Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/27/2006 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T O W N O F S O U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z O N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 - -- ------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 April 27 , 2006 12 9 :30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present 14 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 15 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 16 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 17 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member 18 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 19 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 20 21 Board Members Absent: RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman P" me 22 4 a RECEIVil) , ,. e, .. .. 23 o 24 J U L 1 1 2006 tl' = g z 25 0 Souil,,otd T(, .n Clerk N COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ladies and gentlemen, we' d like to welcome everybody here, 3 this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals . The chairperson 4 is out of the state and I'm going to make the motion stating that all the applications that are 5 before us are Type 2 Actions . (See minutes for resolution. ) . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are going to hold II ,over, we have one deliberation we need to 7 do, that is that piece in Peconic . We have the square footage from the gentleman, we' ll hold that 8 to the end so if they want to get going we can vote on that. 9 III . The first hearing on the agenda is Rose Hajek, Appeal Number 5877 . 10 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Agatha Drozdowska, we are the agent. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us, I' ll get right to the chase. 12 What happened here and what caused this whole situation on to come back to us? 13 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We had gotten an approval on reconstruction when we had submitted the plans 14 after we received our approval from the Zoning Board for the setback of 31' 7" for the front yard, 15 we had submitted demolition plans along with proposed construction plans to the Building 16 Department clearly stating what was to be demoed. We had proposed a front new entry and two bay 17 windows coming in on either side of the entry within the existing footprint of the existing 18 home . The contractor went beyond demolition of the existing studs . We had specifically asked for 19 the studs to remain in place, new studs to be sistered to them, creating a nine foot ceiling, 20 which was specified in the building permit . Unfortunately, the scope of work did go 21 beyond that, but it did remain within the existing footprint per se and the proposed additions that 22 we had proposed. Any work that was performed was performed still within the approved per se 23 setbacks . I don' t mean to -- you know what I'm saying. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to the studs around the bay windows or 25 the entire house? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, the bay window was COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 to be new. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There was no 3 intention to demolish the entire first floor which is what happened. 4 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can you tell us in 5 more detail how this happened? I wrote the opinion last time and I happen to live about less 6 than half a mile from there and suddenly this house is flat and being rebuilt from scratch. Why 7 did it take until the building inspector came to give a routine approval before anybody discovered 8 that this was drastic? Anyone who was within 100 feet of the property would see that this had been 9 totally flattened. MS . DROZDOWSKA: Unfortunately for our 10 office, we are not -- we are responsible to provide the client and then the Building 11 Department and the other authorities with the specific documentation that we have, which we have 12 done with our construction drawing. From that moment on it is the responsibility of the 13 contractor to continue on and follow every step of that document. Unfortunately, we had received the 14 phone call and we acted upon it as soon as we Beard. I personally have gone to make a field 15 inspection right after the inspector to justify basically what was told to us . It came as a shock 16 to us . The client was not aware of the complete reconstruction. Some of the studs did remain, 17 unfortunately not on the front of the wall . It was on the side wall, which it was not a matter of 18 a setback, it was not in question, ever. He should have. The only thing I can explain and I'm 19 speaking for a contractor. So just what I can think of happening is it is a difficult task to 20 sister to existing studs . He has left the existing sill plate and basically reconstructed, 21 yes, that' s a given. Is it a difficult thing to do, to sister? Yes . We build as well and we know 22 what we get from our contractors, but we do have to follow the rules . 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any consequences to the contractor for this? 24 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I don' t think so. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He did this with 25 impunity? MS . DROZDOWSKA: He did it based on April 27 , 2006 3 1 2 judgment . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So he could do the 3 same thing every time he gets another project. He could simply ignore the plans and the building 4 permit and do as he sees fit without any consequences . 5 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I don' t think there' s anything that can be stated besides what asks our 6 architectural office can put on as notes stating to notify us of any changes made in the field, 7 which is a responsibility, but is there anything we will ever do about these things; is there 8 anything we can do about it? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is an 9 enforcement problem for the Town. MS . DROZDOWSKA: It comes to us when a 10 house is 70 percent under completion of new work construction for our office to get a phone call as 11 such is not appreciated. It is not something that I anticipate standing in front of a board and 12 explaining. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I remember when you 13 came here, it was hard for me to imagine that you had any idea that you would be back here again. 14 MS . DROZDOWSKA: , Neither did the client. They have windows waiting to be installed. As I 15 say, it is water under the bridge, unfortunately. Fortunately, they did not go beyond the setbacks 16 that were approved, which in our minds to some point it is somewhat of a relief to the code, and 17 respect to it. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your 18 architectural contract does not include site supervision; you' re just providing the working 19 drawings? MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s up to the client 20 whether they want us to get involved at some point. It' s a separate fee. It is their choice 21 basically. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not in your 22 contract? MS . DROZDOWSKA: No. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As the house is currently framed, is that according to your 24 specific set of drawings? MS . DROZDOWSKA: It is exactly to our 25 specific specifications . We were sistering too, so in that respect they've done everything we April 27 , 2006 4 1 2 asked them to do. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that they did 3 in fact build the residence as per your working drawings? 4 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Definitely, 100 percent, and we have both Frank Notaro, the architect and 5 myself have gone through the house and everything that was constructed was constructed as per our 6 plans . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Jim? 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I don' t know, I think if you have - - if you' re going to give 8 some restriction to applicants, they should follow them, in all honesty. While you' re here, you did 9 get the variance, the person who made the mistake is not. And I don' t think your explanation is, 10 quite honestly, good enough. I prefer to hear from the horse' s mouth, and if we' re going to put 11 restrictions on places, I think they should be followed. And there should be ramifications . And 12 I don' t know what that is, if it' s a loss of a day' s work because he has to come in here, then 13 maybe so be it. That' s the way I feel about it . I understand why it was done. I probably 14 understand the difficulty even trying to restrict you to that, and that if you' re sistering 15 something, you' re replacing it, really. Let' s face it. 16 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s exactly it and I think that' s how he saw it. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty, we did make that decision. We do make restrictions 18 on a lot of things and I' d like to see them y upheld. I'd like to have a more compelling 19 argument than we tried to sister them and we couldn' t . If you agreed to this application and 20 you agreed to our decision, it should be followed. That' s really all I have to say. I don' t know 21 what we do, we make you not do it. Do we not give you the setbacks now? I don' t know. But I think 22 more has to be done then just having a person come before us . And I understand, you were the one 23 that applied for it, and you' re telling us now you' re not responsible for what they did, right? 24 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would personally 25 like to speak to the person responsible for that, but I'm only one vote on the Board. April 27, 2006 5 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lastly, I just want to say that -- and I don' t know if I 3 completely understand and I'm going to leave it at this particular point -- did the contractor 4 contact your office to tell you that they were actually replacing the entire first floor? 5 MS . DROZDOWSKA: No. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As Ms . Weisman 6 says or stated -- and she' s here, if I'm doing this incorrectly also -- you were not hired by the 7 contractor in any way to do anything on this property other than for the owner of the property 8 to do the plans and so on and so forth and to certify those plans which necessitated you to do 9 so to get the building permit, which you were then successfully able to do. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think you were saying she was not hired by the applicant to 11 supervise the construction? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . We' ll 13 see if anybody else in the audience would like to speak either for or against this application? Is 14 there anybody in the Board that would like to hear any further testimony? 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe, Jim, without being able to talk to the contractors - - 16 one could make suppositions about why this was done, simply because this is efficacious way of 17 practicing, and the contractor may or may not have been informed of -- I would assume the contractor 18 was informed that per your plans he was responsible for constructing in a way that was 19 part renovation and not full demo, but without that individual here to testify, we have no 20 further information. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you suggesting 21 that maybe the hearing should be kept open so we can get a fuller account of this? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s my question. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: May I talk? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we had an application in East Marion where we brought the 25 building inspector in; we had this whole big to do about a contractor coming to the building April 27 , 2006 6 1 2 inspector and basically saying, listen, here' s what I have to do before he did it, and he was 3 left months really trying to figure out what to do because we were taking our time, and now it' s 4 currently involved in a lawsuit . And I think if the man made a mistake, then he needs to come 5 before this Board and testify to the fact. If perhaps the restriction was not - - the task 6 couldn' t be held because we maybe were too strict, or it wasn' t something he could actually complete, 7 then maybe this Board learns from that. Maybe we shouldn' t say a wall could be left if it can' t be 8 left. I don' t know what he' s going to say to us, but I do know if we did something that was not 9 workable, we' ll learn from that too. I' d like to hear what he has to say. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s a further point, it' s not the contractor who is ultimately 11 accountable, it' s the applicant and you' re saying you' re not representing the applicant on these 12 kinds of matters, either the applicant or with somebody else would have to be representing this 13 because the contractor is answerable to the applicant and not directly to the Board. So the 14 person who ought to be here is not just the contractor but the applicant herself or some 15 representative who is authorized to do that. She may decide to extend your authority to that but I 16 think that' s what we need. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: She could extend 17 that authority to the contractor. He would represent her. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s more complicated but okay, but it looks like we need to 19 hear more. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I'm just 20 throwing it out to you, and that' s the way we should discuss it in these situations . This is a 21 learning experience for everybody as always . I don' t have about any particular problem - - I have 22 a problem with the aspect of what he did. But I have to understand the absolute construction 23 aspect of what the sistering does to a particular project, that is the studs are all different sizes 24 today, everything is different . It' s a very difficult process . 25 MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I may, they have not negated anything in the construction. Everything April 27 , 2006 7 1 2 that he has done, if I have come in front of you a few months back and told you that we were 3 reconstructing this whole entire wall it' s a benefit. Is it a benefit to the code? Yes, it 4 is . It' s a new 2 by 6 wall that is going to get new insulation. It' s all for the better, but the 5 matter of fact was we were asking for a nonconforming setback approval . So, yeah, I give 6 you this and you give me that, that' s how it works . That' s being plain honest. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not sure that had I been on the Board as an architect that I 8 would recommend sistering studs . MS . DROZDOWSKA: We have done it on 9 numerous occasions . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It can be done, but 10 I would have had to have seen the documentation to really look at the structural soundness what the 11 benefits opposed to the losses, if, in fact, the final end result is as per permit what we' re 12 talking about -- according to variance - - is enforcement. We' re talking about the fact that a .13 judgment by this Board was rendered and whether it was the most appropriate way to proceed or not, it 14 was nevertheless done, and it was violated, not by you, not by the applicant, but by the contractor. 15 The consequences are that to proceed as though nothing happened, in some way sets a precedent for 16 the allowability of future inappropriate actions by a contractor. However, I also see the problem 17 by the homeowner, and to delay construction is costly and inconvenient and the end result is 18 going to be the same regardless . So there' s a real balance between what the right way is to go. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t want to belabor this topic, but I do want to say this . We 20 do have a time slot for about 10 minutes, maybe you could let us know by lunch time either by 21 calling the supervisor' s office or by coming down personally and asking us if you could get the 22 contractor to come in here. Our schedule is so backlogged -- it' s not backlogged, we' re backed 23 up . It' s tight. We want to get this matter rectified, and as you can see, the Board members 24 do have specific questions, and we' re not going to lay anybody out on the carpet. I'm not going to 25 let that happen. Nor are the professional people on this Board ever going to do that. We just want April 27, 2006 8 1 2 to find out what caused him to do what he did. MS . DROZDOWSKA: I respect that decision. 3 I' ll try and get in touch with the homeowner and the contractor. Thank you very much. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' d like to make a resolution to adjourn the hearing until 1 : 20 5 this afternoon. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 - - - - - - - - - ---------- -------- - --- - ------- - - -- - - - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next application 7 is for Mr. and Mrs . Monaco. Good afternoon, sir? Would you like to tell us about your pond? 8 MR. MONACO: My fish pond was built when the original house was built. It' s on my final 9 survey that I presented to the Building Department for my CO. So it' s been there since day one. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long ago was that, sir? 11 MR. MONACO: Approximately four years ago. Last year we completed a small extension on the 12 back of the house, and the problem arose that they said I needed approval for that fish pond that' s 13 been there since day one. So that' s why I'm here today. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have not asked you personally, this happens to be my file so I 15 have to write the decision on it, which we do by alpha basis . Do you know what the approximate 16 circumference is? MR. MONACO: It' s approximately 10 by 12 17 fish pond. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the 18 maximum depth? MR. MONACO: Approximately three feet . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You leave the fish in there in the winter time? 20 MR. MONACO: Yes, if the depth were any less, the fish would freeze and they would die. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that specifically in the middle of the fish pond? 22 MR. MONACO: At the deepest point. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the maximum 23 portion of the fish pond may be only a foot or a foot and a half? 24 MR. MONACO: Yes . And the fish pond is completely fenced in with self-closing gates . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have seen it. You may not have seen my face down there but - - April 27 , 2006 9 1 2 MR. MONACO: That' s why my dog wrecked the house . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We've all seen it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon? 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question was or a comment. Is this whole appearance before us 5 is because the Town code in its virtue has decided to classify a fish pond as a swimming pool? 6 MR. MONACO: Unless you' re dead you wouldn' t swim with the fish. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know. The fish are swimming in it, that seems to be the only reason 8 we' re here. MR. MONACO: You cannot misconstrue this 9 as a swimming pool, with the landscaping I submitted pictures with the landscaping, you can' t 10 used it to swim. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it was a 11 reflecting pool 4 by 4 -- actually, I don' t know what the code says is the minimum size of a 12 swimming pool, it seems to me that this is not a hard case for us . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s a very small percentage of this fish pond which 14 technically goes from your rear yard extending out the shallow part into technically your side yard. 15 It' s an accessory structure that supposed to be in the rear yard. 16 MR. MONACO: I'm a little confused because I'm on a corner, and they' re telling me I have two 17 front yards . What I consider property in the back of a house is always considered a rear yard to my 18 way of thinking. I just don' t know how this ruling goes . 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My comment is that your landscaping is very attractive. 20 MR. MONACO: We try to make it - - and also protect it from outsiders . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s well screened and well fenced. 22 MR. MONACO: And we even have netting over it . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it is not visible, by the way. It' s only visible when you 24 are close to it. MR. MONACO: You can' t see it from either 25 front. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to say April 27 , 2006 10 1 2 for the record and for Mr. Simon' s benefit, the issue is not is it a swimming pool, the issue here 3 is it is a structure. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. And my follow 4 up question is then what is a structure is whether a bird bath is a structure, I don' t know. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it' s a lake or a huge pond, in my particular opinion, it' s a 6 structure, man-made. In this particular case, in my particular opinion it is not a structure. 7 Mr . Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: After an hour on 8 the phone with Pat Conklin, I finally deduced exactly what the problem is . And the problem is 9 that it' s deeper than a pond that you would normally have. In other words, a kid could drown 10 in it basically, that' s why Gary Fish denied it . It' s really a safety concern with the building 11 inspectors . Yeah, it' s all fenced in and that' s well and good, and I think you' re probably just 12 going to need to put a self-closing door that faces that. .13 MR. MONACO: He did tell me how to remedy that problem. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you' ll be well within Gary' s concerns, the Building Inspector' s, 15 concerns . I just wish he had told you to do that and walked away because now we' re faced with every 16 fish pond in town being -- MR. MONACO: I'm sorry if I opened up a 17 can of worms . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the record, Joe 18 and I are pretty good friends, and he' s actually a customer of my company but has no financial 19 concern. I feel no compulsion one way or the other how this goes, the decision. But that' s 20 what got you here. Mr. Fish saw the definition of a swimming pool, deep, a child could drown in it 21 and that' s what started the whole situation. Beyond that, beyond whether this is a structure or 22 not, he was talking about having to build a deck all the way around it, make it part of the house. 23 No, Joe, just want you to know, I don' t think this Board' s going to go that way. I'm hoping that 24 somehow just grant the pond and just restrict it to have the doors and gates be self-closing, which 25 I know you did because I've been in there plenty of times, and not go beyond the scope of trying to April 27, 2006 11 1 2 find this other than just this is some water in the ground. 3 MR. MONACO: I told him I would put the self-closing latches on the extension doors . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just like a swimming pool . If you made it shallower, I was 5 trying to - - MR. MONACO: To protect the fish in the 6 winter time it has to be a certain depth. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s why I 7 asked the question. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the reason 8 why the building inspector denied it because he saw a swimming pool and the fact that a child 9 could go out and -- everybody needs these self-closing doors . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Monaco. Is there anyone here to speak on this 11 particular application? MS . NORTON: Angela Norton, Southold. I'm 12 Joe' s neighbor and I have to say that I have not seen in a very long time such a beautiful piece of 13 property with care taken to everything, and I just am not in opposition to what he' s done. I didn' t 14 hear the beginning of the meeting so I can' t state what it is, but I'm in favor of what he' s done and 15 if he has to change it, I'm sure he will . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is 16 there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this application? 17 MS . MOORE: I'm going to agree with you, please don' t define this as a structure, please 18 don' t define this as a pool . The code specifically says what a pool is, and it' s based 19 on the angle, the depth and so on. I' d hate to see people coming to the Zoning Board for 20 variances for landscaping, which is what this is . The Building Department would have had the 21 authority I think under the state building code, if you think it needs some safety features like 22 fencing, they could have done it; it doesn' t need to come before this Board to get interpretations 23 beyond what the code says . As far as structure goes, I know when Bill was on the Board they 24 specifically redefined the term "structure" so that things that are common sense, a building that 25 is being supported, that' s a structure. You don' t make everything a structure, which was the old April 27 , 2006 12 1 2 definition, just a combination of materials . Now it' s beyond that. It has to be some kind of - - I 3 hate to use that same word -- but a structure that matches more the building code definition of what 4 a structure is . So I'm glad that at least the two that 5 expressed an opinion here that you' re not morphing this into - - as much as I love coming before you 6 and lots of business that it generates - - I hate to see the code grow into anything that it isn' t . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands, I' d like to make a motion to close the hearing and 8 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 9 - - - - - --- -- - ---------------- --- -------- - - - - -- - - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 10 for Mr. and Mrs . Sinopoli, Appeal Number 5876 . How are you, sir? Could you tell us what you' re 11 doing? MR. SINOPOLI : Attaching my house to my 12 garage, and we had a setbacks variance because it' s under 50 feet if I'm not mistaken, 13 approximately 37 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is also my 14 application. So I'm going to let the Board speak first and then if I have any questions, 15 Ms . Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good morning, sir. 16 No, I really don' t have a question because it' s very clear that the connection that you' re making 17 with this, it makes the garage instead of being accessory where the setback would have been fine, 18 an attached structure. So you need a variance for that rear yard, which is a very large rear yard 19 and there' s virtually no consequential difference in terms of impact between it being attached and 20 connected. It' s a very straightforward situation where, in my opinion, a variance is well within 21 reason. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Me too, that' s all I have to say. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this 25 application? I' d like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. April 27, 2006 13 1 2 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - - - - -- ----- --------- - ------ - ----- ---- - ----- --- - - 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is for Henry Galizia, Appeal Number 5871 . What would 4 you like to tell us? MR. GALIZIA: My name is Henry Galizia. I 5 live at 1 Bay Club Drive in Bayside, New York, and I'm also the owner of the subject property, which 6 is 190 Gillette Drive in East Marion. I'm here today to seek two variances . The first one is for 7 a front yard variance from a 35 foot required setback to a proposed 31 . 8 setback to construct a 8 new eight foot wide by five foot deep covered entry stoop; and the second one is for a rear yard 9 variance from a 35 foot required setback to a proposed 30 . 36 foot proposed setback. This is in 10 order to construct a new 15' by 8" wide and 12 ' by 4" deep rear dining room that' s off the existing 11 kitchen. Would you like to know more about the property itself? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. GALIZIA: The subject property has a 13 one story dwelling with three bedrooms and an attached two car garage. I propose to extend 14 approximately three feet of the first floor to square off the existing living room and add a new 15 eight foot wide by five foot deep covered entry. Out the rear I propose to add a 15 by 8 and 12 by 16 4 dining room, since the existing dining room is eliminated with the increased size of the living 17 room. The existing master bedroom will be relocated to a new second floor rear addition with 18 a new master bathroom. I really believe that the improvement I propose will not only increase the 19 value of my home but the neighboring houses on Gillette Drive. It' s being very tastefully done . 20 I work in an architectural firm and the architect that will be working on it has a very keen eye and 21 I respectfully request the variance be granted. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I 22 don' t have any objection to the application, as you know, and as you ride up and down Gillette 23 Drive west and east you will see there are a garden variety of signs for this Board because of 24 the depth of the properties that exist on that block, pretty shallow, but that has no bearing on 25 this application in my opinion. Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is April 27 , 2006 14 1 2 just to ask for a reiteration of this, the reason for the reduction of the rear setback is simply 3 because the property is only just over 100 feet deep. 4 MR. GALIZIA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is behind your 5 property, another property, right? MR. GALIZIA: Yes . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they presumably have been notified? 7 MR. GALIZIA: They have been notified and I spoke to the neighbor and he didn' t indicate 8 any problems . I described what I was doing. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Great, no further 9 questions . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No further questions . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We were there, it' s 12 very clear what your intentions are, and what' s important to note is your existing lot coverage is 13 only 15 percent and when you add the additional, according to the building envelope, you' re still 14 at only 17 percent lot coverage, so it' s quite a modest proposition. I have no objection. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak in 16 favor or against this application? I' d like to make a motion to close the 17 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 - - - - - - - - - --- ----- - ----- ------- - - -------- - - - - - - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 19 for Cheryl Feld and Jon Margolis, Number 5875 . Would you kindly state your name for the 20 record? MR. MARGOLIS : Jon Margolis . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What could you tell us? 22 MR. MARGOLIS : Essentially, we don' t have a fish pond, but we are hoping to put a pool in in 23 I guess our side yard. We don' t have a rear yard according to the code, four front yards . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You actually have three front yards . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Four it says here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four, you' re April 27 , 2006 15 1 2 right. MR. MARGOLIS : Given the wooded nature of 3 the rest of the property, we chose to put the pool where we could put the pool . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have not been a great supporter, I have to be honest with you, 5 of pools this close to the road; however, I did go down, I've been down there twice, and it' s a very 6 unique piece of property, there' s no question about it . Secondly, the turning radius off the 7 road would not mean that a car would end up in that pool assuming a car became awry in some way, 8 manner or form. So therefore, I' ll just go to my colleagues . Miss Weisman? 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually walk by your house all the time down Soundview, we' re 10 neighbors . You've done a lot of nice improvements . It was not staked out so I 11 requested our office to contact Swim King, and it really just -- we were looking at it in terms of 12 where the guide wires were from the telephone pole to get a sense of where you were proposing to do 13 it . And as I looked at the property I realized, I would prefer to have it a little closer, on the 14 other hand, when I look at the terrain and see that you' re beginning to enter into a very sloping 15 condition, additional grading that creates more problems that it solves, which is the case, it 16 seems reasonable. However, I have to say that I took a tape with me, and in the stake out that I 17 did see, it really wasn' t exactly the way the drawing is on your survey. One end was way 18 narrower than the other end. But nevertheless, it does indicate precisely where it' s going to 19 be . And given the fact that I imagine you' re going to extend some forsythia or whatever you' re 20 going to put there for screening, there' s a minimum number of trees that would have to come 21 down on this site, and it seems a reasonable place for it in my opinion. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would have a question/comment. When I saw the property it 23 hadn' t yet been staked out, and quite frankly, it wasn' t clear to me what the best place for that 24 pool would be because the terrain is somewhat uneven and I guess there is an assumption I shared 25 this with Mr. Goehringer is, other things being equal, pools that are close to the front yard are April 27 , 2006 16 1 2 not as desirable as pools that are farther from the front yard. I would personally be a lot 3 happier if somehow when it is staked out, it would not be so close to the road partly for reasons of 4 simply the precedent. More and more people are applying to have pools in the front yard rather 5 than the traditional back yard place, and even screening alone may not be sufficient in some 6 people' s judgment. So I would be inclined to want to ask further whether it would be possible to 7 move the pool farther away from the road and still consistent with the tree cutting and grading and 8 so forth that would be necessary for the project? MR. MARGOLIS : We also looked at the 9 property to get the pool farther away because we didn' t want to be so close to the road. But there 10 is the slope right a few feet away from the road, away from where the pool is now placed, and it 11 goes down and then we would have to put a retaining wall in or something to move the pool 12 there. Just that where it is sited, there are no houses across the street from it. They' re 13 slightly on either side so there' s not someone directly across the street from it. And it is set 14 back on a little slope, so when we do the plantings around the property and around the pool, 15 which we' re going to be doing, it really, I hope for my sake it won' t be visible to passersby. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think if you go back, it' s because we were there the same day it' s 17 because I live so close it' s easy for me to go back. I think now there' s some orange paint, it' s 18 farther away than what it looked like it was going to be . However, Mr. Goehringer just pointed out a 19 possibility that seems reasonable, I don' t have the contra intervals, the corner of your house 20 along Birch is set back 22' 811 ; is it possible to scoot the pool over another two feet or so? So 21 it' s set back the same as the house. MR. MARGOLIS : Rather than the 18? ,22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . If that would not be a problem for you, so it would conform to 23 the house setback is on that one of the four front yards; is that sensible? 24 MR. MARGOLIS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions . April 27, 2006 17 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you are going to put some plantings in front of the pool? 3 I know you had a discussion with Mr. Simon. MR. MARGOLIS : Absolutely. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool will never be enclosed. It will not be a creation of 5 any other type of structure that you may come before this Board? 6 MR. MARGOLIS : No, just the standard fencing. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We do have a hand up over here. 8 MS . GLUCK: Hi, my name is Lisa Gluck and I live at 445 Weslyn Road, which is on the corner 9 of Birch and Weslyn, so I am one of the houses across from you. My concerns are simply what you 10 stated. My husband and I we went out, we measured. I feel it' s too close to the road, and 11 I did have some questions about plantings and privacy. If it was set back a bit, I'd feel a 12 little more comfortable. We have been there nine years and we have been spoiled, and I do 13 understand it is your property and they should be able to do what they want to do with it, I just 14 think it' s too close to the road. My kids play there, and I can see the ball going over. So that 15 would be fine with me screening and further from the road. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, anyone else like to speak? Seeing no hands, I' d 17 like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - - - - -- - - --- ----------- ----- -- - - ------ - - - - --- -- - - 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is for the Sweeneys . Number 5865 . 20 MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert. What we' re proposing here is to construct a second story 21 addition with covered porches and open porches over an existing house. There' s an existing 22 one-story residence on the site. It' s approximately 1, 384 square feet. We' re proposing 23 to build second story additions of approximately 903 square feet on the main portion of the house. 24 With that we have another approximately 125 square foot covered porch and 147 square foot open porch 25 on top of the existing dwelling. The only addition we' re putting on the existing dwelling April 27, 2006 18 1 2 outside the footprint is a proposed open portico on the front door that' s in the front yard. But 3 other than that we propose always to remain open, we' re basically building on top of the existing 4 house. That' s one of the reasons we' re here. The lot' s small, the house is where it is . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a tear-down also? 6 MR. LENHERT: No, the existing house . We' re just taking the roof off . The first floor 7 was renovated about three years ago. So the roof is the only thing coming off . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That 10 ' 6" that exists on the what we' re referring to as the 9 southeasterly property line will remain in effect and will remain open? 10 MR. LENHERT: Yes . The screen porch below is still to remain; the screen porch and above it 11 'that' s going to be the covered porch. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the cover 12 over the porch would be the four foot -- you said that' s four foot, right; it' s a four foot 13 reduction? MR. LENHERT: Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any questions . Mr. Dinizio? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t have any questions . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. Footprint is 17 remaining virtually the same just going up? MR. LENHERT: Yes . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question is more a 19 technical question for Mr. Goehringer. Since the structure is 44 feet from the bulkhead and will 20 continue to be is that more of a burden on that reduced setbacks by having a second story on that 21 size of the house, that is, increasing the size and weight of the building upward, whether that is 22 an issue or not. MR. LENHERT: You mean the weight on the 23 building itself? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The weight on the 24 building itself . Clearly, if you were 10 feet back on the bulkhead nonconforming, and you put a 25 second story on it, that would be a problem. And whether 40 feet makes it exempt from that kind of April 27, 2006 19 1 2 consideration is my only question. It' s an engineering question. 3 MR. LENHERT: Engineering-wise it' s far enough back that we' re not going to disturb any of 4 that up there. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The load is 5 straight down anyway and since you' re not disrupting the existing foundation I can' t see 6 there' s a substantial amount of difference. I'm not an engineer. 7 MR. LENHERT: We dug around the foundation to see if it was there; and there is a foundation 8 under the house. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architecturally 9 there should be no greater burden. The foundation is sound enough to build a second story, there' s 10 no impact, other than a visual impact on the neighbors, bulk, but there' s no structure. 11 MR. LENHERT: The bulkhead is rather new also, I think four years ago. And usually when 12 they put those new bulkheads in, if it' s going to settle, it would have happened already. And if 13 you look in the back yard, you see no evidence of that . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Were the current applicants in the house before the bulkhead was 15 built? MR. LENHERT: No. They bought the house 16 and then had the bulkhead built. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 17 Anybody else like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a 18 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) - ---- - - - - - ---------- ---- - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is for Biel Associates and Gaton Criblez, Number 21 5855 . The next appeal was an appeal that was recessed from the prior regularly scheduled 22 meeting. I guess we would like to call on the attorney, Mr. Cuddy. Good morning Mr. Cuddy, how 23 are you? MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy for the 24 applicant. You have some new surveys and I' ll give you some additional ones, if I may. I 25 apologize for the delay. I didn' t realize that you were moving forward at this rate. I was here April 27 , 2006 20 1 2 on March 30 for the applicant and at that time we were asked on this 16, 000 square foot lot to move 3 the house, if we could, to move the envelope for the house and also to make it a little bit 4 smaller. I think we have accomplished both of those matters . Made the house from 50 to 30 in 5 dimension to 40 to 30, so we have cut off 10 feet from the house. We have moved the house so it 6 virtually is on the west side of the property as a side yard, that' s correct; it now is 75 feet back 7 from the bulkhead. So we don' t need that variance, which was one of the two variances that 8 we originally requested. So the only variance we' re asking for now is in the rear yard, which is 9 31 feet instead of 35 feet. In fact, that variance doesn' t go the whole length of the house, 10 it only goes for about 20 feet because the house is on an angle . So we' re really asking not simply 11 an 11 percent variance but we' re asking even for less because it' s roughly 80 square feet that' s in 12 that area that' s 31 foot from the back line . So it' s a fairly small variance. 13 We believe that we have complied with the request of the Board. We have moved the house . 14 We have made it smaller. We have lessened the variance requirement. We don' t think we have any 15 more alternatives that we could bring to play. We believe that certainly this is not a self-created 16 situation. The lot' s been in existence for more than 60 years . We think again it' s not a 17 substantial variance. We don' t think that the impact on the neighbors has significance at this 18 point, and we ask the Board to approve this variance that we ask for, which is simply the four 19 feet in the back yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We thank you for 20 doing that Mr. Cuddy. Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The response to the 21 questions raised last time is substantial . I mean, this is not a trivial alteration. And it 22 certainly from our point of view is a move in the right direction. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think this is 24 really substantial improvement and I appreciate it very much. It seems like a real level of 25 cooperation and understanding on the impact of the neighbors . Mr. Cuddy, did you in any way consult April 27 , 2006 21 1 2 with the neighbors in doing this? MR. CUDDY: We sent them a copy and I 3 understand they have a response. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They received an 4 update? MR. CUDDY: Yes . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I' ll wait for somebody to speak to see if I have any questions . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no 7 questions . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, 8 Mr. Cuddy, in these situations in an established community, you've been before this Board for many, 9 many years and we appreciate your assistance in all situations that you' re always willing to do. 10 However, in taking care of one thing, unfortunately other things crop up, and that is 11 the ability of water view, and that' s a very difficult thing to deal with in this day and age 12 and we do share those problems with the specific neighbors . However, it' s difficult to prevail on 13 all situations . MR. CUDDY: We have tried to mitigate the 14 problem as best we could. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll see what 15 develops . Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or against this application? 16 MS . MOORE: Thank you, on behalf of Ms . Breen, we also want to thank the owner and 17 Mr. Cuddy. This is a far improved plan that we just have some comments on, but for the most part, 18 it is a good plan. The one concern that we had - - there are a 19 couple of concerns and I' ll go over them item by item, but this is a very good plan with respect to 20 the location of the house . But we suspect that we may have created some animosity with the owner and 21 therefore he might be inclined to put up a spite fence or a hedge that would essentially cut off 22 any open space that has been enjoyed and really the neighborhood honors that is open space that 23 people do not -- they treat each other respectfully, and they try to keep fences to a 24 minimum and high shrubs to a minimum so that it keeps that feel in the community; that has been 25 voluntarily imposed throughout this community but our concern is that in this instance Mr . Dinizio April 27 , 2006 22 1 2 raised it the last time, we were here and it caused some acida to my client, is that all he 3 needs to do is put up a spite fence, and now we' re back where we started. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I stop you here? Are there any C and Rs in the subdivision? 5 MS . BREEN: My name is Paula Breen. Originally by William Wells the builder, and those 6 C and Rs expired in 1978 . They were for the original development of the neighborhood and what 7 they could and couldn' t do in terms of height of house and clothes lines and things like that, 8 shrubbery, up until 1978 it was a 20 year thing from the time the buildings were built. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there an association? 10 MS . BREEN: Yes, there is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That association 11 never attempted to adopt or to further extend them? 12 MS . MOORE: So that' s one issue, certainly you have that authority given they' re getting a 13 variance to try to keep the goal in mind on placement of the house. We don' t want to undo it 14 with respect to fencing and shrubs . Another point that the survey doesn' t 15 show, and I don' t know if he has another survey that does, there' s no indication of where the 16 driveway or where the car' s going to be . We understand, at least my question to Mr. Cuddy is 17 is there decking or a garage here other than what is shown, and he advised me that there isn' t . So 18 we have this plan, and as long as that' s what the owner is asking for, that' s fine. 19 Another issue that came up last time, there is no 280A with respect to this application. 20 Specifically, the sanitary system, my client' s sanitary system is right on the edge of the right 21 of way. Also the driveway is serving the two houses, there' s no indication of what kind of 22 improvements and how during construction or post construction my client' s property is going to be 23 restored. So through the 280A process, I'm hoping there can be some consideration of restoration 24 here because construction sites are generally very aggressive, and this is at the end, this right of 25 way is somewhat blocked on the end, and the trucks are going to have a real hard time making the April 27, 2006 23 1 2 angle for delivery of materials . So the reality is they' re going to be, they' re probably going to 3 cut the corner on my client' s property and most likely damaging the sanitary. And we want to have 4 some protection, God forbid that they crush the sanitary and we have effluent now outside of the 5 sanitary. So that' s a serious concern my client has raised. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think, and I have to tell you, Pat, that I have never, ever 7 asked this to be done. It' s really quite amazing that you raise this issue, and I know you did 8 before, but you need to stake the most farthest corner of those sanitary systems as they perceive 9 to be either on your client' s property or in the right of way. That' s not a sarcastic statement . 10 MS . MOORE: Actually there' s a flower pot on top of it to protect it physically. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need to stake the farthest most point, the edge of that 12 system. MS . MOORE: Given the fact that this 13 property owner has to make sure that he doesn' t damage it, I would think his surveyor should be 14 identifying where it is so his contractors don' t damage it . So it seems to be a burden that that 15 property owner should undertake to protect the site, and to make sure that his agents don' t 16 damage it for his own liability' s sake . Whoever does it, it should be staked. I agree with you 17 with respect to that. But generally, it' s the contractor, the builder who wants to make sure 18 he' s using the right property lines when he' s clearing and cutting driveways and the rest. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know my opinions and we have discussed this in prior 20 applications, I don' t care who has title to the property, that doesn' t mean that I don' t feel 21 sorry for them and I'm not concerned about them. In this particular case we haven' t determined what 22 the 280A requirements are going to be and they have not been denied for 280A this particular 23 plan; is that correct? MS . MOORE: I don' t know what the Building 24 Department is going to determine here. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If it' s a 25 matter of we' re concerned that they may come onto our property and damage it, that' s a little April 27 , 2006 24 1 2 speculative and anticipatory. You might want to do whatever it is you need to do to protect your 3 property and talk to the applicant about cooperating in that regard. I don' t know that 4 this Board is going to anticipate that they' re going to come onto your property and damage it, 5 and that we should do anything to prophylactically prevent that? 6 MS . MOORE. If you end up with a 280A application, I know it will be addressed. If it 7 isn' t through a 280A, I'm hoping through their attorney that he will advise his client . 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can work it out together, perhaps . 9 MS . MOORE: That' s fine, but we' re raising that issue because we' re pointing out that we have 10 a situation here. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, if 11 Mr . Cuddy will accept 280A requirements, and I usually do the requirements for the Board, those 12 will be minimum requirements for a driveway, I am not big on macadam anywhere near the water, I have 13 to tell you that, I have never been and never will be. So we could incorporate that in this 14 application. And I'm seeing a nod. MR. CUDDY: The answer is yes . 