Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/26/2006 Hearing 1 2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 ----------------------------------------- ----X 5 T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D 6 7 Z O N I N G B O 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 October 26, 2006 12 9 : 30 a.m. 13 Board Members Present : 14 RUTH OLIVA, Chairwoman 15 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member 16 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member 17 JAMES DINIZIO, Board Member 18 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member 19 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary 20 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney 21 22 23 (ORIGINAL 24 25 COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047 r` 2 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: This is October 26 , 2006 . The Board will come to order. I need a 3 resolution that all our hearings are negative declarations . 4 (See minutes for resolution. ) CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I see you are all here 5 this morning. Our first hearing is for Jeremy and Lauren Hamilton; is there someone to speak on 6 this? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, I'm Aggie 7 Drozdowska. I'm representing Mr. and Mrs . Hamilton. We have come to the Board in 8 request of a one foot variance of an existing structure in a front yard setback. We are 9 proposing additions of a front covered porch along with an additional second floor above the existing 10 nonconforming setback. It' s all located within the 39 foot setback. 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Nice little house down there . 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question. It seems like a very modest sort of change and 13 it' s a good size lot one of the ziterata that' s cited in the statute has to do with whether 14 there' s any other way of obtaining the benefits of the addition. Now that particular house has a 15 huge amount of land behind the house and one could wonder why, even a one foot variance in the front 16 of the house where it' s relatively close to the edge of the property is necessary; could you speak 17 to. that? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, the covered porch 18 in the front is actually located within an existing concrete stoop, which is being 19 removed. The steps already there is actually -- the steps of the stoop go beyond the proposed 20 covered porch. So that in a way is still located within the existing context of the home 21 itself . Then on the second floor as the addition is on the right side of the home as you all saw 22 when you went out to look at the property, basically it' s just a reverse gable coming across 23 what' s already there in the front . So the only other way -- there is possibilities, obviously we 24 could set the roof ,back, but that would still require a variance because we would still at the 25 time still need to do some sort of structural element to the roof itself in order to step it October 26, 2006 3 1 2 back, that' s to me the 40 foot setback. So, in the long run, one way or the other, we would be in 3 front of the Board asking for the same variance . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Thank you. 4 MS . DROZDOWSKA: You' re welcome . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry, do you have any 5 questions? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no 6 objections, if it looks anything like the house she' s doing on New Suffolk Avenue that we have 7 discussed that was by it, by the way, this morning, really looks very nice . 8 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. The plans are very clear. I see what you' re doing. Nice 10 elevation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 12 audience that wishes to speak on this application? Mr. Edwards . 13 MR. EDWARDS : My name is Bill Edwards . I live at 1600 Park Avenue directly across from the 14 house in question. I would urge the Board to approve this application. I think it' s perfectly 15 appropriate to the neighborhood. This morning I paced off to see what impact it had on my 16 property, my house is 500 feet back from the road, I can' t even see their house . The neighborhood is 17 a neighborhood of rather larger houses . I think this would be perfectly appropriate, it wouldn' t 18 impinge on anybody, and I urge its adoption. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. Is there 19 anyone else that wishes to speak on this application? 20 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Mark and Ellen Weiderlight on Fanning Road, New 22 Suffolk. MS . DROZDOWSKA: Good morning. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good morning again. From what I understand, it looks to me 24 like we' re turning this house around, sort of . MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, the reason why we 25 came in front of ,the Board again, is that it is an existing nonconforming garage at the moment and we October 26 , 2006 4 1 2 are doing additions beyond that to the home itself of a second floor as you saw in the drawings . But 3 all of that is contained in the appropriate setback of all -- of both front and sides . The 4 element in question is the existing garage, which is being converted to a living space and the 5 garage then is being located in the rear as you say. So, yes, in effect it is being rotated. 6 The reason -- well, first of all, the existing garage does not have a subfloor so we 7 will be putting a structural element of that and changing the roofage of the existing garage . At 8 the moment the pitch is about 6 and 12 . We will be changing it to 10 and 12 pitch. So an existing 9 nonconforming, again. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What would be the problem of just tearing down the building and 11 putting a new one there? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, it would be 12 lessening the square footage of the house basically. And we fit under the 20 percent lot 13 coverage and we' d like to keep the foundation is already there . We' re not putting a 14 second floor above that garage so that' s not a concern within itself . So we' d like to basically 15 keep it as it is . We' re taking the square space of the home, putting siding on. Making that space 16 a habitable space and keeping it within the same confines basically just changing the roof line . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s a very large 18 piece of property. You have plenty of room to do all you want . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we talk 20 about the -- I apologize, I don' t seem to have my notice of disapproval here . Were you denied for a 21 third story? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, there it is . 22 It' s setback 30 feet instead of 35 . MS . DROZDOWSKA: 30 . 4 feet . 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the highest possible roof line comprised? And the 24 purpose of my saying this and asking this question is I don' t want these nice people to have to come 25 back. There was the exact same thing down on Ruch Road, and they had to come back. October 26, 2006 5 1 2 MS . DROZDOWSKA: The highest possible roof line of what it would be? 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the cupola of the widow' s walk? 4 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Oh, the widow' s walk, that is a 30 foot down to the midridge . We have 5 about another four feet up from that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does that 6 comprise -- would you like me to refer to you as Aggie? 7 MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s fine . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aggie, is it a 8 habitable room? MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, it is . It' s a 9 mezzanine type of deal open to the below office space . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it open or does it have a flooring? 11 MS . DROZDOWSKA: It has a flooring. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I'm going 12 to tell you that we have done several of these and I ' m going to tell you that I think the Building 13 Department missed it . And I'm going to tell you that maybe what you should do is discuss it with 14 them, and not taking the words out of the Chairperson' s mouth, but you might want to go back 15 to them and show it to them today, just in case they' re considering this to be a third story 16 because I' d like to take care of the whole thing right now rather than have these nice people -- 17 and yourself included in those nice people -- come back again, meaning the Weiderlights, because the 18 only element to that third story is going to be the necessity of a sprinkler system. 19 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We fully understand that . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, what would you like to do regarding that? 21 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I would like to go to the Building Department and explain to them what type 22 of a space that actually will serve per se . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you did, you 23 gave us the drawings here after you had gotten your notice of disapproval according to the 24 date . MS . DROZDOWSKA: Not to mean to be 25 ignorant but we' re not treating it as a third floor. In essence, I know that' s something we October 26 , 2006 6 1 2 have to speak to the Building Department about . But it is being treated in our mind and 3 Mr. and Mrs . Weiderlight' s minds as basically an overlook tower up on whether it does have a roof 4 above it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I agree with Jerry 5 though. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We've done this 6 before, okay, this is the fifth one, and every one of them was construed to be a third story. And 7 I'm just asking you, see, the advantage of taking this meeting and bringing it to a daily basis as 8 opposed to a nice basis in 2001 was the ability to go back to the Building Department and say, are 9 you going to construe this to be a third story because in that case the Weiderlights aren' t going 10 to be able to get a building permit . MS . DROZDOWSKA: Definitely. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the winter' s coming, and if you' re going to work on this in the 12 winter, it only makes sense for you to deal with it at this point . 13 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, I would like to visit the Building Department . 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only difficulty is if the Building Department denies it for an 15 additional variance on the third story, you need to amend your application. 16 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I think we would make accommodations at that point . Accommodations to 17 actually meet the requirements of the Building Department, not to go with the third story effect . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is' well within the height restrictions . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has nothing to do with it . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s habitable above the second floor. The scale is not 21 inappropriate at all . MS . DROZDOWSKA: May I ask you if in 22 effect we do decide to go to a mezzanine where it' s actually a balcony within the floor itself 23 within that space, a balcony is open down to the below room, would that be a consideration to the 24 Board not to make it a third floor? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only if there 25 was no floor in it, and it was used strictly for lighting purposes, meaning the lighting to the October 26 , 2006 7 1 2 second floor. MS . DROZDOWSKA: So when I go back to the 3 Building Department, would you like me to come back to you prior to your finishing your hearing 4 today? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that would be 5 great . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. Actually you' d 6 have to let us know if you want to adjourn it to this afternoon because you haven' t decided yet? 7 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Yes, I' d like to do that; we' ll make the decision. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, come back this afternoon. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I 'm a little unclear as to what it is that you' re going to ask 10 them. I looked at the front elevation. I see three windows on top of each other. And to my 11 mind that means a third story. In the notice of disapproval there is not a mention of that . 12 MS . DROZDOWSKA: No . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So I understand 13 that . So my assumption is that the Building Inspector saw that and didn' t think anything of 14 it . If you go back today and go to the Building Inspector and they say, oh, no, no, that' s a third 15 story, you are at least a month behind. MS . DROZDOWSKA: Well, what I would like 16 to do is I have to refer to Mr. Weiderlight to consider making it on top of the roof for light 17 access . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Hold on a minute . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We really don' t know how it' s going to be construed by the 19 Building Department . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Here' s my concern, 20 you go back to them and they say, oh, no, no, we got to amend the disapproval . Then your 21 application, what we advertised for today, is thrown out the window. You' re starting the 22 process again. MS . DROZDOWSKA: I know. 23 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Actually, I was looking on the date of the plan, it' s dated after 24 the disapproval . So the Building Department hasn' t even seen the third story. 25 MS . DROZDOWSKA: The reason why I did it is I don' t put the disapproval date on the October 26 , 2006 8 1 2 drawings . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The drawings are 3 dated September llth, and the disapproval is in August . So, they would need to review that 4 plan. MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s when they were 5 issued. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Why don' t we adjourn to 6 this afternoon? MS . DROZDOWSKA: That' s fine . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it also possible, I notice in my set of documents there' s 8 an existing and proposed first floor plan, but there is no second floor plan or cupola. 9 There' s no plan for that submitted. So it' s difficult to interpret how that will connect 10 vertically through the section. If you have that, I' d like to see that . 11 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Sure, I' ll bring that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That will be 12 helpful . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 13 MS . DROZDOWSKA: What time, do I call? Who do I call to see what time I come back in? 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' ll give you a time to come back in; we would make it 1 : 15 . 15 MS . DROZDOWSKA: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 16 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, then I' ll make a motion to 17 adjourn to 1 : 15 this afternoon. (See minutes for resolution. ) 18 -------------------------- ---------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the 19 House of Daige accepting written submissions and concluding the record. Mrs . Doty, do you have 20 anything to say? MS . DOTY: I have a lot to say, but I 'm 21 going to resist . I did not receive any additional green cards . I want you to know that what you 22 have is what I have so far. And I realize that you are not going to allow testimony, so I will 23 back off . Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Is there anyone 24 in the audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 25 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) October 26 , 2006 9 1 2 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the 3 Prestons on Reydon Drive in Southold. Just out of curiosity, how do you get to that private 4 driveway? I was looking all around. MR. PRESTON: As you go in you go left and 5 there' s a quick right, it' s kind of a dirt road. It' s not really marked or anything. 6 There' s a sign that says Old Dirt Road that' s put up . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I love our town. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It was good climbing. Anyway, go ahead. 9 MR. PRESTON: My name is Walter Preston. I 'm a summer resident out here with my 10 wife . Eventually, we hope to be full time residents, but I 'm still a few years away from 11 that . But what we want to do is we want to build a garage on the lot there with a pool, a swimming 12 pool . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the cabana? 13 MR. PRESTON: Yes, basically a changing area for the swimming pool . One of the things -- 14 I think the main reason we' re getting the variance is because technically we have two front yards 15 because of this dirt road. So everything, it' s kind of a mishmash with all that . Every other 16 house in our area there that' s on that access road has a garage and we don' t . So we feel that it 17 would pretty much conform to what' s going on there . I draw the plans for the garage trying to 18 keep in mind a nice architecture, a nice east end type of architecture . I think it' s a fairly 19 attractive building. I don' t think it would be out of place . Then the swimming pool is something 20 that we have, four kids . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a big pool . 21 MR. PRESTON: I have a fairly large lot there too. Which we were kind of fortunate when 22 we bought the house that we did get the large lot, and there are six of us . As it is now, there' s no 23 place to put the bikes or the lawn mower or the boat in the winter, we really need this extra 24 space . The swimming pool is, we' d like to get that also because our long term plans are to 25 retire out at the house, and when the beach gets cold in August or early September, we' d have a October 26 , 2006 10 1 2 month or so on the end of the season to enjoy it and that kind of stuff . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I have a question about your cabana there . What kind of bath are you 4 talking about, a toilet and a sink? MR. PRESTON: It' s a half bath, exactly. 5 It' s not going to be a whole bath, a three piece bath. 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will there be a shower? 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, no shower. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You can have an outside 8 shower if you want . MR. PRESTON: Yes, we understand. There' s 9 no shower in the building. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 10 MR. PRESTON: For some reason the driveway that' s on there now is a bit exaggerated; it' s not 11 to scale for some reason. It' s just happened on the plan but that would all be corrected 12 anyway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The one that' s 13 drawn is the -- MR. PRESTON: It' s not that big now. The 14 house is probably very accurate . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It is a small house . 15 MR. PRESTON: There' s six of us in there, there' s no place to put anything, the bikes or 16 lawn mower or anything. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The setback in your 17 plan looks appropriate, but when I was out there it seemed that there are garages all over the 18 place, but none of them seemed to be quite that close or that big to that private road. It looks 19 really large relative to the others and much closer to that road. And even though it looks 20 like you have a 12 foot side yard setback for the pool, it looked to me from the stakes, aside from 21 the trees you' re going' to have to chop down, really close to your neighbor. And I 'm just 22 wondering whether or not it wouldn' t be possible to -- because you have a really big yard -- to 23 kind of move the pool over a little bit , farther away from that property line, a little closer to 24 towards your house? Just for visual impact on the neighbors; have you spoken to your neighbors about 25 it? MR. PRESTON: Yes . I don' t think there' s October 26 , 2006 11 1 2 any objections to it . We have spoken to them about it . Eventually, we are going to try to 3 build a house there . I mean, the structure that' s there now, it' s just a bungalow and it doesn' t 4 even have a foundation. It' s sitting on cinder blocks . It' s very small . So I think, I mean, I 5 agree with you that there is a lot of space on the lot . But if we ever were to build a house we 6 would have to pull it back from the front road, I 'm sure, because of the setback. And by the time 7 we did that it really would be right on top of the pool if you kept in mind all the setback on the 8 other side also. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you move it over 9 at least, instead 12 feet, 15 feet? MR. PRESTON: Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think so. I mean, it' s like trying to compromise so that 11 there' s a little bit more privacy and more room, and also I ' ll be interested to know where the pump 12 equipment is going to be located and if there' s any noise abatement and any kind of screening that 13 you' re planning? MR. PRESTON: I want to try to keep most 14 of that in the garage if possible, just to keep it out of sight . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the pool? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Also it would help 16 with noise a little . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What about 17 screening between the dirt road and the pool? Or the property line, the 12 feet or 15 feet that 18 we' re talking about; are you going to screen the pool from the road, from the old road in the back? 19 � MR. PRESTON: The pool isn' t adjacent to the road. The pool is more to the property line . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But he' s saying even along the property line . 21 MR. PRESTON: Along the property line then? 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . MR. PRESTON: In the past I've planted 23 arborvitaes and cypresses, that kind of thing, a natural screening. Okay. I said in the past, I 24 mean on my old house in Northport . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you planning 25 on doing that here? MR. PRESTON: Yes . October 26 , 2006 12 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You wouldn' t mind if we put that in our decision? 3 MR. PRESTON: No, that' s fine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And the garage, it ' s 4 going to be upstairs? MR. PRESTON: For storage . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Stairs to go up? MR. PRESTON: Yes, yes, storage up there . 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How high is it to the ridge in the garage? 7 MR. PRESTON: To the ridge? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 8 MR. PRESTON: I had drawn it to the middle of the ridge, which I understood to be one of the 9 codes in talking with one of the guys at Penny Lumber. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it said 18 feet? 11 MR. PRESTON: 18 to the middle of the ridge, and then I think what it turns out is 23 to 12 the actual ridge . The middle of the rafters . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re showing 13 windows which are okay in your elevation on your two car garage, we just want to make sure that the 14 height of this building is appropriate as an accessory structure and that the use of it will be 15 strictly -- you do have a stair; is it a pull down stair? 16 MR. PRESTON: No, I didn' t plan on a pull down stair. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Regular stair. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see that . So 18 that makes somewhat of a difference in terms of possible use . 19 MR. PRESTON: That' s fine, those pull down stairs . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They' re very awkward. But one of the reasons we' re talking 21 about this is we' want to make sure that that second floor is not habitable anyway; it isn' t 22 high enough to be habitable . We' re talking about attempting to make sure that people understand, 23 when they build accessory structures that there is no living space, that it' s purely storage . Light, 24 a window is fine, natural light is fine up there . We wanted to make sure . 25 MR. PRESTON: I don' t even have plans to heat it or anything. October 26, 2006 13 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does that include the cabana? 3 MR. PRESTON: I hadn' t even thought about that, but I 'm not really sure . I hadn' t gotten 4 that far. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to 5 know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, we can put 6 that in. No shower, no heat . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s for your summer 7 use anyway. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s seasonal . I 8 think you should write that in. Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it looks to me like right now you come off that private road 10 and that' s your front yard. It looks to me like you' re utilizing where your driveway is, that' s 11 your front yard? MR. PRESTON: No. We consider that the 12 back yard. We consider Reydon Drive the front yard. 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re going to enter the house and the garage from which way? 14 MR. . PRESTON: Back yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you' re going to 15 drive around and come in the back way for your garage . Now, when you build your new house, 16 whereabouts are you going to put it? MR. PRESTON: Well, I consider the main 17 road Reydon Drive, goes straight through, then the lot slopes through up the dirt road in the back. 18 When we would like to build a house, I'm going to have to go a little bit further from the front 19 yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, 35 feet . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: From Reydon? MR. PRESTON: Yes . Right now it' s 25 or 21 30 . We have to come back and we have to come closer to the dirt road in the back. 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So we' re going to end up with your pool in the side yard? 23 MR. PRESTON: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Partially in the 24 side yard, actually where your house is located now -- 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A couple of feet at least . October 26, 2006 14 1 2 MR. PRESTON: The pool we oriented, we originally had it drawn 90 degrees the other 3 way. But then it would have been too much in the front yard so we thought bringing it back this way 4 was the right way to go. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If you scoot it 5 back a little bit more toward your cabana and connect them with a deck or something, that would 6 push the pool a little bit farther behind your house and out of the side yard? 7 MR. PRESTON: It' s connected by a patio now. The patio doesn' t have to be that big. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s tweaking it a little bit, move it a little this way, push it 9 that way. Without compromising your intent now I understand your future plans and why you want to 10 preserve the potential for building in the side and rear yard or your other front yard. But 11 another way to think about it would be to make a little bit closer connection between the pool and 12 cabana and bring them a little closer together to push it back a little bit from Reydon Drive; would 13 that be a problem for you at all? MR. PRESTON: No, not at all . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, I am not happy with any of this . Quite honestly, this lot 15 is large enough, the gentleman' s talking about tearing down a house and putting up a house in a 16 conforming zone anyway. I'm not so sure I want to grant, before he builds a house, a pool in the 17 side yard. There' s plenty of room on this piece of property for him to do everything he needs to 18 do within the code . Honestly. I just feel with our history, I feel this is going a little bit 19 more than we should be granting just out of -- this pool could go any place and be conforming 20 right now and you still have plenty of room to put a house . The garage is the same way. The garage 21 is 10 feet off a right of way. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Jim, he has two 22 front yards and two side yards . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I -agree, he does . 23 And people have to work with that . You know my feelings on the geometry of that is, but in any 24 case, this is a pretty good sized lot and he can do a lot of things on here . I can see when he 25 comes back for the house what the comments are going to be and how large that house could be . October 26 , 2006 15 1 2 I 'm willing to grant a garage, 10 feet away from any right of way with the amount of land this 3 gentleman has . Now, he could build a house with a garage at the end of this, so he could have a two 4 car garage on his house and now this place 10 feet off a right of way with storage . How do you feel . 5 about that? So, I' d like, to see more consideration toward making all of the components 6 of the gentleman' s plan be more conforming. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How many feet do 7 you think, it looks to me if this is in scale based on your survey, your site plan, that you' re 8 about six feet, I don' t have the scale ruler with me, but it looks like you' re about six feet in 9 your side yard with the pool . MR. PRESTON: Six feet into the side yard? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it' s a 20 foot pool, front and side . See where the pool is where 11 it says 48 . 5 from Reydon? I 'm looking to see how far forward that pool is in front of the rear wall 12 of your house . What you would consider the rear? And it looks like it' s about six feet . 13 MR. PRESTON: I see what you' re saying. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The wall that faces 14 the private road you mean? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Okay. See where it says 16 and 12 on the depth of the house, 28 and 16 20 would be 48 . So it' s actually behind that wall . The scale is off . 17 MR. PRESTON: Reydon Drive has an arc to it a little bit . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: N-T-S, it' s not to scale . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Solves that 20 problem. MR. PRESTON: Where does it say that? 