HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/22/2007 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - STATE OF NEW YORK
3
4 --------------------------------------------X
5 T O W N 0 F =-S O U T H O L D
6
7 Z 0 N I N G B 0 A R D O F A P P E A L S
8 _
9 -------- --------------=---------------------X
Southold Town Hall
10 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York
11 -
February 22, 2007
12 9 :30 a.m.
13
14 Board Members Present
15 JAMES DINIZIO, Chairman
16 RUTH OLIVA, Board Member
17 GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Board Member
18 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, Board Member
19 MICHAEL SIMON, Board Member
20 LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
21 KIERAN CORCORAN, Assistant Town Attorney
22
23
24 10 0-INAL
25
COURT.REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Today we' re starting
off with Gerald Lang. It' s Application Number
3 5998 . Requested are (a) a reversal under Section
280-116-B based on the Building Inspector' s July
4 7, 2006 notice of disapproval, amended September
14, 2006, concerning a second story deck built in
5 1973 at less than 75 feet from the top of the
bulkhead, and/or a variance as an alternative; and
6 (b) variance under Section 280-15-C concerning an
as-built accessory structure (playhouse) located
7 at less than 35 feet from the front yard line.
Location: 4480 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
8 Is there anyone here who wants to speak on
this application?
9 MR. LANG: Gerald Lang.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The first thing is the
10 deck, and it' s 35 feet from the bulkhead; is that
correct?
11 MR. LANG: That' s one point of the
bulkhead, yes.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That depth to your
setback is not noted in my files, but we may have
13 it somewhere. We may need to upgrade that. Can
you tell me first, why was the deck denied, as to
14 your impression as to why?
MR. LANG: When I bought the house,
15 there' s a lot of mistakes, I mean, I don' t know if
you have these copies, the Building Department
16 said well, it could have been put in afterwards
because on the building inspection report like
17 this it wasn' t noted that there was actually a
second floor deck built, but you guys have the
18 original blueprints with stamps, and the Building
Department if it' s built as per plans, they don' t
19 write anything. So I actually brought one from a
job I'm on right now stating exactly what the
20 building inspector does . And if they only note if
there' s something wrong on the job, if they built
21 as per plans, they don' t say, okay, second floor
deck is okay. There' s blueprints there and
22 there' s a cantilevered deck, and it' s been there
since 1973 . And actually I have my neighbor here
23 who witnessed the house being built. I have my
neighbor here.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have to stand up,
sir.
25 MR. HUGHES : Arthur Hughes, I'm his
neighbor to the south. I lived in my house since
COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (631) 878-8047
2
1
2 ' 65 that' s next door to his . I saw the house
being built. I was in the house when it was under
3 construction, the original house. It had a deck.
I have a picture here showing the deck. This
4 picture was taken in ' 88 . So, that' s proof that
the deck was there. I don' t know maybe you can
5 help me out, what is the distance that would be
legal from the bulkhead to this deck?
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 75 feet.
MR. HUGHES : That' s a new law or it' s
7 always been there?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ' 88, ' 89 .
8 MR. HUGHES : All right, so it' s a new law
after the old house was built. That' s the only
9 thing I can say about that.
MR. LANG: When I applied for a permit to
10 work on the house, you have to omit the deck, I
said why it' s there.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, that' s why you' re
here. We just need --
12 MR. HUGHES : If you fellows want to look
at this picture.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We'd like to take a
look at that.
°> 14 MR. HUGHES : Sure.
MR. LANG: I just passed this out, Mr.
15 Simon was there yesterday and I didn' t see that,
that' s the original survey. And also that' s been
16 a mistake too, because it says one-story frame
house there. When I bought the house I almost
17 didn' t get the loan because the bank, I needed
proof that it was a two-story house and I had to
18 show them the blueprints, and I actually had to go
to the Town and on the inspection reports it said
19 the second floor bathroom does not have linoleum,
that' s the only proof that stated it had a second
20 floor.
CHAIRMAN. DINIZIO: You' re lucky.
21 MR. LANG: Just the mistakes that were
made, look at spelling of Ole Jule Lane.
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I wondered did the
name of the road change?