15 MS . MOORE: That' s great. So if that' s a part of this application then you can protect the 16 sanitary. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. And those 17 specifications will be for one house and one house only so they will not be extensive, lavish. 18 MS . MOORE: It should be a driveway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what it 19 will be . MS . MOORE: This plan doesn' t show the dry 20 wells . I'm assuming that the Trustees condition of dry wells was imposed, typically they are . 21 MR. CUDDY: No. MS . MOORE: Given that you end up with 22 water runoff issues, I would ask that the Board consider placing conditions that the roof runoff 23 issues will be addressed with dry wells . I think that is generally required by the water and given 24 the proximity of the properties and their room, you can end up with water that goes onto the 25 neighbor' s property. Probably a good idea to have anyway, but we would ask that you put it in the April 27 , 2006 25 1 2 decision. We also want to point out that we tried to 3 work something out with Mr. Cuddy, but I'm not sure that it will be. There is an aerial 4 photograph of this property, and we do have, as well as some other property owners in the area, 5 have prescriptive rights that we have historically - - .this owner and prior owners, as 6 well as some other property owners in this area have been using an access to the beach, to Peconic 7 Bay, through a -- previously it was a right of way that was mapped as part of the road system, and 8 then the road system when Gin Lane was built out, the road was relocated, extinguished and relocated 9 but the access remained for recreational purposes . We have claimed it; we want to make 10 sure you' re aware of it again with the placement of the house, it becomes your decision, it' s 10 11 feet off the property line, which I believe is compliant anyway. We just want to make sure 12 you' re aware of it. The photograph will be part of your file. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Asking Mr. Cuddy a question. Mr. Cuddy does your client' s deed 14 reflect any cloud on it to reflect this right of way? 15 MR. CUDDY: It doesn' t . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: A prescriptive 16 easement wouldn' t be reflected in any document other than a court decision. Pat, what exactly 17 are you asking for? MS . MOORE: We just want to make sure that 18 you have knowledge that we have that claim that we have a prescriptive right. With respect to the 19 location of the house you have 10 feet off the property line there will be continued pedestrian 20 access down to the water. We have tried to work something out that it will be on record since we 21 have the right of way -- they' re relying on the water line through the right of way, kind of 22 issues whether the right of way allows a water line to be run and we have a proscriptive right 23 that we try to enforce. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t expect 24 that the applicant is conceding any prescriptive rights? 25 MR. CUDDY: Absolutely right. MS . MOORE: Probably no. But we are April 27, 2006 26 1 2 putting it on record for the purposes of at least putting the owner on notice. 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board can, if it wishes, can consider that issue but 4 it' s by no means required to acknowledge that sort of claim. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Since it' s not indicated, obviously, a prescriptive easement, is 6 it to the east or west? MS . MOORE: Left side. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: West. MS . MOORE: A prior survey, I think the 8 survey submitted to the Trustees, had a right of way showing on that survey, but it was eliminated. 9 So I think they came to the conclusion, well, we can take it off . 10 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They can. There' s nothing requiring them to show it unless 11 it' s documented anywhere, which apparently it isn' t. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Moore, .before you sit down is there anything else that 13 you in representing your client has spoken to Mr. Cuddy about that we should know about that we 14 could incorporate within this decision that was agreed upon? The fencing aspect is still the 15 issue that' s up in the air. The question is was there any agreement, any feelings regarding that 16 in discussing that with Counsel, who is present with us today? 17 MS . MOORE: I don' t know. He hasn' t stated that his client is willing not to put up a 18 fence or shrubs . Any other questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . You raised a 19 couple things . Number one, I'm trying to wonder, what is an existing sanitary system doing in the 20 right of way, and how does that affect in gentleman' s access to his property? 21 MS . MOORE: That' s a legal opinion. With respect to my opinion on this is that this house 22 was built and the aerial will show it, it was built 1958 or so, that right of way was there but 23 it was more of a driveway. They created a 20 foot right of way. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But it is a right of way? 25 MS . MOORE: Yeah. It' s not interfering with the use of the right of way with respect to April 27 , 2006 27 1 2 him being able to go over it . Realistically, you don' t generally open up a right of way 20 feet in 3 width. The placement of the sanitary back in the old days, it may have been the surveyor, or it may 4 have been off, who knows . I'm not even sure the Health Department had any review with respect to 5 the sanitary at the time, it was placed. Eyeballing at the time in ' 58 things were done 6 differently. That' s where it is . At least it was located by this surveyor, probably for Health 7 Department purposes you usually have to show where your neighboring sanitary, and in this case it' s 8 public water but prior to the extension of public water, had you wells and sanitary that were shown. 9 We don' t have an obligation to relocate it. The property is my client' s property, that they have a 10 right to cross over it to get to theirs but the property remains my client' s . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: With respect to your question that the applicant do something 12 extraordinary -- MS . MOORE: In what respect is that 13 extraordinary? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO. No . I'm wondering 14 if the applicant couldn' t ask you to relocate it . You' re asking him to take preventative measures, 15 or we would restrict him to take preventative measures to get on his right of way because you 16 have a septic system there on his right of way. MS . BREEN: It' s not on the right of way. 17 It' s on the edge of the right of way, sorry. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we don' t have to 18 restrict this gentleman to anything, if someone trespasses on your property, you have to deal with 19 that.. MS . MOORE : It remains our property. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Say the sheetrock truck comes in and falls into their cesspool 21 because he went on their property off the right of way. That' s a problem. 22 MS . MOORE: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not a 23 problem for this Board to solve . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correct . 24 MS . MOORE: That will be a private action, Yes . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But I heard you say that you would like to ask the applicant to take April 27 , 2006 28 1 2 some measure to guard against that? MS . MOORE: Identifying for his 3 contractors, we have a flower pot on it . We' re hoping the contractors won' t go over a flower pot, 4 but we don' t know, if it' s covered in three feet of snow, they may not see it . So they may truck 5 right over everything. It' s just protective for a contractor to know where things are. If there' s a 6 tree there, it' s whatever. They are going to clear a path hopefully that' s going to be adequate 7 for their contractors to use, but we' re hoping that everybody that works on this house is mindful 8 of the fact that there is a sanitary ring right on the edge of that right of way. And again, 280A, 9 when you' re looking at access and you' re looking at what kind of improvements to make, if he were 10 trying to put Belgian blocks over that ring, I don' t think that would go very well . They have a 11 right to use the right of way, but at the same Lime, they' re not supposed to damage our property. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I be perfectly honest here? 13 MS . MOORE: Never have to worry about that, yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see a person who has a sanitary system on the right of way, 15 standing on their front yard with their arms crossed, refusing to mark it in any way so 16 something can happen. So why can' t you just take a yellow ribbon tape out there. They know what 17 they want to protect. I don' t think the guy who' s building the house or Riverhead Building Supply or 18 whoever comes in there needs to be worried about this sanitary system. So take some yellow tape . 19 MS . MOORE: That' s a wonderful suggestion. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s their 20 responsibility. I don' t see where we should be requiring him because he wants to move his house 21 10 feet from a property line to go 300 feet away and mark something that quite honestly he has a 22 right to go on. MS . MOORE: He' s got a surveyor to come 23 out and do footings throughout the whole construction period, a surveyor' s going to be out . 24 Particularly when you have zoning variances, a surveyor is out there day one, if any contractor 25 knows what he' s doing, he' s going to mark out the footprint they can work with so he doesn' t build April 27 , 2006 29 1 2 the house in violation of the zoning variance . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t quite 3 understand why this is a concern of the Board, why we' re talking about it this morning. 4 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We need to move on. 5 MS . MOORE: You can choose to incorporate whatever you feel is reasonable in your 6 decision. One of the things is the restoration of the client' s property, to make sure that the 7 driveway isn' t left a big mud pie, okay. Those are the kinds of things that you have to worry 8 about and the Building Department would look to. So I'm asking you to use a little bit of common 9 sense when you' re writing the decision that gives protection to everybody, both the owner knows what 10 his limitations, requirements are and that Ms . Breen knows, hey, they' re going to be 11 careful . I think that' s normal common sense and you incorporate it into decisions all the time. 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s always been a lot of common sense in the decisions that' I've 13 seen. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think asking this 14 Board to require that I think is just a little too much, when honestly, they could park their car 15 there so no one could go. There' s plenty of ways to mark that if they' re concerned about their 16 system, and I think that would be a neighborly thing to do. What if a surveyor makes a mistake. 17 A lot of things can go wrong when the person that is building this house and the - - 18 MS . MOORE: We' ll stake it and then his surveyor can verify it. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Stake it out. My God, if a truck runs it over then you can say 20 didn' t you see the yellow tape? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A number of issues 21 that have been raised are essentially what are part and parcel of what it means to be a 22 respectful neighbor. And I have every reason to believe based on the reasonableness of this 23 changed survey, reduction in size, reduction in variance requested and so on, that this applicant 24 and Counsel are extremely reasonable people and are making very good faith efforts to have the 25 least impact possible on a very difficult site for the neighbors . I don' t see any reason why that April 27 , 2006 30 ' 1 2 show of good faith shouldn' t continue. MS . MOORE: I hope that' s the case. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason you' re a lawyer is because lawyers try to put in writing 4 things to make sure that good faith is well represented and respected. So I think we' ll take 5 that as advice -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Beyond that, that' s 6 one question. My other one is prescriptive easement? 7 MS . MOORE: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s nothing in 8 writing? Is there anything in writing that says we have the right? 9 MS . MOORE: The history of this property is that the property was originally conveyed by 10 will to the family and that will set forth that the right of ways were actually specifically 11 identified before Gin Lane was built out. That family went and developed the property. I think 12 it was Dickerson that was the developer of this whole property, I'm sorry, Wells . When Wells 13 built out the subdivision, when he built Gin Lane, there was another document that said we can 14 eliminate these-' right of ways to a limited extent, some were still required like the one that gave 15 access to these two lots . That right of way the road system was extinguished and relocated to Gin 16 Lane . From prior to that relocation there was use and from the photographs you can see it because 17 there was a little fishing shack at the end of it, there was use of this access to the water for 18 recreational purposes and the rest. That continued over time and has continued through my 19 client' s prior owner and this owner because obviously you get to the water between the 20 property lines . My client could go through the property to the water because there was no house 21 there, but for the most part the others that used it pretty much stayed on the edge of the access 22 where it has historically been, so that' s the prescriptive right we've claimed and we' re just 23 informing you that that' s where it is so when you look at the location of the house, location' s fine 24 as far as you' re concerned given that there' s a pedestrian right for people to walk, not a car, 25 nothing, The old right of way had for cars any and all purposes, that' s the title history here. April 27 , 2006 31 1 2 So that' s the historic . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re claiming 3 something but I have nothing in writing. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If I can 4 explain very quickly. They have a claim to a prescriptive easement, they don' t have any 5 easement that' s documented or held up by any court . It' s by use. If I walk over your property 6 for 20 years, I may claim that I had have a continual right to do so. You can dispute it and 7 it' s never resolved unless a court says, yes, I do . So they' re claiming they do. The applicant 8 is probably not agreeing to that and this Board is not empowered to resolve that dispute. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not offering that as - - 10 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: She' s asking you to consider it. 11 MS . MOORE: Just keep in mind that that' s the position we've taken and we' re putting them on 12 notice. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has nothing to 13 do with our decision. MS . MOORE: It' s part of a fact pattern 14 that you look at when you' re considering application. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Making it part of the record? 16 MS . MOORE: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, we' ll 17 wrap up with you, can I go and see if there' s anybody that would like to speak on this 18 application? Seeing no hands, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: I can appreciate advocacy on 19 behalf of a client, and I've been doing this for more than 25 years, but I have never heard so many 20 irrelevancies having to do with an area variance . We' re asking for a four foot area variance. We 21 were before the Town Trustees last year. The same woman appeared before the Town Trustees . We were 22 before you on March 30th; they appeared then. No mention was ever made of a prescriptive easement, 23 for the record. In fact, until 10 minutes before this hearing, no mention was made. It was made to 24 me in the hall for the first time. I'm troubled by that. I am also letting you know on the record 25 that this lot is shown as a lot on the filed map, the lot in back of us we' re talking about . This April 27 , 2006 32 1 2 lot is not shown as part of the filed map. It was created by Wells prior in time to the filed map, 3 which was 1959 . On the filed map it shows this easement coming right to the northerly line of our 4 property, just as it shows on the survey. And I'm troubled a great deal by talking about 5 prescriptive easements, by talking about us going over cesspools or sanitary systems . There has 6 been nothing that my client has done that shows that he has an animus towards her in any fashion. 7 And I'm troubled by them creating facts to you - - and I think they' re creating facts -- that really 8 shouldn' t be part of your decision. And I don' t know why it' s being done, and I'm upset as a 9 lawyer that time is being taken. So I'm not going to take any more time. But I'm troubled by your 10 being asked to I think put things in a decision that have no bearing on an area variance at all, 11 and I just ask that you consider that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, I am 12 aware of the fact that several issues have come up that are not germane to this area variance, and 13 you are absolutely correct. However, specific legal statements were made in reference to this 14 prescriptive easement and Board members had questions . That' s the reason we continued and 15 that' s the reason why you saw me get up and discuss it with the Town attorney. Hearing no 16 further comment, I' d like to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 17 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 - - - - - - - - ---------- ---- ----- ---- - ------ - - - -- - - - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next appeal 19 is for Chapman 5857 . iiR. ANGEL: Members of the Board, Ladies 20 and Gentlemen, good morning, Ted Angel from Alpha Consulting on behalf of John Chapman. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us, Mr. Angel? 22 MR. ANGEL: Mr. Chapman was ready to build this pool about two years ago and we did acquire 23 the permit from the DEC, we did acquire the permit from the Town Trustees and on application to the 24 Building Department, it turned out that two owners prior, about 33 years ago, it was determined where 25 the rear yard was on this particular property. The property is situated on Arrowhead Lane, it' s a April 27 , 2006 33 1 2 private road it' s at the end of Arrowhead Lane and there' s a significant marsh in front of it as it 3 approaches Little Creek. It appears and this was per Pat Conklin, that that decision prevented 4 their approval of the pool to be installed where the Trustees approved it and where the DEC 5 approved it. This is why it' s before this Board. 6 It' s an in-ground pool . It does not have an effect on the wetlands . It complies with all 7 setback requirements, both the DEC and the Town. The property has been improved substantially by 8 the Chapmans . It cannot be put in the yard that would be the side yard because that is the 9 entrance to the property that is a wetlands . And it has a circular driveway. The front of the 10 property as it' s being used now, looking out on the marsh and the waterway, to put the pool there 11 it comes up short with respect to the DEC setbacks requirement, and I did apply to the DEC for a five 12 foot variance, but they declined it because there was adequate space elsewhere, which was the 13 original application to both the DEC and the Trustees . As I have previously said, it is on a 14 private road; it' s on the end of the road. There is no objection by anyone. The pool itself would 15 not be visible generally by anyone in the public and there is a sloping terrain. We did have 16 Peconic Surveyors do a contour survey. That survey has been completed except that when I 17 stopped in there today, the secretary who left me the message that it was ready put it somewhere and 18 Mr. Metzgar could not find it, and on my departure from Town Hall, I will stop there again and ask 19 for it . It has been done. It' s basically a technical matter of the placement of the pool . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll close the hearing pending the receipt of that, Mr . Angel . I 21 just want to say that uniquely having worked on this because I've been to this property before and 22 I think it was held up for that particular reason, and it' s always a joy to go down there anyway, 23 it' s a beautiful road. In the area of the driveway, which is circular, there was no attempt 24 to place the pool over on that side rather than in the particular spot that it' s in at this point? 25 MR. ANGEL: It would be in the front of the entrance because that' s where they' re using April 27 , 2006 34 1 2 the property as an entryway for the garage and driving onto the property where they would have 3 guests, et cetera. Since that' s already in stone, they couldn' t basically see having to put a pool 4 there because it would interfere with their present use . And being that it is situated the 5 way it is on a private road and there is no traffic, there is no transiency past that, and it 6 does comply with the setbacks from the road, just to satisfy this technicality and as was explained 7 to me by the Building Department, it is a technicality, otherwise, they would have seen 8 clear, except for that agreement 35 years ago, they would have seen clear to approve that 9 location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying that 10 because it' s a private road certain things are allowed would otherwise not be allowed? 11 MR. ANGEL: No, sir, I'm not suggesting that . I'm bringing up for the record that it is a 12 private road and that it' s not a common thoroughfare that maybe would set kind of a 13 precedent. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So setbacks apply to 14 private roads as well? MR. ANGEL: Certainly. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I was puzzled about, and I've been there twice, and I appreciate 16 the problem with distances from the wetlands . MR. ANGEL: May I interject, I'm not a 17 lawyer and I'm not holding myself out as one . I'm doing this as an accommodation to the Chapmans 18 because I simply do permits, but because of this quirk, it has caused them some distress because 19 they do want to use the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Fine, understood. 20 But what was not clear to me was why the pool would be any closer to the wetlands if it were 21 built closer to what looks to most of us like the rear of the house rather than closer to the 22 road. It' s 20 feet or so from the road, right? MR. ANGEL: Thirty-five feet. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It is a setback because I didn' t see it staked out. 24 MR. ANGEL: There are flags in there showing where it is . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the reason why it couldn' t be further to I guess it' s the April 27 , 2006 35 1 2 west, in other words, behind that porch? MR. ANGEL: The DEC wants no less than 75 3 Feet from the edge of the wetlands, which was delineated. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So in the plan location it' s farther than that? 5 MR. ANGEL: Yes, it is . It satisfies the 75 foot requirement. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And closer to being directly behind the house would not do so. 7 MR. ANGEL: In the area looking out on the wetlands, no, it would be too short. 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless it were closer to the house? 9 MR. ANGEL: And then it wouldn' t make much sense because it would interfere with that lawn 10 area as it approaches the wetlands and the view to the waterway. So this is actually the most 11 logical place, and that' s why the DEC approved it and the Trustees approved it initially, but then 12 we tried to move it to satisfy the requirements of the Building Department, and the fact that the 13 road which curves there and basically I worked from the stakes, from the monuments that were 14 there. It' s a logical place and it has no material disadvantage to anybody or anything but 15 it' s a matter of a technicality. I'm an owner of property too, and I have three front yards on a 16 parcel on the south fork because I have a corner, it' s on the water, and two roads, and I have three 17 front yards, and I had to put a swimming pool in myself, and it gets a bit dicey sometimes because 18 you have a lot of requirements to satisfy for technical reasons . So in this particular case, by 19 virtue of its location, and I don' t mean that that' s the basis for an exception, but by virtue 20 of its location, and the fact that it would not set any kind of particular precedent, the Chapmans 21 would be appreciative if this Board would find that the placement would be approved. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman? 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . It would appear that the slope -- that' s why I want to see 24 the contour map -- the slope is towards the wetlands . So certainly I see you have just now 25 received a cross-section that indicates an upland dry well for the pool? April 27 , 2006 36 1 2 MR. ANGEL: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: My concern is 3 'that' s really an extraordinary piece of property, very privileged to live in such a beautiful place, 4 and it will require some tree removal, minimal but some tree removal, and that too impacts in terms 5 of soil and runoff, and reduction of root structure . 6 MR. ANGEL: It' s the immediate trees, so there are other trees, the Chapmans are very 7 careful in what they did there. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see it' s been 8 carefully staked and carefully considered, and if it meets DEC and Trustee approval, fine as long as 9 there' s protection from runoff to the wetlands, which are my concern, it' s a difficult place to 10 locate, it' s a very fragile piece of property. Just want to make sure it' s protected. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any landscaping plan you could submit to us that would 13 allow us to be more rested with the fact that this project is in the front yard area? 14 MR. ANGEL: Actually, I think whatever your recommendations would be, the Chapmans would 15 be happy to follow. This has taken such a long time that no decisions were made with regard to 16 that other than basically installing the pool, and whatever recommendations you have, I'm sure they 17 would be very happy to follow. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would they also 18 be happy to follow any further enhancement if more enhancement was needed after they dealt with our 19 recommendations? In other words, this is a difficult statement to make, we felt a couple more 20 evergreens needed to placed in strategic positions? 21 MR. ANGEL: No problem. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 22 else who would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion 23 to close the hearing pending the receipt of the contour from Mr. Metzgar and we will reserve 24 decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 - - ------ - - ---------------------- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next hearing on April 27 , 2006 37 1 2 the agenda is 5873 for Campbell . MS . CAMPBELL: Good morning my name is 3 Loretta Campbell, I'm the petitioner, this is my husband, Jack Campbell . I do have this, and I' ll 4 give you a copy. This is the elevations, and we are above the FEMA flood plain, and I understand 5 that I have to have an application to FEMA for an amendment, and I just obtained that from the 6 surveyor. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just want to 7 mention that the site map outlines the proposed additions, and we' ll pass it down. Doesn' t show 8 elevations but i•t does show site elevation. MS . CAMPBELL: Correct, thank you. I can 9 say I'm not a lawyer, I'm representing myself . The existing house is 1, 259 square foot, there' s a 10 little shed which is 86 square foot, and the deck on the south side of the house is 95 square foot, 11 total 1, 440 or 14 .4 percent. Our petition is to add a garage to the 12 ground floor and a master bedroom in the back, and the purpose of this is my husband and I are 13 planning to have handicapped facilities . We want as you saw on the plan, a handicapped ramp in the 14 garage, and then there is a second story, which would be a bedroom, a loft room and a bathroom. 15 We have custody of our grandchild who is 14, we have him four years; he will be with us hopefully 16 for four years of high school and four years of college, so we feel we need that space for 17 him. The purpose of the deck is to be able to have access for the master bedroom onto the deck 18 and then an access from -- which would be a great room or, which is combined living room/kitchen, 19 out into the deck again. That was the purpose for the petition and the addition. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Campbell, I have to tell you in the history of my being on the 21 Board, I need to discuss with you the availability or the need for the handicapped aspect, and I 22 don' t like to be the bidder of bad news but this has been the highest lot coverage I have ever 23 seen. MS . CAMPBELL: I have to say I went along 24 with what the architectural services did. I .really didn' t have a great deal of knowledge . I 25 relied on our architectural services . I have to say, I don' t think they served me well, and that April 27, 2006 38 1 2 was probably the reason for this . I decided to go ahead and then allow this Board, these Trustees, 3 to make the adjustments as needed. I'm hoping it' s going to fall under some of the plans . I can 4 tell you why we are asking for some of this . I think as far as having the handicapped ramp in the 5 garage, I thought that was a unique idea coming out of the house, saving bad weather conditions , 6 getting into a car and being able to do that, that was that reason. The deck was so that out of the 7 master bedroom you could bring a wheelchair out to the back also from the living room area. So, I'm 8 certainly not entrenched, but I will accommodate as necessary. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you, the individuals and my fellow 10 colleagues on this Board are well-versed in all of the aspects of what it means to cut here or cut 11 there, but I am asking you to look at frankly the availability to reducing the deck to a ground 12 level deck and thereby taking off an entire 10 ' 8" by 56 or reducing it to some point that it can be 13 reduced to a ground level deck so that that square footage can be taken off; do you understand what 14 I'm saying? I don' t really want you to take anything off the house if that' s what you feel you 15 absolutely need at this juncture of your lives . I would much rather see 10 feet rather than 7 . 7 on 16 the northerly property line but we' ll see how my colleagues feel about that. But the deck is an 17 easy one or some fragmentation of that deck. MS . CAMPBELL: I'm certainly willing but 18 my only concern would be that it be handicapped accessible, wheelchair accessible. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But you can take that and bring that down on to a ground level deck 20 at some point with a ramp, and that' s the easiest way to do it; doesn' t disrupt the function of the 21 house, doesn' t disrupt anything. That' s just my opinion and I' ll go to Mr. Simon. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This a very small lot, quarter of an acre, and your needs are 23 important and credible and so on. It' s a situation which calls for a great deal of 24 imagination as to how to a build a house or to rebuild a house which will suit your legitimate 25 needs and also the constraints of working on a 10 , 000 square foot lot. I don' t really know how April 27 , 2006 39 1 2 - - the deck is a good idea, but I don' t know how we can redesign your plan so it will do 3 that. There is one architect on the Board but the Board doesn' t usually get involved in the 4 redrawing of plans . MS . CAMPBELL: I don' t expect you would. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm somewhat stymied with this because it looks like it' s pretty 6 massive, and I would think an imagination and a recognition at the outset of the kind of 7 constraints, such as a 20 percent coverage, might have been employed, and might still be employed to 8 make something that we would be happier approving. So I guess I'm saying -- it' s not really a 9 question, it' s a plea to try to make it look a little bit more plausible to us because of the 10 problems with this . Maybe it' s impossible, I don' t know. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm the architect. And there are a number of other -- while the idea 12 of a ramp is an excellent idea in the interior of the garage, what it does by running it parallel to 13 the exterior wall rather than perpendicular on the interior wall, you have to look at the ratio 14 between riser and run, there' s a maximum slope that' s to code for wheelchair access . So you have 15 to see within 14 feet, if we moved over - - in other words, if we made your garage slightly 16 narrower to provide a better side yard setback, you could still get a ramp in there. You' d have 17 to change the orientation. The other thing I might point out to you 18 is there is no necessity whatsoever for not having a zero threshold to your front door. You have a 19 step there that is not necessary on your portico; that can be done by grading. You can grade up 20 slightly so you can come in flush, it doesn' t have to be a ramp, you simply have a path. 21 MS . CAMPBELL: Do you mean outdoors into the front? 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . You can do that without a step, so it' s fully accessible, 23 simply changing the landscaping. You can create a sloping grade so that you can come straight in 24 without having to go onto a step. There are a number of measures that can be taken to 25 essentially accomplish what you need, especially in terms of a turning radius, you need to have April 27, 2006 40 1 2 that master bedroom properly laid out with furniture. In order to understand the turning 3 radius that' s required for wheelchairs, but you may be able to shrink that down a little bit and 4 still have access . Have your three foot doors throughout, which is very good, 32 is allowable 5 but 36 is better. So I think what you need to do because it is extensive lot coverage. I have no 6 objection to the second story at all, that' s additional square footage that you can build as of 7 right, without a variance, provided the setbacks are right and you' re meeting the bulk schedule, 8 the bulk schedule refers to the height of the second story. 9 MS . CAMPBELL: Is the height all right? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is . As 10 you' ve got it drawn, all right. I've been a proponent of Universal Design and worked in the 11 area of ADA in regard to Disability Act compliance guidelines for a long long time, and I actually 12 believe most houses ought to be designed from the get go with this instead of having to deal with it 13 down the line as people age and life happens . You may be absolutely perfect in terms of health but 14 suppose you have a friend who has mobility issues . MS . CAMPBELL: We have two young friends 15 in wheelchairs, and they come to have - - BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or if you want to 16 drag some wood into your fireplace, not everybody should have to hoist it up, if you have something 17 at grade, it' s easy to wheel anything in and out. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just suggest to you that in the past - - and I'm not 19 suggesting that we proceed with that - - we usually give nice people like these a max, and I think the 20 purpose of this hearing would be to give them a maximum lot coverage that this Board could live 21 with. Is the number 25 percent, is the number 25 . 5 percent, and they then can make the cuts the 22 way they perceive them after they discuss them with an architect. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you understand? MS . CAMPBELL: Yes, I do . We do lot 24 coverage up to 25 . 5, I think that' s what you said. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s my 25 opinion. MS . CAMPBELL: Then I could come back to April 27, 2006 41 1 2 the architectural services and have them make those adjustments . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. But I think the perception and the overall skill that 4 Miss Weisman is bringing to the floor or to the record and that aspect of narrowing the garage a 5 little bit and changing that front portico are important ones for you to use as a concept. 6 Although I don' t think they take a substantial amount off the lot coverage, I think what you need 7 to do is address that issue of the deck and then drop it down to a ground level deck later, by the 8 use of a ramp. And that ground level is not calculated in lot coverage. 9 MS . CAMPBELL: I am aware of that. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It can be 10 cement, it can be slate, any type of composite material . It can also be wood, I have one that' s 11 wood. It' s pressure treated wood and it' s built on the ground. 12 MS . CAMPBELL: I just wanted to be sure that I would have access from the house, the 13 bedroom sliding door with a wheelchair to the outside and the same is the living room, so that 14 we wouldn' t be limited to wheelchair access only at one exit. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That makes sense. MS . CAMPBELL: May I write this down and 16 have this all clear, it' s the deck -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s my 17 suggestion, it doesn' t have to be the deck. MS . CAMPBELL: But from the bedroom and 18 the width of the garage do you want that side variance to be just 10 feet? 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We would like it to be increased, it doesn' t necessarily have to be 20 10 feet; that would be one variance you wouldn' t have to deal with. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would eliminate the side yard variance, that' s doable. 22 MS . CAMPBELL: I think I showed some pictures right in the neighborhood that are not 23 even 7 .7 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. 24 MS . CAMPBELL: I did check the neighborhood. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Apart from the Disabilities Act and as it pertains to lot April 27 , 2006 42 1 2 coverage in general, we do this all the time with swimming pools, all the time, and that is we tell 3 the people to build the house first, knowing right well, what they' re going to exceed the lot 4 coverage on based on variance we inform that after that that whatever other accessory structures they 5 want to put on, they have to be aware that sometimes they may have to eliminate this . So in 6 this particular case it' s good you did come in and we did discuss this with you. And we still have 7 Mr. Dinizio' s feelings regarding this matter and let' s go with that right now. Mr. Dinizio? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Having known Mr. and Mrs . Campbell probably all my life, I 9 never thought I would hear survey or FEMA from her mouth. It looks like you got pretty involved in 10 this . You probably can get away with that front porch, I think you really can if you talk to the 11 architect and have him just lower it probably just six inches and have it graded it properly. We 12 look at that all the time. I mean, that eliminates a lot, and maybe you' ll have to deal 13 with a ramp from each door, but there' s no reason why you can' t have access to that location from 14 any door in the house . But you may have to have a six inch ramp or something that allows you to come 15 down instead of a step. Beyond that, you could even make it not permanent. Build a ramp and just 16 let it stay there, that doesn' t count against your lot coverage in any way. You could build a ramp 17 and just lay it against the door as long as it' s not permanent it doesn' t count as your lot 18 coverage. I'm not sure that you can get away with less than the seven foot. We can' t cut them back 19 any more than that. I understand the reason for having the ramp inside. That' s a darned good 20 idea. MS . CAMPBELL: I thought it was unique and 21 very helpful being we are year round residents . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You intend to stay 22 there. I think you' re going to need to work on that, 29 percent, to my mind 29 percent and 25 23 percent doesn' t make too much difference over there. I think you can gain something and make 24 the people on the Board a little more amenable, which I think it' s something you really need. 25 MS . CAMPBELL: The purpose for that large bedroom is I wanted that to be our bedroom and April 27 , 2006 43 1 2 like a sitting area because we do have our grandson, and it would be some privacy for us or 3 if someone is ill, I thought that having a room that size would make it easier to do care and 4 things like that, and since I am a nurse, I really feel I'm very aware of this . And my husband' s 5 parents both had dementia, and we took care of my husband' s father in the house, 1445, and he had 6 his hospital bed in the living room and was never really had the light of day once we were in there 7 because we could not get out. We did not have access because he was in bed. So, I feel I 8 brought some experience to these plans, but I'm certainly very willing to make the changes that 9 would make this acceptable. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think you' re 10 right. We should really look at lot coverage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s give her a 11 maximum. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am not a big 12 proponent of ramps all over the place. They can be done beautifully. You don' t want something to 13 look prosthetic, it' s your home. You' re not creating some institutional appearance . There' s 14 enough room in your toilet, in the master bedroom bathroom for a lateral transfer with grab bars 15 onto the toilet. But it doesn' t indicate that the shower is a rolling shower. 16 MS . CAMPBELL: Actually there is no lip on that shower, bring a wheelchair right in, I have 17 seen it in someone else' s home and I was enamored by it. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it works fine. You just want to make sure that you get what you 19 need in this dwelling without compromise because there' s no need. You should look at the kitchen 20 as well, there' s a couple of possible problems . MS . CAMPBELL: I'm unhappy with that. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not a practicing architect, I'm a professor of 22 architecture, I preach. What I want to do with my colleagues is find a way of helping you accomplish 23 what you need, but the architect really has to be consulted. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have to do two things . Is everybody on this Board with 25 a 7 . 7? We haven' t discussed it with the neighbors who may be here. We need to hear from this April 27 , 2006 44 1 2 neighbor and see what he would like to say. Yes, sir. 3 MR. HERMANN: I'm Phil Hermann, adjacent neighbor on the south side of the house. None of 4 the neighbors have ,any objection related to the setbacks . On the north side the setback, which is 5 the smallest one, I think it' s eight foot that' s being proposed, to the next house must be about 35 6 feet. So we don' t see, even if they expanded a little bit, they would have a 10 foot setback 7 where they could come 15 feet. We don' t see any problem with setbacks . We have more of a problem 8 with setbacks with the old Fire Road behind on Cedar in Gardiner Bay Estates because some of the 9 people in Gardiner' s Bay are misusing their property lines . 10 So as far as I'm concerned, I think it would be a wonderful addition to the house, an 11 expansion, it' s definitely needed for the facilities that Deedee and Jack want. And I am 12 100 percent behind them. I used to be architectural . Listening to some of their 13 suggestions I'd be very happy to sit down with Deedee and help her out. I won' t charge her much. 14 But I'm very much in favor of the plans, and I'm very comfortable with the setbacks . I agree maybe 15 the back porch could go down a grade and it' s no longer a part of the occupancy of the square 16 footage, I think it' s a good suggestion by the Board. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re going to do that, you need to talk to Pat Conklin and find 18 out exactly what they consider a deck on grade because it' s not up to the dirt. There' s a step 19 there that you can have, you can raise it up some. MR. HERMANN: It' s based on what' s laying 20 on the earth. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I had a discussion 21 with her about the pond, it' s not just level with the grade, there' s a step that you could actually 22 take and still be considered ground level, which would allow you to get that up a little higher, a 23 little less ramp, and maybe I' ll talk to her about that too. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you' re willing to work for food, try shoveling some dirt around 25 because if you change the topography minimally and you are above the flood plain, that can do a great April 27, 2006 45 1 2 deal . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 3 else who would like to speak in favor of or against this application? Then the next question 4 is is the Board comfortable with a specific figure or discuss that at a deliberation session? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think we need to deliberate. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will come back to you with a maximum coverage figure and 7 we' ll get that back to you in two weeks or the architect or engineer or the gentleman in the 8 back. MS . CAMPBELL: Thank you very much. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 10 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 - - -- ----- - ------------------ - - - ----- - ------ - - -- - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 12 on behalf of Rallis, Number 5861 . Mr. Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for 13 Dr. Rallis. ; As you know from looking at the application, the problem is the two roads, the 14 usual . They would like to install an in-ground pool in what is the architectural rear yard of the 15 house, the property. However, there' s another road that has to be contended with in the rear 16 yard making it a front yard. The good news is that the rear yard road is 200 feet away and 100 17 feet lower in elevation than the area we' re proposing the in-ground pool . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Fitzgerald, I was up there over the weekend actually, and I 19 think the good thing is that you' re attempting to place this pool in a proposed location, and it' s 20 close to the house because the property does fall away towards the bluff, we' ll refer to that as a 21 bluff, it' s not really a bluff because there' s a road down below. But in reality it' s sand-ridden 22 and it appears to be a bluff, even though under the normal terms, so that' s a good thing. And any 23 attempt to stabilize that in any way would be greatly appreciated. 24 MR. FITZGERALD: stabilize the -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The bluff after 25 the pool, whatever needed to be done would be greatly appreciated also. April 27 , 2006 46 1 2 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure because it' s to their advantage. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How far is the swimming pool to the edge of the bluff, it' s a 4 good 30 feet? MR. FITZGERALD: I've shown in effect a 5 building envelope on the plan, and they had Jim Deerkoski look at the site from that standpoint, 6 and it was his feeling that that would not be a particular problem as long as we stayed back, at 7 least the 10 or 15 feet as shown in the plan. And that is easily doable because as Mr. Goehringer 8 said, we' re interested in having it pretty close to the house because it can surround it at grade 9 level patio area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It really is a 10 waterfront piece of property without the waterfront. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But on top of a bluff . 12 MR. FITZGERALD: When you come up, as you did I guess, in the driveway and park there and 13 look out you' re absolutely convinced it' s on the waterfront. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is unique also is that the house is setback to make it look 15 beautiful, it sits on top of that little parapet that makes it nice. Miss Weisman? 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the building envelope is at least - - it' s a level plateau so 17 that the amount of runoff is mitigated by the fact that there' s no contour until you reach the actual 18 edge of this very steep slope. My concern as with Mr. Goehringer is with runoff as long as dry wells 19 are installed and it' s as close to the house as possible. Groundwater runoff and even from the 20 pool, just make sure there' s a dry well in there that takes care of that. 21 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there will be a dry well at least for use during back wash and the 22 filter. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is 23 vegetated, it' s quite a large pool and keep it as close to the house as possible. I have no problem 24 at all with considering that as a rear yard setback. It has virtually no visual impact 25 whatsoever except to the neighbors on both sides but that' s allowable. April 27, 2.006 47 1 2 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against 4 this application? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 5 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 6 - - - - ---- - --------------------- ------- - - - ------ - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll make a 7 motion to recess for lunch. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll make a motion to reconvene. 9 (See minutes for resolution. ) BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 10 on behalf of J.W. Guild, Number 5866 . MR. GUILD: Jay Guild. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us, Mr. Guild, what you are planning to do? 12 MR. GUILD: I'm on the north side of the road on County Road 48, and what we' re trying to 13 do is I want to cover over 20 percent of my property with a greenhouse. I have never run into 14 this before. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you clear up 15 with me at least on one specific statement that I read something about open permits on the original 16 building? MR. GUILD: There' s a greenhouse there 17 that I had a permit on and I never closed it out . They never came and checked it. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a possibility that you could do that so we can start 19 from square one at that particular point? MR. GUILD: They told me to let everything 20 go through the appeals court because I'm 19' 911 , and I'm supposed to be 20 . But at the time I 21 first applied for the permit years and years ago, you could be as close to the property line as you 22 wanted to be. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s go into 23 the present situation. We have Architectural Review Board issues . We have issues with other 24 situations, the Planning Board, you have an open site plan approval up for site plan application; 25 is that correct? MR. GUILD: Yes . They said there was no April 27 , 2006 48 1 2 problem with the greenhouse. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is that 3 going at this point; how far along are you at this point; is that done? 4 MR. GUILD: That' s done I think. They said it' s no problem with the greenhouse. The 5 problem was with the setbacks . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next issue, 6 I'm not even reading from the notice of disapproval, I'm trying to just get some spiritual 7 thought about where we' re going at this particular point and please, no way is this meant to be 8 anything other than pragmatic . The last issue is the issue of -- 9 MR. GUILD: The setbacks from the property line? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I'm aware of those, something about the connector? 11 MR. GUILD: Yes . We' re connecting the two greenhouses together, the original one that we 12 built and the new one. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lot coverage . 13 Where do we stand with that? MR. GUILD: I want to cover over 20 14 percent. They said I'm only allowed to cover 20 percent . It' s an agricultural building, if a 15 farmer went out here and put vegetables on his land, he' s only going to be allowed to cover 20 16 percent of his property? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think a 17 building and vegetables are a little different . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a structure. 18 MR. GUILD: But a vineyard can cover more than 20 percent too. The greenhouse I'm building 19 is like a big erector set. I can take it down any time. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you building another modular exactly the same structure as 21 what' s on the site? MR. GUILD: Yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s a permanent frame with removable translucent -- 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is an important issue because there are a lot of greenhouses 24 around the country, and the question is you would like a greenhouse to be treated like a grape arbor 25 rather than like a -- MR. GUILD: To me it' s an agricultural April 27 , 2006 49 1 2 building. I'm growing flowers inside. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is it' s a 3 structure, and the question is whether it' s a special type of structure and whether it deserves 4 to be treated like a crop, forgetting the fact that there' s a roof over it or whether it goes as 5 a structure, in which case you' re subject to the 20 percent requirement . I don' t know what the 6 precedent is, that' s something worth researching. You cannot be the first greenhouse operator who 7 has come up against this problem, I assume . Does anyone know anything about that? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean has it come before this Board? 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Or any Board. Can greenhouses occupy more than 20 percent? 10 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The 20 percent rule is our rule. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Town code. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When there are lot coverage codes, we' re not the only town that has a 13 lot coverage code, does that or does that not include greenhouses? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm going to make this real easy, okay, we discussed a pond 15 this morning, I'm going to tell you that this Board dealt with tennis courts, swimming pools, 16 all types of agricultural buildings over the years, and every one of them were deemed to be 17 structures, and that was the word that I used this morning, structure, and even though a swimming 18 pool is mostly a ball ground, it is still deemed to be a structure. Some people may not agree with 19 that, but I am telling you the same situation, that they are all structures, and therefore fall 20 within the confines of the 20 percent rule. I don' t know if that has answered your question. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It does . It certainly goes some distance towards answering it. 22 MR. GUILD: I know in New York state, you got Southold code and you got New York state code, 23 and according to this it' s an agricultural building in New York state, but you got to abide 24 by Southold codes . That' s what I've been told. According to New York state it' s a greenhouse, 25 it' s an agricultural building and according to them they don' t need permits . However, Southold April 27, 2006 50 1 2 has their own code, and I have to abide by Southold code. 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And Southold code is so far quiet on greenhouses as such? 4 MR. GUILD: Very quiet. Makes it very difficult. I had no problems with the first 5 greenhouse. I came down and got my permit, said sure, go put it up- 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the first permit clearly didn' t - - there would be no reason 7 to deny it. It' s an appropriate structure, appropriate zone without any variances necessary 8 although there was an error clearly of a couple of inches . 9 MR. GUILD: Couple of inches but according to them I could be closer than 20 feet to the 10 property line, now it' s changed. So now I have to abide by the current codes . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The fact that you needed a permit at all for your first greenhouse 12 suggests that it was regarded as a structure. You don' t need a permit for a vegetable garden. 13 MR. GUILD: I came down and got it, that' s all I did. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you knew you needed to have one and that' s fine. There is a 15 memo from the Planning Board that says the site plan application incomplete. 16 MR. GUILD: Yes, we know that. I talked to them. I have to go to the Planning Board, and 17 I have show them where I'm going to park a truck, okay, where is my dumpster on the property, stupid 18 things like that which I didn' t put in for the first time. 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They informed you. 20 MR. GUILD: I know they informed me. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: September 12th of 21 last year. MR. GUILD: I took another copy down and 22 said this is fine for now. They just informed me that I got to come back to the Planning Board and 23 tell them where I'm going to park a truck. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because that' s 24 their legal obligation. They have to know where parking for any kind of - - 25 MR. GUILD: ' Basically I just put the truck there pick up the plans and leave . The guys that April 27 , 2006 51 1 2 work for me don' t drive at all, they ride their bicycles . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I have before me is a survey of your property with a hand-drawn 4 dotted line in magic marker. MR. GUILD: That' s where the new 5 greenhouse is going to be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why is it done in 6 such a casual way; why is it not a 'survey? MR. GUILD: I put down where the 7 greenhouse is going to be. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You put it down? 8 MR. GUILD: Yes, I did, that' s exactly where it' s going to be. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you realize that if you' re presenting a legal document, I mean this 10 is stamped received, but it looks like you took a survey that you already had from 1996 and then 11 just yourself drew it in. MR. GUILD: They resurveyed it all for me, 12 they put the greenhouse where it shows 19 ' 911 , and we put it where it' s going to be . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Did the surveyor do that or did you put that in, Ingegno? 14 MR. GUILD: I put the dotted lines . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because I see 15 Joseph Ingegno did the original survey. MR. GUILD: Correct, then he updated this 16 past fall . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have never seen a 17 survey by Mr. Ingegno that was drawn this way. I'm sure you' re accurate in terms of where you 18 have located this . I'm sure you know where you want it, but legally I believe the survey has to 19 be updated by a surveyor. MR. GUILD: I updated the survey. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You did, but he' s supposed to do that. 21 MR. GUILD: Ingegno updated the survey. The dotted lines I put on there to tell you where 22 we' re going to put the greenhouse. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But he' s supposed 23 to do that. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hold on. I think 24 you' re comparing apples to oranges . This is an agricultural building and the survey deals with 25 the property lines . Now, when this gentleman builds this, he has to get a survey after that to April 27 , 2006 52 1 2 insure that the setbacks on those property lines are proper. But he doesn' t have to submit an 3 updated survey for something he doesn' t have yet. So it' s just a little bit of confusion there as to 4 when it' s required. He is proposing setbacks . When and if he goes to get a CO, he will be 5 required to have that property surveyed to insure that the setbacks meet the requirements . If they 6 don' t, then that survey is the survey, the updated one will be the one that' s subject to a hearing. 7 Right now he' s not required to have anybody update a survey he' s just asking us for some setbacks and 8 he' s going to be required to build to those setbacks . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But, Jimmy, this is the problem, what if he makes a mistake on the 10 survey? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s his problem. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. That' s our problem because he' s the one that built the 12 building in that location. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then it' s a hardship. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is the survey which is signed by a licensed surveyor is a 15 legal document and when it' s modified by anybody else, the changes have no legal significance . 16 It' s like changing the number on a $100 bill to $1, 000 bill. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think I have to say that the reason it was done that way is 18 because I wasn' t sure it was clear in the code about the lot coverage and how much of a variance 19 the Board might give, and I wasn' t sure if a full site plan map was required for the variance, and I 20 thought with this survey there was enough property line information -- he was so exact on where he 21 wanted his greenhouses, it seemed to be an easy one to show setbacks on, that we accepted that for 22 final whether to leave it up to the Board to decide if they wanted more than that. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Guild, you have 132 foot separation where you' re attaching or 24 proposing to attach by some sort of a corridor at the end; is that distance a requirement of 25 ventilation? MR. GUILD: Yes, the reason why we' re April 27, 2006 53 1 2 asking to be closer to the end of the property, I think it' s supposed to be 75 feet and we' re asking 3 for 56 feet because it' s natural air cool greenhouses, we don' t have any electric fans in 4 there. You' re exactly right. We have to have a certain amount of feet in there to have natural 5 cooler. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s air flow? 6 MR. GUILD: Yes, I can move it 75 feet closer, I can move it closer then I won' t need a 7 variance then I'm going to need electric fans . I'm trying to be economical about this . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And I presume the reason the structure is as large as it is is 9 because it' s basically a repetition of a pre-existing modular - - you purchased a kit? 10 MR. GUILD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are there posts in 11 place for the frame? MR. GUILD: You have to put a two foot 12 anchor in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s permanently 13 in the ground. MR. GUILD: You can take it out. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have to take out the footings . 15 MR. GUILD: Basically it' s all ready to go, we have no excavation to do, we did it when we 16 did the first greenhouse. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The good news is as 17 far as I'm concerned is because it' s already behind an existing one and the adjacent properties .18 will have no visual impact really, it' s protected from a greater impact on the scenic corridor, 48 . 19 That view shed is well protected by existing buildings . So as far as I'm concerned, that' s not 20 an issue. The real issue is the lot coverage . You' re going from 20 percent to 32 percent, that' s 21 12 percent more. That' s a substantial increase in lot coverage because it is a building. It' s not 22 an open field, it' s a building, that' s why we' re looking at it. If it weren' t a building it 23 wouldn' t be before us . That' s the real consideration, the extent of the lot coverage . 24 In terms of farming, if you need that amount of separation between the two of them, I'm 25 not proposing anyone add to their electric bill, any way you can conserve energy I think it' s April 27, 2006 54 1 2 important. If that' s what you say you absolutely have to have for your business to be effective in 3 terms of air flow, ventilation, then at least I understand why that setback is required, there' s a 4 rational reason for it. MR. GUILD: Yes . And I have to say the 5 19 . 9 feet on the other greenhouse, if we had known it was going to be 20 it would have been 20 . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nobody' s quibbling over inches . That' s why I said to you 7 all we' re trying to do is understand the project. Okay, so where do we go from here? Jim, do you 8 have anything to say? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . This space in 9 between the two buildings, would you have any objection to any restrictions in there? 10 MR. GUILD: As far as what? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No more building. 11 MR. GUILD: I wouldn' t want to put another building in between because it' s going to restrict 12 the air flow. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not asking 13 would you want it. I'm asking would you be amenable to us saying if we give you this building 14 where you want it, you don' t get to ask for a building in between these two. 15 MR. GUILD: I wouldn' t see where I would want to put another building in between because 16 it' s going to defeat the purpose of what I'm doing now. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not answering my question. Let me tell you why, 18 because we can meet on this two weeks from now and three of us can say, no, I don' t want him to have 19 it, and two of us can say, well, listen, how about if we restrict the middle of the building or he' s 20 agreed to that -- MR. GUILD: I' ll say one thing, I' ll 21 protect myself . I'm not going to put another building in between, however, in the front I may 22 want to put a Morton building up one year. That' s my long range plan. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re worried about this . 24 MR. GUILD: I'm not putting another building in between. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He just answered that, he said the separation is the consequence of April 27 , 2006 55 1 2 the amount of opening, kind of vent at the top of the structure -- 3 MR. GUILD: The vents are going to go up and down. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But 132 feet? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm not an expert in 5 this sort of greenhouse enclosure. MR. GUILD: You got two greenhouses and 6 you got to have air for that greenhouse and you got to have air for that greenhouse. You got two 7 greenhouses, you got the same system. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The greenhouse 8 is in a bunker already, is it the fact that it' s in the bunker that' s creating the necessitation of 9 132 feet? MR. GUILD: No, I kind of like 132 feet in 10 between. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is there anything 11 you can supply us with from sort of the manufacturer of such buildings or any source that 12 makes sense other than your own opinion that could provide us with the information that says that 132 13 feet is the optimum or the necessary -- MR. GUILD: I could go research it for you 14 but I know we like big distances between the greenhouses . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm trying to be cooperative, but I'm trying to say -- 16 MR. GUILD: I could be closer but I want to be optimum. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is just based on your expertise because this is your business? 18 MR. GUILD: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So is there some 19 way that you can provide us with that research that says that this is what I have to do to run my 20 business properly? MR. GUILD: I wish I had known this 21 before, I would have brought the information. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s essentially 22 one of the things we look at. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One of the things . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: One of many things but to the extent that you - - if you have 24 compelling evidence as to why, then that makes a very strong case, of saying, yeah, grant them rear 25 yard setback variance, keep them 132 feet apart, he needs it. There' s a difference between need April 27, 2006 56 1 2 and want . MR. GUILD: I also want to put outside 3 crops in between those two houses; would that help? 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re saying you want to useless space in between? 5 MR. GUILD: For outside crops such as hearty mums, you can put hearty petunias outside, 6 you can put proven winners outside and harden them off . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what you really want to do in addition to create optional air flow 8 is to do additional planting between them and that' s the acreage that you envision or that' s the 9 amount of property that you feel you would like to have available for additional plants? 10 MR. GUILD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me go back 11 and be the devil' s advocate because I usually am. If we were not to grant you on the rear yard 12 setback but we were to grant you similar lot coverage say in the 30 percent range, and we were 13 to grant you but not the rear yard setbacks, could you still build these greenhouses so that you had 14 to go not at 56 but at 75 from the rear property line? 15 MR. GUILD: Then I would like to have the air flow, ' cause then what you' re doing is you' re 16 putting 100 feet between the houses, I' d rather have the most I can do. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that, but just remember that it' s important for us 18 to know it' s not just you it' s any other future application. And I have no objection to you, I 19 think you' re a very nice man, I'm just trying to understand this situation as Miss Weisman asked 20 the question, is there some rule of thumb. She' s more theoretical than I am because she' s a 21 professional, she' s worked in the business, not in the greenhouse business, she' s an architect . But 22 I'm not speaking for her, she' s sitting right next to me and can speak for herself . I think what you 23 need to tell us is, tell me, is not the fact, yes, the 132 feet is important, but what is the 24 absolute minimum that you could possibly live with between these two greenhouses? If you need some 25 time, make a couple telephone calls, whatever the case may be, I' d be happy to give you that time April 27 , 2006 57 1 2 assuming the Board would go along with me . MR. GUILD: I didn' t think I was asking 3 too much to be 56 feet from the end of the property and put 132 in between; am I missing 4 something? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have to give 5 something, if you have to choose, how much could you, if required, decrease the distance between 6 the greenhouses because you are obliged to increase the setbacks, or could you say that 7 without a setback variance, you could not build your greenhouse there? 8 MR. GUILD: We went at the optimum, if we put the maximum, I could move close to the 9 property line, that' s what I did. I can move closer, but I would like -- 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not the question of closer to the property line it' s how far can 11 you get from the property line and have enough air space between your greenhouses . 132 feet is what 12 you have here, if 125 feet, for example, would be fatal to your business -- 13 MR. GUILD: I could go 125 feet . See, the greenhouse is sold in increments of 12 feet, so I 14 have to pick a multiple of 12 feet. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that 12 15 divided into 108 is the sections? MR. GUILD: Yes, it' s every 12 feet, and 16 132 is divisible by 12 . If you want me to go 120 feet, we could probably live with that, I really 17 don' t want to go anything less . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But 120 feet would 18 give you 12 feet more setback. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I ask why the 19 connecting corridor, let' s call it, which I presume will be treated similarly. 20 MR. GUILD: Basically we' re connecting to the greenhouse, so when we go between the 21 greenhouses we don' t get wet and if there' s inclement weather we don' t have to take and move 22 the stuff back outside, we can just go through a corridor. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand. Any reason why it has to be on the end and can' t be 24 anywhere else? MR. GUILD: Don' t want it in the middle 25 because they' re going to restrict the air flow between the greenhouses . If you put it in the April 27, 2006 58 1 2 middle, then you got no clear air flow right across . And we put it on that side because 3 basically we' re coming in from the other side. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With your truck? 4 MR. GUILD: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s closer to 5 the north side anyway. MR. GUILD: It' s on the east side of the 6 greenhouse, northeast side. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the plantings 7 that you want to grow in between wouldn' t make much sense to grow them in the back of this 8 building because you have to have the space for the air flow. 9 MR. GUILD: Correct, but the crops are low to the ground. 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm sure that has some dimensions to it too. The tables or whatever 11 you would grow on the ground, those mats, they probably have some kind of dimension, they' re 12 probably 4 by 4 so you could make a row. MR. GUILD: They' re multiples of 12 , 13 multiples of 10 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That way you could 14 reach in and water them, weed them, whatever you had to do. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess we are to the point where we ask if anybody in the 16 audience has any objection to this application or anybody would like to support the application? 17 Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 (See minutes for resolution. ) BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I will be writing 19 the draft deliberations in this case, which is why I asked so many questions, I want to make sure. 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We won' t make any more testimony. 21 - - - ------ --------------------- ----------- -- - - - - -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need to 22 reconvene a hearing from this morning, which was Appeal Number 5877, the first one on the docket 23 for the day in the name of Hajek. State your name for the record, please. 24 MR. HAJEK: Frank Hajek, I am the owner of the property in question in New Suffolk. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are you, sir? The Board had some specific questions, sir, April 27 , 2006 59 1 2 regarding the nature of the change of construction, not in reference to anything out of 3 the normal decisions that we had made on this application, but some members of the Board had 4 questions of how you got to this point, where we are today and the nature of this new application, 5 and I' ll leave it open for them, Miss Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just to clarify, we 6 are very aware of your architect explained that the contractor rather than sintering new studs to 7 existing studs for some reason simply decided to do a demolition and build literally the same plan, 8 the working drawings as they were permitted, with the same setbacks; we were just trying to find out 9 from you or from the contractor you hired why the contractor decided to take that action rather than 10 to comply with what the previous Zoning Board of Appeals decision was, which was to leave some of 11 those studs . MR. HAJEK: I would like to defer that 12 question to the contractor because I'm not sure of the reason either. 13 MR. FADE: My name is Bob Fade, F-A-D-E. At the time the way the house was built originally 14 was that we had a double roof on it, and we had double siding and it was really kind of a 15 hodgepodge problem there regarding the siding and matching it up and this and that. It was really, 16 I believe Mr. Hajek' s dad owned it before and obviously he did some work on the siding and it 17 was quite a bit more involved than we originally thought. It wasn' t just a 2 by 4 and sheathing 18 and then your siding. There was some homosote on it or a similar product to the homosote, then he 19 had plywood on top of that, and it was just a problem to try and match it up and whatever. I 20 didn' t purposely, we weren' t going through purposely just taking down walls . It was an area 21 there of garage doors, and we had to frame over those, the doors were being moved around to the 22 side, in order just to frame it in, structurally it wouldn' t be so sound, so we took the headers 23 down and then reframed that completely because it was a window, and whatever going in there. It 24 wasn' t -- there was nothing malicious about it or that we just went and we just did what we wanted 25 to do, we didn' t feel we did. But that' s the bottom line. April 27 , 2006 60 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Were you aware of the conditional variance that you received? In 3 other words, your client received from this Board a variance setback which you maintained, but with 4 the condition that some of the ground floor structure remain and be shored up; were you aware 5 of the conditions? MR. FADE: Yes, I was told some walls that 6 were to remain, exactly which ones at this point I don' t remember, and I tried to do that, I really 7 did. I did not want to do any more work than I had to do. There wasn' t a profit motive or 8 anything like that involved in this at all . I do about three or four of these a week. I have quite 9 a few people, carpenters and I come into this problem a lot as far as rot or whatever was 10 involved. But in this particular case, it was a problem. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Have you had other cases in which you had to do a demolition in order 12 to do what you expected to do? MR. FADE: Yes . In Nassau County it does 13 become a problem. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What happens when you 14 discover that in order to build the second floor on top of the first floor, which is what this is 15 about, you had to demolish the first floor? MR. FADE: This wasn' t previously known 16 before the fact? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At least it was 17 assumed not to be the case in the variance you got in the first place where you clearly had 18 authorization to build a second floor, then you found once you got inside that you needed to 19 demolish what was there. Has that happened in Nassau County? 20 MR. FADE: Yes, sure that happens . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What do they do when 21 that happens? MR. FADE: Town of Hempstead, if I can 22 show them there was a good reason for it, they usually go along with it, and it depends on the 23 inspector also, obviously. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When you say show 24 them a good reason, do you mean you assume that the building inspector will be the one to say, 25 hey, you better go back and get more authorization, and if that doesn' t happen that April 27 , 2006 61 1 2 doesn' t happen. MR. FADE: That' s the person I come in 3 contact with is the building inspector. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But were it not for a 4 building inspector who is conscientious enough to notice this then it would be simply rebuilt as you 5 find you need to do given the circumstances? MR. FADE: No. I try to go whatever is 6 specified for me to do. I'm not looking to do more work for the same cost or whatever. I'm in 7 business, there isn' t more cost involved in this, what I'm trying to do the best I can structurally. 8 In this particular case there were 2 by 6' s put next to the 2 by 4' s, I guess you' re aware of 9 that, which was quite an idea, quite honestly, and we did that on all the walls and we were 10 rebuilding them. But if I had the same situation in Nassau County and it' s brought up, I would 11 explain to them why. Would I bring it to their attention? Quite often I'm not even sure what 12 walls they' re asking to remain, sometimes they' re obvious, they' re put on the plans themselves, 13 they' re darkened or whatever; does that answer your question? I'm sorry. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It helps . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me just recap a 15 little bit for a second. You started out by saying that the reason there was a tear down 16 rather than sistering up new studs to old studs was because it was a hodgepodge of materials? The .17 roofing is not an issue, the double roof is not an issue that' s off and it' s not load-bearing. The 18 siding, how did the double siding or hodgepodge of siding materials impact your decision to say, I'm 19 just going to take these out and put new. You said usually you have a good reason; I' d like to 20 hear as clearly as you' re going to say what reason you have to say that these have to go. 21 MR. FADE: Again, for instance, the garage door, we'd have to take section by section, 22 but the actual garage doors had headers on it, and we had to go through the headers to set our own 23 headers because the one window was set right in the middle of the two doors -- of the door. So we 24 had to take that out to reframe it, and then in that process, part of it came down. It was - - 25 some of it was a structural thing, sure. But I felt I didn' t deviate that much from the original April 27, 2006 62 1 2 but I guess I did. I don' t even remember, was it specified on the plan what had to be taken down; 3 was it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I believe so, the 4 architect is here, but I believe so. MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I may, just I think 5 when I have resubmitted the plans I did submit two very simple plans other than the demolition plans, 6 so the Board is aware of how little of the demolition had been affected. I don' t think I 7 mentioned that earlier where we had anything that' s not a dashed in line, you see all the solid 8 lines which is not that much in the front. This is the plan which was submitted to the Building 9 Department for its approval, which was approved for demolition. All the walls that are dashed in 10 are to be demoed, only these were to remain. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Very small 11 fragments . MS . DROZDOWSKA: I wanted to clarify that 12 so it is in the record. It wasn' t much, I have to be honest. It' s not that much of a salvage. 13 Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any other 14 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go ahead. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I looked over our 16 decision, I didn' t see any place where we restricted that, where we said those walls had to 17 remain. I don' t see in our decision where it said -- it' s just in your plans, right? 18 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That is how it was submitted to the Zoning Board originally and then 19 to the Building Department. Again, to contain, as I said earlier this morning some of the building 20 envelope. We did keep all the foundation work of the existing floor and the existing bottom plate, 21 but regarding those walls, yes, we try to keep some of them, we normally do, and we know it' s not 22 a complete demolition and it' s not a necessity, especially when we are asking for zoning relief . 23 It is obviously to the benefit of us and to the client and to the Town I presume, even though 24 we' re sistering, as we said before we' re still keeping intact some of the existing home . So it 25 was to benefit, which is now unfortunately. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What does that help April 27, 2006 63 1 2 you avoid, taking down the wall or leaving the wall up? 3 MS . DROZDOWSKA: To be honest with you, our decision was based purely on the fact that it 4 may help us get the relief we requested. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words you 5 could say to us, we' re not demolishing it, we' re leaving up four 2 by 4' s? 6 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, we did say it. We were clear on that. So in respect to the Board 7 and respect to the Town, I think we try also as architects to be environmentally -- 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Would any of those pieces that you left up be a supporting member? 9 MS . DROZDOWSKA: No, they were sister to. It was an existing eight foot ceiling, which was 10 evident, now it had become as per the drawings a nine foot ceiling on the first floor. So was any 11 structural left behind? Not at all . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you didn' t in 12 advance determine -- I'm trying to get this in my mind -- you didn' t determine that the structure 13 that you were going to leave would have to be modified to the point of demolition? 14 MS . DROZDOWSKA: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, he 15 had to cut to a header to put a board up. MS . DROZDOWSKA: If I may, when we design 16 structure in our office, we design for the homes . We don' t design to anticipate what is left behind 17 so much. We design for the brand new structure being put in place. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the trick then; is the trick then taking the board down and 19 putting it up and sistering it before the building inspector can see it, or does that actually stay 20 in place? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, that' s never 21 happened to us before, no, where something' s been taken down and put back in place. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That has not happened? 23 MS . DROZDOWSKA: No, not under our supervision, no. 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So the builder is actually expected to leave this structure up and 25 build around it? MS . DROZDOWSKA: By all means, yes, in April 27 , 2006 64 1 2 respect it our plans, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Even though it has 3 no supporting members? MS . DROZDOWSKA: We have built this way, 4 where we did have to contain some of the existing loads, and honestly, it was purely speaking with 5 both building department and other departments and finding out well, let' s say we want to demo this 6 well, you can' t remove the whole entire structure because all of a sudden it' s becoming a completely 7 nonconforming building. So now we have to keep something intact to make it more in conformance. 8 So we are following the rules of the code, and I'm sorry for not having specific sections, but it' s 9 all been brought up and will be brought home one way or another, you know, let' s leave these two 10 studs and it' s going • to benefit our building, by no means . 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not done? MS . DROZDOWSKA: No. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we wrap this up? 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s clearly Walz decision, you' re trying to create a conforming 14 with the least degree of nonconformity as you can by retaining and building on a second story, it' s 15 very clear. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the obvious 16 situation that you want to replace anything that' s bad that would be construed to be non-structural, 17 and that I think is was the testimony from the builder. Thank you. Hearing no further comment, 18 I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 19 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - - -------------------------------- --------- ---- - 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is for Fischer, Number 5833 . Miss Moore? 21 MS . MOORE: Good afternoon, I have Mr. and Mrs . Fischer with me this afternoon. We have an 22 application at the Planning Board to subdivide this property. You can see from the map that what 23 we want to do is subdivide with a line that preserves the existing structures . Lot 1 is 1, 687 24 square feet over the 40, 000 required but it made sense to put the lines where they were where they 25 have been proposed. That is preserving a beautiful Victorian home that I'm sure you have April 27, 2006 65 1 2 all gone by and seen. It was renovated by my client and it' s to be preserved where it is . The 3 line that was drawn was in such a location where it retained its conformity with a 20 foot side 4 yard. Lot Number 2 is proposed with 30, 978 5 square feet. Again, the square footage was done in such a way that it made straight lines rather 6 than having lines that created nonconformity with the existing Victorian home. 7 The barn has quite a history to it . It was there since the 1930s . It was relocated 8 there. It had been the congregational horse shed at one time. Then over the years in the 1930s 9 through the 1940s additions were added to it; it became a potato barn. It then got converted to 10 labor worker housing for the old farm. Then in the late 1950s, the property was acquired and the 11 subdivision of Orient by the Sea was undertaken in two phases . Phase 1, which is the westerly 12 section of Orient by the Sea. Those lots, they range in size between just under an acre and an 13 acre in size, then Orient by the Sea, the first phase ranged from a quarter acre to half acre 14 lots, and the second phase ranged from just under an acre to an acre in size. So this area has 15 historically been developed as one acre lots, and as I said earlier, subdivisions have half that. 16 So character of the neighborhood is anywhere from half acre to one acre in size. 17 My client had gone to the state and gotten his own curb cut approval, so at the time I 18 submitted this application I wasn' t aware, I thought I had to do it and was waiting. He had 19 already gone and done it. He has a curb cut for the Victorian home, which is in your file . D .O.T. 20 has approved that residential curb cut. They were very happy with where it was proposed and how it 21 was proposed. He had no problems getting it. And the Planning Board I know just sent over a 22 recommendation today. They weren' t aware that the state had issued a curb cut until I let them know 23 at the same time you received the notice, but by then they had already drafted the memo, they said 24 fine, no problem, we are satisfying the requirement anyway. 25 The only variance with respect to Lot 2 , the structure, is that we want to preserve the April 27, 2006 66 1 2 barn. It' s been renovated. The goal would be to make that the single-family dwelling for the 3 property. It' s a beautiful structure. At this point it would be where Mr. Fischer hopes to live, 4 and stay on the property, and the existing setbacks have been established. Our neighbor is 5 the Town of Southold, a sump. The Town has not been a very good neighbor because the sump had 6 caused in 2000 some degradation. When they were building the sump they put the fill on my client' s 7 property and right on the border and it caused some problems to my client' s foundation. He 8 didn' t deal with the Town in any way. He just took care of it, cleaned it up and has been 9 maintaining the sump area with cutting the grass and so on. So he' s been a good neighbor to the 10 Town and he has been a quiet neighbor. I think that' s it. It' s a pretty 11 self-explanatory application. And I' d be happy to address any questions that you may have. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The barn is now a house; is that correct? 13 MS . MOORE: It is not, it doesn' t have a CO for the house. That would be the goal is to 14 get a CO for it for a house. It has had various histories throughout as a workshop, as a barn, but 15 we want to legalize, and make it a single-family dwelling. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that 17 this is now an accessory building and you' re asking for the approval for the setbacks as though 18 it were a house, which you hope it will be. MS . MOORE: Yes . The area variance for 19 Lot 2, we also have included a variance to keep the building just as it is, not make any changes 20 to it and convert it from an accessory building to a principal building. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you only wanted to keep it as an accessory building you wouldn' t be 22 here for a variance. MS . MOORE: Yes. That variance would not 23 be necessary, but we have to build another dwelling on Lot 2 . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there were no barn that' s - - 25 MS . MOORE: Right. Then we could build that house anywhere. April 27, 2006 67 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And then you would just simply be applying to the Planning Board for 3 a subdivision for a three-quarter acre lot and then asking for a building permit to build on 4 this . But since there' s already a house on this building, which has accessory building setbacks, 5 you would like to have variances so that they become principal building setbacks when and if it 6 becomes two properties, I'm just summarizing. MS . MOORE: You got it. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Lot 2 will be a nonconforming lot, it will be 30, 978 square feet, 8 in the allowable 40, 000 . MS . MOORE: Correct. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The barn has been used as habitable principal dwelling for some 10 time . MS . MOORE: I can' t say that and nor would 11 I make that statement. That would be a violation. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is a dwelling 12 and has been used as a dwelling. MS . MOORE: It has a CO for being an 13 accessory structure. It had history -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is someone living 14 in this now? MS . MOORE: I can' t say that. That' s not 15 an appropriate answer that I can make because from here if this transcript went to criminal court and 16 we' d end up in justice court over whether or not it' s habitable or non-habitable. So those are the 17 kind of statements against penal interest that I wouldn' t -- 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I'm actually getting at is it' s pretty clear what you are 19 requesting to do, two lots instead of one, use an area variance, which would then allow the 20 principal dwelling that' s there already to have a side yard variance so it can get a CO and be 21 deemed to be a principal dwelling rather than an accessory dwelling? 22 MS . MOORE: Correct. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you would have 23 two lots with two dwellings, one dwelling per lot, and now you've got a curb cut? 24 MS . MOORE: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So I understand in 25 a sense, I understand the logic behind it very well, but it would appear to me that the barn has April 27 , 2006 68 1 2 been used as a dwelling, and that would have been a nonconforming use on this one lot for some time. 3 MS . MOORE: The alternative to this application would have been to convert it as a 4 cottage, a second dwelling on a property, and the Town prefers not to see those, so given the size 5 of the property, it made sense to make an application to subdivide, and then have two 6 conforming principal uses . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think the 7 Board needs to -- they should know all the facts and ask any questions it wants, but the applicant 8 would certainly have a right to seek this subdivision and this variance irrespective of 9 whether there was even another structure on the proposed second lot. So I think the Board should 10 be making a decision in consideration of the area variance standards, among those the nature of the 11 variance, the extent of the variance, its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Does the Board 12 wish to see a second lot and a second home? Because if there was nothing on this area where 13 the barn is now, they could seek to subdivide it and then they would have a right to build the 14 house. So I will concede that if there were an existing house already and it were legal and 15 people were living there already, that would be a strong argument to say there' s no impact on the 16 neighborhood because there' s already two houses, but I think they' re not willing to say there' s two 17 legal houses there, so you have to go by the variance standards and whether you want to 18 increase the density from one to two. MS . MOORE: Although, I would point out 19 with respect to that, the uses of this property, there had been -- and Mr. Fischer you had a 20 drawing and we can provide it -- which is that there is a CO history that there had been a second 21 dwelling, a cottage, on this property that when Mr. Fischer purchased the property, he agreed with 22 the Building Department because it was in very poor, dilapidated condition, to remove it . So he 23 demolished what had been a third structure on this property, that had been a separate dwelling. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: How does that have bearing on today' s proceeding? 25 MS . MOORE: To the extent that this property as a larger piece had three structures on April 27 , 2006 69 1 2 it . Remember this predates the subdivisions behind it . With respect to the impact on the 3 community, there had been as many as three structures, one of these structures, be it the 4 barn, had been worker housing. So there were farm tenants in there and the community hasn' t really 5 changed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I want to give you a 6 hypothetical, suppose, somewhat unlike what we have now, we actually had two families living in 7 the two buildings quite openly; so you have a nonconforming second home on that property, and 8 realizing that that is not a legal situation, one would apply for a variance first to subdivide, so 9 you would no longer have two houses on one property, then it would go to the Planning Board 10 and then except for the variances it wouldn' t come before us at all . 11 MS . MOORE: Are you saying that the two structures with two families in each structure had 12 COs as two families? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. Only one had a 13 CO, but both of them are occupied, and suppose the one that' s a former barn had COs appropriate for a 14 principal residence, but alas, here you have got two houses on the same property and you can' t get 15 a CO for the smaller one, so you apply for a subdivision, then you can make that into a legal 16 house; would that be different at all from what we' re doing now except for the order of things and 17 the need for the variance? MS . MOORE: I'm not sure that I'm 18 following that hypothetical . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think 19 Michael' s saying if the barn were indeed a house and people were living in it, and it didn' t have 20 the appropriate CO, the subdivision and variance route would be the same as followed today, and it 21 would be a way of legitimizing the arrangement. MS . MOORE: That scenario is you would 22 have to admit to illegality and risk whether or not the Zoning Board would grant the subdivision 23 and then legalize it without creating this situation where now you' re in a code enforcement 24 scenario. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all, it 25 wouldn' t be the Zoning Board granting the legal subdivision, it would be the Planning Board. April 27, 2006 70 1 2 MS . MOORE: You need a variance first to split the property, the variance is to go to the 3 subdivision. BOARD MEMBER-SIMON: We don' t grant 4 subdivisions . I could imagine a situation in which the family living in the smaller house was 5 living there openly for years and receiving mail and having telephone service and just not having 6 to do to now. This would be a classic as-built case. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it' s not. With this particular application, Mike, you are 8 assuming that because it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, that it is a duck, i . e. , a 9 house, it is not. It doesn' t have a CO for a house. It never existed as a dwelling in the 10 Town' s eyes . I understand that you see cars there and curtains and all that stuff, but it its a barn 11 for all intents and purposes . That' s what it has always been. It' s not nonconforming, it' s not any 12 of that. All this is is they need a variance because of the lot size. They want to subdivide; 13 that' s not unusual, and the fact that there' s a barn on ,this property that will become the 14 principal structure after this subdivision, needs a variance because it' s not 15 feet away from the 15 property line. That' s all we need to discuss on this, anything else is superfluous and really not 16 subject to any of what we' re needing to discuss here. 17 MS . MOORE: Yes . Because hypothetically let' s assume that you have this, had 20 years of 18 use without a CO as a -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If it pre-existed 19 zoning. MS . MOORE: Then we wouldn' t have an issue 20 at all . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Even if there 21 were -- and I'm not in any way suggesting there is -- an illegal use, you would still have the 22 right to come in and try to subdivide and try to make it legal . So the point should be whether 23 this meets the variance criteria or not . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I want to be clear, 24 this is not a nonconforming use on this property. It' s an illegal use, if you want to look at it . 25 There' s two completely different definitions . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right. And April 27 , 2006 71 1 2 that' s not what' s appropriately before you. What' s appropriately before you is whether 3 this lot is big enough and whether the setback is appropriate given the neighborhood and 4 circumstances . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we move on? 5 MS . MOORE: I had presented all the facts in writing, I'm here to answer your questions not 6 to regurgitate what' s already in writing before this Board. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anybody else would like to speak for or against this 8 application? MR. KELLERMAN: My name is Steven 9 Kellerman, I sent an email about the application, and I'm here really to sort of learn what this is 10 about. It seems like on my email I said - - I 11 didn' t say this part I think it' s a really good deal to do this . It sounds like a good deal to 12 cut your property in half and ask for a variance and have two houses, one of which could be sold 13 and one of which you can live in - - or two of which could be sold eventually - - and I certainly 14 don' t wish the Fischers any ill will, I think it' s a really good deal . But I thought it' s not in 15 accordance with the way that I see Orient developing and the way it used to be. It just 16 seems to be me it' s kind of an oddity. If you agree with that then it' s fine. I wrote also that 17 it would lay the groundwork for a lot of other possible subdivisions, it would seem to me. You 18 made it clear that obviously, when I was talking about that there were other barns and out 19 buildings that could be used, I guess that' s not even a question now because really it' s a question 20 of whether or not it has to do with the setbacks and has to do with the 10, 000 square foot . 21 MS . MOORE: 9, 130 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Talking about the 22 size of the lots, which are average for the size of the lots even when they' re separated, they' re 23 average. I read your email and I read Pat' s application, that' s the only reason why I could 24 explain that to you that clearly. And I understand your not wanting to see another 25 residence in that neighborhood, I understand that, but I cannot think of too many other places where April 27 , 2006 72 1 2 this would actually come about. There are probably some older houses in Orient that would 3 may be able to meet that, but I think they' re on much larger lots . 