Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/18/2005 HEAR 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 - - ------ ------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z O N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------- -- -X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 August 18 , 2005 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 VINCENT ORLANDO, Vice Chairman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 JAMES DINIZIO, . Board Member 18 M•ICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 21 22 ° ECi �$pp 23 bRBGSNAL SEP/ 2 0 2005 2 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPE EALS 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to open our regularly scheduled meeting of August 18 , 2005 . 3 I ' ll make a resolution stating all of our resolutions are a Negative Declaration on the 4 Quality Review Act . (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The first application is for Shoreline Development Corporation. Is 6 there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this? 7 MS . TOTH: I' m here on behalf of the property owner. We did submit two alternate 8 plans . From the last meeting that we had on this property, the big concern was the proximity to 9 Brown Street, and as you can see on both of the revised surveys one is now 19 feet from Brown 10 Street, and the other plan is 21 feet . So we' re hoping that one of these -- either house is more 11 in keeping with, I think, with the area of Greenport, but this way, backed the house up from 12 Brown Street as requested. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I speak, 13 Ruth? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I like the 21 foot plan. I think it' s appropriate, . I think it 15 gives you the necessary setback, not you, the overall community. I do want to mention, however, 16 this house is relatively high and we need appropriate gutters and down spouts into catch 17 basins or whatever you want to call it . MS . TOTH: Into dry wells? They would 18 have no problem. They also had no objection to either plan, but I had the feeling the one set 19 back further would be more appropriate . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, I like the 20 Coventry, the one with the different roof lines . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You like the 21 one with the different rooflines? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s fine . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It still represents 23 about a 40 percent reduction in the setbacks and putting a two-story house that close, maybe you' re 24 better off with a single story house . I mean, I might go 19 if it was a single story house . It 25 just seems on that corner you' re asking for a lot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? August 18 , 2005 3 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I tend to favor the 21 foot plan, and, yes,, I would support that . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I agree with Jimmy, 4 it ' s a corner lot and a tall house would be obtrusive . 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Which house? Does the setback matter on either one, 19 or 21? 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: 21 . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI,:, That' s the 7 Coventry. MS . TOTH: The only problem with this is 8 they' re trying to maintain a certain square footage within the dwelling so they could have 9 enough bedrooms for a family to be living there . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What' s the 10 difference in the roof height? MS . TOTH: I submitted the plans, one' s 28 11 feet the other one' s 31 feet . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Board members 12 are getting it today because it was just submitted on Monday. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else in the audience want to speak? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? MR. KRAZNER: Peter Krazner, neighbor at 15 730 Brown, you've seen me before . I had that chart that described the property pretty well . I 16 think the setback is getting closer to reality. I totally agree with Jim and others that the height, 17 even though mine is built legally and it ' s about 34 , 35 feet it' s set way back from the street, 18 actually it' s 40 feet because of the porch, and anything that tall in the corner is really going 19 to change the neighborhood feel . And I would think the neighbors up and down Brown would say 20 well, let me build out to the sidewalk now. I think that sets a precedent, it really does, and I 21 don' t know why if it' s just a two story, I have an attic, if they' re just doing two floors of living 22 and you go nine foot floors of living, that' s 18 feet, that' s not 28 , that' s not 31 . I' m not sure 23 how far, I didn' t study the plans, I saw them this morning, but I think the Board should look hard at 24 this . This is the first development . I developed the second house for a friend that didn' t go 25 through with it, so I sold it six years later, but I always lived there and always intended to . This August 18 , 2005 4 1 2 is the first, as I understand it, developer to come in to the neighborhood basically to build his 3 house, make his money and leave . I think to set precedents on that level is going to open up a 4 Pandora' s box. So I appeal to you for considering this hard. Thank you for letting me speak. 5 The other issue I had written. to the Board was about the property line . I know I can' t 6 submit to you but I have a copy of the survey which I will give to the builder. Thank you. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can you just tell us what it is about the survey line? 8 MR. KRAZNER: No . The stake that they had marked out on their property appeared to me 9 visually, it was over about a foot on my property, and I went back and looked at the survey and did 10 some measurements, and I think there' s a contention here, and I don' t know how you get 11 resolution on this, frankly. I have a survey, they have a survey, it' s staked out . I don' t know 12 who makes the resolutions, the Building Inspector, do you have to get the third surveyor? I don' t 13 know the process on this . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: That' s 14 between you guys . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Does that affect 15 the setback at all? MR. KRAZNER: No . This is strictly on the 16 property line . It has nothing to do with the Brown Street or Ninth Street . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be the rear yard setback? 18 MR. KRAZNER: It would be their rear yard. It' s the property line that divides our properties 19 it' s not on Brown. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s a fair amount 20 of room there . MR. KRAZNER: So I resolve it with them. 21 Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, sir? 22 MR. HARLOW: My name is George Harlow, I ' m the property owner at 1225 Ninth Street, which is 23 the property adjacent to the corner on Brown. We' re basically a single and a half-story house, a 24 Craftsman cottage adjacent to this, and having a taller building next to ours is just going to look 25 out of character and dwarf us, and probably steal our sunlight as well when it' s not full summer. August 18 , 2005 5 1 2 So I 'm just concerned that a real tall house right up to the edge of what possibly will both affect 3 our property and it will certainly be different from what is otherwise in the local community. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you wish, sir, because we' re not going to make a decision today, 5 if you care to come into the office and review the files, you can still make a written observation. 6 MR. HARLOW: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to 7 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 9 Charles and Kathleen Watson on Nassau Point Road, for a pool cabana, yes, sir. It was a shed I take 10 it? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, it was a shed, yes . If 11 you remember we were here in January to get approval for the setback for the shed, which is 12 4 . 4 feet from the property line . It was an existing garage, the property changed hands . We 13 want to use the same structure right now as a pool cabana. It' s more of an outdoor entertainment 14 rather than a pool cabana because there' s no bathrooms proposed in here, which is normal in a 15 pool cabana. One of the reasons we' re here, of course, is for the setbacks, and the fact that 16 we' re adding plumbing, which is a bar sink and an outdoor shower. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But no bathroom? MR. LEHNERT: No bathroom, and any of the 18 other construction we' re doing on the site we' re adding a small area for the pool equipment, the 19 heater, the pumps, all that stuff doesn' t require a variance . So we' re here for the cabana building 20 itself . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a definition in the code regarding the word 22 "cabana" ? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I don' t think so . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s probably, Mr. Lehnert, one of the reasons you' re here? 24 I guess the question is is this building going to be heated or air conditioned? 25 MR. LEHNERT: No. It' s going to be a seasonal structure . If you look at the plans, August 18 , 2005 6 1 2 there' s an outdoor barbecue area, outdoor fireplace, really what the owner wants to do is 3 put the doors in, put a bar in there, TV and that' s why we chose not to go with the bathroom. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me digress for a minute, in the past when we discussed full 5 use of these buildings and when there was a bathroom and inside shower facility, we asked that 6 those doors be entranced from the outside of the building with no internal entrance into the 7 interior of the building. I have to tell you that this is probably the first one I 've seen where 8 you' re not requesting a lavatory facility. So I ' m going to say on the outset, I think it looks all 9 right to me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No . I agree with Jerry, it looks like it' s utility of the 11 recreation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I ' m concerned with 12 the drawing of a border, dividing line . It' s easy to make a division between plumbing and no 13 plumbing and not so easy to make a distinction between plumbing fixtures that have gray water and 14 plumbing that requires a sewage line . So here we have a shower that can be used, an indoor 15 shower -- MR. LEHNERT: It' s an outside shower. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what will be inside? 17 MR. LEHNERT: Just a bar sink. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Hot and cold running 18 water? MR. LEHNERT: Probably just cold water. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And apparently this was applied as a shed without any kind of 20 facility, and the question is are we going to come down the road a few months and somebody' s going to 21 want there to be a toilet adjoining inside the house? It would be rather convenient especially 22 with the ,shower to have that there . So I 'm a little bit uneasy. 23 MR. LEHNERT: An outdoor shower on a garage or a house is a typical thing. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But not on a shed, not on an accessory shed. 25 MR. LEHNERT: You can call them garages, you can call them sheds, it' s standard in the August 18 , 2005 7 1 2 neighborhood. And, like I said, that' s why we' re not proposing any toilet facilities . We don' t 3 want to make this building a guest cottage or anything else . The owner has a big house . They 4 did an addition to the house about four years ago . 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there outdoor showers on garages also with bar sinks? 6 MR. LEHNERT: Not that I know of, not that I ' ve ever done, and I 've done plenty of outdoor 7 showers on garages . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is a shed. 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But then we have the bar sink, which is another piece of' plumbing. 9 Okay, I hear you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last one we 10 did, Michael, was down on Indian Neck Lane about two and a half, three years ago, and that did 11 contain a shower and/or a lavatory. It' s on the water down there past the Jehovah' s Witness 12 church. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Then you wouldn' t have a problem putting a condition in there 14 helping Michael out? MR. LEHNERT: Not a problem, no toilets . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I review the plans, you' re not expanding the existing? 16 MR. LEHNERT: No. The exisiting building is going to remain the same . The only 17 construction we' re doing we' re expanding I believe it' s a six by six to the north for the equipment, 18 and that doesn' t violate any of the setback issues . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there will be an added structure? 20 MR. LEHNERT: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Six foot to the 21 north. MR. LEHNERT: Of the existing structure . 22 But we' re not tearing down the existing structure . We' re just looking to put doors in there and clean 23 it up. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I commend your 24 client because the average person would just build this and throw it in there without coming before 25 us, so this is refreshing. MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. August 18 , 2005 8 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s true . Let me see is there anybody in the audience that wishes to 3 speak on this application? Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 4 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is 6 for Pollio . MR. LEHNERT : I have the next one also . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just wants to put an addition on the house for a new family room? 8 MR. LEHNERT: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just state your 9 name for the record. MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, L-E-H-N-E-R-T. 10 Just an addition on the house, the reason we' re here is it' s Kimogenor Point . It meets all the 11 setbacks, it meets all the requirements . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s one lot? 12 MR. LEHNERT: One house, you guys went through it with Archers a couple months ago . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m going to say this again, there' s some way we have to identify 14 the houses on these properties . These are impossible to find. I woke more people up on 15 Sunday morning looking for this property. There' s no way to find it, the addresses have no 16 significance . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I went there and 17 there was no posting. MR. LEHNERT : I moved the sign every day 18 because you can' t post it on the property because the neighbor wouldn' t see it . 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s no numbers on that road. Don' t go to the right of the 20 circle, you went to the left but don' t look at that . It almost looks abandoned. 21 MR. LEHNERT: It' s not the abandoned one, it' s to the left . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I went down by the circle and the way to the east there . I said 23 that' s got to be it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So then I ' ll make a 24 suggestion for Linda when one of these comes up again, post one at the end and then one at the 25 house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care . l August 18 , 2005 9 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only thing is, I didn' t go out to the properties, I would have no 3 way of knowing unless a Board member told me . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It says Jackson 4 Avenue . You think it might be one of those bigger, but I know it isn' t . It had to be inside . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Double posting. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We usually ask the 6 applicants to do that anyway. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a different 7 question, this being a co-op, it' s a single property, and when anything is built I assume that 8 notice would go to all the neighbors of the property, east, west, so that if any property, for 9 example, Mr. Fenton' s house is physically adjacent to the house in question, would he have gotten a 10 notice for any other change in any other property in Kimogenor Point? 11 MR. LEHNERT: Yes, for anything in Kimogenor Point, the contiguous neighbor would get 12 notice . He got notice on this property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Besides that , he has to 13 have the approval of the whole organization that he' s doing what he' s doing. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I ' m considering neighbors on all sides, not within Kimogenor 15 Point . MR. LEHNERT: There' s really only one 16 neighbor, because you have the road and the water, you have the one neighbor to the east . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was done properly. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fenton. MR. FENTON: My wife owns the property 19 adjacent . I live there . We've lived together for the last 57 years . I 'm distributing some pictures 20 and when I get to it, I' ll help you understand what I' m talking about . 21 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Sir, you live in Kimogenor Point? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re the adjacent 23 property owner? MR. FENTON: I'm in my 80s and words don' t 24 come as quickly as they used to . But you' ll bear with me, I hope . My name is Joseph Fenton and as 25 I said, I 've lived with my wife for the last 57 years . She owns this property and before we August 18 , 2005 10 1 2 bought this property about 40 years ago, we lived elsewhere in the Town of Southold. Also within a 3 mile or so of where we presently live and before we got married, I lived with my grandparents and 4 parents also in the Town of Southold, always on the water, always looking at Robin' s Island and 5 always hanging around this bay. I 'm an attorney, I've been licensed the 6 last 52 years to practice in New York State and I ' m a licensed real estate broker, and I served as 7 co-chairman of the lending committee at what was then the local bank which later became a bank 8 corporation and banking subsidiary and because of most of our loans were secured by real estate, I 9 became involved in an environmental issues connected with real estate, so that we were 10 careful in making loans that we wouldn' t be getting involved in an environmental problem. So 11 I have some experience with what I think has happened here, and what I think you should have a 12 look at . It may be that I 'm obsessed with the bay 13 and the creeks that feed the bay, but that ' s because I have developed a reverence for it 14 because of where I live and where I have always lived. 15 I have some housekeeping matters I want to bring up and you people have touched on it 16 already, and then we' ll get to the meat, if you' ll permit me . 17 When this Archer application -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is Pollio 18 MR. FENTON: I understand but we didn' t receive a notice . This is a unitary piece of 19 land, Kimogenor Point owns the three and a half acres, we should have received a notice of 20 hearing. I think that variance is invalid. That' s something for you to 21 consider. That' s not the subject here but it bears on it because as I will get to. 22 In Monday' s newspaper, there was an article about United States considering 23 identifying oysters on the eastern seaboard as endangered species, what' s happened in the bay, as 24 you probably know, and in the creeks that feed the bay, is that there aren' t any more oysters, I 25 don' t find them. They have tried to seed them, the seeding doesn' t work because of what we' re all August 18 , 2005 11 1 2 putting into the bay, and Kimogenor Point is no exception. In fact, it' s mostly built out on a 3 sand bar and when there' s flooding, as you see here and even when there' s no flooding, the 4 cesspools, they leak. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Overflow. 5 MR. FENTON: Whatever you want to call it . And when they' re under water, as they were in 6 these pictures I submitted to you, what happens is the laundry detergents, which is really the 7 culprit here, it' s not the brown tide and it' s not the duck farm, it' s this substance that doesn' t 8 degrade, it' s in the laundry detergent that seeps into the bay. 9 There used to be thousands of blowfish along the shore . They hugged the shore . There 10 aren' t anymore, at least in the last 20 years I haven' t seen the blowfish. I guess they' re smart 11 enough not to go where this effluent is, where this detergent is . Where there' s a storm, three 12 or four days after the storm, there' s sea foam all around. 13 Billy Corwin, he' s an environmental engineer, he lived on West Creek with his parents 14 and he used to hang around our house more than his own because I had a younger daughter that used to 15 go around with him, and he went on to study this in college . He became an environmental engineer. 16 He worked for a Fortune 500 company because they wouldn' t make a move without getting involved in 17 the environment . And he came, because he was working out west, he wanted to sell his Whaler and 18 he asked me, and I ended up buying the Whaler and he helped bring it over, and it was after one of 19 these episodes, and I said, look, there' s so much sea foam. He said, Mr. Fenton, that' s not sea 20 foam that ' s laundry detergent and that' s in the bay and when the waves come it stirs it up, it' s 21 coming out of the cesspools that line all of Peconic Beach. 22 If you go to Fisher' s Beach, and the entrance to Marratooka Inlet, you see these 23 buildings that were built years and years ago, some of them on stilts, but they have a cesspool 24 right there and it' s in the sand and when the tide comes up it covers the cesspool and when the tide 25 goes down the extra high tide had the sun and moon line up its equinox time and when the water leaves August 18 , 2005 12 1 2 the cesspool, it brings something with it . That' s what ends up in the bay, and that' s what our 3 problem is . If you get picked apart one at a time, I don' t know what the answer is . I think 4 the DEC should be involved. I think the Suffolk County health people should be involved. I think 5 it ' s time to address this and not kick it under the rug. It' s why Peconic Bay is becoming 6 sterile . I mean, I go back 80 years and I know it 7 was teeming with life . I mean, there' s still fish there, but there' s not a king fish left in Peconic 8 Bay. There used to be a place right in front of this site called King Fish Hole . King Fish Hole, 9 if you lined up the second house west of the entrance of West Creek, if you line that up with 10 the church steeple in Cutchogue and you make a straight line and you go up that line, right 11 angles from the windmill on Robin' s Island, you' re over King Fish Hole . That was the old high tech 12 way to do it . Now you can do it on a GPS and you' ll find that all out in minutes . But it was 13 teeming with fish, and as I found out on Monday, it was all teeming with scallops . If you put a 14 dredge down, in' fact, Mrs . Kowalski' s husband put a dredge down there, you' d have a thousand 15 scallops when you pulled it up . Take them out of seaweed, there' s no seaweed left . That' s what 16 happened, and I don' t know what one of the cartoonists says, you know, we have met the enemy 17 and they are us, this is what' s happened. This is what we' ve done . 18 Now, as far as being notified by Kimogenor Point, they pretend that they' re a condominium, 19 they' re not, they' re a co-op, and I think Michael Simon touched on it here . This is a one, unitary 20 piece of property. It' s three and a half acres, and you have to deal with it as one property and 21 not just look at a particular house, you have to look at the whole thing. And what we' re doing 22 here, people buy them, they' re paying what I see as crazy amounts, but it' s a water view there' s 23 just so much of it left . It' s right on the water, there' s a beach, it' s a lovely site . But 24 Kimogenor Point was formed a century ago, the co-op. I don' t think there' s another co-op in 25 Southold Town, at least I don' t know of any, and they built these small cottages .and they were August 18 , 2005 13 1 2 wonderful . They came out for July, August, but now individuals buy them, put in quite a bit of 3 money, I heard the last number as a million six, but I don' t know, and then they' re going to spend 4 another $400 , 000 fixing the place up, and there are 11 houses here that are rented to their 5 stockholders, the twelfth one I think is not available for rent, it' s, a shack up there near the 6 road, and there' s a clubhouse that' s built on stilts in West Creek on the site . If each of 7 these houses, which belonged to Kimogenor Point are upgraded, another bathroom, dishwasher, when 8 you start adding what was used to be a cottage that was used for July and August and you start 9 adding what is happening, and what you see happening, the buildings are upgraded, there' s 10 more intensive use, more toilets, dishwasher, washing machine, and they use it maybe the whole 11 year, certainly more than just July and August . Now, how much sewage can this site take in the 12 cesspools? My wife and I were there in July for they 13 called it a Hawaii night in the clubhouse, when we were about to leave, it was high tide and they had 14 to put some duck boards out for us to be able to get out the place where they had the clubhouse to 15 be able to get on terra firma, and one of the woman, a stockholder there, a friend of ours said 16 we have a cesspool problem here and the cesspool people tell us there' s nothing we can do about it . 17 This is what gets compounded as you add, it' s like lead poisoning, it' s cumulative . I 'm not sure you 18 shouldn' t take a good look at this, get the DEC in here and maybe the health people and understand 19 what is happening. I ' ll walk you through those pictures . 20 The first one, I've numbered them, the first one is looking west, I'm sorry, Mrs . 