HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/20/2005 HEAR 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T O W N O F S O U T H O L D
6
7 Z .O N I N G B O 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
October 20 , 2005
12 9 : 00 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 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 rCY 1Iej HA
24
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call to
order the regular meeting of October 20, 2005 for
3 the Zoning Board of Appeals . I' d like to have a
motion saying all our actions are Type 2 Actions,
4 have no effect on the environment .
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want to make the
6 motion for Morse, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first public
hearing is for Roberston on Marlene Lane in
9 Mattituck.
MR. ROBERTSON: I'm John Robertson, 1350
10 Marlene Lane, Mattituck. We' re requesting a
variance in order to put an addition on our .
11 home .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re having a problem
12 with --
MR. ROBERTSON: When we extend out the
13 back, it overlaps the edge of the garage . The
garage is no longer in the rear yard.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . It' s now in the
side yard.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, have any
problem?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at all .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions, just
to confirm it' s a story and a half, like a cape?
18 MR. ROBERTSON: It' s going to be a
two_story, because we have the existing floor,
19 then we' re going to put a second floor, it' s only
going to be two bedrooms upstairs . I guess when
20 you mean a story and a half --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That this is what
21 it' s going to look like?
MR. ROBERTSON: Right .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This garage is going
to be only partly in the side yard, correct?
23 1 MR. ROBERTSON: Correct, it overlaps, it
runs past the front of the garage, I think between
24 six and a half feet, roughly around six.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And it appears to be
25 dictated by the small size of the lot?
MR. ROBERTSON: Yes .
October 20 , 2005
' 3
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have two surveys .
Which one is the actual survey? It looks like
4 you' re putting a porch?
MR. ROBERTSON: No. We were extending out
5 in the front, but it does not go the full length
of the house . So it' s actually an entranceway.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you just show
me?
7 MR. ROBERTSON: This was the original
survey and they wanted us to put in where the
8 addition was going to be .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that where
9 you' re putting on, this little 19 foot piece; is
that there already?
10 MR. ROBERTSON: No, we' re putting this on
in the front . It' s only actually coming out 10
11 foot by 19 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You're just making a
12 real entranceway or porch?
MR. ROBERTSON: Yes . The part where we
13 have the problem is where it comes out in the
back. That' s drawn a little more correctly. It' s
14 30 foot long. This is sectioned off -- right now
the current part of the house has a bump out where
15 the breakfast nook is . So it' s the 11 plus the
19 .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So this would be
accurate?
17 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes . This is the most
accurate .
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re referring to
Mr. Keller' s map?
19 MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, ma' am. When I handed
in the application they asked me to draw that part
20 in.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to be
21 sure . I have no further questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
22 question? Is there any reason why this wasn' t
denied for total side yards? I think that has to
23 be addressed in the hearing so this gentleman
doesn' t have to come back.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Total side yards?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Supposed to have
25 25 , proposed 10 . 8 and 9 . 3 .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It is . And they
October 20 , 2005
4
1
2 refer to the deck as being accessory on the
disapproval, and they mention in there that the
3 proposed addition will-diminish the size of the
rear yard so they create a nonconformance for the
4 existing garage.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garage would be an
5 accessory anyway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know. I 'm
6 just saying if we incorporate that within the
decision, this gentleman doesn' t have to come
7 . back.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I' ll do that .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you wouldn' t
mind, Jimmy.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
10 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision for later.
11 (See minutes for resolution. )
--------------------------------------------- ----
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Mr. Anderson down on Love Lane in Mattituck about
13 a roof . Good morning.
MR. ANDERSON: Hi, Thomas Anderson, 1240
14 Love Lane . I got to reconstruct a roof and I
would like to add dormers to it .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You had a previous one
though for the garage?
16 MR. ANDERSON: That was the previous
owner. I just bought this this year.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a nice
location.
18 MR. ANDERSON. Yes, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No objection as
long as everything stays within the footprint .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is this a total
21 demo; you' re going to demolish the whole house and
start all over?
22 MR. ANDERSON: No. Just the roof, we' re
changing the configuration.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Basically a single
story, and it will be a two-story house when
24 you' re done?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or a story and a half?
25 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, a story and a half .
No bedrooms, the basement -- it' s a very small
October 20 , 2005
5
1
2 house . It looks big on the picture, it' s under
1, 000 square feet . There' s not a lot of storage
3 and that old hip roof, no room in the basement , we
just need more storage .
4 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And you are staying
within the original footprint?
5 MR. ANDERSON: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Essentially a
replacement roof leaving room for a couple
7 dormers, right? It' s not even a half story. It' s
not residential living?
8 MR. ANDERSON: No, it' s not .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say
10 something before he leaves? Because of the
steepness of the roof that you' re proposing, you
11 need to put some type of dry wells in for whatever
type of sophisticated leaders and gutters you
12 intend to put on there, and I think that should be
incorporated into the decision.
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You were doing that
anyway?
14 MR. ANDERSON: Yes . We did that for the
Trustees . We agreed on all that .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : You were doing
that?
16 MR. ANDERSON: With the Trustees .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It bubbles up in my
17 back yard too . Is there anyone in the audience
that wishes to comment on this application? If
18 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for Mr. Watroba at Pinewood Road in Cutchogue .
21 Yes, sir, the house is kind of at an angle there?
MR. WATROBA: Yes . I want to put another
22 garage attached to the existing garage, and I'm
not within the 35 feet of the property line, so
23 I 'm asking for a variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have two front
24 yards?
MR. WATROBA: Yes, I'm on the corner
25 property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just want to add
October 20, 2005
6
1
2 onto the property for storage?
MR. WATROBA: Add the garage .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No living space?
MR. WATROBA: No, what I 'm thinking about
4 is putting a deck over it when it' s done, just an
addition.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
6 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a hole
already dug there . That' s where it' s going to go?
8 MR. WATROBA: Yes, how did you know that?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Saw it .
9 MR. WATROBA: I didn' t think I was going
to get denied a permit, and I had to move a tree,
10 so the guy was there already, so I told him to dig
it . We could always fill it .
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not illegal to
dig a hole in your lawn I suppose .
12 MR. WATROBA: Just looks bad, so I need
that garage in there .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Looks like half
your garage will be below the grade because I saw
14 the topography of your yard. So we' ll call it a
single-story garage . The drawing has a deck above
15 it, which would be nice, add curb appeal to it .
MR. WATROBA: I think we' ll do that,
16 right .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s personal
17 preference . We don' t want to tell you what to do,
utilizing the space above because it' s almost deck
18 height .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: . Jerry?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else in
20 the audience wish to comment on this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing
21 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 -------------------------------------------- -----
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
23 for Richard and Marie Schulken down on Peconic Bay
Boulevard in Mattituck. Yes, sir.
24 MR. SCHULKEN: My name is Richard
Schulken, and I live at the house at 10435 Peconic
25 Bay Boulevard. And we' re looking for a variance
to put a screened porch on the front of the house .
October 20 , 2005
7
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a porch?
MR. SCHULKEN: Yes .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The house sits far,
really pretty far back.
4 MR. SCHULKEN: It' s almost at the back of
the property.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . I was
surprised. Jerry, you' re the man of the hour.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I grew up of
course on this block. I've known this house for
7 many years, and I've known the Schulkens for many
years . And they are basically incorporating a
8 portion of their deck and actually incorporating
it into their house as a screened-in porch. And I
9 have no objection.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One thing I wanted to
10 ask you, part of your shower really extends over
the line to your neighbor' s property?
11 MR. SCHULKEN: Correct, by one foot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So everybody' s aware
12 of it?
MR. SCHULKEN: Yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : They' re good
neighbors .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wanted to point it
out for the record. Vincent?
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . It' s
going to continue to be a single-story residence?
16 MR. SCHULKEN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
19 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for Richard Kubiak, conversion of a portion of the
22 existing open deck into an additional living room
at Willow Point . Mr. Fitzgerald?
23 MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. As you
know, the variance was granted previously for the
24 construction of the deck to a previous owner.
Dr. Kubiak would like to add a portion or convert
25 a portion of the deck to a living space as the
previous variants indicated since the deck would
October 20 , 2005
8
1
2 not be enclosed. So we' re here to ask you to
change your mind about that .
3 1 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Basically just
squaring off the house?
4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that that' s right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because it' s just a
5 little corner you want to put the addition on?
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Actually, the
footprint' s there already, you just want to
7 enclose it? There' s something there, you' re just
going to enclose it?
8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no problem.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The relevant part of
10 the footprint was created when the deck was built,
simply using that area as a way of expanding the
11 house without going beyond footprint .
MR. FITZGERALD : The portion of the deck,
12 yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It looks like it
13 would be an attractive addition, actually.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : And the deck that' s
seaward, the existing deck, that will stay open to
15 the sky?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And I guess it' s a
story and a half addition to match the existing
17 house?
MR. FITZGERALD: The existing house is two
18 story, the ridge line will not change . So the
roof on this one' s a slant .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment 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: Next application is
for Pollio . Mrs . Moore?
24 MS . MOORE : I'm here with Mr. and Mrs .
Pollio . The hearing started last I guess August
25 and I just happened to have been here listening to
the entire exchange, so it was nice to actually be
October 20, 2005
9
1
2 ahead of the game hearing the whole conversation
from before. There were three issues I think that
3 were in the Board' s mind that we' re going to
address .
4 The first issue is you had questions about
ownership . I think that was addressed but I' ll
5 put it on the record, clarify, and I have Mr. and
Mrs . Pollio here who are certainly more familiar
6 than I with respect to the ownership issues .
The second issue was environmental issues
7 that were raised by the adjacent property owners
and I think we can also establish that- there are
8 no environmental issues that this property would
impact, or the renovation of this house and the
9 relatively small addition would impact .
The third issue is the lot coverage issue
10 and the Kimogenor Point development; we are going
to point out some facts that are already or should
11 be known. to this Board from prior applications,
and we' re going to ratify that information in this
12 application as well .
What I did was I have it as a memo for the
13 file for you to follow, to use as part of the
record. So, with your permission, I' ll just
14 present it at this point .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I was wondering if
15 I could give a copy to Mr. and Mrs . Fenton?
MS . MOORE : I don' t have another copy.
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You could give them
mine .
17 MS . MOORE : That would be fine, thank you,
Linda.
18 With respect to the ownership issue, as
you know Kimogenor Point is a cooperative and
19 Kimogenor Point is the owner of the land. The
original development contained three parcels . One
20 parcel has the Archer house, from a prior
application you' re familiar with the Archer house .
21 I happened to have been the attorney on that so I
too, am familiar with it . The Archer house has
22 the clubhouse on it . Then there' s Parcel 2 with
five dwellings, and Parcel 3 , which has the Pollio
23 house and another cottage up by the road, and a
garage for all the dwellings . The Town at one
24 point or the other combined Parcels 2 and 3 , so we
are dealing with two separate tax map numbers .
25 One of the issues Mr. Fenton raised was the
notice, but we followed the notice specifically as
October 20 , 2005
10
1
2 it set forth in the code, plus the fact that the
30 day statute of limitations has run. But
3 nonetheless, the statute was followed. In this
instance Mr. Pollio' s parcel is an adjacent
4 property owner to Fenton, and he was notified
accordingly.
5 The Pollio has a proprietary and perpetual
lease . Specifically, Mrs . Pollio who is the title
6 owner of the property, owns the building and
improvements under the lease, and she owns the
7 capital stock of the corporation, which owns the
land. So there is a split between the structures
8 and the stock ownership of the underlying land;
that' s the way the cooperative runs .
9 In this application as well as I believe
certainly applications I've been involved in with
10 the past and all through time, the Zoning Board
has been careful to get both the consent of
11 Kimogenor Point as the cooperative as well as the
individual property owners seeking to make
12 modifications to the structure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True.
13 MS . MOORE: So that was all accomplished;
it' s all in your file, so there' s no issue with
14 respect to ownership.
We deal with the environmental issues
15 next . In this instance, the Pollio case, which is
the relevant one before this Board, there is a
16 conforming septic system that was installed in
2004 . One of the allegations raised by Mr. Fenton
17 is that there is detergents seeping into the bay.
That is not true . The sanitary issues are issues
18 that are addressed by the Health Department . To
the extent that these cottages, in this instance
19 Mr. Pollio has a full house . It was built as a
year-round, insulated, air conditioning even at
20 the time was quite a feat in the ' 40s, I think,
when this house was built . It is 12 feet higher
21 in elevation than the rest of Kimogenor Point . So
the issues that we' re dealing with today really
22 are related to Pollio, but with respect to the
sanitary system, the Pollio sanitary systems are
23 conforming. There are no environmental issues
that relate to that . As to the rest of the
24 Kimogenor Point, it really is in the Town' s best
interest to see that these houses are renovated
25 and are improved, because at each stage of the
game as these houses are improved, the sanitary
October 20, 2005
11
1
2 issues are addressed and to the extent that any
pre-existing structures are renovated, and the
3 Board sees this all the time with all kinds of
renovations that are presently -- I guess the time
4 is now when homes are being renovated, that the
sanitary and fire separation, all the safety
5 issues that are in the code today are being
applied to the renovation. So as a matter of
6 policy, we should encourage the rehabilitation of
these structures, the rest of Kimogenor Point .
7 As to Pollios, they have a conforming
structure . They have a conforming sanitary. And
8 the issue with respect to the environmental impact
of the sanitary is irrelevant here because of the
9 conforming system.
As I said before, the property is elevated
10 10 to 12 feet above the rest of the Kimogenor
Point . In fact, this house is outside the flood
11 zone, as was confirmed with these major floods
that we had with the rain storms that we had a
12 week ago, the Pollio house had no water in their
basement -- I wish I could say the same for
13 mine -- but certainly it was tested this past
couple of weeks . So their property is probably as
14 stable and as sturdy as they come. It' s
equivalent to any house, major year-round house in
15 the town of Southold.
As far as the history of the cottages,
16 they were built between 1903 and 1905 and 40 years
later the Pollio house was built . So this house
17 was built with more current standards, and like
all homes after a certain period of time, they do
18 need to be renovated, they do need to be improved,
and the family' s circumstances change . Everything
19 needs a little sprucing up, and if we all could
get plastic surgery and nip and tuck for our, you
20 know we' d do it too -- not me -- with a house you
bring it up to code .
21 Again, this house is above the flood zone .
It has heat, it has a basement and in some
22 portions it has a crawl space, but for the most
part it does have a basement . It is fully
23 insulated. It has air conditioning, and that' s
how it was originally constructed.
24 This house with respect to the open space
and the allocation of space of the land to the
25 parcel, this particular house was built with the
most open space around it . I called it it' s
October 20, 2005
12
1
2 typical of the manor house in that it' s the most
imposing, largest, unlike the cottages, it was
3 built later and it was a substantial structure
existing today.
4 Kimogenor Point does have public water, so
again, environmental issues with respect to water
5 quality are not relevant here . The homes are
connected to the public water. There is no issue
6 with respect to drainage of dry wells -- excuse
me, water runoff, there are dry wells; and, in
7 fact, generally that' s a condition of any of the
permits that are ever issued near the water. This
8 property has gotten COs all throughout its
lifetime . There have been renovations and small
9 additions and alterations and every, single step
of the way the Pollio family and their
10 predecessors did what they had to do . They got a
building permit and they got a C of O, and I
11 believe in your file there' s a regular list of
C of O' s that have been issued. In fact, this
12 renovation got a certificate of occupancy prior to
this Board changing their policy with respect to
13 structures like these . So they actually had a CO
in hand. The family circumstance changed a bit,
14 they decided not to build the plan that they had
originally, and so they went in and went in for an
15 updated CO. And at that time they were brought
into this Board under today' s interpretation.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You mean building
permit?
17 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, building permit not
a CO, I stand corrected. They've had CO' s for all
18 the other renovations .
Again, the building permit was for a
19 second floor addition and first floor renovation,
and that is exactly what they' re asking to do now.
20 The plan will change slightly, but we will deal
with the specifics with the Building Department .
21 Our concern is making sure we have the authority
to do it today. Pardon me, it' s a first floor
22 addition. There is no alteration to the second
floor. The architect' s here and if I have
23 confused you on exactly what is being done, he' s
here to clarify.
24 Finally, lot coverage . The lot coverage
issue was addressed on the Archer application. We
25 are so under lot coverage requirements that the
Building Department didn' t even think twice about
October 20 , 2005
13
1
2 it . The existing surveys that they had and
aerials clearly show that we are well under the 20
3 percent lot coverage . If we take the two
properties that are in Kimogenor Point ownership
4 with the cottages, with house, we' re at seven
percent -- excuse me, 9 . 5 percent . If we take the
5 Pollio property as a stand alone parcel, we' re at
14 percent . That again, is so well under the 20
6 percent that it wasn' t an issue. It wasn' t an
issue --
7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t know how
you can make them a stand alone because it' s one
8 big piece . That' s part of our reservations
internally, side yards, that' s our reservations on
9 the next person with the side yards . Your client
actually has the one of the few side yards .
10 MS . MOORE : We are the only one that has a
side yard because all the rest are internal . But
11 that' s something that the Building Department,
because there are no side yards other than the
12 parcels that are closest to the property line .
If, in fact, there was an issue -- and in fact on
13 the Pollio case we did do a survey of their house
of the side yard setbacks in order to prove to the
14 Building Department and prove it was your title
survey as well, to make sure there wasn' t an issue
15 with respect to side yards .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How can you have side
16 yard setbacks if you don' t have a boundary?
MS . MOORE : Side yard with respect to
17 Fenton, that' s the only side yard that' s
applicable . With respect to the internal
18 development, I thought your issue was lot
coverage .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: As a whole, that' s
what Mr. Goehringer --
20 MS . MOORE : Right, Mr. Goehringer. It' s
not before this Board. It wasn' t an issue to the
21 Building Department . Again, we are so under the
lot coverage limitation that it really isn' t an
22 issue . In law school we call them red herrings,
it' s an issue that' s not an issue . It distracts
23 the Board. It' s not relevant here .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, just
24 a minute . It was an issue that was brought up by
a contiguous property owner, and that was the
25 reason it was brought . Not only that, you have
clearly stated to us that you did represent the
October 20 , 2005
14
1
2 Archer house, you are now representing these very
nice people as well as the Archers were . And now
3 we are going through a building stage, as you can
see when you go down there, and Mr. Fenton and I
4 were just discussing that outside . There' s a
house elevated 18 feet in the air at this
5 particular time . The place is going through a
renaissance . So you are absolutely correct in
6 saying that it would be better if it would go
through a renaissance because of the updating of
7 the sanitary systems, et cetera. But you have to
have a building block somewhere. We' re starting
8 that process . These homes built in 1900, 1902 ,
1906 , et cetera, have now been continually
9 updated, and they will continue to be
updated. The first one we had was at the time you
10 worked for Rudy Brewer, if I'm not mistaken, and
that was the first house as you come into
11 Kimogenor Point, correct, where Jackson Street
makes the bend. So from that particular point on,
12 we now have a building situation. So the issue
from a contiguous property owner is not really an
13 unreasonable issue . I realize it was not an issue
brought to bear by the Building Department --
14 MS . MOORE : And I think they were trying
to answer that . The aerial photographs and the
15 surveys from Van Tuyl from the original
development answered that to a great extent . You
16 have to understand that when Kimogenor Point as a
corporation authorizes these cottages to be
17 developed, they keep in mind many of the same
issues that this Board would look at, which is
18 scale, am I as owner as of cottage one, how am I
impacting cottage 2 ; what is the fairness issue
19 with respect to everybody' s redevelopment of their
cottage, you' re not going to get a
20 disproportionate share of the Kimogenor Point
land, everything is controlled that way.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To use your term, red
herring, I think the voluntary establishment of
22 guidelines by the original corporation for the
units within it is a red herring with respect to
23 the legal issues that are involved at this
hearing.
24 MS . MOORE : At this hearing we' re dealing
with Pollio. There is not side yard setback.
25 We' re taking a structure that already has a
footprint . We' re expanding the footprint by
October 20 , 2005
15
1
2 square feet . So again, remember that a survey for
the entire Kimogenor Point property is not an
3 insignificant process . So to the extent that it
has not become a numbers crunching issue, you' re
4 very close to 20 percent, you' re now asking to
build a house that is disproportionate to a land
5 area that your house presently occupies, we' re
going off on a tangent that I'm trying to focus
6 back.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I'm
7 suggesting, that that is a tangent to talk about
what the original corporation did with regard to
8 the arrangement of the houses within their overall
internal plan. Let' s go back.
9 MS . MOORE : So in any case you have the
Archer application that had a lot coverage review
10 in a sense . Tom Samuels look an aerial, took . the
surveys that he had from historical data and
11 determined what the lot coverage was . This Board
looked at it, thought, okay, reasonable, there' s
12 very little doubt, even if he' s off by point
something, we' re close enough; we' re not anywhere
13 near the lot coverage issue . In this instance we
are doing the same thing. You have in your file
14 the Tom Samuels determination and Mr. Lenhert did
his own review, came to very similar conclusions .
15 So that issue, I'm trying to pin down and
hope that I've addressed it adequately for this
16 Board so we can move on to the application and the
request that' s before this Board.
17 At this point, I am going to sit down and
see what Mr. Fenton has to say, I'm sure he' ll
18 have plenty to say. Is there a question for
either the architect or the Pollio family?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have a question
for you, if it' s okay.
20 MS . MOORE : Okay.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think you
21 even addressed the issue that Mr. Fenton brought
up, which is the fact that you have one lot with a
22 number of septic systems on it that can be
expanded to a point that really no other lot in
23 town would be allowed to be expanded to. We' re
talking about the domino effect of each house
24 being upgraded. Now, I saw the pictures that
Mr. Fenton showed us, and quite honestly, a brand
25 new septic system or a 100 year old septic system
is going to do the exact same thing when it' s
October 20 , 2005
16
1
2 under that kind of water.
MS . MOORE: With all due respect, those
3 are issues that the Health Department addresses
daily. So as far as this Board being concerned
4 with the sanitary systems, I would respectfully
say, that that' s what they are there for.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . It' s not
the sanitary system that I 'm upset about , it' s the
6 increase in the amount of people that can be put
on that piece of property by adding here or doing
7 something there .
MS . MOORE: I would disagree with you.
8 The Pollio house that' s the application that' s
before you.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is one lot .
MS . MOORE : You have 13, 14 however number
10 of acres here . Pretend it' s a condominium. We
all understand condominiums better than we
11 understand co-ops . A condominium has to follow
design standards for their sanitary. The number
12 of sanitary systems in an area, you' re probably at
half acre zoning, maybe a little more than half
13 acre zoning if we were to do an allocation of
square footage per lot area per overall land. So
14 it is actually in conformity with the rest of that
area which is pretty much the same way.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Some of us do
understand both co-ops and condominiums and the
16 differences are important because the condominiums
area separate property units owned by the
17 occupant; this is a portion of one single
property; and that is very different -from the
18 condominiums . And it' s relatively different
because what you do to one property is essentially
19 doing something to the entire property because it
is legally indivisible .
20 MS . MOORE : I'm answering the question of
sanitary. With respect to the sanitary systems
21 for the individual units, what I 'm trying to point
out is in this instance, the Pollio case, you have
22 a conforming system. So as to the Pollio
application, we have conforming system that is not
23 creating any problems for the Fenton property or
to the environment as a whole other than standard
24 sanitary issues that you and I existing in this
community create, just normal, average,
25 environmental issues . With respect to the other
cottages, they over time, whether they actually
October 20 , 2005
17
1
2 had upgraded sanitary because it' s feasible that
cottages that were built in the early 1900s may
3 have new sanitary systems by now. If they did,
anybody who is putting in a sanitary would have a
4 more conforming system, and as these systems are
put in, if the DEC, the Trustees, they get into
5 the picture and the sanitary systems, particularly
now with public water, as the cottages are
6 renovated, their sanitary systems, most likely,
will be placed away from the water. So again,
7 these environmental issues will be addressed
through time and really through the permit process
8 of renovation, because you and I both know if your
sanitary system fails you can certainly go in and
9 put it back in. But when you' re doing a
renovation,, there are multiple agencies reviewing
10 your placement of that sanitary. So you can' t
change what is already an existing situation. So
11 if there is pollution there, it was there in the
early 1900s and it will continue until these
12 cottages are renovated and the situation is
improved. I would say that Mr. Fenton, since he
13 raised all these issues, he has serious problems
of his own.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He' s not part of
this application.
15 MS . MOORE : I understand that, but you
can' t target Kimogenor Point and disregard
16 everyone else .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not targeting
17 Kimogenor Point . I'm looking at Kimogenor Point
as one lot, and I'm sitting here month after month
18 turning down people for decks and front porches
for far less egregious reasons than this . And I' m
19 wondering now what the cumulative effect of this
is going to be . We do this all the time . We had
20 how many applications before you come before us
because a guy wants a five by five deck covered so
21 he can make it livable space, and he' s got to come
before us ., Now we' re talking about how many
22 houses on 14 acres .
MS . MOORE : I can' t presume what each of
23 these cottages is going to be --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you,
24 we can' t either.
MS . MOORE : I can only deal with Pollio' s
25 application, and one application at a time .
Archer, for example, did an application that you
October 20, 2005
18
1
2 felt was reasonable and did not create
environmental issues of great concern. Pollio has
3 a better situation, a better example of
compliance . I'm trying to point out that what
4 he' s asking for, he' s not -- it' s not an
unreasonable request . It' s not asking you to do
5 something that is really egregious .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, in all due
6 respect , I understand your concern. I think this
is something that should be brought to the
7 association as a whole and should have meetings
with the Health Department to sort out what they
8 can do because a lot of these other cottages are
very close to one another, and I 'm sure that to
9 upgrade their own septic systems they may have to
come up with a whole different system.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not concerned
about that, Ruth, I'm concerned increase in
11 contents of Walz . I'm concerned with increasing
nonconformity. Now, if they' re nonconforming,
12 which they are, by many houses on one lot --
MS . MOORE : In the courts' I would' disagree
13 with you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would love to see
14 you do it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re three lots .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, it is
part and parcel of how this Town looks at lots .
16 And if you' re increasing a nonconformity in any
way, you need a variance . Now these people have
17 relief .
MS . MOORE : Let me point out that as of
18 two years ago he had a building permit for this
addition and there was no nonconformity. You have
19 actually had some cases where a second cottage on
a structure, I think it' s the Dawson case to be
20 precise, the court said that you tried to shut it
down because it was really a nuisance of the
21 neighborhood more than anything else . They said
you have a C of 0 for this structure; it' s not a
22 nonconforming use .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not talking
23 about a nonconforming use, I'm talking about the
structures .
24 MS . MOORE : But the structure has no
setback issues that are nonconforming. I
25 understand your rationale where you have a
nonconforming structure and now you' re expanding a
October 20 , 2005
19
1
2 nonconforming structure because of setbacks . We
have no lot coverage . Your determination of
3 nonconformity is the use here . And I don' t want
to go there because we've said, okay, fine, why
4 should we argue that point because that can be a
very complicated point and discussion for this
5 Board, fine we won' t argue the point of whether or
not it' s nonconforming a use or not requiring us
6 to be here . We' ll take the position to say we
won' t argue that point, we reserve that argument .
7 To say we are not nonconforming and that the
interpretation is not accurate but we' ll reserve
8 it for another day. I don' t believe -- this
application is really relatively straightforward,
9 simple . It' s building up without asking for very
much. As I said, we have a conforming sanitary
10 and we have COs for absolutely everything that is
existing today.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm grappling with
this because what you just said, it can' t be if
12 you read the notice of disapproval .
MS . MOORE : But they' re following a notice
13 of disapproval based on Walz .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which this . Board
14 every month --
MS . MOORE : But whether or not Walz was
15 right or wrong I won' t go into . And I know that
Board members agree or disagree with the
16 interpretation of Walz .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not based on
17 Walz .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But this isn' t based
18 on Walz . It' s based on 100-31 (a) , not Walz ,
which is a use . In other words, you can' t expand,
19 erect, alter, arrange, intend, design, use, all of
that stuff, one family dwelling if you exceed more
20 than one house on a lot . It' s a use .
MS . MOORE : I understand what the Building
21 Department -- I think the Building Department got
there because of interpretations that came through
22 the Zoning Board. Because otherwise you wouldn' t
have been able to get the building permit two
23 years ago . So we' re kind of -- it' s a circular
argument .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not circular.
Whatever the Building Department did two years ago
25 is not totally determinative with what we decide
today with regard to what is going on. I would
October 20 , 2005
20
1
2 ask you, given that this is one lot with a lot of
dwellings on it, could it be treated as if it were
3 one house, one lot, one building with one single
owner? With all of those buildings because from
4 the law of co-ops that' s the way it works . And it
would be as though Mr. Pollio owned all the houses
5. in that particular lot and not just his particular
segment, and was asking to do what it is he wanted
6 to do with one of the buildings on that lot . So I
think that' s the question that has to be addressed
7 rather than trying to segment off his particular
portion of that multi-house lot .
8 MS . MOORE : No, I disagree with you.
Because let' s assume that we take that as one
9 owner, and Mr. Pollio comes in and owns a large 30
acre parcel that has multiple structures on it,
10 and he' s coming in to make an alteration on one
structure, you' re telling me that without
11 upgrading every other structure on that property,
you can' t get that permit?
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 'm not saying
anything like that . What I 'm saying the
13 consequences, the effects of the alteration of one
structure can only be judged in consideration of
14 all of the others; and there you have to take into
account the incremental effect of the entire lot
15 because when one changes, the whole lot changes .
MS . MOORE : You have a house here with the
16 number of bedrooms that it has, the living house
that it has; I believe, Mr. Lenhert, can you
17 address to the Board what portion of this
renovation --
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t think that' s
relevant .
19 MS . MOORE : But you have an existing
situation with an existing family that occupies
20 the space whether it' s this way or altered, so the
impact on the overall property is --
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much of an
increase is there over the whole lot when one
22 house is expanded?
MS . MOORE : I think you have a square
23 footage request .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, Jim, can we
24 see if there is anyone else that would like to
comment on this application? Mr. Pollio, did you
25 want to say something?
MR. POLLIO : Yes, I do. Good morning,
October 20 , 2005
21
1
2 everybody. I understand your concerns . I 'm Ben
Pollio, by the way, my wife Nancy owns the
3 house . We have been there since 1982 it' s a
little touch of paradise for us and our kids, many
4 of them have grown there . It is part of a
development, you' re right, and you' re partially
5 right when you say we should consider the whole
thing, but remember a co-op lease is also a
6 perpetual lease and a proprietary lease and they
call it a proprietary lease because it means
7 ownership. As a matter of fact, the way the
leases are drawn, each owner owns the individual
8 house . And that is sort of a dichotomy. The
house is owned by the owner but the property is
9 owned by the co-op . We are concerned. I 've heard
you have raised many, many, many issues . We have
10 discussed it at Kimogenor Point also. Yes, we are
concerned about plot use . I think Pat just told
11 you that there is a nine percent overall plot use .