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Where does it say that? 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right here . N-T-S okay, that helps a lot . All it does it gives you 23 dimensions . So what that' s saying -- but Linda very accurately typed up, if you add together 16 , 24 4 and 12 , it would be -- and the deck' s 28 plus 20 , so it looks as though it' s going to actually 25 be behind your house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So you got 48-4 for October 26 , 2006 16 1 2 the house, then you got 48-5 for the pool . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 48-4 , yes . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Then 48-5 for the pool . That' s in the side yard. 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, but I 'm saying if this gets moved back. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But if there' s a new house, then the pool becomes mostly in the side 6 yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You could take that 7 house and put it 15 feet from that westerly property line and build it all the way over to 8 where it is right now. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s theory 9 though. That' s a potential . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' re looking at it 10 right now. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say 11 something, Mr. Preston, this is one of the problems that you have when you put the cart 12 before the horse, so to speak. If had you given us a footprint of the house, even if you stayed 13 within the confines of a potential or proposed house -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Or a building envelope . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Building envelope, which I'm referring to as a footprint, 16 then we would be able to determine better what the whole conceptual plan would be . 17 MR. PRESTON: I mean, this is still 10 to 15 years down the road. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It wouldn' t make any difference, you certainly know what size house 19 you' re planning on doing, even at what the ages of your children will be 10 or 15 years down the 20 line . And I don' t think the necessary notice of disapproval would even pertain to the house other 21 than the fact that we would have a conceptual effect of what that thing would be, what that 22 structure would look like . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually, what I 23 would appreciate is simply, I don' t need any more elevations, if you want to keep them looking the 24 way they are, that' s fine, but if you could get a site plan that actually is in scale that shows 25 exactly where the relationship between this pool is and your house in scale not with just October 26 , 2006 17 1 2 dimensional information but actually accurate placement . It would really help us understand 3 what you want. Particularly if you would consider moving that side yard 15, pushing that pool over 4 to make sure that that -- MR. PRESTON: Push the pool away from the 5 easterly line and closer -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A little bit closer 6 to the house, okay, make that 15 instead of 12 and then make sure that that front line of the pool 7 that' s facing Reydon is behind your existing house, closer to the cabana. 8 MR. PRESTON: So where it says 27, make it maybe 22 or something; would that be right? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, it says instead of 48 . 5 , 50 , 51 . 10 MR. PRESTON: But what you had mentioned before is moving the pool closer to the cabana 11 also? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . 12 MR. PRESTON: So shift in two directions . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be a bit 14 more conforming certainly and -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that isn' t my 15 concern. Quite honestly my concern is the garage, 10 feet from the property line . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Could you move the garage over? Where would you want to move the 17 garage to, Jim? , BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I . don' t know. I 18 just think that 10 feet to a property line is pretty close considering we have denied people 19 with porches because they' re that close . There' s no reason why it can' t go back. 20 MR. PRESTON: That' s not the front yard. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It is according to 21 Town code, sir. MR. PRESTON: It' s where everybody else' s 22 garage is on that road. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t have a 23 problem with the garage there, but I do think it' s quite close . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If it' s a back yard, it' s not common to have the driveway into the back 25 yard into the garage . So it' s not just the back yard. As far as the garage is concerned it' s a October 26, 2006 18 1 2 front yard. You don' t ordinarily approach the garage through the back yard, right? 3 MR. PRESTON: I don' t know. I have two front yards on this house, and I have no back 4 yard. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And the garage is close to the right of way. If you had a house 5 in which you didn' t have the back and you put your garage in the back yard as required, the driveway 6 would go from Reydon Drive to the garage . MR. PRESTON: That' s right . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: In which case the driveway would not be anywhere near as close to 8 the rear boundary. But because you' re not using Reydon Drive as the source of your driveway quite 9 reasonably, then you can' t claim that it' s simply not a front yard. Because as far as the garage is 10 concerned it is a front yard. MR. PRESTON: The only way I can answer 11 that is that' s the way 15 other houses on the block have it . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you entering the garage from the private driveway there, on the 13 24 foot side or would you swing it around to the 32 foot side? 14 MR. PRESTON: Yes, 32 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you' re going to have 15 to bring your -- MR. PRESTON: The whole driveway' s coming 16 out, but basically the driveway would connect to the 32 side . The 32 side, that' s where the two 17 garage doors are on ' that side . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you' d be coming in 18 from that private drive? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask some 19 questions? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I tend to think about 20 Leslie, it would be so much better if we had to scale . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO.: Hold on. I'm sorry. If that' s where you' re going to enter, why 22 can' t you just turn it around? You gain 14 feet, 24 feet wide . If you turned it around, make the 23 32 feet that' s your entry, you gain another 14 feet just by doing that . 24 MR. PRESTON: Where would I park cars? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: In the garage . 25 You' d be 25 feet or 24 feet away from the property line . October 26 , 2006 19 1 2 MR. PRESTON: I don' t follow you. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Turn the garage 90 3 degrees and then you enter into the long side of the garage directly from the private drive rather 4 than going around through the side of the garage, and you' d have a longer driveway. 5 MR. PRESTON: No, I ' d have a shorter driveway. I wouldn' t even be able to park the car 6 out in front of the garage . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You mean between the 7 garage and the private drive? You' d have to use the garage for cars rather than just -- 8 MR. PRESTON: It would also be very difficult to come out and turn around or anything. 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the private drive? MR. PRESTON: Yes . I mean the road is 10 10 feet wide . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What do other people 11 do? Do they back out on the private drive? MR. PRESTON: They have it situated the 12 way I have it situated. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Nobody backed onto 13 the private drive, right? MR. PRESTON:. No, I would think they would 14 back onto it . I mean, I can' t say nobody. But I mean, I would- say the majority of people have 15 their garage situated perpendicular to the road so they kind of come down to it . 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mr. Preston, can you consider the possibility of leaving these 17 placed where they are, but bringing that setback from the private right of way? In other words, 18 conceptualize the pool, cabana and garage much closer together so that the visual impact of the 19 size of that garage, which is substantial and it is a typological precedent . They exist all down 20 that private road, and I don' t have any problem with that, but it is big and it' s very close to 21 the road. So if it was simply scooted back and you began to go like this to the private drive and 22 bring us something in scale . Go to Penny Lumber and tell them to do something that' s quarter inch 23 scale? MR. PRESTON: Can I do that for this 24 afternoon? From what I understood before you were meeting this afternoon also. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . You want to move the pool October 26, 2006 20 1 2 MR. PRESTON: Summarize, if I move the garage instead of 10 feet to the northerly side, 3 move that to 15, have the pool instead of being 12 from the easterly side, make that 15 and then 4 maybe move the pool where it says 27, make it say 22 , move it over another five feet . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not 27 . MR. PRESTON: You see 27 between the one 6 part of the garage and the pool? Oh, yes, I see . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re looking at 7 that? MR. PRESTON: Move it over five feet? 8 It' s actually moved five feet already. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right, because of the 9 garage . MR. PRESTON: So then move the pool over 10 another three feet or so? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What I 'm trying to 11 accomplish is getting the front line of that pool behind the rear of your house . And without a 12 scale, I'm not sure how much, but the important thing is to understand -- 13 MR. PRESTON: So does that technically become the rear of the yard, the edge of the 14 house? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re still going to 15 end up with two front yards . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Technically, yes, 16 but there is what we call the architectural front yard, which is the logical front yard where your 17 house is fronting the street and then in your case, you have a second front yard, but it' s the 18 yard where accessory structures are more likely to be . 19 MR. PRESTON: So if I were to just guess, if I were to move the pool over another four feet, 20 that would probably do it? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You mean pushing it 21 back from Reydon? MR. PRESTON: Towards more northerly? 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Towards the private drive, I think so, yes . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s toward the cabana. 24 MR. PRESTON: I'm moving it three feet westerly and four feet northerly. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, that works . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, the north is October 26 , 2006 21 1 2 that way. The north is sideways on your drawing. MR. PRESTON: Right . But I'm moving it 3 towards the private drive . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . MR. PRESTON: So I'm moving it four feet 5 that direction and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And three feet westerly 6 and the garage five feet southerly? MR. PRESTON: Yes . 7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So the cabana and the pool are going to be much closer. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is okay, but if you organize a patio or deck or something 9 around it, it will make the same kind of effect . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless of course you 10 wanted to rotate the garage . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To tell you the 11 truth, it would have a greater visual impact if you rotated the garage on the private right of 12 way, at least you have the short end facing. MR. PRESTON: You know, I look at the 13 elevation, and I think it' s the nicest elevation with the door and the two doors and the peak on 14 that side . That way I would get to look at that as opposed -- 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Aesthetics count, and this way your garage is screening your cabana. 16 So, you know -- MR. PRESTON: We talked about the 17 screening too. I could also, if it' s 15 feet, I could put it between the garage and the private 18 drive also. Do a row of arborvitaes or something, some of our neighbors have done that also . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right . Bring it back to us this afternoon. About what time? 20 MR. PRESTON: I don' t know, it' s up to you guys .. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : About 2 : 15? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right . You 22 will also include on this amended in scale site plan the accurate placement of your house, right? 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : All I need is for you to show us on that plan the building envelope 24 without having had any need for an additional variance . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : A building envelope for what though? October 26, 2006 22 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: For the house . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : For what house? 3 For the new house or for the existing house? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, for the new 4 house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Even though he doesn' t 5 know what he' s going to do with it? MR. PRESTON: I don' t even have a plan or 6 anything for the new house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Here' s what' s going 7 to happen. See, we' re granting you a variance now as I see it, you move that back to 50 feet and the 8 front yard setback here is what, 35 feet? The front yard setback without needing a variance 9 is -- MR. PRESTON: 35 . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. He' s going to be able to put a 15 foot house there without 11 the need for another variance . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only thing is 12 is if he puts a building envelope there and the building envelope does not meet the code, then 13 he' s got to get an amended disapproval because you might be approving a building envelope -- 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s what T'm talking about, that' s what I'm saying. This guy 15 wants to put a 40 by 20 pool in the side yard. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So, if you put a 16 building envelope, make sure it meets all the code setback? 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He really doesn' t have a choice . He has to put it in the side yard. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but that' s assuming that he has to have a two car garage with 19 10 feet away from a property line. That' s assuming that that he needs that for whatever 20 reason. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We' re already 21 suggesting that he move it 10 feet . That' s what he' s trying to do, going to try and show us . So 22 if you can come back and show us these amended changes we' ll be in a much better position to find 23 a way of creating more of a conformity and allowing you to do what you want to do . 24 MR. PRESTON: Okay. I don' t really understand what you were saying with the building 25 envelope . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just, it can be October 26 , 2006 23 1 2 whatever size, as long as it meets the setback, just like a dotted line, that you would build the 3 house within that area, it doesn' t mean you have to -- the edge of the envelope would meet the 4 front yard and side yard and rear yard setback according to code . 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Try to imagine the maximum size house . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that' s asking too much. I really do. 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the reason why you don' t think he' s asking too much is 8 because it can' t be done without the need for another variance . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He' s going to have to go for another variance . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Why don' t we get it done right the first time, then the gentleman 11 doesn' t have to worry about that in the future . He' s going to need a variance, there' s no doubt 12 about that, but quite honestly, in the past, if we looked at a two car garage that' s 32 by 24 , we 13 considered that quite an intrusion on a property line, especially on a front yard property line . 14 And in my opinion, what we' re conceptualizing here is that this is a rear property line, that this is 15 an accessory structure, and a 24 by 32 foot building is pretty big. I understand that most of 16 the houses down there have these kinds of things, they have been renovated and they do look nice, 17 but we' re considering laws now concerning accessory structures that are going to make this 18 particular building not legal . Quite honestly, and eventually it' s going to come to that . And I 19 mean, a cabana is nice but a cabana can be put anyplace on this piece of property, sir. It 20 doesn' t have to be on the back of your garage . it doesn' t even have to be attached to the back of 21 your garage . And if you took the cabana off and you moved this building back to where the cabana 22 is set, you could have no problem as far as I ' m concerned about setback. I mean, that would be 23 well within your right to have that considering that you have two front yards, but I don' t see 24 going the extra yard just because you want to have a cabana. I don' t see that . That cabana could go 25 right up against the pool or it could go 15 feet behind your house . It could be anywhere . It October 26 , 2006 24 1 2 doesn' t have to be behind that garage . MR. PRESTON: The changes I 'm proposing 3 are to be closer to the pool right up on the pool . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . So if you' re moving that thing back I think you can move 5 that thing back 20 feet . I think that wouldn' t be that difficult to do. I think you can. And I 6 think the whole neighborhood would benefit from that . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here' s the point . We' re already talking about setting it back more 8 from that private road, and I think what you might want to do is sit down and look at the maximum 9 setback that you can comfortably accommodate keeping the garage and cabana oriented the way it 10 is and bringing the pool, just doing this away from Reydon and away from the private drive . Sit 11 down and measure it so you know what we' re talking about and see what the maximum setbacks are that 12 you can still keep the things oriented the way they are, and come back to us with that . And then 13 we can bring it up again, because it may be possible that he can set it back more than 15 14 feet, but .tell us what the maximum is for you to achieve the garage, the cabana and the pool . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: In scale . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Yes, that should be 16 in scale . MR. PRESTON: I' ll try to draw the 17 driveway in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s misleading. 18 MR. PRESTON: Yes, it' s three times the actual size of what it is . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me make a motion to adjourn this to 2 : 15 this afternoon. 20 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is for Fudjinski on Fourth Street in New Suffolk. Yes, 22 ma' am. Hi, how are you this morning? MS . FUDJINSKI : Very well, thank you. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, what would you like to tell us? 24 MS . FUDJINSKI : That we would like to take down that extension on the back of the house and 25 on the existing footprint put up a new structure and of course that is over 77 years old. There' s October 26, 2006 25 1 2 a flat roof; there' s no really foundation and the place is deteriorating, and we have been repairing 3 it and doing things and it' s getting a little out of control . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So you want to take down that flat section? 5 MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . The original house is fine, it' s like cast iron. It' s like 132 years 6 old. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. It' s lovely. 7 MS . FUDJINSKI : But the back part it was put in ' 29 and ' 30 and it' s a problem. 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And then you want to have just your own apartment and your own place 9 plus an apartment? MS . FUDJINSKI : There' s an existing two 10 apartments now, when we bought the house they were there . Actually it was three, the other one' s 11 been gone for a while; it' s been used for storage, and we' re going to have just that one apartment 12 and then the other part is my kitchen. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I was a little confused 13 where that other apartment was going to be . MS . FUDJINSKI : Which side of the house? 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Bedrooms you were having like, but I don' t see the utility room, but 15 I don' t see where the new apartment would have a living room. 16 MS . FUDJINSKI : Well, it' s a kitchen, living room and then the bedroom. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have the new apartment, the apartment' s being renovated. New 18 kitchen, bedroom, and utility room, and then the owner' s existing kitchen to be removed; now is 19 that going to be the sitting room on the apartment? 20 MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Because you don' t say 21 that, you say owner' s existing kitchen to be removed. 22 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s a living room. Where the kitchen is now is going to be a 23 living room? MS . FUDJINSKI : On the apartment, yes . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Because even upstairs in the house you' re going to have like 25 five bedrooms? MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . October 26 , 2006 26 1 ' 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They' re existing bedrooms . Keeping that? 3 MS . FUDJINSKI : That' s not being touched at all . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, then what is over the apartment to be; is that part of the house? 5 MS . FUDJINSKI : It' s just going to be a pitched roof and nothing. 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s just a flat roof now and they' re pitching it . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: If I'm reading this correctly, you' re requesting that you change from 8 a multifamily residence to a single family residence with two apartments; is that what you' re 9 asking? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: One apartment . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Your own and -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And an accessory 11 apartment really? MS . FUDJINSKI : When we bought it there 12 were apartments upstairs and whatever, so we have taken over all the main house for ourselves now. 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So, let me get this straight . You' re wanting to have a single-family 14 house with one apartment? MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . And instead of the flat section, you' re removing the flat section 16 and put it with a pitched roof; is that correct? MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . Same footprint . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, I understand that better. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, because the notice of disapproval says that you are asking to 19 make alterations to a two-family dwelling with three apartments converting it to a single-family 20 dwelling with two apartments . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s a reason 21 for that because the first set of plans that were . done, Mrs . Fudjinski, we spoke quite a bit about 22 the first set of plans, and there was confusion on there; it was labeled as Apartment 1 and Apartment 23 2 , and Mrs . Fudjinski said no, it' s only one apartment . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your own living quarters . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And she went back to the engineer. October 26 , 2006 27 1 2 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And your own living quarters . 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : She went back to the engineer who prepared this, James Richter, and 4 he corrected all that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: All right . So it 5 is in fact, you want to make it a single-family house with an -- with one apartment and will that 6 apartment be rented? MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes, it may be . It may 7 not, I have a growing family, and eventually they may just, one of them may go in there, and it 8 would only be used during the summer. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there heat in that 9 part? MS . FUDJINSKI : No, not now. No, just our 10 kitchen. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are you adding 11 heat? MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes, we are adding heat 12 because it all affects the main part of the house . This has been our problem too, we only 13 have been able to have one register in the kitchen because there' s really no foundation and boy the 14 draft goes into the rest of the house . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s cold. 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So it might be used year round later. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So, what do you use to heat the main part of your house year round? 17 MS . FUDJINSKI : Gas hot air. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So it would no longer 18 be White Cap Rental B & B? MS . FUDJINSKI : Right . I think we' ll 19 always just keep the name for historic reasons.. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you know what' s 20 going on, there' s a red building under construction right behind you? 21 MS . FUDJINSKI : That was the carriage house to my house . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Do you own that or? MS . FUDJINSKI : No, we own it, and what 23 happened 12 years ago we had a foundation put there because it was going to fall down too, and 24 with all the rain we had, the front of it, the whole foundation caved in and now we found out the 25 building was approved and it wasn' t done right . There were no rods put in it or filled the cement October 26 , 2006 28 1 2 blocks with cement and that wasn' t done . So now we have that . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So faulty foundation? 4 MS . FUDJINSKI : So now it' s all poured. The inspector' s coming tomorrow for that . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that' s still a part of your property then? 6 MS . FUDJINSKI : Oh, yes . That' s the carriage house . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s important because I looked at that and said, what' s the 8 relationship between these two structures, there' s very little privacy, but it' s a compound. 9 MS . FUDJINSKI : Yes . And I think the lot next door, ,which I would love to have, but, at one 10 time belonged to this property and I think the carriage maybe came in that way and went around. 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that answers all our questions . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like 14 you' re just going to do a little studio apartment and the rest of it' s going to be your house and 15 the front of the new apartment has a new kitchen to the left, as you come in the door, and it looks 16 like maybe enough room there for maybe a table, maybe couch and TV and then a bedroom, that' s it? 17 MS . FUDJINSKI,: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : That' s all I have . 18 There' s a lot of writing on my plans but you threw all that out . You' re no longer going to have a 19 kitchen where it says Apartment Number 2? MS . FUDJINSKI : Right . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I have no further questions, I understand. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My only question is what will become of this one story unit along 22 Fourth Street; this little rental unit? MS . FUDJINSKI : No, no, no, that' s my 23 kitchen now and then it was this apartment, which we haven' t been using that' s going to be the 24 utility room. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I see . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re proposing one apartment on the ground level with pitched October 26 , 2006 29 1 2 roof, that' s one story, the rest of the house is two story, and that' s a single-family house that 3 you will occupy, that' s it? MS . FUDJINSKI : Right . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions? Anybody in the audience wish to comment on this 5 application? I just have one question, that owner' s kitchen that' s to be removed and that' s 6 going to be the sitting room or living room for the new apartment? 7 MS . FUDJINSKI : No. Our kitchen is going to stay the same, we' re just going to square off 8 that apartment and take a little more for our apartment . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It says renovated not removed. 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay, we got it now,. Does anybody else wish to comment on this 11 application in the audience? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision 12 until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 14 the Polashock from New Suffolk on Third Street, accessory structure . Good morning, sir. 15 MR. POLASHOCK: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you this afternoon? 17 MR. POLASHOCK: Very good. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What would you like to 18 tell us? You have that accessory building in the rear that' s illegal . 