HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/25/2006 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 - - ------------------------------------------X
5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A RID O F A P P E A L S
8
9 --------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11
May 25, 2006
12 9 : 30 a.m.
13 Board Members Present
14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman
15 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
16 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member
17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member
18 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
19 LINDA KOWALSKI , Board Secretary
20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
21 - - - -
22
23
24
t .
i
25
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to open our
regularly scheduled meeting for May. First up is,
3 Mr. Curran, you have the as-built shed in the
front yard. Of course, I think you have three
4 front yards .
MR. CURRAN: That seems to be my confusion
5 and the basis for my appeal . When I purchased the
house and I moved in my address was 680 Oakwood
6 Court, designating the front of my house, which is
the existing front of the house -- I'm not sure if
7 you have pictures -- when I purchased the shed, I
placed it in what I conceive to. be the side of the
8 house . It' s an unusual plot .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know, very familiar
9 with it .
MR. CURRAN: And I 'm making the appeal to
10 the Zoning Board that the shed remain where it is .
I stated in my areas for variance request that I
11 have already cleared that land, removed all of the
bramble, made it attractive to the community and
12 physical environment . The shed is located near
the driveway for easy access; it' s a pleasant
13 booking shed. I made sure it was compliant to the
existing structure of the house with the same roof
14 shingles, the same matching trim, and I even
included flower boxes to add to the aesthetic
15 value of the shed. Unfortunately° somewhere along
the line an anonymous complaint was filed with the
16 Town, and I then was visited by the Building
Inspector who said that it doesn' t seem to be in
17 compliance . And I pursued, well, my understanding
is that this is the front of .my house, this is the
18 side of my house, pointing to the woods, I have
another side of my house and this is the back of
19 my house . So just from a logical point of view I
placed it in position where I considered it to be
20 in compliance . He then said that you need to
pursue with the Zoning Board and that' s what I
21 have done from July 7th on ,until today. So, I am
appealing to you to consider the placement of that
22 shed where it is in that wooded area, which is, in
my mind, the side yard but according to
23 regulations, it might be some other yard in terms
of the layout of the property.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, you have two
front yards, Oakwood and Lakeside, and probably
25 Lakeside was barely even open when you bought the
house . I think that' s rather newer, that whole
May 25 , 2006
3
1
2 new subdivision by General Wayne Inn. Michael do
you' have any questions?
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No, just some
comments . My question, almost a rhetorical
4 question, is where else you might put it
consistent with the rules?
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Got me .
MR. CURRAN: I don' t have many other --
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This seems to be a
function of this strange, particular rule, which
7 makes sense about having multiple front yards on a
corner lot and, in fact, this house actually it
8 really does have two front yards because there' s
two front doors as far as I can see from looking
9 at the house, but that doesn' t seem to be a
problem because the shed is in almost the ideal
10 place, and it' s not clear to me anyway that there
is significant obtrusion by the shed. I really
11 don' t have any questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the shed
have any utilities in it, any electric, anything
13 other than just the shed?
MR. CURRAN: No.
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you intend to
put any utilities in it?
15 MR. CURRAN: I was thinking of maybe
running an electric wire for a light, but that
16 doesn' t have to happen if that' s something you
would say shouldn' t happen.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ' Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In fact there' s
only one other possibility, you technically have
19 one side yard and if you' re standing facing your
house it would be to 'the right, and that' s where
20 your septic system is .
MR. CURRAN: That' s correct .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So, I' noticed that
there was some fence screening behind your house
22 if you think of the front doors; the shed itself.,
in the position that it' s in is not blocked from
23 the neighbor' s view, would you consider putting in
a couple of evergreens, something like behind it
24 just simply to create a little additional privacy?
MR. CURRAN: Yes, I would. As a matter of
25 fact, if there was a complainant. that indicated
that to me, that would have been easily resolved
May 25 , 2006
4
1
2 and I wouldn' t be here . However, not knowing who
I was offending by this I had no resolve but to
3 come here to you the authorities in charge of all
of this .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s just the
zoning code .
5- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not us, it' s
the law.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, it was quite
7 a journey since July for just a shed. I have no
trouble at all with this whatsoever. Quite
8 honestly, I don' t think we should put in a
provision for screening. That' s my own opinion,
9 that' s not how probably it will happen, I just
want to state on the record that you' re entitled
10 to have a shed on your property, and in my opinion
the Town caused that problem, not you. You have.
11 come before us because you have a hardship in
trying to comply with the code, not the other way
12 around. As far as I'm concerned, you didn' t break
the law. Geography. is different in Town law.
13 MR. CURRAN: I 'm still a little baffled by
the fact that I have two front yards or three
14 front yards, did you say?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, two really,
15 Lakeside and Oakwood.
MR. CURRAN: But I believe the builder had
16 sought a variance designating the front of the
house, before I bought it, because my neighbors
17 told me this . They got notice before they were
even built that they would be putting the front of
18 the house on the Oakwood side . That doesn' t
matter?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. For the
purpose, that' s basically it .
20 MR. CURRAN: Right . I think I remember
when I purchased the house they said you could
21 pick either address .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you have an
22 ordinary subdivision where you have a house on the
corner and front yard setback is let' s say 35
23 feet, where the side yard setback doesn' t have to
be any more than 10 , the purpose of this rule is
24 to say that people who have a corner lot don' t put
it only 10 feet from the side street . So it' s
25 because of the" setbacks, it also produces some
strange results such as occurred in your case .
May 25, 2006
5
1
2 But there is a rationale for the law, it just
doesn' t fit your instance, that' s why you' re here .
3 ' Is there anyone else in the audience who
would like to speak on this application? If not,
4 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
5 (See minutes for resolution. )
--------------------------------------- -- --------
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
James Bissett on Cox Neck Road in Mattituck. He
7 has a little problem with a horse barn. Is there
anybody here to speak on this application?
8 MR. KELLY: Bill Kelly and I ' m the owner
rep for James Bissett . If you have been over to
9 visit the site, you' ll notice that they have a
nursery in the front and they also have a horse
10 facility in the back. It' s for their own private
use . Bissetts actually raise and breed race
11 horses, so that' s what they raise there .
As far as this facility, if you have been
12 to the site you have noticed that we've already
built the actual stall barn, and that was done
13 under permits . It' s in an AC zone, however, we
have never gone and gotten -- the code' s kind of
14 changed since I've been here the last couple
years . I 'm not sure how it works with AC zones .
15 From the standpoint if you file for it as an
agricultural building and then it goes to the
16 Planning Board or whatever. So. far to date, we've
been able to build these buildings as accessory
17 structures to the residence, which is clearly
there . And we would like to do the same with this
18 facility as well . All it is used for is when. the
horses are at a young age, they green break the
19 horses and it' s an indoor facility so they can try
to keep things confined and outside peripheral
20 confusion out of. the way of the horse .
From the standpoint of that, a building
21 for that type of use really needs to be 14 feet
clear on the interior. The way our structure is
22 configured that puts 'us at 24 feet to the peak and
puts us about I think a foot and a half over
23 midpoint of the gable, which is where we come into
the problem of code compliance . And two things
24 with that . It is an AC zone, if it was an
agricultural building in an AC zone, I wouldn' t
25 even be here because then it would be code
compliant because then they' re allowed to meet the
May 25 , 2006
6
1
2 32 foot peak height or midpoint height . And the
other part of that is from the standpoint if it
3 was an accessory structure say, for example, it
was a 24 foot wide garage that was 10 feet tall
4 and had a 16-12 pitch on it, the peak height on
that building would be 26 feet high, and the
5 midpoint of the gable would be 18 , which would be
code compliant . , So the point of that is this
6 building is 24 foot high to the peak, if it had a
steeper pitch on it and was a foot lower, it would
7 be 'code compliant . The reason I can' t make it any
lower is because with the horse and rider, typical
8 horse is 17 hands tall, 17 hands tall is roughly
72 inches, a hand is four and a half inches, you
9 put a rider on top of that, three and a half feet
for the rider, that brings you to nine and a half
10 feet, that leaves you four and a half feet of
clearance to the trusses, and then if you have
11 light fixtures, that' s another two feet for light
fixtures . So that only leaves you two and a half
12 feet of clearance . So if a horse bucks, rears
whatever, that' s why we need that kind of
13 clearance, so therefore we need to seek a variance
for the height of the building.
14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My granddaughter took
lessons over at Jackie Bitner' s so I understand
15 the problem.
MR. KELLY: If you look at the size of the
16 building, it' s a very small, what you would call
an indoor, it' s only 54 feet wide, and I think 80
17 or 90 feet long. So you can tell it' s not for
commercial use . A commercial use-type facility
18 would be closer to 100 feet wide by 200 feet long.
So it' s really for their own private use in
19 breaking the horses .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no
questions .
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s very clear, I
22 have no questions either.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is,
Mr. Kelly, and it' s very pragmatic, and that is
24 from this particular point on, how do we get in if
there are future variances? I happened to get in
25 there the east gate or the north gate --
MR. KELLY: We could make it to where you
May 25 , 2006
7
1
2 could either call myself or call the owner, the
owner lives on site . He actually owns Bissett
3 Nursery. They' re readily available, they' re good
people, as far as, friendly and everything like
4 that . There would be no problem getting on site .
You could call me, I'm Morton Buildings, I 'm
5 local . ' So by calling me and me contacting Jim,
and I think those gates are open most of the time,
6 and you can actually enter that site through the
nursery and get all the way through it . And the
7 nursery is ungated. So the only gates are the
gates to his driveway and the gates to the horse
8 facility. The only fencing is the actual horse
fencing internal, and that' s internal to the horse
9 facility itself . That' s just to keep, the horses
confined so if one does get out it doesn' t end up
10 on the street .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is,
11 and maybe I didn' t fully understand the drawings,
you' re saying that the walls, the vertical size,
12 in order for them to be 14 feet high, given the
pitch of roof you want, you actually have to have
13 this . I - couldn' t find a measurement as to high
the side walls were .
14 MR. KELLY: The side walls -- inside plans
to the bottom of the trough is 14 feet, and I had-
15 submitted a detail, I don' t know if you got this
detail or not . I actually dropped it at the
16 office .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We actually got it
17 today.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not everybody goes
18 into the office every single day.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That answers my
19 question.
MR. KELLY: That would give you all the
20 dimensions and why everything ends up being the
way it is . It' s a 4-12 pitch truss . I can' t
21 shallow out the truss because we would have roof
and snow loads .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have any
problem with this . This is what I wanted to see .
23 MR. KELLY: If you visited the site, you
can see that aesthetically they' re pretty well
24 done .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
25 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I ' ll make a .motion to close
May 25 , 2006
8
1
2 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 -------------------------'--------------------- ---
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
4 Miritello, that' s for an accessory cottage . Is
there anyone here to speak to- this application?
5 Mr. Lark, how are you this morning?
MR. LARK: Good morning, I 'm fine .
6 Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for
the applicant . I believe you have the affidavits
7 of posting and publication in the file . The
subject of the application before the Board is an
8 18 , by 28 , accessory building on the premises .
The applicant is here because of the notice of
9 disapproval of the Building Inspector dated last
September 22 , 2005 . The applicant purchased 'the
10 property on September 20th, but the deed is dated
September 2.0, 2005 . The applicant is here to
11 answer any questions that you might have about
this building that she knows about . I did not
12 represent the applicant when she purchased. I
became involved afterwards when she received the
13 notice of disapproval from the Building Inspector.
My first thing to do was to do a little research
14 because being somewhat familiar with the
neighborhood through all the years, I was under
15 the impression that that building, the accessory
building I ' m only talking about, had been there
16 since the 1930s, and that made sense because the
main house on the premises is probably over 100
17 years old and had been there time in memorial .
And what I 'm going to tell you now the application
18 is fairly complete so I'm not going to repeat it ,
but because of the way the notice of disapproval
19 is drawn we' re both in a mix and match between an
area variance and a use variance the way he
20 disapproved it or the way the Building Department
disapproved it . But after I started to get
21 involved in this, everything that you have there
in your package before you, the Building
22 Department has, and it' s somewhat shocking to me
that I am here . But in any event, I went and did
23 the research, and I found a property card that had
a notation of this structure on 12/2/59 . And
24 apparently it' s always been listed almost
everywhere as a seasonal cottage. The ' 59 entry
25 in the property card was one seasonal, one-story
and then there was 2 , 400 two-story on the
May 25 , 2008
9
1
2 premises, and then it goes on and on the back of
the card they talk about a cottage 18 by 28 or 504
3 square feet, and that first entry that I could
find was in ' 59 .
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you give us a
copy of that?
5 MR. LARK: Sure, I thought you had it .
But anyway, then digging around I find a 1971
6 survey by Young and Young showing, which is the
cottage in this location, which calls is a
7 one-story frame house, it also shows the two-story
frame house on it . So I located that because I
8 couldn' t understand the notice of disapproval .
Then almost the coup de groix is I located a 1984
9 CO for the accessory cottage .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Excuse me,
10 Mr. Lark, just the back side of the assessor' s
card was missing.
11 MR. LARK: I'm sorry, that was a mistake
on my part, I . thought I had it . So then I found
12 this ' 84 CO issued, so I was really then puzzled.
So when I met with the Building Department on it
13 to discuss their notice of disapproval -- no, I
did one more thing prior, I talked to the prior
14 owner that Ms . Miritello purchased the property
from, Mr. Tannenbaum, he bought it in ' 84 , and he
15 sold it to her and he held it . So I asked him
without getting involved with anything I was going
16 to do before the Board, so I asked him to tell me
what it was all about, the building. And it was
17 interesting because I said the .' 84 CO calls for a
greenhouse . He said there was never a greenhouse
18 there . He said what you see is. what was there
then except, and you have it in his affidavit,
19 which he graciously provided me, I did upgrades, I
replaced windows, I put in new. bathroom
20 facilities . He said all the things I did there
but he said he never changed anything. I just
21 upgraded. I said what about this heat issue, he
said there was heat there and I just upgraded it
22 and he told me the contractor was VanDuzer. So I
go to VanDuzer and I talked to them and Cindy
23 DeBenidetto, she then researches her records and
she finds in I think it was 192 , ' 93 , that they in
24 fact put that system in that was there today
because the other system wasn' t too safe . But
25 there was a heating system there . So they took
that apart and put the one that' s in there today,
May 25 , 2006
10
1
2 which is a relatively safe situation.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s a space gas
3 heater?
MR. LARK: Yes, but everything is outside
4 as far as the burnings and exhaust and everything.
Then I went to the Building Department, in fact I
5 talked to three building inspectors there, one of
which Mr. Tannenbaum said had been on that site
6 because if you notice in the file there' s swimming
pool COs, there' s additions, there' s everything
7 else so the Building Department has been to this
property many, many times over the years . And I
8 said first of all, the application that the real
estate agent made in that transaction from
9 Tannenbaum to Miritello back last September, I
said they just wanted, like most attorneys do and
10 banks do, they want updated COs, they want
something that' s current, that' s what they did.
11 So then you put in your disapproval that they want
as-built alterations . There have been no
12 alterations, here' s what you have . Then we
continue on, then he said, well, it was altered to
13 include heat and to convert a sunroom into a
bedroom. I said what evidence do you have of
14 that? They said, none, we just feel it ' s that
way. I said, that' s very interesting, here' s the
15 owner Mr. Tannenbaum, who has no interest in this
thing, giving an affidavit saying it didn' t exist
16 in fact, he told me one building inspector,
Mr. Fish, I said you were at the property. He
17 said he didn' t remember anything. All of a sudden
we had convenient amnesia. So then he goes on,
18 and he tries to tell me that this is not a
permitted use . And I said are you familiar with
19 the zoning code, and I read him the definition of
the zoning code of an accessory structure, you
20 know, used in conjunction. It doesn' t say
anything about -- I know two of you on the Board
21 remember -- we went through this with the kitchen
business years ago in a house, that you can only
22 have one . When you have an accessory structure
used in conjuncture with a principal dwelling, you
23 can have heat, you can have cooking facilities, -
you can have bathroom facilities, you can have all
24 of this . It' s just used as an accessory to the
main house . So they became intransient and said,
25 you' re probably right, but let the Board decide,
but why put the applicant through all of this . I
May 25 , 2006
11
1
2 talked with your clerk, Linda, and she said make
sure they have everything, she was perplexed as I
3 was . So I made the application the best I could
to meet the requirements as required by 267 of the
4 Town law to conform it to both an area and a use
variance, although because it' s preexisting and it
5 is code compliant, I don' t understand really what
we' re doing. Apparently you' re to authorize them
6 to give an updated CO. I guess that' s really what
my application is . It' s a very frustrating
7 application because it complies, but they won' t
make the decision, and it is disgraceful that they
8 won' t do that, but that' s why we' re here . And if
there' s any questions because I would just be
9 beating a dead horse because I think
Mr. Tannenbaum' s affidavit and all the information
10 and COs and the history that I've given you of the
property pretty much speaks for itself . And even
11 if it didn' t comply, it' s obvious that it was
there before the inception of zoning, the original
12 structure . There' s no denial that the Tannenbaums
did those upgrades that he said in there, but I
13 don' t think they' re unlawful at all, and, in fact,
he said that Mr. Fish did inspect the place at one
14 time, and he did grouse but nothing ever happened.
They were there a number of times, you can see
15 that from the additions and from the swimming
pools and all that other business .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did Mr. Tannenbam
upgrade the accessory structure?
17 MR. LARK: After he purchased in 184
during periods of time, he put a new heating
18 system, put in a skylight, new windows, that type
of thing.
19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was a cottage
before 157, approximately what year was .it a
20 seasonal cottage?
MR. LARK: I think it' s always been a
21 seasonal cottage .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What date, ' 30s,
22 ' 40s, ' 50s?
MR. LARK: I was told that . that place
23 existed in the ' 30s . But it always was a seasonal
cottage, and it' s always been that because
24 original on a survey, the water came from another
place, had its own well, and he converted it, ran
25 it from the main house and they shut the water off
in the winter and no one uses it in the winter .
May 25, 2006
12
1
2 And I said why did you, he said the heat was
always but I wanted to upgrade it because I had my
3 mother living there, and my mother-in-law living
there and so on and so forth. He said it was
4 chilly in the spring and .in the early fall, just
to take the chill off . But it' s always been used
5 as a seasonal in conjunction with the main house .
And in fact talking to Miss Miritello, she said
6 it' s going to basically end up as a cabana for my
family for the pool except when there' s an
7 overflow on the weekends staying at the house .
She' s not asking for a full year round situation
8 there just keep it seasonal . She' d have to do
other things with insulation and water and stuff
9 like that if you were going to make it a year
round deal, that type of thing. She' s here if you
10 have any questions you want to ask her.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. We had a
very nice inspection the other day. I was a
12 little late but I explained why.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have a
13 question, I have an answer to the question you
raised, that is how is it that the Building
14 Department could put her through this? The only
thing I wonder about is which is worse the
15 Building Department erring on the side of
requiring people to get variances when they
16 shouldn' t have to or interpreting applications in
a way so that things get built without any kinds
17 of appeal, basically failing to give notices of
disapproval in any cases . And some of us wonder
18 which is a more serious problem. I agree this is
a problem that shouldn' t have happened.
19 MR. LARK: I do understand but when I' was
talking with them I said, any of these things if
20 they didn' t exist -- obviously she didn' t do
anything, but if Tannenbaum did any of those
21 things, they' re not illegal except he should have
had it inspected because you should have your heat
22 inspected, the electric was inspected because I
got a certificate from Bartra to show they did
23 everything correctly.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only other
24 thing I can think of is when you require a
building permit for those changes, when they
25 change from one heating system to another, there
was no record of a permit .
May 25 , 2006
13
1
2 MR. LARK: No, he didn' t because he was
upgrading and he was told by the contractor he
3 didn' t need to, he was just replacing.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Not a new furnace
4 but if other upgrades are going on, the Building
Department might require, that' s what I was told
5 by the Building Department .
MR. LARK: That' s their rationale?
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, .I visited the
7 site, and .I have no questions, just a comment , I ' m
sorry for the waste of your time .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, when I read
9 this last night I said we' re just going to say,
no, it doesn' t need a variance; but it does need a
10 variance because if we say no, you' re in limbo for
another two years before they' re going to make a
11 decision.
MR. LARK: I took the path of least
12 resistance there, I said, just go to the Board,
let them view the facts and rather than just
13 ignore it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Our experience is
14 that the Building Department would rather turn it
over to us than to review their own decision.
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : In all fairness, I
think they' re trying to be consistent, even though
16 they' re not . They error on the side of well, it ' s
only a couple more months and you have your
17 permit, but I don' t see inconsistency.
MR. LARK: Here time didn' t affect her
18 because the onset of winter.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Well, it ' s there
19 anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
20 that wishes to speak on this application? Yes,
sir?
21 MR. RUSSO: My name is Dan Russo, and I
live in the neighborhood. I have only two
22 questions with regard 'to the variance . Does this
change the existing variance to more than a single
23 family residence?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . It' s an accessory
24 cottage to be used seasonal for members of the
family only.
25 MR. RUSSO: Can it also be used as a
rental property?
May 25, 2006
14
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In all honesty,
yes, it could appear that way. That' s the trouble
3 when you go to legalize these things . The law is
kind of ambivalent, yes, in all honesty to be
4 truthful, yes . It could be rented legally by this
person on a seasonal basis .
5 MR. RUSSO: On a seasonal basis?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . It couldn' t
6 be rented to say a government agency or anything
like that . It would never meet the criteria for
7 say Section 8 or something like that, but it could
be the criteria for a person coming out for the
8 summer that wants to stay at a place for the
summer, it could meet that criteria, legally.
9 MR. RUSSO: How would that affect
neighboring property values and stuff like that?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You value your
property. I live in Greenport . So as far as I
.11 know I don' t think it would affect property
values . It' s there and has been there .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Lark, would you
have any objections if we put in our decision that
13 it' s for family use only?
MS . MIRITELLO: I would like to assure my
14 neighbors I have no intention of renting it . I
have no intention of letting anybody changing the
15 structure . I just I have a large family and it
was there when I bought the house . I want to say
16 a bonus, I don' t know if I want to say a bonus
now, but it was there when I bought the house, and
17 my feeling was, okay, if I have everything out
here at least I have more bedrooms .
18 MR. RUSSO: I don' t have a problem with
that . My only concern is five years from now if
19 they sell the house .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If we put the condition
20 on it, it runs with the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It runs with the
21 house .
MR. RUSSO : Thank you.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re welcome, thank
you for coming in. Does anyone else wish to speak
23 on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion
to close the hearing and reserve decision until
24 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
May 25 , 2006
15
1
2 for Mr. and Mrs . Ekster on Horseshoe Drive in
Cutchogue . What would you like to tell us?
3 MR. EKSTER: We' re looking for approval on
an addition we' re putting on. Our daughter has a
4 disability and the scope of the alteration was to
create more room for her.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a variance
requested because a future road is about to go in
6 possibly on the other side of your large hedge .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But you have a large
7 hedge that' s going to stay there .
MS . EKSTER: We have been there for 31
8 years and it' s never developed into a road.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re looking at
9 33 . 9 feet from what will then be considered a
front yard rather than a side yard, rather than
10 the required 50 feet, and that's why you' re here .
Okay.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the future
12 road I think is the whole thing, and I don' t see
that ever happening, and quite honestly, I don' t
13 see any other reason why you shouldn' t be granted
this . That shed that exists, that' s there, it' s
14 going to stay there?
MR. EKSTER: Yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I see that
as a problem also that we should address . Besides
16 that, I have no objection.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Me either.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Me either.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even if there were an
.actual road there you at least would have an
19 arguable case for the variance given the hedge .
So your case is even stronger.
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish
to speak on this application? If not, I ' ll make a
21 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision
until later.
