HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/02/2006 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
v
3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
4
5 --------------------------------------------X
6 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H O L D
7
8 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
9
10 --------------------------------------------X
11 Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
12 Southold, New York
13 March 2 , 2006
9 : 30 a.m.
14
15 Board Members Present
16 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
20 LESLIE WEISMAN, Board Member
21 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
22 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
23
24 ORIGINAL"
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' d like to call to
order our regularly scheduled meeting of
3 Wednesday, March 2 , 2006 at 1 : 00 p.m. I ' d like a
motion to declare all the following hearings a
4 Type 2 Action which has no effect on the
environment .
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I, need a resolution to
6 adjourn the meeting of the Orient Fire Department
with the Verizon Nextel Cellular Wireless until
7 March 30th. At one p.m.
(See minutes for resolution. )
' 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Now we can proceed to
our first hearing, which is the Hills on Lake
9 Drive in Southold, which is to construct a new
house with a garage; is there someone here to
10 represent them? Yes, sir, would you go to the
mike and state your name and address?
11 MR. HILL: My name is Charles Hill, and my
address is 665 Lake Drive, Southold.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
tell us?
13 MR. HILL: Do you want me to go through
the whole thing?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MR. HILL : I'm applying for two variances
15 and the first variance that I'm applying for has
to do with the front of the house on the north
16 side, and the specifics, and I'm seeking relief of
2 ' 6" by 11' 611 , which is about 28 square feet of
17 addition of the relief of this 10 yard setback.
My second variance request is I'm seeking relief
18 of approximately 1116" by 20 feet of garage of the
front yard setback of 35 feet to the road.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your house will be then
how far from the road? What is the distance from
20 the house to the road than with your proposed
dwelling?
21 MR. HILL: From the house to the road or
the garage to the road?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right . The
garage setback in front of the house, sorry.
23 MR. HILL: From the garage to the road I ' m
41 feet when completed.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay.
MR. HILL: If you look in my notes --
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 41 feet to the
other edge of the pavement, but 23 . 9 to the right
March 2 , 2006
3
1
2 of way, right?
MR. HILL: 23 feet to the property line,
3 right . I have 17 feet of -- I guess it ' s the area
that' s owned by Southold. Visually I ' m meeting it
4 but technically I'm not, so that' s why it' s such a
big area.
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Town has about a 50
foot right of way. So you just start at your
6 property line and your house is very similar to
the one down the road which we looked at . It' s
7 going to be the exact same copy.
MR. HILL: Almost identical . I have
8 pictures of the Heffernan house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw it . We all went
9 down there and looked at it .
MR. HILL: That' s my case, if you have
10 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question,
there is an accessory building pretty close to the
12 property line which is not shown in some of the
photographs; are you planning to remove that small
13 accessory building that' s on -- I guess that ' s the
east side of the property?
14 MR. HILL: The detached one?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes,
15 MR. HILL: I had no plans to remove that,
no . That' s a fishing storage area.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . But it is a
nonconforming structure . It' s less than -- I
17 don' t know how many feet it is to the property
line but it' s quite close to the chain link
18 fence .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s also not shown
19 on the map .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which certainly is a
20 problem because when it would come to the time of
getting the certificate of occupancy, and they did
21 the final inspection, if the property showed a
building on it which was not shown on the site
22 plan, that could be a problem.
MR. HILL: Okay.
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have a CO for
that little shed?
24 MR. HILL: No, I don' t .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How big is that shed?
25 MR. HILL: That shed is approximately six
and a half feet by 10 feet .
March 2 , 2006
4
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it' s less than 100
square feet then?
3 MR. HILL: I believe so.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then you don' t need a
4 permit for it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it subject to
5 setback however?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s subject to
6 setback yard location.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In the front yard.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s subject to
other zoning requirements, maybe not a permit but
8 you have to find out if it meets the setback.
MR. HILL: That' s a different issue and I
9 certainly will address it .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is this a shed on
10 this other map that you have? This shed is much
bigger than the size that you gave us, so I just
11 wanted to check.
MR. HILL: That' s the shed, correct .
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s larger than
the size you gave, it looks like it' s 16 ' by 8 ' or
13 10 ' .
MR. HILL: Actually I'm going off the
14 dimensions of the shed I bought . I actually
constructed two small additions, but they' re
15 detachable, I don' t have any problem doing that .
I have two small areas off that, I made two wings
16 on that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re only one foot
17 off the side yard, you should be three feet .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : In the future you
18 may have to correct it or you may want to apply
again in the future to try for a variance .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Hill, are you
referring to this structure (indicating) ?
20 MR. HILL: That' s the accessory garage,
the current one .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And this piece in
front of it?
22 MR. HILL: Yes, that' s going to be
removed.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The shed is off
this one?
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed is not shown
on the photograph.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Either you move it
three feet off the side yard then you' d be in
March 2 , 2006
5
1
2 conformance, or take it down, or come to us again
and hope for a variance .
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But work it out
with the Building Department first, they may say
4 you have to move it altogether.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only other
question I have is if we hear that your neighbor' s
6 garage is also setback approximately where you' re
proposing to have it setback, in other words, it
7 is also nonconforming in terms of setback --
MR. HILL: Are you referring to that
8 picture I lined up the stakes with?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes .
9 MR. HILL: Yes, correct . I mean, I 'm not
100 percent sure, but all the investigating that I
10 did with their town map and lining it up, they' re
over eight feet closer than my proposed one .
11 Obviously they' re nonconforming, that' s been there
for a long time, so that was just a visual to show
12 you that I'm not doing anything out of the
ordinary in the area.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
14 reason why you have to put the proposed garage so
close to the property line, the one that' s going
15 to be the name of this application?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To the west property
16 line .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Or to the
17 property line standing in front of the house on
the left-hand side .
18 MR. HILL: So you' re asking me why I 'm
putting the garage -- my lot is only 60 feet wide .
19 If you look at the picture that I took of the
Heffernan house, which is picture number 4 , if you
20 were to take my garage, that' s basically exactly
what we' re going to be building, if I take that
21 garage, and I put it to the right side of the
house where my shed is, I 'm going to have a
22 problem with the DEC, my septic field is over
there .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the question is
to have it moved not to the other side of the
24 property but closer to the center of the
property.
25 MR. HILL: What it is we took great
detail, if you look at the elevation to the south
March 2 , 2006
6
1
2 of the house and garage, when you come around to
the front of the house, my front door, which is a
3 focal point -- by the way I 'm a landscape
architect, so I 'm very in tune to this -- you need
4 a front door focal point for a home, and so that
is why I am hugging the property line, and I ' m not
5 asking for a variance for that, I ' m entitled to go
to three feet there .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, that' s true .
The question is is the Heffernan home which you' re
7 comparing to also only 60 feet wide, the property?
MR. HILL: They' re a little wider, I think
8 their lot is 72 feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two considerations,
9 one is to maintain your front entrance as a focal
point, as you say, not have it blocked by the
10 garage, and the other is how much room you
actually need to be able to swing the cars around
11 to get into the garage since the entrance --
MR. HILL : That' s another great point . If
12 I were to have that garage moved further east,
which would be to your right, I couldn' t make the
13 turn into there .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At least we' d have to
14 look at this more closely to see how much room was
needed.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hill, if you move
the garage just to the east say two feet, which
16 would make it five feet off the property, five
feet off the side yard, would that be a problem,
17 just moving it two foot further over?
MR. HILL: I 've been struggling on these
18 plans for 12 inches like you wouldn' t believe, and
it would be a pretty big problem as half the
19 house, the pillar couldn' t be lined up and it
would be encroaching on the front door, so
20 visually it would look a little hodgepodge to me
in my opinion.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Hill, the side
yard that you have on your proposed site plan is
22 19 and a half feet from the other side yard, the
garage would be as proposed three feet side yard,
23 the house 7 . 4 foot and the other side yard is
191511 , I understand as an architect what you' re
24 talking about in terms of having enough visual
space around a primary entrance; if you move, if
25 you simply take your proposal as proposed, and
site it, it' s a total demolition; am I correct?
March 2 , 2006
7
1
2 MR. HILL: No. I 'm building on my
existing foundation, and I 'm using my entire first
3 floor existing structure with all the utilities
intact to be economically feasible .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the proposing
moving of the entire siting, the entire thing, two
5 feet over to give yourself -- it' s very difficult
to have a three foot side yard. It' s not even
6 accessible for equipment to get by and so on, so
we' re just trying to find a way without
7 compromising your aesthetic concern to create a
little bit better setback from the garage .
8 MR. HILL: I' d have to ask you, what would
two feet do.
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would give you a
five foot side yard from the garage instead of a
10 three foot .
MR. HILL: I understand, but what would I
11 gain with that? I wrestled with that, what can I
do with five feet instead of three?
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would you gain?
It' s not so much what you would gain but what the
13 whole neighborhood would gain by not having it
crowding as close to the west side boundary,
14 that' s the overall question, and I know the next
door neighbor has presumably received notice of
15 this hearing, whether that person' s here or not I
don' t know yet .
16 MR. HILL: Frank Furlough is my neighbor,
and he' s 100 percent for the project . He has no
17 problem with it .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me answer
18 the question for you. I never grant the three
foot setback, never, never, never. Because you
19 have to have the ability to at least put a ladder
up there . This is a gambol end garage . I don' t
20 think five feet is unreasonable, and I don' t think
two more feet going closer to -- and I realize
21 aesthetically it causes a little difference, but
that' s just my opinion.
22 The only other question that we were
discussing and that is lot coverage, did you have
23 lot coverage determined for you, Mr. Hill? Total
lot coverage of the new structure, the dwelling?
24 MR. HILL : You mean will it fall in the
new square footage? That' s been taken under
25 consideration with Damon down at the Building
Department . I went over that with my engineer.
March 2 , 2006
8
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great, thank
you.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak on this application?
4 Yes, sir.
MR. RIVERA: Good afternoon, my name is
5 Greg Rivera. I 'm the Peconic Land Trust reserve
manager at Shelby' s Preserve, it ' s the next
6 property to the east of Mr. and Mrs . Hill' s . I ' m
not representing the Land Trust today, and I do
7 thank you for allowing me to address you.
First I want to say that I think this is a
8 nice design. It' s a beautiful looking structure,
it' s no closer to the Peconic Land Trust property
9 line than the existing structure . However, I do
have some concerns . In his application, Mr. Hill
10 says that he is sacrificing living space by coming
up with a certain design, but yet he has two and a
11 half times the living space as the existing
structure . He has two baths rather than one, and
12 I understand that . My concern is his existing
septic system, which may or may not get additional
13 input with more people in the home and two
bathrooms . It' s about 40 feet from my well, which
14 predates his building, I believe, the construction
of his house in general .
15 I'm also concerned about exterior
lighting, Raven Shores in general is a very
16 brightly lit place, I prefer a dark sky. We have
a 14 acre preserve and I feel like I 'm in the
17 middle of suburbia every night .
One other thing, I was kind of surprised
18 and actually chuckled a little bit when I read
that this, quote, garage, is desperately needed,
19 unquote, to house a 25 foot aluminum sailboat
mast . I 've been sailing since I was 11 years old
20 and I never realized that a mast, especially an
aluminum one, had to be kept indoors .
21 That being said, if this variance is
approved, I would hope that you would stipulate
22 downward shading exterior lights on the new
residence, and I would also hope that you would
23 ask Mr. and Mrs . Hill to replace the chain link
fence, I can' t estimate the number of feet, but
24 approximately 100 feet of chain link fence that
was removed by Mr. Hill a number of years ago from
25 Peconic Land Trust property, and he told me it was
unsightly, and he just hacked it down. So I put
March 2 , 2006
9
1
2 up a snow fence within a few weeks just to keep
the border there, and I had to remove one of his
3 boats that he was storing on Land Trust property,
and he has not apparently answered the Land Trust
4 in the last two years about replacing that fence .
So I would hope that he would have to at least
5 replace that fence, and the snow fence I put up as
a temporary measure is in the survey and the
6 photograph that he submitted to you. I would also
hope that if it goes through, you would help me
7 push for public water down Shellfisher Road
because I 'm concerned about my drinking water
8 quality.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is that
9 fence, sir?
MR. RIVERA: It' s a four foot high chain
10 link fence installed by John Block back in
probably 1968 .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. HILL: Is he my neighbor? Is the
12 gentleman my neighbor? I'm not sure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, he is . He' s the
13 next door neighbor.
MR. HILL: Have I ever met you; have I
14 ever spoken to you?
MR. RIVERA: Yes, I have your cell phone
15 number in my phone . I met your nephew that is
closer to my home, the house across the street
16 from you.
MR. HILL: I don' t ever recall that . Did
17 I talk to you?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hill, you have to
18 address the Board. You can tell the Board the
same thing, but you have to address the Board.
19 MR. HILL: I did remove the fence, the
fence had four areas of trees that were falling
20 down on the fence, the top rail was broken,
rusted, and personally I thought it was my fence .
21 So I took the liberty of removing that . I have no
problem replacing the fencing. I didn' t speak to
22 this gentleman, but I spoke to a woman at the
Peconic Land Trust . She was very nice to me . She
23 didn' t have a specific problem, I asked her if it
was possible -- she did direct to me that we
24 wanted to replace the fence . I said can we do
something a little more aesthetic, a six foot
25 chain link fence going down there is a little
barbaric to me given that setting. So she said, I
March 2 , 2006
10
1
2 respect that, I ' ll get back to you and maybe we
can come up with a suggestion of a nicer fence,
3 which I would absolutely be happy to replace . I
have no problem with that .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: After this meeting you
and Mr. Rivera can get together and solve that
5 fence problem, which is not within our
jurisdiction but it would be helpful as neighbors
6 if you could work it out .
MR. RIVERA: I just wanted to let the
7 Board know that I have spoken to Mr. Hill in the
past . And I don' t want to stir up controversy or
8 be a bad neighbor, believe me, I know you' re going
to be here for a while and I appreciate that . I
9 do want to say that Mr. Hill did contact me about
putting an osprey pole up at Shellfisher, which I
10 researched, and also about doing something about
where his bulkhead meets the Land Trust property,
11 so maybe that will jog his memory a little
bit . Thank you. And feel free to speak to me at
12 any time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Rivera .
13 MR. HILL : May I just ask a question?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
14 MR. HILL : I only caught a part of that,
did he ask about the bathrooms in the home?
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He was afraid because
your septic system is only 40 feet from his well .
16 So he was concerned with extra water and sewage
that it might affect the quality of the water in
17 his well, and he would ask us to try to ask the
Suffolk County Water Authority to bring public
18 water down to your area so people would not have
to be concerned.
19 MR. HILL: I would appreciate that too,
but I 'm not increasing any bathrooms .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have one bath room
or two?
21 MR. HILL: Excuse me, ma' am, I am
increasing one bathroom in the main house .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct, that was his
concern, two bathrooms . Do you have any other
23 questions of us, sir?
MR. HILL: I don' t think so, but the two
24 feet is critical as coming into the garage, if I
have to, I will make the garage smaller. I will
25 not move it in front of the front door, that' s how
critical it is to me . So now I have a problem
March 2 , 2006
11
1
2 with not having a work bench on the far side and
not being able to pull a fairly good sized vehicle
3 into that garage . If you have ever tried to pull
one into an 18 foot garage less approximately 18
4 inches of stud wall and garage door, that comes
into play. I've been playing with this for a long
5 time and so that would be a hardship for me .
Currently the gentleman brought up a point about
6 my mast, if you saw where my mast was, my sailboat
mast, it' s off the ground because it has a roping
7 to it, so I don' t want it to rot . So it' s hanging
on his fence, if that' s not aesthetically a
8 problem, I don' t know what is . I like to hang my
stuff in the garage out of the elements and the
9 ropes are expensive to replace . And I will hang
my mast in the garage .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are planning
11 leaders and downspouts, right?
MR. HILL: Absolutely.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Into dry wells?
MR. HILL: Into dry wells .
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . Then I ' ll
make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
14 decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
15 - - -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
16 the Haases at Greenway East, they' re building a
new home . Miss Moore and Mr. Haase .
17 MS . MOORE : I'm here to help out Mr. and
Mrs . Haase, they were a little nervous about this
18 hearing and then we know each other, so here I am.
I will use them also to help supplement any
19 additional information that you need.
With respect to the variance application
20 that we have got before you, the first issue is
that there will be no undesirable change to the
21 character of the neighborhood. I' ll point out
that Green Acres in Orient was developed without
22 really consideration of rear yards that are in
place today because all the lots are somewhat
23 narrow; they' re all uniform in size, but they
range anywhere from just under 20 , 000 to just over
24 20 , 000 . So they' re half acre lots, but they
deviate based on their configuration by a few
25 thousand feet one way or another, and that makes a
big difference when you' re looking at the zoning
March 2 , 2006
12
1
2 code because unfortunately our nonconform
inspection cuts off at 20 . And from this parcel,
3 which I believe is like 20, 300 , 21, 000 , just
brings you unfortunately to the next larger
4 setback.
There are also covenants and restrictions
5 in this subdivision that require that the front
yard should be 40 feet , and that' s why you see
6 most of the neighborhood, all the neighborhood
that has been developed at 40 foot front yard
7 setbacks . So they have private covenants, and I
know this Board doesn' t really consider the
8 private covenants, but that certainly has an
impact on the development by every property owner
9 because they don' t have the option of moving
closer to the road in order to enable a more
10 comfortable development in the back yard.