4 MR. KELLERMAN: The larger lots could be subdivided the same. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Of course, another 10 , 000 feet this one wouldn' t even be a subject 6 for a hearing. We' re just looking for ways to try to make them meet the application of the law. 7 They have kind of proven that they can live there, even though they' re not going to say so. 8 Certainly everything has to be brought up to code, septic system, and that would all have to be 9 upgraded. I understand your concern, I understand that there may be other places . We' re trying one 10 application at a time. I for one prefer that we not pigeon hole ourselves to this application in 11 denying it, that this is not so egregious that it can' t be had, and I wanted to get all information 12 I could and I did. I understand your concerns but I' d like to see this happen if it could. Put up 13 with it, it would be nice, if not, I don' t know what more, how far you go with it. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion 15 closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. 16 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - - - - - --- ---------------------- - ------ - ---- - - - --- 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next one is Bendick, Number 5881 . 18 MS . MOORE: Mr. and Mrs . Bendick are here. This is pretty straightforward. The plans I 19 submitted, and they just told me the change on how you deal with the first floor when -- you' re 20 keeping a basement, how you deal with the first floor when you' re adding a second floor. Their 21 plan and continue to be their plan would be to continue to keep the walls of the first floor, 22 but - - back up, they were going to live in the house while they' re doing the renovation, so the 23 walls were going to remain, working on the garage addition first, kind of squeeze into the garage 24 then work their way into the building. They got smart, and they decided not to do that so they 25 will make everybody' s life including their own better by not living there. At this point the April 27 , 2006 73 1 2 architect said, if you took the first floor down and used new wood, you'd save 20 to 25 percent of 3 the cost of construction. Nobody mentioned at one of your previous hearings, what the true reason 4 that somewhere along the line your plans change because when you take down walls, or you take down 5 sheetrock, you don' t necessarily know how the builder before you built. In this instance, they 6 haven' t taken down the sheetrock, they can work with the walls they have because that was their 7 plan initially, and if the Board wants us to do it that way, they' re prepared to do it, but since 8 they just mentioned it to me, and we could submit drawings identical drawings but instead of the 9 walls that are replaced versus remaining as shown on the plans, it would be the basement staying the 10 same, the design of the house staying exactly the same, the only difference for the Building 11 Department would be for the framing detail, if I know correctly about the Building Department 12 request, it would just be a framing detail difference between this plan and construction 13 drawings . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You mean for the 14 first floor? MS . MOORE: Everything is staying the same 15 the only difference is the walls for the first floor, the drawings you have there show the 16 existing pretty much without hatch mark, only the additions with hatch mark that' s on the first set 17 of plans, Al, if you want to give them the opportunity to save 20 percent on construction 18 cost, then they show plans that show the new walls with new framing, and that construction cost 19 generally run around no less than $200, 000 for a renovation, so 20 percent of a $200, 000 is a 20 significant dollar figure. So I think that' s why you' re getting the type of applications you are 21 because when people come in they have certain ideas in mind, no problem, just add a second 22 floor. Then all of a sudden when the builders come in, they say, if I do it your way, add 23 another $50, 000, $60, 000 to the price tag, and not realizing the impact of what the answer they' re 24 giving the builder. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are there new plans 25 for the first floor that you have? MS . MOORE: No. They just told me about April 27, 2006 74 1 2 it in the hallway. I said, no, you can' t tell me that without at least alerting the Zoning Board 3 that we' re going to have possible reconstruction of the first floor because my application and the 4 architect' s drawing show proposed second story to existing one-story dwelling. 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So you' re going to get us a new first floor plan? 6 MS . MOORE: I can, if it' s not an objection by this Board, it' s identical, and if 7 the Board has no objection to us replacing an architect' s drawing with really, if they did it by 8 CAT it will be easy. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are talking 9 about everything from the first floor up . MS . MOORE: The basement stays . The only 10 new basement portion was going to be that covered porch because it doesn' t have footings, that' s 11 new. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was the front 12 yard variance that we needed. MS . MOORE: Just the front yard, and 13 that' s a nice feature with stone porch, that gave a nice style to the house. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What year is this house? 15 MS . MOORE: 1960s . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Given the age and 16 the existing condition of the house, it' s probably more feasible structurally to do a tear down then 17 to try to - - MS . MOORE: But keep the foundation. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Keep the first floor, meaning when I'm referring to the floor 19 itself . MS . MOORE: Keep the sill . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Keep the deck and everything. 21 MS . MOORE: My construction terms are - - the flooring, yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is what I was getting at last hearing, we' re requiring people to 23 keep 2 by 4s up, when is all the building codes say you have to have 2 by 6' s anyway, and all your 24 windows are made by 2 by 6 construction, they' re six inches now, everything is geared towards that, 25 and we' re allowing that to get around some kind of nonexistent kind of law that we have that says April 27 , 2006 75 1 2 it' s not demolition it' s renovation, whatever. And I see people coming in, now this person may 3 come in and they' re telling us what they want to do -- 4 MS . MOORE: Only because they mentioned it in passing out in the hallway. Had the architect 5 convinced them after this hearing to do it that way, I could have potentially been facing coming 6 back here because you would have said we thought the first floor was staying. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Much better to do 8 it now. MS . MOORE: It' s based on Walz . 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, it' s not only the interpretation. It' s based on the architect' s 10 opinions on the plans, what he submits to the Building Department, that' s what starts the whole 11 review. MS . MOORE: I'm backing beyond that. Once 12 the architect has a certain mindset but doesn' t know what' s behind walls . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But to look at the house for the first floor to see what' s needed out 14 there. MS . MOORE: Many times they don' t take 15 down sheetrock. I don' t know any architect that would do a drawing without going to a property, 16 but the reality is that sometimes, just as you said, you don' t take down sheetrock to know how 17 good the framer was that did the work, some are very good and some were fly by night that didn' t 18 do a thorough job. Victor LaSarde, it hasn' t been that long since he was here, he would look at the 19 preexisting setbacks, and the code itself says that there' s nothing that stops you from 20 remodeling, renovating, reconstructing preexisting nonconformity. Where you guys and the 21 interpretation that has derived from Walz is -- let' s take the first floor, you can reconstruct 22 the first floor, which was a nonconformity, when you add the second floor is what the Walz decision 23 dealt with. So to the extent that somebody changes the plan and you've given a variance for 24 the second floor and looked at it, the fact they you removed the first floor, I think you could go 25 back and look at that interpretation and, say, no, we didn' t mean when you take down the first floor April 27 , 2006 76 1 2 that was pre-existing nonconforming and was allowed to be reconstructed. We looked at the 3 second floor, and again, as long as the volumes of your house had been reviewed on your appeal, it' s 4 a very strict interpretation that now you' re sending to the Building Department saying you 5 change your drawings, you change your plans, you got to come back to us . Rather than saying, hey, 6 if you' re substantially complying with everything, listen, the first floor, take down a wall, you 7 leave a wall, there' s really no difference. In fact, the state building code and your policy 8 should be you shouldn' t keep that garbage there, you should really rebuild it and make it conform. 9 In this instance, we' re addressing it now and I know you've had several applications already where 10 the Building Department said, that' s really you took down the first floor that was part of the 11 application and now you have to start over, and that' s really Draconian. 12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: For the applicant to be open and honest, upfront, the 13 Board knows what it' s approving and what it' s not approving. I think the only hitch is there are 14 probably some minority of instances where the Board may only allow the addition based on the 15 hardship of the existing building or structure and it' s conceivable that if they knew that the whole 16 thing was being torn down they might grant different relief than if they thought it was being 17 left intact. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is 18 absolutely correct based upon the very small unique circumstances of real nonconforming 19 setbacks . MS . MOORE: There are some that are 20 significant nonconforming. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But there are 21 probably loads of them that the Board has no desire to keep the old construction and would 22 grant the variance irrespective of whether it was a tear down or whether you were keeping the first 23 floor. MS . MOORE: What' s the difference between 24 keeping a foundation -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I'm not saying 25 anything against this application, I'm just explaining why it' s relevant to the Board to know April 27 , 2006 77 1 2 whether it' s going to stay or go. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And also the 3 Building Department because they' re looking at it when the architect applies with those plans, if 4 he' s not showing everything on there that may need to be replaced, you know, a substantial part of 5 the renovation, when are you going to find out? Then the applicant has to tell us when they get 6 before the Zoning Board at a public hearing and say, oh, by the way, we now find out that some of 7 the lumber has to be replaced and we have to redo the first floor, why couldn' t that be done earlier 8 through the architect' s opinion, like an expert visit to the site. 9 MS . MOORE: I don' t know that there' s any solution. 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It seems to me what you need to do is simply change the cross hatches, 11 proposed two-story dwelling on existing footprint and foundation. That' s it. You' re not 12 effectively changing anything. It' s the case we just heard is exactly the same. You' re rebuilding 13 exactly what was on the first floor to code, structurally sound what may well be previous 14 construction. I think you just need to make it clear. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands, I just want to wrap this up. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The point of this advanced knowledge is we want to avoid bait and 17 switch, which happens occasionally and not very commonly, but we don' t have to spend a lot of time 18 deciding whether it' s a bait and switch or good faith miscalculation. 19 MS . MOORE: For this application what do you need me to do? 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly what Miss Weisman -- 21 MS . MOORE: You want me to tell you by letter -- 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re going to have to submit plans to the Building Inspector. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Call them and tell them to change the label so it' s very clear that 24 it' s new construction throughout on the existing foundation. 25 MS . MOORE: That' s fine. I know the Building Department and they' re going to say, what April 27, 2006 78 1 2 did you approve. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Our resolution is 3 based on the plans and that' s why I keep going back to that, if you don' t give us the right 4 plans, you' re not getting the right approval . MS . MOORE: We give you the best plans we 5 can. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Upgrade the plans 6 and -- MS . MOORE: I'm going to give them to you 7 and before you write your decision, that' s not a problem. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anyone have any objections to this application; anybody want to 9 support the application? Nobody' s here. Hearing no further comment, I' ll make a motion to close 10 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 - - - - --- - -- ---------- ------- --- --------- - - - - - -- - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 12 it Baner it' s 5874 . Good afternoon, sir? MR. BANER: My name is John Baner, and 13 this is my very nervous wife Denise, and we' re applying for a variance for 10 feet to build a new 14 house for us out in Orient. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to 15 tell us why you need that 10 feet? MR. BANER: Based upon the house we' re 16 living at now in Nassau County and the amount of stuff we have accumulated, we feel that this is 17 the house we want to spend the rest of our lives in. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, we' ll start with Mr. Dinizio, we've kind of gone to him 19 last, we' ll let him start. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You got a 20 wraparound porch, right? MR. BANER: Right. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you cut that off, you would only need a four foot? 22 MR. BANER: That is correct but either way I would still need a variance. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not inside livable space where you can store stuff, like the 24 explanation you just gave us . The house is the same size as the one that you' re moving from? 25 MR. BANER: No, it' s larger. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This house is April 27, 2006 79 l 2 larger? MR. BANER: Correct. And what' s unique 3 about the property is it' s on the corner so it' s considered to have two front yards and even if we 4 face the house the other way, we've sat down with the architect and tried to skew it so it would fit 5 on that property without really having to reduce the size of the property or the aesthetics of it . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand the dream part, and I'm sure back there is why this 7 porch is a wraparound porch because I have one just like that, but I'm wondering if you could do 8 away with that? MR. BANER: There is, we would rather not, 9 but if we have to. MRS . BANER: We our property sits - - 10 diagonal, across from our property is a piece of property that belongs to the association and they 11 can never build there because it belongs to the association, so we have a beautiful view of the 12 sound, and to sit out without mosquitoes and things like that, it would be a beautiful view and 13 to be out there and to have friends out there and sit it would make the house and make living out 14 here really -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it' s the 30 foot 15 side that' s where you see the water from? MR. BANER: That' s correct. 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you want to screen that in? 17 MRS . BANER: Not screen it. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm just trying to 18 get a hold of your dreams, honestly. I can look at a flat piece of paper and see a house that has 19 a nonconforming side yard. If I don' t ask the questions, you can' t get your dream. I'm done . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you tell me which lot or come up and approach and indicate 21 which lot? . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, Lot 22 . I 22 think the unique part of this property is that Green Acres is a subdivision without curbs, so 23 it' s interesting to know that the road is not the 50 foot wide road that we have in normal 24 situations . Therefore, you have got to have between seven and 10 feet until you actually get 25 to your property line from the actual pavement . MR. BANER: I mow it twice a month, you' re April 27, 2006 80 1 2 being kind. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t know if 3 there' s ever any plans to widen the road there but in any case I think that' s one issue that leads 4 credence to the 30 foot setback, and I' ll offer that to the Board. 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write this deliberation, and it would appear that most 6 of the lots that are new construction in that area are consistently applying for some degree of 7 setback variance because of the shape, the size of the lots and the size of the houses? 8 MR. BANER: I know a lot of the houses on the waterfront that would be north of our 9 property, that line of sound, I haven' t checked into it but just from looking into it it appears 10 that they do not have the setbacks that would be necessary. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about the garage? 13 MR. BANER: The garage, because it' s a private community we' re also set by covenants and 14 restrictions . One of the covenants and restrictions for that community is that the garage 15 be attached. Again, we've done different ways to look at it to have it attached and detached, but 16 looking at other houses in the area, and does the Board have the pictures that I submitted? On Page 17 4 of the pictures you' ll see that the house directly across from us actually has the garage in 18 the front yard and is attached in a similar fashion to their house as is our house or our 19 plans . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yours is not 20 attached? MR. BANER: It' s a little breezeway, maybe 21 eight or six foot section breezeway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that how you' re 22 meeting the C and R? MR. BANER: Yes . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the association' s okay with that? 24 MR. BANER: Yes . They were more upset that it would not be attached. If I could add 25 also with the covenants and restrictions, they say that they want 40 feet from the front of the April 27 , 2006 81 1 2 property line to the house, but also the setbacks on the side would be 25 feet, so if we move the 3 house over, that would also meet the requirements of the covenants and restrictions to have 25 feet 4 between the garage and the side yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right now the shed, 5 you' re proposing to put in a shed or the shed exists? 6 MR. BANER: No, the shed exists . From speaking with code enforcement because that' s a 7 shed, it' s within code. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine, it' s 8 an accessory building. You have a 19 . 3 foot - - what' s the setback from the proposed garage to the 9 property line; is that 19 . 3? I don' t see it, it' s not on here. 10 MR. BANER: I believe that' s 16 feet - - I'm sorry, 15 feet. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 15 feet, right? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 15 foot side yard. 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : A very small part of the garage needs the variance also, to the side 13 of the house. It' s only a small part of the garage that needs the variance, about 10 feet of 14 the garage. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you see that; 15 do you see what she' s saying? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' ll ask the question, is there anybody in the audience that 18 would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no hands, I' ll make a motion to close the 19 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 - - - ---- - ----------------------- ---------------- -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 21 for the Estate of Boocock, that is 5868, Mr. Hamm? MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, 22 Southampton, for the applicant. This is a pretty simple application, I 23 think. We' re taking two lots, two building lots, two Fitco lots and turning them into one pursuant 24 to the terms of Mrs . Boocock' s will . She wanted to deed a portion of one of these lots to the 25 Ferguson Museum, which is the open space repository on Fishers Island. Prior to her death, April 27, 2006 82 1 2 she put a conservation easement on it anyway and now that she has passed away, the estate attorneys 3 need to carry out her will . So we' re doing a lot line change that will create this substandard lot. 4 However, it will never be built upon. It' s already burdened by an easement and you can put 5 conditions, if you need to, to grant a variance for this . The benefit of course is we' re 6 eliminating one building site and the extra land from this property will be added to and merged to 7 the house lot, there' s an existing house, and that will result in the creation of what is now a 8 nonconforming lot into a conforming lot . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the 9 conservation easement was placed on proposed Lot 1? 10 MR. HAMM: Right. The southerly portion of it. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But by the same token by the mere fact of putting it into the 12 Fergusen Museum' s name, it would have been sterilized anyway. 13 MR. HAMM: That' s right. This is to carry out the will and now it can be deeded. We've run 14 into this before, most of the people over there deed the property outright to the museum rather 15 than give the easement because the easement does not eliminate the tax burden on the property. So 16 it' s the benefit to the owner to give it away completely. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ask that question because I have to write the finding. 18 Questions from Mr. Simon? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is 19 is this museum limited to that piece? MR. HAMM: They own many, many 20 properties . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re not 21 continuous? The museum is simply the name for a series of properties owned by the museum? 22 MR. HAMM: The museum owns many different properties, correct, and every one of them they 23 record covenants and restrictions against them that prohibit building. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just curious, is the museum an entity over and above the properties 25 that it holds? MR. HAMM: Yes, there' s actually a April 27 , 2006 83 1 2 physical museum. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s quite a 3 distance from here. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What' s in the museum? 4 MR. HAMM: They have historical, natural history and artifacts . 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not just a conservancy? . 6 MR. HAMM: That' s right. This is one of its roles however. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. You' re 8 reducing density and preserving open space. I have no problem with it at all, you' re creating a 9 conforming lot, no brainer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No question. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If there are no 11 other questions, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) - - -- - ----- -------------------- -- - ----- - - - ----- -- - 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is for Kennedy, 5870 . Mr. Hamm, we' re ready. 14 MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the applicant. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to mention that we did receive a letter on this, 16 right? MR. HAMM: I' ll go into that in a bit . I 17 spoke to Mr. Keenan earlier in the week, my client has, and she' s written him a letter which I will 18 give to you in a minute which addresses what we believe are his concerns . We are concerned that 19 his request for an adjournment has quid pro quo written over it, but he can present his own case 20 should he choose to. As I said, the memorandum addresses why we 21 think this location is the best one. I've given Linda an affidavit from the surveyor which is 22 attached to that memorandum. So, before, I address any of those issues, I would like to - - I 23 think and I' d like your views on this, that the Building Department is in error in saying that we 24 have to set back from this right of way, and I base that on, I was here four years ago on the 25 Richard Guest application, and I've got pages from that decision, a little map, definition of a April 27, 2006 84 1 2 street. You have an excerpt from it. This is Guest, this is where you ruled four years ago. 3 The number of the decision is on that page I just gave you. Crescent Avenue for Guest was the 4 nearest public street. There' s a right of way that goes to another property that adjoins it on 5 this side, exactly the same case we have here . A right of way that the owner owns the right of way 6 and both sides, it goes to the property. The Building Department in this case says for the 7 pool - - this is a current survey now, it' s been built, but we had the setback from that right of 8 way for a dwelling and a pool . I came in here to argue a variance as well as to say that we thought 9 you were -- or the Building Department was in error. You agreed in this case. And that' s the 10 last two pages of the decision are there, that this is not a street from which we would have to 11 set back, and I would ask that you so rule before we even have to consider anything here. Now the 12 Building Department does say that we need a rear yard as well, I disagree with that if this is in 13 fact a street and I have indicated why in the memorandum, but we could redesign this so we would 14 need no variance at all, if you were to say this is not a street from which one would have to 15 require a front yard setback. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it is their 16 only access; is it not? MR. HAMM: It' s the access to this 17 property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why it' s 18 different. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would tend to 19 one of the determining factors . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s my 20 understanding from the Building Department. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you have this 21 again, what would be helpful, Steve, if you gave us an aerial on it so we could take a look at it. 22 As you know, we have been over there probably 30, 40 times, but sometimes you need that aerial to 23 zero in on it. MR. HAMM: That' s an interpretation, in 24 just reading the ordinance though and looking at a common definition of "street, " which I have given 25 a couple of examples, it just seems odd, peculiar, but at the same token that gives you, I think, April 27, 2006 85 1 2 more leeway to grant more relief in a sense that only a few people use this . So it' s not a 3 traditional street from which there is any public policy reasons to have a huge setback. So it 4 comes to me, and you have a situation now you want me to argue the variance side of it, the property 5 is bisected by this right of way. So there' s really no or almost no -- you could possibly 6 squeeze something in but as I say in the memorandum, you' d be restricted on the one side by 7 some severe slopes and other side by wetlands . The engineer, surveyor, the affidavit I submitted 8 is a relatively flat area. It would involve not nearly as much earth movement, regrading, 9 excavation as other parts of that side of the right of way would involve, if we were to push it 10 back towards Keenan, who has asked for this adjournment, or to build on the waterfront side, 11 of course you have environmental issues . So we feel that this is a superior location, it' s a very 12 modest house by today' s standards . I spoke to my client this morning, and we had submitted some 13 plans . I think the footprint of the house itself, exclusive of the garage which he probably will not 14 build right away anyway, is about 1, 000 square feet, it' s a 2, 000 square foot house. It' s in a 15 flat area, and we feel that this is the best place for this lot. Which is a building lot. It' s been 16 approved by the Planning Board, minor subdivision filed with the county and so forth. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me step back one second. Based upon many of the applications, 18 if not most of the applications we bring in, they are all Fitco orientated, all the Fitco property 19 except for the main thoroughfare, which goes from the Town property all the way to the Fishers 20 Island Club are all private roads . They' re all a nature of very untraveled highways, roads . In ' 21 fact - - MR. HAMM: This is in the west end. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know this is the west end, but on the east end, those are 23 usually the cases . Most of the time, even in the west end, when you get to that area up on the 24 northwest to northeast side. MR. HAMM: That may be, but if you are 25 saying only a few people are impacted, if you' re addressing that part of the argument, many more April 27 , 2006 86 1 2 people are impacted in Fitco. If you own a lot on the Fitco map, you are entitled to use any road 3 that' s on that map. So you can go anywhere basically within that area. Here we have 4 Wilmerding, who owns several of the lots behind this and then Keenan in terms of who can use this 5 right of way. It is distinguishable in that respect. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Who uses the right of way, just Wilmerding and Keenan? 7 MR. HAMM: Wilmerding and Keenan, yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The 30 foot setback, 8 how does the argument go, exactly, if there are no setback requirements at all required for this kind 9 of nonstreet, then it could be three feet instead of 30 feet. 10 MR. HAMM: No, you would make an election at that point as to where the right of way comes 11 in maybe would be considered the front yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the fact that it' s 12 30 feet rather than 20 feet or 40 feet is relevant to the overall attractiveness of the application. 13 MR. HAMM: We would like a 30 foot setback for reasons that it' s far enough back that she 14 won' t be bothered by vehicles and pedestrians, and yet not so far back that it' s into some slope . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you acknowledge that it should be easier to get a 30 foot setback 16 than a 20 foot setback? If it isn' t really a setback, why do the numbers matter? 17 MR. HAMM: I don' t acknowledge that, I think it' s silly, the whole thing is silly, 18 frankly. But I think that one of the factors that you have to weigh under the state law is the 19 substantiality of the variance, and this I concede is substantial if there' s a 60 foot setback 20 requirement. However, you have to take that substantiality in light of the other factors . 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And degree of substantiality then becomes a factor. 22 MR. HAMM: Exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hamm, we 23 don' t see that 68 foot setback on the map. MR. HAMM: Right. Let me explain that . 24 The Building Department, we vetted this map with the Building Department last fall, and I mention 25 that in myself memorandum, and Dick Straus, the surveyor, drew a building envelope, I sent it to April 27, 2006 87 1 2 the Building Department; is this right; yes, that' s what we' ll give you. When I went for the 3 notice of disapproval, I had a different inspector who had a different take on it apparently, but I 4 think that the second opinion is wrong because, if you look at -- if, in fact, that right of way is a 5 street, then it creates a triangular piece, which you would have to go back to the point to see 6 where the rear yard is . If Hay Harbor, the northerly boundary of the property is a front 7 yard, then I would agree, that we would have to set back on the entire length of the Keenan 8 property line. So that again, I would ask your interpretation on that. That' s something that' s 9 not as substantial and I think that could be modified if it had to be. But I think we would 10 need only the 30 foot front yard variance, I think you could overrule the Building Department at 11 least insofar as the rear yard is concerned if you' re inclined to agree, or grant a variance 12 because it' s not particularly substantial . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And that' s 68 feet 13 that' s set back, right? MR. HAMM: That' s measuring it and I spoke 14 to the surveyor, the surveyor scaled that off, yes, that the edge of the garage I think would be 15 68 feet from Keenan' s line, but that' s the nearest it would be is right in there, 68 feet scaled. 16 But you see, yes, I' ll agree that' s a rear yard if that' s the front lot line on Hay Harbor, but if 17 this is the front lot line then go in that direction to determine the rear yard. And indeed 18 I've spoken to Damon, and I'm pretty sure he l consulted with someone before he gave me that 19 opinion, I think Pat Conklin wrote the notice because Damon was not available that week. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think they' re going parallel with the right of way. 21 MR. HAMM: And that' s what the surveyor did. So I think if you' re inclined to grant a 22 variance, you would only be required to grant a variance for the front yard I think. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way it' s sited now, it seems to me it' s on the absolutely 24 flattest part of the property, it would require the least amount of grading, and least amount of 25 runoff. I have to write the findings, so I want to make sure I have all the information. April 27 , 2006 88 1 2 MR. HAMM: The flattest part on that, if you consider there' s two parcels bisected on that 3 southerly portion of the property it' s the flattest. I'm sure the contours are reasonably 4 flat towards the water, but then you have other issues . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to say on your side of the right of way. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The road is all theirs . They could go on the other side, they 7 need wetlands permits . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Exactly you run 8 into a whole other series of permits . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s obvious that 9 that' s where the house should go on the property. You are on the flat part. I think it' s a 10 driveway. I don' t think it' s a street. If that were the case, you could just take it and move it 11 over and put it on the side of the property? MR. HAMM: In fact, there is a written 12 right of way agreement where she has the right to relocate it, but that, of course, would be very 13 expensive. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. It' s 14 possible for you to do that, it' s not like it' s a well-traveled street. If you wanted to, you could 15 move it if for some reason it became a public hazard or something. I agree with you 100 16 percent, Mr. Hamm, this shouldn' t be before us honestly. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with you too. This is a perfectly reasonable site given 18 the impact of the surrounding properties, wetlands on one side, severe slopes on the other, this 19 looks to me to be extremely well-placed. It' s a very, very limited access road. There' s only two 20 property owners in addition to your client that share this right of way. 21 MR. HAMM: Well, Wilmerding has three or four houses in the back there. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd like to make a motion to hold this hearing in abeyance until 23 May 25th at 1 : 00 p.m. (See minutes for resolution. ) 24 - - - ------ ------------ --------- ---- ------- ---- - - - - BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Next appeal is 25 for Aliano, Number 5846 . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I wanted to mention April 27 , 2006 89 1 2 the Aliano hearing, and before we start, we did receive some information late in the afternoon the 3 day before yesterday. I was not able to distribute it to the Board Members until I saw 4 them today, it was from Cramer. I will distribute them now and make them part of the record. 5 MS . MOORE: I'm actually going to have Tom Cramer start because it' s the technical report . 6 MR. CRAMER: Good afternoon, Members of the Board, for the record, my name is Thomas 7 Cramer, principal firm of Cramer Consulting Group with offices in Miller Place. I will try to be 8 brief . What you were just handed is the response 9 to the Saltwater Conservation District letter of March 30th. She went through and made a number of 10 statements, number of comments on the erosion control plan that was submitted to her. I note in 11 her letter that satisfactorily addresses the methods of erosion sediment control . She went on 12 and talked about how it should have included plant material and methods of installation and things 13 like that, but the erosion sediment control plan is a document that' s dictated by the state of New 14 York as to its contents . It' s not a planting diagram, it' s not a planting plan or specification 15 sheet. So what I did for the Board' s benefit was I included some notes on the planting plan that 16 was previously submitted to you. I included that in the package. Essentially it talks about, 17 specifies the type of grass, the irrigation methods and how to irrigate. I also provided for 18 the Board a general specifications for planting plan, essentially a spec sheet that is given out 19 to a contractor before. So I included that, which really addresses all her comments . So she 20 unfortunately when she had the erosion sediment control plan, didn' t have the other documentation 21 so she didn' t have the benefit of everything. But I pulled it all together and I have given it to 22 the Board. Ordinarily the specification sheet such as 23 this doesn' t go to the municipality; it generally goes to the contractor. It' s to protect the owner 24 of the property that the plant material is installed properly and he has to do it this way so 25 it will be maintained this way. That' s essentially what you have before you. April 27 , 2006 90 1 2 Just yesterday afternoon, in fact, I didn' t see it until this morning there was an 3 engineer' s report that was faxed to me. I' ll go through it briefly; I didn' t prepare anything 4 written on it, but I did have an opportunity to review it, and also to discuss it with our 5 engineers for the project . Unfortunately being that this was last minute they couldn' t be here 6 but I' ll relay to the Board what our conservations were as far as my findings also. 7 For the most part the site conditions and proposed development and the soils agrees with 8 what we have presented previously. It' s more potato-potato type of thing. They' re saying it 9 one way, we say it another. But for the most part, it' s consistent with the previous 10 submissions that we had. There are three recommendations that he 11 makes . He goes through talks about bluff and coastal dynamics, makes reference to some of the 12 ports that are out there, but at the last meeting I believe the Board heard testimony from the 13 adjoining property owner that put on the record that he had put in a flag pole 18 feet from the 14 bluff . He put it in 18 years ago and it was six feet of erosion since then from it, which comes 15 out to about a third of a foot per year as far as erosion rate in the area. And that' s consistent 16 with the aerial photos that I presented to the Board the last time, the historic aerials as well 17 as the various reports, the reports that he states is a foot, less than one foot on some of the other 18 reports in the area. Even though it' s an active erosion site, it' s not significant erosion as far 19 as greater than one foot per year and in some cases, we've had cases of two foot per year in 20 other locations . He does make a couple recommendations, 21 three recommendations, one being that the applicant should conduct an analysis of the site 22 prior to the proposed development and then with the proposed development disposal system in place 23 to determine whether there' s potential for slope destabilization in both the location of the 24 building and from the proposed development. I believe it was last meeting, where our engineer 25 was here, Bill Yaeger, he has previously presented a report to the Board and has also testified that April 27 , 2006 91 1 2 the building itself will be stable in this location given the soil types on the particular 3 property. That report was for the original building, which was closer to the edge of the 4 bluff than what we' re proposing now. The new building has set the building back I guess some 5 eight feet from what was originally proposed. So that moved back it further. There was discussion 6 also as far as the soil types on the site and how the leaching from the sanitary system and the dry 7 wells might destabilize the slope . I have a copy of the test boring that was done on the site for 8 the Board which I' ll pass up. This corresponds to what I find out in the field also. The first foot 9 and a half is loam, the next foot and a half is brown silt, and then you move into silty sand with 10 10 percent gravel, which goes down to about seven feet; then you get into the pale fine to coarse 11 grain sand with gravel in it also. This is all excellent leaching material, even after the rains 12 we have had recently, you can see there was no ponding, there was very little runoff that 13 occurred on the site also. In discussing it with the engineer, what' s to be expected on this site 14 is really vertical recharge from the bottom of the leaching pools to essentially go down 15 straight. The only time you would have horizontal movement is where it hits the ground water itself, 16 which is at two foot elevation, which is below the base of the bluff. So we don' t have the situation 17 where there' s a lot of clay in the soil where water may come down as it recharges, hit the clay 18 and then move out to the bluff; that' s not happening. There' s no indication of leaching 19 coming off the face of the bluff which would occur if there were clay in the areas . There are as 20 testified last time, there are areas immediately adjacent to our site where overland flow from the 21 top of the bluff, the neighbor' s lawn areas essentially directed over the edge of the bluff 22 and has eroded gully out on a section of our property. And I believe as a result of the 23 testimony, the owner has directed our attorney to contact the owner and have him cease and desist to 24 take the necessary measures to contain the runoff on his own property. So again, it' s good 25 practice, part of the erosion is overland flow. We don' t have any of this seeping coming out the April 27 , 2006 92 1 2 sides and because of the groundwater elevation, any lateral movement will be below the base of the 3 bluff . So we' re not going to have any problem there . 4 There was some question with regard to the retaining walls and having to bring in large 5 amounts of fill; that is incorrect. The way the site has been designed, as the Board can see the 6 plans, there' s a set of three retaining walls on the top which will drop the ground elevation down 7 from what it is in existence, then there will be another set of three retaining walls further to 8 the east, which will allow a flat surface. So we are essentially cutting it out of one place and 9 moving it to the other. There will be no fill brought on to the property, we' re just balancing 10 cuts and fills on site. That slope between the two setbacks of walls will be five percent, based 11 on Health Department requirements and all these plans have been approved by the Health Department 12 as far as the recharge and everything else . He also makes a recommendation that we 13 should seek -- I' ll read it. Should the ZBA grant _ the relief of the requirement for the 100 foot 14 setback from the coastal erosion hazard line -- which is really incorrect, it' s really 100 foot 15 setback from the bluff line -- relief should be conditioned if legally allowable upon the 16 applicant seeking or obtaining approval to complete a suitable toe protection bulkhead 17 recommended for consistency with adjacent protective measures, slope stabilization. Some 18 top soil may be added to the slope to encourage the establishment of vegetation. It also states 19 that the applicant should also be required to . complete a low bulkhead protective measure across 20 the end of Duck Pond Road to mitigate any adverse impacts at the end of the bulkhead. Essentially 21 what he' s talking about is going on to Town property and building the bulkhead on Town 22 property, which I don' t know whether we can obtain that permission, that' s certainly something this 23 Board wouldn' t be able to address . Be that as it may, my client would be 24 willing to seek the permit for constructing of a toe stabilization. The New York State DEC doesn' t 25 like structures; they do not like bulkheads . What we would probably like to do is seek a rock April 27 , 2006 93 1 2 revetment along the riprap along the base. There are a large number of stones there already that 3 are protecting the bluff presently, and we would continue that type of structure if the DEC would 4 allow us . And Pat can probably speak to it better and also your attorney as far as whether - - it' s 5 my opinion that this Board wouldn' t be able to necessarily make that permit conditioned on that, 6 but we would certainly seek it because it would be to our benefit to provide a shoreline 7 stabilization in that area. We would make every effort to obtain that permit. If the Board in 8 granting the application would consider or make it a condition that we at least seek this permit to 9 build the thing, we would certainly be willing to do that . 10 The final recommendation is the storm water management where he makes reference back to 11 the soil and water conservation letter that that should be adhered to, and again, that' s what I 12 previously presented to you; the soil and water conservation is one type document, but I provided 13 you with the other documents that address all the other issues that she had in there. 14 He states that the applicant should be required to immediately institute erosion 15 prevention measures on the site, particularly loose dirt stockpiles to prevent soil loss . We 16 have done that; it' s been effective even after the last rainstorms . The contractor went out on 17 Sunday afternoon after the rains . I don' t believe you received the rains that we did up island, but 18 he went out there anyway and made sure there was nothing occurring and there was no erosion 19 occurring even after those storms . So we' re fully prepared to institute all 20 the recommendations . If you have been out to the site, you have seen the three buildings that have 21 been created. We placed jute mat down on the slopes in an effort to stabilize those. There' s 22 no movement of any types of material . The hay bales and silt fencing is still in place and will 23 continue to be in place until the site is stabilized. 24 That pretty much sums it up. I know you have a lot of to consider but again, as I said, 25 this most recent letter is something that, again, it' s more potato-potato type of thing. We' re April 27, 2006 94 1 2 pretty much in agreement with him. There' s a couple of things that I think were incorrect or he 3 may not have had the complete information we provided through this process . But we would like 4 to have a decision, preferably a favorable decision on this . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We would like to close the hearing, but we will leave it open to a 6 discussion amongst ourselves at this particular point, and we' ll see what we are going to do. 7 MS . MOORE: Does anybody have any questions? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re still absorbing everything including the most recent 9 documentation from Mr. Cramer. MR. CRAMER: There is the other letter 10 that was recently in; we' d like to have the opportunity to provide written responses to it . 11 Again, our engineers, I was only able to talk to them. One is on vacation, Joe Baer, who did the 12 original sanitary design, you probably know Joe, he was the head of Suffolk County Health 13 Department in the past, he' s working for Dilbert and Bottalucci' s . He' s the one who did the 14 sanitary system. We also have Bill Yeager, who is familiar with this, who we would like to be able 15 to present to the Board a written response to this . 16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: How much time do you want? 17 MS . MOORE: When is Joe returning? MR. CRAMER: He' ll be back on the first. 18 MS . MOORE: Did you plan on closing the hearing subject to submission to response to a 19 letter? It' s essentially addressing the Geotech certification. 20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If the Board was inclined, they could close the hearing for 21 oral comment and leave it open for a certain amount of time for you to submit written comment. 22 MR. CRAMER: If there' s other written comment coming in -- if you could just limit it to 23 the -- because otherwise I could see it going back and forth and back and forth. 24 MS . MOORE: We weren' t aware that you had an engineer. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s up to the Board. April 27, 2006 95 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As far as I'm concerned, if you have additional documentation 3 that you want to submit. We have a lot of information. I don' t really know other than your 4 right to respond to anything that' s been recently received what else we could possibly consider. 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The closing of the hearing also triggers the time to respond, to 6 make a decision. I think the Board wants to keep it tight. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think at this point it' s most reasonable to close to all 8 testimony. MS . MOORE: Just in response to your 9 engineer. MR. CRAMER: Again, we were fortunate that 10 you didn' t receive the rain that we did up island, we had like six inches that came through there. 11 Everything was failing, recharge basins were overflowing. If the storm was a little bit to the 12 east when it passed through, it would have been a major problem. So I mean, we still have the 13 potential of similar problems out there if this isn' t acted upon quickly. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I used to do in the past was make a motion closing this 15 hearing to oral testimony, and then closing it as a matter of right on the day of our special 16 meeting, which is -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Two weeks from 17 today. In order to receive written response regarding the report. 18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So if we close to oral testimony today and then in your special 19 meeting you can close it for everything. MS . MOORE: So your time frames begin from 20 that special meeting. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make that 21 as a resolution. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 23 24 25 April 27, 2006 96 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 27th day of April, 2006 . 9 10 11 12 //FAoorence V. Wiles 13 14 RECEIVED J.vs piw 15 J U L 1 1 2006 16 S lia6 i Ti .wn Clerk 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April 27 , 2006