Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/26/2006 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G . B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 January 26, 2006 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 LESLIE K. WEISMAN, Board Member 16 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 17 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 19 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 20 Board Member Absent : Gerard Goehringer 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning everybody. I' d like to welcome you all to our 3 regular scheduled meeting of January 24 , 2006, and I ' d like to have a motion declaring all our 4 hearings to have a negative declaration on a Type II Action. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So moved. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for the Neumanns . They wish to build a new house with 7 an observatory which consists of a third floor. Miss Moore? 8 MS . MOORE : Good morning. I also wish to express my condolences to Mr. Goehringer who I 9 know is not here due to family loss so please pass our condolences . 10 We have with us today Mrs . Neumann, one of the applicants, and Bob Tast, from Young and 11 Young, the architect on this project . If I could bring this up to the dais, here is the house 12 that' s presently under construction. Mr. Simon, so you can see all the way down there, you have 13 the plan, what they are proposing to do is a 10 by 10 of almost the equivalent of those widow' s F' 14 peaks, the walks, it is a box essentially over top of the patio, I don' t want to incorrectly describe 15 it as a box, but it' s a 10 by 10 room. It' s not to be used for sleeping. It' s a sitting room for 16 Mrs . Neumann, who is here . She can tell you what she wants to do with it . It provides a small room 17 where she . can sit and enjoy the views . So that is what we are here requesting relief for. I ' ll put 18 this into your file for the record. It' s a nice quick description. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And I can enter this into the record, right? 20 MS . MOORE : Yes . I also understand from the correspondence that the DEC must have been 21 notified as you routinely do with respect to waterfront development . They came back advising 22 the Neumanns that a permit was necessary, but I believe Mr. Carrera wasn' t aware that there was a 23 permit already on this property. I called and spoke to one of the duty analysts at the DEC 24 yesterday. I' ll testify to that effect that in fact I did speak to her and advised them that 25 there was a permit originally issued in 1997 . It was a two-phased application. There was a set off January 26, 2006 3 1 2 for a small subdivision for this property which through the moratorium got stalled, but the DEC 3 approved it, and also for the work being done to the house, proposed work to the house . They in 4 the same letter advised that any activity above the 10 foot contour would be no jurisdiction. I 5 have a copy of that letter. It refers to the survey from Young and Young last dated January 23 , 6 1997, and it is consistent with what is already in your file, and I do have a copy of that survey so 7 you can see it' s still dealing with the house, the 10 foot contour is shown, and the house is in fact 8 landward of the 10 foot contour. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who did you speak to at 9 the DEC? MS . MOORE : One of the duty analysts . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not that we have jurisdiction but for our files, the permit was 11 from 1997? MS . MOORE : No, it was extended, 12 actually. I should have clarified in 2002 , the - permit was extended until May of 2007 . Thank you, 13 I 'm glad you clarified. I have Bob Tast that I'm going to ask to come up and describe the space and 14 how we would ask that the Board, when they' re considering this, considering this space as a half 15 story. And Mr. Tast, would you provide testimony to that effect? 16 MR. TAST: Good morning, my name is Bob , Tact, I'm an architect with Young and Young, 400 17 Ostrander Avenue in Riverhead. This space is actually at the attic level 18 of a house that' s being reconstructed right now, and it consists of 132 square feet . It does not 19 change the footprint whatsoever in terms of the house because it really is an appendage over a 20 balcony that' s being constructed at the present time . If you look at the half a story definition 21 in your code, it indicates that it has to be a half story, has to be less than 50 -- 50 percent 22 of the area, has to have a height of less than 7 . 6 . If I take the area of the attic as a whole 23 and add this 132 square feet, we' ll still be less than 50 percent for the height of 7 . 6 . So in 24 terms of half a story, if that' s important and I think it may be in terms of your decision and 25 future building official action, we would like to say that the area as a whole of the attic, c January 26 , 2006 4 1 2 including this space, which is at the attic level would comply with the half-story 3 definition. There will be a permanent stair to get to this space and that will be over the 4 existing stair in the hallway. So it will be a permanent fixed stair conforming to code . 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that as the code is written a variance isn' t even 6 necessary? MR. TAST: I'm not saying it' s not 7 necessary because I think that half-story living space may still be an issue, I'm not 100 percent 8 sure on that . Pat may know more . MS . MOORE : The definition talks in terms 9 of the -- let me pull out the definition. It' s under story, when you read the code at 100-13 says 10 "story, half . " It says any space with a minimum clearance height of five feet partially within the 11 roof framing with a clear height of not more than 50 percent of such space between the top of the 12 floor beams and the structural ceiling level is 716" or more . That definition has always posed a 13 problem I think in the Building Department and for anyone reading it because when it talks about 14 partially within the roof framing, we are creating the roof frame by this box. In the olden days, 15 the houses if you had a Dutch colonial, that' s pretty straightforward, you had the framing of the 16 roof, and for the architects on the Board there' s a better description than what I'm using, but 17 inside the general roofline and that' s why a lot of the older homes out here are considered a two 18 and a half story. They have a small space above the second floor, which creates that half story. 19 The importance to us of determining it to be a half story is the state building code, and if you 20 agree with us that because it' s such a limited space and because it fits very closely within the 21 definition of the half story, the Building Department will consider it a half story and not 22 deal with all of the third story state building code issues that get triggered. So it would be 23 very helpful to the family if you determine this as a half story cause Mike Verity will say, fine, 24 you've got a variance for a half story, a variance from the very - not so clear description in the 25 code, so to the extent it needs to vary from the partially within roof framing, definition or January 26, 2006 5 1 � 2 language, it still remains a half story with respect to its position, its area, its ceiling 3 height and so on. So we' re hoping that you can see it this way so that when the Building 4 Department issues the building permit NCO for this, it won' t be deemed a third story and 5 therefore all of the fire suppression requirements that a third floor requires . Since the space is 6 not going to be for sleeping quarters, it' s not going to be for any extensive activities, as I say 7 it' s very limited in its use . We' d ask your consideration in the decision-making process . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In looking at the 9 plans, the interior plans? MR. TAST: Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The observation overlook is an interior space, correct, it' s fully 11 enclosed? MR. TAST: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And is only accessible from the interior, right? 13 MR. TAST: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Finished space with 14 sheetrock and so on would be about 10 by 10, the actual framing is 10' 101 ? 15 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe a 10 ' by 16 10 , space is considered habitable as ancillary space? 17 MS . MOORE : That' s why we can' t say it' s not nonhabitable . An attic space would be 18 nonhabitable, but this is living space . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to clarify I 19 don' t see here, I imagine you must have done a site selection, I'm wondering why the third story, 20 although aesthetically it certainly makes sense, other than the view, I mean there' s a view 21 underneath in the balcony condition as well; is there a reason for the elevational necessity to go 22 up that high? MR. TAST: The house that was there before 23 and the house that is being recreated had an attic level that Mrs . Neumann used as sort of a nice 24 escape space and also with views to Long Island Sound and sunsets on the northwest . So I think 25 the effort to put this observatory on the north side is to recreate that feeling or that view January 26, 2006 6 1 2 opportunity that she had in the past . MS . MOORE: I have Mrs . Neumannn here and 3 she can testify to that from her own experience . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I was wondering if 4 . there was a tree line situation that you were attempting to rise above or view, is there 5 something on the site in terms of natural features that require the height for the view? 6 MR. TAST: There are some trees to the north, yes, you don' t notice them now, and you do 7 see the water to some extent from the second floor, I believe . 8 MS . MOORE: Why don' t I have Mrs . Neumannn give her testimony since that is of more use and 9 she' s lived there for some time . MRS . NeumannN: I'm Kathleen Neumannn I 'm 10 one of the owners of the house, I own it with my son. I've lived there for 35 years . I ' m now a 11 full time resident of Mattituck. We do have, because the Mattituck Inlet Marine and Shipyard is 12 directly across from our house, really smack across, we have lined the front of our property 13 with trees, and so, looking out in that direction from the ground floor, and it used to be from the 14 second floor of the old house I could see the sound when the trees were not in leaf, now of 15 course, the trees have grown. So one of the things that I have loved about the being here and 16 the view and so forth is looking out . I 'm a widow, I lost my husband two years ago. We had 17 planned to build a house out here which Bob Tast had designed for us and we had lived here . So I 18 would like to keep that feel of the old house, keep that existing view. We are not going to use 19 it for living quarters in any way. We' re not going to put beds up there. We' re going to put 20 some chairs and maybe go up at night and have a cocktail and I' ll go up and read. It' s the only 21 way in this house that we would be able to see in that direction. We have a lovely view up the 22 inlet, but we can' t see down at all under the present circumstances . Thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, or Mr. Tast, what is the height to the ridge? 24 MR. TAST: The height to the top of the ridge is -- I believe it' s about 38 feet to the 25 top of the ridge . Now, the height as determined to the average between the ridge and the eve would January 26 , 2006 7 1 2 be less than the 32 foot requirement . In fact, the existing house that' s being constructed now is 3 2816" . If I took to the center line of this hip roof that forms the roof over the observatory, it 4 would be a little over the 32 feet . It would be 34 feet, but the main house and the bulk of the 5 roof would be at 28' 6" at the average height . MS . MOORE : For the record, the code is 6 actually 35 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, what is the average height, actually is it 34? I'm talking 8 about -- MR. TAST: In terms of height right now, 9 the average height to the main room? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm talking about 10 the peak of the new addition, what is the height? MR. TAST: It would be about 38 to the 11 ridge . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : 38 to the ridge, 34 12 and a half, is that an exact number? MS . MOORE : Are you the writer of this 13 opinion? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. I don' t want 14 to have that conversation next week. MS . MOORE : I agree, we want to make sure 15 it' s an accurate number. If you want us to provide it, we' ll submit it . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have questions? 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I' d like to ask a little bit about the history of it . There was a 18 house on this plot? MS . MOORE: Yes . 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Had it been demolished or burned down? 20 MS . MOORE: No. As I recall, the old house was there. There was some thought of trying 21 to renovate the old house, but when the builders came in and looked there were some structural 22 issues with respect to being able to reuse some parts of the old house . So I believe at this 23 point it' s new construction within the exact same footprint of the existing house . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was the observatory an afterthought after the design was actually 25 completed? MS . MOORE : No., What happened is because January 26, 2006 8 1 2 the Building Department routinely says anything above the half story or anything above the second 3 floor would have to come to this Board, they proceeded with the rest of the house because she 4 has to live there obviously. They started the construction with the annex that really could be 5 very simply added as if it were an addition to an existing residence . So the house has already been 6 started. I showed you the elevation of the house that is actually under construction and under a 7 building permit . This will be an amendment to the building permit and will hopefully timing wise it 8 will all come together at the right time . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s a 9 modification? MS . MOORE : It' s a modification to the 10 building permit issued at this point . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Tast, do you have 11 that figure? MR. TAST: Yes . The height to the top of 12 the ridge to the observatory addition is 3812" . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what is the 13 average? MR. TAST: The mean height as I described 14 before is 34 ' 811 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: 3418" . 15 MS . MOORE: Under the required 35 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask a question? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It appears there' s 18 an access panel from the observation overlooking to the attic space, that I presume is the only 19 access panel then from the attic? MR. TAST: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So in order, given this design, to get into that crawl space attic 21 space you would need that observatory floor level at this point, other than cutting an access to the 22 ceiling? MR. TAST: Yes . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: May I ask you to indicate on the site plan, since there are no 24 topological features other than the wetlands, precisely where the mature tree line is that 25 prevents the view from the second floor? MRS . NeumannN: The trees go all the way January 26, 2006 9 1 2 across the front . MS . MOORE : The property is quite wooded. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I noticed that it' s difficult to get onto the property and to try to 4 imagine where the tree line was relative to the height . 5 MS . MOORE : That' s the screening that goes around. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you very much. That' s very clear. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any further questions? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm going to tell you, 9 Pat, depending on our decision, if we decide it' s a third story, then it' s going to have to be 10 sprinkled just like all the other ones . MS . MOORE : I know, I've had other 11 applications where I think it could be distinguished, for example, Edgewater, I have 12 today, which is a significant living quarters, that has always had a condition of sprinkling and 13 has never been an issue. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a safety issue as 14 far as I 'm concerned too, because you have only one way to get up there and one way to get down. 15 So it is a concern, just keep that in mind. Otherwise, does anybody else wish to speak on this 16 application? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make 17 a comment on that as I'm in the fire alarm business . The Building Inspector and building 18 code protect for fire anyplace you sleep. You don' t need to have protection in the kitchen, not 19 necessarily in the basement other than if you have an oil burner down there, a den doesn' t need to 20 have, you need a smoke detector. Anyplace that you don' t go to sleep you don' t have to have a 21 smoke detector, it' s not required. So I would just ask the Board to think twice about the fire 22 suppression on a half a story like attic room that happens to have windows in it . I think if it may 23 be a requirement that' s a little too constricting. If they' re going to sleep up there, if there' s any 24 way for them to sleep up there, I understand it . But if we' re considering this a two and a half 25 story, and this is the half story, I think we ought to think about the fire suppression. January 26, 2006 10 1 2 MS . MOORE : I' ll let you debate that among yourselves . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the space underneath the overlook? 4 MR. TAST: It' s an open balcony. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there' s no further 5 questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 6 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 7 Trujillo and Miss Daniel for an accessory apartment for their mother. 8 MR. TRUJILLO: Good morning. I 'm Tim Trujillo. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to tell us? 10 MR. TRUJILLO: This is an apartment for my mother-in-law, and I found out we' re turning it 11 into an accessory apartment and thus, we' d like to put a range upstairs as well, with the kitchen 12 that' s up there, that' s pretty much this hearing' s about, an extra stove . And my mother-in-law is 13 here today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the floor in the 14 main house that' s 2, 810 square feet? And the apartment is 994 square feet? 15 MR. TRUJILLO : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, we were .16 there, it' s really quite nice . Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you for 19 redrawing and clarifying your plans . One question, just for the record, am I correct in 20 assuming that you were not informed by your architect at the time when the plans were drawn, 21 which is a couple years ago, that in order to create a self-contained accessory dwelling, full 22 residence of your garage, that it was necessary prior to construction to obtain a permit for that 23 purpose, you were never informed? MR. TRUJILLO: Actually, I believe it was 24 on the initial plans, I think the inspector wrote that no CO would be granted until this issue was 25 resolved. MS . DANIEL: Tim and I are married, just January 26, 2006 11 1 2 so you know, although we have different names . It became more needed as time went on. Mom' s very 3 young and in good heath, but we' re planning for the future, and that became more evident as time 4 went on. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the 6 audience that wishes to say anything on this application? If there' s no other questions, I' ll 7 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for John and Nina Winter. They wish to put a swimming 10 pool on the east side of their house in Orient . We were there . I must say your landscaping is 11 very nice . Do you want to tell us about your pool and how big it is and what have you? 12 MR. WINTER: We currently have a waterfront house in Orient and we would like to 13 place a modest inground pool in the only location that is feasible on the property. We understand 14 that the building inspector turned down the initial request for a permit to place the pool 15 because of setbacks . We have undertaken the protection of the bluff with a new large retaining 16 wall, a state of the art restraining wall . Planted a significant amount of Cape American 17 Beach Grass to protect the bluff, and as you have mentioned in the past, Chairwoman, we are very 18 aware of the necessity to keep the bluff in good shape, to prevent erosion and to keep the house on 19 top of the bluff . So we have decided that the only place to place the pool is as alongside the 20 house, not in the front and not in the back, and we understand that there is a provision in the law 21 that allows for that consideration. With those setbacks in mind, we have submitted architectural 22 plans of where to place the pool, and I believe you have that . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we do. MR. WINTER: And we have a letter from 24 Suffolk County Soil Department here dated January 25th, and in summary it states that the bluff is 25 fully vegetated and in good condition, and as in the bluff is in good condition and the pool is January 26, 2006 12 1 2 sited as far as possible from the bluff, installation is feasible and that was just 3 reported on January 25, 2006 by the Soil District technician in the County of Suffolk. We are 4 pleased about that . We are requesting that the inground pool inside dimensions are 16' by 32 ' , a 5 free form pool, it' s a modest size, we plan on placing it alongside the house, away from any view 6 from our neighbors, and I brought some additional photographs to show the site, and where the pool 7 will go in. If I am able to approach the Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 8 MR. WINTER: You will not see any neighbors looking into the pool . We' re planning 9 on keeping it very modest . No one will be able to see the pool from the street nor from any of the 10 neighbor' s sites . The pool will be 10 feet from our neighbor' s side lot . We plan on having it 55 11 feet from the top of the bluff . It was the requirement by the Board in 2003 in your latest 12 recommendations as the house is currently sited. So we plan to have absolutely no impact on the 13 bluff . We intend to keep it in good shape, protected with dry wells as the County of Suffolk 14 recommended for pool installation and conform in its entirety to the recommendation letter. We 15 have an aerial photograph of where the house is located in addition to where the pool would be 16 sited, again away from the neighbors, and from the road, and from any observation from the 17 neighbors . We have a letter that was just emailed me 18 yesterday by one of my neighbors, and if I would be able to read it and present it to you. It' s 19 from our immediate neighbor who we sent the certified material required by the Board. It' s by 20 Susan Simm and her husband David, and it says : "Dear Southold Town Zoning Board, As we are unable 21 to attend today' s meeting, we are writing in response to the notification we received to a 22 hearing schedule Thursday, January 26th regarding the installation of an inground swimming pool on 23 our adjacent neighbors, John and Nina Winter' s property in Orient . We have no objection to this 24 installation and believe it will enhance the property values of the neighborhood and we like 25 the fact that the pool' s proposed location is at least as far back from the top of the bluff as the January 26 , 2006 13 1 2 existing house is . "We also believe given the sensitive 3 attention to their sound front site that the Winters have already demonstrated by planting 4 native grasses to prevent erosion on top of the bluff that the installation of the pool will be 5 orchestrated with the same care . Please do not hesitate to contact us for any reason. " I will be 6 happy to present this to the Board. In addition to the affidavit of posting and the tracking 7 confirmations of the certified mail . Certified mailings, the affidavit of posting and so the 8 Board realizes we are the current owners, and we were the original applicants, and this is a letter 9 testifying to that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you going to have 10 some sort of septic system for backwash on the swimming pool? 11 MR. WINTER: We will install whatever is necessary in accordance to what the Board 12 recommends in addition to conform with the County of Suffolk' s recommendation letter of this month, 13 and we will put in dry wells and/or leaching system for any type of backwashing or any type of 14 rain water of the pool so it does not go over the top of the bluff, and does not have any impact 15 whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Best to keep it as far 16 away from the bluff as possible, so there' s not the weight . The water goes down and goes 17 underneath. The trouble, our bluffs are composed of sand and silty clay and any kind of nor' easter, 18 you want to protect yourself as much as possible . MR. WINTER: We plan on placing any 19 additional small retaining walls around the pool and also having a leaching field and any type of 20 runoff from the pool will go into the leaching pools and away from the bluff, and this way the 21 water can be dissipated and have no impact on the bluff or the adjacent neighbors . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you the one that placed that retaining wall behind your house? 23 MR. WINTER: The new one was placed by the builder, and he contracted to have that done . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was impressed by it because there' s that, and there' s a little French 25 drain type of thing before it goes up into the bluff . I thought that was a good idea. January 26 , 2006 14 1 2 MR'. WINTER: That' s correct . We put a state of the wall in with interlocking pins and 3 large 90 pound concrete blocks . It' s going to stay there for quite some time, we' hope . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me see if there' s any other questions . Leslie? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No . Just to compliment you on your landscape and clearly the 6 view will be protected from the road. It' s well below the grade of the road, and sited with a lot 7 of intelligence . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have two questions . You say you' re the current owner, is there any 10 likelihood that this property is going to be sold within the next year or so? 11 MR. WINTER: No, we've worked all our lives to buy this . No. 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Secondly, I think you make a fairly persuasive case that there is no 13 other place on the property for the swimming pool, it seems to me that an issue is that this property 14 in effect in the front yard, it' s actually closer to the road than the house is . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it isn' t . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any places 16 else where people have swimming pools, however shrouded they may be, in the front yard? 17 MR. WINTER: Yes, there is, sir. On the same Northview Drive on Lot 9 . 1, the road address 18 is 1150 Northview Drive, there is a swimming pool which faces the road. It' s elevated, now you can 19 actually see the swimming pool with the vegetation and leaves off the trees . There is a large 20 inground pool . We plan on not placing any type of diving board, no slides, it' s going to be a modest 21 pool, and it' s not going to be deep at all . It' s not going to be seen from the road. And that is 22 the only logical location, and only physical location. We can' t put it obviously in the back 23 yard, which faces the bluff, that will violate the 55 foot setback that you' re requesting, sir, and 24 we can' t place it in front of the yard obviously it will impact -- there is no room there, you' ll 25 see from the street . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would you be prepared January 26, 2006 15 1 2 to say that in general a rule could be that, a precedent, if you have a property such that there 3 is no place behind the house for a swimming pool, even if the property is fairly small and if you 4 have the proper screening then people could build their swimming pools in the front of the house? 5 The swimming pool is partially in the front yard, on the road side . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, but you can' t make a generalization for other people . 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it would seem to be a precedent because the rule that says pools 8 are to be behind the house and we sometimes have given variances where they would be adjacent to 9 the house, here we have one that would actually be partially in the front of the house . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It does not set a precedent though, Michael, each decision stands on 11 its own. Every area variance is an entity unto itself . One does not rely on another one . 12 MR. WINTER: I 'm not asking for a precedent, Mr. Simon. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wouldn' t set a precedent anyway. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One doesn' t choose to set a precedent . One chooses to have what one 15 asks for. MR. WINTER: We' re asking to place it on 16 the side yard and being this is a waterfront parcel, it allows accessory buildings and 17 structures to be located in the front yard because it is a waterfront parcel also, and as such we' re 18 placing it on the side, but it may extend maybe a foot or two past the front of the house . So you 19 are correct in your assessment but 95 percent of the pool will be on the side yard. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And it also moves it away from the bluff, which is a sensitive area. 21 MR. WINTER: That' s correct . And I' d rather have it come a little more towards the 22 street then towards the bluff . But we' re placing it in a safe location for the property, the soil 23 technician felt the same way. And we respectfully ask that you be able to grant us the inside 24 dimensions of 16, by 32 ' , we' ll place the walkway around the pool plus a fence according to all the 25 code, to keep it safe, protected, away from all the neighbors and make it a nice little location January 26 , 2006 16 1 2 for ourselves . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 3 the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 4 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 6 Landi who wishes to put a swimming pool on Waterview Drive in excess of the Town' s code 20 7 percent limitation of land area. MR. LANDI : Good morning. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? MR. LANDI : I'm fine today, thank you. I' m 9 here looking for a 3 . 1 percent increase in my lot coverage . My house is at the max right now of 20 10 percent which is what the law calls for. For the pool I 'm proposing to put in, which is a free form 11 pool, no more than 19_' percent 321 , calls for about a 3 . 1 increase, total overall . We sent out 12 the requested forms, got the requested returns, in fact, I just got another one today in the mail . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any reason you put the pool so far back on the property that you 14 didn' t bring it closer to your deck? MR. LANDI : No, not at all, ma' am. I 15 think what' s going to happen is it' s going to be moved a little closer to the deck towards the 16 house more . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think that' s what I 17 would like to see. MR. LANDI : I would like on that too, we 18 have been going back and forth with this poor surveyor. He' s changed this so many times for me 19 I felt bad, I didn' t want to ask him to do it . I would really like it closer to the deck. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wouldn' t have any objection if we put a condition in there? 21 MR. LANDI : No, in fact, we' re looking to do that . I want to tuck it in a little closer to 22 the house anyway from the back and the side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. That driveway 23 next to you, is that a driveway or a right of way to those houses in the back? 24 MR. LANDI : It' s a driveway that goes in the back to two other homes . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Like a flag lot there . Jim? January 26 , 2006 17 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So how much closer can you go to the house? 3 MR. LANDI : Close as I need. I really have no problem with getting as close . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We want to know how much can we require you. We understand your part, 5 you have to understand that if we make a decision that' s not to your liking, so I'm trying to get 6 what you would be comfortable with. MR. LANDI : I wouldn' t want to go that 7 much closer to the house, I want to maintain some grass area in there and maintain some beds and 8 plantings . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have a seven 9 foot setback there now. How much closer to the house, how much more can you make that? 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 15 foot? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How about 15 feet? 11 MR. LANDI : I don' t think that should be a problem. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So 15 feet? MR. LANDI : I would like to see it back at 13 maybe 10 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you want to move 14 it three additional feet from the property line? MR. LANDI : Can we go for 10 at this 15 moment? If that becomes a problem -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re having 16 discussion, so when we make the decision. MR. LANDI : I would like to see 10 , if I 17 could. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Any reason why it 18 can' t be 15? MR. LANDI : No, there isn' t, other than 19 aesthetics and my wife . Do you know what I 'm going to hear when I go home now? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You've answered all 21 my questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm good. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have an objection, just a question. First of all just a 24 comment, what happens when you go home after this hearing is probably not a powerful argument as far 25 as this Board is concerned. I 'm trying to understand, what exactly is the use of that January 26 , 2006 18 1 2 property to the rear? MR. LANDI : It' s a vacant piece of 3 property that the neighbor to my right owns . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s buildable? 4 MR. LANDI : Yes . I 've been trying to see if he would -- he' s not going anywhere with it . I 5 can' t get it from him, my neighbors can' t . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be a 6 further reason increasing the setback from seven feet that' s on the plan. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this 8 application? If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 9 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is 11 Susan Grun, who wishes to constructs an addition at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff on 12 the sound. We had a terrible time finding your house . It doesn' t look like a driveway. I think 13 Mr. Goehringer, who is not with us today, he spent about a half hour, but we found it . Go ahead. 14 MS . GRUN: I have the affidavit of posting. And the application, the existing 15 concrete foundation and porch that' s there, was not put in well, and there' s a horrendous leak 16 going down in the basement because of that, that' s why I have to rip that concrete foundation out and 17 in ripping that out, it' s going to pull out the piping for the canvas roof that was over that, and 18 in talking to the builder he indicated it would be cheaper to put in a wood deck as opposed to 19 putting back in a concrete and flagstone patio . And I would rather have a solid roof there because 20 I don' t want to be lugging canvas roofs in and out every year. So that' s why I came here . The 21 Building Department indicated if I reinstalled exactly what was there, concrete with the canvas 22 roofing, I wouldn' t have to come to the ZBA, but because I'm changing the materials I need to come 23 to the ZBA, so that' s why I 'm here . I'm not increasing the size from what the existing patio 24 was, the roofline is not going to increase in size . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just replacing the concrete with the wood but .having a covering January 26 , 2006 19 1 2 over it so sometimes the rain won' t get to you depending on the wind? 3 MS . GRUN: Hopefully a solid roof will last longer than a canvas roof . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not thinking of enclosing it in any manner? 5 MS . GRUN: No . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No ,questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you' re looking for a piece of property on County Road 48 , and 9 you have a survey, if you look at the survey in the front, they give you utility pole numbers, 10 that' s how you get to it . I've worked on utility poles most of my life, so I had no trouble finding 11 it at all . I have no question. You know, you' re just basically replacing the concrete . To my mind 12 it' s probably a better thing than having concrete . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 14 application? If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 15 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 17 Philip Milot, and it is for a second story on a garage on Camp Mineola Road, which is rather close 18 to the lot line . MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk 19 Environmental Consulting. These are some aerial photographs that show you the neighborhood. This 20 is on Camp Mineola Road, which is comprised of nonconforming lots with nonconforming structures, 21 practically every lot that comprises the neighborhood and we' re really no different than 22 anyone else . What Mr. Milot wants to do is simply to raise the existing roof of his garage by about 23 six and a half feet from the existing peak elevation to the proposed, so we can have a 24 recreational room for his kids . We' re here because of -- it' s sort of a Walz policy bearance 25 type request . The garage footprint measures about 379 square feet, so it' s kind of a small space, January 26 , 2006 20 1 2 and it is for practical reasons up against the street side front lot line, and it is up against 3 the side lot line, but that is preexisting, nonconforming condition. By doing this it 4 obviously minimizes construction-related impacts and it is a very sensible way of expanding the 5 garage structure . That' s really all I have to say. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There is no thought of expanding the house, which you could come back 7 with the house instead of coming up on the garage? MR. ANDERSON: The house is kind of large 8 for the lot . The lots are small down there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. 9 MR. ANDERSON: And you do have the space between the house and the garage which takes up 10 your septic system. And we' re working on one down the street, which is set up almost identically, 11 and it' s the same situation where you can' t do very much with these lots because of the septic 12 system. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I note that 13 strategically valuable to introduce aerial photographs as opposed to, for example, elevations 14 of the neighborhood. Because one of the things, if there' s anything as controversial about this as 15 far as I'm concerned it' s that the elevation of that garage is going to be higher than any of the 16 garages that I can see in the street . So here we have a garage that' s only seven feet from the 17 property line, and it' s no more obtrusive than any of the other garages, which are similar, but this 18 one will be higher than any of the others . That might be a consideration. 19 MR. ANDERSON: The only thing I can say is if you look at this neighborhood, it' s being 20 redeveloped. And the folks down there -- we' re working down there on another one and we' ll be 21 coming before you in I suspect March or April, at any rate, the neighborhood seems to favor this 22 sort of thing as a group. I don' t think it' s controversial for this neighborhood. I don' t 23 think we' re going to discover that anyone' s objecting to it . The history again is sort of the 24 redevelopment of it . If you look at the size of the lot, you have a house, you' re not going to 25 expand toward the water, you can' t expand to the street because of the septic . It seems to be a January 26 , 2006 21 1 2 sensible, if you' re going to expand, to do it in the manner the way we propose . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just a rec room, no living area? 4 MR. ANDERSON: No living area. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would it be heated? 5 MR. ANDERSON: I don' t think that matters . ' We have no proposal to heat it . It' s really just 6 a rec room used by kids . This house is used seasonally, so I would suspect it wouldn' t have to 7 be heated. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And no water or 8 anything? MR. ANDERSON: No, there is a half bath. 9 Which I think is okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There is no response from the neighbors . I did notice that 11 you had the notice of hearing posted, and no one has come; is that because neighbors on either side 12 are also seasonal? I know they had to receive a letter. 13 MR. ANDERSON: We sent them letters . I' m not sure what they are . This is what I have been 14 told of the neighborhood, and I know Mr. Milot, this is a summer house for him. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your site plan doesn' t indicate where the septic system is 16 located. Although it' s in that vicinity, it doesn' t indicate specifically where, if you were 17 to expand i4 that direction rather than to go up, what the impact might be . 18 MR. ANDERSON: I can tell you if the septic system were a conforming septic system, it 19 would take up all that space because we' re going through this right next door or a couple doors 20 down, and we had to plan how to redevelop the site based on that being a limiting factor, 21 dimensionally and area-wise . So I'm fairly confident about that . And the house was redone so 22 they' re going to have a modern, up to date septic system. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the actual ridge 24 line is going six feet higher, it' s going to be the same roofline? 25 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it' s the exact same roofline . It' s just raising it up, the peak goes January 26, 2006 22 1 2 up, the side walls go up maybe three feet because the gable stays the same. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn' t look to me like there would be any other place to park a 4 car except for the driveway, and you want to be able to get a fire truck in there, and I think 5 there are a couple of places that have higher garages . There are some garages there that are 6 not just plain old like this, drive a car in and have four feet above . 7 MR. ANDERSON: If you look at the elevations, along the side, if you look at the 8 walls on either side, they are raised by four and a half feet . So I mean, in a sense this is a one 9 and a half story, the actual head room measured at seven, makes this the center part of it . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the overall height to the ridge? 11 MR. ANDERSON: The overall height of the ridge? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought -- I mean, it' s less than 15 feet . 13 MR. ANDERSON: Existing or proposed? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Existing. 14 MR. ANDERSON: Existing ridge is about 14 feet . And that ridge goes up by about six and a 15 half feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you have any 16 idea what the average will be when you' re done? MR. ANDERSON: The average will be 1719" . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I have no other questions . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 1719" . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a median 19 height as proposed, 22 feet to the top of the ridge in there. 20 MR. ANDERSON: I've got 21, actually. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s either 21 or 22 . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see an elevation July 26th that it' s 22 . 22 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If that' s 23 agreeable, we' ll just use that number. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think that' s what it 24 was, Mr. Anderson. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 25 If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until January 26, 2006 23 1 2 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 3 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 4 Gregg and Cathy Roberts, who are coming in for really just a rearrangement for their porch 5 MR. ROBERTS : Good morning, I'm Gregg Roberts, my wife and I recently submitted an 6 as-built building permit for our property, which was denied. It was at that point we learned that 7 since we were on the corner our side yard has the same setback requirements as the front yard. The 8 front yard has plenty of space, .but the side yard, the house is built in ' 48 , and the house, not only 9 just the porch, but the house itself are within the 35 foot setback, so that was grandfathered in 10 when we put in for the permit . We had done some work on that porch to enclose it and all, and then 11 we found out about this at this point now. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: People don' t realize 12 sometimes they have two front yards . MR. ROBERTS : I realize that now. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, the work is 15 complete . So what we actually saw is the final product . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No comment . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 18 application? If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve 19 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 21 Geri Klein about the fence . I would just like to set some parameters before we start because I know 22 there' s some very heated comments that probably will be made . I hope that the people that are 23 against it will choose one or two people to explain their problems with this fence . If it 24 becomes repetitive and everybody has to get up and it takes too much time, we' re moving along very 25 nicely, I don' t want to hold up your neighbors for their hearings, then I will recess the hearing and January 26, 2006 24 1 2 then you can come back after we have heard all the rest of our applications, and come back and say 3 what you want . If at any time it becomes personal, I will close the hearing immediately to 4 any verbal testimony, and it will be only written testimony that will be given within the next week. 5 Okay, so we understand one another. Would someone like to explain in favor of this application? 6 MR. BOHN: Good morning, I'm Robert Bohn, I installed the fence, July of 2005, and I was not 7 thoroughly aware of the double frontage issue because there were two other homes down the road 8 that had a similar fence, six foot tall, that turned the corner. The Town, to my knowledge, is 9 the one that wanted me to come down and apply for the variance because of the six foot fence on the 10 corner lot issue . It did not meet the corner setbacks which we have since adjusted, and here we 11 are . I wasn' t aware of the heated debate with regard to the neighbors either. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is this fence on your client' s property or is it on the Town property? 13 MR. BOHN: Client' s property. , CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Client' s property but 14 you have two front yards? MR. BOHN: Yes . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So two front yards, you should have a four foot fence on both sides . 16 MR. BOHN: We only have the six foot fence on one side . We have not turned the corner yet on 17 the fence because we were stopped. But we have it just to the corner, caddy corner. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw, there is a clear line of sight there . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It looks like part of the fence goes over the line on the Town side; 20 was that moved again or is that still like that? MR. BOHN: This is the latest survey, I 21 believe, yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . You see the blue 22 dotted line there, it does go into the Town property. 23 MR. BOHN: I was not aware of that . We did this, we took numbers . I spoke to Ed 24 Forrester, he said where the dirt meets the asphalt is where you want to begin your takeoff of 25 the setback off the road. And we paralleled the dirt meeting the asphalt assuming that was okay. January 26 , 2006 25 1 2 Perhaps that was my error, I don' t know. But I was going on the information given by Ed Forrester 3 for the placement of the fence, as to where the Town meets the owner' s property. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Mr. Bohn, are you 5 saying that you were not aware that . the fence on the Sound Avenue side had to be only four feet? 6 MR. BOHN: I assumed -- which is my fault -- on Sound Drive because of the double 7 frontage . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You assumed that the 8 four feet applied only to the Sound Drive side of the house? 9 MR. BOHN: To one side of the property. There was about 14 to 18 foot of scratch cover and 10 again, I assumed that a six foot fence would not be intrusive . Perhaps it' s my fault . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When did you speak to Mr. Forrester? 12 MR. BOHN: After I was told to come down and get a variance . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You didn' t check on any of that before? 14 MR. BOHN: No, I wish I had, hindsight is 20-20 . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who told you to get a variance? 16 MR. BOHN: Mrs . Klein called with regard to the Town calling her. This is quite a while 17 ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Bohn, also it 18 doesn' t show where you cut in for the four foot here on this survey. 19 MR. BOHN: Where it steps down? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Where Sound Drive 20 meets -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Something was 21 changed on the fence after the survey was done . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s that little jag. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s supposed to be 30 inches high within the first 30 feet of the 23 corner, 30 inches is the height limit on that . MR. BOHN: I was told 30 feet back from 24 the corner dropped down to the four foot height and we would be okay. 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Who told you that? MR. BOHN: Forrester, again, drop down to January 26 , 2006 26 1 2 four feet and we' ll be okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the 3 misunderstanding there is you' re thinking corner to the road, where it' s corner to the property. 4 MR. BOHN: Where the monument would be? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . So 30 feet 5 to that point should be I think 30 inches . MR. BOHN: I'm open to do whatever needs 6 to be done to resolve the matter. If I have to go back and bring it back 30 feet from the marker, 7 no problem at all . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Did this property 8 require a building permit? MR. BOHN: The fence? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . MR. BOHN: No. We don' t get permits for 10 fences ever. I think that was abolished quite a while ago, wasn' t it? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just asking. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I 'm surprised that someone who has an excellent reputation that your 13 name brings with fencing was so really unaware of what these requirements are . And that when you 14 are on a road, that' s a frontage, that' s what frontage means, and I'm quite surprised that you 15 were not aware of that and therefore did not inform your client . 16 MR. BOHN: Mostly because we've never had a problem before in the past . All these years of 17 doing fence work, there' s never been an issue, with regard to people complaining. Of course, you 18 have property disputes, this is my line, this is your line . But I've never had a problem like 19 this . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact, even if 20 it' s on a side yard, where it meets the setback, you have to taper it down to four feet from its 21 six feet . MR. BOHN: Past the front corner of the 22 home . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say that again, 23 past the front corner of the home . So you are aware of that, right? 24 MR. BOHN: Right . But with regard to the six foot fence being along the road. 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I'm wondering why you didn' t do it here . January 26, 2006 27 1 2 MR. BOHN: I saw the other fence work up to the client' s house, there' s two other homes 3 that have six foot fence around the corner. Again, I assumed. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What did you assume? 5 MR. BOHN: It was okay to put the six foot fence along, and I didn' t really -- 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought when you weren' t aware that when you go past the front of 7 the house it has to go down. MR. BOHN: Because of the corner. Past 8 the front of the house, I was aware of that, but the six foot fence down, I figured it wouldn' t be 9 a problem because -- I just didn' t know the double frontage applied here . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not worried about the frontage, I'm worried you went past the 11 front of the house . MR. BOHN: But it' s so far away. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Still, what does that have to do with it? You' re pretty much -- 13 you didn' t know? MR. BOHN: I didn' t know. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You had no idea that the house across the street had a variance 15 for that fencing? MR. BOHN: I had no idea. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And the house across the corner is legal . 17 MR. BOHN: Right across the street the house has a six foot fence . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That has a variance . 19 MR. BOHN: I didn' t know. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You just didn' t 20 decide to check that out . MR. BOHN: Just didn' t even think of it . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re selling a customer a six foot fence and that' s what you' re 22 going to do. MR. BOHN: Not knowing there would be a 23 problem; we never had a problem in the past . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just wondering, 24 do you have other places that have six foot fences on a corner lot like that? 25 MR. BOHN: Again, right across the street they have one and down the road also . January 26 , 2006 28 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Down the road that' s legal, you' re talking about the next 3 corner, south of this? MR. BOHN: The white stockade . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s legal, that' s not anything like this . 5 MR. BOHN: I don' t know if it' s legal or not . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm going to tell you it is . I live two houses away from this . I 7 walk past this fence every day, and it' s okay if you put up a fence and you assume certain things, 8 and you' re acknowledging maybe you made a mistake, but I want you to know that the house across the 9 street, Fuscilla' s house, has a variance for that six foot fence and notice it' s set way back. It' s 10 not on the property line . The next corner south, you have Sound Drive and you have Sutton Place, 11 there' s a house that has a six foot fence, that six foot fence is legal by definition of the code, 12 but it is nothing like this fence here . If you look at that, you' ll see . 13 MR. BOHN: But it' s a six foot fence along the road, right? 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not, it' s in the side yard. 15 MR. BOHN: As well as this one . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No. When we get 16 done we' re going to give you suggestions how to move that fence to make it legal, but those two 17 pieces that you' re referencing are completely different from what you have here . I want to be 18 clear on that . It' s not that we' re picking on you; there are criteria. And there' s another 19 fence in that area that had a variance if you look at it, one way because it was a paper street . 20 MR. BOHN: Okay. Paper street meaning litter and whatnot? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Paper street is a street meaning it' s drawn on the map never been 22 used. MR. BOHN: I feel like I dug myself a hole 23 by saying those things . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I want you to be 24 aware . When we make our decision I'm certainly going to take that into consideration. Quite 25 honestly right now, I have no objection to a six foot fence there because I understand what goes on January 26 , 2006 29 1 2 up there, and I understand why she had it there, but there' s got to be some understanding, and 3 there certainly has to be some leeway as to where you place that fence . I don' t know if we want to 4 have that discussion now with him or my preference is that if you take that fence and move it in, to 5 the west on the other side of those trees, say 20 feet and you go with that six foot right up to the 6 rear of the house, then from there if you want to go four feet, I don' t care, honestly. We can' t 7 stop you from that . What I'm looking at is what we see already which is graffiti on that fence . 8 MR. BOHN: That' s the other issue I would ask you to consider is the fact they have a lot of 9 issues with the Town beach not being monitored and there' s drug paraphernalia, there' s defecation on 10 the property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We all have that 11 problem in that neighborhood, it' s not just her. What I would like to eliminate is making it easy 12 for some person to go there and keep graffitiing that fence, now if it' s on there, and we make a 13 decision, I'm certainly going to make sure that it' s continuously maintained by you, by the 14 homeowner, which means when someone puts paint on that fence, someone' s going to go out there and 15 maintain it . MR. BOHN: Be it six foot or four foot, 16 it' s unavoidable, isn' t it? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Four feet there' s 17 nothing we can do. Take a chain saw and cut it down, by all means, have a good time . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think that' s why Jim is saying put it back further into the property. 19 MR. BOHN: The whole entire line? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From the Sound bank 20 up to the back of the house, and then from there it' s four feet, and then you have to move it in 20 21 feet, and then I' ll say you can have a six foot fence, because really, you can only have a four 22 foot fence, you can have a six foot fence if you go all the way over to the corner of the house . 23 MR. BOHN: Which is basically half the fence from the Sound side up to the front corner, 24 you' re saying drop it down to four foot from there? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If she needs to have that, I don' t understand why she has to have January 26, 2006 30 1 2 that fence in the front, but she' s entitled to it . MR. BOHN: It' s her property, she can do 3 whatever she wishes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She' s not entitled 4 to six feet from the back of her house to the Sound bank, she' s not entitled to that, she' s on a 5 corner lot . I'm saying if she wants a six foot fence, and I understand her reasoning, she' s got 6 to move that thing to the other side of the trees, say 20 feet from the property line, and only run 7 that fence six feet high to the rear of the house . So from the rear of the house, back to the Sound 8 bank if you go six feet high, it' s got to be at least 20 feet or 25 feet off the property line . 9 Which would put it on the other side of the trees, and just let that grow so people can' t go in there 10 and paint that fence . What you do with the rest of the fence, honestly, I don' t want four foot, I 11 don' t want six foot, I don' t like to look at a fence there, I don' t know why she has to have it, 12 but she' s entitled to four feet . She can go on the property line all the way down to 30 feet from 13 the corner of her property. She' s got to drop it down to 30 inches . 14 MR. BOHN: Towards Sound Drive? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . There' s 15 nothing that we can do about it but it probably looks like -- I'm sure my neighbors aren' t going 16 to like it, but it' s legal . MR. BOHN: From the Sound bank to the back 17 of the house six feet can remain where it is . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Got to be moved in 18 20 feet from the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, four feet . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s my suggestion, but I'm making it now so hopefully 20 comments later on take that into consideration. MR. BOHN: My only problem with that is 21 how does a person -- when she moves the fence back 20 feet, she' s going to lose 20 feet of her 22 property that she pays taxes on and maintains and landscapes . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She doesn' t lose it . 24 MR. BOHN: The use of it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But she gets the 25 use of a six foot fence . MR. BOHN: It doesn' t seem proper. January 26 , 2006 31 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If she chooses to put up a fence 10 feet from her house, that' s a choice 3 to divide her property to one side of the fence and the other side of the fence . She' s not losing 4 the property. The question is whether she can put up a six foot fence that far from the house where 5 it is along a road, that is the issue . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The issue is can 6 she put a six foot fence in a front yard. No, she can' t . She can have a four foot fence there, 7 Mr. Bohn, from the Sound bank all the way to Sound Road, she can have that, nobody in the Town can do 8 anything about that . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Get for that last 9 six feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But if she wants a 10 six foot fence, I'm saying as a compromise, she' s going to move that thing in 20 feet, because if 11 you look at the one across the street, that' s exactly what happened there . They' re on a corner 12 lot . Fuscillas own that whole corner there, and they had no rear yard to speak of so they put the 13 pool in the side yard, and they wanted a six foot fence for privacy. If you look at that, it' s not 14 on the property line . It' s set way back and the same thing with the Sutton Place and Sound Road, 15 that fence was installed all the way over to the property line. It was going to go, they didn' t 16 need a permit, they didn' t need anything, and I spoke to them and they moved it back so they 17 didn' t need a variance . It is in the side yard, it' s not in the front yard because it goes right 18 to the back of the house, and it maintains that line, and they have all that space . They seem to 19 be perfectly happy with, their kids play in that yard. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think the Building Department might say the rear yard is 21 much deeper than 20 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . She' s 22 entitled to have if she goes to that corner, I ' m saying compromise and understanding her dilemma, 23 we' ll let it go on the other side of the trees . If I were her, I wouldn' t landscape on that side . 24 I' d let it grow wild like it always was, and you wouldn' t get people going back there wanting to 25 paint the fence . MR. BOHN: So I'm clear again, front January 26 , 2006 32 1 2 corner of the house to the Sound bank, move that six feet back 20 feet, and jog back 20 feet and 3 have a four foot fence along the road on her line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can' t stop you. 4 You have to do the corner better though. It' s not right . It' s not legal . 5 MR. BOHN: I'm looking at that now. I was not aware of that based on the information given 6 to me by Ed Forrester. And again, I' ll do whatever I can to make it right with everybody in 7 the neighborhood and my client, but my issue is I can' t swallow the fact that you' re telling a 8 person that pays taxes on a piece of property that they can' t put a fence where they want to put it 9 on their line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But you've got to 10 understand, the Town says you can' t have a six foot fence there, so you are compromising. 11 Honestly, the Town says, if you don' t want to compromise, it' s to the corner of the house . So 12 you' re losing how much more because you want to put a fence up. I 'm saying go six feet, it might 13 not be 20, we might end up having to go to the corner, fortunately or unfortunately. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You can still have a four foot high fence there all the way to the 15 bluff . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can take that 16 chainsaw and cut it down four foot high, no one will be able to do anything. They can graffiti 17 that fence all they want to, and probably all you' ll have is a bunch of angry neighbors, or you 18 can compromise a little bit . That' s all I have . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, did you have 19 anything further? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 20 MS . KLEIN: Hi, I 'm the property owner, Geri Armine Klein. I don' t understand your 21 explanation of what work has to be done at all . So if you can pencil it in for me perhaps I 22 would understand it better. I put up this fence, as you know, there' s high traffic here, there' s 23 drug dealing that goes on, I have young children. I am concerned with the safety of my children and 24 my property. A four foot fence makes no sense to me because my eight year old who is up to here can 25 look over a four foot fence, as can any adult who is drug dealing or walking up the street . The January 26, 2006 33 1 2 idea of a six foot fence, which is up to here is that most men are not over six feet tall; they 3 would not be able to look onto my property, they would not be able to look at my house or at my 4 belongings, or at my children, my most precious belongings . I don' t understand what a six foot 5 fence versus a four foot fence has to do with anybody else on the street . I'm projecting myself 6 and my family. I don' t understand the concerns -- I understand the concerns at the corner, and I 7 wasn' t aware of that, and that should certainly be remedied, but what the length of fence along this 8 block on my property line, why that' s anybody' s business, I really don' t understand. I understand 9 there' s a code law but why it' s four foot versus six foot makes no sense to me . If you' re saying I 10 can chop this down to four feet and put barbed wire along the top, perhaps that' s an alternative . 11 I do not want anybody thinking they can enter my property at any time and harm my children. I 12 think that' s understandable . I certainly didn' t mean to cause all these problems with my 13 neighbors, not one of whom has ever come up over and introduced themselves to and me or my family, 14 and I find this whole thing very upsetting. I hired a local contractor, figuring he knew what he 15 was doing. He' s a very nice person, the workmanship is very nice . It' s a very good 16 looking fence, and I specifically didn' t put up stockade because I'm looking at the fence and I 17 didn' t want it to be ugly. There are a lot of things I could do that would be less nice than 18 what' s currently up. I had no idea I was going to have a whole hostile group of people here today. 19 I find that very upsetting. Considering the amount of taxes I pay, the amount of money I paid 20 for this fence, the beauty of the fence and the landscaping that' s going on, I think everybody 21 here should be very appreciative that I bought the property and not Eckherds . So thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this 23 application? Yes, sir? State your name . MR. KREBS : My name is Carl Krebs . I ' m a 24 resident of 66 Sound Road, across the street . I 've lived in the neighborhood for 17 years, a 25 registered architect with about 20 years of experience, so these. are issues that are not January 26 , 2006 34 1 2 unfamiliar to me, and I do appreciate the perspective that I have seen today from the 3 members of the Zoning Board. There are at least 12 of us here. We don' t have an official 4 representative, but in light of your remarks, I am going to initiate them, be brief and I have been 5 told that they would like the opportunity to talk afterwards, so we kindly request that of you. 6 As you probably know there have been lots of correspondence about this issue in the last six 7 months . What I would like to do is present to the Board a package that includes a petition signed by 8 40 neighborhood residents, letters of objection by the three adjacent property owners, whose 9 properties directly look across from the fence, additional letters from residents of Sound Road; 10 also, we have identified the survey, I have received the survey last week and I'm pleased to 11 know that it was looked at carefully by the Board because I identified the same concerns that there 12 is a variance of about of seven and a half feet at the south end of the fence in which the fence 13 meanders into the Town right of way. As someone who lives there, I have always suspected this 14 until I saw the survey, if you go to the street and you look at the utility lines, it' s a very 15 clear line of property line demarcation, the road gradually widens as it approaches the sound, and 16 many of the concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors in terms of safety and pedestrian 17 movement and traffic have been exacerbated by this fence seven and a half feet closer. There was 18 some remedy to fence, but in many of our opinions, the danger is really cars speeding down Sound 19 Road, and that aspect of the road has not been addressed by lowering the fence on the side 20 street . So I would like to distribute this to the members, it includes the updated petition as well . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you very much, Mr. Krebs . 22 MR. KREBS : I was planning to limit my remarks on the issue of the survey with the 23 expectation that it may not be observed. Because it has been noted, I don' t want to talk into that . 24 I guess what I will talk about and I haven' t really prepared any remarks, is a response as an 25 architect, a professional, as to why we have zoning codes, and why a fence on a property line January 26 , 2006 35 1 2 is actually a community issue and one I think is very important to Southold town. 3 We don' t live in castles . We live in a neighborhood. This is a very wonderful 4 neighborhood. I have been here 16 years, it' s an incredible mix of people of all ages and genders . 5 There are seasonal people as well as year-round people . And this is a public beach and we have 6 gotten together, this group, many times to meet with the Town on some of the problems that Miss 7 Klein has mentioned. Also on issues involving the Zoning Board of density, development, even the 8 sale of the park property at the end of the beach in 1989 were many members of this group here 9 today. These houses were built almost 100 years ago. My neighbors, probably 160 , ours 75, and 10 they were built with the expectation and design that these streets were landscaped buffers, they 11 were landscaped streets, the houses principally opened onto the streets, our main rooms open onto 12 the street, and they were intended to look out on other yards, on green plantings, the edges of the 13 roads were to be opened, and that has been the tradition. This is not a gated community, and 14 this is not the tradition of Southold, it' s not the tradition of many other historic towns, and 15 clearly the codes are there to protect that . And I think this Board is obviously aware of that and 16 I encourage them very strongly to take that into the consideration as they evaluate this case . 17 The other point I would like to make, the other suggestion, as you have asked for, is what 18 is possible to create privacy and security and what is possible without compromising the code . 19 And there are several beaches that have similar conditions, one is Horton' s Point, and few 20 mentioned in this report where owners of both existing and new properties have developed 21 landscaped buffers, they've developed hedges, you can even develop a hedge with a fence backing or 22 wire backing, all of these are options that from my understanding are not precluded by code and 23 would not require the setback, and I urge our neighbor and the Board to even put that on the 24 table . Even though I'm an architect, I don' t want to come here and offer a solution; it' s not my 25 job; it' s not appropriate, but I do encourage this Board to think about our interest, and to take January 26 , 2006 36 1 2 them into heart, and because there are so many of us, we have provided the written material for you 3 to review at your leisure . I'm going to retire now and in light of your comments, if there are 4 people who would like to add to what is said, please do, and we' d like to talk to you 5 afterwards, if appropriate . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let' s see how much time 6 it takes . Yes, sir. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm Bob (Inaudible) , 66 7 Sound Road. Geri, I just want to offer to you, that it' s our intention to be a good 8 neighbor. And that we all want to work together to be good neighbors and open up our doors and to 9 work together. And I know that when we spoke to you when your house was being built -- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would you address the Board? 11 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Our neighbor, Arlene Fregoni and myself, and we spoke briefly with our 12 neighbor, and we said we know there' s a bit of a problem the end of the beach road, and we want to 13 work with you on that and make it a better place . I 've called the police many times with problems at 14 the end of the beach road. I'm concerned that with this fence now the problem has only become 15 exacerbated because people now park there and think because it' s more private they can get away 16 with even more . I am concerned that if a fence that tall is allowed to be built there, that other 17 beach roads will now start putting fences at the end of beach roads and a precedent might be set . 18 I have a child that I raise at my house on the weekends, and I too was concerned about 19 traffic there and people hunting behind our property, and I know there' s many children on our 20 road. And I am first and foremost want to be careful about the safety of the children on our 21 street . So there is the full intention of wanting to be a good neighbor and work together. But I 22 think the more we block out from each other, the bad elements of the world, the more those elements 23 will increase . And I think if we just work together as neighbors and try to make that place 24 as clean as possible, work with the Southold Town Police to say get after these individuals that are 25 doing so, at the end we' ll have a better community, not to barricade ourselves in or out or January 26 , 2006 37 1 2 away from a problem. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there 3 someone else that wishes? Yes, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Yes . Victor Brown, an 4 adjacent neighbor, 64 Sound Road. I know Mr. Bohn has a great reputation, he' s probably the 5 largest fencing contractor in this area, however, I happened to witness this fence construction in 6 the very beginning, and I was astounded by the amount of time and effort that was taken to -- the 7 only word I can think of is to devastatingly clear-cut the parkway back what looks like four 8 feet from where the natural vegetation was . All of the substantive shrubbery and possibly two to 9 three mature trees were removed. This took at least three days . It took them longer to 10 clear-cut the area in preparation to build the fence than it did to build the fence . What I 'm 11 getting at is this : There were a lot of very interesting, very attractive native vegetation 12 that was already in place . There were some natural pine trees that had been haphazardly 13 transplanted, native mature trees from the property to along the roadway in an early sort of 14 haphazard attempt to form a vegetation barrier, but by the contractor removing all this vegetation 15 and these trees, the opportunity for a natural barrier is lost . I was recently speaking with an 16 acquaintance of mine who has had some planting involvement with another town, he has offered to 17 get me information about other instances where contractors have applied for a variance after the 18 fact, as in this particular case . He assures me that the building inspector of this particular 19 town has numerous instances of where these individuals were fined because of jumping ahead in 20 this way and doing something after something had already been constructed, and that they were made 21 to put things back exactly like they were once the violation was removed and were penalized on a 22 daily basis until they did that . I think the major issue is not whether the fence should be 23 four feet or six feet or where it should be placed. We have a traffic. obstruction at the 24 corner, a dangerous condition, the fence is much too close to the corner to the intersection, 25 regardless of our Town code guidelines for setbacks . If there' s going to be a fence there, January 26, 2006 38 1 2 it should be set back at least another 50 feet . But I don' t think the issue is whether we need a 3 fence or not, or whether she needs a fence or not, I think the issue is the fence has got to be 4 removed, and then start all over again. Take another look at it . Maybe get a landscape 5 architect . I've made recommendations in my letter to this Board for that very thing. I think a 6 landscape architect could help determine how to approach creating a barrier that would be both 7 aesthetically pleasing and meet the proper security and privacy conditions that Miss Klein 8 requires . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 9 Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Yes, Miss Norden. 10 MS . NORDEN: Hi, Melanie Norden, Greenport . I live at 1515 McCann Lane, 11 approximately two blocks from the property in question. 12 As each of us knows, ignorance is no excuse under the law, and one of the things that 13 concerns us both in our neighborhood and also beyond our neighborhood is the fact that there' s a 14 rather disturbing trend in the town these days, which we can certainly see if we read the Planning 15 Board notes or go to the Planning Board meetings, is that more and more we have people basically 16 either claiming ignorance or simply flaunting the Zoning bylaws . And one of the things that' s 17 happening is when that occurs and there are variances after the fact, frequently the 18 enforcement that should have taken place doesn' t take place and various things that could have 19 happened don' t happen, and the person does get the approval because we don' t have the enforcement 20 capabilities, and we see this over and over again. Where Chris Moore, a licensed landscape architect 21 removes old trees on a property near the dump, where somebody else does this or that, and in most 22 cases we believe that people are aware of what the law is . In this case we have a licensed fence 23 contractor and a practicing attorney in the state of New York. And whether we agree or disagree 24 with the Zoning bylaws, and as all of you probably know I have often disagreed with some of them, we 25 all have an obligation to abide by them. In this case, we are asking as a neighborhood that the January 26, 2006 39 1 2 laws that are on the books, vis-a-vis, the height of the fence is abided by regardless of whether 3 it' s before or after the fact . We don' t want to see a six foot fence there . A six foot fence that 4 goes into the property line of the Town is simply not legal and acceptable under our zoning bylaws . 5 And actually even how this hearing became a variance hearing after the fact is disturbing to 6 us because in point of fact, we would have liked to have the fence dealt with regardless as a 7 matter which was not in compliance with our zoning bylaws regardless of what whether the other 8 variance application was needed. So, we in the neighborhood, I have never met Miss Klein, I have 9 no hostility towards Miss Klein, but we all care very deeply about the appearance of our 10 neighborhood. And as Carl Krebs suggested, we are a very organized, caring group that have fought 11 long and hard to maintain the quality of life in our neighborhood. So what we' re asking for the 12 Board is simply this : That you enforce the bylaws that are on the books . Regardless of what goes on 13 in the town, what' s taking place at the end of the road, you certainly don' t have control over that; 14 that' s a police department matter, but we are addressing the issues of the law on the books, and 15 we see -- at this point I don' t see a compromise . If it' s a four foot fence, it' s a four foot fence . 16 I have a fence around my property, I had to comply. Everyone who has fences in this 17 neighborhood has to comply with the zoning bylaws . So we were simply asking you to enforce what' s on 18 the books, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mrs . Norden. 19 Anyone else wish to speak on this application? If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to 20 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 21 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Edgewater II, LLC, which is the big house going up 23 on the sound in Greenport for the third time . So nice to see you again, Miss Moore . 24 MS . MOORE : This one we have no dispute as to it being a third floor. We definitely have a 25 third floor space here . I have here with me Ira Haswell, the architect . The properties are held January 26 , 2006 40 1 2 in an LLC; it' s Edgewater II . As you know, for the record, we have Edgewater I and Edgewater III 3 are either side of this property. The family had three lots, bought at different times and have 4 been developed . sequentially as the needs arise . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are they merged now? 5 MS . MOORE : No. Anyway, so they do share a common driveway through an easement so as to not 6 have so many curb cuts out on Route 48, which is the byway. As you pointed out, we are here for 7 the third time and the reason why we are here is that the design of the house has actually changed, 8 and there are reasons for that . Mrs . Cohen has lived here now for two years in one of the homes, 9 the one on the east . She has enjoyed the area, really gotten a feel for what her needs are, and 10 just from a period of time -- over a period of time your needs change . In this instance Mrs . 11 Cohen, unfortunately had her mother, that had become incapacitated, is living with her and her 12 husband. She is with a caregiver, so she is typical of what they call a sandwich generation 13 where her children are grown, independent, but her mother is now living at home . Also unfortunately, 14 during the summer months, her brother, the mother was living with the brother in California, the 15 mother needed more care, came to live with her. The brother came to visit, got a tick born disease 16 and actually is also incapacitated and is also living at the house. So her needs drastically 17 changed, and given it' s easier to redraw, redesign, than it is to modify an existing 18 house . They kind of scraped the old plans, started new with changes to the circumstances of 19 the family as they are today. What I want to do is have Ira Haswell come 20 and testify for you, the changes between the first design and the second design, as you know, we have 21 been here before this Board, this is our third variance with respect an area variance for the 22 height . We have been able to establish in both the variances that they are warranted. Again, 23 it' s the same circumstances, even more so now the changes to the family dynamics and the needs of 24 the family. The architectural actually has while it' s changed a certain extent, has gotten smaller. 25 So I ' ll ask Ira to provide a description of the property. January 26 , 2006 41 1 2 MR. HASWELL: Ma' am Chairman, Members of the Board, I'm Ira Haswell, I reside at 59945 Main 3 Road in Southold, and I'm sure you' re wondering why we' re before you again. And Pat Moore went 4 through some reasons why we' re here, the changes in circumstances . But during the last couple 5 years that Lorraine Cohen has had the opportunity to live here full time, she' s become more 6 sensitive to the environment, and the lot, and the views and the light and the trees and the shrubs . 7 So that did have something to do about the redesign of the space in addition to the reasons 8 that Pat mentioned. A point of fact, the proposed house we 9 have before you is about 508 square feet smaller than the previously designed plan that we have a 10 current building permit for. Also we have over 2 , 000 square foot less of deck than the previously 11 approved plan. I submitted a calculation of average grade to peak, average grade to average 12 highest elevation, which you should have before you, if there' s any question on those items, 13 please let me know. The whole house will be sprinklered as is required for a third floor per 14 the state code. Are there any other specific questions? I' d be happy to answer them. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Certainly I think knowing full well the project' s evolved over time, 16 redesigning in my opinion as someone who is familiar in architecture, not unfamiliar at all, 17 in each case though, the three story approach has been taken; is that correct? 18 MR. HASWELL: That' s correct and the primary reason is the Miss Cohen wanted a third 19 floor master bedroom that is somewhat more private from the rest of the house . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s really vertical privacy you' re looking at, it has nothing 21 to do with the site selection and prevailing views? 22 MR. HASWELL: Not really, we' re more than 100 foot back from the bluff . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I didn' t see vegetation that would be creating visual 24 obstruction, and so on. So it' s really just a preference for privacy, so she can be separated 25 from I presume her extended family? MS . MOORE : Also the fact that there is an January 26, 2006 42 1 2 elevator. MR. HASWELL: And there is an elevator for 3 access . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the changes 4 you' re making now are more or less engineering changes, layout changes . 5 MR. HASWELL: Layout changes . The bedroom wing went from the west side to now it' s on the 6 east side after Lorraine has had a time to be on the site more and feel the benefits of having it 7 on the east side . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm a little 8 confused, is this the house that has the big green arrows signs out front? 9 MR. HASWELL: Deer crossing, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So those signs on 10 the poles, that' s your house? MR. HASWELL: Between the two signs is the 11 driveway, which is the common access to the three separate lots . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who put the signs up? MR. HASWELL: I did. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Did you have permission to do that? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not supposed to put signs on telephone poles . 15 MR. HASWELL: We' ll remove them, that was a request of Lorraine . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize, I 've got eight ladies around my house . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s illegal to have a sign that size . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think you' re supposed to have any, Jim. 19 MS . COHEN: There are deer on the property, and we' re right on the deer path, and 20 they would come out and follow their path and get hit like babies and the mothers . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I've hit a couple of them there myself, and those signs aren' t. going 22 to help me, they' re not going to help the deer either. Are we to allow everybody to have huge 23 green signs on telephone poles or is it just you? MR. HASWELL: I thought they were 24 purposeful, I thought they were tastefully done . Thank you for that information, we' ll take them 25 down. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? January 26 , 2006 43 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When a property is redesigned, which is very understandable under the 3 circumstances, since it is being done with the active participation of the architect, there are a 4 whole range of possibilities where only an architect really is in a position to exploit, and 5 to satisfy the various needs . And given a large piece of property like this, it' s especially open 6 and many possibilities, I guess the question, and I'm not making a judgment on this, is whether it 7 would be desirable or necessary to accept as a constraint on the redesign given the additional 8 needs, the fact that there is a height requirement, that there' s a two . and a half story 9 requirement . Whether this would be the only thing that would necessarily have to give way in order 10 to come up with an imaginative redesign. And I think that is the question at least as far as I'm 11 concerned, about whether this creative new plan is fully satisfactory given that there are other 12 options . I just wondered if you can comment . MR. HASWELL: As you all know, a lot of 13 components go into a design. There are many restrictions, physical site, budgetary 14 considerations and the client' s program. So in terms of one of the major elements was the 15 client' s program for that private space . So given that, I did come up with the design I have before 16 you that I think is a relatively good solution to those program requirements . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 18 speak on this application? MS . MOORE : Just one more point that I ' d 19 like to make is in response to Mr. Simon' s inquiry. This property is also very wooded, so to 20 the extent that you can consolidate the area of disturbance, yes, he' s gone up but it has also 21 enabled the footprint to be more consolidated. You retain all of the wooded, kind of isolated 22 type of character of this property, particularly . on the sound. And as there' s been a lot of 23 discussion about deer, Mrs . Cohen is extremely sensitive to the natural look of the property. 24 So, routinely the design of this house has made an effort to go up rather than out . If you try to 25 accommodate or the architect tried to accommodate all the different caregivers, caretakers on this January 26 , 2006 44 1 2 property as well as. the fact that she has three adult children and their families, you start 3 growing out a house on a linear direction and you start eating up more and more of the property. So 4 that was one consideration that I believe has always been consistent throughout all the appeals 5 that we have made . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I have that 6 discussion with Mike, because I'm concerned about what you said. You want to restrict them to any 7 further building out because they' re going up? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wasn' t saying that 8 at all . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s why I want 9 to clarify. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I was asking the 10 question why build up when you can build out without a variance? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Of course, and that has already been taken care of two times over. 12 We've already had that discussion. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The accessory 13 garage on the adjacent piece of property, is that shared among the three? It' s beautiful, there was 14 nothing on the site plan that showed any kind of circulation. It was just kind of sitting there . 15 The other thing the shed is closer to the bluff . Is that an adjacent piece of property, there' s a 16 small shed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, that little shed? 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks like it' s been there a long time . 18 MS . MOORE : Yes, it was a utility. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was there an answer 19 to the three-car garage being shared? MS . MOORE : Yes, as part of the circular 20 drive . MR. HASWELL: There will be a foot path 21 from this property we have before you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would anybody like to 22 speak on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 23 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Jon 25 and Kathleen Marino on Soundview Avenue in Southold who wish to expand their garage which is January 26, 2006 45 1 2 partly in the side yard instead of the rear yard. MR. MARINO: Basically all I want to do is 3 take my garage roof and change the style of the roof . I want to go up and make it a barn style 4 versus a flat low pitch roof . I'm coming from a 3 , 000 square foot house to a 1, 5000 square foot 5 house and a two and a half car garage to a car garage . So I need it for storage . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s all it would be is storage? 7 MR. MARINO : Definitely just storage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any 8 electric in the garage? MR. MARINO : No, not at the moment . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or any water? MR. MARINO: No water. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t need it? MR. MARINO: I have water on the side . I 11 put out to the side of the house for the faucet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s no water 12 going into the building now, right? You don' t want it or you don' t need it? 13 MR. MARINO: There will be electric going in but no water. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No heat? MR. MARINO: No heat . I don' t think I ' ll 15 have heat . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re going to make 16 sure you don' t have heat . You' ll be back again if you do. We say that when we grant the variance . 17 You' re okay with that discussion? MR. MARINO: I have no problem with not 18 having heat out there, that' s not a problem. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re proposing a 19 pull down ladder to access the storage? MR. MARINO: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you' re currently under construction on the house? 21 MR. MARINO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I live down the 22 block from you. MR. MARINO: Okay, hi, neighbor. A 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The house is 1, 400 square feet? 24 MR. MARINO: Without looking 1, 480 maybe . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn' t see the 25 plans for the house . MR. MARINO: This is just for the garage January 26, 2006 46 1 2 what we' re talking about . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re talking about 3 a relative size of the house . MR. MARINO: All I was saying was I' m 4 moving from a 3 , 000 square foot house to a house that' s half the size . 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just thought the house looked bigger than 1, 400 square feet . 6 MR. MARINO: No, it' s deceiving. It' s actually 600 on the second and 800 on the first . 7 Tiny but cute . . It will be nice when it' s done . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 8 audience that would like to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 9 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 10 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 11 for Mr. Steele, who has been here before . Miss Wickham? 12 MS . WICKHAM: Good morning, Gail Wickham, Mattituck, for Mr. Steele . 13 It has been quite some time since we have been here, and we have a different composition of 14 the Board. So if you wouldn' t mind, I' ll just take a minute to run through what it is we' re 15 proposing with a brief description and chronology. The Steeles own a farm parcel on the north 16 side of Oregon Road with the entire parcel is I think 18 or 20 acres . They had sold development 17 rights to the Town many years ago to the bulk of the farm which runs from the Oregon Road, north 18 side north, they reserved out three or four acres at the north end on which they plan to build their 19 house and their accessory buildings . Mr. Steele is a farmer, he grows nursery crops and hay on the 20 property and also off the property on nearby property that he owns and rents . His house 21 property is really intended to become and has become a showcase for his nursery projects . He 22 has some very nice ornamentals and planting that are screening the house and used for just display. 23 He does have a rather tough schedule because he is away a lot of the time as a salesman for a 24 nationwide nursery wholesaler, but he is in full time farming out here as well on the property. 25 Those of you who know about farmers know they always have a vast need for storage, they never January 26 , 2006 47 1 2 have enough. And the rules on ag storage in the town. have not always been clear or well defined. 3 The chronology is that after he bought the property in the ' 80s and sold development rights, 4 he did build a house in the 1990s and completed it in 1996 . In September of ' 96 , he obtained from 5 the Building Department a building permit to construct an agricultural storage building in his 6 front yard. Interestingly enough, they granted that permit without a variance being required, but 7 he never built the structure . So it didn' t come to anything. But in later in ' 96 he obtained a 8 building permit for the garage, a one-car garage to be built in the rear yard, and this was an 9 older structure that he actually moved from another property. In mid 1997, he decided to 10 change the location of that building that he moved when he brought it in to the side yard, where it 11 is now, which he also thought was a rear yard, and he enlarged it to two bays and built it as it is 12 now existing all under the old permit but never had it redone . He relocated it to this location 13 because he wanted to preserve an old growth cherry grove, which is just to the east of where the 14 garage is now. And he also planted and wanted to maintain a very large evergreen buffer at the 15 corner of the property. So he thought this was the best location for the garage . At that point 16 he had no idea that it was side yard, front yard, it wasn' t clear to him. In 1997, and this is very 17 important, he sold a fairly large strip at the north end of the property to Mr. Corso and 18 released his right of way over it . That was a lot line change that went through the Planning Board 19 and was approved by them. Mr. Corso then relocated his 50 foot right of way to the south 20 directly north of Mr. Steele' s property to make his three lots on the sound much bigger. The 21 garage as it currently exists was there in that location at the time that he did the transfer with 22 Mr. Corso. In 2002, he then applied for a swimming 23 pool permit . The Building Department didn' t question the garage at that time, and after he 24 constructed the pool, when he applied for the CO it became clear that there was an issue to the 25 Building Department about property yard placement because they realized now that the property did January 26 , 2006 48 1 2 have two front yards, the Oregon Road created the second front yard. It wasn' t just the right of 3 way along the west side . About that time he also acquired a storage container, which he needed for 4 storing some tools and projects for his nursery, and he placed it behind the garage as an 5 agricultural accessory storage shed. However, about that time the neighbor complained and at 6 that point, the. Town at the neighbor' s request prosecuted him for not having a CO for the garage 7 or for the shed. We have been trying to work with the Town ever since and the resolution was to come 8 here based on the notice of disapprovals we received to request a variance . I also have to 9 tell you that last year Mr. Corso sold the lot immediately to the north to Oregon Cliffs, LLC 10 for about a million dollars . They immediately, completely stripped the property of all the trees . 11 They are now building a very large house with a hugely increased grade, and Mr. Steele was a 12 little surprised when the letter came in opposing this application from them because he' s had a 13 relationship with them, he' s been out there talking to them, they have talked about buying 14 screening material from him and they even sent him a plant at Christmas referring to good neighbors . 15 So this letter was a surprise . I will also note that he did plant six or eight -- eight to 14 foot 16 trees along the north side of his property, not the usually three or four feet that" the town 17 usually requires but they' re already big and they' re going to get bigger. 18 Just to explain the current proposal, we' re asking the Board to approve the as-built 19 garage -- my notes say rear yard but that' s incorrect, it' s the side yard and slightly into 20 the front yard. We' re asking that you approve a one bay extension to the west side of the garage . 21 We' re asking that you approve the as-built storage shed that is behind the garage to house nursery 22 supplies and he would propose that he would paint that forest green so it would blend in completely 23 with the screening that he' s planting. We ask that you approve a new barn on the east side 80 ' 24 by 30 ' , which is technically in a portion of the front yard because of the Oregon Road frontage . 25 And we ask that you approve a new storage shed that at Mr. Goehringer' s request at the last January 26, 2006 49 1 2 hearing we moved the location of from by the garage to over to the south side of the barn. 3 I don' t know if you want me to repeat all the reasons that we discussed the last time, but 4 basically part of the variance is because he does have this huge front yard from Oregon Road all the 5 way up . The property is accessed off the 25 foot right of way on the west side and his driveway 6 comes off that, so that to him really is his front yard. Again, when he built this house, which he 7 built first, he centered that in the middle of the property so that it would sit well on the 8 property. It would look nice . It would not be right next to the right of way. It would be next 9 to the Corso' s house, and that' s what created his difficulty in terms of what is side yard and what 10 is rear yard. So his rear yard is basically in the location where you see the swimming pool, but 11 it' s a very narrow rear yard and it doesn' t accommodate completely the need for his 12 agricultural buildings, even though it' s a three or four acre piece of property. If the Board has 13 any questions, I' d be glad to answer them. I' d also like to give you several things if I 14 may. One is a letter we just received from Laura Sollinger, who owns the other piece of property. 15 She has no objection, and, in fact, her letter states that she doesn' t even notice the storage 16 barn even though she drives past it on a regular basis . When I went and looked without even seeing 17 it, I drove right by it . It is well screened. This is seven copies of the chronology that I just 18 recited with the correction that the as-built garage is in the side yard and front yard. And 19 attached to that, chronology is a copy of a survey and three deeds that show that in November of 20 1996, prior to Mr. Corso buying this piece of property, the garage was built in its current 21 location and its current configuration. So when he bought that property it was there and it was 22 just like it is now. So I submit those for you to look at . I also have photographs, this is an 23 aerial that was taken of the farm in July of ' 97 . I only have one of these and that shows that the 24 garage was there at the time . That' s the farm looking from the south towards the north towards 25 the sound you will see over in the left-hand corner Mr. Corso' s house is on the sound quite a January 26, 2006 50 1 2 distance away from the offending structure . I have three other photographs here, that I have 3 labeled, this one the barn would be over here and this is looking northwest from Mr. Steele onto the 4 Corso property, which you can' t see, you can see one of his sheds, which is quite a ways from his 5 house . This shows a little bit better from north of the screened area on Mr. Steele' s property 6 facing again northwest, this is Mr. Corso' s shed, this is the Soffa' s dumpster where, they' re 7 building, and you can see Mr. Corso' s property way in the background, his house way in the 8 background. And this shows the view from Mr. Corso' s property zoomed in the ' Steele house 9 looking southeast and the garage and the shed, you can' t even see it with the trees . But again it is 10 gray and it would be painted forest green. I think I would like to know if you have 11 any questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not at this time, thanks . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Noted on the site 15 visit, there is some equipment or containers and so on right behind the garage between the buffer 16 of the arborvitae that were planted. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the storage . 17 MS . WICKHAM: That' s the shed we' re talking about, yes . That' s the as-built one and 18 then there would be another one to the south of the proposed garage . He' s probably not going to 19 build the barn immediately. But that' s a function of economics, but he thought while we were here we 20 should ask for that as well . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually I'm 21 talking about odds and ends on the property not contained in the shed. 22 MS . WICKHAM: He' s a farmer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not the 23 neatest . MS . WICKHAM: It' s actually a lot neater 24 than many farms . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm sure but it' s 25 very, very close to the right of way. MS . WICKHAM: That' s the other point I January 26 , 2006 51 1 2 wanted to make is that as far as both properties to the north, this building and this hedge and 3 this stuff is not on their property, there' s a 50 foot right of way that forms an additional buffer 4 in addition to the property. I don' t know, do you want to address her question about the things 5 outside? MR. STEELE: Do you have anything specific 6 that you are referring to? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand that a 7 work yard is exactly that and equipment would be left around and products and so on from time to 8 time . It' s a working farm. My question is given that situation as currently located, the right of 9 way requires anyone accessing that to see that very vividly that working aspect of the farm, that 10 includes residences and so on. I'm just trying to get clear the mechanics of how you work and how 11 you need to work. That' s a big buffer but until more plantings go in or a road is located, it' s 12 difficult to imagine what the visual distance between what the necessity for your work and the 13 residences . Are you going to have, by the way, any, I know it' s a not a retail operation from 14 there, but do you have people since this is kind of a showcase of your nursery product? 15 MS . WICKHAM: Let me answer your first question first . First of all, a lot of those 16 things are in that location because that' s where he originally planned to put that storage shed and 17 now it' s being moved, so once he has more storage he' ll be able to eliminate a lot of that, tidy it 18 up. Also, the plantings that he has planted will increase, it will be a very solid buffer within a 19 short period of time . That' s one reason he did plant the big tree and not just little ones . 20 I'm going to have him answer the question about the visiting to the property. I will tell 21 you it won' t be any where near the amounts of traffic that is occasioned by Mr. Corso' s armored 22 cars going up there all the time and employees and people . It is not a retail outlet . It will not 23 be . MR. STEELE: Tim Steele . One of the 24 functions of all the plantings around my yard and house is to showcase what I do grow, but 25 essentially they are part of my collection. I sell wholesale only and on occasions, I will bring January 26 , 2006 52 1 2 tours to my residence to see the plants I'm trying to sell them, but if that amounts to 12 a year 3 that' s probably maximum. Most of my nursery stock is elsewhere in Mattituck. The majority of the 4 farm in question is in hay right now. And as far as the equipment and supplies laying around, it' s 5 my objective and my goal to put all that under cover. The last thing I want is a $60 , 000 tractor 6 sitting out in the rain but economics and things and these type of things have delayed all 7 that . I 'm not interested in leaving anything outside . So, yes, I would tidy it up and that' s 8 my intention. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thank you. 9 MR. STEELE : Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I just want to 10 clarify, the stuff that' s outside now, is that going to go in the barn eventually? If we come to 11 a discussion later on about putting in some kind of restriction that all the stuff must be stored. 12 MS . WICKHAM: He' s a farmer and I want to be careful about that . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ' We need to discuss that . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also, Jim, he' s not going to build that barn right away. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree . If we make the decision and we' re going to say you have 16 to put everything that' s outside has to be stored inside, and he' s got stuff that doesn' t need to be 17 stored, and by right doesn' t need to be stored it might come back to us? 18 MS . WICKHAM: He has things like a ladder hanging off the back of the garage . He has 19 fencing and snow fencing, those types of things that does stay outside, but tools, equipment, 20 would generally be inside . But they might be out for a week or so if he' s using them. It' s very 21 hard to find a farming location if you want to restrict it from like five or 10 feet from the 22 property line . Is that something that works for you? Again, it' s hard because it' s a fluid type 23 business . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to 24 point that out to you, Gail . MS . WICKHAM: I'm reluctant to say he' ll 25 clean it up immediately, but that is his intention, he lives there, it' s his house, and January 26, 2006 53 1 2 it' s where he shows his stock at times, so it does have to be neater. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm talking about deer fencing and stuff that can be left outside . 4 MS . WICKHAM: It often is left outside . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I fear that we may 5 intimate that all that stuff now has to go inside because we' re granting this variance . And I want 6 to have the discussion and be clear with you folks that that' s not quite the story. The story is 7 that there are things in a farm that are left outside, just simply because they can be left 8 outside . And I know they are unsightly to some people . 9 MS . WICKHAM: That' s what I said in the beginning. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I read Mr. Cuddy' s letter and that person seems to be objecting to it 11 being so close to her property as opposed to her house . Maybe she has a point maybe she doesn' t . 12 I know when you live on a farm, you can do those kinds of things . 13 MS : WICKHAM: Two things, their house is up so high now they' re going to look right over 14 it . It is screened. It won' t be visible once it' s green. I think they' re going to work that 15 out with them because they've had discussions . He really doesn' t want to wipe out those old cherry 16 trees . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not my 17 objection. MS . WICKHAM: They' re old, old cherry 18 trees, they' re beautiful . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not my 19 objection. Honestly, I think a place that is a farm can store things outside including $60 , 000 20 tractors and the front lawn as far as I ' m concerned. I think we want to be careful about 21 restricting what goes in and out . MS . WICKHAM: What he would do is say 22 there wouldn' t be anything stored on the north side of the container because that is close; 23 that' s mostly screening anyway, and I think that would be a fair thing. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could we corral stuff to one location? 25 MS . WICKHAM: Again, if he' s working in an area, sometimes when you' re doing landscaping it January 26, 2006 54 1 2 may take a few weeks . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not worried 3 about that . I'm worried if there' s fencing there for six months, can it be placed someplace else, 4 behind the barn or in specific areas . Is that a problem? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He doesn' t know when he' s going to have a barn. 6 MR. STEELE : My intention is not to live in a discombobulated disorganized dump. My 7 intention is to anything that deserves to be inside and out of sight is to get it in. • 8 MS . WICKHAM: I understand what he' s asking. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Personally, myself, I could care less, honestly. It' s your property, 10 do what you want to do . But when we go into our deliberations, sometimes we have a habit of 11 injecting things that really didn' t come up in the hearing and you end up surprised. 12 MR. STEELE : There' s a lot of things that are spaced around the yard now that if I had 13 enough storage facilities they wouldn' t be there, wouldn' t even see them. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If it' s your intention to remove the materials that are now 15 stored to the north of the shed which is the only thing -- 16 MS . WICKHAM: Is there anything there now? MR. STEELE : Irrigation. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I was really referring to. That in time if the 18 arborvitae grow in from grade up, it will create a dense visual barrier anyway, but it' s very, very 19 close . In fact, I don' t know how much maneuvering room you have in that space, it' s very, very 20 tight . If that intention is to move that away, let the screen move in but locate those things 21 elsewhere on your property, it' s up to you. You have to I understand there' s sort of a progressive 22 sequence of things you have to do when you' re doing landscaping, and that may involve having 23 contiguous or proximity of things . I also understand there was some discussion, previous 24 testimony that I read about pesticides and fertilizers on the property, that' s all been 25 resolved, there' s no pesticides, there' s just some household type fertilizers that most anyone with a January 26, 2006 55 1 2 house might have in their garage, and they will be in a shed, I think you were concerned about your 3 children having access to that anyway. I just want to make sure I was correct in that . 4 MS . WICKHAM: Daily use, not storage . He would use pesticides and fertilizers in his 5 business on a daily use basis . He would not have storage of those products in the shed. Again, 6 it' s a working farm. I'm reluctant to say in the premises . I would say in the storage shed near 7 the line there would not be any. Those are tools and non-fertilizer pesticide objects, materials . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In conclusion, we would probably be better off not requiring things 9 to be inside the shed, and if we' re going to we would have to be very specific . Is that fine with 10 you? MS . WICKHAM: I appreciate it . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to get some clarification on some things and one would hope 12 that somehow these things could be worked out . First of all, with regard to Mr. Cuddy' s letter, 13 as the attorney for Mr. Sogia, it' s not clear where his property is . This letter says it' s to 14 the south of the Steele parcel, I'm assuming that' s simply a mistake . 15 MS . WICKHAM: His property is to the north. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the map I have has Corso, Corso, Stevens and -- 17 MS . WICKHAM: It' s the one that says 'IN-O-F" -- name of Stevens . 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the issue is, one of the main issues really has to do with the 50 19 foot right of way, and I guess that there is emerging a kind of feeling that it would be 20 awfully nice -- which is terrible language for a municipal proceeding -- if some of the offensive 21 things that are on the north side of the shed would be allowed to remain there, if they could 22 move somewhere else . Buildings which are close to the right of way. I don' t know how we could 23 formulate this . I know language like awfully nice is obviously a nonstarter. I think this is the 24 room for some kind of negotiation lies . MS . WICKHAM: We will agree not to store 25 anything to the north side of the shed. That' s a little clearer than "awfully nice . " January 26 , 2006 56 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The question is whether anyone can live with the shed where it is . 3 1MS . WICKHAM: The shed being the storage container. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which was once a temporary structure . 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the east side of the property, it' s the one by the right of way? 6 MS . WICKHAM: No, it' s on the north. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the north side . 7 MS . WICKHAM: North of the garage, nothing north of that, that we have agreed to. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 9 MS . MOORE: Pat Moore . I have for the Board my own memo plus an affidavit signed by 10 Mr. Corso with respect to all the facts -- many of the facts that are in dispute at this point . 11 Since I'm giving you written testimony, I don' t want to rehash everything that' s already in 12 writing. I want to identify some of the major concerns and some of the comments that I'm hearing 13 concern me right from the beginning because what we call a shed is a misnomer. What we' re talking 14 about are these metal containers, 8 ' by 20 ' , these are sizable containers that are transport 15 containers; that is not what this community considers a shed. A shed typically less than 200 16 square feet, can be larger but .usually are made of wood. They' re in keeping with the character of 17 the area. They look like little mini garages in a sense . What we have here are commercial metal 18 storage containers . And from Miss Wickham' s own statements, Mr. Steele is running a commercial 19 operation here. If he calls himself a farmer, we obviously dispute that, but fine, if he' s a 20 farmer, we have provisions where if you' re running a commercial operation and the greenhouses, the 21 wineries, they' re all technically farming operations but they are all having to go through 22 site plan when they put structures in the ground because of the effect that these ag structures 23 have on the rests of the community on residential areas . So, through site plan, many of these 24 different combination use here, he lives there but also is running a business, it is regulated. 25 Precisely the reason that our objection is noted and we have Mr. Sogia that objects and Mr. Corso January 26 , 2006 57 1 2 that objects . There are three properties there of the four that have strong feelings because what 3 they' re seeing there is a very heavily, a heavy use . There' s been an intensification of the use 4 since Mr. Steele put his house there . I don' t have benefit of the chronology, but just listening 5 to the discussion, he had a one car garage in ' 96 that got moved there . Under the building permit, 6 with that building permit it was supposed to be in a different place . From their own admissions in 7 197 it changed locations from its original building permit location. Mr. Steele' s 8 development of this property, he has been placing structures in violation of building permits when 9 he had them or putting them on the property without a building permit . It' s our position that 10 you should not reward this type of behavior and particularly when it is so offensive it becomes a 11 nuisance to the rest of the residential community. There are essentially four houses, Mr. Corso owns 12 one lot that' s under contract, there' s going to be to the west of Mr. Corso now the house parcel 13 which is going to be shortly starting construction, I believe they' re going through the 14 building permit stages at this time . So you' re going to have five homes up there . They' re all 15 going to be facing this activity, and you like to put the term the definition of farmer, but this 16 community has also set forth the policy that okay, we give a lot of discretion to farmers . We know 17 it' s a use of the land that sometimes conflicts with residences and precisely for that reason we 18 have recognized that industry, we also control it with the placement of its structures, and this has 19 never gotten through site plan, the building department I guess because he lives there it' s 20 gotten kind of under the line of whether or not he needs to go through site plan or not . That' s a 21 Building Department issue, but nonetheless, he' s here before this Board to deal with the location 22 of the structures that are not offending Mr. Steele, because they' re all behind him, he' s 23 blocked the view and the activity. He' s put it all in our front yard, and that' s the major 24 objection. I have Joe Fischetti here with me today, 25 and I'm going to ask him to testify with respect to the feasibility, the movement, the relocation January 26, 2006 58 1 2 of these structures . If you don' t mind, I'm going to have Mr. Fischetti go on the record. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . Good afternoon. MR. FISCHETTI : Good afternoon, Ruth, I 'm 4 Joe Fischetti . I'm an engineer and a builder. I've been involved in building and 5 engineering for 30 years . I have been involved in the movement, physical movement of structures, 6 raising them, moving them, probably three or four and consulted probably in the same number on 7 feasibilities on other projects . This barn, the applicant has stated that 8 the barn cannot be moved because' of the location of the trees on the east side, and that' s correct, 9 it can' t be moved in that direction because you' d have to move the trees, but the garage, structure 10 number two in the application, can be moved to the south and around the physical building to the 11 northeast side. There' s no reason why that structure can' t be moved in that direction. It 12 doesn' t have to be moved just towards the trees . It was picked up and put on a structure and moved 13 there . So it can be moved in the other direction. There is enough room around the pool to place that 14 structure in the rear yard if needed to be . So the placement that' s there is not fixed in stone, 15 and the use of the trees as blocking them is not correct . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MS . MOORE : There was some testimony with 17 respect to this right of way, the right of way just to give a little bit of historical context, 18 way back in the 170s or early ' 80s, the Planning Board had thought that if north of Oregon Road got 19 developed heavily, that they would put a byway or secondary road up along the sound. They began at 20 one end, it was not a very good idea, but ultimately through the sale of the development 21 rights and the agricultural development of this area, there was a recognition that we' re not going 22 to have the kind of development that needs this secondary route . And what was done was Mr. Steele 23 actually did transfer what was a 50 foot right of way to Mr. Corso, certainly for consideration, 24 there was money exchanged, but it also took liability away from Mr. Steele . Why would he want 25 a road as part of what used to be the Nina Stevens subdivision -- why would he want a road on his January 26 , 2006 59 1 2 property when it' s a liability. He already has the road that goes to Oregon, that' s the way the 3 subdivision was originally created. It required Planning Board approval to do what technically was 4 a lot line change . The road was sold to Mr. Corso, Mr. Corso split it up and gave each of 5 the lots some extra land, which was essentially the width of the road. That access gives access 6 to the five lots to the north, and the properties have been landscaped, to the north, they have 7 tried to do a very nice entranceway that is in keeping with the residential character. Obviously 8 sound front homes are some of the more expensive, some of the more valuable homes . But again, you 9 try to put it into context . The character of the area is residential, it' s a nice residential 10 development . The Sogia property because the road there 11 was a strip there, we decided -- Mr. Corso and I was his attorney doing the work at the time -- we 12 decided to add it used to the -- now is Sogia, used to be Corso -- we added to that piece, and it 13 was extra.. So Mr. Sogia actually occupies only half the frontage on the north side . Mr. Corso 14 fronts the other half of the Steele property. Yet, I don' t know what the photographs show, but 15 yes, the house is there, but Mr. Corso has another parcel, it' s parcel 10 . 14 that potentially could 16 have a house on it for one of the children or could be sold. They are going to be impacted by 17 all the activity that Mr. Steele is operating. Again, all north of his own house. 18 I would also like to state that if, in fact, these are farm ag buildings, then the 10 19 acres where he sold the development rights ag structures are permitted in the sale of 20 development rights land, all you have to do is get permission if there' s any question from the ag 21 committee . It' s not very difficult, they are pretty lenient . If you prove to them it' s a true 22 ag building, they' re lenient on the placement of structures on that sale of development rights 23 area. So there is ample room. There are 16 24 acres here where he could place these structures . I think the reason they' re placed where they are 25 is because he doesn' t see them; that' s not a basis for an area variance . And we believe through all January 26, 2006 60 1 2 our written documentation, the photographs, your own visits to the property, you can see, imagine 3 yourself living there and seeing the activity that' s going on. It' s in a sense, sometimes there 4 is animosity obviously between Mr. Steele and Mr. Corso and sometimes you wonder if it' s 5 personal as far as trying to orchestrate all this activity there, but now you have Mr. Sogia there, 6 who is a neutral party and they may get along, but it doesn' t mean he likes it . They' re going to be 7 nice to each other, has to live with all the activity that' s there . And from the letter 8 Mr. Cuddy sent, you can see that he also has objections . Thank you. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak on this 10 application? MS . WICKHAM: I don' t want to belabor this 11 because it' s been a long history of dispute between the two people, but I do want to respond 12 to the memo and the affidavit because I don' t think it shows an understanding of the code on 13 agricultural uses . There' s no basis for the allegations about pesticide storage . Mr. Corso 14 has propelled the Town to pursue Mr. Steele criminally. It' s been a long haul, and he' s 15 anxious to have it resolved. The Building Department was constantly on the property. He was 16 confused because they gave him a permit for the structure on the front yard, then they gave him 17 one for the front yard; they were out there when he moved it to the side yard. Mr. Corso knew it 18 was there when he bought the property. Sogia bought the property with all the structures there 19 and Mr. Fischetti' s testimony about moving the location to an area behind the swimming pool is 20 where there are significant plantings, and that' s where the barn would go . I don' t think anyone 21 would like to have these structures stuck out in the middle of the field where the neighbors and 22 the public can see them when they can be tucked away behind some serious screening. And that' s 23 all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. If there 24 are no other questions or comments, then I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 25 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) January 26 , 2006 1 61 2 -------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 3 the Thermos' s, who wish to build a new house on Sound Beach Drive in Mattituck. Tell us what you 4 want to do. MS . THERMOS : We purchased a piece of 5 property that there' s a little beach shack on it . We basically want to knock it out and put a new 6 home . It turns out you are supposed to have 10 feet and 15, which would allow us to only build a 7 25 foot home wide, and we' d like to ask for an additional four feet to make the house 29 feet 8 wide . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My only worry, the 9 house two doors from you, which is under construction now, it' s the bluff behind you. It 10 is crumbling back there, and I worry even about yours . I just want you to be aware of it . I 'm 11 not saying to say no to you, but to be very much aware that that whole bluff is very unstable . I 12 don' t want to see anybody get hurt . MS . THERMOS : I do know that the first few 13 homes which includes ours from the corner, we' re still flat . It' s not until the vacant lot that' s t 14 next to us, and then the big white house, and then the house under construction where you start to 15 see the hill . It' s pretty scary. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. All right, 16 Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any 17 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to verify some facts . In visiting the site we 19 happened by chance to run into your contractor, who was there at the time . The updated plans now 20 have changed from your original application, you are now creating setbacks that are 10 and a half 21 feet on each side yard for a total of 21 feet, which is less than the 25 foot allowable total for 22 the two side yards . The front yard setback has been pushed back to 55 feet? 3 MS . THERMOS : Because of the septic . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the rear yard is way more than the 50 foot required. The new plans have reduced the width so the footprint is now complying with 20 percent total lot coverage, correct? January 26 , 2006 a 62 1 2 MS . THERMOS : Correct . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And in that area 3 the water table' s extremely high, so you' re building on slab, so that' s what necessitates what 4 are essentially three levels, although the median height is two and a half stories . . So the only 5 variance you' re requesting is the side yard? MS . THERMOS : Right . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And I assume that the adjacent neighbors on both sides have received the 7 notification, and I don' t know whether they' re here today to speak to it . 8 MS . THERMOS : Everyone was very nice . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Since the variance is 9 only for the reduction of the four feet, they would be the principal people who might possibly 10 have any objection that I can think of to this proposal? 11 MR. THERMOS : None of them, and we showed them the plans, objected. 12 MS . THERMOS : One is a snow bird, but he' s in Florida, but we did receive it back, so I guess 13 he didn' t have an objection. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand you 14 acquired the property relatively recently; have you been occupying it? 15 MS . THERMOS : No. We have family in the area so we visit . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your neighbors really don' t know what nice people you are? 17 MS . THERMOS : They do because actually my mom was pregnant with me when we first started 18 going to Mattituck. So I'm 40 and I've been spending summers there and now my Children. It' s 19 not a very large community, and if you' re Greek everybody knows you. We were very nice Mr. 20 Kalabra I 've known for a quite a while; and the Philips, which is the vacant lot, he called me 21 when he received it, he said good luck. And Mr. Nicholvic, which is my neighbor above me, I 22 couldn' t find him but I tracked him down and visited him at his place of business, and we spoke 23 for a while . He' s very excited because I've got teenagers and so does he, and the children would 24 be all -- so I have all that information, and then the affidavit of postings and stuff . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to' comment on this January 26, 2006 63 1 2 application? If there' s not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 3 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to 5 have the hearing canceled for the Reddingtons . (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also, I' ll make a 7 resolution requesting the Hoeg application to be withdrawn, Main Road in Mattituck. 