22 (See minutes for resolution. )
---------------------7-------------- -------------
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for Mr. _and Mrs . Cotton on Dogwood Lane in
24 Southold. Good morning.
MR. COTTON: I have asked to add onto my
25 cottage on Dogwood Lane a front deck and on, the
rear I have an existing deck, I wanted to make it
May 25, 2006
16
1
2 a little bit larger and screen it in. The
original reason for doing part of these projects
3 was the safety issue, the landing on the front
stoop is only 20 inches, so when you open the
4 door, you have to step back, so if you have a
package or something in your hand, which my wife
5 did one, day, sort of slipped off the stoop. The
rear deck, the railing that exists now is at knee
6 level, which is obviously quite dangerous . If you
turn one way, you can go right over the edge .
7 The second reason is obviously to add a
little more living space, the cottage is quite
8 small, there' s only one living room, two small
bedrooms and a kitchen.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a very small
lot because your coverage will be 34 percent,
10 which is considerable, by considering the size of
your lot . Let' s see what everybody else has to
11 say, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell
12 you, I' ll just make the statement we have never
gone 34 percent . We do understand that the lot is
13 small and I was there, I understand that .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : One of the smallest
14 lots in Southold.
MR. COTTON: I do have letters from the
15 two neighbors, they are year round, stating that
they have no problem with it .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re just a
seasonal?
17 MR. COTTON: Weekends and the summer a
little more, but we are year round, every other
18 weekend we seem to be out .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only other
possible thing, I think they' re modest and
20 reasonable additions and when I was there I
asked -- Mr. Cotton had said he had spoken to his
21 neighbors, and I'm glad that you have some
supportive testimony to submit, I think that makes
22 a difference . Is there any way that you can
without altering the front elevation, move the
23 stairs to the front door because that would
actually -- it wouldn' t change the lot coverage,
24 but it would create a different front yard
variance . I 'm just asking and I'm not saying that
25 you need to but because it is a very tiny lot and
what you' re trying to add on is reasonable I
May 25 , 2006
17
1
2 think. It ' s a big spread and the only other thing
I could think of would be to possibly move the
3 steps to the side yard because they' re going to
come in front of the deck, so that will bring the
4 steps even closer. That' s just a question not a
requirement .
5 MR. COTTON: Constructionally I don' t
know, I would have to ask the architect or the
6 builder.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, they could
7 be in your side yard, you could enter from the
side and then into your house because you' re
8 putting the deck all across the front . You .could
still keep the portico and everything else .
9 Aesthetically I think it looks better with the
front, but I'm just thinking of the setback.
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I' m concerned.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could build
11 the stairs --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t know if
12 there' s enough space to build the steps, and have
a big enough landing to use to walk across from
13 one side to another side, that' s another option,
if you can scoot those in a little farther then
14 the steps wouldn' t be protruding into the front
yard. I mean, there' s a couple of choices .
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s as an
alternative if they don' t grant this one .
16 MR. COTTON: I didn' t think about it but
now you bring it up . ,
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My concern is, and
it ' s consistent with Leslie' s comment about the
18 alternative, the house is already a nonconforming
house, it already occupies more than the 20
19 percent . Now no one is going to say you can' t
continue to live in your house but the question is
20 when the house is one that couldn' t be built
today, then the question of .can we expand it just
21 a little bit does become a question, which is -why
you have to come before this Board. The general
22 idea of making the best of a small lot is a good
idea, but can it be done in a way that minimizes
23 the impact, and I think one way that would
minimize the impact would- be, quite frankly, not
24 to have the additional reduction of the setbacks
on the street side but the idea of putting those
25 stairs on the side I think might be a solution
worth considering.
May 25, 2006
18
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' m a professor of
architecture, and I' ll have a look. I just want
3 to tell you I think you've done a lovely job.
We' re neighbors . I walk by there every day when I
4 take my walk, and considering what this bungalow,
looked like before you renovated, you' ve done a
5 wonderful job and it' s really improved the
neighborhood. And .they' re very modest additions
6 to a very modest house, the problem is the size of
the property. And if the neighbors don' t really
7 object to these additions then I 'm thinking it
will only enhance your ability to live there and
8 make the place look nicer. I 'm going to take a
look and see about those steps, it may not have
9 any aesthetic impact and it might help mitigate
some of that front yard setback.
10 MR. COTTON: Then wouldn' t the portico
look out of place? It would just be a rail right
11 in front of it?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would be a porch
12 or -- let me just have a look -- you could do it
if you definitely move the stairs right into --
13 you've got 4 ' 1011 , that' s pretty shallow, how many
risers do you need? Three and then a landing,
14 that' s too shallow, you won' t have enough of a
landing for those steps . So, I mean, if you
15 scooted them to the side where your entrance to
the porch is, that' s one option.
16 MR. COTTON: On the north side or --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . I would
17 probably put it on the side where you have a 10
foot side yard.
18 MR. COTTON: On that side right now --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Where your deck is,
19 where your cut-out of your house is. because you
don' t want to interfere with the steps on the
20 porch.
MR. COTTON: There are hedges there, you
21 remember, I think the steps would come right into
the hedges . Because I know behind on the side of
22 the house, behind where I want to put the deck, I
know there' s 10 feet .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Ten feet facing
your house to the right .
24 MR. COTTON: But there' s hedges there,
those are not mine .
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What we' re really
trying to do is find a way to say yes with the
May 25 , 2006
19
1
2 minimum impact because as Jerry points out, 34
percent lot coverage is pretty much unheard of .
3 So we' re doing everything we can to say yes, but
we' re trying to do it in a way to find the least
4 impact so we' ll just think about it .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I guess they' re
5 talking about would you take alternative relief
without the need to reapply?
6 MR. COTTON: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly,
I ' ve been on this Board for 18 years, and I can' t
8 recall ever doing that . To me it' s a no-brainer
that that front deck just doesn' t get built. If
9 you want something in the back a little privacy
enjoy your house and that' s based on all the other
10 people we said no to. People that know me I know
I believe in property rights to the nth degree,
11 but quite honestly, I can' t vote for 34 percent .
And I see the only way that you can do that is if
12 you want to fill in that little gap in the front
of the house and put a porch and deck on that --
13 that' s only my opinion, I'm one of- five — you' re
welcome to do that .
14 MR. COTTON: I didn' t understand that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The jog on the
15 southwest side of the house .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Don' t. go any closer
16 to the property line, stay at 1316P and fill in
that little square, that little bite out of the
17 house, put an entryway there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What you can
18 actually do quite simply is if you eliminate the
deck to the left of your door, and simply move the
19 stairs in so that you have a little landing and
that landing would lead you across to the deck_ on
20 the right, then that would take care of the
problem of the entry sequence as well as allowing
21 for a small deck. It will minimally reduce the
lot coverage also.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s not my
proposal, I 'm saying you take and 4 . 6 off of that
23 and don' t go any closer to the property line than
13 ' 6" .
24 MR. COTTON: I see what you' re saying.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know you have to
25 get into the house, I understand that, and I
looked at the house, and I 'm not going to tell you
May 25 , 2006
20
1
2 it' s easy be nothing is easy, I understand
that . But honestly, I think of the people we told
3 no for one percent increase, I would not vote for
this and that would be more on principal .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually, the
existing stairs, which are not actually drawn in
5. in terms of the dimension, you have 13 ' 6" to your
front elevation, but on this existing plan, you
6 don' t have the dimensions as to where your current
stairs are .
7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : They 'don' t count as
setbacks .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If they' re not
counting then it' s very simple, you can just move
9 them over to where your new entrance is -- well,
actually it' s the same entrance, so just rebuild
10 those and then we have to discuss whether or not
we have a deck off to the right or not .
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion is
that we give them a lot coverage max that we can
12 all agree to.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is your
13 current lot coverage?
MR. COTTON: It' s small . It' s over --
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s obvious, but
quite honestly --
15 MR. COTTON: My calculation I was only
adding 317 square feet .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I was very bad in
math, sir. And quite honestly, for legal reasons
17 it has to be precise . If you want to have an
architect .
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Sir, your lot is
3 , 300 square feet and you' re adding 300 square
19 feet, that' s almost 10 percent of lot coverage
increased.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house is 700
square feet . Again, my proposal to the Board that
21 we agree on a maximum figure and we allow
Mr. Cotton to develop whatever plan he chooses to
22 develop.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My problem with
23 that, Jerry, is that our maximum has been 28 , he' s
more than that already.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm telling you,
my proposal would be at this point, and I ' ll say
25 it right now, 30 percent, I would go with 30
percent .
May 25 , 2006
21
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can discuss that
later, we' re not voting on that now.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have the
ability to reduce the deck to a ground level .
4 MR. COTTON: Ground level doesn' t come
into play?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as it' s
at grade .
6 MR. COTTON: Then I could put on that side
piece bring that down and put the stairway coming
7 up from that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Bring that stairs --
8 MR. COTTON: That would take down 120 feet
right there, which is actually my original
9 proposal to the architect .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You should have
10 listened to yourself .
MR. COTTON: Always . Then the other piece
11 would be up, which is the place where I prefer to
sit .
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So let me get it
clear then, the back you could go at ground level?
13 MR. COTTON: Not the back. The back
there' s already a 10 by 12 .
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You could go down
and make it a patio.
15 MR. COTTON: I 'm listening. I ' m looking
for some agreement here . So you were saying the
16 front would be ground level .
MR. COTTON: That one portion, the 10 ' by
17 12 ' I could do that, originally it was just going
to be that side deck with the new step and we were
18 going to make --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll work on it .
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe would you
want to come back with something else or did you
20 want us to make a decision?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We could offer you an
21 alternative and if the alternative is unacceptable
to you you could come back to us .
22 MR. COTTON: For another $600?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . That' s why if
23 you want to wait a month, you can come back to us
with your plan, take into account my comment and
24 everybody else' s .
MR. COTTON: If I 'm understanding --
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We would just adjourn
it for a month.
May 25 , 2006
22
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s two
choices . You can accept what the Board gives you,
3 you don' t have to come back and the Board will
vote on it in two weeks . You can go to your
4 architect and then go' to the Building Department
and you' re finished with us; or, you can adjourn
5 it and discuss it some more with new plans at the
next meeting in June . So it' s your choice, you
6 have those two options . Most people take the
alternative. relief and then they go to the
7 architect .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the alternative
8 relief is unacceptable .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Take a while and
9 think about it, calculate the lot coverage, if you
can figure out how to do that, with the deck at
10 grade .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re going to need
11 the lot coverage anyway.
' BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We' re going to need
12 to know what your current lot coverage is and what
your additional lot coverage is with that deck at
13 grade and the deck to the left of the steps as you
come up eliminated.
14 MR. COTTON: That' s gone .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s gone . Just
15 put the steps going up to your front door and then
the little deck off to the right at grade, steps
16 don' t count .
MR. COTTON: Basically I can just
17 eliminate that front thing and just rework the
steps . See that was the other problem, somebody
18 brought in a mason wanted $5 , 000 to replace my
stoop, I thought that was insane, where I could
19 get a little bit more for $5 , 000 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember
20 the 30 square feet is exempt for the landing.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Anything at grade
21 is not lot coverage and the steps, 30 square feet
is exempt .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll be here for the
rest of the morning, come- back when you have
23 thought about it carefully. Yes, I' ll make a
motion to recess the hearing until the applicant
24 comes back.
(See minutes for resolution. )
25 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
May 25, 2006
23
1
2 for O'Hagen-Murphy on Breakwater Road.
MR. HAROLD: Good morning, I 'm Diane
3 Harold, I 'm the architect .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to
4 do?
MS . HAROLD: If you look at the site plan,
5 you' ll notice that this property is occupied by 11
houses . I 'm specifically referring to the house
6 on the south side of the property and it' s the
middle house, the one-story frame house that shows
7 a patio block right on the north side of it, so
this is specifically the house with which we are
8 dealing.
We' re asking to raise the house, put a new
9 foundation underneath it and renovate the house
and also build a new deck that' s 12 ' by 14 ' . This
10 house is seasonal . There is no heat as the other
houses are . If you have been to the site, which
11 I 'm sure some of you have, I 'm sure you' ll notice
that some of the houses have been improved with
12 new siding, they have been raised. I 've actually
dug underneath this house to check the foundation,
13 and there's virtually no foundation underneath.
It' s a couple of blocks sitting on a block cross
14 way. Obviously the house has some structural
problems . ' Also, it is undersized for the building
15 code, so we' re asking permission to keep it the
same size' as it is because it is compatible with
16 the other buildings on the property. We' re mostly
doing the renovation. With that, I'm changing
17 windows, so I'm also going to be moving that hot
water heater shed, and I ' m actually moving it to
18 the' west so it will give it a little more space
off of that right of way; we' re making that a
19 little less nonconforming.
The new deck, which is 12 ' by 14 ' , we' re
20 asking to have that as a raised deck because the
owner has children and would like to. keep the kids
21 in a play area because as you see they're right
off that concrete driveway, which is the access
22 for all houses on this property.
I think that' s pretty much it . The house
23 will remain the same size as it is, same shape,
we' re not changing the roof line, we' re doing new
24 windows, new siding and as I say, the interior
renovation. If the Board has any questions, I ' d
25 be happy to address them.
BOARD MEMBER: Will the deck go over the
May 25 , 2006
24
1
2 existing patio?
MS . HAROLD : It basically will be tight to
3 the house and not in the same location. We're
moving the front door, so we shift more toward the
4 middle of the house .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would that be an
5 increase in area then?
MS . HAROLD: It would be, yes, that' s
6 true . There is a deck that' s similar in size that
would be the very northeast, one-story frame house
7 does show a deck off the east side, it would be
compatible with that . So there is a precedent on
8 this property for a raised deck.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re only going
9 to raise it to the actual entry-level of the
house, which is not very far off the ground.
10 MS . HAROLD : The house will be higher.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Once you add a
11 foundation.
MS . HAROLD: We' re going to add about
12 another two feet to get some circulation.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re going to
13 use that as a crawl space for electric and --
MS . HAROLD: Actually it' s going to be on
14 piers, we' re not putting anything down there
because that' s how all the other houses are,
15 they' re all on concrete piers . We just want a
little more air circulation and part of the house
16 is now in the dirt, so we' re raising it about two
feet . .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the new deck is
going to be 14 ' by 12 ' ?
18 MS . HAROLD: 12 ' 'by 141 , yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that' s going to
19 increase the lot coverage, the existing deck is at
grade .
20 MS . HAROLD : That' s correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One issue is here we
21 have 11 houses on approximately 1 . 1 acre, so I
haven' t seen any numbers about percentage of lot
22 coverage for this . And the question of houses on
a tenth of an acre obviously are straining the
23 size of the allotted area.. I realize it ' s all one
common owner, Marsano, so ,then when we go further
24 and further on a lot 'that is already crowded by a
very small building on a tiny lot, there are
25 problems because there are also 10 other houses
and they want to do the same thing. In other
May 25 , 2006
25
1
2 words, at some point some decision would have to
be made if there were pressure on .this to make the
3 houses virtually touching one another.
MS . HAROLD: In view of the Board' s
4 previous cases my client is quite eager to
proceed. If I eliminate the deck, they would be
5 interested in getting the permission to renovate
the house and provide say a 4 ' by 4 ' deck and
6 steps down, and I would come back to the Board at
a future date because I don' t want the deck to
7 cause this -- if you have been to the house you
know how poor it is .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You understand the
problem?
9 MS . HAROLD: I- understand perfectly. This
is something that they threw on afterwards . I can
10 go back to them and say keep your patio where it
is, put temporary fencing around it for the
11 kids . I want to make this work so they can
renovate the house .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: , You can put an at
grade patio at the new location.
13 MS . HAROLD : That' s what they have . If
that' s the way the Board looks at it, and I can
14 understand you totally, they asked me to put this
in so I have to, but I 'm not going to make it an
15 issue .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I'm asking these
16 questions because I have to write up this case,
you' re doing a tear-down and building on the
17 footprint?
MS . HAROLD: I wasn' t going to do a
18 tear-down because I didn' t think the Board would
allow me to do that . I was going to do sintering,
19 refacing, keep the roof, if the Board lets me
tear-down, rebuild it, I would be ecstatic, but I
20 didn' t think the Board would allow me to do it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we have had
21 situations where we have granted relief for doing
exactly that, structural repairs =-
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not all the
houses of this nature .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In some
circumstances people have discovered once you sort
24 of strip away things --
MS . HAROLD: It' s a mess, there' s no
25 doubt .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not
May 25 , 2006
26
1
2 structurally achievable to do that that they wind
up tearing it down, and then we' re in trouble
3 because we have not granted that . So I bring that
up now.
4 MS . HAROLD: If the Board were willing to
grant rebuilding in the existing footprint, I
.5 would greatly appreciate that, and so would my
client.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would make
construction a lot easier.
7 MS . HAROLD: It .would, and it saves them a
lot of money. If the Board does not feel
8 comfortable with that, I will do my utmost to keep
as much as I can and just sister everything.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The height would be
changed slightly on the roof, the height would be
10 higher.
MS . HAROLD: I would keep the building
11 exactly as it is because it is similar in shape
and size .
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But the house would be
raised.
13 MS . HAROLD: The house would be raised. I
still want to take the house out of the ground.
14 I ' m lifting the house two feet . I would keep the
existing roof, it' s a very flat roof .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it would be two
feet higher?
16 MS . HAROLD: It would be two feet higher,
yes .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We would need the
new elevation figures for the file . When you' re
18 asking the Board to grant a reconstruction, a
tear-down/reconstruction, we need something to
19 show the new elevations .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm telling you
20 you' re treading on very, very, very difficult
waters when you do that .
21 MS . HAROLD : When I submitted Sheet 3 I
did show you.
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : For a tear-down?
That' s what we' re asking you, we need something to
23 verify whether the height elevation would change
or not .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would be true
anyway. It' s still going to go up.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The plans submitted
are two feet higher already.
May 25 , 2006
27
1
2 MS . HAROLD: And on Sheet 3 , I did show
you the new house and the --
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s a little
bit of a problem procedurally. I '.m concerned
4 because we didn' t advertise it as a demo .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm not voting
5 for it that way. I 'm �voting it for the exact same
way that Miss Harold presented this application,
6 because, Number 1, there are too many houses on
this property and I haven' t even discussed this
7 issue with her at this point of what it' s going to
be when it' s done, and I know Jimmy wanted to ask
8' a question regarding that .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make
9 a comment that we here on the Board have to
remember the reason why we have a nonconforming
10 law in this town, that is we' re supposed to be
eliminating nonconformities, and if we start with
11 11 houses on one piece of property and we start
letting them upgrade these things to be livable
12 year-round residences with children and the whole
nine yards, we are going to be in -deep trouble .
13 That' s the reason why it' s nonconforming. And, in
my mind and certainly of recent years, we have
14 tried to discourage the increase in the degree of
nonconformance by how we have made our decisions .
15 To now say that all of a sudden we can tear this
thing down and build all new. I don' t see --
16 MS . HAROLD : Excuse me, I didn' t apply for
that . , It just came up right this minute .
17 Personally, I was not of the impression that the
house was going to be torn down. It was said five
18 minutes ago and that wasn' t my intention at all .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I only brought it
19 up because we have had circumstances in the past
where there have been cases appearing before this
20 Board where renovation was granted but tear-down
took place .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they were
problematic .
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They were
problematic because I understand architecturally
23 how difficult it can be to build that way, to
build with, sistering and so on, it can be done, . of
24 course, and if that' s what you have applied for,
fine .
25 MS . HAROLD : I have told my client that' s
what they had. to do. It is going to look
May 25 , 2006
28
1
2 differently because we are moving windows around,
but that is compatible with what has happened on
3 the property. There have been other houses that
have been resided, vinyl siding, had window
4 replacement, so we' re keeping everything the same
way. It' s still seasonal, we have no place to put
5 heating equipment . It' s got piers so you
obviously are not going to insulate a house that' s
6 got an open foundation. So it basically will be
the same summer house that it is now. All of
7 these people are related. So they' re all watching
each other pretty carefully. I just have to get
8 the right contractor to do this .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would emphasize Jim
9 Dinizio' s comment . Nonconforming, as you know, is
a technical term for grandfathering. And
10 grandfathering is not meant to be a way of
leveraging little teeny weenie incremental
11 increases on the property. So ultimately there
will be fewer and fewer nonconforming houses . So .
12 this goes back to my original point, which is to
move to expanding just a little bit is to move in
13 the opposite direction from the Town' s announced
policy. So I agree with you that we' re going to
14 have to work around this thing and not. get too
ambitious .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re not changing
any of the outside walls; they' re going to remain
16 exactly as-is?
MS . HAROLD : I'm going to be sistering
17 them, I ' m going to be reframing them, but they
will be the same exact outside walls .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, did you have
anything else?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s it . I ' m
glad we' re doing it just the way you would
20 anticipate it .
MS . HAROLD: I know this Board. I worked
21 in Southold a long time, and I understand the
codes . So I do tell my clients before they appear
22 before the Board what they have to do.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think you' re
23 serving your clients well .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
24 audience that wishes to comments on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
25 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
May 25 , 2006
29
1
2 ----------------------------=--------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
3 for the Ragusas at Harbor Lane, Cutchogue . Would
you like to tell us what you want to do?
4 MS . RAGUSA: Yes . We put up a six foot
fence to have privacy from our neighbor' s
5 property, and I guess when we erected the fence we
asked the fence company if it was all within code
6 and he mistakenly told us that it was okay to have
a six foot fence in that area where I guess it' s
7 just a four foot fence, and because it ' s a flag
_lot I don' t think necessarily has to pertain to
8 the regular rules, and we basically just wanted to
see if we could keep the fence, please . Does
9 anyone have any --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have had some
10 , problem with your neighbor I do believe?
MS . RAGUSA: Yes, a lot .
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand your
argument is being made independent of unneighborly
12 reasons for wanting to have those fences ; it' s
basically for the geometry of the property?
13 MS . RAGUSA: Yes, also hopefully it will
keep peace .
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even without that
issue, you could still make a case .
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What type of fence are
you planning to build?
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a six foot
stockade . It' s extremely heavily wooded over
17 there and really virtually not very visible over
there from the road or even from your access
18 driveway.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll just pass
at this particular point, this is mine to write
20 and I ' ll just take a pass at this point .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . I think it
seems to be set back from the road far enough that
22 it ' s not going really interfere with anybody.
MS . RAGUSA: Right . And I believe the
23 intent of the law is so it doesn' t block your
vision as you pull in and out of the driveway.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, we have been
dealing with fences certainly in my neighborhood,
25 this is set back off the road so people driving by
don' t see it, so it doesn' t look like . a big wall .
May 25 , 2006
30
1
2 Do you intend to paint it in any way?
MS . RAGUSA: No, just leave it natural .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Continuously
maintain it?
4 MS . RAGUSA: Correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions, I've seen it .
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else like to
comment on this application?
8 MS . SPIELMAN: My name is Gabriella
Spielman, and I am the neighbor. Even though I
9 heard the comment that the fence is not visible to
the Ragusas, it is clearly visible to us . We
10 drive up to a wall every day when we pull up our
driveway. I have comments here from ourselves,
11 and another neighbor opposing the fence . And I
can go through those comments now, I ' d like to .
12 Now it seems tome that it' s common
practice for people to do these things, even
13 though they' re not as per code, and then say I ' m
sorry, I made a boo-boo, can we have an approval
14 now. It' s becoming very common now. So the fence
placement has obscured from view a portion of our
15 property located on the southeast corner of our
lot .
16 BOARD SECY_ KOWALSKI : Excuse me, I just
wanted to ask. if the applicant has a copy of your
17 material, do you have an extra set?