The property, also if you noticed on the
11 survey, and this had them stumped a little bit
because John Metzgar had originally proposed a
12 building envelope, and when we looked at the
survey very carefully, it has a slight indentation
13 along Greenway East, and the lot in the center
narrows down in depth to 128 feet . Most of the
14 lot is at 130 , one side is 134 , the other side is
132 , but the center is 128 , and that certainly
15 creates a practical problem in designing a house,
we don' t have houses that are generally --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It says 132 on one side
on the map which would be the north.
17 MS . MOORE : No, 128 in the center, see
where the road cuts down in Greenway? That
18 measurement we had John Metzgar verify to make
sure we were precise in our rear yard setback
19 actually measured at 128 . You wouldn' t catch that
if you didn' t have real good strong eyes .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That deck is not
going in that center point, it' s to the side of
21 the larger --
MS . MOORE : We took the most narrow
22 measurement, so we would be protected.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But those setbacks
23 are accurate that he has on the survey, right?
MS . MOORE : Yes, the survey we have now is
24 accurate . As you know, the nonconforming section
of the code, if this lot were under 20, would
25 require a 35 year rear yard setback rather than
the 50 that the code requires in this instance .
March 2 , 2006
13
1
2 We also want to point out that this
property will be developed in character with the
3 rest of the neighborhood, Greenway or Orient, call
it Green Acres, has been very slow to develop
4 partly because they were second home lots . In
this instance, we have Mr. and Mrs . Haase, who are
5 year-round homeowners . They have a growing
family, three children. Certainly I know Donna
6 very well, she' s a second generation school
teacher. Mr. Haase owns the Orient by the Sea
7 restaurant , and so they are very community-minded.
They are typical of what we want to try to
8 preserve in this town is the community that stays
here and provides services to the rest of us in
9 the future . His son is in the fire department, so
that' s carrying on to the third generation now,
10 and we have to encourage that . This lot is a
modest lot . The house is good for this family,
11 but not extreme in its size, it' s modest in its
size . So we hope that you' ll consider that in our
12 request . Again, with a growing family, they have
all the amenities of the pool and the decking in
13 the back.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The deck and pool in
14 the back will be just six feet from the rear yard?
MS . MOORE : Yes . The pool is considered
15 detached by the Building Department, so we don' t
have any issues with its placement that wasn' t
16 part of the variance . So that was a question that
I had early on.
17 The house, when we speak of the benefits
sought by the applicant, cannot be achieved by
18 some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than an area variance . I pointed out that
19 the size of their family with three children needs
a certain number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the
20 house is 42 foot in total depth at its widest
point . It does jog in and out but that being its
21 widest point, and as I pointed out the pool is
conforming. Because we, consider pool area in the
22 lot coverage calculation, we are just slightly
over 20 percent, we' re at 21 . 7 percent lot
23 coverage, so that also has been included in the
variance application.
24 This property has no environmental
constraints . The Health Department has approved
25 this construction, and they were ready to build,
they had the plans, they had everything, and
March 2 , 2006
14
1
2 Mr . Haase, when he saw the assessor' s records,
certainly not knowing the code is not a defense
3 but he was under the impression that because he
was just under a half acre, that he would meet all
4 the requirements . Unfortunately, when the survey
was ultimately prepared, he was just slightly
5 over.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can I ask you one
6 thing, Pat? Where are the steps from the deck,
the proposed steps down to the pool or on the
7 side, just for our own information?
MS . MOORE : Do you have a design for the
8 deck yet?
MR. HAASE : No . Stopped when we found out
9 we needed a variance .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have a question,
10 I ' m a little confused, 35 feet for the rear yard,
they' re proposing 26 feet, so they would still
11 need a variance?
MS . MOORE : They still would need, but not
12 for the house . I 'm saying that the house itself,
if it had a 35 foot rear yard setback, would not
13 be the subject of an application or the deck.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The decking would
14 be here .
MS . MOORE : The decking either way it
15 would be here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions, it' s very clear what the request is .
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, this
18 is my application to write the findings on. My
only concern is that I know Bobby and Donna also,
19 and it' s specifically important for them to
understand that if they link this pool to this
20 deck, they' re going to be back here . So the pool
cannot be linked in any way to that deck, and if
21 it is, it should be moved over to whatever side
they refer to it as .
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I'm sorry. I
believe the Building Department will allow them to
23 connect it . It' s because there' s no wraparound
deck that they' re saying it' s an accessory.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I
mean.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But they will allow
them to link it physically from the deck to the
March 2 , 2006
15
1
2 back of the house .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s not what
3 I gathered when I spoke to them.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I also spoke to
4 them today.
MS . MOORE : I agree with Linda, I think
5 that' s how they were interpreting it, that once
the pool becomes an integral part of the decking,
6 as in surrounded by decking in some way, it' s
considered part of the full structure; however,
7 there' s a recognition that you have to get to the
pool from the deck one way or another and they
8 allow it to touch, it would be kind of a crazy
distinction.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it
depends upon if it' s the difference between cement
10 wood.
MS . MOORE : The pool is going to be on
11 some kind of cement, it' s not going to be wood
surround. Put it this way, if it isn' t , we don' t
12 have a problem.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want them
13 to be on notice for that because this is an issue
that they should work out with the Building
14 Department and the pool builder.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s going to be
15 above-ground or an in-ground pool?
MR. HAASE : In-ground eventually, we
16 figured we' re here we might as well go .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a good idea .
17 Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the pool is 20 by
18 40 , correct?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How much smaller a
pool would be required in order not to require the
20 variance for the increased lot coverage, we' re
talking about 1 . 7 percent lot coverage, and the
21 culprit, if you will, is the size of the pool ;
have you thought about as a plan B?
22 MR. HAASE : Smaller pool, yes .
MS . MOORE : Sort of the decking to the
23 family is much more important than a few feet of
the pool, but it' s not a significant increase in
24 the lot coverage .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
25 the audience that would like to speak on this
application? Yes, sir?
March 2 , 2006
16
1
2 MR. LOWRY: My name is Chris Lowry. My
wife and I are the owners of the house directly
3 behind this lot in question. And we hope to be
good neighbors and welcome you to Orient by the
4 Sea . We' re not yet full time residents but we
aspire to be in a fairly short time . I have -- we
5 have, my wife gave me one of the rare
opportunities to speak on her behalf this time .
6 We have no objection to the excess lot coverage,
that' s diminimus and really has no material effect
7 on us . We do have concerns regarding the
encroachment on the rear setbacks however, and
8 believe that that will affect us . I believe that
any objective third party would observe that any
9 time that you' re getting structures closer to one
another than the regulations would ordinarily
10 imply that that' s going to have an impact . We are
much more concerned about the pool, as I
11 understand it, that may or may not be in
conformance with the zoning requirements and may
12 or may not come within the setback requirements,
but certainly putting it within six feet of our
13 lot line is going to be an impact on us .
The lot is vacant right now. It' s heavily
14 covered with brush and that' s fine, people buy it
and have a right to build on it . And we will be
15 very happy to have three children behind us, we
have five grandchildren who visit us, and we' ll
16 see who' s making the most noise in a fairly short
time, but we do have some concerns about that
17 setback.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Would it satisfy you if
18 they really heavily vegetated that border?
MR. LOWRY: That would certainly mitigate
19 it .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would satisfy you
20 then?
MR. LOWRY: Yes .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can make that a
condition then.
22 MR. HAASE : We were planning on putting up
shrubs anyway, but isn' t a pool allowed to be
23 three feet from a property line?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Side yard, but not rear
24 yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : At least three
25 feet .
MS . MOORE : Depending on the size of the
March 2 , 2006
17
1
2 yard. So we' re actually a little over what we
would have to be . I might suggest that we' re
3 going to need a fence for a pool anyway, would it
be preferred a solid fence in the rear; would you
4 have any objection to that?
MR. LOWRY: No .
5 MS . MOORE : I mean evergreens are nice but
we have to put a fence in the code . So I don' t
6 know one over the other, if we can put both we
will, but I think that' s tight .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Still might be able to
put some sort of shrub back there .
8 MR. LOWRY: Shrubbery would be
preferred.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: At least it' s a break,
even if you have the fence there, if you have the
10 shrubbery in front of the fence it' s less
intrusive .
11 MS . MOORE : Okay, we have no problem with
that . Thank you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak on this application?
13 (See minutes for resolution. )
MS . MOORE : Because they are getting ready
14 to start construction, if the Board could get the
decision out sooner than later, we' d appreciate
15 it . Thank you, Mr. Goehringer, since you' re
writing it .
16 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
17 for the Speyers at 2100 Jackson Street and Fourth
Street in New Suffolk, who wish to demolish part
18 of their house and reconstruct a new portion of
their house . Is there anyone here to speak on
19 behalf of the Speyers? Mr. Samuels?
MR. SAMUELS : My name is Tom Samuels, I 'm
20 the architect for Jim and Karen Speyer.
Just a little bit of background on this
21 project, the original portion of the house in New
Suffolk was built probably in the mid 1840s, it ' s
22 very close to Jackson Street and Fourth street ,
it maybe was a boat captain or somebody. It' s a
23 local landmark, although, it' s not a registered
landmark.
24 Around the turn of the century, maybe up
to the 1920s or 130s relatively significant two
25 story additions were placed around the house on
the south and east sides . It may have been used
March 2 , 2006
18
1
2 as a boarding house for local fishermen, as were a
lot of houses in New Suffolk at that time .
3 Unfortunately they didn' t put a proper foundation
on it at that time, neither did they build a
4 second floor with ceiling heights, which are
generally considered acceptable these days . It' s
5 maybe about seven foot ceiling height on the
second floor. Jim and Karen Speyer have owned the
6 house for about 10 years, and now would like to
basically make some internal changes as the
7 project started out, but when it was clear that
there was no foundation and that there were other
8 structural issues, it was decided instead of
renovating that we would replace in a sense in
9 kind. It' s two story additions that were done in
the back; we would like to replace those two story
10 additions with new two story additions with the
proper foundation and proper head room, ceiling
11 heights and a different room layout of course, not
increasing the number of bedrooms, are increasing
12 the number of bathrooms because it was so
insufficient before . We' re trying to do all this
13 in a way that is a little more sympathetic to the
style of the house of the original house . The
14 original additions were flat-roofed and that gave
the previous owners a lot of trouble, and so they
15 put a kind of mansard roof on the house, which is
still flat roofed but it' s a little ungamely
16 looking so we' re replacing that concept with a
proper gable roof around the whole, and in any
17 other way trying to keep in the style that' s
prevalent in the existing house and in New
18 Suffolk.
We' re also looking for a very small
19 addition to that envelope, which is also partly
not conforming, on the water side just to sort of
20 fill out and rationalize the footprint a little
bit and add a covered porch on that side . These
21 are sides away from the road but are technically
nonconforming because of the setback. Of course
22 the original house made no accommodation for
setbacks, it' s maybe 10 feet off the property
23 lines . We' re as far away from those property
lines as we can be but effectively trying to build
24 in the footprint of the original house . I just
also want to add that I got a copy, thanks to
25 Linda, from some neighbors that own a vacant lot
across the street a Miss Price and Herfeld, and
March 2 , 2006
19
1
2 they make reference to increasing the size of the
house . I just want to point out, we' re not
3 increasing the size of the house except for
modestly, and even though they make reference to
4 modern, it' s not; it' s a traditional style house,
and we' re not increasing the number of bedrooms
5 and we don' t believe we' re changing the character
of the hamlet .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The only thing that
I ' ve heard in comments is that you' re close to the
7 side yard on Fourth Street but it' s there now.
MR. SAMUELS : We are . And the one story
8 portion along the Fourth Street side, you notice
that maybe it does stick out along that side, that
9 is staying as a one story, we' re not making a two
story addition on that side, in deference to
10 exactly that point, but we are replacing it
in-kind/in-place -- actually a part of that
11 one-story addition we' re going to keep because
there is a foundation and some nice flooring
12 there, so we don' t want to totally demolish it .
But it' s just one of these accommodations when you
13 have old houses that are not properly built to
begin with.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They just added onto .
MR. SAMUELS : Added onto and it ' s a little
15 worn inside and Speyers have kids of their own,
they have a fairly large family, and according to
16 Karen Speyer, they need those -- I know you say
six bedrooms, but that' s what' s there now and
17 that' s what they would like to end up with.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A question and a
comment, they' re both questions, I suppose . The
19 side of the house where there are the small
setbacks, namely the west side and the north side,
20 everything that is built will be in that same
footprint, in other words, the only expansion will
21 be on the water side?
MR. SAMUELS : That' s correct .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the other is, is
the person who owns the vacant lot across the way
23 suggested that had it might be a contemporary
house, is that neighbor familiar with the
24 architectural work with Samuels and Steelman? It
seems an implausible question.
25 MR. SAMUELS : Thank you. But we did send
to that neighbor and to all the abutting neighbors
March 2 , 2006
20
1
2 not only the site plan, which is required, but
also elevations of the building; so I don' t
3 understand that comment . We' re not trying to
mimic the original house, but we' re trying to be
4 sympathetic, it' s traditional six over six windows
and shutters, and I don' t really understand that
5 comment .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you say
that you can' t really move away from the road,
7 then I guess we' ll have to go with it . Is it
shown as 9 . 8 , or I thought it was less than that
8 in the notice of disapproval? I was just about
ready to read it .
9 MR. SAMUELS : The setback?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 12 and 4 , Jerry.
MR. SAMUELS : That is a topographic
11 contour, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, I was
12 looking at 9 . 8 again, I apologize, 4 . 2 .
MR. SAMUELS : Right, 4 . 2 is existing
13 behind that picket fence there, which I suppose is
a little bit in the road it looks like . That part
14 were actually more keeping, that little one-story
wing there, we' re more keeping it because of the
15 flooring that was in it . I kind of recommended
replacing it, but there is a reasonable stone
16 foundation under it, and we' re going to just save
that little wing.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the
whole wing, Tom?
18 MR. SAMUELS : That whole jog out there is
a one-story addition. I don' t know when it was
19 done, but anyway, there' s reasonable flooring
there .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you confirm for
21 me, please, the existing median roof height and
the proposed?
22 MR. SAMUELS : They are equal . So the
existing roof height, we dimension from the point ,
23 it' s sort of, well, it doesn' t exactly match up
with that front, it' s 28 ' 6" is the existing
24 maximum roof height, and that will be maintained.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the square
25 footage of the proposed one-story porch addition,
what is additional square footage you' re
March 2 , 2006
21
1
2 requesting?
MR. SAMUELS : 262 square foot open porch
3 that is additional to the footprint, but, you know
what, that doesn' t account for a part of an
4 existing demolished deck on the other side . So
that' s actually only the increase of the footprint
5 in that area.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a covered
6 porch?
MR. SAMUELS : Right, open covered porch.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you saying that
there' s no additional square footage on the first
8 or second floor other than that porch, you
maintain the same building envelope?
9 MR. SAMUELS : Except for if you look at
that first floor plan, you will see that there' s a
10 living room, and the lower part of that living
room is shaded at a heavier tone than the rest,
11 that is in addition to the square footage of the
house .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the porch?
MR. SAMUELS : No, that' s the living
13 room. The porch, the wall is shown black and
there' s a little bit inside there, I would say
14 less than 100 square feet .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 98 square feet .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
16 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
17 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Mr. and Mrs . Sioras on Pequash Avenue in
19 Cutchogue . They just want a small addition, if I
remember.
20 MR. SIORAS : My name is Dean Sioras, the
son of Mr. and Mrs . Sioras .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good afternoon.
MR. SIORAS : Here is the green card and
22 the affidavit of posting as well (handing) .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you very
23 much.
MR. SIORAS : So this project was called
24 for a variance based on the fact that an existing
setback, while increasing the bulk of the house
25 would now call that setback into a variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just putting on
March 2 , 2006
22
1
2 a second floor addition?
MR. SIORAS : That' s correct, just
3 expansion of the existing attic space .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just one of the top,
4 comes under the Walz decision; in other words,
even though you' re going up it' s still expanding
5 the degree of nonconformance .
MR. SIORAS : Right .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t have any
problem.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What about the
new deck? Can I ask a question on that?
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The deck is beyond
9 the 35 feet, I 'm not sure .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No way, the
10 whole lot is only 65 feet .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It looks like it' s
11 22 and 14 , that' s 36 , so the deck is past the 35
foot setback.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a road.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Southern Cross, so
13 14 feet from Southern Cross is the second story
addition, then 36 feet back is the new deck, which
14 is not within the front yard setback area . That ' s
the side yard, Jerry, that you see, because it' s
15 the corner lot .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore,
16 they are choosing the other side yard to be --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building
17 Department made that determination for them.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what my
18 problem was, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So other than the
new deck, you are simply adding a second story?
21 MR. SIORAS : Correct, there' s no other
change to the footprint . The deck may or may not
22 happen, depending on the costa
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s the most
23 feasible place to put it .
MR. SIORAS : It' s also the most private
24 place on the lot .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no other
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
March 2 , 2006
23
1
2 the audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
3 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
4 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
5 Mrs . Kathleen Fraleigh about a waiver of merger
down on West Road. Miss Wickham.