We' re talking about a 20 percent plot use, so
12 we' re well within that margin of 20 percent .
You talked about the sanitary system. You
13 know I'm awed by this sanitary system. I guess
I ' m unfamiliar with all the sanitary systems . But
14 when it went in, I call it two rooms and a bath,
they' re so huge . We went down almost 14 feet, and
15 we didn' t hit water. We' re 12 or 14 feet over all
of the other houses in Kimogenor Point . So your
16 comments about the water, you said you saw the
pictures, well, that' s fine but none of those
17 pictures included our house because we' re right up
on a hill right alongside of the fence . We have a
18 basement, we have had 59 years of no water in the
basement . We have crawl space that' s four feet
19 high.
So I think the two major issues, one
20 environmental and the other of plot size, really
have been responded to. I'm not suggesting that
21 we shouldn' t look at all the other sanitary
systems, and we' re doing that, each house at a
22 time . Pat said it very appropriately, each time
they come here they have got to comply with the
23 requirements of the Board of Health, the Health
Department . You can' t ask me to have 12 or 14
24 houses to comply for sanitary systems . It' s not
my business . Plus, these houses have become very
25 expensive now. They' re on the water. It' s a
touch of paradise . And I think all we' re asking
October 20 , 2005
22
1
2 for is something relatively simple . It' s an
extension of the first floor because we want a
3 family room. So that' s our request . Nancy and I
feel that it' s somewhat unfair -- I'm a little
4 nervous now because you have raised so many issues
and it' s so personal, and the issues that Mr .
5 Fenton raised are somewhat personal and that' s a
difficult thing for us, and that' s the reason we
6 asked Pat to represent us here . But I think,
look, when we came in in ' 82 , we asked for a CO
7• and 'we got one . There was probably one in 146 .
In ' 84 we got one for a deck. I think in ' 87 we
8 got one for a second floor renovation. Each time
we did something we got a CO. This house is 40
9 years younger than all the other houses on
Kimogenor Point . There' s a difference, there' s a
10 major difference . Nancy, would you like to say
something?
11 MRS . POLLIO: We do love it and it is
originally a screened-in porch that we want to
12 make somewhat larger and close it in so that we
have a TV room for our grandchildren. And they' re
13 not always there together. We hopefully someday
to retire there because we do love it very much.
14 And as Ben said, it' s our little piece of
paradise . And we do respect our neighbor' s
15 privacy. We' re quiet people, we' re not rowdy or
anything. And we' re just hoping that we could
16 make our living space a little more unique, and as
I said, a TV room for our grandchildren, which
17 would be right off the kitchen so we can keep an
eye on everything. And that' s what it boils down
18 to . There was a bathroom there and we' re just
going to update the bathroom and that' s it .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Pollio, said
20 you purchased that house in 1982?
MR. POLLIO: ' 82 . And that' s really all
21 it is, it' s an extension between partially
enclosed and partially screened-in porch. And it
22 is an extension of the kitchen as Nancy said, we
do have grandchildren, we don' t have a family
23 room. And it gets a little hectic, particularly
when I want to watch the 6 : 00 news with a lot of
24 grandchildren running around. In fact, the last
time out there was a thumping noise on the floor
25 and I turned around and I saw little Brendan
McGaily, one of my grandchildren, and he' s only
October 20 , 2005
23
1
2 five you would think he was 200 pounds, he' s about
this big, but he walks somewhat heavily, so people
3 cannot use our living room -- adults cannot use
our living room without running interference with
4 the young kids . So we wanted this separate room.
But you know, so just to go back. I read
5 the minutes of the last meeting, I was a little
surprised by some of the comments by our neighbor,
6 but there were three issues raised, and I think
Pat covered those issues . The ownership, I think
7 she addressed that . The coverage issue, we' re
talking about it' s 20 percent and Pat just told
8 you it' s nine percent . As far as sanitary, I
can' t deal with the sanitary systems of everyone
9 else . When Bill Archer came in here, he put his
own sanitary system; it' s a brand new system. I
10 put mine in, but I'm up on the hill . I never get
flooded. I'm out of the hazard zone . I ' m not in
11 the picture that you mentioned. So it' s very,
very different and I ask you to consider that .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wishes to speak on this application?
13 Mr. Fenton?
MR. FENTON: I'm the neighbor, Joseph
14 Fenton. You were kind enough last- time to give me
more time than I was entitled to, so I don' t want
15 to take up much time now. I just want to point
out a couple things . Mrs . Moore' s letter says
16 that I had raised an issue of coverage, I didn' t .
I think someone on the Board did. And I think it
17 was appropriate because it is one lot or one
company that owns the property, and I felt that it
18 should he looked at in its entirety rather than
allowing you to get picked apart one at a time,
19 which is what has been happening and is likely to
continue to be happening. And there should be an
20 overall plan, an overall view of this .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Fenton, I want to
21 interject that what we've done is when Mr. Pollio
or Mr. Archer come in for an application for
22 Kimogenor Point, it must be a co-application with
the whole board of the association. So therefore,
23 one cannot start something without everybody else
knowing what they are doing.
24 MR. FENTON: I understand that . The other
point I would like to make is this submission is
25 not a survey, and you certainly can accept it for
whatever it is . I think the concept that I had
October 20 , 2005
24
1
2 because I 'm a bay person and that' s why I raise
the issue, , and I think there seems to be some
3 acceptance of that concept by members of this
Board, is what I would like you people to
4 concentrate on, that this is one co-op, it' s not a
condominium, it' s not owned by the individuals;
5 it' s owned by Kimogenor Point Company. And the
attempt to portray it as each person' s house is
6 misleading.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Fenton.
7 Mr. Pollio?
MR. POLLIO: It' s not misleading, I resent
8 that . It' s a co-op, we've always said it' s a
co-op . . You know what a co-op is, it' s an accident
9 of procedure that it' s a co-op. I wasn' t there in
1905 when they organized it . It' s probably the
10 first co-op in New York state . I don' t think they
opted under the co-op laws, in other words you can
11 elect to be governed by the co-op board. It' s
just a procedural accident . It' s a matter of form
12 not substance . We could easily reincorporate and
do it under a condo status; we could divide the
13 lines as you have said. I think you do have to
treat it as a whole and as separate properties .
14 To the extent of dealing as a whole, sure you have
to apply that 20 percent rule, and you did. And I
15 think, as I said, Pat responded to that . with
respect to sanitary systems, those are things that
16 are concentrated and under the jurisdiction of the
Board of Health, you know that, we all know
17 that . The Board of Health has to approve, they
have their rules . Archer, I understand, is
18 putting in four cesspool runoffs . I only had to
put two in because I'm up so high. I'm at the
19 same height as Mr. Fenton just about . So there' s
no issue with respect to my runoff . And I think
20 the pictures that are shown I think misrepresent
because they' re 10 or 12 feet below where our
21 house is . Our house is 40 years younger, as I
said, so those three issues I believe have been
22 addressed. The fact that it' s a co-op, if that' s
your objection, we could easily change it to
23 condo. We could divide lot lines, there' s no
question about it . You should be looking at both,
24 the whole and the parts . And just one more thing,
our architect is here, Rob, what was the
25 percentage on the whole lot?
MR. LENHERT: 9 . 5 .
October 20 , 2005
1
25
1
2 MR. POLLIO: He did a computer study of an
aerial survey and that' s the percentage, 9 . 5
3 you' re looking for 20 . Where do we go on that
issue? Where do we go on the Board of Health
4 issue? I have two rooms and a bath downstairs as
I say, they' re huge . I could never imagine the
5 family using all that space up. That' s what I
have it' s a conforming.
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mr. Pollio, how do
you distinguish internal property lines? Like
7 you' re planting your mums in the fall, how far do
you go toward your neighbor?
8 MR. POLLIO : There' s a natural boundary
line that everybody' s aware of and everybody
9 respects . When we did the leases over I took a
pass at discussing a separate line, it got very
10 complicated. We all respect the natural lines .
Everybody knows where their line is and everybody
11 discusses . It' s a wonderful, wonderful
environment . It' s fantastic . So some of those
12 things, the complexity of lines are at issue . But
when you have two houses that are 60 or 80 feet
13 apart, and it' s open, there' s all grass, there' s
no trespassing. That' s another thing, we don' t
14 have fencing, we don' t have bushes, we have no
line separation. The parties that own those
15 houses relate to one another very closely, and
there' s no impingement . We don' t walk on each
16 other' s property anymore . We used to 30 years
ago, we don' t do it anymore . The leases say that
17 the property consists of the adjoining property
that is consistent with the house . So the leases
18 don' t have an actual line .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : So you have
19 invisible lines that everybody respects .
MR. POLLIO: Invisible but discernable,
20 they may be invisible but they' re the half way
mark. And that, by the way, was used by the Board
21 of Health when they put the cesspools in. Our
cesspool went in on the other side . It' s away
22 from the property line from my adjoining neighbor.
We' re very different . We have five or six COs .
23 We are not a grandfathered nonconforming use . ' We
are very much a conforming use . That' s what' s so
24 perplexing to Nancy and I because each time we do
something, even decks, we come in and ask for it .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Fenton, you
wanted to add something?
October 20 , 2005
26
1
2 MRS . FENTON: I have never spoken before .
Having lived next door to the Pollios, and we are
3 not on the same level, the Pollios are beneath us .
And I just wanted you because I don' t know whether
4 you have come and looked at property, but we are
above the Pollios; they are beneath us . Our hedge
5 is planted along the line . It' s been there for a
long time and the hedge is quite low when you come
6 to the Pollios' area. So he' s not on the same
level . That' s a correction.
7 MR. POLLIO: That' s correct . It' s about a
foot and a half or two feet, but we' re still two
8 feet over.
MR. FENTON: Four and a half feet .
9 MR. POLLIO: It' s hard to say because it
slopes . You' d have to have a topographical map .
10 We slope up to their property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s close . I would
11 like to make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
12 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Mr. Paul Maloney down on Goose Creek Lane . Is
14 Mr. Malone here?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Herd is the
15 builder, Mr. Herd did submit the map. The Board
had asked him to make it either eight feet or 10
16 feet . The old plan was proposing a 20 foot
setback. He' s now proposing 31 and 27 .
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s
wonderful .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s good. We did
ask him to move it back. I make a motion to close
19 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
20 --- ------------------------------------------- ---
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next one is
21 Mr. DeMaggio for a single side yard setback on
Smith Road in Peconic .
22 MR. DEMAGGIO: We have a very small house
on Smith Road on a fair sized lot . The house
23 unfortunately is very close to the property line
on the left side, only about three feet . The
24 house has been there for, I think, about 75 years,
I'm not quite sure . But what we want to do is
25 convert a very aged screened-in porch to more of a
sort of family room/dining room because that' s the
October 20 , 2005
27
1
2 only place in the house where you could actually
sit down and have a meal . Make it closed in,. make
3 it a little bit larger. And because the house is
only three feet away, it' s about seven inches
4 short of a 10 foot setback. So I've been told
that we need to come in and ask for a variance for
5 that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The proposed addition
6 would be about 9' 3 " back?
MR. DEMAGGIO: Right, instead of 10 , that
7 one corner. And the neighbor on that side has
actually sent in a letter saying they have no
8 opposition to the structure or something like
that .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I saw the site,
12 you' ll be building on the existing, I guess you
poured a footing, a slab, and I believe if your
13 house was built parallel to the property line, you
wouldn' t be here today for the extra nine inches .
14 I don' t have a problem with it, good luck.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. DeMaggio,
this is my file to write the decision on. The
16 house itself is relatively low. The addition will
be not any higher than the normal ridge of the
17 house?
MR. DEMAGGIO: That' s correct .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And this will be
heated?
19 MR. DEMAGGIO: No, it will not be heated.
The house is a summer home, the house is not
20 heated.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else in
21 the audience wish to speak on this application?
If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
22 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 ---------------------------------------- ---------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is
24 for Mr. Kropp, Riley Avenue in Mattituck.
MR. STROMSKI : My name is Robert Stromski,
25 I 'm serving as architect for my client General
Anthony Kropp and Joan Kropp. We are in the
October 20, 2005
28
1
2 process of looking for side yard setbacks for two
existing accessory structures and a proposed
3 addition on the existing home . I have, for the
record, the affidavit of posting and second
4 affidavit of mailing due to the change from the
original meeting, we sent out the certified
5 mailings again (handing) . These are the cards
from the first mailing that were returned. These
6 are the receipts and. the cards for the second
mailing. And unfortunately I wasn' t able to get
7 this notarized.
For the record, I' d like to state that ,the
8 affidavit of posting, I did the original posting
and General Kropp actually was the individual that
9 changed the date on the poster showing today' s
date, so just want to clarify that for the record.
10 We also at this point would like to submit
a letter of one of the surrounding property
11 owners, a Mr. June McGowan, who would like to
bring in a letter stating that they have no
12 opposition to the variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
13 GENERAL KROPP: And I' d like to add that
my other neighbor, John Kurbs, on the other side,
14 I 've gotten a letter from him also. I just
recently underwent an operation, I 'm more
15 concerned with getting my pain pill today then
bringing my letter. So I just called John, he' s
16 probably going to fax a letter in the next half
hour or so.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
GENERAL KROPP : So it will be both
18 letters .
MR. STROMSKI : From the legal notice, I
19 just want to clarify the situation with the
accessory sheds, the larger shed, which is more
20 south, my client has in our letter that we gave to
you about two years ago started to do some
21 structural repair on the shed, and in 2003 was
when he found that when he started to work on it,
22 he ended up he had to do more work than he
initially intended. He intended to just replace
23 the roof and siding. When he started working on
it, he found that there was structural damage, so
24 he started to repair that . He was issued a stop
work order in 2003 . At that time he filed a
25 building permit, was given a denial due to the
setback variance, and unfortunately at the time
October 20 , 2005
29
1
2 that this was all going around there were certain
things in General Kropp' s service to the country
3 where he was involved in things overseas, so
pretty much the project stopped at that point
4 that' s why from the first stop work order, there' s
such a long time frame to actually starting this
5 going on.
At that point I was also in discussions
6 with my client about doing a possible addition to
the house . When finally it became time that
7 General Kropp and Joan had the time to actually
sit down and begin the design on the house, it was
8 decided that we would go for the variances for
everything, the existing sheds and the additions
9 to the house .
So at this point the application is to
10 pretty much do the structural repair on the
existing shed. Much of the existing exterior
11 walls are going to remain intact from the existing
shed with the event of the new roof is actually
12 being framed on it . That was where most of the
structural damage was and one of the walls, so
13 that is what' s happening with the larger shed.
The smaller shed, our client was with the
14 possibility of when the addition is done to the
house, the smaller shed has somewhat of a gambrel
15 roof, and they would like to change it to a
reverse gable with a shed dormer to kind of keep
16 in character with the shape and the aesthetic of
the home with the new addition and with the
17 existing shed.
With the house, they' re looking to do a
18 one-story addition towards the rear and also a
second floor, a master suite for themselves .
19 Their intention is to retire from their residence
in Huntington and move out here permanently, so
20 that' s why the addition is of a larger scale as it
is . Also the reason we have the variance for the
21 house is of the proposed attached garage . Due to
the layout of the existing home and the desire to
22 keep the existing front porch, it facilitated the
attached garage to be towards the side of the
23 house, which brought it closer to the property
line .
24 As stated in the application, many of the
lot areas in this neighborhood are fairly narrow,
25 there are some houses within the area that are
fairly close to the lot line, I wouldn' t know the
October 20 , 2005
30
1
2 exact measurement but I would be safe to say it
was within four or five feet in certain homes in
3 the area, so we feel that by granting this
variance, we wouldn' t necessarily start to create
4 precedent or definitely change the character of
the home .
5 One of the things I think helps this
application is the addition is fairly -- is far
6 back to the road. Some of the other homes are
closer to the street and it' s definitely much more
7 visible from the street as to how close they are
being this parcel and the residence being further
8 back from the street, we didn' t feel it was going
to make any adverse impact to the surrounding
9 neighborhoods .
GENERAL KROPP : The neighbor who it
10 directly affects, the McGowans, their house is
much further forward, this would be further back,
11 so there' s no structure that' s really adjacent to
their structure, their house or anything. There' s
12 a reasonable amount of substantial space between
where the garage would end and their house, due to
13 the different setbacks on both homes .
MR. STROMSKI : Also, at this point with
14 the other agencies, we have received a permit from
the Board of Trustees; we are also in the process
15 of getting our approval from the New York State
DEC, so pretty much as far as with the other
16 agencies, we seem to be in compliance . The Health
Department made a recommendation along with the
17 DEC that the sanitary system be moved up to the
front of the property. So on that end, most of
18 the other agencies are pretty much in favor in
their jurisdiction, which leaves the variance . If
19 there' s any other questions that the Board may
have, I would be happy to answer them.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason
you can' t move both those sheds a little further
21 away from the edge of the property?
MR. STROMSKI : Being that we have an
22 existing concrete slab and foundation, it just
becomes somewhat costly to move them.
23 GENERAL KROPP : The existing shed, the
larger shed has probably been there since the 130s
24 or ' 40s, and it was really structurally unsound.
Even the joists in the roof were spaced 24 inches
25 on center, with nondimensional lumber. So the
roof was collapsing in. So all I wasn' t changing
October 20 , 2005
31
1
2 the footprint or anything, I just wanted to
re-have what I have . It' s probably been there at
3 least 60, 70 years . The other one I don' t need to
touch. I don' t have a strong desire to change the
4 roofline per se . That one again, I'm just going
to be putting siding on and new shingle tiles to
5 match the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question or
6 two. Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted
7 to, General, I have to tell you that I grew up on
James Creek and it' s a place that' s extremely akin
8 to me, and John' s house next door is an area we
spent a lot of time in. There' s no doubt that
9 what you' re saying is absolutely is correct . I
think one of the concerns I have is basically
10 water runoff to your neighbors . So the issue of
those sheds, and I have to tell you I forget if
11 the larger of the two if the ridge line runs east
to west or north to south; if the ridge line runs
12 north to south, that' s where the concern is
because the water runoff is on your neighbor' s
13 property. If the ridge line runs on both of those
from east to west, which I think it does on the
14 smaller shed, from what I remember --
GENERAL KROPP : I believe by the drawing
15 they' re going to run east-west anyway, in
addition, we' re going to put dry wells at the end
16 of each downspout gutter.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But with the
17 issue of having a one foot setback with the larger
shed, the issue of water runoff is of concern to
18 me, I don' t know how the Board is . So those are
the issues that are at hand.
19 GENERAL KROPP : Again, it' s as-built .
It' s been there for 60 , 70 years . It' s never been
20 an issue of concern. In fact, that building never
had down spouts or gutters on it .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that, but that' s just an issue we' re concerned
22 with.
GENERAL KROPP: Well, it appears to me
23 that' s an issue that' s going to be resolved by
putting dry wells, there wouldn' t be any runoff
24 then.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, you wanted to
25 say something?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes . The larger
October 20, 2005
32
1
2 shed, the one to the rear, is in, as we have said,
very poor shape, so poor that it looks as though
3 it' s a candidate for demolition, to be replaced by
a newer, more spiffy shed. And if that were the
4 case, I predict that this Board would say this had
to be farther away from the neighbor' s property.
5 It' s hard to see that there is a very good reason
for approving the continuation of this
6 non-conforming setback given the extent of the
work that needs to be done to that shed, and it
7 looks almost as though that if it weren' t for the
fact that it were that close, you wouldn' t even be
8 talking about retaining some of the side walls .
It looks as though this is a demo job, and that it
9 could be done farther away from the boundary.
Partly for the reason we worry about the runoff,
10 but I think just for the idea of being that close
to the property where it doesn' t seem to be the
11 necessity except for this decrepit pre-existing
old structure .
12' MR. STROMSKI : Ultimately this is where
the Board' s decision would come into play. As
13 stated, being that there is a footing, an existing
slab there, the existing walls are being
14 maintained to a certain extent, and to move a
foundation for the size of shed and the cost that
15 it would take is somewhat --
GENERAL KROPP : And the property is only
16 about 50 feet wide back there, and, in fact,
again, if I was just trying to rehab the existing
17 building, I could have put siding on it , and so
forth and so on, correct, that would have been a
18 non-issue, if I was just trying to make that a
safer structure would I still need a permit to
19 just make it a stable building?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pretty much,
20 General .
GENERAL KROPP: It' s been there for 60 , 70
21 years, and it' s never been an issue?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct .
22 GENERAL KROPP : So I could have left it
the way it was, and make it look very unappealing
23 towards the neighborhood, and have a structure
there that' s unsafe if I wanted to keep it? I
24 certainly don' t want to narrow the
backyard. There' s no other structure back there
25 in the first place . Again, from the McGowans'
it' s 150 feet from my neighbor' s yard, they don' t
October 20 , 2005
33
1
2 have a concern with it . I think certainly the
runoff issue can be resolved and the foundation is
3 there, and I believe the contractor, unless I 've
been misled, he left enough of the structure up
4 there, as I understand, that it' s not considered
new construction or whatever, I'm rehabbing the
5 existing building that I thought could be
grandfathered.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just say
this to you, General, there' s no doubt that with
7 the letter from the McGowans that there' s not a
particular issue of great concern on their part .
8 Now we get to the nitty-gritty of the zoning of
one to five feet in reference to a setback.
9 GENERAL KROPP : It' s been there, it' s been
approved.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember
that this is a democratic organization, it
11 requires three votes out of the five, that' s all
I ' m going to say at this particular point . If
12 you' re telling me that in the rehab of this
building that you will have no water runoff, that
13 the back of this building that faces the Mcgowans'
property will be flat so there is a straight one
14 foot all the way up, no overhangs that protrude
into the McGowans' property, then I don' t have a
15 particular issue, knowing this property as I do .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Here' s a diagram of
16 the elevation for the roof .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
17 that . We' re concerned about water runoff, and
that' s the reason I asked which way the ridge
18 lines were running so that way we know which way
the water is running. Of course, we know that
19 it' s a downgrade at the same time at this
particular point . So we' re trying to just
20 assemble some information so we understand the
situation.
21 GENERAL KROPP : I have never appeared
before the ZBA.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . And
that' s basically the situation, and we realize
23 that at this particular time you' re probably not
feeling the best you should be feeling. So we' re
24 here very simply to gather information.
MR. STROMSKI : Just to answer your
25 question. What the drawings do show is your is
somewhat of an eve overhang, we could reduce that
October 20 , 2005
34
1
2 to actually have no overhang on the westerly side,
closer to the neighbor.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what it
should be .
4 GENERAL KROPP : I ' ll take a chainsaw and
cut that off .
5 MR. STROMSKI : So there will be no
overhang there . And what we will propose is due
6 to the comments from the Board of Trustees, they
require that dry wells be put on the main
7 structure; what we could do to facilitate the
question of runoff is we could pipe and put
8 gutters on the accessory sheds, and pipe them to
additional dry wells in between the two sheds . So
9 at least at that point there would be no runoff
from the roof that would either go onto the ground
10 and potentially go on to the neighbor or at any
point there, so we think that will be contained
11 runoff from the roof, if that is a concern.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember,
12 Mr. Stromski, we had over 12 and a half inches of
rain over the eight days . That' s a main issue .
13 It' s always been an issue, and it will always be
an issue of concern of runoff on neighbor' s
14 property, not necessarily on this piece but on any
piece where you get any type of structure close to
15 a particular property.
The other issue I just want to mention and
16 that is the addition to the house, which includes
the garage at 4 . 4 feet to the property line .
17 Having been a chairperson with this Board for some
21 years, and I have great feeling for the present
18 chairperson, I am of great concern about the
closing of any other side yard. So if this Board
19 is so inclined to grant that variance on that
particular side, the side yard on the opposite
20 side, which is, of course, north probably
northeast as the direction goes, it is very
21 important for me in voting on this application,
for that side yard to remain open, which is that
22 20 foot side yard.
MR. STROMSKI : At this point the addition
23 isn' t encroaching any further than the existing
house . The only additions other than that is just
24 taking the house and extending it towards the
rear. The only thing that' s going on that area in
25 the rear is a small bay, which is still within the
furthest east portion of the house .
October 20 , 2005
35
1
2 BOARD MEMBER. GOEHRINGER: I'm saying by
the construction of the garage, which is attached
3 to the house, you' re taking a 12 and five, which
is a 17 . 2 setback and reducing that to 4 .4 at its
4 narrowest point . What I 'm saying to you is that I
want the side yard, if I'm voting on this
5 application, never to be touched on the opposite
because we need it for fire and emergency were
6 purposes, and that' s my reason for it, whatever
other Board member' s reasons are, it' s up to them
7 to make that statement .
GENERAL KROPP : I definitely want that
8 open. I have no intentions of adding anything to
the other side .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for the
10 record, the existing larger garage/shed is a
single story, stays single story?
11 GENERAL KROPP : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The small shed the
12 same . And the new proposed garage is a single
story?
13 MR. STROMSKI : The garage itself, yes, a
single story. The second story addition on the
14 house is further back and that is basically only
over the existing footprint . Because I couldn' t
15 find, I didn' t want to ruffle through the papers,
the larger garage you' re putting dormers on that
16 or just a regular hipped roof?
MR. STROMSKI : The proposed, the larger
17 dormer, this is pretty much rebuilding the
existing shed as it stood before with a single
18 reverse gable . The smaller shed, which is pretty
much, there was a desire to possibly change that
19 instead of a gambrel just do a reverse gable, with
two shed dormers out of the height of which would
20 not change .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The ridge would
21 stay the same?
MR. STROMSKI : Primarily stay the
22 same . And to clarify, the garage and the fact of
the single story, pretty much what we have here is
23 this is the two-story addition on the house over
the existing footprint . The garage itself is only
24 a one-story, which is fairly low due to the slope
of the roof, so it' s not like a 12 on 12 roof
25 pitch where the ridge would be very high along
that one story. It is somewhat low to try and
October 20 , 2005
36
1
2 keep some sort of respect towards neighboring
properties not to have a massive 12-12 roof pitch.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The other two
existing sheds, no bathrooms, running water?
4 MR. STROMSKI : No . Pretty much they' re
used for storage, boat storage, storage of
5 watercraft, furniture . There is no provision for
any plumbing at one point --
6 GENERAL KROPP : No water, no heat .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have slabs there
7 now?
MR. STROMSKI : They are existing, yes .
8 The footprint of the slab will not be changed.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
9 any questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If we can' t come to
11 an agreement, that shed, that garage, the bigger
one, it has like a little indentation in it , looks
12 like maybe three feet off the property line .
GENERAL KROPP : I think someone many, many
13 years ago maybe even lived in there . Because when
I bought it in ' 84, there was linoleum tile and so
14 forth back in there . And that was where a
fireplace was, and that was the chimney set in
15 that little niche .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm just asking,
16 would you be adverse, I 'm just asking this
question, if we cut that building back to that
17 point? I mean, you would still be able to build
on the existing garage; you wouldn' t be able to go
18 close to whatever that point happens to be .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Another, what, three
19 feet?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You can say what
20 you want to say.
GENERAL KROPP : It' s certainly better than
21 moving the entire structure 10 feet out in the
middle of the yard. So if that' s the option I' m
22 given by the Board, then I certainly would follow
that recommendation, not that I would encourage
23 you to give me that recommendation.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what I want
24 to hear. If you' re going to be upset about it --
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: He' s smiling, Jim.
25 GENERAL KROPP : I'm not used to testifying
under such smiley faces .
October 20, 2005
37
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If not, the only
reason for not moving the shed is you would like
3 to maintain your undiminished view? So the
elimination of the side closer to the -- of a
4 section closer to the boundary would not interfere
with maintaining your view.
5 GENERAL KROPP : Correct . Because it' s not
on the S-N.
6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn' t mind
moving that wall if you had to?
7 GENERAL KROPP : If we had to . Yes, sir.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, I 'm
8 not for that, because we are horse traders .
You've got a lot of give-and-take here .
9 GENERAL KROPP : I'm not used to a lot of
give-and-take, the democratic way of conducting
10 business, I guess.
. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re a military
11 man?
GENERAL KROPP: That' s correct .
12 MR. STROMSKI : At this point we have a
letter from Mr. Kurbs, as another letter of
13 support .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The letter from
14 Mr. McGowan states you request no new construction
no closer than four feet to the established
15 property line, no removal of trees and shrubs . He
did mention in his letter the existing sheds .
16 GENERAL KROPP : Just for the new, the
concern was the garage .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re talking
about the garage addition to the house?
18 GENERAL KROPP : That' s correct .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was there any
19 mention of the sheds, the sheds were okay, less
than four feet?
20 GENERAL KROPP : Only new.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I thought the sheds
21 were being reconstructed?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The foundations
22 are existing.
GENERAL KROPP: Those two buildings have
23 been there longer than, be the same as the
McGowans have been there .
24 MR. STROMSKI : As it was presented by
General Kropp to his neighbors that the intention
25 was the sheds were just going to be a
rehabilitation, not new construction. So under
October 20 , 2005
38
1
2 the letter the pretense of new construction is
only dealing with the attached garage .
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
4 in the audience wishes to comment on this
application? You would be then content to make
5 your garage 15 feet instead of the 18 . 2?
GENERAL KROPP : If that' s what the
6 dimensions work out to be .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d feel a little bit
7 better with that . Then I' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
8 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
9 ---------------------------------------- - --------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
10 for Paul and Linda Zeneski on Jasmine Lane in
Southold about a garage . Hi, how are you today?
11 MR. WIDNER: Hi, how are you. My name is
Michael Widner. I 'm going to do the addition for
12 the Zeneskis . I have never been to one of these
hearings . I don' t know what' s expected of me . I
13 know the problem with it was I guess the setbacks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Part of the garage is
14 in the side yard instead of the rear yard. That' s
the way the lot probably and the house are
15 configured.
MR. WIDNER: Right . The way the house is
16 on the property doesn' t really lend itself . They
want a two-car garage to go side by side,
17 traditional two-car garage would take up too much
room, that' s why they wanted it front to back. I
18 don' t know, again, like I said, what happens from
this hearing. If there' s not anyone in opposition
19 does that mean we can go ahead with it?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have to vote on it
20 and that will probably be next week. How high is
this garage going to be to the ridge?
21 MR. WIDNER: I believe 18 feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it' s just going to
22 be used for storage? No water back there for a
shower or anything else?
23 MR. WIDNER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for a garage and
24 storage?
MR. WIDNER: Yes .
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
October 20 , 2005
39
1
2 objection to it . The concern is when a garage
gets this size, we put normal restrictions on it
3 that it only be used for accessory purposes .
MR. WIDNER: Basically there' s cars not
4 too much in the way for storage because there' s no
attic, we were going to go with a steeper pitch,
5 but realized it' s more of a pain to do that, so we
came down really enough room to get two cars in.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How long, this garage
7 is going to be 32 feet in length?
MR. WIDNER: Correct .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Why is it going to be
that long?
9 MR. WIDNER: It' s because the cars would
pull in front to back, not side to side .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Isn' t it though
you' re planning to put bulldozers and such?