19 MR. POLASHOCK: As I wrote on the application while I was building it, an obviously 20 nonconforming structure, for the past 30 years . It was built by my father and our plans were 21 submitted to the Building Department which they no longer have for some reason. It was already 22 built; it was all built to plans that were submitted and for some reason there' s no record of 23 this . And unfortunately when I started the wheels turning to try and get this CO' d and everything, 24 they have permit issued, and I found some paperwork cleaning out my mother' s house, but 25 noted a variance that had been issued to move the structure back into the corner of the property. October 26, 2006 30 1 2 It was replacing an existing pole structure, dirt floor, and the extent of the place it was 3 basically a garage, laundry room, it was a heated structure . My father liked to do crafts, hobbies 4 whatever, to do woodworking, so he tried to make it a year round type of thing with heat and 5 everything and same thing on the other side with laundry for my mom. And since I wrote the last 6 note that' s included in the submission, I spoke to my sister and tried to reference that upstairs 7 apparently, and I never knew anything about it, it was done as apparently an accommodation to my 8 sister and her family, at the time there were some personal problems . But they were trying to make 9 some accommodation for her to come and stay there as far as a guest quarters or something like 10 that . There has never been any use of the upstairs of it; it' s been strictly used as a 11 storage structure upstairs for like I say 30 some-odd years . It was never completed, never 12 painted, never anything, just closed in. As far as height that had been discussed 13 on the original permit, and it was told to my father that it was given information from the 14 floor to the peak, and he stayed within that and even by today' s structure, the 18 foot I believe 15 is the midline structure of a height of a roofline of an accessory building. It still is not higher 16 than it could possibly be . I know with the flat roof that' s why they built that flat pitched roof 17 on the thing to stay away from height violations . Now it' s become a detriment to me . I need to get 18 rid of it and to get rid of the property. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You want to sell the 19 property? MR. POLASHOCK: Yes, I do . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And therefore you need this variance because it' s not legal . 21 MR. POLASHOCK: Yes, to accommodate the structure . And again, that first variance was for 22 the setback for the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re about a foot off 23 the line there . MR. POLASHOCK: It was given as a foot off 24 the line . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Yes, the setback 25 and lot coverage were approved. MR. POLASHOCK: What happened was October 26 , 2006 31 1 2 apparently when they went to build the structure whoever, Danowski, who is no longer with us, 3 whoever he had working for him and assuming, looking at a monument that they picked the 4 dimension off the fourth side of the monument, which accommodates that two and eleven-sixteenths 5 or two and five-eighths inches, that it ' s now too close? 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Two and a half inches too close . 7 MR. POLASHOCK: Approximately half the width of a monument, so rather than split the 8 center of a monument, which they should have, they picked it off the side of the monument . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it was measured incorrectly in terms of the allowable . 10 MR. POLASHOCK: All down in the village, everything is small, compact, several other places 11 within the village which you can see from the overhead view. 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We were all down there . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s pretty clear 13 that that was never really used -- the 1968 permit was granted for a garage that would house a car, 14 but it' s pretty clear that for the last umpteen years given the fact that there' s a huge air 15 handler sitting smack -- the compressor 'is sitting smack in front of a picket fence, clearly storage, 16 woodworking, whatever, so that structure hasn' t been used for a garage, you have just a little 17 driveway that' s grassed over now. How about living accommodation? I mean, clearly there' s a 18 bathroom upstairs, there' s an outside stair; is it heated? 19 MR. POLASHOCK: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Has anyone been 20 living in it? MR. POLASHOCK: Never. 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Are they living in it now? 22 MR. POLASHOCK: Never. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s something 23 that was done to accommodate family, but it' s not used that way? Because it is obviously illegal to 24 have living quarters in an accessory structure . You can' t have two dwellings detached from each 25 other on a single lot . So in order to get a C of O, we .have to make sure that there's no October 26 , 2006 32 1 2 living space in there . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You have to take out 3 the living space . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have to take 4 out the bathroom upstairs . MR. POLASHOCK: It' s never been completed. 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Is there a kitchen? MR. POLASHOCK: No. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s drawn with just a bathroom. I didn' t make inspection on the 7 inside . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s pretty overgrown. 8 MR. POLASHOCK: There' s no accommodation for a kitchen or anything. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you want to -- MR. POLASHOCK: No accommodation for a 10 kitchen or anything. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Did you want to convert 11 it back into just a garage? MR. POLASHOCK: I want to do the minimum 12 that I have to do. The thing is becoming a real financial hardship . In order to tear that down, 13 it' s just not practical . Again, as far as removing the bathroom upstairs or whatever 14 plumbing constitutes a bathroom that' s usually doable . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And heating. MR. POLASHOCK: And heating? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, I would say so . MR. POLASHOCK: No problem. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll let our New Suffolk person have a say so. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He can remove the heating and he probably won' t be able to use it as 19 a laundry room either because the pipes would freeze . 20 MR. POLASHOCK: You mean remove the heating from the garage completely? 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the garage . MR. POLASHOCK: Oh, yeah, whatever. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Remove the heating and the plumbing. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Without the plumbing then you don' t have a livable room. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We' ll give you the height variance and a setback variance and a 25 strictly accessory use for storage of a car and/or anything else you want to store in there . October 26 , 2006 33 1 2 MR. POLASHOCK: No problem. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just a question about 3 the history of this . I understand as everyone knows I live about a block away from there, your 4 family was there from something like 1947 or something? 5 MR. POLASHOCK: We lived in the building since 1947 . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And there was a preexisting building, garage on that before that, 7 right, which was replaced by your father? So there was this preexisting structure which was 8 apparently a mess that was replaced by this and this structure that was built . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This structure was never really used very much at all . So it' s no 10 hardship to you to disable it because it' s not disabling a place where anyone was living in. As 11 I understand your mother was living in the main house for the last 10 or 15 years of her life, and 12 no one was occupying this structure at all was it? MR. POLASHOCK: No . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you' re just trying to do as much as you need to do in order to 14 be able to get a C of 0 so that you can unload this property to which no one has been living for 15 some years? MR. POLASHOCK: Correct . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s about it . Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s 22 feet high? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : It says 1915" on 18 the disapproval . MR. POLASHOCK: To the midline . 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a hip roof but you will need a height variance . 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: 19 . 5 feet in height? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : You witnessed my 21 tirade on the gentleman before you. I am not going to do that here . I'm just concerned with 22 after you sell the house that someone has the impression that they can put an apartment and 23 things like that in there, so we want to be clear in our decision that that' s not the case . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No habitable . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Any building permit 25 on that piece of property is subject to ZBA approval ; there' s got to be something like that so October 26 , 2006 34 1 2 when they do go to try and put windows in here that they have to come before us in order to do 3 that because one foot on the property line just simply -- I understand I 'm of the school that when 4 the ZBA grants something, I don' t care if it' s in 1968 , you have to live by that, and you did as far 5 as what I can tell in here . I just don' t want any new owners to be under preconception that, oh, 6 look, I have a nice little place I can put a bungalow back there and find out that they 7 can' t . So I was just hoping in our decision that we can make it clear -- and I'm saying this so you 8 understand. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have to write 9 this one and I' ll make sure that that' s all in here so it' s very clear had you get your C of O. 10 MR. POLASHOCK: You guys again, you did this before with the original ZBA, the only thing 11 I can say to the structure as far as height or anything is the fact that it was built on a 12 drawing that it was approved. Where all that is, God knows . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a long time ago . 14 MR. POLASHOCK: There was no intent to do anything touchy or anything else . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So our CO will state there will be no habitable living space in there 16 at all . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And your neighbor 17 wrote a very nice letter saying it' s been there forever, nobody objects to it . So there' s support 18 for the actual structure itself . We' re concerned with its legal use as a storage facility and 19 accessory rather than habitable space . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the 20 audience that wishes to comment on this application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 21 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 22 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 23 Fisher down in Kimogener Point . Good morning, Mr. Stoutenburgh. 24 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Good morning, Board. It' s a beautiful day. I ' m here to answer 25 any questions there are . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What can we October 26 , 2006 35 1 2 grill you on today? You know we have been so nice to you, Peter, for all these years . Is there 3 anything that we can -- MR. STOUTENBURGH: No, I like the way 4 things work. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: A deck and a shower. 5 MR. STOUTENBURGH: That' s it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The neighbors have 6 exactly the same thing you' re proposing and the setbacks are virtually identical . It' s very 7 modest what you' re proposing. MR. STOUTENBURGH: The Board approved it 8 down there before we were able to get the permission. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I know. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: As you know, the 10 people that have come before us also of Kimogener Point have some problems because of the extent of 11 the additions they were making on the Kimogener Point house . But this does not involve a new 12 kitchen, this involves an outdoor shower. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And I think a very 13 small deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s very tiny. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s no additional -- aside from the shower, no additional 15 plumbing or heating or any kind of living space . So it would not be a further burden on the already 16 over burdened land in the Kimogener Point area; is that correct? 17 MR. STOUTENBURGH: Correct . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As a matter of 18 fact, the neighbor' s house is much closer to the gravel road than the Fishers' house . I don' t 19 think it has any real impact on anything other than improving the quality of life for the 20 owners . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : No questions . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I want to say 23 for the record I think your analysis is fine and correct when it comes to this, with respect to 24 this . We have been grappling in past hearings with what to do when there is more than one 25 dwelling on the property because our current code doesn' t allow you to build a second dwelling on October 26 , 2006 36 1 2 the property. Like I said, I think your analysis is right with respect to this addition. I think 3 we have to do them sort of case by case . There is an Appellate Court decision out there from the 4 Town of Southold that says that an accessory second dwelling should have been considered a 5 nonconforming building as opposed to a nonconforming use, the use, residential, which is 6 permitted in the zone, and so you needed to view it as in accordance with your normal variance 7 criteria. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Whether it 8 increases the degree of nonconformance . I think that same approach is taken here, and you have 9 historically allowed additions and alterations to houses in Kimogener Point, and you' re really just 10 looking at exactly what you' re talking about whether you' re over burdening the land or the 11 neighboring homes, and are you changing the character of the use; for example, if you were 12 adding additional kitchens or dwellings or something like that which it doesn' t appear at all 13 you' re encroaching here . I just want the record to be clear as sort of the analysis you use 14 because we' re getting more and more applications that involve more than one dwelling on a lot, and 15 we sort of have to approach each one carefully and look at exactly what they' re doing. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel, we have also denied applications when we felt that the 17 dwelling additions were substantial . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Too much, yes, 18 and I think that' s square within your discretion. We have been talking about it and it' s a tricky 19 issue to figure out how to handle, especially because our code is a little silent on such issues 20 and the case law I think is not necessarily recognizing some of the issues that we deal 21 with. But this is more just to keep it in the Board' s mind as it considers these types of 22 applications but I think your analysis is square on with this one . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Thank you. I have to write it . Is there anyone in the audience that 24 wishes to comment on this application? If not, I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and 25 reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) October 26 , 2006 37 1 2 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just comment on Kimogener Point? If at some point in time, can 3 we start to detract from the lot coverage for this particular piece? Because it was my understanding 4 that the applicant is supposed to be the corporation. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As coapplication really. 6 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If that' s the case then we need to start adding this lot coverage . 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s true . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Each one should say 8 by adding this one -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Now we' re at X 9 percent . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We did this several 10 months ago. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Archer or Polio . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We did this actually a year ago, and I believe that we are 12 still well under that, but I think we might have to recalculate it and have to -- 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn' t think for a deck that I wanted to raise such a stink about 14 it, but I just think for the next kitchen that comes in, or a bedroom. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s a very good point . 16 (Whereupon, motions were made to adjourn and reconvene for lunch recess . See minutes for 17 resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 18 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for the Meinkes down on Peconic Bay 19 Boulevard. Leslie, I think this is yours . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . One side of 20 your house to the house behind, like a long driveway? 21 MR. MEINKE : Standing on my street looking at my house, the house on the left, the lot was 22 apparently subdivided and on the front 200 feet there' s a house, and I live in the second house 23 and the rear part was sold to Ellen Hinch, which was an L-shaped back lot . On the right side, Druk 24 owns it, and it' s the same size, 50 by 400 foot as mine, but years ago it had two houses on it . So 25 Druk is in the back 200 feet, and a tenant is in the front 200 feet . So there' s two houses there . October 26 , 2006 38 1 2 But there' s no right of way through, it' s just a long driveway along the side of my house to go to 3 the house in the rear, which is well behind my garage . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which is confusing because you' re sitting very close to that 5 driveway. MR. MEINKE : Well, when you have a lot 6 that works out 47 feet wide, you can' t get very far from anybody. 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, you can' t . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is this a rental 8 unit? MR. MEINKE : I've owned it since 182 , it 9 was a rental unit, I'm making some changes . I'm going to live there for some length of time . 10 We' re selling where we are, yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Consolidating. 11 MR. MEINKE : We' re downsizing and consolidating and enlarging the master bedroom and 12 enlarging the bath and making the house a better year round. 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re essentially upgrading this house in order to move into it? 14 MR. MEINKE : . Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Good, I have no 15 questions . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re maintaining 16 the existing side yard setbacks, which are nonconforming? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, he' s just extending in the rear. 18 MR. MEINKE: Yes, we' re just pushing the house straight back. 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: With a bedroom and porch addition and just a little bit on the front 20 elevation. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim? 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have a question on the front yard because it didn' t seem 23 to come in the disapproval . MR. MEINKE: That' s because it' s 24 conforming. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the 25 distance from the front line to the porch? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s fine, 38 . 4 and October 26 , 2006 39 1 2 37 . MR. MEINKE : 37 . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is the house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And. the front yard 4 setback is what? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 38 . 4 on one side 5 and 43 feet on the other. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There' s got to 6 be an established front yard setback because the houses farther down are even closer to the 7 property line . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: See, so we' re 8 looking at it that way. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s the only question I had. 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, we had variances on the Druk house over the 11 years . When they originally purchased it, they made some revisions . So you' re aware . 12 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No further comments . 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Does anyone in the audience wish to comment on this application? If 14 not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 15 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Redmans again on Peconic Bay Boulevard, for a deck 17 construction. MR. NATALIE : My name is Kevin Natalie . 18 I ' m a landscape architect on behalf of the Redmans . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Just spell your name for the record, please? 20 MR. NATALIE : N-A-T-A-L-I-E . What we were proposing is two aspects, one was a reduction of 21 the existing rear deck in the back yard, reduction of the existing out towards the rear property 22 line, but as you see here has a slight expansion of the side yard, and there was an original 23 application for the egress landing on the side yard, further relief of the side yard setback six 24 inches additional . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s going to 25 be 9 ' 611 ? MR. NATALIE : Yes, . sir. October 26 , 2006 40 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the deck that we see in the rear yard now will be reduced? 3 MR. NATALIE : Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much will 4 that be reduced? MR. NATALIE : The square footage of 5 reduction, I don' t have that calculation in front of me . But as you can see, we pulled the plane of 6 the rear steps, which is the difference of approximately three and a half feet from where the 7 steps started to the ending point of the proposed steps . So we' re taking approximately three and a 8 half feet of deck from the rear yard, steps included, off the deck. 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is strictly a one story deck, right? 10 MR. NATALIE : Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And open to the sky 11 as it is now, you' re just taking it down, rebuilding it slightly smaller, and you need an 12 additional six inch side yard variance? MR. NATALIE : Yes, the rear we' re just 13 aligning the deck with the plan of the house and also on the side egress landing which there was an 14 original application which the homeowners need during construction. She evaluated how she was 15 hoping to have this egress the way it is with steps on either side, and again just being 91611 , 16 the benefit is that side yard is already heavily screened, so it' s not obtrusive to the 17 neighbors . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any 18 roof over that deck, the side yard? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just be aware of the fact that any future applications would mean 20 that that side yard be no further encroached upon because that is needed specifically to get to the 21 rear of the house . MR. NATALIE : No, there would be no 22 further. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I have to write 23 this up. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Any other questions, 24 Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Which direction is 25 this? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Easterly side . October 26 , 2006 41 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: On the easterly side, you need a six inch variance in order to 3 align the deck with the plane of the house . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No further 4 encroachment beyond that? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. Jim? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Nothing further. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I just have a 7 question with this LWRP consideration, the proposed distance to the deck, 76 . 4 feet, the 8 minimum setback is 100 feet required by the code . Could you speak to the question of the 9 setback from the bulkhead? MR. NATALIE : Well, I was just confirmed 10 by the Board of ,Trustees last Tuesday evening, and the motion was approved. I've been given -- it' s 11 in the paperwork. They were actually complimentary in the fact that we were actually 12 reducing the deck to the rear bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So therefore you made 13 your inconsistency less inconsistent . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So you have responded 14 adequately. MR. NATALIE : That' s correct . I have 15 already filed and received approval from the Board of Trustees . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this 17 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 18 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next application is for the Zannikoses on Sound Beach Drive in 20 Mattituck, who wishes to retain his shed that he already has . Good morning, how are you today, 21 sir? MR. ZANNIKOS : Good morning. 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You just don' t have any other room, you need it for storage and stuff, I 23 sympathize . MR. ZANNIKOS : I talked to the architect 24 before me that I don' t have right to a shed, and I told the architect what about building a shed, and 25 he said, well, the law is an 8 by 12 shed without electricity is okay. That was the architect . October 26 , 2006 42 1 2 Then he says -- then he told me to go to the Building Department and verify the story and I 3 did. But he never explained to me that I gave up my rights to have a shed when I took a variance 4 for the house . So I'm very disappointed so he should have guided me in the right way. So I 5 build a shed and the inspector come around and he showed me the letter and when I called the 6 architect, he said, gee, I 'm sorry, I forgot . I said -- 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you pay him for this? 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You also pay him for this variance application. 9 MR. ZANNIKOS : I pay him extra for this to keep on an eye on things . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It would appear that the agreement when you got your variances for 11 your house were to make sure that the lot coverage didn' t exceed 20 percent, and when you added the - 12 shed it brought it up to 21 .4 percent . . So you are now 1 . 4 percent over the lot coverage . 13 MR. ZANNIKOS : There was no way to know. He should have informed me . I can ask for special 14 permission, not do the shed and then find out I did something wrong. 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: One question I have, right now the back yard is completely paved 16 essentially? MR. ZANNIKOS : It has pavers . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was that the case at the time the shed was built? 18 MR. ZANNIKOS : The pavers were there . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it' s only because 19 of the technicality that that pavement does not count as lot coverage . So putting the shed on 20 existing pavement did not exactly interfere with, for example, the draining on the property. So 21 it' s kind of a technical thing. If you had an open field and you put a shed on it, then it would 22 be adding lot coverage in a meaningful sense, but it' s not an open field, it was a paved field. 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jim, do you have any questions? 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I was always under the impression that the person who told you 25 that if it' s less than 100 square feet it didn' t impact on anything, but I see that it actually is October 26 , 2006 43 1 2 13 by 8 , so it' s a little larger. MR. ZANNIKOS : That was my mistake, when I 3 bought the place it was 8 by 12 . The shed inside, it' s 719" by 111911 , but when I add the 4 three-quarter plywood, he used the big corner posts and it added to the width. 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, he added a foot . But I mean that' s the technicality. I 6 mean, I have no objection. But I see the reason why the Building Inspector would then say that you 7 needed to come before us, just because of that foot . 8 MR. ZANNIKOS : Yes, I have to apologize . I didn' t want to do things like I did something 9 wrong, but the person I hired to protect me . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What kind of 10 storage do you have underneath your house? MR. ZANNIKOS : Nothing, it' s just level 11 with the outside . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you don' t have 12 any basement at all? MR. ZANNIKOS : No . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you really need this for storage . You have kids, you have 14 stuff . Well, I think as I mentioned to you at your home, that the home is lovely and your shed 15 is very much in keeping with the architecture,, very well placed and I really don' t have any 16 issues . I have to write this up. I just want to make sure . It' s 1 .4 percent increase and I wish 17 that that had been addressed as a legal thing in the same variance request we just simply allowed 18 to you to increase your lot coverage at the time, and you wouldn' t have had to go through this 19 rigmarole . MR. ZANNIKOS : I think the architect 20 overlooked it too. He didn' t think it was so important, but he did say I 'm sorry, I forgot . I 21 said, Mike, it doesn' t help me . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not at all, no . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to comment on this 23 application? If not, I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 24 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for LaChance, who wants to put the garage five feet -- October 26, 2006 44 1 2 three feet from the side yard. MR. HOWLER: David Howler, architect for 3 Debra Lachance regarding the addition that' s on the submission, accessory garage . She' s tried to 4 minimize the side yard variance, provide a place to park the cars, match the setback that they 5 have, but make it smaller. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You mean same as the 6 garage next door? MR. HOWLER: We have one of them 7 approximately the same place as that one . And we would construct it the similar style to the house, 8 shingle . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It will be actually 9 smaller than the garage next door? MR. HOWLER: Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Considerably smaller. It' s the same setback as the one that' s 11 set farther back. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This is a fairly 12 significant variance that is being asked for. To what extent does your case depend upon the 13 preexisting, nonconforming garages that already exist in the neighborhood? 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: A lot . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not because of 15 that, but if there were no other garages in the neighborhood, would she think that she had a good 16 chance to get a variance for this garage, if it were the only one there? We understand each 17 other. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s too big. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be honest with you, sir, excuse me for jumping in on this, 19 it happens to be mine . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is it a broad jump or' 20 long jump? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a minimum 21 jump . I think we have gotten to the point on this block that once the house -- is this a 22 reconstruction on this house? MR. HOWLER: An addition. 23 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: An addition. That it becomes a law of diminishing returns if a 24 person can have a garage . I have to write this decision and I will write whatever this Board 25 wants, but I have posed to this Board that you build an accessory building, that the accessory October 26 , 2006 45 1 2 building be built farther away from the property line, farther away from the road, approximately 3 the same location and that the doors to that accessory building be placed in the middle of the 4 building so that there' s plenty of storage and that the building be screened away from the road. 5 There' s no doubt in my mind that an accessory building is needed particularly on a waterfront 6 piece of property. But that' s my suggestion of the situation. I'm also going to suggest that the 7 accessory building not exceed 180 square feet, which is 10 by 18 . But it' s up to the Board to 8 make that determination. I would find it unconscionable if this Board or myself in this 9 nature would eliminate any type of structure but that' s my particular opinion. I completely object 10 to the doors opening toward Ruch Lane, although I know that there are existing garages that have 11 been preexisting for years, some of which are very simply not going to make it . They will be, back to 12 us again for a reconstruction situation in years to come because some of them are laying almost on 13 the ground. So that' s my proposal to the Board. MR. HOWLER: Your preference is that the 14 driveway and drive and access is actually on the front yard rather than -- 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: There will be no garage . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, and it only be used for storage purposes and yet have plenty 17 of access for the owner of the property to use the garage for storage purposes . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The problem is if that' s the case then the proportion has to change 19 in the way it' s sited because right now, it' s a one-car garage; if you come in off the road, 20 you' re going to come in off the BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s not a 21 garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Jerry just wants a 22 storage building. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, they want a 23 one-car garage . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what they 24 want, but Jerry' s proposing an alternative . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t care 25 what they want . BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Jerry, am I correct October 26, 2006 46 1 2 in assuming that if they build what you' re recommending, they would not need a variance at 3 all? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure they 4 need a variance because it' s in the front yard area. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But only because of the front, not because of setback or anything like 6 that? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, the whole 7 thing. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I 'm 8 proposing a conforming setback on the side yard, but I am not -- I'm proposing that the building be 9 set back 12 feet from the front property line . Proposing it be set back five feet from the side 10 property line, and then I propose that the building be no deeper than 18 feet in depth and no 11 wider than 10 feet in width. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: My question was could 12 be, if there were an accessory building that were to be built without a variance, is there anyplace 13 on the property that could be? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Only on the beach side . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You could put one in the front yard. 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It has to be 35 feet back from the road -- you can' t, the house is 17 32 feet, right? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It could be on the 18 beach side, for example, if it were an accessory building to be used for waterfront related 19 activities then there is no reason why it would need to be on the road side at all . 20 MR. HOWLER: Was to have off street parking. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand. I guess the thing is the code would allow off street 22 parking, but does not allow off street parking in a garage because of the problem of the setback and 23 the rear yard. There' s no rule against off street parking, it' s just covered off street parking. -24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just say this to you, I don' t care if you enter the garage 25 from the house side, I'm not specifically stating where the doors have to be, but the garage is only October 26 , 2006 47 1 � 2 going to be 10 by 18 in my proposal, okay, I don' t care if it' s for a compact car, whatever. I don' t 3 care if you let the car hang out the back of the garage, but you are not utilizing seven feet of a 4 garage of where the car is going to hang out or you' re going to be backing out onto this road and 5 that' s particularly my concern. What I 'm saying is the provision should have been made within the 6 construction of the house to add a garage to the house at the time of the construction. And I 7 think everybody down there has to start looking at that in these situations and that' s just an 8 opinion, you may not have been there at' the time of the reconstruction, and that' s just an opinion. 9 Again, I'm only one vote, I'm just proposing it, but it would be unkind of me not to. tell you that . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEIS.MAN: So you can still 11 use it as a garage for a car, you just want an increased setback. I mean, I think relative to 12 the other structures, it is modest in size, and it' s sited -- where is your septic system; where 13 are your cesspools? They have got to be in that front yard. 14 MR. HOWLER: Yes, in looking at the -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, I see it now. 15 So that' s okay, you have plenty of room to bring it back because I saw some holes with a lot of 16 garbage thrown into it, they' re their own dumpster. They have put their own dumpster into 17 the ground, but I was wondering where those were with respect to the garage, but you do have the 18 option, you can bring it back a little farther. My concern was if you in order to get a car into 19 that garage, and you need to use the long access rather than the short access, and then you know, 20 entering it this way is impossible in terms of the garage, that would mean you would have to flip the 21 thing orientation wise, and that' s going to mean you' re covering most of the front of your house . 22 You see what I 'm saying, Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I 'm saying 23 depending upon the size of the automobile, you can put in anything if you want to, the provision in 24 the reconstruction of this house should have included a garage . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine, but I 'm just trying to say if you really do want to October 26 , 2006 48 1 2 use this accessory structure for a garage, then you need the depth to pull the garage into . And 3 if you' re trying to push it back exactly with the same orientation and entering it from the side 4 let' s say than from the end, you don' t have enough depth to put a car in. 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No, if it' s 10 by 18 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Like I said, 6 it' s really an accessory building, I don' t care what kind of doors they put on it or whatever the 7 case may be as long as the doors don' t face the road and that' s it; that' s their problem. They 8 established the problem, they caused the problem by not including that within the renovations of 9 the house . MR. HOWLER: The second floor addition was 10 an inherited project that my client bought with the house . That has been passed by the Board of 11 Trustees, so we just worked within that application. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course, and I want you to know that it' s nothing personal on my 13 opinion. I'm just saying that there comes a time where my suggestion is you' re not going to garner 14 my vote for construction of a garage that close to the property line. and that' s it . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see it' s applied for the way it' s applied for. I think probably 16 the point here is that at what point in time does one begin to say existing precedent of all these 17 nonconforming structures is saturated. People assume that because that' s what' s been done 18 forever in that neighborhood that that practice should continue when in fact laws get changed to 19 improve life quality,. reduce density and reduce nonconformity. I guess what Jerry' s talking about 20 is trying to find a compromise situation where you can have an accessory structure there but 21 attempting to mitigate its nonconformance to setback and so on. Even though you' re absolutely 22 right, if you look at that streetscape, as you did, you drew the elevation of the street, your 23 proposal is extremely modest and set back as far as anybody else' s . So I guess that' s really the 24 issue . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the 25 weighing aspect we deal with everyday. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But there' s also the October 26 , 2006 49 1 2 question of where the burden of proof lies . The reason why the other garages are there is because 3 they are being grandfathered. Now grandfathering means that people don' t have to tear down 4 preexisting structures, but then to argue that the grandfathering could be used as ,an argument for 5 doing similarly illegal things, subsequently, then the grandfathering thing is getting to be too 6 large . So I think the structure has to be verified on its own terms, and I do think I 'm 7 inclined to go for some sort of a compromise where there could be some sort of smaller building that 8 would be consistent with it . By the way, as far as the setback for accessory building, I believe 9 the code says if you' re on waterfront property, you can build in the back yard as long as you 10 conform to the relative setback. So 35 feet you would be allowed to build in that yard as long as 11 you satisfied the setback. So I could imagine some sort of compromise could be worked out 12 whether it' s big enough for a car or not is a matter to be determined by architects and the 13 owners . MR. HOWLER: I'm just trying to understand 14 why the recommendation is they have the doors on the lawn side of the accessory building rather 15 than facing the street . It changes the nature of the front yard. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Board could out vote me on this and they could also suggest 17 that we change that situation. The point in question has always been and the precedents -- and 18 I ' m not speaking for the Board -- but to be able to get the car out of the garage and still keep 19 the car on the property, and that' s the problem. Okay, most of these houses are no longer seasonal 20 houses, they' re being utilized if not every day of the week at least three days of the week, which 21 are Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If not Saturday and Sunday and Monday, okay, so therefore 22 the activity on that road has gotten much more substantial . And we have had a phenomenal amount 23 of applications down there . Now, if you would have proposed to me that 12 feet was not enough 24 and if we were to continue with the 10 by 18 structure on that conceptual approach and to push 25 that closer to the house, then that' s a possibility. Because now we could get at least 16 October 26 , 2006 50 1 2 or 17 feet in to allow the car to remain on the property in the driveway. 3 MR. HOWLER: That would be our preference to maintain a property fit to maintain the 4 character of a front yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually think 5 that' s not only more contextual and architecturally sound, but I think just from the 6 mechanics of a car, that' s really a better way to do it . I would opt to have them orient it the way 7 that they have it, but to push it way back. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: As close to the house 8 as possible . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, as close to 9 the house as possible with the biggest side yard possible without really blocking the front of the 10 house . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be 11 the purpose of making it smaller. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I understand that 12 and it could be a little bit smaller and still be a one-car garage . So. the proposal ought to be 13 what is the minimal size that you feel you can get one car into. 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you think about that and get back to us on that 15 figure, what you think the minimum size would be . My original suggestion was that of a storage 16 building. But if we want to go back to the garage approach, tell us what the smallest garage is . 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the biggest setback is? 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The biggest setback is whatever the length of the car is 19 depending upon -- I'm suggesting a five foot setback on the side yard, which is fine, you don' t 20 want to go any more than that because you don' t want the garage to monopolize the house . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine, five foot is fine . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that' s the story. And of course we' re talking about a 23 one-story garage with a maximum height of 12 feet with a gable end roof; is that correct? 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Uh-huh. That' s very modest . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How much space is between the house and the garage? October 26 , 2006 51 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 44 feet . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No, between the 3 house and the garage . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don' t know. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like it' s about 15 or 20 feet . 5 MR. HOWLER: I wanted to mention because there' s an angle to the yard. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, you' re going to have one corner longer than the other corner 7 because of the angle of the road. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So, what do you 8 want this gentleman to do, get back to us? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Can I comment on 9 this? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I feel like Jerry does . Our law on a waterfront lot is you' re not 11 supposed to exceed the principal setback, which is the setback from setback of the house could be 12 from the road, which is 35 feet in this instance and every bit of this building is beyond that . 13 And all the other garages were made nonconforming when we started our when we started zoning 14 basically. So they' re all nonconforming and if you do anything on those pieces of property you 15 come before the ZBA. Then we had another decision called the Walz decision that just made it even 16 worse, more restrictive . So, for us to now allow you ,to have a garage this close to the road, in my 17 mind can' t happen. You have the choice of moving it back and almost touching the house, adding it 18 on to the house . I'm thinking myself, seven feet, which is the closest distance on your house right 19 now. I understand the line' s a little bit skewed and maybe Jerry' s five feet works with that 20 angle . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Side yard. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, side yard, but the front yard, it' s got to be 20 feet, or 15 22 feet, I think a car is 15 feet . A car is 20 feet, so in order to comfortably put a car in there, I'm 23 sure you' re going to be right up against one wall and you' ll be able to close the door on the other 24 side with a couple of feet, so maybe a car is 18 feet . I ' m not one to deny a garage, but if that' s 25 all you need, or if you need storage then it' s got to be a little smaller. If you say it' s a car and October 26 , 2006 52 1 2 you want to put a car there, you' re going to move it back. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can you then just, you could even do this by hand. If you' ve got it 4 on AutoCAD just revise it with an increased setback. 5 MR. HOWLER: I think I will talk to my client and resubmit it . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So we keep the 7 hearing open. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you want to do 8 it in writing or do you want to adjourn the hearing? 9 MR. HOWLER: By mail . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : By mail instead of 10 adjourning it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, yeah, this is 11 minor. Because we will be deliberating. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We would need it by 12 next Friday. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : Just to clarify, 13 we' re looking at probably 15 feet from the property line? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At least . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No sense in him 15 submitting something, us closing the hearing and then -- 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A compact car that would allow you to close the door or at least 17 open the door has got to be 18 feet back. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So you want it 18 18 feet? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it' s got to 19 be . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: And five feet from 20 the property line . So anything like that is probably pretty good. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Do you want to close the hearing subject to his resubmission of setback 22 from the side yard and the front yard? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Of the proposed 23 garage . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Of the proposed garage . 24 That' s a motion. (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Our next hearing is for October 26 , 2006 53 1 2 Mr. Volpe on Oak Drive in Southold. Good morning. 3 MR. VOLPE: Good morning. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very interesting 4 . piece of property and a very nice piece of property Mr. Volpe . 5 MR. VOLPE : We had a lot of wind today, I wish I was out sailing. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you' re building over the existing garage? 7 MR. VOLPE : Yes, extending the house over the top of a two-car garage . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . It is a nice piece of property and your hot tub too . 9 MR. VOLPE : And the hot tub is preexisting. I didn' t realize at the time that we 10 actually needed a permit for it because it' s on a deck, it' s flush and it' s theoretically portable . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could we determine that if you took that hot tub out or you 12 decided not to have it anymore that it would be, you could put it back or put a new one back but 13 it ' s specifically for hot tub use or something of that nature rather than -- 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, something else . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, it 15 would be conditioned for it being used for nothing but a hot tub. 16 MR. VOLPE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if you 17 removed it, it would be for the deck underneath it or whatever is holding it up. 18 MR. VOLPE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm saying that 19 Mr. Volpe or subsequent owners did not want a hot tub that it would be removed and the only thing 20 that would be left would be what was underneath it . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, this is not livable . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. MR. VOLPE: We would probably opt to take 23 it with us . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem with 24 that Mr. Volpe is if you don' t do that, these things tend to be part of the house in years to 25 come . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Then everybody runs October 26 , 2006 54 1 2 into trouble . MR. VOLPE : Okay. 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s sited perfectly, it' s fine, very well screened by 4 evergreens . It' s in a reasonable place and I don' t have any problem with it . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This isn' t my application, I'm just suggesting in future 6 situations . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anybody else have any 7 questions? Anybody in the audience have any questions? If not, I' ll make a motion to close 8 the hearing and reserve decision until later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 9 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s it for the 10 morning. (Whereupon, the Board adjourned and 11 reconvened after lunch recess . See minutes for resolution. ) 12 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 13 Charles and Lisa Drake on Wunneweta Road in Cutchogue . 14 MR. GORMAN: Bill Gorman, New England Homes, for Charles and Lisa Drake . 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: What can you tell us about the deck? 16 MR. GORMAN: The deck was built about eight years ago, and it' s 21' by 31' behind the 17 house . The deck was built by the owner without realizing a building permit was needed, there was 18 a lot of excitement with other house renovations that were being done . The Drakes would like to 19 sell the house now. The shed that exists is being removed. 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How close is the deck? MR. GORMAN: The deck is 30 . 1 feet I think 21 from the line . We' re asking for 19 . 9 feet in this variance . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Dinizio? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions . 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Ms . Weisman? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The deck is open, 24 21' by 31' without a roof . The site survey shows a setback 30 . 1 feet from the northerly boundary 25 line . The deck area appears to be well-screened with trees and fencing, and will have little October 26 , 2006 55 1 2 visual impact where it exists . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fencing and 3 trees and hedges will remain? There are three front yard areas . 4 MR. GORMAN: Yes . It is a very private lot . 5 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment? If not, I' ll 6 make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for Susan Jeffries at East End Road. Miss Moore . 9 MS . MOORE: What they did, and the architects can certainly speak to this, they had 10 begun with the thought of renovating the existing house but then over time there was ultimately a 11 decision that really it made more sense to do new construction. They have for the most part taken 12 the same footprint that they presently try to follow the existing footprint . The only deviation 13 is in the center, the living area because the existing house right now is a relatively small 14 ranch style . The second issue that the Building Department raised is an issue of the two story. 15 When it was designed that' s not the way it was read so it was designed without the thought that 16 it was a third story. I would remind you that when you went to the property, you came in the 17 driveway that goes into a walk-in garage . The garage is actually below grade and that' s being 18 maintained, the below grade portion is the portion that you see on the right-hand side of the 19 drawing, it is what' s going to be garage and staff rooms and then above that is the living area, 20 which is what we have today is the living area . It' s all on the same plane on grade, on the 21 average grade there, and then what would be a second floor is the library. The Building 22 Department looked at that and questioned it and thought maybe it was the third floor and the 23 architects can certainly discuss how they designed that library space and how we don' t believe it' s a 24 third story space, but again, it' s here before the Board, and you have the cross section that depicts 25 it a little more clearly than through your interpretation, your decision-making you can find October 26, 2006 56 1 2 that this is actually not a third story space . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, because the 3 grade slopes substantially you have a potential for habitable space . And if you take the average 4 grade then the grade, which is where your master bedroom and your actual primary living spaces are 5 at a common grade, and you' re keeping the ridges all the same height . So the part of the house 6 will look taller, but it will not because of the elevational changes, the ridges aren' t going to be 7 higher than one part of the composition. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we question 8 the applicant? MS . MOORE : Sure, that' s why they' re here . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We, of course, have had the luxury of seeing this property in its 10 present situation and of course my colleagues will again to my left and to your right is much more 11 well versed in this, however, when I looked at the site, I noticed that that section that I 'm looking 12 at on the right-hand side appeared to be, I don' t know, I would say the elevation was much farther 13 down than the rest of the site, and my question to you is the issue of the library, is there a 14 stairwell going to this library? MS . MOORE : Yes . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can specifically state that the Building Department is 16 probably correct in its determining that we have a third story, regardless of making a decision or 17 not at this time, the issue is is the house going to be sprinklered; is there going to be an 18 internal comprehensive sprinkler water suppression system to take care of any fire problems? 19 MS . SAGAN: At this time, no. I would like to point out that area, that' s the bathroom 20 and the garage at the front of the house, that is actually below grade . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, that' s what I meant . 22 MS . SAGAN: That entire lower level is not all above grade . From that that would lead toward 23 the back, toward the ocean because of the slope . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: As it falls away. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it slopes both this way and latitudinally and longitudinally. 25 MS . SAGAN: If you remember, when you come into the house you had to walk up a series of October 26 , 2006 57 1 2 stairs to get up there and then it drops off again on the other side . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: On the road side of the house, what we' re talking about is on the 4 left-hand side, facing the house from the street . MS . SAGAN: It looks exactly the same . 5 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . The basement is where the stairs were, you don' t see 6 that level from the front, it' s only from the back and that' s because it slopes down into the nice 7 little creek there or whatever it is . MS . SAGAN: From the front entry portion, 8 from the street . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it would be 9 one and a half story, with the dormer. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How big is the 10 library square footage wise. MS . SAGAN: In the library, because it is 11 in the attic space, what we did was there' s a rafter, and there' s a track there to walk down the 12 middle, and we just put the bookcases there, utilize that within the rafter space . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a galley. MS . SAGAN: But basically the walking area 14 is about four foot wide . BOARD MEMBER SIMONA: But what is the 15 actual square footage of the library area? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Can we have your 16 name? MS . SAGAN: M.J. Sagan, S-A-G-A-N. 17 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So there' s not even going to be any room for a chair there . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Oh, yes, there will . These are stacks . 19 MR. ARCHER: The length of it is 18 feet wider. This spot here where we have bookshelves 20 is really about four by six. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: With the 21 shelving put in. MR. ARCHER: This is essentially wider 22 because of the dormer. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So this is not an 23 18 foot room. MS . MOORE : It' s an attic . 