6 MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon, my name is
Abigail Wickham, I 'm representing the applicant .
7 I just want to add a few things or reiterate a few
things from the application. Miss Fraleigh and
8 her husband are both retired, and they bought this
property, the lot in 1976 viewing it as an
9 investment or a nest egg for their retirement .
They bought it just after they had obtained a
10 vacant land CO from Howard Terry; so they had
always thought that it was a separate lot . They
11 have a combined savings of about $65 , 000 , so in
order to aid in their retirement, she put it on
12 the market, and this past summer found a buyer,
went to Bill Price to draw up a contract, who, for
13 the first time, advised her that this was merged
with her own house, she had no idea. Given the
14 financial and personal situation of the applicant,
the fact that the size of the lot is appropriate,
15 I think to others in the neighborhood, that there
are relatively few perhaps only one lot in the
16 area which might benefit from a precedent, if this
application is granted, I think this situation
17 appears to be exactly what the waiver of merger
law was enacted for, and we would ask that you
18 approve it . Mrs . Fraleigh is here to confirm any
of the statements that I made or that appear in
19 the application and to answer any questions that
you might have .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Her brother passed on
about 1992 or ' 93 was it?
21 MS . WICKHAM: No, 2000 .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm sorry, I 'm still in
22 the ' 90s .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: A question, my
23 understanding is that the existing house is
approached from Southern Cross Road.
24 MS . WICKHAM: Yes, I meant to mention
that . In the legal notice, I think there is a
25 mistake which I have corrected with the two
neighbors to the north that were concerned about
March 2 , 2006
24
1
2 it , and I' d like to confirm it on the record. Her
residence, Tax Lot 43 , is accessed from a right of
3 way to the north. This lot, Tax Lot 43 , will be
accessed only from West Road.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Walking around it it
sort of struck me whether this was the kind of
5 merger which was intended to be captured by the
merger law when it was originally passed because
6 these houses seem to be - - properties seem to be
quite unrelated, that is their approach from
7 different sides; choose to comment on that?
MS . WICKHAM: Actually there were six
8 different lots carved out originally and they went
to various people .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But they were divided
between the two streets?
10 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . That was before the
inception of the Planning Board and the rationed
11 approach to subdivision and access .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So this is a curious
12 case where you had lots that fronted on two
streets and because they were double sized lots,
13 they fell under the merger law, and an argument
could be made, which I think you are making, is
14 that if there were any kinds of properties that
were not intended to be merged under this law,
15 this would be one of them.
MS . WICKHAM: That' s what I said earlier.
16 I think it' s a classic case of what a waiver of
merger law should approach. Again, one goes one
17 one way and one goes the other way, they don' t
even face each other technically.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
21 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
22 audience wish to speak on this application?
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
24 the O' Connells for a swimming pool on Marlene Lane
in Mattituck. Hello, my only question, you want
25 to put the pool in the back there, can you move it
closer to the house or do you have septic systems
March 2 , 2006
25
1
2 back there?
MS . QUIGLEY: I'm representing the pool
3 company, Ann O' Connell is on her way here . I
believe there is some sort of a septic system
4 there, we will maintain the setback, we won' t be
closer to the property line than the required
5 setback. And they are installing the smallest
free form pool that they can, which is less square
6 footage than a rectangle .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How big is it?
7 MS . QUIGLEY: I believe it' s 20 by 32 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is, it' s 20
8 by 32 and the cesspool, by the way, the septic
systems are in the front yard.
9 MS . QUIGLEY: Oh, they are in the front?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they are in
10 the front yard, they' re not in the back.
MS . QUIGLEY: The pool is placed in the
11 corner. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Diagonally
in the corner with a 12 foot and a nine foot and a
12 48 foot setback from property line . So what
you' re really talking about is an additional one
13 and a half percent lot coverage increase for your
relief?
14 MS . QUIGLEY: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that based upon
15 the standard size free form pool?
MS . QUIGLEY: That' s based on that
16 particular pool . I think it increases the lot
coverage to 21 . 9 according to the surveyor.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 21 . 5 actually.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course the applicant
18 isn' t here, but I don' t see why you can' t move the
pool just a bit closer to the house to give you
19 more side yard.
MS . QUIGLEY: How far towards the house?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: At least a foot
over, a 10 foot side yard.
21 MS . QUIGLEY: You want to maintain a 10
foot side yard?
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 10 or 12 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want it
23 closer to the house, make the 12 , 21 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Make the side yard
24 10 .
MS . QUIGLEY: I think the reasoning for
25 that placement was she wanted to provide some sort
of play area and keep the pool as separate as she
March 2 , 2006
26
1
2 could from the grass area because I believe they
want to fence the pool area in to keep that a
3 separate --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have to.
4 MS . QUIGLEY: For the children.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But there' s still 48
5 feet to the other edge . I know you can' t speak
for her.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t we
hold off for a little while .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you think she' s
going to get here? We' ll just adjourn it for a
8 little while . Because we' d like to see the pool
moved closer to the house .
9 MS . QUIGLEY: Closer from the back?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Back and side .
10 MS . QUIGLEY: By two feet?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 21 feet, instead of 12
11 foot from the rear yard 21 feet, and nine feet, at
least 10 to 12 feet
12 MS . QUIGLEY: On the side?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right .
13 MS . QUIGLEY: Would that be moving it like
into the middle of the property?
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, you could still
keep it diagonal . Because you' re only moving it
15 from the side yard just a little .
MS . QUIGLEY: I ' m sure that would be
16 acceptable to them.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s a sketch
17 here that shows the trees being proposed; do you
know if there are plans for any kind of
18 landscaping around the pool?
MS . QUIGLEY: Yes, they definitely have
19 landscape plans .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We weren' t provided
20 with anything.
MS . QUIGLEY: I don' t think they have
21 anything concrete yet . I think the whole lot it' s
only a 10 , 000 square foot lot . It' s a small
22 lot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s small but it' s a
23 nice sized back yard. We were all down there . Do
you want to hold it open or should we close it and
24 do you think they would agree to --
MS . QUIGLEY: I think they would agree to
25 that, yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
March 2 , 2006
27
1
2 any comment?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No comment .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then I' ll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision until
4 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 - ---------------------------------------------- --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
6 the Rennas on Hedge Street in Fishers Island.
Yes, sir?
7 MR. RENNA: Good afternoon, my name is
Angelo Renna, my wife Susan and I own the
8 property. We are the applicants today.
As we see it, what we' re trying to
9 accomplish is two things, each is in regard to a
porch, one is facing north towards Connecticut,
10 where the porch in question had a flat roof and
our intent is to replace with a pergola to allow
11 light into the home and to get rid of the roof
that was in disrepair. So that' s on one side
12 facing north, same footprint in all aspects,
height, width and length, no increase in the
13 footprint in any dimensions .
The other porch faces east, and our intent
14 there also is to have the exact same footprint in
all three dimensions . It' s a porch that had a
15 screened in capability, none of which worked, and
frankly, with two daughters and some grandkids, we
16 weren' t comfortable with the state of that porch
to begin with because of its age . So our intent
17 there basically is to replace the screens with
windows, and it does become for our family more
18 livable space .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It becomes more of a
19 sun porch?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: An interior space?
20 MR. RENNA: Yes . We' re sort of ' tweeners .
We go there summers as well as year round. It
21 does have a heating system. We' re not full time
people there, but our family tends to use it
22 throughout the year. So that' s a manner of
explaining somewhat why we want to put the windows
23 in on that side and have a little more space for
us, not a lot more space, but again, it' s the same
24 dimensions; there' s no increase in the size of
either porch. And I think I understand, although
25 I ' m certainly not a lawyer, I understand the
technicality of historic offsets . It' s a very old
March 2 , 2006
28
1
2 home . Some people claim it goes back to
sheepherders I don' t know if it goes back that
3 far.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Renna, can I
4 ask you to approach here and tell me which porch
is which on the original survey?
5 MR. RENNA: This is where the pergola' s
going to go . This one is where the windows are
6 going to go.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
8 audience that wishes to speak on this application?
MR. RENNA: Just one final comment, I hope
9 you received the letters from our neighbors?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, we did.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Make a motion to close
the hearing reserve decision until later.
11 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
Paul Long for the complete renovation for the
13 house on Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck. And
Bruce Anderson, I believe you' re representing
14 them?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
15 Environmental Consulting here on behalf of the
applicant, Paul Long. This is an application this
16 is a project where it is proposed to remove a one
story dwelling on Camp Mineola Road, also known as
17 Howell Avenue, in Mattituck, and replace it with a
two story dwelling.
18 The one story dwelling currently is
located at 22 and a half feet from the bulkhead.
19 It' s located eight and a half feet from the
eastern side lot line . It features a roofed-over
20 portion, which is a concrete pad with a roof over
it, and that dimension from that to the side lot
21 line is 6 and a half feet . The property is a
waterfront property. It also has a detached
22 framed garage . It' s in an R40 zone, pre-existing,
nonconforming lot with respect to lot area and lot
23 width.
We handed you out a neighborhood character
24 analysis for Long which shows on the cover how the
new house sits in relationship to the existing
25 house, and it gives you an aerial shot of the
neighborhood, and what you would immediately
March 2 , 2006
29
1
2 conclude is that all lots and nearly all
structures are nonconforming with respect to
3 dimensional setbacks .
We also have included in the file various
4 coverage calculations prepared by the surveyor,
Joseph Ingegno, and essentially with respect to
5 hard surfaces, they would increase from 27 . 1
percent to 24 . 4 percent . We submit that we meet
6 the criterion for granting the area variance in
that our analysis would show that the dwelling,
7 its location, its size, its scale would comport
with the neighborhood, that we cannot move forward
8 on this project without benefit of the variance
due to the nonconforming nature of the lot, that
9 the relief we seek is not substantial given again,
the constraints that we' re operating in and given
10 the character of the neighborhood, and that would
actually advance many of the environmental
11 protection goals of this Town and other agencies,
specifically including a new and upgraded septic
12 system that' s served by an existing cesspool
that' s undoubtedly in ground water and inadequate
13 for a dwelling of any size, that the project would
include full runoff control via dry wells and also
14 a French drain that surrounds the perimeter of the
property. And that the relative setbacks to the
15 side yard would be increased to 10 feet . So this
house would be centered on the lot where the
16 existing house is not, and that the setback
between the house and the bulkhead would also be
17 increased from where it is today. If you take a
close look at your survey, you will see the
18 footprints of the houses on either side, and
you' ll see that this is actually somewhat tucked
19 back between a line drawn between those two
houses . So we think the house is appropriately
20 sited. We have placed the septic system as far
landward as we could while preserving the gravel
21 parking area, and we have also provided the proper
dimensions . And we have been able to build this
22 type of septic system without building retaining
walls and the like so that it' s low. The wall
23 that surrounds the one property is literally one
foot above, it' s more like a curve . I think our
24 analysis speaks for itself . I welcome you to page
through it if you like, and I' m here to answer any
25 questions you may have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your height to the
March 2 , 2006
30
1
2 ridge is 28 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: It ' s 28 feet shown on the
3 plan, the actual, but it will sit about two feet
above where existing grade is, and that' s for
4 things like pile caps, termite control, et
cetera. The overall height would be about 30 foot
5 6 inches above existing natural grade in front of
the house .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How does that compare
to the other homes in the area?
7 MR. ANDERSON: I think it ' s a little lower
than many of the homes because many of those homes
8 sit higher. We do show some of the photographs of
those homes and, of course, I 'm speaking to second
9 story houses . I believe this will be lower than
most of the houses we see that are two stories .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I think the
11 presentation is very complete, very clear,
documentation is very thorough. I don' t really
12 have any questions at this time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know, Mr .
Anderson, we' re always concerned about the closing
14 up of any side yards in the future . It appears
that the westerly side yard is the most clear
15 apart from, I don' t know what that is in the back
there .
16 MR. ANDERSON: You mean the distance
between the two houses?
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The distance
between the side yard and the property line,
18 10 ' 111 . What is this? Is this a brick walk? I
don' t know what it is .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s denoted as
brick; actually, could you approach?
20 MR. ANDERSON: It' s a platform, like a
patio.
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not an
outside fireplace or anything like that in the
22 making?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the concern
on my part is that that side yard continuously
24 remain open, and I would like to put a condition
in that that side yard remain open?
25 MR. ANDERSON: That' s acceptable .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s it .
March 2 , 2006
31
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to repeat that
point . The condition of keeping the side yard
3 open would be important, as seemed to be a more
attractive alternative to the applicant than
4 making the house smaller, which would, of course,
be a more elaborate way of solving the same
5 problem. But if the side yard could be kept open
to the satisfaction of Mr. Goehringer and the
6 Board, that would be the more economical solution.
MR. ANDERSON: That' s acceptable .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak on this
8 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
9 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
a swimming pool for Carol Festa and Thomas Geppel
11 on Harborview Avenue in Mattituck.
MS . FESTA: I'm here to request a variance
12 to put a pool in an area other than my rear yard.
The issues currently with locating the pool in the
13 rear yard first and foremost are the location of
the septic system, which is in the rear yard. In
14 addition, the rear yard also includes a sizable
area that' s 20 by 30 feet, as well as a fenced in
15 vegetable garden which is 20 by 30 feet as
well . So putting in a pool would probably mean
16 moving those at considerable expense and time,
which preference is not to do that .
17 As far as setback, where we' re proposing
to put the pool currently, we' re basically 120 and
18 122 feet respectively from the road and 48 feet
from our nearest neighbor. The pool will be
19 tastefully done . We will have plantings
surrounding the pool to camouflage it as much as
20 possible into the landscape . And essentially
that' s what I'm requesting today.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a little bit
of a slope there?
22 MS . FESTA: Right, and basically the pool
would be put in where the slope levels off .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So in fact the
siting will create a location for the pool that
24 will be below the grade of the road?
MS . FESTA: Right . The side road.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From Harborview.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a curious
March 2 , 2006
32
1
2 property because it' s quite large with enormous
setbacks from the two roads ; was the house located
3 at the time in order to make it higher than the
rest of the property?
4 MS . FESTA: I feel we were restricted
because we have a massive glacial rock on our
5 property, and so because of that rock, we really
had limited places to put the home . So basically
6 our location was based on where that rock was
located on the property.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you' re the
original owner of the home?
8 MS . FESTA: Yes, we built the home .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern
I had was I was there on a very cold day, and I do
10 realize it' s winter, but I didn' t see any stakes
where the pool was going; are they there now?
11 MS . FESTA: No.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess that' s
12 not really an issue at this point . Is there any
landscape plan that you' re anticipating in
13 reference to landscaping around the pool that you
would like to offer to the Board?
14 MS . FESTA: It is my desire to, as I said,
camouflage it . I don' t want to be looking at a
15 fence . The area itself is very nicely treed, and
I want to preserve .that feeling of nature, and
16 again, have it be aesthetically pleasing. The
last thing I want is looking at a metal fence or
17 what have you.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It wouldn' t be in
18 keeping with your home anyway.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
19 say, however, if someone did object to it at this
hearing, then we may ask for a landscaping plan.
20 I mean, I may ask for a landscaping plan, I don' t
know about the rest of the Board.
21 MS . FESTA: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it' s very
clear, the septic system in the rear yard does
23 create a very narrow condition, not really
appropriate for a location of this sort of pool,
24 particularly of that size . So I ' d be interested
to see in how you want to propose developing the
25 screening around it, but short of that I have no
question.
March 2 , 2006
33
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on
3 this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
4 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
5 - - -----------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
6 Jonathan Zang on Takaposha Road in Southold.
MS . MOORE : I have Nancy Steelman with me
7 today, Mr. Zang couldn' t be here because of the
weather so he apologizes .
8 For those of you who have gotten down
there --
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, we did.
MS . MOORE : Good, I'm very glad you did
10 because I don' t think anybody could appreciate
this road unless you went down it . So you know
11 that Takaposha is a private road with only five
homes on this road. The property is surrounded by
12 45 acres, one parcel is 45 acres, this house I
believe was built in the ' 60s . It' s been owned in
13 the same family since that time . Mr. Zang I
believe is the son, the second generation and time
14 has come to invest in the house and really bring
it to current standards .
15 The renovation of any of these houses, and
you saw the one that you first approach as you' re
16 heading toward the Zang property, you saw that on
the only other waterfront house must have gotten
17 renovated in the last 10 years because it had to
comply with the FEMA standards, that generally is
18 the reason why some of these homes require such
significant renovations, because you have to bring
19 them into compliance not only for hurricane and
state code standards but the FEMA regulations . So
20 when they discussed the degree of improvements, it
became very obvious that there was going to be a
21 need for significant change to the house, bringing
the finished floor elevation to the appropriate
22 height .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What elevation are
23 they?
MS . MOORE : Actually the finished floor is
24 right on the plans, it' s 9 . 8 is the top of the
finished floor elevation.
25 MS . STEELMAN: 9 . 8 is what we' re proposing
the, the elevation required is elevation 8 . This
March 2 , 2006
34
1
2 9 . 8 is based on the sanitary system which we had
to raise above groundwater.