11 MR. WIDNER: No .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no objection
to this .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is. there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak on this
14 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for Alfred and Mary Knapp on Soundview Avenue,
17 Peconic, for a carport .
MR. KELLER: Good morning, my name is
18 Steven Keller. I am the architect for Al and Mary
Knapp, and I am here to present their variance
19 case . First I would like to submit the
certificates of mailing. I guess first I would
20 like to start by asking any of the Board Members
if they had the opportunity to go out to visit the
21 site?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
22 MR. KELLER: Because I think it' s
important to recognize that this property,
23 although there' s a house on it, is completely
surrounded by woods, not only the physical
24 property that by owner has owned but also the
adjacent properties, and what we have here is a
25 situation where they would like to propose a
carport in the exact same location that the cars
October 20 , 2005
40
1
2 of course parked on this property, I guess since
the construction of the existing house .
3 They' re looking to do a very low impact
approach because they want to maintain the natural
4 beauty of the site . They really don' t wish to
change the configuration of how you drive onto the
5 property. So the concept was to stake out the
spot where the cars have been parking and to
6 design a structure that is very reminiscent of a
state park lean-to that would have less of an
7 impact than a formal garage structure . In doing
so, we would like to maintain the dirt/gravel
8 drive that comes into the site and also keep that
as the ground floor for the carport . Proposing a
9 minimum foundation structure, which I don' t know
if you have the plans in front of you, if you
10 don' t I would be happy to present to the Board, to
keep it as minimalist as possibl/e . And the
11 concrete would be surrounded by loose laid
stones . The roof slope would be fairly low to the
12 ground. It does raise up a little bit in the
center and that was a gesture to match the
13 existing entrance canopy onto the house . Is there
any questions from the Board?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no
15 questions . These people own another house on that
road, right?
16 MR. KELLER: They own the property across
the street, yes .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No, just comments .
19 Very tastefully done . I hate to see all the trees
come down for this . It kind of matches the
20 architecture of the house, very Adirondack
looking. I think kudos to you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like anything,
22 although they' re surrounded by a lot of woods, it
is going to -- and some of my colleagues may
23 disagree -- cause a precedent by placing this in
the front yard area.
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it' s not
enclosed.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But have you
simulated this on a system that we can look at of
October 20 , 2005
41
1
2 what it would actually look like?
MR. KELLER: I do have some two
3 dimensional drawings that I would be happy to
present you to this morning.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would just
like to look at it; that doesn' t mean I 'm adverse
5 to the project in any way.
MR. KELLER: We have all four sides that
6 open to the air, just the roof structure . There' s
a slight slope that we are going to very minimally
7 notch-in to try to maintain this low profile . The
concrete is going to be surrounded by naturally
8 loose laid stone . And it' s going to be sort of a
timber-like construction reminiscent to a park
9 lean-to that you might come across in a state
park. You can see the footings only touch base in
10 four locations . There will be no concrete slab,
just a gravel base .
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Pervious base . So,
Jerry, to make that argument for someone else who
12 may want to build a three-car garage in the front,
has an impervious surface, open to three sides, no
13 electricity.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Similar to what
14 we did on Rachel' s Lane .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Pretty unique .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do realize that
your play house is sticking onto your neighbor' s
16 property?
MR. KELLER: I spoke to him about that,
17 and he informed me his children are now teenagers,
he' d be more than happy to remove the structure .
18 He was unaware of the fact that it was not built
on his property. He had hired a company, and I
19 suspect because of the skewed property angles that
the company made an assumption that was incorrect .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your neighbor was the
one that built it?
21 MR. KELLER: I believe the Knapps built it
which ended up not being on their property.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, okay. I don' t
have any questions . Is there anyone in the
23 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
24 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
October 20 , 2005
42
1
2 for the Monacos up on Aquaview Lane in East
Marion. Hello again.
3 MR. MONACO: Andrew Monaco. The Town has
I believe the first affidavit of mailings and the
4 second affidavit from the postponement that the
letters were sent out . I have two out of three
5 returns (handing) .
When I originally applied for a permit for
6 the deck to the Building Department, we had shown
it on the easterly northeasterly side of the
7 property. And then when sitting down with my
surveyor, even though it would be aesthetically
8 and also keep us away from the woods and the bugs
and the ticks and all the location where we first
9 proposed location one, would have been more ideal
for us in looking at the proximity by taking this
10 and moving it over to the east rather than keeping
it to the west, even though it reduces the size of
11 the deck by 35, 40 square feet approximately, we
just felt that even from our standpoint, it would
12 probably be a better location. And that proposal
looked at number two, over deck number one . And
13 as I pointed out, we had some estimates come in
for people who built patios on there, and we have
14 a unique situation in that we have water coming
the topo of the property, we have to keep the
15 water away naturally from the foundation and
naturally from the buffer zone . I don' t know if
16 it was the Trustees or the Town engineers, but
they asked us to pull the rear of the house to
17 slope from an easterly to a westerly direction and
then we installed a very large drain on the
18 westerly section of the house so that all the
water would run that way. By putting in a patio,
19 what we' re going to do is disrupt that water from
coming down and going into that drain and divert
20 it to the coastal erosion zone and then against my
house . And that is basically why we' re here . To
21 be able to get your permission to install a deck
off the ground; and also, you know, it' s really
22 becoming a problem and you walk around the
backyard and especially with the proximity, we
23 have deer living in that coastal erosion zone, if
you walk around you get ticks on you. We would
24 feel more comfortable to being off the ground when
it comes to eating or sitting out there on any
25 type of brick or deck on grade . There' s also
cesspools there, drainage pipes that run under
October 20 , 2005
43
1
2 there and that would be another problem as far as
building brick and actually getting to the system
3 if we have to, where with a deck we can pull off
boards if we have to there . The deck was also
4 designed that also the septic tank, we made it
small enough that we would have access to that
5 Board of Health cover that' s in the tank that has
to be on grade according to the Board of Health.
6 That' s basically about it, I guess .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
7 question, Ruth? The deck will be of a type that
water will diffuse through it?
8 MR. MONACO: Yes, sir, that was my next
point .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What erosion
control measures are you going to make underneath
10 the deck so that the water, whichever way it runs,
will be slowed down?
11 MR. MONACO: We would put gravel under
there . I mean, I have to say other than a leak in
12 the chimney, which that caused a lot of damage in
the last seven days, and I didn' t notice it until
13 Saturday when we came out because that wind comes
pretty loud, we had some water damage coming down
14 the chimney, but the point I'm getting at is the
erosion was almost absolutely nil .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good.
MR. MONACO: At all, I mean I had put hay
16 all along Rocky Point Road so that when the water
came down, I never expected anything like this,
17 but that it wouldn' t go into the Town drain and it
did go down into my drain. So I was very, very
18 surprised at how little erosion there was there .
But in answer to your question, I will put a pea
19 gravel or something down under that, also to keep
the vegetation down and the bugs out from under
20 the deck.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just for the
22 record, there is required 100 foot setback from
the bluff, so you' re asking for a significant
23 reduction in the code . So I would be looking to
pull it back a smidge . , So if you can live with a
24 12 foot deck that would increase the setback to
63 . 4 instead of 61 .
25 MR. MONACO: My original proposal was 16 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Mine shows 14 .
October 20, 2005
44
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA; 14 for deck number
two .
3 MR. MONACO: Cables and stuff out on it .
I realize too, the original variance goes back
4 probably 14 years when I bought the property, and
at that time, the variance was given 75 feet and I
5 think 65 feet to one side, and that 65 feet has
now been extended because the Town finally came in
6 five years ago and filled the gully and all the
erosion from people walking when stairs weren' t
7 there . I. also fought hard to get those stairs
installed because people were transversing my
8 property. And it took the Town maybe six, seven,
maybe eight years to finally put the stairs in and
9 to fill in that erosion. I 'm planting that also .
What I 'm saying is it' s probably extending about
10 seven feet on the northwesterly side . So that' s
65 feet that we originally asked that was given.
11 It' s probably more like 70 now plus from the
filling in from the gully.
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But the original
number was 65 .
13 MR. MONACO: That' s what I'm saying.
Where the deck would be on the northeast, I mean,
14 we had to go down 30 feet for cesspools . We had
all types of machines down there, big concern was
15 not getting into that zone . It' s still heavily
wooded.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Fourteen foot is
still a large deck, 12- foot is still a large deck
17 to entertain on.
MR. MONACO : By all means . Whatever
18 you' re willing to give me as far as that . I can
at least get a table and some chairs because it' s
19 kind of what the application shows that we are
extending a deck, which we' re really not doing. I
20 believe you were all out there and the pictures
all showed basically it' s more of a stoop, and
21 what happened was we had to design the house like
that because we had to go out for a variance at
22 that time, so New York code from the way I
understand it says you have to come out to at
23 least a 3 ' by 3 ' or 3 ' by 4 ' platform. And the
building inspector told me that I was going to
24 have to redesign the house or go for a variance,
and I felt it was just for time' s sake and all I
25 was trying to get my foundation in and all, we
actually indented the house in so that when you
October 20 , 2005
45
1
2 come out the doors you have a platform to come on.
And he said the steps from that platform going
3 down will not count as far as the setback. So
it' s kind of misleading and saying that we' re
4 really looking for an extension of a deck because
especially now that the storm doors are out there,
5 when you open these doors, the inward doors swing
in, the outward doors swing out, you can' t put
6 chairs there .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : That' s a
7 landing/deck, I can see your point .
MR. MONACO: It' s not a deck that' s
8 functional at this point . I just wanted to
clarify that, it' s more of a platform to get out
9 of the house .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What brought the 12
10 foot up in my mind is your original site plan here
has a 12 foot deck.
11 MR. MONACO: Again, I' d be happy with
that .
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No other questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I really don' t
think that two foot' s going to make much
15 difference . I go by that house quite often. I
never walk down the cliff, I use the stairs, we do
16 go fishing, my son goes fishing a lot . I see you
did a lot of work as far as the grading was
17 concerned. I know that was a problem there .
MR. MONACO : It took a long time with the
18 Town.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You helped the Town
19 with the way you graded.
MR. MONACO: Not only that at 30 years old
20 at 40 years old, I'm 52 now honestly, how many
bags of top soil was carried down there then
21 brought back up, so this year, I 'm still planting
because honestly, the highway department and
22 engineering department didn' t live up to their
bargain as far as planting. They dumped all the
23 topsoil down there and walked away. Everything
that' s planted there I've had to do. I 'm a little
24 too old now right now to put in and start climbing
back up. We have it stabilized now.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don' t you have a
variance for the fence?
October 20 , 2005
46
1
2 MR. MONACO : Yes . Because the fishermen,
that was a variance I came for a couple of months
3 ago . You have to see it now. The people are
wonderful . When I came for the variance for at
4 that point at night - the children are parking there
and we found bags of --
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know what I find
there .
6 MR. MONACO : It was just kind of bad to
see bags that drugs are kept in. The fishermen
7 are great . It' s like a meeting point . I guess
they go from Horton' s Point 15 trucks will come
8 pulling up.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have an internet
9 camera, I can tell when fish are down there; when
they' re there, I go. You mitigated a lot of that
10 and the problems that the Town had by just being
there .
11 MR. MONACO : I think it looks a lot
prettier down there . I'm constantly painting that
12 guard rail and cleaning up the garbage . I think
it looks a lot prettier.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Vince, what is
the setback you' re proposing?
14 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We just increased
by two feet . I guess the side one said 60 . 8 , so
15 62 . 8 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As it winds down
16 towards Rocky Point Road, we' re talking 62 . 8
there, and in the center of the property
17 63 . 4 .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Right .
18 MR. MONACO: I would like to be honest
with you, again, from the original proposal, which
19 is deck number one, and I think that' s what you' re
reading off of .
20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We' re on two . You
suggested that you and the surveyor liked' two .
21 MR. MONACO: Yes . I think it would keep
us further away from the bluff .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, we' re basing
it on two.
1
23 MR. MONACO: Okay. So we' re 62 . 4 and
61 . 4 .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you' re going to
make it 64 . 4 .
25 MR. MONACO : Showing the 14 foot deck
would be 62 . 4 , and if the Board asked me to reduce
October 20, 2005
47
1
2 it down.
BOARD MEMBER' ORLANDO: That will be 64 . 4
3 at that point .
MR. MONACO : That' s correct . Understood,
4 thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
5 that would like to speak?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I get this
6 clear because I have to write specifically that
.the northeast corner can be no closer than 64 . 4
7 and the south can be no closer than 62 . 8 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I need.
9 MR. MONACO: For my own clarification,
we' d like to have two sets of stairs coming down
10 close to the house . I wrote it on the -- is there
a problem with that if I 'm granted?
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we' re granting
you the distance . So if you don' t go any closer
12 than that, I think you' re okay.
MR. MONACO: I don' t know if you were
13 going to go on a square foot .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are the steps going
14 beyond that 12 feet?
MR. MONACO : No. They' ll be on the sides
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just don' t put them
on the very tip. Right, close to the house, yes,
16 sir.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
17 the audience that wishes to speak on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
18 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
19 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
20 the Radacinskis at the intersection of Route 25
and Sound Avenue . Good morning.
21 MS . RADACINSKI : Hello. The house I live
in is the upside down house . The living quarters
22 are all upstairs, the kitchen, living room, dining
room, and it seems to me that a deck is the thing
23 that' s missing if we want to entertain, have a
barbecue or something like that, I'm
24 upstairs/downstairs constantly backwards and
forwards . We always forget something and have to
25 run up and down, and I would really like to have a
deck close to my kitchen. The other thing too
October 20 , 2005
48
1
2 about the way the house is designed, if you' re at
the bedroom end, God forbid there should be a fire
3 there' s no way out except through a windows and a
deck at that back of the house would give me
4 another exit from that end of the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
questions .
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Second floor deck,
too .
7 MS . RADACINSKI : Yes
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
9 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s my
application and I have none .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to speak on this application? If
12 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
----------------------------------------- --------
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
for Mr. Harris on Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue .
15 MR. HARRIS : Good afternoon, I'm Ted
Harris . I have my return receipts (handing) .
16 What I would like to do is basically enlarge the
little mudroom in my house and turn it into a
17 family room because I think where it' s situated
has the best views over the farm fields and
18 vineyards, and also it' s away from my neighbor,
who has farming activities on the other side .
19 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not
associated with that, I thought you were, you' re
20 so close .
MR. HARRIS : Originally that was the
21 farmhouse for a 20 acre farm, and it included
those out buildings . I think the people that had
22 a house before me carved out the two acres that I
have, and they bought the out buildings and the
23 farmlands and left me with the farm house . So
lots of people think I 'm associated with them. I
24 think they rented it for one year for some of
their workers . So the problem that I have is in
25 order to extend that mudroom, which is about three
feet by 10 feet, and turn it into a family room,
October 20 , 2005
49
1
2 I ' d have to extend the front line of the house,
the entire footprint of the house is nonconforming
3 because when it was built I guess, probably the
' 30s, and so I think I would be violating the
4 front setback, it' s about 21 feet . And that' s
basically what the plan is .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my
6 application. I 'have been to the site . There is
no doubt that what the applicant is saying is
7 correct . The house has been in existence for a
long time and I have no objection.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Just a question. I
9 think it would be a nice addition, kind of give a
little symmetry to either side of the door. It' s
10 a single story addition, but it looks like you can
leave the top open as an open deck trellis or
11 something?
MR. HARRIS : That' s a concept that I have
12 been discussing with the architect that .I've been
talking to . At this point I'm not thinking I want
13 to do that . . I think that might be a little
complicated for the area. I really want to
14 maintain the integrity of the area and the simple
scale, it' s a nice idea to be able to stroll
15 around up there and have a higher view of the
land, but at the end of the day --
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be roofed?
MR. HARRIS : Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it a flat roof?
MR. HARRIS : No. This is just an initial
18 drawing, sketch. I'm intending it to be pitched
so it will in a way echo the other side of the
19 house . I think the pitch will be different; it
will be that same concept . Sort of a lean-to
20 notion.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But not really an
21 upstairs in that portion?
MR. HARRIS : No.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is a two acre
23 lot? .
MR. HARRIS : Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But where your
extension is is in a direction where there is the
25 most room?
MR. HARRIS : Yes, exactly. Adjacent to me
October 20, 2005
50
1
2 on that side of the road is Gristina, Gallucio
Vineyard, and that goes for about a quarter mile
3 to the next house, and then on the other side of
the road is open land.
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
5 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
6 in the audience that has anything to say 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: Next application is
9 for Albert and Barbara Reibling on Island View
Drive in Greenport, they wish to make an
10 extension.
MS . KRAMER: I'm Meryl Kramer, I' m the
11 architect for the owner. I have here the second
affidavit of mailings and inadvertently, the
12 second notices went out certified mail but without
return receipts so I have the receipts here . I
13 also have a letter here from Mr. Reidy, he' s one
of the neighbors . I can give you a copy of it .
14 It is extremely informal and not written in a way
directed towards the Board but I would be happy to
15 furnish you a copy of it as well the way it' s
written.
16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Can you read it?
MS . KRAMER: "Dear Sandy, " -- it' s
17 Mr. Reibling -- "my daughter-in-law forwarded the
papers regarding the addition to your house to me
18 at my residence in Shanghai . I can understand
your desire to add an extra floor -- this is
19 before we were going to be doing a second floor
addition, vie subsequently changed the project
20 significantly just to change the roof line --
given the need for accommodating kids and now
21 grandchildren. I'm in the same boat myself and
plan to add an extra floor to my house when I
22 finally return from living overseas . Since it is
the neighborly thing to do, I will need your
23 support when my time comes . I totally support
your application. There was also a diagram
24 attached to the paper sent to me . Sandy, I have
to confess that I'm terrible in figuring out these
25 drawings despite the fact that my father was an
engineer. As such, I can make no meaningful
October 20 , 2005
51
1
2 comment, but I do support your application. I
would like to talk with you sometime about the
3 process you have to go through in progressing this
project . I would even be willing to pay for
4 dinner by way of tuition. " I don' t know if you
would like a copy.
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Who is the letter
signed by?
6 MS . KRAMER: Reidy, and it' s copied to
Meryl Kramer, Architect . In my application I
7 included the east elevation which is from the
waterside, then the east elevation drawing showing
8 the modification. Essentially what we' re doing is
just unifying the roof of the house . We' re
9 leaving the footprint exactly the way it is .
We' re re-siding with cedar shingles, changing the
10 windows and giving this house just a one
continuous roof rather than a broken up roof, the
11 way it is now. I have some existing photographs
to refresh your memory, if you would like to
12 see .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have it .
13 MS . KRAMER: In doing so we are capturing
some of the space that' s created by increasing the
14 roof area. We are giving a cathedral ceiling to
the living room and the dining room, and then the
15 area over the bathroom and the bedrooms, we' re
going to give a little loft area, so that the
16 grand kids can have a place to hang out while the
parents are having dinner, something like
17 that . I' d be happy to answer any questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Absolutely looks
like a wonderful plan, Meryl .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s a great little
20 spot they have there .
MS . KRAMER: It' s troublesome . We have
21 been working on permits for two years now.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Price you pay for
22 having a cute little spot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where is the house of
the correspondent? Is someone else living there
24 because I spoke to someone at that house.
MS . KRAMER: It' s adjacent . I think it' s
25 his daughter.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: She said she wishes
October 20 , 2005
52
1
2 there were no house there at all .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It will be on the
3 existing footprint, and I think it' s a great
design, you did well .
4 MS . KRAMER: Thanks .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
6 audience that wishes to speak? If not, I ' ll make
a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
7 until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken. )
-------------------------------------------------
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing in
the afternoon is for Trupia for an accessory
10 apartment for her mother.
MR. GORMAN: Hi, I'm Bill Gorman, I 'm
11 representing Maria Trupia. We'd like to postpone
this until next month.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You would like to
adjourn it to November 17th?
13 MR. GORMAN: Please .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll take testimony
14 from anyone that' s here .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It would be at 1 : 00
15 on the 17th.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Murphy?
16 MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon, I 'm Carl
Murphy, representing Brower' s Woods Association,
17 and I have with me a presentation stating why
Brower' s Woods Association is against it . Listed
18 in here are all the reasons why it would be
breaking the law legally and ethically; for us to
19 live in a residential neighborhood, we feel it' s
the wrong type of request to be made . Who do I
20 present this to?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Give it to our senior
21 clerk here .
MR. MURPHY: This is all signed and
22 notarized (handing) .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Murphy, can
I just mention something to you?
24 MR. MURPHY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Having been on
25 this Zoning Board for some time, I just wanted you
to be aware that by special exception, this Board
October 20 , 2005
53
1
2 can permit an accessory apartment in an existing
dwelling in the town of Southold, if the house has
3 a C of 0 prior to January 1, 1984 . Just so you' re
aware of that .
4 MR. MURPHY: The house wasn' t in
existence .
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: This is a
relatively new house .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
I 'm just making this statement to you.
7 MR. MURPHY: In our petition we so stated
that it was an improper request to be made to the
8 Zoning Board, and possibly a proper request would
have been to ask for another avenue of doing the
9 same thing you want to do.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Murphy, I 'm
10 sorry, we received this from you. It' s an
affidavit, but you' re submitting it as an
11 individual not representing the association.
MR. MURPHY: Okay, I'm submitting it as an
12 individual, but I'm an officer of the association.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re welcome to
13 get other documents if you want, I just mention
that I can only receive it from you.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else want
to speak on this application?
15 MR. BURKE : I'm Michael Burke, I live in
Brower' s Woods on Woodcliff Drive . I have a
16 question, can the applicant just come in and say
we' d like an adjournment? How many adjournments
17 are usual? This has been adjourned once already.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two. That was because
18 I was sick. This is the first hearing, we do
allow usually at least one adjournment .
19 MR. BURKE : Do you know what the date of
the next hearing will be?
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: November 17th at
1 : 00 P .M.
21 MR. BURKE : And I 'm sorry, Mr. Gorman
represents the applicant as a private person or as
22 a business?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He has to answer that .
23 MR. GORMAN: I'm just representing Maria
as a business .
24 MR. BURKE: Well, it' s come to our
attention that apparently --
25 MR. GORMAN: I didn' t do that work.
MR. BURKE : It' s come to our attention
October 20 , 2005
54
1
2 that the Gorman that' s involved in this, the
license lapsed, the general contractor' s license
3 has expired July lst . I was just curious as to
that portion of it .
4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : He doesn' t need a
license to represent her.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He doesn' t need a
license .
6 MR. BURKE : Okay, not a problem. The next
item that I have, I ' d like to submit, I have
7 received and made application to the other area of
the town here, I have, Maria, the applicant has
8 made application and has been approved for STAR
Relief Program for her residence . She' s claiming
9 a residence in Brower' s Woods, but in fact she has
made an affidavit here, and I' d like to submit to
10 you that it says that she lives at 1395 Sleepy
Hollow Lane in Southold, and therefore, she
11 receives her STAR exemption at that property. I
would also like to submit that to you. And I also
12 have to submit to you the signatures of 93 of our
residents in Brower' s Woods who are opposed to the
13 approval of this entire application for the
reasons that are also in the paperwork that was
14 presented to you. So I ' d like to present this at
this time, these two items .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Burke and Mr.
Murphy, feel free to come back if you have any
16 additional information that you have on November
17th.
17 MR. BURKE : Thank you very much.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : May I ask Mr. Burke
18 a question?
MR. BURKE : Sure .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re submitting
here STAR exemption for what reason?
20 MR. BURKE : Well, there seems to be a
question with regard to on her application for her
21 change of variance that she' s stipulating that
this is where she resides and lives, and on the
22 other hand, she' s living and residing elsewhere .
The application is either flawed or in fact she' s
23 not entitled to her STAR thing at her other
residence . So it' s one way or the other.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re contesting
her residence then?
25 MR. BURKE : Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
October 20 , 2005
55
1
2 that would like to speak?
MS . MCGINTY: I 'm a resident of Brower' s
3 Woods, my name is Julie McGinty, and I object to
the two-family house going into the neighborhood,
4 and also for another reason, that house -- Brower
comes up off Grand, and the Trupia house is here
5 and there' s another house here . The two driveways
come out like this together. You come up Brower,
6 I mean, each house has a two-car garage and
sometimes there' s more than two cars in each
7 place, but if it' s a two-family house later on and
gets sold, there will be maybe four cars . When
8 people have company or a party when you come up
Brower Road and they all park on Brower, makes it
9 like a one-way street . It' s dangerous, you got
cars on both sides, it doesn' t happen a lot but it
10 does happen. That' s another concern for the
neighbors . I just wanted to express that as a
11 safety issue .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else?
12 MS . REITER: Yes . My name is Barbara
Reiter, and I reside next to, adjacent to the
13 property in question. I sent you two certified
letters, one on the 12th of September and one on
14 the 13th opposing this whole mess .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
15 today that wishes to comment on this?
MS . MASCATO: My name is Lisa Mascato, I
16 live in Brower' s Woods on Westview Drive . I also
am against the two-family in my neighborhood.
17 It' s predominantly a residential area, and it
would set a precedent not only in our area but
18 Mattituck as well, I believe it would affect
property values . And then, if it' s resold, you
19 have a legal two-family there . And it wouldn' t be
good for us in the neighborhood. I am opposed to
20 it . I would like to add if a legal two-family
home is needed for whatever reason, they do exist
21 in Greenport without needing to get a variance and
change over how we are in Mattituck today. There
22 are legal two families in Greenport and it would
be no problem for whatever reason they need this
23 legal two family rather than to set a precedent in
our neighborhood and for Mattituck as well to have
24 this house . I am against it being in the area for
eight years, I moved in the area having
25 single-family homes, and I want it to remain
SO . It' s a quiet area. We don' t need the
October 20, 2005
56
1
2 additional traffic, that' s my opinion as a
resident of the area.
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there anyone
else who would like to speak for or against this
4 application?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sir?
5 MR. MCGINTY: My name is Gerald McGinty,
I live in the Brower' s Woods section, and I 'm
6 vice-president of the Brower' s Woods Association,
and as an officer of that association I ' d like to
7 back up Mr. Murphy' s submission.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone
8 else? If not, we will adjourn this to November
17th and if any of you wish to come back again you
9 are more than welcome to do so .
(See minutes for resolution. )
10 --------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
11 for Peter Izzo, Vanston Road in Cutchogue .
Mr. Fitzgerald.
12 MR. FITZGERALD: This is the building that
we have, and the shower is here, this is the
13 corner of the house . So this part of the deck is
permitted but not CO' d and the setback here is a
14 10 foot setback.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: When did they file
15 for that building permit?
MR. FITZGERALD : ' 86 .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should have a
copy of that .
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So they built it,
they just didn' t follow-through for the CO.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Got the building
permit but never got the CO?
19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can we look at that
20 map?
MR. FITZGERALD: I' ll make copies of it
21 since you made reference to it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, any questions?
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I was once
affiliated with Mr. Izzo' s son in a business . I
23 just want to disclose that, many years removed.
I 'm sure he enjoyed this deck for many, many years
24 without sleepless nights .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which is the side
that has the building permit, the east side or the
October 20 , 2005
57
1
2 west side?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Southwest .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody in the
audience wishes to speak on this application? If
6 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
for Mary Butz on Hyatt Road, wishes to put in a
9 pool .
MR. GORMAN: Hi, I have a copy of a letter
10 from her doctor. Mary Butz has arthritis in her
knees, and it' s recently been diagnosed as a
11 degenerative bone disease and the surgeon has been
told it would be very helpful for her if she
12 - swims, so she wants to put in a lap pool . She
lives right on the sound and she can' t swim in the
13 sound. So here' s a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What else would you
14 like to tell us?
MR. GORMAN: Well, she has a 28 foot front
15 yard setback and you see on the permit the
location is really the only place it can go
16 without really disturbing the property. If we put
it anywhere else, it will fit in the setback
17 requirements but it will require an enormous
amount of grading and we' re concerned that it will
18 create a different kind of runoff that will affect
the bluff and deteriorate the bluff . If you can
19 see on the survey --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see on the survey
20 part of her deck is sitting right on top of the
bluff . I know it' s none of our business, the pool
21 setback, I know, she has to take out that big tree
if she wants to put the pool there .
22 MR. GORMAN: It will also require moving
the septic system 40 feet . We did a septic system
23 across the street, we had to go 48 feet . We' re
also concerned that we are going to have to dig a
24 huge hole in that front yard for that septic to
move that septic system if we are to require a 40
25 foot setback.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there any reason
October 20 , 2005
58
1
2 why the pool is so long? It' s bigger than average
by far.
3 MR. GORMAN: 36 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mine says 45 feet,
4 the pool .
MR. GORMAN: That was changed.
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a lap pool,
isn' t it?
6 MR. GORMAN: It' s a lap pool 36 feet .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Mine shows 16 by
7 45 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Gorman, can
8 I ask you a question, sir?
MR. GORMAN: Yes, sir.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this pool
running parallel to Hyatt Road or perpendicular?
10 MR. GORMAN: Perpendicular.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this pool going to
11 be covered?
MR. GORMAN: No.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then she won' t be
swimming in the winter?
13 MR. GORMAN: No. It will be covered in
the winter with a tarp .
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No cabanas?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any
15 questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I think you
16 won' t have any problem, you have that lot in the
front there . The hot tub, is that on that piece
17 of property?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It is . I see a
line there, what is that it' s not just a fence?
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it' s the top of
the bluff .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a wood
bulkhead, Jimmy.
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You have copies of
the letters opposing the application, right?
22 MR. GORMAN: I do.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What are the
23 neighbors saying?
MR. GORMAN: He wrote this letter, then on
24 the end on the last page he writes I guess you can
sum this up by saying that I 'm neither for nor
25 against the application.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then there was
October 20, 2005
59
1
2 another letter from the immediate neighbor to the
east who is Dr. Dangus .
3 MR. GORMAN: They' re the neighbors
directly to the north that would be the old
4 Cashman.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, you had no other
5 questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : He told me, he said
6 it' s going to be four feet deep. I have to know
exactly, you know, because if I say four feet in
7 there and it' s five .
MR. GORMAN: It' s four feet .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You couldn' t put it
any closer to the house, the pool?
9 MR. GORMAN: It' s right at the 100 foot
line of the bluff .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
12 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the
14 audience have any comments on this application?
If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing
15 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 --- ----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
17 for Peter Sabat on Peconic Bay Boulevard. Let' s
hold off for a while on this one .
18 Our next hearing is for Martin on Meadow
Beach Lane . Good afternoon, Mrs . Moore .
19 MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, I get to see
you again. I have Ural from Samuels and Steelman
20 here, the architects for this project . So we can
speak in terms of what we've done and prior to the
21 last, well, the September hearing, we submitted a
set of plans to show you the landscape that is
22 proposed for the tennis court . And we had also
suggested having a sunken in tennis court . The
23 Martin family, they' re trying to be considerate of
their neighbors . They' re trying to keep it in the
24 character of their home . It' s the original home
there, that' s been renovated, but the placement of
. 25 the house, you have right of ways from the old
subdivisions that were done here . There are right
October 20 , 2005
60
1
2 of ways almost in every direction. So from
everywhere we turn we have a front yard setback.