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, I do (handing) . The
18 first letter is one from the other neighbor that
is opposed to the six foot fence, and in it she
19 comments that she cannot attend the meeting, and
she has -- I have not received any mail
20 notification about this application, and I feel
the height and solid structure of ,the fence is a
21 detriment to the environment and aesthetic
appearance of the area. And if you drive down
22 Harbor Lane, you will see no fence like this . And
I ' ll begin with our letter, our first point, the
23 fence placement has obscured from view a portion
of our own property located on the southeast
24 corner of our lot . This condition has created an
unsafe for our children., preventing the viewing of
25 their activities from our own property. You can
see the attached photograph.
May 25 , 2006
31
1
2 A second point is the eastern most part of
the fence has further obscured the natural
3 landscaping that was present before this fence was
installed in violation of the Town code . That ' s
4 photo Number 2 . The fence was placed in such a
manner as to prevent viewing of the East Creek
5 area and the wildlife that inhabit the creek and
appears to serve no legitimate purpose .
6 And point Number 3 , the placement of the
six foot stockade fence is out of character for
7 the area in which we live . No other property
owner within the Harbor Lane area has constructed
8 such a fence in the front yard area of the
property. And I would like to comment that I did
9 speak to the fence installer and I suggested to
him that this is not to code, in which he
10 responded -- he ignored my comments .
Point Number 4 , the installation of the
11 fence to a height of six feet necessitated the
damaging of our trees bordering the property,
12 removal of the branches to such a height that has
cause irreparable damage to several -- a complaint
13 that has been lodged with the Southold Town Code
Enforcement Officer
14 Point 5, the placement of such a structure
in its location substantially changes the
15 character and natural appearance of my property.
The stark contrast created by the solid wall and
16 its impact on the landscaping scheme will have a
detrimental effect on property values .
17 Point 6, the required notification
procedures for the application have not been
18 followed. No notice was posted before the
required seven days prior to the meeting hearing.
19 Nor was there certified mail notification before
the seven days required-- seven days . The
20 disapproval ' of this application will restore the
safe and aesthetically pleasing environment that
21 existed before the erection of this fence .
You know when we purchased the lot , we
22 paid prime real estate value for it, and we
expected to' enjoy it as we purchased it . And we
23 follow Town code . We reviewed everything before
we purchased it . We try to foresee what would be
24 forthcoming. We evaluated what uses we could have
of our property, and we would like to fully enjoy
25 them.
I would just like to keep it to the Town
May 25, 2006
32
1
2 code, I mean, to our rights as property owners .
we don' t impinge on any other body' s rights and
3 everything we do is legal and to code . So it just
seems to me very common practice now that people
4 do things that are not to code . When we built our
. house, when we did everything, we came to Southold
5 town, we did everything per code and we expect
everybody else in the town to do the same with no
6 exception. This is a straight code violation.
It' s a very simple matter, and I mean, oops, I
7 made a mistake, I built a house, now, can I please
have a variance . That' s what it seems to me .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I ' d like to ask' a
couple of questions .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: When you say under
10 Number 4, removal of branches to the height, were
these branches on your property?'
11 . MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, the trees are on our
property. The trees .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As I understand it,
that some of these trees -- were these trees on
13 the boundary or were they entirely on your
property?
14 MS . SPIELMAN: No, they were . entirely on
our property. Our neighbor has planted his trees
15 on our property, but there was � an existing --
there were trees that were already there, but our
16 neighbor has planted five trees additional to the
original border.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there' s a survey
issue there as to where the boundary actually is?
18 MS . SPIELMAN: There' s a two inch issue .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I assume what' s at
19 issue is trees don' t go straight up like flag
poles, they have branches, tree branches don' t go
20 up .
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, they do. And the tree
21 trunk is on our side, and the fence was put so
closely that they cut the whole half the tree .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: ' Half the trunk?
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, all the branches .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The branches?
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, the branches that were
24 laying on their property, rightfully so, but it
was much .nicer to look at the fully grown tree
25 than a wall of stockade fence .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, that' s a
May 25, 2006
33
1
2 separate issue . You' re not claiming a right to
the view of your own trees which happen to be
3 partially over your neighbor' s property?
MS . SPIELMAN: No, we' re not claiming
4 that, no . We' re just .talking about the
aesthetics . You don' t see anywhere on Harbor
5 Lane -- first of all it' s a clear code violation.
Every time we build something, put something up,
6 we come to the Town and respect the codes and the
law, and we expect everybody else to do so as
7 well .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the code were
8 simply a mechanical thing that could be applied to
everything, there would not be a Zoning Board of
9 Appeals . And the purpose of this Board is not to
make exceptions of the law but to do what lawyers
10 call equity, which means looking at specific
circumstances and where there is room for some
11 kind of interpretation of the legislative intent
behind the code, that' s what we' re here for . I
12 don' t think it' s simply a matter of mechanically
applying the code .
13 MS . SPIELMAN: I understand that, but
we' re being kept from seeing our own property
14 because of the fence; we' re being kept from seeing
the view that we had prior to this wall, and this
15 wall is not supposed to be there to begin with. I
mean, we' re not using our property to the fullest,
16 we' re being kept from doing that because there is
a code violation here . I mean, there are
17 different choices, you can put up green trees and
of course it would probably obscure my view to the
18 creek, but at least I ' d see wildlife and not a
stockade fence . And on top of that the fence, the
19 wrong side is facing us .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Actually in the Town
20 of Southold, unlike most towns, I made that
mistake .
21 MS . SPIELMAN: I can accept that , it' s
ugly any way.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Most towns require
you to put the ugly side of the fence on your own
23 side, in the Town of Southold, in its wisdom does
not have such a rule .
24 MS . SPIELMAN: We did not receive
notification. The sign was posted on Sunday prior
25 to this day. And this other neighbor who is also
not in favor of the fence when she wrote the
May 25, 2006
34
1
2 letter had not received the notification.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have any
3 further questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to go
down and look at the fence again, I apologize . It
5 is my file, and I just don' t know how to resolve
this issue at this time .
6 MS . SPIELMAN: What I ' d like to I ask the
Board not to look at it as a neighbor issue,
7 because there will always be neighbor issues, this
has nothing to do with the neighbor issues, I know
8 that the neighbors are not pleased that we keep
chickens , but we have every right to keep
9 chickens, and we researched this all before we
purchased the property. We have children, we
10 can' t get rid of them, they' re noisy, we have five
boys, they' re very noisy and there' s no regulation
11 against that . So that has to be set aside . This
is a question of us not being able to fully enjoy
12 our property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Spielman, I
13 just want to say that the issue of rights of water
view are --
14 MS . SPIELMAN: No. I don' t expect to
have --
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: -- are real but
I suspect there is no scenic vista or scenic
16 easement over your neighbor' s property or over
those wetlands that are well to the south of you
17 in that issue, so that one I can' t particularly
agree with you.
18 MS . SPIELMAN: Let me pose this question
to you, would you rather look at trees and
19 wildlife or a stockade fence?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know that' s a
20 question that Member Simon was discussing with you
and that is an interesting question.
21 MS . SPIELMAN: And when we purchased the
property, we liked its wilderness, everything
22 about it , this is what the north fork is about .
It' s not ,about putting up walls .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the fence were
four feet high, it would not require a variance
24 but many of your objections probably could be made
r against the four foot fence .
25 MS . SPIELMAN: I think we would accept
that .
May 25 , 2006
35
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You wouldn' t have any
choice .
3 MS . SPIELMAN: I wouldn' t complain about
that, of course not, knowing that I wouldn' t have
4 a choice, of course not .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even though it would
5 damage your view.
MS . SPIELMAN: A four foot fence would not
6 damage our view. We' re set up higher than this
property, so it wouldn' t .
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' d like to ask you
8 if you have any comments?
MS . RAGUSA: Yes, as a matter of fact, I
9 do . First of all, your issue about trees , we bent
the fence around in certain areas so they wouldn' t
10 affect any of the trees .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You must address
11 the Board.
MS . RAGUSA: I 'm sorry. We bent the fence
12 around, you can see there are certain bends in it
so we didn' t disturb any trees, put it further
13 into our property because we are tree lovers
- ourselves . Also, I don' t understand if you like
14 trees, if they like trees so much they have
recently cut down three or four trees along the
15 border that covered the fence, so obviously I
think they prefer to look at our fence than the
16 trees that had been there that they removed. So
that argument makes no sense to me .
17 The argument that there are no fences that
high on Harbor Lane is also not true because the
18 house that borders them on the other side has a
six foot fence running the entire length of their
19 property. And as far as notice, they refused our
FedEx, and I have a FedEx return receipt, which .I
20 think you also have, showing that they would not
accept our Federal Express package which did, in
21 fact, give the Spielmans notice and we did send
notice to all the people involved. I don' t know
22 which neighbor she' s referring to who is
complaining about the fence because we didn' t get
23 a name or address .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When did you post the
24 property?
MS . RAGUSA: We posted it this weekend.
25 There had been an issue because we had been out of
town and we didn' t receive the packet until then.
May 25 , 2006
36
1
2 So we posted it and we called the office and did
everything we could within our power -- we hadn' t
3 been there, we hadn' t received it . So we did our
best, that' s why we FedEx' d everything to save
4 time and to get the notice as fast as possible to
people, which is more expensive but also quicker
5 than certified mail .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You might want to
6 mention the lady that gave the letter objecting is
Christine Gretch, 2880 Harbor Lane .
7 MS . RAGUSA: I don' t know who that one is .
MS . SPIELMAN: It' s right next door to
8 them, excuse me, on the water side .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it between their
9 house and the water?
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes .
10 MS . RAGUSA: I don' t know if that is the
case or not, she' s never verbalized any complaints
11 to us . She' s actually commented in the past how
she' s liked how we cleaned up the property from
12 the prior owner. I never heard her voice anything
negative to us . And as far as talking about
13 trying to increase land values, I feel like
they' re decreasing our land values because of the
14 smells from the goats and the sheep and the
chickens and the guinea hens and the feathers that
15 come over and the feces, and we' re just trying to
basically keep peace and not have to look at and
16 see all these various things, and old trucks . The
intent was to try and beautify our property and
17 keep our land values up . It' s funny that that
should be mentioned , and the same thing with the
18 neighbors on the other side, it' s a whole
deterrence to the neighborhood. It used to be a
19 quiet peaceful neighborhood and it' s not any
more . The five boys are the quietest out of the
20 whole package .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no
questions .
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm looking at the
23 Google picture that you took here . If I 'm looking
at this right, this really affects your rear yard
24 or is this your front yard?
MS . SPIELMAN: This is the front of the
25 house (indicating) .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you come in
May 25, 2006
37
1
2 right alongside this fence?
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes .
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What are those
buildings that are near the fence?
4 MS . SPIELMAN: Those are our neighbors
buildings .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I looks like the
fence is behind those buildings, between your
6 house and that fence there are some buildings.;
what are they?
7 MS . SPIELMAN: They' re my neighbors
buildings . What buildings are you talking about?
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like
there' s buildings there .
9 MS . SPIELMAN: Those are sheds .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three buildings there .
10 MS . SPIELMAN: What picture are you
looking at?
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Number 1 .
MS . SPIELMAN: What building are you
12 looking at?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : At the end of the
13 stockade fence toward the house, right at the end,
there appears to be something that' s square there .
14 MS . SPIELMAN: The house isn' t even shown
here . I believe .
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re right, I
see you drew in your house, but in between the
16 house and the fence there appear to be some
buildings, or something; what is that?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There' s three
structures it appears to be?
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Are they there now?
Maybe they' re not there now.
19 MS . RAGUSA: There' s a small shed there
now. That building used to be on our property and
20 it was moved to their property before we purchased
it . I 'm sorry.
21 MS . RAGUSA: I don' t believe it was moved
to my property.
22 BOARD MEMBER .WEISMAN: Would you both
approach and point out, so we just make sure that
23 we' re looking at the same thing.
.MS . RAGUSA: They have a shed there today
24 (indicating) .
MS . SPIELMAN: We have an up to code shed.
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would probably be
helpful to everybody if the pictures are up to
May 25 , 2006
38
1
2 date .
MS . SPIELMAN: That' s the most up to date
3 that you can get now from Google . By the way, the
trees that were removed that Mrs . Ragusa is
4 commenting about are the trees that they planted
on our property. And they' re not in front of the
5 stockade fence, they' re on this border, and they
started their stockade fence and then they
6 finished it, and they stopped it . Where they
stopped it they had planted some trees on our
7 property that were dying, and we removed those
trees because they were dying. They were
8 harvested in the wild, and we got like the ugly
side . First of all, they were planted on our
9 property. It wasn' t our choice .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The border dispute is
10 a different question.
MS . SPIELMAN: It really is . Our chickens
11 are fenced in the yard. And the six foot stockade
fence from the other neighbor is in the back
12 yard. So when I comment about that it' s not in
keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, the
13 rest of . the neighborhood does not have six foot
high fences in their front yard. As a matter of
14 fact, they were very careful, they took great
care, there wasn' t one that put in around a pool,
15 took great care to go from the four foot to the
six foot range . They took great care to respect
16 that code to keep the front yard at a four foot
height, and that' s all we' re requesting that at
17 least the code is followed.
. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Ragusa, how, long
18 is the fence?
MS . RAGUSA: I don' t know. Let me see if
19 I have it on the fence plan, 72 feet of
fencing. That' s a total because there' s another
20 section of fence that' s not in violation.- But
that' s the total amount of fence and we have
21 another fence that' s not in violation.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If you get . a chance
22 sometime maybe tomorrow, give us the dimensions of
each jog.
23 MS . RAGUSA: Sure .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, did you have
24 anything else?
BOARD 'MEMBER DINIZIO: No . In all
25 fairness to you, ma' am, I see the only issue here
is the height of that fence, and everything else
May 25 , 2006
39
1
2 you guys have to deal with.
MS . SPIELMAN: Yes, that' s not an issue
3 for this Board.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, if she built a
4 four foot fence --
MS . SPIELMAN: Then we wouldn' t be here .
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you could plant
shrubs as high as you would like to plant, it
6 really doesn' t make a difference to anybody in the
world. You need the privacy that that fence is
7 going to give you, you could put any kind of
shrubs there that grow as high as you want, as
8 thick as you want in that corner and you don' t
need a permit for that .
9 MS . RAGUSA: We actually have planted
along there shrubs that are growing but it still
10 doesn' t -- the six feet helps to prevent having
confrontation, and the extra two feet when you
11 don' t have to see your neighbors, it makes a huge
difference .
12 1BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Quite honestly, I ' m
not aware of what goes on. I 'm not willing to say
13 a six foot fence in that location --
MS . RAGUSA: For one example why I think
14 the six foot makes a difference is Mr. Spielman
chooses the spot of the property exactly by the
15 fence on our border to do his wood chipping,
which, I believe is intentional, that' s another
16 story. And there have been times when we have
been working in that corner and the wood chips
17 have flown over, one actually almost hit my
husband in the eye a few weeks ago, and things
18 like that it' s a preventative measure . Animals
were tied up to the border there . So that extra
19 whatever where you don' t have to actually see is
very helpful .
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So that' s the front
yard. It' sJ ust near the shed that' s there now,
21 the shed that' s in the front yard?
MS . RAGUSA: Yes, which is my side yard/
22 backyard back there . And just on the other side,
on her border on the other side, where
23 Mrs . Spielman was saying there are no fences like
that, if you look at the property, the neighbor on
24 the other side of her property has a fence the
entire length, so I don' t understand.
25 MS . SPIELMAN: That is in their back yard.
So that is to code because that fence is placed in
May 25 , 2006
40
1
2 the back yard. So it is a different situation.
It' s along the extreme whole yard, but it' s in the
3 back.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you,
4 it' s in the back, and honestly, when I first
looked at this I said to myself that the piece of
5 property is such an odd shape that a six foot
fence shouldn' t make any difference here .
6 MS . SPIELMAN: It does .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But again, once you
7 hear the story and you have other remedies in all
honesty. You have other remedies..
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Walt Whitman said
good fences make good neighbors .
9 MS . RAGUSA: Have you seen the property,
sir?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, I knew Frank
when he was alive, and he owned the property right
11 behind you. I'm quite familiar with it .
MS . SPIELMAN: I welcome you to come into
12 my yard and 'see if you find any feathers or any
chicken feces .
13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Doesn' t concern me
if you are allowed to have chickens, ma' am, more
14 power to you.
MS . SPIELMAN: And my little nine year old
15 sells the eggs .
MS . RAGUSA: But Mrs . Spielman mentioned
16 that the chickens are fenced in but she didn' t
mention that the guinea hens are not, I have seen
17 them several times on your property and on my
property. I have pictures of them on my
18 property.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA': Is there anyone else
19 that wishes to comment on this application? If
not , I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
20 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution, )
21 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is the
22 Romanelli . Brothers wishes to build an accessory
apartment above their office next to the
23 Universalist church.
MR. STRANG: Garrett Strang, Architect,
24 Southold representing Romanelli Brothers . I
believe the application is pretty straightforward.
25 The property is zoned Residential Office and has
been until recently a single-family dwelling with
May 25 , 2006
41
1
2 detached garages . The Romanellis purchased it .
They wish to convert the first floor to business
3 office use, and then as the application says,
create an apartment on the second floor, which if
4 I understand the code correctly is permitted use
provided this Board grants us that approval .
5 So if there are any questions, I ' d be
happy to address them.
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, none at this
7 time .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to
ask a question, it' s sort of tangential to this
9 architectural site plan, but there' s a proposed
significant increase in the . gravel parking area in
10 the back between the shed building and the
accessory structure and it is zoned for office
11 use, but I'm wondering what kind of office use
there will be in relationship to an apartment, a
12 rental apartment?
MR. STRANG: It' s a rental apartment, yes .
13 That' s up to the owner, if he elects to make it an
affordable, then he can address that, but at the
14 moment I believe it' s intended to be a market
rate .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And what will the
use be?
16 MR. STRANG: It' s a business office,
we' re not talking about retail or anything like
17 that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the parking and
18 the garages behind, is there equipment to be
housed in there?
19 MR. STRANG: The garages behind are
presently used for storage and will continue as
20 such, some would be for the proposed be business
office use, and some would be for the apartment,
21 and some would be for the Romanellis' personal
use, and the parking is subject to, the Planning
22 Board' s requirements of providing parking and
we' re going through that process with Planning and
23 we may be able to have them give us a little land
banked area for parking if it' s deemed we don' t
24 need to have that much dedicated parking built out
immediately.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think everything
May 25 , 2006
42
1
2 John does is top notch, and congratulate him on
taking on the responsibilities of having a tenant
3 up there It' s a responsibility and if we can add
another apartment to Southold town, all the power
4 to him.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions,
just a slight qualification of Jim' s comment
6 everything John Romanelli does is top notch as far
as we know up until now, and it doesn' t mean that
7 we can extrapolate from excellent behavior in the
past to an argument for approving this one . So I
8 think his remark should be off the record.
MR. STRANG: I ' ll leave that up for the
9 Board' s discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
10 audience that wishes to comment on this? Yes,
sir?
11 MR. NOLLETT: Ronald and Adriana Nollett,
we' re the property owners to the south, and
12 questions basically had to do with the numbers and
the expansion that' s here and also the parking
13 area. I wanted to just make sure that there' s one
apartment that will be added, it won' t be more
14 than one apartment . It' s only one apartment
rented to one person with one lease? I just
15 wanted to clarify that .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . And as far as
16 the parking is concerned, that' s up to the
Planning Board. So, if you have comments about
17 that, you should attend their meeting. We can
just say that they need the parking but they
18 really specify where it should be .
MR. NOLLETT : The other question was about
19 the number of offices, the plans show that the
office will be on the first floor of the existing
20 house, and then also in the existing garage, and
then there' s also a proposed 700 foot expansion to
21 an office behind the garage; would that be only
one business office for one business? Or could
22 that be three separate businesses?
CHAIRWOMAN' OLIVA: I don' t know. It could
23 be, again, I think that' s up to Planning. They' re
not here for a variance for that . They' re only
24 here for the accessory apartment use over the
business . So any of the businesses, I suggest you
25 go to the Planning Board to find out when they
have their hearings and you will find out probably
May 25, 2006
43
1
2 more about that then.
MR. NOLLETT: So as far as this is
3 concerned, my concern for what is being addressed
here was just a concern about that it was one
4 apartment and not more than one apartment above
the house?
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct .
MR. NOLLETT: Okay.
6 MS . NOLLETT: Adriana Nollett . I have a
question, this is residential . We have children
7 walking by, school children. Southold needs
houses, right, I 've worked with John Romanelli on
8 the robotics team, volunteering for school, so I
know he' s a great guy and everything, but, my
9 concern is if this house, if it was any other
neighbor' s house, this house is on the bend,
10 there' s many well-documented accidents . You' re
talking about 12 parking spaces, three large
11 offices being planned. There' s garage storage
that was mentioned that the Romanellis will be
12 using. It' s been rented in the past, the .tenant
will be using, and then also the people that own
13 the office, this would really increase the
traffic . You' re talking about 1,2 cars coming and
14 going. Then people coming because they' re storing
in the back, then you have an auxiliary
15 apartment . We have school children walking past
that bend. I think the Board needs to do a
16 traffic study. Are you going to do a traffic
study?
17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That would be up to
the Planning Board. We only have jurisdiction for
18 that one apartment . The rest is up to Planning
MS . NOLLETT: The concern we have is that
19 it would no longer be a single unit home . It will
be a totally commercial enterprise . You' re going
20 to have a commercial apartment and/or apartments
if the variance should change in the future,
21 you' re going to have the offices underneath, and
you' re also going to have rental storage in the
22 three garages . Now, I'm concerned about our
property value, it' s residential . I 'm concerned
23 about the look and more importantly, I ' m concerned
about the traffic that this apartment, if you
24 rented to two adults, and two children, fine, if
you rented to two adults with two adult children,
25 you' re talking about four cars . You' re talking
about so much traffic on a corner that that' s
May 25 , 2006
44
1
2 known as the target house because it' s been hit so
many times because of the bend we have speeding
3 traffic, and I think that that auxiliary apartment
-- even though that we need affordable housing in
4 Southold, so if it was any neighbor, Kate was
doing this, we would have no problem, it' s just
5 where this house is located. And our house is
directly near their driveway and then our
6 driveway, and I am telling you, I have seen kids
close calls, cars close calls, you' re talking
7 about adding excessive traffic to a place where
they' re already planning 12 parking spaces and
8 rental of the garages . I think having that
apartment is dangerous and takes away from being
9 residential, and will eventually could possibly
take away from our property value .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What are you zoned?
MS . NOLLETT: Residential office .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It is perfectly
legal to propose both uses . The reason I asked
12 the question about parking and the use of the
accessory garages in the rear was because I live
13 in that neighborhood too and I am also aware of
the traffic problems and so on. This however is a
14 Planning Board issue, and everything you voiced
should be voiced to the Planning Board. It is a
15 concern, residential use is permitted there . It
will at least continue to incorporate a residence
16 in the neighborhood rather than have just an
office structure .
17 MS . NOLLETT: Which is a good thing,
because then somebody' s there sleeping at night, I
18 have no problem with it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It does not violate
19 the percentage of lot coverage, even with the
projected future footprint, which is not before
20 us . We' re only looking at the apartment . It' s my
case to write up. So what I need to do is make a
21 recommendation based upon the use of the
apartment, which is a permitted use provided we
22 say so .
MS . NOLLETT: My question is if there' s an
23 apartment 600 square feet, does this variance --
cause I don' t know anything about the code or
24 anything like. that -- does this variance mean that
in the future without another variance that they
25 could put another apartment? That was our biggest
concern.