3 MS . MOORE : For obvious reasons water
doesn' t run uphill . The existing house has
4 maintained a certain setback to the bulkhead,
which is the variance we require . We have
5 maintained that setback to the greatest extent
possible . The only encroachment into that is that
6 bay window that' s shown. So the existing house,
as you can see, is at 65 . 7 and the closest point
7 is 63 . As Nancy pointed out, as soon as you do
renovations of this nature, you need sanitary
8 approval and the sanitary has to comply. When
this house was designed, it actually got designed
9 around the sanitary system since that was the
biggest environmental obstacle as far as meeting
10 all the regulatory requirements . We have complied
with all the regulatory agencies . We have
11 obtained Trustee approval, the DEC is right now
pending because of a side distance, although we
12 are bulkheaded and I have shown the DEC that we
preexist the 77 regulations, they take the
13 position that if you have wetlands that come from
a diagonal source, even though you' re bulkheaded,
14 you still need to go through a permit process, so
we are still proceeding in that and DEC always
15 takes the longest . The garage is presently
proposed as detached. The other area variance we
16 need is a garage that' s slightly in the side yard
because of its location. As you can notice that
17 on the plans the garage actually does not have to
be FEMA compliant, so that obviously you can bring
18 a car in without going up a ramp, it is at
elevation 6 . 1 . So the garage will be lower in
19 stature than the house . It is conforming with
respect to setback to the sides . With respect to
20 the front yard setback, we did, and would like to
point out that the Nancy, and in your file I
21 believe you have this because it wasn' t an issue,
you have here, if you need it, the average setback
22 was calculated in determining the setback of the
house . The houses that are along this street - -
23 MS . STEELMAN: We took the average
structure with the three existing structures along
24 the road, and our setback is 26 ' 311 . Now, the
garage is 19 feet so we' re really looking for
25 relief on about seven feet or so on that . We
wouldn' t be required to meet the 35 feet because
March 2 , 2006
35
1
2 we' re using the average setback.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s also because
3 the garage is also partly in the side yard?
MS . MOORE : Right . We needed that
4 variance as well .
MS . STEELMAN: Which does meet code,
5 doesn' t it?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It does in part, in
6 part it doesn' t .
MS . MOORE : It can' t be completely within
7 the setbacks because it would actually bring our
variance on the house, if we were to make it part
8 part of the house, it would make our request for a
variance before this Board for the house much
9 greater.
MS . STEELMAN: Our first phase of this
10 design process was actually to use the existing
structure, and we actually went down and looked at
11 the existing foundation and it wasn' t a footing,
and through further structural analysis we
12 couldn' t add anything to it . We had to raise it,
we had to do so many things, even just to raise
13 actually several concrete blocks onto this
foundation would have been a real problem. So I
14 just want to make that point, that' s why we
decided to go with a new house and tear down the
15 existing.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
16 question? This is not on pilings, this is a
breakaway foundation?
17 MS . STEELMAN: This is on pilings as
proposed. Currently it' s on a concrete block
18 foundation with no footings .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No . I think your
site strategy is very clear and visible . You
20 don' t have much choice really.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice spot, if you can
21 get down there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Last question,
22 all of that depression area and the rear yard area
is all going to be changed; the elevation is going
23 to be brought up to grade toward the water?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
24 MS . STEELMAN: That is, and that has been
all approved and with the Trustees, we' re raising
25 that, and we' re also raising the bulkhead because
the bulkhead is very low. We' re going 18 inches
March 2 , 2006
36
1
2 on the bulkhead that ' s all been approved. What
we' re trying to do is trying to minimize this
3 house sitting up on the pilings . So we' re
bringing the grade as up as close as we can around
4 the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Softens the whole
5 effect . How about that road?
MS . MOORE : We don' t own the road.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Who owns the road?
MS . STEELMAN: I believe what I have
7 gathered it ' s a right of way over the 45 acres of
land. But the way they have used it, and it' s
8 been named as a road, but I think it' s a right of
way.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s got to be
brought up to some standard.
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You couldn' t get fire
equipment down there or anything.
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s possible that
the Board will put conditions on that will require
12 specs and it will be part of the building permit
if you can get a CO.
13 MS . MOORE : I ' m glad you' re mentioning
these things because I think the owner of the 45
14 acres is this gentleman that' s about to stand up.
So you might discuss with him the condition of the
15 road. To the extent that a property owner can do
some patchwork, but how much they can do on the
16 land that doesn' t belong to them, we don' t want to
end up in litigation over that issue . The worst
17 parts are further down closer to Bay Avenue . I
saw there were some gullies that were created.
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Actually some of
the bad areas are as you come over the little
19 bridge .
MS . MOORE : But it' s very tricky to put
20 fill, particularly with the Trustees and so on,
you' d have to be very cautious about making this
21 application conditioned on anything like that
because common sense you do a little packing, a
22 little filling, but you start getting involved
with any extensive work the DEC and the Trustees
23 would have a very long process to make you go
through.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is it about eight
feet wide?
25 MS . MOORE : The road right now is about
two car widths, that could pass .
March 2 , 2006
37
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Barely.
MS . MOORE : In various parts, but as I
3 said, it only gives access to five homes, really
three homes on this side, two homes on the
4 opposite side . So there' s really very little
cross traffic . I think everybody that lives on
5 one side of the road and comes in and out the one
end, and the people that live off the pond go in
6 and out from the other.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
7 that would like to speak on this application? Sir?
MR. FALLON: My name is James V. Fallon,
8 Jr. I am an attorney with Fallon and Fallon LLP,
53 Main Street, Sayville, New York.
9 My former neighbor is Julius Blocker, and
I ' m representing Julius Blocker; he is the owner
10 of those 45 acres they talked about . And he' s the
one directly affected. He owns the property to
11 the west, to the east and to the north. He wants
to be reasonable . He actually put water in
12 through a right of way, which they all have the
benefit of, which he didn' t have to do, and he has
13 no objection to the part of the relief from the
bulkhead, the 75 feet, it only improves the
14 property, and there' s an existing structure there
anyhow, but the garage part, that we object to.
15 It is the only property that' s going to
have a detached garage, there is no reason for a
16 detached garage . I believe if you check your code
they may need to be 35 feet back for the garage as
17 an accessory structure, not a main structure, you
can perhaps check that out, and all you have to
18 do -- there' s no necessity for this application,
it' s one of convenience more than necessity. All
19 you have to do is push the garage back a little
bit . I mean, I ran some square footages, if you
20 push the garage back and attach it to the house,
those two variances disappear. You would end up
21 maybe one foot more into the house as you go from
the north to south, towards the water, and maybe
22 six to eight feet or so into the house . You lose
very little square footage, and he could increase
23 that square footage, simply by having the 18 ' 4 "
setback, which he shows on the west, he could
24 increase it to the 15 foot side, no problem. He
could go over the garage if you wanted to build
25 extra space; in other words, he doesn' t need to
have a separate garage to get all the square
March 2 , 2006
38
1
2 footage that he wants . That is an objection that
my client has . There' s no necessity for this .
3 It ' s convenience, and there' s no good grounds for
this application -- that part of the variance .
4 With respect to the distance from the
Little Peconic Bay, that' s not an issue . My
5 client has owned the property since 1967 so he
predates everything. He himself will have some
6 difficulty. He tried to put a house up a little
bit to the west, had some objections, withdrew all
7 applications . He' ll be looking to do something
with it, and now with all these new codes and
8 everything else he has to deal with, which I ' m
trying to figure out and really haven' t gotten
9 through, it will be difficult enough. I figure at
some point as always, he will end up going through
10 the Planning Department, they always look at it,
and they will probably want some sort of
11 clustering, depending on how we do it, and a
couple of pieces I think might be prime for that
12 are the pieces right next to Mr. Zang. So we' re
concerned about having something that might impact
13 us . We don' t want something too close to the
front, and that' s an issue that we do have .
14 I don' t know about the front yard setback,
the average front yard setbacks . I don' t know,
15 did they include Mr. ,Zang' s existing structure in
that or not? I have no way of telling, I haven' t
16 seen that part .
MS . MOORE : We did.
17 MR. FALLON: So if they did that' s not
really concern there . But the garage there, I can
18 see no absolute necessity for the garage, just
connect it .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is your objection,
sir, based on aesthetic grounds or some other?
20 MR. FALLON: No. Under the law as I
understand it, they have to show that they have a
21 real need for it, that it can' t be handled in some
other manner, that they really have a need for a
22 variance, and they don' t have any need for the
variance . All they have to do is connect the
23 garage, change the structure so it fits . There' s
no necessity for that .
24 MS . MOORE : We have an answer for you . I
think they need to bring out their drawing. If
25 you have four in your file . If you want, I ' ll
just come up and show you as well .
March 2 , 2006
39
1
2 MR. FALLON: They show it as a terrace,
but it' s an above-ground terrace in the front
3 connecting. I think under your code that probably
means that those two structures are attached
4 already. It' s not a separate garage .
MS . MOORE : They can be independent and
5 separate foundation, it is parallel to each other.
MR. FALLON: If you had ground level, yes,
6 but that' s not a terrace, that' s a deck .
MS . MOORE : That' s subject of the Building
7 Department, and they have reviewed it and it' s
permissible the way we have it . But I want to
8 point out a very important issue here . Remember I
started off by saying we designed this house
9 around the sanitary. If you notice that the
sanitary -- there is a wall that' s surrounds the
10 sanitary, that wall is the east side of the
proposed garage . The reason that you can see that
11 there are steps that go up over the mounded system
behind the wall, then it terraces up; the house is
12 on piles, so it' s going to be a visual break,
that' s why there is a terrace there . Remember the
13 garage can be set back further down without FEMA
compliance because it' s a detached garage . You
14 start attaching it you may have FEMA issues, as I
understand the Building Department will impose the
15 same FEMA requirements on the garage portion,
because it' s attached. So it really actually
16 benefits this client because the garage will
remain low, it will remain as an entrance without
17 it being significantly impacted by the FEMA
regulations . Keep in mind that right now, think
18 about it three dimensionally, the garage is low,
coming in it' s very close to the road, then you
19 have the terrace up above the mounded system. So
it ' s not so clear in the photocopy of this plan,
20 but the garage is actually attached more to the
sanitary wall than it is to the house .
21 MR. FALLON: I haven' t seen that FEMA
regulation, but I noticed that house without the
22 garage is roughly 2 , 200 square feet ground floor
alone . Before including it, you were talking
23 1, 387 , you haven' t even put the second -- you can
put that garage back in compliance and still have
24 a very large house . You' re overbuilding the
lot .
25 MS . STEELMAN: I ' d also like to make a
little bit of a clarification here . The other
March 2 , 2006
40
1
2 concern that we have in terms of the sanitary
systems, we need to maintain a 10 feet off of the
3 garage to the first pools there . So that' s also
setting the location further to the west because
4 of that . So that was one criteria we had to
really respect . The other issue that we felt
5 instead of having an attached garage, would just
make the massing of the house that much larger.
6 We thought by doing a separate structure that was
lower than the main part of the house that it
7 would be more visibly appealing. So I understand
his concern but I think the overall feeling of the
8 property is going to look a lot nicer with a
separate detached garage .
9 MR. FALLON: Mr. Blocker doesn' t share
that because that garage is going to be within
10 four feet of his property in the front yard area,
which concerns him. If it was with the house it
11 could be 15 feet; that' s a big difference . And we
still don' t see any reason for that . You built up
12 the house very big, no problem with rebuilding the
house, it' s not an issue, happy that he' s doing
13 it . The question of the garage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What your client
14 would like is that the garage be placed further to
the east, would not care that it was further to
15 the south; is that correct?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it' s adjoining the
16 house it could be moved to the south and adjoin
the house at that point, but would that satisfy
17 any of your client' s concerns?
MR. FALLON: We would like it back away
18 from the street and further away from his
property.
19 MS . MOORE : We cannot move it easterly
because of the sanitary wall . You must maintain
20 the 10 foot separation between any wall -- any
structure and the sanitary ring. The garage,
21 again, attaching it to the house, you' re going to
bring the volume of this house significantly.
22 You' re going to be entering from the side possibly
but the whole house is going to be raised,
23 including the garage, I don' t know physically how
you would do that because you wouldn' t have
24 sufficient area for a slope to go up into the
garage . Remember you have the garage and the
25 house now elevated finished floor at nine, and
you've got the ground, you have to bring your way
March 2 , 2006
41
1
2 up . It ' s going to look ridiculous .
MR. FALLON: Three feet .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you make the
garage any smaller?
4 MS . STEELMAN: We have a relatively small
two car garage now, we could go with a one car I
5 guess .
MS . MOORE : One and a half car, maybe .
6 MS . STEELMAN: Potentially I have to talk
with my client . I 'm sure he would prefer the two
7 car.
MS . MOORE : We have a compliant three foot
8 side yard. Keeping in mind he' s concerned as a
neighbor on the west, but the parcel that he owns
9 on the west, I think if he goes to get Planning
Board approval, he' s going to have issues from the
10 DEC about placement of any house on this property.
Remember, we are dealing with setbacks of his
11 wetlands from our existing house on a diagonal
certain distance . I think when he goes to build
12 in this particular spot, he' s going to find
himself with very little building envelope . It
13 may not be worth his while to put the house over
there . I think realistically, we' re dealing with
14 parcels on either side of this piece that probably
are not going to be developed because when you' re
15 looking at these 45 acres -- if he were to take
one lot, the 45 acres, he would have to comply
16 with front, rear, side setbacks that would be
tremendous in size because that' s what the code
17 requires for anything over 600 , 000 square feet .
He wouldn' t make it . He would need a tremendous
18 variance to put a little house right on this
little piece, and when you have 45 acres that just
19 doesn' t make sense . If I was talking to him about
placement of the house that would not be -- he
20 would be giving up a tremendous amount to try to
squeeze a house there . I think at one time he
21 wanted to put a house at the center of all the
right of ways, and I think that was objectionable
22 because he had so much acreage he could choose
from, rather than putting it in the center of the
23 loop, I remember that application being before
this Board. But aside from that, down the line
24 what he does with his property obviously he has to
talk to planners about it .
25 MR. FALLON: If I may just address that .
The problem is we have all sorts of new
March 2 , 2006
42
1
2 regulations . I've got to worry about him having
to pay $200, 000 if he wants to develop a
3 subdivision, $200 , 000 for two lots to take care of
that affordable housing issue, plus develop two
4 more lots of it, and have to sell them for I think
maybe $350 , 000 , that' s at a loss . If we don' t do
5 that, we have to go the other way, maybe
conservation easements . Whatever happens, we end
6 up at the Planning Department . They are going to
require clustering if we go through them. We
7 don' t know where we' re going to end up . All I
know is that if I look at this, where am I going
8 to look? Where am I going to be able to put --
give up some? I 'm looking at Mr. Zang' s property,
9 that' s one that appears to be not environmentally
sensitive; they have got a house on each side . I
10 just don' t want anything to effect what Mr. Block
is going to have to do in the future . And
11 correct, there was an application brought before
and he tried to build one house there, and he had
12 objections, and he tried to move it that way to
protect the wetlands . So it' s very important to
13 us to try to preserve it, not have a garage
neighbor what is going to be our look-out window
14 on the front . They can redesign this . This house
is over 2 , 000 square feet ground floor already
15 without even talking second floor. The lot is
only so big. You can only do so much with it , and
16 that' s his point . Again, from Little Peconic Bay,
God bless them, build the house, make it look
17 better, fine, no problem with that . But you start
putting structures towards his area, then we have
18 a problem because we don' t know what' s going to
happen with our application before the Town. I
19 thank you so much.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before you
20 leave, we have to discuss the condition of the
road.
21 MR. FALLON: That road is a right of way,
and I 'm looking to find out whether we own the bed
22 of the street or not . If we own the bed of the
street, we can do things; actually we can change
23 the right of way if we own it, regardless of what
the neighbors want . But I haven' t determined
24 that . If it' s only a right of way, we can' t do
much with that . Anyone can on a right of way --
25 as I understand the law and I could be
incorrect --. when you have a right of way, anyone
March 2 , 2006
43
1
2 is entitled to maintain the right of way to the
extent necessary to make access and this is
3 clearly an access type right of way.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 280A.
4 MR. FALLON: So anyone who has a right of
way is entitled to maintain it . If the right of
5 way was 50 feet, they would only be able to under
the current laws as I understand it, eight feet ,
6 10 feet, you can limit it to a certain size, but
any owner who has the right to use a right of way
7 can take care of it . But I haven' t finished
researching it, that' s a complicated issue . So
8 it' s not only my client that can take care of
it . My client doesn' t have a house there, he
9 tried to get a house there and he got stymied, but
the others can fill pot holes . But again, this
10 lady is absolutely correct, you always worry about
the DEC. They come in you put fill on an area
11 they think is environmentally sensitive, all of a
sudden you have a fine, they bring proceedings and
12 they' re very difficult .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ours is a little
13 different over the years and I 'm not speaking for
the Board, again, I'm speaking for myself . That
14 is, if you don' t get a 280A, you don' t 'get the
building permit, and that' s the story, because you
15 have to have approved access to the site, sir, and
I don' t care what the situation is . I don' t care
16 who has fee, and I don' t care very simply who has
the right of way over it . If I have a right of
17 way over it, and I'm looking for the building
permit, and this Board is so inclined to require
18 improvements then those are going to be done, and.
I don' t mean that in a sarcastic manner.
