Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/28/2006 Hearing 1 ' 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 --------------------------------------------X 5 T O W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S 8 9 --------------------------------------------X Southold Town Hall 10 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11 September 28 , 2006 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 14 Board Members Present 15 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 16 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 17 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member 18 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 21 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 22 23 cRyc �Q/'��"7 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' d like to call to order our regularly scheduled meeting of September 3 28 , 2006 . I' d like to have a motion stating all our applications have a negative declaration. 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our first hearing is for the Michelsens on Rabbit Lane in East 6 Marion. Would -you like to tell us what you would like to do? 7 MS . MICHELSEN: Valerie Michelsen, 860 Rabbit Lane . We would like to add a second story 8 over part of the existing house . There are a number of homes that have added up; so it would 9 not be blocking anyone' s view. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I hadn',t been down 10 there for a while . I see everyone across the street has gone up and up and up to get the view, 11 but I was surprised, quite a few on the bay have not really put second stories on. I don' t have 12 any questions particularly. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was wondering 13 if it' s going to change the FEMA situation, and you' re going to have to change the elevation of 14 the house in any way? MS . MICHELSEN: I don' t believe so . We -- 15 I don' t believe so. I think we have gutters on the house . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just going to say that . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And dry wells by the road as near to the road as you can get . 18 MS . MICHELSEN: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t have much 19 room in the front . MS . MICHELSEN: So far, no. We haven' t 20 heard definitively from the DEC. Back about six or seven years ago there wa.s some concern about 21 the elevation. We have a basement . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You do? And it' s dry? 22 MS . MICHELSEN: Yes . The only time we had trouble was last fall, when everybody got water. 23 It was coming up from the ground. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 24 MS . MICHELSEN: And when we had a new survey done . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It showed the first floor as 9 . 6 . September 28 , 2006 3 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you just sort of squeaked in, which was lucky. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you may be all right on that . Because that would cause a 4 phenomenal excavation. You' d have to take the basement out and put it on pilings . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They' re a little bit higher. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, they are, I noticed that . 7 MS . .MICHELSEN: But wouldn' t they have required that already? 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They should have . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . The only 9 reason I ask that is it may require additional infrastructure that may require you to come back 10 and that' s the reason I ask the question. In the house itself, even though you' re using the 11 existing footprint . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If it changes the 12 height . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If it changes 13 the height . MS . MICHELSEN: Okay, I know there was 14 something where we had the bluestone, and they had to flip it and put it a different way because of 15 the supporting structure . They would have had to change the beam down in the basement . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Assuming that the dry wells don' t work on site, you have the 17 ability to go across the right of way and place dry wells for the roof runoff? 18 MS . MICHELSEN: I guess . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you have a 19 right of .way over the- road and what you would do is just put them in. 20 MS . MICHELSEN: He was there and actually pointed out where he would put them and he does 21 this. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, thank you. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No questions, they 23 have all been addressed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you tearing the house down? 25 MS . MICHELSEN: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re just going September 28 , 2006 4 1 2 to put right on top? MS . MICHELSEN: Over the existing. We 3 have a living room, kitchen area, I don' t want to go over that . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That was my next question, why you couldn' t move it to the other 5 side that' s the reason why. MS . MICHELSEN: I'm really only adding one 6 bedroom and one bath. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So your foundation 7 will support this? MS . ,.MICHELSEN: I don' t understand. They 8 showed me, apparently there' s something about turning the roof a different way that was 9 according to the architect -- BOARD .MEMBER DINIZIO: We have had trouble 10 with people starting a renovation, then suddenly finding out that the basement wasn' t good enough, 11 their foundation was crumbling, and then all of a sudden they end up with what ends up to be a hole 12 in the ground for months . You' re okay with dry wells . The basement exists . I think I have no 13 other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have any questions . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this application? 16 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 17 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Giordanos . On Case Road in Cutchogue . 19 MR. GIORDANO : Hi, I'm Ed Giordano. I have an application pending to modify or to move 20 into the setback of the bluff of the property. Our architect designed the facade in the front 21 mistakenly or whatever, infringed upon the 40 foot setback. I 'm not sure what else I'm supposed to 22 say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you were 23 supposed to send us an amended map from your architectural drawings . The architectural 24 drawings said one thing and your survey said another thing. 25 MR. GIORDANO: May I come up? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . September 28 , 2006 5 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The setback, Mr. Giordano, is now 38 . 8 to the portico. I just 3 want to confirm that into the record because it' s being recorded. I 'm just confirming it for the 4 record. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I like where you live 5 down there . MR. GIORDANO: We do too . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, the question 8 that I had was answered by this updated survey. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only issue here was the front yard setback; is that correct? 10 , CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which has been 11 taken care of, thank you, no questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions . The only difference on the front setback are these bay 13 windows that are being built out just a couple of feet ; is that right? Okay, I have no questions . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this application? 15 If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 16 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Orito on Stars Road in East Marion. Good morning 18 again, Mr. Orito. I think we've seen you before . MR. ORITO : Yes, I've been here before . I 19 live at 3420 Stars Road. And we would like to build a sun room on the side of our house . We 20 have a porch now and you can sit out there and get eaten alive by bugs . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Really, you mean you' re the only one? Okay. You want to put that really 22 more in the rear yard, right . We already gave you a variance before in the rear yard. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So now it' s in the side yard. 24 MR. ORITO: It' s a long piece of property. There' s quite a lot of room on the 25 side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice house . September 28 , 2006 6 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand the only extension of the rear setback is that the house is 3 being built to the side and therefore extends the length of the house to the rear of the house . So 4 it doesn' t go any further to the rear boundary line than is already the case . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have such a small rear yard. It' s very heavily landscaped all 6 the way around. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a nice 7 place . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The porch really 8 would have no visual impact on anybody. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any questions . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD .MEMBER SIMON: No questions . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this 13 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 14 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Russo on Oakwood Drive in Southold for a hot tub 16 and shed. Good morning, how are you this morning? MS . RUSSO: Cathy Russo at 775 Oakwood. 17 We wanted a hot tub. Actually, once we have the garage built it will be behind the garage, and we 18 are trying to keep it away from the wetlands . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You are 75 feet? 19 MS . RUSSO: Yes, and that' s all we have to keep it . And also the setback variance because 20 the DEC wanted us to move it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a two car 21 garage that you' re going to add to the front elevation basically. 22 MS . RUSSO: For the garage . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the only 23 variance .is for the garage? MS . RUSSO : And the front to the left . 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That you' re extending over on the front elevation? 25 MS . RUSSO: Yes . So it goes all the way across . - September 28 , 2006 7 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Front yard setback variance . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Have we granted anything on the shed? 4 MS . RUSSO: Excuse me? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has the Board 5 granted anything on the shed? MS . RUSSO: No. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s only rear notice for part of today' s hearing. 7 MS . RUSSO: You mean the hot tub or the shed? The hot tub will be behind the garage . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The rear yard. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm concerned 9 about closing up the side yards on a waterfront piece of property with the existing shed. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The lesser of the two elevations, however, are on the right-hand 11 side of the property where the garage is being proposed; is that correct? That' s the greater? I 12 have to be honest with you, I was over on Sunday morning and I didn' t want to go walking all over 13 with your neighbors there . They watch down there very, very well and I didn' t want to cause any 14 police action. It was 9 : 30 , 10 : 00, and it wasn' t any big deal . So I didn' t get a chance to look at 15 the opening on the other side . Excuse me for jumping in on this . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How long has the shed been there? 17 MS . RUSSO: Couple of years . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That could be 18 moved if you needed to get into the rear yard anyway, right? It' s not on a permanent 19 foundation? MS . RUSSO: No, - it' s on cinder block. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s under 100 square feet anyway. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a very small building and actually even with the garage 22 addition, there' s plenty of ingress and egress on the side yard to the bulkhead. There' s lots of 23 room. MS . RUSSO: We actually have one of the 24 smaller houses . Most of our neighbors have -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wanted to move the 25 shed a foot? MS . RUSSO: Yes . September 28 , 2006 8 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s 75 feet from the wetlands . Because that' s what the DEC 3 requires . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : As a minimum 75 . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No. So the shed is 5 not an issue for us specifically. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It is . It still 6 requires a variance because of the location. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The shed itself, the 7 preexisting shed. Because they' re having to move it . But with regard to the front yard setback, 8 because of the covered porch, you' re going to be reducing the front yard setback by a small amount; 9 is that correct? MS . RUSSO: Two feet . 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . And so that' s really the only one that could possibly be a 11 problem, and I'm not sure there is one with regard to the hot tub. It looks to everybody as though 12 it' s in the back yard. It' s only because the garage is an attached garage and that defines the 13 side yard. Since it' s not visible from the road, and it' s only in a very technical way in this side 14 yard, it' s not clear to me that that' s a big problem. It will be less visible than it is now, 15 not really. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 16 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 17 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is Peconic 19 Bay Materials on Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. Mr. Pawlowski, and he wants to convert a landscape 20 contractor' s yard into a contractor and business yard. Tell us what you would like to do, and how 21 you' re moving everything around, and what it' s going to look like . 22 MR. REEVES : Charlie Reeves . We' re looking for a special exception for a general 23 contractor' s yard. Just general contractor use . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I go on this 24 one? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, go ahead, Jerry. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was not terribly impressed with the first way this project September 28 , 2006 9 1 2 was presented. And we -- let me say, I in the opinion of justice asked Mr. Pawlowski to do the 3 things which he has done, which have been wonderful for this particular piece of property. 4 So in order to garner my vote, since I live in the area and go by this project, this very nice 5 situation he has now, I need to know how things are going to change . Okay. I need to know if 6 tractor trailers are going to go in, which they' re not easily accessed in this property. Cox Neck 7 Road is an extremely heavily traveled road. It is a road that has seen an inordinate amount of 8 traffic for the amount of people that live down there, and I think the present owner has done a 9 good job in holding the use of the property down for the use that he has . And I am specifically 10 concerned with what' s going to happen in the future, if the Board is so inclined to grant this 11 special exception. So why don' t you give us a laundry list of what you' re going to do . 12 MR. PAWLOWSKI : . How are you, I' m Paul Pawlowski . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you? MR. PAWLOWSKI : Basically the only reason 14 why the change of plans has happened is I ' ve owned this property four years now, and I sold my 15 landscaping company, and basically getting out of the business . I've been working with John for 16 nine years directly basically doing the same thing exactly. As far as you' re concerned, the property 17 and the neighborhood, the building itself, the landscaping, the trees, the gate, everything you 18 see there is staying exactly how you see it . In addition in the back, we' re doing a stockade fence 19 in the back to stop some of the litter that comes . As far as the type of business, he does the type 20 of business I did. It' s very similar. As far as tractor trailer use, it will be the same exact as 21 it' s been for the last four years . On occasion, as I did, I would periodically have, once a month 22 have a delivery of plants which would be a larger vehicle, but I have had that happen for the last 23 four years monthly, that' s pretty much one day out of every month a larger tractor trailer which 24 comes in, just like the vineyard has across the street, they get deliveries, that would be the 25 larger vehicles that they' re asking about . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only September 28 , 2006 10 1 2 difference is they have much greater road frontage and the ability to turn around. 3 MR. PAWLOWSKI : I agree 100 percent but monthly I do want you to know that the deliveries 4 I had he' s going to be getting the same deliveries I did. That' s why the large vehicles would come 5 in monthly. As far as the use and the type of trucks he has and everything that he has, it' s 6 exactly what I had for the last four years . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the major 7 problems that we had was the ability or the inability of this property to support the stocking 8 of materials and the bringing in of stuff that had to be tub grinded. 9 MR. PAWLOWSKI : There hasn' t been any of that since -- 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I commended you for that, I'm serious . You've done a 11 wonderful job. The place looks beautiful and I think since I live in the general area, I 'm not 12 taking the lead on this, I'm just simply saying I want to know what the difference is . 13 MR. PAWLOWSKI : That' s why I'm talking first, John will talk second. I just want to 14 speak on behalf of what he' s done, had been doing. Nothing' s going to change as far as what 15 you've expected from me and what you should expect from John. His trucks are the same size as 16 mine . He has the same amount of machinery. He has an excavator like I had an excavator. He has 17 a tractor like I had a tractor. Everything that you've seen for the last four years he has, even 18 the same .color trucks basically. It' s very interesting because I went for 19 this special use 40 years ago, and when I originally sold John the property he' s like well, 20 I just want to make sure it says landscape contractor. It seems like we' re going for the 21 same variance that I already have, but we want to just make it contractor' s use because we did go to 22 the building inspector and did talk to him about, and he goes well, why are you even going for a 23 variance . And we' re like well, it says landscape contractors, and that' s what he has, but we don' t 24 understand what the difference is between that and a general contractor, we' re not sure about that . 25 For us, we went back and forth and because it' s like well, you did what I do, so that' s not going September 28 , 2006 11 1 2 to change . That' s the biggest thing here . We don' t know why we' re here . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s go back to four years ago and I said to you four years ago -- 4 and I' ll make this general statement and again, there' s nothing wrong with the operation that I 5 could see, and I said to you, remember we have the ability to take it away. 6 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That wasn' t a 7 threat; it' s something we' re telling you we have done it in the past . We haven' t done it recently, 8 but we have done it in the past . MR. PAWLOWSKI : I remember when there was 9 no building or structure, there was a mulching pit . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We saw a lot of stumps . MR. PAWLOWSKI : That' s no longer. Now 11 it' s a pristine property. As far as what he holds there it' s stone, clean stone material . Back four 12 years ago it was mulch, piles of it, but not like you've seen four years ago. What you've seen for 13 the last four years, you should expect for the next 20 years . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you one last question, and that is being the fee owner 15 of the property presently, have you had any problems with the neighbor to either the east or 16 the neighbor to the north regarding what has existed or what is going to exist? I know that 17 you can' t give me an opinion on what' s going to exist . Then if nothing' s going to change then we 18 can expect the neighbors are not going to be upset . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can I ask you your last name? 20 MR. CONTE : Yes . We- did have an intention to put up a stockade fence in the back. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Are you John Conti? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to 22 do that? MR. CONTE Yes, I am. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to put up a six foot stockade fence across the back? 24 MR. CONTE Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That will be 25 across the entire back? MR. CONTE : Across the entire back. September 28 , 2006 12 1 2 Because I am getting the debris coming from the parking lot . And as far as any other concerns, I 3 do rent property down in Westhampton, and that' s where the bulk of my material is stored. So I 4 don' t need storage there . My trucks go down, I have a pay loader down in that yard. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you sensitive, and are you going to continue to be 6 sensitive regarding the fact that there' s residential to the north of you regarding the 7 starting and use of these vehicles during the season when windows are open? 8 MR. CONTE : I would definitely be considerate of the owner. I mean, I'm in 9 business, I will comply to business hours, which is the usual starting time . I guess, I mean, 10 business starts 6 : 00 , 6 : 30 and we only work daylight hours, if there is anything that has to 11 be done, we pull it inside . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s just the 12 wrapping of diesels when they start in the morning, and of course you can' t use them until 13 they have warmed up. And you wouldn' t use them, I' m sure, because it only does damage . 14 MR. CONTE Right . There is some warm up time, a few minutes and it' s out the gate . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Am I getting that you' re both landscape contractors? 16 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . I just sold my business . 17 MR. CONTE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . So you no 18 longer are but that' s what was happening on that property and you' re going to continue to do the 19 exact same kind of business . So exactly why did you decide to come in before the Board to transfer 20 the special exception to your business name; just so legally you have that proper legal use 21 continued with the change in title? MR. PAWLOWSKI : It says my name so much on 22 it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What materials 23 would you be storing on the premises? MR. CONTE The only materials I have right 24 now is some stone and some sand and that' s it, that' s the only material that are there . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you also deal in plant materials? September 28 , 2006 13 1 2 MR. CONTE : Yes, like Paul said, we do have an occasional truck come in and unload. And 3 placed on the ground, we have irrigation, we keep it there a couple days . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you take it out to the job site . 5 MR. CONTE : The restrictions for -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it' s not my nature, since I'm a businessman myself, but the 7 conversation I just heard doesn' t match what the disapproval says, which is you have an existing 8 landscaping contractor' s yard and you want now an excavation contractor' s yard. 9 MR. CONTE : I want a general contractor' s yard. What happens is when someone sees, gets an 10 appraisal on landscaping, they see a pick-up truck and a lawn mower, I don' t want someone to get the 11 wrong impression that that' s what' s there, that it' s a pick-up truck and a lawn mower. I do have 12 equipment and let' s say someone buys a house next door and they see they' re under the impression 13 that there' s a landscaper there, and they' re going to see a pick-up and a lawn mower there . I do 14 have a lot of equipment . I have the same equipment that Paul had. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is what? MR. CONTE: Which is the bobcat and the 16 excavator and a dump truck and trailer. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Cranes, bulldozers . 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Backhoe? MR. CONTE : No cranes, no bulldozers . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Perhaps you can give us an affidavit exactly what you' re going to be 19 storing on the property and the type of machinery you' re going to be using so we have it for the 20 record? MR. CONTE : Okay. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not too 22 concerned about what you' re using. I am concerned about this excavation contractor as opposed to 23 landscape contractor. Because the connotation of an excavation contractor is bulldozers and cranes 24 and digging holes in the ground that are not used for a tree but rather for large buildings . So 25 it' s a different type of business and my assumption is that that also has been distributed September 28 , 2006 14 1 2 in our code . I didn' t go back to look at it, but looking at the disapproval, see I get the 3 impression that the Building Inspector had to be talked into this as opposed to just you guys just 4 go ahead and doing what you need to do . Because it says, you may now apply to these agencies 5 directly. You know, I've never seen that line on a disapproval . . 6 MR. CONTE : That wasn' t our wording at all . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it' s his . I was just wondering why it was there . 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think I . can answer that . I believe it' s because they don' t 9 need any variances . When it' s a direct special exception, they don' t write disapprovals . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . I agree with you there . Normally it' s just you come and 11 apply to us, and we don' t even see a disapproval . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think with respect 12 to the question of why you' re here, it seems to me, I see it a little bit more clearly. I see the 13 problem. When you apply for the special exception you applied directly to the ZBA, you didn' t have a 14 turn down. Now, you wanted to get the transfer and a decision was made, which I think is a 15 reasonable one; that the application now because there is no ambiguity as to how similar and how 16 different it is as though this is the first application for a special exception I was being made 17 today before us . And the standard that we would apply is does it really have anything to do -- the 18 standard that was applied four years ago, but whether what is being done now is consistent with 19 our judgment with regard to the special exception. And I think people agree with that and given the 20 answers to your questions, would you be willing to accept conditions that made clear that there were 21 not going to be cranes and bulldozers and so forth? There wasn' t going to be a slippery slope 22 of putting in heavier and heavier equipment because now it' s becoming a full fledged 23 excavating business; would that be a friendly condition that you could live with? 24 MR. CONTE : Yes . , BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Which was the 25 direction I was going. Even the larger dump truck, I 'm not versed in what you call them, the September 28 , 2006 15 1 2 big one with the nine wheels in the back or whatever. There' s a connotation when you' re 3 saying excavating and you' re landscaping, to me landscaping is pick-up trucks and the small dump 4 trucks . I mean, I have a guy across the street from me does it out of his house, I'm fine with 5 that, but I don' t want to see him coming up with Corzini' s trucks . 6 MR. CONTE : No. The last four years I 've had 20 yard trucks, 10 wheelers go in and out of 7 there; that' s different than a large tractor trailer with a 40 yard bed on it, but we 8 specifically designed that property with the 30 foot Cedar trees, the 30 foot privet, and the 9 fence so it' s not the guy across the street . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I agree, but 10 you' re in a residential area on top of the fact . MR. CONTE : I agree, I bought that 11 property by the person next door and was surrounded by the vineyard, the deli, and the 12 tractor trailer mechanic . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I understand all of 13 that and believe me, honestly, my feeling is if it' s a business piece of property you could do 14 anything you' d like to do, but if it' s in our code and people expect -- when they read that code, 15 they expect certain things from us, and one of those things is we limit it . If we' re limiting it 16 by special exception that we need to be clear when we grant these things that it' s fair to everybody. .17 That' s what it comes down to . People read the code and they say, oh, yeah, that' s what you did. 18 I hear a conversation before me that says, oh, we' re not going to do anything different . We just 19 don' t want to be called landscaping, we want to be called excavating. Well, that' s okay, I install 20 alarm systems . I don' t know about landscaping and the difference between landscaping and excavating, 21 you do . You need to explain that to us, so that we' re. comfortable with the fact that it' s not 22 going to change . Because it seems to me that whoever wrote the code saw a difference between 23 the two . MR. CONTE : When you have a landscaper, 24 you' re changing the landscape of the property, putting soil down, putting dry wells in, so on and 25 so forth. So, it' s still going to incorporate these types of machinery in order to do it . So September 28 , 2006 16 1 2 that' s why the larger equipment comes in. I 'm still doing the plant material, still doing 3 landscaping. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But you do have to 4 do grading. When you do grading, you have to use heavier equipment, obviously. 5 MR. CONTE : But nothing in the caliber that we' re doing. We' re not taking over a 40 6 house subdivision that you need to use huge equipment in there . There' s taking something that 7 can fit back behind a dump truck and fit on a site . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what I ' m thinking. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you comfortable with the suggestion of defining, in addition to a 10 list of items to be stored and equipment to be used on site, describing the nature of activities, 11 the scope of the business that is part of that, simply so we' re very clear about the activities 12 that will be taking place on the premises? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like for us 13 not to do that . I would like for you to do that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what we' re 14 saying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I 'm 15 saying. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have to write 16 this decision. Honestly, I prefer to grant for you exactly what you need to keep your business 17 going, but you've got to tell us what to do because I have on more than one occasion written 18 in the decision that says something and turns into something else and not by my fault or anybody 19 else' s fault just by what the words said. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that' s the 20 point, if they will define for themselves and define to us the scope of the business operations 21 along with equipment and materials, then we' ll have a complete understanding of what we' re 22 extending this special exception for. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Including what it 23 will not be, if you can. Listen, it' s not going to be an asphalt yard. It' s not going to be 24 storage for a large whatever, it' s not going to be mounds of manure . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what you' re voluntarily placing on the property, and that is September 28 , 2006 17 1 2 the fence, to what degree, what footage you' re placing it, what the footage is across the back 3 and the footage on the side . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Just be careful 4 about the side yard, can only go to the front of the building and go down. You don' t want to have 5 to reapply for the fence . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Just stay within 6 not needing to get a variance . I appreciate your listening to me . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Have you closed on the property with Paul? 8 MR. CONTE : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just for the record, 9 thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If 10 not , I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. Pending the receipt 11 of what you' re going to do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If there' s no 12 objections, I just need it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : For next week' s 13 meeting. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Was there someone in 14 the back that wishes to speak? Yes, sir. MR. TERRANOVA: Giacomo Terranova, I 'm the 15 owner of the strip center north of the property. My thing is it' s going to be deposits for compost, 16 for mulch that will smell and come into the store . It' s going to be storage for people to come and 17 buy your sand and your gravels . MR. CONTE : Just for my own personal . 18 MR. TERRANOVA: Just for your own? MR. CONTE : Not a retail . 19 MR. TERRANOVA: That' s my concern and I point it out openly here . So it would be nothing 20 that will smell . Okay, so that' s it . You' re going to put a fence on my side as well, so you 21 don' t get the debris? MR. CONTE : Yes . 22 MR. TERRANOVA: When I bought this property a few years ago he was doing the 23 landscaping and sometimes they do mulch, they ground the wood. 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what we' re not in favor of . 25 MR. TERRANOVA: Sometimes a piece of wood will fly over my side, this piece of wood will fly September 28 , 2006 18 1 2 over my side, and it' s going to hit somebody on the head. So I was not happy with that . So I 3 pointed that out . I hope we' re not going to have the same thing. 4 MR. PAWLOWSKI : That was prior to the building. 5 MR. TERRANOVA: No, that was when you had the building. You would do mulch and mulch would 6 fly over to my side . I showed you once . MR. PAWLOWSKI : I remember when you showed 7 me that . MR. TERRANOVA: Hopefully we won' t have 8 the same thing again. And also on the back of their property when we have the line of trees 9 across, my property is here, this property is here, and the excavator this property went down 10 like this; so all the land from the tree is gone this way. I appreciate the new owner will fill 11 that up, make sure we don' t have the tree falling down. Everything is gone this way, so the trees 12 in the back are falling down cause they have no roots . So that' s my concern. Okay. If it' s not 13 going to be any yard going in because I do have a pizza place in the shop because I'm concerned 14 about open the back door, the dust coming in, the noise or the machinery going on all day. Because 15 you had a guy across the street Foster, he had a yard across the street and he was doing 16 excavation. So the dust from that side will come to my- side . If he' s in the back it' s even worse . 17 So that' s my concern, I hope you take that into consideration. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is why we requested the description of what will and will 19 not happen on the premise, to make sure that they continue to be the good neighbors that they seem 20 to be . MR. TERRANOVA: No problem with that . 21 Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Any further 22 comments? If not, I will make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 23 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Mary McCabe, who wishes to build a swimming pool, 25 Hi . MS . MCCABE : Good morning, Mary McCabe . I September 28 , 2006 19 1 2 would like to put an inground pool in at 250 Angler' s Road in Greenport . I do have the return 3 cards that I got . One property that I know of the people were actually driving back to Seattle, so 4 they have not returned that card yet . They are aware of the pool and they didn' t have any 5 difficulty with the idea . I also have for you three doctors' s notes, medical doctors . Shall I 6 just read these to you? They' re the doctor' s handwriting. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, just hand them up. MS . MCCABE : I have severe arthritis, I 8 had a hip replacement, and I have great difficulty with weight bearing exertion on my joints, on my 9 other hip and my knees, which need to be replaced. So a pool is one of the best exercises that I 10 could do . Safety concerns of a pool, I'm only too well aware of . I worked in an emergency room for 11 21 years; I've been a registered nurse since 1978 . I know CPR, I know advanced cardiac life support . 12 I plan on putting a fence around the pool, and I 'm planning on putting not an opaque fence but either 13 a metal fence or picket fence, something that allows a view if I'm sitting on my deck that I can 14 watch what' s going on in the pool . I also would . love to get a pool alarm that actually is in the 15 water, an alarm when somebody goes in the pool, which I hope won' t be a deer which I have a lot of 16 in my neighborhood. I took many., many years of swimming lessons and my son, whose nine year old 17 also swims well and has had swimming lessons . Family recreation wise, having a nine year old son 18 in Greenport, it is a concern to me when I go downtown Greenport and see a lot of kids hanging 19 out all over the place . I would be much happier to keep him and his friends close to home, and I 20 feel that if I have a pool he' ll have less reason to be hanging out on street corners, 7-Eleven. We 21 also have -- we don' t have many kids there this time of year, but during the summer we have lots 22 of children in the neighborhood, and which will also be invited to be part of our pool family. 