24 BOARD MEMBER. WEISMAN: And you have another exterior deck there . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just finish up with that, Leslie . Is there any problem October 26 , 2006 58 1 2 with doing any type of fire suppression system to that section of the home to allow for anybody that 3 might get stranded in that attic or anybody that may go up to that attic if there were a fire, is 4 there any problem with that? MS . SAGAN: No. Like I said, we don' t 5 consider it three stories, but if it' s your interpretation that it is and the sprinklers are 6 required then -- MS . MOORE : Well, some kind of fire 7 suppression because we don' t know, you could do dry, you might even do the attic space with the 8 egress and that' s it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I 'm 9 referring to. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Technically it' s a 10 third floor not a third story, but `the way the Building Department is going to interpret it is 11 going to be based on what -- if your client' s willing to just avoid the whole thing by simply 12 creating some sort of fire suppression, then that ends that problem. Then you' re just looking at 13 setback from the bluff . BOARD MEMBER .GOEHRINGER: The statement is 14 do I particularly care about that library, only from a fire suppression point of view. I have no 15 objection to anybody utilizing underneath the eves of that house for the purposes of this . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: How many sets of stairs do you have to go. down to get outside? 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I think it' s 18 only one, right? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you' re on the 19 main level . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re on the main 20 floor. It' s not high. It' s a third floor but not a third story. 21 MS . MOORE : It would be the attic of a second story in a normal house . 22 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : So it' s a -- you' re going down one set of stairs to get outside . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, that' s all . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Jimmy, it' s 61 24 feet 10 inches high. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it' s not . 25 MS . MOORE : That' s if you' re going out the window. October 26 , 2006 59 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You can come down here and exit . 3 MS . MOORE : Right, 33 to the garage entrance . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying that' s my opinion. It' s a multimillion dollar 5 construction. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t think 6 that' s a very costly thing to avoid the interpretation and delays . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:. No, to be safe . MS . MOORE : If you make it a condition -- 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I would argue in favor of your actual interpretation, the way your 9 architect, that' s the way I would interpret it . Because you've got grade slope in two directions 10 so partially below grade where a car goes we don' t care and habitable space because it' s at grade on 11 the other side . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I 'm looking at it 12 this way, there' s no way for you to get out of there through a window. 13 MS . MOORE : No, you have to -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, those 14 windows are not fire windows, they' re not the . right size . 15 MS . SAGAN: On the library? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . They' re not 16 supposed to be . They' re dormers so you have no way out except the set of stairs but you only have 17 to go down one set of stairs . I think we' re interpreting it because we'.re looking at the worst 18 case of this house, from the outside it looks like a Cape Cod house . 19 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a little bigger. MS . SAGAN: If we would have done this 20 exact same diagram looking from the other side, what you would be seeing is the same as what 21 you' re seeing at the master bedroom. BOARD MEMBER .WEISMAN: Right . 22 MS . SAGAN: There would have been a garage underneath instead of a car. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: My point is, you can' t jump out, you' re not going to jump three 24 stories . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I don' t know that you even count this as a third story. October 26, 2006 60 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I ' m saying. 3 MS . MOORE : I' ll let you guys debate it . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Better to be safe than 4 sorry. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You are reducing 5 the setback from the original footprint, correct? MS . MOORE : No. I had to actually 6 highlight mine. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The dotted line is 7 actually the footprint MS . MOORE : Exactly. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not a reduction. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, how many feet to the edge of the bluff, 52 feet? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: According to this site plan at its closest, it' s 52 feet . 11 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the 12 existing house? MS . MOORE : 58 on one corner, but then 13 it' s maybe another -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But they' re not 14 calling that out . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not 52 for the 15 existing, it' s closer to 58 for the existing. MS . MOORE : Yes, that' s what they -- 58 on 16 the south end, the proposed -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you take 17 out your ruler please and tell us at its closest point, at that 52 feet, what the closest point of 18 the existing house is? MS . MOORE : Add another 16 . 19 MR. ARCHER: So 67 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Another 10, 12 20 feet . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the existing. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s only in that location. 22 MS . MOORE : Only in that location because -- 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Where are you measuring from, from the dotted line, from this 24 corner? MS . MOORE : Yes . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: 67 to 52 . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the way of October 26 , 2006 61 1 l 2 the house, what does that comprise? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Oh, that' s the 3 living room. MS . MOORE : If I could just point out, 4 notice that we had to relocate, remove the existing sanitary, you see a manhole up by the 5 freshwater wetlands, that had to be removed. That will be abandoned. The new sanitary system is in 6 the center like around the turnaround; that was the most appropriate engineered location. 7 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MS . MOORE : So the house is being 8 maintained where it presently is, plus because of the angles it pushes a little bit closer to the 9 bluff, but as you can see the bluff lines, the house then moves back away from the bluff line . 10 So we've given you the closest point . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s only a small 11 portion of the house . The rest is swung back. MS . MOORE : Exactly. 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It might have been the ride out, all of us in the Volvo, 13 fortunately I sat in the front seat, but one gentleman who we had an application with and Jimmy 14 sat in the back, but we forgot to ask the owner if there has been any change in coastline over the 15 body of the past 10 or 15 years . If you would -- in my educated thoughts, based upon the nature of 16 that coastline, I saw no change . MS . MOORE: No. Because it' s natural rock 17 revetment there . MS . SAGAN: There' s actually labeled, an 18 existing path, wood walk. I walked down there because I wanted to get closer to the water and 19 that wood walk is in pretty bad shape . Actually I didn' t walk on it, so I 'm assuming it' s been there 20 for a pretty long time, and it was pretty far away from the water. I don' t know if that' s an 21 indication or not, but if nothing else, it seems like the water hasn' t gotten any closer. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can I see the landscape plan? 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would have a question I' d like to ask the neighbors . There' s a 24 letter September 15th from the DEC in which it says that -- I 'm reading one paragraph, that third 25 paragraph -- in mitigation for substantially larger house, .which is 17 feet closer to the October 26, 2006 62 1 2 freshwater wetlands boundary, it must be by planting a 10 foot wide restoration area of native 3 shrubs . And I don' t see any response to that MS . MOORE : No, actually we have done it . 4 We brought it with us if you would like it . It didn' t really deal with your issues . The plan is 5 being resubmitted to the DEC. We were waiting for the landscape architect and the surveyor to put 6 their information together. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is also a 7 letter from the Department of Environment Conservation saying we were unable to do an 8 inspection because of expense; what was the issue there? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Just general . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There is a letter 10 from -- I think it' s this report saying they have reviewed and they have approved it . However, it' s 11 becoming clear in the last couple of weeks that .the Trustees cannot simply assert that everything 12 is okay with them whether there has been an LWRP finding that says that it' s inconsistent with the 13 LWRP, unless it' s somewhere else . I don' t see that in these papers as though the Trustees have 14 even read the LWRP findings . MS . MOORE : I know from the hearing 15 process that the LWRP report was submitted; that they did consider it . It would be part of the 16 transcript of their hearing. They felt that there had been mitigation here because the sanitary was 17 removed from the wetlands, away from wetlands; there are dry wells and hay bales being proposed 18 and essentially this particular bluff, call it a bluff, is not subject to the erosion that they 19 typically -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I can understand, 20 these are reasonable reasons for finding to be consistent where it initially had been 21 inconsistent, but one of the things that now the Trustees are learning that is that they just can' t 22 simply discuss this amongst themselves privately, it' s supposed to be part of the hearing. 23 MS . MOORE : It' s been put on the record. Every hearing that I've had with Trustees they 24 take the LWRP report, you get the inconsistent because that' s the way it' s been written and 25 everything that' s nonconforming is inconsistent . And then they say we feel that we can address this October 26 , 2006 63 1 2 and mitigate and make it more consistent by adopting these modifications . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The issue is whether they need to specify their reasons or rather 4 assure us that if we look at the transcript of the hearing, we' ll find out that they didn' t ignore 5 it . That is currently under discussion and perhaps at the time that this was done, they were 6 not aware that they had to do any more than they have already done . 7 MS . MOORE : I can' t speak to what they did or didn' t know. The hearing only took place a 8 month ago. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t think 9 it' s this Board' s purview to decide whether the Trustees' approval was appropriate or not . So if 10 you get an approval from them, I think you live with it . Their procedural issues, what they' re 11 working on notwithstanding, you've got to sort- of take their word for it, if you have their 12 approval . , BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I don' t know if 13 Michael was thinking that, but is there anything in here that would help to say why, if the 14 variance was granted, how that helps mitigate the LWRP? 15 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You have to do your own analysis . 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Right . The attorney has an engineer' s report or something 17 regarding the bluff, erosion rate or anything like that . 18 MS . MOORE : We don' t have it with us now, but once the LWRP has come, is each Board going to 19 review the LWRP? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Only the part that' s 20 in our jurisdiction. MS . MOORE : I don' t know how internally 21 you were operating with these because you do one LWRP that starts with the Trustees and works its 22 way down to whatever. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If the LWRP review 23 says that there is something that is specifically within the ZBA' s domain and that it is 24 inconsistent, then if we decide that that is not a problem, we have to state so; we have to state our 25 reasons in a report that concerns our domain. Anything that you can give to help us . October 26 , 2006 64 1 2 MS . MOORE : I would point out, yes, that with respect to LWRP, the fact that the sanitary 3 system is only 20 feet from a wetlands that is a significant mitigation that we have already 4 incorporated into this plan. The impact of water runoff on the bluff is not an issue here because 5 of the slope of the bluff and the property. As you know from both the topos as well as your site 6 inspection, the bluff is actually at a higher point than the house; that is precisely why we 7 have issues of first story, second story, third story. You have a walk out because the entire 8 property actually slopes away from the bluff and then down away from the road. So there are kind 9 of plateaus here and there' s no water runoff issue that is a problem here . Even if there were, we 10 have the dry wells that will catch all water retention from the roof runoff . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Wherever the dry wells are placed. 12 MS . MOORE : There are several of them. Some of them are actually on the seaward side, so 13 it will be catching anything before it goes to -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Are they on the 14 plans? MS . MOORE : Yes, circles on the outside 15 perimeter. We have to keep a certain distance from the sanitary. You can' t have dry wells close 16 to -- the sanitary really had to be placed here first because of the topography and the slopes of 17 the property. The sanitary really was the most crucial issue and then beyond that we work with 18 the other infrastructure . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Pat, I was just 19 wondering if it' s possible, is there something that would help us enter that into the decision 20 regarding the erosion rate? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: On the bluff . 21 MS . MOORE : I would have to get that for you at a later date . And maybe Dick Strauss can 22 provide that based on his prior mapping. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We can close the 23 hearing subject to receiving something like that . 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The landscaping is actually going to help with runoff . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s another mitigating factor. October 26 , 2006 65 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s another mitigating factor you might want to consider. 3 MS . MOORE : Thank you, I forgot about that . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Can we keep that? 5 MS . MOORE : Yes . I actually brought that for the hearing. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We don' t have one . It' s a really beautiful access to the foyer from 7 this gravel, very nice stepping up. MS . MOORE: Do you still want the erosion 8 rate? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 9 MS . MOORE: Okay. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What is this 10 erosion rate thing, it' s fairly new to me . Is it a formal report? 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. MS . MOORE : Correct me if I'm wrong, but I 12 think it would be by way of a letter, but I think I would ask the surveyor to please review based 13 upon prior mapping that these done and aerials historic aerials, what the rate of erosion is of 14 this particular bank. Which I think will be negligible given the stone bank. 15 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I do too, but it' s good to have it in the record. 16 MS . MOORE : Richard Straus, he' s the surveyor/engineer. Richard Straus does most of 17 the work on Fisher' s . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That would be very 18 helpful . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, 19 what is the total square footprint of the house? MS . MOORE : Footprint? About 3 , 500 , it' s 20 not that big. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s pretty big. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: For one floor that' s pretty big. 22 MS . SAGAN: For the house, other than that it ' s the garage and the staff and that little 23 attic . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Was there a size 24 given for the library? MS . MOORE : Four feet wide by 18 feet 25 long, and then wider in certain areas . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thank you, that' s October 26 , 2006 66 1 2 what I thought . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Anyone else have a comment on this application? If not, I ' ll make a 4 motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 5 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for -- who is our 1 : 15? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. and Mrs . Wheeler. 8 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I have gone to the Building Department and I spoke to Damon, and we 9 made a decision to keep the existing overall look of the home the way we have proposed to the Board, 10 but I did show him our proposed second floor layout, and it' s all going to be open, so it' s 11 going to become a three-story space . That' s versus open to below. I have seven copies of the 12 plan if I could submit that to you. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure, thank you. 13 MS . DROZDOWSKA: I have also a letter stating -- 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And the plan that you' re giving for the record is the second floor 15 plan? MS . DROZDOWSKA: It' s the second floor 16 with the clear story. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The upper area. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there' s no floor in there? 18 MS . DROZDOWSKA: He said if we do decide in the future to do anything with that to come to 19 the Building Department to obtain a building permit with them. We may, which then I ' m 20 basically keeping if we would like to apply for the mezzanine with the Building Department beyond 21 the Zoning Board, we have to keep the roof line within the main roof of the second floor, which 22 may be an accessible thing .to us, but at that time that would be something that we have to -- 23 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Great, okay. Does anybody have any other questions of Aggie? 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s straight forward enough, thank God for AutoCAD. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At least now you you won' t get a stop work order. October 26 , 2006 67 1 2 MS . DROZDOWSKA: We took my name off the permit, right? 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 4 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 5 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for 6 Garipian. I' ll make a resolution to adjourn without a date . 7 (See minutes for resolution. ) ------------------------------------------------- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Isabellas on Westview Drive in Mattituck. 9 MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of EnConsultants for the applicants . 10 I think this is the smallest variance I have ever asked for in any town, so I hope that 11 does me some good. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That doesn' t 12 mean we' re not going to grill you. MR. HERMANN: I know it' s one of those 13 things, I don' t know how well prepared I am because I don' t know what you could -- if you look 14 at the survey, I'm going to try to make this brief . It' s a one story house, which is the sort 15 of the dwarf of this street and the Isabellas are looking to put on a second story. 16 The house was built at a slight angle to the property line . So while the road side of the 17 house actually conforms to the 10 foot setback, as it angles seaward, it loses that 10 feet . So 18 we' re at 9 . 6 and I guess based on a prior case and legal interpretation, the Building Inspector and 19 this Board is required to determine pursuant to code that even though we aren' t encroaching any 20 further on that property that we' re increasing the nonconformity effectively by adding a second story 21 on a preexisting nonconforming structure, no matter how small . 22 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s right . MR. HERMANN: The extension of the deck 23 then in line with that house also creates that second variance you mentioned, where the deck 24 would be 9 . 3 feet from the property line rather than 10 feet . There is mitigation that was 25 proposed as part of this project really unrelated to your Board but related to the permits that were October 26 , 2006 68 1 2 obtained from the DEC and the Trustees . The existing septic system is being replaced in favor 3 of a Suffolk County Department of Health Services conforming system closer to the road, farther from 4 Mattituck creek, a drainage system of dry wells is being installed to retain and recharge roof 5 runoff, and there was a nonturf buffer established along the bulkhead by the Trustees for a prior 6 permit . So while those were not obviously in all honesty designed for your Board, they were 7 designed and incorporated as part of the project and certainly act as any environmental mitigation. 8 I have photos if you want to see them. I 'm sure you folks are familiar with the 9 neighborhood. This house looks like a shed compared to the houses that are on either side of 10 it . It will not create any change in the character of the neighborhood or cause any adverse 11 impact to this community. So we are here asking for your blessing 12 for a few inches, literally. If you have any questions I' d be happy to address them. 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The deck would remain open to the sky? 14 MR. HERMANN: Yes, sir. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Will the steps be 15 any closer to the bulkhead? MR. HERMANN: Well, there are steps that 16 are proposed that come off the seaward side of the new deck, so the steps are closer to the bulkhead, 17 yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: How much? It looks 18 like it' s about three feet, I'm guessing. MR. HERMANN: I was hoping you weren' t 19 going to ask me a question requiring a scale because I noticed as I sat down my scale has 20 vanished from my bag; does anyone at the Board have an engineer' s scale? 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, but in the future I' ll bring one . No, I've got an 22 architectural scale . MR. HERMANN: That' s not going to help me . 23 I really do apologize . My calculator and scale are both suddenly missing. But it is just what 24 you see on the plan, there are access steps to provide ingress and egress to the deck. 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes . Although this house is actually set back farther from the October 26 , 2006 69 1 2 creek. MR. HERMANN: It' s set back a little bit 3 farther and again, is much tinier. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I do think we need 4 to know. MR. HERMANN: I 'm just wondering what the 5 issue is with the steps because it all exceeds the required 75 feet from the bulkhead; that is not at 6 issue here . The bulkhead setback is not at issue, and the Building Inspector actually looked at this 7 twice, I believe Miss Kowalski sent it back for his second review because of the setback that' s 8 shown to the wetlands to the south, which is less than 75 feet and that setback is shown for the 9 benefit of the environmental review, whereas the rear yard or in this case bulkhead setback for 10 buildings and zoning purposes are drawn from the applicant' s bulkhead, which is -- 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why we sent it over. 12 MR. HERMANN: For clarification. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We had never seen a 13 decision in writing on that . MR. HERMANN: I'm glad you did because my 14 point is to say that they have looked at this twice, and there is no component of it that 15 doesn' t meet your setback, so the steps should not be at issue . 16 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Well, the steps they were on that first plan that you submitted, 17 right? . MR. HERMANN: Yes . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The steps are fairly significant in tread numbers because of the 19 height . MR. HERMANN: That' s correct . I don' t 20 know, I mean I do have a photo if it would help . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s why I 21 brought it up because I can see that maybe it' s not an issue, but it' s certainly an addition in 22 terms of the -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Steep slope going back 23 there . MR. HERMANN: And these are the houses 24 either side of it much closer to the water and larger in scope . 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s also possible that the Building Department leaves that up to the October 26 , 2006 70 1 2 ZBA to decide on the step areas because it' s all inclusive on the permit . 3 MR. HERMANN: I' d really hate to tell the Isabellas that I can' t get a decision because of 4 the steps . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No . I'm just 5 saying it' s up to the ZBA to decide on the step area that' s on the plan. 6 MR. HERMANN: Okay. Can you render a decision pending my leaving for 10 minutes and 7 coming up with an area calculator? What is it that you' re looking for about the steps, just what 8 the dimensions are? BOARD 'MEMBER WEISMAN: , Right now you have 9 some steps that are X number of feet from the bulkhead, and you' re adding steps that are closer 10 to the bulkhead, and I just simply want to make sure that' s incorporated in the decision. I don' t 11 have any problem with it . MR. HERMANN: I know you don' t have any 12 problem. I guess my question is if. they conform to the building requirement, if they conform to 13 the setback requirement, why do the steps become part of your decision? 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re just saying they could impinge upon that 75 . 15 BOARD SECY. -KOWALSKI : There could be that chance . 16 MR. HERMANN: So you' re wanting to know that exact setback. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To make sure that it isn' t nonconforming. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don' t have to do that this minute; you can drop us a line or 19 a note . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The decision is in 20 two weeks . MR. HERMANN: Okay, regardless . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And you don' t have to come back later, we' ll put that in the 22 decision. MR. HERMANN: That' s what I was trying to 23 determine, if this Board wouldn' t render a decision on this matter in the next five minutes 24 either way. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, two weeks . 25 MR. HERMANN: Okay, Linda, I will have that faxed to you today. I'm sorry about that . October 26, 2006 71 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s fine . They' re going to meet in two weeks . 3 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I make a comment? In any case, you can turn those steps 4 sideways . MR. HERMANN: If there was an issue, I 'm 5 fairly certain there isn' t, but I appreciate it . If there is, we would change it in a way that it 6 doesn' t become a problem. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Have you thought 7 about the gauge of the siding you' re going to be using? That' s a joke . I mean, I really want to 8 know why you' re here . MR. HERMANN: You' ll have to attribute my 9 gullibility to your humor, in other towns that I work in I also have no idea but I also -- 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand the fear you have . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Let me make a motion to close the hearing pending the acceptance of the 12 dimensions of the steps . (See minutes for resolution. ) 13 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next application is for 14 Mr. Diller at 60 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel . Good afternoon. 15 MR. PALUMBO: Good afternoon, I 'm Tony Palumbo from the law firm Goggins and Palumbo on 16 behalf of Mr. Diller. I think Mr. Goggins appeared a few times on this . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes, he has . MR. PALUMBO: And this is for submission 18 on an affidavit on behalf of Mr. Diller because he' s receiving some medical procedures so he was 19 unable to be here today. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s all right . 20 MR. PALUMBO: (Handing. ) I believe that was really the main purpose . 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There was another letter that was received regarding the alternative 22 relief . Mr. Diller has accepted alternative relief from the Board, I believe . 23 MR. PALUMBO: That I'm not sure of, I apologize . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Seventy-five feet from the bulkhead. 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you want to read the letter from your firm? This is the last October 26, 2006 72 1 . 2 letter that we got (Handing) . MR. PALUMBO: And that was sent with this? 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We didn' t get the affidavit . If it' s there, I don' t recall seeing 4 the affidavit . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But basically agrees to 5 the setback of 75 feet but then he asks that we not reduce the height of the building, at least to 6 some degree . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the 7 building doesn' t exceed two stories . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the 8 question. MR. PALUMBO: Whether or not he' s creating 9 a third story. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct . 10 MR. PALUMBO : I know that was an issue . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: We will not do that? 11 MR. PALUMBO : Under no circumstances will that be approved, so he' s not going to do that . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s my decision, Mr. Palumbo, to write . I mean, 13 notwithstanding the fact that a person is allowed to have a cathedral ceiling in their house, the 14 point is what happens to the cathedral ceiling; does it become part of -- does any portion of 15 that, upper portion of that be utilized for anything that creates that third story situation 16 that I think that I'm just pointing out to you. MR. PALUMBO: You mean outside the open 17 air aspect of the cathedral, the roof line that continues and there' s storage .or what have you. 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, there was a deck area that he was showing on his original 19 plan, and that was the issue that brought up the comment of a third story. And there was a doorway 20 and a gable end facing the water showing an upper story deck. There' s some way they have to get to 21 that deck from the internal portion of the house, so, I mean, that' s the issue . I mean, if we' re 22 talking two stories, we' re talking two stories . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I believe the Board 23 was going to limit the height to 25, 26 feet to the top of the ridge . And Mr. Diller seems to 24 agree to that on the first affidavit on September 29th. 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: He does say here, we' ll also put in this : "If however, the Board should October 26 , 2006 73 1 2 require that the proposed house be located further away from the bay than it is applied for, then it 3 is requested that the Board not reduce the building height permitted by the building code in 4 such cases by such height may be necessary to offset at least to some degree the narrow field of 5 vision. " So he isn' t happy about it, but he' ll take it . 6 MR. PALUMBO: Right . I think that was the caveat that he would agree to reduce the height if 7 he were allowed to keep it in the current proposed location. But if you -- 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Move it back. MR. PALUMBO: -- require him to move it 9 back, then he would ask that you keep it at the current height . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Well, not really, he said at least to some degree, so he puts a little 11 caveat in there that we can reduce it somewhat . What was the height that he applied for? 12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I believe he asked for 29 feet . So it' s a four foot reduction. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So a three foot reduction. 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Three or four feet . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, the original plan shows 29 feet to the ridge . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Palumbo, do you know the exact square footage of the house? 17 MR. PALUMBO: I was just looking for -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can furnish 18 us with that, if you don' t have it today, that' s no problem. 19 MR. PALUMBO : If the Board is going to require him to. move it back that additional 20 distance that I think has pretty much been decided. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . MR. PALUMBO : Then you' re also 22 contemplating reducing the height as well now? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Three feet? 23 MR. PALUMBO: Because I know that was a sticking point . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Because of the side 25 yards, the side yards don' t meet the code . MR. PALUMBO: So a pyramid-type thing. I October 26 , 2006 74 1 2 want to explain this to him because he wants me to speak to him. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll let Leslie do it, she' s the architect so she can probably explain it 4 better than I . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What we' re simply 5 doing is as you step it back, you' re going to be reducing -- you can actually just simply flatten 6 the ridge somewhat and reduce the height that way, because it' s not habitable that way, it' s attic 7 anyway. So we' re simply talking about not only mitigating the setback but a little bit of the 8 height . The view should not be affected -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: -- by a reduction of three feet in the ridge . So it has less visual 10 impact . Because the side yards are really close . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: They are . And the 11 cottages on either side are small . The one is fairly -- it' s a year round one, the other one is 12 definitely just Mr. McNulty' s summer cottage . But the other houses going down, it' s out of scale, 13 it' s too high for the rest of the community. But 26 feet at least is reasonable . 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : He can change the roof line to gambrel or something different, as 15 long as he doesn' t exceed that 26 feet to the top of the ridge . 16 MR. PALUMBO: Got you, okay, so he' s proposed 29 , and -- 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just remember it' s to the ridge not to the mean. 18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : From 29 to 26 . MR. PALUMBO: 29 to the ridge . 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: He has proposed 29 to the ridge, 18 feet to the eves, and also 20 there' s a deck, an open roof deck and that doesn' t have to change at all . That' s fine . We' re just 21 talking about dropping the ridge of that portion of the house three feet . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the access to that deck is not internal into the house 23 as I just discussed with Mr. Palumbo, which would denote a third story for the purposes of access to 24 that deck because you've got living room, bedroom and outside deck. 25 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Do you mean he has to have an outside stairs, Jerry? October 26, 2006 75 1 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s a third story. 3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So then you have to have an outside stairway?. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then how would you 5 get to the deck? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s the 6 question. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let' s look at the 7 second floor plan. Well, you have eight foot clearance here . Right now you've got from the 8 second floor plan, you' re going up a flight of steps to a landing and a door. 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Oh, boy. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Now those steps 10 will be partly enclosed by the roof of the second story. That' s really what' s enclosing those 11 steps . So what we have to do is see if we have enough -- I don' t have a section in that 12 direction, I need a longitudinal section; I 've just got a latitudinal section here . This end of 13 the house, this shows you how the floors are stacked, when you come out here on the deck, what 14 I don' t have is a section this way. MR. PALUMBO: Okay. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Which would tell us how those stairs are running, where the landing 16 is . MR. PALUMBO: So it' s your folks' position 17 that even if he has access and even has a landing above the second story that that would constitute 18 a third story, even though it' s not livable, it' s just a landing and access, a three by three 19 access . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No, I would not say 20 that' s a third story if it' s 23 feet to the ridge -- I'm sorry, 26 feet to the ridge . And you 21 could still put the riser to runway, show it, you can still get that in there, and it' s strictly an 22 access out . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Out . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, you' d have to go out and in. It works both ways . 24 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I 've got to tell you, I thought we made a decision down there 25 on Bay Shore Road, the guy was going to put a flat roof up, wanted a deck on the top of the house, October 26, 2006 76 1 2 which is above the second story, and the reason why. we did turn it down was because he had a 3 doorway there that was stuck above this deck that said this is a third story. I see this as being 4 no different other than it' s a peaked roof instead of a flat roof on top of there where he wanted .to 5 put a little utility shed on top. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: See what this is is 6 this door is actually sitting on the elevation, sitting on the rear elevation back here . And the 7 door is in the gable, right in the gable . So it' s not habitable -- what it is is the corridor that 8 leads up through the attic space and up through the deck. It' s not habitable; it is interior but 9 it' s just literally a corridor that runs up to a door in the gable . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : This is exactly that Bay Shore Road house . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The point I 'm trying to make is if you have to drop that by 12 three feet, you may not have room for that door. You see what I'm saying? This door is 13 going to be lower than this gable . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You won' t have room. 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is the bottom of the door flush with the deck? 15 MR. PALUMBO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You don' t want them 16 to crawl out . They have to walk out . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the deck 17 is x-nayed on the third story. There' s no egress that' s protected. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The problem is always with people standing up on that third story 19 and gawking down on their neighbors . That was the reason why we gave for turning that one on Bay 20 Shore . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re right, Jim. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The only other thing is if the Board denies the deck and/or you 22 could reapply for the deck area and then have the Board come out and include that . He can apply 23 later. MR. PALUMBO: I don' t think you can 24 distinguish that deck from something where you' re on top of the building and you've got access to 25 it, an exterior access like the one you' re talking about . The other one that you' re trying to October 26, 2006 77 1 2 compare it to saying that that' s a flat roof and whether it would constitute a third story or not, 3 I guess because of the aesthetics where you think you were denying it . But this is something where 4 he has an interior access . It' s significantly different . With a flat roof you had that 5 entire -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. The deck 6 is a flat roof and quite honestly, if he had built a pyramid on top instead of putting a square roof 7 where the stairwell was, it would have been exactly this . 8 MR. PALUMBO: We' re just talking height restriction issue regarding building over that 9 flat roof . That' s my point . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It was a code 10 restriction, I don' t think it was 24 feet high. But the point is, we have already dealt with the 11 privacy issue and the neighbors concerning decks on top of homes . And quite honestly, I 'm willing 12 to grant a deck above a second story. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I tend to agree 13 with you. BOARD _ MEMBER WEISMAN: Tucking it in 14 between these two gables, and stepping the roofs back. 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You' re not going to convince me in all honesty. 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Regardless of where it' s accessible from we just will not like to see 17 the deck on top. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you' re better 18 off just denying it period. Forgetting the deck. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This way, if 19 something occurs later, he can always come back. MR. PALUMBO: Okay. So just so I 'm clear 20 now, he' s denied the variance with regard to the distance from the water. 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . MR. PALUMBO: He' s denied the height 22 application. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . 23 MR. PALUMBO: He' s denied the deck. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Correct . 24 MR. PALUMBO: So he' s being granted the side yard variance only subject to him moving it 25 back and the other mitigation that we discussed. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . October 26 , 2006 78 1 2 MR. PALUMBO: Okay, just so it' s crystal clear to Mr. Diller. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You've got it . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, he' s granted 4 isn' t it 100 foot from there? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Seventy-five . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So we' re granting side yard variances subject to 75 feet from the 6 bulkhead and 26 to the ridge . MR. PALUMBO : Twenty-six feet to ridge and 7 75 feet from the bulkhead; I know there was a bit of a round and round regarding mean high water and 8 so forth. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Which bulkhead? 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The upper one . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Meaning the higher 10 bulkhead, the landward? MR. PALUMBO: That' s what you' re talking, 11 75 feet from that? . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: From the 12 landward. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Yes . 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : From the upper bulkhead, the closer one . 14 MR. PALUMBO: I won' t even start on that, I know that was a big issue . He put it in 15 subsequently. I'm sure there is an extensive record on that . 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: All right? MR. PALUMBO : Understood. 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Fine . Does anyone else want to comment on this application? 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I just have one more thing, talking about electric right of way or 19 something. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Right . He had made an 20 affidavit that he would make sure that his next door neighbor, Mr. McNulty, would be given the 21 electricity that comes across that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That wouldn' t be 22 discontinued during construction phase; is that what it was? It' s actually built across the 23 property, Mr. Palumbo, so the point in question it has to be taken off of John' s house . So there was 24 a question at the first hearing if John was going to apply for it -- Mr. McNulty was going to apply 25 for it or Mr. Diller was going to be applying for it; and he subsequently gave us an affidavit October 26 , 2006 79 1 ' 2 saying that he was going to apply for it . And I suspect they' re going to run it down between both 3 property lines and then share it going out . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And it says he' ll 4 provide electric service . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can we make that 5 part of the decision? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can we just discuss the retaining wall issue for a minute? 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Just explain 8 to me why we' re measuring the 75 feet from the retaining wall . 9 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a double bulkhead. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Is it a double 10 bulkhead or a retaining wall? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a double 11 bulkhead. If it' s a retaining wall, it looks more like a bulkhead to me . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: They call it out as a retaining wall, but in fact it really is a 13 bulkhead. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: It' s a bulkhead and, 14 from what Mr. McNulty said in the hearing, that he helped rebuild that because of the erosion with 15 Larry Tuttle, Senior. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I understand, 16 but we have definitions -- and I 'm not disagreeing with you but you just have to make sure your 17 decision' s right because the code defines bulkhead as intended to separate earth from water, and 18 retaining wall to separate earth from earth. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It really doesn' t 19 say that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re separating 20 earth from earth. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And I believe the 21 plans were measuring from the bulkhead along the waterfront edge . 22 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Correct . MR. PALUMBO : Inserted and then ultimately 23 what we' re calling a retaining wall . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: In other words, the 24 retaining wall could have been avoided obviously only if the bulkhead were made twice as high. 25 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I don' t know. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think it should be October 26 , 2006 80 1 2 back from the retaining wall . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : His house is 3 reached back farther than the neighbor' s houses quite a bit . 4 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Mr. Diller' s would be? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Quite a bit back 5 further. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Because you' re 6 granting the side yard variance, you can condition it however far back you want, but the normal 75 7 feet rule is from the bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, but if you have 8 a stepped bulkhead. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You could 9 determine that the retaining wall is actually a bulkhead and that it' s designed to protect the 10 upland from the water to serve that purpose . You've just got to find that that' s what you' re 11 going to do as opposed to stopping this upland earth from caving into the downland earth. 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : I think the Building Inspector did that already. 13 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Did what? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: He denied it from 14 that bulkhead. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: From the 15 retaining wall? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: From the second, 16 the nearest wood bulkhead, the nearest one from the house . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : No. He measured from the bottom. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it says proposed new dwelling will be set back 20 feet 19 from the nearest wood bulkhead; what does that mean? 20 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s the retaining wall . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s where he denied it . 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was very good, Jimmy. 23 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t agree with it . 24 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You just need to make clear what you' re doing. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Again, we could make it clear that somebody could certainly construct a October 26 , 2006 81 1 2 step, a three-step bulkhead, and it would be measured from the farthest one in. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Okay. MR. PALUMBO: I believe between that 4 second bulkhead, that retaining wall and the bulkhead it' s lawn, and it' s well established and 5 I believe the Trustees are -- I believe they' re making them put in a five foot buffer, if I ' m 6 reading this correctly, looking at the most recent survey. I know there' s been plenty of discussion, 7 but of course, our position is that that is the retaining wall because it is lawn between the 8 waterfront bulkhead and this retaining wall; that' s been there for years . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, certainly I think some of the paperwork says that the lowest 10 part of that particular bulkhead is 12 feet above sea level . 11 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm sorry, it' s got to be from the upper one . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, I think what we should probably do is look at this very 13 carefully in deliberation. We maybe need to go back to the site . 14 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I'm just looking at the fetch, and hurricanes down there, and I ' ll go back 15 to what Mr. McNulty said in his testimony. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: John? 16 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Tom. Because to me they have done something to try to protect it and 17 hold it in, but the upper one too, they obviously had enough erosion that they felt that they needed 18 both. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If it' s 19 intended to supplement the purpose of the first one . 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If you look at the next door property, their bulkhead is in line with 21 what someone wants to call a retaining wall . So it simply looks like a step bulkhead. That' s not 22 a lawn between the first bulkhead and the second bulkhead. It' s sand with some green stuff growing 23 in there occasionally. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Beach grass . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Beach grass . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment? 25 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Sure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Regardless of what October 26 , 2006 82 1 2 we say, I think the Building Inspector has the final say in this, and he' s basically saying it ' s 3 that first one, the one closest to your house . I mean, your remedy is to protest that and file an 4 Article 78, but we have to base our decisions on what the Building Inspector says . He' s the guy 5 who does the code . MR. PALUMBO: Where are you getting that 6 from? CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The notice of 7 disapproval . MR. PALUMBO: Okay. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The first 20 feet from the upper bulkhead. 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think we have to deliberate any more on this . 10 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I don' t either. If no one else has any comments, I' ll make a motion to 11 close the hearing and reserve decision until later. 12 (See minutes for resolution. ) - ------------------------------------------------ 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Anselmos . 14 MS . MOORE : Mr. and Mrs . Anselmo are here and Angelo Chorno, the architect is also here . I 15 had submitted this back October 16th to try to address some of the issues that we had. Last time 16 we were here they heard from you that you were not pleased with the fact that we would be demolishing 17 the structure and asking to rebuild the structure . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: No. I think what we 18 said is you should build a structure that' s closer to the house or next to the house that would be 19 part of the house . MS . MOORE : What they want to do now is 20 just keep the structure that they have . We met with Mike Verity. The only structural -- I don' t 21 want to say structural change -- what we need to do is certainly put a slab under this building 22 because it needs the structural support under the building. The existing building for the most part 23 is in good structural condition. When we take the exterior surfaces off and the roofing off, you may 24 have damage, termite damage or water damage, that will need to be replaced as needed. But for the 25 most part the building is intended to be just picked up, put a slab under, and set down. The October 26, 2006 83 1 2 building can be made conforming in its setback because since you' re putting a foundation on the 3 ground, you can set it back from the property line . So there are really two issues here . One 4 is, can you have an accessory use in an accessory building, and what I did was I went through the 5 code; and I wrote what I thought would be a helpful memorandum to the Board looking at the 6 definitions in the code looking at the way Rathpos defines accessory uses, a case from East Hampton 7 that seemed right on point with respect to accessory uses . 8 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: That' s not in our code, Miss Moore . 9 MS . MOORE : I would respectfully disagree that the code right now specifically says that an 10 accessory use is a use that is to be accessory incidental to the main use . We only want to have 11 a piano, a music room. Okay, you 'can have a music room as accessory to your main house just as you 12 would have a gymnasium to your main house or any other type of hobbies that you might have . That 13 is standard. The house is a residence . You have a private music room, just as if you had a private 14 art studio. Private . These are private uses . The code specifically says, an accessory 15 use is a permitted use . It' s not a music room -- is not excluded from the list of accessory uses . 16 There is a specific provision in the code which allows for any customary and incidental; the code 17 just does not say pool houses, does not list pool houses, but then all of us know that lately pool 18 houses have become the customary and incidental use to the pool . You may have beach cabanas that 19 are the equivalent of pool houses; those became accessory and incidental . Certainly in the ' 50s 20 they were hugely popular in Southold. What we want to do is take this barn that means a lot to 21 the clients, that they do not want to lose this barn, and make it usable to the family. They 22 don' t have agriculture that they are tilling. .They don' t have tractors to be storied and they 23 don' t have migrant workers, which the second floor of this building now has . It' s very clear, and I 24 asked you last time if you had a chance to go inside because if you look at the second story 25 space of this barn, it is linoleum flooring. It has the wood stove that at one time worked. They October 26, 2006 84 1 2 want to keep it just for cosmetic . It' s a beautiful antique wood burning stove . It probably 3 would not pass code, so we talked about that; it doesn' t have to be connected, they just love it, 4 it' s beautiful . And what I did is we attached to the drawings so you can see it, it' s a photograph 5 that' s attached to the drawings so you can see that it' s there . That' s a picture taken inside 6 the building, and you can see that it has the open rafters structure . It .was clearly habitable 7 living space at one time . The building inspector at one point in time when the property -- there 8 were Cos being obtained, must have determined -- and I don' t think he went inside because anybody 9 going inside would see that it' s habitable space but nonetheless it could be a storage building. I 10 know I have other applications coming before this Board with some of these beautiful old barns that 11 people want to use them. They are cultural historic structures that this community has said, 12 we are an agricultural community and we have old barns, we do not want to lose them. This property 13 owner does not want to lose this barn. They just want to use the space . They want to enjoy the 14 space and the one thing that she does is she plays the piano and she wants to put a piano in there . 15 I pulled from the code language specifically of why this really shouldn' t even be before this 16 Board because the Building Department, when I met with Mike, he said, well, maybe over time it might 17 become something that he doesn' t even send to this Board because the code and the community changes . 18 What is incidental and accessory will change over time depending on what becomes the interest, the 19 hobbies of the community. You may have people that are telecommuting. We have a lot of people 20 that are setting up shops here locally. They might want to put a computer in their old building 21 and use it as an office . I know this Board has looked at those in the past . More and more people 22 are using these old buildings as they have the financial wherewithal to renovate them to keep 23 them and to make them part of their property. So what I provided for the Board was the memorandum 24 citing language specifically from the code and from zoning treatises on how you' re supposed to 25 interpret an accessory use . The code doesn' t say an accessory use has to be part of the principal October 26 , 2006 85 1 2 building. It specifically says it can be in the accessory building, it doesn' t have to be in the 3 principal building. And I even attached the East Hampton case which was the Martha Stewart case I 4 call it because it was in East Hampton, they get a lot of reuse of old barns, of old buildings, and 5 the building department routinely grants permits to convert to do these accessory buildings that 6 allow for gymnasiums and whatever other things that the home owners ask for. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: May I ask a question? First of all I think I agree with everything you 8 say and I think almost all of it is irrelevant to the case before us . 9 MS . MOORE: Thy? BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Because the issue I 10 remember, maybe I misremember the hearing, was not whether she could put a studio in the abandoned 11 barn, but whether the building originally could be torn down and replaced with one which looked like 12 the barn and had a studio in it . And now the issue as I understand it is' 13 whether you can reconstruct it, which also means, moving it to a slightly different location. So 14 the issue is not how you can use it . I don' t think there' s any serious dispute over your legal 15 citations or anything like this . I don' t think -- MS . MOORE : I don' t think the rest of the 16 Board -- BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Let me finish. 