19 MR. FALLON: In other words, if they want
to get their permit, they have got to do something
20 with it . My point is it' s just not Julius, any
one of the people that have use of the right of
21 way can maintain it . That' s as I understand the
law. I may be wrong on that .
22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what
Mr. Goehringer' s trying to say is if the Board
23 requires an improvement of the right of way of the
applicant in order to grant the variance, then
24 that invokes -- I suspect that the lot owners
can' t just go and improve the right of way beyond
25 bare maintenance, I don' t think they can go pave
it or whatever the Board would require of them
March 2 , 2006
44
1
2 without approval of the owner of the land
underlying the right of way.
3 MR. FALLON: I see . I don' t know I ' d have
to check that with Mr. Block. He' s in Florida or
4 he would be here too, so I' m covering for him.
MS . MOORE : I think the Building
5 Department, common sense, the Building Department
generally goes out and asks the owners that are
6 there to do some patching voluntarily rather
than -- but again, this is all so sensitive, that
7 area, that I ' d be concerned that the Trustees,
everybody was on board keeping a safe -- you know,
8 putting a little bit of patch some of the dips in
the road doesn' t trigger. $2 , 000 fines from other
9 agencies . That' s always a concern. You can have
contractors I think they' re sensitive to that as
10 well .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm just going
11 to make a statement and that is a very simple
statement . I've been in rescue and fire for 38
12 years . I' ve been on this Board for 27 years, and
I would not go down that right of way unless it
13 was frozen, and I did not go down that right of
way unless it was frozen, and to this date I will
14 not go down that right of way unless the ground is
frozen. So therefore the road is determined by me
15 as one member of this Board to be impassable when
it is thawing.
16 MS . MOORE : For the record, we were there
during this very mild winter, it was passable . We
17 did not get stuck, even despite I have the Volvo
with the four wheel drive, you can get in there .
18 Yes, there are ruts in the road, but it' s
certainly passable . All of these homes, people
19 are there, their cars, and I think Mr. Zang has a
little sedan that' s not a four wheel drive sedan.
20 So it is passable and we welcome you to go down
there . So don' t be afraid to go there, you won' t
21 get stuck, it is passable .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: According to your
22 drawing of the building, the garage looks as
though it is attached on that last sheet .
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Where it says 3D
effect on that .
24 MS . STEELMAN: No, that' s further behind;
that, the little sun room is way in the back.
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The garage, does it
have a floor area on the second floor of the
March 2 , 2006
45
1
2 garage?
MS . STEELMAN: It has storage, there' s
3 storage there primarily because with the piling
foundation we don' t have any additional storage .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the square
footages of the floors because there were no
5 dimensions on any of these plans .
MS . STEELMAN: The existing footprint of
6 the existing house is around 1, 900 square feet ;
that does include a one car garage . The footprint
7 of the house only is 2 , 000 square feet, and the
garage is approximately 380 square feet .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You said the
proposed house is 2 , 000 on the first floor.
9 MS . STEELMAN: And then the garage is a
little less than 400 .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then the second
floor of the house is?
11 MS . STEELMAN: I think 1, 500 .
MR. FALLON: Could I ask how high that
12 garage is; does that have a second story to it?
MS . MOORE : It has storage space above it .
13 It ' s under 18 .
MR. FALLON: So it' s got extra height
14 anyhow?
MS . MOORE : The second floor is 1, 550
15 square feet . Somebody want that?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the house
16 to the ridge?
MS . MOORE : That I know is on the plans .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The height to the
top of the ridge on the garage is 231311 , and the
18 house to the top of the ridge is?
MS . STEELMAN: I don' t have the dimensions
19 with me, it' s probably close to 26 , 27 .
MR. FALLON: I know you have a busy
20 schedule, so I'm going to sit down. Just one
thing, I think if you check, regardless of what
21 you say, that terrace is stone, on sand and is
elevated; I think that constitutes a structure
22 under your code . It is a deck, not a terrace and
it attaches to two buildings .
23 MS . STEELMAN: It' s built on sand so it' s
not a structure .
24 MR. FALLON: It' s not a structure if
there' s any materials elevated. It' s certainly
25 not a patio . That' s the way I read the code . I
just make mention. Thank you so much.
March 2 , 2006
46
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on this
3 application? I make a motion to close the hearing
and reserve decision until later.
4 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is
for Shinn Vineyard and Barbara Shinn for a bed and
6 breakfast .
MS . DOTY: Barb Shinn and her husband
7 David Page are here with me today. And I 've been
representing them since 1999 when they purchased
8 the property, and I have a distinct recollection
of standing outside the closing; they were so
9 knighted because they were taking the first steps
of realizing their dream, which was to buy an old
10 farmhouse with lots of acres, to plant grape vines
and to open a B & B . And now we' re at that last
11 stage of trying to get the B & B open.
You have the application. We have two
12 parts of the application, one is for a special
exception for a B & B if with four guest rooms for
13 the part of the house that' s more than 100 years
old, and the second is a front yard setback of
14 about three and a half feet .
I'm not going to go through each of the
15 criteria on the special exception unless you wish
me to, but I think the key here is that they' re
16 preserving and restoring an old farmhouse that' s
been there . It' s the old Tuthill farmhouse . It' s
17 been there for about 100 years . It' s that portion
of the house that' s going to have the four guest
18 bedrooms . They' re going to add an addition onto
the back of the house that is not part of this
19 application at all . And as part of the
application here before this Board we need --
20 we' re requesting a variance of about three and a
half feet off the front of the house .
21 There' s adequate parking that' s being
provided on the site plan, the road frontage
22 access for emergency vehicles is not a problem as
we all know, it will be a rural, country B & B
23 with to die-for views as far as I' m concerned.
And all the surrounding properties or virtually
24 all the surrounding properties are open farm
fields . Nursery stock, vineyards, potatoes, what
25 have you.
The reason for the request for the
March 2 , 2006
47
1
2 variance is that this is a 100 year old farmhouse
and about a hundred years ago they were putting
3 houses real close to the road, made it easier to
get in and get out . And the house is now located
4 39 feet from the road. And as part of our design
for the B & B, Barbara wishes to put a gazebo on
5 on the northwest corner, which means we' re
extending about three and a half feet into the
6 front yard. So we' re only going to have about 36
and a half feet setback. It' s not a large bump
7 out, and it' s not a space that' s going to be used
for living quarters . Rather, it' s going to be
8 part of a screen porch for the guests to use to go
sit on a summer evening drinking a little bit of
9 the wine from the vineyard and looking at sunsets .
It ' s not self-created because we know where the
10 sun sets, and it' s the northwest corner of the
house that gazebo is going to be located. There
11 will be no adverse change in the neighborhood.
The lots up there are all very large . The one to
12 the west is now nursery stock, development rights
have been sold on that , and the buildings are
13 clustered in the southwest corner of that
lot . Behind our lot is a vineyard, it' s a
14 vineyard, I couldn' t get up there, it' s a vineyard
on which development rights are sold, that' s the
15 southern lot . To the east is a huge working farm,
and to the north is a large I think it' s 58 acres,
16 farm field. So there' s not going to be a huge
impact by adding a B & B or giving a three and a
17 half foot variance for a gazebo . As I said,
there' s really no other way of achieving that
18 gazebo on that corner given where the sun sets and
all of that . So I'm going to request that you
19 grant this special exception.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
20 question because I have to write it? I just need
to refer to some of the feelings that I have . By
21 the way I can tell you that my first meeting with
the Shinns was wonderful and it will always remain
22 that way, and they' re wonderful people and we were
discussing the magnificent job they did in the
23 reconstruction of the barn at one time .
Can we just define the uses on the
24 property for a minute? Can we call this property
a winery, or can we call this property just a
25 vineyard; do they have a tasting room now at this
point?
March 2 , 2006
48
1
2 MS . DOTY: Yes, they do have a tasting
room in the back.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a farm winery.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Depending upon
4 if they make the wine there or not, which has no
bearing, it' s their own grapes or whatever the
5 case may be, can we still call it a winery? Are
we still going to call it a winery?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Shinn says
7 no.
MS . DOTY: Mr. Shinn is actually David
8 Page .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re right ,
9 I' m sorry, David.
MR. PAGE : The state of New York and the
10 federal government regulate the name "winery" and
a winery is a bonded winery. The only part of our
11 property that is considered a winery by the state
of New York or the federal government is the
12 building where the tasting room is or where the
winery is .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that is one
of the uses on the property? That' s all I' m
14 interested, I' m just trying to define the uses on
the property.
15 MS . DOTY: There' s also a vineyard.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then we
16 eventually will have a bed and breakfast as an
accessory use, but it' s still a permit which is a
17 use .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not a
18 permitted principal use .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm not asking
19 for principal use .
MS . DOTY: It' s only for one year at a
20 time and they have to live there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . And all
21 the out buildings are used by yourself and the
Shinn family, right?
22 MS . DOTY: Actually, no . One right now,
the potato barn is rented out .
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The one on the
west side?
24 MS . DOTY: Yes, but my understanding is
the lease is up, and they' re taking back over that
25 building, otherwise everything is used in
connection with the vineyard, and that is
March 2 , 2006
49
1
2 literally in the process of happening, meaning the
lease is over and the trucks are being removed.
3 The tenant will be leaving, although everybody has
sort of sad feelings about that , but in any
4 event --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
5 ask that question, Miss Doty, is because under the
standards of a special exception it' s interesting
6 to know exactly what are the uses on the property,
and although we have a large piece of property
7 here, it' s not site specific to a 20 , 000 square
foot lot , it' s site specific to an entire parcel .
8 So that' s why I just asked the uses, I have to
write this .
9 MS . DOTY: The uses are confined also to a
very small area because of the fact that --
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The grapes are
out there?
11 MS . DOTY: Not only that, but the
development rights were sold for the balance of
12 the land.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just took out that one
13 parcel .
MS . DOTY: We love that lot so we can' t
14 put the B & B anyplace else .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why would you want
15 to anyway. I finally got into the old building
this week.
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to put on
the record that I was there on Tuesday
17 afternoon. I inspected the house and I ' m sure the
B & B will be quite lovely, and I wish them well
18 doing it . I think it' s a great idea.
MR. PAGE : Thank you.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a minor
theoretical question, the gazebo in principal
20 could be applied for even if there were no B & B
and vice versa.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re unrelated
22 legally or logically,
MS . DOTY: Correct . The special exception
23 is a separate thing and we could very well be here
just for the three and a half variance for the
24 gazebo but because we wanted to do it all at
once --
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a while you' re
at it .
March 2 , 2006
50
1
2 MS . DOTY: Right . I love being here but I
don' t want to be here again.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architecturally in
addition to prevailing views, it' s also related to
4 the elevation with the bow windows on the sides .
Compositionally a reasonable thing to do .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
6 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ----- -------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is
for Anthony and Susan Napolitano on Cleaves Point
9 Road for a swimming pool .
MR. NAPOLITANO : Good afternoon, me and my
10 wife Susan Napolitano, 200 Cleaves Point Road,
East Marion, New York are requesting a rear yard
11 variance .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . We were there
12 for your swimming pool . Miss Weisman and I were
there the other day. It was just one corner we
13 were talking about . You' re really keeping the
pool next to the house?
14 MR. NAPOLITANO: I'm doing my best trying
to work within all the different regulations,
15 setbacks . The front yard has cesspools in it,
and --
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re rather limited?
MR. NAPOLITANO: Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the questions
we commonly ask is could the swimming pool be
18 located someplace else or closer to the house, and
the answer is, no, this is the best place .
19 MR. NAPOLITANO : That' s correct , sir.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it ' s
certainly a beautiful piece of property. I 'm
21 going to give you the same lip service we were
talking about in Mattituck, and that is that you
22 have one side yard that looks like it should
remain open, and we need to keep it remaining
23 open, which is that 10 foot area over on that one
side . So in granting this, if you want my vote,
24 you need to put a restriction on it .
MR. NAPOLITANO : That' s not a problem, I
25 intended to keep that open.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great , thank
March 2 , 2006
51
1
2 you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone in the audience
wish to comment on this application? If not , I ' ll
6 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Cacioppo on Inlet Way in Southold, and I believe
9 we were here before . Mr. Fitzgerald, how nice to
see you.
10 MR. FITZGERALD : Good afternoon. When
last we talked about this and when last you saw
11 the survey, the proposed addition was four feet
larger, it was 24 ' by 24 ' , and the connecting
12 hallway was four feet longer. It was reduced this
way because the Trustees needed us to be further
13 from the wetlands, but the property, of course --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t really have
14 that much room to put the garage in that area .
MR. FITZGERALD: No. And it' s the
15 universal problem of first the triangular lot ,
and, secondly, it' s a triangular corner lot with
16 wetlands on the other side .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
17 MR. FITZGERALD : So the proposed location
of the garage will use up some of the existing
18 deck surrounding the pool, and we cut it back as
far as Mr. Cacioppo, who is a designer, felt that
19 it couldn' t go any further back without seriously
compromising the aesthetic appeal of the house .
20 For what it' s worth, the proposed garage
is 42 feet from the road, although it' s only 20
21 feet from the front property line . And those of
you that were there to inspect it know that it' s
22 unlikely that passersby on that road are going to
be offended by or probably even see the new
23 construction if we are able to do that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see though that in
24 your driveway you have a timber wall that' s going
out into actually part of the Cedar Point Drive
25 East .
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes, all that
March 2 , 2006
52
1
2 construction including the driveway and those
retaining walls is something that apparently from
3 the property card had been there for essentially
forever. The house was built before 1973 , and
4 then it was built in this location on that
relatively steep front yard slope and necessitated
5 all these gyrations .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Jerry?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald,
I don' t think I was part of the first hearing. I
7 looked at it originally in its original site, but
what is the purpose of the second story?
8 MR. FITZGERALD: It' s going to be living
space, Jerry.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to
live in the garage?
10 MR. FITZGERALD : Living space on the
second floor.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a proposed
hallway, right?
12 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes . And that' s why the
terminology "hallway" is used, and the Building
13 Department says as long as it' s completely
enclosed and completely conditioned, it makes it
14 part of the main building.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the stone driveway
will have to be slightly redesigned in order to
16 make room for that jog?
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes, I think that' s
17 right, but we' re not quite sure about that . We' re
hoping that it will not be a significant change .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No further
questions .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
21 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for
Terry McLaughlin on Old Salt Road, Mattituck, for
24 a pool . Hello again.
MS . QUIGLEY: I'm representing the
25 McLoughlins on I believe it' s a front yard
variance technically, they back onto Bay Avenue
March 2 , 2006
53
1
2 and the pool will be approximately I believe 180
feet from Bay Avenue into their back yard. We
3 have a considerable amount of property
there . We' re placing it 11 feet off the garage
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s really kind of
keeping it all in their back yard.
5 MS . QUIGLEY: Right into the front part of
their back yard.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Michael, do you
have any questions?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. I just was sort
of puzzled. The reason for this application is
8 that this huge back lawn is technically a second
front yard because it fronts on another street ;
9 was that ever a buildable lot or it' s very narrow
I guess?
10 MS . QUIGLEY: It' s very narrow, I don' t
think it would be buildable, no .
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s essentially a
huge back yard which technically fronts on what' s
12 now a portion of the next street . I don' t have a
problem with that
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I live in the
14 area, I have no problems .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The plans are not
to move any of the small parapet walls, just to
16 install the pool around it?
MS . QUIGLEY: Right .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
19 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
i Ovlasid Reality, LLC on Cedar Beach Road in
22 Southold. Miss Moore .
MS . MOORE : I have Mr. DiSalvo here, Tom
23 Cramer, I know you all know from Cramer
Consulting. I don' t know if there are people here
24 in the audience, because I know you've been
getting lots of letters, and the problem is I
25 don' t think they understand what we have as a
permitted use here . We have a hamlet business
March 2 , 2006
54
1
2 zoned parcel, half hamlet business, half AC, with
the General Wayne on it, which has a CO for a
3 restaurant and hotel . We also have what
Mr . DiSalvo proposed to do was do a residential
4 subdivision, and the reason it comes before this
Board is that rather than have three hamlet
5 business sized lots that are conforming, all on
Cedar Beach Road and the one AC lot, which is Lot
6 4 , it made more sense, and we really thought the
Planning Board should be tickled pink that we were
7 coming in with this type of application, is to
make four equally sized parcels that are actually
8 in excess of the sizes of the lots in this area .
Essentially Mr. DiSalvo is coming and voluntarily
9 upzoning his own property, and eliminating a use
that has historically been a problem for the
10 community because the restaurant and the bar and
the dancing and the noise, just the historic use
11 of the General Wayne Inn has been a sore point in
this community. So I was quite surprised when I
12 saw a recommendation from the Planning Board that
that seemed completely inconsistent with good
13 planning. But nonetheless, I have Mr. Cramer
here, who is a planner, and who can provide some
14 information, and we hope will persuade you
otherwise .
15 The first issue is whether there will be
an undesirable change to the character of the
16 community. Again, we point out that this is
hamlet business zoned property, which can have
17 several very intense commercial uses on it . The
lots as we -- the yield map that we provided that
18 showed where the lots as conforming HE lots would
be, would be three 20 , 000 square foot lots along
19 Cedar Beach Road. We also have a zoning line that
falls outside the minimum lot sizes and the extra
20 acreage that actually falls in Hamlet Business is
4 , 440 square feet . So we have excess Hamlet
21 Business zoned parcel, which arguably is at four
times the density of AC because HE is obviously
22 much more intensive than AC.