3 The tennis court where it is proposed
presently, the application before you, we are told
4 by Mrs . Suter, who is the original owner who has
been there for many years, she said that there has
5 been a tennis court placed there . We don' t have a
survey to that effect, we' re taking it based on
6 her historic memory of it . In the time that the
Martins have owned this property, there was no
7 tennis court there . So if it was there, it was
removed some time ago. But it is the logical
8 place to locate a tennis court . The tennis court
where it is proposed is set back from the front
9 right of way by about 30 feet . Around it we've
proposed a hedge in order to block the view of the
10 tennis court, and I would suggest that you go to
the drawing, page two on the plans, and that
11 drawing shows you the extent of the landscaping
that is proposed. Sheet number one shows the
12 proposed six foot high fence, planted hedge on
both sides of the fence, three sides of tennis
13 court . That' s the proposal . In addition, the
tennis court will be sunken down by 24 inches
14 below grade with a low stone retaining wall 24
inches above grade which also surrounds the tennis
15 court . So it will be sunken, then there will be a
retaining wall around it, and there will also be a
16 hedge so it will be hidden from view.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, what
17 is the composition of, the court?
MR. TALGERT: I believe they' re we' re not
18 going for a clay court but asphalt .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you mind if I
19 have the floor for a second?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the main
concerns that I have, and we've raised this issue,
21 and it becomes very honky tonk when I mention it
but because of the proximity of the neighbors
22 across the street, I have to know what the "boing"
factor is . I'm being perfectly honest about this .
23 You can sink it; you can raise it; you can put all
kinds of periphery around it, but unless I know-
24 what the court is and where it' s been built and I
can throw a tennis ball on it so I can hear what
25 the boing factor is, I'm not in favor of it in
that location.
October 20 , 2005
61
1
2 MR. TALGERT: The boing factor, when it
comes to noise --
3 MS . MOORE : Noise abasement .
MR. TALGERT: When evergreen shrubs are
4 planted around the property especially, the
juniper type, the needle type, that absorbs sounds
5 reasonably well . When you plant a plant like
holly that reflect noise . What we' re planning on
6 doing is planting on two sides of the property
dense evergreens that will muffle the sound, so
7 the boing factor goes down tremendously versus
just keeping it open. So we' re trying to muffle
8 the sounds . We' re also trying to eliminate views
from say the neighbor' s homes to the tennis court .
9 Basically everything will be hidden from view.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
10 that, but how do I get proven that without
spending an exorbitant amount of money to
11 construct this thing and then still having a boing
factor that is too high for the neighbor to listen
12 to. These people across the street, and I don' t
know if they' re here, have a deck probably within
13 40 feet or 60 feet of this tennis court .
MS . MOORE : Are you talking about Lot 21?
14 Because they have spoken to those neighbors
repeatedly, and they have no objection to this
15 tennis court at all . And we were very concerned
about their interest primarily because it is the
16 closest adjacent property owner. They have been
very supportive so to our knowledge they' re not an
17 issue . The neighbors I think that are here might
be the ones much further to the east, which are
18 located probably 300 feet away from the tennis
court . So 300 feet away that' s quite a lengthy
19 distance to be concerned about .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I couldn' t agree
20 with you more .
MR. TALGERT: Can I say a couple words?
21 We' ve looked at and designed the property and
found that there is an alternate location on the
22 property that meets with the zoning, and it' s in
the front yard.
23 MS . MOORE : Let me just give you a little
caveat on this . This location is not the
24 recommended location either to the Martin family,
or I think the neighbors because it places the
25 tennis court in a location where it needs no
variances, but it' s squarely in the front yard and
October 20 , 2005
62
1
2 it really is not the optimum location for
maintaining a residential character of that
3 neighborhood. We can do it and if forced to do
it, obviously we will landscape it so it mitigates
4 the impact to the property, to the homeowners
themselves . They' re going to change the parking
5 area. It' s not the optimum location, but we
wanted to show that if we were to not ask for
6 variances, the variances are really in order to
tuck the tennis court in in such a way that it
7 would be least offensive to the neighbors, The
alternative here is one of those cut off your nose
8 to spite your face . You' re put in a location that
maybe the neighbors have no say, and the Zoning
9 Board has no say in it, but it' s really not the
best location. So that was drawn up because we
10 wanted to see if we had a location here that would
be a conforming location, and we do. I ' ve asked
11 the Martins, they could live with it, but they
certainly don' t like it . And they certainly don' t
12 think that it would be an optimum location for the
neighbors .
13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did you consider
the seaward side of the house?
14 MS . MOORE : That is in a location that
didn' t work. If you have seen the house, you have
15 windows that go along the whole waterfront length
of the house . To put a tennis court right there
16 blocking your waterfront. views is not an optimum
location for a waterfront piece of property.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: But it' s subsurface
tennis court .
18 MS . MOORE : But it still needs a fence .
And we are actually vegetating, we' re surrounding
19 it with vegetation so we actually block out the
noise and the views of the fencing and the tennis
20 court . So it just doesn' t make sense . You put it
in the waterside front of the house, that' s not
21 what they have a four acre piece of property for.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: That' s why the
22 Board gives you the option of putting the front
yard on the waterfront lots .
23 MS . MOORE: Put it this way, the property
owner will not put it in the back because that
24 makes no sense .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : I saw a till, I
25 don' t know if they were going to put vineyards
back there or what they were going to do . I was
October 20 , 2005
63
1
2 just curious .
MS . MOORE : It' s all lawn as it was before
3 in the past . We don' t want to disturb any of
that . I think the kids have their play area,
4 that' s about it .
So the alternative now is either keeping
5 the tennis court where it' s originally proposed --
we had another alternative -- we have been trying
6 to wrack our brain trying to make alternative
locations that work. This alternative location
7 keeps it in the same general vicinity as the
tennis court as proposed, but pushes it back
8 further into the side yard. So we are able to
meet the front yard setback, but we still need a
9 variance for accessory structure in the side yard.
So you can see our concern with placing it in the
10 side was making sure we had adequate clearance in
the house, we do, we have 17 feet, that' s plenty
11 of space . So we are able to push it back away
from the front yard; that' s another alternative in
12 this instance, again, we can sink it, put the
evergreens around it . However, it does push the
13 tennis court closer to the Suter property, that
side yard setback, and it pushes it into the
14 Martins' side yard. So not completely, but just
enough so it gives you the front yard setback.
15 . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : What do you want to
call it for the record?
16 MS . MOORE : Why don' t we have A be the
proposal that' s before this Board; B is the
17 proposal that is in the front yard, not requiring
variance; C will be the proposal that pushes it
18 into the side yard.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Okay, that' s fine .
19 MS . MOORE: That' s a very good suggestion.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
20 statement?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I do like C best
of all, however, I think you have to go at least
22 another five feet closer to the house because you
need to maintain landscaping on the parcel closer
23 to the Suter property -- I mean to the setbacks
closest to the Suter property.
24 MS . MOORE : That will push it 12 feet to
the house . That we could work out . The Suter
25 property in between it' s a high hedge . It' s a
mature hedge so it has bare spots .
October 20 , 2005
64
1
2 MR. TALGERT: That would be replaced by
other plants that would reduce the boing factor.
3 MS . MOORE : That would work. ,
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is the clay court
4 not an option?
MR. MARTIN: I'm Jim Martin, I ' m not a
5 tennis player. Honestly, it' s for my wife and my
kids . I don' t know what the boing factor is .
6 Whatever is less of a boing factor, I ' d be willing
to do .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just let me say
this to you, Mr. Martin, it' s a pleasure having
8 you here . If it' s composite or if it' s clay, I
think composite is easier to take care of than
9 clay, because clay you have to roll, as long as
you got away from asphalt, you're going to have
10 much less noise in the playing of tennis, in my
opinion from what we have studied. Ural?
11 MR. TALGERT: One other thing, Jim has a
couple things . Basketball would be an issue,
12 roller blading would be an issue . It would be a
multi-purpose surface . Asphalt works the best .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Composite is a
dense material . It' s poured in but you can still
14 roll it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Hard Tru?
15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s
granular.
16 MR. TALGERT: We have to consider the
multipurpose aspect . If the kids want to go
17 roller blading or basketball, things of that
nature, but if the Board wants to limit us to
18 clay, I 'm sure Mr. Martin wouldn' t mind.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, see how
19 the Board feels .
MS . MOORE : And the accessory as-built
20 shed?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Next month, at your
21 request . Miss Moore preferred to have the tennis
court done first and then the accessory shed, so
22 that' s why it was done that way.
MS . MOORE : Our preference . Did the Board
23 have any other questions before we sit?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON. No.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
October 20 , 2005
65
1
2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any
3 questions on this application? Yes .
MS . ECKERT: Good afternoon, my name is
4 Linda Eckert, I live at 1635 Meadow Beach Lane,
which is Lot 22 on the map . I'm across the street
5 from the Martin property. And it' s interesting
you talk about boing factor because that' s one of
6 our concerns .
I have a statement here I' d like to read
7 to the Board. "My name is Linda Eckert, and my
remarks reflect my opinions and those of my
8 husband. We live at 1635 Meadow Beach Lane across
the street from the Martin property.
9 "Our position is very simple. We feel
that the proposed tennis court would be better
10 situated in the back yard of the Martin property.
We feel that the granting of the variance will be
11 a detriment to our quality of life and possibly
affect the value of our property. The part of our
12 house that is closest to the proposed tennis court
is our bedroom. According to the site plan, the
13 unscreened side of the court will be in direct
sight line of our bedroom. And the sights and
14 sounds of the tennis court are undesirable to us,
and could be considered a nuisance .
15 "As to Miss Moore' s statement in the
application for the variances, the proposed
16 location for the court is the optimal one . That
indeed may be true for her client' s point of view
17 but not ours . The Town zoning code discourages if
not outright prohibits tennis courts and swimming
18 pools in front yards for obvious reasons . Tennis
courts require eight foot fences that are not
19 allowed in front yards .
"We are aware that waterfront properties
20 are granted exceptions because of regulations
imposed by agencies protecting wetlands that would
21 not allow a tennis court to be built in a rear
yard. After viewing the map of the Martin
22 property, this exception does ,not seem to apply.
There appears to be ample property on a side yard
23 and a rear yard to build a tennis court .
Variances might be necessary to meet side yard
24 setbacks but the court would not be in view from
the street .
25 "Our last comment concerns Miss Moore' s
conversation with Mrs . Alma Suter, who is the
October 20 , 2005
66
1
2 adjoining property owner. In the application,
Miss Moore said that Miss Suter told her that
3 quote, The former owners had located a tennis
court in the same location, end quote . Miss
4 Suter' s recollection of a tennis court in the
proposed location is not borne out by Town
5 records . There are no records in the Town
assessor' s office, nor the Town Building
6 Department of a tennis court having been taxed or
even built by the previous owners of the Martin
7 property.
"My husband and I hope that in fairness to
8 those property owners who will be negatively
impacted that the Zoning Board of Appeals will
9 deny the Martins' request for a variance for a
front yard tennis court . Thank you for your
10 attention, Linda and James Eckert . "
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there
11 someone else who would like to speak?
MS . AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, and my
12 remarks are presented on behalf of myself and
Mr. Joseph Lee, who could not be here today. We
13 live at 1645 Meadow Beach Lane, directly across a
shared 20 foot wide right of way from Jim and
14 Denis Martin.
From our front windows, we would have an
15 unobstructed view of the tennis court they are
proposing, and the prospect has filled us with
16 dismay, eight and a half years ago when we were
searching for a home on the north fork, we looked
17 at a house on James Creek. It was by far a much
nicer house than the one we ultimately purchased
18 next door to the Martins . Unfortunately, the view
from the house was unacceptable, for directly
19 across the creek from the house was a tennis
court, which is why we rejected that property.
20 When we discussed our rationale with our realtor,
he agreed that it was a definite drawback, one
21 that had discouraged several other prospective
buyers .
22 Should this variance be approved, we will
now find ourselves looking out our windows at a
23 tennis court . And this one will be located much
closer to our house than the one across from the
24 house on James Creek. We are, as you might
imagine, disheartened by the irony of the
25 situation. And we are hopeful that the Martins
will reconsider and shift the location of the
October 20 , 2005
67
1
2 tennis court to their back or side yard. It
seemed to us that there was ample room in the
3 backyard to position the tennis court well beyond
the 100 foot wetlands setback required.
4 Miss Moore indicated in her letter
outlining the reasons for the appeal that there
5 would be no detriment to nearby properties if the
the variance is granted. Based on the comments of
6 our realtor about home buyers' reluctance to live
opposite a tennis court, we worry that the
7 proposed tennis court will impact negatively on
the resale potential of our home .
8 Miss Moore also writes that the proposed
location is the best location because the fence
9 will not obstruct the views of the waterfront .
This is true . And I can certainly empathize with
10 Jim and Denise for not wanting to mar their
fabulous view with any man-made structure . While
11 we do not have the Martins' enviable unobstructed
view of Peconic Bay, we did enjoy a lovely scenic
12 vista from our front windows, sweeping lawns,
towering trees, mature landscaping, a small
13 vineyard, truly a bucolic setting, and one of the
main reasons we bought the house in 1998 . In the
14 course of the recent construction, some of those
trees and shrubs have been moved or cut down and
15 the vineyard was removed, but the view remains
lovely. Miss Moore writes that the proposed
16 location of the tennis court is the optimum
location according to the neighbor Alma Suter, who
17 has no objection to the placement of the tennis
court along the front side of the house . Since
18 Mrs . Suter' s house is located to the southwest of
the back of the Martin residence, well out of
19 sight and sounds of the proposed location, we can
certainly understand her lack of objection.
20 However, the proposed location is not optimal from
our viewpoint . The court is to be fenced and
21 screened on three sides . The one unfenced,
unscreened side faces our house . But even
22 additional landscaping to hide the court from our
view offers no permanent guarantees . The Martins
23 or subsequent owners of that property can remove
any landscaping at any time . Incidentally, Miss
24 Moore indicates that according to the Suters, the
former owners located at tennis court in that same
25 location. We were unable to confirm this . The
Building Department has no records for a permit
October 20 , 2005
68
1
2 for a tennis court on this property in their files
which date back to 1957 . On the chance that the
3 former owners had indeed erected a tennis court
without official permits, we checked with the tax
4 assessor' s office . They have no record of any
tennis court on the property since they began
5 keeping records on May 11, 1960 . All they have is
a permit request for the Martins dated 3/23/04
6 status pending.
The records indicate that the property was
7 inventoried in 1962 and showed no tennis court at
that time . In 1982 the former owners applied for
8 and were granted a permit for an in-ground
swimming pool, accompanying their application is a
9 survey dated July 1972 , again showing no tennis
court on the property. And I think these have
10 been corrected since then because the original
letter indicated that Meadow Lane, which is
11 actually Meadow Beach Lane, was a public road and
it is a private road and we are granted right of
12 way across it .
And I do have photos if they would be
13 helpful . I did a tracing and pasting up where
they proposed the tennis court and suggesting
14 moving it down, I wasn' t sure about the clearance
of the house, but it looked to me like it would
15 fit . And I haven' t seen the new drawings . I got
a copy of B from Eugene Berger but I never saw C,
16 so I don' t know what that proposal is .
I don' t want them to lose their view, but
17 I don' t want the view of the tennis court, and I
think the solution is to shove it back along the
18 side of their house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir?
19 MR. ECKERT: Good afternoon, I ' m James
Eckert . I am the president of the Bayview at
20 Mattituck Homeowners Association, not, as Miss
Moore addressed us, as the Meadow Beach Lane
21 Homeowners Association. Our association comprises
38 homeowners and lot owners, and it also owns
22 Meadow Beach Lane, which is a private road, and
other streets in the Harbor Farm subdivision,
23 which is called Harbor View at Mattituck. The
Martin property borders on Meadow Beach Lane on
24 which they have deeded access . The Martin
property and four other properties south of our
25 subdivision are not included in our association as
their properties predate the subdivision.
October 20 , 2005
69
1
2 However, as their property as well as our
subdivision is an area called Harbor Farm and
3 these properties appear to be part of our
subdivision, therefore we feel that we have a
4 vested interest in the overall appearance and
tranquility of Harbor Farm.
5 Our association has covenants and
restrictions and architectural guidelines that
6 allow for the homeowners association board of
directors to protect the properties and require
7 the owners to maintain their homes and properties
in a manner that preserves the overall appearance
8 of Harbor Farm. The board has' the authority to
approve the architecture of the homes,
9 landscaping, driveways, fences, swimming pools and
tennis courts among other things . On September
10 17, 2005 , the board of directors of the Bayview at
Mattituck Homeowners Association voted to oppose
11 the zoning variance application that would allow
the Martins to construct a tennis court in their
12 front yard. The board felt that the tennis court
in the front yard would be a detriment to the -
13 appearance of the community and would be a
nuisance because it would be in the view of the
14 adjacent property owners . For example, Stroed,
Eckert, and Amper-Lee . As well as from Meadow
15 Beach Lane, the noise would also be heard from
them as well as other neighbors.
16 The board of directors feels that it would
be more appropriate in the back yard where, in
17 this case, there is ample space without impinging
on setbacks and wetlands . We request the Zoning
18 Board disapprove this request . And I' d like to
present this- to you.
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I ask this
20 gentleman a question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Sir, I just need to
clarify something. Is this property covered under
22 your covenants and restrictions?
MR. ECKERT: No, they' re not .
23 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So they' re not part
of your association?
24 MR. ECKERT: They predate our subdivision
so they' re not part of it . But they are adjacent
25 to our property.
MS . MOORE : Thank you. I wanted to
October 20 , 2005
70
1
2 clarify that because I did want to point that out,
this property and the association doesn' t have
3 review authority over this property or the Suter'
property, or probably some of the others that are
4 there on the bay.
I wanted to point out because this may be
5 in your file for the pool and the shed because we
provided you a much more detailed landscape plan
6 for the second application for the following
meeting, but I think it' s important that you look
7 at it, and I would ask that it also be
incorporated by reference into this appeal .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the date on
that map?
9 MS . MOORE : This is the one from September
14 , 2005 .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have it in the
file .
11 MS . MOORE : Sheet two shows the
landscaping that is proposed around the property.
12 The Martins are trying to address the concern of
the neighbor by enclosing their property with
13 landscaping. So you can see that some of the
concerns that the neighbor has with respect to
14 seeing the tennis court, we actually are
landscaping our property so that we retain the
15 privacy, the tennis court should not be seen. As
the shrubs grow, this house will not be seen. So
16 we are proposing a significant amount of
landscaping around the perimeter of the property,
17 in particular, if you can see on the north, at the
top of the page is the area where I think that the
18 people that spoke, they live up here in this
general vicinity. We have some existing mature
19 trees there, but we are proposing to plant
screened plantings of evergreen shrubs and more
20 trees . So we are actually going to be hiding the
property and the houses and the structures . It' s
21 going to be a very private setting. So we can
pretty much block the views of this house, tennis
22 court, anything that' s on this property with our
own landscaping, and that' s what they propose .
23 I think one of the speakers mentioned that
it would be best in the side yard pushed back a
24 little bit . I think proposal C was the one we
looked at before that really does make sense
25 because, as I pointed out before, the tennis court
could go in the front yard. We checked with the
October 20 , 2005
71
1
2 Building Department, that tennis court would not
need variances . It is not the optimum location.
3 I think the neighbors would be disappointed if
that ' s the alternative . If the Board denies the
4 application that we have made with alternatives
that we have suggested, they are not going to
5 build it in the backyard blocking their waterfront
views . So the only alternative will be in the
6 front yard, and that would not be the best
alternative for the neighborhood. I do want to
7 emphasize that . I would hate to see this Board
deny it based on the neighborhood opposition and
8 the neighbors get a tennis court in the worst
place possible .
9 MR. TALGERT: And also, the other solution
was to move the tennis court and move the driveway
10 around. The driveway would be actually opposite
one of the neighbors at that point, so I 'm not
11 sure how positive that is either.
MS . MOORE : We have to shift everything
12 around, I think ultimately they may be
disappointed with the end result . So I think one
13 of the speakers spoke about pushing the tennis
court back, we tried to accommodate that, that was
14 a good suggestion. And as Mr. Goehringer
suggested, we could squeeze it a little closer to
15 the house, if you feel comfortable with that,
we' re all right with that .
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was that plan B or
C?
17 MS . MOORE : I think C was the one that
pushed the tennis court into the side yard more .
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Which is the one
that did not need a variance?
19 MS . MOORE : It was a derivative of C
because C was the one with the location with
20 slightly more of a setback from the Suter
property.
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Which is the one
that showed a tennis court that would not need a
22 variance, B?
MS . MOORE : That was B .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you.
MS . MOORE : Did you want us to get a fax
24 to you tomorrow, the drawing of the location of
the tennis court a little further into the
25 property, Mr. Goehringer' s suggestion, to have
that as another alternative in the file?
October 20 , 2005
72
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Faxed copies don' t
work well .
3 MS . MOORE : I ' ll drop it off .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make it a little
4 closer to the main building, 17 . 5 feet?
MS . MOORE : Right, the Board hasn' t
5 deliberated and come to any consensus, but if
that' s an alternative that you want us to draw,
6 which is Mr. Goehringer' s suggestion, it is
placing the tennis court as we had into the side
7 yard more, but just pushing it away from the Suter
property line .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It would be 10 , if
you moved it five feet it would be 10?
9 MS . MOORE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
10 question, when Ural was mentioning this, and apart
from what the site plan says, this is C with more
11 of a setback from the Suter property, are we
talking about surrounding the entire periphery
12 except for the portion that faces the bay or the
rear yard with mature plantings?
13 MR. TALGERT: We are planning on putting
plants surrounding this entire edge and whatever
14 we can use .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' re not
15 singling the court out specifically?
MR. TALGERT: Right . That could be 20
16 foot cedar trees completely cutting off the view
into the property.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will they be
continuously maintained?
18 MR. TALGERT: Absolutely.
MS . MOORE : I overheard questions about
19 the size of the court . That is a standard court
size, that' s regulation size tennis court .
20 MS . AMPER: I 'm not good with plots, I
have photos . My question is, if anyone can tell,
21 here' s the existing old vineyard, which is where
the tennis court is proposed, where is it going?
22 MS . MOORE : What she' s asking is the
vineyard on the survey, the Ehlers survey in the
23 file, it shows the original vineyard, she' s trying
to get an idea of placement lines, how much can we
24 push it into the side yard. Remember we want to
put shrubbery and blocking access on the side . We
25 have been able to squeeze on the larger side --
MR. TALGERT : 60 feet in option C .
October 20 , 2005
73
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ural, then how close to
the existing residence?
3 MR. TALGERT: Twelve and a half feet .
MS . AMPER: Where is the tennis court
4 beginning in relation to this "L" of the bedroom
juts out?
5 MS . MOORE : What she' s asking is how much
can we push it into a side yard, and what our
6 concern is that the house is on an angle . As you
push the tennis court back, remember we want to
7 put shrubbery and a fence, so we' re blocking
access on the side . We've been able to squeeze on
8 the larger side down to 12 and a half feet . As
you get closer to that back corner, you' re going
9 to be shrinking it down to --
MR. TALGERT: Ten, nine feet . It' s really
10 tight .
MS . MOORE : As you get back to that 10 ,
11 nine feet, at that point it becomes really tight .
That becomes tight for fire access, just
12 equipment .
MR. TALGERT: There' s also a beautiful
13 linden tree back there which we don' t want to
disturb.
14 MS . AMPER: I was thinking it could start
right on the other side of this beautiful tree .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Ma' am, you do
understand that the Town permits waterfront
16 parcels to have accessory structures in the front
yard, such as pools, tennis courts and driveways?
17 MS . AMPER: I understand. But when you
look at that property from the air you think, oh,
18 my God, look at this property, even if it was the
backyard hugging the fence, it' s not in the line
19 of sight from the house . The house is far enough
moved over.
20 MR. TALGERT: But it would be that
beautiful linden tree that would be cut down if we
21 did that .
MS . AMPER: I didn' t say they didn' t have
22 enough room in the backyard. If the tennis court
started here, hugged the fence and went to here,
23 it isn' t even in the line of view. It' s to the
right of it .
24 MS . MOORE : I think there' s a water line
easement there, that we have to be away from that
25 water line easement .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Miss Amper was
October 20 , 2005
74
1
2 going to submit a map .
MS . AMPER: Here' s our statements
3 (handing) .
MS . MOORE : Just keep in mind, we' re
4 reluctant to have someone who isn' t a
professional .
5 MS . AMPER: It isn' t to scale .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, I need to
6 make one more statement to counsel and to Ural if
I could.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Mr. Goehringer.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Most of this
8 noise situation that has occurred from these
tennis courts were ones that we were discussing on
9 flat pieces of property or reasonably flat pieces
of property, not that this is a topographical
10 problem because it' s not on this piece of
property, but let' s assume that the court goes in
11 in C, and let' s assume that there are still
concerns regarding noise from this court . Ural
12 has mentioned to us and please, Mr. Talgert, by
using your first name all the time, but I've known
13 you for a long time, and you do wonderful work by
the way, I would suggest to the Board in the
14 making of its determination that the Board does
reserve the right to look at future landscaping
15 around this court, similar to what you were
saying, particularly on those open sides which as
16 you said may not be open in the future . I don' t
think that' s an unreasonable request being in a
17 really fantastic, phenomenal residential area as
this one is, and as this house is pushed more
18 towards the northerly portion of the property, the
houses tend to be a cluster as these neighbors
19 have indicated to us . So I would suggest to the
Board that the Board does have the right to
20 reserve the possibility of more landscaping
generally around the court to be continually
21 maintained. And I don' t think that' s an
unreasonable request .
22 MR. TALGERT: No. Mr. Martin has
expressed a need for privacy. We did a little bit
23 of work around his pool . We planted densely
evergreen trees, cedars . When you' re behind there
24 walking the right of way towards the beach, cedars
have a wonderful way of absorbing sound. Again,
25 sound is a very interesting thing. When you have
hard surfaces like what we have here, sound
October 20 , 2005
75
1
2 bounces around; but when you have carpeting that
really deadens it, and plant material is the same
3 way. Say, for example, a holly, a large leaf
evergreen or large leaf shrub, that bounces sound
4 all over the place . When you' re talking about a
cedar tree or juniper that absorbs the sound and
5 muffles it really well . If the Board so decides
to say we' re going to plant all three sides of the
6 property with cedar type of trees, evergreens, I
don' t think that Mr. Martin would have any
7 objection to that ; I think that would enhance his
privacy in the front yard so his kids can run
8 around without too much of a problem.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question, I
9 understand that the property owner might very well
have a hard time having to decide between having
10 the tennis court between the house and the water
and not having a tennis court at all, which means
11 that saying to the owner of the property the
location of an obstruction of a water view is
12 quite relevant . Now, do you believe that the
owner of the property, who has the choice after
13 all, has any more of a right to have the Board be
concerned about unobstructed view of the water
14 than residents do? My understanding is that that
weighs very lightly in the considerations, not
15 this case but other cases, when people complain
about their unobstructed view of the waterfront
16 and they' re not the property owner, that doesn' t
seem to count . So I'm asking whether you think
17 that the owners --
MS . MOORE: Yes, I don' t remember the name
18 of the case but it was the case where the property
owner wanted to put a pool on the decking on the
19 waterfront side of the house, and the Board said
no . The court said absolutely it was a reasonable
20 amenity that a waterfront property owner has a
certain right to improve their property to enjoy
21 their waterfront; that would not be the case for
somebody who is a neighbor behind them wanting
22 them to keep heights of the houses low because
they want to enjoy the waterfront . When you pay
23 for the waterfront, you have a certain right to
enjoy it, t9 improve it . So there are some zoning
24 cases, I know one in particular, I do recall it
was a variance that I guess it was neighborhood
25 opposition on putting a pool in a certain location
and the Board said, no, you can put it in the
October 20 , 2005
76
1
2 front yard, in the non-waterfront side of your
house . And the court said, no, that' s
3 unreasonable . The waterfront homeowner has a
right to put a pool on their waterfront views .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Those cases are not
on point because here we' re talking about the
5 owner' s claim that they shouldn' t have to put
their tennis court in their front yard rather than
6 someplace else . It' s exactly opposite .
MS . MOORE: No. I would say to you that
7 we are preserving our views by placing a tennis
court that obviously that would be an obstruction
8 of the views to a location that is preferred by
the property owner. You' re saying put it in your
9 backyard and you don' t need a variance . We' re
saying actually, we can put it in our front yard
10 and we can get a variance, but that would not be
good for the neighborhood, and I don' t think the
11 neighbors would be very pleased when the tennis
court is exactly where it would be permissible .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand you' re
saying that the neighbors would not be happy if
13 the court was placed between the house and the
waterfront?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, in the front yard,
right by the road.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The neighbors, from
- what I hear, would rather have it on the bay side .
16 MS . MOORE : We' re saying that is not the
option the owner wants because we do not want to
17 block our water views . We have four acres of
beautiful waterfront that they paid dearly for. I
18 think they have the right to enjoy it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does that give them
19 the right to put the tennis court someplace where
the neighbors don' t want it?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Our code gives them
the right . Our code says -- and it doesn' t say,
21 if you don' t have room in your water view side of
your property, you may put it in the front yard.
22 Our code says you are permitted to have an
accessory structure in your front yard. This
23 particular application is merely where to place
that thing for the best possible conduct for all
24 the neighbors, not just this property owner. From
what I'm hearing from the property owner, he can
25 build it in the front, and it looks like he can,
just getting a builder, that' s all he needs .
October 20 , 2005
77
1
2 We' re not discussing what the neighbors want , what
they need, because they' re not irrelevant and they
3 will be affected, but our code -- and that' s a
code that everybody gets to read before they
4 purchase a house -- says that they can put one
there . It existed when everybody purchased their
5 house .
MS . MOORE : I'm not sure that Mr. Simon is
6 getting to the point of does it give us a greater
balance of the equities, when in fact, somebody
7 with some common sense would not block their water
views with a tennis court and fence . To that
8 extent I agree with you that when you' re balancing
the equities the homeowner should/be given some
9 consideration, yes, I guess we can put it in the
back but why would we do something so silly as to
10 block the water views .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not relevant
11 in this case .
MS . MOORE : He' s arguing as far as
12 balancing.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be relevant
13 if it were illegal to put it on the road side of
the house .
14 MS . MOORE : We' re saying the only thing is
we need a variance to put it in our side yard. So
15 in order to mitigate impacts, we' re trying to
place it in a location where it doesn' t bother us
16 and it will bother the neighbors less pushing it
to into the side yard, but we can' t do it as of
17 right . We do need your approval to do that and
that' s why we have proposed it as an alternative
18 plan.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else have
19 any questions or comments? If not, I' ll make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
20 until later.
