seen that kids at night might race around
24 the corner. Anyway I probably said too much, but
I thank you for the opportunity of coming here and
25 just giving you my opinion.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? I
July 7, 2005
33
1
2 tell you, there' s an established setback there
that this Town usually uses and that would be on
3 Mr . Dawson' s house, which is the house that exists
there now, that older house . They could probably
4 follow that, okay, for front yard and maybe get
away with it, and then ask for a variance for a
5 front yard on Brown Street . The established
setback for a front yard setback is about 15, feet,
6 and I would hate to see that happen, that' s why I
didn' t even mention that, and they did do that .
7 And it looks to be they' re taking some
consideration to this, and my mother
8 notwithstanding, she feeds me well, so no matter
what you say, I'm going to agree with her. I am
9 just looking because you' re right on that whole
side of that Ninth Street there is no 12 foot
10 setback, there' s only one building on that street
that is a zero lot line setback, the Spazafaro, my
11 cousins right across the street from me . Once you
look at the map you' ll notice there' s a lot of
12 cousins there that we couldn' t follow because
you' re too far away; but, again, I think you have
13 to consider on a corner lot most of these houses
with the exception of Mr. Krazner' s are capes or
14 smaller houses . And I'm just trying to protect,
which is what we normally try to do, is protect
15 the character of that neighborhood. If you can
come back with something a little less obtrusive
16 on that side, maybe a little longer, I think we
would all be agreeable to something that, you
17 know, instead of 41 feet, 35 feet on that side
yard.
18 MS . TOTH: You' re looking at the side of
the house as opposed to the front of the house .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to get
back off that street on that side . The only way
20 to do that honestly is to build a house that' s
longer. I don' t want you to build a 12 foot
21 house, that' s a trailer, I don' t want a trailer
there either.
22 MR. SCHEMBRI : We' re trying to get away
from something that' s aesthetically long and
23 narrow. We were trying to put something there
that' s presentable .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But high seems to
be nowadays a real hot button.
25 MS . TOTH: It wouldn' t be as tall as the
houses behind us .
July 7, 2005
34
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was 20 years
ago, but honestly right now we make decisions
3 based on a whole lot less of a variance than
you' re asking for and cutting people down a whole
4 lot more than that two story, and I wanted to be
fair to you that I don' t know how this application
5 would have gone just if we hadn' t had this
discussion, but I think you need to come back .
6 MS . TOTH: Can we present something to the
Board prior to the 21st?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We' d still have to
have the hearing.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : August 18th and
then you would submit it to us a week before that
9 at the latest .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Unless we can agree
10 on something right here right now, which we' re not
going to.
11 MS . TOTH: We have to get a plan together .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You can get a
12 couple different plans, submit all of them and
then you can discuss all of them on August 18th at
13 9 : 30 in the morning.
MS . TOTH: Okay.
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Will this directly
affect the other application? I don' t know if you
15 wanted to keep the houses the same .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll adjourn this
16 hearing until August 18th at 9 : 30 a.m.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm looking for you
17 to back it off Brown Street .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
18 adjourn the hearing until August 18th.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 -------------------------------- -------- ---------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing again
20 is for another house on Ninth Street, total side
yard was less than the 25 feet . You' re on again.
21 MS . TOTH: We' re before the Board this
morning for Ninth Street . We' re requesting a
22 front yard and side yard variance for a proposed
two-story dwelling. As you know on Ninth Street I
23 would say the average front yard setback is about
15 feet , we've doubled that . And it' s a three
24 foot deviation from the 25 foot total, but in that
area, once again, especially as you go down Linnet
25 and that area you can see there' s more houses that
are probably closer together or have less than a
July 7, 2005
35
1
2 25 foot total side yards .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are the steps
3 incorporated in that proposed house in the area or
do they extend outward?
4 MS . TOTH: From the plan itself?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
5 MS . TOTH: Let' s see . I 'm hoping they' re
within.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Front steps, Ruth?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think they
come into play here because there' s an established
8 setback.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Except they were
9 still denied for the front yard.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t know why
10 they would be .
MS . TOTH: You' re correct . There is an
11 established front yard setback but I guess zoning
is 35 .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re supposed to
average .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They will accept two by
six.
14 MS . TOTH: Okay, with the new code you
have to have landing with steps to grade .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your building is again,
a bit high. What are you, 31 feet to the ridge?
16 Again, except for our friend' s house over here,
most of the homes are a little bit lower.
17 MS . TOTH: Capes and cottages, two-story
smaller.
18 MR. SCHEMBRI : But you won' t see the house
from the side being it' s on a corner.
19 MS . TOTH: This is a very wooded lot too,
they would preserve what' s there, just the minimum
20 necessary for the yard and the actual house
itself . I don' t feel this house what they' re
21 proposing would be out of keeping with the area.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s going to be higher
22 than most of them except for our friend' s house
here .
23 MS . TOTH: Right, and there are other
two-story homes down on Brown Street .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: None are 31 feet high.
MS . TOTH: Even the addition that was
25 done?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think so, 31
July 7, 2005
36
1
2 feet is pretty high.
MR. SCHEMBRI : The actual face of the
3 house, you don' t want it to look like a box, so
the roofline is a pitch that gives that extra
4 height, but it makes the house because it' s a
square face, if the roof was shallow it would look
5 like a real box instead of something aesthetically
nice . Like I said, these are houses that we tried
6 to keep in that Cape Cod look to keep the
character.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand. Again,
the neighborhood there is small .
8 MR. SCHEMBRI : I know the gentleman' s
houses in back of us are tall .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s the only one just
about, I know when I went down the street the
10 first time, I thought who built that . They' re not
in keeping with the character.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The poor guy.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, I rather like
12 them.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why I made
13 that comment . If you' re going to make a cape on
Brown you would want them the same so you could
14 build them affordable and easy.
MS . TOTH: There is even one right behind
15 here too that' s pitched. This is probably along
the same lines of what you' re proposing, the roof
16 looks a lots steeper than what it actually is .
MR. SCHEMBRI : Aesthetically it make a
17 huge difference when you see it from the road how
the house does look.
18 MS . TOTH: As you can see in this area the
trees are really tall . The house will not look a
19 sore thumb sticking out in the air. There will
even be trees that are taller than the house
20 itself .
MR. SCHEMBRI : I think people in the
21 neighborhood would welcome something like this on
one of the lots . We've built this house a few
22 times, it' s come out real nice .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where?
23 MR. SCHEMBRI : In Richmond Shores when you
pull in. on the left . We did it cedar shake . It
24 came out real nice . It' s a soft look.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All the other houses /
25 down there are pretty big.
MR. SCHEMBRI : Yes . And that fits in with
July 7, 2005
37
1
2 all type of houses .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: See what the rest of my
3 fellow members think. Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no
4 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no other
questions . I think I ' ll take another look to
6 consider the height relative to other buildings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I have no
objection to this . I don' t think the height is
8 anything we need to discuss . And good luck.
MS . TOTH: Thank you.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to
10 look at the house in Richmond Shores . I mean a
picture is a thousand words .
11 MR. SCHEMBRI : I think when you see it
you' ll like it .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else?
Yes, sir, you would like to make a comment?
13 MR. KRAZNER: Peter Krazner, 730 Brown.
Just briefly, I agree with everyone what they've
14 said here . The setbacks on the side yard however
it shows 12 and 10 , it' s supposed to be 15 and 10
15 or basically 25 feet, I don' t see any reason why
they can' t respect the side yard, that' s all .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other comments? If
not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
17 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
18 ---------------------------------------- ---------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
19 David and Lauren Ko_llen a carryover from 6/2 .
MR. KOLLEN: David Kollen, 1095 Track
20 Avenue in Cutchogue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We were discussing your
21 deck .
MR. KOLLEN: I have a couple neighbors
22 that are here in the back, and I ' d like to have
them speak, first .
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure. You want to
remove that roof over the deck.
24 MR. KOLLEN: Yes . I have letters here and
copies for all of you.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They took the roof
off to conform to the code .
July 7, 2005
38
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, I remember.
It ' s pretty straightforward.
3 MR. KOLLEN: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? Michael?
4 Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s all we asked
them to do, right . Jerry?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s hear what anybody
7 else has to say.
MR. MCKEON: Can I just see a copy? My
8 name is Brendan McKeon. I live in the Lot 59
directly behind Dave and Lauren. My question was
9 they want to bump out the front of that house 10
feet, right now they' re already not in code
10 because it' s 33 feet, this would make it 23 feet .
It' s the same situation as the last property.
11 It' s a corner lot and with the height of 30 feet
that they' re proposing, I think it will impede
12 traffic, traffic won' t be able to see going around
that corner. I have three children that play out
13 there . There' s no yield signs, stop signs .. It' s
a fast road. It' s not used as a main
14 thoroughfare, I guess by some people it is,. but I
don' t have a problem with them putting a second
15 story on their house, I just think a variance for
10 feet, it' s a lot . That was my concern. I had
16 a couple questions off the record that were
straightened out between us . That' s my main
17 concern is the sight line for cars .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
18 that wishes to speak?
MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, speaking
19 for the Fleets Neck Property Owners Association.
The applicants and the other interested parties
20 are all members of the Fleets Neck community. We
do not as an association have specific testimony
21 this morning, but we would like to comment on some
general matters of principle .
22 We as a community created a town code, a
set of rules if you will, about how we wanted to
23 see our community be . We recognized that when we
created such a set of rules that we wouldn' t be
24 smart enough to foresee every circumstance that
could come later. So we created the Zoning Board
25 of Appeals, to deal with unanticipated
consequences of the code . The Zoning Board of
July 7 , 2005
39
1
2 Appeals, however, was not created as a weak link
for lawyers and others to game the system, to
3 stretch the envelope, to make our community what
the code did not foresee as our community. So the
4 Fleets Neck Property Owners Association ask that
you stand up to the principles that underlie our
5 code to be fair, to be supportive of the code and
the community which it protects . Thank you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you,
Mr . Huntington. Is there anyone else that wishes
7 to speak on this application? Yes, ma' am.
MS . HANSLEY: Paula Hansley, I live on
8 Track Avenue right opposite' David and Lauren. I
understand it' s a young couple with a young child,
9 I know they need more room. They have redone a
very small house and they' re squeezed in pretty
10 tight . However, I am concerned about the size of
the house that will be going up. Track Avenue is
11 a curve, and I live right opposite them on this
curve . It is a dangerous curve. There are school
12 buses going by, four of them a day. There are
concern on their bicycles, there are motor
13 scooters going around this curve constantly. I am
concerned about the house coming out closer to -the
14 road, which will include shrubbery, I'm sure . You
will not be able to see around this curve coming
15 from the opposite direction from Stillwater onto
Track around that curve .
16 I am also concerned about the height of
the house . We on this part of Track Avenue have
17 small Capes or small ranches and a second story
home, proposed a rather large home second story,
18 plus going out closer to the road, plus any
landscaping that is done, will not conform to the
19 neighborhood. And that is my major concern at
this time ., It looks like a lovely home but how
20 high is it going to go and how far out on the side
of Track will it go out on that end? Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish
to speak on this application? Yes, ma' am.
22 MS . WINGATE : High, I 'm Eileen Wingate and
I helped Lauren and Dave design their house .
23 Because they' re a growing family, when we sat
down and looked at the program, we were very
24 careful to decide which way the house should grow.
We felt that because it' s a corner lot we had the
25 opportunity to go to the north. We had the
opportunity to go that way, but we felt that by
July 7, 2005
40
1
2 going toward the street , it was giving the
neighbor more sun and break. Also the house sits
3 up fairly high, so I don' t see the traffic
patterns really in jeopardy of really being able
4 to see children. There' s a series of steps that
goes up to the house now, you should very easily
5 be able to see around the corner. With a lot of
consideration, we have chosen to go forward
6 because we felt it was helping the neighborhood,
in fact . The house is not as tall as everybody
7 says . It' s 30 feet tall . It' s actually only a
story and a half . It' s a classic cape with a
8 little twist . It' s got a simple reverse coming
out front . The house behind us is about 24 feet,
9 it' s also a cape . The neighborhood is changing
and you can see the change is marching down Track
10 Avenue . When you've got a growing family and you
need a place to go up, there' s a really easy
11 solution. Don' t think the house is all that
large, don' t think the house is all that tall .
12 The 10 feet that we' re asking for, again, I don' t
believe there' s a problem with the traffic, and
13 without intruding on the house behind us I
honestly thought that moving forward was a good
14 solution, that' s it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I have a question.
15 I was absent last month, so forgive my question.
There' s a deck according to the plan that kind of
16 wraps around the front a little bit, that' s being
removed?