We have Lot 4 , which is the 4 , 440 square
23 feet plus the 69, 936 square feet, that comprises
of what would be the Lot 4 . The only reason we' re
24 under the AC -- the 80 , 000 square foot requirement
is because the client owns to the halfway point of
25 Clearview Road, and that area is not calculated
into the lot coverage requirement . However, he
March 2 , 2006
55
1
2 brought for me this evening, because I needed a
copy of the deed to prove that we, in fact, do own
3 the road, and he provided very interesting
analysis from First American,, which I will submit
4 to the Board and have it in the record which shows
the title history here . It shows that back from
5 1926 , when this parcel was an out parcel of the
subdivision, it actually included Cedar Beach
6 Drive, Cedar Beach Road, Orient Lane, and
Clearview Road, which adjoined the premises and to
7 the center line thereof . So in 1926 , when this
parcel was created, it actually owned to the
8 halfway point of all the roads, Clearview,
Orchard, Cedar and the other one -- in any case,
9 the surrounding parcels, they actually owned to
the halfway point .
10 So this could have been done as a two-step
application. It didn' t make sense to do it that
11 way, but you have to think of it in those terms .
We have three conforming HB lots, we don' t need to
12 touch. We have the one AC lot, which is just
under because of the current definition in the
13 code, but not from the 1926 deeds and presently he
owns and has actual acreage so that the Lot 4 , in
14 fact, is excess of the two acre lot requirement .
That application, Application Number 1, would have
15 been for an area variance for Lot 4 . What we
don' t agree with is when we asked the Planning
16 Board, instead of having this configuration with
an area variance for one over-sized lot, and I ' ll
17 have Tom speak in a moment with respect to the
surrounding properties, instead of doing it that
18 way, Planning Board, use your planning policies,
use your subdivision authority and let' s move the
19 lot and configure the parcel in such a way that
it' s a best plan development, taking it as one
20 large piece of property and configuring the lots
around it .
21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The only
problem here, Pat, is that the Planning Board does
22 not have the legal authority to create undersized
lots in the zoning districts . That' s why we' re
23 here . We' re here so let' s not sort of re-argue
what the Planning Board should have done .
24 MS . MOORE : May I finish?
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Of course .
25 MS . MOORE : Step 2 is saying Planning
Board, we want to move one of the HB lots into the
March 2 , 2006
56
1
2 AC zoning district . Because of the interpretation
the attorney has given and the Building Department
3 has taken, we need a second variance because we' re
moving what would otherwise be a 20 , 000 conforming
4 lot into the AC, and we' re asking for a variance
because now we want to create two lots in the AC
5 that are not two acres in size .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that
6 you' re asking for a variance in order to push the
remaining HB area into AC' s area; you need a
7 variance in order to upzone?
MS . MOORE : No, no, no. We have three HB
8 lots .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: She' s asking
9 to take density from one zone and move it into
another zone, an adjoining zone .
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You have one lot
now, right? It' s split zoned, and the yield on it
11 might be three lots as a maximum, not four. So
you' re here because you want to increase it from
12 the three lots that you might be allowed to four.
You' re asking for an extra lot . And that' s where
13 you start from at the Zoning Board.
MS . MOORE : I think that we need to
14 establish at least on the record.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Maybe you misspoke,
15 but I think you originally talked about four
equal-sized properties . You' re talking about one
16 big one and three otherwise . If you already had
four equal-sized properties, we wouldn' t be here .
17 MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, I'm assuming that
you've seen the subdivision map . This is the
18 yield map that we have provided to the Planning
Board. You can see the three 20 , 000 square foot
19 lots with the one Lot 4 , which is the AC. And the
AC, as you point out, because the road is deducted
20 from the acreage, brings it just under the 80 , 000 .
What we want to do is take what were the three
21 lots over here, make these two lots larger,
otherwise the yield that you would have in the HB
22 and move it so you would have three -- four evenly
sized parcels . It' s probably basic planning to do
23 that .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The point that
24 was raised, though, you start from a premise that
your yield allows three conforming lots and the
25 fourth one isn' t conforming, so you don' t have as
of right to the fourth lot . You have as of right
March 2 , 2006
57
1
2 to three lots, and you' re seeking four lots .
MS . MOORE : We are seeking four lots,
3 there is no doubt . The interpretation the
Planning Board gave us as to whether or not we
4 have a yield is a very, very strict interpretation
of whether or not we have the ability to put in --
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We would be here even
if the Planning Board hadn' t announced anything.
6 MS . MOORE : Yes . We would still need to
come to you for at least one lot .
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s not really
useful to address what the Planning Board said
8 when you' re addressing this Board.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In fairness,
9 the Zoning Board did ask the Planning Board for
its input, which it gave .
10 MS . MOORE : Yes, and I received that
recommendation, which I'm assuming you have in
11 your file and you read, and we don' t necessarily
agree with it .
12 Tom, maybe we can provide some information
with respect to the surrounding property at this
13 point .
MR. CRAMER: For the record, my name is
14 Thomas Cramer, principal of Cramer Consulting
Group, offices at 54 North Country Road, Miller
15 Place .
Mr. DiSalvo came to me a couple of years
16 ago and discussed this as far as the opportunities
that he might have in developing this property,
17 looking at the existing zoning, the HE and the AC
on the side . We went through several different
18 concept sketches, and I know Mr. DiSalvo has also
been approached by several developers and people
19 interested in the property that were suggesting
other types of layouts and utilizations of the
20 site . Most of them looking at multi-family or
reopening the General Wayne or doing something
21 like that .
Mr. DiSalvo wishes to preserve the
22 residential character on the site, particularly
concerned with a number of large trees on the
23 property that exists, many of them that are in
excess of 100 years old.
24 We sat down and we worked out this concept
that we have here before you of the four lots .
25 Again, we' re recognizing that there are three
conforming lots that conform to the zoning under
March 2 , 2006
58
1
2 the HD zoning, and then the one, the AC, would be
just slightly under the zoning requirements if you
3 have to exclude the area of the roadway, which he
does own.
4 If you take a look at the lots in the
surrounding area, there' s some 28 lots in the area
5 of the site . Three of these are large and could
be further subdivided. The majority of them have
6 already been subdivided and wouldn' t be able to be
subdivided anymore . If you consider the smallest
7 lot that we' re proposing in the subdivision at
35, 993 square feet, with the average lot size of
8 36 , 177 square feet, within the area, there are 12
lots that are smaller than our smallest parcel and
9 13 lots that are smaller than the average sized
lots . I think that equals approximately 52
10 percent conformity to the area .
If you look at the site and propose a
11 layout that conforms to the zoning, which is the
three lots and we have to seek a variance on the
12 AC lot, we then come up with 21 lots that are
larger than the 20 , 000 square foot lots that are
13 proposed, or 85 percent of the lots . So these
three lots would be out of character with the
14 area .
If you look at the AC lot that we' re
15 proposing, there are 22 lots that are smaller than
the AC lot, or 88 percent . So both the small lot
16 and the large lot are out of character with the
area. And what we' re proposing with the four lots
17 of approximately equal size fit more into the
character of the area of the site . They also
18 allow us to better locate houses on the site to
preserve the large, historic trees that are on the
19 site .
If you look at the HB zoning, we could
20 theoretically, rather than individual lots, we
could place and obtain at least six units of
21 multi-family on that as well as seek a variance
for the AC. Again, the AC, as stated before, the
22 variance that would be necessary for that would be
extremely low, it would not be substantial and it
23 would be in conformance with the area; in fact, it
would be one of the largest lots in the area if it
24 was subdivided by itself . We would be able to
meet all Health Department requirements even with
25 the multi-family of six acres under the existing
zoning considering the overall density.
March 2 , 2006
59
1
2 So what we' re proposing is something that
would have far significant less of an impact from
3 the community, from an environmental standpoint
and also the character of the community. As Pat
4 said, we could have come in in a two-step process .
Come -'in first showing a subdivision of three lots
5 on the HB and ask for a variance on the AC. Then
come back once that was established, then come
6 back either to this Board or look to Planning for
possible interpretation under clustered
7 subdivision to configure the lots how we really
want them. We chose to move this way from the
8 planning standpoint and also from the review
standpoint .
9 That pretty much sums it up . If the Board
has any questions, I ' d be glad to try to answer
10 the thought process that went into this .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question,
11 maybe I missed this . If you had gone through the
two-step process where you first were carving out
12 those three lots in hamlet business, according to
some arguments, why would you need a variance at
13 all?
MR. CRAMER: You wouldn' t need a variance
14 for the three lots .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the one stage
15 would not involve you coming before the Board at
all . As a matter of right, you could take those
16 three lots in the front half of the property and
put up small buildings on them?
17 MR. CRAMER: For those three lots, but the
problem is if we --
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand what the
problem is --
19 MR. CRAMER: You still have one lot that
doesn' t conform to the AC zoning. It would be a
20 very minor variance that would be needed.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then you would merely
21 be asking for a variance on Lot 4?
MR. CRAMER: That' s correct .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then according to
this argument, this Board has nothing to do with
23 turning the first half, the HB part of that , into
three small lots .
24 MR. CRAMER: That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If that' s true, then
25 the argument which Miss Moore made was that it
would not change the character of the
March 2 , 2006
60
1
2 neighborhood, which is questionable, since
changing from one large building that' s falling
3 down into three small buildings would be
unnecessary and inappropriate, you wouldn' t need
4 that argument at all .
MR. CRAMER: That' s correct . That' s why
5 we chose to come directly to the four lot, rather
than come in and be three lots that didn' t conform
6 to the character of the community and one large
lot that also doesn' t conform to the character of
7 the community, we chose to come in with the four
lots, rather than seeking one variance for the
8 large lot that even though it' s large, it still
doesn' t come up --
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . As a matter
of strategy -- I guess we could all guess what
10 would be the better strategy -- one of the reasons
you' re running into trouble right now is combining
11 these two steps into one . Maybe from a legal
point of view you wouldn' t have any such problem
12 if you had taken the first step of getting ready
to build on those three lots and then say, oh, by
13 the way, we would like a variance on the other
property and then move all this around.
14 MR. CRAMER: I agree with you as far as
that goes . Again, we were looking at this from
15 more of a practical planning standpoint, and
assuming the Planning Board went along with us, as
16 a matter of fact, I wasn' t planning to be here
today, it was just yesterday that Pat informed me
17 of the concern by the Planning Board and the
letter came in and she asked me to come . Because
18 it was her opinion that she felt this was kind of
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. Then if you
were wrong about what you could expect the
20 Planning Board to say, and your prediction for
practical planning purposes depended on their
21 making a very different decision, it' s not quite
clear why we' re having this hearing at all . Maybe
22 you should go back and re-argue that before the
Planning Board because they haven' t asked as to
23 what they think; and they haven' t given you what
you wanted.
24 MR. CRAMER: We cannot go back to the
Planning Board because we would still have to come
25 here no matter which way we went .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless you just went
March 2 , 2006
61
1
2 for three lots and then waited until later on to
see what could be done with the larger lot .
3 MR. CRAMER: What we would do is submit a
land division application to you with three lots
4 conforming and one lot non-conforming.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They can' t go
5 back and create the three small HB lots because --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you had a choice
6 between having three small lots and having no use
for the time being of the larger fourth lot, or
7 running into a problem where the whole plan is at
risk, if you had known what the Planning Board was
8 going to recommend, and if you had anticipate that
we would follow what they say, we' re certainly not
9 committed to that necessarily, then you probably
would not have been before us at all . You would
10 have just gone with the three lots and seen what
you could do later on.
11 MR. CRAMER: Well, my client wishes to
develop the property --
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand, but the
thing is your argument -- and I think it' s a good
13 argument -- is to say based upon principles of
technical good planning, it might be a good idea
14 to approach what you want . Unfortunately, the
Planning Board didn' t happen to agree with you .
15 MS . MOORE : I have been at all the work
sessions and never talked about it . What they did
16 or not is what you got from them.
MR. CRAMER: If you read the letter from
17 the Planning Board, they are presenting it in the
strictest interpretation of the law, essentially
18 saying the zoning is such, and the zoning allows
for three lots that conform; the fourth lot, even
19 though the variance is very minor, does not
conform. So their letter to you is saying there' s
20 three lots that conform to the area . Therefore,
according to the code, you have three lots .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So your client has a
choice, either ask for what the Planning Board has
22 clearly given approval of, namely need three lots,
or to try to persuade the Zoning Board to ignore
23 the Planning Board. Those are the only two
possibilities .
24 MR. CRAMER: And right now we' re trying to
persuade --
25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think your
best argument is that you could be here before us
March 2 , 2006
62
1
2 with three lots guaranteed and only needing a very
small variance for a fourth lot . And you think
3 the plan you have is more palatable to the
community to create those four lots, but they
4 would all be slightly larger than those small HB
lots .
5 MR. CRAMER: But have three small lots out
in the front that don' t conform to the community.
6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re in the
unfortunate position of that plan requires a
7 greater variance than the other one you might see .
MR. CRAMER: It requires two variances .
8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . And
it ' s the more substantial variance .
9 MR. CRAMER: If the Board would consider
it, granting the variance for the AC lot then in
10 turn granting the other variance, then that' s
certainly, just as far as procedure goes, that
11 would make sense also.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What other
12 variance?
MR. CRAMER: The variance for the AC lot ,
13 then the trading, the moving around of the lot
lines to have the --
14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You would
still need to have the variance on the two AC
15 lots .
MR. CRAMER: We would still ultimately
16 need it . The only difference is that it would,
again, be a two-step process; we would still be
17 before this Board for two hearings and in
discussions, it was decided we would come in for
18 just the one hearing and present our case to show
how we could accomplish what we were trying to do
19 just through one hearing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' d like to see if
20 I could summarize your essential approach to this .
The creation of four larger approximately
21 similarly sized lots will not only preserve more
of the natural topography and landscape because it
22 provides greater flexibility for siting buildings
than on smaller lots, but it will also be more
23 conforming relative to other lot sizes in the
neighborhood.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
25 comment at this time because I ' m still
understanding it .
March 2 , 2006
63
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to comment on this
3 application? Yes, sir.
MR. AKSIN: My name is Raymond J. Aksin, I
4 live at 1800 Cedar Beach Road. I'm here
representing my father, who lives there also,
5 Raymond Aksin. And the following people that were
our neighbors and were unable to attend this
6 meeting because they' re either on vacation or have
other plans, Melanie Belkin, Frank and Marie
7 Lacarie, Brad Winston and Sandra Powers . We would
request to have this appeal denied for the
8 following reasons : that all these people that
live next to or within 200 feet of this property
9 subdivision will be directly affected by it were
not all notified. That all affected current
10 landowners -- ,not previous landowners, that I
believe has happened in at least one case -- be
11 given at least 30 days notice of such action, not
the 10 days of this notice . To give you an
12 example, the notice was mailed out Friday the
17th; the notice was received Saturday afternoon
13 too late to go to the post office to sign for
this . Sunday the post office is closed, Monday
14 was President' s Day, post office was closed,
Tuesday was the first day able to retrieve the
15 registered mail, that' s February 21st . That left
10 days total for this hearing. So a lot of
16 people were unable to reply either in writing or
in person. Also, on the file that 90 Cedar Beach
17 property dated 1927 or 126, this shows the General
Wayne property as one lot, not two. The front
18 half may have a different zoning on it but no line
divides this into two properties, so I can' t see
19 how you can call it two lots . If it was a legal
subdivision of two lots, be it noted that they are
20 both substandard in size and should not be
subdivided again.
21 I ' d like to read the following letter of
Sandra Powers for the record because it sums up a
22 lot of the feelings of the people aforementioned,
the neighbors . It says : "Dear Miss Oliva and
23 Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are
writing in response to a legal notice received by
24 our neighbors, Jay and Stella Aksin, wherein we
are advised the Board of Appeals will hear all
25 persons and/or their representatives desiring to
be heard at such hearing and/or desiring to submit
March 2 , 2006
64
1
2 written statements before the conclusion of each
hearing. We are also submitting this written
3 statement in opposition to the proposal requested
for a variance and change in zoning. We are also
4 advising you that Jay Aksin represents us in our
opposition to our request in person at the
5 hearing.
"We are property owners at (485 Breezy
6 Path, which abuts 485 Orchard Lane, in which we
believe is within 200 feet of the General Wayne
7 property. We did not receive notice of the
hearing in the mail, and we understand as is
8 requirement for a variance . " I'm not sure about
that, but this is what they felt . This directly
9 affects them because they have to pass this every
day on the way to their residence . "We
10 fortunately just saw the notice posted on an out
building on the property on the side of Orchard
11 Lane, but not particularly conspicuously. We are
not in favor of the change in zoning to provide
12 four lots instead of one as we understand it that
it is in existence now.
13 "We purchased land there that was divided
into three lots and then combined all of them due
14 to restrictions in order to build one house, and
these were all waterfront lots . Why should this
15 developer be able to make four lots out of one or
two? We have invested a lot of time, effort and
16 additional money to build within the rules that
were in effect when we purchased. We were aware
17 of these when we purchased as we are sure the
developer who purchased the General Wayne property
18 was aware of the zoning when he purchased. We
bought and built based on the known zoning
19 restrictions in place for the General Wayne
property. This was after the current owner of the
20 General Wayne property bought it .
"We value the reasons that Southold town
21 has two acre zoning and can see no reason for
requesting change other than increased property.