21 Kowalski, I didn' t make another set . That' s looking west, if you look at the side of the 22 picture, it says February 1972 , I don' t know if that' s when this flood took place because I could 23 have had the film in the camera for a month or two, but it' s obviously in the winter time because 24 there are no leaves in the tree, but if you look west, the town put a warning light there, but if 25 you look there you' ll see water on Jackson Street which turns right and Jackson Street is August 18 , 2005 14 1 2 impassable . This is not once in a century storm, trust me, whenever there' s a hurricane and we have 3 had in my lifetime at least 10 , and when they drain, there' s a problem. The next picture, 4 Number 2 , is taken from the Kimogenor Point area, and it shows the bridge and West Creek, and if you 5 look at it you can see the water is all the way up to the bridge . And it' s already receded some, if 6 you look at the first picture again, you can see some straw that' s higher up there . Number 3 is 7 also taken from the Jackson Street area . It shows the end house, I guess you say that' s the Archer, 8 I guess it used to be Watson. You can see the water is all the way up . Number 4 , this is -- 9 it ' s looking north from where the picture was taken and there' s the first row of houses that you 10 would have come down the street . The water is lapping up against the houses . There are no 11 basements in these houses . I don' t know where the cesspools are, but they' re covered. Number 5, you 12 can see the clubhouse was taken from between two houses, the water is there . Number 6 is another 13 view of the clubhouse . Number 7 shows the back of the houses that are along Peconic Bay. You can 14 see the water that' s lapping there . Number 8 is a little further back from that, but it shows the 15 clubhouse . Number 9 is from the road that bisects Kimogenor Point . Number 10 is another one also 16 from between two of the houses, as is Number 11 . Kimogenor Point Company at one point in 17 the 1980s, there was a public road that ran down the center of Kimogenor Point . It went from 18 Jackson Street to the beach. There came a time when Kimogenor Point Company wanted to incorporate 19 that road into their property, and I think that requires, as I understand the law, they have to 20 own both sides of the property and they have to demonstrate that the property has not been used by 21 the public for whatever period of years . I don' t know what the period is . And they made such an 22 application, and I saw it in the newspaper, and I spoke to one of the Kimogenor Point people that , 23 you know, the public has been using this for public road. I've used it to launch a sailboat 24 that I kept on the beach and to retrieve it, and I know any number of people that go there and they 25 bring a beach chair and an umbrella, and they sit on the beach at the end of the road and maybe even August 18 , 2005 15 1 2 do it for spite . So the affidavit that Mr . Uhlendahl signed at the time he must have 3 thought it was correct but it wasn' t so . And I spoke to Mr. Ed Purcell, who is one of the 4 stockholders, and he said look, any time you want to launch your boat it will be all right . We want 5 to close the road because we don' t want people to be sitting out on the end of the beach. So I went 6 along with it, so in law, when there' s a duty to speak and you remain silent, your conduct is not 7 exemplary. So I went along with it because as he pointed out when people leave trash on the beach 8 it blows onto your house, there are two houses in between from this spot at the end of the road. I 9 don' t want to criticize what Kimogenor Point did, they did what they thought was good for them, and 10 I really at the end of the day, I didn' t have a quarrel with it, but I want to point out to you, 11 that when it' s convenient for Kimogenor Point Company they are Kimogenor Point Company that owns 12 both sides of the road, and that ' s how they treat this, but at other times, and in this instance, 13 there was Ackerson and Purcell and Fisher and Uhlendahl and Weber and another Fisher that 14 surrounded this road. They didn' t make an application on behalf of these people, they made 15 an application on behalf of the Kimogenor Point Company, who was the owner of this property. They 16 want it both ways . When they come to one of these variance 17 hearings or to the Building Department, they come as an individual who wants a building permit or a 18 variance . Now, this particular house that' s the subject of this hearing was extended on two 19 previous occasions . I couldn' t find a variance . I asked, there was no variance . Why the Building 20 Department issued a permit in this circumstance, I can only say that maybe they are not sophisticated 21 with respect to what a co-op is . This is a co-op with the land and buildings are all owned by this 22 one entity. And they should have gotten a variance as they apparently awakened and now 23 they' re asking for it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Different 24 administrations . MR. FENTON: I don' t blame them, a man 25 comes in and he wants a building permit . Why there was no variance, I 'm not sure . August 18 , 2005 16 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not sure either. MR. FENTON: And I don' t know what has to 3 happen. Maybe you can -- what do they call it -- retroactive, there' s a word for it . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know what you mean. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ex post facto . 5 MR. FENTON: I don' t know what it is . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it' s rather 6 difficult to do, Mr. Fenton. We go with the rules that are with us today and the interpretation. 7 MR. FENTON: Maybe if we had gotten a notice as we should have gotten in connection with 8 the Archer application, we could have come forward, and you may have then considered the 9 pollution problem that' s here . You' re extending houses that are on a sand bar. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fenton, I sympathize with you, and I agree with you, but 11 that is not the jurisdiction of this Board. We would have to go to the Department of 12 Environmental Conservation, the DEC, or the Health Department with their environmental people . 13 MR. FENTON: And I would love for you to do that . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be great . Then we come to one thing, because I found it so 15 much, I was president of the NFEC, I've been involved for years . It gets to be the point if 16 you deny them, then it' s a taking, and who is going to buy it from them? All this property 17 shouldn' t be built on, I agree with you. It shouldn' t have been built in the first place . 18 MR. FENTON: In those days it wasn' t a problem, it was very little use . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, but look at whatever happened in West Hampton, the same thing, 20 on the ocean. It was washed into the ocean, what has happened, they have all been rebuilt at our 21 expense thanks to FEMA. And it' s the same thing, if you don' t allow people to rebuild or to do what 22 they want to do in some manner or form, it ' s a taking, and then some governmental agency has to 23 pay for that property. MR. FENTON: I don' t happen to agree with 24 the legal standpoint with the taking part of it . It' s the expansion that has ramification that the 25 public has to be involved in, and more toilets and more this and more that, maybe it' s not your August 18 , 2005 17 1 2 jurisdiction but you can' t stick your head in the sand. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t disagree with you. 4 MR. FENTON: I don' t mean to criticize you. I think you do a good job. What happens is, 5 an applicant comes in, if you turn him down he hates you. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t care . MR. FENTON: If you approve it, the 7 neighbors who object to it hate you, and if you try to do something in between they both hate you . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you know you' ve done something right . 9 MR. FENTON: I don' t know. At this point, we' re pretty far along, we' ll manage . I just 10 think, it took a lot for me to decide well , maybe it' s time to open this up a little bit and talk 11 about it because I have a reverence for the bay. I love my family but next comes the bay and 12 the creek. And I 'm out there all the time, and I know what' s going on and I know what' s happened to 13 the bay and what' s continuing to happen, and it ' s not brown tide because when I was eight or 10 14 years old it was brown tide and it went away, it' s something that comes and goes . It' s laundry 15 detergent because they didn' t develop that until after the war and the incremental part of it, it' s 16 choking this wonderful spot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fenton, thank you 17 so much for your comments and we' ll pass you along. 18 MR. FENTON: Over the weekend there were seven cars parked in front of this house that 19 we' re talking about . If there are 12 houses on the site, and if they all have seven cars, you got 20 84 cars, you've got a parking lot here; is that what you want? There' s one acre zoning as you 21 know, and there are 12 houses and 13 with the clubhouse, what' s the purpose of zoning if you' re 22 going to overcome it? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is 23 pre-existing zoning. MR. FENTON: I know it' s nonconforming 24 use, but that doesn' t mean you expand it the third time . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll take your comments into consideration. August 18 , 2005 18 1 2 MR. FENTON: Okay. And I' ll submit my information. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It was a great presentation. I wish you would go to the Town 4 Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else 5 that wishes to comment on this application? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to make a 6 comment for the record. I think Mr. Fenton' s argument is very strong, and I think this Board 7 could set, if not a precedent, certainly send some kind of message or even abide by our own Town 8 laws, which two acre zoning or one acre zoning we' re basing that on sewers, on cesspools and how 9 many cesspools do we want per acre, and we hear the North Fork Environmental Council speaking of 10 that all the time . And there' s no reason why a co-op on less than four acres of land that has , 11 I ' m assuming, 13 cesspools? MR. FENTON: I don' t know. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : There' s no reason why this Board has to support an expansion of 13 that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In line of -this as a 14 procedural matter, would it be appropriate for us to keep this hearing open until we could get other 15 agencies, the DEC involved at this time? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . This isn' t our 16 jurisdiction. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is an 17 expansion of a nonconforming use, and yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He meets the setbacks 18 and everything, Jim. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But honestly, he 19 doesn' t meet the setbacks because he is not he, he is a they. 20 MR. FENTON: Finally someone has awakened here; that ' s what' s happening here . They' ve been 21 picking you apart . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The applicant should 22 be the co-op, not the homeowner. The homeowner is technically only a tenant of that property. I 23 happen to live part of the time in a co-op in New York City. I rent my apartment from the 24 organization. The organization is the legal party, not the individual tenant . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aren' t you a stockholder in that organization? August 18 , 2005 19 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I ' m not a stockholder in the organization, but I 'm not an individual who 3 could apply for rights for myself . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Michael couldn' t 4 take and hang another bedroom off the side of that building, and this is what these people are 5 doing. They' re expanding the cooperative cesspool of that whole point there . 6 MR. FENTON: Without a variance . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: This Board 7 took the view a couple months ago, that this is a nonconforming use on a nonconforming lot and that 8 use could be expanded on another application provided they comply with all the other rules . If 9 you' re going to change your mind, that' s fine, but you can' t go case by case for each property on the 10 same lot . MR. FENTON: They did that without 11 providing us with a notice that' s required by law. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: That' s a 12 separate issue and that' s not what I 'm speaking to . 13 MR. FENTON: But had we had an opportunity to speak at that time, you might not have done 14 that . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: You have 15 spoken, and if you want to get up and speak again, come up to the microphone and speak. This is not 16 proper for us to engage in colloquy, for us to engage back and forth. I 'm here to give advice to 17 the Board, and that' s my purpose here today, not to argue with you, with all due respect . I ' m 18 telling the Board if they wish to change their mind about how they approach this, they should 19 make up their mind and stick with it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I wish to change my 20 mind. Honestly, at hearings we have applications, we' re supposed to listen to each of those 21 applications individually. In all honesty, that' s why we have them. Certainly we learn little by 22 little, hearing by hearing, and we all make our decisions . Now, I have to say, and you' ve got to 23 be surprised at me saying this in all honesty, we are looking at this in the wrong way. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, how about we -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' m voting no. I ' m 25 not voting for this, so however you want to go the other ,way. August 18 , 2005 20 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just feel we should discuss . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to speak to that point . Since one of the issues seems to 4 be that there is something irregular, which we are ,now realizing, mainly having the wrong applicant . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The individual has 6 applied, it isn' t the association that has filed this . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it is a co-application with both the corporation and 8 Mr. Pollio. That' s what we have insisted the people do here . They cannot do it 9 individually. It has to be the corporation as a co-applicant in anything that comes up in 10 Kimogenor Point . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Ordinarily there 11 would only be one applicant, namely, . the co-op association, and not as a co-applicant . This is 12 an irregularity that I think needs to be - addressed. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is what the legal team has decided. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to keep the hearing open until we sort some of these 15 things out and have further information on that question. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would rather close the hearing, discuss it at the September 1st, we 17 have already approved Mr. Archer and then to do an about face . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to know exactly what the lot coverage is on this one 19 lot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no lot . 20 Maybe Mr. Lehnert could spend a little on time on this and get all the square footages, and let us 21 know. MR. LEHNERT: I haven' t done the square 22 footages on the entire lot, but if you guys want a little more history on this, back in ' 01 we had a 23 building permit for this exact application. Now the customer let it lapse because he never went 24 forward with the construction. The previous two we have COs for. They were all done building 25 permits, and they were all CO' d for all the previous applications and construction on this August 18 , 2005 21 1 2 house . They didn' t require a variance, and in ' 01 we didn' t require a variance . If you guys want a 3 copy of the permit for the record, it' s here for you. We presented the exact same project and at 4 the time the Building Department and the Board decided it needed to go in front of the Board. 5 This is also when the Archer project came up at the exact same time . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. 7 MR. FENTON: May I add one thing? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . 8 MR. FENTON: We have submitted a memorandum and before the Board makes a decision 9 here, I think we' re entitled to have you read the memorandum. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re not making a decision today. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Madam Chairwoman, can I just make a statement regarding 12 this? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There were specific statements made in reference to co-ops, 14 and is this particular piece of property was compared to a piece of property in the city, and I 15 realize co-op for co-op in the state is a similar type, I assume, is a particular type of legalese . 16 I would like to see how the co-op situation is designed in New York state . Either from counsel 17 sitting next to me or from Board Member Counsel, so we can understand exactly what Mr. Fenton is 18 saying in the aspects of this next two weeks . ASST-. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: A co-op is 19 a corporation that owns the property, then enters into proprietary leases with shareholders who get 20 the right to use in perpetuity a particular portion of the property. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But how does that relate to a high rise as opposed to a piece 22 of property which encompasses so much in the square footage? 23 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No difference . It operates exactly the same . You 24 get a right to use either a particular unit in an apartment building as opposed to a piece of, area 25 of land in a building lot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: However, there August 18 , 2005 22 1 2 were issues that were raised here in reference to lot coverage, which in a high rise is different 3 than that of the sprawling of a piece of property, which were alluded to here . That' s the area that 4 I ' m concerned about . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: We in 5 Southold Town obviously have our own laws about lot coverage . We've been told by the Building 6 Department on past occasions that this property is well within its lot coverage . I obviously don' t 7 have the calculations as to how this new project will affect that . The Building' Department will 8 certainly make sure it' s conforming. But we haven' t received the notice of disapproval on that 9 matter, I don' t believe . MR. LEHNERT: I think in order to do that 10 someone would have to survey today the entire lot, and that' s not happened. We have a survey of our 11 portion, and I know Archer has a survey of his portion of the property. 12 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: The co-op has an issue, and though it' s an internal issue 13 for the co-op, although the Town has a lot of interest in it, that you do have a lot coverage 14 issue . You do have to comply with the Town' s lot coverage for the entire lot . It is one lot and if 15 everybody keeps expanding; at some point you' re going to get over or reach the lot coverage and 16 it' s up to the internal co-op to figure out who gets to do what and who gets to use up that lot 17 coverage . It' s not for us to tell you how to do that , but you do have to comply with it . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is that particular issue that I ' m raising, Mr. Lehnert , 19 not your specific client' s application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And I think that' s why 20 we had requested that both the applicant and the corporation co-apply, so that they know that the 21 last one on the block, so to speak, isn' t going to get -- 22 MR. LEHNERT: Left out . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s a 23 substantial amount of garage area associated with this condo property, which involves a lot 'of lot 24 coverage . And so I mean, we' re coming `to the end of the rainbow here, and I think that the 25 corporation should be aware of that, that any future situations may require an entire survey of August 18 , 2005 23 1 2 the property to indicate what lands are uplands and what lands are low lands, because we know we 3 have upland and low land here . I ' m sure there are riparian rights involved and we know that that lot 4 coverage is only based upon uplands, I ' m just making a statement apart from the condo aspect . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My point exactly, Jerry, again, in today' s world, we're telling 6 people who come before us, sometimes even before the application has been handed in that, look, you 7 have wetlands, you can' t count that as buildable land and what about your roads, and what about the 8 yield on a property, and before this gentleman spoke, I thought that, well, yes, it sounds right, 9 the corporation should be made part of the whole application because naturally if I owned a piece 10 of land with somebody else, I would want to know what they' re doing. But in light of the fact that 11 we have 13 cesspools on this property I 've seen the flooding, and I lived in an area very similar 12 to that . I think we ought to take a long hard look at this particular application and any one 13 that comes before it and make decisions based on today' s reality not on 100 years ago. What they 14 did 100 years ago doesn' t apply now, and we turn people down constantly based on a whole lot less 15 of a reason than what these people want . MR. FENTON: I think I' ll leave now. The 16 real problem is do you want 12 Taj Mahals here, that' s what it' s all about . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. What is the Board' s pleasure? 18 1BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that the Board should put the corporation on notice that 19 any future applications are going to require an updated survey based upon updated lot coverage so 20 we know exactly where we are in reference to what has to go on here . 21 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: You could require that of this application. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only difference here is that we have an application 23 which is a relatively new building with new COs that exist not the old 40, 50, 60, 70 year old 24 cottages . This is an updated building. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re expanding 25 the footprint . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know we' re August 18 , 2005 24 1 2 expanding the footprint but it' s so insignificant in reference to the reconstruction of some of 3 these other houses . We have to know from the corporation what the total lot coverage is, and we 4 have to be able to review that to see what is subject to flooding and what is not subject to 5 flooding and what they' re indicating to be upland area. Then from that particular point on, you 6 know where you can go. There is no norm set here and that' s the problem, and that' s the issue . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like to close the hearing reserve decision or do you want to 8 keep it open? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I ' d like to see the 9 lot coverage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Keep it open pending a 10 new survey on the whole piece of property with the lot coverage . 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : With the wetlands, do you want to know which part is covered by 12 wetlands? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to know the 13 yield of that piece of property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t include 14 wetlands . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Well, you do . 15 Include the deeded lot lines even after the wetlands . It' s only subdivisions that exclude 16 wetlands . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: That' s 17 correct . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me hear a motion. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We don' t have to 19 make a motion, we can ask the applicant to go back get more information on this application. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Adjourn the hearing -- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Until September 29th? MR. LEHNERT : Getting a survey would take 22 longer than the 29th. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If they don' t have 23 it, the following meeting would be October 20th. We would need it the Friday before that which 24 would be the 13th of October, that' s about six weeks . 25 MR. LEHNERT : It sounds great but now I 've got to get the corporation to get money to get a August 18 , 2005 25 1 � 2 survey together, find the surveyor, get the survey done, and I can' t tell you when that' s going to 3 happen. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How much time would 4 you like? Are there three members that want to go that route? 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes . 6 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: As a suggestion maybe you could put it for the next 7 hearing, and maybe you could make an investigation as to how close we' re talking about . But if it ' s 8 close call, obviously you' ll need a survey, but if it' s clear that you' re well within or well not 9 within, you may not need a survey, if you could demonstrate to the Board' s satisfaction. I have 10 no idea? MR. LEHNERT: Say if I get something out 11 of the Building Department, I 'm not even near the coverage that would be acceptable . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s face it , Mr . Lehnert, you are an engineering firm and we 13 would expect that what we got from you is appropriate, I would expect, I 'm not speaking for 14 the Board. That would be just as well in this particular instance in my particular opinion. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be more than just a letter from the Building Department . 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just, Jim, I interrupted you, you were going to say 17 something. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I ' d like to 18 hold them to today' s standards, that' s all, however we have to do that, I think we should. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the first step, Jim. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we will adjourn it 21 to the September 29th hearing, I ' ll make that motion. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for John Morse, who wants to do extensive renovations 24 on Old Salt Lane in Mattituck. MS . MOORE : You have a set of plans in the 25 file that show what Mr. Morse wishes to do. I also included in the packet for you photocopies of August 18 , 2005 26 1 2 postcards of the Salt Air Estates . And Salt Air is a very unique development that is designed 3 similar to a Cape Cod/Martha' s Vineyard design. And what Mr. Morse wants to do is take the 4 existing house he has and make it look more in keeping with the typical cottage of Salt Lake 5 Village, which is going back to the 1930s postcard and if you take a look at the postcard that is the 6 two-story house with dormers and window style and so on, that' s what he' s trying to do with his 7 house . Obviously with today' s standards of construction, I think anybody that is renovating 8 today has a much harder time with regard to construction because we' re meeting all the current 9 regulations that are required under the state building code . So with respect to your philosophy 10 on renovating existing homes, keep in mind that we are actually making houses safer, fire resistant , 11 hurricane standards, everything is getting more and more expensive and certainly higher grade in 12 construction standards . So the house is already one and a half 13 stories, what they' re doing is taking the bedrooms that are on the first floor and there is a half 14 story now that is two bedrooms, I think . The half story right now is a typical Cape that has all the 15 bedrooms upstairs but all in one large room. What he' s doing is taking the bedrooms and taking it up 16 to the second floor, which requires different roof pitch and the dormers for proper ceiling height . 17 There is presently a patio that goes actually closer to the concrete retaining walls and all of 18 the permits had been obtained by one of the permit expeditors, and they did not realize that they 19 were in violation of the setback to the sea walls . Again, this is a pre-existing parcel with 20 pre-existing setbacks, but we are actually pushing back from the existing setback on the east side . 21 what they' re doing is they' re taking the enclosed porch that exists today, opening it up and 22 converting it to wood decking, and then the only portion that' s new is an area that is an octagonal 23 decking area that because of the uniqueness of this property, it' s a peninsula, it has incredible 24 views, if you have gone to see the property, views from every direction. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm very familiar. MS . MOORE : So that portion is the only August 18 , 2005 27 1 2 portion that' s new and that is at 27 feet from the sea wall, which is consistent with the setbacks 3 along the sea wall that is on the east side . There is two sets of bulkheads, a sea wall, 4 bulkheading. It' s a very fortified piece of property if you went to see it . 5 I ' m here to answer any other questions you might have . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is a one and a half story? 7 MS . MOORE : It is existing one and a half story. I think the original plan for this 8 renovation was going to be much more grandiose and the surveyor took the information from the 9 original plan. So when the surveyor said proposed two-story house, it is an existing one and a half 10 story house, you can see that from the photographs of the property. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Most of the homes in that whole area are either ranch style or one and 12 a half . There are very few two story homes . MS . MOORE : That' s not true as you come 13 in, there' s a massive gray house there as you come in the driveway. That' s out of character I would 14 say with the area. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it' s on Bay 15 Avenue . There was one new house there that was enormous, I don' t know. 16 MS . MOORE : Yes, there was one . I don' t know how that got built, but so be it . This house 17 I gave you height dimensions, it' s a cottage style, so the pitch of the roof is what' s 18 required. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How high is it? 19 MS . MOORE : You have it in your file . I ' ll find it again. I don' t see it here on the 20 drawings . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to ask 21 some questions, but I' ll yield to whoever' s file this is first . Michael, can I ask a question? 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, can I ask 23 you to review Number 11 of the drawings for a minute, which is the third drawing from the 24 last . The last one is GN-1 and GN-2 . MS . MOORE : Okay. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I look at it , and I have to tell you that this piece of August 18 , 2005 28 1 2 property, Mr. Morse, is one of the most unique pieces of property I have ever seen. It ' s 3 absolutely beautiful . I live in Mattituck, I grew up on one of those streets . I have walked your 4 property every Sunday night down below, and of course, the interesting part of that is that that 5 bulkheading is going to curtail that, but so be it , there' s nothing you can do with that . 6 MR. MORSE : All the bulkheading has been replaced. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know it has . When I look at the overall plan shown in the lower 8 right-hand side of this Page 11, I 'm looking at a plan which is a sun porch, its says new and I ' m 9 looking at this gazebo area, I can' t determine if there' s a roof over those? 10 MS . MOORE : Yes . The sun porch is an enclosed sun porch. And the decking which is 11 shown as new, I'm almost 100 percent sure it' s open decking, yes, open deck, no gazebo at the 12 end. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s five, six 13 sided, that is open decking area? MS . MOORE : Yes . ' It somewhat matches if 14 you can see the design of the property, you have the decking instead of being a square deck, it 15 kind of matches architecturally the parallel to the bulkhead, it' s a very nice kind of creative 16 design. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I 17 have is when I reviewed the plan -- I ' ll digress in a second and discuss the garage addition -- 18 these bulkheads have been in existence for an excess of 50 , 55 years, they were probably built 19 after World War II . MS . MOORE : They were actually cement sea 20 walls . I think they have been replaced with bulkheads . There' s one sea wall left . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I meant sea wall . Now the question I have is on these 22 dimensions of setbacks, do they include the farthest new bulkheading or were they measured 23 from the sea wall? MS . MOORE : There is a survey. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because there is a huge difference between those two figures, that 25 corrugated bulkhead is much farther out than the existing sea wall . August 18 , 2005 29 1 2 MS . MOORE : I always ask the surveyor, including the Building Department requests it, 3 they look at the closest point . Because you' re right, the measurement to the first bulkhead, all 4 the way out on the east, is about 100 feet , more than 100 feet . But then what they' re doing is 5 a -- there' s a second interior sea wall on the east, the southerly sea wall bulkhead that' s the 6 closest point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 22 . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know if that' s an accurate figure, Ruth, because I don' t 8 know if it includes the new bulkheading that' s in there, and that' s an important thing to know 9 because, as you know this Board is -- I ' m speaking for myself -- is always concerned with the 10 setback. So if we' re talking about the new bulkhead, we should have an accurate figure to 11 that flag to include that new bulkheading. MS . MOORE : The work was just done, I 12 would have to have the surveyor go out and verify those numbers . I appreciate the concern because I 13 don' t want the surveyor, when we have a foundation permit in place -- 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s 26 inches difference between the top, because you 15 have a flair on the sea wall, then you have this new corrugated bulkheading -- 16 MS . MOORE : On the outside of the sea wall? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MS . MOORE : I was there when they were 18 under construction. I don' t know if the sea wall gets removed after the bulkhead' s in. I can have 19 the current survey updated based on the current work that was done . John Ehlers shouldn' t be too 20 tough in getting that . We can provide that so when you' re writing the decision we have an 21 accurate measurement . When I went to post the property they were there at that time . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I briefly discuss the garage situation? 23 MS . MOORE : Sure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see there is 24 an outside entrance leading to the new addition of the garage or the actual raising of the garage to 25 this new architectural plan, what is the use of the upstairs of this building? August 18 , 2005 30 1 2 MS . MOORE : It' s shown as unheated storage . It' s purely unheated storage . The 3 stairway' s on the outside because it' s easier to store stuff coming from the outside than coming 4 through the garage; in particular, Mr. Morse has a vintage 1930s vehicle that he doesn' t want to have 5 beach .chairs and other things coming through, and if you want to make that a condition of the 6 approval, that' s fine, it' s what is intended. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the decor 7 added to this is very simply that vintage -- MS . MOORE : It' s aesthetic . 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it my understanding that the three windows that are 9 visible on the second story is purely as aesthetics? 10 MS . MOORE : Yes, purely aesthetics . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : There' s a deck and 11 door. MR. MORSE : Those are fake windows . It' s 12 something my wife wanted. You can' t see through it . It' s something my wife wanted. 13 MS . MOORE : It' s pure aesthetic . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: West windows are 14 fake? MR. MORSE : Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The east side, the water side? 16 MS . MOORE : That' s an access . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There' s a deck and 17 a door. MS . MOORE : This? 18 MR. MORSE : It' s maybe a foot, the balcony is about a foot . It' s a design thing that the 19 architect put in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a design feature 20 rather than something that you' re going to go out there? 21 MR. MORSE : That' s fine with me, save me. money, if you don' t want it . 22 MS . MOORE : The architects put in a lot of extra stuff here to make it pretty. 23 MS . MOORE : It looks like it' s part of -- it has a door to the second floor garage attic 24 space so that portion is usable . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But it will be just 25 used for storage . MS . MOORE : I guess somebody that ' s up August 18 , 2005 31 1 2 there can go out there and look. It' s a design feature more than usable space . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' re using the same foundation for that garage? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The garage will be extended a little bit? 5 MS . MOORE : No . It' s a two bay garage now. 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: On the site plan it' s five feet on the west side; is that an 7 extension? MS . MOORE : There' s a small shed. Which 8 page are you looking on? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I ' m looking at the 9 site plan, the survey. On the west side they show a five foot section 10 MR. MORSE : That' s the overhang over the doors to the entrance to the garage . 11 MS . MOORE : Just a covered overhang. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Five foot overhang. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s with the columns . 13 MS . MOORE : Everything is to look cottage style including the garage . The roof, as you can 14 see, kind of pitches down so it extends . Page 9 is a good description. It shows a roof from 15 beginning to end that goes on a pitch, that' s why when you' re looking at lot coverage and site plan 16 design, usually anything roofed over we have to show on the survey. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your deck, which would extend beyond the initial footprint doesn' t 18 show on the survey. MS . MOORE : The balcony? 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, the balcony. MS . MOORE : I think it' s right over the 20 roof . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s a foot or so 21 out there . MS . MOORE : It' s close, you' re usually 22 allowed overhangs of a certain size . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Eighteen inches . 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You might be right there . 24 MS . MOORE : If we had to push the balcony back a little bit it' s not a problem. 25 MR. MORSE : Or we can eliminate it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : My other concern August 18, 2005 32 1 2 you were talking about following the contour of the bulkhead, the rest of the Board may agree or 3 disagree, I'm not sure, but if you want to take my little drawing here, this is my opinion to 4 minimize the setback to the bulkhead. MS . MOORE : I know that this feature was 5 the reason we' re here . His wife, she imagines pina coladas on that little deck. The only 6 portion that' s -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The pre-existing is 7 40 feet . MS . MOORE : Everything else is the 8 pre-existing setback, so the only portion that is the addition is that . The proposed wood decking 9 is going where the enclosed wood porch was . I ' m saying everything that is proposed here, the only 10 portion that' s new is that decking area, and that octagonal deck, that means the world to his wife . 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it' s an increase in the nonconforming. 12 MS . MOORE : Not really because that' s on an angle, you have the 40 on the south bulkhead. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Consider the seven foot leg on the south side, the setback from there 14 to the bulkhead has got to be certainly no more than 30 feet . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I 'm saying, Michael, is that this is not an accurate figure 16 because she needs to resurvey based on the new bulkhead. 17 MS . MOORE : We may have more . But keep in mind it is not impacting anyone . It is a fully 18 functional bulkhead/seawall, very stable . It will last longer than all our lives together. 19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We don' t want to set a precedent . 20 MS . MOORE : This is a completely unique piece of property. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a nonconforming setback on the south side, and it' s 22 40 some-odd feet, plus or minus a few feet depending on the re-survey, and what is being 23 requested is a portion of that south side is going to be decreased another maybe eight or 10 feet, 24 and it doesn' t have to do with the acceptability to the neighbors who can see it ; it does have to 25 do with how much are we going to allow a reduction in an already nonconforming setback. August 18 , 2005 33 1 2 MS . MOORE : I know your issues . But keep in mind it is an open deck on piles, which is no 3 different if you put a patio there . Patio would be completely out of your jurisdiction, and you 4 could be as close as a foot from the bulkhead. So, if this is a really important feature to the 5 design and to the enjoyment of this property, particularly with the views . That corner, if you 6 stand there, it is the most remarkable, incredible views . 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I 'm assuming this is going to be white? I' m only kidding because 8 the whole community is white, driving in there . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s an uncovered. 9 How high above the ground is it? MS . MOORE : It' s uncovered, one step up. 10 I think it depends on the grade . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, Mr. Morse 11 is saying a foot? MS . MOORE : Right, which is about a step 12 up . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the height of 13 the building there' s nothing in the file to indicate it . 14 MS . MOORE : I will get that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any 15 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think I 16 understand the reasoning of the angles of the deck. I think you' re making too much of it 17 because it' s just a deck, and it looks like it ' s one step. I think they' re not asking for too 18 much. That' s the only comment I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other Board members 19 have any comments? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like to 20 see the new survey. MS . MOORE : That' s not a problem. I think 21 it' s attached on my June 14th letter. Were you asking garage or house? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: House . MS . MOORE : Maybe I didn' t do the house . 23 I 'm thinking the garage was requested. It' s 24 , is the height of the garage . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : The garage is about 24 to the ridge? 25 MS . MOORE : Yes . MR. MORSE : They should match. August 18 , 2005 34 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The garage and house are the same? 3 MR. MORSE : Yes . MS .. MOORE : I have to believe it would be 4 a little higher. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The slope of the land. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bear in mind one thing, these houses are extremely low in reference• 6 to their foundations in that area because they' re just built that way. They may be holding that 7 same low area, usually on that foundation you have at least 16, 18 inches exposed. 8 MS . MOORE : Crawl space . MR. MORSE : Yes . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s what I was getting at before, Vince, all of these houses are 10 one step up. You probably could grade this thing and it' s not like my house . I know I have two to 11 three blocks . You probably could grade this thing and not even -- 12 MS1. MOORE : Be right on grade . I think the DEC prefer we not grade . So I ' ll have the 13 survey updated and the height of the house . , CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 14 the audience that wishes to .speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 15 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------- - ------------------------------------ ----- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is BCD 17 Realty Holding Corp. , the new bank building that is proposed on the Main Road in Greenport . Yes, 18 sir? MR. HILL: Good morning, my name is Ronnie 19 Hill , representing RLH Land Planning Services, we represent BCD Realty Holding Corporation with 20 regard to the variance we' re seeking from you . And I' d like to take a moment and reiterate some 21 of the reasons for the variance today. The project as proposed is consistent with 22 the surrounding community and in all other respects consistent with the zoning regulations of 23 the Town of Southold. The project as proposed is optimized and optimal given the conditions of the 24 parcel ; and of the two proposed buildings, the proposed bank building is 12 . 6 feet over the 60 25 linear feet frontage that is required by Town code, which represents a little more than August 18 , 2005 35 1 2 one-fifth of the required 60 linear feet . The property is currently improved, the 3 project will alter the existing characteristics of the site because of the clearing and the grading 4 that is required to construct the two new building. However, there is no significant 5 adverse impact as a result of this physical change to the site . The project in the end will provide 6 significant community benefit and that' s about it . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re 12 feet over the 60 foot limit, right? 8 MR. HILL: 12 ' 611 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does that also include 9 the drive-in? MR. HILL: That is, in fact, due to the 10 drive-in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So the actual building 11 is 60 foot, then 12 foot for the drive-through? MR. HILL: Is the unenclosed portion of 12 the drive-through. MR. ARM: Craig Arm from East End Design 13 Associates and also part of BCB Realty. Actually the building itself is about 40 to 45 feet and 14 there' s two drive up tellers, so it' s just for the second teller, so there' s about 20 some-odd feet 15 that will be open underneath for the drive up . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words it' s 16 like the bank building down the road here, the two cars can drive up. So the actual building is much 17 less even. MR. ARM: It' s much smaller and it' s very 18 open underneath so the building itself is 40 some-odd feet, and then the two drive up tellers . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The concern I 20 have, Ruth, is closing this hearing based upon what the Planning Board recommends and separating 21 the buildings and the lengths to exceed 60 linear feet . The question I have is at what point are 22 these gentlemen with the Planning Board? This letter is dated August llth. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn' t object . The second part of it . They said they had no 24 objection to it because it' s open for the drive-through. 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Normally, they would object, but in this one they' re in favor of . August 18 , 2005 36 1 2 MR. HILL : Although it was written on the llth, it was actually received yesterday. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the plan is then based upon the information, or -- I hate to 4 use this phrase -- jargon that I received that I have in front of me, then they are approving it? 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re supporting it . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re supporting it . They still have to go for site plan, et cetera, et 7 cetera. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That letter came 8 late . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I just want to get my bearings correct . I have a survey here but 10 it ' s existing. The other building in question here is the Verizon building? There' s the old 11 restaurant across from Riverhead Building Supply, so we' re talking about that lot? 12 MR. HILL : Yes, the Kitchen Restaurant , which is next to Riverhead Building Supply, which 13 is west of Verizon. MR. ARM: Exactly. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Verizon is completely separate that stays where it is? 15 MR. HILL: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So we' re going to 16 demolish that restaurant and build a bank? MR. HILL: And a medical office building 17 that will have support apartments above . Of the two buildings one will be the bank building, the 18 second building will be a medical office building that will have apartments above . 19 MR. ARM: Don' t forget my office MR. HILL: And an office for East End 20 Design Associates . MR. ARM: And the other building is for my 21 brother Brian and myself with some apartments . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So it' s two 22 buildings on one lot? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s allowed in 23 that zone . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other 24 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? August 18 , 2005 37 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to clear up, he' s in a zone that allows all the uses 3 he' s asking for . It' s really just the open part that the Planning Board seems to have no objection 4 to, and I think they' re also concerned about lighting in the back for the apartments getting 5 around and we don' t need to take care of that . I think the Planning Board can take care of whatever 6 they need to take care of there . Parking doesn' t seem to be a problem and I think that the Planning 7 Board' s yes or no doesn' t make that much difference to me but it was nice of them to send a 8 letter. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it was . No other 9 questions? Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a 10 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------ - 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Schoensteins down Island View Lane for a 13 waiver of merger. Miss Gould, how are you? Before you start the sign for the posting was 14 turned around. MS . GOULD : From our mailing all the 15 neighbors got it except for Mr. Torpy, who' s on vacation. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is for us . MS . GOULD : You had trouble finding it? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MS . GOULD: Oh, sorry. My name is 18 Jennifer Gould, I 'm here today representing Otto and June Schoenstein, who are here today, if you 19 have any questions . I think the application is fairly complete, but I' ll summarize . June' s 20 mother Edith Goehls, initially purchased the vacant Lot 6 in 1948 . She bought it because her 21 parents lived on the adjacent lot 2 . 1 and it was her plan to build a house for her and her husband, 22 Fred. What subsequently happened was her mother died in ' 51 and her father remarried, and then her 23 father died in 152 I think. The whole chain is there, but what happened was in 1971 Edith, who is 24 now deceased, Edith died just this last spring, February, but she gave me this affidavit before 25 she died. She inherited 2 . 1 by her stepmother' s death. Her stepmother had no children Edith took August 18 , 2005 38 1 2 care of her for the years before she died and it merged at that point . So Edith owned the vacant 3 lot and she and her husband retired to the 2 . 