23 Another problem for me in using the beaches is that I sometimes use a cane and I have 24 great difficulty lugging a cooler, a chair, an umbrella to the beach. It' s just physically very 25 difficult for me to do that . That' s about the outline that I have here . September 28 , 2006 20 1 2. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Actually, according to my note, the only problem that you really have is 3 you have two front yards . But you have a fair amount of property there . 4 MS . MCCABE : It' s . 62 acres, and the rear of the property, which would be toward Gull Pond, 5 which is the east, before I bought the property -- it' s almost 10 years ago -- many trees had come 6 down during hurricanes, also all along my neighbor' s property, my property and the other 7 neighbor to the other side, .there' s a stone fence, so I couldn' t even drive a vehicle back there if I 8 wanted to . I don' t want to do anything to that property because the deer live back there . I have 9 turtles, tree frogs, tortoises . I am a great nature lover, I don' t put pesticides down, I have 10 praying mantises everywhere and I just want to have -- I don' t think it' s outside the realm of 11 what' s going on in the neighborhood, there are several other pools and I very much respect the 12 environment and I have lived here my entire life . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss McCabe, we run into,.a minor little problem with these dual 14 front yard situations and I ' ll make that as a generalization, we need to know -- and I just want 15 to explain this to you -- if the deck or stone patio is at ground level -- we don' t need to know 16 that, but if it' s going to be elevated at all above the ground, we need to know the closest 17 point or the dimensions between the pool and the front property line on the next road. We need to 18 know that . We have run into a major problem with that in another situation in Mattituck. If you 19 could just afford the Board that information we would appreciate it . Please remember, if there' s 20 any elevation of the pool, then we need to know what the width of that deck is that goes around it 21 or whatever that cement patio is also. MS . MCCABE: It' s not going to be a 22 deck. I have a deck attached to the house that' s been there . The pool will just be in the ground. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you could give us the measurement . 24 MS . MCCABE : I ' ll have .to measure it out . I have a survey of the property done and 25 perhaps if I speak to the surveyor, they could speak to that . September 28 , 2006 21 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks like you have 72 feet from the right of way. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have it shown on mine . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s here, 72 feet from there to there . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We don' t know if that' s to the fence line or to the pool . Would 6 you just confirm that for us that 72 feet is to the pool and not to the fence? 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s got to be to the pool . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s all we' re asking her to do is to confirm that . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That right of way is heavily screened by shrub and landscape . It is 10 actually in what we call the architectural rear yard because your primary frontage is along 11 Anglers so although you technically do have frontage along the right of way, it really is the 12 only place that you can put it, otherwise it would end up in your side yard. 13 MS . MCCABE : Then that would interfere with -- 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And it' s close to your house, and I think it' s quite reasonably 15 sited, but if you could just simply have a measurement from where exactly the inground pool 16 is and perhaps even from where you propose to put the fence to the property line on the right of 17 way, that would be helpful because the 72 feet appears to be to the edge of the pool, but it' s a 18 little ambiguous . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The right of way 19 is actually a road; is it not? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s an improved -- 20 MS . MCCABE : I believe there are two right of ways actually, the one behind me and then there 21 is a road that had been paved at one point, but when it rounds the Derga' s property, it' s not 22 paved. But the other road is paved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But the part behind 23 you is not . MS . MCCABE : There are only two people 24 that access, Larry Tuttle and Gary Heaney access the dock and then Mr. Kraus and then his neighbor 25 Mr. -- I can' t think of his name, begins with a B . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . There' s not a September 28 , 2006 22 1 2 lot of traffic in there and residences and I don' t see how it would have much visual impact on 3 anybody driving past it . MS . MCCABE : Okay, so shall I come back 4 next week? , CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, just send it to us 5 as soon as possible . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Call the surveyor 6 tomorrow and have him confirm it . Then they can make the decision next week if we have it from you 7 tomorrow. MS . MCCABE : Okay, I ' ll leave you these 8 two things . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Jim, do you 9 have any questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. We just need 10 that distance so she doesn' t need a variance later on. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I concur with Miss 12 Weisman' s comments with what she calls the architectural front yard, and I don' t see any 13 problem with this having looked at it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 14 this audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 15 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 17 for the Cutchogue Free Library, and for some renovations and expansion because people are 18 reading more . They' re using the library more . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank God 19 they' re using the library more . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh; h& s got a model . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a good guy, look at this . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s beautiful . MR. NEMSCHEK: We brought up the model so 22 visually we can understand. For the record I'm Nemschek, the architect for the Cutchogue Library 23 additions and alterations . Cutchogue Library right now we were denied 24 or the disapproval was issued from the Building Department noting the Walz decision as far as 25 increasing the level of nonconformity. With the dormers to the south portion of the site, and I September 28 , 2006 23 1 2 think on your site plan, I hatched in where that 40 foot line comes through the building itself . 3 So really, the two dormers that we' re talking about are the ones that are located in the back . 4 One is minimal, to say the least, if you look up to the front of that model and the rear one, the 5 rear ones actually pushed through to the exterior wall of the construction of the existing 6 library. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that a dormer 7 or a reverse gable? MR. NEMSCHEK: There' s a reverse gable and 8 two dormers . But the reverse gable is really just falsed in on the top . The true construction of 9 this are two shed dormers and then some roofing false to get on the top, to get the look that we 10 wanted and the look that we desired. The Library itself it' s important to note 11 that we' re not changing the footprint of the library. What we are doing, and I ' ll just take 12 you through the actual construction and what we' re proposing to do throughout the project so we can 13 have a clear understanding of where we' re going with this . The existing library is housed -- and 14 I ' m going to refer to it as kind of three different things, first is the former church 15 structure, which is circa 1862 ; the second is a connector piece or the circulation area or the low 16 portion on the model; and the third is the heavy timber addition, both of which the connector and 17 the heavy timber addition were created in 1986 . I don' t know if anyone remembers that . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Vividly. MR. NEMSCHEK: Yeah. I mean, growing up, 19 I remember seeing it go up and understanding how they melded into the existing church structure, 20 but not to the point where they tried to match it, and I appreciated that back then, and I appreciate 21 it now still more . The library is in desperate need of more 22 space for their collection. Overnight the population doesn' t change so the uses of the 23 library doesn' t change as far as how many people use it . But what does change is that we' re just 24 creating more space for the community to exist in. In addition to creating mezzanine or second 25 story levels inside the existing structure, hence the dormers to get head height on the back September 28 , 2006 24 1 2 portions, we' re also creating a situation where we' re not disturbing the interior volumes ' as much 3 as possible . One of the things that we all love about this library is the sense of volumes and the 4 sense of space . I have two drawings that kind of depict different portions of what we' re looking to 5 accomplish with the library (handing) . I offer those as visual aids . The library itself, one of 6 the other things that we' re going to do is we' re going to excavate underneath the existing 1862 7 church structure . And we' re going to create a multifunctional room underneath there for any kind 8 of pick-up meetings that they might have or yoga class or whatever functions that the library 9 chooses to do there . We would also have an elevator serving all three stops; and a ramp 10 that' s going to service to the front entrance, not just to the back entrance now so the handicapped 11 have equal access . We have gone through just about every phase of the filing now to the 12 exception of final planning approval . As far as for the variance, all we' re 13 concerned with is creating the head height and the space that the community desperately needs for 14 their existing library. So that' s what we' re here for today. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question. Is that first drawing the reverse 16 gable? MR. NEMSCHEK: The first drawing is 17 actually the existing church structure . And what' s going to happen is that the existing church 18 itself -- if everybody' s been in the library it has a flat ceiling right now. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MR. NEMSCHEK: Above that sheetrock are 20 these beautiful heavy timber trusses, and that' s what' s there now. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' re going to expose them? 22 MR. NEMSCHEK: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, it will be 23 beautiful . MR. NEMSCHEK: Basically what' s going to 24 happen is that we' re going to end up with these trusses to the side, we' re going to expose those 25 trusses so that while we do this ring of a gallery space around, I'm trying to offset it by creating September 28 , 2006 25 i 1 2 more volume . Again, it' s kind of a give-and-take . I 'm taking some head height away while getting the 3 rest back. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you a 4 quick question. We don' t really want you to come back again and I ' ll make that as a generalization, 5 in increasing the height of this building by -- you' re not increasing it? 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, just the interior volume is exposed. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just taking the ceiling down. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By putting a basement in you' re not increasing the height of it 9 at all? MR. NEMSCHEK: No, we' re not actually 10 lifting the structure; we' re just loading it, temporarily take the weight off the existing 11 foundation and construct a new basement underneath it . But we' re not raising it at all . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If I make a comment, it' s not really a question, about the library. 13 First of all I think it' s worth noting the library as I understand it has a very interesting history 14 in that the church became a what they call in England a redundant church because this church was 15 created I believe when the congregational church split from the .Presbyterian church over the issue 16 of abolition of the Civil War. And when the Civil War was fought and won by the North, there was no 17 need for that church; so the building was turned into a marvelous community institution, which I 18 understand also has the highest rate of borrowing of any, library in the entire Suffolk County. So 19 this is a community which by a vast majority supported the referendum for this, and I have 20 heard a somewhat slightly different version of this presentation by the architect and by Miss 21 Burns in New Suffolk. It' s the Cutchogue New Suffolk Library, and to me this question of 22 needing the variance is understandable . It makes sense in terms of the code and Walz and so forth, 23 but to me it seems like a no-brainer. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I ' ll say this as a 24 professor of architecture, who has done these models with' my students for 35 years : It' s a real 25 pleasure to see actually hand-drawn perspective as well as a physical model instead of just AutoCAD September 28 , 2006 26 1 2 only is that a great public service because people can understand that kind of visual material, , 3 although your plans are beautifully drawn and very clear, and certainly the way you have explained 4 what is proposed and what' s existing is very commendable, also it' s a very clear set of 5 drawings; we don' t always necessarily get that kind of information that everyone on the Board is 6 able to really understand so compellingly. And I think you have been very sensitive to the existing 7 structure, its historic character; its historic volumes that have changed over time and added 8 on. And I love the fact that you' re going to open up the trusses because that' s what should be 9 there.. It' s really an ugly drop in ceiling and so in a sense you' re going to be enhancing what' s 10 already there as well . I think it' s heavily screened with evergreens in the back. The 11 property behind it has a shed building, a metal shed building with no window. It will have no 12 greater impact on the surroundings than that which is already there . Simply enhance the opportunity 13 for increasing the collection of the library. So I don' t have any difficulty with this project . 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before we go on, I want to tell you that I am the one that' s 15 charged with dealing with this decision, and that' s why I was asking the question regarding the 16 shed dormers as opposed to the reverse gable . Is there any additional information I should know in 17 writing this portion of the decision, which is a very small portion? Is there anything you can 18 afford me either in writing or verbally that I should know in dealing with this in the denial of 19 the Building Department? MR. NEMSCHEK: I have an informational 20 packet that I can give to you, if it makes your position easier to write, with not only the 21 written portions of what I 've just said but also some of the square footage allotment and what 22 we' re going to create with this designation. We' re almost doubling their square footage by 23 staying inside the existing footprint . We' re going to increase their square footage by about 24 4 , 000 square feet to their existing five . But that' s outside of what the basements are . The 25 model as well has the basement portions underneath it . September 28 , 2006 27 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You might want to just show them since it' s a model that comes 3 apart . MR. NEMSCHEK: You know, I think it' s 4 important for you to understand that when we can take apart these pieces and at least show you what 5 we' re going to end up with. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The foundation for the 6 church is going to withstand excavation without raising the foundation? 7 MR. NEMSCHEK: The foundation' s actually going to be removed from the church. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to like prop up the church? 9 MR. NEMSCHEK: We won' t prop it up because if we prop it up we' re going to have to separate 10 it from the addition. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Similar to what 11 Mattituck had to do when they did the Presbyterian. 12 MR. NEMSCHEK: And the same movers are going to be the ones that do it . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How do you remove it without raising it? 14 MR. NEMSCHEK: Basically what we' re doing is we' ll raise it about a quarter of an inch I 15 would say. Meaning that the only way that we can kind of take that foundation out is to pick it up 16 a little bit but not enough so .that the structure will feel any stress . What' s going to happen is 17 that by doing so, we take off the loads of the balloon frame of the church, which is a very 18 interesting structure to say the least because this is one of the only times that I 've seen a 19 floor structure independent of an exterior floor. Normally the floor goes underneath the 20 exterior wall and that wall sits on top of it whether it' s balloon frame or platform frame, that 21 ` happens quite often. In this structure there' s an internal rim joist that actually is let into the 22 exterior stud, but they both sit on a foundation independently. So when we do take the loads off, 23 we' ll excavate around the existing church and drop in rings similar to septic rings and build 24 cribbing inside those rings on either side . So we can take two longitudinal beams outborn from the 25 buildings and then cross-sectional, seven cross sectional steel members through the center. Once September 28 , 2006 28 1 2 that happens, we've taken off the loads on the existing foundation. So we' re free then to 3 excavate down to the bottom of what those rings are; which are going to be bottom or the level of 4 the bottom of the footings . And we' ll be able to do it all from one side . We won' t have to disturb 5 the back portion because the back lot line is kind of close, but we' ll be able to excavate and pick 6 from the front . Once that' s accomplished, we' re kind of free to come in with form work, but that 7 form work' s going to be held two feet below the existing church structure because we have to have 8 space for pumps inside that foundation once we' re done . And the architectural review committee 9 actually enjoyed the notion of the landmarks as well as that stone is an incredibly valuable thing 10 to me . You know we've got this existing stone foundation that' s some 12 inches thick. So we' re 11 going to take that stone and build a wall that rings not only the existing church, but the former 12 addition four feet out . So it' s going to hide the area way and the welled exit that we need to get 13 down. But it will bring back the look of the existing foundation to the church. So we really 14 don' t want to disturb that . That' s a keystone that says 1862 . It would be a tragedy for that 15 not to exist again at the library. And we' re going to match every portion of the existing 16 material to the library with the exception of the barrel dormer in the front is going to be a 17 standings seam copper. So it' s kind of a signature of the latest addition. And we' ll get 18 to see it patinize over time and enjoy the fact that we can mark those kinds of progressions. of 19 the library and hopefully in 20 years, I' ll get the commission to do- another addition to it . So 20 that' s pretty much where we' re going to go with this . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will they be able to operate the rear portion of the library 22 during this? MR. NEMSCHEK: They have the option to 23 phase this if they want to, and that' s stilt under discussion. It' s in three distinct portions . So 24 if they did phase it, the first thing I would like to see accomplished obviously -- and answer the 25 question of loading this church and getting the foundations poured so I can breathe a sigh of September 28 , 2006 29 1 2 relief that we' re not disturbing any more, and it' s possible . We have been over and over and 3 over this . And I have a full set of drawings here that just went out to bid actually, if anybody 4 wants to take a look at them, which are much more detailed. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just don' t give them to us right now. 6 MR: NEMSCHEK: Trust me, I 'm not submitting them as part of this present.ation. But 7 it' s -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I' ll look at them. 8 MR. NEMSCHEK: But it' s really for purposes of phasing this project . The second 9 portion would be the heavy timber structure and for that we' re also going to introduce two smaller 10 steel columns, three inch columns that will sandwich the heavy timber columns inside the 11 former addition. So I don' t have to remove those . The horizontal ones I' ll take out but 12 reinstall them in a decorative fashion to create covers underneath the actual mezzanine that you 13 see, the one closest to me; and that' s the view you' re going to get when you kind of walk off the 14 elevator. And that' s that reverse gable we' re putting on is going to look straight at the old 15 house too, so you' ll have this kind of neat little nook that you see there where you can kind of 16 collect your thoughts and get a quiet reflection space which the library can' t afford any of its 17 patrons at the moment . So, in addition, not taking out those vertical supports gives me the 18 reality that I don' t have to take out the center section of the roof in that main gable that runs 19 through the 1986 addition, which affords the library more to spend on the rest of the 20 construction. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any indication 21 on who built this church at the time? MR. NEMSCHEK: You mean as far as names? 22 I don' t have any. We know it was a Unitarian church to begin with -- Congregational, 23 sorry. And you know, I would imagine, I mean as far as the way it' s built and the style it' s built 24 in, we see this almost every church that you pass, you see from Mattituck to Aquebogue to Cutchogue, 25 there' s a lot of the same characteristics going on. And I think they' re all right around the same September 28 , 2006 30 1 2 circa, which is enjoyable . To tell you the truth I can' t wait for everybody to see those trusses 3 because I've been crawling around up there for the last 10 months, and there' s no mechanical 4 fasteners, they' re all pegged. It' s all mortise and peg joints . The ridge is a dovetail ridge, 5 there' s heavy whalers that come across the outside . Some of the members are five inches by 6 10 inches in dimension, and I think it' s going to be a pleasure to kind of clean them up, not too 7 much, just wipe them down. And we' re going to have wedge uplights and paint the ceiling, and 8 we' ll even get some better insulating quality because the trusses actually fall below the 9 existing roof rafter levels . So we' ll be able to cover the roof rafters, put some rigid insulation 10 in and create a better envelope for the library to work off of . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I can' t wait to see it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very 12 much. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any 13 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, I guess 14 so. First of all, Jerry would like to have the model . He' s building a little town in his house 15 and that would go nicely. The basement, I 'm just concerned about it . I know we had the 16 conversation. What is the existing height of the basement now, and is it going to be increased? 17 MR. NEMSCHEK: As far as height off the grade? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . MR. NEMSCHEK: No. 19, BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Not above grade, I 'm talking about below grade . 20 MR. NEMSCHEK: Oh, yes, absolutely. Right now it' s a crawl space, a dirt crawl space that ' s 21 not more than two and a half feet . You know, just getting around in it- is troublesome to even 22 measure the existing members . But yes, this is going to go down to what is the existing level of 23 their basement under the former addition. The model right now of this portion right here exists, 24 this is a crawl space, and this is all the dirt . We' re going to create a .connector between 25 that . We' ll have a little underpinning here . And that' s why temporarily abandoning the structure September 28 , 2006 31 1 2 instead of under the main foundation to offset the costs of that . But this will actually create 3 about a 10 .foot basement that matches the same level of this . It will be the addition of the 4 elevator shaft -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that going to be 5 usable space down there where people are going to be able to go and do their things? 6 MR. NEMSCHEK: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' ll have some 7 way of getting out of that basement from the basement? 8 MR. NEMSCHEK: Yes, you' ll notice on the drawings that we put another welled exit in. In 9 addition, we have the central stair as a welled exit to the back. There' s a welled exit over 10 here, there' s a central stair here, and we' re going to put another welled exit here 11 (indicting) . So three means of egress, you know, not even counting obviously the elevators . And 12 we' re putting in two more handicapped accessible inside the basement itself . One of the great 13 things about the library in the basement they have, they have a bathroom down there already. So 14 the septic is a deep ring, it' s one deeper than it normally would have been. So we still have 15 gravity flow, there' s no ejectors or anything. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know my Board 16 members probably know what I 'm getting at, and I looked at the notice of disapproval and I didn' t 17 see the basement on there; is there any reason why it shouldn' t be? 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think we have jurisdiction. 19 MR. NEMSCHEK: It' s a matter of right for them to build their basement . They' re inside' 20 their setback. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, but they' re 21 building in a nonconforming area. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Also it' s the 22 three story aspect? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand the 23 history of it all . I understand if it were up to me, these people would not be here . I disagree 24 with the law, with the interpretation that brings these people here . What I'm saying is we must be 25 consistent if we' re going to use that interpretation and to say that going from a crawl September 28 , 2006 32 1 2 space to usable space is not an increase in the bulk of this building. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s true . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is not consistent 4 with how we have been interpreting this law, this interpretation. So, I am not saying that we 5 should deny them in any respect and I certainly am not going to, but I certainly would like to be 6 able to have a clarification on that or at least have the applicant amend the application to 7 include that basement if this is under Walz, an increase in the bulk of a nonconforming area. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we can address it in the decision. 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You can include it in part of your decision to be 10 consistent, and to say that the portion that' s going to go down further you' ll also grant a 11 variance under. Walz for that . I think the point is well taken. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : We need to have the Building Department -- 13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Recognize that when it happens . But I think the application, 14 since the plans already include it, they reflect the basement going down. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm not saying they' re deceiving anybody; I'm saying that if 16 someone reads this decision, this decision has been published with no mention of the basement . 17 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The decision should include the basement, I agree . 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know that your heart was fluttering for a while, but we have a 19 problem with this Walz thing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only other 20 thing I can think of, Jim, I'm trying to guess what the Building Department might say, is because 21 the walls aren' t being changed, and it' s only the basement that a substantial part of that 22 nonconformity remains that they would not apply Walz decision, and also there might be an average 23 front yard setback in the area that would allow you to be that close without a variance . 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Quite frankly, they might not have been confronted with the 25 situation where you go down instead of up . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I couldn' t agree September 28 , 2006 33 1 2 with you more . I'm just saying that certainly if a dormer that doesn' t go any closer to a property 3 line on the back of this building is considered under Walz, certainly the basement, which is just 4 the opposite end of the building, is increasing the bulk, increasing the use of the building, 5 allowing more people to be in this building, certainly should be addressed by this 6 interpretation. MR. NEMSCHEK: Can I offer an explanation 7 as far as that goes as well because we have had this conversation over and over again. Although I 8 agree it' s increasing the square footage, it' s not increasing the use because more people haven' t 9 moved there overnight to use the library. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It' s increasing the 10 square footage of the building. MR. NEMSCHEK: That I agree with. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The advantage we have is that we have all-inclusive powers to 12 include that in our decision. MR. NEMSCHEK: Fantastic . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that' s what I will do, and that' s what we will certainly deal 14 with. MR. NEMSCHEK: It' s much appreciated. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: One more question on the notice of disapproval . It mentions here 16 something about the landmark preservation; I just want to be clear, we' re not granting any kind of 17 variance from that . MR. NEMSCHEK: No. We've already been 18 there . We have had landmarks out on the 18th, and we' re awaiting their decision as well . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 20 application? Miss Doty? MS . DOTY: I'm Debra Doty, I'm a resident 21 of Cutchogue, and I'm a trustee of the library. I would just request that the Board make its 22 determination as soon as possible because we would like as the trustees to begin work soon as we 23 possibly can. So we would appreciate that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else in the 24 audience wishes to comment? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 25 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) September 28 , 2006 34 1 2 ------------------------------------------------- (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken. ) 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I need a resolution to withdraw the application of David Sciacchitano . 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Thomas and Helen Fox on Freeman Road in 6 Mattituck. You just wanted to put a porch on, I believe . 7 MS . FOX: We' re here today to ask the Board to approve a variance . We want to put a 8 deck on. Our front steps deteriorated, and instead of just replacing the front steps, we 9 would like to put a porch with a rocking chair so we can sit there and watch our neighbors, watch 10 the people as they go by. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any 11 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, this is mine 12 so I 'm going to ask a couple questions . The garage is out, I see it on there, but there' s an X 13 through it, you' re not going to build that? MS . FOX: Right . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And your existing front yard is 40 feet I see, 40 something and this 15 deck there' s no foundation underneath it? MS . FOX: No . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s just on pilings, footings whatever. Will it be covered? 17 MS . FOX: No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s not going 18 to be a roof over top? MS . FOX: No. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And you have no intention of doing that? 20 MS . FOX: Well, maybe down the road. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we' re 21 probably going to restrict it . We' re probably going to say shall remain open to the sky, so 22 that' s why I'm asking that question. Maybe later on, if you want to apply for a variance to put a 23 cover on it, you can, but you haven' t applied for that now, and I 'm just being clear on what you are 24 applying for so we know what to give you. MS . FOX: Right . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Naturally you' ll have railings and all that kind of stuff on it . September 28 , 2006 35 1 2 So it' s not heated. It' s a wood deck, right? MS . FOX: Wood deck, right . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have, thank you. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think it' s 5 quite clear. I was there . We met the other day and the steps are just off to the side . It' s just 6 a raised platform basically, wooden platform, 238 square feet, 21 by 10 with the steps . 7 MS . FOX: That was a mistake, it' s supposed to be 21 by 12 . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Didn' t we get an amended one? We did get an amended one . You gave 9 us a second one, that' s fine . I don' t have any further questions . It' s a five foot variance, 10 setback. MS . FOX: Right . And I also have a 11 return. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, you can give that 12 to Linda. Thank you very much. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 13 comment . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes . I appreciate the need to do something about the deteriorated 15 steps and the idea of having a deck out to the limits of the code allotment for setbacks makes a 16 whole lot of sense . One problem might be that someone might object to the fact that a 12 foot 17 deck is one that duly extends beyond the front of the neighboring property, and then the question is 18 why do you want a 12 foot deck rather than say a 10 foot or eight foot deck. I guess I want to 19 hear the argument for making it that wide given that you require a variance for that rather than a 20 narrower deck. MS . FOX: We didn' t want to put up a 21 smaller deck where we couldn' t sit and enjoy ourselves in front . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You can put a table and chair out there . 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . There have been people who have four foot decks, six foot 24 decks, eight foot decks . We have at times reduced a deck to as small as six feet when the 25 circumstances warrant it, but you would argue that that' s not necessary or desirable in this case; is September 28 , 2006 36 1 2 that right? MS . FOX: Right . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think the whole purpose was not simply to get to your front door 4 but rather while in the process of getting to your front door you wanted more than a landing; you 5 wanted a place to be able to sit out with a chair and enjoy your neighbors or whatever. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Watch the traffic go by. Is there anyone else in the audience that 7 wishes to comment on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 8 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 9 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next application is 10 for House of Daige . The applicant wants to put a house on a 6, 000 foot piece of property that was 11 supposedly just for a garage . Miss Doty. MS . DOTY: I have for the Board I' ll start 12 with the return receipt cards (handing) and one missing. There is no card from the Ruch Lane 13 Holdings because it was mailed to Southold and Mr. Hoffman didn' t go out to Southold to pick up 14 the card (inaudible) . For the sake of simplicity, I ' ll call the 15 applicant Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman is seeking relief for a situation that no one knew about . 16 The sellers didn' t know about it; the buyers didn' t know about it; (inaudible) didn' t know 17 about it; the title company didn' t know about it; the attorney didn' t know about . And the Town of 18 Southold did not know about it (inaudible) . I came to the Zoning Board on a number of occasions 19 and Linda -- Miss Kowalski read a decision. In that decision it says that this parcel is to be 20 (inaudible) . This applicant wishes to build a house on the property. We bought this property 21 with the intention of building a house on the property. In fact, the contract of sale is 22 contingent upon the approval of -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Could you speak a 23 little louder? I'm not hearing you well . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think 24 that mike is working to be honest with you. MS . DOTY: It would probably be good if it 25 was turned on. Do you want me to start all over? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. September 28 , 2006 37 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I heard you. 3 MS . DOTY: On the contract of sale the last page has the contingency on it . I have 4 Health Department approval . We went into contract in January of ' 04 ; Health Department approval was 5 received in July of ' 05 . We closed at the end of October, ' 05 . The property across the street , 6 which is Lot 36, which is owned by Mr. Hoffman, the contract was signed the same day, January of 7 ' 04 , and that closed in March of 104 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which piece is 8 his, excuse me, Miss Doty? MS . DOTY: Number 36 across the street . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number 36 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The house is there 10 on the water. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . Which we 11 have had variances on already. We've have had variances on that house . 12 MS . DOTY: I was not involved in that . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was part of this 13 application when the prior owner applied for those variances . It was part of this House of Daige 14 application, under a different name, of course . MS . DOTY: Are you talking about Bishop? 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The one across the street that this application was joined with when 16 the former owner applied for the variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He didn' t have enough 17 room for a garage . MS . DOTY: He owned both parcels and he 18 wanted to create two parcels across the street . One is this 40 foot lot and the one is the 19 property to the east . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Not exactly create, 20 but he applied for variances to build a garage on the lot across the street . 21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s set off the property; it was set off from the property. 22 MS . DOTY: It was set off from the property across the street, yes, and that' s the 23 1969 determination. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t want 24 to interrupt you if you have more you want to say, but to me this matter comes down to an issue of 25 fairness and notice, and these are issues that we grapple with as a municipality. We all know that September 28 , 2006 38 1 2 in order to get a building permit on an empty lot in Southold town you have to have a recognized 3 lot . And we have a part of our Town code that deals with lot recognition. And I suppose that 4 the category that this lot falls under as having been created and/or approved by the ZBA prior to 5 1983 , right, the one catch with that approval and/or creation is the very act that approved and 6 created this lot said you can' t build a house on it . So, yes, the lot was created, and so in a 7 sense it was recognized, but the issue for this Board in addition to the fairness issue is to say, 8 did it recognize a buildable lot or did it just recognize a lot that an accessory structure could 9 be built upon. And I don' t think there' s a clear cut answer to that . That' s why I think the 10 equities and fairness come into play. There is case law out there that if you' re going to impose 11 conditions on a lot such as this, it needs to be recorded in the chain of recording that we. follow 12 in this county, which is in the county. However, this is a little different because when you buy a 13 lot in Southold town you take notice of the laws of Southold town, and in order to get a building 14 permit on it, you need a recognized lot . And in order to have a recognized lot, you need to fall 15 under one of these categories . The very category under which this falls says no house . So give me 16 something on that . MS . DOTY: I would respectfully suggest 17 that in this instance, it was created by the ZBA and the decision says for accessory purposes 18 only. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The decision 19 says it' s accessory purposes only, the ZBA decision that created the lot . 20 MS . DOTY: I acknowledge that; that' s in the record. Okay. I would believe that at one 21 point in time the reason for that was that on Ruch Lane a lot this size, or even the 50 foot lots, 22 which are garage lots, could not be built upon because you could not get the separations for well 23 and septic . There' s no way you could build a house on the various lots that are 50 feet wide 24 because you can' t get the separations . There' s water on the road now, and therefore, each of 25 those lots, the 50 foot lots as well as this lot, can be built upon because we can get water. In September 28 , 2006 0 39 1 2 this instance, if the Town wanted to restrict the use of this lot, they should have put it of record 3 in the County Center, but there' s nothing in the deed; there' s nothing in the covenant restriction; 4 there' s nothing in any of the COs for this lot saying it is accessory only and that it' s 5 accessory to another lot . There' s nothing that says you can only have an accessory structure, 6 except for the decision that' s hidden -- I shouldn' t say hidden, I.'m sorry -- that' s in the 7 ZBA files . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay, so when 8 the buyer goes about buying this, how do they convince themselves that they have a recognized 9 lot; what do they do to determine that? MS . DOTY: They get a single and separate 10 search. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, but a 11 recognized lot under Southold Town Code . MS . DOTY: They look in -- there was 12 nothing -- that was not done as far as I know, but I disagree . 13 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So there was no .diligence to determine whether they had a 14 recognized lot for building purposes . MS . DOTY: In this instance there was a 15 structure on it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: An accessory structure . 16 MS . DOTY: And there' s a CO saying a garage . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA An accessory structure, not a principal . 18 MS . DOTY: But it doesn' t say garage and nothing else ever. 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It says garage . MS . DOTY: And I would also go to the 20 decision Second Department in 2003 that says very specifically -- 21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Now that' s what I referred to, I'm aware of that . But I 'm 22 getting at, that issue didn' t deal with lot recognition, and the Town' s requirements of lot 23 recognition. MS . DOTY: I understand that . I 24 understand what you' re saying. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what 25 you said is important . It' s not exactly a vacant lot . There' s a structure on the lot, and although September 28 , 2006 40 1 2 it is an accessory structure, I think it' s a little different than if -- I mean, if you' re 3 going to buy a vacant lot, you have to do a lot of due diligence to make sure it' s a buildable 4 lot . Especially in this town where we have our own peculiar laws about lot recognition. 5 MS . DOTY: Right, correct . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So, I think 6 everyone is aware that is a pretty tricky case . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a 7 brief little statement here? It also makes a difference, okay, if the lot is described as 8 subdivided. In this particular case, it appears that this lot is described. Okay? 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What do you mean by described? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is not part of an actual subdivision. 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This is a set off, right . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a set off . I wouldn' t call is it described, I' d call it a set 13 off . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it does 14 not support the recognition of what we see all throughout the county of having a secondary tax 15 map number, which it would have had if it was a subdivision in question, meaning all of Ruch Lane 16 was a subdivision. It was probably a described map, filed with the County Clerk at one time, of 17 which this may or may not have been an entire lot or a piece of a lot at that particular point . And 18 that' s one issue that would have stood out in my mind in the recognition of this particular piece 19 of property. So, I'm just using that as another thought . Because if it was a subdivided piece of 20 property, it would then go to the exempt list first, then you would get the single and separate 21 search. MS .. DOTY: I agree with Mr. Goehringer, 22 there is nothing in the record that would indicate to anybody that they should do that . Moreover, 23 when I represent a client buying a piece of property in this town and a small lot, if it' s 24 built on, I used to not go to the ZBA and do a FOIL request to see if there' s any decision. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s in my mind, and I don' t know if it makes sense to anyone September 28, 2006 41 1 2 else, but that' s a big difference . I think if you have a vacant lot, there' s additional due 3 diligence imposed upon you in this town to make sure it' s recognized. 4 MS . DOTY: I didn' t say a vacant lot . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I know that' s 5 the distinction that I'm making. So this is where we get to the fairness issue, and that' s going to 6 be up to the Board to figure out what they want to do here . A very peculiar circumstance where a lot 7 is built upon, it' s only built upon with an accessory structure, do you want to impose the 8 obligation of the successor in title to go search through all the Town records to find out whether 9 there' s any condition in terms of meeting lot recognition? 10 MS . DOTY: I would suggest that that would be counter to the 2003 which involved the 11 Southold Town Planning Board. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, but 12 that' s a different issue . In fairness, that was a case in which the Planning Board imposed a 13 condition no further subdivision on a particular lot and the subdivision map was filed and nothing 14 on the map said that it couldn' t be further subdivided, and there were no C and Rs that were 15 filed in the County. And the Court, the Appellate Division said, you can' t impose that condition 16 upon a successor in chain of title when they had no notice of it, and they did not impose an 17 obligation on that successor in title to search Town-wide records . 18 MS . DOTY: But if in fact this had been a regular subdivision as Mr. Goehringer suggested, 19 in point of fact usually what happens is you take a lot number and it becomes -- say it' s Lot 12 , 20 okay, and you' re splitting Lot 12 in half, the tax department usually then makes it Lot 12 . 1 and Lot 21 12 . 2 . It didn' t have it on this lot; we have Lot 13 . 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would like to ask the question slightly differently. Apart from the 23 subdivision question, if you go to buy a lot, an undersized lot, and it' s vacant, then clearly the 24 burden is on the buyer to look hard to see whether there is any reason to think you can build or not 25 build on it . The question is when you buy this undersized lot on which a garage is built, does September 28 , 2006 42 1 2 that same burden exist or is the burden somehow on others to say that, no, they can presume that 3 because there is a garage on it they don' t have to exercise full diligence . 4 MS . DOTY: Well, I can tell you what I do in a situation where it' s an undersized lot and 5 there is an existing structure . I will go to the Building Department and I will pull each of the 6 COs and normally on the CO, it says if there has been a variance granted per ZBA number whatever. 7 Then I go check the variance . We don' t have that here . It' s not here on the CO. 8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s an original file, and the copy is in the original file . 9 MS . DOTY: I understand what you' re saying, but I don' t -- Linda, do you know, if 10 every attorney who handles real estate transactions in this town were forced to come to 11 your office to search every CO, old or new, that doesn' t have a ZBA reference to see if there' s a 12 ZBA reference, I would suggest that the Board is going to need to hire some more employees . 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not every C of 0, it' s C of Os in clearly complicated and 14 suspicious issues . It' s a very small set of COs that would have to be investigated. 15 MS . DOTY: I'm not sure about that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 'm not either 16 completely. MS . DOTY: I haven' t quantified that yet, 17 Mr. Simon. There' s also the issue in this instance, my client had originally thought about 18 putting upon up a 15 foot house; that house would have been built by now because we wouldn' t have 19 needed a variance . We could have done it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It may have been 20 checked again by the Building Department a second time, when that was applied for it might have been 21 picked up . It was just one time where somebody didn' t find it on laser fiche . 22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . If you were to apply for that 15 foot house now you would 23 have the same problem that you currently have . MS . DOTY: I 'm not sure I would have last 24 spring. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the fact 25 that somebody didn' t find the record is not really a defense . September 28 , 2006 43 1 2 MS . DOTY: But instead he wants to do a 20 foot house, and we' re here because of the 3 additional need for a side yard variance . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Maybe the 4 Board should discuss the variance issue now. MS . DOTY: That' s where I was going to go . 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Okay, great . MS . DOTY: The proposed structure will fit 6 within sort of the footprint of the existing garage . It' s going to go no wider than the 7 garage . It will be set back from the road. It meets the Town Code, front yard setbacks . The 8 neighborhood is a neighborhood of nonconforming and I think when you drive down Ruch Lane 9 everybody -- well, not everybody, almost everybody has an issue of nonconforming; that' s certainly 10 not suggesting that this Board wants to create additional nonconformities, however we' re 11 requesting a five yard side yard setback variance . There are 30 lots on that road, if I don' t include 12 the lot, which I think it' s 24 it' s a right of way, of those 16 of them are 100 feet or less in 13 road width. And of those, ten are 50 feet or less in road frontage . Each of those 50 foot lots can 14 be built on with a house if they haven' t already been already. The only lot that has a restriction 15 on the accessory use is this lot . In fact, . two of the lots, the deeds very expressly say that a 16 building can be built on, on the 50 foot lots where garages now exist . We' re not asking for a 17 huge McMansion. We' re asking for a 20 foot wide house that extends back. I think with porches 18 it' s 600 feet -- Tom Samuels, the architect here -- 600 square feet . I think it would be an 19 enhancement to the community, and I would request that the Board grant not only the variance, but 20 would remove the condition from the property, particularly in the interest of justice and 21 fairness . I have seen decisions from this Board in which the Board has removed restrictions that 22 are recorded in County Center that prohibit the building of a single-family dwelling and in one 23 instance that I can name, it was because public water was available and everybody else was 24 building on similar sized lots, so go ahead and do it . 25 I also would offer the Board a possibility of alternative relief . September 28 , 2006 44 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MS . DOTY: As Linda knows and Kieran is 3 aware, I'm one of the two -- this application and the one that follows, heard together. It wasn' t 4 because I didn' t want to come back and see you again, it was because we would suggest that the 5 Board might want to consider a lot line change . That we increase the size of this lot, 6 keeping the adjoining lot, while nonconforming, more than 20 , 000 square feet . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : , We don' t have an application for that . 8 MS . DOTY: I know we don' t have an application. I'm asking the Board to consider 9 that as a possibility as alternative relief . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you 10 referring to 14 . 1? MS . DOTY: Yes . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much property does Mr. Hoffman own in this specific 12 area or whoever the fee owners of these parcels are? 13 MS . DOTY: I can' t quantify the exact square footage, but he owns -- he or one of his 14 entities own this garage parcel . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The 14 . 1? 15 MS . DOTY: 14 . 1, which sometimes we call the Caymans' parcel because we bought it from the 16 Caymans . That' s the one with the ranch house on it right next to it . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did they want to move a garage over? 18 MS . DOTY: I' ll get to that in a minute, that' s the next appeal . He owns the property 19 across the street, 36 , which is the waterfront parcel, and he owns the road. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He owns the road. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is that 600 square feet just for the downstairs or for the whole house? 22 Just the downstairs, so it' s about 1, 200 square feet upstairs and downstairs, Tom? 23 MR. SAMUELS : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Doesn' t code say 24 that the minimum square footage on the ground floor has to be 750? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think so. MR. SAMUELS : 750 square foot total . September 28 , 2006 45 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding that it had to be a minimum 750 on 3 the ground. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My house is 20 feet 4 wide . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s the total 5 square footage . Is the intent to use that as a guest cottage, which is how the text calls out the 6 space as "guest room 1, " "guest room 2 "? It looks as though it' s meant to be a small guest cottage . 7 MS . DOTY: I believe he would like to have it as a guest cottage, but I don' t think it has to 8 be . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, but 9 you' re preserving the ability to sell it off separately. I presume that' s why it' s owned by an 10 LLC, right? MS . DOTY: We wanted to make sure there 11 would be no question in terms of -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right, merger. 12 MS . DOTY: Of course it can' t be because the road' s there . But we didn' t want -- he' s got 13 an LLC, and he' s got the ranch house in Hoffman, SO . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t know how you could grant a side yard variance without 15 recognizing it as a building lot . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, that would 16 only follow if you granted relief from that unrecorded condition. 17 MS . DOTY: I meant to say when I was handing out the green cards to you, there is no 18 card from the Ruch Lane Holding Company. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, you told 19 us that . MS . DOTY: That' s because it was mailed to 20 Southold and Mr. Hoffman` s wife is in the process of giving birth and he didn' t go out to Southold 21 to pick up the card; did I say that? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Not the giving 22 birth part, but that the Hoffmans are -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, let 23 me just ask counsel a question, Counsel, regarding this situation of a lot line change -- 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That would need to be done in conjunction with the Planning 25 Board. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And because it September 28 , 2006 46 1 2 was undersized it would also probably have come back to us . 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It would have to . 4 'BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: While I have you on the line, he does not own Lot Number 12? 5 MS . DOTY: No, he doesn' t, that' s VanderBeek. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. That' s VanDerBeek. Okay, so the point in question is, 7 Miss Doty is now going to, when we finish this hearing, come in with the next application, which 8 is the next moving of the garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of a garage . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The building of the garage . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Moving or building a 11 new garage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess my 12 question, Counsel, is since she has not applied for this lot line issue, we actually could hold 13 this hearing in abeyance to see if a lot line issue was palatable with -- 14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think what she' s asking you, if you' re not inclined to grant 15 relief in the way that she' s requesting it, an alternative would be to see if you' re amenable to 16 making this lot a little bigger to accommodate a house if that makes you happier, and if you sort 17 of give her the wink and nod on that, she' ll go make her lot line application and come to you for 18 an area variance but not going to do it if -- MS . DOTY: Go talk to Anthony right now. 19 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: -- if you are not happy with it . If that' s not your preferred 20 way to go, then she' s not going to do it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still think we 21 have the question, we don' t know how the Board _ feels nor are we asking them how they feel at this 22 point regarding this overall condition of 1969 . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The 23 buildability issue, yes . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only other 24 thing I can think of is we can finish with these two hearings, and then make a decision and then 25 she can always come back anyway, since it' s the same amount of paperwork and procedure, there' s no September 28 , 2006 47 1 2 rush to do it today. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, absolutely 3 not . Well, the decision would be contingent upon anyway. We would then not grant the area 4 variance -- excuse me, the side yard variance . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because it might 5 not be necessary. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s right . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We may not need a variance . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: True . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We would need an 8 area variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But not a side yard 9 variance . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s extremely 10 involved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not a side yard 11 variance . MS . DOTY: But you know, there are as you 12 know, two issues before the Board. One is the question of the condition that nobody knew about, 13 I would also submit to the Board that the seller' s attorney didn' t know about it either, and that' s 14 Mr. Price, because he' s the one who prepared the seller' s affidavits . 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Who is the seller? MS . DOTY: Pollack, they were represented 16 by Mr. Justice Price. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But he didn' t 17 make any representations to you that it was a buildable lot? 18 MS . DOTY: No, I just asked him. for the affidavits, but he did prepare the affidavits and 19 gave them to us without question. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The owner who had 20 applied to the Zoning Board requesting the garage on the vacant lot was Bishop? 21 MS . DOTY: That' s correct . And he died, and his estate transferred the properties . But I 22 am offering an alternative relief to make it more palatable to the Board, and to also say my client 23 is not adverse to possibly going the route of a lot line change in order to get a larger side yard 24 in order to accommodate the Board. We do have room on the adjoining parcel to move the lot 25 without having a -- is it a side yard or back yard problem? September 28 , 2006 48 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How much would your client be willing to move that line? 3 MS . DOTY: We could move it five feet, we could move it ten feet if we had to. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Procedurally, do we have to close this in order to hear the next or 5 can we talk about -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we can adjourn it . 6 MS . DOTY: But if you could give me an indication as to what way you' re going, I could 7 talk to the Planning Department and see whether or not they would be willing to do a lot line change . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll deliberate . We' ll all think about it . 9 MS . DOTY: Well, I appreciate the Board' s thinking about it . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll leave the hearing open, if everybody' s agreeable . 11 MS . DOTY: Does anybody else have any questions on this one? 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I think it' s quite clear what the conditions are . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re leaving it open in case they have questions, we could contact 14 you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do I have a motion to 15 leave it open? (See minutes for resolution. ) 16 ------------------------------------------------ - CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 17 Hoffman. Do you want to tell us about Mr. Hoffman and the garage; he really wants to move that 18 garage, Miss Doty? MR. SAMUELS : He has the garage and it' s 19 in pretty good shape . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Continue . 20 MS . DOTY: Debra Doty on behalf of the applicant, David Hoffman. We are we have a lot 21 that' s about 22, 000 square feet, it' s 21, 678 . It' s a single-family dwelling ranch house on it, 22 of which about 1, 500 is living space and there' s about a 660 foot square foot attached garage . 23 Mr. Hoffman wishes to convert the garage into a family room living space . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing garage? 25 MS . DOTY: There' s only one garage right now, the existing garage, and locate a detached September 28 , 2006 49 1 2 garage in the eastern-most corner -- or the northeast corner .of the property. That garage 3 would either be the garage from Lot 13 or a new structure . And our problem is that we have three 4 front yards . It was interesting when I went out and posted the property, three of the neighbors 5 came out and asked me what was going on. And I said well, he wants to put a garage over in that 6 corner because that was the one we were talking about, and they said, oh, what' s the problem. I 7 said well, he' s got three front yards . They said no, he doesn' t . Yes, he does . And they kept 8 insisting he doesn' t . He does, according to the Town code . We have Ruch Lane, which .is the 9 private road, which Mr. Hoffman owns . We have an unopened portion of Ruch Lane on the 10 eastern-most -- or south, and then we have Wild Cherry Way in the back. Wild Cherry Way has no 11 access to this area, and the road to the south is unopened, and we don' t intend to open it . We do 12 not intend to use that road for our driveway. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Excuse me, I 13 misunderstood you. Wild Cherry Way has no access here but Wild Cherry Way is an open road, right? 14 MS . DOTY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s fenced off and 15 it' s totally fenced off back there . MS . DOTY: Not only fenced off but 16 briars . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Bramble of all 17 sorts back there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well vegetated? 18 MS . DOTY: Yes . So we have three front yards, and setback issues on each of the front 19 yards, which sterilizes a large portion of the property as far as putting any accessory structure 20 be it a shed or whatever. MS . DOTY: When you look at the property, 21 and I know you've all been out there, the logical place for a garage is in the corner we' re 22 proposing it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It certainly is . MS . DOTY: And we' re requesting the 24 Board' s permission to locate a garage in the quote/unquote front yard which really isn' t a 25 front yard, but it is a front yard. There' s really no other place to put it on the property. September 28 , 2006 50 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Doty, I ' d really like to see that garage, if the Board is so 3 inclined if we grant it, to be about seven feet from that rear property line as opposed to five . 4 You have overhangs on the garage which, water runoff . 5 MS . DOTY: I don' t see a problem with that . 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s a front line . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They' re all frontlines, we understand. And I realize that 8 there' s a diagnose of natural buffer back there but at the same token, one never really knows in 9 the future of these roads in Southold town what' s going to happen. 10 MS . DOTY: No, we don' t, but I don' t see a problem giving seven feet back there . I know that 11 Mr. Hoffman wants to plant a garden in the back and that' s one reason why he doesn' t want to 12 attach anything to the house, and even if we were we' d be over in the front yard, so short of 13 putting a garage by the bedrooms it really just doesn' t make any sense . So I would request -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is the height of the garage? 15 MS . DOTY: It' s on the elevation. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s pretty 16 low. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sixteen feet, five 17 and a half inches to the ridge . MS . DOTY: The other thing in granting 18 this variance is I think Mr. Hoffman is most of the neighborhood down there, and it' s his garage, 19 he would like to have a garage there in order to put his car there, and as I said, he wants to put 20 a garden in the back, he' s already got a partial garden and he wants to expand. We request that 21 the board grant relief from the front yard. I am coming to ask for relief . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You would not need anything other than setback variances from us 23 because you could choose to demolish that existing garage, move the existing garage or create a new 24 one, all you need from us is approval for siting. MS . DOTY: That' s correct, I mean, the 25 garage could fall down as it' s going up the road to its new location. September 28 , 2006 51 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As far as I ' m concerned, it is once again the architectural rear 3 yard the only place you can place an accessory garage and you have enough room on that property, 4 however, should -- this is why they' re all interrelated, should there be a pending lot line 5 change potentially, that may have some consequences, it' s still the right place for a 6 garage, but it may have some consequence in terms 7 MS . DOTY: Well, we' re not going to take land from that side . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, it would be from the other side . 9 MS . DOTY: And I would urge the Board on the other one to consider more than 20 , 000 square 10 feet, which I'm sure the Board wants to do, and I know the Board doesn' t want to increase like to 11 increase a nonconformity, but sometimes -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 13 the audience that would like to comment on this application? I make a motion to close the 14 application and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 15 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for 16 the Burlingames on West Creek Avenue in Cutchogue . They want to do an as-built dwelling 17 less than 40 feet from the front lot line . MR. UHLENDAHL: My name is Franz Uhlendahl 18 and Kristian Burlingame, the owner of the property that we are requesting a variance for. A second 19 floor addition to the existing structure is noncompliant because a corner of the -- the 20 easterly corner penetrates or encroaches on the front side yard by four feet . It' s a relatively 21 small portion. In addition to this, there is an as-built deck balcony, which must have been built 22 at the time when the structure was erected because there was a concrete step going up into -- I 23 consider this the main entrance because it goes right into the kitchen. There is a door, it 24 couldn' t have been built without that deck. The Building Department couldn' t find any CO on that 25 particular deck. The buildable area is certainly large enough so you can build something, but we September 28 , 2006 52 1 2 don' t want to take the existing structure down. The foundation is in very good condition and we' d 3 like to use the foundation, we can talk about the deck, but we want to go up to the second floor. 4 We are going to be partially in the front yard by four feet . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you have two front yards? 6 MR. UHLENDAHL: Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . I don' t have 7 any specific questions . People always have trouble with these two front yards, which is 8 unfortunate . Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any 9 specific comments regarding this except that it appears that the house is going to be very large, 10 and that' s it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The only thing for which you need a variance is a very small one, 12 there' s no other way to access the property except for the slope . The grade is such that you have to 13 get up there somehow and you have to be above that existing garage . I wanted to say that I very much 14 appreciate the clarity of your documentation. It' s very easy for Board members to understand the 15 sort of color coding. I'm into reading these things all the time . 16 MR. UHLENDAHL: As far as the size is concerned, consider this an envelope and we talked 17 about trying to create roof line where the second floor basically will have a series of dormers . So 18 the roof line will come down quite a bit to the first floor, the ceiling and so it will be -- it' s 19 not what we see in this elevation; it does look much bigger than it ' will be in the final version. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The slope spirals going up in the rear and the front, and coming down it' s 21 a whole slope coming down. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It very much 22 respects the character of the existing dwelling, it' s appropriate in scale even with this 23 particular rendition, and you can have some wonderful views . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The unfortunate 25 part about it is the driveway is in the area of where the most visual impact is going to be . If September 28 , 2006 53 1 2 that could be lessened in some way and it' s a very difficult thing to do . 3 MR. UHLENDAHL: I think by playing with the second floor architecture, we will be able to 4 create less of an impact as that I show in the sketch. Usually just want to see a sketch or 5 outline drawing. It' s not the final . We will keep that in mind. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Also if you put plantings there? 7 MR. UHLENDAHL: This is heavily planted to start with. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Also bearing in mind that that elevation through the end wall of 9 the house rather than the primary elevation scale wise . So its impact especially if the ridge comes 10 down a bit . MR. UHLENDAHL: I mean, you hardly see the 11 existing structure now in the summer time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I have no questions . I hate to restrict you to height, 13 hopefully won' t do that . I think it looks nice and I think it would be not very intrusive at all 14 except for that one little garage thing. I would hope that if we are going to grant this, we grant 15 it as applied. That' s all I have to say. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have a serious problem. Just a question of clarification 17 for me . The deck that you refer to is on two sides of the house; is that correct? 18 MR. UHLENDAHL: The deck is the only one on Dick' s Pond Road. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . But the variance is only needed regarding the one that' s 20 on the Dick' s Pond Point Road. MR. UHLENDAHL : Yes . 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And this as-built deck, which apparently was as-built at the time 22 the house was built; do you know when the house was built? 23 MR. UHLENDAHL: Maybe 30 , 40 years ago . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application? If 25 not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. September 28 , 2006 54 1 2 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for Peconic Landing. Miss Hussie, nice to see you. 4 MS . HUSSIE : Ma' am Chairwoman, we thank you for the tour. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The tour which was wonderful . 6 MS . HUSSIE : Whenever you see cars there, stop in. We' re asking for a special exception. 7 Brecknock Hall is on residential property and an historic building, and in order to maintain it to 8 any degree at all, we have to have some sort of an income . Therefore, we' re asking for offices, an 9 apartment and public space . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Two great big rooms on 10 the bottom and the hallway, they will be public rooms . My question was upstairs where you' re 11 going to have the offices, will these two rooms be broken up into smaller offices or just -- 12 MS . HUSSIE : No . The two present bedrooms will be offices as is . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just two offices then? You' re going to partition them off? 14 MS . HUSSIE : No, we' re not going to partition anything up there . There' s another 15 bedroom up there that possibly can be used as an office, but we' re not being -- we don' t know 16 really. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The two front - 17 bedrooms are the ones you' re referring to . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The two front bedrooms? 18 MS . HUSSIE : The ones on the west side . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because I would hate to 19 see them partitioned off . MS . HUSSIE : No, we' re doing practically 20 nothing to the interior and nothing to the exterior obviously. But the only realignment of 21 walls and things will be for the restrooms on the first floor, that' s all, and the apartment, yes . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can' t imagine given the reverence that everyone feels toward 23 that beautiful building that anything would be done detrimentally to the architectural character. 24 I mean, that' s in fact what you want to preserve . So it would be antithetical to the whole purpose . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You could even move into that attic . The beams up there, too had you September 28 , 2006 55 1 2 can' t expose them, they' re gorgeous . MS . HUSSIE : We have enough to work on as 3 is . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you have any sense 4 of who you want to rent those offices to? MS . HUSSIE : Our original thought was to 5 rent them to other not for profit organizations who might not be able to pay what the going rent 6 is, and we hopefully would be able to have a cost that was a little bit softer. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Would the foundation be in there as well then? 8 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And then rent out 9 two offices to nonprofit? MS . HUSSIE : Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The public spaces that you' re going to rent out, are those rentable 11 public spaces for people to have various events in, weddings, whatever? 12 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . There' s roughly 1, 500 square feet in just the center hall and the two 13 parlors . It' s large . The whole building is 8 , 000 square feet . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you showed us a plan for parking because I think your neighbor was 15 concerned that the parking view would not extend over the front part of the house . 16 MS . HUSSIE : We don' t want that either because it spoils the vista all together. No, the 17 parking will be in the back, the primary parking then there' s additional space across the Brecknock 18 Road over near the yellow barn. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That requires 19 Planning Board approval, the parking? MS . HUSSIE : Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you need from us the special exception? 21 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Miss Hussie, can 22 I ask you again, referring to the two bedrooms on the second floor, we' re referring to one that 23 faces towards the road and the other one that faces west, which is in the rear -- 24 MS . HUSSIE : No . They' re both facing west . One is in the northwest corner, one is in 25 the southwest corner. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to September 28 , 2006 56 1 2 describe that . MS . HUSSIE : And there' s a lavatory in 3 between. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good. And 4 originally I think you told me that the proposed apartment was going to be about 900 square feet? 5 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, you know 6 I have to reduce this to writing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In terms of 7 apartment rents, I assume that just because of income it would be good to have somebody actually 8 a resident in the building itself to sort of look after it . 9 MS . HUSSIE : I think you noticed on the plans it' s calling that apartment a caretaker' s 10 apartment . We don' t know if we can afford a caretaker and an apartment at the same time . 11 Somebody' s going to be living there . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who would be 12 deciding? Who is the landlord in this situation? MS . HUSSIE : The Brecknock Hall 13 Foundation. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re actually 14 charged with running that building, maintaining it? 15 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . We have an agreement, a stewardship agreement with Peconic Landing that 16 says that everything that happens there is our -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Prerogative . 17 MS . HUSSIE : -- fault or good things . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you don' t have to 18 report back to Peconic Landing? MS . HUSSIE : No. But our agreement of 19 course says essentially the same thing that we' re going to preserve the place . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Based upon a discussion with you at that site two weeks ago on 21 Saturday, I think we determined that any outside use might require an additional permit . And I 22 think as we do with wineries and you said that' s going to be limited anyway. 23 MS . HUSSIE : Yes . Our aim is to be able to have enough income to maintain the place and 24 improve it continually. Our present business plan doesn' t call for maximizing the lawn at all . It 25 would be one of those here and now kind of things . If it was an occasion that we deemed proper for September 28 , 2006 57 1 2 that building, then we would come for a special permit . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we would put it in our decision that any outdoor event should 4 require a special permit .with a parking plan as we do with the wineries because people will be 5 parking -- you know what happens with the wineries, they park up and down the road and 6 people get called. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should point 7 out to you and the people that are these nice people that are with you to say that that does not 8 require a public hearing. MS . HUSSIE : They' re part of the Board. 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just a one day permit for outdoor events . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I guess you would have some sort of insurance . 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s not part of this, of the special exception; that would 12 be required in any circumstances . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We have nothing to do 13 with that? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think that 14 need not be part of this . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : In the interest of disclosure, Peconic Landing is a customer of my 16 business, I've done plenty of business . And Brecknock Hall has an alarm system that I put in. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are you recusing yourself? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No, I'm not . I did want to be forward about that . I am intimately 19 aware of that whole entire building and how it' s laid out . I would just like to say that the 20 public meeting part of it, having these affairs on the grounds is like a winery kind of situation. 21 So you do need to have this, but it"s not part of the special exception. We' re not granting you 22 that . MS . HUSSIE : I understand. Nor are we 23 asking. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you' re going to 24 have to show and I didn' t want to confuse the issue . The apartment will have no restrictions 25 other than someone' s going to be living in there . September 28 , 2006 58 1 2 MS . HUSSIE : It' s going to be a permanent living situation. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not for your director, the offices are just office space, 4 they' re not for you guys, they' re for whoever you can rent them to for the rent you need to have . 5 And that is part of the special exception. I just want to be clear on that because it seemed to me 6 you were going towards you were going to have one of those offices and someone else is . I don' t 7 want that to be part of our decision if you don' t want that . 8 MS . HUSSIE : Say that again. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It seemed during 9 the course of this discussion that someone was intimating that you may have put your organization 10 in there in one of those offices? MS . HUSSIE : Not in one of the two that 11 we' re asking for. It will be part of the other place, but it would not be rented out . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Downstairs and whatever? 13 MS . HUSSIE : No . It will probably be upstairs . I don' t think there.' s any room left 14 downstairs . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . So you just 15 want office space, public use down below with an apartment on that side . 16 MS . HUSSIE : Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Which was 17 traditionally an apartment many, many years ago . That' s all I have to say, thank you. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just want to say I ' m excited about the fact that there' s something 19 available for the community. There' s such a shortage of public meeting spaces . I can imagine 20 it becoming a wonderful kind of cultural -- MS . HUSSIE : Along those lines . 21 Mr. Goehringer had asked me for a list of what possibly could happen there, and I'm going to give 22 this to you, but I ' ll read it to you so you all know it . This is not limited to art exhibits, 23 musical performances, weddings, receptions, a fashion show, play and poetry readings, annual 24 dinners or meetings for clubs like Kiwanis or somebody. A lecture series, special classes such 25 as driver safety, boating and that kind of thing, formal dances and dance instruction. September 28 , 2006 59 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you' re going to have a catering kitchen? 3 MS . HUSSIE : A catering kitchen, yes, we' re not cooking. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you anticipating advertising these opportunities? 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: When they get it done? MS . HUSSIE : When it' s done, I think we' ll 6 probably do a little bit of a hoopla thing, when it' s all finished. And hopefully the publicity 7 takes care of our advertising. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' ll court the 8 Suffolk Times . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I can say this, 9 that my wife' s family was looking to having the family reunion at Peconic . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Good idea . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A little too steep 11 for the Irish blood there . We had it at our house and the grass hasn' t grown back yet . 12 MS . HUSSIE : That' s a reason why we' re not pushing the outdoor activities . It is hard on the 13 green. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes•, it is . Michael? 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in 15 the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 16 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 17 -- ----------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for 18 Karnick Garipian and Haci Garipian. We need a resolution to grant the applicant' s request for 19 adjournment until October 26th. (See minutes for resolution. ) 20 --------------------------------------------- ---- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 21 for Miss Radacinski for a fencing on the corner of Sound Road and Main Road. Jim, you' re right near 22 there . The poor lady wants to put a fence up. MS . RADACINSKI : I did put it up already 23 because I was getting a puppy and I needed to have that fence repaired. So I built it with the 24 understanding from the builder that it could easily be cut back to four feet, if you don' t give 25 me permission to leave it at six. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have it at six at September 28 , 2006 60 1 2 one part then it drops down. MS . RADACINSKI : It' s just the part that 3 is part of my back yard. Again, you have the two front yard situations . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How long is that fence, ma' am? 5 MS . RADACINSKI : That section is about 44 feet, and it actually is not six feet all the way 6 because the grounds slope it goes down to about five feet at one end. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is the frontage alongside -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 25 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: CR 25 . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I guess it' s sort of your side yard in a way. 10 MS . RADACINSKI : It is . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it' s your 11 second front yard. MS . RADACINSKI : Because of the nature of 12 that road there, there' s no house across the road; there' s no sidewalk; it doesn' t really feel like a 13 street . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a 44 foot . 14 MS . RADACINSKI : It' s approximately 44 feet, yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Varies from six to five feet . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I can personally attest that it does not interfere with any coming 17 and going. You really don' t notice . There' s always headlights shining in these people' s yards . 18 MS . RADACINSKI : My biggest concern is when the truck drove through the fence . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I was in a car that ended up in that lot once . 20 MS . RADACINSKI : This is the second time someone' s been through my fence, actually. I 21 really wanted something a little more secure . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, 22 I have to tell you it' s a very tastefully done fence . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And air goes through it . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I thought you might want to extend it a little bit even closer to 25 Sound Road then drop it down because you don' t get much privacy. Jim? September 28 , 2006 61 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s very heavily vegetated, and then you have sort of chicken wire 3 condition around four foot high. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would just say in this case having built the fence in anticipation 5 of probably being able to keep it, you made it easier for us to get an idea of what it would look 6 like if we granted it . MS . RADACINSKI : Thank you. It was 7 actually a matter of cost for me . I think it was cheaper to cut down a six foot fence then to build 8 it up. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How noisy is that 9 corner? MS . RADACINSKI : It' s horrible . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I doubt that that unfortunately is going to baffle noise . 11 MS . RADACINSKI : It has made a difference with regular traffic . The guys who are building 12 it said they noticed the difference being inside or outside it is fence . But in terms of 13 motorcycles, the difference between head shattering and just extremely loud is very little . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Have you heard from any of the neighbors? 15 MS . RADACINSKI : The only ones I didn' t get the green cards back from was Bretons . But I 16 spoke to them because they asked me what it was about and they have no objections . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further questions . 18 I live on that road. Just so you know, I live on Sound Road. Like I said, I have no objection to 19 it .whatsoever. I thought maybe we could set it back a little bit . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s so scrubby. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They need it . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can' t walk along there . I did when I went to do site 22 inspection, and I was sort of walking in brambles because to be close to the edge of that road is 23 sort of a disaster. MS . RADACINSKI : When they cut the grass, 24 they don' t cut right up to the fence . My guys cleared it in order to put the fence up, but it 25 will be overgrown in six months I would say. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write the September 28 , 2006 62 1 2 decision and I don' t have any questions or problems with it . It' s sort of a corridor, a 3 traffic corridor and doesn' t have any effect on neighbors in particular, and if it can improve the 4 quality of your life and your dog' s life . I notice you have an area behind your house that' s 5 fenced off . Is that where your dog runs? MS . RADACINSKI : It runs the entire back 6 yard. In fact, I had the entire fence rebuilt with the puppy coming. It' s four feet around the 7 back, but it' s a very small puppy. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If there are no further 8 questions, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 9 (See minutes for (resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for the Anselmos on the North Road, who wish to 11 convert an accessory building. Miss Moore? MS . MOORE : Good afternoon, I have Mr. and 12 Mrs . Anselmo, and I have Angel Chorno the architect with me as well . 13 I don' t know if you all have had a chance to go inside the building as well . Did you get 14 inside or just the outside? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just the 15 outside . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just the outside . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The door on the most easterly side was a little ajar. 17 MS . MOORE : Everything' s a little ajar. Certainly you saw the building. I gave you a lot 18 of history with respect to this property because you could see that the main house has historic 19 status . The Anselmos began really this process 20 because -- and I explained she' s a pianist, and she wants a music studio for herself . This barn 21 was the perfect place for it, but the condition it' s in may not sustain the weight of a piano, 22 plus the building needs to have significant improvements made to it . 23 The plan was that because of the construction style, and I could only gather from 24 the tax map information that it certainly predates the records that are kept at the Building 25 Department, so it' s certainly older than the 150s . And it would make more sense and the applicants September 28 , 2006 63 1 2 want to take this building down and build a barn, that is I want to say, a replica in a sense of 3 style . You can see the style of the window is different but replicate the barn that is presently 4 there in terms of volume, height and everything. This is the original barn that was for the large 5 piece of property. It' s this piece plus the farm acreage . It was all one piece at one time, and 6 they want to keep the farm character of the property. I have the plans in your file and you 7 can see style-wise what it' s going to look like . We were flexible in its placement . It makes sense 8 to push it towards the back because that' s where it is . We are on Route 48 so the privacy of this 9 barn and keeping .the character of the property, it makes sense to push it toward the back of the 10 property. When the surveyor marked it, it is a 12 . 3 feet from the back property line . 11 The plans propose a cantilevered balcony, which overlaps so the foundation wouldn' t show, 12 but the balcony is there and to straighten, since it' s going to be a new building, straighten the 13 foundation and push it so the edge of the balcony is at 50 feet, 10 feet, whatever you find 14 acceptable . We' re here to discuss it with you. We 15 didn' t know which way you would prefer to see this done and we' d entertain any questions that you 16 might have . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the 17 whole issue is the use . MS . MOORE : Okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s go back to the Orient situation because that' s the best one 19 to build on, okay, that' s your client in Orient ` that had that very nice house on 25 . 20 MS . MOORE : He wanted to subdivide . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. He wanted 21 to build a garage with a heated area above it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: For recreation. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For recreational purposes and this was where we had this huge 23 discussion regarding a heated hallway connecting the house . 24 MS . MOORE : Yes . The old house that was going to be heated. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Exactly the same situation except it' s not a four lane highway. September 28 , 2006 64 1 2 MS . MOORE : I think that was different in that the connection was feasible . That was 3 originally the way it was planned was they needed extra I think a master suite, bedroom space . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They needed a nanny' s quarters or something? 5 MS . MOORE : No, I think that was actually a master bedroom suite . They actually designed 6 that with the connection, and the question was could you connect it with something less than 7 heated space . That was the Orient example that you had and the architects had no problem with 8 saying, okay, fine, we' ll connect it with something more than a breezeway. Which is what I 9 think they were originally considering, something that was maybe a glass enclosure but it is 10 heated. We unfortunately don' t have the flexibility to do that here . For one you have a 11 historic house that really trying to connect this barn or something similar that close to it would 12 really change the integrity of this house . It' s -- what do they call it, the Italianate . The 13 barn is -- they want to keep the character of the barn as an accessory building for recreational 14 use, and actually I 've had several applications that more and more these barns are being used for 15 something. Obviously the farm community is changing. 16 There are no longer farms attached to the homes, many of the homes here, the farms have been sold 17 off many years ago. People want to take the barns, not lose the use of it as a large open 18 recreation area; and that' s really what they want to do here, take this barn, use is it as a 19 recreational space storage and the piano, they can assure you there' s no living quarters in it, and 20 your decision -- and that' s why often times it comes to the Zoning Board because the Building 21 Department doesn' t necessarily have an issue with the use of the accessory structure, they' re just 22 concerned that over time they become living spaces, they become second dwellings . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s our concern too . 24 MS . MOORE : Exactly. Which is why we' re here saying, we are not making it a living space . 25 Right now I asked if you had a chance to look inside . I have photographs of the inside . The September 28 , 2006 65 1 2 inside clearly and not too long ago was used probably as migrant worker housing or some type of 3 housing because the building inside is not in bad condition. But that' s not what they want to use 4 it for. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re going to 5 demolish it? MS . MOORE : Exactly. And what they' re 6 planning on doing is having it as a rec room. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the second floor I 7 notice there is a wood burning stove . MS . MOORE: There is one now. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I don' t care about now but the proposed is for a wood burning 9 stove upstairs how about the poor guy downstairs that is doing his recreation, he has no heat . 10 MS . MOORE : I don' t know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is the building 11 going to be heated? MS . MOORE : I 'm getting an answer. For 12 the record, the plan is not to have heated space on the first floor to make the heated space the 13 second floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the first 14 floor is going to be like a storage area like a garage area; is that correct? 15 MR. ANSELMO: And summer use . MS . MOORE : And summer use . They' re not 16 really -- the first floor is not -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There is a bathroom 17 down there though. MS . MOORE : There is now a bathroom, yes . 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm not interested in now. 19 MS . MOORE : I didn' t know if you were asking me if there was a bathroom now. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t care about now. MS . MOORE : Yes . There will be a 21 bathroom, but it will be on both floors . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just a toilet and 22 sink, right? MS . MOORE : Yes, toilet and sink, water 23 closet . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, I have to 24 say that the maximum we have ever done -- and I 'm saying we because I have firsthand knowledge and I 25 don' t mean that in a sarcastic sense -- is the creation of an accessory library. We have an September 28 , 2006 66 1 2 attorney that retired but chose to enjoy his library, and he had had a one-story garage on the 3 Long Island Sound, which he intended to make two story to put his library in. We allowed him to 4 have heat on the second floor for the purposes of housing books . That was dead storage 5 MS . MOORE: Well, I actually have two Camp Mineolas that I've done . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just let him finish. MS . MOORE : I'm sorry, go ahead. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As an accessory structure, we also had a very similar situation 8 which dates back at least 10 years in Mattituck down in the Camp Mineola area, which was a similar 9 situation. It was a library of sense, I cannot tell you if it was law books, I don' t remember 10 what kind of books it was . So, in all of these situations, they were situations of storage, but 11 the ability of climate control for storage . They were not active detached buildings for the 12 purposes of these types of activities that your client -- 13 MS . MOORE : If I could refresh your recollection on two that I had because I did them. 14 One on Peconic Bay Boulevard the space above the three car garage she did antiques and restoration 15 of furniture, and they used the second floor of the garage heated for that hobby, . it' s a hobby 16 room essentially. I have another one on Aquaview Lane, which was in an existing garage, and they 17 made the second floor space for -- she was an artist, so she used it as an art studio . Those 18 are two right off the bat that I recall . Mrs . Anselmo is a pianist, she needs just a music 19 studio for herself . And the goal was take this beautiful space and use it, use the second floor 20 as a very nice piano studio, not unlike any other hobby room, hobby that you might have whether it' s 21 an ancillary office for a lawyer or whatever. There are a lot of people coming out here who are 22 artists or creative or have adjunct home offices and the space above the garage is very useful for 23 this space because one it' s private, and two it' s often times nice, clean and kind of gives you the 24 privacy that you need. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, but isn' t it 25 unusual to have a facility like that with two half baths? September 28 , 2006 67 1 2 MS . MOORE : If you don' t want two baths, we' ll make it one . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it' s for the use of a studio and for storage one wonders when one 4 sees that the plans call for a bathroom on both floors . 5 MS . MOORE : If they' re half baths, remember that the old house is very lovely but 6 it' s very limiting. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I 'm not talking about 7 the old house, I'm talking about -- MS . MOORE : No. But I 'm saying their 8 reasons for putting in two extra toilets, they have no objection. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In the accessory building? 10 MS . MOORE : They have no objection to one toilet since the toilet is going to be the one in 11 her piano studio. So, if you want to limit it to one half bath, they have no objection to that . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is whether this is going to be convertible to a living space 13 and when the plans call for a new building with two half baths, that' s only going to be used as a 14 studio, it makes you wonder a little bit . MS . MOORE : That' s why we' re here because 15 your decision specifically says you can' t make it sleeping quarters, and that' s the whole reason 16 that many of these applications come to this Board so you can impose the restrictions on it so it' s 17 clear to certainly the applicant but any future owner as to what the restrictions are with this 18 space . That' s why we always come to this Board with any- kind of unique, something that doesn' t 19 fit the typical mould under our code . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s back up a 20 second. Do you want to go? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just a couple of 21 things, being this is a tear-down altogether, I fully understand and appreciate the desire to keep 22 the historic character of an accessory barn on the premises, particularly when you have a historic 23 home to begin with. As an architect that makes a lot of sense to me . However, there' s two issues 24 here . One is the fact that accessory structures should not exceed 18 feet in height because they 25 are not meant to have a second floor that' s habitable for any use . Secondly, the setback, the September 28 , 2006 68 1 2 rear yard setback is not such a big issue but unfortunately these are not permitted uses for 3 accessory buildings . Now, the fact is that probably given the fact that increasingly 4 accessory buildings are being preserved and people are wanting to use them for home offices, for 5 computer rooms, for workshops, we need to reexamine the code as far as I'.m concerned. We 6 really ought to begin to look in the way in which adaptive re-use of accessory uses can be 7 accommodated. We aren' t at that point, however. The code doesn' t permit use other than for storage 8 of equipment . It' s an ancillary storage structure of some sort . 9 MS . MOORE : But I would disagree with that because an accessory use is one which is customary 10 and incidental to the principal use . By definition. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: By definition, that' s right . 12 MS . MOORE : Therefore, what we've asked for is an accessory building with an accessory use 13 and you have a lot -- I mean, this is not the first type of application where you have somebody 14 who is trying to keep the character of the property, keep the look of the property but have 15 use of a property, have something more -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In a tear down 16 situation, in that kind of condition. It' s one thing to say this building that already exceeds 17 the height restriction of an accessory structure is salvageable, and we' re going to rebuild it 18 because it has some historic value . It' s another thing if you' re saying you' re going to replicate 19 the appearance of what was there . You have an open slate then. At that point when you' re 20 tearing it down, you can site it anywhere you want . You can make it look like anything you 21 want . You can have it attached with the flimsiest of attachments, and you could have it skewed so it 22 appeared to be a separate building. There are a million ways that you can recreate a music studio . 23 You can have the height at 18 feet high and have the footprint wider if you have the setback moved 24 closer to the house . So I just want to raise it because I truly appreciate wanting to use your 25 property in the way that is useful for you, and I also appreciate wanting to keep the sense of a September 28 , 2006 69 1 2 farm building. But there are ways to do it that probably don' t require as many variances . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it' s perhaps misleading to use the words preserve an old 4 structure when you are in fact replacing it with a new structure . 5 MS . MOORE : We' re trying to preserve the look of the property. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s essentially building a replica of a nonconforming building 7 after you have torn it down and you call it preserve the look of it . It still doesn' t get 8 around the fact that when you build from the ground up, you' re more constrained by the existing 9 codes than you would be it you were modifying an existing structure and everybody knows that . 10 MS . MOORE : I appreciate that . The client, they wanted to try to bring back that barn 11 building. That really truly is what they want to do . They bought the house . It' s an antique . 12 It' s beautiful . They want to preserve the look of the property with an old barn in the back. That' s 13 what was their goal, and that' s why they' re here . If you' re telling me that to demolish the mold and 14 try to rebuild something that looks the same is a problem for this Board, we' ll adjourn. We' ll go 15 look and see if it' s feasible with the right contractor to rebuild the building or not rebuild. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Modify to fix it . MS . MOORE : Yeah, renovate the existing 17 building. The problem is you end up with footings, you end up bolstering a lot more . 18 Financially it makes more sense, and you know this from a lot of the applications you get before this 19 Board, it' s a lot more expensive to try to bolster an old than to try to rebuild something that' s a 20 replica. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So something' s going 21 to have to give . An older building which is nonconforming is grandfathered, is preserved. But 22 once the grandfathered building is demolished, then the grandfather exception goes out the 23 window. MS . MOORE: I understand. But we have to 24 be careful because sometimes the Building Department at one point or another says geez, 25 you've replaced too much wood, come to the Zoning Board. So I don' t want to say okay, we' ll go back September 28 , 2006 70 1 2 to the drawing board. I' d rather keep it open, look to see if structurally there' s a way of 3 bolstering, repairing the existing structure to preserve it, keeping it the way it is, 4 reshingling, everything else, but it' s the wood behind it, and the footings that are key to 5 maintaining this structure . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One more 6 hypothetical . Suppose the building is demolished if you've got detailed plans and pictures of it . 7 Then five years later you decide that you want to restore the old building, would you want to make 8 the same argument because it was only preserving with a five year hiatus between it . It sounds to 9 me like a new building. MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Suppose this is demolished and instead of building on the same 11 site one month later, you do it five years later, would you want to make the same argument; how do 12 you stop someone else from making that argument? MS . MOORE : I 'm not sure that I'm 13 following. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That you can make a 14 replication of a demolished building any time after the demolition occurs . 15 MS . MOORE: Yes . But now you see with what the building looks like, you can have 16 applications, Orient, for example, I had a client that wanted to build a replica on Village Lane 17 exactly the same house that I think structurally had a problem it couldn' t be repaired and they 18 wanted to do a replica, identical replica of it . They had the existing building that they used as a 19 form. Here we' re trying to replicate the barn and if you' re telling me, well, if you demolish it, 20 forget this barn. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In the Orient case, 21 did they require and obtain the same variances? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They needed side yard, 22 front yard, they did replicate it more or less the same style but it was a principal dwelling. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But they were able to retain the variances that were originally applied? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t think there were any variances at the time it was built, then 25 they had to come in to us . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s exactly the September 28 , 2006 71 1 2 point, now they have to come in for variances . Rebuild it to improve it, you wouldn' t require the 3 variance . MS . MOORE : I don' t know that to be sure 4 because the Building Department is not often consistent on whether or not we need to come back 5 to the Zoning Board. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s one reason why 6 we exist because they have trouble being consistent . 7 MS . MOORE : I'm trying to get them to just do a barn. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The notice of disapproval has to do with the height of the 9 building and its use . It' s a perfectly nice building, but it' s a fully insulated two-story 10 finished interior. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not a barn. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. Goehringer, I think he was just mentioning to me that generally 12 these structures are open inside . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In general these 13 structures are open studs, like a garage . MS . MOORE : No. That' s why I asked you -- 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a building to be inhabited, not for sleeping, necessarily, 15 but for -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Habitation. 16 MS . MOORE : May I please make the request, we' ll adjourn today. I want 'you to go inside the 17 building. Once you go inside the building, you' ll see what it was like and it is fully -- it is a 18 complete living structure right now. It was clearly used for sleeping quarters . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It might have been but that would still be against the code today, Pat, 20 so it doesn' t do us any good. MS . MOORE : No. But what I'm saying what 21 we' re trying to do -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s too big for a game 22 room and just a music room, you don' t need something 57 feet long by God knows how many feet 23 wide . For that you can have a smaller building to accomplish the same thing. This is just too big. 24 MS . MOORE : But if you shared that -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I make a 25 comment? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Go ahead, Jim. September 28 , 2006 72 1 ' 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make a comment, we' re here basically because they need 3 a height variance, two feet, right? MS . MOORE : Yes . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And also we' re here, I don' t think they need a setback variance 5 if they go back 10 feet, saying demolish your buildings, you can build probably a building 70 6 feet long if you want to because it' s conforming. You can have as large an accessory structure that 7 you want until you fill up 20 percent of your property. 8 MS . MOORE : But we want to use it as a music studio . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Now you' re trying to preserve the space that you have here, 10 what you envision there already. -In order for you to do that -- let me finish my thought -- you 11 would have to say renovate this building if you want to, and there would no 'permits needed to be 12 issued. I see you have a sink there, it ' s a 1930s sink. There' s a stove . People have inhabited in 13 what we' re envisioning right now with the exception of your piano, which could possibly be 14 put in there, although I doubt the stairs would hold it . You' d probably have to get a crane or 15 something. But in any case, you"re just coming to preserve that upstairs/downstairs that you have 16 already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But they' re tearing it 17 down? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In order to do that 18 you have to build this building to code, some code, I don' t know what it' s going to be . I'm 19 sure it' s going to be insulation. You' re going to have to build it so you can' t bump your head when 20 you come down the stairwell, those kinds of things . So I don' t see this as a really huge leap 21 from what they have to what they want because the 55 -- 51 foot building is already there . I don' t 22 think that you could renovate this, but I do think you could ask us for a variance but you' re asking 23 for the way you have to build it today as opposed to because you want it . Just simply because you 24 want it . You have something there already, you just don' t want to give that up. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But, Jim, if they' re demolishing the structure they don' t have September 28 , 2006 73 1 2 anything there . They' re asking for a use variance and a height variance on a new building. 3 MS . MOORE: I want to clarify, it' s not a use variance . 4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I want to just mention there' s a CO in the file that says it' s a 5 nonhabitable accessory barn. So it is a use issue . 6 MS . MOORE : That' s why I asked you, please go and look inside . You' ll see on the inspection 7 that it showed heat and water and all that . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Pat, if you take 8 it down, I don' t care what' s there, it means you have two principal dwellings on a single lot and 9 it still is illegal . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It' s not though. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there had been a use variance on the building that is now there and 11 it ' s torn down, you would have to apply for a new use variance which you might or might not get . 12 The use variance does not survive the use of the house once the house is demolished. You can' t 13 have a use variance where there is no house . MS . MOORE: I think once the variance is 14 issued it runs with the land. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The use runs with the 15 land only if the house is on it . It doesn' t run with the land if the house is demolished. 16 MS . MOORE : Are you talking about the principal house? 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Any house . A use variance refers to the use of a structure on the 18 property. When the house is no longer on the property, then the use variance expires at the 19 same time the structure did. MS . MOORE : I think in the past the Board 20 has said that we recognize that you have accessory residential uses that you want to undertake in 21 accessory buildings, and that you come to this Board and with the proper restrictions, that is 22 don' t convert it to sleeping quarters, you can use it for something that is ancillary to the 23 residential use, which is all we' re , asking for is for it to be ancillary as a piano studio . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The problem is you' re putting the cart before the horse . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying I've got the use variance, now I want to build the September 28 , 2006 74 1 2 house for that use . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They don' t have a use 3 variance . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Even if she did have 4 a use variance, if this structure was used, once you demolish the house you don' t have -- 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anything? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don' t have 6 anything. And now you want to build a new house . There are choices you can make . One is if you 7 want to have a studio, fine, no variances necessary. If you want to repair the -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No variances, but you 9 can' t have both. MS . MOORE : I just need some guidance from 10 this Board. What would you like me to do because obviously my clients, all they' re asking for is a 11 piano studio, they don' t want to have it attached to a 1600s house . It' s somewhat undermines the 12 integrity of the architectural structure . If that' s the only way it can be done, they go back 13 to the drawing board. You have got to attach it, put a barn attached to it . I- don' t know that' s 14 something that you would ever want to do . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Take them out to 15 Orient and show them the one that you did. MS . MOORE : That was a different style 16 house . That was a Cape Cod that had like a Cape Cod, just architectural style . It was a barn 17 looking, but it was all part of the living space . Here they wanted to preserve the barn look that is 18 very different from the Italianate . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I explain 19 something to you? MS . MOORE : Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There may come a time, and your father is a wonderful architect, 21 there may come a time when they want sound deadening insulation in this building for the 22 purposes of this very nice lady and her occupation or her hobby, whatever it is, it' s none of my 23 business what it is . The only way you can perform this act is two ways, you can rebuild the barn 24 with bear studs and that is it . Personally, I don' t think this Board -- and I 'm not speaking for 25 the Board and I' ll speak for myself -- I don' t care if you put a stove in it, if you have bare September 28 , 2006 75 1 2 studs, but what you are asking for is a fully insulated, fully heatable, even though it may not 3 be heated except for the nature of the stove that your father mentioned, building. And I think that 4 several of us clearly feel that that can' t be done unless it' s attached to the house, and I'm not 5 speaking for those several, they' re here to answer that question, but that' s what we' re saying and 6 that' s it . MS . MOORE : Maybe . I heard different 7 opinions here . Is the issue if it were a smaller building? 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No bearing on it . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly again, I think if you built a building to conform so you 10 didn' t need variances, there would be no trouble at all . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That has nothing -- 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: There' s no reason why you can' t play a piano in a garage . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just said that but it can' t have walls, it can' t have insulation. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Sure it can. You can insulate an accessory structure . 15 MS . MOORE : Sure . Even car repair people that tinker with cars in their garage put 16 sheetrock and they insulate it with heat . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not for me 17 to make that decision. . It' s for the Building Department to make that decision. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but what I'm saying is if you built this building without 19 needing variances, you could put that sheetrock in; you could put the sheetrock in; you could put 20 everything that we have been complaining about from this side you could do because you wouldn' t 21 be before the Board. You wouldn' t be under the restrictions . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wouldn' t get a CO. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You wouldn' t be 23 before the suspicions that seeming to emanate . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You still need a 24 CO, Jimmy. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You need a CO, but 25 I ' m sure that the Building Inspector would issue it . September 28 , 2006 76 1 , 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I wouldn' t spend that kind of money without -- 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Hey, all I 'm saying is if you don' t need a variance you could probably 4 do it . I don' t know about the bathrooms . MS . MOORE : You' re actually allowed a 5 bathroom in the accessory building as long as it' s a toilet and a sink. 6 MS . ANSELMO: Excuse me, I just want to say a little bit about my background. I just want 7 to introduce my profession and how I was brought up . I was brought up a concert pianist . My 8 mother was a professor in Moscow Conservatory and she taught multiple students . I am the same 9 profession as my mother and therefore in order for a Steinway piano that often costs $50 , 000 and up 10 to let' s say brought into any building, it needs to have heat because the piano cannot survive due 11 to the nature in which it' s built, the wood and strings and everything that was put into the 12 piano, it cannot be sustained if it was put in the building. And only because of that nature of it 13 we need to have some sort of heating provided so that the piano would not be -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I appreciate that having played piano years ago . But how are you 15 going to keep a wood burning stove going all night? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can' t do that . 17 MR. ANSELMO : Probably not . I just don' t know. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a friend that has a Steinway and we water it down all the 19 time . It has that water gauge on it . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I appreciate that as 20 my son has a Steinway grand in his house, which he' s inherited from my mother, and he had to get 21 rid of his wood burning stove because a wood burning stove isn' t the right kind of heat . 22 MS . MOORE: We don' t need a wood burning stove . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then what are they going to use for heat? 24 MR. ANSELMO: As long as there is some heat . 25 MS . MOORE : Okay, the building was previously heated by propane . September 28 , 2006 77 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But more important, I don' t think you would have a problem at least with 3 this Board in having an accessory building appropriate for your Steinway. The issue is 4 whether you can have a building which also preserves the memory, if you will, of the existing 5 building, the structure and the location. And you may have to choose between where you want to put 6 your piano and what you want to do with the existing structure . But I think both of them are 7 very worthwhile, whether they can be done in the same application is what' s giving us trouble . 8 MR. ANSELMO: Sure . If I may just add, before we bought the house, we had an engineer 9 come in and inspect the house and inspect the barn, and he said the barn you cannot salvage 10 it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We agree . We' re just 11 saying. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can recycle the 12 wood that' s all . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t have to go 13 inside to know, and neither do you, to know that' s not something you want to put money into trying to 14 rebuild. MS . MOORE : Can I make a suggestion only 15 because you' re suggesting to them go back to the drawing board, you may not be able to put this 16 same size, look of the barn as your piano studio -- 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Attach it to the house . MS . MOORE : Maybe something more 18 appropriately sized to the property. I don' t know whether it' s appropriate to attach it or not 19 attach it , that' s not my business, that would be up to the client . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . MS . MOORE : I would ask that we hold this 21 hearing open because I think no matter what we decide to do when you decide to put, whether it' s 22 called a family room or play room or art studio or music studio, the Building Department has some 23 degree of control i . e . you, to review it so somebody doesn' t convert it to living space . And 24 nobody has ever has an objection coming to you -- most of my clients who come to you and say I don' t 25 want to convert it to living space, it' s the people that don' t come to you that convert it to September 28 , 2006 78 1 2 living space . So I don' t want to penalize a client that comes to you, asks for a piano studio 3 and you tell them well, you can' t have it . Well, I think you' re saying go back and design, and you 4 may not be able to build the type of barn you want . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re saying somehow try to attach it to the house . 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re absolutely 7 right that the Board is typically concerned with having something turned into living space, but 8 that doesn' t follow from that as long as you' re not going to convert it into living space you can 9 build anything you want, anywhere, at any height . There are other reasons other than the fear or the 10 apprehension that if I turn it into a living space for wanting this to be built according to code . 11 MS . MOORE : Our only reason to ask for this height variance on this accessory building is 12 that it has no neighbors, it looks out to a farm field, and it already has a building there that is 13 27, 22 feet in height . So we are not changing the character of the area. And if you could preserve 14 the views out to the farm fields, that' s what the client would prefer. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Accessory buildings are not usually as tall as the principal 16 building. MS . MOORE : Right . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So maybe I misunderstood you, I hope you weren' t saying that 18 because the principal building is more than 20 feet this one should be too. 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No this one too . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As it now exists . 20 MS . MOORE : Therefore to replace it with the other building we were not changing the 21 character of the area. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re right . 22 MS . MOORE : That' s why we thought in this instance a request for a height variance is not a 23 huge variance, and would be appropriate not in all the cases because if you had a little lot and you 24 wanted to put a huge accessory building next to your neighbor, that' s one thing in this instance 25 we didn' t think it was a big leap . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How would you feel September 28 , 2006 79 1 2 about leaving the hearing open to go back to your client and architect? I mean, I had a Convert 3 grand piano as well for 25 years . The conditions out here are horrendous, you' d have to be tuning 4 that piano every week either; it' s too humid or it' s not humid enough. Either it' s too hot or 5 it' s too cold. They' re very sensitive and especially if you' re a concertizer, you need to 6 have a piano that has an environment that' s respectable of what that instrument requires . And 7 I think that' s the issue . You should speak to your architect about how you can create an 8 appropriate music studio, where it can best be located. I have no objection to an accessory 9 building on the premises, but whether or not an accessory building that will be suitable as a 10 music studio given the piano is the right thing to do in a separate building is another issue . You 11 might want recreation space which is a totally different nature in an accessory building and a 12 music studio that may have its own separate entrance . It can have its own architectural 13 character. There are many ways attached to historic buildings, another volume of some sort 14 that will allow you to have the space that you need. But really, that' s up to all of you. I 15 would be very welcome for you to have the time to think those things over and come back before this 16 Board and see what alternatives you propose before we take any action on it . 17 MS . MOORE : I appreciate that, thank you. Because I don' t want them having to undertake once 18 they decide to come back with fees for a similar application. Okay. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So I ' ll make a motion to keep the hearing open until October 26th. 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The hearing will be October 26th to amend the plans, and if we can 21 have seven amended plans the Friday before . But if you need more time, we can always give more 22 time if you need it . MS . MOORE : Okay, so we' ll try different 23 approaches . Some of you said one thing, some of you said another. 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I made the motion to keep the hearing open until October 26th. 25 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- September 28 , 2006 80 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Shacks on Shore Drive in Greenport . And you have 3 amended your plans considerably, thank you. MR. BASSOLINO : Bob Bassolino, I 'm the 4 architect for John Shack. On 31 of August, 2006, we had the hearing 5 and a few items, you wanted the apartment to be removed. The plan indicates the apartment is now 6 no longer, the apartment is a bedroom. The Board wanted nine feet on the east side, it' s now nine 7 feet . Moved the garage a foot over. The accessory apartment is now removed, it' s a 8 bedroom; you wanted nine feet to the east side, it' s now proposed nine feet . You wanted 40 feet 9 to the bulkhead, it' s now 40 feet, and you wanted a computation on the 20 percent or less and that' s 10 on the drawings . Seven copies of everything was submitted September 15th. If you have any 11 questions -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: This is mine, so 12 all we' re looking at now is nine feet . Everything else is -- 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . You did what we asked him. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How do you like that . So we' re clear that' s what it is . Okay, I 15 have no other questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you so much. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your client too, clearly was very amenable to working within 17 the code . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, I think 18 this is mine . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I too appreciate the 19 effort that has gone into this . I think we will certainly look very closely and convince ourselves 20 that it has been brought entirely within the purview of what we grant variances for. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 22 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 23 (See minutes for resolution. ) -- ----------------------------------------------- 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Glasses and Rafkins on Minnehaha Boulevard in 25 Southold for lot coverage limitation; is there anyone here to speak to this application? Yes, September 28 , 2006 81 1 2 please come up. MS . MOORE : Pat Moore . This one it' s 3 decking on the back of the house for those of you who, have seen the house . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We've seen it . MS . MOORE : Good. You can see it' s a 5 no-brainer: It' s tucked up behind there . There' s already poured concrete patio everywhere, and what 6 they would like to do is make a very nice seating area, wood decking. You have Dr. Glass' s letter 7 with respect to you need to have this be with as few steps if no steps at all, and that' s what they 8 propose . We got a clarification from the Building Department that the decking that is on grade 9 doesn' t count as lot coverage, and we have, what I did is I did the math, and I gave you the square 10 footage of the lot, the square footage of each individual portion separately, and what I come to 11 is the portion -- you can see that the decking is two foot above grade and the reason is it has to 12 match the sliding doors, it' s 625 square feet . That brings the total lot coverage that is 13 required to 26 . 68 percent . Since the Building Department does not require -- does not calculate 14 the decking that is on grade, our original request was for 30 percent lot coverage . We can actually 15 remove that 330 square feet from our request and we only need the lot coverage of 26 . 68 . So I gave 16 you the numbers so that -- I was always under the impression that if it was made of stone it didn' t 17 count, but if it was made of wood -- and they clarified that regardless of the material if it' s 18 on grade it doesn' t get included in the lot coverage calculations . Whether or not this Board 19 would make us get a variance for the wood on grade, that' s the location because we do have the 20 closest location of the decking at five feet from the property line, the other decking is slightly 21 set back, but still not meeting the code requirement . So it seemed to me more appropriate 22 to keep everything in. But with respect to lot coverage, it' s actually a lesser number. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The existing setback of the concrete patio is 16 feet or is 24 that the house? MS . MOORE : That' s the house . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the existing concrete? It' s not called out on the -- September 28 , 2006 82 1 2 MS . MOORE : I don' t know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It shows it dotted 3 in but it doesn' t call out . MS . MOORE. Nine feet? 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the property line . 5 MS . MOORE : Miss Glass just spoke . She' s the architect, the landscape designer, but not 6 related. The same name but unrelated. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. 7 MS . MOORE : Yes, we actually have the survey that shows the masonry wall and concrete 8 patio, but he didn' t give us the dimension. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the existing is 9 nine feet and you' re proposing five feet, right? MS.. MOORE : Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the existing lot coverage? 11 MS . MOORE : The masonry doesn' t count toward lot coverage, so it' s the existing house . 12 It' s the same thing, the existing is 19 . 809 . If you go back, just go back to that sheet . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s just for the house . 14 MS . MOORE : Yes . But that' s all that was -- 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No matter what you do if it' s elevated, it' s going to be a variance . 16 MS . MOORE : Exactly. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Pat, we can make 17 the assumption that none of this decking area, I don' t care what the elevation factor is, will be 18 enclosed. There will be no roof . It will be unroofed? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Open to the sky? MS . MOORE: Yes . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How much above grade is this deck going to be in order for it to 21 be level? MS . MOORE: Two feet . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that an' existing walkway off of Minnehaha on the front elevation? 23 MS . MOORE : The masonry walk and stoop? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . 24 MS . MOORE : That' s existing, yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because I 25 understand that you .want to eliminate steps here entirely. So is that an increasing grade to get September 28 , 2006 83 1 2 in the front door; is it zero threshold entrance? MS . GLASS : No. It' s just to facilitate 3 somebody that is inside the house being able to be wheeled out onto the deck without having -- 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s for the rear yard, I 'm 'talking about the front yard. 5 MS . GLASS : It' s on grade . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s on threshold 6 so you don' t need any alterations . And I presume the two feet off the ground is so you can have the 7 spa, the hot tub inserted into the deck. MS . GLASS : It' s about 36 inches, so we 8 were able to sink it down by two feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What is your name? 9 MS . GLASS : My name is Sabrina Glass and I ' m an interior designer, and I work for Dr. Glass 10 and his wife Laurie Rafkin to do the interior, and then they asked me whether I would work on a plan 11 for their deck so that they could complete the entire project and tie it all together. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is that cut out in the deck? 13 MS . GLASS : There' s a shrub, it' s a beautiful existing shrub and we just thought it 14 was such a shame to destroy it so we thought we would build around it . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you really have effectively no back yard. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s pretty well screened from the neighbor anyway. 17 MS . MOORE : Plus they' re going to have privacy screen. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it' s a very attractive design. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: ' My question has to do with the numbers . As it now exists, with the 20 grade level cement patio, it doesn' t exceed 20 percent lot coverage, correct? 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 19 . 8 . MS . MOORE: Because this house predates 22 the ordinance with respect to the concrete patio, the concrete patio is actually not on grade right 23 now. The portion that is two feet above is how far up? 24 MS . GLASS : The part that' s going to be two feet up, is that elevated? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it' s all ground level . September 28 , 2006 84 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: To go to the 30 percent lot could be a problem and the reason for 3 going to a 26 percent lot coverage is because part of the new deck will be elevated. Now the 4 question is, and I don' t have any idea how the Board is going to feel about this, is that the 5 minimum amount of the deck that has to be raised? Because every square foot that is raised increases 6 the lot coverage, we' re up to 26 percent . If, for example, you decided it could be three quarters 7 the size of the upgraded, then the lot coverage, would be correspondingly reduced. Could you 8 comment on how that plays out? MS . MOORE : If you look at attached to 9 what I gave you, you' ll see the floor plan, the aerial view, the elevation. You' ll see that there 10 are actually two sets of steps or two doorways, there is the slider, which is the eight foot 11 slider in front of what shows as 20 foot; then there' s also a doorway just to the north of the 12 kitchen doorway. Both of those doorways are raised. So you would be bringing the decking to 13 the level of both doors . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see . So the width 14 of the deck is determined by the existence of the rear door of the house itself? 15 MS . MOORE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it were pushed two 16 feet further back, then it would be right in the middle of the door? 17 MS . MOORE: Exactly. You wouldn' t have clearance . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The privacy screen and the existing landscaping gives somebody the 19 opportunity to have a reasonable outdoor space that' s at the same threshold as their interior 20 space seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable request . I do understand that it' s 6 . 68 percent 21 increase in lot coverage, but the consequences of that lot coverage is minimum. The two feet is for 22 two purposes . One is so the hot tub is at a reasonable height to be able to sit and slide your 23 feet over; the other is so that you can actually access is it without any steps from the inside . 24 To put a measly little crumby thin little strip like what' s there now is kind of a waste of money 25 as far as I 'm concerned. I think it' s very nicely done and it will actually improve the look of the September 28 , 2006 85 1 2 house and improve the privacy of the neighbors and the road. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because there isn' t that much privacy there now. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I really don' t object to this . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any other questions? 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone 7 in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close 8 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 9 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 10 the Bajadas on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel . Oh, you have the affidavit, thank you. 11 You could tell us what you would like to do . MS . MOORE. I am Pat Moore, and I have 12 Mr. and Mrs . Bajada who are here and they can address any questions that come up . 13 This is a very simple concept . They want to add a garage to their property. That' s the 14 simple issue . The issue is that they have this full second dwelling on their property, with a 15 full CO, based on a Zoning Board decision that was done in ' 71, which when I went through the Zoning 16 Board decision and the language which kind of -- . in 171 this decision was issued in September and 17 in December the zoning was changing so at that period of time my guess is that the Zoning Board 18 at the time wasn' t sure exactly what the end result of any zoning change would be . And part of 19 their conditions was go for a building permit within a year and do whatever you have to do to 20 subdivide this property. Well, I went through all the regulations 21 that were existing at the time in ' 71, the Planning Board requirements; I went through three 22 years of minutes of the Planning Board hearings and their minutes of their hearings . There was 23 not one setoff application that the Planning Board ever reviewed. That' s highly unlikely in three 24 years that there would be one . This being one of them so it' s like looking for a needle in a hay 25 stack. Then it was kind of ratified by or September 28 , 2006 86 1 2 confirmed in the ' 80s that there was a retroactive resolution that was adopted by the Town Board 3 saying we understand that from ' 71 through whatever the year was, several years the Zoning 4 Board was in fact the entity that would grant the development or subdivision of setoffs and you 5 didn' t go anywhere else . So, what I have here on this property is a house that has, based on Zoning 6 Board decision, a full CO to make it a full dwelling, and my client wants to add a garage 7 within a space and move the living space to the second -- partly first floor, partly second floor 8 of this modified garage, so as not to lose this accessory, what has been a nice living space for 9 the family for many years . That' s the goal . How we choose to do it here or how the Board wishes to 10 do it, I 've given you two options . One, and I did it 15 years ago, and that' s why I came up with it 11 because 15 years ago there was a very similar situation, and the Board preferred to subdivide 12 the property. And in this case the Zoning Board in ' 71 actually subdivided the property and all 13 that would have been required by the owners of the property at the time was just do two deeds . For 14 some reason they didn' t do it, and therefore it ' s all been part of one property. So we could 15 certainly do the deeds today. My client does not intend to sell this 16 front piece . He wants to keep the properties, both properties for their family use . But that' s 17 one alternative, if you want to go back to 15 years ago, that' s the way it was done . 18 We could do alternative number two, which is allow us to build the garage and put the living 19 space as part of the -- you have the set of plans, there' s a portion of the first floor of the space, 20 that is the living space of the accessory cottage and put the second floor, move the second floor 21 space, the bedrooms to the second floor. That actually is more consistent with Peconic Bay 22 Boulevard because I gave you the photographs . You have just about every house on Peconic Bay 23 Boulevard that has the similar situation, which is the living space that is integrated into the 24 garage or as the neighbor has, a full house . I mean, you see the house next door, a beautiful 25 colonial home, and they have a house on the water as well, another option. All they want is to add September 28, 2006 87 1 2 a garage on this as part of this integrated space is to reduce the number of buildings that appear 3 on this property because there' s a sense of openness, open space . When you' re going down 4 Peconic Bay Boulevard you don' t see building after building; you see kind of an open space and you 5 see the light and the air and the water down to the bay. So, to keep the character and the look 6 of this property, they would prefer in order to add a conforming use of a garage into this 7 structure -- and you' re waiting to ask me something. 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I have a couple of things to ask you. 9 You' re aware obviously that you can' t expand a nonconforming use such as this . The code 10 does not allow you to do that and you would need a ' use variance in order to do that . 11 MS . MOORE : To add a garage? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re 12 expanding a second dwelling on a property, that' s a nonconforming use . You' re not allowed to do 13 anything except repair it . MS . MOORE : That' s why I go back to the 14 history of how this house -- this house actually has -- 15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But it' s a nonconforming house . 16 MS . MOORE : It has a full CO based on the Zoning Board. 17 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s nonconforming right now. It' s a second dwelling 18 on a property. MS . MOORE: Well, then we go back to the 19 subdivision. I think it depends on how you look at whether a use that' s been granted a variance to 20 be there, whether that' s considered nonconforming, whether you have built it based on a Zoning Board 21 variance . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s 22 nonconforming now because now you' re only allowed -- under present zoning you' re only 23 allowed one dwelling on a lot . There are two, it' s nonconforming. 24 MS . MOORE : I guess that' s the legal opinion you've given them. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There is little room for debate . But in any event, you September 28 , 2006 88 1 2 didn' t, the conditions of the zoning, of the ZBA' s variance back in the day were never complied with 3 in any event . MS . MOORE : Well, that' s what I believe 4 that they may have been. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the 5 conditions were that the property be subdivided and that clearly didn' t happen, right? 6 MS . MOORE : True . But the one year limitation was that the building was going to be 7 constructed within one year, not that the subdivision would be done with one year; that' s 8 what also accompanied the building permit application, which I highlighted. The building 9 inspector at the time wrote out what the conditions were, and one of the things was expand 10 the house because it was an already existing cottage . Expand the house within one year and 11 that was done . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In any event, 12 it still remains the fact that it' s nonconforming today. It' s two houses on one lot . Today' s 13 zoning allows one house on a lot . MS . MOORE : What we' re asking to do is add 14 a conforming accessory garage . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Today' s code 15 says you can' t expand a nonconforming use . MS . MOORE: Until it comes to this Board 16 and gets the approval . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But then you 17 would need a use variance, which means you would have to show that there' s no economic use of the 18 property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Which goes back to 19 the other problem, that is that one of your arguments relies on the fact that properties with 20 two dwellings on them on Peconic Bay Boulevard are quite common. 21 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The idea of using 22 that as an argument for saying, well, what' s wrong with one more is not terribly persuasive to a 23 Board in 2006 . In addition to that, you would need the use variance, which as I say requires a 24 showing of economic hardship which would be difficult to show especially given the alternative 25 that you suggested about applying for a subdivision. September 28 , 2006 89 1 2 MS . MOORE: I did apply to essentially resurrect the Zoning Board decision from ' 71 to 3 complete the subdivision which the completion of the subdivision in this instance would be to do 4 the two deeds because the resolution by the town boards, they said we ratify the subdivisions that 5 were done by the Zoning Board between ' 71 and 180 , whatever the year was . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Exactly. Which by your own words completely defeats any possible 7 argument of economic hardship which could be used for granting a use variance . You don' t want to go 8 that way. What you' re saying you already conceded that there isn' t a need because you can fairly 9 obtain or more easily obtain a subdivision. MS . MOORE : Only if the Board authorizes 10 us to complete the ' 71 decision could we accomplish the splits .. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the second arrow in your quiver. 12 MS . MOORE : Right . Would you rather us make two conforming uses, a single family dwelling 13 on each individual lot in order for us to add a garage to this space? 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you would have a better shot at the second than you would at 15 the first . MS . MOORE : The funny thing is it' s really 16 up to the Board. Years ago depending on who the members of the Board are, both you have different 17 weights as to which way you prefer to go . We would be willing to do either one . It' s just a 18 question of which way the Board would rather us treat this application. Again, we' re trying to 19 avoid the construction of a detached garage to this property, which will just add one more 20 structure to this property. It clutters the property. ' 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me be clear about this . The existing small dwelling, the 22 proposal is to take some of the living space on the ground level that currently exists, turn it, 23 make it into a garage, about half of the structure, then refurbish space on the second 24 floor which is currently attic storage into dwelling space? 