22 The additional housing would be environmentally
stressed to the Small Point and Cedar Beach area,
23 and would increase traffic on Orchard Lane and
Clearview Road by approximately 30 percent, which
24 can only be detrimental and in conflict for the
purpose of the two acre zoning. The additional
25 housing would presumably increase the load on the
school system.
March 2 , 2006
65
1
2 "We got a copy of the plan from the
neighbor this weekend and added up the square
3 footage of the four proposed lots, each less than
an acre which totals to 144 , 701 . This is not even
4 the 160 , 000 square footage that is required for
two acre sites . There is a new project underway
5 on North Bayview Road within less than two miles
of this location called Bayview Gardens, which is
6 being done within the two acre restriction. We
cannot perceive any reason Dan, the developer of
7 the General Wayne property, should receive
preferential treatment over that one . By the same
8 measure, the development of Bayview Gardens would
have to be building 11 houses instead of the
9 allowed five, quite a difference environmentally
and aesthetically.
10 "In our opinion, allowing any more than
approved zoning would set a bad precedent for
11 current and future development in our area of
Southold town. This is a voracious and litigious
12 society that we live in and we think that the
Town' s future would be filled with developer' s
13 lawsuits should they be denied equal treatment
when requesting variances .
14 "We moved to Southold town because of its
open spaces . We love Southold town because of its
15 open spaces, and we hope that the Zoning Board
values this rare asset as much or more than we do .
16 In a town that wisely preserves its open spacing
by buying the development rights of large tracts
17 of land it would be counterproductive to turn
around and increase development in other areas .
18 "We submit that the request for the
variance be denied or in the very least, that the
19 hearing be rescheduled to a more appropriate time
of the year when residents are actually in town
20 and have received notices of hearing. We should
be aware of at least one of our neighbors, the
21 Powers, are not able to attend because they are in
Florida. We aren' t able to attend due to untimely
22 lack of notices . '!
They would like to thank you for your
23 efforts in keeping Southold beautiful . It' s
signed Sandra Powers and Brad Winston.
24 Also, one point I would like to make, I
own a lot that' s over four acres and it' s within
25 200 yards of the General Wayne property. I was
considering only one house, but if they can get
March 2 , 2006
66
1
2 four, why shouldn' t I get four?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you.
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Would you be able
to give us a signed letter that you were reading?
4 MR. AKSIN: Yes . I can give you this one .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Maybe we have it
5 already.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
6 that would like to speak?
MS . ST. JOHN: My name is Mickey St . John,
7 and I 'm here to represent the Angel Shores
Homeowners Association. I have a letter here, I
8 don' t know if you have it from Jim Federal to Mrs .
Moore . I also have a copy of that 1926 map that
9 everybody is speaking about . I don' t know if you
would like to see that; it looks like one lot .
10 And I have a copy of the deed describing, they
don' t refer to it as the reserved area on that
11 map, but if you would like to look at that, of
course it' s a very old map, and this is in
12 question where they showed the Cedar Beach Inn
within the reserved area. And that is a lot of
13 reserved area lot on the filed map.
I 'm just here to say that the Angel Shores
14 Homeowners Association does oppose the four lot
subdivision, if it was two or even three, we would
15 love to see a high end subdivision there, but of
course, the four lot subdivision doesn' t meet with
16 code . The other thing I don' t understand, they
keep saying how they own half the street, that is
17 the case but whether or not they can consider that
part of their property, on the tax map they do,
18 but I see only in the deed there' s a meets and
bounds description which goes along that dotted
19 line and doesn' t take in half the street . I don' t
know if you can see that on the map, the meets and
20 bounds goes all the way around, and I don' t think
you can block off all these lots from using that
21 without an abandonment . So that' s the other
concern I would have . Now maybe there is an
22 abandonment that I don' t know of, and maybe it was
turned up in I think it' s First American Title
23 report .
Again, I would agree with Mr. Aksin as far
24 as everything he said about Southold town, we are
a historic district . Again, I am not opposed to
25 building there, but just not so many buildings in
that area . Thank you for your time .
March 2 , 2006
67
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Yes, sir .
MR. KINSKY: Good afternoon, my name is
3 Fletcher Kinsky, and I live at 720 Orchard Lane .
I came from Connecticut with a nice speech
4 prepared but after hearing Mr. Aksin talk this
afternoon, I think all I have to do is say that I
5 am in total agreement with what he has said.
Thank you very much.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there someone else
who would like to speak? Yes, sir.
7 MR. WISMAN: My name is John Wisman, I
live at 650 Orchard Lane and I am here at the
8 request of my immediate neighbors, the name of
Perry, they live directly in back of the inn, and
9 they are very much against these four houses .
They would very much like to see three . Mr. Aksin
10 said almost everything I would like to say. I
must admit, I have mixed feelings . I have lived
11 there since 1957, and for 45 years the inn has
either been a terrific nuisance or a terrific
12 eyesore . It' s been dreadful living there, so I
was glad to see it' s going to become residential,
13 but I still would prefer to see three . If you
walk in the immediate area, it seems like three
14 houses would be much more conforming than four.
Even though many of those lots there were too
15 small and were built on, there' s no sense on
continuing to build on lots that are too small .
16 It has changed the area tremendously by people
doing this . I have come to many meetings and have
17 actually signed some variances for neighbors and
am sorry I did it because some of those people
18 were dishonest about what they were doing.
The area, I originally decided to build
19 there because there were a lot of big lots, which
many people bought and did cut them up, so it has
20 changed the area. Any more continuing doing that
just deteriorates the whole thing down there . I 'm
21 here because the family, my neighbors, asked me to
come, they couldn' t be here . They feel very
22 strongly since they were the ones the most
immediately affected, they' re directly in back of
23 the inn. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you, Mr. Wisman.
24 MS . MOORE : You want to put in your file a
copy of the deed and the title report that shows
25 the ownership.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On Lots 1 and 2 , Mrs .
March 2 , 2006
68
1
2 Moore, that was just for residential or other
uses, what?
3 MS . MOORE : No. This proposal actually
had us offering to covenant with the Town that
4 this would be for single-family dwelling only. So
we were, again, we were willing to voluntarily
5 give up rights that the owner has . There was no
efforts to change of zone . The maximum `
6 development of this property as Tom has mentioned
is in the Hamlet Business zoning or six units .
7 So, he was willing to covenant that it would be
single-family dwelling if the town on its own
8 motion later re-zoned it to one acre, there would
be pre-existing non-conforming lots, or it could
9 stay the way it is because it wouldn' t matter the
covenants were already imposed on the property
10 voluntarily upzoning this piece . So the community
would benefit by as Mr. Wisman mentioned, you
11 would be eliminating a very heavy existing
commercial use, and voluntarily giving up the
12 potential for a multitude of very intensive
commercial uses . You could do all kinds of things
13 here as you know from Hamlet Business, from retail
to car, bowling alleys, the whole use of permitted
14 uses in Hamlet Business .
So the proposal that we offered through
15 this Board through two variances was to create
evenly, well-developed, nice parcels that would
16 preserve in particular the area that we have as
Hamlet Business with the three lots that would as
17 of right be able to be developed, would require us
to eliminate four or five beautiful 100 year old
18 trees . So this plan we thought was a very good
alternative and something the community should
19 embrace . He is giving up a great deal of economic
value in a Hamlet Business zoned parcel . But you
20 weigh the benefits and certainly the homes he can
build here are going to be valuable on their own.
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the other hand, Mrs .
Moore, even if it were Hamlet Business, he would
22 have probably a great deal of trouble trying to
get Health Department approval for those more - -
23 MR. CRAMER: No. In this area we' re
required 20, 000 square foot lot size .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand that .
MS . MOORE : You have public water.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know you have public
water, but I think you would find some difficulty.
March 2 , 2006
69
1
2 MS . MOORE : But you also have a restaurant
sanitary system with historic use there that has a
3 great deal of --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For one lot .
4 MR. CRAMER: For one lot if we were
looking to bring in another commercial facility.
5 We would have no problem at all, and we discussed
this with the Health Department already for doing
6 three 20 , 000 square foot lots and one large lot
also. We have also discussed the possibility of
7 doing six units, one multi-family on the HB, and
even those six lots with the single-family house
8 on the AC portion of it, we would still be able to
accomplish that since we have public water and the
9 overall density would be less than 20 , 000 square
feet . So we would be able to do multi-family as
10 well as an additional single-family house and
still conform.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Still comply with your
cesspools?
12 MR. CRAMER: Still comply with the
cesspool requirement . Again, it' s 20, 000 square
13 foot density overall .
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Still need a
14 variance on that other single-family home .
MR. CRAMER: However, we would be able to
15 conform to the Health Department .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you' re saying if
16 you were to build say six houses on Hamlet
Business District that your client would stand to
17 make more money?
MR. CRAMER: It wouldn' t be six houses, it
18 would be six multi-family units .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They wouldn' t have to
19 be multi-family units, they could be
single-family. Hamlet Business doesn' t say it has
20 to be --
MS . MOORE : Row house, townhouse,
21 multi-family.
ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can only
22 have one detached house per lot .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there could be six
23 one-family houses as well as six two-family
houses .
24 MS . MOORE : No . They have to be attached.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On Hamlet Business?
25 MR. CRAMER: Yes . We could have three
20 , 000 square foot lots, or if we attach them we
March 2 , 2006
70
1
2 could have six units .
MS . MOORE : With a 30 or 40 percent lot
3 coverage .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In any case, you' re
4 saying that would clearly make more money for your
client and his reason for not wanting to go that
5 way is he loves the environment of Southold; is
that it?
6 MS . MOORE : He lives here . He used to
live actually across the street . When he bought
7 this property, he was one of the property owners
on Orchard Street .
8 MR. CRAMER: And he' s spent a lot of time
and money trying to preserve the existing trees .
9 He' s had tree surgeons there maintaining the
historic trees on the site. I 've seen some of the
10 other properties he' s developed in the area, and
he' s taken a great deal of concern and a great
11 deal of respect for the area and the character of
the area . There were a couple things mentioned
12 here, talked about two lots, this is only one lot,
there' s two zonings, as I'm sure the Board' s
13 aware . A lot of the people in the area,
particularly like Angel Shores, most of those lots
14 are smaller than what we' re proposing.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But that' s a clustered
15 subdivision too.
MS . MOORE : Yes, and I was the attorney on
16 that one . And that took actually 15 years to
develop because of opposition. And it was at one
17 acre zoning. So the lots are clustered because
the Planning Board chose to do it the way they
18 did. But those lots are based on one-acre zoning.
MR. CRAMER: And it' s the house developed
19 that' s the character of the area.
MS . MOORE : I also wanted to put in your
20 file . I had gotten the letters from the
neighbors, and what I did I attached the tax map
21 to describe for you and for the file the area that
they are living in, the area and how it ' s
22 developed. You have Cedar Beach, which obviously
has very small lots, I think most of them are less
23 than an acre . Many of them are impacted by
wetlands and those limitations . There was also
24 the letter sent by Mr. Licari and also -- I 'm
sorry, Winston and Powers . I noticed Winston and
25 Powers, yes, they did have to combine some
parcels, but I know because I tried to do
March 2 , 2006
71
1
2 development for clients along Dryatt' s Basin, and
those lots are significantly impacted by wetlands
3 and most of these lots have about 50 to 75 percent
of the lots that are covered in wetlands . So
4 those are very difficult to develop and while the
lots, as the tax map shows are of a certain size,
5 the actual development potential of them is very
restricted.
6 Mr. Aksin himself had to come before this
Board because I know I represented one of the
7 property owners that was going to buy one of the
lots that you denied a waiver of merger because of
8 the environmental constraints of the one lot that
my client was in contract to purchase . So this
9 area, the objections that are being made, in a
sense, we' re providing something that is much
10 larger, much more environmentally appropriate, and
we hope that the Board will take that into
11 consideration in approving the area variances .
We have the option, and we will put on the
12 table, the option of withdrawing the area variance
for the two lots and do the three as of right
13 Hamlet Business parcels with the one request for
an area variance on the one AC lot, which requires
14 the difference between 74 , 376 and 80 , 000 ; that' s a
very small area variance given the character of
15 the community and the size of the surrounding
parcels . But again, we hope that you don' t choose
16 that option, we' ll do this as two steps because it
really is not the best for the community. The
17 best plan development here would be four equally
sized parcels, and Tom has already put on the
18 record the reasons for it .
MR. AKSIN: I ' d like to say that I don' t
19 believe that two wrongs make a right . If it was
wrong to do it before, you can' t do it again. My
20 father has owned the property since the early
' 50s, family' s been in Bayview since 1900 . We
21 sacrificed to keep it the way we like it . I don' t
know if they' re aware of this, several years ago
22 my father resisted but had to go to Town water
because his well was all the way up on Orchard
23 Lane and it had saltwater intrusion. So I would
suspect they have saltwater intrusion underneath
24 the General Wayne in large areas . I don' t know
how this is going to affect the septic system.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Anyone else
wish to comment on this application? If not, I ' ll
March 2 , 2006
72
1
2 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve
decision until later.
3 (See minutes for resolution. (
MS . MOORE : If you would like a written
4 submission of Mr. Cramer' s presentation?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, I think we heard
5 it . Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for
Mr. Aliano on Duck Pond Road, in Cutchogue . Miss
7 Moore, I think you' re up .
MS . MOORE : Thank you.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I just want to say in
the outset that we' re going to hold this hearing
9 open because we, the Board, have not received
enough information from various people that we
10 want to get information from to make a concerted
opinion.
11 MS . MOORE : Why don' t you reserve making
that decision when you have had all the experts
12 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t care what
13 experts you have here, Pat, the hearing is staying
open because we have real grave concerns about
14 this whole area. That' s it .
. MS . MOORE : That' s your decision. Keeping
15 in mind your decision to hold it open certainly
impacts our the plan because you' re jeopardizing
16 the stability of the property. We appreciate the
fact that you allowed us to come before this Board
17 right away so we do appreciate that because, as
you know, we had a building permit and they
18 started construction, whether or not whatever,
nobody' s going to point fingers, but they have
19 already started the work, and we are very
carefully trying not to lose the property. We
20 have a very valuable property here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As you said, two wrongs
21 don' t make a right .
MS . MOORE : I didn' t say that, somebody
22 else said that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, continue .
23 MS . MOORE : As I stated, we do have
Trustees, Health Department, DEC determination and
24 we had a building permit . The building permit, as
we all know, was issued in error, and that' s when
25 the work stopped. In fact, the Building
Department offered to have us put some of the
March 2 , 2006
73
1
2 retaining walls in, but we felt that given what we
needed from you, it would be best -- the retaining
3 walls which ultimately were for the purposes of
the sanitary system it made sense that we needed
4 to know where the house was going to go before we
actually constructed the retaining walls . So
5 everything is just as it was when they asked us to
stop . So keeping in mind that even the Building
6 Department recognized that there was a need to put
the retaining walls in at one point or another.
7 So it' s really crucial that we act on this
application quickly.
8 This lot is a map on Vista Bluff, which
was filed in the county clerk' s office in 1968 .
9 The lot is adjacent to the bluff on the Long
Island Sound and the proposed house and retaining
10 walls were reviewed and approved by the Trustees .
The only reason we got a coastal erosion hazard
11 permit in that application was because of the
retaining wall being inside the line . The house
12 was outside the CZM line, and, in fact, I did
submit to this Board this afternoon what we' ll
13 call Plan B for your records as you have Plan A as
the survey that shows 42 feet from the bluff and
14 Plan B has the 30 foot front with the 50 foot
setbacks from the bluff .
15 When Mr. Aliano first came to me and I
looked at the plan, I said we better have an
16 alternative plan before this Board so we didn' t
tie your hands and tie up this property in such a
17 way that we could act on things quickly. We
actually asked for a variance that obviously none
18 of us want . We would like to keep everything the
way it is, and where it' s been proposed but the
19 variance is before this Board so we have an option
of where this house could be moved. The only
20 location that' s reasonable to move this house
would be towards Glen Court . You also see that
21 Glen Court, this parcel has only 45 feet as an
opening on Glen Court . The house where it' s
22 proposed now or if it were to be moved closer to
Glen Court is almost the equivalent of a side yard
23 in its visual because Glen Court has an opening
that has a slope on one side and then it really is
24 developed in such a way so it is built behind or
next to Lot 4 , the adjacent parcel, Lot 4 . So
25 visually you could take a look at this and say it
could be considered the equivalent of what a side
March 2 , 2006
74
1
2 yard might be . The benefit to the applicant
cannot be achieved with any other method feasible
3 without -- certainly this lot has restrictions,
has slopes all throughout . There is a flat area
4 where the house is to go . It' s placement where
the foundation is now was done with the thought of
5 having conforming front and side yards and the
house is not a large size house; it' s actually
6 quite modest in its square footage .
It is quite valuable, and I do have for
7 the Board an appraisal by James Pace, Sr. ,
licensed real estate appraiser, the value of the
8 property right now as it is as a vacant lot is
$975 , 000 . So I' d like to put that in your file .