1, but they always meant to keep them separate 4 because they had children down the line . Low and behold in 1998 , they read about the master plan, 5 and I take this out of the Goehls' s file, they saw this, that the property was going to be rezoned to 6 R40 . So they were following this and there' s notes in your package they talked to Jack 7 Sherwood, they talked to Victor LaSard, Victor LaSard told them to apply for a vacant land CO, 8 don' t worry, you' re grandfathered but the long and short of it is in December of ' 88 they went to 9 their attorney and they deeded the vacant lot to Edith and Fred so it would be separate from the 10 improved lot then Fred then died, that was ' 88 , Fred died in 1991; so it merged a second time by a 11 second death; immediately, three weeks after his death, if you look at the deeds he died on July 12 23rd, on August 15th they went to the attorney and they unmerged it . Edith gave June a one percent 13 interest in the vacant lot again. So since 191 they have been unmerged. Now in ' 96 you will see 14 in your chain and in your affidavit and your copies of the deeds . They did further estate 15 planning knowing that eventually Edith would die and they didn' t want it to merge again. The other 16 thing you will notice about that deed is it was filed with the county clerk' s office on December 17 30 , 1996 by the then -- remember we had the exception list in the code? They assumed that the 18 their subdivision, Peconic Bay Estates, was on that waiver of merger list . And it was, of 19 course, when they came to me further down the line, I said I'm not sure about that, I think 20 you' re going to bring a waiver of merger, and that' s why we' re here because it wasn' t on that 21 exception list . But, if you look at the factors that you 22 consider, will it result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood? Well, there 23 are only two vacant lots that I could see and I marked them on your pack in this little 24 subdivision. The size of Lot 6 , which is the vacant lot, is 13 , 111 square feet, which makes it 25 as large if not larger than most of the lots in that neighborhood. Most of the lots I think are August 18 , 2005 39 1 2 very narrow and skinny, it' s twice the size of lot 2 . 1 . So it' s going to be similar in size, if not 3 larger than other lots that are in that subdivision. And would the waiver avoid an 4 economic hardship? We've included three appraisals in the application and you could see 5 that it would cause significant economic hardship if it were merged because the value merged parcel 6 is $450 , 000 , but if you separate $675, 000 , it' s quite a difference . I think if you look at this 7 family' s intent, what they then tried to do over a course of 25 years . In 1971 none of us knew what 8 the merger law was because it was retroactive anyways . Once they found out zoning was going to 9 change, they did everything they possibly could to keep the lots separate . If you went out there you 10 will see that there are no improvements on Lot 6 by the Goehls family. They stayed within the 11 bounds of their 2 . 1 . We have separate deeds, separate tax map numbers, separate taxable 12 parcels, and as you also note she did not get any type of Star exemption for her vacant lot because 13 it' s totally separate lots . So, if you have any questions . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You know how I 15 feel, do these people subscribe to. Suffolk Times? I read everything. I read her deposition. I 16 couldn' t believe that a woman in such advanced age living where she did could speak like that . She 17 told a wonderful story. MS . GOULD : Edith was a wonderful woman, 18 and she was in San Simeon because her body had failed her, but her mind was absolutely with her 19 and her sense of humor until the day she died. She was lucky that way. I must say, when I gave 20 it to her to read, am I telling the story right . She said this is exactly what happened. So I felt 21 happy that I had done the job for her that she wanted to convey to this Board. Because if she 22 could have gotten here, she would to tell you the her story. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless I hear any 24 objections to the contrary, it' s a pretty good example of why we should allow waiver of merger on 25 some cases . I think this is very convincing. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? August 18 , 2005 40 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no questions . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this application? 5 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 for Joyce Orrigo for another waiver of merger on 48 8 Homestead Way, Greenport . MS . MOORE : What I did is I took my 9 attachment on the waiver of merger and I reviewed it today as well and added some additional 10 information. So what I did was I have it for the Board for your record, and .I think this is another 11 example of people trying to do everything possible to keep the parcels separate, and because of 12 death, which none of us can control, the property ends up in the same hands . 13 Here you have a situation where two family members, one is an aunt and one is the father of 14 the owner, bought the properties about the same time because they wanted to develop it next to 15 each other, held onto it for many, many years, actually held onto it at their death, and it ended 16 up going to the common owner through two different independent estates . So now Miss Orrigo, who they 17 actually -- not knowing this because the tax bills kept coming as they had originally been issued, 18 the parcels are wooded so they could be developed independently. It was not made known to her that 19 the parcels had merged until in February the property was put on the market, and it was 20 ultimately going to be sold to somebody from Wading River who wanted to build a nice house, the 21 price you have I put in the record, is $265, 000 , which is a very reasonable price, and this is 22 north of Moore' s Lane, it' s not affordable by any means, there' s nothing here on the east end of 23 Long Island affordable, but with respect to moderate income, it' s where middle income people 24 can still find a lot and build a house . There' s still land available . 25 What I did is, and what happened is in February, the family that was going to buy the lot August 18 , 2005 41 1 2 couldn' t wait out the time frame for a waiver of merger, the deal fell through and I think Miss 3 Orrigo started doing this process on her own initially, then got frustrated and ultimately came 4 to me . So as soon as this merger became known to her she took action on it . 5 Again, because it came from an estate and it was a distribution, it' s an enormous amount of 6 value because she didn' t take other assets in an estate because she got this property, and to think 7 that the fact that it became merged it' s a significant impact . And I know this Board has 8 routinely recommended to the Town Board that you should really look at the merger law and provide 9 an exception for a merger that occurs through a death, because there is definitely no intent here 10 to merge the properties as the history of the parcel reflects . 11 I also, because it' s things that you have asked for in the past, I included here even though 12 I ' m not sure it' s directly relevant, I think the more important point is how this merger occurred 13 was through two separate estates . I did provide you with a kind of the picture of all the improved 14 versus vacant lots in this area . North of the North Road, Moore' s Lane area north, consists of 15 several subdivisions . You have Eastern Shores one through five, and this is one of the parcels from 16 Eastern Shores and I included the descriptions that she provided when she got the property, which 17 is it was a planned subdivision with open space, with beach rights, very similar in design to 18 current subdivision regulations . The fact is that all these lots were half acre, at a time when an 19 eighth of an acre was permissible . So these were really large lots at the time and eventually 20 zoning got changed to match up with the type of design plans that Eastern Shores had adopted at 21 the time . You also have other subdivisions here, 22 which Homestead Acres and I think Rock Creek Estates subdivision are all subdivisions that are 23 in this vicinity. With respect to the development here, you 24 have open space that each of these subdivisions had already provided for. The older subdivisions 25 had beach rights as essentially their park and playgrounds before the Town started mandating it . August 18 , 2005 42 1 2 There are several large tracks in this northern end which have been purchased by the county. So 3 you have a tremendous amount of open space here that there will be no further development of the 4 land that' s remaining. You are talking about lots that have already been developed. There' s not 5 going to be an increase in density here, and from the lots that I reviewed and I look at the 6 assessor' s records , in compiling this information,, there was only one lot that appears to have been 7 merged in this instance in the north end, and that one at least shows up in the tax map with a dashed 8 line . So maybe someone would have done it intentionally and might come back to you. But 9 this area is consistently developed with half acre lots and the tax map shows that . 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the lot to the west, that' s 10 , and it' s now split on to 10 . 1 and 11 10 . 2 , they look merged together into one lot? MS . MOORE : What is now 10 . 3? 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I 'm saying they' re not shown there as separate lots on the Eastern 13 Shores map and it looks like only within the last 10 years those lots were separated. They may be 14 merged as one lot . MS . MOORE : I honestly don' t know how 15 those lots got developed. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re vacant, 16 they' re not developed. MS . MOORE : No . How they got created. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what I was asking. 18 MS . MOORE : I ' m sorry, I don' t have that information. It might show up on the single and 19 separate as to who the owner is . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Pat, you 20 say this was a merger by death, but that' s not exactly right . She took tax Lot 12 by death, but 21 the next year she bought the half interest from her brother, correct? 22 MS . MOORE : It was through an estate, it wasn' t a purchase per se . 23 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: You say nevertheless, Joyce purchased from her brother her 24 interest in the property at fair market value and became the sole owner in 1995 . 25 MS . MOORE : It was buying out her brother' s interest . August 18 , 2005 43 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: That' s what caused the merger was the buying out of the 3 interest , not the death. In 1994 she took Lot 12 , 1995 she bought the interest from her brother. 4 That' s when the merger occurred. MS . MOORE : What I 'm not giving you Joyce 5 and Bert were both co-executors on the estate and there was allocation in that estate as to who 6 would get what . And she ended up getting that lot, that portion, my understanding is she ended 7 up buying the interest from her brother but in exchange for giving him something, it was an 8 exchange . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying 9 although the merger was pursuant to the death, it wasn' t the merger upon the death, that' s what 10 Kieran' s point is . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: It' s not 11 that a death occurred and she then took the property and now they' re merged. 12 MS . MOORE : No . It happened inadvertently when she ended up putting her name on the title 13 when she bought out her brother' s interest . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: My next 14 question is do you know how much she paid for that half interest? Because that would go to the 15 economic hardship interest . MS . MOORE : Well, I can find out . But 16 keep in mind that it' s the value of the property independently. 17 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: No, it ' s not . It' s economic hardship . 18 MS . MOORE : My legal opinion of what economic hardship is what the value that you' re 19 foregoing as one piece versus two pieces . ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: My legal 20 opinion differs from yours . MS . MOORE : Okay, fine . Two lawyers in a 21 room will disagree . But I can get that information for you. 22 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: That would be helpful . Obviously I'm not making the 23 decision. MS . MOORE : I think it doesn' t change the 24 fact that these two parcels and keeping in mind these parcels were independent of each other 25 because of the 100-12 list of exemptions, lots that are exempt from merger, from the Eastern August 18 , 2005 44 1 2 Shores subdivision, it' s one of the specifically exempt lots . So the merger actually occurred from 3 ' 97 to present when she got -- let' s assume she took title when she bought out , independently of 4 the estate, if she had gone and bought it separately, it would still have remained separate 5 until ' 97, and it looks like death occurred in ' 94 . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have a 7 particular problem with this application based upon on the size of the lot, and that they conform 8 with the other lots within the subdivision and within the character of the lots as they present 9 themselves, where they present themselves geographically within the subdivision. 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The two lots next door may be merged. 11 MS . MOORE : If they are, they might legitimately be coming here for a waiver of 12 merger. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm saying if 13 they were an environmentally sensitive area I would be less likely to grant the merger. But 14 since they' re where they are, and they do conform, I don' t have a particular objection to the merger. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean granting the waiver of merger? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean granting the waiver of merger, excuse me . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Pat, in ' 94 when 18 she purchased it, bought out her brother, you' re saying even if she did buy it -- 19 MS . MOORE : It stayed single and separate -- 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Until ' 97? MS . MOORE : Yes . According to the waiver 21 of merger provision, and, in fact, when this got adopted in ' 99, there was a one-year window for 22 anybody who was probably local, because if they didn' t know it was merged, they didn' t know they 23 had to act . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was a 196 24 one-year window? ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: In either 25 event it merged by operation of law one year or another. August 18 , 2005 45 1 2 MS . MOORE : Here we are today and it' s merged. 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So when she bought out her brother that day, they were two separate 4 lots and they didn' t merge until 196 , 197? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When she bought out 5 her brother they merged? MS . MOORE : No . Because the subdivisions 6 were still recognized. The Eastern Shores subdivision was exempt from merger because of the 7 way it had been developed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes . The dates 8 threw me off . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: To me this is 11 hair-splitting again, I mean, there' s no intention here to merge these lots . The lady' s trying to 12 take care of business, and the Town kind of throws up these road blocks, okay, we got you. I don' t 13 know how the Town benefits from the fact that there' s not going to be another house on the lot 14 next door. And quite honestly, it' s grating on me that people have to come and beg the Town for 15 something they thought they had all along, and honestly, they do have all along. This is just 16 lots and if they built the houses on them when they were developed back in the ' 70s, no one would 17 be here . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 18 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 19 the hearing and reserve decision until later. MS . MOORE : Did you still want something 20 from me? ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: It' s up to 21 the Board. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The question of what she paid. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MS . MOORE : Do you want to know ,the value 24 of the buy-out? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes? 25 MS . MOORE : Keep in mind that buy-out would have been 1995 value . August 18 , 2005 46 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you' re going to send us what? 3 MS . MOORE : How much she bought out her brother for. 4 ------- ------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Sherwin 5 on Fisher' s Island, wonderful 1920s house on Fisher' s Island. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not built yet? 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, this is not yet built . Mr. Sherwin, would you like to tell us 8 what you would like to do? MR. SHERWIN: Basically I 've spoken to all 9 my neighbors, I' m sorry, I haven' t spoken to all my neighbors, I have spoken personally to the ones 10 directly on my property, and none of them have any problems with it, and none of them will see it 11 except in mid-winter. And of those neighbors only one of them lives there in mid-winter, and he' s 12 directly behind me and he has no problems with it at all . And I 'm pretty sure of this, no one will 13 be able to see this tower from their actual houses . From the edge of their properties, they 14 will be able to see it, but not from their houses . But anyway, none of them have any problems with 15 it , and I ' m not sure what more I should say to advocate, other than the fact that I think it ' s 16 keeping with the tradition of Fisher' s Island and the architecture of the house and it' s below 35 17 feet town -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The code . 18 MR. SHERWIN: The code . And it' s also more than 40 feet from the property line of our 19 property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also I like the idea 20 that you' ve really built it into the house rather than being separate from the house . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was very nice of you to tell us that, Mr. Sherwin, but the 22 problem is the precedent of what has occurred in this town regarding the use of three-story 23 additions, and I don' t mean that in a sarcastic sense . We do appreciate that situation. However, 24 the short-lived period of time in granting these applications we have required, this Board has 25 required, I 'm not speaking for the Board, a sprinkler system. August 18 , 2005 47 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s doing it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Board has, 3 and I think the concern is the aspect of heating it, it will be heated? 4 MR. SHERWIN: No . It' s strictly for observation. It will not be for any other purpose 5 than to go up there and actually have a drink and watch the sun set, whatever. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How do you support the sprinkler system if it' s unheated? 7 MR. SHERWIN: The house is used through November and opens up again in March. What I 8 generally do with the outside shower and all the other stuff I shut them off for the winter . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that when the house is being habitated, the sprinkler system 10 will be operating? MR. SHERWIN: Absolutely. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the observation tower will not be heated? 12 MR. SHERWIN: Will not be heated, no . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Whatever solar 13 comes in is solar, okay, that' s all I have . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a comment . You 14 were prescient enough to show us how many other people on Fisher' s Island have these kinds of 15 towers, and it' s sort of a familiar part of the landscape . Were it not for that, a question could 16 be raised is if you had one house like a periscope sticking up above all the other houses, that' s not 17 a problem for Fisher' s Island, and I certainly would hope that one person in the Town of Southold 18 or one of the hamlets of Southold wanted to do this, that it would, of course, stick out like a 19 sore thumb, and would not be approved by everybody on this Board. So we' re talking about the 20 context, and the context of it is however you are going to see it, and it certainly is not 21 invisible . And one comment I had when I first read the application when I first saw it , on the 22 one hand he' s stressing about how nobody can see it, on the other hand, its virtues are extolled . 23 for the fact that it allows us to see lots of things we could otherwise not see . It ' s a minor 24 contradiction. MR. SHERWIN: Absolutely. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : My one question is August 18 , 2005 48 1 2 on your survey you don' t show dimensions of your structure . 3 MR. SHERWIN: In terms of the footprint of the house, if you turn to the floor plan, where it 4 shows the actual outline of the house relative term, it sticks out, the part that climbs up the 5 side of the house, I don' t have it measured, it' s one-quarter inch equals one foot, make that eight 6 feet out or actually -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Maybe you could get 7 that to us so whoever writes that up gets the right dimensions . 8 MR. SHERWIN: It' s five and a half . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s mine . 9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Get that to us . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need the base 10 and the height . MR. SHERWIN: In other words, 11 specifically. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Jim? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I would suggest that if you' re going to put any kind of a fire 13 system, certainly a sprinkler system in, and I ' m assuming that' s for safety purposes, then you will 14 have to do that according to the state code, and you cannot turn that off . There could be no way. 15 It ' s going to be costly. Don' t think it' s going to be something that you can turn the spigot off . 16 You' re probably going to wind up putting glycol in there . It' s a question of -- I' m a licensed fire 17 alarm inspector in the State of New York, and the problem with just putting a spigot on it and 18 turning it on and off, if a person dies in that house, the person who installed that is going to 19 be liable . You might have the architect put it on this plan expect that the person that puts it in, 20 he' s going to do it to code . It' s expensive, it' s not turning on the spigot . Put the glycol in, 21 just leave it charged all the time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else 22 that would like to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 23 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 MR. SHERWIN: One last question on procedural things, which your question about the 25 money thing, I may not be able to build this all at once because of finances . Let' s say I get the August 18 , 2005 49 1 2 foundation laid and get the framework done within a certain amount of period. Once I've gotten 3 approval does it have to be finished -- BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You can get an 4 extension for your building permit and the variance runs along with that . 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You start the foundation within 12 months and then it ' s extended 6 automatically for six months, then you get a six month after that if you request it in writing. 7 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next applications is 8 for Lawrence and Sherri Kelly on Main Road in Cutchogue . 9 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Agnieszka Drozdowska of Architechnologies, I am representing the Kellys . 10 First I have gotten two notices back from the neighbors . There' s still two pending out . So if 11 I could just present that to the Board (handing) . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : See this is 12 something I think we can get in trouble for. Kieran, what' s your opinion? I don' t know if this 13 one' s controversial or anything, I just mean in the future . 14 ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: It doesn' t have to be that you have to get every single one 15 back because you may never get some back. You may have to submit an affidavit or some sort of proof 16 that you did mail them. The receipts serve as proof, but if somebody never picks up their mail, 17 they will never sign it . It' s not a requirement we get them all back. They have to all have been 18 sent, and if someone comes and say you never sent one to me and then there' s no receipt, it actually 19 becomes a question about whether it was sent or not . 20 MS . DROZDOWSKA: After a hearing with you guys, we actually spoke to the person that is the 21 owner of the property, and we have accommodated them through the Zoning Board because they had 22 contacted the Zoning Board. We have had an issue with - - the assessor' s office had a wrong -- the 23 owner was no longer the owner of the property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I 'm not attacking 24 you, that was a legal thing. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: You have to 25 make the best effort to provide notice . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don' t need to August 18 , 2005 50 1 2 prove receipt, you only have to prove that it was sent . 3 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Dr. Kelly had purchased a home on Main Road in Cutchogue in mind of 4 eventually pursuing this renovation and moving his practice to Cutchogue in that location, changing 5 the house into a home office space . It is existing a one and a half story home, it' s an 6 attic space that could potentially be a bedroom. The house existing is the east side of 7 the home, if you look at the survey, there' s a hatched-in area on the survey, that is a 8 nonconforming side to begin with of the house footprint itself . On top that, our firm is 9 proposing an addition of an alteration of the second floor and putting a two bedroom and a 10 kitchen upstairs moving it from downstairs, giving Dr. Kelly space for his practice . We' re 11 suggesting two exam rooms and an office space . On top of that, we are proposing a covered front 12 porch, aesthetic reasons purely, just for the neighborhood and with a handicapped ramp and 13 that' s pretty much it . So we are requesting a variance on this side setback on the east side for 14 both the first floor of the existing plus the second floor of the proposed and the covered porch 15 portion that you see lies within the nonconformance . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So the hatched area 17 that is on the survey, that is the part that is in a nonconforming area? 18 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Correct . You see the dashed line is showing the building envelope on 19 site to code . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But that exists 20 now? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Correct . Not the porch 21 area just the home, just the footprint of the first floor. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is that solid dark line? 23 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you have an 24 existing setback, you don' t intend to encroach on that any further. That's all I have . He' s 25 actually going to put his doctor' s office in there? August 18 , 2005 51 1 2 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes . It' s going to be his office and exam rooms . We' re complying with 3 the Town' s codes of under 800 square feet of the office space for a home office usage . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How many square feet is the office space going to be? 5 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It was close to 800 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Was it 45 by -- 6 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We come close cause we would like to maximize obviously if I can. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If I say 800 square feet? 8 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, definitely, yes . It' s just a few feet shy of . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have any 10 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I like your client already, he' s very proactive, he' s removed his 12 underground storage tank and put it in the basement . And also your neighbor, North Fork 13 Country Club, is not going to complain, it' s pre-existing, and I' m guessing the North Fork has 14 a nice piece of property, I guess they bought that for road access some day or something. I have no 15 problem with that . You' re not increasing the nonconformity, and you' re actually reducing it a 16 little bit . MS . DROZDOWSKA: The only nonconformance 17 increase is the front porch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it' s six foot 18 as to opposed to four. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no objection. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 21 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Hajek doing a fair amount of renovations on that 24 property in New Suffolk on Grathwohl Road and New Suffolk Avenue . 25 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s me again, I will hand you the mailing. August 18 , 2005 52 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have two front yards? 3 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We have two front yards and the front yard and the rear yard of the 4 existing is nonconforming to begin with. No other way of saying that . On top of it all, we would 5 like, it' s an existing ranch, we propose a second floor addition on top of the existing footprint to 6 begin with. The front stoop, that is a nonconformance, is not deep enough for what we are 7 aiming for as a front entrance . It will still remain a stoop, but it will be a covered entrance 8 such as a deck per se . I need an additional foot on top of what I have existing. The rear yard 9 setback is nonconforming and we are proposing a covered sun room. It does not have to be heated 10 space, if I just may clarify that, just a one-story sun room. Existing they have a slate 11 patio in the back, which, obviously it' s not conflicting with the setbacks . We would like to 12 construct a sun room in the rear of the property, which is a request of 12 . 6 in addition to it' s 13 nonconforming in the back, the depth of the sun room itself . And that is all for this one . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is one of the 16 smaller houses in that general area. So the second story will make it more conforming with the 17 others . MS . DROZDOWSKA: What I had originally a 18 few months ago submitted to the Town as a proposed elevation, we've scaled it down much, much. It 19 was more European styled home with a true full two-story home with an attic above . I ' ve tapered 20 everything down to a one and a half story. I can present the plans, but I will not be asking the 21 Town for more than what I have asked the Board to date . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So on your site 23 plan, 32 ' 6" is existing frontage? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes . 24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you propose to come out approximately a foot further? 25 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But you also look August 18 , 2005 53 1 2 to increase the nonconformity with a pergola-type thing, you call it a trellis? 3 MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I can get it within the same line, I will . It' s not something that we 4 will use a covered deck or anything of such. It' s just to better the look of the exterior of the 5 home . It' s pretty much for decoration. I can have it come out only three feet for the _ 6 aesthetics of the look. I 'm asking for 9' 611 , I could come out three to four feet and still be 7 satisfied. But if I can get my front yard setback to be consistent throughout, if I am to receive 8 the additional foot that I am requesting, then I would like to have the option of going to that 9 line with my pergola/trellis . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And the sun porch 10 is coming out to the existing patio? MS . DROZDOWSKA: It is a slate patio, 11 correct, right underneath I think would be slate, but we' re thinking to building it up a step, so we 12 come down a step from the house, and this way we utilize the space within the sun room itself more 13 efficiently. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And it will be a 14 two-story? MS . DROZDOWSKA: No, it will be a 15 one-story, sun porch. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The sun porch is 16 one story but the addition of the house is two story? 17 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 20 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 21 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a resolution to 22 recess for lunch. (See minutes for resolution. ) 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for the Claytons on Route 25 in East Marion for a few 24 renovations . Good afternoon, Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Good afternoon, Richard Lark, 25 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for the applicants, William and Barbara Clayton. I assume for the August 18 , 2005 54 1 2 record the affidavits of posting and publishing are in the file; is that correct? 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you submitted it, we have it . 4 MR. LARK: Both the applicants are here today to answer any questions that the Board may 5 have after I make a presentation. Their prepared, detailed application, which you have, pretty much 6 explains, is pretty detailed with what they want to do . So I won' t belabor the record by covering 7 all the things that they have in there . Mainly what I want to do with you this 8 afternoon is cover the five factors that you require by the statute to think about and to rule 9 on in order to make a decision on their application. 10 One nice thing about this application is I think you do have it in the record, they consulted 11 with all their neighbors before proceeding and to a person all around, on all corners on the 12 property where there' s land, of course there' s bay on the south side, all the neighbors who saw the 13 detailed plans and looked at them have all approved of them, and I believe they all wrote you 14 a letter indicating their approval of same. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They did. 15 MR. LARK: You don' t often get that, so I wanted to note that for the record. 16 The existing conditions on the property are, as you know from the survey, there' s 18 , 843 17 square feet with a right of way connected to it that they can get access to the Main Road on the 18 north through the neighboring property. On the property there' s an existing 10 by 16 foot shed 19 which virtually sits on the rear yard line and the side yard line on the rear corner. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: May I ask, Mr. Lark, what is that other structure that' s just to the 21 north of the existing shed? Is that theirs or on someone else' s neighboring property? 22 MR. LARK: I don' t have that, that has to be on the neighboring property because when I 23 walked it, that shed is there in that location, I saw the monument . 24 The one-story frame house, which is there today and all of you have seen the property and 25 you know its location, has an existing partial second floor and the photos which are in the August 18 , 2005 55 1 2 packet or the presentation that you have before you, clearly show what it looked like before they 3 began the renovations . The renovations were required to raise the house, which Mrs . Clayton 4 will explain more in detail . The rear yard to the property is virtually where the house is is 5 nonexistent and therefore nonconforming, and no matter where you locate anything on this property 6 it will be nonconforming as far as a rear yard is concerned due to the size and shape . The 7 northwesterly corner of the house is presently 3 . 25 feet and on the foundation it will remain 8 that as its been surveyed and laid out when the house was raised. In the middle, however, it ' s 9 only 1 . 4 and on the south side it' s approximately five feet . The reason for the different 10 variations of it is due to a jog in the house and the fact that the lot line and the house are on 11 different orientations, they' re not parallel with each other as you see on the survey. So that 12 explains the situation of the location of the buildings . 13 As I said the deterioration to the existing house, especially on the south side on 14 the main floor, required them to raise the house, which has been completed and in the process of 15 doing so, they had to gut a lot of the interior in order to raise it properly, due to the age of the 16 house and the fact that it' s had even before zoning the many additions that it has had on it . 17 They decided due to the inefficiencies of the living space to lay out differently the first 18 floor, and since it already had a partial second floor on top, about a third of the dwelling was 19 covered by a roof where there was a second floor, if you will, a loft as they show on the diagram 20 and in the application that you have there . They decided that it would be more efficient layout and 21 cost effective to put a second story over the approximately remaining two-thirds of the existing 22 building. Therefore why we' re here is the Building Department determined that we need two 23 area variances in order to proceed. As I said, I' ll discuss the factors, and 24 since one is the location of the garage in the yard area other than the rear yard, which I 25 explained is virtually nonexistent and it requires a variance located in the side yard; and the other August 18 , 2005 56 1 2 one is since the second story will encroach within the 35 feet even though it' s placed on top of the 3 existing footprint it requires a variance because it' s still within the prescribed area. 4 Now the first criteria that you have to consider is whether there' s an undesirable change 5 to be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment of your neighboring 6 properties by your Board granting the variance . As to the neighborhood, I submit there will be no 7 undesirable change . It' s zoned R40 residential, it' s residential now and the proposed use is 8 strictly residential . The second story for the personal use in the house, and, of course, for the 9 two-car garage, which is nonexistent there, is also a residential use . So there will be no 10 change . As to the detriment to the neighboring properties, as I explained previously all the 11 neighbors have seen it, have approved of it and therefore if there were any complaints that they 12 felt was a detriment, they would have let you know by now. Of course, they do not have any 13 complaints at all . The next criteria that has to be 14 considered is whether the granting of this area variance or the two of them as sought by the 15 Claytons can be achieved by some other method other than the area variance . As to the proposed 16 garage in the side area, if you' re going to have a garage on the property for the storage of your 17 automobiles, where are you going to place it? This is the only feasible place to place it, 18 otherwise you' ll be placing it in the front yard, there is no other place . So from the physical 19 location this is the only place it can be placed from a practical standpoint and therefore, it 20 requires a variance . Since the property' s under 20 , 000 square 21 feet, it only requires a three foot setback from the existing lot lines . The Claytons are 22 proposing to put it five feet . It not only takes it away from any of the neighboring properties but 23 it also makes it for more accessibility around the building. Another thing to be noted, which I' ll 24 cover later, is that this is replacing a ten by 16 foot existing storage shed, which is really 25 located right on the property line . So that will be obliterated and moved in a more conforming area August 18 , 2005 57 1 2 in the side yard and would be the proposed garage . Now the house on this issue, whether 3 another method can be achieved other than the variance, is when you give the fact that you have 4 the existing footprint and you have the 35 foot rear yard side requirement, as I explained before, 5 it' s virtually impossible to conform to the prescribed 35 feet unless you move the entire 6 house to the east . , However the Claytons initially looked at that to see if that had any type of 7 feasibility and low and behold when they moved it to the east no matter how far they moved it, they 8 would have to have either a front yard or rear yard variance anyway. And plus it would block the 9 neighbors to the north completely from the bay and it would have put it too close to the house on the 10 east . So after conferring with everybody down there including the architect, pit was decided we 11 better just leave the house right where it is, even though it has virtually no rear yard. 12 So in order to ameliorate that or soften it, under the requirements of the zoning ordinance 13 the architect has proposed, and you have before you a four foot stepback on the new addition 14 that' s being added where he' ll setback the actual building four feet and will then put on top a 15 non-usable deck, if you would, nonhabitable deck, and put a railing on the side of it . When I went 16 down and looked at the property myself, and you have all been there, and got myself to the 17 position where I could see immediately to the neighbor to the west, which it would impact, if 18 you did anything on that property in the rear yard it impacts that neighbor, you' re looking onto 19 their driveway only; their house is so far removed to the bay side that it wouldn' t interfere at all 20 with the sight line, and, in fact, when you would stand in their driveway and look at the proposed 21 addition when it' s completed, all you' ll see is a railing and then the roof line going up, you won' t 22 be able to see the windows on the wall that he' s moving back. 23 So that four foot setback that he proposes would decrease the nonconformity on the 24 new addition, the existing one, which is there, I think he' s softening the roofline a little bit , 25 but it would remain basically in the same area . So I would say that it would not have any impact August 18 , 2005 58 1 2 on that neighboring property. The next required criteria is whether or 3 not the required variances are substantial . As I indicated to you in the garage, the 10 ' by 6 ' by 4 161 , 172 square foot existing storage building would be removed, and in its place conforming with 5 the lot requirements of the separation from the property lines of now having it five feet, two 6 additional feet than required, you' re putting up a 24 ' by 26 ' one-story structure which won' t cause 7 any problems and is not substantial putting it in this area. And because it' s accessory and 8 free-standing there, I think it' s a proper use considering the size and shape and size of the 9 location of the main house on the property. As to the house the substantiality test as 10 to the house, it' s fairly obvious that the addition of the second story will make it more 11 uniform, because if you look at the pictures of what the place looked like before they started the 12 renovations, you can see that you had one-third of the structure, basically one-third, had a 13 two-story element to it, and the other one-story addition was just add-ons . This now would tie it 14 all together especially when you look at it looking to the west, in other words, an east 15 elevation, it ties the whole house together, making it much more symmetrical . Not to mention 16 it would give the Claytons much more efficient living space inside . Considering stepping back 17 and increasing the living area is utilized and without increasing the footprint at all, I think 18 it is not substantial . The existing square foot of the second 19 floor, I just want to know it' s been covered by the architect, it' s about 395 square feet and 20 they' re adding on about 1, 143 , that' s where I got the one-third/two-thirds type of situation more or 21 less . So by reducing the non-conformity and making the house more efficient and uniform, I 22 submit to you it' s not substantial . Next test is whether the proposed variance 23 will have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The 24 answer here I think is clearly no. Both the DEC has seen it and given a nonjurisdiction letter due 25 to the bulkheading. And the Trustees also gave a letter of approval after seeing what was going to August 18 , 2005 59 1 2 be renovated there, raised and the addition put on. When you look at where the location of adding 3 the second story and the locating of the two-car garage I think common sense indicates it ' s not 4 going to be an adverse impact on the neighboring properties . 5 Basically it' s requesting put over two-thirds of the existing house, the second story 6 and relocating the garage, building the garage and getting rid of the storage shed. Whether the 7 difficulty was self-created the answer to this question, of course, is yes, of course it is 8 self-created. However, when you look at the plans and the proposed second story and the two-car 9 garage, it will be an attractive asset and should enhance this property as well as the 10 community, and certainly will not be a detriment . Mrs . Clayton, do you want to add anything? 11 MRS . CLAYTON: Yes . Barbara Clayton, and I live in East Marion, 12832 Main Road. 12 As Dick has said you have seen the house . When my husband and I bought the house, we fell in 13 love with it . We fell in love with the site . We want a beach cottage, it is a beach cottage, but 14 it is just that . It is the house that Jack built . When we moved in, the first nor' easter, I had to 15 pull out every beach towel we owned to line the inside window because the water just came in. 16 Now, with water is damp wood. The second thing was carpenter ants . The whole back of the south 17 side of the house is loaded with carpenter ants . So all of this I could live with. The third thing 18 I could not live with are the mice . They come in under a house that has no foundation. I have 19 three cats, they couldn' t keep up with them. We love the house; we want to keep it a beach house . 20 But we also want to live in not only in the 21 Century but in the 20 Century. 21 Again, we thank you for your time and if I can answer any more .questions, I ' ll be happy to . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Several things, is 24 this a demo? Are you going to demo and rebuild, or are you going to rebuild the existing? 25 MR. LARK: They' re rebuilding the existing. The house has already been -- per August 18 , 2005 60 1 2 permits it ' s already been approved. MR. CLAYTON: I 'm Bill Clayton, co-owner 3 of this place . We are not demo-ing this place whatsoever, categorically, absolutely not . What 4 we did, and if you have been on the site what you have seen, a lot of the outside shingling is off, 5 many of the windows are out, and they' re out for. a reason. We had planned on renovating the house 6 as-is, not demoing it, and putting new windows in, maybe changing the layout of the interior floor, 7 rooms a little bit, but not demoing it . A lot of the windows did come out now and not later and the 8 shingles off because they needed to literally raise the house to get in to put a new foundation 9 under it . We are not demoing am. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the second floor 10 deck and the ground grade deck on the south side, water side, remains the same, no change to that? 11 MR. CLAYTON: Absolutely. No difference whatever: 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Just a clarification for Mr. Lark, you said the garage 13 was going to be set back five feet? The drawing shows four, so we want to correct that to five? 14 MR. CLAYTON: I know what happened. Originally we submitted at four and then I think 15 Linda asked for a larger survey of the property, and Mark Schwartz, our architect, provided that 16 and indicated five, we' re happy to live with five, five is okay. 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ruth' s says five, mine says four. 18 MR. LARK: It worked out that five worked out just fine considering where it is in that 19 corner of the property. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further 20 questions . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not much. Answered the question about the demo of the house, 22 obviously the shed is being demolished. MR. CLAYTON: Yes . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I spent many hours 24 in that crawl space . In the interest of the disclosure, I know the Claytons and they actually 25 are subscribing to my alarm company' s central station in another house that they own, so I August 18 , 2005 61 1 2 wanted to disclose that . And I think if they move this house, the neighbor to the north, which is 3 towards the main street will probably never talk to them again. They' re going to lose a beautiful 4 view and I think they have been very cognizant of the neighbors to the west, who I talked with Tony 5 Diaz and Mary, so that' s all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 6 the audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 7 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 9 Anton Bettler on Osprey Nest Road in Greenport . Yes, sir? 10 MS . OXHOLM: Good afternoon, my name is Karen Oxholm, the designer of their proposed plans 11 for Marla Milne and Anton Bettler at 79 Osprey Nest Road in Greenport . Hopefully, this is a lot 12 simpler than what we just heard. There' s two parts to the application and one has to do with a 13 new deck. In order to install an exercise pool called an "endless pool, " their existing deck size 14 that they had was not large enough to incorporate the 7' by 14 ' pool, so I designed it with a 15 triangle that ended up, not to my knowledge when I first designed it, to be six foot closer to the 16 road, which was the 35 foot setback. So that brings them to roughly the 29 feet . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you just have a triangle? 18 MS . OXHOLM: Right . And I did that because the existing front deck and staircase to 19 the front entrance of the house had already been out 10 and a half feet, or 10 foot five plus minus 20 an inch. To my dismay when I went to the Building Department, submitted the application for the 21 construction of the deck, they brought it to my attention that even though it' s on the corner, I 22 had to keep a 35 foot setback in both, what they call the rear yard and the front yard and the 23 other so-called front yard. So as you can see on your plans, I'm sure you can understand. 24 It turned out that the original owner and builder of that house evidently put that deck and 25 staircase in after they received their certificate of occupancy, which I was not aware of . So when August 18 , 2005 62 1 2 Miss Milne and Mr. Bettler purchased the house they thought that deck and stair system was there 3 at the time of the construction, they know the builder. 4 So when faced with that consideration of what to do, there' s an eight foot plus or minus a 5 few inches elevation coming from the driveway to get to that front entranceway, and that' s why they 6 didn' t know what to do about it originally. They must have had some type of fire escape type 7 staircase going right alongside the windows to get in, because I did check on the original drawings 8 at the Building Department . So that makes a quite hazardous situation and it runs along windows that 9 have awning operations, which really makes it a hazardous situation. So we are applying to keep 10 that existing distance from the front door to 1016" . Where the existing is it' s in definite 11 need of repair, it' s CCA that' s pulling apart . And we' ve tried and tried, I even had the 12 landscape architect, Eric from Tim Cof'fey' s work on it with us . And we are trying to work as much 13 of the new pathway and stepping into the grade, we' ll even change the grade somewhat, but we can 14 only change it as far as our foundation will allow us, leaving our eight inch area of foundation 15 exposed before we hit the cedar siding. So what we come up with is what you have 16 there, a more curved, gentle stepping situation. Also for the accessibility for an elderly mother 17 to get in and out a little easier, we would like to do five and a half inch risers, which makes it 18 a little simpler, and we tried to get it as close as possible, and no matter what, that' s as tight 19 as we can design anything to go up that eight foot elevation from the driveway. 