- (See minutes for resolution. )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Goggins, would you
22 like to come up with Mr. Sabat on Peconic Bay
Boulevard in Laurel for an as-built deck?
23 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . William Goggins of
Goggins and Palumbo, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck.
24 Good afternoon, we seek a variance
pursuant to the paperwork. Back in the early
25 ' 90s, I don' t remember the specific date,
Mr. Sabat had a contract to put these decks in,
October 20 , 2005
78
1
2 they never got a building permit, never got a CO,
and Mr. Sabat was contemplating selling his
3 property, and we reviewed it, realized he didn' t
have a CO for the deck and we applied for this
4 variance .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So he' s going to
5 remove it?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is this preparatory
6 for the sale of the property?
MR. GOGGINS : In preparation. It' s not on
7 the market now, it' s not for sale now. He
approached me about three months ago. We decided
8 to do this so we could clean up the property, so
when he does go to sell it, he won' t have ,any
9 problems . As you know, if this came up for a
title report and you' re in a 60 day window period
10 for an executory contract for sale, there' s no way
you would be able to get the CO in the time period
11 allowed by the contract, so he took preparatory
action to do this .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your argument is
that even if that gazebo would not been approved
13 at the time it was built, nothing follows with
regard awarding a CO for that right now.
14 MR. GOGGINS : I didn' t argue that at all .
I said it was built without a permit, without a
15 CO, and they didn' t address whether there were
side yard issues or rear yard issues . They built
16 it and Mr. Sabat just assumed everything was fine .
So I'm not saying it was permitted at that time .
17 I don' t know what the code read at that time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any
18 questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. What is in the
19 rear of this property?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Another house .
20 MR. GOGGINS : Another house and behind
that is Laurel Links . There' s kind of an access
21 to the rear part of the golf course . The lot is
there a long time, I don' t know if you' ve seen the
22 overview of the tax map, they' re pretty small .
All the houses are very close together and very
23 small . This must have been a subdivision done
whenever, I guess the 120s .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent?
25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
October 20 , 2005
79
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
objection to it . It was done in another place and
3 another time . I just want to make you aware of
the fact that, Mr. Goggins, that if the Board
4 condones this, it' s not to be anything other than
what it is at this time, and that is a deck and
5 gazebo, or two gazebos attached to a deck and not
construed to be an addition other than something
6 that' s partially open to the sky and that' s it .
MR. GOGGINS : That'is correct .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
audience wish to speak on this application? If
8 not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
----------------------------------------------- --
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for the Raynor proposal . Mr. Lark.
11 MR. LARK: Good afternoon, I guess it' s
been about two months since we had this
12 application presented to the Zoning Board, so I
thought it best a quick review to put everything
13 in perspective .
At the end of the hearing on August 18th,
14 the Board wanted an amended survey, a foundation
plan, an architect certification that the
15 foundation is and will be in conformance with
current FEMA and New York State Building Code
16 regulation. I believe all of that was forwarded
to you. I just want to make sure that' s all
17 there .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We received it on
18 the 28th.
MR. LARK: Because as I pointed out at the
19 hearing on the 18th of August, the FEMA
requirements for this particular area, they vary
20 depending on where you are, are eight feet, and
the Raynors' existing house is 9 .4 feet at the
21 first floor elevation. And as you have it in the
certifications there, the existing footings there
22 required by the state building code are three feet
or 36 inches, and they' re actually 38 inches by
23 measurement .
At the outset, I believe it' s proper to
24 bring to the Board' s attention that the
application of Mary Raynor, which is before you,
25 is for an area variance . The building inspector' s
amended notice of disapproval on July 14 , 2005 , in
October 20 , 2005
80
1
2 spite of everything that' s been said, boils down
that it requires for the Raynors to go ahead with
3 this project, it requires two variances . One is
for a side yard for the second story pursuant to
4 the Zoning Board of Appeals Walz opinion 5309 , the
vertical space situation, and under the zoning
5 code under 100-242 (a) , since this will be an
increase in the nonconformity on the second floor
6 and the prohibited 10 and 15 foot side yard space,
that' s why we' re here for a side yard variance for
7 the proposed second floor, and also under Section
244 of the code because it does presently exceed
8 20 percent lot coverage of the improvements and it
will continue to exceed 20 percent . So there' s
9 two reasons that we need a variance, which are
required by the zoning code particularly 242 (a) .
10 These two variance requests have not.
changed and is shown on the surveys that the
11 existing buildings, a side yard setback on the
easterly side is presently on the first floor is
12 two feet . That will remain the same no matter
whether this variance is granted or it' s not
13 granted, it' s a steady two feet all the way
because the building on the east side, Raynor
14 building, is parallel with the property line . So
that two feet is a steady factor.
15 Now, this was explained to you at the last
hearing, on the second floor by lowering the ridge
16 line on the roof by 32 feet and reducing the angle
on the slant on the roof, the architect was able
17 to move in the living space on the side yard area
on the east side by 10 ' 911 , and you have that on
18 the plan there . One thing I wanted to point out,
all the architect' s plans are drawn in feet and
19 inches; the surveyor' s calculations are all in
feet; so I ' ll try to transpose it so to keep it
20 all in feet, which will marry the survey, which is
where the zoning code is written; it' s written in
21 feet not in inches . And she' ll show you in a
little while on that easterly line on the second
22 floor living space on 10 ' 911 , the total effect of
it is, the variance request boils down to under
23 the Walz opinion to be 12 . 75 feet, which is where
the nearest point would be on the second floor to
24 the property line . You have the two feet plus the
10 foot that I explained to you. Therefore, on
25 the easterly side, it would appear that we meet
the 10 foot requirements . However, that' s not the
October 20 , 2005
81
1
2 case on the westerly side .
On the westerly side, no matter what we
3 do, we still have to have a variance. On the
westerly side, as you look at the survey, the
4 house and the survey line are on different angles .
If we start at the north, just by review, you' ll
5 see that the closest point of the house to the
westerly property line is 1 . 2 feet on that
6 northwest corner, that will remain the same,
again, with or without the variance . That' s where
7 the house was situated at the time it was put
there . However, again, due to the roof slant and
8 the way the architect has constructed the proposed
second floor, that' s going to be moved, the living
9 space on the second floor there will be 4 . 6 inches
in, so you' re going to end up with 5 . 7 feet from
10 the property line on the second floor on that
northwest corner.
11 Now in the middle portion of it there' s
been a slight change from the original
12 application. If you look on your surveys, there
was a jog in the buildings where the porch was .
13 The applicant now is removing, as you' ll see on
the survey, is removing that jog. Originally that
14 jog as it is today was one foot from the westerly
property line, and that will be eliminated so
15 you' ll have a property line there at the
foundation at 2 . 8 feet . And when the second floor
16 living space is 3 . 8 , so you' re going to end up
with 6 . 63 feet on the second floor at the closest
17 point in the middle portion of the building.
As you move further south on the
18 southwesterly corner, you presently have 3 . 6 feet,
which is the side yard from the building to the
19 property, and when that jog is removed, you' ll
have 5 . 5 and then up above on the second floor
20 there, you have a five foot open deck, and then
the living space starts back five feet . So in
21 effect the actual living space on the southwest
corner will be 10 and a half feet .
22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So you' re moving
the jog the length of the house?
23 MR. LARK: Yes, that' s correct . I' ll call
it the middle .
24 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Seaward.
MR. LARK: That' s a better way to put it,
25 seaward.
The applicant, I believe, when we discuss
October 20 , 2005
82
1
2 the factors, in the spirit of the Walz opinion,
has tried to deal with the existing conditions in
3 the neighborhood to ameliorate and made a sincere
effort to minimize the impact of the second story
4 as you have before you.
As to the variance request, the Building
5 Inspector indicated in his notice of disapproval
that the lot coverage would be 27 percent . At the
6 Board' s request I had the surveyor go around and
we have given you a certification now, that after
7 everything is said and done, that the actual lot
coverage will be 26 percent, which is a slight
8 increase from what exists today. You have the
certification, correct?
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes . It' s noted on
the survey.
10 MR. LARK: Also, I wasn' t sure because
there were so many things coming and going, I
11 thought I received and it was given to you, if
not, I will hand one up, a certification from the
12 architect, an actual certification that it was
actually 26 percent . Because that was a concern
13 that the Board had, what it actually would be when
it was all said and done . And he did measure
14 that .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I don' t think we
15 had all the breakdowns of all the corners and all
the jogs, but he has that breakdown, right?
16 MR. LARK: Right . As the Board is fully
aware, the Town law a half dozen years ago was
17 changed to codify under Section 267 B3 (b) , the
requirements the Board his to consider on a
18 balancing test in evaluating the five mandated
factors that you must consider, and weighing the
19 benefit of granting the variance to Mrs . Raynor
against the detriment of the health, safety and
20 welfare of in this case the Beachwood community.
We reviewed all those five factors the last time,
21 I don' t think much has changed. In reviewing
them, the neighborhood will stay residential; with
22 or without the proposed addition it' s a
residential neighborhood. And unless someone can
23 come up with something, I don' t think the actual
putting on a second story will cause a detriment
24 to the neighborhood because that ' s all that' s
really being done here. There has been some
25 improvement to the side yard on the westerly side,
but basically speaking it' s a second story
October 20 , 2005
83
1
2 addition, everything else pretty much remains the
same .
3 And Mrs . Raynor pointed out to you that
she wants to make it a year round home . In order
4 to make it efficient, the architect came up with
this design to make it a year round home fully
5 insulated, so on and so forth. And the only way
to do it was to go up . You couldn' t go to the
6 north nor to the south seaward for obvious
reasons . It would impinge on all the neighbors'
7 views and everything else . So the only way was to
go up, and the architect tried to do that to the
8 best of her ability by creating a cottage-type
roof, keeping that cottage-type roof so it
9 wouldn' t be a big, steep incline there and to
soften the impact . It' s submitted that the 917
10 square feet, which you have in the record, which
is what the second story addition will be, is not
11 substantial in and of itself . And in fact, we
have decreased the footprint on the first floor
12 slightly. However, that was more or less
equalized because the building inspector viewed,
13 rather than have a patio on the southeast corner,
that they were going to put that deck, and as he
14 pointed out in his disapproval, that has to be
computed in the space, which it is for that 26
15 percent so it became somewhat of a wash.
I don' t think there' s any question that
16 absolutely this addition is going to create any
adverse effect on the environment . And I will
17 admit that one of the factors, I 'm not dispositive
that you have to consider that it is a
18 self-created hardship because they want to make it
a year round home, bring it up to date so on and
19 so forth, but it' s not dispositive .
So, if the Board has any questions of
20 myself or Mrs . Raynor, but I did bring today with
us because we didn' t have her here before, the
21 architect who drew the plans so if you had any
specific questions, she' s got the actual detail of
22 the plans here that you can ask because you were
concerned about it last time . So I ' ll turn that
23 over to Mrs . Suter.
MS . SUTER: I'm Bobette Suter, do you have
24 a question? Would you like me to present the
plans?
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MS . SUTER: What this shows, if you can
October 20 , 2005
84
1
2 see it, it shows the existing foundation in
yellow, the existing foundation of the existing
3 house, and this house area here in orange is going
to be the new foundation work, but you can see the
4 dots where the existing piers exist, .which we are
going to keep, and over here to the far left side,
5 which is to the west side, which is next to
Olsen' s property, that is the 119" by 24 ' 8" that
6 we are removing so there is more space to walk
through between the two properties .
7 So what this drawing is depicting is the
foundation plan with the existing conditions and
8 the new work proposed because we' re using the
existing foundation.
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is that
orange; is that deck?
10 MS . SUTER: All of this is heated interior
space . What is existing, this is the existing
11 cottage, which I think is electric heat, and this
is a covered, screened-in porch in here
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s not heated?
MS . SUTER: Not heated, but it has a solid
13 knee wall, and it has a roof and a ceiling, but
it' s finished inside . In fact, right here it' s
14 got a fireplace in the porch or .barbecue . Then
this drawing depicts the proposed first floor and
15 the pink denotes the current lines of the existing
house; that' s the perimeter of the house and where
16 it started in here, this is the 1' 9" by 2418" area
that we are removing. So we' re really not
17 increasing the size of the house other than going
upstairs .
18 Now, when we move upstairs to the second
floor, essentially the one-story cottage will be a
19 cape with dormers . And this drawing depicts the
perimeter, which is what we have around the
20 outside of the house, and the pink depicts the
proposed second floor that we' re adding. And the
21 second floor will be underneath a gabled roof with
dormers because it is a cape . And this side of
22 the house is the west side, which is the Olsen
side and that was the side in question. And
23 that' s what Dick was discussing, the setbacks to
Olsen, and when you add, for example, the area
24 within the eaves to the wall, it gives you a
larger setback for your area code . It' s not a
25 pyramid ,law, Dick, what did you call the law? The
Walz law?
October 20 , 2005
85
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: - It' s an interpretation.
MS . SUTER: Interpretation. This side, to
3 the east, we' re quite far back, I guess you call
that second floor living space . And this is a
4 better example, again, of what I 'm referencing.
Underneath, and you do have these plans, beneath
5 are the proposed construction documents, you can
see the gable, with the dormer and this is what
6 exists in blue . This depicts the mass that we' re
applying above the existing house. This is the
7 other side . This is the side facing the street,
which also depicts the same elements . This is the
8 gable roof with the existing cottage beneath. And
the orange denotes the existing footing line .
9 When they raised the house not long ago, it was
put on conventional foundation to code . So
10 essentially we' re using the entire foundation that
exists .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason
you have to go 32 feet; could you go a little
12 lower?
MS . SUTER: We did reduce the entire thing
13 a foot . If we reduce it anymore we' re going to
start making a very small area above . So far
14 living with knee walls essentially, except at the
primary gable all the way out by the bay,
15 otherwise .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How high to that
16 top of the ridge?
MS . SUTER: One is 32 feet, the other is
17 30 .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How tall is the
18 existing house?
MS . SUTER: It' s 18 feet . And you have
19 this page also. This is a clean sheet showing the
existing cottage . And this is the side facing the
20 water, which this depicts in blue and that' s the
side facing the street, and this side is Olsen,
21 right here, and the big difference between the
current gable and the proposed gable, is the
22 current gable runs east-west, so that the ridge
line is higher, you have more wall, you have a lot
23 more wall facing the neighbors so we turn the
ridge and we' re running it north and south from
24 the road to the bay. Therefore we have our height
on the end rather than the sides . So when you
25 look at the house, the roofline drops very low to
the sides .
October 20 , 2005
86
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Suter, can
I ask you a question? When you say that the
3 existing roofline of the cottages is 18 feet, are
you referring to the actual ridge line or to the
4 mean?
MS . SUTER: Top of the ridge, not the
5 average . I know in Southold you calculate to the
midpoint, not to the ridge . No, I 'm talking about
6 the highest point of the roof .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It certainly
7 looks much higher than that when you get on top of
it .
8 MS . SUTER: It' s a small house so it' s an
illusion.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I took the
liberty of going to the top floor, and when you' re
10 up there you certainly look much higher than 18
feet .
11 MS . SUTER: You went to that roof deck and
you stood up? Yes . I know what you mean. I ' ll
12 show you this drawing because it' s a section
through the house and you have this also. This
13 drawing denotes the living area upstairs . So you
can see where the living area is, and this is all
14 eves and attic off to the sides because there' s no
head room. And this other drawing also denotes,
15 you can you see the living area here, and as it
drops lower in the attic and in the eves in the
16 installed closet . So there is a lot of bulk area
that we cannot use, you cannot walk in there, but
17 essentially we created a very attractive cottage .
And I suppose theoretically you can chop this off
18 and have flat roofs throughout the house . But I
don' t think the neighbors would like to see that
19 either.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, very nice .
20 Board members have any other questions?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have a comment .
21 I would like to commend Miss Suter and the Raynors
for a tight tolerant situation up there . They
22 really helped mitigate some of the side yard
encroachments on the neighbors, which made a
23 radical roofline to accommodate that and the
second floor doesn' t begin to weigh in. We've
24 seen a lot of presentations this morning, not as
severe side yards but pre-existing, nonconforming
25 houses that just went straight up. So you took
some effort to be conscious of neighbors .
October 20 , 2005
87
1
2 MS . SUTER: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : It wasn' t easy, I 'm
3 sure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Someone in the
4 audience have any questions on this application?
Mr. Olsen.
5 MR. OLSEN: Good afternoon, my name is
Gary Olsen of Southold. I am a co-owner of the
6 property to the west of the Raynor property, which
I own with my sister Janet Maureen and my brother, -
7 Richard Olsen. This property was turned over to
us by my parents Harold and Hilda Olsen in
8 2002 . We' re not only neighbors of the Raynors but
we' re friends of the Raynors, and I also commend
9 them for a really nice job in preparing a set of
plans that I think will work. I know why they
10 want to do it . They have very valuable property.
They want to live there year round, and quite
11 frankly, my parents who own property to the west
some day either we may do something by going up
12 like somebody else down at Beachwood or our
successors . Nothing' s certain in life so I don' t
13 know what' s going to happen to our property.
The thing that concerns me, and I don' t
14 know if the Board really can address this issue,
is how close the Raynor house is to our property
15 line . It' s only 1 . 2 feet and if there' s some way
the plans can be reconfigured to at least give
16 five feet or four and a half feet between our
house and their property line, I think it would
17 make a lot of sense not only for us but also for
the Raynors if they go to sell . They' re wonderful
18 neighbors, but we don' t know who' s going to move
in if they do, in fact, decide to sell . I don' t
19 know how the construction on this house would be
done with 1' 2" from our property line without
20 basically coming onto our property to do the
construction. Right now they have an open porch
21 on the west side of their property and they have
been bringing things from the road side to the
22 beach side through their house or through the
porch, but that porch is now going to be enclosed,
23 which means from a realistic standpoint, they' re
going to have to, without coming onto the Olsen
24 property, bring everything from the north side to
the south side by going through their home, and
25 that' s not going to happen.
Not only that, the issue came up at the
October 20 , 2005
88
1
2 last meeting that I was not able to attend, about
fire . It is extremely close . I don' t know how
3 you can any get any closer to the property line
than what this is . I know the comment was made by
4 Mr. Goehringer that he walked around my parents'
property and noted there' s plenty of room to go
5 around the Olsen property to get to the Raynor
property.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was not the
way it was meant to mean. It was meant to mean,
7 Mr. Olsen, to put water on your father' s house at
that time, so as to preserve your father' s house
8 from that area. It was not meant to go --
MR. OLSEN: Then I misread it .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . I was
going to actually call you on that, but I thought
10 we' d wait until this hearing so you understood
that . Certainly when you' re in the middle of a
11 heat of the battle, you don' t deal with property
lines . Everybody goes everywhere and hose gets
12 laid and so on and so forth. Certainly the
preservation of your father' s house and the
13 preservation of the Suter house on the most
easterly side of the Raynor house is of great
14 concern to anybody. I just happen to be doing
this for 38 years as a volunteer, and I was only
15 offering that as being a board member.
MR. OLSEN: But in any event, it would
16 seem to make sense not only for the Olsen parcel
but also for the Raynor parcel, so that they would
17 have total independence basically of our piece,
and we would have independence from their piece .
18 I think the plans look great . I like the
roofline . I like the fact that they don' t have
19 but two or three windows on our side to give us
privacy from each other. But if there' s some way
20 that the plans could be slightly altered, and it
wouldn' t take a lot because as I scaled it out,
21 this house is basically 40 feet wide and 40 feet
deep, that' s about 1, 600 square feet, that' s a
22 good sized first floor, and it wouldn' t take a lot
to just give them five feet, and I would think
23 they would want it . But those are my comments,
I ' m not here to oppose it, but I do have a
24 question and a concern about the access and the
proximity. Thank you.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
Mr. Lark, a response or Miss Suter, is there any
October 20 , 2005
89
1
2 way we could get it back to five feet?
MR. LARK: I have to refer to the
3 architect . I'm not a specialist .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Suter?
4 MS . SUTER: On sheet A 3 , we have small
bedrooms on the first floor, they' re only 12 feet
5 wide . The master bedroom is 12 feet wide and
really the concern is from east to west and one
6 bedroom essentially is 10 foot 8 by 12 and the
other one is 19 by 12 . To reduce it down more
7 it' s going to be very minimally sized and to
champer it, it might gain you a few more inches on
8 the side, but it' s not going to give the Olsens
the relief that they are wishing to obtain. And
9 then the living room and dining room are 25 feet
wide . It' s not massive . And I also can say for
10 the Raynors, I know that they do not want to make
the house any narrower because it' s very tight to
11 begin with to live here year round, particularly
as they become older and they cannot climb the
12 stairs and they are dictated to stay only on the
first floor. Then the only other option is to get
13 rid of the foyer and have to walk around the
outside of the house to get through. And I think
14 that would be very odd.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How big is the foyer?
15 MS . SUTER: It' s really no foyer, it' s a
hallway. It' s five feet by 15 . It' s a hallway
16 down the center of the house . There' s not a
formal foyer.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm not sure that I
agree that 25 feet is a modest size for a living
18 room.
MS . SUTER: For a living room/dining room?
19 This is the kitchen, and that' s basically 13 ' 911 .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I realize the
20 bedrooms can' t be made any narrower.
MS . SUTER: The question is it' s over in
21 here .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How wide is the
22 whole house?
MS . SUTER: It' s 42' 311 . It used to be 44
23 feet .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s right . You
24 cut off that section.
MS . SUTER: It' s modest .
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We concede that it is
modest . Is there any way of getting another foot
October 20 , 2005
90
1
2 or two by redesign of that first floor?
MS . SUTER: I guess is it a foot or two
3 for the entire length? Or is it a foot or two
only in that section?
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I guess that' s a
question of what the neighbor, I would suppose
5 that the neighbor if he wants a foot or two or
three, he would like it the length of the whole
6 length of . the house rather than part of it . But
that' s not my question.
7 MS . SUTER: Well, you have 219" right here
at this point existing, and this is 1' 3 " in here .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can you slice off --
MS . SUTER: And you' re only talking about
9 it occurring on the first floor, not the second
floor. So you can have an overhang. You can have
10 a soffit and walk underneath this space .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
11 question, Mr. Olsen?
MR. OLSEN: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is your
house set back on that side?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My' parents'
house?
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
MR. OLSEN: I don' t know. They built
15 their house right after the second World War.
They built it probably in the mid to late ' 40s .
16 Then in 1971 when my father decided to retire, it
was a summer cottage, and they applied to the
17 Building Department to move it over. Actually,
believe it or not, my parents don' t have an actual
18 survey of their parcel, I tried to find it . But I
went to the Building Department the other day, and
19 there was this plot plan that shows that their
house is, I think, 14 and a half feet from their
20 easterly line, which would be the Raynor line .
MR. LARK: At this point where you' re
21 asking it' s 14 . 3 -- I had the surveyor measure
it . The Olsen house is 14 . 3 from the property
22 line, that' s the northwest corner of where the
Raynor house would be, which is 1 . 2 off of it .
23 MR. OLSEN: So that jives with what the
plot plan in the Building Department shows .
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That house is
set back off the side yard by 14 and a half feet?
25 MR. LARK: Not talking about the garage or
cottage on the north side of the Olsens, we' re
October 20 , 2005
91
1
2 talking about the main Olsen house itself, that
was your question; was it not?
3 MR. OLSEN: I do have a copy of the plot
plan that was in the Building Department records .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could I look at
it? It' s kind of difficult because of the bushes
5 on the one side .
MR. OLSEN: The location of the Raynor
6 house was not done by the Raynors . It was done by
a lawyer from Rockville Centre by the name of
7 Ernest Belfy, and my father actually, and the
owner by the name of Shelker, who now owns the
8 Suter house, which is on the east side of the
Raynor property, he was a lawyer from Westchester,
9 and he said to my father, Harry, why don' t we buy
this vacant lot and we' ll split it, you can take
10 half and I ' ll take half . My father said that' s a
great idea. This was back probably back in the
11 early 150s . And then this guy Walter Shelker, who
was a real estate lawyer in Westchester, said
12 Harry this thing is so tangled up in estate issues
and one thing or another, nobody will ever get a
13 clear title to this property. Well, of course,
one spring my mother and father came down to open
14 up their summer cottage at the time, and there was
this house plunked on the property. Apparently
15 had been brought in, according to Mary which I
didn' t know, probably in the middle of the night .
16 It was plunked down on the property with one foot,
basically one foot from my parents' bedroom and
17 property line, and two feet from the Suter -- now
the Suter property line. So that' s how it all
18 happened. And this house is too big for this
property width wise . You can build a really nice
19 house 30 feet wide, 37 feet wide . My feeling is
this is the time to correct a mistake, of course
20 there was no code at the time, but to correct a
situation which is really intolerable, total lack
21 of concern on the part of Belfy on the part of his
neighbors . Actually I brought a ruler, 12 inches,
22 that' s how far this house is from my parents'
property line . None of you on the Board would
23 want that situation. We don' t like it . I don' t
think the Raynors like it, and they didn' t create
24 it . But now is the time at least to make some
sort of minor adjustment where they can get from
i 25 the back of their property to the water side of
the property by walking on their own property
October 20 , 2005
92
1
2 rather than having to go through their house,
which is not going to happen when these
3 renovations are done, when the construction is
done . They' re not going to be able to do it in
4 this space . So that' s kind of the history of it .
Getting back to the original question, if
5 you look at survey, on the water side of the
property, after that jog is taken out, there' s
6 going to be 5 . 5 feet from the Olsen property line,
that' s the water side . As you go down towards the
7 roads, then it still goes down to 1 . 2 . My
suggestion is they have already got 5 . 5 on the
8 southerly end, bring that line down so you have
5 . 5 all the way down. That way they can walk all
9 the way down, obviously if there' s fire or
emergency, somebody' s got to get in at least it
10 helps . Obviously we have no objection to people
going over the Olsen property either. I have to
11 say the Raynors are wonderful neighbors . My
father lives down there by himself now. He' s 93
12 years old, and they' re checking in on him all the
time, and it' s a real comfort to my father to know
13 that the Raynors are there and that they' re going
to be there year round, other than that, there' s
14 nobody there . On the other side there' s the
Suters, but they' re not well and it' s a nice
15 comfort to know there' s somebody else around. But
I do think this is the time to correct an- error
16 that was not created by the Raynors but was
created by this guy Belfy, just have a little more
17 separation, so that each piece is independent of
the other.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Olsen, the
perception is that your house, which you share
19 with your brother and sister, is closer to the
line; is that where the garage area is?
20 MR. OLSEN: No. Because Dick Lark just
said that he had a surveyor check -- my father
21 mentioned to my sister that they saw a surveyor
around the property either yesterday or today. I
22 guess he verified that my parents' house is 14 . 3
feet from the Raynor line, which corresponds with
23 what that plot plan shows .
To be honest with you, my parents when
24 they built their cottages initially back in the
late 140s, their house was very close to their
25 property line also. It was probably not any more
than a foot or two because in those days you could
October 20 , 2005
93
1
2 do what you wanted to do . And once the Belfy
house came in, they could reach out and shake
3 hands from one house to the other. So when they
decided to go year round, they shoved it over to
4 give themselves some privacy and a little
breathing room.
5 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It would be easier
to do a lot line change .
6 MR. OLSEN: This house is over 43 feet
wide I just heard. I don' t see any reason why it
7 can' t be pared down just a little bit . The only
people that are affected are us . I don' t think
8 that the Suters care that the Raynor house is only
two feet from their property line, but there' s no
9 access that way either for the Raynors to get from
the road to the beach. The only way they were
10 doing it was they were going through their porch
because there' s no room, nobody can fit through
11 this . Once that porch becomes part of the house,
then nobody' s going to bring surf boards and water
12 skis and gas tanks and whatever else, lawn chairs,
through the house to get to the beach. I would
13 think they would want it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Following up on
14 Mr. Orlando' s suggestion, I don' t know what it
would take to redesign it, to create what you' re
15 asking, but might it cost less to sell a strip of
land? Right now the houses are about 15 and a
16 half feet apart minimum, and if the land -- if the
boundary was halfway between them, or one-third of
17 the way from one to the other, probably would not
be a problem that anybody would have . I have no
18 idea .
MR. OLSEN: What you' re asking is let' s
19 solve this one by going to the Planning Board, or
whatever, getting a lot line change and convey a
20 parcel to the Raynors to solve a problem that' s
not really our creation. And I don' t think that' s
21 a fair request . Plus, all of this property is so
darned valuable now, you go down there the views
22 are spectacular. My parents' house faces the bay,
and on the side we have Hall' s Creek going down.
23 It' s like being on a boat, and there' s no way I
would consent to make their property smaller. I
24 don' t know what that would do in the future, if we
decide to sell or whatever, how that' s going to
25 create what we can do . I know Mary, in the last
presentation mentioned that she showed my brother
October 20 , 2005
94
1
2 these plans, and he agrees with me and my sister,
that these plans are really nice, but he did
3 mention to her that maybe you could do something
to get a little bigger space between the westerly
4 side of your house and the westerly side of your
property. And that was kind of just ignored. I
5 don' t know why it can' t be done . It' s just a
question of pushing lines around a piece of paper.
6 The house isn' t built yet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Suter, do you
7 have any thoughts?
MR. OLSEN: Also it would increase the
8 value of the Raynor house . So they could say to
their buyer, look, you don' t have to go through
9 Olsen, you don' t have to bring stuff through your
house .
10 MR. LARK: I just wanted to clarify,
Mr. Goehringer raised a point about the lot line
11 change . The reason Mr. Goehringer asked that
question, is that when you go to the property, the
12 Olsen buildings are closer than the 14 feet, not
at this point but as you go further north, they' re
13 only three feet off the line . That other
building, as you pull into the Raynor property
14 there, immediately adjacent there there' s a
building there, like a little cottage/garage
15 effect, and that is about three feet off the line .
But where he asks specifically, the space between
16 the two buildings, it was 14 . 3 the surveyor. So I
wanted to clarify. So a lot line change is not a
17 simple thing, forgetting economics and waterfront
and all that, because the way that line is drawn
18 and it starts out, I think they have 35 feet on
Beachwood Road, then it just widens out, there' s
19 an odd angle there, and one building up real
close . The other building is not the main
20 building. So you would end up with the lot line
change with jogs going around the building. Which
21 the Planning Board doesn' t favor much. I just
wanted to clarify because I understood your
22 questions
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You had me
23 baffled there for a minute . I have a similar
situation on my own property I have these huge
24 angles which are pie-shaped, which causes a
phenomenal problem when you' re trying to figure
25 out things .
MR. LARK: And also, I ' ll let the
October 20 , 2005
95
1
2 architect talk more about it, but it was
considered at one point, if you could move the
3 house on that northwest corner by chopping it off,
and I was told and she can verify, forget the cost
4 of that because the foundation is in and
everything is in .over there, forget the cost, in
5 order to make up the space, she' d have to go
seaward. And if she' s goes seaward, it' s going to
6 start impinging on everybody' s views . You can' t
go northward towards the road because you have
7 cesspools and those things that are there . So it
got to be a situation where it is . And when they
8 raised the house, they just put it right on the
same spot . So that' s the problem there .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just one more
question. One could look from the point of view
10 from the neighbor as this application is an
opportunity to correct a long-standing wrong, an
11 opportunity. But given that the house, the lot is
made a little bit wider there, how much worse will
12 it be if this is approved than it is right now?