May 25 , 2006
45
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Absolutely not .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s all they' re
3 asking for and that' s all we can grant .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a special
4 permission for one apartment, in fact, the code
doesn' t even allow two apartments with special
5 permission.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not a
6 variance .
MS . NOLLETT: That was our biggest concern
7 but the traffic too needs to be addressed.
MR. NOLLETT: Could you tell us the
8 process of how to address- the Planning Board?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I suggest that you
9 visit their office up in the bank building, find
out when they' re going to have work sessions or '
10 when it will be up for a public_ hearing or what
have you. I'm sure even in work sessions you' re
11 allowed to say something. So go up and see Carol
Kalin there .
12 MS . NOLLETT: Can I make one more
statement?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MS . NOLLETT: I have respect for what you
14 do, but after today, you guys work hard. This is
a tough job. Thank you very much.
15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wishes to speak on this application?
16 MR. STRANG: I just wanted to confirm the
fact that we' re talking about a single apartment ,
17 600 square feet, that is limited, , the size of the
apartment is limited by the limitations of the
18 Health Department . That' s it . We can' t do any
more than a 600 square foot apartment .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
20 later.
(See minutes for .resolution. )
21 - --------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
22 for Mr. Perry on Clearview Road in Southold.
MR. PERRY: I 'm Richard Perry, I 'm the
23 owner of 830 Clearview Road in Southold, and the
applicant for this variance . I have some letters
24 from a neighbor in support of our application. We
walked around the neighborhood and got
25 endorsements from those that we could.
First I' d like to say that I understand
May 25, 2006
46
l
2 the purpose of the Zoning Board is to determine
whether the benefits of approving our variance for
3 our project outweighs the detriment to the
community, and in doing so the Board must consider
4 the following five factors : That an undesirable
change will not be produced in the character of
5 the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby
properties, no, we believe that the proposed
6 construction will not be out of character to the
neighborhood. Most if not all the homes in the
7 area have attached two-car garages . As improved
the home will be of similar size and style to the
8 nearby houses . There are other homes in the
neighborhood that do not comply with the required
9 setbacks and also require variances . The proposed
addition is considerably distant from any
10 neighboring structures on any adjoining lots and
will not be a detriment to any of these properties
11 and to reinforce this the two closest residents
that live at their structures, you have letters
12 from them endorsing the project .
Number 2 , the benefit sought by granting
13 this variance cannot be achieved by some method
feasible to pursue other than the area variance --
14 well, this existing property layout when first
contemplated as an attached garage, but also in
15 the front yard but that would have required the
structure to be closer to the property line on the
16 right of way. And it wouldn' t provide us the
added living space that we' re looking for. A
17 detached or attached garage on the waterfront side -
of the property is impractical . Obviously it ' s
18 the waterfront side of the property and it has DEC
wetlands setbacks that would put the proposed
19 structure closer to really the only neighboring
house around us and the septic system is on that
20 side of the yard and it actually takes up most of
the useable building area there . The
21 existing bulkhead doors and the patio would be
affected if it was an attached structure .
22 The existing structure' s too close to the
property line on both sides to allow access from
23 the right of way to the waterfront side if we had
to drive around the side of the house to get to
24 the garage . , And expansion of the house to the
side yards is also impractical because both side
25 yards are too narrow, . and it' s planned currently
to utilize the existing single car garage as
May 25 , 2006
47
1
2 additional living space, so simply changing the
single car to a two car, we wouldn' t be getting
3 what we' re trying to .
Number 3 , the amount of relief requested
4 is not substantial . Unfortunately, the relief is
substantial . If it' s taken from the right of way
5 to the setback line, but I believe that the
setback of the property line -- the setback at the
6 right of way, which is also the property line is
more appropriate, the setback' s actually 38 feet
7 from that point therefore only a 12 foot relief
would be sought . I believe that this is the right
8 of way granted to my neighbors gives them the
right of way to their ingress/egress of
9 their properties and because we' re the last house
on the property, there' s really no need for
10 anybody to come down further than their own
property. The only exception from the General
11 Wayne' s property, and from what I understood their
,decision hasn' t been made yet on what has been
12 approved there; so there is a possibility that
there could be a house on that corner, which may
13 or may not need some of that right of way, but
that' s not a problem to us .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Perry, may I
ask you a question, please? I was there as
15 everyone else was and this is my case to write
up . When you come down your right of way and
16 there are some woods there, sort of a dead end,
there is a road on the other side of that?
17 MR. PERRY: It' s a private property.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Access road?
18 MR. PERRY: Access road for a few houses
down on the water. I don' t think it' s a right of
19 way.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. On your site
20 plan here it shows existing Clearview Road, which
I couldn' t find, all I saw was a path.
21 MR. PERRY: It actually connects on the
other side of that private area.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s a kind of
dead end too.
23 MR. PERRY: Yes, it is .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s just a path
24 that we' re talking about in terms of setbacks . I
just want to make sure because I saw nothing
25 existing other than your access .
MR. PERRY: There' s no reason really that
May 25 , 2006
48
' 1
2 road would ever put through especially with that
new ;access road or whatever that private property
3 strip that runs down to the water doesn' t make
sense any more . And that road was never on the
4 original maps either.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything else, Leslie?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.,
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry?
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I kind of
concur, seems to be an appropriate location.
7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 'm just concerned
8 about whether more needs to be said about
alternative possibilities . This is a pretty
9 sizable lot, it' s over an acre and a quarter.
MR. PERRY: Unfortunately, the buildable
10 area' s not that large .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there is lawn
11 behind and there are septic tanks and so forth
there, but as far as living space is concerned
12 while I can see the argument about wanting your
garage to be near the front of the property, the
13 argument that the additional living space should
also be in that place is not yet made clear to us,
14 why additional living space couldn' t be built on
the water side, that is in the rear of the house .
15 There certainly is enough room there within the
building envelope .
16 MR. PERRY: You mean to put a garage in
the front?
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is an existing
garage, but I realize it' s only a one-car garage,
18 and if you don' t think there' s enough room to make
it a two-car garage, that' s another problem. But
19 as far as the living space, which is going to be
associated with the garage, why that has to be
20 also 13 feet from the right of way.
MR. PERRY: That' s a good question, I
21 guess economics has got to be a factor. Expanding
the garage towards the property line would in
22 itself require another variance; the structure
built towards the water would then impact our
23 backyard.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean, you' d be
24 using some of your own backyard for living area?
MR. PERRY: If we were to. And obviously
25 our structure would be closer to our neighbor' s
house .
May 25 , 2006
49
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there someone
directly behind you?
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, they' re to the
side but they' re set back.
4 MR. PERRY: Set back 50 feet from the
line, yeah, if you' re in our backyard there' s the
5 new house which went up a year or so ago is right
in our backyard.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it' s much less
impact in your front yard than it would be in your
7 rear yard.
MR. PERRY: I did multiple layouts and
8 what' s here seemed the least impact to both
environment for the waterfront reason and the
9 neighborhood in general .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not
planning on raising chickens here, are you? If
11 you move it back, it will affect your neighbor I
think much more than where it is, and it makes
12 more sense . And you don' t anticipate that that
road will be a road at some point in time?
13 MR. PERRY: I can' t speculate in the
future for everything.
14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that the General
Wayne property that' s right there at the end of
15` Clearview?
MR. PERRY: Yes, they' re on the corner,
16 the whole block, if you want to call it a block.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All right, I have
17 no further questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
18 in the audience that wishes to comment?
MR. PERRY: I have one more thing, I don' t
19 know if it' s the time or it' s the place, I just
found out that I was misrepresented when Joe, the
20 owner of the General Wayne, was here trying to get
a variance . One of our neighbors must have spoken
21 out of turn that I talked to him about endorsing
the opposition to his zoning request, and I never
22 talked to him, my wife talked to him. I don' t
think -- in general terms we didn' t object, that' s
23 why we didn' t send a letter in, we didn' t come. to
the meeting, we kind of abstained. We just want
24 the area developed and. all the trucks gone .
That' s just it . I wanted to add that .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You have the
letters, they' re addressed to the Zoning Board so
May 25 , 2006
50
1
2 we do require the originals when they' re addressed
to us, so I' ll swap the copies you gave us with
3 the originals .
MR. PERRY: Okay.
4 MS . MOORE : I have Mr. Disalvo here, he
doesn' t -- he needs to know what his decision is
5 before he can determine whether or not this
project is going to impact him. We had a public
6 hearing on March 2nd, we had a hearing with
respect to the General Wayne property, we' re still
7 waiting for a decision, a written decision. Once
we see what that decision says, then we' ll know
8 how we' re going to develop this property. So at
Lhis ,point, we would ask for a short adjournment .
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is not a hearing
for yours .
10 MS . MOORE : I'm explaining, we don' t want
to say we object .
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Oh, you mean to
Mr. Perry' s project?
12 MS . MOORE : Yes . We are the adjacent
property owner. Mr. Disalvo is the owner of
13 Clearview to the half-way point . So the
development of his property certainly would be
14 impacted by this proposal, whether it would be
impacted to the point where we would object or
15 whether we would have no objection to it . We
don' t want to oppose an application, in all
16 fairness to Mr. Perry, if it has no impact to us,
but because we don' t have the end result of what
17 that decision is we can' t assess how we would
develop this piece .
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What kind of impact
would it have?
19 MS . MOORE : Well, we don' t know until we
see the decision. We had asked --
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have a verbal
decision.
21 MS . MOORE : All I know is the verbal
decision is no.
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know.
MS . MOORE : But I don' t know what else you
23 said or if you have given something else in
writing.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' re curious how
it relates to Mr. Perry' s variance .
25 MS . MOORE : Worst-case scenario we develop
this property with six to eight multifamily units,
May 25 , 2006
51
1
2 and the Planning Board says that in order to
develop this piece the way we' re permitted by the
3 code, we must open Clearview from one end to the
other, which is .the Planning Board' s prerogative;
4 would it make sense? No, but they have done
things that don' t. make sense in the past . At that
5 point, you have Clearview that certainly the
setback is the 13 feet that is from the road. We
6 don' t think that' s going to end up, but we have to
look at it in the worst-case scenario . So in all
7 fairness to Mr. Perry and Mr. Disalvo, let' s see
what the decision is . We have been patient, we
8 have been waiting, but on the other hand, in all
fairness to him, before he can assess whether or
9 not this impacts him, he should know. what his
decision it . And I'm very upset that the neighbor
10 who came and claimed that he opposed and that he
was representing Mr. Perry as well as other
11 neighbors opposed an application which was
ostensibly to put four houses on a piece of
12 property when six to eight are permissible . So
we' ll see what your decision says, what
13 alternatives .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was denied.
14 MS . MOORE: Yes, but until it' s in writing
I don' t know what you've said.
15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I still don' t
understand, does that mean you build a right of
16 way because that' s how it affects Mr. Perry' s
application because you were denied on a
17 subdivision application variance?
MS . MOORE : Had we gotten the four houses
18 individually, there probably would have been no
impact by having this garage where our house would
19 be proposed. But now we don' t know that so we
don' t know where our development is going to go .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean you don' t
know that you' re not getting the four houses?
21 MS . MOORE: We know that we' re not getting
an area variance, but we don' t know how you' ve
22 written it . We have. asked for two area variances
to create two equally sized lots . The hamlet
23 business lots were oversize and the two AC lots
were undersized to make four equal lots, so the
24 Building Department sent us here .for two area
variances .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So now you have to
go back and conform to the code so because you
May 25 , 2006
52
1
2 have to conform to the code, you' re saying
Mr . Perry should be adjourned for month?
3 MS . MOORE : Just for a month to see what
you say in our decision, , and then he can look with
4 his planners on how to develop this property. If
it has no impact Mr. Disalvo likes Mr. Perry; they
5 know each other. He doesn' t want to hurt them in
any way, but on the other hand in all fairness to
6 everybody, we should know how the property' s going
to be developed. So that' s all we' re asking for
7 is a one month and by then we hopefully will have
the decision in writing and we can move forward.
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would object to
holding this application up for another
9 application in all honesty. I think that one has.
nothing to do with the other. The fact that we
10 base our decision on what the property that exists
there right now doesn' t restrict you from using
11 your property in any way as it is right now.
MS . MOORE : If you have no objection to
12 having the garage 13 feet from a property line, it
becomes your decision.
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s our decision in
any case . As representing a neighbor, you want to
14 know about a legally unrelated property before you
decide whether you' re going to object to this
15 application?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t think we
16 can make our decision based on the future .
MS . MOORE : I don' t think it' s legally
17 unrelated.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s legally
18 unrelated to Mr. Perry' s application.
MS . MOORE : We've been waiting more than
19 62 days for the DiSalvo decision. In all
fairness, certainly the remedy would have been a
20 an Article 78 , that' s not where we want to go . We
just want to know what the Board was thinking when
21 it denied the application. At that point we will
then assess on how to develop this property either
22 with no variance or with alternative relief that
would possibly come back to you. Until we see the
23 decision, we' re hamstrung. Mr. Disalvo calls me
daily to ask do we have the decision.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s possible that
it would be 62 days before the Board makes a
25 decision anyway on this application.
MS . MOORE : But you're going to close the
May 25, 2006
53
1
2 hearing today. So, do you want us to file an
- objection?
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s up to the
Board.
4 MS . MOORE : We don' t want, to put on record
an objection if it' s not necessary. We don' t want
5 to create controversy. We need a decision.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You want a
6 decision.
MS . MOORE : We need .a decision. We
7 obviously need a decision. You have a special
meeting on the 8th. If we have a decision and can
8 look at it before the 8th, we' ll give you in
writing whether or not we ,oppose . the application
9 and why before the 8th or' we hopefully have no
objection.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But then we' d have
to give another seven weeks- for the applicant to
11 reply to your comments .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Ask the applicant
12 how do you feel?
MR. PERRY: My only comment is this seems
13 to be an issue only because of my own
procrastination that my wife' s been on me about
14 getting this zoning variance in, and if I did it a
year ago on time when she wanted it done, I would
15 have had to wait a whole year?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think what I ' m
16 looking for would you be , agreeable to letting it
go until June 8th?
17 MR. PERRY: I've waited a year.
MR. DISIMONE : Scott DiSimone, friends
18 with the applicant, perhaps a possible solution
and a compromise . Perhaps the hearing would be
19 closed today subject to the receipt of written
objections from Miss Moore .
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If you close it now
and she has written objections that we feel are
21 valid, then we go through the whole process of
readvertising.
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think if we just
wait two weeks .
23 MR. DISIMONE : Without any further
adjournments .
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We may have to make it
25 through June 22nd because of the back-ups.. This
is spring time going to .summer time, everybody
May 25, 2006
54
1
2 would like to start to build, and will do all
these things PDQ. We have one person who writes
3 the decision, we have had difficult decisions to
write .
4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And a lot of other
demands at the same time . We might get 45 minutes
5 a day to work on decisions . We have no control
over that .
6 MS . MOORE : He calls me I don' t call you.
I know the difficulties that the Board has with
7 timing, and I know that Linda works very
diligently. We' re not here to criticize in any
8 way, we' re just saying in all fairness .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will be adjourned
9 until the 22nd of June .
MR. PERRY: Can I have a determination?
10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You mean a vote?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They have 62 days
11 after that, so it' s up to the Board.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' ll see if we can.
12 When we vote on it that night, maybe we can vote
on it and have it written?
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I 'm supposed to
write this case, I don' t have any problems with
14 writing up the case based upon no objection from
Miss Moore' s client, and then we can depending on
15 what that outcome is .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We can' t take you
16 ahead of the others . Everybody gets a number and
we get to you as soon as we can.
17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said June
22nd?
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to
adjourn this hearing until June , 22nd.
19 (See minutes for resolution. )
-- -----------------------------------------------
20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to
resume our hearing.
21 (See minutes for resolution. )
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Ward, we' re finally
22 up to you, what would you like to tell us?
MR. WARD: Richard and Susan Ward for a
23 lot line change . I just want Susan to hand out a
Google map, which will illustrate what we' re
24 trying to do better than a survey. Basically this
is a lot line change based on a 1975 survey of a
25 three lot at the time minor subdivision. Susan
owns the front lot, which if you look at the red
May 25 , 2006
55
1
2 lines, is the way the lines are configured today,
and the black line down the middle is our proposed
3 lot line change . We also are requesting that the
right of way be changed to a 20 foot right of way,
4 it' s only going to be serving two lots, that' s on
the east border line . Old North Road, which is
5 the road that the lots are. on is to the north, so
if you' re looking at the Google map.
6 The other thing is that the Lot 1, which
is the current lot up front, if you' ll notice how
7 the development has gone is the Lot 2 , which would
be the lot behind it, if that was developed in its
8 current configuration we would pretty much lose
that buffer that was- there, that nice tree and
9 wooded area. So what we' re looking at is where
the lot line is proposed, the building envelope
10 would essentially be the paddock area that' s on
that lot now for the Lot 2 that' s created. The
11 third lot that you see is developed now, the
Google map a couple years ago, two, three years
12 ago shows it under construction; that' s our
daughter Kiera and son-in-law have a house back
13 there, so it' s like a family kind of compound. We
have no immediate intent to sell off here . We
14 realize that the setbacks here are changed a
little bit because when they upzoned to the two
15 acre, all this was developed based on an R40
zone . So even though the proposed . lot line here
16 shows from the garage from the house shows 15
foot, originally when we dealt with the Building
17 Department to put the barn up, everything was
okay, but, of course, now it isn' t . The barn we
18 would like to leave where it is now, as if in one
Lot 2 would be developed, that would be a
19 condition that it would be removed at the time .
So I think that' s the long and short of it . We
20 just felt that the plotting of the lots would be a
lot better in this configuration.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The right of way is
there to serve your daughter' s property, right?
22 MR. WARD : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say
23 that maybe even a little more of a restriction on
Lot 2 to the effect that the barn could not be
24 changed or converted to a cottage in any way.
MR. WARD: Yeah, whatever restriction you
25 want . The intent now is to leave it as a barn,
our grandson may have a horse some day.
May 25 , 2006
56
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The proposed 20
foot common driveway, is that going ' to be located
3 in the area. that now currently has a lot of mature
trees?
4 MR. WARD: The driveway is there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you saying you
5 want to reduce the width or retain what' s there?
MR. WARD : No. The old file map in ' 75
6 showed a 50 foot right of way. We' re proposing to
reduce that to a 20 foot width.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But keep it on the
same location as the existing?
8 MR. WARD: That' s correct .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The driveway that
goes down there now is within the 20 foot --
10 MR. WARD: Yes, it is, it just makes it .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you wouldn' t
11 want to tear down any trees or anything?
MR. WARD : No.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just afraid
that we would approve something and you' d be
13 ' tearing out trees .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the only
14 thing I had a question about .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And you would have
15 no objection to us putting something in there that
says that if any work was done on that barn it
16 must be done conforming to setbacks?
MR. WARD: Can we paint it?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You can paint it ,
put windows on it .
18 MR. WARD: The intent is to leave it in
its condition the way it is, and use it until such
19 time as that second lot, next generation decides
to sell it, they can deal" with 'it then.
20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So of course, if it
burns down, it would be okay, but beyond that any
21 attempt to make a residence out of that --
MR. WARD : No, no, you can put all that in
22 there, it' s not a problem.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael, do you have
23 anything?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no questions .
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in
the audience who would like to speak on this
25 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
May 25 , 2006
57
1
2 (See minutes for resolution. )
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr, Cotton?
MR. COTTON: John Cotton back. I went and
4 spoke to the architect . If I understood you
correctly, I would have no problem losing --
5 facing the front of the house that 10 by -- 12
foot 10 inch and putting the steps coming down off
6 the side, that' s a no-brainer. That brings me
right in the 30 percent range that you were
7 talking about .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something I. can
8 sell to the rest of the Board members .
MR. ' COTTON: Other than. that, the other
9 thing if that doesn't work, I would take down,
that whole front deck, but I would still have to
10 do something with my front stoop. My question to
you is even the way the front stoop is now I would
11 still have to come out a little to do something to
get that to conform.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think Jerry said 30
square feet is exempt .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: For the steps .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the stoop.
14 I think the steps are exempt in general but the
stoop is 30 square feet .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s the landing.
MR. COTTON: So if I would take down even
16 the other side of the deck, I could put a 30
square foot landing with the portico, correct?
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes .
MR. COTTON: Would that be something that
18 would require a permit?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The portico
19 requires a building permit, not a variance .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So does the screen
20 porch, but to get you the permit, we have to grant
you a variance . So you' re saying you' re willing
21 to get rid of that kind of cut-out in the 10 by 12
foot deck? You' d like to retain obviously the
22 steps and landing and also a little portion to the
left? So the front part of your house has the
23 additional piece?
MR. COTTON: Correct .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you' re going to
remove that other piece of deck. And then you
25 calculated that' s going to come in at 30 percent?
MR. COTTON: Well, because the shed issue,
May 25, 2006
58
1
2 this 51 square feet, I don' t know how much that
would add onto the percentage .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you
reduce this all to writing so we have it all
4 before the next special meeting.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : By next Friday,
5 it' s always Friday before the meeting. Just a
letter explaining the reductions .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Highlight right
over the top and a little 'sketch.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just draw, write
over your existing proposal .
8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Basically we' re
going to grant this thing that the front of your
9 . house be no closer than 13 . 6 feet, or whatever it
is now, that front yard.
10 MR. COTTON: That' s why I would put this
thing out to the side . It' s already at that four
11 feet, cause it' s not showing my existing stoop .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re not going to
12 count that, that' s for you to get into your house,
you' re allowed to have that . But the setbacks
13 that you have right now will remain, and then 30
percent lot coverage will be the maximum you may
14 have to deal with that . If you come in with 31
percent, that' s probably not going to work. You
15 might have to make your back smaller.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Wait . Are you
16 saying forget this, forget any of that, just put
steps here or put steps on' the side?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He can put the
steps wherever he wants . He has every right to
18 get into his house .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But if his landing
19 is no more than 30 square feet --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He wants to put
20 a portico on that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine .
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just make sure
you put the portico on the plans . Where you can
22 grab� a little bit, if you need to -- and this is
the last thing I ' ll say -- is this stairway in the
23 back; we want to grab a little bit here, pull this
back just a little bit . You can trade that
24 probably for the portico.
MR. COTTON: And take all this out .
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See you want to
retain something here to sit on, that' s what I was
May 25 , 2006
59
1
2 trying to show you, Jimmy.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
3 objection, Jimmy, if he goes a little closer to
the front property line .
4 MR. COTTON: It' s 4 ' 10 " .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You all know how I
5 feel about these things, but, quite honestly, but
_last month, we turned a person down for much
6 less .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That was a
7 agricultural property.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it was a
8 residence .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just wanted to
9 mention, we' re not in a deliberation session.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to make our
10 opinions clear on this .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Wait a minute, there
11 is a legal issue, that is if we make a vote and
somebody doesn' t like the outcome, and we get
12 sued, the record can be used against us, if the
things that people say at this hearing are not
13 consistent with our final decision.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Only if you prevail .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All I need is
one more vote .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -This is not
deliberations .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is just a matter
of discussion, but if you wish to come, it will be
17 here on June 8th between 6 : 00 and 8 : 00 and you' re
more than welcome to come and listen to us to
18 haggle some more .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I say
19 something, Mr. Cotton? I apologize Mr. Cotton,
for anything that I may have led you to believe, I
20 assure you, however, that that will be something
that I will be pushing for. If you have a.
21 specific concern regarding the front of your home
and you want , to add something to it or subtract
22 something to it, give us. two plans, Plan A and
Plan B, and we will deliberate over both of them.
. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And you reserve the
right to change your mind in the course of
24 deliberations .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not changing
25 my mind.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right, I ' ll make a
May 25 , 2006
60
1
2 motion to close the hearing and reserve the
hearing in receipt of his two plans, A and B .
