Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/15/2005 HEAR 1 2 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N 0 F S. O U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 December 15, 2005 12 9 : 30 a.m. 2 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 24 1 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning, everybody, I' d like to call our Zoning Board of 3 Appeals meeting of December 15, 2005 to order. And I believe our first hearing is for the 4 Redmans . Is there anyone here to speak on this application? 5 MR. PAZINSKI : My name is Leo Pazinski, I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs . Redman. Our 6 application here today is to basically to reconstruct a platform and steps that exist on the 7 side of the house as part of an interior alteration. We' re also squaring off the house, 8 has a little inset, you can see by the photographs I submitted, we' re squaring that off, going in 9 line with the house as it is now. It was recessed at one time -with the original construction. The 10 platform and steps we' re rebuilding is going to be smaller than what' s there now. It was approved 11 and on the survey in 1991 . We' re not going any closer to the adjoining neighbors; we' re actually 12 scaling down the size of the platform and steps . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was there and saw the 13 building there . It' s not a big deal at all . Jim, do you have any questions? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is a 15 little bit whimsical . What is the strongest argument that could not be made for not granting 16 the variance? MR. PAZINSKI : What happened was when we 17 first searched the records apparently there were violations issued with the original construction, 18 but they didn' t know what the violations were . Maybe the original set of plans had the door 19 recessed and the stairs coming straight out, but that would have encroached even further into 20 the side yard. So we' re having the least degree of encroachment . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re also doing a little something with the garage? 22 MR. PAZINSKI : We have a three-car garage . One of the bays being converted into a laundry 23 room and mudroom. We' re going to leave the garage door there because it looks nice from the street 24 view, and we' re going to build right in front of it . And I submitted that with my drawing. 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You' re not expanding beyond the existing footprint? December 15 , 2005 3 1 2 MR. PAZINSKI : No. If anything, we' re reducing the square footage. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No further 5 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Since I have to write this, what is the inset you' re saying you' re 7 doing other than the steps? MR. PAZINSKI : If you would like I have a 8 photograph I can show you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, you' re 9 flushing it off, okay. And that is done, so that is complete the way it is right now? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MR. PAZINSKI : No. That' s the setback 11 now, we' re going to square it off and flush it off . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know the inset is still there, but are you rebuilding the steps 13 or are they staying the way they are? MR. PAZINSKI : They are being rebuilt and 14 reduced. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They will go both ways, 15 Jerry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Reduced in size, 16 not in depth or distance from the property line? MR. PAZINSKI : The distance to the 17 property line will remain the same, but front to rear dimensional will be reduced. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What will they be reduced to? I don' t want to get yelled at when 19 I write this decision. MR. PAZINSKI : I understand. The platform 20 and steps will be approximately 8' by 41 . Eight feet wide, which will be front to rear, four feet 21 deep. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it will be 32 22 square feet? MR. PAZINSKI : Yes, sir. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You were not denied for the garage conversion? 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s all part of it because of the Walz decision. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, so we' ll include that too. December 15 , 2005 4 1 2 MR. PAZINSKI : Excuse me, it' s going to be 11' by 4 ' , so it will be 44 square feet . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 4 If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Rodriguez, down in Hillcrest North in Orient, a 7 new house . MS . MARTIN: Good morning, Amy Martin 8 here, Fairweather-Brown Associates on behalf of Roy and Susan Rodriguez . 9 What we have here is an application for a swimming pool that 112 feet of which, because of 10 the size of the building lot, 112 square feet ends up being in the side yard. That is the steps into 11 the pool and approximately three feet of the pool itself . Originally I thought the nonconformance 12 was larger, but when I spoke to the Building Department, they wanted to use just the area, not 13 the overhang from the setbacks of the side yard. I got only one of the mailing cards back, but I 14 got two phone calls from the neighbor across the street and the neighbor one lot over concerned 15 about the fact that it was going to be in the side yard, but they didn' t understand the concept that 16 the location of the pool would be the same, it is the only place that it can be, that only the 112 17 feet that is nonconforming is that little section that runs landward of the house . 18 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Your highlighted , section? 19 MS . MARTIN: The little highlighted section is the only thing we' re here for. 20 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: And if you. move it forward you' ll be less than -- 21 MS . MARTIN: 75 feet from the bluff and that' s not allowable . 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your neighbor was assuming that side yard meant that it had to be 23 directly behind the house? MS . MARTIN: The man across the street had 24 a concern that he was going to see the people in the pool . And I had to explain to him that the 25 pool would be there anyway and that that' s the only location it can be; and that there is a hedge December 15, 2005 5 1 2 already planted. . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And even if the pool 3 was -12 feet shorter -- MS . MARTIN: It' s not going to make any 4 difference to him. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you are 75 feet 5 back from the bluff? MS . MARTIN: That' s the location of it, 6 yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the coastal 7 erosion line, so he has to be from the top of the bluff is actually 100 foot . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s 112 square feet, right? 10 MS . MARTIN: Yes, 112 square feet including the stairs . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s all I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent, anything else? 13 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: A quick question, you could eliminate the whole variance by reducing 14 the size of the pool . I mean a 20' by 40 ' pool is huge . It' s a small ranch. It' s a huge pool . 15 MS . MARTIN: We did suggest that to the owner; and her concept was she has two young boys, 16 and she wants them to do laps and that' s the size of the pool she' s asking for. So it' s up to you 17 to decide whether or not she could reduce the size of the pool . 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many feet would that reduction be? 19 MS . MARTIN: It would be currently, we have 3 ' 11" of pool and five feet of steps, so it 20 would be 8 ' 11" or close to 12 feet shorter, which would make it considerably smaller. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Under 40 feet . MS . MARTIN: Yes, that would make it 20 ' 22 by 281 , it would almost be a square, which would be not too attractive . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Spending the 24 amount of time I have looking at the application, I have no objection to the size of the pool . My 25 question is are the Trustees involved in this? MS . MARTIN: It' s a nonjurisdiction issue . December 15 , 2005 6 1 2 There will be a hay bale line . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You will do that 3 during construction? MS . MARTIN: Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the pool will not be enclosed in any way, manner or form? 5 MS . MARTIN: No, it will not . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 6 audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing 7 and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 9 Sonitis . MR. BARTHMAN: Good morning, I' m Cliff 10 Barthman, I represent Mrs . Sonitis for the variance for the inground swimming pool . We wish 11 to put it actually in the side yard, but it' s going to be behind the rear setback of the house, 12 10 , off the one side property line and 17 from the rear property line . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is the one that you' re going to put that stockade fence all around 14 the property? MR. BARTHMAN: No, I think she was going 15 to put an estate fence around and do arborvitae in the front so you can' t see . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But you' re going to put some sort of fence around the pool? 17 MR. BARTHMAN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The diagram doesn' t 18 show any fence. I was down there and then I saw your plans that you were going to put a fence all 19 the way around the house . That' s 10 foot off the line? 20 MR. BARTHMAN: Yes, correct . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s no marks . You 21 just kind of drew this in, and then put a 10 there . 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you have your affidavit of sign posting? 23 MR. BARTHMAN: I think you have all that in there and there were actually two others . We 24 gave you the receipts now. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Maybe tomorrow 25 we' ll fax over another form to you for a sign posting. December 15, 2005 7 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ruth, can I ask a question of this gentleman about the fence? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sir, again, 4 since it' s my decision, and I have to write this, the fence, if I write this decision to read an 5 estate fence to code, that would be okay with you? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes . And also I just spoke 6 to Mrs . Sonitis, and where we have the fence completely around the property it' s going to go 7 from the front of the house, up the one side, across the back, and even with the side of the 8 house . So it will be completely enclosed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I use the 9 phrase "to code, " I 'm saying it will not exceed the height the code requires . 10 MR. BARTHMAN: What is the height? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Six foot . 11 MR. BARTHMAN: Six foot front, side and rear, and -- 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s back up one second. New York state code is four feet . I 13 think you better check with the Building Department to make sure what their determination 14 is before you erect anything more than four feet . That' s the reason I'm writing it to code . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Jerry, if you' re going to put that in there, you should put in 16 there that this is not a variance for the fence . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to be 17 honest with you, Jimmy, I couldn' t agree with you more . But by saying that embodied within the 18 findings of the decision it is to code, it is not necessarily to the specific code here . We' re not 19 concerning about what is architectural, what is nice, we' re concerned about the ability of 20 children and animals to get into the pool . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: As is the Building 21 Department . But if they see a variance for a pool, and then they see the fence on there, and we 22 mention fence, if we' re not clear on that then he' s going to think it' s a variance for that 23 fence . I just think if we put a sentence in the end to say, this is not a variance for that fence . 24 However you want to do it nicely, at least it' s clear to the Building .Inspector that we' re just 25 granting a setback for the pool and any safety issues have to come from his department . December 15, 2005 , 8 1 2 MR. BARTHMAN: I understand what you' re saying. A lot of times when we do this if we 3 approve it the way it is and you' re saying if your code is four foot and the inspector comes out and 4 says this is not four foot, he' s going to say this is wrong. But when we leave here, we' re going to 5 go to the Building Department and make sure . She would like to do the safest thing. If they' re 6 going to allow a six foot estate fence, if they say five or four, then we' ll do it accordingly. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Some of these fences become extremely expensive . I would hate 8 to see you install something that wouldn' t meet the code, then you' d be back here again in 9 February with another application. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But again, that' s not 10 the issue that' s before the Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is correct . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question, if the proposed pool were rotated 90 degrees, you 12 wouldn' t be here today; is that correct? Because you wouldn' t require the variance. 13 MR. BARTHMAN: If we turn the thing completely around? 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, then it would be entirely in the rear yard. 15 MR. BARTHMAN: Couldn' t because I have an old survey that shows there are three cesspools in 16 the back yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s one of the 17 reasons for granting the variance . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Let me see that ; 18 can we have that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last 19 question I have is how big is the pool? MR. BARTHMAN: 18 by 34 kidney. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this 21 application? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re going to 22 call that irregular. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Did I hear you 23 correctly, sir, in the beginning, you' re going to be placing arborvitaes to the north side and 24 northeast side? MR. BARTHMAN: Yes . Actually the back has 25 hedges and there' s some hedges on the one side there . So in the front, for the privacy part . December 15, 2005 9 1 2 MS . SONITIS : The part facing Gin Lane, I' d like to camouflage that fence so when you 3 drive up, you won' t see it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: The same with the 4 neighbor on the northeast side, you' ll put arborvitae or evergreens? 5 MS . SONITIS : Yes, I want to landscape it so you see greenery and prettiness rather than 6 that huge square fence . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Are you going to 7 put that in, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not part of 8 the variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s not part of the 9 variance . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: We can' t ask for 10 screening when they come in for a variance on a pool in a side yard? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure we can. Just fence around the pool, then an estate fence also, 12 correct? MS . SONITIS : No. What I want to do is 13 you see the back left-hand corner where the pool is facing the property, right? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MS . SONITIS : I want to enclose the back, 15 the side, which is the north, the front and then along the side of my house . So that' s what it' s 16 going to look like; is that clear? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We should have 17 something on a map, maybe you could give it to us tomorrow. Do you want to draw it on one of these 18 maps? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Draw it on that . 19 Initial it, so we know you did it, we didn' t do it . 20 MS . SONITIS : When you say, are you putting it in the variance that I have to 21 landscape that at any point, or how it has to be? As long as I have my fence, that' s okay, right? 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean the estate fence? 23 MS . SONITIS : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s not going to be 24 in our jurisdiction. MS . SONITIS : So that' s not going to be 25 involved with saying whether I get the pool or not? That I go to the Building Department and I December 15, 2005 10 1 2 then can landscape around it at my discretion and the way I' d like it to look, right? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I think we are 4 going to ask that she do some screening on the side, at your discretion. We' re not going to tell 5 you arborvitae . MS . SONITIS : It will be nice . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What if I make the statement that the applicant has agreed to put 7 screening around the periphery of the pool . We haven' t finished the hearing yet; we still don' t 8 know if there are people who are going to object to it . So it may be a little premature to say 9 that at this point . But I have to tell you that it' s nice of you to offer that . 10 MS . SONITIS : It will look nice . I want it to look pretty. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then it doesn' t look like you' re trying to barricade yourself in. 12 Is there anyone else in this audience that wishes to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll 13 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Robert and Josephine Corcoran on Nassau Point in 16 Cutchogue . MS . MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather-Brown 17 Design Associates, representing Robert Corcoran in this application. 18 The application is to make what is currently a storage area above the garage into an 19 artist' s studio. Originally we made the application without any further plumbing other 20 than the utility sink, which is on the main floor already in the garage, and we were advised that if 21 at any future time we would want to possibly put a half-bath in there or another utility sink that we 22 would need to come before you again. So we have amended the application to plumb for those things 23 in the process of putting it in, just making this a larger work space upstairs from the garage . 24 It' s been denied on the fact that by design this is not a use that is allowable in the code . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . But you' re not changing the dimensions? December 15 , 2005 11 1 2 MS . MARTIN: We' re not changing the footprint at all . We' re adding I think a foot of 3 height to the side wall and we' re adding dormers to the room, so there is standing room on the 4 second floor. It' s going to look a little bit more like a carriage house than a plain garage 5 when it' s done . It' s a nicer addition to the neighborhood and it shouldn' t affect anyone . It' s 6 not above any height restrictions or anything that' s being asked for. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How many square feet are being added of floor space? 8 MS . MARTIN: No square feet . It' s just height we' re adding. We' re adding standing room, 9 so it' s not just a storage space . It' s a work, space for an artist . 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will it be heated? MS . MARTIN: Yes -- actually, I think it 11 would have electric heat because currently it' s a summer -- the home is a summer home . There is no 12 plan for a heating plant or anything for it . It is just an open space that' s usable with another 13 utility sink and a john upstairs . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re talking half-bath; is that correct? 15 MS . MARTIN: Yes . But actually that' s not in the current application. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you' re throwing it in anyway? 17 MS . MARTIN: Yes . We were advised rather than come before you again. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have to write this decision, but if the decision was 19 written that -- I suspect there will be walls upstairs; I suspect it will be insulated? 20 MS . MARTIN: The only wall there will be is the wall surrounding the bathroom, everything 21 is open. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will be 22 insulated, electrified. MS . MARTIN: Yes . It' s to be a usable 23 work space for an art studio, not a retail space . It' s not to be misconstrued as anything other than 24 a work space . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How would you 25 like the Board to work in the aspect of heat, electric heat only if needed? December 15 , 2005 12 1 2 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: What was your question, Jerry, I'm sorry? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not putting this nice lady on the spot here, but if they want 4 some sort of alternative heating plan, when I say alternative, supplemental is probably a better 5 word, if they intend to use it in the fall or in the spring. 