MR. LARK: No worse, it will be the same .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was asking
Mr. Olsen.
14 MR. OLSEN: If it' s approved, honestly,
it' s almost an intolerable situation as far as
15 house location, now is the opportunity to try and
fix that problem. Again, it wasn' t caused by the
16 applicant but by a predecessor in title that
didn' t care, but I'm expressing my views . Now is
17 the time I think if it can be fixed and obviously
we' re here because they need a variance, and by
18 pulling that house over just so it has maybe 5 . 5
feet all the way down or whatever the architect
19 feels can work, it' s also going to decrease the
area coverage issue because you' re going to have
20 less house covering the property. And this is
expanding a nonconforming situation that ' s why
21 we' re here . I think the design of the house is
fine . I appreciate the fact that they' re not
22 going out further, it would block my parents'
view, that the roofline is soft and cottage-like,
23 I think that' s great, but on the other hand, if
the Board can see its way to give approval subject
24 to getting or maybe see what the architect can
come up with at another meeting to give them a
25 little bit more space . I mean, how is the
construction going to be done with this much room
October 20 , 2005
96
1
2 without going on our property? And that' s not so
much the issue, I don' t care if they go on our
3 property, as I say, they' re friends . I 've known
Mary and Henry almost all of my life . I ' m older
4 than they are, so they've known me almost all of
their lives .
5 MR. SPITALLERI : My name is Joel
Spitalleri, I'm president of Spitalleri
6 Construction Management . The Raynors had asked me
to be here to kind of answer any questions
7 regarding the construction feasibility. Mr. Olsen
had brought up some questions regarding that,
8 being able to work within that 1' 3 " area . You' re
right, we would need the cooperation of the
9 neighbors in that area. Five feet, four feet we
can work in without going on the neighbor' s
10. property. When you get down in that area one, two.
feet, you do need some cooperation. We've done it
11 before, generally with the understanding that if
there' s any damage or anything, things will be
12 replaced or repaired. You have to understand that
the outside wall of a house is not constructed
13 from the outside on the neighbor' s property. It' s
constructed from the inside within the building
14 footprint . The only time a contractor generally
has to go on the outside area is to install
15 sheathing or siding, possibly fascia. And that' s
pretty much a quick thing that' s being done . It' s
16 a day or two' s work particularly in a small area
like that .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Miss
Suter, do you have anything further to add?
18 MS . SUTER: I think Miss Raynor wants to
speak first .
19 MRS . RAYNOR: Good afternoon. We raised
the cottage I think it was in 1995, and the Olsens
20 knew about it at the time . We didn' t have any
objection then. The house has been there . The
21 cottage has been there for over 50 years without
any problem. Unbeknownst to Dick and Gary, we
22 don' t carry gas tanks and other stuff through our
porch; we've carried surf boards around the side
23 of our house, we've carried Sunfish, kayaks around
the side of our house without any problem.
24 There' s also a right of way, if you look on the
tax map along Olsen' s property that should be
25 clear, and that would have access through the
creek through the bay. So if there was a problem,
October 20, 2005
97
1
2 we could always get access through the right of
way that is legally there . We have no intention
3 of selling the cottage. I would like to live
there year round for the rest of my days . That' s
4 why I have a five foot hallway, because I 'm
planning on being there -- hopefully not -- but
5 maybe in a wheelchair. I need access and room on
the first floor. If I take five feet off, I lose
6 that back bedroom. I would have 20 feet, less
than 20 feet, I believe for a living room/dining
7 room, and that' s not much space at all for a
living room/dining room combination. It would
8 just not be feasible . I would have to go out
front onto my deck, which I believe I could do,
9 but then I would block Olsen' s view of the water
and Suter' s view of the water, which I don' t want
10 to do . I thought we've always gotten along. Like
Gary said, we've been friends, we've accommodated
11 each other along the years . And I was hoping that
this wasn' t going to be the problem that it' s
12 turned out to be .
I wish you luck in making this decision, I
13 know it' s not an easy one . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
14 that wishes to comment on this application?
Anything else from the Board members?
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If not, I' ll make a
16 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
the re-hearing on the Bollman property on Truman' s
19 Path in East Marion.
Mr. Arnoff, are you representing the
20 Bollmans?
MR. ARNOFF: I am, Mrs . Oliva. Harvey
21 Arnoff, 206 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York,
good afternoon.
22. I 'm somewhat perplexed and it' s a
scheduling thing which I think is more form than
23 substance, considering the hour. But it would
appear to me that before the Board should act or
24 consider acting on the possibility of a
re-hearing, it should make a determination in
25 regard to Miss Gould' s application which the time
for that has already passed since it was scheduled
October 20 , 2005
98
1
2 for 2 : 50 . It would seem to me that the issues
presented by her per her application here to
3 revoke the determination of the Building
Department might impact upon this Board' s ultimate
4 determination as to whether to even grant a
re-hearing and what to do with a re-hearing. I
5 question that -- I didn' t call because it' s really
none of my business, but when I saw the scheduling
6 by the Board and the timing of these two hearings,
I thought they were inverted, and I think we' re
7 putting the cart before the horse . So I would ask
the Board if it would consider hearing the second
8 hearing first and then utilizing that information
to go forward. Because otherwise, I think,
9 they' re all going to kind of blend together in
some kind of an uncontrollable mish-mosh. They' re
10 going to all spill over, and we can focus our
attention, if you will, on each part of this by
11 doing it in that manner.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
12 objection to that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would like to get a
13 legal opinion on that . Yes, Mr. Bressler?
MR. BRESSLER: May it please the Board, my
14 name is Eric Bressler, of Wickham, Bressler,
Gordon and Geasa, Mattituck, New York representing
15 Jennifer Gould.
It seems to me in response to Mr. Ar.noff' s
16 comments, that the actions of the Board were quite
clear, quite rational and that there is no bar to
17 this Board having granted or voted to have a
re-hearing proceed with a re-hearing. I don' t
18 believe there' s going to be any mish-mosh one way
or another. I think that easily any perceived
19 mish-mosh can be easily remedied by dealing with
whatever evidence is brought in by this hearing be
20 incorporated by reference into the second hearing
or vice versa. Or the Board could open the matter
21 up to take testimony and argument with the
understanding that what' s said is germane and
22 admitted into both hearings . I don' t see the
point in duplicating everything we' re going do and
23 it seems to me that the applicant ought to go
forward, make its case, and the Board can rule as
24 to the admissibility of everything that' s said,
and we' ll deal with the issues before the Board.
25 That' s my suggestion as to how the Board ought to
proceed in the interest of economy given the
October 20 , 2005
99
1
2 hour.
MR. ARNOFF : In order to grant a
3 re-hearing, there must be new evidence or a reason
for the Board -- and additionally, I must point
4 out, the statute gives this Board the power to
direct this hearing, but at the same time you must
5 find that you did not by your earlier
determination vest certain rights in people,
6 meaning the Bollmans, and that they acted in good
faith in reliance of it . We had an application, I
7 believe, the initial application was to demolish a
house and the Board gave permission to do that .
8 It' s gone . So we' re having a re-hearing on
whether we can demolish a house that isn' t there .
9 I'm not entirely sure what we' re doing here and
that was going to be another question I had for
10 this Board, I'm not sure why we' re here . I'm
prepared to go forward, but I'm not sure that we
11 just say on a re-hearing we rest on the record;
you have our testimony, you have all the evidence,
12 you have everything; there' s nothing new except
for this problem with the foundation.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why you' re
here, not because of the building being demolished
14 but because of the foundation.
MR. ARNOFF: That' s correct . So the issue
15 then is : Are we not here on a very narrow issue
of the foundation, or are we opening up the whole
16 panoply of side yard, front yard, all of the rest
that goes because that' s what we need the
17 direction of this Board to do because this could
turn into a whole de novo proceeding, and I ' m not
18 sure that that' s what this Board wants to do . I
don' t think that the Board can make that ultimate
19 determination until it gets to the second hearing,
that being Miss Could' s application to annul the
20 determination of the Building Inspector. That' s
what my point is .
21 MR. BRESSLER: Ma' am Chairwoman, the Town
law is extremely clear in Section 267 (a) 12 , it
22 authorizes the re-hearing of a matter upon the
unanimous vote of all the members of the Board
23 present . That' s what it says . Now, independent
of that authority, the Board may also grant a
24 re-hearing if new facts and circumstances are
shown. So, with due respect, Mr. Arnoff is wrong
25 on the law. The Board voted to have a re-hearing,
we' re going to have a re-hearing. And
October 20 , 2005
100
1
2 respectfully, if Mr. Arnoff chooses to rest on his
record that he made, and he chooses to incorporate
3 that into the new hearing and the Board so allows
him, that' s his decision, and he can move forward.
4 But the Board has voted to have a re-hearing.
It' s clear under the law they have the authority.
5 Let' s have a re-hearing and whatever evidence he
wants to put in, he' ll put in and I ' ll respond to '
6 whatever it is that I think needs response . And
let' s go before we all start getting hungry.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Kieran?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a
8 question?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Board can
9 do whatever it wants . They' re both validly
noticed hearings .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What does the Board
wish to do?
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Proceed with the
hearing.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s go .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Clarification for
13 me . If I could ask Eric a question, as I 'm
reading the first application, which is pertaining
14 to Mr. Arnoff, we made a decision based on certain
facts presented to us at a hearing, and I'm not
15 quite sure how procedure goes, but we feel perhaps
that that particular decision wasn' t followed due
16 to the evidence that was presented to us before .
Now, we have new evidence; that new evidence is
17 the actual, physical new foundation that' s there .
Am I --
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The footings .
�MR. .BRESSLER: The fact that the old
19 foundation then became certified as unusable, a
footing went in and then this Board stopped. Now
20 you have new facts, that' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I went through the
21 minutes . I went through the minutes, and I have
here, and I want to know if this is the crux of
22 everything. "Mr. Orlando : Is the foundation
structural? Mr. Bertani : Yes, it is . We are
23 going to do very little work to it . " That would
be the basis for opening this new hearing.
24 MR. DRESSLER: So therefore, a re-hearing
is called for, an examination of the facts is
25 called for, and while Mr. Arnoff may be
technically correct that with respect to the
October 20 , 2005
101
1
2 demolition what' s done is done, he is incorrect
with respect to the fact that the rest of what is
3 going to be done remains within this Board' s
jurisdiction. And that' s the issue . And I think
4 this Board needs to hear the whys and wherefores
and how this happened in determining what kind of
5 relief its going to grant .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think maybe I could
6 sort this out . At the time of the last hearing,
the approval was given under the implicit
7 assumption -- it' s not so implicit, it' s actually
stated in there that they were not going to be
8 able to use the old foundation --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They were going to
9 be able to.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They were going to be
10 able to use the old foundation, and it turns out
that that assumption is false . It turned out to
11 be false . Maybe nobody could have known at the
time it was false, but it was false . The reason
12 for reconsidering this whole business has nothing
to do with the fact that the demolition occurred
13 before the defectiveness in the foundation
occurred, it had to do with this is a very
14 important relevant new fact which said we should
reconsider what we decided in the light of this
15 one new fact . What that means procedurally, I
don' t know. But it' s pretty clear to me what the
16 substantive issues are here .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There were two
17 reasons . And the other reason was because the
foundation was removed, Board members went down
18 and saw that it was removed, . so circumstances
changed.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just have footings
there and no foundations .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to then
figure out how that happened.
21 MR. ARNOFF: I agree .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that the
22 owners have the opportunity to present to us
information that draws a picture for us, whatever
23 it is, of how that footing got there .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: For clarity' s
24 sake, we have two hearings . While the standards
might be slightly different for them, the facts
25 are essentially the same . We' re going to hear
both hearings . Let' s just start and let' s have
October 20 , 2005
102
1
2 the Board hear who they want to hear first .
MR. BRESSLER: And I am going to ask that
3 whatever be done in the first hearing be
incorporated by reference in the second hearing.
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I would assume
SO .
5 MR. BRESSLER: And hope that no more than
that is necessary and let the Board issue its
6 determinations . I don' t intend to re-up
everything, doesn' t make any sense .
7 MR. ARNOFF : I don' t have a problem with
that, but my question is : Are we going into the
8 side yard variances? Are we going into the height
variances, which this Board gave? Are we
9 addressing all those issues de novo?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If the Board
10 wishes to hear them.
MR. ARNOFF: Unless we know that, we can' t
11 address it . That' s my point . In other words, are
we addressing -- I'm here to address whatever this
12 Board wants me to address . The issue then becomes
one, as Mr. Dinizio said, are we dealing with the
13 foundation and the history of what happened to the
foundation and that alone -- at least for the time
14 being -- that' s fine
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s Part 1 .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s start with that .
MR. BRESSLER: And the consequences that
16 flow from that, so make your case .
MR. ARNOFF : I will do what the Board
17 directs me to do, not what Mr. Bressler directs me
to do, most respectfully.
18 At this particular point, I think
considering the comments that have been made, I
19 think it would be best if I were to call on
Mr. Bertani, the general contractor, to give the
20 Board the history of how and why this all
happened. John.
21 MR. BERTANI : Good afternoon, my name is
John Bertani . Basically we came, I believe, in
22 March and we started the process of asking for
variances to reconstruct Mr. and Mrs . Bollman' s
23 house . We met with the Board, made some
suggestions to us, we tried to maintain the
24 foundation, that was our original thoughts to keep
the front portion and the right side, which would
25 be I guess the east side of the foundation, we
were altering the rear for an addition and also to
October 20 , 2005
103
1
2 get access to the basement which was there . It
had what was called a "Dutch wall, " and that' s
3 where the equipment for the house was going to go.
We adjusted the house . Miss Gould came and made
4 some suggestions . We worked with her. We lowered
the house to 27 feet, the maximum height on the
5 ridge, and that' s the highest ridge, there' s other
ones that are much lower. We brought in the east
6 side of the house, back to get more of a
variance -- less of a variance I should say, on
7 the east side of the house . And we did receive
the permit for that, the Board' s variance for
8 that, for the front yard we received a variance
and I believe lot coverage variance . So we
9 proceeded to demolish the house once we got the
permits . We went forward with that, and when we
10 got to the point of when we took down the wooden
structure, we started just by going along the side
11 of the foundation, it started to buckle and cave
in. The foundation was found to be substandard.
12 We did not know it at the time because the house
was completely surrounded by bushes and everything
13 else, and it was never, ever really tested to see
if it was structurally sound. We were just
14 following the plans prepared by Penny Lumber and
it was stamped by the engineer for them, which was
15 based on the structural part of the house and the
foundation, I guess the new foundation that he was
16 stamping basically that it was structurally okay.
We then went, we saw this problem, I went to the
17 Building Department . I asked what should I do,
what procedure should I follow. They looked at
18 it, they said they had no problem with us
replacing the foundation that was there, and then
19 they said we should check with the Trustees . They
actually checked with the Trustees . The Trustees
20 said it was no problem because they gave the
permit based on the actual footprint of the house .
21 Well, it was nonjurisdiction for the wetlands
because of the height of the bluff, then I believe
22 Pat from the Building Department went to the ZBA
office and asked Linda or she said a secretary.
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. I was off that
day.
24 MR. BERTANI : The secretary contacted Miss
Oliva and asked if we could go ahead and proceed
25 with the demolition of the foundation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Supposedly the
October 20, 2005
104
1
2 conversation was that they wished to replace a
piece of the foundation or a section of the
3 foundation that was crumbling. My response was
that you could replace it in-kind/in-place, not to
4 go further, just in-kind/in-place .
MR. BERTANI : We did not go any further as
5 far as the footprint of the house . It' s actually
less of a footprint than what was there
6 originally. And I was not told that; I was told
that we could remove the foundation and replace it
7 exactly in the same spot, that' s what I was told.
I did not see any paperwork. So we stopped. I
8 waited for a surveyor for over a week to stake out
the location of the existing house, and we
9 followed that right to the letter, and we also
have proof of that which we gave the Board. It' s
10 exactly in the same place it was before . It' s no
further towards the water, towards Miss Gould' s
11 property or Mr. Peretz' s property, it' s actually
less . And the one corner in the front, they said
12 something about the coastal erosion line, we' re
back actually four and a half feet from that with
13 the corner of the footing if you looked in the
back on Mr. Peretz' s side of the property. So I
14 just don' t understand the reason. Basically we
did go down, it' s no doubt about that . We removed
15 it and we wanted to replace it because it was
structurally insufficient to hold a new house .
16 Well, the reason it was structurally insufficient
was it was less than three feet for the frost
17 line . We only had approximately 24 inches in
certain areas . It was all varied throughout the
18 foundation, different heights and so on. I guess
the original house they must have dug under it by
19 hand and slid in block where they could. And the
Dutch wall in the center was done at a later
20 date . There are some pictures . I don' t know if
you' re interested.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, we like
pictures . So in other words, Mr. Bertani, once
22 you started to work on this foundation you found
out that not just a piece was crumbling, but just
23 most all of it was not done properly.
MR. BERTANI : Right . It just wasn' t done
24 adequately. And believe me, if we could have left
the front and side, we would have done it . We
25 weren' t looking to cause any problems for anyone
in the neighborhood or anything like that . I
October 20 , 2005
105
1
2 thought we tried to work with the neighbors as
best we could and also end up with something --
3 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And I don' t believe
anybody up here is disputing whether the
4 foundation was or wasn' t -- the integrity. It' s
just that the previous hearing that we deliberated
5 so intently with Miss Gould and everyone we were
basing it on leaving the foundation in place, so
6 we had to work around those boundaries . And once
we found out that that wasn' t part of the equation
7 anymore, that changes the whole game, and the job
went out of scope, which happens in the
8 construction field. So we want to review it again
because now it' s a new ballgame . We' re up to bat
9 again, it' s the first inning, so now we can move
things, we can change things .
10 MR. BERTANI : The other thing we have to
know also is like we stated before that maybe is
11 in the record also is that the septic system, the
water line, everything else is in the back of the
12 house . You' re not going to be able to put that on
the water side of the house; there' s very little
13 land there, and I don' t think the Health
Department would really want that because it would
14 probably blow the bank out . Basically, we have no
place to go with it .
15 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You installed new
septic systems already?
16 MR. BERTANI : No. I'm saying we have to .
there' s an old one there we have to abandon.
17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You have to bring
it up to code?
18 MR. BERTANI : Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you' re saying you
19 have to put that between the house and the garage?
MR. BERTANI : Right . And we also have to
20 bring the water line in, have that 10 foot
separation.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does the garage have
any bathroom in it?
22 MR. BERTANI : Yes, it does, but that goes
into the existing system which is in that area.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question of Mr. Bertani?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. BERTANI : Yes .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bertani,
apart from this situation that you were referring
October 20 , 2005
106
1
2 to where they go in and dig out the walls, you
know where you had some -- I' ll refer to them as
3 knee walls, the outside walls, and they go in and
put an internal foundation around the existing
4 outside walls, is there any difference between
that footing that exists today, that I looked at,
5 and the outside walls as they existed if I was in
the basement of the house? In other words, those
6 outside walls which included the square apart from
the addition you were putting on the back, are
7 those outside walls, meaning the furthest outside
walls, any difference on that footing as they
8 exist today? Are they in the same place as I'm
turning?
9 MR. BERTANI : Yes, they are, but we did
take the corner in off Mr. Peretz' s, that would be
10 the west, southwest -- southeast corner, I'm
sorry.
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you move it
in or move it out?
12 MR. BERTANI : In.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How far did you
13 move it in?
MR. BERTANI : Four foot four inches . Any
14 other questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any
15 other questions of Mr. Bertani?�
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, looks like you
16 have a pretty deep cellar to begin with.
MR. BERTANI : Yes . It was the full height
17 from the center. They dug it out in the inside to
provide for the heating equipment . We were making
18 access on the addition side so we could get to
that because there was no interior access to that .
19 Then that' s where, from that forward we were going
to keep, and that' s the part that we found when we
20 started to do it, that wall was fine if we could
have kept the front . We didn' t look forward to
21 doing this .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What did you do?
22 You took the whole thing out?
MR. BERTANI : Yes .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You could have just
put three feet down?
24 MR. BERTANI : We could have went down four
feet down in the front . We just decided while we
25 were doing it, we' d get some more space, it' s not
a very big place, figured we could use it for more
October 20 , 2005
107
1
2 storage .
MR. ARNOFF: Miss Oliva, if I may, I have
3 the original survey that is referenced, which is
updated August 29th, I believe the Board may have
4 this .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t have the
5 one showing where the footings are . Was there
another survey done for the footings?
6 MR. VERITY: That' s the same survey that' s
on here .
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There were new
footings put in after that, right?
8 MR. VERITY: That' s the same survey.
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So this building' s
9 locked in stone . It cannot be moved one foot
either way?
10 MR. BERTANI : Well, the footings are
already in.
11 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Say the footings
aren' t there .
12 MR. BERTANI : Where can we go? We already
have a variance for the front, we have six feet I
13 believe at the widest and then 5 . 9 on the west .
We have 12 . 6 I believe on the east . I don' t know
14 where else we could go . If we -try to come back,
we have the septic system, the water lines .
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Harvey, the
Chairwoman had a question.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the footings
on this survey?
17 MR. BERTANI : (Marking. )
MR. ARNOFF : Miss Oliva, I would ask the
18 Board to take notice and to deem admitted before
the Board as evidence the correspondence you
19 received from Mr. Durkowski with regard to the
foundation. I believe there' s a letter in the
20 file indicating it is structurally unsafe and
unsound to proceed. With that, I would also ask
21 that there are letters which have been sent to the
Trustees and from the Trustees back and forth to
22 this Board, I would ask that they be incorporated
as well into the record.
23 I would ask that the Board also take
notice of all the testimony that it had before it
24 in the prior hearings in this matter and deem them
admitted for purposes in this hearing as well,
25 rather than have to induce additional testimony of
the exact same nature .
October 20 , 2005
108
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, why not .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is it only the
3 testimony from the prior record that you want
entered or the entire file?
4 MR. ARNOFF : Entire file . I have some
more comments but I would like to reserve them for
5 the conclusion, if I may. Nothing further at this
time .
6 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Is there anyone
else that would like to speak for or against this
7 application?
MR. BRESSLER: Please . The Board finds
8 itself in an interesting position this afternoon.
At the prior hearing it was represented to the
9 Board that essentially the reason why this
nonconformity had to be continued was because it
10 would be a great hardship to put another
foundation in. That was the reason; that was the
11 stated reason, and it turned out, as noted
earlier, that that just wasn' t so. And you' ll
12 hear testimony today from our experts as to why
that never should have been the case, and this
13 Board can reach its own conclusion as to what the
real reasons were and what the whys and wherefores
14 were surrounding how it came to be that a
foundation was stamped concededly never tested or
15 looked at, and all of a sudden within a week and a
half of the plans coming in, it was suddenly
16 determined that the foundation, contrary to the
representation, wasn' t any good. That that was a
17 departure from accepted engineering standards I
think it will be seen is beyond question. Whether
18 it' s something other and further than that I think
is something for the Board to decide .
19 So now the Board finds itself in the
position of having to ask the question,
20 essentially de novo, is this the place where the
Board is going to approve a house? Is this the
21 only place that a house can be logically put on
this lot? Is there any way that a house can be
22 put on this lot that is conforming? And we think
the answer to that is yes . Are there any other
23 ways in which to handle the septic, such that a
conforming house can be put on this lot? The
24 answer to that question is yes . So plainly the
answer to the ultimate question, which is can the
25 applicant achieve what he is seeking by some other
means less intrusive, the answer is yes . The
October 20 , 2005
109
1
2 Board must also take into account whether, in
considering this application, it is going to
3 essentially turn this property into a two
residence property. The Board has before it the
4 testimony from the last hearing now, which makes
it plain that the applicant was living in modified
5 space for three and a half years, now even longer
than that . That' s a residence . The Board will
6 also hear testimony concerning the fact that this
other residence is also nonconforming and not
7 built in accordance with permit .
So basically, what the Board has to ask
8 itself is whether or not it' s going to permit this
property to be converted into a property with two
9 residences, each of which are nonconforming when
it doesn' t have to be so. That' s really the
10 question for determination here today.
Now, the second hearing draws off the
11 facts in the first hearing. And what we' re asking
for there is obviously that the building permit
12 that was issued pursuant to the prior decision of
this Board be set aside, and that any building
13 permit that be issued, be issued in accordance
with what this Board decides today in the
14 re-hearing with respect to what it' s going to
permit to allow on this piece of property.
15 That having been said, I think that that' s
adequate for the time being and I think I' d ask
16 Miss Gould to step up and proceed with her
presentation of the facts concerning the
17 neighborhood, this particular property, what is on
the property. And after that, I ' d ask our
18 engineer Mr. O'Brien to get up and address several
issues, the first of which is what is the
19 appropriate manner in which to handle foundational
issues such as this . Were those steps followed
20 here; can the septic be placed in other places,
and most importantly, were the steps or I should
21 say the non-steps taken by the applicant with
respect to the whole in compliance with the law
22 and regulation. That being said, Miss Gould.
MS . COULD: Jennifer Gould. I gave Mr.
23 Arnoff a print which I'm now going to hand into
the Board but I also wanted to put in some
24 pictures . The first two pictures are the eight by
10 ' s of the front and the back of the accessory
25 building residence . The second set of pictures is
33 photos of the Bollman excavation. They' re all
October 20, 2005
110
1
2 dated on the reverse and numbered between 8/3/2005
and 8/25/2005 , 14 photos dated and numbered of the
3 Bollman excavation between 9/4 and 9/28/2005, and
the most recent photos, five photos taken October
4 12th and 13th of 2005 showing the storm damage
along the Gould home and property line . And I ask
5 that all these pictures and the 34 pictures that I
submitted on March 31st be put in for both
6 appeals, Number 5680 , which is the Bollman appeal,
and 5781, which is my subsequent appeal . I also
7 have an original and five copies .
MR. BRESSLER: I would like to make clear,
8 Mr. Arnoff has just reminded me that it' s the
understanding of both parties here that everything
9 that happened in the prior appeal is made part of
this appeal the companion appeal, both appeals .
10 So we need not double this up or burden the record
with repeating those statements; is that correct,
11 Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
12 MR. ARNOFF : We would like an opportunity
to review those photographs .
13 MS . GOULD : I can email them all to you.
MR. ARNOFF: Before we finish today?
14 MS . GOULD : What I've given Mr. Arnoff and
what I 'm now giving the Board is the Bollman
15 survey with a proposed building envelope, a copy
of the Peretz survey, a copy of the Gould survey,
16 a copy of John C. Ehlers Land Surveyors
certification, September 23 , 2005 , showing that
17 the peak of the Bollman accessory building is 25
feet, and I've also copied the building permit CO
18 file for the Bollman accessory building. So
that' s the original and this is five copies .
19 I think it' s already done, but I would
just like the record to reflect that the neighbor
20 on the eastern side of the Bollman property,
that' s Jessie Peretz wrote a letter in opposition
21 to the granting of the variances and that his
letter be entered into the record.
22 I'm going to try to not repeat myself at
all from the first hearing. I want to review the
23 overview from Truman' s Path, people who drive down
Truman' s Path and whose houses are on Truman' s
24 Path. There are 21 dwellings by my accounts, two
vacant lots and the vast majority of these homes
25 are one-story bungalows or one and a half story
bungalows . When we get down to the subject
October 20 , 2005
111
1
2 property, we have the Bollman lot, a 50 foot lot
in the center. I'm to the west . I have a 40 foot
3 lot . My dwelling is 21 feet wide and my accessory
is 256 feet, for a total of 1, 526 square feet . My
4 side yard on the Bollman side, so my eastern side
yard, is 12 . 2 feet . It conforms to the side yard
5 setback requirements of the code . My overall yard
doesn' t, 40 feet wide, but on his side it
6 conforms . Then you go to the Peretz property.
The Peretz lot is to the east of the Bollmans .
7 It' s 50 feet wide . It' s recently been renovated.
It' s 20 . 2 feet wide . It' s a two-story dwelling
8 with 2 , 000 square feet of living space, three
bedrooms, three full baths . Both of the Peretz
9 side yards, if you look at the surveys,
conform. He has a total of 27 . 6 feet of side yard
10 and there is only one house on all of Truman' s
Path that is bigger than the Peretz house and that.
11 would be the house formerly owned by Parino, which
is at 31-12-16 , by reviewing the Building
12 Department file . It' s an old file, 1987, the
house appears to be 3 , 000 square feet . It
13 received a variance from the Board for its
setbacks from the lake and some side yard
14 setbacks, but the problem with the Peretz house is
that it' s an illegal two family and that' s
15 documented in the Building Department file, and
there' s correspondence between Frank Yakaboski and
16 Victor Lasard, saying no, you have to make them
take the second kitchen out on the second floor.
17 It can only be a one-family dwelling, and that' s
just that one house .
18 So the point of me giving you this copy of
the Bollman survey, there is a reasonable
19 alternative, now that the front cottage is totally
demolished, of putting the house in a building
20 envelope which conforms to the code . What I have
sketched in there in yellow is the front of the
21 envelope is 75 feet back from the bulkhead, that' s
from the beach bulkhead. You look at
22 correspondence from the Trustees they measure the
bulkhead from the top of the bulkhead because he
23 cut into his bluff and has a triple bulkhead now.
So they' re measuring from the top of the bulkhead.
24 I measured from the beach going back 75 feet . The
side yards I 've made 10 on the Peretz side and 15
25 on mine . Obviously, you can move that envelope
either way as long as you can keep a minimum side
October 20 , 2005
112
1
2 yard of 25 feet . The rear yard, which is the
driveway to Truman' s Path, is a 35 foot setback.
3 Now, as Mr. Bressler said before, the
septic system, the whole septic system, is going
4 to be moved. It can be moved to the side yard
along my property. It can also be moved to the
5 proposed driveway area. Might have to get a
variance for a cover from the Health Department,
6 but it is do-able . It can be done . Will move the
septic around and I guess it has to be 10 feet
7 from my water line, but there appears to be
sufficient room there .
8 As you can see, it says two-story frame
garage, that' s the only building that is now on
9 the Bollman property. That building, is 21 . 3 feet
wide . That' s wider than my house, and it' s wider
10 than the neighbor' s house . According to their
surveyor' s calculations, the total square footage
11 of this second-story building is 1, 507 . I told
you that I counted with my outbuilding mine was
12 1, 526 , so the total square footage right now is
1, 507 on this Bollman accessory building.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Gould, when
you were referring to the square footage of your
14 house, were you taking the second story in?
MS . GOULD: Yes, I was .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said the
total square footage of your house?