3 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for Mr. Perillo.
5 MS . MOORE : Mr. Perillo, I 'm surprised
he' s not here because he' s been pushing me for
6 this . I ' ve given you a little bit of history why
we' re here, it looks like from the record, the
7 Town records, back in ' 79, the two lots --
Mr. Perillo has a house on one lot along Peconic
8 Bay Boulevard and. the Perillo family owns the lot
on the water between the bay and his parcel, one
9 is a road front parcel one is a waterfront
parcel.. Back in ' 79 , the Planning Board approved
10 and the Zoning Board granted area variances to
allow for a lot line modification between the two
11 properties . At that time, the seaward lot, I ' d
call it, the one on the water, the Zoning Board
12 during their deliberations had the access go on
the west side of the property. It' s funny, when
13 you read the transcripts of the Planning Board .
meeting, Mr. Tasker, who was the town attorney at
14 the time, the Planning Board preferred to see the
access on the other .side, but because the Zoning
15 Board had already placed it on the west side, Mr.
Tasker had correctly advised, that' s the way it
16 was approved, the Planning Board has to act within
the scope of the zoning approval .
17 Low and behold now, 20 years later,
Mr. "Perillo has his house on the property and he
18 wants ,to add a garage to the property, but he
finds- if he puts the garage on the east side, then
19 it' s going to do two things . One, it' s going to
impact, go straight behind the glass windows, and
20 the back decking, everything that' s going on in
the backyard on his house, and he feels it will
21 also impact the neighborhood as well because it
going to be right next to the right of way, it
22 just doesn' t work for him. So he asked if it
would be possible, come before the Board and
23 looking back at the history, try to figure out
. what. I needed to do here, come before the Board
24 alter the lot line access, in a sense, we can
either do it as a right ,of way, or do it as a
25 flag, I don' t believe it matters to Mr.. Perillo,
but switch the location of the flag from where it
May 25 , 2006
61
1
2 is presently on the west side and move it to the
east side . If we do move it to the east side,
3 you' ll note on the survey it is adjacent to the
other right of way, they are separated, the
4 driveway and the right of way are separated by a
fence and some vegetation. We recognize that the
5 house will be very close to that right of way but
it ' s already close to the driveway right now.
6 That' s where they get access to the property
anyway. So it won' t change the circumstances or
7 condition of the property. If anybody ever builds
on the south -- on the waterfront piece, it will
8 probably be someone from the Perillo family
because of the way the properties are enjoyed
9 right now. So he' s coming on before the Board to
ask that the relocation occur, so we can move it,
10 and that way it will enable him to put a garage as
I ' ve shown on your survey, I think as a proposed
11 garage, on the west side, and it will be
conforming at that point because it' s permitted to
12 go I guess five feet or three feet from the
property line . In a nutshell, that' s why we' re
13 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re not
increasing the size of this lot in any way?
16 MS . MOORE : No. I guess it ultimately
depends -- no, it will be direct, the same area
17 either way.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Switching from one
18 side to the other.
MS . MOORE : Whether you make it a right of
19 way or a flag, maybe the numbers on the. survey
.will change but the end result is the same .
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we' re not
adding any square footage from any other piece of
21 property?
MS . MOORE : No.
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing
that I just wanted to say is the waterfront lot
23 that you' re referring to is really a water view
lot because Laurel Water. Estates --
24 MS . MOORE : Right, it' s their community
beach, park and playground.
25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions .
May 25, 2006
62
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have to write
3 this decision --
MS . MOORE : That' s why .I gave you the
4 history because I thought it makes sense if you
tell it as a little story.
5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm concerned about
right of way versus whatever?
6 MS . MOORE : I don' t care if you want to do
it a flag, to . simplify your decision if we convert
7 it from a flag to another flag.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I also described it
8 in the legal notice very extensively.
MS . MOORE : You were very thorough, covers
9 all the bases .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I ' m concerned how
10 do we make it a flag lot .
MS . MOORE : I think it' s simpler as a
11 right of way.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to put it
12 in the deed too. You have to switch too. The
other way if it' s a flag lot --
13 MS . MOORE : 'I just want to be sure because
the lot area I believe of the waterfront lot
14 probably included the area of the flag, we want to
be sure that you identify -- we' re not decreasing
15 the area, since you discount flags and right of
ways the same way in the code, I don' t know
16 technically, I don' t remember if the surveyor -- I
think he gave it to you with separate area
17 calculations because we weren' t sure which way you
would do it .
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I see it . That' s
all I have .
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anybody else
who wants to speak on this application? If not ,
20 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
21 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
for our good friend over at Fishers Island who
23 wishes to establish an accessory apartment in an
existing building.
24 MS . YOUNG: Hello, I 'm Susan Young, and I
I am representing the Windswept Properties
25 accessory apartment application for Roz Driscoll,
and, well, basically we' re here because we' d like
May 25, 2006
63
1
2 to make an accessory apartment so that the owners
can use the house year round. Right now, they
j 3 have a very big house, and it' s basically built on
blocks, and there' s hardly anything to the walls,
4 it ' s just a summer house . The water service
consists of just a line to the house and in order
5 Lo-upgrade the whole house, which is almost 4 , 000
square feet depending on what you count, it would
6 cost them a fortune . And also, the house would
never look the same . I said when it came to the
7 house, I love what you haven' t done with the
house . There' s some pictures of it on Exhibit 6 ,
8 which shows a lot of the old walls, and it' s very
plain. It only has a summer certificate of
9 occupancy, and it' s owned by this family group .
It was originally built in 1932 by the
10 grandfather, who passed it along to the offspring
and then again, so they use it as a summer meeting
11 place . And in the 180s, the lot was subdivided
and the house up on the hill, Windswept , was
12 separated from the guest house when the Windswept
was left to the daughters and the smaller house
13 was left to the son. In any case, Windswept is a
very isolated kind of property. You go up a steep
14 driveway to get there, and when you' re up there,
you can' t see any other houses around nor can they
15 see you. And also it has a required parking for
an accessory apartment . There' s a parking area,
16 just to conform to the regulations that are on the
books, but basically this is something that they
17 would like to use just themselves . So they are
really not in conflict with the single-family use,
18 they want it to remain the single-family use . But
they don' t want to insulate the whole house, they
19 just want to insulate the smaller portion of the
building and be able to come out in winter because
20 right now they have this beautiful house, you can
see the nice views up there, and they can' t go to
21 it . And also the place is falling apart, and it
needs maintenance and they can go off season and
22 tend to things, so that' s basically why they would
like this and Roz Driscoll submitted an affidavit
23 as to what their use would be . The people down
the hill are a cousin, so that they share the
24 driveway only with family, and in the winter, it
would actually be nice if there were more people
25 on Fishers Island because sometimes it gets too
empty.
May 25 , 2006
64
1
2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A little lonely.
MS . YOUNG: I imagine if you grant this
3 that there will be some extra people there on
Fourth of July, but I don' t think that if you
4 wanted to include something that it can' t be
rented to separate families or anything, they.
5 don' t care, because they just want to accommodate
their own group.
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I reflect on
that, Susan? I think what we would have to do is
7 .put a condition, in that if they intended to
rebuild the house and take it out of its
8 seasonality, that the apartment would have to be
removed. In other words, not the apartment itself
9 but the kitchen area and the facilities that are
so attached to that .
10 MS . YOUNG: But if you were going to
rebuild the house to have a winter certificate of
11 occupancy for the other house?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think because
12 it would be in conflict with the accessory
apartment because then you would have the house
13 and the accessory apartment . They would then have
to reapply for the accessory apartment, and they
14 would have to be actually the people living in the
house to have the accessory apartment, and that' s
15 the purpose of the accessory apartment law. It
works this way because they' re not living in the
16 house year round. It will not work -- and I ' m not
saying they, it could be a future generation.
17 MS . YOUNG: You could certainly say
they' re doing this to accommodate their family and
18 their particular use .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Their lifestyle
19 has changed, they want to come back to the island
in the winter.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 'm not sure I
understand the concept of the summer certificate
21 of occupancy.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What you' re saying
22 is there are certificate based on seasonal use of
it?
23 MS . YOUNG: Yes, the certificate of
occupancy is in here, so you can look at it, it' s
24 Exhibit 5 . So we can look and see, it says
something like seasonal use only or something like
25 that .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is that actually
May 25 , 2006
65
1
2 enforceable?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that' s based on
3 the structure because it doesn' t have insulation,
it probably doesn' t have a septic system, that' s
4 not based on zoning. In our code it doesn' t say
that you can get a seasonal certificate of
5 occupancy.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can I finish the
6 follow up on that? That would mean that if
somebody decided to essentially winter cabin in
7 their place with a summer certificate of
occupancy, in other words, without heat, that
8 would not be in violation of the law, what it
concerns only what kind of structural changes you
9 can put in.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there a rule that
says you can' t stay overnight in winter in your
11 summer cottage?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, if you want to
12 freeze, you can.
MS . YOUNG: No. But there' s no plumbing
13 and no water because of the way the water comes to
the house .
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Summer occupancy has
to do with the building conditions?
15 MS . YOUNG: Yes .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In other words, they
16 have the main section of the house that will stay
for summer use, just the one section of house that
17 they' re calling now accessory apartment , will be
brought up to code as far as insulation and water
18 and heating, and it has its own kitchen
facilities?
19 MS . YOUNG: That' s right, which can be
limited in size .
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s the same
family for both.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s an owner
occupied, year round accessory apartment . And
22 it ' s connected by an interior hallway as well :
MS . YOUNG: And just in case anyone starts
23 wondering was it a garage, it wasn' t . It' s on the
same foundation as the rest of the building. When
24 I first went to the -house I thought what are they
doing, they' re putting something in the garage,
25 but it has no slab and you couldn' t possibly put a
car in there because there' s this flimsy floor up
May 25 , 2006
66
1
2 on blocks . So it was just a sort of wing of the
house .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re simply
renovating an existing room on the first floor.
4 MS . YOUNG: , Yes . And they putting a
deck area and a little sun area because the front
5 room is very narrow. When they' re there that will
be the only part of the house they' re using, so
6 they want it to be nice . That appears to have no
setback issues or anything or lot coverage issues,
7 but I was advised to put it in even though it' s
not to be considered. by you, just so you know what
8 the full extent of their intentions are .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any
9 questions?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment now?
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course you can,
Jim.
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: ' This is' my decision
and I read through your nice -- you can always
12 tell when a professional does it . It looks to me
like you begged the building inspector to let you
13 renovate this part of the house so that you could
come to it . In other words, you wanted to put a
14 heating system in and wanted to do the water so
it' s not freezing the pipes .
15 MS . YOUNG: You know, we first asked, can
we have a kitchen, and they said no; and then we
16 said okay, what if we just insulate this part of
the house, no, you can' t insulate the house . And
17 I was wondering is it really okay to stop someone
from insulating their house, but they felt
18 strongly, and I don' t know exactly what the
rationale was behind it that I should apply for
19 accessory apartment use . So basically that' s why
I ' m doing this . I don' t really feel that it ' s a
20 two-family use, but if they have certain
requirements, this is the way we' ll do it .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I got to tell you,
honestly, I don' t know how we can grant an
22 accessory apartment on this piece of property
because the owner has to live there year round,
23 and the main house, that' s not the apartment, it
has to be occupied by that owner, and you can' t
24 occupy that house in the winter.
MS . YOUNG: I know that's the way they
25 have the law written, and I think they' re thinking
of properties over here, but you could say just
May 25 , 2006
67
1
2 because you don' t live in a house year round, you
still bought your property and you should have the
3 right to use your property. And there shouldn't
be different classes of property owners where one
4 you have the right to use . it year round and you
don' t, and I know that it was written that way,
5 and so perhaps --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There may be another
6 way to skin this cat, but as Linda pointed out to
me, the code says "owner occupancy, " it doesn' t
7 say owner occupancy 12 months a year. I know if
you want to winterize your house as thousands of
8 people are doing, you need a building permit for
most of the things you are likely to do, but does
9 the Building Department have any grounds for
refusing to allow a person to turn their summer
10 cottage into a year round house as long as satisfy
the building code? I 'm not aware that they do .
11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : What I was getting
at , Michael, was that the reason they' re here is
12 because they' re asking for that kitchen. That if
they didn' t ask for that kitchen, she could buy
13 all the insulation she wants, put it in, put in
sheet rock, she could do whatever she wants, all
14 she has to do is apply for a building permit .
MS . YOUNG: They actually did say that I
15 could not put in an application to insulate the
house .
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We could make a
decision that says, no, you can' t turn them down
17 for this --
MS . YOUNG: But how do you have a house
18 where there' s no kitchen, you' re a guy, they have
no restaurants there .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would have
to give the Building Department a fully
20 comprehensive plan with all engineering
inspections, you have to bring it up to energy
21 code specifications if you were doing the entire
house, that' s why you can' t take bits and pieces
22 and right now all you' re taking is a wing.
MS . YOUNG: And I know as an architect
23 that .this kind of thing is from $200 to $300 a
square foot, and all these people that have this
24 house to visit in the summer, they' re not going to
want to put all of their life savings into
25 millions and millions of dollars to renovate this
plain house, and besides they like it the way it
May 25 , 2006
68
1
2 is . They own it, and I think they should be able
to use it .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the
question is how legally can that be accomplished.
4 MS . YOUNG: Is owner occupancy not --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have to
5 occupy it for 12 months a year .
MS . YOUNG: In the case of a summer house,
6 of a vacation property, they' re using it as a
vacation property 12 months a .year.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The code doesn' t
specify what months of the year you have to live
8 there, right?
MS . YOUNG: No.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I could imagine, if
you traveled 11 months a year on your job, but it
10 was your house, and you' re only there one month a
year I can' t believe that that would fail to
11 satisfy the owner occupancy requirement.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That wouldn' t for
12 me, but I can tell you that this house is not
allowed to be lived in for an extended period of
13 time because it' s not conforming by building
codes .
14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By virtue of a
1977 decision in New Suffolk, Michael Pugsly, the
15 Board of Appeals determined that seasonality was
from -- I' m sorry that the use was from April 1st
16 to November 30th, and the rest of the time the
building was to be shut down, and they have used
17 that over the years as a sort of a benchmark. So
that you would shut it down right after
18 Thanksgiving and you would crank it back up after
April 1st, and those are the figures that we have
19 always used and the Building Department used.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s never been
20 challenged in the court?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But the thing is
it' s seasonal . It' s a seasonal house, and it' s
22 not a permanent residence by any stretch of any
imagination. I'm not trying to deny it . Quite
23 honestly, you didn' t put that kitchen in there,
you had every right to go and do what you want to
24 do with whatever half of the house you wanted to
and you could insulate the doors and be done .
25 MS . YOUNG: But it is required that
someplace where people live have a kitchen. There
May 25 , 2006
69
1
2 are certain requirements, rooms have to be of
certain size, you have to have a kitchen, you have
3 to have a bathroom.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The house does have
4 a bathroom and it has a kitchen.
MS . YOUNG: But you can' t use them.
5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Maybe you can use
only one of those dwelling sections at a time .
6 You can' t have them both occupied.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly that' s not
7 what' s before us . What' s before us is an
accessory apartment, which must be an accessory on
8 to a primary residence..
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
9 that but we also have to treat it as a variance,
we may have to deny that and ask her to reapply as
10 a variance .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I read this
11 application in all honesty, I don' t think they
should be before us . I don' t understand why they
12 are here .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I have to say that
.13 I explained to her that it might be more of a
variance, but Building Department insisted she go
14 for a special exception, and that' s why she' s
here .
15 MS . YOUNG.: I sent my papers in twice and
they refused to give me either a -- they wouldn' t
16 approve it or deny it, and I felt funny about
that . I thought don' t you have to take action one
17 way or the other, but they sent -it back to me
twice refusing to accept it . I think they were
18 concerned that there would be a bad precedent set .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s why. I said
19 they -- that' s what it looked like to me, you were
asking and they specifically didn' t give you an
20 answer. I think the remedy is not the remedy we
can legally grant . That' s the way I feel about
21 it .
MS . YOUNG: There' s a Murphy -case where a
22 variance was granted to accommodate the needs of
the family.
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Could you say that
again?
24 MS . YOUNG: There is a case involving a
Murphy, I have it here someplace where --
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Frank Murphy,
that' s in Mattituck.
May 25 , 2006
70
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That was a house
not a seasonal .
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Go ahead, I want to
hear what you have to say.
4 MS . YOUNG: In any case, , it is their
house, and they should have the right to use it .
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What was the Murphy
decision?
6 MS . YOUNG: The Murphy decision allowed
two kitchens to accommodate the needs of a family,
7 and it was said that it was still a single-family
use because it was indeed accommodating the needs
8 of a single family. .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That sounds like a
9 very relevant precedent quite frankly. Because if
they would allow it in the Murphy case, and they
10 did, it' s easier to establish that they should
accept the second kitchen in this case .
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We tried to do
that . We tried to ask the Building Department to
12 address it so Miss Young could apply for a
variance and they would not issue a notice of
13 disapproval . They refused, and they only issued a
letter saying she should go for an accessory
14 apartment . They did not want her to follow the
same procedure that Frank Murphy' s application
15 did.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They can' t because
16 it' s not the same application. That application
had a permanent residence in it . Whether they
17 live there or not, this one does not .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s not the
18 relevant distinction between those two places .
This is like saying the number of children is
19 different and therefore can' t compare .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This house is not a
20 house by any building code . This is a seasonal
residence . It doesn' t meet any building code for
21 you to actually live in it year-round. It' s
not . It' s a nonconforming building and it could
22 not be built today. It' s nonconforming.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You cannot build
23 summer cottages?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How did she get
24 here?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no idea why
25 she' s here .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You know why she' s
May 25 , 2006
71
1
2 here because the Building Department refused to
give a disapproval; what else could she do?
3 MS . YOUNG: That' s Exhibit 2 , was the
letter issued to me by the Building Department .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How do we resolve
it?
5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We resolve it in
this manner: " We deny what she is doing and say
6 that it is not an accessory apartment, if that' s
what the Board is so inclined to do, and we tell
7 them that we are requesting from the Building
Department a notice of disapproval for the
8 purposes of operating an accessory, and a separate
dwelling unit in a seasonal dwelling, which will
9 revert back to a one-single family dwelling when
and if the family that owns this property wants to
10 turn it around to a year-round house . And that' s
it .
11 I'm going to address the Murphy case in
one second. There were certain criteria in the
12 Murphy case that caused us to do that, and it had
to do with elderly people that were not well and
13 that was the situation. An entirely different set
of criteria.
14 MS . YOUNG: One of the owners is elderly.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Those are the
15 different criteria . There' s nothing stopping us
from granting it on the basis of different
16 criteria .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct .
17 There' s no reason why we can' t grant a variance .
That' s my particular opinion.
18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : My concern is that
a special exception is not a variance . We can' t
19 vary that . You have to meet that criteria that.' s
in that code . We can' t vary any part of that, and
20 if we do, if we pass this, we have usurped the
law.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re right . We
should be granting a variance
22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we can' t
grant a variance unless the building inspector --
23 I don' t know what else we can do but deny this .
You have to do something, I don' t know, ask a
24 lawyer.
MS . YOUNG: It' s special in that the
25 existing house is historic in, nature, and it' s on
a hill and unseen.
May 25, 2006
72
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: These are precisely
the considerations which we would be entitled and
3 justified in considering once it becomes
legitimately before us . This is, unfortunately,
4 not the forum to make those powerful- arguments ,
but it will be once you. get the notice of
5 disapproval .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t see her
6 getting that . They have turned it down twice .
MS . YOUNG: I don' t mind you saying that
7 at all . Because we went every yard, and I didn' t
want to start World War III between the Building
8 Department and the Zoning Board. So eventually we
retreated and we said let' s do it the way they
9 want us to .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We will do whatever
10 we can to sort this out .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nice to see you.
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will do what we can
for you, Susan. Does anyone else wish to speak on
12 this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to
close the hearing and reserve decision until
13 later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
14 ------------------------------------------- - -----
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is
15 for Lowry on East Side Avenue
MS . MOORE : 115 East Side Avenue . I think
16 mine is easier, that was tough. I have Mr. Lowry
here and I have Mr. Cooper, the design
17 professional, the architect . We will start off
very simply. This is an old house . They need to
18 demolish the old house in order to build a new
house . We have placed the house, pushed it away
19 from the water. It' s 100 feet from the water.
It ' s conforming in all setback dimensions except
20 Lagoon Lane, and I tried to convince the Building
Department that it didn' t require a variance from
21 Lagoon Lane and I gave you the documents regarding
the history of Lagoon Lane, which is it is now
22 presently owned or the land is presently owned by
the DEC, and it is limited access by permit only.
23 So Lagoon Lane is not a true road in the sense
that our front yard setbacks usually try to keep a
24 proper distance from a road. .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Does Lagoon Lane go
25 anywhere, it just stops?
MS . MOORE : Yes, I had Mr. Lowry take some
May 25 , 2006
73
1
2 photographs . This is from the road, that' s the
start of Lagoon Lane . There is a pathway that
3 then runs through and dead ends -- it' s not really
to the water it' s to his bulkhead. So it really
4 doesn' t , you have to kind of walk around the
bulkhead to get to the open space there . That ' s
5 from his property to the south. Then here you can
see again, the Lagoon Lane, it' s impassable . But
6 on the map it shows as a right of way. I' ll give
you the whole packet . As I said, Lagoon Lane is a
7 paper road but it still exists . The Building
Department gave us an option, they said if you
8 abandon your rights to Lagoon Lane, .we' d be
entitled to use it as a side yard there, but I
9 never have a client give up what is a limited
access for the DEC. Only four houses have by deed
10 rights to use that to the water, and I understood,
we only found out through the Trustees hearing
11 that the DEC does grant some limited access
permits to someone other than three homes that had
12 historic deeded access over that road.
The .design of the house we have the
13 elevations and the plans there in your file .
Mr. Lowry and the architect have been working with
14 the design, tweaking it here and there not doing
major modifications, but rather than have the
15 final plan, which is a very basic plan, Mr. Cooper
brought more specific plans showing where the
16 windows are going to. go. I believe the only
difference is on the second floor over the first
17 floor covered porch is decking, so that it' s a
second rooftop, rather than -- I don' t want an
18 issue with the Building Department, none of us do,
that we suddenly bring in a plan that has that
19 modification, so we would rather, since we have
developed a plan to that extent, we have given you
20 more current plans that are dated 5/19 , the
current plans . Just so that you have in your file
21 one set of what is the final version.
And that is it . I have more photographs .
22 If you have questions, many of you have seen that
property.
23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my file .
I need to ask you a question, we are dealing with
24 the March 23 , 2006 notice of disapproval; is that
correct? Which clearly tells us that the cottage
25 is out, the cottage is legal, everything is fine .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s an accessory.
May 25, 2006
74
1
2 MS . MOORE : It' s accessory. We' re not
touching the cottage .
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that notice
of disapproval, it says the proposed construction,
4 new family dwelling will have a front yard setback
of 23 feet .
5 MS . MOORE : Right . That is the setback
from Lagoon Lane .
6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' m seeing 15 .
MS . MOORE : No, 23 . You probably see 14
7 elevation maybe .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: My question, even
though you' re tweaking the house, are the outside
9 dimensions going to be the same, and are you still
going to have the 23 foot setback?
10 MS . MOORE : Right, our dimensions are not
going to change; are they, Mr. Cooper?
11 MR. COOPER: No setbacks have been
breached and there' s a small profile change in the
12 kitchen area to be consistent with the rest of
the -- it' s a straight line instead of a jog.