17 MR. KOLLEN: That' s staying. Originally
there was going to be a porch coming over the
18 front part of the deck, that' s getting removed.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That deck according
19 to the survey looks like it' s already 23 feet to
the front; is that correct?
20 MR. KOLLEN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So there' s a
21 variance for that deck, you had a permit for that?
MR. KOLLEN: Yes .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Only question.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The variance for
that deck specifically said not to be covered and
24 that' s why that is the way it is . Beyond that, I
have no further questions .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have
July 7, 2005
41
1
2 questions, just a comment . It would strike me
that the problem of reduced setbacks is especially
3 acute with regard to a corner house for aesthetic
as well as possible safety reasons . And I think
4 that' s one of the things we have to consider, that
if this house is only 23 feet from the road,
5 whereas if it was in the middle of the block
perhaps in some ways it would not have the overall
6 effect on 'the neighborhood, and we' re just going
to have to decide what we want to do about that .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think any hedging on
a corner plot can' t be more than four feet high.
8 MR. KOLLEN: If I may speak, there is some
hedging or shrubs, I have like a berm in my corner
9 lot, the question if the shrubbery is going to be
moved forward, all that shrubbery is staying
10 exactly where it is . Because the proposed
addition is not affecting that berm, it' s actually
11 going to stay behind it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
issue here is three votes, and the question is do
13 you want us to grant alternate relief if we are
not so inclined to reduce it to 23 feet, or do you
14 want us to deny the application if we don' t garner
the three votes? That' s the issue . So that' s an
15 issue that I think you have to come up with before
we close this hearing.
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Most people accept
alternative relief so that you don' t have to
17 reapply.
MR. KOLLEN: We' ll accept it . Originally
18 we were going to come out I think 15 feet or I ' m
sorry, eight feet . We were coming over the plans
19 and just coming up with different things to do, we
stuck with 10 , but if eight feet will work for
20 you, then it will work for us .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So eight feet will
21 work for you upstairs, hallways, building the
stairwell?
22 MR. KOLLEN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 25' 7' , will that be
23 the setback, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hold on, yes .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be 27 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 25 is good.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that agreeable?
MR. MCKEON: You asked about the existing
July 7, 2005
42
1
2 deck in front, now there' s a difference between
the deck being 10 feet off the house and a solid
3 structure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We understand.
4 MR. MCKEON: That' s going to impede
traffic, even eight feet . You can see through a
5 deck, you can' t see through a house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
6 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will decide on July
8 21st .
MR. KOLLEN: Thank you.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to
recess .
10 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to
11 reconvene .
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 -- ------------------------------------- -----------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
13 for Whitrock on Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck.
Is there somebody here to speak for this
14 application? -
MR. HUTCHINSON: My name is Bill
15 Hutchinson, I ' m here representing Peggy and Kevin
Whitrock with regards to their request for
16 variance . My address is 427 Route 25A, Rocky
Point, New York, 11786 .
17 Before I start, if I may for a second, we
had forwarded a letter yesterday to the ZBA and
18 I ' d like to just read it into the record.
"Please be advised that the side yard
19 measurement to be used on the Whitrock project
shall be in accordance with the new survey by
20 Donald Malms, dated 4/20/05 , which indicates the
minimum of 3 . 5 plus or minus feet on the west side
21 and 6 . 2 feet plus or minus on the east side,
making that a total of 9 . 7 feet . Please do not
22 use any of the old surveys as may exist and note
that changes have been made on two of eight of the
23 submitted plans . "
We also note additionally, just as a note,
24 in the front cover of your green folder, there' s a
quick copy of that survey when we made that change
25 to the original document, there' s a new notation
here for your reference that shows along that
July 7, 2005
43
1
2 westerly side the two areas front, north and south
are also 5 . 5 and not four as they sit back a
3 little further because of the 3 . 5 . There was a
two foot jog in the house . The original one
4 showed two and four from an old Van Tuyl survey,
which was incorrect . When we did the survey over,
5 we noticed there was an error of a foot
and-a-half .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the jog doesn' t
exist anymore .
7 MR. HUTCHINSON: The jog will exist . It' s
says it' s now 3 . 5 minimum, then once the jog
8 occurs it now becomes 5 . 5 as opposed to the
original four foot . And that should be noted on
9 your little copy of the survey in the front of
your folder.
10 If you wish also in the front cover
there' s in a plastic folder, you' ll see a quick
11 aerial photograph of the Whitrock residence
showing the general location of the Whitrock house
12 noted next door to, I guess that must be the
airport in the area, second house over from the
13 airport west, you' ll notice on the --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the easterly side
14 or on the west?
MR. HUTCHINSON: On the left side of that
15 swimming pool there, which is on the property of
the airport, and the second house over from the
16 left, it' s noted with an arrow and the name, for
your reference, just so you can get a chance to
17 look at where it locates itself, and its relative
size right to the other houses next to it . And if
18 I may continue .
We' re here today on a request for
19 variances as they fall under Section 100-239 . 4 .B,
and 100-244 as noted on the Building Department' s
20 notice of disapproval dated March 22 , 2005 and
this amendment May 10 , 2005 . That document is
21 enclosed on Page 5 for your reference . The zoning
section specifically details the requirements for
22 side yard minimums of non-conforming lots from a
certain size of the zoning district R40 and
23 setback requirements that may relate to the
distance of a building or structure as can be from
24 a bulkhead, concrete wall or riprap .
I ' d like to start out by the request for
25 examining the side yards, to which the requirement
is to maintain a single side yard setback of 15
July 7, 2005
44
1
2 feet and a total of 35 feet . The current
residence sits on a unique parcel of land, which
3 is just bigger than a half acre, and is 40 feet
wide by approximately 600 feet long and that' s for
4 your reference on Page 6 . This puts the present
dwelling just over 30 feet wide at its widest
5 point, approximately 3 . 5 feet off the west side
property and 6 . 2 feet off the east side
6 property.
Due to the unique conditions of the
7 property, we decided to approach this project by
keeping the current setbacks as a guide to
8 developing a plan to turn this seaside bungalow
into a three bedroom home, one that fits the needs
9 of the Whitrock family, which is two adults and
two children. The proposed dwelling, even though
10 moving landward approximately seven to 10 feet,
will take advantage of the present basement as
11 part of the new structure to assist in the saving
of money and reducing the excavation requirements
12 closer to the water. The overall length of the
house is approximately 63 feet with only 16 . 5 feet
13 of this new design running along the existing
footprint of 3 . 5 feet from the west side of the
14 property. We made our new design so the narrowest
distance to the property line would occupy the
15 same general position as the original footprint
does .
16 If I can call your attention to Page 7,
please, here we show the original footprint at the
17 bottom part of the page, and you' ll see where it
overlays the new footprint, where we take
18 advantage of the existing basement, which is a
stable structure to work from, and we don' t go or
19 encroach any further than the existing condition,
and we build most of this process to the landward
20 side, towards the road,
After observing the area, one can see that
21 small side yard is the conforming conditions of
this neighborhood especially on lots that are 40,
22 50 and 60 foot wide . We have an aerial photo for
you on Page 10 which can show you quite clearly
23 that these lots are narrow and long, and they' re
' made up of various houses as they show down the
24 beach, some of them within 10 or 12 feet of each
other, some of them within 15 to 20 feet of each
25 other, but all fairly much under the conditions of
the zoning laws .
July 7 , 2005
45
1
2 For reference, the footprint on the house
directly to the west is approximately 28 by 53
3 feet, and that' s on a 50 foot parcel . They've got
a garage or accessory building 53 feet long along
4 the property line itself; and for reference, the
original Town Building Department applications are
5 in file here on Page 11, so you can see the
footprint as was filed originally when the house
6 was built .
Likewise, the next parcel to the west of
7 that, two houses down, also sits very close to
their property line as evidenced by the referenced
8 photo, you' ll see that on Page 12 . On Page 12 you
got a couple pictures . The top picture shows that
9 residence alongside you' ll see their fence showing
a fairly close proximity, there' s a scratch line
10 on the house, giving you an idea of how close that
house is . So we have in continuing support of
11 this request for a side yard variance, you' ll also
see that other houses are close to their property
12 lines as seen close up and evidence by the photos
enclosed. If you go down to Page 12 , 13 and 14 ,
13 these are photos of houses along the beach front .
This little strip of about 13 houses starting
14 building in the ' 50s I guess it was, these houses
were on plots that were 40 , 50 , 60 and I think the
15 biggest one is about 80 or 90 feet wide, some of
these houses are two-story homes that they have
16 been rebuilding and redesigned and families have
changed over are not quite close to each other
17 along the beach front, and you can see it by
evidenced in the photographs .
18 Many of these houses have enjoyed and been
allowed to make changes to their front side yards
19 and the overall size of their houses, specifically
for their family needs without adjusting their
20 original side yards .
So you' ll see on Page 15 , which is the
21 Whitrock house, there seems to be visually
comfortable room and the trees growing waterside
22 offers a nice sense of natural beauty, while
disguising the closeness that appears so evidently
23 down the beach, and they were quite close without
the trees . The point here is I think the natural
24 effect of the trees gives you a better effect than
the other ones down the road.
25 We also note that by using the existing
concrete footprint and especially it helps us
July 7 , 2005
46
1
2 control the excessive demolish and excavation
cost, especially along the southwest side where
3 the hand digging and a small crawl space
foundation can be used to minimize the need for
4 larger equipment . This is great for controlling
the potential of excessive property damage along
5 this side to a minimum by keeping us to a small
rubber tired bobcat or a small --
6 As a second request for our variance,
we' re here today to relate to Article 23 , Section
7 139 . 4 .B, which dictates the distance a structure
or building that can be away from a concrete wall,
8 bulkhead, riprap, et cetera and establishes that
as 75 feet . There' s a notice again from the
9 Building Department for disapproval on Page 5 for
reference .
10 This house along the Peconic Bay, like
many others along this strip, sits back from the
11 riprap wall approximately 20 feet . You' ll see a
survey on Page 16 denoting its actual position on
12 the property, and it lines up almost perfectly
with the next three houses . And, if you look at
13 the photo on Page 17 you' ll see the overhangs of
all these houses as we took the picture showing
14 each house in a row lining up . Of course, you can
look at the aerial later on and note there are
15 houses closer to the water.
With this in mind, two other situations
16 exist that determine our request for approximately
25 foot back setback . We were attempting to move
17 this house back to give us a new setback of 25
feet instead of the original 20 feet . The
18 existing house has a stable basement, and the
waterside crawl space that we would like to fill
19 in allows us the opportunity -- excuse me, I lost
my place . The existing house has a stable
20 basement and a waterside crawl space that we would
like to fill in. Thusly, moving the house back a
21 bit allowing us to use the concrete basement .wall
for our new structure, considerably more stable
22 than the corroding kind of footing on the front .
This helps us in two ways . First of all it stops
23 us from redigging and restructuring the crawl
space, which may need extra work to give us a
24 stable footing, and we don' t want to disturb the
waterside land on this property, again, a glance
25 at Page 18 .
Secondly, we notice that the design of 63
July 7, 2005
47
1
2 feet and most importantly, if we move it back any
further, puts a burden on the land side of the
3 property between the garage and a new residence
front wall . This area will now be approximately
4 40 to 45 feet from the existing garage . You' ll
see on your survey on Page 16, and you have the
5 big survey there, that the existing garage
occupies the location about 40 to 45 feet from the
6 new finished construction.
We, of course, note that both adjacent
7 houses just east and west of us have large garages
exactly in line with the subject property' s
8 garage, and our clients wish not to tear their
garage down and move their house into a setback
9 area that will no longer conform to the adjacent
conditions . This will create excessive expense
10 with a complete new house foundation, the cost of
demolishing the existing garage, and of course
11 adding to the cost of building the new garage .
This will put the new house somewhat sandwiched
12 between two garage service areas, all recessed
from the water line, losing great value for their
13 home .
One of the most important things, I don' t
14 know if I mentioned it there, but that space
between the 40 and 45 foot setback area is just
15 what we need to provide the new septic system for
the house, so by putting in two leaching pools and
16 a septic system will occupy that zone of 40 , 45
feet, and if we have to move it in that area,
17 we' ll lose that opportunity.
So in a quick review, the non-conforming
18 properties in this community seems to have
developed their own unique zones of conformity to
19 which we would like to stay in conformity with.
By keeping us within the 20 to 25 foot range from
20 the bulkhead, we would be consistent with most
waterfront parcels along the strip. Thusly
21 protecting the unique value of this waterfront
home and at the same time allowing us great
22 savings by using the existing basement as part of
the structure .