16 MS . GOULD: I'm sorry. We have a one and
a half story. The second floor is 493 . 5 feet, the
17 bottom is 777 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
18 MS . GOULD: The dwelling itself, first and
second floor is 1, 270 , the outbuilding 256 .
19 If you go back to the Bollman application,
what they' re asking for, they' re asking for
20 setbacks from the beach, side yards and total
square footage . If they put it inside here, they
21 don' t need most of those variances . The only
variance they would need if they incorporated the
22 accessory building into a house structure, just
made it larger, would be a setback variance on the
23 Peretz side because that building is as ' close as
5 . 8 -- actually it' s as close as 3 . 5 and as far
24 away as 5 . 8 . They will need a minor setback
variance along there, and then could jog the
25 structure more to the center of the
property. It' s a design issue, but it can be
October 20 , 2005
113
1
2 done . It' s not impossible . They may not want to
do it, but that' s not the legal standard here .
3 The issue is whether there' s a reasonable
alternative .
4 Now, this building, this garage in the
packet, I've given you prior Bollman surveys and
5 you' ll see that this two-story accessory building
with a brand new building, the permit was 1997 .
6 On the older surveys you' ll see that there was a
ramshackle shed that was there before . So they
7 knocked that down, and they put this up . So as
far as I 'm concerned, it' s a self-created
8 hardship. It' s in the middle of their building
envelope, but it' s certainly do-able they can have
9 a 3 , 000 square foot house if they incorporate this
building into it . It' s 250 percent bigger than my
10 house, 50 percent bigger than the Peretz house,
and bigger than any other house in the whole
11 neighborhood, but it would only be one house .
I 've given you other documentation in this
12 packet because I 've always been concerned about
the height of this accessory structure . I 've
13 always felt there was something wrong, it was too
high. So I had a surveyor come out and survey it
14 for me, and as you can see, it' s 25 feet at the
peak. Now our code, we discussed this at the last
15 hearing, it has a rather bizarre way of
calculating what the height of the accessory
16 building should be, but I recall Mr. Goehringer
saying it could be 22 feet . And I understand now
17 how you get that because you take the eve is at
14 , the peak is at 22, you added the two together,
18 that' s 36 , you divide it by 2 to get the mean
height, and that' s your 18 foot accessory
19 building. The only problem here is that the eve
of the Bollman building is not at 11 feet because
20 that' s the only way you could get an accessory
building height of 25 feet . If you take the peak
21 at 25 and the eve at 11 . If you look at the
picture, the eve is about 14 feet . I didn' t have
22 a surveyor do it, but from the eye it' s about
halfway up the building. That' s the first issue
23 and a reason also to bring the accessory building,
incorporate it into the new house so you don' t
24 have to get the variance for the height of a
building, for an accessory building being 25 feet
25 high.
The second thing I discovered going
October 20 , 2005
114
1
2 through the Building Department file and also
looking at this survey, the minimum side yard
3 setback requirement on all structures, whether
they are accessory or the main dwelling is
4 supposed to be 25 feet . This was a new building.
This is supposed to conform to code, but this deck
5 went on. It' s not included in the CO, and it
makes the total side yards 21 . 2 feet . So it needs
6 a variance for the deck that surrounds it . That' s
not part of the CO. You have the whole file there
7 for the CO. It has plans that were drafted in
1977, there' s no deck on it . The plans were then
8 stamped four years later by Warren Sandback who
said they were okay. There' s no height on those
9 plans . You've got the road sheet in there, you've
got the application, you've got the -CO, and
10 nowhere does it say that that deck is included on
the CO. So it seems to make sense to me to take
11 the deck off and extend the building out, then put
that deck back on, wrap it on the front of
12 whatever new building you have . It can' t stay on
the accessory building as it is . The steps up to
13 that second floor also make the side yards
nonconforming by about two feet .
14 Now as to the use of the property, as I
understand it -- my husband and I have owned the
15 property for 19 years . Ever since we've lived
there, the building that is now gone, the cottage,
16 was a summer rental . For the first few years we
lived there it was a summer rental and then a year
17 round tenant went in and he told me a week ago,
this is Robert Christianson, he left in 1995, so
18 since 1995 , 10 years ago, that building has been
abandoned; there was never any real maintenance
19 done to it, which is maybe why it' s in the poor
condition that it was in. It was always an
20 eyesore in the neighborhood, and once the CO was
issued on the accessory building, and if you look
21 at that Building Department file, you' ll see he
had to put an affidavit of why there had to be
22 heat in this thing, a full-blown heating system.
Mr. Bollman has lived there since the spring of
23 2002 . So while he got a CO for an accessory
building, his use of the property has not been
24 incidental or subordinate to the principal use of
the property, the principal use of the property
25 was the accessory building itself . So this wasn' t
a temporary thing where he moved out of the
October 20 , 2005
115
1
2 cottage into the accessory building. He never
lived in the cottage, he' s, only lived in this
3 accessory building, which makes it a principal
residence as far as I'm concerned. So that' s why
4 I'm asking, if they want to expand, expand this
building rather than building a second dwelling.
5 If you look at the pictures in the record
since the beginning of March, and I know you've
6 all been out there too, as Mr. Bressler said, the
record has been incorporated, there was already an
7 admission that he lived there . He made the
admission that he lived there . I don' t think it
8 was quite clear how long he lived there, but I 'm
telling you it was three and a half years full
9 time . It' s got cable, it' s got satellite, it' s
got the barbecue . The whole thing is air
10 conditioned. It' s got this generator that goes on
once a day, it' s auxiliary powered. It might not
11 be a big house, but it' s certainly something you
can live in, and if there' s another separate
12 building, the way I see it, it' s two houses, and
there' s nothing like it in the neighborhood. Show
13 me something in the neighborhood that' s similar to
this where you have an accessory building or
14 something that' s called an accessory building
which is as big or bigger than every other house
15 in the neighborhood. And it' s just not in keeping
with the neighborhood, and that' s why I ask that
16 the Board consider making him do something in this
yellow footprint . Thank you.
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody have any
questions of 'Miss Gould? Jim, Mike, Jerry?
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing I
want to say is if it has a CO for an accessory
19 structure, I don' t care if it' s an elephant, it
may be used for a primary residence for a person,
20 be it the person that is the fee owner of the
property, Miss Gould, but it is still in the guise
21 of this town as being an accessory building. As
you know, there are a lot of people in this town
22 that live in accessory buildings, that is legally
or illegally, most of them illegally. So I 'm
23 telling you that you' re absolutely correct in
saying that if somebody' s living there, because if
24 you live there you can see people entering and
exiting the property, but I 'm telling you it can' t
25 be a primary structure because it doesn' t have a
CO for a primary structure .
October 20 , 2005
116
1
2 MS . GOULD: What I'm suggesting is that
the accessory building, which does not conform to
3 code requirements, because of its height and the
deck, be expanded into a full-blown residence .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We understand
what you' re saying. I 'm also saying to you if it
5 has a CO, it was incumbent upon whomever granted
the CO to deal with that aspect of the height .
6 Secondly, the height of that roof is somewhat
higher than the average normal roof that I was
7 referring to when I was referring to that mean of
22 feet, meaning 22 feet to the ridge . This is a
8 very steep roof line, that may have been the
reason why the building inspector dealt with it at
9 the time as being conforming in reference to
height . That is one of the reasons why the Town
10 Board in their inimitable wisdom have been. dealing
with the aspect of a pyramid law, because when you
11 use steep roof lines, and it was explained to me
in code committee, that you can go as high as 57
12 feet with our present code, and that' s the concern
we all have had; that' s the concern I have had on
13 this Board and everybody has had in reference to
stretching that 35 feet all the way up based upon
14 Victorian Tudor-style roofs . I'm just mentioning
it to you.
15 MS . GOULD: If you look to the file,
you' ll see that there are no measurements for what
16 it was .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand but
17 there was still a CO granted on the building.
MS . GOULD: I understand. But what I am
18 suggesting is the applicant is here asking for
four substantial variances, and I believe you
19 should take notice of the fact of what is on the
property before you decide to grant those
20 variances; that' s my point, okay. Thank you.
MR. BRESSLER: Before I ask Mr. O' Brien to
21 come up in here, I ' d just like to respond briefly,
Mr. Goehringer,' to your comment that because there
22 is a CO for an accessory building in the eyes of
the Town, it is an accessory building
23 notwithstanding what people are doing. In one
sense that may be so, but I think Miss Gould put
24 her finger on it when she said when an applicant
comes before this Board and asks for a variance
25 relief, then all the facts and circumstances
surrounding the property are in play, and if it is
October 20 , 2005
117
1
r
2 established before this Board that notwithstanding
the CO that was granted there, the use of the
3 property is for something different, then this
Board can take that into account in determining
4 whether or not it' s going to grant a variance, and
I think that was Miss Gould' s point .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand.
But why wasn' t that issue brought up at the time
6 of the original hearing?
. MR. BRESSLER: I can' t speak to why it was
7 or why it wasn' t except to note that the fact that
the applicant had been living there for three and
8 a half years is plainly on the record. Now it may
not have been explained as clearly or forcefully
9 as it has been today, but I do know in reviewing
the record that that was in there . So I wouldn' t
10 say that it wasn' t brought up.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I
11 have is do the Bollmans own any other property in
the town of Southold that reflects a one-family
12 dwelling?
MR. BRESSLER: When someone comes before
13 this Board notwithstanding what we all know goes
on around town, but when someone comes before this
14 Board and subjects themselves to your discretion
in determining what you' re going to grant, they
15 lay bare before you whatever it is that' s going on
on the property, and I don' t think that the Board
16 has to say, well, okay, there is a CO for an
accessory building, so therefore we' re not going
17 to look at it, that' s the only point .
So that being said, I' d like Mr. O' Brien
18 to address the engineering issues .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
19 say this, okay, I see in this room three officers
of the court; one here, one there and one there
20 (indicating) . You' re representing Miss Gould.
Miss Gould is telling me that this building is
21 being used as a habitable structure regardless of
what the CO is on it . Now I can assume that since
22 she is an officer of the court, she is telling me
that someone, meaning you don' t have to swear to a
23 specific issue, that someone is using this
building 24/7 for a habitable structure; is that
24 correct?
MR. BRESSLER: The applicant has conceded
25 it, yes . In the last hearing the applicant has
conceded they've been living there for three and a
October 20 , 2005
118
1
2 half years .
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: She did concede it .
3 MR. BRESSLER: Those words are in the
record.
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I
have is do the Bollmans own another piece of
5 property or other properties in the town of
Southold?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That has nothing to do
with it, Jerry.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has nothing to
do with it .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has
everything to do with it; how do you know they' re
9 living there?
MR. BRESSLER: She lives next door and has
10 been inside . She has so testified.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just to elucidate
11 on Jerry' s comment a little more, because I think
it' s a little backwards . I'm wondering how the
12 building inspector goes on this piece of property
and doesn' t question the height of that building.
13 In all honesty, the building inspector is the
person who passes judgment on this; perhaps he
14 could enlighten us as to the reason why, and
perhaps also he can tell us why he can' t see a
15 dwelling in there . We have had testimony today
admitting that there' s toilet facilities in an
16 accessory structure, which I believe is not
allowed in this town.
17 MR. BRESSLER: The fact that he' s lived
there for three and a half years is conceded. Now
18 people can quibble over the fact as to whether
this is a dwelling unit or whether it isn' t a
19 dwelling unit . And Mr. Arnoff no doubt will and
in most inimitable style, but the fact remains
20 that it is undisputed and remains that someone has
lived there for three and a half years, and that' s
21 the fact . And I don' t care if they own 16 other
properties in town, that' s where this guy' s been
22 living and he' s admitted it . So that having been
said, I' d like the engineer to come up and
23 complete our case . And if Mr. Dinizio and the
rest of the Board wants to hear from the Building
24 Inspector, I see him. He' s sitting over there and
he' s waiting to be questioned, and if he can just
25 hold his breath until Mr. O'Brien is done, I'm
sure the Board will have some questions for him.
October 20 , 2005
119
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. O'Brien.
MR. O'BRIEN: Bob O'Brien, 2074 Main Road
3 in Laurel . I also have a house next to Jenny and
the Bollmans out in East Marion. It' s my second
4 residence . I'm a professional engineer, licensed
in the state of New York for 35 years, and I ' m
5 going to address the foundation issue .
What is common to the trade and common to
6 myself on an existing foundation, especially on an
older structure like this where they normally do
7 have shallow foundations, they could be in
disrepair from frost heaves, from settlements,
8 they were basically just thrown up for weekend
houses . I would go out and you do test pits
9 around the foundation to determine not only the
condition of the foundation, but the test pits
10 would extend at least four foot below the bottom
of the footings and see if there are any clay
11 layers or anything else that when you put this
additional load of second story, third story,
12 whatever, they' re going to reflect up, and you' re
going to have problems with the new foundation or
13 the existing foundation; that' s just common
practice .
14 And it also should be addressed on the
plans for the house, when you do a renovation,
15 the existing foundation should be shown, of
course, with the new hurricane requirements you
16 have to tie into that foundation strapping, that
should be shown on the drawings how. it' s tied in,
17 how it' s anchored to the existing foundation, so
on and so forth. I don' t think that was done in
18 this case . You just don' t start excavating and
all of a sudden the foundation' s only going down
19 18 inches -- surprise, surprise . That doesn' t
happen. Do you have any questions?
20 MR. BRESSLER: Could you address the
septic issues?
21 MR. O'BRIEN: I want to see if they have
any questions .
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like you to
address the hurricane strapping. Is that required
23 on the building plans?
MR. O'BRIEN: Of course . Under the 2001
24 code, yes . It has to be strapped all the way down
to the foundation.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re an expert,
and you viewed the plans and they were not on
October 20 , 2005
120
1
2 there?
MR. O'BRIEN: I have not seen the plans,
3 but I don' t think the foundation was addressed at
all on the plans .
4 MS . GOULD: I reviewed the plans in the
Building Department file two times because I
5 wanted to make sure that I was seeing what I saw,
and there was no test pit or test hole for the
6 foundation on the plans submitted and stamped.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That wasn' t my
7 question, though, Jenny, honestly. My question is
because they are new standards, and any time we
8 can get an expert to come and talk, I like to get
an idea.
9 MR. O'BRIEN: There has to be in detail .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you didn' t see
10 these details and know. We on the Board would not
even consider that . It wouldn' t be something we
11 were looking for. It' s just the concept of
putting an addition of a house up. We don' t
12 really care how you do it .
MR. O'BRIEN: As an engineer, I would have
13 to address that to get a permit .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with that,
14 but you didn' t actually see the plans; you can' t
say --
15 MR. O'BRIEN: I was told that the
foundation wasn' t addressed. I could be backed up
16 by people who have seen the plans . I don' t think
they' re lying to me . And it' s not the first time
17 I haven' t seen it addressed on the plans and it
amazes me . I come across that on other builders
18 too . But again, we' re getting back to a structure
that was probably built in the ' 30s, ' 40s, I don' t
19 know. I do over 250 inspections a year on
existing houses . It' s very rare that you can use
20 a foundation like that for a two-story structure .
It doesn' t work out . It doesn' t make sense . Why
21 do you want to wind up with structural problems
down the road? It' s not a costly item. Like
22 somebody pointed out before, you don' t have to go
for a full foundation either, could have went for
23 a three foot crawl space, something like that
too . That' s it, I mean test pits are like ABC.
24 It' s for the reasons stated.
As far as the septic, I do septic design.
25 The Health Department actually prefers having a
septic system in the front of the house . In this
October 20 , 2005
121
1
2 case, you probably would need some sort of
variance because it is a driveway. You would have
3 to have a road grading on it, it could take
traffic loads and so forth, but given the
4 circumstances, I'm sure that the Health Department
would probably approve it .
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there Town
water down there?
6 MR. O'BRIEN: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now that I asked
7 the question, I remember seeing the hydrant .
Thank you.
8 MR. O'BRIEN: There' s no question about
setbacks . The only clearance is the required
9 separation between the water line and the septic
system, but I think there' s only a couple pools
10 involved because we don' t have a high water level
there . I don' t think it' s really an issue . Any
11 other questions?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think so .
12 MR. DRESSLER: Address the hole .
MR. O' BRIEN: Oh, the excavation. The
13 excavation, I wrote up an affidavit . There was no
sheathing put in when they dug the hole, and they
14 dug it right on the property line . I was an
excavation contractor myself . I've done many
15 foundations myself . You just don' t do that . You
don' t do it for two reasons . First off, you' re
16 jeopardizing the property next door, and number
two, you' re jeopardizing your men. OSHA requires
17 anything over five feet to be sheeted. That' s an
OSHA requirement, you can either sheath it or lay
18 it back on a 2-1 slope . - And a 2 on 1 slope is not
always a 2 on 1 slope . It has to do with the
19 angle of repose and the materials . Sand has a 32
degree angle of repose and it comes out to a one
20 vertical to two back. So if you go down 10 feet
you got to be back 20 feet . In this case, that
21 would be across Jenny' s entire lot . With the
Raynors and everything else, it' s cavatated back
22 under top slope, -so some sheeting was put against
it, but the sheeting is not really doing anything,
23 it' s holding the top of the slope, and what' s
going to happen is just the material now is going
24 to slough down behind the sheeting and you' re
going to have more erosion back, and she' s going
25 to lose a piece of her property. So my
recommendation at this point is until this thing
October 20 , 2005
122
1
2 is resolved is to backfill the hole and tamp each
layer of material back so they don' t lose the top
3 of the slope . The sheeting actually can' t be put
in place at this point . That' s mandated by OSHA,
4 that sheeting has to go in at five feet .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Very
5 informative .
MR. BRESSLER: At this juncture, we have
6 no further witnesses pending comments from other
witnesses that may appear on behalf of Mr. Arnoff
7 or comments from witnesses who may be called by
the Board to comment .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do we have questions
for Mike?
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' d like to .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mike, I think we have
10 a few questions . Jim first .
MR. VERITY: Sure, Michael Verity, Chief
11 Building Inspector, Town of Southold.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Hi, Mike .
12 MR. VERITY: Hi, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Listen, I am
13 concerned about this garage, and I think more it
has to do with the procedures of the Town and how
14 they work because I can drive downtown from here
to Greenport and find probably 20 violations and
15 this is one of them. I'm sure you had to go here
at one point in time or you' re going to have to go
16 here and inspect the foundation, and at that time,
if you look at that building, I'm not going to ask
17 you will you give them a ticket, but do you look
at the building and if it seems --
18 MR. VERITY: I spoke to the Assistant Town
Attorney and I said there appeared to be some
19 violations on a number of properties down there .
I didn' t think it was appropriate for me at the
20 time to go into that . So we' re right now, I think
we' re a little off line with the way they' re
21 attacking this -- if you want to call it an
attack, it' s not an attack, that' s a poor word but
22 I 'm tired. You' re getting way off base here with
the accessory building. I will address that ; I
23 told the town attorney I will address that . There
are other issues, on the east property and possibly
24 on the west property that I have concerns with as
well, not my concern right now. My concern is to
25 deal with that house .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But we are
October 20 , 2005
123
1
2 concerned. I'm not concerned with you violating
somebody. I think what I'm more concerned about
3 is we' re looking at a house that doesn' t exist any
longer. You know all about nonconformities, we've
4 been back and forth about that .
MR. VERITY: Yes, I sleep non-conformities
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s only our
concern. We' re going to be discussing okay, now
6 they got this foundation, and it' s not so much
money now to move it two feet, five feet, whatever
7 it happens to be . I like personally, I like
seeing people who have established setbacks to
8 keep those established setbacks .
MR. VERITY: I agree .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I fought the Walz
thing all along, this is just part and parcel of
10 that, if you ask me . By the same token, we have
to be fair to everybody. This is where it comes
11 in. We' re telling people you can' t have that
stoop because Walz says you can' t have it, then
12 we' re letting a guy build a brand new house,
conforming to the old nonconforming setbacks, I
13 got a little problem with that . To me it looks
like on this piece of property we can look at
14 other things when we grant this guy relief, and
that is one of them.
15 I'm wondering if we can maybe look at
their application for this .
16 MR. VERITY: For the garage?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the garage .
17 MR. VERITY: If you feel it' s necessary.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If the Building
18 Department has a file that has -- I mean, how is
the setback for this garage established? Was
19 there an old garage there?
MR. VERITY: From what I recall there was
20 a one-story garage, I'm not sure, I ' d have to look
at the ' 97 file . Jenny, did you give them a copy
21 of that information? I think it' s all there to be
honest with you. Again, right now that' s on the
22 back burner for me . My bigger concern, this is
really an unorthodox piece of property as Mr.
23 O' Brien stated. It' s unusual and I felt it needed
to be dealt with right away. That' s why I did
24 what I did in reference to paperwork and so on and
so forth.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is my next
question, which is, I understand because I think I
October 20 , 2005
124
1
2 got a call that day too, that evidently John came
down to you and said look, it' s crumbling, and we
3 can' t do anything with it, and what do you want us
to do?
4 MR. VERITY: He made a key point that
everybody just overlooked. He was moving an
5 excavator in there or a machine in there, I don' t
remember exactly what he said, the foundation
6 started to move . He would not have known that,
you would not have known that, and if there was
7 any concern at that time with this foundation with
what was left there, you should have said, you
8 know what, let' s pull this back. I don' t need to
tell you your business, but again, Mr. O' Brien
9 said at- that point it' s not a big money item. It
should have been addressed at that point in time .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm confused.
MR. VERITY: Meaning everybody' s hinging
11 the decision on that the whole reason why they
allowed this to stay was because it would be a
12 hardship for that foundation, I disagree . At that
point in time, if you had a real concern about
13 that, if the Board had a real concern, you should
have said listen, we' re not going to allow this .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, no, no --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We- asked a
15 question, Mike : Are you going to build this on
the foundation? That' s all we need to know.
16 We' re not --
MR. VERITY: If that was such a big
17 concern in conditions, why wouldn' t you condition
that, that this foundation could not be removed?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn' t have to .
MR. VERITY: See, when we make our
19 decision you' re granting a setback for a distance
to the setback, a side yard, I think there were
20 two others, right, there was lot coverage -- at
that point in time we' re not looking at minutes,
21 we don' t know what the key points were, you' re
granted all of those . You stayed within those
22 boundaries to the Building Department, I would do
this 10 times out of 10 . If someone else came in
23 and said the same thing, you know what, you were
granted that setback with the side yard --
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on, this is
key. You' re saying that we should have put in our
25 decision we' re granting you this relief because
you told us it was too expensive to move the
October 20 , 2005
125
1
2 foundation or whatever?
MR. VERITY: No, what I'm saying is,
3 Jimmy, you condition things open to the sky for
decks, same thing, using the existing foundation.
4 When you see a demolition, at that point, you' re
allowing 90 percent of the value maybe even more
5 of that house to come down. You see what I 'm
saying? At that point in time you should have
6 said --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At the point when the
7 question was asked and answered regarding the
continuation of the existing foundation, you' re
8 saying we should have said, give us evidence that ,
the foundation is as secure as we all seem to be
9 assuming it is .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t think
10 we need to ask for that . I think it' s the
opposite . That' s what he' s asking us, but I think
11 it' s the opposite is that we always assume that
the expert is expert .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did ask if the
foundation was okay. We had it in the record that
13 the foundation was fine .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We didn' t conduct an
14 investigation.
MR. VERITY: That' s the thing. I don' t
15 want to rehash --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the crux of
16 this argument, Mike .
MR. VERITY: My point to the Board is the
17 way the decision was made, and I wasn' t going to
bring up the discussion with Ruth, because I even
18 said to Linda and to Ruth and to the Town
Attorney, the letter means nothing to me . To the
19 permits examiner it meant the world. But to me, I
would have made the same decision with or without,
20 and I would not have gone to Ruth for that letter
and I didn' t care about that letter. Because of
21 the relief that was given, I felt that it was okay
to continue, whether it was a totally brand new
22 foundation or a partial, which that' s the way the
permit was written, or like I said the totally new
23 foundation.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can turn it
24 around. Didn' t it dawn on you that he was asking
for a partial foundation and now he wants a new
25 one? That we would not have heard that evidence?
MR. VERITY: But even so what I'm getting
October 20 , 2005
126
1
2 at, you can make the argument either way, Jimmy,
I'm not trying to make an argument for either team
3 here .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand,
4 because I didn' t see your point of view until what
you just said.
5 MR. VERITY: I feel what the Building
Department did was right, and the Building
6 Department continued to do that until otherwise .
Once variances are granted, I don' t care what was
7 discussed for dinner; I don' t care what was
discussed about the brick foundation. It' s what I
8 see in the language of the disapproval .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let' s say that the
9 Building Department bears no responsibility for
this .
10 MR. VERITY: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That is for the
11 moment . Does it follow that we somehow are
responsible for not having asked the questions
12 that you felt you were not legally obligated to
ask? We' re not a building department . We' re a
13 board of appeals .
MR. VERITY: I'm not saying anybody' s
14 responsible .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying the
15 Building Department is not responsible . Maybe
that' s the case, but who is?
16 MR. VERITY: I 've got a broad set of
shoulders, I' ll take all the responsibility,
17 that' s not the question. The question is why is
this hinging so much on this decision? This is
18 away from the Building Department, I personally
cannot understand it . It makes absolutely no
19 sense to me at all .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re
20 absolutely correct, Mike . And let me have the
floor for one second. You are absolutely, 100
21 percent correct because when I asked if that
foundation was in the same footprint, meaning the
22 footings for the new foundation, I was told they
were . In fact, I was told that they were even
23 brought back.
MR. VERITY: Correct, it' s less
24 nonconforming.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Farther away
25 from the CZM line . I' ll tell you where the
problem came here . I will stand on this forever,
October 20 , 2005
127
1
2 and that is, that the representation of this
particular application was done by a builder and
3 not necessarily by an attorney. And this builder
is the most wonderful builder of anybody I've ever
4 seen. I 've seen the stuff that John and Linda
have constructed, it' s the greatest stuff in the
5 world, bar none . All it would have had to have
said was that if the foundation is deemed to be
6 not usable, we may have to trash the foundation,
within the embodiment of this decision. That' s
7 all that had to be done . And for some strange
reason we failed to do that or he failed to do
8 that, meaning he failed to do that, or it failed
to be done, either from our standpoint or their
9 standpoint .
MR. VERITY: I think somebody here is
10 hanging their hat on something that' s not worth
hanging their hat on is the point I 'm trying to
11 make . Again, just pointing out, Jimmy, we' re
attacking an accessory garage, it makes no sense
12 at all .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . Let' s talk
13 about this foundation, that' s why we' re here . We
make a decision based on the evidence before
14 us . It says : Mr. Orlando : Any thought about
removing that -- we' re talking about the block
15 foundation -- yes, it is . Then, any thought about
removing that since you' re demo-ing it anyway,
16 just to come into conformity with the side yards?
Important, because we would not grant the variance
17 if we felt he could come into conformity easily,
okay, that it was not a hardship for him. Then
18 Mr. Bertani says, the only problem is expense,
it' s too expensive? Orlando: Is the foundation
19 structural? Yes, it is . I can go on forever.
MR. VERITY: That was it, you only spoke
20 about the foundation, you didn' t hinge your
decision on anything else at all?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. We do in the end
we say this action does not authorize or condone
22 any current or future use, setback or other
feature of the subject property that my violate
23 the zoning code other than such use of setbacks
and other features that are expressly addressed in
24 this action.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, the
25 foundation is the cost and expense that I know
that we all considered because that' s the crux of
October 20 , 2005
128
1
2 everything. No one wants to move the foundation;
it' s very expensive . We realized that . When
3 Vinnie asked that question it' s because if it' s
possible, let' s do it and let' s get a little more
4 conforming; that' s what we' re supposed to do .
That' s near the end of the meeting and that' s what
5 everybody based their decision on, I'm not saying
that right or wrong.
6 MR. VERITY: First of all, Jimmy,
understand, I'm not here to argue with you or
7 anybody else . I'm not here to argue in favor of
the Bollmans or in favor of Miss Gould. I'm
8 trying to make a point of this, you made a
statement just a second ago that you can make it
9 more conforming. You can probably make people
take down and move and make 95 percent of the
10 applicants conforming. To make this person 100
percent conforming at this point in time --
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I never said that .
I just said we can make it more conforming.
12 MR. VERITY: No. You said make it
conforming. But they already made it more
13 conforming by what they did.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We granted
14 them a variance based on Walz .
MR. VERITY: On the first floor they made
15 it more conforming. Jimmy, there' s a way I could
have presented this, you gave relief, for four, I
16 could have presented it so I could only ask for
relief for three, but I'm not going to go into
17 that, and I 'm really surprised that that was
overlooked.
18 BOARD. MEMBER DINIZIO : Mike, I'm not
concerned about -- what I'm concerned about what
19 we hear and what went on. We had testimony based
on we have a nonconforming setback. We' re
20 supposed to deal with that, that' s why they come
to us, and we base it on the testimony that' s
21 presented to us, and then we grant it accordingly.
I 'm not concerned about what you think, because
22 it' s not what you think; you already told us what
you think. You told us that it was nonconforming,
23 you have to go see the ZBA. Okay, and we tell you
what the Town, we as a Board will let them have .
24 MR. VERITY: I understand, you don' t want
to hear what I think, but you' re asking about an
25 accessory building that has nothing to do with it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, we know what
October 20, 2005
129
1
2 you think already. And we know what you don' t
think. We know only what was written on that
3 piece of paper. We grant based on that piece of
paper. That' s your thoughts, that' s what you
4 think the code says .
MR. VERITY: The point I 'm making, Jimmy,
5 with the granting of that how would Joe Public
know that your decision was hinged, unless you
6 went into the minutes, if you had that final ZBA
petition number 5-5-0 -- whatever it was, if you
7 had that appeal number, how would you know that
your decision was hinged on that existing
8 foundation?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I can answer
9 because I drafted that; it' s based on the whole
record, the hearing record, the entire record.
10 MR. VERITY: I said how would you know on
your two-page document that it was hinged on that?
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You would have to
read the whole record.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would have
to read the whole record.
13 MR. BRESSLER: With all due respect,
that' s not true, it' s right at the beginning of
14 your decision.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what I 'm
15 trying to say.
MR. BRESSLER: Yes, Linda, I know you
16 don' t have it in front of you, but my brief
readings of the finding of facts, the applicants
17 propose to retain the existing foundation. You
don' t have to search the records .
18 MR. VERITY: That' s telling me that they
want to retain it .
19 MR. BRESSLER: You don' t like the answer
but that' s the answer.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you would be
asking for with every statement of finding has to
21 be researched and verified and sworn by affidavit,
this is absurd. We' re saying that we cannot write
22 a report that takes into the record something that
has been entered into evidence, and we say if that
23 turns out to be false, or in some cases maybe an
out and out lie, that' s just too bad?
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on, let me ask
you one more question. A gentleman came to you,
25 and said, hey look, I can' t do it the way the ZBA
wants me to do it . I have to do it differently,
October 20 , 2005
130
1
2 did he or did he not?