17 MS . MOORE : Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t think there 18 would be an issue before us of whether she could put a piano in the barn that you would need any 19 special permission for accessory use and all of the argument of how you can have a computer and so 20 forth. It was what kinds of things can you do to the building while you' re in the process of 21 creating a wonderful studio. And I think what we said was you can build a studio, which is 22 appropriate if you tear down the barn, or you can keep the barn as it is and try to make an 23 accommodation to it, but you can' t do both. And if I'm right about that, then all of these 24 questions about what you can use your barn for in the Hamptons or wherever is completely irrelevant 25 to what is before us . Maybe the Board will disagree with me but that' s my recollection. October 26 , .2006 86 1 2 MS . MOORE: Do you have a comment? ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Yes, I do. I 3 think the fact that you' re proposing to move it, you could build an accessory structure, a new one 4 or move this one to a conforming place . I think we' re all in agreement on that, right? But I do 5 think the issue of what you can use it for is a sticking point for this town. 6 MS . MOORE : But then you' re disagreeing with what he just said. 7 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Maybe I 'm wrong. 8 MS . MOORE : That' s what I got . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But I think 9 that' s what the Building Department has told you. MS . MOORE: The Building Department has 10 raised the issue of use because they' re saying can -- 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Can you build a piano room in an accessory. 12 MS . MOORE : Can you build a piano room in an accessory building. 13 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And a bathroom. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Now the East 14 Hampton case is instructive . I think it' s not right on point, it' s instructive . It' s not right 15 on point because it deals with East Hampton law and their history of granting variances and 16 granting permission for the types of uses that were sought in that case . We don' t necessarily 17 have that here . You' re not coming to us and saying you've granted three standing piano rooms 18 on five separate occasions, so you must do that for us . The decision in that case -- first of 19 all, the decision was upholding the decision of the ZBA which granted it . It wasn' t challenging 20 it . And it was supporting the ZBA' s history in that case of approving such uses . So this Board I 21 think has to decide whether it wants to grant such free standing uses as accessory uses . I think you 22 make all the right arguments as to how to construe accessory uses, and I think you make all the 23 appropriate arguments, let me say that instead of the right arguments . But I still. think this Board 24 and this town need to decide whether and what kind of uses they want in freestanding uses . 25 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we have already, quite honestly. I think you have to take October 26 , 2006 87 1 2 it to the next step, Pat, which is define for me what a piano room is . How do you construct a 3 piano room and what supports that piano room? I ' m talking about it needs running water and it needs 4 heat, and if it needs that, then I think it' s not -,, customary for accessory. 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re right . MS . MOORE: I would respectfully disagree 6 because I have come before this Board for an art studio with heat and water, washing paint brushes, 7 having water with actually a toilet because you' re allowed to have a bathroom in an accessory 8 building, and often times to have a bathroom you have to have heat because otherwise your pipes 9 would freeze . So as a matter of routine you have heated accessory structures that some you don' t 10 even see because the Building Department just grants it because it permits a bathroom in an 11 accessory building. You can call it storage, you can call it your garage with a workroom, and you 12 can have it heated. There are lots of garages that you have granted that .have climate control 13 because people have the hobby of antique cars . You have granted pianos -- excuse me, art studios, 14 you have granted -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let' s go back to 15 the art studio. First of all, it was in one section of a garage, and it was a small section. 16 It was a section facing the portion of the house . Now, let me go back and digress on how these 17 buildings that your client has came to be all right . The farmers in this illustrious town 18 needed these buildings for their part time workers, their part time seasonal workers that 19 came; they sent them train tickets down south. These people came up, they started here in April 20 to plant the crops that they subsequently harvested this August, September, October. By the 21 time November came around, they were back down south again. They were seasonal buildings . The 22 heating source in this building was used for seasonal purposes and only seasonal purposes . 23 That is not the case today. Today we don' t use that source of these people . The source that we 24 use today are different ethnic backgrounds that have moved up here, have either been supplied 25 housing which they pay for on a year round basis, or they buy their own houses after working for a October 26 , 2006 88 1 2 certain period of time . So, it' s a stretch to me, and I don' t mean this, Pat, in any derogatory 3 sense, to create a year round situation and that' s what you' re anticipating in this particular 4 building. I think this building reconstructed would probably be one of the most beautiful things 5 that I have ever seen because I happen to like these kinds of buildings . The question is how 6 much is going to be involved. There' s no question that the lower half of this building or most of 7 the lower half of this building was used for storage purposes . 8 MS . MOORE : And it continues to be used for storage . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For tractors, for all kinds of related equipment that was 10 related to the farm area. All of which were around and have been sold off to certain people, 11 one of which is a 46 acre parcel which was subdivided into a 46 acre parcel and must remain 12 in a 46 acre parcel . It belongs to a person in Cutchogue, which is completely contiguous to this 13 piece of property and he uses it for hunting purposes . So, the question is, if you tell us 14 what section of the building you want, you are anticipating for the purposes of this studio -- 15 MS . MOORE : Just the second floor. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, and what 16 you intend to put up there, then we will further discuss the stretch, and that is the stretch that 17 I 'm referring to, and the stretch that we are dealing with in all the situations of today and 18 all the requests that we have . Now, I'm going to go back briefly before I 19 finish this discourse and discuss the cabana issues because we had a cabana application to 20 which this gentleman to your right, my left is sitting right over here and we told him 21 specifically this morning, no heat and it' s attached to a 32 by 24 foot garage, no heat . And 22 why did we do that? Because we' re not concerned about his use of the building, we' re not concerned 23 about your neighbor' s use, I'm not concerned, excuse me, we' re concerned about future uses of 24 this property. MS . MOORE: I understand. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no question that your client is probably an extremely October 26 , 2006 89 1 2 gifted person and deserves the right to have these particular things . We need restrictions on these 3 buildings, that is the concern that all of us have . 4 MS . MOORE : And that is why I'm glad you said all that because it' s precisely why they come 5 to you sometimes from the Building Department . Because not only clan you impose the condition but 6 you have the right to ask for a covenant and restriction which clients are willing to file a 7 covenant that is on the land that says this is a music studio or an art studio or whatever it is 8 you grant because the application before you. There are applications that say you can' t deny 9 something based on how somebody might illegally convert it . We want it to be a music studio, it 10 is not to be sleeping quarters . They know it full well, it' s not designed as sleeping quarters . 11 They love this building, they obviously love historic structures because the primary 12 structure is a very historic structure, and they want to use this space . Right now the second 13 story is finished space, but it probably couldn' t hold up a piano, correct? Doesn' t look like it 14 would. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Pat, what is the square 15 footprint of the second floor? MS . MOORE : I can get that for you. 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need the square footprint for both floors . 17 MS . MOORE : The first floor the existing is 16 by 33 as it is, and it' s all storage space. 18 It can be unheated space . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : First floor shows 19 16-6 . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Here it shows 15 . 20 MS . MOORE : I gave you guys drawings of the foundation. 21 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We' re not looking at the foundation, we' re looking at the first and 22 second floor. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We' re looking at 23 the revised. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The foundation plan 24 is different from the first and second floor. Would you like to see the first floor plan? 25 MS . MOORE : Well, the first floor is right here, it' s storage . October 26 , 2006 90 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the date on that one? 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This one is 1/25/06 . 4 MS . MOORE : 10/16/06 when I gave you -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : We don' t have 5 those, sorry. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Pat, this is the 6 reconstruction. MS . MOORE : That' s the reconstruction. 7 This is what the Building Department got . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So the first plan. 8 MS . MOORE: No the demolition plan is the one that -- we went back and we said we are going 9 to keep the existing building exactly as it is . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me ask you 10 one question before you get to that point . Where does the building sit on the property now? 11 MS . MOORE : Seven feet from the property line . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, and the new plan calls for 10 feet . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re cranking the building? 14 MR. CHORNO : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I actually have 15 seen these photographs . So there' s no longer a bathroom upstairs, just a sink? 16 MS . MOORE : It has a sink now, and we are proposing we keep the sink. 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right . You' re moving the wood burning stove over. 18 MS . MOORE : We have the wood burning stove now. We are not moving. 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s staying. It was moved in the previous plan? 20 MS . MOORE : Yes . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Is it a workable wood 21 stove? MS . MOORE: We don' t know, it' s a 22 beautiful antique . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: How are you going to 23 keep the piano if you don' t have heat? MS . MOORE : No. The second floor must be 24 heated. CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: You' re relocating the 25 septic . MS . MOORE : See we have to pour a new October 26 , 2006 91 1 2 foundation. Rather than pouring a new foundation in that nonconforming location, we would be 3 pouring the new foundation 10 feet from the property line . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So what is it that you need from us? 5 MS . MOORE : The toilet . There' s not going to be a full bathroom. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Let me state architecturally. First of all I think it' s 7 wonderful the idea of preserving these old buildings . And adaptive reuse is absolutely an 8 appropriate future trend that we' re going to see in this town and we should see in this town. What 9 we don' t currently have available to us are definitions of uses . That essentially because 10 most of the uses, accessory uses, have been unheated storage or seasonal and we will be 11 increasingly seeing requests that are not altogether in my mind unreasonable, for a 12 habitable space that is not sleeping space . MS . MOORE : What I'm saying to you, and I 13 don' t think you realize that when I pulled the definitions and I put it in writing to show you, 14 that the code is written for flexibility, and it says what is ancillary and customary. Twenty 15 years ago self-service stations were not considered customary and necessary. Now, good 16 luck in finding someone that doesn' t have one . That' s a changing community. So, the customary 17 and accessory depends on do you have a house, it can apply for any principal use that you have . 18 It' s the principal use that dictates . And as long as you don' t -operate a business and you don' t 19 create the second dwelling issue, which I said that you can control the second dwelling issue 20 with just a covenant and it doesn' t even have to come from you, it could come from the Building 21 Department or a CO that says not sleeping quarters because eventually someone' s going to get it . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think legally you' re correct but historically C and Rs have not 23 necessarily prevented -- in fact, there' s a very good article actually in the town' s association 24 magazine this month on the use of covenants and restrictions . 25 MS . MOORE : But if I could raise one thing that I always advise clients when they ask me, and October 26 , 2006 92 1 2 that is that you cannot use it for something that is not legally permitted to be used for, and I say 3 I 'm going to give you an example, the tennis player in Southampton. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Vitas Geurulitis . 5 MS . MOORE : Thank you. He was sleeping in a pool house . When he died in what was a pool 6 house, I worry about the kinds of insurance issues because what happens is when you have someone that 7 sleeps in and dies in a building that is not considered habitable space, your insurance company 8 will not insure you; you are creating such incredible liability that most times when I point 9 out that example they say, okay. So it wouldn' t be considered. It isn' t something that ' today' s 10 society, with the litigious society that we have, I think it' s way too risky to go there . Are 11 people going to violate the law? Of course . People speed, people murder, they do things that 12 are illegal, but I think we have to address the community and make these buildings usable for 13 people because they deteriorate if they don' t get rehabilitated and maintained. And I think you' re 14 taking a whole cultural aspect of this community, agricultural community, by giving homeowners the 15 choice of do we tear it down because we can' t use it for anything other than storage, and we already 16 have enough storage space or do you rehabilitate it . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Miss Moore, I think we have just gotten these plans, have you run these 18 plans by the Building Department? MS . MOORE : Yes, I met with Mike Verity 19 first . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: But we do not have a 20 new notice of disapproval . MS . MOORE : I understand that . 21 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: So that we will require . I would like to adjourn the hearing, 22 have you take these to the Building Department, get a new notice of disapproval for it because you 23 have a CO for a nonhabitable accessory barn. MS . MOORE : I understand that but Mike 24 said, I'm just going to relay the conversation, what he said was we can take this building, repair 25 it and so on that the only thing that we would need, the variance issue is the use, whether or October 26 , 2006 93 1 2 not we' re allowed touse it for a private piano music room, and I guess the question of whether or 3 not you can put it on -- did he say the slab was okay too? 4 MR. CHORNO: No crawl space and no basement . 5 MS . MOORE: The slab for the building was fine, the restoration of the building was fine . 6 MR. CHORNO: There' s a little deck in the corner that overlooks the fields . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I see that, a 12 foot deck, 14 by 12 , and you' re 19 ' 4" to the 8 ridge? MS . MOORE: Yes . That' s what it is now. 9 MR. CHORNO: The median is within the 18 feet even including the one foot that we' re 10 pushing the building up in order to separate the siding from the ground. 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a different question. This is a question not a speech. Last 12 time we discussed whether the building could be rebuilt, torn down and rebuilt on the spot to the 13 specifications of the barn, and the impression was that would probably not be possible, but the 14 question was not whether they can build an accessory building if the other one was renovated 15 but how it could be built . So, if I'm right about this -- 16 MS . MOORE : I'm not sure I understand. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: If there' s going to 17 be a new building built . MS . MOORE : This is a renovation. 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, I know, but what is special about it being a renovation? Why 19 is it important that it be a renovation? MS . MOORE : It' s in-kind/in-place . 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it' s not going to be in-kind/in-place because you said it' s going to 21 be moved. MS . MOORE : The goal of the Board is to 22 make things more conforming. So in our efforts to make it more conforming, we have to put a 23 foundation, we' ll push it away from the property line . So you need 10 feet . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But the goal of the Board is also to adhere to the law as written? 25 MS . MOORE: But that' s what I have written. October 26 , 2006 94 1 2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We' re not talking about the law, the part of the law that what 3 counts as an accessory use, but the question of what kind of new structure can be built, and I ' m 4 I 'm not sure what is gained by fudging the issue of between a renovation and a new construction. 5 MS . MOORE : I thought that that was where the Board felt more comfortable on an existing 6 barn not rebuilding the same structure because to rebuild it you need to meet state building code 7 with height requirements . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right . 8 MS . MOORE : And we would have to raise it a little bit so that right now, the existing barn 9 on a slab is existing, we don' t need any height variance, nothing for the existing structure . All 10 we' re dealing with is the adaptive reuse of the existing structure . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Then the issue is putting a slab that is 10 feet over from the 12 existing counts as a reuse or whether it counts in effect as a new building. 13 MS . MOORE : That' s up to you guys . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s up to the 14 Building Department . MS . MOORE : We' re willing to not move it . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You didn' t quote Michael Verity on that question? 16 MS . MOORE : We' re willing to not move it . We just think that using common sense and 17 making the structure conforming to the extent you can is the goal in the zoning code . 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I thought one of the things that was mentioned last time was that you 19 could renovate the barn in situ. MS . MOORE : Rebuild? 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right, rebuild it in the same footprint . Then the only question was 21 the accessory use . Now. I think we' re sort of saying you can renovate the barn; you said it was 22 prohibitively expensive, so we wanted to be able to start over again. 23 MS . MOORE : Yes, but the client, despite the expense, doesn' t want to lose it . So they 24 want if the only way they can preserve this building is to do a restoration of it . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is it a moving? MS . MOORE : If you say no, we don' t want October 26 , 2006 95 1 2 you to move it, we won' t move it . We don' t have to move it . 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I think you' re going to have to resubmit it, Pat . 4 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The way it was advertised. 5 MS . MOORE : We' re trying to address issues . 6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s not properly before the Board for an answer on that . I haven' t 7 advertised it, you haven' t applied for it . All the paperwork is for a renovation. You have 8 applied for it as a demolition with reconstruction. So you have to start from the 9 beginning. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, no, no . 10 May I comment? Please, hold on. They came to us . They wanted to do this thing. They wanted to put 11 it right back in the same place and have a couple of bathrooms, whatever. We can say no, but you 12 can do this . And one of the things is you got to move it back, pick it up and move it back. They 13 don' t need any permission from us to put it in a conforming spot . They don' t need any permission 14 to move the .building unless they' re going to do it to go to a nonconforming location. So I'm sitting 15 here wondering, what is it exactly that you need from us . 16 MS . MOORE : Just the authorization to use it as an accessory building as a piano, as a music 17 room. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay, as a piano 18 room, it' s going to need heat, which is something we look at on occasion, which we grant with 19 restrictions . So we say, yeah, you can have a piano, we understand your hardship because a piano 20 costs $10, 000 -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You wish. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I know, but you' re going to keep it there . You want to have it in a 22 controlled environment . That' s pretty much why you would need the heat there . 23 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, you can' t 24 sleep there . We don' t want you to put a kitchen in; it must be insulated, but we don' t need to 25 know that it' s insulated, we don' t grant that; that' s something that the building inspector I October 26, 2006 96 1 2 suppose does or whatever. The only thing that we're looking at here is you want to put a piano 3 in a room on the second story of the existing barn that you' re going to make more conforming; is that 4 correct? MS . MOORE : Yes . 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And to move the building. 6 MS . MOORE : But for the Board' s accommodation not because we have to . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If they pick up this building today and moved it, they would not 8 need any permission from us to do it . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s why we' re 9 saying, why is she here then. MS . MOORE: I already spent a tremendous 10 amount of money asking for a variance for this music room, and rather than say deny and start 11 over where I have to -- BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I'm not saying 12 start over with us . I 'm saying if you don' t need a variance and you' re not here go to the Building 13 Department and get a building permit . MS . MOORE : No, because the issue of the 14 use remains . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . 15 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Well, that' s what we don' t have in writing from the Building 16 Department, and that' s why I'm saying get the disapproval amended to say that because they' re 17 not really -- MS . MOORE : I have no problem. I tried to 18 start there to ask for it and unfortunately timing wise, Mike wasn' t able to produce it . 19 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I don' t think Mike wrote it, I think one of the other' s wrote it . He 20 doesn' t usually write them. MS . MOORE : Well, I met with Mike because 21 really as the head of the department -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The way this notice 22 of disapproval is written it' s really an area variance and what you' re really talking about is a 23 use variance for an accessory structure . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I don' t understand then. You' re talking about this current notice of 25 disapproval is about height . MR. CHORNO: Excuse me, you told us you do October 26 , 2006 97 1 2 the demolition never existed. So, we came back and we said, we won' t demolish, we' re going to 3 restore . But while we restore, we raise the building and move it in order to do the 4 foundation. When we do that, we either put it back where it was or we put it conforming to the 5 code . We would like to put it conforming to the code because at the same time we are asking to put 6 like a balcony. The balcony would not be conforming because if we are not conforming with 7 the building footing, with the building location, we are going to be less for the balcony, so 8 instead of moving 10 feet, we moving 16 feet . We allow six feet for the balcony, and 10 feet -- now 9 10 10 or five -- 10 will be conforming and that' s it . That' s it . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No. You' re making it confusing, sir, you' re confusing us . Because 11 you' re not asking for the balcony, the balcony is going to be conforming. 12 MS . MOORE: Yes . But it depends on how you' re interpreting. 13 MR. CHORNO: Then the balcony will not be your issue, will be the Building Department issue . 14 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s right . MS . MOORE : I just want to make sure that 15 they don' t say, oh, we should have gotten your approval for the balcony. Because when I looked 16 at the notice of disapproval it was three issues -- use, which we' re still here on; height 17 of the new because the accessory building; the new building, a reconstructed building, would have 18 required instead of 18 a little bit higher, 19-4 because of state building code issues . 19 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Is that a subject now? 20 MS . MOORE : No, because it' s existing and it' s at 18 to the mean. 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So one thing so far that we' re here for. Okay, you' re going 'down, I 22 want to be clear. MS . MOORE : And the third issue was the 23 setback because the survey that we had at the time had the building at five or seven, whatever the 24 setback was, we were prepared to move it . At the time the building inspector looked at it it was 25 in-kind/in-place, so it was in the same spot . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So that' s no longer October 26 , 2006 98 1 2 on the table . MS . MOORE : So that was the third variance 3 which we don' t need any more because of the fact that we moved it away. 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So, let' s go over this now. What is it that you' re here for? 5 MS . MOORE : Just allowed to convert this building to a piano room. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Heated? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Heated accessory 7 use . MS . MOORE : Not in the same location, in a 8 conforming location. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think 9 that' s a subject of this hearing, but if you wanted to add that to an approval -- 10 MS . MOORE: I want to include it so that the Building Department doesn' t say, well, we 11 moved it so get the okay from you. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: She' s right on 12, that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But as your 13 father has clearly stated, this could be an in-kind/in-place reconstruction. 14 MS . MOORE : We could do that . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Not with the 15 balcony. MS . MOORE : Well, the balcony could be 16 modified, which would be a shame because really the only thing they want to look at is the fields, 17 not Route 48 . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : And there' s no year 18 round heat . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, there' s going 19 to be heat . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You' re proposing 20 heat in the piano room. MS . MOORE : No. The use incorporates all 21 that is required for a year round music . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: What about 22 subdividing this building, well, making other rooms up there; what about that? You' re not 23 feeling like you' re going to put any other rooms in there, so if we restricted that on the current 24 dimensions -- MS . MOORE : We have offered that day one, 25 to condition the permit if you feel that it' s not enough we put a covenant on the property, which is October 26 , 2006 99 1 2 a recorded document that says it' s an accessory building. 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: To be inspected maybe once a year. 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think the reason behind these questions, as you recall, I think the 5 original application called for two bathrooms, and that' s what -- 6 MS . MOORE: We had the bathrooms, we were just replacing them. They have a .bathroom with a 7 shower. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There was never going 8 to be two bathrooms? MS . MOORE : Now we only need one bathroom. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s shown downstairs . 10 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Powder room. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What you' re 11 proposing is a space on the second floor that is 33 ' by 16 . 6 ; is that correct? 12 MR. CHORNO: That' s what it is . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not called out 13 on the second floor plan. On the second floor it' s 33 by 16 . 6? 14 MR. CHORNO: Yes . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: So if we approved 15 it and said you had to have a room upstairs by those dimensions, that would be okay? 16 MS . MOORE : That' s what we' re asking for. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Nonsubdivided. 