23 Our plan is to provide us with ample area
for a good septic system and hold off the
24 expensive expense of demolishing and rebuilding
the garage if needed to move the house back any
25 further.
We in addition hope that the Board
July 7, 2005
48
1
2 recognizes our desire to not disturb the waterside
property of this dwelling by allowing us to use
3 the existing basement line as a guideline for our
new residence with a small three foot bump to the
4 southeast corner as noted in the plan required by
the design and letting the existing side yard
5 establish the minimums that this proposed
residence previously outlined in the side yard.
6 In closing, we hope the Board looks
favorably on this request for the two variances as
7 Whitrocks are eager to move ahead with their
project . This home has been a family residence
8 that has enjoyed many generations . I think the
house was originally built in the ' 50s . Peggy and
9 Kevin Whitrock are excited by the continuation of
their family house, one that will be enjoyed by
10 their sons, who are now, and into the future with
their families . That' s pretty much it .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I speak
first?
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hutchinson,
13 I spent a great deal of time studying this plan.
And although there is some great credence to what
14 you' re saying in reference to the utilization of
the existing foundation, I haven' t seen this Board
15 grant anything 25 feet from riprap or bulkhead in
a long time, and I 've been here 25 years, that' s
16 number one . Number two, when you go to a
reconstruction, what you really need to do is
17 create access on at least one side of the house,
that access is tight at 8 . 66 ; however, that would
18 be the least amount of access that could be
created on that side .
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s 6 . 2 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s 6 . 2 on the east
20 side .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 8 . 66 .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s on the lower
end. You' d be concerned about the 6 . 2 .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, you' re not
listening to me . I want the house cut all the way
23 down to 8 . 66, the whole house .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re not talking
24 setback?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking,
25 side yard, new construction.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Secondly, on the
July 7, 2005
49
1
2 other side, the 3 . 5 has never been granted to my
knowledge by this Board except on an inland house
3 on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel, which was an
existing setback. And that house was exactly at
4 the minimum 300 to 400 feet from the high water
mark. So my proposition is very simple . This is
5 just mine, I 'm not speaking for the Board, 8 . 66 ,
5 . 5 is 14 . 16 , that would be the minimum total side
6 yards that I would go along with. Leaving the
house at 25 . 84 in reference to width.
7 1 As for the setback, I got to tell you, 45 ,
maybe, something like that .
8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 50 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 52 .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking 45
from the riprap .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what we' re
talking about 52 or 54?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : We have to look
back where we drew the line in the sand.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The worst part
of it is that you have no bulkhead. That' s where
13 the real horrendous part comes into this issue .
Now we understand -- I can understand that filling
14 in that foundation is going to create a normalcy
to the top of that bank, but that' s just my
15 opinion.
MR. HUTCHINSON: In reference to your
16 opinion, if I may, then you reduce the width of
that house overall 25 . 5 feet . You' ll notice that
17 on the plan, that one side that is the 16 . 5 feet
is the only side that really has a 30 foot wide,
18 it then reduces itself to 28 feet approximately.
This house has existed for 50 years with a six
19 foot side yard on the opposite side of their
accessible side, and if I was making an extension
20 to this house directly to the north only, which in
fact is really what I ' m doing here, then leaving
21 the existing dwelling 'is theoretically what I'm
asking for, to stay with the basic side yards,
22 stay with the existing conditions, chop off the
crappy porch that was built somewhere in the 160s,
23 which doesn' t have a great foundation on it, and
utilize the existing wall inside of the house,
24 which was there from the ' 50s when they built the
house originally. So the request, again, is that
25 with appreciation to I think a great desire to
have it widened, the existing conditions of the
July 7, 2005
50
1
2 property make us request again that we try to hold
that at least in the development of our plan and
3 just build landward so we don' t effect any major
change to the water side of the property. This is
4 something that from access the Whitrock family
from grandfather to father to son have been using
5 excessively on their side for years down the
beach. In reference to your comment about you
6 haven' t granted anything in a specific amount of
time, the next door neighbor had an accepted
7 addition put on their house in the 180s or the
late 170s .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Stuyvesants .
MR. HUTCHINSON: I'm going to get to that
9 next, but also the next door house had a full
porch put on the seaward side of their house, 10
10 feet and that was on the seaward side, which
typically is very difficult to obtain anything in
11 that regard. We' re looking to move back from the
water, but in an accessible amount, and if I don' t
12 have the ability to put the foundation in the
correct spot, then I 'm going to have to tear that
13 garage down. If I'm going to tear that garage
down, I can' t get my septic system in the same
14 location.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s fine,
15 move it back.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Everything compounds the
16 next expense .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s no
17 question about it . The question I have of you is
this a total tear down or not?
18 MR. HUTCHINSON: Actually, it' s not a
total tear down. We' re trying to keep the
19 interior wall of the house that was designated by
the basement structure . We' re trying to keep the
20 side wall of the house, the foundation part of the
house and some of the floor systems . So the part
21 that we' re tearing down basically is the north
side wall and parts of the east side wall that
22 relate to a porch enclosure which is going to be
open air now as opposed to an enclosed facility.
23 So it' s actually taking as much as we can out of
the existing house and using it as a footprint as
24 it is, and trying to get the advantage of that
basement wall on the water side to give us the
25 structural beginning for the job . And I ' m sure
you can recognize the fact that this house, which
July 7, 2005
51
1
2 is 900 square feet, approximately, the existing
house is probably the smallest thing on this beach
3 front right now, and that whole strip has got
houses of 3 , 000 , 3 , 500 , 2 , 800 ,_ houses that have
4 been redesigned over the last 15 , 20 years that '
have moved through whether the Building Department
5 or ZBA to get approvals for their positions, and
some of these houses are relatively new, and
6 they' re sitting 20 , 25 feet from the beach front .
And if you look at the aerial photograph that' s
7 193 that shows a fairly large amount of house
development along this little strip of 13 houses
8 where there are houses that are quite large,
needless to say close to each other. The
9 accessible area between some of these houses is
actually less than the amount that' s cumulative
10 between the two houses that I'm discussing.
There' s houses down the beach that' s only 11 feet
11 between them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is the
12 house in the finished plan?
MR. HUTCHINSON: The finished living space
13 is 2 , 800 square feet approximately. The house
next door is a footprint of 28 by 53 and it' s a
14 two-story house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s an old house .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s just my
opinion.
16 MR. HUTCHINSON: I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think if there were
no houses on that land, and the lots existed with
18 the current borders, do you think anyone would be
able to get a building permit to build?
19 MR. HUTCHINSON: No . Absolutely I agree
in that situation, I think the precedents
20 established, at least lend some credence to the
condition.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You use the word
"footprint" and what you mean by footprint is two
22 sides out of four are going to remain at the same
boundary, I think it' s strange caduality to say
23 that somehow part of the house is being retained.
Essentially the house is being demolished and
24 replaced but two of the sides are going to be in
place of the other sides .
25 MR. HUTCHINSON: Sir, simply, I can leave
the north side if it makes you feel any better
July 7, 2005
52
1
2 about having three walls there, because
technically our desire to move it back is only to
3 help and aid in the waterfront area of the
property, and not to extend any construction on
4 that side .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is and
5 I ' m not impressed, frankly, with the comparison
with existing houses . We have a situation which
6 is odd. It is explainable only historically that
all these houses are very narrow and very close,
7 closer than anything else on Long Island certainly
in the Town of Southold that is allowable because
8 other buildings are there, and are equally in
disregard of what is reasonable planning is to say
9 that we can tear this one down and do it just the
way other people have done . At some point, we
10 would hope that there would not be any repeat of
what has developed over Camp Mineola over the past
11 20 or 30 years . We can' t do anything about that ,
but the idea of allowing something to rebuild and
12 to exaggerate the insult, if you will, by
replacing a small house that is down very close to
13 the water, unprecedentially close to the water,
with a large house, that is unprecedentially close
14 to the water, to be sure, part of the largeness
comes from building further back. Yet, as you
15 noted, the property is 600 feet deep, and the idea
we don' t want to demolish the garage because then
16 the garage would be farther away from the water
and hence farther away from the house, I don' t
17 understand what the principle is, unless somehow
it is that no matter how bad things are we ought
18 to be able to replace them as long as we are
fairly cautious . That' s my problem with this .
19 MR. HUTCHINSON: I can appreciate that and
again, in quick rebuttal, the simplicity of the
20 thing, as I see it, is that you have 13 houses on
this side of the street, and if you go further to
21 the west, there' s another 12 , if you look at the
photograph, that all are greater than 2 , 000 square
22 feet in square footage right now.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re all farther
23 from the water.
MR. HUTCHINSON: No, they' re not, sir. If
24 you look at the photographs, some are actually
closer to the water. There are some houses that
25 are 16 to 18 feet from the water. There are some
houses that are 20 to 25 . As a matter of fact, I
July 7, 2005
53
1
2 think if the count is correct, out of the 13 that
are on this little strip, six of them are within
3 25 feet, three additionally are within 30 , then
after that they go from 30 to maybe 40 and only
4 one house is stuck behind, and the only reason
it' s stuck behind is because they were allowed to
5 subdivide their property and build another house
as a second house, leaving their frontage on the
6 water at only 12 feet wide, which is an absurdity,
for anybody to grant . But nonetheless, that was
7 granted at one time in the past to allow someone
to build four houses down further, a house that
8 was in the position of where all these garages are
now, making that another accessible home on the
9 beach.
So I think in conformity with appreciation
10 to not trying to stick somebody in the eye with
another one, this one will stop the look of the
11 lack of conformity, and if I have to move the
house back, the house that I' ll be building for
12 the client, or rebuilding, even though it' s nice
to have a new house and try to use everything new
13 as you can, not only will it be excessive expense,
but it will lose great value compared to the other
14 beach front houses which are right up on the front
strip . These houses seem to enjoy the front 25
15 foot setback, again that' s my opinion. It looks
like that' s why these people are building these
16 houses up to that level along that front strip.
And again, in the aerial photo, if I just
17 may take a second, it' s on Page 11, if you look
down from the Whitrock residence, I think it ' s the
18 third house from the street, that may be the Genya
house, if I don' t miss my guess, that may be
19 closer than this one is, right next door is within
25 feet, the next one next to that is 25 feet .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hutchinson, just
to interrupt, all these houses were built before
21 the setbacks were extended. These were built
perhaps in the 1980s . Today we have much stronger
22 setback rules and for good reason.
MR. HUTCHINSON: No one' s denying that but
23 even the setback in the ' 80s were not 25 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hutchinson, to me
24 each application is individual, and just because
your next door neighbor may have done it and it
25 might be wrong, doesn' t mean when you can do
something new you should repeat the same mistake .
July 7 , 2005
54
1
2 MR. HUTCHINSON: That' s typical I would
imagine, but again, in trying to show there is a
3 hardship and trying to recommend a favorable
request for the client, I just try to inform the
4 Board that again, there is conformity, there is
extreme hardship in the cost, which is extreme, to
5 tear down the garage, re-do everything in the
house and not use the existing foundation of the
6 house . That is an extreme area, and the potential
risk of damaging the water side area by bringing
7 in heavier equipment to do these things makes it
that much more difficult in controlling not only
8 the conditions on the site but DEC related
conditions . And we would like to make sure we
9 touch all the areas and touch all the footprints
to make sure we satisfy all the conditions that
10 are going on here .
So, again, as I have requested in this
11 side yard condition that we' re looking for, is
nothing more than. again trying to just keep the
12 house where it is and extending it in a direction
that' s landward so as to not develop anything more
13 seaward. And in requesting to do that, trying to
get a little more space on the seaward side so as
14 to give a little benefit to that space . Thirty
feet back further, 20 feet back further puts us in
15 a tremendously difficult location because it puts
us right up where the garages are, and the
16 neighbors, and we have all these buildings built
in a hodgepodge right around the Whitrock new
17 residence . Some of these houses have two and
three accessory buildings right on their property
18 lines within a foot of the property. So the
neighbor' s house directly to the west there' s a 53
19 foot garage right on the property line, that' s got
to be within a foot . I know the minimum accessory
20 building is about five feet, if I don' t miss my
guess in this area, so to move it back, sir, if I
21 go back that far, I come in proximity to that big
garage . On the east side there' s another garage
22 that' s within a foot or two or three feet from
that property line, now my house is even closer t.o
23 their garages than the conditions would have been
on the house . So you' re putting me in a situation
24 where I 'm going to get closer to the accessory
buildings than I was on the original houses to
25 begin with.
So again, as I request, I would prefer to
July 7, 2005
55
1 '
2 keep it as close as that area we' re looking for.