20 I don' t know what else to add to that . There' s a beautiful landscape in there . You 21 probably noticed, it' s well-buffered from the street, nobody minds in the neighborhood, they' ve 22 all consented that they go ahead, especially that triangular piece . It just will make it more 23 attractive and they' re eliminating the second floor deck, so that' s a little more attractive . 24 It doesn' t interfere with anyone' s view, if anything it will enhance the house, and we don' t 25 know what else to do as far as climbing in the front door. August 18 , 2005 63 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think you took 3 pretty good care of the property. And with respect to the setback too, I think other 4 applicants would have come in with a lot more . Looks to me like you' re keeping it nice and tight . 5 That' s all I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions, just a clarification, the setback, what is the 7 setback to the east/west part of Osprey Road? It goes east to west then it goes north and south. 8 They' re both Osprey Road, right? MS . OXHOLM: Yes . And there' s actually 9 two addresses for this property. On the 75 Osprey Nest Road, which is where the driveway is, 35 10 feet . On the other side of Osprey Nest Road, which is the front entrance of the house, it' s 11 actually 3517" . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The second one is 12 being reduced to 24 ; is that right? MR. OXHOLM: No . Then what we would call 13 the rear of the house, the opposite side of the driveway, the south part of the house, we' re 14 keeping that at the 35 . And we thought since we were going for a variance and I didn' t realize at 15 the beginning that I could encroach a little bit on the east side, so to give them a little more 16 deck space because the spa is taking up considerable amount of space on the deck, we 17 decided to go the 10 foot onto the east side of that 20 foot . 5 setback that it currently is . So 18 keeping 35 foot on one side, 27 on the other side, 35 on the other side . It' s under 20, 000 square 19 feet, it' s 12 , 870 . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Also a clarification, the front step that you' re 21 rebuilding, that' s 25 , the deck on that side of the road will be 30' 2 " to the road? 22 MS . OXHOLM: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You don' t think a 23 straight stairs -- you brought up an elderly person, a straight steps wouldn' t be easier for 24 someone to maneuver? MS . OXHOLM: No, because the stairs would 25 have to go all along the front of the ;house, along the awning windows and it' s currently they August 18 , 2005 64 1 2 retained, the lower area, that' s all done in railroad ties, so we would be able to just re-face 3 that . So you' re coming off the bluestone driveway and you' re into a retaining wall at that area at 4 about 42 inches high. Those steps already cut into the grade, so we 'already have stepping there 5 going back quite a bit . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You also put on the 6 record that your clients bought the house as-is with those steps there, the assumption it was 7 legal with a CO. MS . OXHOLM: I even thought it, because 8 the house was only built in ' 89, and the CCA, the decking material on that front entrance is the 9 same as the deck that was put on the back of the house in ' 89 . So I think what happened, you know, 10 I know who the builder is, and I could check, but he had to put a fire escape looking staircase 11 right in front of the windows, running perpendicular with the front of the house -- 12 excuse me, parallel to the front of the house, which eliminates landscaping, gardening in front 13 of those windows, so that might be a real objection to the neighbors to have for something 14 that looks like that . There must have been something there for them to get the C of 0 and 15 then they realized it was so ugly and some in some respect a hazard with the awning windows coming 16 into the handrails . So I guess the age of the CCA is about the same as the deck. I imagine they 17 decided they had to do something more attractive there and ripped out what was there . That' s an 18 assumption. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this 21 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Jane Cockerill for an as-built deck and a 24 nonconformance requiring 15 feet . MR. HUGHES : Good afternoon, Mrs . Oliva, 25 my name is Robert Hughes, Front Street , Greenport , and I 'm here on behalf of Jane Cockerill and her August 18 , 2005 65 1 2 three sisters who own the property. What we have here is a very old building 3 situated on the corner of a piece of property and on the edge of a piece of property and somewhere 4 back in the 1970s, Mrs . Cockerill' s parents built a porch and a deck over the porch without getting 5 proper approvals . We have a building itself is only two feet from the property line and similarly 6 to what Mr. Lark was talking about, it doesn' t even parallel the property line, it goes off on a 7 slight angle . The end of the corner of the deck is actually on the property line . The adjoining 8 property is a cemetery. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A very old one . 9 MR. HUGHES : Probably as old as any of them in Orient . As a matter of clarification, 10 when I tried to mail the notice to the owners of the cemetery the assessor' s office actually did 11 have an address, it said Long Beach and other common, Orient, it did come back. The code, 12 setback here is a side yard 15 feet . Now the impact of this porch and the deck 13 is minimal . As I said before, the cemetery is the closest property, the next two closest properties 14 are owned by Mr. Reeves and by Mr. Josephson and his wife, and neither of them can actually see the 15 corner of the deck from their house, I don' t think, maybe in the winter time with winter 16 cemetery views they can. The legal nonconforming uses in the 17 neighborhood, cemetery is of course a permitted special exception and was long pre-existing many 18 zoning laws, and the alternatives for my clients would be elimination of the deck and a porch, 19 which would really be pretty drastic . Now, the impact on the neighborhood, does this have an 20 undesirable change in the neighborhood? Well, no, no one can see it, there' s no zoning change 21 involved. I ' ll try to, avoid references to the neighbors next door worrying about it . It' s not a 22 substantial infringement on the code . It' s really a two foot variance . It' s technically a 15 foot 23 variance because part of the building -- because anything within 15 feet of the cemetery, but in 24 all practical respects it' s really just the part of the deck that encroaches towards the cemetery 25 more than the pre-existing house does . Could the situation be obviated by any August 18 , 2005 66 1 2 other means? I could only come up with two options . One is to eliminate part of the deck, 3 which I usually think of when it comes to this sort of thing, is can you buy land from the 4 neighbor to create a side of adequate size and, of course, that' s not a viable option in this case 5 because it' s a cemetery. The problem was self-created by my 6 clients' parents more than 30 years ago, but have been - - the main part of the building has been 7 there way before there was any zoning. I don' t see that there is any adverse impact on the 8 environment or on traffic or on property values or on municipal services . So to keep this short , I 9 would say that in the interests of justice would not be served by having them have to remove any of 10 this structure and I would ask that you grant the variance . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any questions? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I have no comment . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What brings your 14 client to compliance today? MR. HUGHES : The property is on the 15 market . They inherited it from their mother three or four years ago when she died. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The reason for the compliance is the possible sale? 17 MR. HUGHES : Yes . There' s no contract at this point, but the house is listed with a broker. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No comment , I was 19 struck by much to my surprise that not only was the adjoining property a very remarkable looking 20 cemetery with a few stones, but it' s not really a cemetery by our usual standards because it' s 21 ancient . It' s almost like a discovery in the middle of the woods . It' s hard to see any 22 objection to the house, in fact, I can' t think of a better example of where a house could be right 23 cheek-by-jowl with its boundaries and be acceptable . 24 MR. HUGHES : I agree . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, certainly no one' s going to buy that property and build a house August 18 , 2005 67 1 2 on it . The deck itself, it looks like it follows the side of the house? It looks like it ' s wedged 3 in. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The rear deck, I think 4 it jogs a little bit? MR. HUGHES : I'm not aware of that but 5 maybe it does . You mean on the corner? You mean so the outside corner post was right on the 6 property line? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it looks like 7 the corner of the house according to the survey was right on the property line? 8 MR. HUGHES : I thought according to the survey it was two feet . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm going to basically say it' s following the line of the 10 house . I have to write this decision. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, it looks like 11 it does follow the line . MR. HUGHES : You' re asking if the outside 12 corner of the deck is 90 degrees? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm asking you if 13 the outside corner of the deck is in line with the corner of the house . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: According to the notice of disapproval it is . The house is two 15 foot, the deck is zero . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks to me like 16 the house is two foot and the deck is two foot . MR. HUGHES : My understanding was the 17 house is two foot and the deck is zero. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re right, Jim, 18 it is zero feet . It' s a zero setback, Jim. MR. HUGHES : Actually the Building 19 Department' s denial said that it' s a further noncompliance . So I read that as being the 20 difference between the two feet and the zero. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else 21 here that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 22 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 23 --------------------------------------- ---------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 24 for the Palladinis at Donna Drive in Mattituck that wish to make their house a bit larger. 25 MR. TAVERES : Good afternoon, Members of the Board, my name is Jose Taveres, architect , August 18 , 2005 68 1 2 1156 Namdek Avenue, Bay Shore, New York, representing my applicant who is here also if you 3 need to ask him any questions . My client recently bought this house as a 4 one-story house, but with a large family he' s looking to make an addition to it, a second-floor 5 addition. We' re pretty much keeping with the existing footprint of the house in terms of the 6 setback requirements of the new addition on the second floor, although, a portion of the existing 7 house already exceeds the front yard setback requirement . The only issue is the introduction 8 of a new porch, an open porch in the front section of the house that we want to protrude four feet 9 more into the front yard setback than the existing front of the house, where it exists . 10 Looking at the character of the neighborhood, we feel that there are some houses 11 on there that have existing front porches, not that many. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is a considerable increase . Your proposal is a rather large house . 13 MR. TAVARES : Yes . Because of the second story, we are at a higher and larger house than 14 some of the houses that are around there . But I think we are in keeping mainly with the setbacks 15 of the surrounding properties . I don' t think we' re making any detrimental effect on the 16 neighborhood. My client has spoken to some of the neighbors verbally to make them aware of what he' s 17 proposing to do and to make sure nobody' s opposed to it . Is there any questions? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So the front deck 19 will be a six foot covered front porch? MR. TAVERES : Yes, total six foot, yes, 20 but it only protrudes four feet beyond the original footprint . 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It will be covered, but will it be screened-in? 22 MR. TAVERES : No. It will be an open porch. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a 24 complete tear down? MR. TAVERES : No. We' re keeping the first 25 floor, we' re removing the roof and putting in a whole new second floor. Interior modifications, August 18 , 2005 69 1 2 yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 3 the audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 4 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 6 Amend on Highwood Road in Southold. They just want that little porch addition. 7 MS . AMEND : My request is to add a screened porch to the back of my house . It will 8 be erected on top of what is the existing patio, and I think what we need is a four foot variance . 9 When the first application was made because there are woods on three sides of the house we assumed 10 that there was more land to the back and found out that it was not . So I think this is about the 11 simplest request . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is an enclosed rear porch? 13 MS . AMEND: Screened. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Completely 14 screened? MS . AMEND: Screened. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No heating? MS . AMEND: No. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Single story and 17 this will basically cover the existing patio as it is today? 18 MS . AMEND: Even less than the existing. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No other questions . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will there be 20 stairways going up to the porch from the back yard, side yard? 21 MS . AMEND: There will be I think two steps . 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which side? MS . AMEND : If you' re facing the back of 23 the house it will be on the left . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It looks like three steps . Your patio is grade level now, right? 25 MS . AMEND: Yes . And the doors coming out from the den are raised. August 18 , 2005 70 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : There' s no heat? MS . AMEND : No . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They want to keep the mosquitoes out? 4 MS . AMEND : That' s right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else 5 who wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 6 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 - ------------------------------------------------ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is 8 for the Duerwalds on Clearview Avenue West , Southold. 9 MS . DUERWALD: I ' m Dawn Duerwald, this is my husband, Andrew, and these are my kids . 10 They' re not rented, I promise . We need more room. Basically we would like to -- there' s a few other 11 colonials in our neighborhood, and we just like the way they look, and we thought it would be nice 12 to take the roof off an add a second story on our house . There is a proposed little front porch on 13 the front of our house, which again, there' s a lot in our neighborhood they look nice and we like 14 that . So that' s what we were hoping to get . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One story, right? 15 MS . DUERWALD : Yes, ma' am. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s an eight foot porch? 17 MS . DUERWALD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which gives you 18 a 26 ' 5" setback; is that correct? MS . DUERWALD : Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any reason why you need an eight foot porch? 20 MS . DUERWALD: No . It was just a proposed idea because I think it looks nice and you can put 21 some wicker furniture on there, a little bit more accessible, maybe . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This Board has become experts on porches, and actually I think 23 you probably -- I 'm not telling you what to do, but you could probably live with a six foot porch. 24 MS . DUERWALD : We could definitely live with a six foot porch, that works for me . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: An alternative would be to have an eight foot porch on the side . If August 18 , 2005 71 1 2 you had to choose between an eight foot on the side or the six foot on the front . 3 MS . DUERWALD: A six foot on the front would really make it -- 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You buy a board and 5 it' s eight feet long, that' s why it' s an eight foot porch. You have a lot of cutting, a lot of 6 waste if it' s six feet long, but you agree? MS . DUERWALD: I think a six foot porch 7 would be fine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 8 the audience who would like to 'speak on this application? If not, I make a motion to close the 9 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 11 the Raynors for renovations to their home at Beachwood Road in Cutchogue . Mr. Lark. 12 MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. I am pitch hitting here for 13 Mary Raynor, and she' s given me the affidavit of posting. So that will make your record complete . 14 I know publication has been had. What we have here is you have on the 15 survey which you have before you, the one that I 've been working off of is one done by Peconic 16 Surveyors and the last amendment was June 27, 2005 , but the other ones previously I don' t think 17 will interfere with what we' re going to talk about . The property is small, it' s 10 , 490 square 18 feet . It' s zoned R40, and we' re here because they want to modernize, renovate and put a second story 19 on, and they' re going to be required in order to do that to obtain side yard variances and also it 20 became a lot coverage issue since it exceeds the 20 percent, which is prescribed by the zoning 21 ordinance, which is like 2 , 100 square feet or something like that . So, almost anything you do 22 there will exceed, and it does exceed it presently today, the lot coverage . 23 The house with the cottage on the property as Miss Raynor will explain to you when she gives 24 you a little bit of the history, has been there since at least the early ' 50s when it was just 25 placed on the property. So the existing foot has basically remained the same since the 1950s as far August 18 , 2005 72 1 2 as the side yards, which is really what we' re concentrating on today. On the westerly side at 3 the closest point due to a jog there, you have a one foot, as you can see on the survey, on the 4 north end and one foot on the middle and 1 . 2 on the north and it' s about 3 . 7 on the southwest 5 corner of the property. The difference is again here because of the property lines, we' re on a 6 different angle than with the juxtaposition of the house . However, on the east side it' s consistent 7 with two foot off the property line all the way down, the cottage runs parallel with the property 8 line there . That' s what we have . And on the property assumed by the survey you have basically 9 your one-story frame house, one single-car garage, today it was before zoning what you would classify 10 on the front yard, up on the right of way side, and then you have the entrance deck on the 11 northerly side, then a deck which is almost ground level about a foot or two off the ground depending 12 on how close you get to the beach, the closer you get to the beach it' s almost right on the sand 13 there . Those are the existing conditions . As I understand it, looking at the 14 architect' s plans and talking to the Raynors, the present lot coverage is 25 . 3 percent as you see it 15 there, but they count all the decks and everything so as you see the footprint that' s what it comes 16 up to be . Additionally on the top, and I think she 17 has some photographs to show you, there is an observation deck, of course, that would be removed 18 if the variance is approved because the roof will be taken off in order to accommodate the second 19 story. The property if you have been there is 20 well maintained, and the bulkhead is shown on the property, I have to laugh at it . It was a 21 bulkhead originally because that' s where Hall' s Creek went, 'but due to erosion and the filling in 22 of the mouth of the creek, it' s basically as adjacent to the Raynor property it' s nothing 23 more than a retaining wall because it' s all filled in there . It' s all beach there now, due to the 24 fill in. But other than that the survey I think fairly depicts everything that' s on it . 25 As I understand it, due to some northeasters and storm floodings they had in the August 18 , 2005 73 1 2 early ' 90s, the permits were obtained, I believe you have the Cos for them and a new foundation was 3 erected completely underneath the cottage, it was raised and the new foundation placed there and the 4 cottage set back down on the same footprint . It was brought up to FEMA standards with breakaway 5 foundations and everything else because of what had happened with the storm erosion and the 6 flooding and everything they raised it . So it complies to the height, I think of FEMA, it 7 exceeds the heights of FEMA. So that portion of it , which is always a concern when you' re doing 8 anything with properties right on the beach has all been conformed with and permits have been 9 obtained. Subsequently, with the cesspool, it' s public water on there, but the cesspool in the 10 north end of the property has been upgraded to the current standards of cesspools where the aquifer 11 is so shallow due to the beach nature of the property. So those issues have been addressed 12 just due to the normal living and upgrading on it . The criteria that you have to consider for 13 the area variances here, I guess there are two, the lot size as well as the coverage as well as 14 the side yards is whether there is an undesirable change that will be produced in the character of 15 the neighborhood detriment to the neighboring properties by granting of the variance . It' s 16 submitted that it will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. This is a residential 17 area. Originally it was strictly a summer area, summer colony if you would, called Beachwood, now 18 more and more of the homes are year round, and I suspect that trend will continue . 19 What Mary Raynor is proposing to do is remain residential . It creates more living space 20 and more efficient living space as her intention of doing the whole thing is so she can make this 21 her premanent residence and I' ll discuss that in a moment . So that' s the reason for the entire 22 application, it' s to upgrade it for her personal use so that she can live there full time, 23 winterize it, if you would. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is Henry going to be 24 living there too? MR. LARK: As far as I know he' s invited. 25 What happened is the kids all grew up and moved and the house . on Cardinal Drive is too big, and it August 18 , 2005 74 1 2 just doesn' t suit their purpose anymore . Whereas, the cottage down there if she can get it 3 winterized and renovated properly. So yes, I think he' s invited to stay. 4 So that' s the whole purpose, and since it' s going to remain residential, there will be no 5 change in the character of the neighborhood, and the way the architect did the proposed second 6 story, he did it primarily I' m told to create a minimal impact on the neighboring properties just 7 not raising something out of the ground. You can see a lot of the houses especially to the east do 8 have two story on them so I don' t think it will be a detriment on the second story and the way he 9 carried the roofline to keep a cottage effect . You have that in the plans . 10 Second criteria is whether the benefit sought by Mary Raynor increasing the size of the 11 her house, the second story adds on, as you saw in the plans, an additional 917 square feet . Can 12 this be achieved by some other method other than the area variance which she seeks, we' re seeking 13 one of these vertical area variances again because we can' t go east, we can' t go west, we can' t go 14 north because you have the cesspools and,you' re too close to the right of way, and you can' t go 15 south because you' re on the beach and you' ll be in DEC and the Trustees jurisdiction and they said 16 no . By the way, the Trustees did approve the cesspool and the renovation of the raising of the 17 house to FEMA requirements . So the only place to go is up. 18 What the architect did there, he did an interesting thing, to keep the cottage fine of the 19 roof, in other words not a real steep pitched roof not a 60 degree pitched roof to soften it down to 20 I think it' s about 45, maybe a little less, he moved in the living space by about seven feet, I 21 think it is, he kept the roofline going to right where it is today, two foot and one foot on either 22 side, but he moved in the living space . And the reason for that is that he was able to keep the 23 roofline down, soften the roofline, rather than create an exterior wall seven feet in, and then 24 just going straight up. So it was an interesting concept the way he did it . It was done more from 25 an architectural point of view to take into the consideration of the neighborhood than it was from August 18 , 2005 75 1 2 a zoning point of view of trying to decrease the side yard variance by seven feet by coming in, 3 putting in a flat deck, if you would, with a railing on it and then going up . Because 4 apparently the feeling there was is that it would create a harshness and deleterious effect on the 5 surrounding properties looking at it . This way, they' re looking at a soft roofline as opposed even 6 though the living space is scrunched in seven feet , as opposed to looking at a wall type of 7 arrangement . So I thought it was a unique way to handle a problem because otherwise he would have 8 to carry the living space on the second floor straight up, would have been more of an impact not 9 only kept on the east side two feet, it would have been two feet going all the way up. Yes, it ' s two 10 feet as it starts out the roof, but then all you see is the roofline going up on the general, and 11 the actual living space has been pushed back seven feet . Which I thought it was an interesting way 12 to handle a problem where you have such closeness of the properties with this house in relationship 13 to the neighboring houses being just several feet difference, separated from one another. 