13 MS . MOORE : But that' s on the north side,
which is at 15 foot conforming setback.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it fair to say
that the whole grounds for this disapproval on
15 setback grounds has to do merely with interpreting
the fact that there is access to DEC property. By
16 calling that a front yard, so that the second
front yard is a small fiction much of the time, in
17 this case it' s a huge fiction.
MS . MOORE : Absolutely.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So I would argue on
grounds that the law not look like an ass, this
19 should be granted in order that it not be --
MS . MOORE : I ' ll let you say that, I 'm not
20 allowed to say that . It really is a fiction in
this instance because Lagoon Lane, while it does
21 appear as a right of way, is a paper road, a paper
access, not even a road.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But when a -right of
way makes something a front yard --
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the way it is .
MS . MOORE : You have created over time
24 decisions and interpretations and ultimately I
think the code was changed to conform to the
25 Board' s interpretation, I think 'the Koch decision
brought that to bear because I remember I was
May 25 , 2006
75
1
2 involved in it . If the property owner that abuts
the right of way has no rights to use the right of
3 way, then it is considered a side yard. That was
an attempt to clean up some of the problems that
4 were created with the code .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s all I
5 have .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anybody in the
6 audience wish to comment on this application? If
not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
7 reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 MS . MOORE : Let me put on the record, I' ll
give you the photographs .
9 MR. COOPER: We decided not to have a
wraparound porch.
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the
house, Mr. Cooper?
11 MR. COOPER: It' s well under the code .
MS . MOORE : You asked about the height,
12 from the road, the road is actually higher than
the property, and it tapers down towards the creek
13 to the bay. So you' ll see that we provided
documentation to that in your file, but there' s a
14 differential of it' s a normal high of two foot
above grade for the front, which is actually below
15 road frontage grade, then because it goes straight
out and the land contours down, it' s maybe a three
16 and a half, four foot difference . So it ' s really
insignificant .
17 MR. COOPER: The total building height is
30 feet .
18 MS . MOORE : To the mean.
MR. COOPER: To the ridge, 36 feet to the
19 ridge at the rear, which is the worst case
scenario .
20 MR. COOPER: It' s on the original
submittal . I didn' t put it on the new submittal .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the height
hasn' t changed at all .
22 MS . MOORE : Photographs that we discussed
of the right of way. We have photographs of the
23 existing house and others but since you don' t
really have any issues .
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' ll take all the
photos . Thank you.
25 MS . MOORE : That' s fine, then I' ll put
them on the record, describe what we' re giving
May 25, 2006
76
1
2 you. Photograph 5 is the neighboring property,
and you can see that the neighboring house,
3 actually the property is elevated. So it is a one
and a half story, but it is actually elevated
4 above the Lowry house . Photograph 5 and 6 shows
the difference in the grade between my client ' s
5 property and the neighboring property. So he' s
got almost -- what would you say the height up on
6 the grade, maybe another six, eight feet?
MR. LOWRY: Eight to 10 feet .
7 MS . MOORE : Eight to 10 feet differential
on the land before the house begins . Photograph
8 7 -- granted a variance for a pool . Photograph 8
again is the same house and the walls and so on.
9 Photograph 9 is Mr. Lowry's house from the rear
view, from the water view. You can see that it is
10 a two story but because the land tapers down
there' s a walk-out on the lower floor, second
11 floor.
MR. COOPER: It' s a drop slope roughly
12 about two to three feet from what is the existing
front of the house to the rear of the house . So
13 you have an elevated portion about four feet off
the finished floor.
14 MS . MOORE : Photograph 10 is again
Mr. Lowry' s house looking from the neighbor and
15 you can see how it' s set down. The properties in
this area kind of taper down and up, there' s nice
16 slopes there . His house happens to be on the low
end of that neighborhood. The house facing the
17 right is higher, and the one to the left is also
higher based on the grade .
18 . Again, the house across the street, the
large house, couple of pictures of the large house
19 and Photograph 12 is another photograph, it' s a
repeat of Number 10, so I ' ll take those two out .
20 Those are all the photographs .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mrs .
21 Moore .
MS . MOORE : Any other questions?
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I just wanted to
ask is that one set of plans that you made
23 available?
MR. COOPER: Two sets .
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Would you like to
mark both of them before you leave then we' ll
25 enter them into the record? Thank you very much.
Just the heights were altered?
May 25 , 2006
77
1
2 MR. COOPER: The heights were not changed
only the plans . A small profile .
3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have the
jog.
4 MS . MOORE : Yes . On the conforming side
instead of the jogs shown on the original survey,
5 it' s been straightened out .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
6 audience that wishes to comment on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
7 the hearing and reserve 'decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
8 - -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for
9 Francis and Nancy Deegan in Mattituck.
MR. DEEGAN: I'm Francis Deegan, this is
10 my wife Nancy Deegan. We purchased our house in
1985 on the Mattituck Creek, and after living
11 there for 10 years in 1995 , we built an addition
to the house on the southerly side of the
12 house . Now in 2006, we would like to put a second
bedroom in the house on the second floor and to
13 take advantage of the natural long view that we
have down the driveway to have a garden room to
14 look out at the garden in the winter time or rainy
times .
15 The requirements for side yards are 15 and
20 feet for a total of 35 feet . The Lockwood
16 house, which is adjacent to my house immediately
on the north, is 70 feet at one point from the
17 property line and towards the water it ' s 35 feet
from the property line . My property has a
18 nonconforming 5 . 7 feet side yard on that side .
The Lockwoods have consented to the granting of a
19 variance . We have somewhat of a rough, not drawn
to scale that shows the Lockwoods' s house to be 75
20 feet from the proposed addition and the Guglia
house on the south would be 73 feet from the
21 proposed addition so as not to impact upon them.
But more importantly you can see that the houses
22 are staggered front to back on the creek so that
we are not overlooking each other but more the
23 front of one house aligned with the back of the
other.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Staggered.
MR. DEEGAN: Staggered. Which takes the
25 impact of this on other people . This is unique in
b this respect . It can' t be seen from the creek and
May 25, 2006
78
1
2 it can' t be seen from the road. So the only
impact it' s going to have is upon my neighbors .to
3 the north and south. We are preexisting
nonconforming on the 5 . 7 feet . We will not be any
4 closer than the 5 . 7 feet with the new addition
being added. I ' d like to hand in three
5 affidavits, one from Lockwood, one from Guglia and
the property immediately to the west is owned by
6 my son and he signed it also .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That was nice of him.
7 MR. DEEGAN: His mother said he had to.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Deegan, can
8 I ask you, is there any additional roof runoff
that may be caused 'by this new addition? It looks
9 very nice the plan that you have, since you' re
only five feet or so off the property line, is
10 there any way of mitigating that with gutters or
some extensive type gutter, something a little
11 wider because it appears that that roof is really
going to run some water off .
12 MR. DEEGAN: We can run over sized gutter.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it would be
13 better to put it in to a dry well . Especially
since you' re so close to the creek.
14 MR. DEEGAN: It' s going to run to the
landward side as opposed to the water.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie?
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the
19 audience that would like to comment on this
application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close
20 the hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
21 ---------------------------------------------- ---
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make a
22 resolution to recess for 10 minutes .
(See minutes for resolution. )
23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is Kennedy over .
on Fishers Island.
24 MR. HAMM: Steven Hamm 38 Nugent Street,
Southampton for the applicant . Walter Keenan, who
25 requested the adjournment is here, and I presented
my case last month.
May 25, 2006
79
1
2 MR. KEENAN: I 'm Walter Keenan and my wife
Susan couldn' t be here today, but first I want to
3 thank you very much for giving us a continuation
so we could be here because we wanted to be . I
4 also want to apologize in advance, I 've never done
this before .
5 A little bit of background, I believe
Mr. Hamm probably went over the application before
6 so the neighborhood that we' re talking about is
the one next to the Garp house on Fishers Island,
7 you can see it as. you come in from the ferry. .
We've lived in our house,; which was built in 1880 ,
8 since 1995 . The original subdivision was done I
believe in the late 196'Os with the Rouche family
9 and the Evans family, the predecessors to us,
splitting about an 11 acre parcel and two five and
10 a half acre lots .
Today the area is known as Hay Harbor
11 Park. The houses are not visible from the road.
It' s a beautiful, tranquil neighborhood with lots
12 trees and nice greenery and lots of people from
town walk dogs through the neighborhood and come
13 and enjoy it . We believe that the impact of the
current plan as proposed by Sheila Kennedy is one
14 that' s far outside of the intent of the- R80 zoning
and requires extensive variances . We had
15 discussed with Mrs . Kennedy the potential to
reconfigure the two lots to a plan that I believe
16 her father had put forward at the time of the
original subdivision that relocated the right of
17 way. We discussed that with her but couldn' t get
anywhere on that . I have a letter with some
18 pictures attached I ' d like to pass to the Board,
if I may.
19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure .
MR. KEENAN: So the letter that you have
20 in front of you is our amateur attempt to read the
zoning code and figure out what can and can' t be
21 done . As we look at it, the area where Mrs .
Rouche is planning to build her home is too small
22 for the zoning code and also it would have a
significant negative impact on the neighborhood.
23 But the area where she wants to place her home is
the highest point of land in the neighborhood.
24 Her first floor elevation would be just over the
roof line of just about every other house that' s
25 certainly adjacent to her.
Our lot line is the longest one I believe
May 25 , 2006
80
1
2 as I look at the plan with hers, so we' re the
neighbors who would be the most severely affected
3 by her building. We believe that Mrs . Kennedy
does have alternatives to build a house on a lot
4 that would to conform with R80, and the things
that she could do t'o do that would be, if you look
5 on the photo Number 1, ,you' ll see the existing
right of way as it comes through, photo Number 1
6 is taken basically from where her front porch
would be . It' s about 10 feet toward the road side
7 of the stake that' s labeled house on her lot up
there that she' s cleared. And then as you see
8 pictures 2 and 3 also show the existing road with
the location of her house up and to the right .
9 And Picture 3 shows one of Mrs . Rouche' s workers
standing at. approximately .the center of where.. I
10 believe where her front door would be based on the
house plan. So as you can see the house is very,
11 very close to the road. It would be nearly
impossible to screen. All the other houses in the
12 neighborhood are set well back from the right of
way and have extensive screening. By placing a
13 house on the highest elevation in the neighborhood
and very close to the road it' s going to
14 significantly change the character of the
neighborhood. And we' re actually very willing and
15 encouraged Mrs . Rouche and Mr. Hamm to optimize
the original 11 acre parcel, and we would be happy
16 to grant a right of way through our land, the
right of way crosses all of our lots, but we' d be
17 happy if she wants to relocate the driveway or the
right of way, we' d be happy to let her do that
18 across our lot, if she wants to move it forward
across the water that would work as well . What we
19 really don' t want to do is have a new house in the
neighborhood that' s far out of the conformity with
2.0 R80 . The setbacks are there for a reason, and we
would like the Town to uphold the setbacks and
21 preserve the character of the neighborhood, and we
believe that if Mrs . Rouche was a little more
22 creative -- excuse me Miss Rouche Kennedy thought
about it a little bit more, she could probably
23 find a very nice - solution to the issue, and we' d
be more than willing to help out either with a
24' change in- the- right of way and also with some
screening if that would be appropriate . And we've
25 offered that to her.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many people
May 25, 2006
81
1
2 have a right of way to that right of way?
MR. KEENAN: That right of way services
3 the whole peninsula to the west side of. Hay
Harbor. Past her house there are -- I want to say
4 five houses including ours that would go past her
house to get to their houses . Then on the other
5 side of her house there are one two, three, four,
four or five others that are on the right of way
6 that pay to maintain it and what not .
-BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a
7 question, are you then suggesting that if the
right of way was changed that you would suggest
8 that she push the house closer to the water over
the top of the existing road?
9 MR. KEENAN: I think that basically where
the road is is on the original subdivision plan
10 between the two, which Mrs . Rouche, which I don' t
have, we were discussing this, - the road originally
11 went around kind of behind the hill where she
wants to build her house, and we think that that
12 would be a perfectly appropriate place to build a
house, closer to my property. And we have offered
13 to go and do that if she would like to do that .
We would rather have the road on our property than
14 a house on top of a hill that we can' t screen.
We' d be looking at it from our front porch 24/7
15 with no ability to screen it because it' s so
high.
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re at a
little disadvantage and I'm not speaking for the
17 Board I 'm speaking. for myself because I haven' t
seen it , I wonder if I could impose upon our
18 resident gentleman, Mr. Jim, maybe you could go
over and take some pictures?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would be willing
to go there on Saturday, anybody there?
20 MR. KEENAN: I' ll make sure I get there
and if I 'm not there, I' ll make sure someone else .
21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Leave your cell
phone number with Linda, is there a number I can
22 call you when I get there? . I could leave . on the
9 : 00 boat from New London and probably get there
23 sometime in the afternoon, would that be all
right?
24 MR. KEENAN: That would be fine with me,
if it' s a more convenient time than taking up your
25 Memorial Day Saturday.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm actually
May 25, 2006
82
1
2 heading for Cape Cod, I ' ll zip there and zip back
if that ' s okay with you. You don' t necessarily
3 have to be there .
MR. KEENAN: I ' d love to be there to show
4 you.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm not conducive
5 to having too much of a discussion there without
the Board. I ' ll probably more just observe and
6 maybe walk this piece of property.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you take
7 some pictures?
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And I can take some
8 pictures .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wonder if it would
9 be possible to have a representative of the owner
there as well .
10 MR. HAMM: That was going to be my
suggestion as well when it was my turn to speak,
11 however I don' t know her schedule .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Hamm, has it been
12 staked out where the proposed house is?
MR. KEENAN: The house is staked out . On
13 the photos that I showed were basically from the
stakes and the gentleman standing up, I think
14 Figure 3 is where --
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, I would
15 really prefer not to have people there .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You've got to
16 get there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know how to get
17 there .
MR. KEENAN: I' d be very happy not to be
18 there .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s fine .
19 MR. HAMM: If you' re not going to be there
then I won' t have her, but if you' re not going to
20 be there, then I won' t be there .
MR. KEENAN: I promise you I won' t be
21 t-here .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then I have another
22 question and it had to do. with our site visits .
We generally make it a practice that we all go to
23 a site visit, some site visits aren' t even
necessary to help with a plans, this sounds like a
24 difficult one . I can' t make --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Would you like to
25 go?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes .
May 25 , 2006
83
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: , Thank you.
MR. KEENAN: Thank you very much.
3 MR. HAMM: I haven' t seen his plan. Do
you have an extra copy of what you' re proposing to
4 the Board as an alternative?
MR. KEENAN: , I have not proposed a
5 specific alternative because, like I said, I' m
just an insurance guy:
6 MR. HAMM: You mentioned changing the
right of way.
7 MR. KEENAN: Mrs . Kennedy has a plan in
her possession from the original subdivision that
8 showed the right of way going further away from
the water, which I think was intended to allow
9 that to be a buildable --
MR. HAMM: I don' t know what plan that is .
10 I did the subdivision back in 1994 .
MR. KEENAN: For this lot, but I ' m talking
11 about the original subdivision for what ' s
currently the Rouche property.
12 MR. HAMM: The Rouches conveyed without
Planning Board approval what you own in the late .
13 ' 60s; when they went to do their subdivision of
the remainder of this property, we were required
14 to include your property, which was known as John
Evans, so you' ll see the subdivision map is of
15 Rouche and Evans, as far as I know that right of
way has been there forever; that's where it is and
16 has been
MR. KEENAN: All I'm saying is I saw a
17 piece of paper that Mrs . Kennedy showed me that
showed an original subdivision plan, or a site
18 plan maybe is the right way to describe it, from
the late 1960s early 1970s at the time her father
19 built her house on the lot that was split off from
the lot where our house is . We have the oldest
20 house in the neighborhood; it was built in 1881,
and all the other areas around it were split off
21 from the property where we are . She just said
this is one thing we could do, and ,I said that
22 looks like the right way to do it, if that was the
way they were talking about doing it in the ' 60s..
23 If we could stick to that and keep all the houses
in a way where they' re not visible from each
24 other, which is something that we like in that R80
neighborhood.
25 MR. HAMM: If this were between two
property owners, that' s one thing. But. we have
May 25 , 2006
84
1
2 the Wilmerding compound, the four lots that use
this right of way are involved with this as well .
3 MR. KEENAN: The Wilmerdings, they pass
through, but I believe we have the longest
4 contiguous property line with this house, and,
quite frankly, it' s the closest to us and we' ll be
5 the ones that will be seeing it . . All the
Wilmerdings are lower and look over Fishers Island
6 Sound and Hay Harbor.
MR. HAMM: But they use that right of way
7 is my point .
MR. KEENAN: Correct . But their views are
8 screenable because of where their houses are .
Ours is the most proximate to where Mrs . Rouche
9 wants to build, and we don' t believe that because
of her first floor elevation, roof line, we' re
10 going to have a very tough time to screen it off .
MR. HAMM: I understand that your property
11 would be most impacted. However, you' re talking
about relocating a right of way that' s used by
12 other people it' s not just something that you and
Mrs . Kennedy can agree to.
13 MR. KEENAN: Correct . But I believe it' s
not' an agreement for us, it' s a suggestion by us
14 to keep the integrity of what' s known as Hay
Harbor Park to the locals intact such that the
15 houses are as least visible from each other as
they can be, and then we have lots of ability to
16 screen houses from nature . And just to add to
that point Mrs . Kennedy told me that Mr. Rouche,
17 her father, when he originally built his house
there in 1960 whatever it was, lopped a story off
18 the top of it because it was so visible and
decided to go down instead of up . That' s the
19 spirit of the neighborhood and that' s what we
would like to convey to you in Southold, that we
20 would like to keep it as bucolic as possible, and
we think there are plenty of ways to do it in
21 order to build a home on that lot .
MR. HAMM: I want to put in the record a
22 letter my client wrote to Mr. Keenan immediately
before the hearing last month to show that she is
23 willing to cooperate with him. And this is
Mr. Keenan called me a couple of days before the
24 hearing to go over certain issues, which I then
put in the form of a letter, and Sheila and I
25 worked out the language of it, and that was our
response . Among things that have not been
May 25 , 2006
85
1
2 mentioned, Mr. Keenan has asked .for her permission
to put a dock on the property, and we' re a little
3 concerned that some of this objection relates to
her unwillingness at this point, not to say that
4 she' s not willing to cooperate with him, but her
unwillingness to agree to something as a condition
5 of his support, and you' ll see the issues
addressed in that letter, I don' t need to go into
6 them in complete detail, but he had asked about
using a path on her property, which she says she' s
7 willing to do at least for this summer, she' s
willing to walk the property with him with a
8 landscape professional to determine what screening
is there . It' s not that she' s been uncooperative,
9 it' s just she' s not willing to do a quid pro quo
at this point .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a two
story house, though, right?
11 MR. HAMM: Yes, but rather modest in
scale, 1, 000 square foot footprint, I believe .
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But in effect ,
if we did have a height problem, she could reduce
13 it to a one-story house and come in with a
landscape plan against the Keenan property. I 'm
14 trying to eliminate a lawsuit, I' m being honest
with you.
15 MR. HAMM: My feeling is we shouldn' t even
be in here at all . I think the rear yard, I think
16 the Building Department was in error and I think
you agreed with me last month to call the
17 encroachment on the rear yard requiring a variance
and that' s addressed in the memorandum I gave you
18 last month, and also, after all we' re talking
about a right of way here, and I know that' s a
19 front yard under the definitions and so forth, but
it should be looked at a lot differently than a
20 front yard request in other circumstances . Why
should she reduce her rights that she has had;
21 Mr . Keenan' s property is. part of this subdivision
which created this lot . So I hope that fine, go
22 look at it, and we' ll abide by your judgment on
that, but I think I do want to focus on some of
23 these other points, and I don' t want to lose sight
of them. This is a case where great leniency
24 should be granted.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Let me ask you,
25 Mr. - Hamm, the lot straddles that right of way.
I ' ve seen people come in before on Fishers Island;
May 25, 2006
86
1
2 the other side of that right of way, is any of
that buildable?
3 MR. HAMM: Potentially ,with permits from
the environmental agencies and probably it was
4 determined this was the best location because you
have one side that' s wetlands and one side that ' s
5 severely sloped. This is a flat area, I. put in
, evidence last month from the engineer surveyor
6 'who' s familiar with this property that this is the
ideal location, impact from front yard, it' s Mrs .
7 Kennedy not the neighbors who are impacted by the
proximity to the front yard. Wilmerding, I know
8 Mr. Keenan says he can't see it, but I know he' s
sent a letter in support of this location. It' s
9 not quite as detrimental to the neighborhood, I
have to admit, I haven' t been there myself, but
10 the evidence that I have from what I am told from
the surveyor and Wilmerding' s support and my.
11 client is that this is a modest house in probably
the best location on this property.
12 MR. KEENAN: Just if I may to defend
myself against Mr. Hamm' s insinuation that we put
13 a quid pro quo to Mrs . Kennedy, let me add a
couple of facts to the record. Mrs . Kennedy and
14 her siblings, owners of Rouche Partners LP,
telephoned me in October, telephoned me and said,
15 if you want to buy the lot for $750 , 000 and then
give it to the Nature Conservancy, we will sell it
16 to you for $750, 000 provided you give it to the
Nature Conservancy, that was the first we heard of
17 this plan. I said, gee, I' d be willing to take a
quarter or a third or some part of that, and let' s
18 get all the neighbors together and we' ll keep the
park going. I.'m very happy to contribute to that,
19 that sounds like a good plan, but it shouldn' t be
just us, we should all do this together' as
20 neighbors on the right of way.. Then when Mrs .
Kennedy said I' d like to build a house, our
21 response was, Sheila, we' d love to have you build
a house there, let' s just be sure when you do it ,
22 we take the original 11 acres, and we don' t really
care whether they' re our acres or your acres
23 there' s three pieces of property that share one
nice little corner of Fishers Island, let' s just
24 make it nice for everybody, and we suggested a
number of different ways to do that which would
25 include having the right of way relocated across .
our land, whatever it takes to build a house there
May 25 , 2006
87
1
2 in a way that doesn' t spoil the neighborhood.
To the other point of the flatness of the
3 land up there, my friend Mr. McGreevey drove his
bulldozer around for a week and a half taking down
4 the top of a hill, and I don' t know how far down
it came, but that was a pretty steep hill over
5 there, and it' s now flat on the top and there' s a
lot that' s been sort of prepared for building. I
6 believe they wanted to start building as soon as
possible . I don' t know if that' s allowed or not
7 but there is a significantly flattened hill that
was there that' s now got a flat top and a level
8 and if you go over you might want to ask
Mr. McGreevey to show you what he' s done to
9 prepare the lot for building.
MR. HAMM: This is the site of the old
10 Munnatauket Hotel on the island and there was
concern about construction debris in the location
11 and he did some test holes . As far as I know, the
flat and extensive grading, as far as know, this
12 is the natural elevation of this part of the
property. I could see what the surveyor shows , I
13 don' t know what the date of this is, date the
February 3rd. As far as I know Mr. McGreevey did
14 not prepare to turn this into a flat site, that he
was present at the site but for purposes of
15 determining whether this was an acceptable
location.
16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This moving of the
right of way, where would you put it?
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write
this case so I have to make sure I understand it .
18 MR. KEENAN: If you look and you want to
see the photos one, two and three are pictures of
19 the right of way directly in front . This was a
hill . This is now a lesser hill .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Flattened plateau
up here .
21 MR. KEENAN: Mononoto Inn. What we would
suggest this is the lot line here, and I believe
22 her siblings would also cooperate because they
actually asked us at one point if we would do
23 this, as we were considering some things over
here, if we wanted to move the driveway, to bring
24 it through here and around this way on this side
of the hill, and then you put a house right here,
25 where the road is right now. You've got a very
nice water view right here, stone retaining wall .