If some modification is necessary, we' re glad to
3 listen to and do whatever' s necessary but within
four, five or six feet is reasonable in the
4 setback from the water side; and on the side yard,
if you look at the plan, the plan is a simple
5 plan, it is 28 feet wide . Again, not trying to
say we' re comparing to the next door house or the
6 next door house, but; in fact, 28 feet is not an
unreasonable width for a house . To make it 25
7 feet, make it 26 feet at that point is it really
relevant to the answer of the setback? I ' m not
8 sure it is so much.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two more brief
9 points . I don' t have the details on this but I
believe the most recent decision in that area in
10 the west of that was where a variant' s application
was denied for similar reasons to ones that are
11 being voiced here, it was in the western section
where someone wanted to build more in a general
12 area of the beach.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Was that an addition,
13 sir, or was that a new house?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It was an addition.
14 The other point was, are you suggesting that
you' re exercising restraint in not extending it
15 even closer to the bay than it is now?
MR. HUTCHINSON: No, not at all .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You didn' t have room
to maneuver. I thought you were suggesting there
17 was kind of a compromise by not asking to go even
closer to the water.
18 MR. HUTCHINSON: No. That was a decision
made because we don' t find the footing underneath
19 the bottom to be secure enough to use, and the
compromise was that we don' t want to dig seaward
20 any more to excavate that footing, re-pin it,
restructure it, re-do the footing, and when we' re
21 already close enough to the riprap wall and the
adjacent bulkheads of the neighbors to start
22 fooling around with equipment on that side of the
house . The concern that we have is that we can
23 address most of this by entering from the landward
side and westerly side can we hand dig a trench
24 footing to provide comfortable access for a new
footing structure for the new developed area
25 giving us better control . We would have no
problem using big equipment if we move the house
July 7, 2005
56
1
2 back, that' s for sure, but if it adds a lot of
incremental cost, and that cost is already high
3 enough because the development of this house is a
2 , 800 square foot home . These are obviously not
4 inexpensive things to build, and it really points
to the fact that we' re trying to use the existing
5 structure as much as possible . So not to want to
re-word this in a way that says I want to put
6 additions to the front of the house then come back
to the Board with that kind -of recommendation is
7 not our desire to be hiding what we' re trying to
do, but we are trying to use the conditions that
8 exist .
So again, at the best we have the
9 opportunity to move back, we' d like to move back,
we' d like to move back to the wall of the existing
10 basement . And again, we' d like to use the
existing side yard.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My comments, Mr.
12 Hutchinson, is the same as Mr. Goehringer. You
say you' re going to try and save it, try not to
13 demolish the whole thing. You' re also trying to
build a second story house on a 1950 construction
14 house, which it may not be able to support the
second story, we don' t know that yet . .
15 MR. HUTCHINSON: From an engineering
point, we find that satisfactory enough. We don' t
16 have any problem with that . And if the Board
would like to reserve a decision based upon the
17 acceptance of an engineering report, we' re happy
to resubmit or to give you the report to show you
18 that it' s stable enough to do this .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, no . You can
19 get that report, and I can get another report that
said this is not
20 MR. HUTCHINSON: True .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We have set a line
21 in the sand years ago, no closer than 54 feet
approximately from a bulkhead or riprap . Since
22 this is a new construction pretty much, so you are
subject to new code . You keep referring to the
23 pre-existing, it' s pre-existing now, don' t touch
it , you can live there the rest of your life, but
24 now once you start removing walls, you' re subject
to the new code . I know you sound offended, you
25 have to do that, but that' s how it is .
MR. HUTCHINSON: Sir, not at all . We will
July 7, 2005
57
1
2 bring all the conditions up to the current code,
anything over 50 percent development we always do
3 everything we can to make sure it is current, and
we' re not looking for any tax benefits either.
4 we' re looking for a savings that is not
disproportionate to the total cost of the job.
5 The garage, the recessing of the house, the septic
systems that are involved all have a cost factor
6 that relates severely.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : But then you must
7 realize that every jog you make costs you money.
The straighter the run, the cheaper the house,
8 correct?
MR. HUTCHINSON: No doubt about it .
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So we' re saving
you money as we speak.
10 MR. HUTCHINSON: Well, every customer has
a budget in mind also . And you know, you try to
11 do as much as you can to satisfy that . But most
importantly, if I go back 50 feet, which is an
12 additional 25 feet, it puts me within 15 , 20 feet
of all the garages that are sitting along that
13 property right behind me, which now becomes kind
of a different kind of look in the front of this
14 house, the front of this house which we like to
consider a good looking front of a house, will now
15 be masked by all these accessory buildings on both
sides, whereas everybody else has the benefit of
16 having 50 feet between their garages and their
houses .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You raise the
consideration of hardship, one may take an
18 expanded view of that term and say, if you' re
going to turn, replace a 900 square foot house
19 with a 2 , 800 square foot house, you must be
concerned of the hardship of having the expenses
20 run too much. I don' t find that terribly
persuasive . In a hardship case I could imagine
21 turning the existing house in the existing
footprint into a more attractive, perhaps even a
22 one and-a-half story house, perhaps where it is
right now, leave it at 900 square feet and maybe
23 another 100 , 200 square feet behind it . But I
don' t think you can persuade the Board real
24 hardship if you' re talking about the conditions
for replacing a 900 square foot house with a 2 , 800
25 square foot house and then crying hardship .
MR. HUTCHINSON: In appreciation, I 'm sure
July 7, 2005
58
1
2 everybody can agree, there is always a limit to
something, and with appreciation to your comment,
3 it' s true, we could go up on the existing
structure and make the box as it is just another
4 floor above it, but it doesn' t fit the needs of
the family, and there is a budget outline for them
5 just as it is for everybody, and they were trying
to keep it conforming to that dollar level .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I look at
7 the disapproval and it does say demolish existing
single-family dwelling. When you demolish it,
8 then you have to meet the new codes, new stricter
standards . You' re held by those standards . Quite
9 honestly, if you wanted to build on that new
footprint and go back 50 feet towards the right of
10 way, I would have no objection to that . I even
have a case that you wouldn' t even be before us,
11 if you read the code, that' s not the case here .
The case is, you' re going to demolish this
12 house, and you' re asking us to grant a variance
that quite honestly, we have never granted before .
13 MR. HUTCHINSON:. May I add a comment? The
Building Department' s amendment to this, the first
14 filed document by us indicated a renovation to the
existing house . There was no change made by us,
15 but when the paper went over to ZBA on the
amendment, the amendment noted a demolition to the
16 house . On file in the record you' ll see, if you
had the opportunity the original notice by the
17 Building Department says renovation on it . If
it' s necessary, and I' d be glad to state it. now as
18 an amendment, we would change that word back to
the original one because it was changed
19 incorrectly before, just as if you look on that
note, the measurements are incorrect; that' s why I
20 had to amend the letter this morning indicating
the Building Department' s note of three feet and
21 six feet was incorrect . From the beginning it was
3 . 5 and 6 . 2 .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Linda?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just want to
23 mention, I spoke to the Building Department about
that last disapproval, and they took a harder look
24 at it . They didn' t realize you were replacing
foundation sections, and that' s why they consider
25 that a demo. It was not an error.
MR. HUTCHINSON: They had never informed
July 7, 2005
59
1
2 me of that .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We did when we sent
3 it to you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you can see
4 that the feeling of the Board is that we' re not
going to grant your request as applied for and
5 that you' re going to have to meet code and set
that house back further and get the side yards in
6 order.
MR. HUTCHINSON: In comment to that, what
7 is the Board looking for specifically so I have
the advisement of the Board to take to the client?
8 Because right now the code specifically says
distances on the side yard that is completely
9 intolerable to the scenario of this 40 foot
property. I' d have to build a five foot house by
10 400 feet long to give them 2 , 000 square feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Reiterate it again.
11 And we want that set back with the 54 foot from
the riprap .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the side
yards are 8 . 66 and 5 . 5 . Just for everybody' s
13 benefit in the audience, the house as the plan is
shown is at 30 feet, leaving a house at 25 . 84 .
14 We' re talking, ladies and gentlemen, a difference
of four feet, that' s what the total width is, a
15 difference of four feet that the Board requesting.
MR. HUTCHINSON: And a continued argument
16 if I may, just for last chance . Again, I don' t
agree with the setback condition because I have a
17 problem with the garages and the other expenses
involved. But if I have to, I 'm sure that the
18 client in lieu of not having this renovation will
agree to a setback but on the side yards since I'm
19 now moving back further away and not being in the
area of concern so much, is it possible to hold
20 the 28 feet as opposed to 25 . 44?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
21 MR. HUTCHINSON: What would be the - -
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We are also always
22 concerned too, with fire access .
MR. HUTCHINSON: I understand.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why we' re going
to hold you to it .
24 MR. HUTCHINSON: What is that criteria
that establishes 5 . 5 and 8 . 66?
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s existing,
sir. We' re not creating that' s 14 . 16 . It ' s
July 7 , 2005
60
1
2 supposed to be 25 .
MR. HUTCHINSON: It' s supposed to be 25?
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 and 15 .
MR. HUTCHINSON: It' s 10 and 15?
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s 15 and 20 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A total of 35 .
5 MR. HUTCHINSON: Exactly. At 15 and 20 ,
what is establishes 5 . 5 in your request and 8 . 66?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the Board' s
discretion and the house is squared off, and
7 that' s the issue . The 8 . 66 is the ability to get
to the water side of the house with some type of
8 emergency equipment . I don' t know at this
particular point, because I have to tell you that
9 I drive emergency equipment for this fire
district, and we' re at least going to be able to
10 get there, and we' re going to ask for it not to be
closed up in any in way manner or form. And
11 that' s the issue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Will you be able to
12 get new plans back to us for an August hearing or
should we postpone it to September?
13 MR. HUTCHINSON: When do they have to be
in before the August?
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The llth of August
would be the deadline . If you can' t make it, it' s
15 not a problem, we would automatically extend you
to the following month.
16 MR. HUTCHINSON: I 'm sure that' s okay.
How involved does the plan have to be? Do they
17 have to be full setback of plans again?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. Rough diagram
18 with a little detailed explanation of what the
changes are, a new survey showing the new setback,
19 elevation, if it' s changed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
20 MR. HUTCHINSON: One last closing comment,
it' s my opinion that the Board is indicating to me
21 that at your discretion you' re indicating 5 . 5 and
8 . 66?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' d rather have
nine, to be honest with you, and we' d rather have
23 six.
MR. HUTCHINSON: All right, thank you.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else that would
like to speak on this application?
25 MR. RICHARDS : Yes . My name is James
Richards, I reside at 540 Private Road 17, Camp
July 7, 2005
61
1
2 Mineola, Mattituck, we are the western .adjacent
property owners . And we have listened to this,
3 it' s very interesting, very helpful . I almost
thought I could get away from having to do this,
4 but there is a concern we have that has not been
addressed, that is that the called for new home is
5 going to be 33 ' 3 " and our side door faces that
side of the house . When we walk out, we' re going
6 to see a wall and that' s not going to help our
quality of life or our property value . And I
7 understand that the house has to be redone, we
know the Whitrocks a long time . We know Kevin' s
8 parents long before he was married and we
understand the house needs to be replaced, there' s
9 no doubt in my mind, and we don' t want to thwart
that in any way. But to go from 12 . 5 foot
10 elevation to 33 , our house is 24 foot high, and I
couldn' t complain if their house was 24 foot high,
11 but 33 ' 3 " inches is a bit much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say
12 something about that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We haven' t
gotten that far yet . When he comes back in
14 August, then we' re going to discuss the height
situation.
15 MR. RICHARDS : I don' t know the procedure .
It ' s a very careful and thoughtful presentation.
16 I do have a memo to give copies to you .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . Thank you, Mr.
17 Richards . Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak on this?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I ' d like to
speak. I think it would be disingenuous of this
19 Board to bring up the height later on. If you' re
negotiating with this person, tell him what is
20 acceptable to you so he can go out and get a plan
and come back. I for one would have no objection
21 to him building on that same foundation right now,
a Cape Cod style house or whatever, and I, for
22 one, I don' t think the code would deny him that .
But if he' s insisting on building a larger house
23 and insisting upon tearing it down, we should at
least as part of the negotiation tell him how high
24 we would like to see it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 26 feet
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s fine .
MR. HUTCHINSON: What is the local Town
July 7, 2005
62
1
2 code for heights of building?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : 35 .
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Mean height 35
feet .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If your setbacks
are non-conforming then it' s a Board decision on
5 the height .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So this is a Board
6 decision. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson.