MR. VERITY: No.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then why would he
ask you to put that foundation in? Why would you
4 write a letter saying so?
MR. VERITY: Ask the question again,
5 Jimmy, I don' t understand the question.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Bertani came to
6 you after he found out that the foundation wasn' t
good.
7 MR. VERITY: That' s right .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And said, listen, I
8 can' t do it the way the ZBA wanted me to do it, I
need permission from you to pour the foundation.
9 MR. VERITY: That' s not the way the
question was proposed to the Building Department .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Obviously you have
to read our decision to find that out . I agree
11 with you. But Mr. Bertani did the absolute right
thing in stopping, because he knew if you came in
12 and saw a new foundation there that you could stop
him because of what the Zoning Board had said. So
13 that must have raised at least a little flag,
Mike, that said our decision had something to do
14 with the foundation.
MR. VERITY: That' s correct . We reviewed
15 that and felt that the reliefs were given.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Did you read the
16 transcripts?
MR. VERITY: No, I didn' t read the
17 transcripts .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He came to you in
18 good faith, as I understand it, for an answer to a
hard question, and you gave what seemed like a
19 reasonable answer by examining a limited number of
documents questions, far fewer than what actually
20 exist, and you said, well, look, you did what was
expected of you, and then you come to us and say
21 we should somehow have researched the facts that
you were assuming when you gave him an --
22 MR. VERITY: I said in your conditions you
should just put that in there .
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We did, Mike, it' s
in the decision.
24 MR. VERITY: Does it state that in this
decision?
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It did, it really
actually doesn' t have to. The fact that Mr.
October 20, 2005
131
1
2 Bertani came to you --
MR. VERITY: Okay, it did, but it doesn' t
3 have to . I understand that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, listen, I'm
4 not going to take your glib answers too much
longer. I understand that you' re under pressure
5 here --
MR. VERITY: Jimmy, I 'm not under
6 pressure .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just answer the
7 questions that we ask you, don' t go any further
than that . Your sly comments don' t make any sense
8 to anybody.
MR. VERITY: They make a lot of sense .
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They make a lot
of sense to me .
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We got two people
fighting over the fact that they want to build a
11 house, we' re trying to get to the bottom of it .
My personal view is I could care less if they
12 wanted to build a house five stories .
MR. VERITY: This is not personal views,
13 Jimmy.
BOARD-' MEMBER DINIZIO: Then don' t give me
14 personal comments .
MR. VERITY: This is not personal
15 comments .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re taking
16 them personally, Jimmy, that' s the problem.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am taking them
17 personally because I know when someone' s BS-ing
me . I can see it .
18 MR. VERITY: Jimmy, I'm asked to read
transcripts, but yet the Board can make the
19 statement that we don' t know a thing about
building plans?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We don' t, Mike, we
don' t have to .
21 MR. VERITY: Then why should I know about
transcripts, come on, Jimmy, use a little common
22 sense, you' re smarter than that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jimmy, enough.
23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. In this
application, Mike, you identified a problem. When
24 he came in and asked you for a building permit,
did you or did not? He was a nonconforming house
25 and he wanted to go up. You had all this stuff
about Walz, blah, blah, blah, that was all fine
October 20, 2005
132
1 1
2 and dandy. They came to us . We granted him
relief, shouldn' t you just look at that
3 application?
MR. VERITY: I felt that he was still
4 within the guidelines, and that' s why he was
allowed to continue .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With the first
sentence in our decision referencing that we based
6 it on the foundation, you can say that?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course .
7 MR. VERITY: Why not?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . Why not
8 is a good answer.
MR. VERITY: My recommendation too is you
9 should probably look back at some previous
decisions because you have made a decision like
10 this before .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mike, what does
11 that have to do with this?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Jim, we also have
12 to realize that the Building Department went to
the Zoning Board and to the Trustees and told them
13 what was going on and the response back was --
MR. VERITY: This wasn' t hidden. I went
14 to the town attorney. I actually went to Mrs .
Gould who advised me to go to Mr. Bressler on
15 this . I didn' t have to do that, Jimmy.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not saying --
16 you didn' t have to do a thing, but don' t say that
you didn' t know that there was a problem.
17 MR. VERITY: Jimmy, if I thought there was
a problem, they would be back here right now
18 because of me . They' re not back here because of
me .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is where they
should have been.
20 MR. VERITY: I disagree, that' s why they
were allowed to continue .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Agree to disagree .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have to
22 decide what to do now.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I built my record.
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : New foundation plan
is that in your file?
24 MR. VERITY: You have the files, I can' t
say.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Does the new
foundation plan have all the information on it
October 20 , 2005
133
1 i
2 that was required? Does it need anymore
information?,
3 MR. VERITY: I can take a peak and tell
you that .
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Mike, what is
your view of the current condition of the property
5 pending this decision?
MR. VERITY: I'm concerned about the
6 property as Mr. O' Brien. His techniques and
procedure, I appreciate his 35 years of
7 experience, but that' s more of a commercial
review, or application, that' s not a residential
8 application. I would love to see that . I have
not seen that in 25 years that I have been either
9 in business or in working in the Town of Southold.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re talking
10 about the sheathings?
MR. VERITY: Sheathing on a residential .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or the test holes?
MR. VERITY: Or the test holes . Actually
12 the test holes, it depends on the engineer. If an
engineer' s willing to do a visual inspection,
13 that' s fine . Mr. O' Brien, and I 'm not blowing
smoke up your skirt, Mr. O'Brien, he' s very good,
14 he' s very thorough. Some don' t choose to do that .
Is it required to do that? The survey shows a
15 test hole . They know what the soil conditions
are . They' re making a decision based on that and
16 the visual inspection. Does everybody do it?
No . Can everybody afford to have it done? No.
17 What was done was probably to the minimum, as the
state code is to the minimum standard, and that' s
18 what they did. That' s all that' s required to get
a building permit from the Town of Southold.
19 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What about _
your view as to what, if anything, can be done to
20 shore up the property or mitigate the current
condition?
21 MR. VERITY: If it was an open farm field,
obviously we wouldn' t have that problem. Right
22 now for them to mitigate the problem, they would
either have to go on the property of the Goulds,
23 or they would have to access that from the water,
and it would probably cost them -- it would be a
24 hardship . In my guesstimate, in my knowledge of
the construction field, they would have to bring a
25 barge in, need to lay sheathing in there, and it' s
not necessary at this point in time . What' s
October 20, 2005
134
1
2 necessary is for -- and I 'm not telling the Board
what to do -- but it' s necessary for this to move
3 forward. Allow them to either put the foundation
in or not put it in. If they can' t put the
4 foundation in, the property has to be filled. If
they can put the foundation in in a timely
5 fashion, that can be backfilled, prior to
backfilling, they would most likely put the first
6 floor flooring on it, which would support that,
and then they could backfill it, and then we no
7 longer have an issue . That was my way of handling
it way back when. If this was in the middle of
8 farm field, we would have said, you know what,
duke it out, two months later because I don' t
9 care, because nothing' s going to happen to the
Gould property or the property to the east . . Carry
10 on, wait two months, wait four months, whatever
you have to do to get on the ZBA calendar.
11 As you can see from the report that I
submitted, this is unusual . It' s unique . I
12 thought that it was a problem that needed to be
addressed right away. Now, allowing this to go to
13 the end of October, we've been very fortunate with
all this rain, we could have had a California
14 situation on our hands, and Mrs .' Gould' s fence,
hedge and maybe even the corner of her house could
15 be in jeopardy. So my opinion is it needs to move
quickly, whatever the decision is, and then we can
16 address, the Building Department, address the
accessory buildings and all that other stuff . I
17 think we' re totally missing, and I promised myself
that I wouldn' t get in an argument with Jimmy, I
18 don' t know why I thought of Jim. It' s beyond me .
I just think it needs to be taken care of, and I
19 have been around the block a few times . I know
I ' m young but I've been in the business for over
20 25 years, between eight years for the Town and 17
on my own, and I know what needs to be done,
21 otherwise I wouldn' t have put it in writing. I
think it needs to be pushed forward, both sides
22 need to work together. We have to work together
and move this along yesterday.
23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Does the Board
want to hear from anybody else?
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . Mr. Arnoff?
MR. ARNOFF: Curiouser and curiouser is
25 the language I think comes to mind. But I 'm not
going to dwell on that . I thank Mr. Orlando for
October 20, 2005
135
1
2 taking the comment that I wanted to take away of
Mr. Verity' s discussion with Mr. Dinizio .
3 Mr. Verity did, in fact, discuss the matter and
the record is very clear that he addressed the
4 matter with both the Trustees and the Zoning Board
as to what to do. And we now have before this
5 Board something that' s being built in the exact
same footprint, less than what you approved.
6 The first question was what was the
applicant going to do, stop everything when this
7 happened? And do what, go where? The applicant
did what the applicant should have done . They
8 came to the Building Department . The Building
Department told them what to do after discussing
9 it with the various boards . Then what happened?
Well, then what happened is we had a crumbling
10 foundation, had to be removed. We didn' t have a
choice . Now, it is true that the cost of a new
11 foundation' is substantially more than the Bollmans
ever bargained for. They didn' t want to do this
12 any more than they wanted to put it somewhere else
on the property. They couldn' t help this; this is
13 an unavoidable thing that happened to them.
Now, the underlying question that I think
14 the Board should ask itself is what possible
different result will happen if this application
15 goes forward to the application you already
approved? And the answer to that question is
16 there is none . You have approved a house
according to certain specs, according to certain
17 setbacks, according to all these variances that' s
going to be placed on this site in the same
18 spot . Why are we here? We' re here because Miss
Gould found an opportunity to avoid the time that
19 had elapsed from any appeal from any prior order
of this Board to find a way to say, you know, I
20 really didn' t like it the first time, but I want a
second bite of the same apple . And that' s what
21 we' re here for, a second bite of the same apple
before Board, nothing more, nothing less . She
22 knew Mr. Bollman was living in the garage
apartment, living there . There were attorneys in
23 this town that have lived in garages while houses
are under construction with the tacit or direct
24 approval of this Board. We ask for nothing more,
nothing less .
25 One thing more I wanted to bring up . My
clients have acted in good faith. They have acted
October 20 , 2005
136
1
s
2 in reliance of your well thought-out
determination. They have incurred incredible
3 costs before today. All they want to do is do
what you told them to do. Unfortunately, they
4 couldn' t do a certain portion of it because
factors beyond their control prevented it . So
5 what did they do? They did what any reasonable
person would have done under the circumstances .
6 This is not a self-created hardship. This is
something that happened that was unanticipated.
7 We' re here, we need your help. We really didn' t
think we needed your help; we thought we already
8 got it . We thought we were going to go forward
and probably have the house enclosed by this time,
9 were it not for the fact that all of this has gone
on. I don' t think there' s anything any different .
10 Mr. O'Brien' s comments are certainly
interesting, but I don' t think he speaks for the
11 Health Department, and I don' t know how many of
you have made applications in the issues of sewers
12 and septic systems and before the Health
Department lately and see how easily variances go
13 through because my experience is they don' t go
through after passages of months and months and
14 perhaps years and perhaps never.
We really need to address this problem. I
15 agree with Mr. Verity. We need a decision from
this Board. I think it' s clear that there is
16 no -- there' s nothing else -- I think this Board
really has no choice . Sure they have choices, we
17 could put the foundation somewhere else, we could
tear down all the buildings on the property and
18 leave it vacant, which is ultimately probably what
Miss Gould would like to have happen.
19 Unfortunately, my clients have a right to use
their property, just like Miss Gould uses the
20 garage on her property for housing other people
when there are guests there . There' s no garage
21 door on her garage . But it' s okay for her,
nobody' s complaining about that . But all they
22 want to do is be left alone . Let them build the
property. Doesn' t impede her view, they've
23 brought back the sides, they have reduced the
height . The only thing left is for them to go
24 away. She didn' t get that the first time, and I
submit this Board should not allow her to get it
25 the second time . Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
October 20, 2005
137
1
2 MR. BRESSLER: If I may briefly now that
I ' ve heard Mr. Arnoff in his entirety, I have
3 several remarks . First of all vis-a-vis
Mr. Verity' s comments, I found them interesting,
4 and I found his answers not terribly on point to
the questions put by the Board. But with respect
5 to his experience and OSHA, I have only to refer
the Board to OSHA regulations that Mr. O'Brien
6 cited and pointed out that they are regulations
for the home building industry, not commercial
7 construction, the home building industry, and if
Mr. Verity doesn' t enforce them, that' s another
8 issue . But to say that they don' t apply that' s
just not so.
9 He raised an interesting question, why use
the existing foundation after the Board has heard
10 about an hour and a half of this, the answer to
the question is obvious, why use the existing
11 foundation? Because, as the Board has recognized,
because it was the entry ticket . It was the
12 ticket to admission. It was the hardship ticket .
That' s what got them in. We want to use the
13 existing foundation. Mr. Verity says it' s not
that expensive. Mr. Arnoff, to his credit
14 candidly says, yeah, it would have been expensive,
he' s right, we all know that . It would have been
15 expensive . That was their ticket, that was their
plea to this Board. That' s how they got the
16 relief . And I think when Mr. Dinizio says, well,
if that weren' t the case, we certainly could have
17 examined whether a less intrusive -- to
paraphrase -- whether less intrusive alternatives
18 were available, is the issue- before this Board.
If there were no house there at all, which is the
19 case now, and the applicant had come to you and
said I want to put this house here, I want all
20 these variances, would this Board have granted it?
That' s the question before you. Or would this
21 Board have said, as we' re suggesting, wait a
minute, you have a building envelope . There are
22 things you can do, and maybe we can' t bring you
into total conformance, but maybe there are things
23 we can do . That' s not the place where this house
belongs; we' re going to try to move you back and
24 minimize the variances that are required. And
with all due respect to Member Goehringer, I think
25 I respectfully disagree the issue is not the fact
that now they' re building where they said they
October 20 , 2005
138
1
2 were going to build. I think the issue before the
Board is because the predicate upon which they
3 came before the Board turned out not to be true,
and I think it' s plain from the testimony, it
4 turned out not to be true at a minimum because
nobody even looked at whether or not this was a
5 buildable foundation, because that turned out to
be true, and all you have now is essentially a
6 hole . Are there less intrusive alternatives that
are available to the applicant? And I think the
7 answer to that questions is clearly yes . The
admission ticket that they used, the foundation,
8 is no longer available, and now we' re looking at
this thing de novo. The purpose of the Town code
9 of the nonconforming regulations is to eventually
eliminate nonconformance . And to say that because
10 their ticket' s gone, and they come to you
essentially de novo that you' re going to give them
11 exactly the same nonconformity when you don' t have
to do, that runs afoul of that policy. I think
12 the Board has to take a hard look, and I invite
you all to take a hard look at what can be done
13 here and whether or not the variances that are
requested are necessary, or indeed, whether they
14 can be minimized. You've heard expert testimony
that they can be, you've seen a building
15 envelope . We think that they can, and I 'm not
going to characterize the series of events that
16 led us to this, the Board can arrive at its own
conclusion as to how that happened. But at a
17 minimum, that which should have been done was not
done, and now the applicant comes before you in
18 that position.
Move the foundation, put it closer to
19 where it belongs, bring the lot closer into
conformance, no harm no foul; you fill the hole
20 and you re-dig it . It' s no longer a question of
hardship and money, because the applicant' s plan
21 no longer works . The foundation was crumbling at
the beginning, it' s no longer there now, and I
22 think this Board has to look real hard at what
they would grant someone coming in here de novo .
23 That' s my plea. I hope you consider it . Thanks
for your attention.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would the applicants
consider alternate relief?
25 MS . BOLLMAN: I don' t understand what that
means, Miss Oliva.
October 20 , 2005
139
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words,
something that Mr. Bressler has suggested, moving
3 it further away from the Gould property, maybe a
little closer to the Peretz property, perhaps
4 moving it back further slightly, or not at all .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could be two feet .
5 MRS . BOLLMAN: Mary Ann Bollman. What I
don' t understand is the last time we were here
6 Miss Gould wasn' t happy with the height, she
wasn' t happy with the size . You advised us and
7 asked us if we would meet with her or have John
meet with her, talked about lowering the roofline
8 and making the house smaller, we did that . And
now, according to the testimony, they want us to
9 expand on the garage, they want to design our
house . I don' t think that' s right, and I don' t
10 think that' s fair. We will certainly talk to
John, and we will more than likely work things
11 out . But I don' t think it' s fair for someone to
tell me how I should live, and in what style I
12 should live, or whether or not I can or can' t live
on a piece of property that' s been in my husband' s
13 family since the 1940s .
MR. BERTANI : Maybe you can ask Mike to
14 verify this, but we had every intention of keeping
this foundation and not being in this predicament .
15 We thought we did everything right . The other
thing we could have jacked the house up, put a
16 cold foundation underneath it and then gone to the
Town and asked for a demolition permit . We were
17 honestly trying to do the right thing. I
apologized to the Bollmans . Maybe I should have
18 said, look, hire an engineer, get yourselves an
architect . They went to the lumberyard to save
19 some money to put into the house, the extra money.
I thought I was helping them out . Apparently I
20 gave them wrong information. I thought it was
okay. Maybe we should have ripped the bushes out,
21 and hired somebody to dig holes all around it .
All I can do is apologize to them for that .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I can explain to Mrs .
Bollman alternative relief does not mean that
23 anyone is going to tell you how to build your
house . Alternate relief is a positive
24 recommendation, a suggestion, that if it turns out
that the Board decides that you' re not going to be
25 permitted to do it precisely the way you want,
there a number of other possible ways which you
October 20 , 2005
140
1
2 could choose, and very unlimited way, and it still
would be your choice and your house . The worst
3 that can happen is that the Board will block the
one way that you had hoped to do it because of
4 circumstances which were, to some degree, beyond
anybody' s control, namely the collapse of the
5 foundation.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would offer this
6 as an alternate relief because it goes against my
grain to even make you move that house . You've
7 got the hole, if you move that foundation to 10
feet away from the other house, and you keep the
8 house the same width, and we let you go over
another whatever that is -- 3 . 5 on the other side,
9 okay, so you now have 10 feet on both sides of
your house, same size house, same basic location,
10 you don' t need a variance on Miss Gould' s side,
maybe that' s the way to go.
11 MR. BERTANI : I think we only have 12 . 6 on
Mr. Bressler' s side .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say we make it 10
feet on the other side .
13 MR. BERTANI : So moving it two feet .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just offering
14 it . It' s not possible to give her 10 feet and --
MR. BERTANI : I'm just saying that' s
15 possible . It' s not possible to give her 10 feet
and then he' d have eight --
16 BOARD MEMBERDINIZIO: No. I 'm looking at
your map here . I see the 10 foot line . It looks
17 to me like three feet or four feet I guess it is .
MR. BERTANI : 5 . 9, which is nine-tenths of
18 a foot, and the other six.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say we split the
19 difference .
MR. BERTANI : It would be ten then you
20 have eight and a half .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be
21 acceptable?
MR. ARNOFF: That' s fine .
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question I
have is where do we go from here? Have we
23 concluded both of these hearings?
MR. ARNOFF : I think we agreed when we
24 started that when we finally sat down --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Both have been
25 merged.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Approximately eight
October 20, 2005
141
1
2 and-a-half on each side, same house .
MR. BRESSLER: We've made our record in
3 both hearings .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to know
4 if it' s acceptable to them.
MR. VERITY: Just in response to I guess
5 that was Mr. O'Brien' s question, there is a
foundation plan here, just for the record, that
6 was stamped in and amended, August 9, 2005 and on
the Penny Lumber drawing, there is a detail on
7 here for connections . We can' t approve a plan
without it . So it is on here . It' s on the last
8 page, page 10 of 10 . So that information is
there . I don' t think he looked at the plan, he
9 was just making a statement based on someone' s
information.
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn' t let that
go, count that in my favor. Honestly, someone
11 made a statement and they do that all the time to
us .
12 MR. VERITY: I appreciate you picking that
up, and not to argue any more about it, or argue
13 back and forth with Mr. Bressler and Mr. O' Brien,
just the statement that I made in reference to the
14 sheathing, it is not common practice here . I
didn' t say that it didn' t exist, I just said it
15 was not common practice . And I did say if you
could show me someone who is doing it, I would
16 love to see it because I've never seen it in 25
years, and you can take a look at the record
17 because that' s exactly what I did.
MR. ARNOFF : Mr. Dinizio, just so you
18 know, I have spoken to both of the Bollmans . They
would be, if what you' re talking about situating
19 the quote, approved structure, so it' s equidistant
between the Gould property and the Peretz on the
20 other side, that would be acceptable, and we
certainly --
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We have the power,
Harvey, to move that house the other way. Sure if
22 Jenny objects to it being nine feet, we might move
it ten feet . But as long as the house is the same
23 width, what do you care?
MR. ARNOFF: As long as we' re not within
24 the 1 . 3 that the Raynors and the Olsens are .
We' re fine .
25 MR. VERITY: Just my recommendation,
Jimmy, just please have the surveyor and the
October 20 , 2005
142
1
2 builder review the coastal erosion line . You have
to be concerned about that as well . You don' t
3 want to send them through the Trustee process .
Just a question of the 5781, is that a dead issue
4 now or is that going to come up in reference to
the height of the building?
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not this building.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everything else is
6 the same .
MR. VERITY: The second meeting was in
7 reference to the building was proposed and
approved by the Building Department at the wrong
8 height; is that going to be addressed?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: It' s up to Mrs .
9 Gould.
MR. VERITY: If I could just make a point .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The second appeal .
We haven' t had that hearing yet .
11 MR. VERITY: That' s what I'm talking
about, are we done or are we going to bring that
12 up?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Raise whatever
13 points you have .
MR. BRESSLER: In terms of the height, if
14 the height doesn' t comply, then the height doesn' t
comply. And they' re going to have to design
15 something that complies .
MR. BERTANI : Talking about the house
16 height . On the old permit it was at 30 feet, and
then you asked us to reduce it, it went to 27 .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s great .
MR. BERTANI : We did not fill out a new
18 application. We brought your ZBA paperwork, went
in there, which stated 27 feet, which we know.
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Agreed to a
height .
20 MR. BERTANI : Right . They' re saying we
had the wrong height on the plan, but that plan
21 was from 2004 -- on the application, I'm sorry.
MR. ARNOFF : Miss Gould' s comments were
22 well taken, to the extent that the ultimate permit
for this house should have said in accordance with
23 the ZBA decision. For some reason -- our
intention was to build it in accordance with
24 whatever you people tell us to build it in
accordance with, and hopefully, Mr. Verity won' t
25 find something wrong.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' ll monitor it .
October 20 , 2005
143
1
2 MR. ARNOFF: That' s correct .
MR. BRESSLER: To that extent there is no
3 doubt that there has to be an order issued
amending or redirecting that height .
4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correcting the
permits .
5 MR. BERTANI : It' s in the paperwork.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Wait a minute .
6 What' s the permit going to say?
MR. VERITY: Can I clear this up in like
7 less than 30 seconds?
BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Please do, Mike .
8 MR., VERITY: Again, not to point fingers
with anybody, but it' s a very silly, silly
9 argument . When they originally applied to us,
they told us the height of the building was 30
10 feet . We have to disapprove them for X, Y and Z;
you go across with the same application, you come
11 back after you get your approval or not get your
approval from the ZBA and you get your building
12 permit . We do not have every applicant at that
point in time change the width of your building,
13 change the height because when we write the
building permit it states on there as per ZBA
14 conditions . And you can pull it out of the file
and you can see that . It would be a paper
15 nightmare to try and do that for every
application.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What do you mean,
resubmit their plans?
17 MR. VERITY: Exactly. Then we have to
send them out to fill in a new application. You
18 use the same application, on there the proposed
height was 30 feet, two stories . It came back
19 from the ZBA at 27 feet, you do not at that point
in time make the application.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you know,
21 when you go out there, how does the guy know it' s
supposed to be 27?
22 MR. VERITY: Because we will have that
certified, as you see there are some affidavits
23 for the accessory building, but I don' t recall
this one exactly, but in reference to that, if we
24 have any questions in reference to either height
there are certifications in there . There' s
25 probably a very good possibility for that there' s
a certification in there as well, the height of
October 20 , 2005
144
1
2 that building.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t doubt it,
3 but I would not know where' to look.
MR. VERITY: Same thing, Jimmy, whenever
4 there are conditions set by the Zoning Board, by
the Planning Board, whatever other agencies, we
5 will require a certification if we cannot make the
determination ourselves from a licensed
6 professional .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don' t think it
7 would be a good thing to make sure that the
building permit, a copy of which is issued to the
8 client, has the correct height written in?
MR. VERITY: What we do at that point in
9 time, the plans come back with the correct height,
so an application at that point in time -- if the
10 Board thinks that that' s a good idea, say, hey,
Mike, you know what, you should probably direct
11 your people to do so, I will do that . But I think
it' s a little silly when you have the ZBA decision
12 stating you can only be at 27 feet, you have an
approved set of plans from the Building Department
13 showing 27 feet, and then we can make a statement
like this because the application actually said
14 30 , which was an original application, possibly a
year or two old, it just doesn' t make sense that
15 we could hang our hat on stopping a project
because of that . Again, we had other
16 documentation that would rule that out and shows
otherwise . Your decision, a filed set of plans by
17 a New York State licensed professional would rule
that out . Again, we don' t look at every line of
18 that application. There could be a number of
errors, somebody said the building is 27 . 5 feet
19 and it' s actually 27 . 9 feet, and it' s not in the
zoning conflict, we' re not going to question that
20 at that point in time . It' s immaterial to us .
You have other documentation which I feel and the
21 building department feels and has always felt
overruled it; that' s the way it' s been since I
22 have been here and prior to .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the
23 engineer' s stamp? That' s the plan, here' s the
house, here' s how it' s built?
24 MR. VERITY: That' s correct, as per ZBA
request, even a lot of times you put on there your
25 decision is based as per Mr. So and So' s plans,
and that' s what we have .
i
October 20 , 2005
145
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s correct .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: And, Mike,
3 your permit will only approve what' s reflected in
that plan?
4 MR. VERITY: That' s correct . A lot of
times as much as we can fit on a building permit,
5 we will put on there as per ZBA appeal number, and
if we have enough room we will put an engineer' s
6 or architect' s name on there and even date . And I
don' t know what more you could ask for.
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you get the
CO, you have plans that are what we said it should
8 be, right?
MR. VERITY: That' s correct .
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And they' re signed
by somebody.
10 MR. VERITY: That' s correct, and if
they' re not then they have to address that with
11 you or whatever agency has to come into .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, you would
12 deny it .
MR. VERITY: Correct . We would deny it
13 and they would have to go back if they didn' t
build it in compliance with your conditions .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So your reliance is
on that engineer?
15 MR. VERITY: That' s correct, or architect,
licensed professional .
16 MR. BRESSLER: Chairwoman, let me finish
up with one point on that issue . We would like
17 that corrected, and let me just say I've never
heard more double-talk in my entire life . The
18 permit was issued, it' s wrong. We brought this in
good faith. Mr. Verity tells Mr. Dinizio that he
19 can' t be expected to look behind and look through
the decision and read the minutes; can Miss Gould
20 be expected to look behind the building permit
that had the wrong number on it and go through
21 Mr. Verity' s records and satisfy herself that
Mr. Verity was going to do the right thing?
22 Everybody has conceded that that permit was in
error and it needs to be corrected. And quite
23 frankly, I don' t want to hear a bunch of double
talk about how you go into the files and you look
24 at 30 other documents . The building permit is the
operative document, we've all agreed that it' s
25 going to be fixed, let' s fix it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
October 20 , 2005
1
146
1
2 MR. VERITY: Kieran, maybe you can correct
me if I'm wrong, but unless I 'm told to by a
3 court, I am not going to correct that . And I am
not double-talking. I beg to differ on that .
4 This is the way it' s done, this is the way it will
continue to be done, and if there is ever a
5 question by an attorney, by an applicant, by a
neighbor of an applicant, I would appreciate if
6 that person would come to me . It' s easily
clarified, instead of hanging up an entire hearing
7 for something that' s actually not even worth
talking about .
8 MS . GOULD : I did that .
MR. VERITY: I don' t remember you speaking
9 to me, Jenny.
MS . GOULD : I went through the file with
10 Damon. There was no height on the building. How
am I supposed to know what the height of the
11 building was? After I filed my appeal, their
engineer then put in a piece of paper on August
12 25th saying it was going to be 27 feet high.
There' s no way for me to --
13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not going
to touch that issue . I think we are all in
14 agreement, and I think the Board feels there
should be a permit that incorporates a set of
15 plans that is in accordance with the Board' s
decision. And that' s how the house should be
16 built, and then that' s how a CO should be issued.
MR. VERITY: Which it does .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Everybody' s agreed
that both have been settled, then I would like to
18 make a motion to close the hearing, reserve
decision --
19 MR. BRESSLER: We' re done waiting for your
decision.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have a meeting
next Thursday. It' s only a week. So we can word
21 it properly that everybody' s satisfied.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Let' s clarify,
22 I don' t think that Miss Gould has agreed to
anything, has she?
23 MR. BRESSLER: No.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So it' s not
24 really a settlement . I think the Board has
explored alternative relief with the
25 applicant/builder, and the Board will make its
decision.
October 20 , 2005
147
1
2 MR. BRESSLER: That' s correct . By no
means do we agree to that . We weren' t consulted.
3 We don' t agree . You' ll make your decision. We
think there are less intrusive alternatives, and I
4 think the Board can consider movement in both
directions .
5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Thank you.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s a
6 resolution on the floor to close the hearing.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just ask one
7 more question? What do we do about the hole in
the ground?
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Address it after
next Thursday.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: After Thursday,
they' ll have the decision.
10 MR. BRESSLER: What I heard is we' re going
to live with it for a week. So Bollman does it at
11 his own risk. We've lost subjacent support and
Mr. Arnoff is aware of what the law about
12 subjacent support is, and if something occurs,
then they can do whatever they are advised to do .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm concerned about
Jenny' s house .
14 MR. BRESSLER: That' s what I'm talking
about . They have cut away our subjacent support .
15 Mr. . Arnoff is well aware of what an adjoining
property owner can do and cannot do, and he can do
16 whatever he' s advised to do.
MR. ARNOFF : I just have one comment to
17 make and it' s not glib. I resent Mr. Bressler
usurping the function of this Board and telling me
18 what is the law as he sees it or whatever, and
telling the Board that I've had enough and words
19 of that language that I don' t want to hear because
that' s the province, most respectfully of you.
20 Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll second that
21 motion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All in favor?
22 (See minutes for details . )
23
24
25
October 20, 2005
148
1
2
3
4
5 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
6
7 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
8 State of New York, do hereby certify:
9 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
10 the testimony given.
11 I further certify that I am not related by
12 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
13 action; and
14 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
15 of this matter.
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
17 hand this 20th day of October, 2005 .
18
19
20
21
Florence V. Wiles
22
23
24
25
October 20 , 2005