25 MS . MOORE : Correct . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s a single September 28 , 2006 90 1 2 family house with an attached garage . I just wanted to be clear. 3 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason is we 4 need a garage and you don' t want to put a third building on the property. 5 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN At least it' s clear 6 there are so many submissions . MS . MOORE : So I guess the question is 7 which way would you rather we proceed? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we have 8 to think about it, Pat . It' s not something we can agree with today. Because I'm not sure we agree 9 with what you' re saying. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There are three 10 possibilities just as a simple matter of logic . You' re saying we could do Plan A, or Plan 11 B, or we can decide on neither of the above . MS . MOORE : If you say no, don' t want you 12 to do anything here, then my client has to build a detached garage because it' s the only way. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, the only recourse I see is to make that cottage the garage and you 14 lose the living space . MS . MOORE : Yes, and they don' t want to do 15 that . If that was the choice they obviously wouldn' t do that to their cottage . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re saying if they had to choose between the cottage and the garage 17 they would choose the cottage? MS . MOORE : They would want to keep the 18 cottage, yes . . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of course . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: At that point we 20 are right now, which is keep the cottage, could you legally build a garage on this property? 21 MS . MOORE : Yes, detached, accessory. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Whereabouts would 22 you put it? MS . MOORE : It would be have to be five 23 feet off the property line and set back 40 feet from the front yard. So it would probably be 24 directly across from the cottage, and it would take away from the views of Peconic Bay Boulevard 25 any open space out to the water. So it changes the character. September 28 , 2006 91 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Change the character of the neighborhood more than just 3 adding a garage underneath this space that you already have . 4 MS . MOORE : Exactly. That' s the sense I got from the neighbors . They don' t mind. That' s 5 the way Peconic Bay Boulevard has developed, which is that these cottages, most of them are accessory 6 cottages, , were included as part of the garage, often times second floor garages or integrated 7 into the garage . So what we want to do is try to keep the character. Modify the second dwelling, 8 which again, I repeat it has a full CO as a primary use . We would still be willing to reduce 9 it' s statutory as making it into an accessory cottage . That' s apparently this property 10 originally in 171 it had history that based on the transcript of the 171 hearing, it was an existing 11 accessory cottage that the owner wanted to expand. They expanded it and the Zoning Board said, we 12 don' t have a problem with this, make it at least 850 square feet, and by the way, subdivide the 13 property. So they got the building permit, they got the CO and here we are at this point . They 14 just want a permitted use of a garage . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now a garage is an 15 allowable use in that zone . Is a garage actually any different use than a house when it' s attached? 16 MS . MOORE : As far as the residential . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: When you attach a 17 garage to a house, is. it any different use than the use you currently have? 18 MS . MOORE : No. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Because I ' m trying 19 to understand this no use variance . MS . MOORE : I professionally disagree that 20 that opinion, that it' s a use variance outright . I won' t argue that . 21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The section deals with use . 22 MS . MOORE : I think there' s been decisions that this Board has gotten on accessory buildings 23 where one of the judges, and I think it was the Dawson case, that the court actually specifically 24 addressed an issue that the Board claimed it was a use variance for an accessory dwelling. And the 25 court said no, no, the use is the residential . It' s not a pigsty; it' s not a marina, it' s a September 28 , 2006 92 1 2 residence . So the use itself is not a use variance, it' s an area variance in terms of 3 configuration, size of the property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There was a 4 condition that said it couldn' t be rented; it was accessory, and the judge said, yes, it can be 5 rented. It wasn' t a garage issue at all . MS . MOORE : I'm not saying it was a garage 6 issue . I 'm saying that .the use of a second dwelling is not when you' re trying to modify that 7 second dwelling, it' s not a use variance . It' s considered an area variance . 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: In any event, we' re left with a circumstance where the code says 9 a nonconforming use shall not be altered, and you' re asking that this Board allow it to alter 10 it . MS . MOORE : Well, I don' t believe it' s a 11 problem without coming into this Board asking for a variance, that' s why we' re here . 12 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm trying to 13 figure out what is the alteration. MS . MOORE : The alteration is 14 reconfiguring the space . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 15 alteration in use? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Increasing a 16 nonconforming use. MS . MOORE : They' re claiming that the 17 nonconforming use is the second dwelling. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How are they 18 increasing it, they' re making it bigger in size, ask Pat, I apologize . 19 MS . MOORE : They' re not making it bigger in size . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: They are not making it bigger in size . They' re changing, just 21 rebuilding it . MS . MOORE: In fact, right by my house, I 22 think it' s down on the water, I'm trying to remember my neighbor' s name but you did exactly 23 this . You had a situation where it was an accessory cottage, and what they wanted to do was 24 add a garage space and Rob Brown was the architect . You relocated the living space to the 25 second floor because the family was now living there permanently, the mother was going to live in September 28 , 2006. 93 1 2 the cottage, and they wanted to preserve the accessory use, but they now were living there 3 permanently and wanted garage space . So on Terry Lane at the end of Terry Lane and Shipyard, I 4 think is the house on the water that you did exactly this . The same application. I just 5 don' t -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I know the house 6 you' re talking about . Let me reanswer the question, okay. The minute you go from one story 7 to two stories in an accessory -- excuse me, in a CO' d cottage with a nonconforming setback, you are 8 increasing the degree of nonconformity. That' s my opinion. 9 MS . MOORE : That' s why we' re here for a variance . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s not a use variance . That' s an area variance . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s leave the use variance aspect out of it . 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : On the map I 'm looking at it, it says it' s being rebuilt, demo' d 13 rebuilt as one story. . MS . MOORE : They' re keeping the 14 foundation. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Maybe we need a 15 foundation plan to show all that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So this is going to 16 be a complete rebuild? MS . MOORE : If they can get it as a 17 rebuild they prefer. If I have to tell them the only way they can do it is to keep part of your 18 building intact, they can do that too. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So that' s what was 19 applied for as a demo? MS . MOORE : Yes, as the worst-case 20 scenario. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you' re proposing 21 to go from an existing height of 17 up to -- MS . MOORE : 25 . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the ridge . MS . MOORE : No, to the top is 25 . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, to the ridge . And that exists now is 17, that' s to the soffit 24 looks like . MS . MOORE : I 'm looking at Garrett 25 Strang' s . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I am too. September 28 , 2006 94 1 2 MS . MOORE : Just under 20 I think. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you can' t 3 really tell exactly from here what' s existing and what is proposed. I presume this is all proposed 4 since this is a tear down. MS . MOORE : Ideally it would be to tear it 5 down. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Those are the 6 drawings I 'm looking at and the dotted lines actually probably represent the bulk of the 7 building mass of what is there now? MS . MOORE: Yes, the dotted line is what 8 is there now. Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So according to 9 this call out then it' s 17 feet in terms of what is there now, and you' re proposing to make it 25 10 so the second floor is habitable . MS . MOORE: Right . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would you want to be arguing or what you would be asking for is that an 12 existing cottage have an addition built to it which would take the form of an attached garage, 13 saying that that' s what we would be asking to do? MS . MOORE : That' s not what Garrett Strang 14 designed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would come 15 closer to the spirit of the code, but maybe if you have an existing cottage you might be able to, if 16 you could get permission to make an addition to it, an addition would then be a garage . It may 17 not look like that in the plans, but would you be more comfortable arguing it that way? 18 MS . MOORE : If the Board would be more comfortable adding to an existing cottage a garage 19 space because that' s what they are looking for, they' re here they can hear it for themselves, they 20 just don' t want to have to add more buildings to this property by building the detached garage . 21 It' s just too many buildings on the property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And they don' t want 22 to convert the existing building into a detached garage because they would rather keep it as a 23 cottage.. MS . MOORE: Well, yeah. They would hope 24 to have the accessory sleeping quarters for the family. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, for us, I don' t know about for you, but for us it would be September 28 , 2006 95 1 2 something of a twist to interpret this simply as adding a garage to a cottage because the 3 architectural plans don' t belie that interpretation, and I' d be embarrassed to sign off 4 on something that required that interpretation. So we' re really just simply building an attached 5 garage . MS . MOORE : Yes . What they' re doing is 6 they were trying to keep to the same square footprint . 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand but they' re building up. 8 MS . MOORE : They' re relocating and up, yes . 9 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Five feet . How many more feet is it? 10 MS . MOORE : The difference between seven feet, which is and actually Garrett had drawn what 11 is a squat structure with the dormers to get the type of space that they would need for building 12 code compliance . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So your proposed 13 tear down is to build on the footprint? MS . MOORE : Same footprint, yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Make it higher. I want to make sure I understand. 15 MS . MOORE : Again, if the Board is -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know this by 16 heart in all honesty, that' s why I 'm asking these questions, because I don' t see the garage as 17 increasing the use here . MS . MOORE : That' s why this is unique, 18 because you have a CO for a full dwelling, it' s not an accessory cottage . 19 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There' s two circumstances here . It would be one thing if you 20 were taking the existing nonconforming use, which is the second dwelling and adding a garage to it . 21 . It' s a little different to tear down and rebuild that nonconforming use, which you' re not allowed 22 to do . It' s questionable whether you could add a garage to it because one might argue that you' re 23 not rebuilding a nonconforming use because it' s the accessory use and not the second dwelling that 24 you' re adding on to it . So you have some wiggle room there that you' re not enlarging the 25 nonconforming use . But it seems clear to me, and I'm open to discussion about it, is that you can' t September 28 , 2006 96 1 2 tear down and rebuild the second dwelling. MS . MOORE : If you didn' t have a CO based 3 on a variance . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s still 4 nonconforming, Pat . It doesn' t matter if you got a variance . It doesn' t matter if it was legal in 5 19-whatever, when it was built, and you didn' t need a variance . It' s still nonconforming today 6 as a second dwelling. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s no CO for a 7 building because there' s no building. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: There' s lots 8 of buildings in the town that have COs that are nonconforming. 9 MS . MOORE : I understand that but they were not necessarily created by a Zoning Board 10 variance . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They might 11 have been created legally under the law at the time, and not even required a variance which made 12 their position stronger, but they' re still nonconforming today. 13 MS . MOORE. Do you want to go back to the drawing board and look at this with Garrett Strang 14 for an addition to taking the existing building, just adding the garage? 15 MS . BAJADA: When you say adding the garage, I don' t mean to be ignorant as to what you 16 mean, but does that require it being next to it or or can you -- without using the word rebuild, but 17 addition on the first floor and still gain the space upstairs? 18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You couldn' t use the space upstairs as habitable, the space 19 upstairs as dwelling space . MS . BAJADA: Okay, so when you say 20 addition, then -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It could 21 conceivably be attached if this Board was willing to go along with that . I mean, and as Mr. Dinizio 22 was saying, it could be detached without the need for a variance. 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But what it cannot be is to move the cottage to the top of the garage 24 because that would not count as building a garage as an adjunct to your cottage . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What if they raised the cottage and put ' the garage under? September 28 , 2006 97 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re moving it, you can' t do that . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Honestly, I think we' re here, and this is what I' get from you, Pat, 4 is the neighborhood better served by the fact that you raised this building up seven feet and put a 5 garage on it? Or is it better served by building another building on this piece of property that 6 can be larger and may be not higher but certainly more intrusive? 7 MS . MOORE : I think that' s why we' re here . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s your offer 8 is look, we' d like to do this, and it' s the benefit to the neighborhood, it' s not going to add 9 much except for that five feet . If I hear right, the alternatives are to add a garage to a building 10 to which our Town Attorney is saying it' s a nonconforming use . Well, if you can' t increase a 11 ', nonconforming, I agree . But I think we should find a way to mitigate the impact . You' re coming 12 to us with a suggestion on that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Jim, the problem with 13 that is that you' re suggesting that the impact on the neighborhood is by itself a sufficient reason 14 for granting something where we don' t typically allow that except in the case of an addition. 15 We' re talking about what the constraints of a law are, not what would be good to do if there were no 16 law. You can' t build an extra building on your property by arguing that it will prettify the 17 neighborhood. MS . MOORE : No. We' re saying that you 18 can' t modify, whether you consider this nonconforming or not, this is preexisting in the 19 sense that it' s there . We' re asking to modify this preexisting structure, and in order to do 20 that because of your interpretation that any expansion or any increase in the degree of 21 nonconformity, even though -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Pat, it' s not 22 interpretation; it' s words written in the code . MS . MOORE: No, no, no. I 'm saying as far 23 as interpretation whether or not something is an increase or not, if you add a conforming use, a 24 garage to a nonconforming use, is the nonconforming increasing. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t think so, but you can' t rebuild the nonconformity. September 28 , 2006 98 1 2 MS . MOORE : You' re saying if you demolish and you try to rebuild it, you've got a problem. 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Thank you. MS . MOORE : So if you modify, you might 4 entertain it . BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Depends on the 5 modification, obviously. MS . MOORE : Right . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What you don' t want to say is if you don' t let us do what the code 7 specifically prohibits, we' ll do something you like even less . 8 MS . MOORE: No. I said I don' t need your permission to go do something that -- 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They don' t need permission to build a separate garage elsewhere on 10 the property, and it' s not a good argument to us to say, you know, we will exercise our given 1 11 rights and do something you don' t like if you don' t bend the law to do something to let us do 12 what we were planning to do. MS . MOORE : No. I'm responding to the 13 question, which is can you do this; can you add a garage, and, yes, we can add a garage, but it will 14 not be in character -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mrs . Bajada, could you 15 put a garage and attach it to the shed area of the cottage? 16 MS . BAJADA: Not without obviously taking up more of the property that we would be using if 17 we just lifted it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And you have the 18 driveway there now, right? MS . BAJADA: Yes . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t understand. 20 MR. BAJADA: The cottage is there; it' s not going anywhere . This is not approved. We' re 21 going to lift it and put a foundation on it so it' s not going anywhere . So for us to cut down 22 some more trees and add another building on the property, we would like to take down what we have 23 which regardless is going to be there, try to put one room, well, actually it' s two rooms, one big 24 and a small room upstairs, and put a garage where that one room is, that room and a half . I mean, 25 really when she started out, we' re adding a garage, but we' re not adding a garage next to what September 28 , 2006 99 1 2 we have, we' d like to add it under what we have . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Or another area 3 that might be an alternative that might work for you is where the shed is in the driveway, there' s 4 an open space area in there where you can fit a 30 foot garage . 5 MR. BAJADA: And I understood what you said, but I don' t know if you ever walked Peconic 6 Bay Boulevard, like Pat said, every property on the water side has exactly or very similar to what 7 we' re trying to accomplish. Our neighbor next door has a two story cottage plus a full attic 8 plus a garage . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Some of them are 40 9 feet from the boulevard. MS . MOORE : Closer, yes . 10 MR. BAJADA: I think .our cottage is much more than 40 feet . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re absolutely right . Peconic Bay Boulevard is full of lots 12 where there are two principal dwellings and that' s a fact . 13 MS . BAJADA: Forty feet from the street or from the water. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : From the street, where the shed is . 15 MS . BAJADA: So 40 feet would bring you, I 'm not sure where 40 feet would bring you. 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s about 30 feet of driveway where the driveway is . 17 MS . BAJADA: Would that be 40 feet from the road? 18 MS . MOORE : Yes, there' s plenty room, looks to be . 19 MR. BAJADA: The property is 100 feet by 300 feet . So I don' t know what the issue is . The 20 other thing I want to say is this, I don' t quite understand what conformity and this and that, but 21 the end of the day, I would like to think that when these things are required, people come to you 22 and at the end of the day, I would like to think that you as a group look at the situation and 23 common sense wins rather than walk a straight line because not every property, not every situation 24 will sort of conform to that law that is required or by whatever rules you guys go by. It does not 25 make sense for us to build another hunk of two by fours, two by sixes next to what we have . It does September 28 , 2006 100 1 2 not do our property any justice . MS . MOORE : Do you want to adjourn this, 3 have us go and look at alternatives before we come back in? 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Again, answering Mr. Bajada, we understand that sometimes common 5 sense is common sense, but unfortunately, we are bound by rules and regulations, and we have to go 6 by that . MR. BAJADA: If that' s what you must do. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone else wish to comment on this application? 8 MS . MOORE : Was there any thought about the subdivision; would you entertain the 9 subdivision aspect of it? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 10 MS . MOORE : Okay, I didn' t know whether to pursue this or not . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' ll adjourn this to the 26th. 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, if we could have the alternative plans by the Friday before . 13 If you need more time, let me know.. MS . MOORE : We' ll just give you a 14 footprint . It' s where it would be if it were attached. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you for your patience . If no other comments, I ' ll make a 16 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 17 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for John Diller on Peconic Bay Boulevard. 19 Mr. Goggins? MR. GOGGINS : Good afternoon, my name is 20 William C. Goggins, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York for the applicant, John Diller. We' re 21 here seeking variances pursuant to Section 100-244 , 100-239 . 4B . I was going to make a 22 presentation but Mr. Diller would like to make one first . I 'm here if you have any questions, if I 23 need to make any additional points, thank you. MR. DILLER: Thank you, good afternoon. 24 One health note, I just found out this morning I have a ,herniated disk and sometimes when' I stand 25 up I'm fine, and sometimes when I stand up it hurts, so if you see me sit down from time to September 28 , 2006 101 1 2 time, I mean no disrespect to the Board. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Quite all right . 3 MR. DILLER: My north fork credentials go back to being born in Greenport at the hospital, 4 being raised in Peconic, a potato farm, graduating 50 years ago from Southold High School . My work 5 took me to New York City and more recently to San Antonio and Nashville, but I have always 6 maintained a residence on the north fork throughout all that time . 7 In 1981 I built a four bedroom, year round house on property on in Laurel . And the subject 8 of this hearing today is on a related property. And at that point in time in 1981, it was 9 determined .that the town attorney, Bob Tasker, ruled that these lots which were created by will 10 by my grandfather were recognizable lots predating zoning. In any event, the house that I built and 11 swimming pool, for my wife and two children and eventually a third child, was the first year round 12 house in that area. We spent our Christmases and winter weekends, and of course, the summer. And 13 as time went by the children have gone their own way, and I found two years ago that the pool 14 wasn' t being used, and I was rattling around in a house that was too big. So at that point in time 15 I sold that house . The subject of the hearing today goes back 16 to a property that in the 1890s was bought for my grandfather, who was also a farmer in Laurel . 17 When he died, an untimely death in 1943 , he left the three acre parcel south of Peconic Bay 18 Boulevard stretching to the bay divided amongst his six living children. The lots are narrow, 50 19 feet wide, and the lots are very long, approximately 400 feet long. And those were the 20 lots that, as I said before, were determined to predate zoning in their creation and be buildable 21 lots . However, the reason that I 'm here today 22 with this variance application is that in a sense, the size of the lot works against me because it' s 23 too big. Because it is more than 20, 000 square feet, technically about five percent larger, the 24 side yard requirements for lots that size I believe are 35 feet and subsequently, the house 25 that I could build on this buildable lot could be 15 feet wide, 266 feet long and 35 feet high. September 28 , 2006 102 1 2 That doesn' t make any sense to me and I suspect -- I hope -- it doesn' t make any sense to anyone 3 else . So, what we've done, what we' re doing is 4 trying to build a much more modest house, two bedroom house, 24 feet wide, and we've sited it 5 originally, with our application to the Building Department on the common building line with the 6 properties immediately to the west and to the east . In determining that common building line, I 7 took into account that there was a screened porch in one of those buildings and there was a deck. 8 And one of those buildings -- and there was a deck, open deck in the other building to create a 9 common building line . However the Board of Trustees did not agree and moved it back 10 feet 10 so that it now comports with the common building line of the enclosed portion of the structures to 11 the east and to the west . What I would hope the Board would do would 12 be to look at this from a standpoint of the hardship that' s imposed by the particular lot in 13 question. If the lot were 25 feet shorter, it would be under 20, 000 square feet, the building 14 side yard requirement would be 25 feet and what we are proposing would be well within the envelope 15 that' s created. The property in question is level; it' s 13 to 14 feet above the water level, 16 14 feet in elevation. It' s 94 feet from the mean high water mark, and within that 94 feet there are 17 two separate restraining walls that are built, and there is, no, there has never been any ecological 18 problem. However, out of the six lots that my grandfather created, five of them now have houses 19 on them, and I would say that what is being proposed here is a year round house that is an 20 addition to the neighborhood. The plot immediately, the house 21 immediately to the east is a farm building from I guess the 1920s, and to the west is a dwelling 22 that was created by taking two of the Camp Immaculata camp buildings that upon the closing of 23 Camp Immaculata maybe in the ' 60s or ' 70s became available . And now are interspersed at various 24 places usually as out buildings around the north fork. So, I ' d say that this would be a year round 25 dwelling, whereas the others are seasonal, and I think it' s totally reasonable and would add to September 28 , 2006 103 1 2 rather than detract certainly from the neighborhood itself . 3 There was a question raised by my cousin about it being a three story building. He left 4 the country before I was able to talk to him directly about it, but I think it' s a 5 misinterpretation of a suggestion that actually his .son had made that we make the roof flat and be 6 able to access the roof as a place to watch the sun set back over the northwest portion of the 7 property. I thought it was a good suggestion; I incorporated it but he misinterpreted it as a 8 three story building. It is not a three story building, it was never intended to be . It' s 9 totally in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I would dare to say it' s an 10 improvement on the character of the neighborhood. As far as any questions that you may have 11 that deal with the legalities, Mr. Goggins is here prepared to answer those questions . If there are 12 any questions you may want to put to me, I ' d be more than glad to answer. I am now retired, and 13 I'm able to spend more time back here . Thank you. 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is still a rather large house for the size of the property. And the 15 setback is only 20 feet . We are now trying to be consistent with the Local Waterfront 16 Revitalization, which would put it 75 foot back, and frankly, if you put it 75 foot back, you would 17 not incur the closeness to your neighbors on the east and especially the west . 18 MR. GOGGINS : You would not incur that but what he would incur is a loss of view. 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he wouldn' t, Bill, there aren' t trees in front of that . 20 MR. GOGGINS : Well, if you can' t look to your left and you can' t look to the right, you 21 lose your view, all you have is a view straight ahead. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, I'm sorry, but we are trying -- this Board is trying to comply as 23 much as possible with the LWRP. We can maybe do 70, but nothing less than that . In fact, in the 24 letter from John McNulty, he said that years ago his property extended 20 feet out into the bay. 25 There has been that much erosion. So he' s back where he is today. So we' re doing this just for September 28 , 2006 104 1 2 protective services for the owner of the property because erosion will occur. 3 MR. GOGGINS : Well -- MR. DILLER: May I respond to that? 4 MR. GOGGINS : No, let me, please . That' s why they changed the law to make it instead of 5 from the mean high tide mark to the bulkhead because the bulkhead prevents erosion, and if I 6 could now make a record -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm going to disagree 7 with you- on that but that' s all right . MR. GOGGINS : . The property to the west has 8 a building on it; that building is within 10 feet of the property line . Mr. Diller isn' t asking for 9 anything more than that same distance away from that, and the Trustees, who are the environmental 10 people in Town, the ones that look at the environment and the effect upon the environment, 11 they decided to move the house back only 10 feet; so I don' t understand why this Board or your 12 opinion would be that you have to move the building back more than that . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because we have different ways of looking at things, sir. 14 MR. GOGGINS : What would your opinion be as to why they should move back further than the 15 existing buildings on the east and on the west? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They were preexisting, 16 so we had no notification; we had no studies of erosion in the town at that time when they were 17 put in. So today it' s a horse of a different color. We are trying very hard to comply with the 18 consistency forms of the LWRP and what we know to be true, that there is erosion and we want them 19 back. MR. DILLER: Madam Chairperson, any 20 erosion that took place on this property we took steps to stop. And prior to 1947 there was a 21 survey in the file from Young and Young, a bulkhead was placed on the property. But we found 22 after that at a second elevation there was a possibility of an undercutting to the bank, so a 23 restraining wall was installed, I believe, sometime in the 1980s and 1990s, and there has 24 been absolutely no erosion, and it would be impossible for there to be any erosion without 25 either one or the other of those restraining walls giving away. It is not an open bank. September 28 , 2006 105 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 70 foot . MR. DILLER: Pardon me? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whatever it is, it' s 70 foot, you' re not going to change my mind. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me try to put a point consistent with what Miss Oliva said but 5 maybe a little differently. Neither the Trustees nor the Zoning Board nor the LWRP can do anything 6 with the existing houses on both sides . So we have the LWRP to go on; we have the zoning code; 7 and the Trustees have their zoning code . They don' t always agree with us, at least so far as to 8 how seriously to take the LWRP rule . It' s not for us to conform to what we may disagree with at 9 their judgment but to do what we see fit . And the fact that there are two houses which could not be 10 built today on either side, we' re not likely to have that influence . The decision we make, 11 whatever it is going to be with regard to how much of a setback from the bulkhead we' re going to 12 allow, and we are taking the LWRP rules seriously, and we take the code seriously, and we take other 13 considerations -- all their considerations seriously, so do the Trustees . We don' t follow 14 the Trustees . We follow our own best judgment, the code and the LWRP . And we' ll see what happens 15 when we examine it . That' s about all I can say at this point . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? MR.' DILLER: Did you indicate, Madam 17 Chairperson, that it was a 20 foot setback? I may have misunderstood. 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I believe so . MR. DILLER: Because the distance from the 19 bulkhead -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From the retaining 20 wall . MR. DILLER: To the proposed location is 21 54 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s all the way 22 down to the lower ,bulkhead, I 'm talking to the retaining wall . 23 MR. DILLER: Well, the retaining wall is not the bulkhead. 24 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You don' t give the measurement to the retaining wall . 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s only to the bulkhead. September 28 , 2006 106 1 2 MR. DILLER: I've never heard anybody marking the distance from the retaining wall . He 3 just separates land from land. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a reference 4 point I guess . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The variance 5 is keyed off the bulkhead, correct? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll put it back to 80 6 feet . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : The notice of 7 disapproval seems to say differently. The notice of disapproval says that the existing is 20 feet 8 from the nearest wood bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So they' re calling 9 the retaining wall a bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: At best it' s 10 misleading. I would agree with you, Mr. Goggins . 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: To be clear, all the things that have been mentioned are good 12 principles . It is relevant where the neighboring properties are because that' s one of the variant' s 13 considerations is the effect on the character of the neighborhood and that' s one of the principles 14 that the Board needs to go by. It, of course, also needs to be consistent with the LWRP, but 15 that means it just need not violate any of the policies in the LWRP. I'm hearing that erosion is. 16 one of the major concerns . So the neighborhood is important; erosion is one of the major 17 concerns . The neighborhood is important, but just the fact that houses are in a certain place isn' t 18 going to rule the day if there are other problems bourn out by the LWRP, which I 'm not aware if they 19 are or aren' t . MR. GOGGINS : So if we assume that the 20 lower bulkhead, which is 54 feet, which is the bulkhead that touches the beach, then we' re only 21 asking for a 21 foot variance . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We were just going 22 over the two walls on the property and referencing the outer one, the one with high water mark as 23 being the bulkhead and the inside retaining wall is also a structure that seems regulated under 24 that 230 code number, the 75 foot setback, I 'm not sure . Take a look. 25 MR. GOGGINS : But also, if you look on the survey that you have, the high tide mark in September 28 , 2006 107 1 2 August, 2005 -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t care . 3 MR. GOGGINS : I know you don' t care, but we' re talking about erosion and if your concern is 4 erosion and the mean high tide mark in August, 2005, the 85 feet from the proposed structure on 5 the east and 105 feet from the proposed structure on the west side of the property, then erosion 6 becomes less of a concern. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then why did they have 7 to put the second retaining wall there, if they weren' t being eroded? 8 MR. GOGGINS : If you walk along the beach in that area of Peconic Bay, you' ll see that 9 almost all the houses have a bulkhead and retaining wall because they' re built on a cliff . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even more reason, my dear. 11 MR. GOGGINS : I 'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even more reason, 12 bulkheads do fail . MR. DILLER: But is the net result of that 13 ruling to penalize people who, in 1947 and after, took action to put up things that would prevent 14 erosion, because further to the east where the land comes down more toward the beach level and 15 there are no bulkheads, and they could build a house within 75 feet of the high water mark, but 16 you' re saying somebody takes the action which we took to preserve property is going to be penalized 17 by having to put a house 75 feet back and a good 50 feet back from the adjoining -- 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: They need not be penalized but neither should they be rewarded. 19 MR. GOGGINS : But that' s his argument, his argument is if you put a bulkhead away from the 20 high tide mark with the anticipation that at some point the water' s going to come up and hit the 21 bulkhead, it protects your property more than someone that doesn' t have a bulkhead and the water 22 comes up and starts eroding the land. So what he' s saying it' s like an equal protection 23 argument . I guess it' s an argument for the code, but why should the code give somebody 75 feet from 24 the high tide mark if they don' t have a bulkhead, but 75 feet from the bulkhead if they do; it 25 doesn' t make sense if your intent is to prevent erosion. September 28 , 2006 108 1 2 MR. DILLER: The pictures that are in your files show the extent of the beach seaward of the 3 bulkhead. The bulkhead was not built with the intention of being at this high water mark. It 4 was built inward quite a bit . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I think the 5 Building Department had 20 foot relief on there because putting that -- 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Right . We should be measuring from the bulkhead, not. the 7 further retaining wall . MR. DILLER: So then it' s 54 feet as 8 proposed. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It appears to be, 9 yes . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : 21 and 54 is 75 , 10 right? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, the rule 11 is 75 ; they' re asking for 54 , so they' re asking for 21 feet of relief . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the LWRP consistency report states a minimum separation 13 distance of 100 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 97 . 14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The Trustees have already dealt with that . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: But they granted relief . 16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correct . MR. GOGGINS : So they made an analysis of 17 the LWRP. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They have made 18 their own consistency determination and that takes care of that . You need not deal with Chapter 97 . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but it is within our purview to introduce this inconsistency 20 and deal with it . Certainly we have to deal with it in the same manner as the Trustees? 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, we don' t . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm not 22 saying -- we have to come up with a reason if we grant anything. 23 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And if we deny 24 anything we have to come up with reasonable reasons, and, you know, I am more inclined to go 25 along with the inconsistency report and take it on that basis as opposed to a flawed disapproval . September 28 , 2006 109 1 2 Because certainly the 20 feet that they' re saying here, I can' t make heads or tails . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So if they go back 75 feet from the main bulkhead, which is just an 4 increase of another 21 feet . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s consistent 5 with code, not the LWRP, which is 100 feet . The LWRP is even more restrictive than the existing 6 code . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think Jim is right, 7 we have to correct what seems to be an error to us on the disapproval form and we consider the code . 8 Yes, we do consider the LWRP, we do not consider the apparent ignoring of the LWRP recommendations 9 by the Trustees; that' s simply not our province . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I wouldn' t say 10 they ignored it . Because things get referred to the Trustees as a matter of course if they' re 11 within 100 feet and they' re found to be inconsistent, and it' s the Trustees purview to 12 vary that 100 feet, which they have done in this instance . So I wouldn' t hang anything on that 13 inconsistent determination with relation to Chapter 97 . Now it' s been found inconsistent but 14 recommended, from what I understand -- but recommended by the LWRP coordinator to this body. 15 This body may grant a variance if it finds it can make it consistent with the LWRP. It has that 16 ability, but you have to make such a determination if you find that to be true . 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . We have to back it up with fact . 18 MR. GOGGINS : I don' t understand, if the LWRP -- it' s not that I haven' t read it -- but you 19 have two boards looking at -the same recommendation, and they could have 20 inconsistent --. I'm just throwing this out -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Zoning Board has 21 the final say. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I wouldn' t 22 say they have the final say, they need both. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The more 23 restrictive, right . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Whoever is the more 24 restrictive . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: They evaluate 25 under different criteria. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm a little September 28 , 2006 110 1 2 unclear, quite honestly, about this 100 feet . If we don' t have to consider that -- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We do. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s what I 4 thought . Just because the Trustees say our old laws apply to this, the 75 feet, and under the 5 Andros Patens they have that right, we still must consider the 100 feet . 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No. I would disagree . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A 55 foot setback is about a 40 foot -- 40 percent variance . 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I would disagree . My advice, the 100 feet, the reason it 9 was found to be consistent within 100 feet is because that is the Trustees' jurisdiction. 10 Okay. And everything within 100 feet requires the Trustees to sign off on it and give a variance . 11 They won' t use that word but essentially what they' re doing is giving a variance . Apparently 12 they have done that . Your jurisdiction is within 75 feet . You were only asked for a variance as to 13 less than 75 feet, so you need to value it under that criteria. 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, 75 feet back from 15 the bulkhead, which is an increase of about 21 feet . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which is about 20 percent . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: A 20 percent 18 variance as opposed to 40 . MR. GOGGINS : So we have 54 feet now, 19 we' re asking for less than 75 . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Asking for 21 more feet back. 21 MR. GOGGINS : Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 22 MR. GOGGINS : So you' re not granting the variance . 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Looking at the reasons to do it . 24 MR. GOGGINS : With Miss Oliva, that' s I guess my question to you, you don' t agree with 25 giving us the variance on that 75 feet? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. September 28 , 2006 111 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Bill, I 'm looking for, quite honestly -- and you know me -- I' m 3 looking for some good reasons to make that ,argument that we can put in writing that we can 4 vote on. Miss Oliva is a vote on here and I 'm a vote . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : And she can have 6 her opinion and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don' t agree, but quite honestly, I am not in a 7 position of granting something just because I think it may be okay, or it may be fair to your 8 applicant; I need to have reasons . And I haven' t heard too much other than the houses alongside -- 9 MR. GOGGINS : I really haven' t got to that point . Actually I was shutdown earlier. 10 The reason why you have waterfront property and the reason why you want to have a 11 house there is you want to have a view. And the reason why the Trustees want to have us move the 12 house back and the reason why we' re in consent with that is along the shoreline it evens the 13 houses so everybody has an equal view. When you talk about variants, you' re talking about equity 14 among the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But, Bill, we' re not 15 concerned with views . MR. GOGGINS : That' s our argument . Our 16 argument is that you want to give equity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The Board has never 17 been -- go to Rabbit Lane . MR. GOGGINS : If you want to give equity 18 to the neighbors and to applicant, then you want to keep their views of the water consistent 19 because that' s a primary concern when you have waterfront property. So if you don' t grant a 20 variance at all, and you push the house back 75 feet, they lose that view because your view is in 21 a tunnel view looking straight, when you' re on the bay, you want the houses all consistent at the 22 same distance from the bay so you all have a type of panoramic view. 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How high are the structures on either side? 24 MR. GOGGINS : The other structures are probably what Pat Moore would call squat 25 structure . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . A story and September 28 , 2006 112 1 2 a half . MR. GOGGINS : They' re cottages . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there' s no question that this structure on the second floor 4 can provide panoramic views if. set back _ CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would look over the roofs of the structures . 6 MR. GOGGINS : Presently. But these cottages are falling apart . I know the Board 7 probably went out there and looked at the area. These cottages are old; they' re not being taken 8 care of; they' re falling down. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The one on the left 9 looked pretty good to me . MR. GOGGINS : It' s just a matter of time 10 by the time these neighbors come out and say, gee, I want to convert my summer shack to a year round 11 summer house . And they' re going to say, well, can we stay in the footprint, and maybe build back and 12 you' re not going to make them pick it up and move it back. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Want to bet? MR. GOGGINS : We haven' t seen that yet . 14 So what these applicants want to do in the future is they will want to build up and they will want 15 to build back, so now you' re going to have in the future that' s what' s going to happen. So to keep 16 parity in the neighborhood. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s what your 17 client is doing, your client is not saying I want to keep it. in parity with the other cottages on 18 the thing. And I will build a one story, small house low to the ground, a one story ranch house 19 that just can look over the bay. He' s saying he wants to make it rather a high pitched house, 20 which will over -- I mean, it' s bigger than anything in the neighborhood. 21 MR. GOGGINS : Well, we talked about a panoramic view from the second floor. Well, if 22 you move the house back and these neighbors go up, you' re going to lose that view. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, he won' t . MR. GOGGINS : If you move that back and 24 the trees grow, you' re going to lose that view. That' s what we' re talking about . We' re talking 25 about view when you have waterfront property. MR. DILLER: Madam Chairperson, it is a September 28 , 2006 113 1 2 1, 400 square foot house . It' s 24 feet wide . It' s not a big house . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I understand. MR. DILLER: Even compared to the camp 4 cottages, it' s bigger, but it' s not some situation where somebody' s coming in and trying to build a 5 big house, I mean 1, 440 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm trying to be 6 sensitive -- this is my own opinion, your neighbors and relatives to the west, it puts you 7 in very close proximity to the wall of that house . If you did move back the 21 feet, they 8 would not have the same feeling that you' re practically in their house instead of in your 9 house . MR. DILLER: Well, when they built their 10 house 10 feet from the property line in 1976 , does that mean that they now have the right to keep the 11 property immediately east of them clear? It doesn' t seem fair that they put their house that 12 close . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We' re trying to be 13 sensitive to neighbors' privacy and what have you. MR. DILLER: It' s a house that' s occupied 14 two months of the year. These are seasonal dwellings . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sometimes they end up to be more than seasonal . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Most of these houses were seasonal at one point, almost all of them. 17 MR. GOGGINS : Is the Board going to allow to put landscaping in along the border to get 18 privacy; is that the Board' s concern? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is the 19 proposed house to the ridge? MR. DILLER: 29 feet . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 29 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s high. 21 MR. DILLER: What would you like? Height of the house is not material to me . I mean with a 22 flat roof -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 25 . 23 MR. GOGGINS : To the eve it' s 18 feet, so if they went with a flat roof it would be may be 24 19 feet . MR. DILLER: The height of the house is 25 immaterial to me . It' s important to have that second story on a couple of the pieces of the September 28 , 2006 114 1 2 house so they have a bedroom. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t know about 3 you, but given the snow load and everything else, I 'm not sure I would want to put a flat roof 4 structure on a waterfront piece of property. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Drive down 5 Dune Road a couple times, I don' t think that' s our responsibility. Our responsibility here is to 6 insure that the neighborhood and the health and welfare of everybody is considered. And if the 7 gentleman wants to have a flat house, I 'm not all that happy about him having a flat house, but if 8 he wants to, I think more of the consideration is that distances from the bulkhead. You know, yeah, 9 you can have a two story house, you know I would think you would want it to look a little nice . I 10 think a pitched roof doesn' t bother a person with the walls on either side . But the reason that 11 you' re here is because you' re asking for a side yard variance, and maybe you have got to kind of 12 mitigate that in some way. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you want to look 13 at what a two and a half story, two story house can be height wise, he could go down to 24 feet 14 and still have the pitch and just change the pitch slightly and still have a totally habitable second 15 story. MR. GOGGINS : That' s what he would do, 16 whatever the Board wants . MR. DILLER: The house as originally 17 applied for to the Building Department' had a slight pitch to the roof of about 24 , 25 feet . 18 The only reason that that roof went up was the neighbor' s suggestion of a flat roof, and in order 19 to have a flat roof, you had to have a way to get to it . That' s immaterial . If we go back to the 20 original proposal . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That sounds better. 21 MR. DILLER: Fine . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don' t have that 22 before us . MR. GOGGINS : But what is important is not 23 to be stuck in back of the adjoining houses . For 10 months of the year they are closed up and this 24 is a year round house that we' d have to be looking at those houses 21 feet in front of this . More 25 than 21 feet actually because it would be 21 feet plus their porches . September 28 , 2006 115 ' 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I certainly can Understand your reasoning, however, even with 3 privacy screening, which can restrict your own views as well as your neighbors' . You may create 4 privacy, but it can also create a barrier to the panoramic view that you' re talking about wanting 5 to retain. It seems to me more desirable to have a little bit more privacy on your side yards for 6 everybody, including you. I mean really, look at the stakes; you put up a 20 foot wall there and 7 there that cast shadows alone on those other properties depending on the time of day will be 8 quite significant . And you' ll be chopping down a whole lot of mature evergreens in the process . 9 MR. DILLER: I understand. But we' re working with plots that are 50 feet wide . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They' re very difficult to build on. I understand why -- 11 MR. GOGGINS : And the neighbor decided to put theirs 10 feet away. 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s sited at an angle stepped back in order to create some views 13 instead of a shotgun house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s why another 21 14 feet, it' s very good. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a difficult 15 problem when you have such small lots with such beautiful views and such tiny houses on either 16 side that could be nonconforming and so close to the lot . That' s all granted. It' s difficult to 17 build desirably on these small lots . Yet it' s just a problem. While protecting your desire for 18 views and protecting our responsibility for- dealing with protecting the environment, as well 19 as balancing with the character of the neighborhood. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Be that as it may, even though it might change, Bill, I know. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The character of the neighborhoods change as these houses become 22 converted again and again into larger structures . It' s an interesting argument to suggest that why 23 should I be the one at which that stops . If they were allowed to do it, and the houses are getting 24 bigger and bigger, and what you do now has an effect on you in the future, and if someone 25 decides to make those houses -- and no doubt will -- larger structures, it will affect you September 28 , 2006 116 1 2 then. I mean, change happens and an attempt to kind of predict, but you can' t predict when and 3 how. MR. DILLER: But I 'm having difficulty 4 understanding, the house to the east is about 28 feet wide; the house to the west is camp cottages 5 somewhere around 23 feet wide is the character of the neighborhood, and I 'm proposing a 24 foot wide 6 house, which is a year round type of construction whereas the other is what it is . And you've got 7 pictures of it . I don' t have to describe it to you. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I would say on any other kind of lot taken out of this context, I 9 would say you are proposing a very modest house . Place this modest house on a very restrictive 10 building site with small tiny cottages on either side, and it becomes a very conflated kind of 11 condition. You have to look at it contextually. You must understand it in the context of being 12 very site specific . , MR. DILLER: But the width is not out of 13 keeping with the houses on the either side . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I agree with you. 14 MR. DILLER: Are you talking about the height? 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a whole range of things . The width is the least of them. The 16 larger issue does have to do with the setback from the bulkhead and from the high water mark. Bill, 17 you know that there are plenty of places in Mattituck, Camp Mineola and around there . The 18 houses are about eight, 10 feet off, and we've had cases before us where somebody wanted to alter or 19 even demolish a house that was that close, and the equity argument never got off the ground that all 20 the rest of the houses are eight feet off the water, why can' t I rebuild my house eight feet off 21 the water. That argument doesn' t even pass the laugh test . Your argument of the equity with the 22 neighbors are too close doesn' t carry as much force as some people would like it to . 23 MR. DILLER: But this is 94 feet away from the usual high water mark. 24 MR. GOGGINS : Although that distance is from the bulkhead. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because nobody really knows where high tide is . September 28 , 2006 117 1 2 MR. GOGGINS : From week to week actually. MR. DILLER: But the issue we were talking 3 about before was that whether these houses are in keeping with the others, and I 'm sorry, the width 4 is essentially the same . The height you say is a problem then. If the height is brought back to 5 the 24 feet -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Certainly helpful . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move it back another 21 feet and would you accept the alternative 7 relief, Mr. Diller? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Ruth, if he 8 moves it back 24 feet, he doesn' t have to do anything about the height because he can build it 9 to code the height . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The side yards will 10 be affected. MR. DILLER: Unless I do the 15 feet house 11 that' s 266 feet . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Open up a bowling 12 alley. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The side yard 13 variance wouldn' t be a problem if you were 24 more feet back. 14 MR. GOGGINS : Do you understand what they' re saying? They' re saying that they' re not 15 going to grant the variance to the setback of 75 feet, but they' re going to grant the side yard 16 variance, which is also an application that we have before them. So if you' re willing to accept 17 that, then we' re done . MR. DILLER: Counsel, what does that mean? 18 MR. GOGGINS : They' re granting your variance, you can build a house, the type of house 19 that you want, except it has to be 21 feet back from the existing place that it' s located. If you 20 disagree with that, this Board can deny the whole application and make you move the whole house back 21 further, and also narrow the size of your house; do you understand that? They will move it back 21 22 feet and you' ll have to squeeze your house smaller or can you can keep the house as it exists -- 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He doesn' t have to decide that today. 24 MR. GOGGINS : No, he doesn' t . But that ' s the question of whether or not he would accept 25 that . MR. DILLER: -- going through the expense September 28 , 2006 118 1 2 of building the house and living in the house that' s now 21 feet -- or now 28 with the porches 3 back from the houses that are right there is not a very inviting one to say the least . If we don' t 4 have to decide .right now, I' ll see what counsel -- MR. GOGGINS : We can talk and I ' ll send 5 you a letter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You don' t have to 6 agree or disagree, because we can make our decision based on -- 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You either take it or you don' t . Yes, sir? 8 MR. MCNULTY: My name is Tom McNulty, and I am one of the property owners of the property to 9 the west of Mr. Diller' s proposed site . I believe it' s described as a rundown shack about to fall 10 down by Mr. Goggins . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I said it didn' t look 11 like that to me . MR. MCNULTY: So, I want to say a couple 12 of things here . The first thing is I actually live in Los Angeles, California, and I actually 13 flew here specifically for this hearing today. It' s actually a miracle I'm even here because 14 apparently according to what I was told by the Trustees that Mr. Goggins is supposed to notify us 15 by certified mail of this hearing today; he did not do so . We heard about it from my Uncle John, 16 who owns the property to the east of this property. And according to Heather Cusack and the 17 Board of Trustees, he said/she said I guess her associate Lauren there talked to Mr. Goggins and 18 said he did notify the neighbors and he will find notification and proof and get it to the Board of 19 Trustees, but nothing has been provided today as of 2 : 00 . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did receive a letter from Maureen. 21 MR. MCNULTY: My mom' s been dead for six months . 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' re not the Trustees . 23 MR. MCNULTY: I'm just saying, he did not notify us of this hearing today. We had to hear 24 about it through a third party, and I had to fly back here last minute for this hearing. And so a 25 couple of things I want to say akin to what John Diller has said, akin to his conversation about September 28 , 2006 119 1 2 how he used to own a home and it became too big to rattle around in. What he failed to mention is 3 that he still does own a property on that residence . There are six plots of land and there 4 is a smaller cottage also on Peconic Bay Boulevard, which he does own right now. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the road, about 100 feet east? 6 MR. MCNULTY: Correct . That' s on there . As well as the property that he owned was on a 7 plot of land approximately twice the width of the current plot . I believe that' s two plots of land 8 that he sold two years ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I saw that . 9 MR. MCNULTY: For a substantial amount of money. In August 2005, John approached my then 10 ill mother and informed her of his intention to build a one story home, and discussed his need to 11 maximize his space since it was such .a narrow plot . He did not offer to share architectural 12 plans or ask for her support; nor did she give it to him. Hearings were then held earlier this year 13 in January with no written notice to my mother. My mother passed away on April 23 , 2006 . 14 Certainly John knew as he attended her funeral . On her deathbed the evening of the 21st of this 15 year with me and my four siblings at her bedside, my mother was adamant and clear about her 16 intention, which this waiver not be granted. I am telling you this, and I flew here to make sure 17 that her voice it heard as well as ours . Only one letter that was sent to my mother' s home was the 18 one arriving early September only after it was brought to the Town' s attention that John had not 19 been compliant with the required notification by registered mail . This recent letter was written 2.0 to my mother, a mother he knows is deceased. And I also want to note that when I went to the 21 Trustees earlier today, the plans that he has drawn up to them and have been approved by the 22 Trustees thus far do not mention any and do not list a deck on that property as well . And so I do 23 believe the plans you have in front of you may have a deck but they don' t have any sort of 24 presentation, they have no notification of that right now. So, their plans have been altered 25 since the Trustees have approved the plans . Secondly, in terms of whether a retaining September 28 , 2006 120 1 2 wall is a bulkhead, I can actually tell you that it is a bulkhead specifically because I'm the 3 person that built it with Larry Tuttle, and the procedures used to build the retaining wall are 4 the same exact procedures used to build the bulkhead. The reason why the quote/unquote 5 retaining wall was built was because that during hurricane seasons occasionally my aunt' s house, 6 which is the house east of the property, was almost lost into Peconic Bay several times . So I 7 think that without getting into an argument of semantics, I think that calling that retaining 8 wall a retaining wall is a tad ludicrous . It' s actually a bulkhead, which is why it' s there in 9 the first place. In fact, the water was within two yards of my aunt' s bungalow, and I was told -- 10 I was living in California at the time -- that we have to maybe fly back and sand bag because the 11 aunts may lose their house tonight . That' s why that was built . And I built it with Larry Tuttle 12 myself with my own two hands . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. 13 MR. MCNULTY: So it is a bulkhead. It is not a retaining wall . And the proposed house and 14 new deck, which you don' t know about, do not meet the required setbacks . The house was not equally 15 situated on the land. It' s skewed more towards our home . 16 Erosion has been a major issue in this part of Mattituck, part of Laurel, and change of 17 the landscape may compromise integrity to the beachscape . To point, the house that he sold last 18 year, the new owners have thus removed all of the beach grass, contributed to the erosion, it' s not 19 his fault per se, but I'm citing at reference here that new people have come in and changed the 20 landscape of the land thus increasing and expediting the erosion. 21 His plans also don' t indicate that there is an outdoor shewer on the east side of our home, 22 and since his home will be so close to ours, no privacy can be maintained. Given the fact that 23 there would be a 20 foot wall and residences above, and so I'm adamantly opposed,. to these 24 waivers both environmentally and/or aesthetically sound. In terms of will we want to come in and 25 build our house, yes . We don' t live in it two months out of the year, we live in this four September 28 , 2006 121 1 2 months out of the year. And secondly, do we want to winterize it, yes, we do. The overall plan is 3 to sell the house in Huntington, which was our main house and then take the land that was left to 4 my father and my mother from my grandfather, winterize it and keep the integrity of the house 5 and not make it anything monstrous .or anything by any means . That place is so the five 6 kids can come and celebrate Christmas with our families . It' s not big, but it' s all we have . 7 And furthermore, I kindly ask the following of the Board: That setback waivers of 8 any kind not be granted. The house not be built at an angle but rather in the same straight line 9 as all the houses around it . That the house also and the footprint of the house is situated in the 10 middle of the land, not to favor our house over the property to the east, that John Diller agreed 11 to sign that he will not remove or destroy any beach grass or devastate any wildlife determined 12 as precious or endangered. And I also ask that the garage not be allowed to be built . It' s not 13 my intent to deny John Diller what rightly is his . However, he already has had a wide home and 14 sold it for a large profit, and it is very much feared that he will build only to sell again to 15 nonfamily members . Since we no longer live in a times of vast farmlands, family gatherings and 16 slow pace, the practice is now of overdevelopment . Unfortunately, this proposed home in my opinion 17 represents exactly that . I do have letters from my three siblings . 18 My one sibling Mark could not be here today. He had a work situation pop up last minute, which is 19 why I'm here by myself . But I do want to submit these if I could. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . Thank you very much. 21 MR. MCNULTY: I would also ask that the new plans that have been drawn up be registered 22 back with the Trustees as well so they can actually look at it, and I think the variance 23 should be 75 feet or 100 feet from the retaining wall not the bulkhead. And furthermore, in terms 24 of Mr. Goggins' s comment about if you have houses to your left and to your right all you have is 25 straight ahead, well, that' s exactly what he' s proposing for us . We have a tree line to the September 28 , 2006 122 1 2 right ; we can' t see off to the right and the house to the left is a two story monstrosity. I don' t 3 want him not to have property or build on it, but he' s had three plots on it thusfar, and has sold 4 them off with a small cottage to do with what he choose . But the other plot of land he sold 5 outside the family without ever notifying us, and again, I 'm not asking the Town Board to -- you' re 6 not here to settle family squabbles any more than you are to insure family legacy, but I just ask 7 that you kind of take our thoughts into consideration. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. McNulty, can we see what you have compared to what we have? 9 The only deck is a second story deck on top of the second story. 10 MR. GOGGINS : If I could comment briefly, it' s not our responsibility to provide the 11 neighbors with this stuff . If they want to look at it, they can look at the record. As for my 12 notification, just to let Mr. McNulty know, we didn' t do anything sleazy. I go to the assessor' s 13 office, not Mr. Diller, I get the addresses of the properties that we' re supposed to notify, as 14 everybody knows, and we sent out the notices . So I don' t know whether your mom has died or who is 15 the owner of the property; that' s why we go to the assessor' s records . So, if you feel slighted by 16 not getting a notification, that' s just a process . We didn' t purposely not notify you. In fact, I 17 spoke with John McNulty, your uncle, at length about this, and so has Mr. Diller. So it' s not 18 like Mr. McNulty didn' t know. So if you think that we tried to do something and sneak something 19 by you, we didn' t . We have been straight upfront . When I was posting the property, I stood with John 20 McNulty, your uncle and talked with him about it . In fact, I drove to his house and picked him up 21 and drove over the property. MR. MCNULTY: I understand that . 22 MR. GOGGINS : We talked about it . MR. MCNULTY: But I'm not John McNulty and 23 I don' t own that property. MR. GOGGINS : I know that, but you' re 24 making it an innuendo that somehow I did something improper. 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Excuse me, I was wondering if I could ask you a question. It was September 28 , 2006 123 1 2 mailed to Maureen McNulty. We know that she is not alive but the address that it was sent to, 30 3 Monet Place, Greenlawn; is that still the address? MR. MCNULTY: Yes, it is, for the time 4 being. But I've also provided in the documentation one of the letters, the current 5 mailing addresses and email addresses and phone numbers of all the siblings . 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You might want to notify the assessor' s office in writing so that 7 they change the owner of record. MR. MCNULTY: I'm pretty sure my brother 8 Chris did that . MR. GOGGINS : In the future you can all be 9 notified, it won' t be a problem. MR. MCNULTY: Well, I'm not slighted by 10 you then, I guess I'm slighted by the process . MR. GOGGINS : Thank you. Any more 11 questions? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From reading the 12 letter they mentioned something about an electric right of way that goes right through the middle of 13 this proposed house . MR. GOGGINS : I saw that too, apparently 14 it' s a LILCO easement or probably not . MR. DILLER: What is that? 15 MR. GOGGINS : The LILCO poles and wires, they go down the property line, right; is there an 16 easement there or -- MR. DILLER: It comes in from Laurel Lane . 17 MR. GOGGINS : Is there an easement? MR. DILLER: It comes in from Laurel Lane . 18 We' re planning on putting underground utilities in. The fact that the electricity comes in from 19 Laurel Lane obviously if that is -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean on this 20 survey by John Ingegno, it shows that there is what looks to me like an electric right of way. 21 MR. GOGGINS : We don' t have the answer to that whether there is or not . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Because it looks like it goes from one house to' the other right 23 over where you want to build it . What happens, what is your proposal to do; is that your 24 responsibility, or is there a right of way this person has currently? 25 MR. DILLER: The discussions that were instigated by John was that we would come in from September 28 , 2006 124 1 2 the Peconic Bay Boulevard common property line, cable, water. 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I am concerned about us granting any kind of variance until that 4 is settled not for us to settle that . If all of a sudden we get a call because someone doesn' t have 5 electricity because you decided to build a two story house in the middle of a right of way, that 6 is a concern. MR. DILLER: What would you like for me to 7 do? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like for 8 you to explain to me that line that' s on your survey that says overhead wires; I would like to 9 have that explained to me in some way as to what the legal ramifications of that line means . 10 MR. GOGGINS : It' s not a certain a right of way, but what happens is the electricity goes 11 down Laurel Lane out down to the bay; then it goes from there to Mr. McNulty' s house to my left . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you required to keep that line there? 13 MR. GOGGINS : If the line goes from the McNulty house to the west, then it goes to the 14 next house -- not house but this property here, what Mr. Diller is saying, he' s going to cut off 15 the line there and then he and John McNulty, who owns the property to the east, are going to run it 16 underground from behind Peconic Bay Boulevard, straight down their property line . So that' s what 17 they' re intending to do with their electricity. So instead of having overhead lines, it will just 18 be underground lines from Peconic Bay Boulevard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So no one is left 19 without electricity. MR. GOGGINS : Correct . The McNultys to 20 the west, Tom' s house is still going to get fed from Laurel Lane, but then the electricity will 21 stop there . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess how do we 22 know that what you' re stating is fact? MR. GOGGINS : Maybe make it a possible 23 condition. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Could you give us 24 something that says that that' s your intention? MR. GOGGINS : Again, we have to talk to 25 John McNulty. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, that' s a September 28 , 2006 125 1 2 fair question, it' s part of the record. Give us something in the record that says this is your 3 remedy to that particular thing on this survey. MR. GOGGINS : When we move the wires -- 4 the condition will be when we move the wires the .house to the west and the house to the east will 5 not be without electricity. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In writing. 6 MR. GOGGINS : In writing. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm not for that . 7 You' re going to have to give us something that states what your plan is for those overhead wires . 8 I don' t think that we can even grant that . MR. GOGGINS : I don' t think you can 9 either. I know it' s a concern. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 10 reluctance here? MR. GOGGINS : I don' t know what to do, to 11 say. You don' t want a letter. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I' ll certainly take 12 a letter saying I'm the neighbor and we agree that we' re going to remove those wires and feed it just 13 like the gentleman says . MR. GOGGINS : As opposed to representation 14 by the property owner. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . Something 15 that' s in the file . So that Mr. McNulty is not coming to the Town saying, hey, he ripped out my 16 electricity. MR. GOGGINS : You want an agreement 17 between the house on the east and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn' t have to 18 be an agreement . MR. GOGGINS : It can' t be because they' re 19 not getting along now, apparently. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Mr. McNulty needs 20 to represent to us that what Mr. Diller has said is true . 21 MR. GOGGINS : Now, for argument' s sake, Mr. Diller and Mr. McNulty are somehow -- Mr. John 22 McNulty -- are somehow not talking. MR. GOGGINS : For argument' s sake that Mr. 23 Diller and Mr. John McNulty are for some reason not talking because they seem to have a hot and 24 cold relationship. Mr. Diller makes a representation that he' s going to bring 25 underground utilities from Peconic Bay Boulevard down the shared property line to provide John September 28 , 2006 126 1 2 McNulty electricity as well as John Diller electricity, then accomplishes your goal, correct? 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I suppose it does with the exception then of Mr. McNulty is going to 4 incur some costs provided Mr. Diller doing that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Am I smelling 5 something suspicious here or can I get Mr. Diller' s neighbor to say, listen, we had this 6 conversation that this man just testified to and that' s what we' re going to do . 7 MR. GOGGINS : Sure . But sometimes they say you can lead a horse to water but you can' t 8 make it drink. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s really 9 going to depend on what is the nature of the easement, and what is the requirement on this 10 property owner. I mean, LIPA' s not going to let you mess with delivery of utility from one house 11 to another. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I would suspect 12 that there' s probably no LIPA utility there simply because these are so old. But certainly we should 13 consider at least the fact that you know, this was a family compound, and it may not be that at the 14 end of all this . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, the only 15 problem is that Mr. McNulty is in Europe and that' s the reason why he' s not here . So it may 16 take a little while to do that . MR. GOGGINS : We' ll get it to you as soon 17 as possible . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. McNulty did 18 request the opportunity to the possibility of keeping the hearing open so he can testify so that 19 he could appear, and he did that in a letter in our file . 20 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Is that the gentleman' s letter that I read? So it' s not this 21 gentleman? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the other 22 side . This is the west gentleman, and the other was on the east . 23 MR. GOGGINS : As soon as John gets back from Europe I' ll talk to John, and I' ll get 24 something from him. If not, we' ll get a representation and we' ll get a bid from LIPA and 25 we' ll provide it to the Board. MR. DILLER: John is the one that' s September 28 , 2006 127 1 2 getting bids . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there should be 3 no problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just need to have 4 you represent . MR. MCNULTY: So where are we in terms of 5 easements? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think we need to 6 keep the hearing open until we get some information as to what Mr. McNulty' s procedure is 7 going to be about the electric lines . MR. MCNULTY: But in terms of the 8 variance . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Hold in abeyance 9 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is that going to affect how far up you put it or how far back 10 you go? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It might . I don' t 11 know. MR. GOGGINS : Because I think what 12 Mr. Diller' s saying, he' s going to do it no matter what, whether McNulty agrees to it or not, he' s 13 going to run the electric down to -- he has to -- .he is going to run the electric down his property 14 line and hook McNulty up and hook himself up . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Can we decide if we 15 can separate these questions at different times so we can get an answer to one question 16 expeditiously; maybe the variance question? Can we agree amongst ourselves that the electrical 17 question can be deferred? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it goes 18 through the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It goes through the 19 house . We can' t do anything. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Resolve both 20 situations at the same time . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to 21 keep the hearing open until such time, say October 26th to receive the information about where the 22 lines are going to come and so forth and so on. MR. MCNULTY: Can .you register that I 23 would like to consider the retaining wall a bulkhead not a retaining wall? 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So noted, well, noted. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a subject of discussion anyway. September 28, 2006 128 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make that motion. If not, I' ll make a motion to close the 3 hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 4 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the 5 Fishers Island Windswept Properties to create an accessory apartment . Hello. 6 MS . YOUNG: Hello. Thank you for hearing our case . My name is Susan Young, and I 'm here 7 speaking on behalf of Fishers Island Windswept Properties and Rosalyn Driscoll, Number 5883 . 8 The property in question is a single family house on Fishers Island in an R80 9 zone . Rosalyn Driscoll and her husband Alton are here today. They request a special exception 10 under Article 3 Subsection 13 of the Zoning Code to establish an accessory apartment in the 11 existing dwelling. I understand that a number of the Board members visited the house . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We did. MS . YOUNG: And have seen it and those of 13 you who have not, there are some pictures and the plans . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Every one of us has . MS . YOUNG: Let' s see, the main house in 15 spite of its size, 3 , 395 square feet, presently has no winter water service or insulation. It was 16 built entirely as a summer cottage . It has the original bead board and exposed studs, 1930s light 17 fixtures and the old porcelain sinks and kitchen exactly the way it was originally built . There 18 are simple bedrooms with dormers overlooking the ocean. And it is historically intact, shingle 19 style beach house . And the owners would like to preserve its charm. It is completely uninsulated. 20 The foundation consists of simple blocks and a crawl space barely large enough for a man to 21 shimmy under. Well, actually, I'm not even sure . It' s very small maybe even a foot . It would be 22 very difficult and costly to winterize the house and the charm would be lost . Let' s say you 23 decided to winterize the existing kitchen, you' d have to winterize the room above it to make a 24 bedroom and the floor, and the walls, which would change the look of the place . And also, it would 25 be, you know, maybe a 2 , 000 square foot project . You' d have to do the roof to do all the insulation September 28 , 2006 129 1 2 up to code, and you know the prices we' re getting for things out on Fishers Island are over $200 a 3 square foot, and it would be quite a large undertaking. 4 The purpose of this whole project is just to accommodate the owners themselves . They want 5 to use the house year round. The use of the existing dwelling will continue to remain a single 6 family. The owners have so stated in their May loth affidavit, which I believe has been 7 distributed, and their use of this part of the building for their winter residency won' t change 8 the appearance or the character of the neighborhood, and it won' t be a detriment to the 9 nearby properties and preserves the single family status . 10 The owners don' t object if the Board wanted to place a condition on the approval that 11 in the case the house be rented, it is to be rented as one to one family. And you know, we 12 were talking about this earlier, it' s a big house, they usually rent it for a few weeks during the 13 summer and the rental cost for a place like this is high. They get a lot of money for this and you 14 wouldn' t rent it to different families and have them looking at each other in the close confines . 15 It wouldn' t even make sense, the rental because you see the accessory building it' s too close, the 16 accessory apartment is too close to the house . So it would be unlikely that that would happen even 17 without any restrictions . And I went over the rules and the house 18 seems to meet the relations of the statute . You know, except for the fact that the owners want to 19 use it themselves, and you know, I don' t see why that should be a problem. But, if it is, maybe 20 the Board could grant us a variance because it is a single family use, and they' re not trying to do 21 anything else . Besides that, if a property changed 22 ownership, which this property is not likely to do because this family built it in the 1930s and is 23 still occupying it, but if it did change ownership, there exists within that statute the 24 review of the accessory apartment if the thing changes hands . So the remedy for a possible 25 problem exists within the statute . Let' s see, the intent of the statute is to September 28 , 2006 130 1 2 prevent two family use and to create safe dwelling units, and to see that the property is watched 3 over, and certainly if they' re there more often, the property will be more watched over. And 4 there' s nothing to say that they might not want to live in the house . Now they haven' t been able to 5 live in the house because it' s a summer C of O . So they haven' t had the opportunity to live in the 6 house . But there' s nothing saying that once they have this part of the house insulated that someone 7 in the family may want to live out there . And let' s say, you know, this statute is 8 not designed to stop an owner from living in their own property, that' s certainly not the idea behind 9 it . It' s to create proper use and to make a safe dwelling unit . In this case, the owner is merely 10 accommodating the needs of their own family under one roof of this unique historic and problematic 11 property. We hope that the Board can rule on this 12 fairly soon. I guess we' re coming back from having it being heard originally in May and I 13 guess it' s getting costly going back and forth. But anyway if there' s anything that needs to be 14 continued. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When we 'were there 15 there was lengthy discussion about the problem of certificate of occupancy for only part of the 16 dwelling if you bring just part of it up to code . One of the suggestions we made was 17 fireproofing between the portion that you want to have year round occupancy, so in a sense it would 18 be an attached accessory structure . MS . YOUNG: We' re willing to fireproof if 19 you would like that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Have we gotten any 20 further, you were going to check perhaps with your architect and see? 21 MS . YOUNG: Yes, I'm the architect and I have an engineer, and he instantly said that he 22 would .submit a proper wall . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You know where 23 we' re talking about? MS . YOUNG: Yes, if it' s needed. It' s not 24 a problem. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It didn' t look like 25 it was a problem. The only area of some consideration was the little breakfast nook that September 28 , 2006 131 1 2 was glazed. Would you have to move that in order to have a continuous firewall; would you have to 3 wrap around that? MS . YOUNG: I would take it, keeping the 4 boiler in the accessory apartment and dividing it from that hallway there . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think you would need to have plans submitted. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel wants to speak. 7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: What do we do about the requirement that it be owner occupied as 8 a principal residence and that the other unit be leased for year round occupancy? 9 MS . YOUNG: I think they could certainly lease it to themselves . I mean, that sounds 10 silly. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Let' s start 11 with the owner reside there as a principal resident . What I hear you saying is maybe some 12 day in the future somebody may choose to live there? 13 MS . YOUNG: Well, it' s sort of a catch 22 . Because they can' t live there now, certainly. 14 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We' re talking about if the apartment was to be granted. But one 15 of the requirements is that the owner occupy it as their principal residence; is that going to be 16 true? MS . YOUNG: Well, they' re going to be much 17 closer to that . They want to go there, that' s why we' re doing it . 18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: We want to hear more than it' s possible because that' s a 19 requirement . MS . YOUNG: The owner would like to be 20 able to live in the house . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: As its 21 principal residence? MS . YOUNG: Now, there' s a difference 22 between principal residence and legal residence; now, do they have to vote there? It' s been their 23 principal summer house since 1930s . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t think 24 principal residence is intended to mean summer house . 25 MS . YOUNG: They haven' t been able to use it -- September 28 , 2006 132 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand that . But in the event that an accessory 3 apartment is granted, will it be the owner' s principal residence? 4 MS . YOUNG: They would like to. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess the 5 question is will you be living there year round; you have another residence? 6 MS . DRISCOLL: It' s not our principal residence as such. We live in Massachusetts . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This is Mrs . Driscoll speaking? 8 MS . DRISCOLL: Yes, I'm Rosalyn Driscoll . the main part of the house, I guess that would be 9 considered the principal? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Here, I ' ll 10 read it to you and I 'm not trying to be -- we' re trying to find ways for you here, and what it says 11 and it' s the second requirement, "The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling ° 12 units as the owner' s principal residence . The other dwelling unit shall be leased for year round 13 occupancy. " So we' re in a little bit of a quandary here, because if you can' t live in the 14 main part year round because it' s only got a summer CO. So even if you were to say, okay, 15 we' re going to live in the accessory apartment year round, you couldn' t lease out the other part 16 for year round because it' s only got a summer CO. So, it' s a little circular but it doesn' t seem to 17 work under the accessory apartment . MS . YOUNG: It' s certainly their principal 18 summer residence . MS . DRISCOLL: The accessory apartment 19 designation is something that we were offered as a way to solve the problem. . 20 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand that . It seems to me it would fit better into 21 perhaps a multiple dwelling or two family dwelling. But I don' t know, it sounds to me like 22 the Building Department wasn' t willing to give you a notice of disapproval on that ground. But 23 that' s not clear to me . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What it sounds like 24 is we came up with a potential architectural solution that doesn' t have the same legal 25 corollary. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why we' re September 28 , 2006 133 1 2 here today because we don' t have that on the record. 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask a question, Counsel, could you grant a conditional 4 accessory apartment conditioned on the fact that they will eventually bring the house up, but at 5 this particular time, the only ability to work on the house is to really be there weekends at 6 certain times . No one else is utilizing it except for the family. 7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: No, I understand that, but if they have no plans, I just 8 don' t see how it can be used year round. The entire thing is intended to be occupied year 9 round. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the 10 entire house? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One possibility is if there were no actual physical changes planned, and 12 you were to apply to live there all year round and make the necessary changes, whether you lived in 13 the big ,part of the house or the little part of the house as long you ,were committed to live in 14 that one continuous building, you wouldn' t need the accessory apartment, which I understand; 15 unless I may be missing something. What is the problem with that? 16 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Say that again. 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It would be if they' re living in some part of the house or other 18 all year round. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I 'm not so 19 worried about that part, the principle residence part, it' s a square peg in a round hole here . 20 MS . YOUNG: It doesn' t seem as if the statute was written -- 21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: With this in mind, that' s correct 22 MS . YOUNG: On the other hand, it doesn' t seem to really violate the whole spirit of the 23 statute . And so since this is an appeals court, maybe you could grant a variance for the principle 24 residence part of it . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would the 25 variance be for? MS . YOUNG: The variance would be for this September 28 , 2006 134 1 2 kind of nebulous idea of principle residence; which isn' t even legal residence . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s the summer CO? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: That' s the 4 main sticking point . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So, if it weren' t a .5 summer CO, then there would ,be no problem. They could heat part of it and live in it and be there 6 all year round. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Like an attached 7 accessory cottage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s an 8 interesting point . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Look, there are lots 9 of houses here on the north fork which have regular COs even though they' re only occupied in 10 the summer and nothing needs to be done if you decide to live there year round. 11 MS . YOUNG: So there' s a distinction between a summer -- 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Apparently there is, and I don' t know very much about this, but that is 13 the problem is that you have a summer CO rather than an all year around CO. How hard would that 14 be to convert that to an all year around CO in which case you could use it as you wanted to and 15 winterize part of it and not the other part? What would it take to turn it into a full year round 16 CO? MS . YOUNG: But we want to have another 17 kitchenette over there because you can' t cook in the main house, and there' s no restaurants 18 whatsoever on Fishers Island, so you can' t just go out there . 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s why we talked about these other possibilities while we were on 20 Fishers Island. MS . YOUNG: It can be a kitchenette of 21 some very limited size . The certificate of occupancy that I see here, Exhibit 5, it just says 22 certificate of occupancy, it doesn' t say summer. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, it does . 23 If you look at the asterisk at the bottom, it says these two documents can only be occupied between 24 May 31st and -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s seasonal . 25 The other thing to look into perhaps is in terms of relief is looking at the winterized portion as September 28 , 2006 135 1 2 an attached accessory cottage . I don' t know what that -- 3 MS . YOUNG: Existing attached accessory cottage? 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you know what we' re trying to do really is help you figure out 5 how to do what you want to do without having to spend a bajillion dollars . 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can we not look at it -- well, I don' t know how you do this, 7 but it could be a two-family or can you not call it an addition and give some variance for the 8 second kitchen? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I thought that' s 9 what we had come to when we were there . The part that was all insulated and everything was going to 10 be their principal residence, and the rest of the building was going to be left to what it is and 11 we' re going to put a fire wall and a fire door up there, and we' re going to put a kitchen 12 downstairs, and we were going to grant them an accessory apartment and that would have been the 13 end of it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But we can' t do the 14 accessory apartment because it' s not a principal dwelling occupied year round. 15 BOARD MEMBER . GOEHRINGER: The only thing we didn' t talk about, Jimmy, was the reverter and 16 the reverter was that the kitchen be taken out if the entire house was renovated to a year round 17 use . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I know. But 18 I thought we needed to get to a point and the point was we got over there, and we saw that like 19 half this house is up to standard that would not be considered by the building inspector to be a 20 summer cottage; that we could use that as our principal residence . 21 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Then you' re adding an accessory apartment onto that? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The other part, the existing part is the accessory apartment . It 23 just, it can' t be used, just because it has restrictions on it -- just because our code says 24 it has to be used year round, if it' s used less than that I'm not sure that that is d problem. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Maybe that' s okay because it says -- well, it says the other September 28 , 2006 136 1 2 dwelling unit shall be leased for year round occupancy evidenced by written lease for a term of 3 one or more years . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you lease it for 4 a year. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: ' If you wanted 5 to, I mean it' s getting a little shaky and you' d have to give it to everybody, but you' d be saying 6 just give us a lease for a year and we' ll ignore the fact that it' s a seasonal CO. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there' s a gap in that to say lease for year round. It doesn' t 8 commit people to being thrown out if they lose their tenant, which will be leased if at all . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A year round dwelling has a certificate of occupancy based on 10 certain code requirements and that includes heating and all the things you don' t want to do 11 because of the character of the house and because of the cost . So you' re mixing so many fruits, 12 apples and oranges and -- MS . DRISCOLL: I 'm sorry, this hasn' t come 13 up as an issue before? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, never. 14 MS . DRISCOLL: Maybe it won' t come up again. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm just saying, if you didn' t make such a big deal out of it, maybe 16 it will go away. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I' ll leave if 17 you want . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: . I didn' t mean -- 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I've never seen a Board work so hard to help people to find both an 19 architectural and a legal answer to allow you to do what seems reasonable to do. But the codes are 20 very specific about life-saving issues and about what constitutes seasonal use or principal use . 21 And it' s exacerbated by the fact that they' re under a single roof . If you had two structures on 22 a piece of property it could actually wind up being easier to solve . 23 MS . YOUNG: That' s where the fire wall comes in and the part that they live in year round 24 will be brought up to proper code . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You don' t fit into a 25 two family either, it' s too small a property. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s a little over September 28 , 2006 137 1 2 an acre . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Almost an acre and a 3 half . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What do you need 4 for two family? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: 80 , 000 . 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Would you need to bring the other dwelling up to code? 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be a Building Department question. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t we just grant a variance for a second kitchen, a 8 variance for the second kitchen in the unit? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s alternative 9 relief . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the 10 reverter when and if they bring the entire house up that the kitchen be removed. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jerry, you' ll submit that in writing to me . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, Jim has to write this up. We have to deliberate this a week 13 from today. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So Jim' s writing 14 Jerry' s resolution; is that right? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In other words, 15 we' re just going to grant them a second kitchen. We should put the fire wall in though. 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Subject to the approval of the Building Department, though 17 because you have nonconformities that can come in as a separate dwelling unit . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that' s fine, they' re going to have to put the fire 19 wall . MS . YOUNG: We have to do all that . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had a . discussion with the Building Inspector, Michael 21 Verity, he can call me and I can call him. I don' t shoot out these names . And I said, Mike, we 22 have this situation. He said, yeah, I ' m aware of that . I said we' re proposing a fire wall in 23 between the two structures; I said how do you feel about that? He said, I think that' s okay. So I 24 then said to him, you know, they can' t utilize the kitchen, and I think that' s about where. the 25 discussion stopped, but I'm sure Susan knows that you' re going to have to put smoke alarms in each September 28 , 2006 138 1 2 one of the bedrooms and everything has to be connected. It' s all required today along with the 3 fire wall . MS . YOUNG: I'm familiar with all of that . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just state something, just in the heated portion. 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is the first kitchen not working? 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a summer kitchen. There is no way to insulate it . This is 7 single wall construction. The studs are showing. It' s open to the ocean. This is a cold location. 8 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The kitchen works, it' s just not available to you in the 9 winter. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What would the cost 10 be to make the kitchen and only the kitchen available to the occupancies of the accessory 11 apartment; would that be possible? MS . YOUNG: You' d basically have to 12 multiply $225 a square foot for the square footage being renovated in order to use the kitchen. So I 13 would say it would be maybe $500 , 000 or so . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It makes no sense . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you' re going to do that, you' re going to do the house . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Just do Jerry' s thing and let' s move on. Good luck to you. We' re 16 going to grant the second kitchen with the fire wall and with the reverter. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the entire structure is brought up, the second kitchen is 18 taken out . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So it would revert 19 back to a single kitchen. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you are able to 20 submit in the next day or so plans that show exactly where the fire wall would go -- 21 MS . YOUNG: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- We would really 22 need that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Otherwise just be 23 clear on this because I don' t think .we want to create two dwellings here, we' re not creating two 24 apartments, we' re just putting an additional kitchen in a house that will happen to be 25 separated by a fire door. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct . September 28 , 2006 139 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s correct . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, when it reverts 3 back, it' s only reverting back to you no longer can have the second kitchen. 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then we don' t have 5 to get into the legalities of what we call it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Make sure you 6 include those interconnections if you' re going to go on the smoke detector and all that . 7 MS . YOUNG: The Building Department has all that . I have a whole page of those . 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Put heat detectors on that side but no smoke detectors . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 10 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 11 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 12 the Dickersons . MR. DICKERSON: This is my wife Debbie . I 13 didn' t realize how sticky your jobs really are . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Most people don' t . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to 15 tell us? MR. DICKERSON: I'm not sure what I'm 16 going to try and tell you. I have a small ranch house, and my neighbors got big, big mansions, and 17 my rooms are kind of small . I have 10 by 10 . I have twin beds, I can' t get a full bed in there . 18 I want to try and make it a little larger. I want to go up so I can do what I want to do. And I 19 didn' t want to build it like a box. I wanted it to look nice . I plan on living in the town 20 forever. We' re town founders of the town. I am kind of hoping that my children and my children' s 21 children will be here after I'm gone too . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If they can afford 22 it . MR. DICKERSON: If they can afford it . So 23 I want it to look nice . I guess you have the plans . It will look a little fancy in the 24 front . It' s going to have a garage, a swimming pool and a deck. And I think it' s three variances 25 that we' re looking for, a little bit on the front porch from the road frontage, a little bit on the September 28 , 2006 140 1 2 side for the garage, and I guess the lot coverage . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 21 . 29 . 3 MR. DICKERSON: I'm willing to do whatever I got to do to make it right . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It looks from the plans that you' ll be able to access your attic- 5 space above your garage from the second floor? MR. DICKERSON: Yes . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the inside? MR. DICKERSON: Yes, because it' s going to 7 be a gable bedroom I guess . I will have no attic, so that' s going to be my attic, that one room 8 above the garage . It wasn' t worth putting a bedroom there because it will probably be a cold 9 bedroom, so we' ll just use it as dead storage . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I mean, it could be 10 habitable space, there' s enough room, if you insulate it and heat it, and in future you could 11 turn it into -- MR. DICKERSON: Yes . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wondered what you wanted to do with it because it' s unusual 13 to have a second story, the top part of a garage accessible from the inside of the house without it 14 being considered living space . MRS . DICKERSON: There' s just three of us 15 so -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You just need 16 storage? MRS . DICKERSON: Yes, we need storage 17 space . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know the feeling. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You could heat it if you wanted to. 19 MR. DICKERSON: You could make it a bedroom later if you wanted to, like I said if we 20 sold the house . I don' t believe we' re doing that . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s your bonus 21 room. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Greg, is there 22 any location on here that shows that the side yard is diminished to nine feet? Because I'm showing 23 the closest is 10 .43 , which is the house to the left of you, the new big house . I think they' re 24 all over 10, right? It' s 10 and 10 , right? So that' s incorrect, correct? 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . The survey is correct and the disapproval is incorrect . September 28 , 2006 141 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This happens to be my decision here . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Your street, too, right? 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . Let' s just briefly run over this a second. You' re requesting 5 a small front porch; is that a porch or is that a deck? 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a covered porch. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that is diminishing the front yard to what? 8 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : 33 . 18 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Existing is 39 . 6 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And we have a 10 single side yard. MR. DICKERSON: I 'm not sure how they 11 measure that from the. edge of the road or -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From your property. 12 The Town owns a shoulder. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Your right of way is 13 about .50 foot . MR. DICKERSON: My neighbor' s house, he' s 14 got a porch and it probably sticks out further than I want to go. The road is straight . If you 15 measure from the dual line, the road is straight, but it kind of bellies out .a little bit . If you 16 measure from the center of that line from the house, and then you went to the dot at the town 17 line and went to his porch, his would probably be closer than what I want to do. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re looking at the survey and the survey is your property line, 19 and it says 33 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See the dotted 20 line, it shows where the road is, it shows where your property line is . Most people don' t know 21 unless they have the surveyor stake their property exactly where their property line is relative to 22 where the asphalt is . But we have to measure setbacks from the property line not the road. 23 MR. DICKERSON: To be in continuity with my neighbor' s porch. It' s not like I 'm going to 24 be out further than him, closer to the road, it ' s probably going to be in line . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right . We have the side yard situation under control, and September 28 , 2006 142 1 2 the only other thing is that the pool probably puts you over the lot coverage a little bit . So 3 that' s where you are . MRS . DICKERSON: The next size smaller 4 pool is going to be really small . So we didn' t want to go smaller. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is that pool, 14 by 22 ; that' s a small pool in today' s 6 standards, which is fine . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Considering the 7 size of the house on the double lot next door to you, and the house on the other side of you is 8 fairly substantial too. MR. DICKERSON: Both of those are kind of 9 big. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There goes the 10 neighborhood again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: If everybody is happy, 11 then I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 September 28 , 2006 143 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 5 State of New York, do hereby certify: 6 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 7 the testimony given. 8 I further certify that I am not related by 9 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 10 action; and 11 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 12 of this matter. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my- 14 hand this 28th of September, 2006 . 15 16 17 Q- 18 r, Florence V. Wiles 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 September 28 , 2006