6 MS . MARTIN: I suppose there is room on the main floor of the two-car garage, because 7 there' s that entry area on the side that they could put a small oil burner or something in. I 8 wouldn' t want to restrict it to being electric heat, but at this point they haven' t proposed any 9 heating. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: If there' s water 10 there should be heat . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is an artist' s 11 studio . She' s not requesting heat, and we shouldn' t be granting them heat . That' s how we 12 restrict most of the people that have accessories, is we don' t want them to heat it . If she' s not 13 requesting it, I'm not for making any provision for it . They can drain the thing down in the 14 winter and that' s their responsibility. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I'm fine with that, 15 with the condition of no heat then. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have to write 16 this decision. I' ll put it in there it' s not to be heated. If you' re not requesting. that then 17 that' s what' s going to be in there . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What kind of changes 18 would be needed if this were subsequently to be turned into an accessory apartment? 19 MS . MARTIN: It can' t be . It has no kitchen; it has no shower or bath. 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You have plumbing. You would have a sink, you would have a half bath. 21 MS . MARTIN: You would have no shower. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t imagine you 22 have 450 square feet of living space either. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also Amy, you' re going 23 to need something, give us a plan that shows the half bath. 24 MS . MARTIN: I have submitted that . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I guess you 25 confused us when you said it wasn' t part of it in the beginning. It is on the plans? December 15 , 2005 13 1 2 MS . MARTIN: It was on the plans . I submitted it, and then you asked me to amend it . 3 It is there . It shows the room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The thing says 4 received November 3 , 2005 . And it' s stamped by Rob Brown. 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Up on the second floor, right, half bath? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is there it is signed by, stamped Mr. Brown on October 31, 7 2005 . MS . MARTIN: The building is 18 ' by 32 ' . 8 Not all of that is usable space, that includes the stairway. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s certainly over 450 square feet . 10 MS . MARTIN: Yes, it is . It is a two-car garage with a little bump-out on the side for 11 entry, which exists . And it is larger than 450 square feet . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a comfortable sized studio? 13 MS . MARTIN: It is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask a 14 question to the clerk of the Board. Would we have to readvertise this, if these people wanted heat 15 iri this building? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If they' re not 16 asking for heat and you have that restriction on it . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should give Amy time to go over and call her 18 client to ask if they want heat or not . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s better to 19 handle it separately. I would have to readvertise it . 20 MS . MARTIN: We didn' t ask for heat but the determination would say no heat? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re granted a 22 variance, it would be that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mainly because 23 it' s an accessory structure . MS . MARTIN: Understood. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, if it were connected to the house it would be a 25 different situation, but it' s not . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If they wanted to December 15, 2005 14 1 2 add electric heat to a section of the building later they could reapply it with a separate 3 variance . . MS . MARTIN: Okay, understood. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone here in the audience that wishes to comment on this 5 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 6 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Hedgecock on Stanley Road in Mattituck. 8 MR. JORDAN: Good morning, my name is Tim Jordan. I 'm representing Tom and Judith Hedgecock 9 of 745 Stanley Road in Mattituck. The variance is for an as-built deck, approximately 705 square 10 feet . By him doing so, he put the pool in violation of his side yard. It' s currently 11 holding 20 feet, and the deck up to the steps is about 21 feet . We would hope that the Board would 12 find this variance to have no significant impact on the environment or the adjacent properties and 13 grant it upon that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My question was when 14 looking at it, are you required to put a fence or something around that above-ground pool? It' s 15 sitting practically at deck level . I was concerned if children are there without a fence 16 there, they can just plop right in. MR. JORDAN: There' s actually no -- 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t think there' s a code for above-ground pool . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There is . And the deck should probably, I'm sure the Building 19 Inspector is going to make you put a gate on the deck and also the doors . 20 MR. JORDAN: Absolutely, it will he up to code . If that could be left to the Building 21 Inspector' s discretion, that would be great . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When I saw it at the 22 deck level, having grandchildren -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can leave it 23 open on the deck, they can, but they' re probably going to have to put a gate at the steps at each 24 part of that deck, and like I said, the doors have to be self-closing. 25 MR. JORDAN: I have an 18 month old, I totally understand that . The Hedgecocks children December 15 , 2005 15 1 2 are grown, so they may be overlooking that kind of safety feature . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Once you have grandchildren, it doesn' t matter how many times 4 you tell them something. Jim, do you have any other questions? 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 7 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Yes, what year was the pool built because obviously the pool came 8 first? MR. JORDAN: I couldn' t see it being more 9 than five years old. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there' s a 10 permit? MR. JORDAN: I believe there' s a permit 11 for the pool . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So the deck is 12 illegal? MR. JORDAN: Correct . The pool was 13 granted, and I don' t understand this, but by attaching the deck to it put the pool in 14 violation. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They got the permit 15 for the deck but the pool was still there, they didn' t notice it? 16 MR. JORDAN: They put the pool in, then they built the deck. 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At the time they got the permit for the deck. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They didn' t get the permit . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The reason why they put that pool in the side yard. 20 MR. JORDAN: Just for my own -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Don' t try to 21 discover that logic, we just need to grant the variance that allows that pool in that side yard. 22 MR. JORDAN: And bring it up to code if need be . 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I ask, if the deck was built without a permit and now it turns 24 out that in order to get a permit for the as-built, how has it happened that they' re 25 applying for a permit now in any case; are they selling the property? December 15, 2005 16 1 2 MR. JORDAN: They have got their eyes on a nice new house still in the town of Southold and 3 they want to make sure that their backyard is cleaned up. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then it introduces the relevance of protecting the pool . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it doesn' t . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the next 6 owner may have small children. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They' re not going 7 to get a CO for this unless they do what the state code says . We' re not going to grant a variance 8 for the deck with no gates on it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Do you know how 9 long ago they built the deck? MR. JORDAN: The deck looks to me like 10 it' s about a year to two years old. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I have no other 11 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the 12 audience wish to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 13 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 14 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 15 Christos Mitsas on Harvest Lane in Mattituck. MR. MITSAS : I'm George and this is my dad 16 Chris, he' s the owner of the house . We' re here to apply for a variance for an in-ground swimming 17 pool . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re right on the 18 corner there, it makes it a little awkward. MR. MITSAS : That' s our main problem. The 19 concern is that the house is located, although it' s on an acre property or just under it, it' s a 20 , corner property and it has what is considered two front yards . We had the survey made up, and it' s 21 depicted on the survey here exactly where we want to put the pool . Pictures were submitted and 22 diagrams were drawn. The pool for the specific reasons of we wanting it to be there are just a 23 few of them. Myself and my sister, we each have two small children, and we want to keep the pool 24 furthest away from the house as possible; that way if we' re either in the house or in the immediate 25 back yard, we can have a direct line of sight of the children and not having the pool behind the December 15 , 2005 17 1 2 house would help that . The other reason is there' s some existing trees on what' s considered 3 the backyard now, and we' d like to leave them there and not have to take them down and remove 4 them. The third reason is there' s a water well for the house that' s located in the back left 5 corner of the property and there' s piping that' s run underneath the ground from the well to the 6 house to supply water. So that would be affected as well . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you would have your own well? 8 MR. MITSAS : We currently have well water, and it' s located in the back left corner of the 9 property. And the piping is run underneath the property and that would be affected if we were to 10 put a pool there . And the final reason again, being we' re on 11 a corner property, we' re really restricted as to where we can install a pool . I know the code says 12 it has to be in what' s considered your back yard, but being we have two front yards, it' s difficult 13 to put it where code says . The survey depicts it' s going to be 65 14 feet from the edge of the property on the side of the house, and at least 100 feet back from the 15 front of the house or from. the front street of the property. There was some pictures taken and 16 submitted. It was staked out as to where we would install the pool . I also took some supplemental 17 pictures as to where the pool would be installed and show how the trees would block the view from 18 the neighbors, and where the existing trees are so we wouldn' t have to take them down. We spoke to 19 the neighbors, three out of the five neighbors have pools themselves so they' re all for it . And 20 the other reason is that where we want ' to install a pool is also the furthest away from our closest 21 neighbor, which is directly to the left of the house . And if we install it there, it' s furthest 22 away from any inconvenience to them. I can submit these pictures (handing) . 23 If you look at picture one, that' s exactly where we want to put the pool . And if you notice, 24 there' s existing trees that covers the whole edge -- well, not exactly where we want to put it 25 but five feet before that . So the trees actually block the view from the neighbors . And right December 15, 2005 18 1 2 below that trees is a chain link fence, and we' re going to install the privacy tubes into the fence . 3 So between the trees and the privacy fence being installed, there won' t be any view coming in from 4 any of the neighbors, that' s picture one . Picture two is the direct opposite view of where we want 5 to put it . This is behind the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The west? 6 MR. MITSAS : Right . That' s where there are three existing trees and we would have to 7 remove them and so on and so forth to have the pool installed there . 8 Picture three is taken from the street on the east side of the property, the Farmvue Road 9 street . Again, that' s showing the trees there and below the trees is the fence, and how it would be 10 blocking the inside part of where the pool would be installed. 11 Last but not least, picture four is showing from the driveway the front of the house 12 back, where there are existing shrubs and would block the view from the front of the house back, 13 so the pool would be virtually, you wouldn' t be able to see it from either street that the house 14 across crosses on. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A comment, it strikes 15 me that the reason you' re here is simply because there' s a glitch in the code . 16 MR. MITSAS : That' s correct, sir. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand it, 17 there is no back yard to put a pool in as the code describes it, since there are two front yards and 18 the only other one is the side yard, and the pool would have to be in a side yard no matter where it 19 is put . MR. MITSAS : That' s correct, sir. The way 20 it was explained to me by the Building Department is wherever your house ends, 90 degrees to the 21 left and 90 degrees to the right of your house, wherever outside of that house property or where 22 the house is is considered your front yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm saying is 23 even to the west would be a side yard. MR. MITSAS : Yes . 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The west is a rear yard behind the house . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even though it' s a side yard relative to the neighbor. Right, so December 15, 2005 19 1 2 it' s a glitch in the code . The problem of applying the rear yard requirement of the pool to 3 this rule that says you've got two front yards if you are in the corner. They don' t fit well 4 together. MR. MITSAS : No, they don' t . It' s very 5 difficult to install a pool on a corner property house . What we would consider the side of your 6 house, and what is considered the front of your house, they consider it all as your front 7 property. And you can' t have a pool in your front property. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have no 9 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 10 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool will remain unenclosed; there is no attempt to enclose 12 it in any way; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: By putting a roof over 13 it? MR. MITSAS : Absolutely not . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this ' 15 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 16 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Dennis Roses on Cardinal Drive, Mattituck. Is 18 there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? 19 MR. LEHNERT: Good morning, Rob Lehnert . What we' re proposing here is approximately 325 20 square foot deck to the rear of the house . The reason we need the variance, again, we' re on a 21 corner lot . The existing house was built to approximately 51 foot setbacks on a 50 foot rear 22 yard. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When I was down there 23 it wasn' t posted. Is it posted? MR. LEHNERT: It' s been posted. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This was a week ago. Thursday I didn' t see any posting. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was there on Sunday it wasn' t posted. December 15, 2005 20 1 2 MR. LEHNERT: They' re there . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: You posted it? 3 MR. LEHNERT: I posted it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where did you post it? 4 MR. LEHNERT: I posted it on a telephone pole on the Main Road and a tree fight in front of . 5 the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Maybe someone took them 6 down. I looked on the Main Road too. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not on Cardinal 7 Drive? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I saw the 8 posting. MR. LEHNERT: The tree is right next to 9 the mailbox, it' s right next to the driveway. MR. LEHNERT: If someone took it down on 10 the Main Road, that wouldn' t surprise me . Basically all we' re looking to do is 11 relieve from the 50 foot setbacks for an open deck on the rear of the house . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It leaves a setback -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 37' 4" . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 3711" . 14 MR. LEHNERT: 3711" . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, 3711" . Jerry, do 15 you have any questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no 16 objection. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 17 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions, assuming the deck remains open to the sky. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience have any comments to make? 21 MR. EDLER: Am I understanding that the only notification on a variance is the sign in the 22 lot; does it have to be by mail? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, it has to be by 23 certified mail to the adjacent owners . MR. EDLER: So in this case did he already 24 do this? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Yes, he should 25 have . MR. EDLER: My name is John Edler, I December 15 , 2005 21 1 2 reside in East Marion, in Marion Manor on 130 Cleaves Point Road. I just wanted to understand 3 the process because there are tendencies of some people, as I witness, to do it and then ask 4 forgiveness, that is after the fact . So that is I wanted to make sure . Another thing I observed was 5 that so far in all pool discussions, and is this correct, that you didn' t seem to consider depth or 6 its relationship to the water table, or it' s taking away the surface percolation in areas where 7 there are septics or evaporation; or you didn' t consider foliage in some of the cases it' s for 8 hiding, but what about retention of water and evaporation so that you don' t overload a water 9 table that might have been originally only based on precipitation but now has the added ingredient 10 of public water without sewage release? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We don' t have any 11 jurisdiction over the depth of a pool . MR. EDLER: Who then affects the decision 12 that' s going to affect the water table? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The applicant, and we 13 try to make sure that the pool is placed in an area that does not interfere with the septic 14 system or water system. MR. EDLER: That' s only as far as the 15 well . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even when Suffolk 16 County Water comes in, which they do, you wouldn' t want to place a pool over the pipe that leads to 17 the house . MR. EDLER: You are only worrying about 18 the pipe, you' re not worrying about the hydraulics . There' s a whole system there, that' s 19 why you' re running into a problem. Slowly in the time that you don' t know about, that' s why I came . 20 The water keeps going into the water table, rising it, and the less you take away from the 21 evaporation, you have to figure the perk of the soil that' s around the pool, you have to worry 22 about runoff, what about the weight that' s pressured on the weight of the pool and the water? 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize with you. I know in certain states, I think even in 24 Connecticut, that is taken into account when the building permit for a pool is given. We do not 25 have anything in our code that I know about . MR. EDLER: Why shouldn' t we? Why wait December 15 , 2005 22 1 2 until the cat is out of the bag and we' re all suffering? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would suggest that you come to the Town Board meeting and make that 4 suggestion to the Town Board. MR. EDLER: This is why I do all the 5 research so I know all the parts . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Come to a Town Board 6 meeting and either in the afternoon or evening, and why don' t you suggest that to the Town Board 7 to look into that subject, or the Trustees, and take that and perhaps amending the code . But 8 everybody is informed as far as if something is coming here for a variance . They have to notify 9 all the adjacent owners . It is posted on the property, and we make sure that it' s on certified 10 mail and have a return receipt . And they have to hand those in. And it' s advertised in the paper 11 in the legal notices . MR. EDLER: But that will prevent them 12 doing it and coming for forgiveness . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sometimes we don' t 13 forgive . MR. EDLER: That' s good to know. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I support your efforts, and I think if you look at this statement 15 for a presentation to the Town Board because that is the agency that can respond to the needs you' re 16 pointing out . MR. EDLER: Why I'm concerned is because 17 my past record was after six years of dealing with the Trustees I found out and proved to them that 18 the DEC did not have power over the coastal areas as of August 8, 1984 . So I just want to with that 19 research and Krupski moving up, he knows my background. I don' t want to do it wrong, but I do 20 want to make a lasting impact . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He' s going to be on the 21 Board as of January 1st . So I suggest you make your appearance at the next Board meeting after 22 that . MR. EDLER: And to explain what my 23 reasoning is because you' re creating a monster underneath in the water table . I know I suffered 24 for 38 hours pumping 600 gallons of water an hour because of the mixture, a litmus understanding of 25 hydraulics of the water system and a water table . So thank you. December 15 , 2005 23 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you very much for coming in. Is there anyone in the audience that 3 wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 4 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 6 the Marrons at Wells Avenue in Southold. MR. STRANG: Good evening, Garrett Strang, 7 architect, Southold, representing the Marrons in this matter. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you like to explain what you want to do? 9 MR. STRANG: First off, I' ll submit two of the three return receipts we have gotten on the 10 legal notices . To give the Board a quick overview of this particular application, this particular 11 home was owned, was built in the ' 50s and was previously owned by my client' s mother who, upon 12 her passing, it became the home of my client . It' s presently too small for their present family 13 needs, and what we' re proposing to do as shown on the site plan is push out the living area to align 14 with the existing porch, and by push out, I'm saying towards the water, and to push out the deck 15 or to add a deck pushing it out to align with the existing deck, both of which will maintain the 16 existing setbacks to the rock revetment of 46 feet to the deck and 60 feet to the house . We will not 17 be getting any closer than the already established setbacks . We have received a Trustees permit for 18 this work, and we' re awaiting the DEC' s response . With respect to the garage, we' re adding a new 19 garage forward of the existing one, and the reason for that is the existing garage is going to be 20 converted into a new kitchen and dining area that they need. And the garage placement as shown on 21 the site plan is really the only practical place to do to put it there by putting it in front of 22 the existing garage. The house was, as I said, relatively small; it' s a small three bedroom, two 23 bath ranch. And my client does need additional space for their growing family. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You will be 10 foot then from the one side yard and 1516" from the 25 other side yard, total 35 . MR. STRANG: Total of 35, yes . December 15 , 2005 24 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any questions? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But in reality, Mr. Strang, you are not changing the house itself, 4 it' s really a proposed garage addition that' s going to be 10 . The house itself is going to 5 remain at 12? MR. STRANG: That is correct . As you can 6 see on the site plan, I pulled the garage, stepped it in to try to maintain at least that 10 feet on 7 that side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you almost have to 8 do it . MR. STRANG: Because the property line is 9 on an angle unfortunately, and the house is askew to the property line . And we can' t shift it over 10 any further because then we' d be encroaching on living space and the like . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s still going to remain a ranch house? 12 MR. STRANG: It' s a story and a half . We' re going to raise some dormers, as shown on the 13 sketch, overlay, the diagram. It sort of indicated we' re going to raise some dormers on the 14 water side, and on that one element that isn' t part of this particular application on, I guess it 15 would be considered, the east side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? 16 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: My only concern is you have a small you nonconforming existing deck, 17 which is about 300 square feet, and you' re going to create an additional non-conforming probably 18 800 square feet additional deck, very big, and we are 46 feet to the bulkhead. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Revetment . MR. STRANG: Right, revetment . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re the only one that is not bulkheaded. 21 MR. STRANG: It' s one of the few that unfortunately we' re not able to continue to 22 bulkhead. This rock revetment has been installed recently under a permit granted by both the 23 Trustees and the DEC. They applied for a bulkhead, I was not a party to that, this was 24 prior to my involvement with the client, and both the DEC and the Trustees said we don' t want any 25 more bulkheading but you have can have a rock revetment, which is what the permit was granted December 15 , 2005 25 1 2 for. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t have a 3 problem with the additions for the existing side yard, but is your client willing to get a little 4 further back? MR. STRANG: To scale back the deck 5 somewhat? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Probably have about 6 1, 300 square foot of deck there . MR. STRANG: There' s a fair amount . I 7 guess if we did the aritmetic, it' s 14 by 60-70 feet in total . They do a lot of outdoor living. 8 It is a summer home with grand kids and whatever. I guess they feel like they can have a playpen to 9 keep the kids contained and not run down to the water. But I'm sure they would be receptive if 10 this Board requested that they scale that back somewhat . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where are the steps going to be from the deck? 12 MR. STRANG: Off on the side because there' s a flagstone path that goes down to the 13 dock. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Only on the west 14 side . MR. STRANG: Only on the west side . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To follow-up Vincent' s question, is that this existing deck is 16 going to be expanded, but there' s also a rather large deck being built brand new, and I'm not 17 convinced yet why there needs to be an expansion towards the side property line of the smaller deck 18 when the new deck is being built, which would be quite large, four or five playpens or 19 whatever. Why do we need depth across the entire rear of the house? 20 MR. STRANG: The reason was to make it sort of clean and have everything line up . So 21 aesthetically we didn' t have a lot of jogging going on. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s not the extra space, it' s aesthetics? 23 MR. STRANG: Part of it is aesthetics . That square footage of space, if what you' re 24 referring to there to the left of the proposed deck or if we use the orientation here, I guess it 25 would be considered the southwest corner there, it wouldn' t have an adverse impact on their use of December 15 , 2005 26 1 2 the deck but aesthetically it would impact . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12 foot would be 3 acceptable, I would take it, the width of the -- the depth of the deck 12 foot instead of 14 . 4 MR. STRANG: The deck is 14 now. I think that' s a comfortably sized deck. Again, I didn' t 5 want to come any closer, that' s why I held the line with the existing. If I understand the code 6 correctly, and the way the Building Inspector described it to me, if that deck were 13 feet deep 7 it wouldn't be before this Board because we' re behind the existing structure . 8 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: I don' t believe so. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Regarding the new 9 garage, which is going to have a 10 foot setback, are there reasons, if this were not to be found 10 acceptable, where else would that garage go; would it go over behind the proposed addition on the 11 east side of the property, which would of course mean shifting the driveway as well? 12 MR. STRANG: We are relocating the driveway as you can see on the site plan because 13 right now it comes straight in to the existing garage, and we' re proposing to shift it over to 14 the other side where we can bring it through a vegetated landscaped screened area, so people look 1.5 up the driveway and not looking at garage doors . But to answer your question, that is the most 16 practical location for the garage because with the garage in that location, when you exit the garage, 17 you' ll be able to come right into a proposed kitchen and laundry area, otherwise you' ll be 18 coming into the bedroom element if it was on the other side of the house . It' s the most practical 19 location for it . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Strang, this is open to the sky? 21 MR. STRANG: Yes, unroofed open, yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You didn't give an 23 answer on the 12 foot . MR. STRANG: I'm sorry, go ahead? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can the deck be instead of 14 , can it be 12? 25 MR. STRANG: My answer to that is such that as I started to mention, which I guess the December 15 , 2005 27 1 2 Board takes exception to, when speaking with the Building Department they said the way the code is 3 written -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' d still fall under 4 the Walz . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s a 5 nonconforming setback right now 46, what' s it supposed to be? 6 MR. STRANG: 75 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Anything you do in 7 that nonconforming area according to Walz is before us then. 8 MR. STRANG: He showed me a portion in the code that' s the exceptions to that particular 75 9 foot rule that says you are excepted if you are behind and an already established structure . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MR. STRANG: So, his position was if you 11 brought if back a foot -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Who said that? 12 MR. STRANG: The Building Inspector. BOARD- SECY. KOWALSKI : Garrett, they refer 13 it to the Zoning Board. Once you' re here with the variance, they leave it up to the Zoning Board. 14 You can withdraw that, if you want and go back and get your permits without a variance if you don' t 15 want the Board to deny the 14 feet . But if you want the Board to rule on the deck, it sounds like 16 they' re going to give you 12 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re going to have 17 a discussion, Garrett . The thing is I have to write this decision, and I just don' t like to be 18 told no . So if we could get a 12 foot out of you, I think that would make us all pretty happy. 19 MR. STRANG: I' ll say two things, one I can live with the 12 feet, the second thing being 20 somewhere everybody' s got to get on the same page with the zoning, because I can relate totally with 21 this Board and the intent of the zoning to go to the Building Department and say there' s an 22 existing nonconforming setback, I don' t want to cut it back six inches or my new construction' s 23 going to be back six inches or a foot, so I can eliminate coming before the Zoning Board is 24 utterly ridiculous . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re absolutely 25 right, and the solution to the problem is alas not entirely in the hands of the people in this room. December 15 , 2005 28 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Garrett, you' re 46 feet to the bulkhead and you' re supposed to be 75, so 3 you still have to come here . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the disapproval 4 they say additions with an "S" . They' re saying all of your new additions are less than 75 feet . 5 MR. STRANG: Correct . But had my application initially been for a 13 foot deck so 6 it was a foot behind the existing deck. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If they said you 7 only needed a one foot variance? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, Garrett' s 8 saying he wouldn' t be before us if he asked for 47 feet . 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But the Building Department' s disapproval doesn' t say any of 10 that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 11 MR. STRANG: No, it doesn' t say that . But had I made the application to the Building 12 Department, they would have said, okay, you need a variance for the garage, but the deck is okay. 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They would clarify that for you if you asked them to. 14 MR. STRANG: Not to belabor the issue and not to waste the Board' s time, I will accept the 15 12 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Very good. Is there 16 anyone else who would like to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 17 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a resolution to recess for five minutes . 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is for Hommel at Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck for a 21 waiver of merger, Miss Moore? MS . MOORE : Good morning, I have with me 22 today is Mrs . Hommel, who is the original owner on both properties, and Mr. and Mrs . Righi who are 23 now the owners of the vacant parcel . You have the history that I have given to you in writing here, 24 but very briefly, I' ll go through it . With respect to the waiver, which will not 25 result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood, these properties are two of a December 15 , 2005 29 1 2 four lot subdivision on this road. The lots were created in the 1969 map of Howell . You are very 3 familiar with this street because I know with my own previous applications before this Board you 4 have granted variances for a waterfront house to enable it to give a little bit of property to an 5 adjacent property; and in 1979 there were variances granted for a rear yard for one of the 6 parcels that ultimately Mr. Stefano purchased, which we didn' t realize there was a variance 7 already on record, we applied and you notified us that there had been a variance . So there' s 8 history and there are findings in both those files with respect to the character of the neighborhood, 9 and the fact that these lots have been established, have been developed all very 10 consistently. The situation of the merger occurred 11 strictly by death. Mrs . Hommel and her husband purchased the property that the house is on, that 12 is 12 . 2 , in 1975 . They received independent tax bills since . In 1979 the property to the south, 13 12 . 3 became available, and she bought it just in her name in order to keep the single and separate 14 nature of it . Unfortunately in 2003 Mr. Hommel passed away and by virtue of the deed, she was the 15 heir, the standard husband and wife deed gives everything into the spouse . And at that time 16 unknowing the estate transferred the house -- they did some estate planning -- the house itself is in 17 Mrs . Hommel' s name as life tenant with the two daughters that have the property, and then the lot 18 was deeded over to Mr. and Mrs . Righi, who is Mrs . Hommel' s granddaughter. 19 Mrs . Hommel is reaching a certain age where she lives independently in the house, 20 however that at her age every year is at risk and so they decided that with the lot being empty and 21 being able to be developed that the granddaughter was going to build a house for her family, and she 22 has actually been the caretaker for Mrs . Hommel, daily caretaker, she been traveling every day from 23 Rocky Point since Mr. Hommel passed away, and has been the caretaker helping Mrs . Hommel . 24 So this merger is causing two problems or two significant issues here . One is obviously the 25 financial hardship, which I have testimony I will give you; secondly, it' s the problem of an elderly December 15 , 2005 30 1 2 person with a caretaker the lot was preserved separately, the house was developed independently 3 with the setbacks of the individual lot, and the lot was anticipated for future needs, now the 4 future need came, and it' s merged. I know you' re well aware with the problems 5 with the merger law, and the problems it' s been creating and there have been lots of cases lately 6 on it, I know. With respect to the lot being consistent 7 with the size of lots in the neighborhood, again, I refer you back to your own findings in ZBA 8 decision 4404 and 4405, which already set forth a finding that these lots are consistent, the size 9 of the lots are consistent with the neighborhood. The waiver will avoid economic hardship . 10 I tell you there are two issues of economic hardship; certainly economic hardship on a person 11 who owns a house who will face, as her age progresses, only the option if she cannot have her 12 granddaughter live next door as her caretaker, the only option may be to sell the house and find an 13 alternate home . This is a house that she' s lived in with her husband before his passing for 30 14 years . So it does create not only a financial/economic hardship but an emotional 15 hardship . I do have opinion letters from 16 Mr. Uhlenger who has provided me with financial opinions with respect to the property. I have 17 seven of these, I' ll distribute them. Very quickly, the house and the lot if treated as one 18 parcel is valued at $725, 000 . The house independently has a value of $635, 000 and the lot 19 independently has a value of $325 , 000 . So if we were to compare the two, if we were to lose the 20 independent nature of the lot, there would be the difference of being able to sell each 21 independently, if there was ever a need to sell, they each could sell for $960 , 000 versus what they 22 would sell as one parcel of $725 , 000 . So that' s your financial hardship with respect to the values 23 of the properties merged versus independently. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you go over 24 those numbers again? MS . MOORE : Yes, I' ll hand those to you 25 right now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, you said December 15, 2005 31 1 2 Mr. Hommel died when? MS . MOORE : ' 03 . 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Would you have the date of death, month and day? 4 MS . MOORE : August of 2003 . The first letter that' s among the packet is if this is 5 considered one parcel, the parcel would be valued at $725, 000 . When I was speaking with 6 Mr. Uhlenger, he said a long piece of property with a large side yard, the value of the property 7 is not significantly more than the house in and of itself . 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean the house just on the half lot? 9 MS . MOORE : Just on its own parcel is the second letter in your packet, and that is based on 10 appraisals at $635 , 000 . So he does a letter opinion based on valuation of comparables and 11 conditions of the property. Then the third letter is the value of the lot independently, and that if 12 it were to be sold to you or me and certainly Mr. and Mrs . Righi, it would be valued at 13 $325 , 000 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did I understand you 14 say the granddaughter wants to build on that lot? MS . MOORE: Yes, the granddaughter is 15 Mr. and Mrs . Righi . She is the granddaughter and also the caretaker. I will have her stand and 16 testify with respect to that she is in fact the caretaker for Mrs . Hommel . 17 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat, can we briefly go through the circumstances of the 18 merger, because I'm having a hard time in the file tracing the deeds . Do you know whether you have 19 provided us with the original deed that had the right of survivorship? 20 MS . MOORE : No. There is the one deed, you have a single and separate that actually has 21 the ownership. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It doesn' t 22 provide the details . MS . MOORE : I can explain it to you, no 23 problem. The husband and wife bought the one parcel that is in standard husband and wife -- 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They had a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship? 25 MS . MOORE : Exactly. The other parcel was bought by Mrs . Hommel independently with no December 15 , 2005 32 1 2 husband. When Mr. Hommel passed away -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In 2003 by 3 operation of law not through the estate, because you said a couple of things, it didn' t pass 4 through the estate? MS . MOORE : It actually would have 5 happened in either case . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It would have 6 happened in deed? So she took over survivorship of the property, she owns it? 7 MS . MOORE: Yes . That' s true, thank you for clarifying. 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So then what happens? 