May 25 , 2006
88
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s , right behind
you.
3 MR. KEENAN: It' s a spectacular place, so
our thought was bring the road here, closer to our
4 house, leave this and then swing it back and then
you have. a nice place to put your house, it' s not
5 visible from our house..
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You put the house there
6 and then you have a big hill right behind your
house .
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But this is a huge
slope, look at the contour. It appears to be a
8 fairly substantial grade . This is a lot of
grading you' d have to do along here .
9 MR. KEENAN: If you brought this around on
a 40 foot contour, for example, the bulldozer' s
10 not that expensive, put it in against this hill so
our thought is you could bring it around the 40
11 foot contour.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How about the
12 cesspools or the wells that are there?
MR. . KEENAN: The existing well?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes .
MR. KEENAN: Our back up well is right
14 about here, and we' re concerned about the septic
tank location for that . We've offered if Mrs .
15 Kennedy wants to --
MR.. HAMM: I think you' re supposed to hook
16 up to public water. Our house is back here .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is this whole
17 proposal a consequence of height because it' s
already a high house and it' s on a high property?
18 That' s all I'm trying to clarify, not how to
redesign it .
19 MR. HAMM: She' s willing to work with him
on screening, but just not on this point . He
20 wanted to put trees along this line, and that' s
well into her property and she was very concerned
21 about that being appropriate .
MR. KEENAN: Why we suggested putting
22 trees closer to her house is because the trees
take a long time to grow, and if you started at a
23 25 foot deficit, and then you got to end up with
50 foot trees, it would take forever, so that was
24 our suggestion that we have some screening up here
closer to her home .
25 MR. HAMM: That' s addressed in her letter .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a graphic
May 25, 2006
89
1
2 notation for a tree line, doesn' t appear to have
any on there; am I missing something? Just
3 talking about the. nondisturbance buffer zone?
MR. HAMM: He' s got a note on here,
4 somewhere .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Keenan, can
5 we get a copy of your survey of your house
property?
6 MR. KEENAN: Certainly. I need to find
one or have one --
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s necessary
because we need to address the issues that he is
8 bringing before us, here .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We know where his
9 well is .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t want you
10 to have --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is this the parcel
11 you' re referring to as a -park?
MR. KEENAN: Yes . Actually just the point
12 of record the Rouche family declined to maintain
this lot, this particular subdivision, and the
13 Evans family maintained it and kept the right of
way clear for many years, and we did the same at
14 the Rouche' s request basically when they said we
don' t care about this because it' s past . our house
15 because we never see it . We've spent lots and
lots and lots of lawn mower time over the years
16 from keeping this back and keeping the right of
way.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So this is their
property?
18 MR. KEENAN: Correct . Mr. Hamm subdivided
this .lot off of this lot in 1994 . These two and
19 this one were subdivided I want to say around 1969
or thereabouts .
20 MR. HAMM: It' s' now legalized.
MR. KEENAN: My house is here and my first
21 floor elevation is --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to make it
22 easier, what does your house look like?
MR. KEENAN: My house is an 1882 -- it' s a
23 farm house . It' s two farmhouses squished
together. It' s gray clapboard. There are not
24 that many houses in the neighborhood. -
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you stand up on
25 the hill and --
MR. KEENAN: And look in this direction
May 25, 2006
a
90
l
2 you' ll look down on my front porch. Thank you
very much.
3 MR. HAMM: Will this matter be on again?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 9 :45 , 22nd of June,
4 Mr. Hamm. I' d like to make a motion to adjourn
the hearing until June 22nd at 9 : 45 a.m.
5 (See minutes for resolution'. )
--------------------------------------------- ----
6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is
Kassapidis .
7 MS . RIVERA: Chris Rivera representing Dr.
Kassapidis .
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Rivera, it
was my understanding that there was some error
9 that you raised regarding the Building Department
and the roof that goes over the house which
10 attaches the house to the garage?
MS . RIVERA: Yes, when I applied for the
11 building permit to alter the dwelling that was
there, the Building Department approved a three
12 foot setback for the garage from the property line
and issued the permit . I started to build the
13 garage, and no sooner than the foundation was in,
one of the neighbors who you received a letter
14 from, Sagianis, went down to the Building
Department and questioned it, and they reviewed
15 the plans with them at the time, and again, said
there was no problem, they were permitted to build
16 the garage with the three foot setback. When I
built the garage, I brought it in at 5 . 7 feet side
17 yard setback as opposed to the three foot setback
and proceeded to construct the garage with the
18 breezeway and altered the cottage that was there,
and after all was said and done, I got a call from
19 Damon at the Building Department and said I 'm
sorry we have a problem, we issued the building
20 permit in error. We shouldn' t have allowed you to
have a three foot setback. I said I made it 5 . 7,
21 he still said that' s not proper, how far are you
in the project . I said it' s completed. And then
22 he said, I 'm sorry you have to go to the Zoning
Board to get a variance for the garage as built .
23 So that' s why I'm here . Let me say I know that
you received a letter from one of the neighbors, I
24 am both president of the Captain Kidd Civic
Association and the West Mattituck Beach
25 Association and I do approximately 90 percent of
my work in Captain Kidd. And I am very, very
May 25 , 2006
91
1
2 conscious of the environment, the architecture and
the neighborhood whenever I undertake a project .
3 And the project that is . before you now was a house
that the previous owners had pillows and quilt
4 blankets in the windows to keep out the cold. And
Dr. Kassapidis bought this property and has
5 invested over $60.0 , 000 in this complex and
probably $150 , 000 of that is for landscape and
6 pool . And I know the Sagianises did bring up the
Kassapidises about the filter noise and they
7 addressed it with me, and I said I will definitely
enclose the filter system later on, but I was
8 waiting for -- I had to get an ozonator, et
cetera. So when the pool equipment goes back in,
9 I ' m going to enclose it in a structure and
insulate it with foam board to try to prevent any
10 future noise . And I also have the filter on a
timer that goes on 11 : 00 at night to about 2 : 00 .
11 3 : 00 in the morning, I changed the filter times so
they wouldn' t have to listen to it during the
12 daytime on their deck. They were also questioning
that the filter was making noise and it' s right by
13 their bedroom, but their bedroom has a windows air
conditioner on it during the summer time, which is
14 far louder, believe me, than the pool equipment .
So we addressed all these issues for the neighbor
15 regarding the pool pump and the noise . And I know
he wrote a letter asking us to relocate the pool
16 equipment, but there' s no way you can because all
the pipes are underneath the cement patio at the
17 time . I don' t know if any of you had the chance
to go out there, I know Mr. Goehringer has, but
18 they also spoke about cutting down these majestic
trees and you can see by the picture, what we have
19 planted, we put 14 foot Leland Cypress trees
between the property to screen not only the
20 Kassapidis pool, but also their deck, this is how
the house looks now. These are the pines , and we
21 did not cut down any majestic trees .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Rivera, can
22 I just mention that we had a similar situation
occur, and I realize the nature of this relocation
23 or specific relocation which you say you can' t do,
and so was the case in this other case down in
24 Yakop Park over in Southold, we did ask the person
to do exactly what you' re anticipating, and they
25 sprayed the inside of it with insulation and they
put some further insulation in it and we never
May 25, 2006
92
1
2 heard another problem. So I think that ' s a
positive move on your part as the contractor, and
3 as the agent for the owner.
MS . RIVERA: Thank you, the Kassapidises
4 have been neighbors of these people for over 20
years, and right off the bat they' re trying to be
5 sensitive to everyone . They switched the timer on
the pool pump, and it' s really only a 'one horse
6 power pump. It really doesn' t make that much
noise to be 'honest with you, and the way they' re
7 built today, it' s really hardly any noise at .all .
I told them I ' d be happy to build a waterproof
8 cover and surround sound for it, and I intend to
do that . As far as anything else, there' s nothing
9 else we can do. We put huge Lelands, we put a
fence, we have gone all out .
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason I 'm
talking taking first run on this, it happens to be
11 my application and I have to incorporate this into
the findings . As for the roof situation, I _ don' t
12 have any particular problem with it on the 5 . 7 .
It' s an open breezeway. It doesn' t even go over
13 the entire roof' of the house, so I assume you get
more light into the rest of the house and so on.
14 MS . RIVERA: It' s my understanding that
the breezeway was not the issue, the issue was the
15 setback.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It becomes a
16 side yard.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It becomes a side
17 yard otherwise the garage would be in the back
yard.
18 MS . RIVERA: I have to tell you, this
wasn' t a slam dunk with the Building Department .
19 I went back and forth with them maybe three or
four times, and all they were concentrating on, to
20 be honest with you, were the front steps . They
had to be no more than 30 square feet . I had them
21 going one way, I had them going the other way, I
had a pillar, I had to take the pillar out and
22 move it onto the step, et cetera . They were
constantly reviewing this application and at no
23 point did they ever pick up on the breezeway
issue . They did say I had to limit the size of
24 the breezeway, which I had done according to them,
but at no point was anything else brought up .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
brought the issue of the shed or whatever
May 25 , 2006
93
1
2 particular enclosure, that is probably within
three to five feet to the property line, and if
3 it' s less than three feet we need to incorporate
that into the. decision, so you don' t need to come
4 back for a variance for that . I didn' t notice
that . I have to tell you, it was a beastly day
5 that I was up there, and even on a beastly day the
place looked beautiful .
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the pool
housing, the filter system is behind the garage .
7 It' s not three feet away, it' s .at least 5 . 7 .
MS . RIVERA: It' s maybe even more,
8 probably about six, seven feet then it' s about
other another 15 feet to their bedroom window. So
9 it' s about 20 some-odd feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which property is the
10 neighbor' s property whose objecting?
MS . RIVERA: Facing the house .
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the left , 114?
MS . RIVERA: Yes .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They' re not objecting
to the short setbacks,
13 MS . RIVERA: No, they' re objecting to the
noise of the pool filter. I want to be perfectly
14 honest with you, we' re blocking out that also .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That breezeway is
15 probably open in part to let light down into that
stairwell .
16 MS . RIVERA: It was just a matter we put a
door in the garage, if they pull into the
17 garage --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So they' re not
18 rained on. Part of it is rained on anyway but I
see you've drained it .
19 MS . RIVERA: These are the trees that abut
her property.
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s plenty of
visual screening. Also I think you' re 22 percent
21 lot coverage?
MS . RIVERA: 21 . 3 .
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you need a
variance for that .
23 MS . RIVERA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No further
25 questions .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim?
May 25 , 2006
94
1
2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm looking at the
survey, I see you got a frame garage, that garage
3 existed the whole time?
MS . RIVERA: No, actually, Mr. Dinizio,
4 there was a garage but prior to the Kassapidises
buying the property it was demolished, and it was
5 in a different location.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm just wondering
6 how even if this were side yard setbacks how that
garage got put there in the side yard like that?
7 MS . RIVERA: When I put in the original
application, that' s where I had the garage
8 located. I gave them a survey.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But they' re saying
9 that they approved it -- their disapproval here
says they disapproved it because they thought it
10 was accessory setbacks . But it' s in the side
yard, you need to be here for that too .
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They couldn' t have
approved it as accessory side back yard.
12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In the notice of
disapproval --
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They reversed
themselves, basically.
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If it were in the
rear yard it would have been three feet , then they
15 realized it was side yard.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were there, if
16 it were an accessory setback, it would not have
been allowed because it would have to have been in
17 the rear yard.
MS . RIVERA: The original survey I gave
18 them showed exactly where this was going, where it
is now, in the breezeway, that' s how they approved
19 it . I realized that they made an error.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Then they' re saying
20 with a breezeway it had to be a principal setback
not an accessory.
21 MS . RIVERA: Right, the original
application was made with the breezeway attached
22 to the garage, and then they realized it was an
accessory.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the side it
would have had to have a 10 foot setback and
25 enclosed addition.
MS . RIVERA: It was addressed very early
May 25 , 2006
95
1
2 on in the project, and I went in there and they
said, no, it' s fine . And then after all was said
3 done, they realized they had made a mistake . They ,
had gone over it with the neighbor at the time,
4 and they realized they made a mistake, and that' s
why I ' m here .
5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
that wishes to speak on this application? If not ,
6 I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision until later.
7 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------------------------------------------------
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for
Fitzpatricks on Bailey Beach Road in
9 Mattituck . Mr. Goggins?
MR. GOGGINS : Good afternoon, William
10 Goggins, for the applicant Tom Fitzpatrick and
Mary Fitzpatrick. Before we go forward, I have to
11 say I was sitting here listening to the Rouche
Kennedy application and I had an epiphany. I was
12 thinking, all the times I 've been. before the Board
over the years, you people are so patient and you
13 look like you' re paving your way to heaven by
sitting on this board and dealing with these
14 issues .
Anyway we' re in this application. We' re
15 asking for variances . This property is deemed to
have two front yards because of a right of way
16 going along the east side of the property. Don
Filer had drawn the plans, and he tried to square
17 the building off and tried to make it as less
intrusive as he could. The Fitzpatricks, this is
18 their summer house, they' re in their early 60s .
They' re getting ready to retire right now. It ' s a
19 one bedroom cottage, they would like to make it a
two bedroom cottage . They' d like to live out the
20 rest of their lives in this house . So, she met
with Mr . Filer and they drew up plans and you have
21 them before you.
I think I made a mistake in my
22 application, I put that this house is preexisting
to zoning, I don' t think it was . I reviewed the
23 assessment card, and it looked like it was built
in 1973 . But I 'm not sure it could .have been
24 built before . And I think everyone knows about
the Bailey Beach area, it' s a bunch of summer
25 cottages that remained summer cottages until the
mid 180s people started converting them, putting
May 25 , 2006
96
1
2 heat in them, and now people are living there year
round.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The real issue
then is the fact that the road on this site .plan
4 anyway drawn by the architect, the road seems
angled creating a variety of different front yard
5 setbacks if the house remains parallel to itself
with the addition, then what you' re doing is
6 creating a 28 foot, 23 . 4 and 18 from the new
corner.
7 MR. GOGGINS : That' s correct..
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The right of way is
8 25 feet from the rear and 22 feet towards the
front on the right of way.
9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bill, what are those
structures that are sticking out to the next door
10 neighbor' s yard?
MR. GOGGINS : One of them is a pump house .
11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the public water
down there?
12 MR. GOGGINS : I believe so, and when they
drew this one, I guess when they subdivided the
13 property they made the property line go around the
pump house, and also the other building is a shed
14 which is there . So I'm not sure what the purpose
of those are, but clearly --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bill, is there
any problem with dropping that section of the
16 house, or inverting that section of the house on
the left-hand side looking at the plans, which is
17 really the north side, back to approximately the
same distance as the center of the house at about
18 23 . 4 , which would be a reduction of about five
feet? So have the same setbacks, in other words,
19 an average setback of about 23 and taking five off
the front?
20 MR. GOGGINS : Standing on Bailey Beach
Road and looking at the house?
21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where it says
the 18 and it says proposed.
22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s where you
have the 12 by 17 foot living room, it would mean
23 creating a jog on the elevation instead of going
straight across and reducing the 17 foot dimension
24 of the living room by how many feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By five feet .
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: By five feet . Got
a much smaller, got a 12 by 13 , very small living
May 25 , 2006
97
1
2 room.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s up to you
3 guys .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s why I was
4 asking, mean setbacks, average setbacks .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The road circles
5 around.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not apparent
6 on the site . I' m wondering about a reaction from
the neighbor. The one on the west side is setback
7 farther than here .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On both sides they
8 are .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wondered
9 what impact that might have .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the problem, I
10 think clearly the setbacks are nonconforming,
they' re nonconforming in that they' re closer to
11 the road than the other houses and this
construction would not increase the nonconformity
12 merely in the Walz sense but actual physical sense
is it' s already the closest one to the road, and
13 put it yet closer. So I would certainly be open
to suggestions of ways of redesigning this
14 addition to put it on the side where there is
room,. and we' d have the net result of actually
15 reducing the front yard setback rather than
increasing; is that something that your client
16 would consider?
MR. GOGGINS : I don' t think so.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s a huge
architectural job.
18 MR. GOGGINS : It looks like it was built
in 1973 , which means it conformed to the zoning in
19 1973 .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it was
20 reconstructed. This just happens to be one that
is a little more conforming in reference to its
21 size than some of the smaller ones, as you get
closer to the water they were much smaller.
22 MR. GOGGINS : I think the suggestion of
removing five feet of the living room is much more
23 viable . And if they did, could that be an open
deck?
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If it' s at grade,
sure .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This way we have
a mean situation.
May 25 , 2006
98
1
2 MR. GOGGINS : I understand.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, the
3 reason for the Board, this is my application, I
have to write it .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I must say that
because this house is set farther forward and the
5 other two neighboring properties are set farther
back, other than from the road, there' s pretty
6 negligible impact on the neighbors on either side
with the front yard setbacks . But trying to
7 balance that setback is probably the reasonable
alternative relief .
8 MR. GOGGINS : They will, agree to do it, no
objection.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the
10 audience who wishes to speak on this application?
If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing
11 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
12 -------------------------------------------------
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is
13 for Pollio, who wishes now to make a kitchen.
MS . MOORE : He always wanted to make the
14 kitchen. The problem was that I guess somewhere
along the lines somebody dropped it off the plans .
15 I would ask that we incorporate by reference the
ZBA file of 5753 because it has all the same
16 documentation that would be presented at this
hearing with the maps and so on and it' s the same .
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a different
map, they' re not the same maps, they' re different
18 maps .
MS . MOORE : What do you mean? The issues
19 of lot coverage and so on with the large maps that
were submitted as part of the overall plan of this
20 community, rather than have them reprinted in this
application, we' ll refer back to the prior one .
21 What I understand from Mr. Pollio, because
I stepped into this application very late into the
22 process, he had submitted to the Building
Department for a notice of disapproval for a much
23 larger overall plan, even including the only thing
that' s habitable space is the kitchen. addition,
24 the other is a six by six covered stoop entrance .
He had submitted to the Building Department that
25 initial request for a much larger area . The
notice of disapproval was issued. They went
May 25 , 2006
99
1
2 through the notice provisions in the prior hearing
and somewhere along the line Mr. Lenhert, his
3 design professional, somehow .or another dropped
off the kitchen addition in the plan, and so, when
4 he got the decision, we looked at it and said,
well, that' s not included, and he for some
5 reason --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Moore, he was
6 here that day. He only mentioned a family room,
it didn' t even enter his head about talking about
7 the kitchen.
MS . MOORE : I don' t understand. In any
8 case, at this point, I 'm just relaying back what
they request is the kitchen addition, it ' s a
9 continuation of the family room, if you .saw the
interior layout of the plans, that was what was
10 originally planned. The kitchen addition led into
the family room and then the pop-out there, the
11 six by six is a covered doorway, stoop, and since
we were coming back to you, we thought best to put
12 everything on the plans properly and submit it to
this Board at this time .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
purpose of the kitchen?
14 MS . MOORE : They have I guess an eating
area -- let me pull out the drawings because it ,
15 will make it easier on me . They have an existing
kitchen and they want to enlarge the kitchenette
16 eating area.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words,
17 it ' s still only going to be one kitchen?
MS . MOORE : Yes, it' s still part of the
18 one kitchen. Do you see the floor plan, the
kitchen right now ends, where you see the wall, it
19 ends where the cabinets -- this area here is where
the wall now exists (indicating) . What they' re
20 adding is a breakfast nook, eat-in area on the
other side of the cabinetry, and it would allow
21 the seats to go under in this breakfast bar. You
have the breakfast bar that allows you to put
22 seats there, and then you have the kitchenette in
this area . They are also able to relocate their
23 washer and dryer. This was part of the addition
that was approved. It was overlapping areas . The
24 addition was -- some of the square footage
overlaps what is part of the original or last four
25 months ago, six months ago, so there' s overlapping
space . It also squares up the end of the house,
May 25 , 2006
100
1
2 it doesn' t leave such an odd jog with the
addition, the previous addition, you see the
3 survey.
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have to get
4 Health Department approval for the extension of
the kitchen?
5 MS . MOORE : Not at all . Only when you add
bedrooms you need to make sure that the sanitary
6 is adequate for the number of bedrooms . But this
sanitary was replaced at the last hearing. It was
7 discussed in great detail and he has an enormous
sanitary system there .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a new system?
MS . MOORE : It was a new system about two
9 years ago or so.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So what you want to
10 do is build according to the survey dated 11/5/04?
MS . MOORE : Yes, 11/5/b4 , exactly.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you just show
me what was approved?
12 MS . MOORE: The yellow line was approved,
5753 .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And that ' s
existing.
14 MS . MOORE : This is existing and this is
the new wall .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How in the heck did
that get dropped? It' s so obvious on the plans .
16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It didn' t get ,dropped.
MS . MOORE : I don' t know what Mr. Lenhert
17 was thinking.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was here .
18 MS . MOORE : He was here .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was here .and there
19 was no mention of this kitchen.
MS . MOORE : I don' t think they were
20 thinking of it only because it was on the original
notice of disapproval .
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Here' s the problem,
as you remember, this hearing was kept open and
22 there was some concern about the incremental
expansion of this property in this co-op, and I
23 don' t think it' s possible, for me at least, to say
how I would have voted on this application had
24 this been the one that we were reviewing last time
because it' s bigger; in other words --
25 MS . MOORE : Functionally it' s not bigger.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whatever problems in
May 25 , 2006
101
1
2 regard to grading and lot coverage in these
properties simply not the application that we saw
3 before upon which there was considerable
discussion from a neighbor, as you may recall .
4 MS . MOORE: I do recall the conversation,
that' s when we -- when I got involved when the
5 neighbor started raising these issues that, quite
frankly, were not really relevant to what' s going
6 on.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Everybody got a
7 hearing and he was heard and he spoke to an
earlier plan, not to the one that we have before
8 us right now.
MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry. I don' t understand
9 why they weren' t discussing in great detail, but
often times at the hearing you discuss issues that
10 you think are the problem rather than the overall .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Not in any obvious
11 way does that affect our decision making.
MS . MOORE : All I know is here you can
12 have the application you have before you, which is
obviously part of the overall renovation of the
13 house, which unfortunately wasn' t clear the first
time .
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If it' s okay, I
just want to mention a conversation. There seems
15 to be some misunderstanding here . The architect,
Rob Lenhert, had mentioned with the other
16 application that he had submitted that they
decided to remove the kitchen and plan it at
17 sometime in the future, that was intentionally
. removed from the plan; that' s how we processed
18 that application. You weren' t involved with it .
So I figured I' ll tell both you of you .
19 MS . MOORE :_ Mr. Lehnert often times got
confused on Mr. Pollio' s directions .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn' t matter for
our purposes who misrepresented it .
21 MS . MOORE - I 'm not saying it was a
misrepresentation.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: From our point of
view it was a misrepresentation because what we
23 saw is not what we got .
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We granted
24 something and now they' re asking --
-CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, before I lose my
25 train of thought, it' s supposed to be a combined
application between Mr. Pollio and the whole
May 25 , 2006
102
1
2 Kimogenor Point Association; is that in here?
MS . MOORE : Yes, you have that in there .
3 It' s signed by both Kimogenor Point and
Pollio. There was a lot of communication between
4 Pollio and Lenhert .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Lot' s of changes
5 too . ,
MS . MOORE : I ' m not pointing fingers at
6 anybody doing the wrong thing, the bottom line was
I think when Mr. Pollio thought he was doing one
7 way and had it come to my attention at the time I
got involved, I would have said, oh, no, we' ve got
8 something missing, but I didn' t realize it .
BOARD MEMBER S'IMON: Rather than say it' s
9 really one application modified, for our purposes
we have to see it as a new application.