MR. HUTCHINSON: Okay. On the 25 foot, 26
7 foot, in respect to your side yard condition with
the wall going up, again, it' s a two-story house
8 both floors are eight foot high, leaving us with a
side wall dimension of 17 feet, approximately, if
9 I was doing a two-story normal house, with a pitch
that was reasonable it would put me up a certain
10 height to begin with. He doesn' t have to worry
about that side because we can always make that
11 roofline as a roof going up as opposed to a gable
end facing his side of the property. If he found
12 that easier, then we would be glad to consider
that . The height of 26 feet, is there any
13 possibility of keeping it at least at 30 feet so
we can at least enjoy the opportunity of getting
14 some storage up in the space?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No.
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Hutchinson, if
you would like, you can submit a couple of
16 different diagrams showing different roof designs,
you can submit a couple of different ones for the
17 Board to look at .
MR. HUTCHINSON: Okay.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to
adjourn this hearing until August 18th at 1 : 00
19 p .m.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
21 David Devlin for a waiver of merger on West Hill
Road on Calves Neck in Southold. Miss Moore?
22 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, I have all the
documentation in your file . I don' t know how
23 extensively you want me to go over it . More
importantly some of the issues are that Calves
24 Neck, map of Calves Neck, which was a 1972 filed
map, when I reviewed the tax map records, every
25 property except three lots -- only three lots are
vacant, all the rest are developed, this being one
July 7, 2005
63
1
2 of the lots . The other two lots that appeared
unimproved as to the assessor' s records were
3 single and separate lots owned by -- I didn' t do
the title history on it, I don' t know what they
4 will find when they file for a building permit
application but at least at present they' re owned
5 by individuals and I did not see the same owner on
either side . So I have to assume that everyone is
6 single and separate .
We have a situation where the properties
7 were upon left as single and separate; the title
history here shows they were single and separate
8 both prior to the Collins-Devlin ownership, and
then unfortunately because of a personal situation
9 going on between Collins and Devlin, the title was
transferred. That was transferred. That was at
10 the only point in time that the merger occurred,
otherwise we wouldn' t be here today.
11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: When was that;
was that in 2000?
12 MS . MOORE : Yes . It was in 2002 , 2000,
pardon me .
13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Looks like
they were intentionally held separate for a period
14 of time and then something happened
MS . MOORE : I can go into the personal
15 history. I think it' s private, Mr. Devlin shared
- it with us but I don' t want to talk about it . But
16 yes, 2000 the deed was conveyed, but aside from
that it would have remained separate . The
17 property now Mr. Devlin is selling to Miss Wexler,
and she would like to preserve its integrity as
18 two separate lots . Her intention as I stated on
the record is she and her mother, her mother has
19 ' her own house but she' s reaching an age where she
needs to be close by, she' s actually intending to
20 build the two houses . Keep them in her control,
her mom living in one and she lives in the other
21 one .
That' s where we are today and we' d like to
22 have it deemed, reestablish the single and
separate nature of it . These parcels, as I said,
23 they' re few and far between certainly in this
neighborhood, this is the only situation I saw
24 that this was a merger and that was unfortunate .
I ' ll answer any questions you have .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have read the whole
thing. Jerry?
July 7, 2005
64
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not at this
time . Just to make a statement that Miss Collins
3 as being a member of this Board was not only a
personal friend of mine but also a wonderful
4 person.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And also I didn' t
5 know Miss Collins, but the legacy still lives on
in the Zoning Board. I don' t believe she would
6 have purchased them without single and separate .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I knew Miss Collins
also, and I actually understand the situation. I
9 have no problem at all .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat , do you
10 want to briefly touch on the standards for the
waiver merger?
11 MS . MOORE : I can, I certainly have it
written out . I don' t usually go into it .
12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: And it' s
submitted?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MS . MOORE : I could do a complete file for
14 your file .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s in your
15 application, and I think the Board was so willing,
I ' d like to move --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I want to hold
this until the 21st .
17 MS . MOORE : Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thanks, Pat . Is there
18 anybody here that wishes to speak on this
application? Yes, sir?
19 MR. NEEFUS : I'm Charles Neefus, 2145
Wells Avenue . I'm not in favor of unmerging this
20 property as essentially a corner lot and another
house on that property I don' t think is any asset
21 to the Hill Road area. And the other problem is
that if these properties are separately sold at
22 another time, even though they can be under her
control now, if they' re sold later, it' s going to
23 involve relocation of the driveway to the present
home and loss of half the driveway in the back,
24 which I think is going to be a real detriment to a
very nice piece of property.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, sir. Does
anybody else wish to speak on this application?
July 7 , 2005
65
1
2 Yes, sir?
MR. LEE : Good afternoon, Mr. Lee . My
3 name is Fred Lee . I live at 1820 Wells Avenue . I
am just west of this property, adjacent I guess .
4 For the record, I am a very strong proponent of
property owner' s rights . I don' t know exactly
5 what the law is and what the history was before .
It is a very beautiful property. Somehow my
6 thinking that to unmerge it to create two separate
building lots and to put a second house on, I
7 think would change drastically the appearance of
the neighborhood and affect it adversely. I' d
8 have to say that I would be against it . Still
understanding property owner' s, rights and things
9 like that, I think it would affect the nature and -
the appearance of the immediate neighborhood
10 adversely.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody
11 else? Yes, ma' am?
MS . PATCHELL: My name is Gail Patchell .
12 I reside at 1075 Hill Road West . I was just
curious, why was it denied before?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the first time .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was denied by
14 the Building Department, the letterhead top of it
is missing on there .
15 MS . PATCHELL: Again, I'm all for property
owner' s rights . My concern is the bulkheading
16 down at the water side . If you split that
bulkhead 20 feet, the new property owner, I ' m just
17 very concerned about congestion in the creek
itself . I don' t know if you have actually seen
18 the property, it' s a square . Mr. Devlin who is
such a nice guy, and so is Mrs . Collins, I 'm just
19 sorry that they didn' t --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do it .
20 MS . PATCHELL: Exactly. I'm just
concerned about the boat congestion at the end of
21 the creek. The way it' s set up the new property
owner with the 20 feet of bulkhead does have a
22 right to bring their boat there, and it' s going to
infringe on Mr. Neefus' s property the way it is
23 now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I comment on
24 that now? Up until 2000 , people were always
allowed to do that . That lot was a single and
25 separate lot, and they could have built a house on
that particular lot, and something happened, Miss
July 7, 2005
66
1
2 Collins is no longer with us, and just simply
because of a paperwork-type of error, not
3 necessarily by anybody' s intention, they ran afoul
of a law that we have in this town about mergers
4 of smaller lots .
MS . PATCHELL: Right, checker boarding,
5 right?
. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s right . But
6 unfortunately, these people were not married to
each other. She was a lawyer. She was a member
7 of this Board. Very nice lady. Quite honestly,
we watched her die, in all honesty. I had some
8 long discussions with her, I'm not going to hide
that in any way. But I have always felt this way
9 about mergers, that the Town is heartless, to say
the least, when it comes to this . That particular
10 law doesn' t allow for much leeway, specifically in
instances like this, and for whatever reason, this
11 Town doesn' t want to -- I call it confiscation --
they don' t want to address that problem that there
12 is no advertised, no writing to a person and '
saying, hey, you know, your lots are merged,
13 here' s your single tax bill . You don' t get that .
Therefore you don' t kind of think about it . It
14 just kind of happens and here we are . In the year
2000 or 1999 there could have been a house in that
15 location; there could have been a 60 foot boat, I
don' t think you can get that in that creek, but
16 you can get a good-sized boat there, and no one
would be the wiser, it would have just happened.
17 It was that way since the development was there .
It ' s not like this is a lot that' s being created.
18 This is just a lot that for paperwork reasons was
merged by definition of the Town.
19 MS . PATCHELL: Maybe that' s the point , it
was bought under that condition. When that
20 property was being shown, it was shown as one
parcel, not as two . If it was Mr. Devlin here, I
21 would have no problems with it . He bought the
property as it is . This isn' t the case .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody
else?
23 MS . WICKHAM: My name is Gail Wickham, and
I ' m here on behalf of Peter Hughes who is a
24 neighbor across the street . His wife had surgery
in New York this morning and so he asked if I
25 would speak.
I want to start by reiterating that I have
July 7, 2005
67
1
2 the highest regard for Laura Collins, she was a
friend and a client on other unrelated matters and
3 a very smart woman as well . But there are two
things that strike me as odd about this
4 application as far as the physical characteristics
of the lot, they don' t seem to match up with
5 separating the two properties, and the reason I
say that is it' s landscaped as one, the house
6 location is more or less towards the middle of the
property, the driveway location overlaps, the
7 garage access in the rear requires the use of both
lots, and as it narrows down to the creek it' s
8 very small, and I would reiterate what the lady
before me said about the bulkhead concern.
9 The second thing that is particularly odd
about this does relate to the fact that Laura was,
10 as we said, an attorney, she was a very smart
woman, she was a member of your Board; she
11 obviously had this as a single and separate lot
but I believe in 2000 she merged this property.
12 She put this deed from herself into herself and
David Devlin as tenants-in-common, which is
13 exactly how the deed on the other property did. I
can' t imagine that she didn' t understand that she
14 was merging the property. Quite frankly, I have a
little bit of hard time following the reasoning of
15 the application, but it seemed to have been done
in an effort to make sure there was a devolution
16 of the property in a certain way, and that I
understand, but that doesn' t change the fact that
17 she intended apparently, I think, to merge the
properties and to keep them as one single
18 property. And that doesn' t change the way that
the property would be devolved, whether it' s
19 merged or unmerged. So I don' t find it
consistent, the argument that this should not have
20 been merged.
Further, the deeds following that deed in
21 the estate out of the executor, confirmed that
merger within the same deed. So those are the two
22 things that I would like the Board to look at very
carefully.
23 As far as the property characteristics
itself, I also would like to point out that you
24 only have 10 . 5 feet between the corner of the
house and the side yard and there is shrubbery
25 there . So I don' t know how you would get around
the house to the water, which is, as we know,
July 7 , 2005
68
1
2 Mr. Goehringer' s emergency access concern, how you
would maneuver in and out of the house, how, I
3 can' t read the setback of the rear property from
the line, but you may be creating a non-conformity
4 if you grant this merger because it' s not shown
what the total side yards or the rear yard are .
5 Also with respect to the vacant lot which- is
thought to be set apart, I know it does appear to
6 be a corner lot, which will affect the setbacks .
You would have to build the house because it
7 narrows down in the back, you would have to build
it way up towards the road, which' I think would
8 affect the neighborhood, particularly along this
strip .
9 So I would like the Board to take a real
close look at those factors before they grant this
10 application just out of respect to a former
colleague . And one other quick thing I ' d like to
11 address in terms of the standards for granting the
waiver of merger, the increase in density of the
12 neighborhood I would say is not a big issue, but I
don' t think that these two lots would be
13 consistent, your second standard, with other lots
in the neighborhood given their shape and their
14 configuration and the location of the house on it .
I don' t see anything in the record of any
15 significant economic hardship, I don' t see it
there . I don' t think it' s been shown, and
16 Mr. Dinizio mentioned confiscation, it does happen
very often with the mergers, I don' t see it here .
17 But I would ask that you consider those things in
reviewing this file . Thank you.
18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Thank you, Miss
Wickham. Thank you for enlightening us and making
19 us look over that, I think we kind of went through
it in respect to Ms . Collins, but she no longer
20 owns it or her significant other is no longer
owner of this property.
21 MS . MOORE : If I could interject and
respond to those points . First and foremost, the
22 information I gathered here came from Mr. Devlin
himself . He co-signed this application, and he' s
23 the one who provided the insight as to why it was
being done . None of us knows specifically what
24 was in Miss Collins' s head, what her intentions
were . However, Mr. Devlin, given the two were
25 partners, I shared with you the basis why the
merger was done at that time . The fact that she
July 7, 2005
69
1
2 sat on this Board also, she understood the
consequences of the merger, she also appreciated
3 the fact that you do waive merger, and so there
was a way of undoing it when Mr. Devlin was
4 prepared and ready and thought it was appropriate
to do . So that' s why the application came in
5 under his name as well .
The second issue that was raised was with
6 respect to access . Right now there' s one
driveway, this had been an old potato barn so that
7 it was designed a certain way. It will eventually
be renovated and the driveway will be fixed so it
8 doesn' t necessarily come around from the back end
where the garage entrance is today, but there
9 would be no objection, I checked with Miss Wexler,
if we could provide a common driveway. We would
10 have no issue to providing a common driveway
between the two properties since for now it' s
11 going to be used by the common individual and at a
later date we would merely give an easement to
12 anybody who were to buy that as a separate parcel,
and they would -- for the most part this
13 neighborhood would see not much difference as to
how the driveway is set up . The driveway can
14 remain off West Hill Road, it' s already improved
there, and it could be redesigned so it straddles
15 the property line and works well as the access to
both parcels . So in listening to the comments we
16 would accommodate and try to respond to it .