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : There' s a bathroom . . on the first floor and heat? 18 MS . MOORE : No . We eliminated it . MR. CHORNO: There' s a toilet on the first 19 floor, nothing in the second. MS . MOORE: I 'm sorry. 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That toilet will also have to have heat . 21 MS . MOORE : Do you want us to put it upstairs instead of downstairs so you don' t have 22 to heat the first floor; can we do that? MR. CHORNO : I can do it but I don' t 23 know. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Architects can do 24 anything. MR. CHORNO: Because the way it is now is 25 the way it is shown with that sloping roof, if you look at that photograph, you can see the building. October 26 , 2006 100 1 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s a little shed. MS . MOORE : Shed that was a bathroom? 3 MR. CHORNO : So, if I have to take it out, I cannot put it on top of there because of course 4 that would make a second floor. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What mechanicals 5 will you have in the mechanical room? MR. CHORNO: There is a space, a system 6 which is open. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The bathroom' s 7 being renovated on the first floor with this insulation; that' s what the renovation was? 8 MR. CHORNO : No, windows and insulation in the walls otherwise -- 9 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : So it' s being reconstructed that area. 10 MR. CHORNO: Remove the siding and insulation. 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You said the roof? MS . MOORE: They' re cedar shingles with 12 asbestos on top so when you take it off you' re going to have to put plywood down and reshingle 13 probably. MR. CHORNO: When we open that building we 14 don' t know what we' re going to find. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' ll have a lot 15 of rot . You' ll have to do a lot of sistering and rafters and who knows what . The bones will tell 16 you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So wrapping this 17 up, what do we need from these people? BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What do we need 18 regarding the notice of disapproval so that we can continue? 19 MS . MOORE : Do you need a notice of disapproval? 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The way it' s been advertised, it' s for a demolition and 21 reconstruction, and I know we got these plans from you the other day. The Board' s reviewing them for 22 the first time . I would feel more comfortable if the application is readvertised so that notice can 23 be given again to make sure when the Board approves it everybody' s aware that it' s no longer 24 a demolition, and that it' s clear what type of alterations are being done to the building. If 25 you give a check list or something we can attach it to the plans . October 26 , 2006 101 1 2 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Do any of the alterations require a variance? 3 MS . MOORE : No, it' s only the use . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Was that part 4 of the original advertisement? MS . MOORE : Yes . 5 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Then, if the only variance you' re going to give it is to allow 6 this use and restrict its use, then you' re probably okay with the notice . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What is the notice for a music studio? 8 MS . MOORE: It was noticed for that . It' s the first issue which said accessory uses . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it was advertised in our public notice . It also included 10 related game room activities . MS . MOORE: Right, that we were going to 11 •use the first floor as a game room. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: But you don' t 12 have to grant any of that . It' s really a matter of what you need. If all you' re asking right now 13 is for the variance for the use, this Board can ignore all the other relief, grant the variance 14 for the use, not grant any setback or any other relief, give you the use with whatever 15 restrictions it wants to place on it . If you can take that and go get a building permit for what 16 you want, then I don' t see a problem with that . MR. CHORNO : I don' t want them to come 17 back here for the moving of the building. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They might . 18 MS . MOORE : I respect Linda because Linda and I work on a daily basis with the Building 19 Department, make sure that they interpret it the same way we all do. I think it would be a good 20 idea that I -- what I' ll do is give this to the Building Department, ask Mike to look at it and 21 give you the notice that says only the use, which already is incorporated here . So it wouldn' t 22 require the full hearing and everything else. If he requires something else, then I understand we 23 have to readvertise . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: If he requires 24 a variance for moving it, then we' re going to have to readvertise it . 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So the hearing could be closed if all we have to deliberate on is the October 26, 2006 102 1 2 use because the arguments have been presented on that . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That makes sense . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Has the Building 4 Department actually seen these plans? MS . MOORE : No, verbally. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what I'm saying, we could just go and look at the use 6 question or if more than that is required from the Building Department then they have to have time to 7 review the plans in detail . MS . MOORE.: That' s okay. 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I do want to say for the record that I really feel it' s important 9 to begin to look at precedents for expanded definition for uses in these buildings where 10 something that' s not just seasonal but year round can take place . You know, the problem is always 11 the fear of will it becoming a second dwelling place, and that' s an issue that the town really 12 has to address . It' s a sensible thing to do . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to 13 define the word "habitable . " BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Habitable is 14 usually defined as sleeping space with eating facilities . 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then there has to be another section. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The code for fire -- 17 MS . MOORE : Nonhabitable gets interpreted to mean as you can' t use it at all . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s what I said, you have to determine something between the 19 word between uninhabitable and habitable . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think if you look 20 at the state building code you' ll find that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are codes 21 that talk about that that have to do with light , ingress and egress, there are life safety codes 22 that define what' s habitable . But we' re really looking at the kind of future in which we see 23 these things increasingly. MS . MOORE; I already have another one 24 coming to you in which I filed which is a gorgeous barn. Absolutely gorgeous barn and it' s right now 25 and they want to use it . So you' ll get it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We will October 26 , 2006 103 1 2 increasingly get them because the farming use as you point out is no longer appropriate to this 3 time, but restoring those lovely buildings is always appropriate for any time . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s much easier for them to build a butler building that is 5 totally insulated for their agrarian uses for their grapes . 6 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: The restoration of a barn is sort of the nice spin on 7 this, but if you allow something in a barn you' re going to have to allow something to build a brand 8 new whatever looking building they want and have the same use in it . 9 MS . MOORE : It' s accessory building. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s a nice 10 advantage to be able to use .barns for this purpose but the issue is the use . If you can use a barn 11 for it, you can use anything, a cardboard box for it . 12 MS . MOORE : Legislatively if they want to start narrowing it down, fine, or just as we have 13 done before, which is these uses come to the Zoning Board so you can evaluate whether or not if 14 it' s appropriate, not appropriate, does it fit . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s actually 15 a little odd that it comes before the Zoning Board because Leslie raised an interesting issue, it' s 16 not a use variance because it may or may not be a permitted use depending on how this Board 17 interprets it . And we' re almost treating it like a special exception. In order for the Building 18 Department to allow it, they want the ZBA to bless it with their conditions . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Raise that issue because that' s really where it should be treated. 20 MS . MOORE : That might be a good solution to these altogether by allowing them by special 21 exception. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s kind of 22 what you' re doing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We' re de facto 23 granting that variance anyway. MS . MOORE : Just labeling it . 24 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 25 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) October 26, 2006 104 1 2 ------------------------------------------------- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: The next hearing is to 3 reconvene Mr. Preston. Hi, Mr. Preston. MR. PRESTON: Thank you for giving me the 4 chance to come back. I just went down to Penny Lumber. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s nice . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s fine by me . 6 MR. PRESTON: One of the points was about the garage and the location. There is one 7 neighbor who does have the garage facing the street and he actually parks with his car three 8 feet into the road. I don' t want that situation also. 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Looks a lot better. MR. PRESTON: There' s some screening. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That would give you a lot of room for the planned down the road house to 11 the west . MR. PRESTON: Yes, and one of the 12 important things with the pool is '-where it' s located now it does get a lot of sunlight . If I 13 move it to another side of the lot then it' s going to get a lot of shade from the neighbor' s tree and 14 that sort of thing. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re going to 15 have to cut some trees down for the garage and the pool . You have a lot of open space behind your 16 house without trees, but you will have to cut trees for this . 17 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: And you will have a grading problem too. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: To me this makes a lot more sense . Can you see the wisdom for .the 19 proposal? MR. PRESTON: Yes . I appreciate the 20 opportunity to come back as opposed to a couple months down the road. We did move the pool three 21 feet . It does make it close to the cabana area there . It' s only about seven feet off . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But that' s all right . You have a nice brick something or other. 23 . CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision until 24 later. (See minutes for resolution. ) 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, this is an advantage of being available during the day as October 26, 2006 105 1 2 opposed to our old night meetings . ------------------------------------------------- 3 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Next hearing is for the Bajadas . We have an incomplete application 4 regarding Plan C .as submitted? MS . MOORE : This is, again, a very 5 simplified application. We' re keeping everything as is . The only thing we need structurally is 'a 6 new foundation because it has rot on the foundation. Part of the existing building has a 7 footing and the other part has crawl space . Remember it' s built in two phases . In ' 71 it was 8 added to and that' s when they did the crawl space . My client wants to do a continuous crawl 9 space under the whole thing. And Mike says the only thing I need a variance for is because of an 10 interpretation that you guys had recently given to him which is if you keep slab to slab you' re okay, 11 but if you go slab to crawl space you need a variance, or if you go crawl space to basement you 12 need a variance. All we' re doing here is we have half slabs, half crawl space, and we' re doing all 13 crawl space . So that' s why Mike said he probably still needed to your get your okay on this, but 14 otherwise everything is fine . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This is the 15 Walz issue that Jim raised at the Cutchogue New Suffolk Library matter where you are within the 16 setback or closer than the preexisting or not and you rather than expand up, which is what Walz was 17 based on, you expand down into that space . And the Walz decision used the term vertical as 18 opposed to just up, and suggests that a variance may be required if you increase the mass anywhere 19 vertically in that plain. So that' s the question, right? 20 MS . MOORE : Yes, and I would propose to you that when you' re dealing with truly 21 nonhabitable space, you' re doing a slab to a crawl space, you' re not increasing the degree of 22 nonconformity. You can' t use a basement for example, you can' t make more living space in a 23 full basement . I would understand the rationale . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s building 24 mass . It would be the same issue if it was a garage . 25 MS . MOORE : But it' s below grade mass . It' s not even visible . Walz was due to the October 26, 2006 106 1 . 2 visible mass that was created where you have -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It didn' t use 3 the word visible . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It used bulk. And 4 quite honestly, the decision that he' s basing it on, because I expect that my interpretation was if 5 you' re increasing the livable space of that particular library, take something that wasn' t 6 used, make it larger and let people go down in there . 7 MS . MOORE : Like Southold Library. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Right . And people 8 go down in there and that increases that space . The usable bulk of that building is going to be 9 increased, that' s the nature of Walz . MS . MOORE : But I think you have to go 10 back to Walz a little bit and see what the purpose of that was, and it was to not increase the mass 11 when you have adjacent properties . But when you' re talking about basements, are you increasing 12 any, are you having any impact on your neighbor because it' s all below grade . 13 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: It has more to do with the bulk of the building, the mass of the 14 building. MS . MOORE : But mass would have no 15 relationship to this if it wasn' t that you were too close to the property line . 16 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : But you have to say if . You can' t just say mass has no relationship 17 to this . MS . MOORE : Okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to add the if . You have to say if this and then if that . 19 Quite honestly, mass is mass . A building is a building. Listen, Pat -- 20 MS . MOORE : I think nonhabitable makes a. big difference . 21 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO : If it says nonhabitable mass . 22 MS . MOORE : Walz has kind of morphed. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Bingo . 23 MS . MOORE : Now we' re dealing with Walz and which way it has now morphed to . And again, 24 originally this application was we wanted to add a garage . In order to add a garage without 25 increasing the largeness of the building, we wanted to relocate it to the part of the first and October 26 , 2006 107 1 2 second floor. That was a problem, I understand. The clients understand. They said you know what, 3 forget the garage, we' ll build a detached garage; we' ll do it on this property without variances . 4 Therefore, we just need -- we waited to do the repairs for this building the standard ordinary 5 maintenance that you need to do to a building -- they waited because they thought that they were 6 going to be putting this garage on. Now it' s time to do it because since they' re going to keep it 7 and do typical renovations that we need for our own home . There is dry-rot and water problems and 8 the foundation again, it was done in two phases . So all we want to do is put a new crawl space . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s really restoration. 10 MS . MOORE : Yes . And no variance is required. Building Department, this one Mike, we 11 sat with him, and he said you can get a building permit . 12 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: No increase in anything. 13 MS . MOORE : Because -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, because of 14 your question raised, you trouble maker. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the 15 actual square footage of the building? MS . MOORE : It had to be a minimum of 800 16 square feet under the original zoning variance so I think it' s about 800 square feet . 17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s what we wanted to check. It calls it a cottage, it 18 doesn' t call it a dwelling. MS . MOORE : The CO calls it a dwelling. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t think it' s 850 . 20 MS . MOORE : I think the Zoning Board said it had to be a minimum of 800 . Remember in ' 71? 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a property card in here? 22 MS . MOORE : Yes, there is one and I have COs in there too. The preexisting CO is for a one 23 family dwelling and -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: All you' re 24 doing is rebuilding the foundation, right? MS . MOORE : Yes, exactly on the same 25 footprint . Right now I said we have two parts of this; we have a crawl space and a slab, and he October 26 , 2006 108 1 2 wants to do a crawl space . BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : What is the square 3 footprint for the findings when we write it up? y MS . MOORE : I could get that, I just don' t 4 have that . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: This Board 5 needs to answer the question whether it' s going to require the Walz variance for the increase 6 downward. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, because the 7 downward is already there . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: It' s going 8 down further. MS . MOORE : Half a slab is now being crawl 9 space . BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We can tweak the Walz 10 interpretation. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Of course you 11 can. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If there was no 12 down, if it was just pilings or just physically laying on the ground, then there would be a down, 13 but since there is already some sort of structural foundation underneath the building -- 14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Support footings and things, right? 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . And then there' s no down. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just rebuilding, renovating. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s my opinion. 18 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: So then, Pat, how is this going to work? 19 MS . MOORE : I think internally you just need to give a memo to Mike that it' s not a Walz 20 and then go and therefore we can go get a building permit for it . I think that' s what Mike got based 21 on -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Well, I talked 22 to Mike after the Cutchogue New Suffolk issue . I said this question' s come out . It' s a legitimate 23 question, if you read the decision it seems to invoke these sorts of things; what do you think? 24 He said, well, I' d like to take it case by case, but this seems to be the most minimal case and it 25 still came to this Board. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: If you' re going to October 26 , 2006 109 1 2 make a change in Walz that we already made a decision on, you got to come out with some good 3 reasons to do that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just gave you 4 a good reason. BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I don' t think 5 that' s a good reason. I mean, we' re still talking about the .definition that Walz did that basically 6 defined the code, and you now want to interpret it a little differently than it has been interpreted. 7 MS . MOORE : I think Mike has always interpreted it that a basement renovation was not 8 an expansion. But you do a -- I don' t know how you describe it . 9 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s just it, Pat, that' s just it . You can' t do it without 10 stuttering. It is an increase in the mass of that building. No matter how you look at it . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: ' So you' re safe, just grant a variance . 12 MS . MOORE : The only thing is it hasn' t been noticed under Walz, it was noticed under 13 something else . So what I'm doing is a lesser, I wouldn' t necessarily agree that you have to 14 renotice when you' re asking for less relief than a neighbor has received for a request for relief . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: On the question of interpretation, Jim, does the word "mass" occur in 16 the Walz opinion? BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes . So does 17 bulk. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Mass and bulk. 18 MS . MOORE : Look at what they have been asked to review. It was external walls and 19 ceiling and roof heights because you were looking at the mass of a structure next to another 20 structure, the Captain Kidd example . You reviewed one today. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s an argument for a variance . It' s not an argument for 22 interpretation. MS . MOORE : No. That' s what brought Walz 23 in. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I understand that but 24 the difference is if the word mass did not occur in there, what you can do is you can say by mass 25 we mean above ground mass and up to now it' s been unspecified. That would be an interpretation. October 26 , 2006 110 1 2 The arguments you' re giving are good arguments for a variance even if the new interpretation isn' t 3 given so we could have a general rule . . We could specify Walz more precisely, then these things 4 wouldn' t have to keep coming up as far as up and down. 5 MS . MOORE : I would like to see that . Because I have a stupid application that was just 6 finished. BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Well, you see the 7 point . MS . MOORE : Yes . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think whatever we have to legally do in order to expedite this at 9 this point . ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Again it' s not 10 really before you at the moment . I think Pat' s asking for an advisory opinion. 11 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: I think if we' re going to make changes to Walz, you better have an 12 interpretation hearing. If you want to do an interpretation now, you have to advertise for it . 13 You' re going to be changing basically what the Building Inspector bases three quarters of its 14 decisions on now. MS . MOORE : But so far none affecting 15 basements . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That's because it 16 was never brought up before the library decision. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the 17 library decision is being used and utilized. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You could do 18 it -- BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Put it down in 19 writing. ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: I think Jim' s 20 right . You don' t necessarily need to have it as an interpretation, you just need to have it as a 21 variance . And just grant the variance . BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: We' ll be granting 22 another 10 percent more . MS . MOORE : Yes . You' re increasing your 23 volume . Every time the interpretations grow, you increase your -- good for me but it' s frustrating. 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: The interpretation - - may narrow too, and then we reduce the case load. 25 MS . MOORE : But Mike has taken that by way of sending it back that narrows. the scope of the October 26 , 2006 111 1 2 decision by saying, well, this isn' t one that we meant . 3 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re going to get your disapproval and will then seek a 4 variance . At the same time you can ask for an interpretation, does this invoke Walz . 5 MS . MOORE : But why -- ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: Then don' t ask 6 for an interpretation and then you can do it every time and make money off of bills every time . I 7 don' t care . MS . MOORE : The reason I 'm here is that 8 Mike said only most recently -- CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: Put it in writing. 9 MS . MOORE: I put it in writing. BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : The Building 10 Department is not in here because they don' t have this new plan. 11 ASST. TOWN ATTY. CORCORAN: You' re essentially asking do I need a variance . 12 MS . MOORE : Because he wasn' t sure what the Board wanted to do with it . 13 ASST. TOWN ATTY.. CORCORAN: Right . And Jim is saying I'm uncomfortable with allowing it 14 to go without formal action. I think that' s a legitimate point . 15 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: The whole Walz thing was brought before us for the exact same 16 reason you just gave us . Because Mike was -- for whatever reason -- had a brain cloud to suddenly 17 decide that people living next door can' t build up if they don' t go out . Now, two weeks before that 18 he granted someone a building permit to do just that . So here we are . And quite honestly, if you 19 want to change that, I submit to you that you must at least interpret it, and then we' re going .to 20 need to have of course this other little paragraph that no one in the code book -- no one can find in 21 the code book but they' ll know that there' s an interpretation at least that says if you want to 22 build a crawl space 50 percent, you can do it . MS . MOORE : All of these interpretations, 23 just as a practicing lawyer I say could you please package them all up in one place so that I can see 24 them because when I -- I only know from history what interpretations are . But in fairness to the 25 public, maybe having them all packaged so that we know where they are because otherwise I have to October 26 , 2006 112 1 2 ask specifically for the application and some of these I don' t remember the names of the 3 applications . I, remember some just from right of way issues and things like that . 4 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: Being a local . MS . MOORE : That gives me benefit, thank 5 goodness . I think it would be helpful to the public at large, even architects if they' re 6 designing so they don' t design something that doesn' t match youp intentions . 7 BOARD MEMBER DINIZIO: That' s a fair point . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I think that' s a very fair comment . 9 MS . MOORE : This is all I want to do. Can we do what we did before; do you want me to 10 adjourn this, give it to Mike, say Mike, renotice it . 11 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : You should give the Building Department the plan procedurally. Let 12 him decide on a disapproval so it' s properly before the Board and we' ll close the hearing 13 subject to receiving that today, and then the Board can rule on it . 14 MS . MOORE : I can' t guarantee you' re going to get a notice of disapproval today. Just so you 15 know the history, I met with Mike on October 12th and gave him the letter that I attached to my 16 letter to you. He was thinking about it because initially we didn' t think it needed any variances, 17 and then because of the conversations you guys had about basements or whether or not it fit into 18 Walz . Then I sent on October 20th because Mike was away, I finally submitted to this Board. I 19 can' t do any more, I don' t know what I need to do . So at this point -- 20 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : This is where we are . It' s the same as the last application. It 21 was amended at the last minute . I won' t have to readvertise it as long as it' s as we talked about . 22 If Mike gives the disapproval and says it obviously only needs a variance because .it' s the 23 increase in the bulk, then the Board can rule on it . If you want to ask for an interpretation, I 24 would ask you for a new application under a new disapproval . 25 MS . MOORE : My client is not going to pay for another dime on this . October 26 , 2006 113 1 2 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Then I ' ll advertise it that way. 3 MS . MOORE : No, I know. It' s not your fault . We try different approaches to try to do 4 it . I think you guys on your own could do an interpretation of Walz since Walz was your baby. 5 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Procedurally a different way. 6 CHAIRWOMAN OLIVA: I make a motion to close the hearing pending receipt of a new notice 7 of disapproval from the Building Inspector. (See minutes for resolution. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 26 , 2006 114 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the 6 State of New York, do hereby certify: 7 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 8 the testimony given. 9 I further certify that I am not related by 10 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this 11 action; and 12 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome 13 of this matter. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand this 26th day of October, 2006 . 16 17 % )/ 18 `._.... �� / fiuz 19 � � L- � [� V Florence V. Wiles 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 26, 2006