10 MS . MOORE : No, I'm merely asking with
regard to incorporation by referenced documents
11 that are already in your file . It' s just
incorporation by reference, as you know, it ' s a
12 legal term. It' s incorporating the documents
rather than resubmitting to you a pile of papers
13 that are this big.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much is the
14 square footage so we have it for the record?
MS . MOORE : The square footage of the
15 kitchen addition is 12 ' 4 " by 9 ' 6" and the
entrance, which is a covered stoop but because you
16 consider everything nonconforming here, a six by
six roofed over covered stoop. Those are the only
17 two items .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else
in the audience that would like to comment on this
19 application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision until later.
20 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------------------------
21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next. hearing is Manos .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Ruth would like me
22 to mention on the update on the file, the day
before yesterday in the afternoon, there was some
23 maps in the submitted information that came in.
It wasn' t the Friday before the meeting, so I have
24 to distribute them at the hearing. So the Board
is just seeing them for. the first time, and the
25 staff has not reviewed them, we have been very
busy and one day was not enough time to review.
May 25 , 2006
103
1
2 MS . MOORE: Okay. Well, if I could open
the hearing and discuss it .
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The hearing' s been
opened already.
4 MS . MOORE: Just give me a chance because
it' s very simple . I also want to introduce my
5 father, Angel Chorno, who is the architect .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does that mean
6 we can' t grill him?
MS . MOORE : You can grill him, but be
7 nice . Let me give you a little bit of why we' re
here and why you have the survey and the drawings
8 redone, and as I say, I got them to you as soon as
humanly possible .
9 We made the application, as -.you know, for
the house rebuilt -based on the plans that were
10 already submitted and got a building permit . As
you know -- I' ll go back a little bit . The
11 variance that you granted dealt with a house that.
was going to be a renovation, and what happened is
12 that after Mr. Strang, who was the original
architect on this, the contractor was brought in,
13 he came in, he looked at the foundation and said
you have a problem, Mr. and Mrs . Manos . They got,
. 14 before I was involved, one engineer, the engineer
confirmed there was a problem because of the
15 height of the sill and the water runoff that had
occurred from the . 170s construction there, there
16 had been water damage there . They didn' t rush off
to take down the house, they went and got a second
17 opinion from another engineer because they
couldn' t believe after spending as much money as
18 they had to get all the drawings, all the permits
and get ready for a building permit that they
19 found out there was a problem with the foundation.
We again tried to modify and work within
20 the bounds of the permit that we had. . The general
contractor started working on it, and then despite
21 my advice, to don' t touch, leave stuff up, leave
walls up, we had lots of discussions about that,
22 he went and ,saw the Building Department . The
Building Department said take it down, sure, go
23 ahead, take it down. Well, at that point, Gary
Fish, who is out in the field and it' s a practical
24 issue, allowed it to all come down. Well, now
Damon saw it and because we had the plans for the
25 new foundation, and he said, well, you have a
problem because .the variance we granted was for a
May 25 , 2006
104
1
2 renovation not for reconstruction.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was actually for
3 the porch.
MS . MOORE : The plans that you had in your
4 drawings because they' re the same plans that we
had was for renovation of the existing house . For
5 all intents and purposes they had no plans to
demolish the house . Now we move forward. The
6 Building Department says you need a variance . Now.
because the code change with respect to setback
7 from the bluff, we ended up with another board in
between. We went to the Town Trustees, the
8 neighbor to the east -- this neighbor here is to
the west, Mr. Papas, very nice -- the neighbor to
9 the east came out and we submitted the identical
site plan that was originally submitted to this
10 Board and the neighbor on the east came very upset
with his lawyer because the pool was too close to
11 his property.
The Trustees had done an inspection. The
12 neighbor had appeared at the inspection and from
conversations based on the inspection, we were
13 advised by a couple of members of the Trustees --
we never got to the point where they had to deny
14 us -- we just heard from them that this neighbor
was upset and Trustees thought it was a little
15 close . So we went into the hallway, met with the
lawyer, met with the neighbor, , and said, listen,
16 at this point, we've demolished the house . We can
move the pool where it really belongs in the spot
17 where the house was proposed before you, and we
moved the house, which is obviously with the
18 tear-down, now we' re not renovating the existing
house you' re not bound by the existing conditions
19 of the original structure, it didn' t make sense to
build the same house with the strange angles and
20 living within the bounds of the original
renovation, it made sense to do a new plan. I
21 brought my dad in, he did things with inhuman
speed, much faster and certainly they were a
22 little upset with the prior architect because of
how things worked out, that' s fine . So we worked
23 within the bounds of the side yard setbacks, the
front and rear yard setbacks, we were able,
24 because the pool was really important to the
property owner, that was really the impetus of the
25 whole thing, and you had actually reviewed an
application for a pool that was denied I think
May 25, 2006
105
1
2 Cathy'Mesiano was the agent on that one . It was
too close to the bluff . It was pushed between the
3 existing house and the bluff, and I'm not
surprised you denied it . So they kind of
4 unfortunately, they really wanted this pool . So
we pushed the house back to I think it ended up
5 being 83 feet, the roof line is the line that we
see on the site plan, you have this site plan here
6 among the papers that you got, this site plan is
derived from the Trustees hearing, which we only
7 had last Wednesday I think it was, so only at that
hearing did we find out that the neighbor was
8 upset about the location of the pool, that we
could move everything and the Trustees had no
9 issue with the our setback. In fact, they
probably would have approved the house where it
10 was, but again, we were with the neighbor that was
upset about the pool location.
11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could I ask one
question? We asked the Trustees if they saw this
12 plan at the last hearing and they said no . So
they didn' t have this map before them at the April
13 hearing.
MS . MOORE : No, no, no. We had the
14 original plan that was submitted to you .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : A different plan,
15 without the pool, right?
MS . MOORE : Excuse me . The pool was on
16 the side yard.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right .
17 MS . MOORE : We had a conversation like I 'm
having with you, but they actually talked about it
18 even more, and they said, we don' t have a problem,
when we put the pool in we' ll keep it -- in fact,
19 we kept to the 51 and 62 , and they even recognized
that the pool would have a lip around it ; so we
20 set back at 51 from the lip of the pool , you can
see there' s patio that goes around the lip of the
21 pool . We actually talked about the width of the
pool, the area that we would need for patio area,
22 and where the house would ultimately be located.
And we kind of drew up then and there at the
23 Trustees meetings, and I may have what would be as
a preliminary with the Trustees . So they actually
24 had a more simplified diagram because we didn' t
have the elevations of the house at that point, we
25 only had kind of dimensional requirements, all
right, how far are we 'going to go back, what are
May 25, 2006
106
1
2 our setbacks and so on. So what they agreed to do
was on a resolution that the Trustees adopted that
3 night was a pool, because we were relocating the
pool again. Where the neighbor objected, we
4 relocated to the closest point to the bluff, and
then we would push back giving some area for we
5 call it patio, it' s stones rather than decking, .
then that' s where the house would go. So they had
6 no issue, they said, listen because we couldn' t
draw then and there that evening, we established
7 some lines and said this is what we' re going to
do, and your transcript of the hearing it should
8 reflect that . All they wanted me to do was come
back to them with a drawing reflecting what was
9 agreed upon at the hearing, which we did, and add
the hay bale lines because that was missing from
10 the initial plan, and the dry wells, one for, I
know you ask and often times the Trustees ask as
11 well, a dry well for the pool and a dry well for
the house . So this was all done .within a week and
12 a half from our hearing Wednesday to tonight,
today, so that' s why we came up with this
13 footprint . Essentially what happens is when
you' re dealing with trying to draw drawings and
14 you' re asking for variances you got to have
certain amount of basic drawings with
15 footprints . They had spent over $50 , 000 between
architecturals and permits on the first plan, so
16 they weren' t
about -- they really were very nervous about how
17 much we were going to do -- I was nervous for
them -- how much are we going to do to be able to
18 establish footprints so we don' t go in that
direction again, in the wrong direction.
19 So that' s what we did, I had my father
meet with the Manos, they came up with more
20 detailed elevations in the last week and a half of
how the house is going to be designed. We changed
21 everything. We kind of threw the whole plan out
the window, that was gone, started over, but in
22 the long run it works out for the best because it
puts the pool in the best location for a
23 waterfront house . It pushes the house back to
certainly a very acceptable limit, and we are to a
24 certain extent appeasing the neighbor on the one
side, I think the neighbor on the west, you' re
25 here in support?
MR. PAPAS : Yes . But I have a question .
May 25 , 2006
107
1
2 MS . MOORE : Yes, a question. So we' ll get
to him. That' s why we are here, and you have the
3 plans which I delivered the other day figuring you
might get your packet in time .
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, this is
mine . We went from a 26 foot house -- one plan I
5 saw showed a* 50 foot wide house --
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sixty.
6 MS . MOORE : You had the original house
which was the original ' 70s house .
7 BOARD' MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the porch
it' s 50 feet wide .
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We have 67
originally.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I' m talking
depth.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 26 feet deep .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now we' re at 50
11 without the landscaping around the pool , which you
said is ground level .
12 MS . MOORE : It' s all going to be patio,
yes .
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was wondering
why the house can' t be shrunk a little to create a
14 greater setback from the bluff and if even if you
had -- how big is the square footage of the lot?
15 MS . MOORE : Just slightly over 20 , 000 I
think, it' s like 21 .
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Even if we had
to go 15 and 15, which would then create an
17 insufficient side yard on the east side . I want
to create a greater depth, pull everything back.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You want a shorter
front yard setback?
19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Rear yard.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Longer from 51 and
20 62 feet .
MS . MOORE : , Keep in mind, the character of
21 this neighborhood, and that' s one of the downsides
of moving towards the road and one of the things
22 that they had weighed in designing this, is you've
got the neighbors that are about where the decking
23 is . It ' s going to be screened. This neighbor has
a garage, the other neighbor I don' t recall what
24 he has, his bedroom, that was his objection with
the pool on the side yard next to him.
25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He said it was okay
the last time .
May 25 , 2006
108
1
2 MS . MOORE : He claimed he wasn' t here at
the hearing.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I asked him
specifically. I told him it was going to be
4 noisy.
MS . MOORE : He told the Trustees that he
5 did not come to the hearing. So I don' t know.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The neighbor.
6 MS . MOORE : I knew I read the record.
MR. PAPAS : Excuse me, I was here, he
7 wasn' t here .
MS . MOORE : At this point the plans, they
8 really love the plans at this point, and it works
with respect to their use and what they need for
9 their -- you know, they' re grandparents with
grandchildren and the rest . We pushed everything
10 as far back and all you' re dealing with is the
pool, and it' s really going in the hole where the
11 foundation was . That ' s a disturbed area . We've
already provided to the Trustees, it' s already
12 part of the plan, a nonturf buffer. It' s a
vegetated bluff . The water runs towards the
13 street and that' s part of the problem why the
original foundation was damaged because the water
14 runoff that went into the original existing
foundation of the house . So we have pushed it
15 back and all you' re dealing with is just the pool ,
that' s it . The house, the foundation, which is a
16 more significant structure is at 83 feet from the
top of the bluff . Given that the original house
17 was at --
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 62 .
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the house itself
is set back farther from the bluff than it
19 previously was .
MS . MOORE : Now, very much so, it' s 83 ,
20 it ' s another 30 feet back from where it was
originally located.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What' s the required
front yard setbacks?
22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I assume it' s
40 .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have 55 front
yard setbacks at the moment?
24 MS . MOORE : Yes, 55 . But keep in mind
everybody' s house is up there, they' re close to
25 the bluff, so .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I know.
May 25 , 2006
109
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Looks like it might
be 53 .
3 MS . MOORE : I guess it depends on the
angle . We put the building envelope on the site
4 plan, and this also enables us to retain the
sanitary that was previously approved. Remember,
5 they had a building permit, everything was ready
to go and we hope the only thing they'.re starting
6 over on is the plans, and this point the plans are
99 percent complete, certainly they' re not
7 construction drawings .
I promised to read a letter that client
8 prepared.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I 'm sorry, Pat , you
9 said they had a building permit, building permit
for what? It was demoed, not after it was demoed?
10 MS . MOORE : No, before demo . But take a
look at the plans, the plans were a significant
11 renovation, I mean, significant .
May I read this? Arlene Manos writes and
12 asks me to read to the Board:
"We are very disappointed that we cannot
13 be present at the hearing. We wish to express our
sincere request that the Board grant us the
14 proposed plan.
"After the plans were prepared and
15 variances obtained, we discovered by an engineer
recommended by our contractor that the foundation
16 could not support our .proposed renovation. We
obtained a second opinion hoping to preserve not
17 only the house but the extensive financial
investment in the drawings and permits made to
18 that point . The second engineer concluded that we
could not preserve our existing house without
19 extensive and very expensive remedial measures .
Our contractor tried to preserve what he could,
20 but in the end the house was gone .
"We returned to the Board with a hope that
21 with patience all ends well . Our original plan
for a pool seaward of the existing house, which
22 the Board denied along the bluff and granted in
the side yard can now be located comfortably in an
23 area with our house once stood, the hole remains .
The house and pool have been redesigned, the pool
24 was relocated at the request of our neighbor. We
agreed with the Trustees that the new location was
25 better because it . would respect our neighbor' s
privacy and is adequately setback from the top of
May 25, 2006
110
1
2 the bluff . The house is modest in size compared
to some of the new homes in our neighborhood but
3 good for visiting children and grandchildren.
"We hope that the Board will grant our
4 application and that we can start our house
soon. My husband is 82 years old. Swimming is
5 the only exercise that he tolerates and he has
dreamed of swimming in his pool with his
6 grandchildren. "
I have the original and I have seven
7 copies . Angel Chorno is here, if you have
. questions about the plans .
8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don-' t think at this
time, at least as far as I'm concerned.
9 MR. CHORNO : I would just like to point
out for the benefit of Mr. Papas . The house
10 before was 67 foot wide, I made it .60 feet . Mrs .
Manos asked, me why you made it 60 instead of 67 .
11 I said, I went to the site and I saw that the
house on the left was very close to the property
12 line . So I decided to shrink some the width of
the house so you would have a longer, more space
13 between the neighbor' s house and your house .
Their master bedroom is exactly there, so I
14 thought that he was very, .very close . So now, it
would be further away.
15 MR. PAPAS : Demetrios Papas . The only
upset that I have is the noise of the swimming
16 pool, and I propose to put it underground because
the swimming pool now will be in the middle of our
17 bedroom, and from the other side . I think the
water pump must be in the middle and if can be
18 underground because the water pumps they make a
lot of noise .
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re referring
to the filter of the swimming pool?
20 MR. PAPAS : The pump when the water passes
through makes noise, circulates a lot of water
21 because I have a swimming pool in Florida, and I
know I can hear. If something can be done
22 underground it would minimize the noise .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Underground or
23 put in a soundproof --
MS . MOORE : I think the previous
24 application.
MR. PAPAS : To minimize . This is the only
25 objection I think for me and I think for my
neighbor, if can be done we' ll appreciate it .
May 25, 2006
111
1
2 MS . MOORE : We can certainly enclose the
pump with a box as Miss Rivera had recommended on
3 the previous application, enclosure with foam
board inside . I think that' s an easy solution.
4 The location of it, we have room, again, our
building envelope, if it' s on the west side -- I
5 think we' re at the max building envelope on the
east side . So we have room on the west side to
6 put a dampening enclosure . I 'm not even sure it
qualifies as setbacks issues because utilities
7 aren' t usually, but just in case .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs . Moore, the
8 only concern I have is the issue of setbacks . I
understand the plan, I understand what your father
9 has created, and I would be willing to give up the
easterly side yard at five feet if he could shrink_
10 the plan down another five feet creating 56 feet
at its closest point and 67 feet at its --
11 MS . MOORE : Push it by five feet .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Shrink the
12 plan down by five feet, carry it over to the east
side by five feet leaving a 15 foot setback on the
13 east side and 15 feet setback on the west side .
Instead of a 60 foot house --
14 MR. CHORNO : I went over with Manos quite
a bit what they wanted, how they want it, so the
1_5 plan it would be very difficult to make the plan
narrower, even if it' s wider. But we could
16 certainly move the house towards the street by a
few feet . That' s the least you can let me do.
17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The patio.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You could take
18 some away from the patio, and you could move it 38
feet from the street and three feet away from the
19 patio and create a greater setback.
MR. CHORNO: Yes, I have to check with the
20 owner, obviously, she might have the choice of
shrinking the patio or getting closer to the
21 street .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I ' m
22 concerned about . I' m concerned about the setback
of 51 feet, .which is extremely close on a smaller
23 lot . The greatest we have ever dealt with was in
Mattituck at 160 foot cliff at 50 feet, and it was
24 in no way attached to the house or close to the
house .
25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : In some areas it' s
a lot greater than 50 feet .
May 25, 2006
112
1
2 MS . MOORE : I understand, but that' s why
we purposely did the patio, and I was sensitive to
3 that . If you say 55 and I'm sorry, did you say
five feet?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm talking
38 -- a total of five on both, so 51 to 56 , 62 to
5 67 .
MR. CHORNO: Add five feet .
6 MS . MOORE : Then we can work within the
whatever dimensions the client wants, whether it' s
7 patio or pool or house .
MR. CHORNO : We could do that .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s just a matter
of changing the site plan.
9 MS . MOORE : I think it' s easier to change
the site plan.
10 MR. CHORNO: She wanted further from the
street, but I can talk her into it .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' ll have to do a
little bit more backfill into the pool area.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' ll submit
that to us?
13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So we' ll adjourn the
hearing until the 22nd.
14 MS . MOORE : Can' t we close the hearing and
we' ll submit the drawings?
15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: All we' re doing is
approving that setback. We' re going to say, you
16 do this --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We' re asking for more
17 papers we can adjourn the hearing, until we
receive those papers .
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s either that or
close the hearing subject to the Board making a
19 decision.
MS . MOORE : No subject to me . I have to
20 submit a new site plan.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But they' re not
21 agreeable on that plan, just agreeing to
alternative relief .
22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : But there' s no vote
on this plans for them to consider, Jerry' s asking
23 for it to consider, see what I 'm saying?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We were just going to
24 have a preliminary beginning of the hearing, but
if the Board thinks the hearing is completed --
25 MS . MOORE : It' s up to the Board, I
explained why the new drawings --
May 25, 2006
113
1
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Whether that' s
actually enough. The original plan was to
3 postpone . What we expected to do, the original
motion was to have this hearing held a month from
4 now, and you said can I make some of my
presentations now?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes, yes, yes .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What I'm saying is
6 we don' t know if you can arrive at the three votes
to get that .
7 MS . MOORE : If there' s a majority of the
Board that is satisfied that the extra five feet .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can' t know that
tonight .
9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what I 'm
saying, so they want to adjourn it .
10 MS . MOORE : I don' t want a denial .
Alternative relief is fine but I don' t know how
11 much.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then keep it open
12 if you want to discuss it further.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We' re riot going to
13 discuss the merits of the proposal now. The only
thing before us is whether to adjourn the hearing
14 or keep the hearing open.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion
15 would be to adjourn the hearing until the special
meeting at which time we will close the hearing.
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s not
adjourning it, that' s closing it .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You adjourn it to the
next hearing.
18 MS . MOORE : If I can interject, I just
need to know if you' re in agreement with the Town
19 Trustees opinion of this .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We don' t know that
20 yet .
MS . MOORE : I can poll the Board and ask
21 how you individually feel about it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This would be out of
22 order.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO:. May I say
23 something?
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim.
24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We've done that all
the time . A special meeting is not a special
25 meeting, it' s a meeting .just like this meeting, we
just make decisions .
May 25, 2006
114
1
2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s close the
hearing subject receiving it in writing.
3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No . We can close
the hearing and we can make our decisions based on
4 what we've heard today. She' s agreeable to going
back five feet, and we can make that decision.
5 This is not rocket science .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The only reason to
6 keep the hearing open is if you want to make
further arguments or if we have further questions,
7 we need to ask.
'MS . MOORE : Obviously, I don' t want to.
8 have a denial that pushes us 10 feet away. We
still have. a variance for the side yard, but I
9 think in all fairness ' to the owner --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a matter of
10 probabilities . It' s a matter of which is more
likely to receive a denial, closing the meeting
11 now or allowing the meeting to continue .
MS . MOORE : Okay.
12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there any
possibility of moving the whole thing 10 feet
13 closer to the road?
MS . MOORE : Honestly, you' re changing the
14 whole character of the area .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I 'm interested in this
15 piece of property, I'm interested in this bluff,
what has gone before has gone before . We' re
16 addressing this one .
MS . MOORE : You have previously granted a
17 setback for the enclosed porch with a house that
was already close to the bluff . So that' s already
18 on record as having been approved by this Board.
We came to you with a much better application and
19 you' re asking us to push way away. .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we weren' t
20 demolishing another house so we had no
jurisdiction.
21 MS . MOORE : But, I'm sorry, you still have
the hole . The impact on the property is still
22 there .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It doesn' t work that
23 way. We had a house when they wanted to demolish
it was about eight feet from the bay, and they
24 wanted to rebuild on that footprint, we said no
way, if they want a new house, they' re going to
25 stick it much further back. So demolition doesn' t
mean you can do whatever you would have done had
May 25, 2006
115
1
2 you not --
MS . MOORE : No, no, no, anticipating.
3 Actually, maybe I shouldn' t give you things that I
think are more favorable, you should direct me to
4 do it . I gave you a house that is 83 feet from
the top of the bluff and the patio isn' t wood,
5 it ' s patio, and the Building Department even took
the position, well, patio doesn' t need a variance .
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I don' t think the
Board has had the time to look at the new plan
7 that they just got today, you' re rushing the
Board:
8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: . It' s my fault .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I 'm sorry, I would
9. recommend that you adjourn it so you can consider
it .
10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think so too . I
would like to make a motion to adjourn the hearing
11 until June 22nd at 10 : 00 a.m. So we have a better
chance to look and review the old ones, the new
12 ones and speak to the Trustees and be better
informed than we are today.
13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You may want to go
back to the site.
14 MS . MOORE : It' s your call . I thought it
was a simplified approach, but, hey, what do I
15 know.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then we need the
plans .
17 MS . MOORE : You have the plans .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You were going to
18 offer something else .
MR. CHORNO: Five feet back?
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can in send
anything.
20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Any way that you
feel that you would like to submit it .
21 MS . MOORE : Well, wait a second.
BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to clarify
22 for him.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You can send in
23 anything that you think will help you when we
reopen the hearing in four weeks .
24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Chairwoman is
saying 10 feet, and others asking for five foot .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will withdraw
my five feet and say ten.
May 25 , 2006
116
1
2 MR. CHORNO : The ten will create a problem
for the septic system.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that an existing
septic system?
4 MS . MOORE : No, it' s a replacement system.
But we have the sanitary approval from the Health
5 Department .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How close is that to
6 the road?
MR. CHORNO: The road is a little further
7 down. It ' s eight feet from the road. I think the
minimum is for the road the septic system are
8 here .
CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The two circles I take
9 it are the septic systems here?
MS . MOORE : Yes, the two circles and this
10 tank. From the house the tank has to be 10 feet ;
between the tank and the sanitary ring it has to
11 be eight feet; then the sanitary ring and another
eight feet . So they pushed it to the sanitary --
12 it ' s as close as we can get .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The hearing has
13 been closed.
MS . MOORE: Well, may we reopen so we can
14 keep talking?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You come in with
15 any alternatives at all, five of them if you have
five of them.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
May 25, 2006
117
1
2
3
4 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
5
6 I , Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
7 State of New York, do hereby certify:
8 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
9 the testimony given.
10 I further certify that I am not related by
11 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
12 action; and
13 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
14 of this matter.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16 hand this 25th day of May, 2006 .
17
18
19
20
Florence V. Wiles
21
22
23
24
25
May 25, 2006