9 MS . MOORE : Then they did the estate planning, within five months they' re getting their 10 affairs in order, she deeds to her daughter the house, the two daughters, one is her mother, the 11 other is her aunt; the two daughters take title and reserve in Mrs . Hommel a life estate, which is 12 a standard way of handling the affairs . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On which property? 13 MS . MOORE : Just the house . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Leaving aside the 14 second parcel because no one knew that it had merged to begin with. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They thought it was just the one lot? 16 MS . MOORE : Just the one lot, yes . The second, the independent lot was deeded to Mr. and 17 Mrs . Righi . They are in fact the title owners now, Mr. and Mrs . Righi . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was as of 103? MS . MOORE : When did you take title? 19 MRS . RIGHI : 105 . MS . MOORE : 105 . 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this was been done, this second lot was transferred subsequent 21 to the death of Mr. Hommel? MS . MOORE: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just simply as -- MS . MOORE : As a standard transfer to a 23 family member. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then it turned out 24 they couldn' t sell it because it had been merged. MS . MOORE : They didn' t intend to sell it . 25 The only reason they found out it merged -- is there an issue you want me to address? December 15 , 2005 33 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm sorry if I 'm being obtuse, these things are obtuse to me 3 sometimes . The properties merged by death. The vacant property came into -- 4 MS . MOORE : Common ownership with the house . 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, upon the death of the husband, and a period of five 6 months or some such later, it was devised, so the merger only existed for that intervening period, 7 five or six months, something like that that was caused by death? 8 MS . MOORE : Yes . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s up to 9 this Board whether it wants to continue or not to continue to view those circumstances as relevant 10 to the waiver of merger issue . MS . MOORE: I give you all the facts . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Were there still separate tax bills? 12 MS . MOORE : Yes . There are still separate tax bills today. Since the beginning there were 13 separate tax bills . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Another issue 14 I want to bring to the Board' s attention is that Miss Moore has presented evidence that the two 15 properties would be worth more separately than together. In the past this Board has taken the 16 position that that' s not necessarily proof of economic hardship, and that' s been affirmed by two 17 courts, a supreme court and the appellate division, but that' s up to this Board what 18 position it wants to take as to a showing of hardship. 19 MS . MOORE : I am going by virtue of the law as it' s written and I 'm trying to address the 20 issues . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand. 21 I 'm trying to present to the Board. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The law identifies 22 what counts as economic hardship is, and the court has already ruled on that question, that the loss 23 of economic opportunity comes from dividing a property doesn' t count as economic hardship 24 according to the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board first took the position of interpreting the December 15 , 2005 34 1 2 statute that it was not sufficient to show that the property is worth more as two pieces than as 3 one, and the Supreme Court and Appellate Division said we will leave that to this Board to decide; 4 we. will uphold that decision. MS . MOORE : I don' t think the court has 5 made a determination one way or another, what is economic hardship. 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They said it' s going to leave it to this Board to figure that out 7 and affirm that decision. MS . MOORE : Was there a question you were 8 asking? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That was related. 9 MS . MOORE : You were asking about the time frame of when the merger was discovered. Okay. 10 Mrs . Righi had already been in touch with the builder, had started plans, had gone into the 11 Health Department to make applications . She had an expeditor who was working on it . When she 12 retained me it occurred that she met with one of the builders, who is a local builder, and he said, 13 oh, you better check this out . So that' s when we got the single and separate because at the time 14 she was the owner. I didn' t know the history. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How could she be the 15 owner? MS . MOORE: She thought she was the owner. 16 She was actually the title owner. The deed was already there . She was the owner in 105 when the 17 waiver merger was discovered. We did the single and separate, found the period of common ownership 18 and that' s when we went to the Building Department and found we had to come to this Board. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This may not be a fatal problem, but the idea that one of the things 20 you hope would be uncovered in title searches prior to ownership, is to find out whether there 21 actually is a legally separate property that is being transferred. 22 MS . MOORE: Unfortunately when you' re dealing with family transfers, there' s often no 23 title, particularly when it' s done through an estate, an estate attorney is not a zoning 24 attorney. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But this was done 25 after -- MS . MOORE : The estate attorney who was December 15 , 2005 35 1 2 transferring and doing deeds, so it' s the family attorney doing this . I treat things differently, 3 I have estates right now, when I know there are two properties, and I'm very careful to make sure 4 I don' t put them in the same name, not every attorney knows that, so. That was the last point 5 I wanted to raise . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a deed to 6 the second property? MS . MOORE : Yes . There is a deed 7 recorded. Mr. and Mrs . Righi are the owners . The application before you is done by both of them. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . But this is the situation we find ourselves in. And 10 you know, this problem just has not been corrected. And this poor lady shouldn' t be before 11 us, in all honesty, that' s the way I feel, but we' re talking about $200 , 000 difference here 12 approximately. MS . MOORE: And also the effect of a 13 caretaker family and an elderly person being able to live in their home . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s another thing. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, that' s important but it' s not in the code . 16 MS . MOORE : A lot of things, the interpretations I've been getting are not in the 17 code BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . But if we 18 base our decision, I have to write this . So I'm thinking if I base this unmerger on the fact that 19 there' s a caretaker going to build a house next to it, what happens 15 years from now? 20 MS . MOORE : That' s one aspect of why it stayed in the family rather than it got sold to 21 another party. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly, you went 22 to length in your first paragraph for just that reason explaining as a reason for granting the 23 merger would be because there' s a caretaker going to be built . We' re going to base our decision 24 based on if we granted it more than on that one reason. 25 MS . MOORE : I would not recommend that you base it all on that reason. December 15, 2005 36 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, but it' s going to be in there . 3 MS . MOORE : I think I actually addressed all of the points that are in the waiver of merger 4 law, and your prior rulings on the community on the number of lots it' s creating and so on and so 5 forth, but one additional factor which is unique on this application versus other applications you 6 have seen is that there is that extra element of an elderly person who the merger occurs through a 7 death and that you' re getting more often than not -- 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You know this is not the first time we have been faced with precisely 9 that situation even in the last six months . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We just had it 10 right across the street, Donna Wexler. MS . MOORE : That' s on appeal, we' ll see . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree, I'm glad someone has . a wherewithal . 12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That wasn' t merged by death. That was merged by deed not by 13 death. BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO : Totally different . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Totally different . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The caretaker 15 argument has been used before, and sometimes with considerable effect, but it' s not part of the 16 code . MS . MOORE : I haven' t used it . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can' t think of anyplace where we have granted for that reason. I 18 can' t think of anyplace where we granted an unmerger by death, can you? 19 MS . MOORE: Yes . I don' t remember which one it was, but I think it was one of my 20 applications . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can go to 21 John McNulty' s property in Laurel; we can go to Anchor Lane in East Marion. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I' d like to see a copy of those . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They' re all in the file . 24 MS . MOORE : Up until recently, I would have said, no, I didn' t think I needed to go into 25 this financial hardship because of the way that it occurred by death but given the status of the law December 15 , 2005 37 1 2 right now, I'm doing that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I agree with you. If 3 you look at the property and the family situation and so forth, independent of what the code 4 actually says, it makes perfectly good sense that the Righis should have the property and be able to 5 develop it . We' re kind of hamstrung by the need to interpret the code as written in a way that 6 allows that, and if the economic hardship argument doesn' t work, and this Board is on the record for 7 saying it doesn' t, it' s going to be a little tricky. 