With respect to financial hardship, this
17 Board is well aware of the values of property the
allocation of the price on this property is that
18 the lot itself is allocated -- we' re going by
memory, I don' t represent her on the purchase so
19 we think it' s $300, 000 for the vacant lot,
thereabouts . It might be 350 or something, so
20 that' s the value of the lot separate and apart
from the house parcel . The house is a nice house
21 but it does need some renovations and the value
here, certainly the lot is very valuable, and it' s
22 particularly valuable to Miss Wexler because of
her personal situation, that' s certainly not a
23 consideration for this Board, personal hardship,
however in this instance the two lots work well
24 together for her purpose .
I think those were the only comments that
25 required response .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Does anyone
July 7, 2005
70
1
2 else have any comments on this application? Miss
Wickham?
3 MS . WICKHAM: Just two things . I just
want to say that the value of the property as a
4 whole belies the fact that there could be any
economic hardship here, and the fact that a common
5 driveway is really the only way you can go further
reinforces the fact that it is a single lot, it
6 would be most appropriate as a single, lot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Gentleman in the back,
7 yes, sir?
MR. BAY: My name is Mladen Bay, I live at
8 475 Hill Road, which is a couple of houses away
from that property, and I mainly speak as a
9 concerned owner who wants to maintain the quality
of the neighborhood, and I think building a house
10 on this lot and subdividing it in such a way would
devalue the entire neighborhood, and that ' s why
11 you have all these other people here speaking
today. I don' t know what the limits are when you
12 merge a lot, and how much time you have before you
unmerge it, but it' s been three years, I guess,
13 and I think there' s been plenty of time to back
step, which hasn' t happened at this point .
14 Basically I also knew Laura Collins . She
was very actively involved in conserving the
15 quality of the neighborhood. She knocked on my
door every time somebody wanted to get a variance
16 for something that wasn' t appropriate for the
neighborhood, and I 'm sure she would be opposed to
17 this also . Her neighbor to the east side of her
asked for a variance, and she fought him on it
18 because he wanted to build close to the property
line . There was a guy that wanted to put a dock
19 in the wrong way on a creek, she was opposed to
that . She was always for conserving the quality
20 of the neighborhood, and I would appreciate that
the Board deny this application. Thank you.
21 MS . MOORE : I did forget two points, I
apologize . With respect to the vacant lot the
22 architect has reviewed the setback requirements
here, and it' s the belief that they can build a
23 house on the vacant lot without variances . With
respect to the second front yard setback, you' ll
24 see that Wells Avenue is only touching about 50
feet of the side yard, there' s actually a full
25 side yard which is owned by the Neepus Qualified
Personal Residence Trust, so that, in fact, is not
July 7, 2005
71
1
2 a front yard, so as far as front yard setback,
there' s only a small portion of the front of the
3 yard which is West Hill Road which might require a
front yard setback, otherwise this lot is
4 actually, t can be developed pretty simply.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Pat, can I ask you
5 a question? About the entrance where the house
is, what stops them from putting a driveway in?
6 MS . MOORE : Nothing. It ' s just the way it
was done originally. Because there are so many
7 street frontages, you can pick wherever you put
your driveway. It was a concession we gave of
8 providing a common driveway so as to not disturb
the neighborhood.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They are two
separate lots, you could have a driveway on either
10 either side?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they were two
separate lots, a driveway where it is now
12 shouldn' t be .
MS . MOORE : Well, yeah, they would have
13 to -- you could have an encroachment, you could
have an agreement with your neighbor to have a
14 driveway beyond your property line, and when you
own both properties, I have actually done that, I
15 have a client who bought three properties and has
a common driveway coming through the center lot
16 and it spurs out and provides a common entrance to
three of the properties . It' s sound front
17 properties, and we did that by easements and water
lines, all the utilities all that comes in. It' s
18 a compound that was set up that way. So you can
do anything you want, as long as you make
19 provisions with proper easements . But this has
driveway access anywhere they want, and my client
20 does point out to the neighborhood that she does
intend to fully landscape, she' s not at all shy
21 about providing adequate landscaping, and, in
fact, there is a hedge row that' s already there
22 now between the Neepus Qualified Personal
Residence Trust along almost the entire length of
23 the waterside, both sides, so we could extend to
give privacy. But as I said, we think we can
24 build without variances so it would be a normal
setback, houses with setbacks in conformity with
25 what the code requires?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to say one
July 7 , 2005
72
1
2 more thing for the record, my approval for this
merger is in no way influenced by my friendship
3 with Laura, because Laura and I went head-to-head
on merger law many many times . It' s always been
4 my belief that the Town is in like a "gotcha" kind
of mode when it comes to merger, and they never,
5 ever advise the people that this merger law
existed other than putting in a legal notice in a
6 newspaper that no one could understand, even if
they wanted to, and then allowing this- law to
7 exist the way it is . So this is not in deference
to an ex-colleague because I believe that we would
8 still be at loggerheads with this, but it is
because this is exactly the reason why we- should
9 be doing something about this merger law that 11
allows for a clearer interpretation, and a little
10 more lenient interpretation about law. I did want
to get that on the record.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir, quickly.
MR. NEEFUS : In answer to what he just
12 said, Laura knew the law. She was on your Board.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And she purposely
13 merged it?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Basically if
14 there are adjacent, nonconforming lots that are
held in different ownership at any time after 1983 ,
15 they shall be deemed merged if they' re less than
40 , 000 square feet .
16 MS . MOORE : There were some exceptions to
that rule, well established subdivisions they had
17 until 199 to preserve .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There' s all
18 sorts of qualifying language and there is the
provision for waiver of merger, which is why we' re
19 here .
MR. NEEFUS : The law would not allow it as
20 it stands .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s four
21 conditions . The first one is that the waiver will
not result in a significant increase in the
22 density of the neighborhood. I' d say one out of
what, 40 houses is probably not a significant
23 increase in the density of the neighborhood
overall as opposed to the town. I 'm not saying
24 that on this particular corner it isn' t going to
have an effect, it will . The waiver would
25 recognize the lot as consistent with the size of
lots in the neighborhood. Pretty close, it' s an
July 7, 2005
73
1
2 odd-shaped lot, but to my mind, just my way of
thinking, I don' t see where it' s 30 percent or 20
3 percent or 50 percent smaller than the lots that
are there already, certainly you wouldn' t notice
4 the difference, but that' s besides the point . The
waiver will avoid economic hardship, I don' t know
5 about that . I don' t think that' s what you
consider one way or the other. And the natural
6 details and characters, contours, slope of the lot
will not be significantly changed or altered in
7 any manner. There will not be a significant
filling of the land affecting nearby environmental
8 or flood areas . They' re going to build a house on
it, but they' re not, going to build it up 10 feet
9 so that it floods into the streets and everywhere
else . Certain codes that they have to comply by,
10 that' s the four conditions of the waiver of
merger. Now, if you can see anything out of that
11 that says that we could grant this merger, I don' t
know, I think that you would be hard pressed to
12 find anything on that .
MR. NEEPUS : You' re granting an unmerger.
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you want to get a
14 copy of the law go to the Town Clerk' s office .
MS . WICKHAM: Would it be possible to see
15 a rendition of a house layout on that lot which
Miss Moore indicates meets requirements? And also
16 clarification of whether there would be a
non-conformance on the existing house, which was
17 my other point . I don' t know that they meet side
yard or rear yard setbacks .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They don' t .
Honestly, that house has been here for years .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not within our
purview here . We' re not interested where the
20 houses are going to be, where the driveways are
going to be . It' s a waiver of merger.
21 MS . WICKHAM: You' re creating a
non-conformity.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it' s
23 pertinent . But the house and that lot line has
been for years .
24 MS . WICKHAM: On that lot .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you unmerge it .
25 MS . WICKHAM: Now it' s on the whole lot .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What I'm saying to
July 7, 2005
74
1
2 you, when they built the house there was a lot
line there, it was eight foot away.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Comments are noted. I
make a motion to close the hearing reserve
4 decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -- --------------------------------
----- ----------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
6 Howard Waldman at Arrowhead Lane in Peconic, he
wishes to build a new house and hopefully get rid
7 of the other properties there .
MS . MOORE : Yes . You've seen many of
8 these properties on Arrowhead Lane, it' s a
beautiful street . I think I've done at least two
9 of the variances, front yard, rear yard variances,
in placing a house on these properties . It' s a
10 nice street, but there' s very narrow lots and you
can' t put a normal size house on the property. So
11 ultimately what we end up doing is trying to do,
and Mr. Waldman did this, he put the house kind of
12 centered, he has a nice front porch. You've seen
the elevations, it' s a beautiful kind of cape
13 looking house, if I had the architect' s design
correct, and it' s certainly more in character with
14 the new homes in the neighborhood versus the
little one-story wood frame residence that is
15 there presently, which is the original homes that
would pop up in this area, which was a summer
16 community, primarily.
We did get a letter, thank you very much,
17 Linda, for passing on one of the letters that came
from one of the neighbors and Mr. Waldman is
18 willing to demolish the old residence . We spoke
to the Building Department, and what we would be
19 doing because obviously any time you' re building
you' re replacing your house, you have to put your
20 things somewhere . What we talked to the Building
Department about was getting a demolition permit
21 for the one-story residence and not activating
until we have the house constructed and ready for
22 a C of O. At that point we can demolish the
house, otherwise Mr. Waldman would be homeless and
23 that would be a problem. So certainly that should
satisfy many of the concerns in this
24 neighborhood.
You have in your record all the variances
25 and the different properties, the variances that
have been granted. I don' t need to belabor that .
July 7, 2005
75
1
2 Certainly your record is complete for that
purpose . The height of the house, I don' t know if
3 you' re interested in it, we checked with the
architect, the top of the ridge is at 30 ' 711 , so
4 it ' s a very standard, not a very tall house, you
can see it' s a cape . It has kind of a steep roof
5 pitch, with just dormers on the second floor,
dormer window, and it has a nice front porch with
6 the pillars to give it a nice softening effect .
Again, it' s a lovely looking house .
7 Mr. Waldman, this is his primary
residence, someone was believing that he lives in
8 Jamesport . He actually votes . This is his
Arrowhead Lane, Indian Neck Road this is
9 considered his primary residence . He has three
children. He and his wife are divorced, but the
10 children come live throughout the summer, in fact,
one of them is planning to relocate to live with
11 him permanently. So the house has to accommodate
he and his three children. The reason they think
12 he doesn' t live there is his girlfriend has a very
serious bout of cancer, and he' s been spending a
13 lot of time in Babylon in support of her
treatment . So aside from that, this is a very
14 standard application before this Board. I think
the last application I had, the neighbors in the
15 back wanted us moving to the front, and the
neighbors in the front wanted us to move towards
16 the back. In this instance we have a square, and
we have it evenly spaced out so we have a little
17 more backyard than front yard. The road itself,
actually, Arrowhead Lane is not that wide, so you
18 can have quite a .bit of grass before you actually
get to the property line . Any questions?
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How large is that
house, how many square feet? It' s a big house, 40
20 by 40 .
MS . MOORE : 40 by 40 , 1, 600 square feet .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the first floor.
MS . MOORE : Yes, given what you've been
22 seeing, as homes this is a double-sized lot, the
lot itself is half an acre -- no, one acre parcel .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Maybe 2 , 400 with
the top done .
24 MS . MOORE : It' s modest for the standards
that we' re seeing out here, it' s not a mansion.
25 It ' s his principal residence within a budget .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
July 7, 2005
76
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I
have is I would suggest to the Board that the
3 destruction of the house on Indian Neck Road, that
would it would read prior to the issuance of the
4 C of 0 on the main dwelling.
MS . MOORS: Yes, that' s what we would be
5 doing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the legal
6 jargon that would be used.
MS . MOORE : Yes . The Building Department
7 was satisfied with that . I saw Mike this morning
as a matter of fact . He said that' s not a
8 problem. He said many times that' s the way it has
to be done because people are rebuilding.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And that shed be will
remain?
10 MS . MOORE : It' s a goner too .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you have a garage
11 that you' re going to build anyway.