8• (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Iavarones, West Road in Cutchogue . Is there 10 anybody here to speak? MS . MOORE : I have Mr. Iavarone, who is 11 here, the owner of the property. I got a letter, but I have a feeling it' s not applicable to this 12 one, the County sent, I got a fax of a letter. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a Suffolk 13 County Water, it' s the reply to the ZBA' s request . MS . MOORE : Is it any relevance to this 14 situation? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I sent it to you 15 for your information. MS . MOORE : Mr. Iavarone, as you know from 16 our written material, he has one of the original homes . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beautiful home . MS . MOORE: Beautiful restoration of the 18 original structure . He actually got a permit and did the restoration in 1995 . He can provide 19 testimony again as to the third story that' s always been there . The third floor space, this is 20 a typical maybe in their day was considered a two and a half story. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s in the main house? 22 MS . MOORE: That is the main house, yes . From the front you don' t see it at all . You only 23 see the windows of the half story or third floor space from the sides . And then on the waterfront 24 side because of most of you -- I actually wondered on the street if it was the right house because 25 there were no dormers, the dormers are actually on the waterfront side of the house where the big January 26, 2006 64 1 2 porch is; that' s how the house was originally constructed. The dormers there were three 3 originally there, but again in the 1938 hurricane, the dormers were damaged. What Mr. Iavarone tried 4 to do is put the house exactly as a replica of its original structure, put the dormers in, got 5 approval for the structures at construction, and then what happened is more recently he was going 6 in to do some minor alterations of the house, and that apparently he went in for some kind of 7 building permit for something, and the Building Department said the dormer is third floor space 8 and requires a variance . So there is no exterior change to this house . It is the occupancy of the 9 half story, the space above the second floor, which he can provide testimony when he bought the 10 house was exactly like it is presently. It' s been renovated but not with respect to -- it was always 11 sheet rocked, electrical, no plumbing, just standard safety features updating an existing 12 structure . MR. IAVARONE : When I purchased the house, 13 I did add the waterside dormers, which I have old photographs showing that were there . In ' 38 they 14 restructured it because they lost the roof, but prior to that was there, and they have an 15 additional dormer on the street side, which I did not replace . I just thought for the water view' s 16 sake to do that, and I cleaned up the space as I did the rest of the house . The whole house needed 17 work, and I fixed that up accordingly. There' s a pot belly stove in this space, it' s still there . 18 I don' t use it but it' s operational, and along with another pot belly stove on the second floor 19 and) a main fireplace on the third floor. This was all there so in my eyes it was just a matter of 20 cleaning up and renovation of an existing space . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll let you know -- we 21 realize we have had other old structures that have been restored very well, but we have required 22 sprinkling throughout the house for the third story. 23 MS . MOORE : I know that this has come up a couple of times, one of the issues Mr. Iavarone, I 24 think could handle sprinkling on the third floor. The problem is trying to take an old house and 25 sprinkle the entire structure . In fact, on some of these old houses you might be able to go to the January 26 , 2006 65 1 2 state building code and get a variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That might be an 3 answer. MS . MOORE : If you impose it as a 4 condition of an approval, no variance will override your variance . So to a certain extent if 5 you' re silent on the issue, we have to follow the state building code or a variance from them. By 6 putting it as a condition in this decision or any other decision, no matter what you do -- 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Board can adjourn it until you go through that procedure and 8 then you can come back. MS . MOORE : That seems like leaving a 9 hearing open way longer than it needs to be . The state building code is what we have to file . The 10 state building code says right now that it would require sprinkling. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right . MS . MOORE : That' s fine, but doesn' t the 12 state override in a sense the zoning obligation? So if the state says you got to do it, you don' t 13, have a way out unless you get a variance from them. So it seems you' re imposing a requirement 14 on someone that there is a relief mechanism if the circumstances warrant it . I understand your 15 reasons for doing it, but on the other hand particularly some of these old houses, it' s very 16 difficult to retrofit, and also the state may say, we have no problem if you sprinkler the front and 17 an egress path, but you don' t have to sprinkler the whole house . Again, those are state building 18 code issues that belong with the state' s review. I think it' s a better place for dealing with where 19, and when and how sprinkling should occur. Then again to impose it through a zoning -- the space 20 is a space regardless the exterior remains exactly the same . I would ask that of you as a Board. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I sympathize . It' s already built where we have other homes that have 22 been in the process of redoing it so it wasn' t that big a deal, but nevertheless, we will have to 23 take that into consideration. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you saying you 24 won' t accept that as an alternative if the Board were to grant it? 25 MS . MOORE : Obviously, if it' s a condition we don' t want a denial on the use, I never take January 26 , 2006 66 1 2 that position, I don' t think it' s wise . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you would accept 3 it if the Board -- MS . MOORE : We would have to. We don' t 4 have a choice . What I would ask the Board is to reconsider your standard course of action, or in 5 particular, if you have an old house or again, Edgewater is the example, brand new house, no 6 issue, everything is being constructed with the state of the art and sprinklers, the state 7 building code is very clear, I don' t think if you went for a state board of review variance you' d 8 get one on a brand new construction where the master suite, it' s all part of the same house, 9 again, that' s the state . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two different things . 10 MS . MOORE: Two different things, but I 've been here before, your conditions are always kind 11 of stuck in there, and I would ask you to reconsider now given that every case is a little 12 different rather than making it as a rule of thumb, now you have an architect on the Board to 13 your advantage in that she' s familiar with the state board of review process, and I'm hoping that 14 the Board could reconsider some of the paten conditions that are some of these cases . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In light of the 16 history that we have with sprinklers, I suppose that the only real way of handling and not 17 requiring sprinklers is just to say it' s a two and a half story house . 18 MS . MOORE : That makes it easy. You can certainly answer it that way or just say it' s 19 subject to New York state -- whatever the state code requires . Which is what is already presumed 20 by getting a building permit and CO. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sprinkler system 21 may or may not be a requirement . It certainly doesn' t have to be a requirement of this Board. 22 MS . MOORE : Right . And there are different methods . You have dry systems, wet 23 systems . The technology is changing daily. And as I say, the state may say third floor yes, the 24 rest of the house has egress, that' s an architect' s issue . I don' t profess to be a 25 architect to talk about the different alternatives that the state may look and say, if you have an January 26, 2006 67 1 2 egress, if you can prove you have egress windows on the first and second floor, sprinklers is not 3 an issue, third floor if you can' t prove egress windows and maybe it is an issue . Or he has a 4 metal ladder that he actually up there, and that' s an emergency egress . Again, state has all kinds 5 of alternatives that other people make lots of money going through, I don' t know. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I 'm trying to be clear this Board doesn' t have a right to not 7 require -- so basically we don' t have the right to require it other than give-and-take for a 8 variance . MS . MOORE: Yes . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly even myself, I'm licensed in the state of New York, 10 would have a hard time engineering a life safety device in a house that wasn' t fully done . I would 11 not want to drive up to a building that I did that had burnt down that was only partially conforming 12 to the law. I wouldn' t touch that as a designer of a fire system. I wouldn' t touch that because I 13 don' t want that guilt . If we require that that does become your problem and certainly variances 14 and all that, but you can' t get a CO from the Town of Southold without complying to the New York 15 state code . MS . MOORE : Absolutely and you have no 16 right to override the New York state building code . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We can ask for more . 18 MS . MOORE : You can require more, you just can' t ask for less . 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a clarification on the history as related, the notice of 20 disapproval from November of last year says that the building permit restricted the use of the 21 attic to nonhabitable area. So the mistake or the misunderstanding as described doesn' t seem to be 22 consistent with what was fully written in this; was there a mistake? 23 MR. IAVARONE : In the approval or the application itself, because the area was always 24 habitable . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it shouldn' t have 25 been -- MS . MOORE : It probably would have been a January 26, 2006 68 1 2 variance at that time had it been caught that they were making it nonhabitable space, they would have 3 gotten a variance and made it allowable to be habitable at that time . So one way or another it 4 got caught . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whenever you reach an 5 inconsistency, often the best way is to simply scratch one element of the inconsistency. 6 MR. IAVARONE : My biggest mess up with this was my negligence . I thought I had followed 7 through and finished all this . I got all my inspections, which are documented. I just never 8 finalized, which I had forgotten all about . I went to apply for a new permit and that' s when I 9 realized I still had this one open. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The drawings don' t 10 include any kind of topographic information. We walked around it very carefully, the whole 11 structure . Have you any idea what the median height and ridge height is from the entrance 12 driveway, which is considerably less in elevation? MR. IAVARONE : Not topographic, I did 13 structure . MS . MOORE : Where the street is 14 significantly higher than the grade start of the front door for example . Yes, it' s significant . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the way to really understand whether it' s three story. It 16 depends on the point of ground level from which one measures . 17 MS . MOORE : Greenport does that . Greenport actually when they ask for the height of 18 the structure they measure from the street the angle of the curve, rather than us where we deal 19 with the average grade . So the average grade I guess taking from the beach to the top and you 20 work your way in the middle it' s about right . MR. IAVARONE : I probably am at an average 21 point of my property but definitely lower than the street . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That would be a height variance, talking about use inside a 23 structure that' s existed for since 1914 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I was actually 24 questioning when I drove up why it was considered a three story structure . 25 MS . MOORE : I didn' t have the actual address when I was posting because I thought it January 26 , 2006 69 1 2 was the blue house next door, which has got clearly three stories of space . I don' t know what 3 they have on that top house story, but that seems to be kind of the large manor homes on that street. 4 are generally higher. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s certainly not 5 higher than the surrounding properties . It' s rather well sited and modest in scale . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 7 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 8 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Irelands for Mr. Hamm over on Fishers Island, for 10 redoing an existing cottage . MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, 11 Southampton for the applicant . With me are Ali Reardon, the architect, and Mr. Ireland. You have 12 extensive plans . I have prepared a narrative, which is helpful to me and may be helpful to you, 13 I would like to give it to you. And I for reference later. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. MR. HAMM: The Exhibit A, which is after 15 the first blue divider, I just want to point out that the pre CO for this structure, ' which when the 16 Irelands purchased in 2001 neglected to reflect that the structure, garage apartment or whatever 17 you want to call it, had living quarters on the first floor as well as the second. The new CO, 18 which is my Exhibit A, does correct that situation. So what the Irelands are planning to 19 do is a renovation of a preexisting structure . There' s been plenty of deferred maintenance on it, 20 there is mold in it, and it' s time to redo it . Some of the prominent features of this application 21 that I did think you should focus on is the fact that building footprint is not changing, will be 22 renovated and place rooms will be reconfigured and so forth, but the same building footprint will be 23 used. The use of the structure will remain the same, be used as a garage with living quarters on 24 the first floor, what is called the ground floor and the first floor. Indeed, there will be a 25 reduction to some extent because what are presently three bedrooms on the first floor or January 26 , 2006 70 1 2 upstairs area will be reduced to two bedrooms . Among other features of the renovation will 3 involve bringing many portions of the building up to current building code in terms of the garage 4 the central staircase . There will be a necessity of raising the roofline a bit, and that is one of 5 three features that perhaps the Building Department focused on when they denied that could 6 be deemed to be somewhat of an enlargement of the nonconformity. Those three features I've listed 7 at the end of the memorandum. There' s a porch, which is within the existing footprint, about 60 8 square feet . The Irelands do intend to enclose it and make it part of a dining room. However, it is 9 still in the existing footprint . One of the bedrooms, which will be changed to a living room 10 has a very low ceiling that' s not up to code . They do intend to raise the roofline a bit, 11 however they will not be above the roofline of the rest of the structure . And finally, there' s a 12 terrace, that is an elevated terrace, which is about two feet of elevation, which has caused 13 problems with water retention and seepage and causing rot in the building. That will be removed 14 however they would like a space that is similar to that . So they' re proposing right above that space 15 a screened porch which is again, not living space so it won' t be insulated. It' s just something 16 that will be used seasonally. So in summary the intensity of the use we feel that these slight 17 increases are really more than offset by the reduction in terms of number of bedrooms by 18 bringing the several features, which Miss Reardon can address if necessary, features that are not up 19 to code, bringing it up to code . And finally there will be a more efficient heating system 20 installed with appropriate building materials so that the structure is more environmentally sound. 21 If you have technical questions, Miss Reardon can answer them, legal questions, I 'm here, personal 22 questions Mr. Ireland, perhaps . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will compliment you on the clarity of your drawings as represented 25 to those who are not conversant with reading demolition lines and so on, what is as built and January 26 , 2006 71 1 2 what is proposed. You are anticipating no grade change on these plans; is that correct? 3 MS . REARDON: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Simply bringing 4 things up to code . What is the increase of the median height in the roof that you expect from 5 what is existing? MR. REARDON: The existing roof height on 6 there I think is 26, 1" so we would be bringing where the proposed living room would be up to that 7 to meet that ridge . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Another two feet? 8 MS . REARDON: I don' t know offhand. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Top of the cupola 9 is another two feet above . MS . REARDON: Right . Above the living 10 room roof is a gambrel and we propose to make it a gable end roof . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you sort of have dotted section lines in here . Thank you. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have 13 questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 14 audience that wishes to speak? If there' s no other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the 15 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have to have a 17 resolution to set our special meeting on the annex on the second floor for deliberations, decisions 18 and other matters coming before the Board. (See minutes for resolution. ) 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we need a resolution to authorize the legal notice for 20 publication of the March 2 , 2006 hearings . (See minutes for resolution. ) 21 22 23 24 25 January 26 , 2006 72 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the State of New York, do hereby certify: 4 THAT the within transcript is a true record of the testimony given. 5 I further certify that I am not related by blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 6 action; and THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 7 of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 8 hand this 26th day of January, 2006 . 9 10 11 Florence V. Wiles 12 13 14 15 16 17 i 18 19 ' 9 20 554 21 22 23 24 25 January 26 , 2006