9 It is a very valuable piece of property. There
has also been a significant amount of investment
10 already in this property. As I said, everything
stopped at one point, but even at the point that
11 the building permit -- a stop work order was
issued, there was already $66, 700 already invested
12 in the site . So to the extent that we can
preserve what is there, we are trying to preserve
13 the investment that' s already been made . We are
trying to preserve the investment that' s already
14 been made, so I will also provide for you the copy
of the contract .
15 As you know, this lot when it was created
actually predates all the zoning ordinances, all
16 the setbacks regulations; so the imposition of the
setbacks to the bluff is a difficult practical --
17 I use the wrong word, practical difficulty -- it ' s
an old term, but it is difficult to place the
18 house without a need for the variance .
We have the existing footings are at 42
19 feet but that' s the closest point . The majority
of this house is at 50 feet . You can see that on
20 Plan B, the survey that I submitted to this Board
when you sat down. You can see where proposed, if
21 we were to move this house closer to the street,
however, John Metzgar did provide -- he shows an
22 overlap of where the existing foundation is, the
footings are in relation to the proposed 50 foot
23 setbacks . So you can see that even if the Board
were to determine that because of the situation we
24 must push the location of the house back to the 50
foot line, there' s not a lot that has been pushed
25 beyond that . We have most of the house within the
50 feet, you can see that from the drawing of John
March 2 , 2006
75
1
2 Metzgar.
This parcel, if you look down Glen Court,
3 you' ll see that the homes that are all developed
along Glen Court are similarly situated. They
4 have been built at different periods of time, but
probably prior to the 100 foot regulations because
5 many of them do not have 100 foot setbacks to the
bluff . In fact, the house to the west of us, Lot
6 4 , probably has even less distance to the top of
the bluff . It' s all grass and the house there is
7 probably about 30 feet I would say. It ' s about 30
feet to the top of the bluff . That' s the way this
8 area has been developed because, as I said, it' s
an older subdivision and the regulations
9 unfortunately didn' t provide for nonconforming
lots .
10 At this point, you have my written
submission, which I don' t want to go over and
11 reread everything you already have in your
file . I think it' s important to have our experts
12 here and people involved in the project, so why
don' t we have -- Tom, why don' t you -- is there
13 any particular issue you want me to have discussed
first?
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No .
MR. KRAMER: Thomas Kramer. I ' ll just go
15 through quickly or try to go through quickly as
possible . I won' t try to repeat anything that Pat
16 has put on the record already.
The new layout does show all activity
17 taking place outside the coastal erosion hazard
area. The original Trustees permit was because of
18 a retaining wall in there shifting the house back,
moving things around, we were able to pull
19 everything outside of the coastal erosion hazard
area. There are a couple letters that I have been
20 just given, one this morning and another one at
this meeting, and I would just like to run through
21 them quickly and explain a little in response to
some of those comments that are provided in those
22 letters as well as provide the Board with some
additional information. There' s one letter from a
23 Polly Weigand, she' s a soil district technician,
there' s no letterhead.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have just received
it and we have not had time to read it .
25 MR. KRAMER: I just received it also and I
had an opportunity to read down through it, and I
March 2 , 2006
76
1
2 would like to put a few things on the record in
response to some of her comments . Since the
3 hearing is being held open, I ' ll prepare a more
detailed report on each one of these documents .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine .
MR. KRAMER: First page essentially talks
5 about the bluff face itself and goes through -- I
do have some pictures taken from July of the bluff
6 and I ' ll present a copy of that to the Board. And
I visited the site several times through the
7 construction of the site, and I was just out there
again this morning and the bluff itself does
8 appear to be essentially the same, although, if
you look at this photo that I 'm going to hand in
9 there' s some beach grass at the bottom, some of
the beach grass at the bottom has eroded back
10 maybe about a foot or so high.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do have pictures
11 ourselves .
MR. KRAMER: This is from July. Again,
12 that' s still essentially the same as what the
conditions are there today.
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I wouldn' t say so,
Mr. Cramer. This is not the same bluff that I
14 saw. I have pictures . In other words, this thing
was stripped.
15 MR. KRAMER: This is on the sound side .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know it was on the
16 sound side and it' s still been stripped.
MR. KRAMER: No. There' s nothing been
17 touched on the sound side . There' s a buffer been
maintained along the entire bluff from the top of
18 the bluff as shown on the survey to the clearing.
The Duck Pond Road side has been --
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not going to
comment on that .
20 MR. KRAMER: -- has been graded. There' s
also reference made to the need for the storm
21 water runoff regulations . This site is less than
one acre in size and therefore is exempt from that
22 provision in the state SPEDES permit, and I ' ll
provide the Board with a copy of the flow chart on
23 the permitting process, and I've highlighted in
yellow start, and then it' s a yes or no is
24 disturbance greater than one acre . If it' s yes
then you develop a soil water control plan; if no
25 has DEC determined that the need for a SPEDES
permit on this, which they have not, and if that
March 2 , 2006
77
1
2 is no, then you go no coverage is required. So
under this provision there' s no coverage required.
3 However, recognizing that the Board does have
concern, we did choose to prepare an erosion
4 sediment control plan, which I would like to hand
into the Board at this time .
5 What this document provides is a structure
of erosion control and sediment protection devices
6 for the property and the use of various erosion
control techniques . Some of them have been
7 implemented to a certain extent out on the site as
far as hay bales and silt fencing have been
8 installed, and I note for the record that I
visited the site on several occasions, again this
9 morning, I visited before the snow. I made a
special trip out here just to see the latest, and
10 I did not see any visual erosion coming down
through the hay bales, although these hay bales
11 should be installed according to the plan that I
have provided with the Board as far as trenching
12 them in, staking and the same as the silt fence
and that' s what will be done .
13 There' s also provisions in the back of the
plan for each one of the contractors and
14 subcontractors to sign and certify that they have
reviewed this plan and that they will comply with
15 the town codes and comply with the contents of
this plan as well as all the other applicable
16 codes of the town and state and county. Then she
continues on through here, most of the discussion
17 revolves around the need for installing indigenous
plant materials and stabilizing the area as soon
18 as possible . The planting plan that I have
prepared for this project, and I have extra copies
19 here for the Board' s record, it shows indigenous
species to be installed on the property as well as
20 we' re suggesting the use of hydroseeding as soon
as possible after the grading is done to aid in
21 the quick establishment of the vegetation cover to
stem any erosion. Again, these erosion control
22 techniques will remain in place until the site is
fully stabilized. As I said, most of her comments
23 deal with the needs of different types of the
plant materials, which is what we have included in
24 the project . There' s some statements in here that
are, well, they' re suggesting things like cutting
25 back the face of the bluff and clearing the
vegetation on the top of the bluff to reduce
March 2 , 2006
78
1
2 stresses on there . Again, yes, from a strictly
engineering standpoint that reduces the stresses
3 on it . However, there' s other considerations that
go into that as far as the visual impacts and
4 whether indeed some of the regulatory agencies
would allow something like that . It' s been my
5 experience in the past that they would not allow
you to go in and do some of this as proposed.
6 I was also given a copy of the local
Waterfront Revitalization consistency report that
7 was prepared by Mr. Terry. I just looked at this
quickly.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, we have only
received it, we have not read it .
9 MR. KRAMER: There' s a couple of things,
some of the policies as far as keeping activity
10 outside of the coastal erosion hazard area, the
original plan included it in there, although we
11 did have a permit from the Trustees, the new plan
removes all activity from within that boundary.
12 stabilization of the bluff is recommended. Again,
we would stabilize the bluff itself by plantings .
13 There' s also discussions on armoring the toe of
the bluff, and that was also a recommendation made
14 by the soil water conservation service . We could
certainly apply to the DEC for the construction of
15 the bulkhead at the bottom, and toe armor the toe
of this slope, whether or not they would approve
16 such an application, but we would certainly be
willing to make that attempt .
17 I' ll be glad to go through and provide a
written comment to all this . There' s one thing as
18 far as the visual impact, note protect and provide
public vista access to coastal lands and waters
19 from public sites and transportation routes where
physically practical . Avoid loss of existing
20 visual access . The main visual access point on
this property is from Duck Pond Road. We are not
21 changing the visual impacts of the water from Duck
Pond Road, although there will be changes in the
22 character as a result of the construction on the
site . There' s reference made to Glen Road as far
23 as being a public road, but as Miss Moore pointed
out, our frontage on Glen Road is extremely
24 limited. If you look at the aerial photo that was
provided in the back of the consistency report, I
25 think it clearly illustrates how there is no
visual opportunities from our site or from the end
March 2 , 2006
79
1
2 of Glen Road over our site . Because of the
configuration of the property, you' re essentially
3 looking at the existing house already. So we' re
not eliminating it, but again, the policy talks
4 about where practical . In that this is a
residentially zoned piece of property, it' s part
5 of a residential lot, and we have to locate the
house as far away as possible . It becomes
6 impractical to also provide the visual or visual
opportunity in this location.
7 Again, I' d be glad to provide the Board
with detailed analysis on each one of these
8 letters since you' re holding the hearing open.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s fine .
9 MS . MOORE : You also had in your file a
report from the engineer, Mr. William Jaeger, he
10 is just going to recap for this Board the
stability of the slope and the stability of the
11 site . How the construction will not impact and
deteriorate the stability of the site . Thank you.
12 MR. JAEGER: My name is Bill Jaeger, from
the firm of Hawkins, Web, Jaeger, PLLC, the firm
13 has offices in Medford. I am a licensed
professional engineer and land surveyor. I was
14 asked to investigate just a few things relative to
this application. The first was the structural
15 integrity of the foundation. If you review that
report you' ll see that basically the foundation as
16 installed will not have a structural impact on the
slope itself . When we do an evaluation of the
17 theoretical slope from the toe or base of the
footing of the foundation to the toe of the slope,
18 we have a slope of some 1 on 2 . 1, typically, the
radiating load coming up the base of the
19 foundation comes up at 60 degrees . This would be
far in excess of that . So there is no impacting
20 on the slope due to the structure .
,. Secondly, I was asked just to take a look
21 at the building height . There were some concerns
relative to the height of the building and that
22 was evaluated, and if you follow it in the report ,
you' ll note that the existing dwelling will be at
23 a code designated height of 34 . 05 feet with 35
feet permitted.
24 Last thing I did was just examine the
slope from the standpoint of its stability. My
25 conclusions were the same as your soils
consultant, whose report I read briefly just a few
March 2 , 2006
80
1
2 minutes ago, and that is basically .you need to
provide toe erosion control on the bluff itself .
3 Normally, and these days the standards would be
some type of inlock type of installation be it a
4 gambian type cement or else a rock revetment .
Then a revegetation which may be done by the soils
5 consultant to stabilize the slope . There was a
lot of reference in there to the type of
6 vegetation, and, of course, I would leave that to
the experts .
7 Beyond that, I will answer any questions
that you have . I would also give you a copy of
8 the report if you don' t have it in your file .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How many coastal
9 engineering projects have you been involved in?
MR. JAEGER: I don' t know, six or ten,
10 something like that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is that it,
11 Pat? There might be somebody else in the audience
that would like to speak on this application.
12 Yes, Mr. Terry.
MR. TERRY: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator.
13 My report references an inconsistency between the
Trustees map and the DEC' s map and the map
14 submitted to the ZBA. It appears that the map
that I referenced or the dated map that I
15 referenced in the report will be revised. It' s
August 31, 2005 . I referenced the map that was
16 before that as I think August 16th or a September
map, so I will be doing that .
17 As far as the concerns about erosion, as
this Board makes its decision, I would recommend
18 that maybe the applicant seek an emergency erosion
management permit from the Trustees to maybe
19 mitigate or help control some of the erosion that
could potentially be going into Duck Pond Road, so
20 that would be my recommendation. Any questions of
me?
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Not at this time .
Anybody, Members of the Board, have any comment at
22 this time? I just don' t feel at this time that I
am fully enough informed into shooting off my
23 mouth, it' s not the way to go . I want to have
some expert background before I do. As you know'
24 Pat, I will say this, I am very itchy when it
comes to bluffs, extremely, because our bluffs are
25 moving they are eroding terribly. The condition
of the bluffs all along Southold town are not in
March 2 , 2006
81
1
2 good shape and you start barricading them, and
they become worse, you lose your beach after a
3 while . So I am extremely concerned about this
project .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: According to Plan B
there will be 50 foot setback from the top of the
5 bluff to the edge of the house . Whereas the code
says 100 feet, and the question is : Is that a
6 reasonable difference for a variance given the
fragility of the bluffs, and whatever we get from
7 experts on various sides . There' s certainly
nothing automatic about a 50 percent variance, and
8 presumably somewhere in this world 98 feet would
be required. In some places in this world maybe
9 40 feet would be required. So that' s a matter of
requiring further scrutiny.
10 MS . MOORE : I think what we are attempting
to do today, you have gotten Tom Kramer' s
11 recommendation, you have also gotten the
engineer' s recommendation, they both have found
12 that the slope is stable . What they are
recommending is for as far as the future
13 protection of this slope, it makes sense to ask
the DEC for some type of toe protective structure .
14 We noticed and that and you will go and notice
yourself that on the beach there are huge
15 boulders . Those boulders themselves have provided
some natural protective feature .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Where did those
boulders come from?
17 MS . MOORE : Connecticut . We would suggest
adding a couple more that are a lot more
18 expensive -- we don' t suggest another glacial
event . You notice that the property owners to the
19 west have benefited from wooden bulkheads, and to
the extent that your property ends without a wood
20 bulkhead, you have to think that ultimately
there' s going to be a need for that . There' s also
21 Duck Pond Road, that is a town road that has
caused some erosion on its own, and the water
22 runoff, the town is creating somewhat of an
erosion problem down at the end of Duck Pond, it' s
23 affecting our property as well . My client is
given the appraisal that you have in your file
24 that the property is worth $975, 000 . It' s in
everyone' s best interest to make sure that this
25 property is well protected.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s worth $975 , 000
March 2 , 2006
82
1
2 on the assumption that it' s buildable .
MS . MOORE : It got a building permit .
3 Whether or not it has a variance from this Board
will be for someone to decide . But understand --
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your building permit
was withdrawn, right?
5 MS . MOORE: But understand that this Board
has given variances in the past on setbacks to the
6 bluff .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The $975 , 000 has
7 certain contingencies to support it and those
contingencies are ones that we have to address .
8 MS . MOORE : But we are prepared to do what
is necessary to make this Board satisfied that the
9 property is stable and protected. Keeping in mind
that now it looks -- it' s worse because we were
10 preparing to put the sanitary system in and once
the sanitary system went in, the retaining walls
11 would be put in place and that automatically would
stabilize at least the slope along Duck Pond, the
12 land. So the stop to our construction process has
stopped what would be a normal course of very
13 quick time frames, so that this property would not
be jeopardized. So we are all very anxious to see
14 that move forward.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, you have --
MS . MOORE : In fact, what they' re pointing
out to me is that the sanitary and the retaining
16 walls, which are wood retaining walls, I think
Mr. Terry thought they might be cement retaining
17 walls, they' re wood, that would have been done by
now. So we' re very anxious about having this
18 progress .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' d like to have the
19 survey from January 13 , 2004 .
MS . MOORE : The original, the one that was
20 submitted originally with the impact .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: January 13 , 2004 .
21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Before all the
revisions, Pat .
22 MS . MOORE : The one that had the retaining
wall inside the coastal zone?
23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The one before all
the revisions, just the plain survey dated January
24 13 , 2004 .
MS . MOORE : That would have been a vacant
25 land survey.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then we would like to
March 2 , 2006
83
1
2 have it .
MS . MOORE : Okay.
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ma' am, you wanted to
say something?
4 MS . MCGILL : My name is Laurie McGill, and
I live opposite where they' re planning on
5 building. The only thing I 'm wondering about is
that the other neighbors in front of me have
6 bulkheading. Would they be allowed to put
bulkheading in in order to save the bluff?
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can' t answer that at
this point . I know the neighbor right next to
8 there has bulkheading, but he doesn' t have it up
to the end of his property. If you notice there' s
9 a gully that' s forming right there, and the bluff
is eroding where it' s not vegetated.
10 MS . MCGILL: The only thing that seems to
protect it is the bulkheading.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They have also been
able to vegetate it properly and probably
12 backfilled a lot of that to have some decent soil
to put something in.
13 MS . MCGILL : They have also taken the time
to go down there and plant .
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . Pat, I think we
can call a close to this at this point . We' ll
15 adjourn this .
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question. It' s
16 not described in any of the documents that I have .
The retaining walls that are being proposed for
17 the site, can someone explain the way in which
those wood timbers are anchored to the soil?
18 MS . MOORE : Sure .
MR. KRAMER: The plan that was not
19 prepared by my office, but which I did observe,
shows 'fully cribbed wood railroad tie retaining
20 walls .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Thank you
21 all for coming in and we' ll see you again.
MS . MOORE : Do we have a date for the next
22 hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: March 30th at 2 : 30 .
23 (See minutes for resolution. )
24
25
March 2 , 2006
84
1
2
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
4 State of New York, do hereby certify:
THAT the within transcript is a true record of
5 the testimony given.
I further certify that I am not related by
6 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
action; and
7 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
of this matter.
8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 2nd day of March, 2006 .
9
10
11
12 Florence V. iles
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
March 2 , 2006