MS . MOORE : That' s when he has money. I
12 suggested that we get the variance for it and the
placement of it now. So he doesn' t have to get,
13 certainly with my expense, it' s all included,
one-stop shopping.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You answered my
15 concern with the accessory building, that' s gone,
and I agree, Miss Moore, you' re probably closer to
16 50 feet to Arrowhead Lane, from road frontage, not
property line, so you give the impression that
17 it' s that far back. I don' t have a problem.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Similarly, I was
18 rather not happy with this until I learned of his
plans to demolish the existing.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak on this
21 application? Yes, sir?
MR. MCGUIRE : My name is Thomas McGuire, I
22 live on Campfire Lane in Peconic and am part of
the Arrowhead Association. I am not speaking
23 today as president of the Arrowhead Association,
which I am, because the association has not had
24 time to review this application and this site
plan. But I do wish to protest granting the
25 variance allowing an existing residence, an
accessory building to remain, which was shown on
July 7, 2005
77
1
2 the site plan which was given to me on July
5th. And the Board should know that when Waldman
13 purchased this lot, actually two lots from
Ableson, he agreed to build a new home there and
4 when it was built that the existing buildings
would be taken down. This was about five years
5 ago and we as neighborhood people have been
sitting there looking at this wreck of a building
6 sitting on this lot . In addition to that , I 'm
sure if you inspected the area you' d see in the
7 yard cluttered with junk and unregistered
vehicles . We have written him letters advising
8 him of the bylaws and covenants which he is
subject to and chosen to ignore them. The
9 question that was raised before that Waldman needs
a place to live, actually, he only lives there
10 very sporadically, as you indicated that he
primarily lives with his girlfriend in Babylon,
11 his children are in college and very seldom are
there . I'm sure this house wouldn' t be started
12 until fall anyway so I don' t see any reason why
that building should remain.
13 Waldman attended our annual property
owner' s association on June 26th and requested our
14 support on this project . It was not granted
because he failed to bring along a plot plan
15 showing location of buildings for the architecture
committee to review. He was also asked to provide
16 a letter committing for removal of the structures
and was advised the association has to approve per
17 our covenants, which he agreed to do . As I
mentioned, this plot plan and this letter was not
18 delivered to me until the 5th, which was way too
late for anybody to look at prior to this
19 meeting.
I also question the width of Arrowhead
20 Lane, Arrowhead Lane is actually 50 feet wide and
if and when -it gets widened, which I certainly
21 hope will, Waldman' s lot will appear a heck of a
lot closer to the existing 32 feet setback that-
22 he' s requesting.
We would like to cooperate with Howard in
23 building this lot but we' d like to find out some
way other than perhaps the issuance of a C of O
24 maybe he could put up some kind of a bond or
something to have some assurance that those
25 existing buildings would be torn down, and just
what the procedure of that, I don' t know.
July 7, 2005
78
1
2 Anyway, as I say, we are not dead set
against granting this variance, but we would like
3 to have it done within at least gaining some
condition of assurance those buildings are going
4 to be torn down and that the accessory building
that he' s planning on building in addition to this
5 house will provide the normal setback as well .
Thank you.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : One quick
7 question, sir, Arrowhead Lane, is that a private
road?
8 MR. MCGUIRE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So the association
9 would have to pay to have it improved and widened.
I ' d like to be at that meeting when you tell them
10 it' s $100 , 000 to make that widened.
MR. MCGUIRE : I'm a vote of one . Whether
11 it happens or not it' s still our property and the
laws are in effect .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . And you know
the applicant has said he is going to remove that
13 building.
MR. MCGUIRE : Howard said he would do a
14 lot of things . We would like some kind of a
guarantee .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We put in the
guarantee, he cannot live in that house until the
16 old one' s removed.
MS . MOORE : We don' t get a CO.
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think what the
gentleman is looking for, you know, for cash you
18 can build a house and live in it,, and you don' t
need a CO until you go to sell it . I think what
19 these people want is some assurance that that' s
going to happen. Just because we say in our
20 decision that you don' t get a CO until you take
down that house, doesn' t really mean a lot .
21 MS . MOORE : I would strenuously disagree
with that . He is actually getting a loan to build
22 this . Are you going to use bank financing?
MR. WALDMAN: Equity from the house .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Equity from what
house?
24 MS . MOORE : From the old house that' s on
the same property. So you' re going to have a
25 mortgage on the whole thing. Then you' re going to
rebuild another house .
July 7, 2005
79
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bank' s going to require
a CO.
3 MS . MOORE : I think so. Plus you have
insurance . I never advise a client to live in a
4 situation where they either don' t have a CO or
have a situation where it' s not legal because. God
5 forbid something happens .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand that,
6 and I honestly, granted it' s not the homeowner' s
association because we don' t represent them today,
7 however there is a concern.
MS . MOORE : I agree and that' s why we
8 talked to the Building Department about getting a
permit for the demolition of the old building and
9 getting as a condition of the getting the C of O
we have to demolish. So the Building Department
10 ultimately has us under their control, and they
will issue a notice of violation and he' ll be
11 spending money in justice court, which is a waste
of money. I think ultimately there will be
12 secondary layers and review.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think if you' re
13 taking a mortgage out on an existing house, I
don' t think they' re going to ask for a CO.
14 MS . MOORE : They' re getting an equity loan
on the existing house . I think then you' re going
15 to demolish the house that has the equity.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How does it work?
16 If you' re getting a demolition permit to tear down
a house that you' re going to take a loan on, that
17 doesn' t make sense to me .
MS . MOORE : We didn' t talk about that, but
18 I think the bank is going to have to make him
refinance, the reality of that situation.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we need to
in all fairness to your client, we as a Board need
20 to come up with certainly the conditions that will
insure that that house comes down.
21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : In a reasonable
amount of time .
22 MS . MOORE : My only concern is that he' s
not a man of means . He' s suggesting things that I
23 don' t think are within his wherewithal .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just being on the
24 Board as many years as I have, things tend to stay
the same, sometimes those houses don' t get torn
25 down.
MS . MOORE : But I don' t think the Building
July 7, 2005
80
1
2 Department, they' ll have an open permit . They' ve
been actually been more diligent about reviewing
3 their files and sending out notices on open
permits .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just the fact that
you had to say that, Pat, kind of scares me .
5 MS . MOORE : In the old days they really
didn' t look at their old stuff . But we are
6 dealing with current status .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Miss Moore, is
7 Mr . Waldman hiring a builder? Is he going to do
it himself?
8 MS . MOORE : Schwartz is the architect - -
I'm sorry, Chuck Thomas is the architect . Oh, '
9 he' s GC-ing it .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So we could take
10 year, two years .
MS . MOORE : 18 months, six months .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You never know.
MS . MOORE : I don' t know how long a
12 construction takes .
MR. MCGUIRE : What is his redress if he
13 doesn' t tear that thing down?
MS . MOORE : We have a violation of a
14 condition of a Zoning Board decision.
MR. MCGUIRE : What is the recourse?
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: He would be
issued a notice of violation and be summoned to
16 Town Justice Court .
MS . MOORE : Our injunction, or Supreme
17 Court action.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is
18 Mr. McGuire' s recourse to the Town? In other
words, does he have standing to come here and say,
19 look there' s a decision on this, it' s been three
years, both of these houses still exist on the
20 property. Does that person in the neighborhood
have any recourse?
21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: He doesn' t
have legal standing. He has standing to implore
22 the Town to do the right thing.
MS . MOORE : You can bring an action to
23 compel enforcement and failure on enforce and
actually enforce your own action.
24 MR. MCGUIRE : All over this would be moot
if he tore the building down before he built the
25 building.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can we ask Mr.
July 7, 2005
81
1
2 Waldman, how long is your time frame? How long do
you think it' s going to take to build this?
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You could put
a time period on the variance .
4 MR. WALDMAN: I 'm going to start in the
fall .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 18 months, a year?
MR. WALDMAN: I 'm hoping to be in sometime
6 by spring, I told my children Christmas, but I
don' t think so, I would think by spring.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even if it' s a bad
winter?
8 MS . MOORE : I mean a normal construction
of a house takes a good nine months .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What if we grant
the variance for a year? I don' t know what the
10 procedure is, say we do it for a year, two years .
It ' s a reasonable amount of time . At the end of
11 that, what happens?
MS . MOORE : We can put a condition if it' s
12 not completed within two years we come back.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That you would
13 have to renew it or it expires . If the
demolition, you could put conditions on it saying
14 it ' s only good for 18 months or two years if the
demolition is not completed by that period of
15 time --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I want to get at
16 who is compelled then to enforce that?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s not going to
17 happen.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It would be
18 incumbent upon the Town again, that same process .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. McGuire, he
19 gets to go to the Building Inspector, look it' s
been two years, enforce the law, it' s not these
20 people going to Supreme Court it' s the Town. ,
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They can go to
21 Supreme Court only if the Town refuses .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm looking for that
22 the neighbors don' t have to have an imposition
upon them and go to the Supreme Court to make the
23 Town do some vague thing that who know what the
Supreme Court is going to do as opposed to he has
24 the right to go to the Building Inspector and
demand that they enforce the code, it' s incumbent
25 upon the Town then.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It depends on the way
July 7, 2005
82
1
2 we write the approval .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make
3 sure that the neighbors don' t have to sue somebody
to get something done . That was your question,
4 can they, yes, they can on their own.
MS . MOORE : I didn' t mean to say that they
5 have to do it . They always have recourse, that
was your question, can they, yes , they can. but
6 why would he want to get sued from the Town or the
neighbor when it' s simply a question of finishing
7 up the house?
MR. MCGUIRE : Why can' t you say the
8 building' s going to be demolished in a certain
amount of time . Why can' t we get it done in a
9 certain period of time?
MS . MOORE : Because we have to have a
10 house completed before we demolish. We can' t live
in a house without a CO.
11 MR. MCGUIRE : He' s not living there now.
MS . MOORE : You know, I've already put on
12 the record this is his principal residence, he
votes there, he lives there .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s not
applicable anyway.
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: He has a right
to live in his house, that' s what we' re trying to
15 work with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
16 who wishes to comment?
MR. MCNAB : I 'm Glen McNab, I live at 665
17 Arrowhead Lane . I 'm the adjacent property owner
to Mr. Waldman, just to the south, and my wife
18 Yvonne and I support Mr. Waldman' s petition,
application in its entirety, and we would hope
19 that you would look favorably upon this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, anybody
20 else?
MR. HORTON: I'm Philip Horton, I live at
21 the end of Arrowhead Lane . I lived in that junk
house when I was first married that Howard lives
22 in now. Mention about Arrowhead Lane being a
narrow road, but Arrowhead Homeowner' s Association
23 owns 50 feet wide, so any property owner' s front
yard begins with that 50 feet . Other houses have
24 gotten variances, and you have favored a larger
front yard and a smaller backyard, this way the
25 current application from my information that the
front yard is less, why not make the front yard 40
July 7, 2005
83
1
2 feet and make the backyard 38? He' s backing up
like other houses on Arrowhead Lane on that side,
3 he' s backing up to other backyards on Smith' s
Road. And I think the minimum of 40 foot front
4 yard would be a lot better. I'm confused with all
this talk and everything, but I had a note here on
5 the site plan that I saw this afternoon at 1 : 00 ,
1 : 30 for the first time, it says existing house
6 will be converted to an accessory building. This
I do not understand, if the agreement with the
7 Board is different it' s fine with me because I
don' t think that --
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He has made an
amendment that he will demolish that building.
9 MR. HORTON: Okay,• as Mr. McGuire has
stated, the association got notice of this two
10 days ago, and didn' t give anybody any time, and we
think it' s a little unfair even though Howie
11 promised on the meeting on the 26th or 29th, the
next day or Monday he would give us the
12 information, we never got it until two days ago,
that' s my thing. I hope there is something with a
13 little teeth in it because I 've been in this town
all my life and many times, Jim knows --
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sir, just a point
of clarification, his rear yard setback is 36 feet
15 in his backyard, so if we moved his house back
eight feet then it would reduce his rear yard to
16 28 feet then.
MR. HORTON: Right, rear yard 28 feet .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You said 38 .
MR. HORTON: I'm sorry, that' s my mistake .
18 As I say, I hope because I've seen too many
things, people go ahead, they live in something
19 like Jim says you don' t need a CO to live in a
house . You need it when you sell it, period. And
20 I ' ve known Howard for a few years and everything,
but, I 'm sorry, I would like something. I don' t
21 know what the Board can do from the discussion
that took place .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll do the best we
can. Yes, ma' am.