8 MRS . HOMMEL: Excuse me, may I say something? My husband and I bought this piece of 9 property, our house property 30 years ago or more . About 10 or 15 years later the piece of property 10 next to me went up to for sale and we bought it . We put that in my name so in case anything 11 like this came up, we wouldn' t have a problem. Now, I'm going to read this letter to 12 you. My granddaughter wants to build a house on that piece of property, and I'm going to tell you, 13 I want her to build this house, and I don' t know, what all this commotion is all about . I.'m going 14 to read the letter to you that I wrote . "My name is Anna Hommel and I 'm almost 85 15 years old. Thirty years ago my husband and I bought the property next to us with the 16 expectation of having my family build a home next to me so I could live out my life in my home 17 without any worries of needing strangers to take care of me, or worse, to have to sell my home and 18 be put into a nursing home . "After 62 years of marriage due to 19 unforeseen tragic events, my husband was recently taken from me . Since my husband' s passing, my 20 granddaughter, Nancy Righi, is the only family I have to take care of me in New York. My two 21 wonderful daughters are both in Florida and I visit them very frequently. 22 "Lately we have had some unexpected medical emergencies that I needed Nancy' s help 23 with. With them next to me, I will have peace of mind, I would have company. Therefore, we have 24 decided to go ahead with our lifetime plans we made almost 30 years ago . I was unaware that the 25 Town merged my property to one piece . I never knew they could do that without my knowledge . So December 15, 2005 38 1 2 now, I would like to undo that and let my granddaughter and her family build next to me . 3 It' s been so lonely here without my husband, I can' t wait for the day that I look out the window 4 and I see my two great grandchildren playing in the yard. My granddaughter practically grew up 5 out here with so many happy and wonderful memories . Al and Nancy are so happy and excited 6 about building a home next to me, as I am to have them live here . 7 "For 30 years my husband and I have loved and fully supported this community. Now I am 8 asking for you to support my wishes . Sincerely, Ann Hommel . " 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I read that very moving letter that you wrote last night 10 again, and I thank you for sharing that with us . I think we have asked enough questions . 11 MRS . HOMMEL: I don' t know what the problem is . Thank you very much. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a technical problem. We' ll see what we can do. Is there 13 anybody else that wishes to speak on this application? We also received all the petitions 14 from your neighbors I might add. Mrs . Hommel aware of that? 15 MS . MOORE: Yes . I' ll remind you that before he speaks, he' s on our side . 16 MR. TUFANO: William J. Tufano, 2482 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. I was given a waterfront 17 piece of property 40 years ago . I've been there for 40 years, I've been summering. I came before 18 the ZBA to build my new home, which we now live permanently. While we were living in Camp 19 Mineola, with the piece of property that we were gifted and built a house, the property next door 20 became available, we purchased it . We put it in our -- when I say we, my partner and I who was my 21 brother-in-law -- we put that second lot in our wives' name . We get a tax bill, I don' t remember 22 what year, we were getting two tax bills, one for Lot A and one for Lot B, where the house is . We 23 got a bill one year for one, they merged the two lots . Way back when, I don' t know what year. I 24 went to my lawyer he said, Bill, you didn' t pay the bill, did you? He said no, he said don' t pay 25 the bill . He got in touch with the Town, and the decision was legally two lots . Time went on, we December 15 , 2005 39 1 2 sold the lot, there were two different houses . Okay. His theory was, you didn' t pay the bill on 3 one, you were getting two bills, now you' re getting only one and they merged it; that took 4 place . What Ann' s situation is, she bought the house, the lot and built the house, there was 5 three other lots there, one, two, three . Ten years later, she bought the second lot . It all 6 came about when Charlie died and for what legal reasons, now she' s in this position. 7 I don' t know what that is, and I think it' s just -- and like you say, people, and I 8 respect you, I've been before here and you' re very familiar with me, and it' s fine, but what you' re 9 trying to do is protect your -- there' s only one way to say it in Brooklyn, you' re looking to 10 protect your A-S-S, and I don' t think you have a leg to stand on. 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Sir, how do you feel about this house being built on this 12 vacant piece of property? MR. TUFANO: ' Here' s how I look at it : Is 13 it legal to put this house on that lot? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But one of 14 the things we' d like to know is how the neighborhood feels . 15 MR. TUFANO: Our neighborhood with the real estate, with the way things are going, there 16 are new words that are coming out in their advertisements, "winter water view. " Right, this 17 argument of financial hardship, I don' t want to use the word it' s none of your business, that she 18 wants to pursue it . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: At the same 19 time you' re asking whether it' s legal, and that' s one of the legal requirements, so we have to -- 20 MR. TUFANO': How do I feel about it? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes? 21 MR. TUFANO: We also have a designation down there of "postage stamp lots . " The lots are 22 so small that the little bungalows that it was serving, it' s gone . 23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: How do you feel about it? 24 MR. TUFANO: Definitely I want a house there . 25 MS . MOORE : Are you in support of the application? December 15, 2005 40 1 2 MR. TUFANO: One hundred percent . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody else wish 3 to speak on the application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 4 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 6 Baker, at 920 Naugles Drive, Mattituck. Miss Baker? 7 MS . BAKER: Good morning my name is Christine Baker, and I'm one of the owners of the 8 property. And simply stated, we want to build a deck in the back of the house, and it is 9 encroaching on the side property line . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That deck is going to 10 be to the second floor there, because it really drops off? 11 MS . BAKER: Yes, second floor. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And it' s very close 12 because there are all shrubs and a fair, substantial grade . 13 MS . BAKER: We call the house chez terre, the topography is such that it looks as if it were 14 all cut out of the earth and there is all earth wall that are, I'm going to guess, 20 feet high. 15 So it is unlikely that this deck would in any way impede anyone' s view or quality of life . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll ask Jerry because he lives down there . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 've been there twice, and I have no objection to it . It is an 18 extremely unique piece of property, there' s no question about it . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vincent? BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No questions . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just an observation 21 since I'm writing this . Just the fact that property is uniquely shaped, topographically 22 unidentifiable, that it' s the kind of lot for which this particular setback rule wasn' t meant to 23 cover. I mean, this is the whole idea because the setbacks, there are situations in which the 24 enforcement of the setback is important, this doesn' t seem to be one of them. 25 MS . BAKER: I agree . BOARD MEMBER- SIMON: And this is one of December 15, 2005 41 1 2 the cases where an argument can be made that because of the unique topographical features of 3 that lot, the fact that this could not be reasonably be objected to by any neighbor, it 4 sounds as though this may very well appropriately be granted. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think Michael' s 6 reasoning is quite sound especially on this particular lot . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree . Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on 8 this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 9 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 11 Dr. Miller on Fishers Island. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who is 12 representing him? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No one . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : He' s not able to make it, and it was authorized to be put on the 14 calendar without appearance, and Ruth was going to speak with Lousia, I don' t know if she had a 15 chance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I didn' t, but it' s just 16 a matter of just putting dormers on. It' s not a big deal . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s over the existing footprint, letter confirms the setbacks 18 of the existing house, there are plans that describe the dormers and the height . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re unwilling to make a decision without anybody seeing it, I'm 20 certainly willing to go over there and take a look at it on Sunday. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have a problem with it, he put the sketch in there.. 22 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: Looks like one dormer. 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Photographs in the file also . We also have a letter, there are 24 letters from Dr. Miller in the file explaining why he needs is it . 25 BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: So there' s an existing dormer -- I wouldn' t call it a dormer, it December 15 , 2005 42 1 2 looks more like a dog house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, to me it' s not a 3 very big deal . I don' t have any problem with it . BOARD MEMBER ORLANDO: No. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don' t have any problem. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 6 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 15 , 2005 43 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 6 State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 8 the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 11 action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 15th day of December, 2005 . 16 17 18 19 Florence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 15, 2005