14 So, the existing first floor, as you know from the plans is 1, 545 but that does include all 15 the porches, it' s not that big at all, believe me, but includes all the porches and the decks and 16 everything else . So even though they' re open, they consider those part of -- they' re not 17 conditioned living space in the sense of heating or anything else as it presently exists, but 18 that' s what you' re faced with on the first floor there . And the 1, 545 feet, and that' s the reason 19 why it' s only 912 living space on the second story because he moved it in seven feet on the side 20 yards there to soften that roofline as I indicated. 21 So the only practical way, as I say, is to go up and there' s not much that we can do about 22 that, if you' re going to make it a year round home where you have to have a little more living space 23 and efficient set-up of the house, which she does as you see in her plans for the renovation of the 24 first story. Whether the request for the variance especially on the second story is substantial, 25 given the fact as I said that we' re leaving the footprint exactly the same, not expanding it in August 18 , 2005 76 1 2 any way, and just going up, shrinking the living space in the second floor, in effect you could 3 make the argument from the living space point of view that you moved it in seven feet so you 4 decreased area, proscribed area by that amount of footage, and again rather than just create a wall 5 there seven feet in, the architect felt and I have to agree with him when I saw the way it looked 6 visually from either side of the property, and I think you' ll see that in photographs, it' s better 7 to look at a gradual roofline, the way he' s got it set up there and therefore that' s what we' re 8 applying for on the variance then. As to the area for substantiality on the 9 proposed increased space of 1 . 4 , which represents the 146 , which explains one of the 'amendments to 10 the Building Department' s disapproval, deck to be added on the southeast corner of the property 11 between the kitchen and the living room there, if that' s about three or four feet higher when they 12 raised up the floor, when they raised up the house and the floor level there is 9' 411 , above sea level 13 there, so the point being is if they raise the ground or put a patio on there, it wouldn' t be 14 considered as a living space but it' s not an efficient use of it, because you' d have to have 15 two or three steps down from both the living room and the kitchen. So rather than play games, they 16 thought we' ll just raise it up, make it the same 914 " and just carry an open deck out there so you 17 would have more access in the house . It won' t be covered per se, it will just be a deck. True 18 there' s a deck over a portion of it on the second house if you approve the second story on the 19 second floor, that' s the reason why the Building Department then assessed in at 146 feet at 1 . 4 , 20 which came to the increase in the lot coverage on there . But that' s the reason for it . It happened 21 in that little proposed deck on the southeast corner. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For FEMA regulations they had to raise the house to 9 ' 411 ? 23 MR. LARK: I think it' s only eight foot, they went up above it . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So how is the ridge calculated, from the grade or from how high they 25 had to raise it? MR. LARK: You mean on the proposal? August 18 , 2005 77 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is it to the ridge from the ground, grade level or from the 3 first floor? MR. LARK: The top of the roof, the ridge 4 is it measured from the sand, if you would, or is it measured from the 9' 411 ? 5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I think they have to do it by grade . 6 MR. LARK: By grade, it' s 33 feet from the grade'. I see it on the plans . So that explains 7 the increase is the lot coverage that little deck area there on that southeast corner. 8 The next criteria then is whether the proposed second story will have an adverse effect 9 on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As you can see, if you went on the 10 bay side, there could be an environmental impact . There' s no proposal to do anything, everything 11 stays the same and it' s the same on the north side . So there will be no environmental problems 12 at all created by this proposed second story addition, and of course, on the first floor that 13 little increase in the deck area that 146 square feet, so that takes care of that . And physically, 14 as I explained, the architect took great pains to try and blend this thing in because it is kind of 15 a sandwiched situation there due to the existing conditions to keep the rooflines somewhat 16 harmoniously that wouldn' t adversely effect the neighbors . So I don' t think as proposed that 17 there will be any adverse effect . And lastly, was the request self-created. 18 Obviously it was because she wants to make it her year round home, and if she' s going to do that 19 this' would be required. I think it will be when it ' s done, it will be avast improvement to what' s 20 there and it really will blend in and be an asset in the community. . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a proposed new foundation to replace the piers that I saw on 22 the deck? MR. LARK: Right . But they will be just 23 pier replacement as I understand it . The way they did the other foundation it will carry it except 24 it will not carry the additional roof load from the porch, so rather than just have cement block, 25 they' re going to have poured piers, but no greater, same area, take one out and put the other August 18 , 2005 78 1 2 on in. When they take off the second story, that porch area will come off because it' s got that 3 wraparound porch on the west side . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the plan it 4 looked like it was block walls, that' s what the plans show. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The cement block piers you' re going to replace the poured concrete? 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Solid wall, right? MR. LARK: No, doesn' t need to be . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s on the plans? MR. LARK: That' s a good question because 8 I had the very same question you had. Where they did the interior foundation, which I think is on 9 the one plan, it shows red here is where they put in that existing which has the break away walls 10 and all the FEMA requirements, over here they just put in piers, and it' s not going to be a solid 11 wall . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does Mrs . Raynor have 12 something? MRS . RAYNOR: Good afternoon, my name is 13 Mary Raynor and I 'm the owner of this property that' s the subject for this application. Just to 14 give you a little history, in the early 1950s Ernest Belfy, who owned the property, barged in 15 the existing cottage that is there and placed it it on the location that it is . In July of 1960 my 16 father Robert Rushmore and my mother Margaret Rushmore rented .the cottage with the rest of the 17 family, and we liked it so much when it became available my parents bought it . From 1961 to 18 1997, the Rushmore family used the cottage every summer and in later years my parents used it more 19 and more extending the season in the spring and into the fall . In 1987, my mother transferred the 20 property to her three children, myself, my brother and my sister. Since 1987 my brother and my 21 sister, due to the fact that they live far away, my brother' s in Georgia and my sister' s in upstate 22 New York, they used the cottage less and less, and I eventually bought out their interest and today 23 my the sole owner of the property. Over the years, as Mr. Lark has stated, we 24 have made numerous improvements and upgraded the property. In 1994 we raised the cottage and put a 25 proper foundation and put it back on the original footprint with breakaway foundation and improved August 18 , 2005 79 1 2 the existing decks and straightened them out because with the floods, the front deck especially 3 was raised and they' re all even now. Several years later we improved and upgraded the cesspool 4 system so it' s up to the present code . I presently own a house on Cardinal Drive 5 in Mattituck and my children have grown and the house has become too big for us . I would like to 6 sell it and move permanently into the cottage making it a year round house for myself and I 7 guess Henry and the two dogs . And last summer I contacted an architect 8 to see what could be done to turn the cottage into a year round house that would fit our living 9 needs, and it would fit in with the neighborhood. The basic plan which you have before you 10 was the architect' s method of constructing a year round house with enough living space for us, and 11 that would not be intrusive to the neighboring properties . In the spring of 2000, I discussed 12 these plans with both the Suter family, who own the adjacent property on the east and Harry Olsen 13 who lives on the property to the west . They were both pleased that I intended to live there full 14 time, thought my plans -- I discussed briefly what my plans were, and they were very pleased with 15 that . Mr. Olsen was especially pleased because he would have a full time neighbor there . Later I 16 learned in June that Harry Olsen didn' t own the property and he had turned it over to his three 17 children, as my parents had done with myself, my brother and my sister. When I learned this, I 18 called his son Gary and informed him of my plans and offered to show them to him and go over 19 them with him. He declined and insisted that I show them instead to his brother Dick, who was 20 visiting his father at the time . I took the plans to him and he went over them, describing the 21 design of the house, and how it was designed to fit in with the neighborhood and comply with our 22 living needs . At the time Dick Olsen, Gary' s brother, had no problems with my application. I 23 bring this up because I'm somewhat surprised to read Gary Olsen' s letter of August 12 , 2005 where 24 both he and his family members, who knew about the renovations and the proposal to add a second floor 25 onto the cottage, are now attempting to do something that I really don' t understand. August 18 , 2005 80 1 2 This neighborhood of Beachwood is somewhat unique in that the families who have been living 3 there for the last 40 years are still living there -with very few changes in the community. The 4 homes, Olsens to the west and the Suters to the east have been winterized and modernized. There 5 are five other homes to the east where I live that have two story homes and that have been winterized 6 into year round homes . These are the pictures that Mr. Lark was referring to . It' s interesting 7 for you to know that very few of the homes also have been passed on to outsiders outside of the 8 family, most of handed down from one generation to the other like mine has been. 9 I would like to make this my full time home in my golden years, and I'm asking the Board 10 to consider favorably my application to renovate and modernize the home on this property. Thank 11 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any 12 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There came a 13 time when a question came from the Board regarding the possibility of access to the water side for 14 the purposes of fire . I was down the other evening, I looked at the westerly side of the 15 home, and found no particular problems with access to that side of the house . And no, of cours , 16 during construction it' s going to get better because you' re going to straighten that wall ut 17 specifically. I- was also pleased to see tha on the Olsen property that they have a huge front 18 lawn on the west side of the house which encompasses the bulkheaded area on that house. So 19 from a fire and emergency point there is access to the beach side of the house . That' s the only 20 thing I have to say. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Over the Olsen 21 property, right? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, but there 22 is access on the west side of the house to the beach and that access will enhance with this 23 construction. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the west side of 24 this property? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This property 25 because they' re taking the jog out and straighten the line out . August 18 , 2005 81 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . 4 I was interested in your summary conversations with your neighbors . And there is as far as I 5 know no letter from -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, there is . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. No letter regarding substantive concerns regarding the 7 awarding of this variance, only a request for an adjournment . But as you say, they have known 8 about this proposal for quite some time . MRS . RAYNOR: Yes, they did. Mr. Olsen 9 did, and Gary and Dick knew about it since at least the middle of July. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, I don' t think there is any significance that instead of writing 11 a letter, there merely is a request for an adjournment . People are free to write their own 12 letters of support or non-support, but that there is a letter for an adjournment - - 13 MRS . RAYNOR: I don' t understand that because he told me he wasn' t coming and that it 14 wasn' t a problem. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So, are we granting 15 an adjournment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We usually grant at 16 least one adjournment if the adjacent property requests it . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Also, they had called the office and according to the plans that 18 we have on file, it did show that you were putting a foundation wall on that side, we can only show 19 them what' s in the file, and I'm just mentioning it so they may have thought they needed more time 20 to talk about it, they didn' t know about it . They' re not aware now that you' re amending that 21 back to being block piers, and we don' t have the new plan in the file to show them. So that' s why 22 they needed more time I think too . Also, Jerry mentioned something that you' re amending the plan 23 for a jog to increase the setback. We don' t have that in the file . 24 MRS . RAYNOR: Yes, after looking at the plan, there is one spot that goes out, and rather 25 than paying the extra expense and stuff, we were going to take that little one foot, whatever it August 18 , 2005 82 1 2 is -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s this little one 3 foot on the west side . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: West side . 4 ASST. ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s the Olsen side? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Olsen. MR. LARK: This is what Jerry was 6 referring to? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that ' s 7 the access issue that I was raising. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : ' See on the survey, 8 when you take that out, you still need a setback variance for the one foot . 9 MR. LARK: No question, that' s why it didn' t change the application because it' s still, 10 I can' t eliminate the one foot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Instead of one it can go to three foot . 12 MR. LARK: That' s right, the 1 . 2 right there . 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : } Also it reduces the lot coverage . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Somewhat, a tiny bit . We should have that in the file for later on. 15 MR. LARK: These are not strictly building plans, they' re more or less design plans, 16 especially when you look at the layout of the roof . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI - ' You have to have the map in the file before they vote because they 18 go together. MR. LARK: That' s not a problem, I know 19 what you want . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would suggest the 20 recalculation of the lot coverage, put that on the record. If it' s reduced by half a percent or one 21 percent . MR. LARK: I do have the architect' s thing 22 now, since you required that, I ' ll get the surveyor to do it . That way I have an accurate . 23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: While you' re here, which was the deck that they added on 146 square 24 square feet? You said that they did calculate that now, the front deck. 25 MR. LARK: Here . It' s on this corner (indicating) . That' s the lower deck. They moved August 18 , 2005 83 1 2 it a foot in, so instead of two foot or three foot setback, rather than raise the ground up or put 3 stairs down and have a patio, they decided the living space it would be better to have a 4 continuous flow through there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That should be shown 5 too. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I ' d also like to 6 commend Mrs . Raynor and the architect, I think it does lessen the burden on the neighbors for ,that 7 style of roofline . When I was there yesterday your dogs also helped me with the tour. They 8 sound loud but luckily they were nice . MR. LARK: Like she said, she didn' t 9 mention I think there' s a letter in your file from the neighbors to the east, the owners, they 10 approve it . In other words, it' s been gone over with everybody, that' s why she' s so frustrated as 11 to why they put that adjournment . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I see now going 12 down that road there, there' s a garage 15 feet up the air, doing major construction on that street 13 as well, how they' re doing that without us, the Zoning Board, knowing, I don' t know. And what is 14 our max lot coverage? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It depends on the 15 size of the property and the percentages for different lots, and this lot is 10 , 490 , I believe 16 that we have had up to 26 percent . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Twenty-six percent . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Prior to you being on the Board, Vince, this is not a sarcastic 18 statement, south side of the road, 7, 500 square foot lots, 28-5 Sigsbee Road, that was Sam and 19 Jean Bale . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So that little one 20 foot might bring you to 26 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here 21 that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to adjourn the hearing to 22 September 29th, due to the letter of Mr. Olsen. MR. LARK: And you want the amended survey 23 showing the changes that we spoke of . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the foundation 24 plans, just a rough sketch. (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 ------- ----------------------------------- ------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Paul August 18, 2005 84 1 2 Maloney for an accessory garage in his front yard on Goose Creek Lane in Southold. 3 MR. HURD: Peter Hurd, I' m acting as his agent and also I' ll be the contractor if you 4 approve the work. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead. 5 MR. HURD: Essentially what he' s requesting is to remove the existing garage and 6 pull out the footing, everything, pull it out and construct a new garage in generally the same spot, 7 moving it about two feet closer to the road and orienting it parallel to the existing property 8 line on the left of the property. Right now it sits neither parallel to the 9 left side property line or the street . So he wants to orient it parallel on that left side and 10 rebuild the garage according to the plan that you see there . The garage has been existing for many 11 years . It' s obviously well within the code restriction of 40 feet to the road there . He 12 would like to not move it back, that whole side, the property line there is planted. He has fruit 13 trees there which they maintain and eat, so they like to keep that . And also, pushing it back, you 14 see, if you have seen on the survey, the property line slants, the further back you go the closer 15 also it will get to the house on the right side of the garage as well . So he' d like to keep it in 16 generally the same spot . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that a two-story 17 garage or one-story or storage above? MR. HURD : Storage above, it' s essentially 18 two stories . It' s low head room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for storage . 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There will be a staircase? 20 MR. HURD: Yes, inside the garage . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No heat or plumbing 21 in the garage? MR. HURD : No . Well, I believe there may 22 be plumbing on the first, nothing on the second floor. He has like a garden room on the side of 23 the garage on the bottom floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like a potting room? 24 MR. HURD : Yes, with glass all around it, windows . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where are the garage doors going to be, facing the road? August 18 , 2005 85 1 2 MR. HURD : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know, you' re 3 proposing it at 20 feet , and the cars are 20 feet, I don' t know how you can park a car there . I 4 don' t understand why he doesn' t turn it around and come around on an angle so the garage door is 5 facing east . MR. HURD: So the garage door would face 6 east? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: East . First of 7 all you' re close to the road anyway. I realize it' s a private road. 8 MR. HURD: He has a huge birch tree on the corner there, it' s tremendous, between the right 9 side of the garage and the street, and he has plantings along the road. To put a driveway in 10 and then come in and turn left and enter the garage, I suppose it could be done, but he' d 11 really be affecting his front yard tremendously. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you set it 12 back a little bit more, another five feet or so? MR. HURD: I don' t see why we couldn' t do 13 that . I think we could accommodate five feet, I 'm not sure exactly the measure to those trees behind 14 the garage . He has a number of pear and apple trees there . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They could be moved with a backhoe, couldn' t they? 16 MR. HURD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean, we' ve 17 got to get enough to put the car there . The average car is 19 to 20 feet, and I 'm not talking 18 about a midsized car, I 'm talking about an SUV or even a maximum sized automobile . 19 MR. HURD: I have an extended cargo van, which I pull in front of the garage and it' s off 20 the street . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell 21 you the last one we granted like this was Deep Hole Drive in Mattituck. We granted it 20 feet , 22 and the only reason we granted it 20 feet was because the proximity of the house, same situation 23 on the water, but the difference was that the gentleman came in with a circular driveway and the 24 garage doors were perpendicular to the house, so it made it very nicely, they put plantings in 25 front of it . To this day the way it' s stained you don' t even know that garage is there . There' s a August 18 , 2005 86 1 2 lot of houses on the road. In fact, quite honestly, the road is very narrow because when I 3 was down there two Saturdays ago, two cars couldn' t pass . This is my opinion, this is not 4 the Board' s opinion, there' s got to be some give-and-take . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you would be willing to move it back five feet . 6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Or ten feet . My feelings were if you were going to rebuild the 7 exact same thing, which is a nice, little, cute small garage, I wouldn' t have any problem. You' re 8 building a very large structure now in the same spot . And Jerry' s right, it' s right on the 9 street, it' s a small little road it' s not a fast moving road, but there were little children on 10 bicycles when I was down there and you had to pull over and move over, you don' t want to get anybody 11 hurt . You have a building twice the size as is existing now, move it back. 12 MR. HURD: You' re saying twice the size because you' re including the second floor? 13 BOARD .MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes . It' s twice the size as the building you have now. 14 MR. HURD: But the footprint is not twice the size . 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It appears to be much bigger when it' s closer to the road. 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It will be magnifying the house by having it that close and 17 going up much further. So my number is 30 , which is still a substantial reduction in the code . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you do this, and this is just a suggestion to the Board 19 and the Chairperson, the property is only around the corner. Why don' t we just hold off for 20 20 minutes and let him go and see if he can do that, what he can do without moving major trees . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you will accept alternative relief the Board will tell you what 22 the setback is when they make a decision. MR. HURD : Can you tell me what that 23 means, you' ll tell me 30? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : When they make a 24 decision in two weeks, they' ll tell you an agreed upon figure from the road, it might be 30 , it 25 might be 28 , it might be 32 ; are you going to need time to think about whether thdy will work for August 18 , 2005 87 1 2 you? Do you want to run down and measure; do you want to see if 28 , 30 , 32 might work for you? 3 MR. HURD: Like I say, I don' t know where the first number of trees are, and I don' t know if 4 he would say well, if I have to move three trees I ' m not doing it, or if he would say if I have to 5 move one or two I will . I' d have to consult with him on it, but I could .