23 MS . MCNAB : I'm Yvonne McNab, I live at
665 Arrowhead Lane with him. I just want to make
24 a comment that Howard does live in that house,
we' re neighbors . So I know he lives there, and. I
25 also know his girlfriend because we did live in
Babylon and used to run into Howard time and time
July 7, 2005
84
1
2 again, but his girlfriend has been sick so he does
spend a lot of time there, but he is living in
3 that house . And as far as a neighbor, he' s been a
wonderful neighbor and we appreciate him very
4 much. I can' t say that for the all the neighbors
on that street, he' s very supportive . We want to
5 support him in every way and help him. There' s
going to be two more lots developed on the top of
6 that street . They both have the same problem and
those property owners couldn' t be here today, and
7 I don' t have anything written from them, but I
know they' re going to have the same concerns .
8 It ' s just our area that' s like that and I
appreciate that you consider that because we all
9 have that kind of property. We have been here
before so we know. But I appreciate you listening
10 to me, and thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anybody
11 else?
MS . MOORE : As far as the placement of the
12 house, again, we centered it, if you want to push
us two feet back, give us two feet on the front ,
13 we have a square, as we said, we' re amenable . We
think that the setbacks are consistent with the
14 other variances you've granted but the placement
of the house a little bit back or a little bit
15 forward it' s fine .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
16 close the hearing and reserve decision until
later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Vivian Lindermayer and Aspasia Israfil . Is there
19 anyone here who wishes to speak on this
application?
20 MS . MOORE : This is a Long Island Sound
piece that was created many, many, many moons ago.
21 It was created with a 10 foot right of way.
That' s all we have is a 10 foot right of way. So
22 280A is our obligation to get a variance for the
access . The improvements on this 10 foot right of
23 way can be blacktop, blue stone, we were leaving
it up to whoever brought the property to put the
24 driveway, some people prefer blacktop, some people
prefer blue stone, either way, the Building
25 Department actually looks to make sure it' s
appropriately graded and accessible .
July 7 , 2005
85
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I disagree, Mrs .
Moore, we have the 280 specs here, we' ll write the
3 decision.
MS . MOORE : Fine .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15 feet .
MS . MOORE : No. You can' t require 15
5 because obviously you don' t have title to 15 . We
are limited by the legal limits of our property.
6 I 'm sure Dr. Kaplan and his wife do not want us
taking five feet of their property. Our legal
7 limit is the 10 feet, as to the 10 feet what you
want as far as the improvements on those 10 feet .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How do you know
it' s 10 feet, in the deed it doesn' t say?
9 MS . MOORE : I highlighted it on the
deed. It' s pre-existing. Actually, if you recall
10 from the paperwork this used to have a house on it
and the house burned down many years ago.
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Who owns the
property where the right of way is?
12 MS . MOORE : Dr. Kaplan and his wife .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s an iron fence
13 run along the whole length.
MS . MOORE : At one point in time the two
14 property owners shared a common access by
agreement, they just worked it out . When the
15 house in the back was there, they used a common
driveway and the driveway that is presently used
16 you can still see it on the present survey. It
goes by the house on the street, and then makes a
17 circle up to the north. That was the common
driveway, but at this point they are two different
18 property owners and we can' t impose that on them.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I was going to ask
19 for the history, but the house burnt down.
Because I took the walk in the woods back there
20 and said there can' t be a foundation. I walked
back there and sure enough there it is .
21 MS . MOORE : Yes . Any other questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I ' ll write
the specifications .
23 MS . MOORE : Do we have it in the code
somewhere?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need 280A,
right .
25 MS . MOORE: No, but the specs on the road,
is there actual specs that they give for the road?
July 7 ,- 2005
86
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We have it as part
3 of the Board. Jerry knows what they are .
MS . MOORE : Share it with me .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s going to be
either stone blend or macadam.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Continuously
maintained.
6 MS . MOORE : I think that' s common sense
also what people maintain their driveways .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t have
8 further questions .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat , does your
9 client have the right to improve this right of
way?
10 MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s in the deed, it' s
their deeded access, yes .
11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They have the
right to put whatever improvements on that right
12 of way they wish?
MS . MOORE : I don' t know that anybody' s
13 actually -- as far as drainage? I think if the
Town requires it .
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have a
right of way over it, but do you have a right to
15 improve it is my question.
MS . MOORE : It has to he improved to the
16 specifications that you direct . Access has to be
legal access . I think if we were to end up in
17 court over it a judge would look at it and go - -
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand
18 what you' re saying?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to get
19 a CO .
MS . MOORE : You have to get an access . In
20 the olden days you put a blacktop driveway in,
nothing more and that would be fine .
21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board
certainly has the ability to do what it wishes .
22 I ' m just wondering if you' re going to start to
build on this in any manner you choose and then
23 the owner of the land might object, but that' s
your issue I guess .
24 MS . MOORE : I guess that' s our issue and
we' d end up in court and spend thousands and
25 thousands of dollars arguing over that issue . I
don' t know, Dr. Kaplan, does it make sense to have
July 7, 2005
88
1
2 squares off with, the end of the existing building
instead of being two foot in. So we' re not
3 getting any closer to the bluff than the present
setback that exists, but we are filling in that
4 what is it, 10 by two feet section or we' re
proposing to if this Board it is going to grant us
5 that .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where are you
6 talking?
MR. STRANG: On the east side . We wants
7 to fill this section in.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This tiny section?
8 MR. STRANG: Yes . Because it' s not there
now it' s considered --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Got you.
MR. STRANG: Originally we were going to
10 put a second floor over the porch.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re going to
11 have to rebuild the whole porch 26 feet?
MR. STRANG: I'm saying rebuild it because
12 we' re going to have to put in new studs that are
now six inches thick instead of four inches thick
13 to accommodate the new windows and we want to put
in code requirements . I 'm trying to be upfront
14 with the Board as to what' s going on.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re still doing the
15 proposed two-story addition, that wasn' t
concerning us, was it?
16 MR. STRANG: Actually the project has
scaled back so it' s not a second floor. We' re
17 keeping the roof as it is .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What else is
18 before us?
MR. STRANG: That' s it .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the pool?
MR. STRANG: The pool was already
20 approved.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the third time
21 we have been here .
MR. STRANG: This is the second time I
22 have been here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody have any
23 questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I go by that house
24 every day, good luck to them.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If no one else has any
25 questions, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
July 7 , 2005
87
1
2 that kind of fight?
DR. KAPLAN: I hadn' t thought about it .
3 MS . MOORE : Because we' re selling the
property, I have to assume that whatever you
4 dictate we will include as far as the obligation
of the buyer to improve it .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as it' s
continuously maintained and it meets the
6 specifications that we address .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think the
7 Board should give alternatives and it' s up to the
private property owners to figure out who chooses .
8 MS . MOORE : That' s fair enough.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
9 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
Jim, do you have any comments?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, was there any
objections to it?
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mike?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have one
13 question. I see another right of way three foot
in width extending from the northerly, eastern
14 corner, is that a different right of way?
MS . MOORE : Yes . That' s beach access .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I' ll move we close
the hearing, reserve decision until later.
16 (See minutes for resolution. )
-- -----------------------------------------------
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Mr . Manos .
18 MR. STRANG: Garrett Strang, Architect ,
Southold representing Arlene and Peter Manos . I
19 promise to be as brief as possible .
The application that' s before you we have
20 not a change in our application but what brought
us to this application is we had a change in
21 plans . Originally the client was going to do a
second floor addition over this porch and we' ve
22 opted not to do a second floor addition, and we do
have make improvements to that porch that are
23 mandated, if you will, by the Town code with
respect to window replacements and the like, that
24 meet the current code standards . So inasmuch as
we need to make those improvements, my client is
25 asking if they can continue to extend that porch
in an easterly direction by two feet, so it
July 7 , 2005
89
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
------------------------------------------- ------
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Last hearing is Mr.
Kanaris down for a waiver of merger on Ruth Road
4 in Mattituck.
MS . WICKHAM: I'm Abigail Wickham, and I 'm
5 here on behalf of the applicant and his contract
vendee . One thing I want to say is this one is
6 definitely confiscatory. And I don' t know if the
Board has a history of this, but what appears to
7 have happened based on the title search is that
Mr. and Mrs . Lambros acquired the adjoining lot in
8 1969 and deeded it out -- at that time it had a
house on it -- to people in May of ' 84 , 11 months
9 after the July 1, 1983 merger date . Those people
then conveyed it to other people and there has
10 been a chain of title on it, and that house is now
owned by people by the name of Vonordus . The
11 vacant lot the Lambroses acquired by separate deed
and held it until just recently and about a year
12 ago when they sold it to Mr. Kanaris, Mr . Kanaris
was of the impression it was buildable, had no
13 idea it wasn' t . I don' t think anyone knew that
there was a legal merger and probably for the
14 reasons that Jim has expressed because no one
received a notice . And therefore, that lot is now
15 not owned by anybody that surrounds it and it is
unbuildable unless you grant this waiver of
16 merger.
There are three other vacant lots in the
17 vicinity of this property. One is Tax Lot
106-5-3 , owned by people by the name of McKeatas
18 since 1967, that' s on Captain Kidd Drive, it' s
behind this driveway, and from the tax records no
19 other adjoining improved lots are owned by those
people or have been since ' 67 . So I don' t think
20 that would create a waiver of merger precedence
here . The same situation I found with vacant lot
21 106-5-27 . 1, owned by the Ebetees since 1964 , and
the one on the corner of Breakwater and Ruth,
22 which is 106-7-24 . So those are three vacant
lots . They are buildable but I don' t think this
23 will create a precedent because it looks like
those are not merged with adjoining properties .
24 This particular lot, Tax Lot 33 is a small lot, no
question about it, but it is almost identical to
25 the other lots around it . It has already received
Health Department approval . We have, I believe
July 7, 2005
90
1
2 you have in your file, if not I' ll be glad to give
it to you, a survey showing the proposed house
3 layout that exceeds front yard setback, it exceeds
rear yard setback and both side yard setbacks and
4 the house would be less than the maximum height .
So certainly a variance will not be necessary to
5 build nor will they be anywhere near the maximum
building envelope .
6 I have a letter from Certified Appraisal
Services dated June 24 , 2005 , I will have to give
7 the Board duplicate copies because I don' t have
that, but it is signed by a Mr. Russo, who has
8 made an analysis of this property. Based upon not
being a separate buildable lot, he gives it what
9 he calls excess land contributory value, which
would be the value if it were added to an
10 adjoining lot and that would be in the
neighborhood he said of $25, 000 to $30 , 000 . So
11 there' s a severe economic hardship here in that
Mr. Kanaris paid considerably more for that
12 property when he purchased it, which was at .my
finger tips . He paid $65, 000, which also was
13 undermarket but apparently there was a final
difficulty with Mr. Lambros, which he was
14 assisting him with. So that is the price . It is
certainly worth considerably more in this market,
15 and if it is not buildable, it' s worth $25, 000 ,
$30 , 000 , which is an economic hardship .
16 There would not be a significant increase
in density. The lot is consistent with others in
17 the neighborhood, and there are no wetlands or
other natural features that would be adversely
18 impacted.
If there is any other information the
19 Board would like, I would be glad to try and
address any questions you might have .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
21 time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just want to get
clear, the property is now owned by Mr. Kanaris?
24 MS . WICKHAM: The vacant lot is owned by
Mr. Kanaris, yes .
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: When was that
purchase?
July 7 , 2005
91
1
2 MS . WICKHAM: May of 2004 from the owner,
the Lambroses who had purchased it in 1970 .
3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Are you aware
in the purchase last year, was there any
4 buildability representation or clause in the
contract? Because I think that goes to the
5 hardship issue .
MS . WICKHAM: No. Mr. Kanaris could
6 probably address that .
MR. KANARIS : I asked Mr. Lambros when I
7 purchased the property if I could build a house on
it . He said there would be no problem, and I
8 drove by the neighborhood and all the lots seemed
the same to me, so I assumed there would be no
9 problem building on it .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Did you speak
10 with your attorney about this issue?
MR. KANARIS : When I purchased it?
11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes .
MR. KANARIS : No . I used an attorney for
12 the closing, I didn' t use an attorney to get a
building permit .
13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further
14 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose I can go
through the whole litany, but I won' t . I have no
16 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have
17 anything else?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
19 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 MS . WICKHAM: Thank you, I will give you
subject to myself giving you copies of what I
21 indicated I would. Thank you.
22
23 (Time ended: 3 : 35 p .m. )
24
25
July 7, 2005
92
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
6 State of New York, do hereby certify:
7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
8 the testimony given.
9 I further certify that I am not related by
10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
11 action; and
12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
13 of this matter.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand this 7th day of July, 2005 .
16
17
18
19
Florence V. Wiles
20
21
22
23
24
SEP - ., a
8 2005
25
zo
July 7, 2005