�run down there and check 6 with the measure of the trees and see what we' re talking about . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Would you like to have more time to talk with your client? Or do 8 you want to leave it to the Board? It' s a time thing, if you need more time it can be adjourned 9 to the next meeting; if you' re in a hurry let the Board decide where it' s going to go and how high 10 it will be . I don' t know if they will allow it that high. Alternative relief means it can be 11 either pushed back further off the road and the height can be reduced., They've done that before . 12 That just means when they make a decision that' s something that you will decide to go ahead with 13 and change your plans and go for a building permit . You can always come back and reapply 14 later for something different if you' re not happy. MR. HURD: What would be the benefit of 15 adjourning if your recommendation is to make those changes anyway? 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just give you time to talk. to your client and maybe show the trees on 17 the map and find out more about what you can do to present your case . Your trees are not shown on 18 the maps or anything either. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It will give you an 19 opportunity to present a case based on more detailed knowledge of the trees that your client 20 wants at an adjourned hearing. BOARD MEMBER. DINIZIO: Maybe it ' s not five 21 feet , maybe it' s four feet . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You could come back 22 and say 10 is possible, 12 is impossible, you could make that argument that 10 is not possible, 23 12 , eight is better. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Eight is better. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whatever you could make a more informed argument if you had more 25 information which you can gather between now and September 29th. August 18 , 2005 88 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If the Board gives you 30 feet and you have to take trees down, 3 that ' s something that you will have to decide to do . 4 MR. HURD : The suggestion o.f going there now and coming back in a half hour, because I 5 could measure the tree now and see if eight feet or 10 feet or 15 feet, whatever it is . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It would be better to adjourn to September, you' d have more information 7 to give us . MR. HURD : That' s fine . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish to comment on this application? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d just like to clear something up . When you go down, the Board 10 is suggesting what they think would work, but you' re going down there, if you find that it' s not 11 going to work, to say 30 feet doesn' t do it, maybe 28 feet does it . If you give us an explanation as 12 to the reason why, we' ll accept that . It' s not an arbitrary number. We' re looking at arbitrary 13 numbers now because there is some concern about backing out of that driveway. But if you give us 14 good reasons why, we' re willing to work with that . I think you' re going to have to move it back, but 15 just how far. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The Board would like 16 to be able to fine tune its decision. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you like you 17 could put the trees on the survey when you measure it out . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to adjourn this hearing until September 29th 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - ------------------------------------- ---------- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for Mr. Linker on Oyster Pond Lane in Orient . 21 MR. LINKER: Good afternoon, I have a proposal to put in a screen porch on the back of 22 my little house on Oyster Pond Lane . The problem the Town has or I have is that I have a short 23 backyard and the variance I ' m asking for I think is 11 feet . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is an 25 enclosed porch or an open porch? MR. LINKER: It' s a screened porch with August 18, 2005 89 1 2 the siding a few feet high. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 3 objections . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is there any reason why you can' t put it in that jog that says CE on 7 the plan? What' s there inconvenient for you? MR. LINKER: That' s the entrance, Bilco 8 door to my basement . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Is this a year 9 round room, a heated room? MR. LINKER: It' s a nonheated, it' s going 10 to be a cement slab floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions, 11 Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 13 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------- ---------------- -- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Widman on Cedar Avenue, Southold 16 MR. FITZGERALD: I 'm Jim Fitzgerald for Dr. and Mrs . Widman. There exists on the property 17 a deck behind the house, however, the lot has all the problems ordinarily associated with a 18 triangular lot, two front yards and, of course, the required rear yard, and the construction of 19 the house and the deck is the subject of an earlier variance . The addition or extension, 20 expansion of the deck is within an area of the footprint which puts it not closer to either any 21 of the property lines and the existing structures, and Walz notwithstanding, it is not any closer to 22 any of the roads than the existing deck and structure itself on the west side . 23 I , at Linda' s request, made an annotated photo that shows what we' re proposing. Please 24 don' t be affected by the perspective because as you can see the perspective makes it look big. 25 It ' s not big. The problem with the perspective is you can' t get far enough away from the house August 18 , 2005 90 1 2 because with the configuration of the property to make it less sensitive to the perspective . The 3 purpose of that drawing is to show you what the dimensions are of the existing deck and what we' re 4 proposing for the expansion. One of the factors that I would ask that 5 you consider is that if on a flat piece of property this deck would all be at or very close 6 to grade level . The property has a change in elevation from the front to the back of 16 feet, 7 and that' s what gets it up in the air and gets those six by sixes underneath it, holding it up . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I get one thing straight here? 9 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At the time of 10 the construction of this house by the builder, the agonization that went on with this construction 11 was beyond the realm. The present supervisor of the Town of Riverhead, who is an attorney, 12 represented the property owner' s association, Phil Cardinale is a very nice man, however, the 13 property owner' s association pushed for the restrictions or the reasonable restrictions in the 14 construction of this property. My question to you is, have you read those? Does this violate any of 15 those conditions? MR. FITZGERALD: I 've read the variance 16 that the Board issued. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn' t in 17 any way? MR. FITZGERALD: The main thrust of my 18 reading of it was that the main thrust was in the area of the point of the triangle, and this does 19 not impinge on that in any way either actually or psychologically. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since then the road has been lifted, which is the access of your 21 client' s to their driveway area. It' s been added to, it' s been raised a little . 22 MR. FITZGERALD : You mean the birch in the back? 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, they put sand on it . Before it was I think they referred 24 to it as a -- MR. FITZGERALD : Country path. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not even, there were other words used in the determination of that August 18 , 2005 91 1 2 access . DR. WIDMAN: That was done two weeks ago 3 by the water company. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. But again 4 in your strict reading of that decision this does not in any way modify or change those conditions 5 that were made by this Board? MR. FITZGERALD : Not according to my view 6 of it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would 7 certainly yield to you because you certainly come before us all the time, and you tell us, that ' s 8 the reason I 'm asking that question. MR. FITZGERALD : That' s my story and I ' ll 9 stick to it . But if there is concern I would suggest that at least one of you read it now and 10 answer that question because as I said, that' s my interpretation. Dr. Widman says he can explain. 11 DR. WIDMAN: When we purchased the property it was our understanding that what the 12 neighbors were concerned about were two things . One, preserving as much of the property as is as 13 much as possible . So there was a clause in the variance which limited the property development to 14 about half, and the corner, the apex, of the triangle being untouchable, and we have left it , 15 other than cleaning it up, actually we' ve improved it and we' ve mulched is over to limit the 16 growth. The other concern was because of the pitch of the property, the property pitches in 17 several different directions, that there was some concern about runoff, and that was addressed by 18 dry wells and we have actually increased that number of dry wells since we bought the property. 19 We put two more on there . We just planted 50 something bushes along one side of the property, 20 the birch side of the property, in order to help maintain. And so far to date we haven' t had any 21 problem with the runoff . The dry wells that we put in on construction, plus the additional that I 22 put in where I saw some spots where we were getting runoff seems to work quite well . 23 The reason we' re asking for the change is that the deck that was drawn in on the original 24 plans is rather small . The usable area is really only about 10' by 10' . And what we've found is 25 it' s too small to put any more than six people on there . And the reason for the enclosure I think August 18 , 2005 92 1 2 is pretty obvious, once the sun goes down in 'the evening, everyone in the area has a problem with 3 mosquitoes and you really just can' t sit out there . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want to keep that just screened-in? 5 DR. WIDMAN: Just screened. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No heat? 6 DR. WIDMAN: No. It' s going to be over decking, we' re not building a solid floor. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Putting a roof over it? 8 DR. WIDMAN: Roof over it and connect the roof to the drainage system. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the roof is going to be just over one section? 10 DR. WIDMAN: Just one section. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The existing? 11 DR. WIDMAN: Yes BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the screens are 12 over the upper part, right? DR. WIDMAN: Yes . We' ll put a knee wall 13 for safety and just an open screen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Seems like a fairly modest solution to the problem you described. I 16 have no questions . DR. WIDMAN: We were very sensitive to the 17 fact that there was a problem with the setback. If we went the other way with the deck towards the 18 kitchen side of the house that we would be extending into the setback, that' s why we said, 19 okay, we' ll keep it to one side, make it as conservative as possible just to give us the area 20 we need to accommodate our family. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 22 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 23 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 25 Coffeys on Main Road, East Marion they wish to construct a porch, which makes you closer to the August 18 , 2005 93 1 2 road. MRS . COFFEY: My husband and I have an 3 existing house on a two acre lot in East Marion, and we' d like to put an addition on. Our existing 4 house is 42 feet setback from the property line and our addition we would like to put that eight 5 feet further back from the existing house, and we understand the setback is 60 feet so we' d like to 6 put the addition on a little bit back further from the existing structure . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How wide is the porch? MRS . COFFEY: To the existing part of the 8 house, right now we have a landing and front steps that come out 8 ' 911 , the porch at that point will 9 only be 41311 , so it will actually come out a little bit less than it does now. 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What are the dimensions on the porch again? 11 MRS . COFFEY: By the existing structure it' s going to be 4 ' 3 " and the addition will be set 12 back an additional eight feet from the existing house . But the porch will be a straight run going 13 across . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 5' 11" on the one 14 diagram, but it' s actually 4 ' 1" in front of the house? 15 MS . COFFEY: Right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s going to be the 16 entire length of the house? MS . COFFEY: Yes, we wanted to use the 17 porch to tie in the addition with the existing structure, and give it that look of a farm house . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the 19 house we , had the application on, right? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The B & B, yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just looking at the survey. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The house is 42 feet now, how far is the house right now from the 22 front line? MRS . COFFEY: 42 feet, not from the street 23 but from the property line, I believe it' s 56 feet from the street . 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And you' re proposing -- 25 MRS . COFFEY: Our addition would be an additional eight feet, so it would be 50 feet from August 18 , 2005 94 1 2 the property line . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re saying the 3 existing house is 42 feet but you' re going closer to the road? 4 MRS . COFFEY: The addition will be setback further, away from the road. The porch will be a 5 straight run. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : How much further 6 are you going towards the front property line with the front porch? 7 MS . COFFEY: It will only be four feet from -- 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So you' re asking 37 ' 11" for the setback? 9 MRS . COFFEY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have 37 ' 611 . 10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You didn' t have a surveyor show that on a map? 11 MRS . COFFEY: I think when we applied for the variance we did give you the site survey with 12 the addition on it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s on the last 13 page of the construction diagram, the very last page . The old survey showed it was 60 feet from 14 the road. There' s a 20 foot discrepancy. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Two feet is a 15 discrepancy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, do you have 16 any questions? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No real questions . 17 But my suggestion is the setback stay at 42 feet and that would give her an eight foot deck on the 18 one side, front covered porch. It' s still a significant reduction in the code again. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing is, Vince, that if you gave her just enough to 20 make it look like a porch on that existing house without the new addition it could be just a 21 facade . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think four feet 22 is about just enough. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can go to 23 two and still put the columns in to make it look like it so you could keep it at 40 . In other 24 words, you wouldn' t have the access through that portion of the existing house, but it would give 25 you that overall aspect of being a continuous porch across the whole front, if you want it 40 . August 18 , 2005 95 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The porch is like 73 feet long; is that correct? 3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : 75 . MRS . COFFEY: I believe . We just wanted 4 to use the porch to tie in the addition with the existing structure . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That four foot that gets you to the front door, right? 6 MRS . COFFEY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That front door is 7 going to stay, right, so you need something to walk on if you' re going to tie that porch in. 8 MRS . COFFEY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: There must be steps 9 to the front door now? MRS . COFFEY: Yes . The steps come out 10 8 ' 911 . You have a landing in the front and the steps come out . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Take that down and make it four foot . Where are the steps going to 12 be? MRS . COFFEY: The steps are going to be on 13 the newer part of the addition as well as on the west side of the porch. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Side' step area . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Up the side . 15 MRS . COFFEY: Up the side because we have the drive coming up on the west side of the house . 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your main entrance is the new addition with the new porch. So the 17 loss of the porch on the old side is not detrimental because it' s really going to be 18 non-existing. The grand entrance is the new addition with the new porch. 19 BOARD MEMBER DIN�ZIO: The front door on the west side, which is the old door, what is that 20 used for; is that used to get into your side of the house? 21 MRS . COFFEY: Right now we use it as our main entrance . Right now we just leave the door 22 open in the summer to get a nice breeze coming in. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That part of the 23 house, is that part of the bed and breakfast or is that part of your living? 24 MRS . COFFEY: That' s our living space . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the other part 25 is the bed and breakfast, so your guests are going to be coming up and see this nice big porch and August 18 , 2005 96 1 2 going in that way, right? MRS . COFFEY: Right . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you could continue to go in the side door, which is your 4 primary residence . No one else is going in there except for you. Four feet is not a lot to ask and 5 if you are cutting it back, you' re going to ruin the roofline and everything. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mrs . Coffey, one other thing, I 'm just looking at the map and I see 7 it on the construction diagrams, it shows on the right side of the house, the east side, that the 8 total depth of the porch is 13 feet, but on the site plan, on the last page it says it' s 15 and a 9 half feet deep, so you know that would be cut down to 13 not 15 and a half . 10 MS . COFFEY: I think the reason it does that is because on the east side of the house it 11 doesn' t stop, it goes back another two feet, which is why it' s 15 . 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : As long as you know it doesn' t come closer to the road it goes the 13 opposite way. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : There will be front 14 steps to the front door beyond the front porch. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re not shown 15 on here . You' re only doing a side entrance, the porch, right? 16 MRS . COFFEY: The side entrance, but we were going to put front steps . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You haven' t shown them on the plans, you never told me that . We 18 have no way of knowing unless it was on the plans . That' s why I asked you to draw in the step 19 variance that day you were in the office, you drew the side step in, you didn' t draw the front step . 20 MS . COFFEY: I guess they were going to be right by the set of double doors . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We need to have them on there . What would you like to do; do you 22 want an adjournment for next month? MS . COFFEY: Shall we just remove the 23 front steps then? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re not on the 24 plan right now. MS . COFFEY: If they' re not on the plan, 25 can we build without putting the steps in on the front? August 18 , 2005 97 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s up to the Board. I don' t think you can. When you have a 3 step up, I think there' s a code that says eight inch risers . You may have to have steps . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How deep are the steps? 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Unless you want to limit Mrs . Coffey to the five by six step area to 6 the front CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re going to have 7 something show though in the office amending the plan. 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We can close the hearing today and you could just draw that in and 9 just drop it off by the office . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re going to come 10 out with the steps . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Looks like it ' s 11 only five by six. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The entranceway up 12 to the deck is 10 foot column to column to column, then she' s going to come out three steps . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She doesn' t have to go 10 foot wide, she can go six feet wide . 14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But now you block the beautiful front door, and that' s the focal 15 point, that' s their opinion. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If she has larger 16 than six steps, she needs an additional variance . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Exactly. 17 MS . COFFEY: It doesn' t matter to me . I ' ll go with the five foot . 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can she draw it on now; does the Board have any objection? 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' d like to see it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happens is 20 4 ' 11" with the pillars, she ends up with three feet clean to be able to use that door on the 21 westerly side . Would you offset the pillar a little bit and you put the railing in, you have 22 three feet clean or thereabouts give or take a couple inches . And that' s the issue here with the 23 37 ' 3 " and the 37' 511 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t want to 24 limit you with how big the step can ,be . Make it 30 square feet, which is what it' s supposed to be . 25 It looks like you just have to add one step to get off this porch, if that' s the case, we just say as August 18 , 2005 98 1 2 long as it stays within 30 square feet it meets the code . It cannot be more than six feet wide . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has anyone asked this young lady if she will accept alternate 4 relief? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What they' re saying 5 is they may end up cutting the porch back in side to create more of a setback from the road. You' re 6 proposing 37 . 3 feet . They may want to give you alternative relief for a smaller porch. They 7 might end up giving you 39 and a half foot setback instead, which means you might have to cut two 8 feet off the porch, or four feet, we don' t know yet ; will you accept an alternative design for the 9 porch, for the setback? MRS . COFFEY: For the existing portion I 10 guess if we open up the door, we would need at least a couple of feet to open the door up . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or move the door. 12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It' s an inside swinging door. 13 MRS . COFFEY: We have a screen door. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : A normal size front 14 door is 36 inches, so you need at least that much of a porch in order to open that up . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly what I said, and that' s what she' s going to end up with 16 411111 , by the time you put the pillar and offset the pillar, those are rather large pillars on that 17 plan. And that' s the reason why I suspect the engineer came up with 4111" so that you had enough 18 to open that door, just enough to open that door. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you don' t accept 19 alternative relief, suppose three members want to give you something different, you can get a vote 20 from the Board in two weeks . If you don' t accept alternative relief, and they end up denying your 21 application, you have to reapply and start all over. 22 MRS . COFFEY: I ' ll accept it . I didn' t know what was involved. So the porch would be 23 reduced in the newer part, the addition? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s possible . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could be . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t know until 25 they close the hearing and then they go back and take a look at your property again, and then they August 18 , 2005 99 1 2 talk about it and then they try to work out something that' s agreeable for you. There' s also 3 a balance . MRS . COFFEY: Would we require another 4 hearing at that point? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You do if you don' t accept alternative relief . 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She has to reapply. So you' re accepting it? 7 MRS . COFFEY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 9 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to close the meeting. 11 (See minutes for resolution. ) (Time ended: 3 : 23 p.m. ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 August 18 , 2005 100 1 2 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 5 6 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 7 State of New York, do hereby certify: 8 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 9 the testimony given. 10 I further certify that I am not related by 11 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 12 action; and 13 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 14 of this matter. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 16 hand this 18th day of August, 2005 . 17 18 19 � 20 Florence V. Wiles 21 22 23 24 25 August 18 , 2005