23 MR. LANG: It' s a mistake.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is not utterly
24 exceptional with a Van Tuyl survey from that era.
I have a question, there are two
25 cantilevered decks on your property, right?
MR. LANG: Now or then?
February 22, 2007
3
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, now.
MR. LANG: Well, the one that' s shaded,
3 there' s no access to that up there.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s new.
4
So that' s decorative?
5 MR. LANG: Yes, that' s totally decorative,
yes .
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there' s no
access other than through the window?
7 MR. LANG: Right.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So that' s something
8 you added on after?
MR. LANG: Right.
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the notice of
disapproval is referring to a second story deck.
10 MR. LANG: That' s that one.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The new one?
11 MR. LANG: No, the old one.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm confused.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, there' s two
cantilevered decks and it appears that it' s an
13 actual habitable additional story above what would
be typically the second story.
14 MR. LANG: Third story. It' s from the
attic, I did the same with the attic.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: ' Right. It' s on the
third story.
16 MR. LANG: It' s out of the attic, yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is that habitable
17 space; are you using it in any way other than for
storage?
18 MR. LANG: No.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So the addition of
19 that was done when?
MR. LANG: Two years ago.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That' s not the subject
of this?
21 MR. LANG: No.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not but it
22 needs to be clarified for the record because there
are two cantilevers, and we need to determine what
23 is the second floor, what is the third story.
MR. LANG: Right.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So how did you manage
to get to us; how did the question come up, and
25 how did you get denied; were you looking for a
building permit to do something else?
February 22 , 2007
4
1
2 MR. LANG: I received a building permit
but during the whole thing it was to say omit
3 this.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What was the building
4 permit for?
MR. LANG: Renovation of the house.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Was this third story?
MR. LANG: Actually no. I did a
6 renovation then, and I put a new roof line on
it. Two years ago.
7 MR. LANG: So I went up on that and I was
denied different roof lines . That was the third
8 roof line I submitted, so they kept denying it. I
wanted to make the house Victorian looking, so I'm
9 doing this decorative stuff, decorative trim. So
there' s another part, another phase that' s going
10 to be coming on too.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just can' t quite
11 understand how you got to us for this particular
deck.
12 MR. LANG: I don' t know.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You didn' t ask to do
13 anything to that deck?
MR. LANG: The deck was in bad shape, it
14 was very bad shape, it was rotten, the railing was
rotten, very unsafe. So I replaced the railing.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Did you need a
building permit for that?
16 MR. LANG: Well, it was in there, sure.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Sure.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you asked to do
something to that deck and that' s how you got
18 here.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s what produced
19 the disapproval.
MR. LANG: Right. Because on the new
20 plans I submitted because I was changing walls
inside, we put that existing deck back on the
21 plans .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, it' s not like you
22 didn' t know how you got here, right?
MR. LANG: Right.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You needed to do some
work on that deck. Now the building inspector
24 claims that they didn' t know that the deck was
there when they gave you the CO, right; there was
25 no need to mention it because you had plans that
had the deck on it and back then they had those
February 22 , 2007
5
1
2 plans? None of the people that are in there now
were there when these plans were approved in 1972 .
3 MR. LANG: Right.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I didn' t know why
4 they didn' t just go look at the plans and see.
MR. LANG.: - On this thing he said omit the
5 deck. I said I'm not going to cut the deck off,
it' s there.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. I want to get to,
and I think Michael' s going to ask the same
7 questions as me, those plans that you have, does
it actually show the deck?
8 MR. LANG: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are you saying then,
9 if the building inspector' had, looked more closely
at the plans that were submitted before when he
10 wrote this thing up he would not have issued a
violation for the deck?
11 MR. LANG: It wasn' t a violation.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON. Not a violation but
12 something that needed a variance. Why do you
think the building inspector called you on this
13 deck question?
MR. LANG: It wasn' t the Building
14 Inspector.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Who was it?
15 MR. LANG: Bruno Simone. He worked in the
building department.
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s site plan.
MR. LANG: This is when I was applying for
17 a building permit. and during the process -of the
building permit issue, he said everything' s okay
18 but you have to omit the deck.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: This was when? This
19 was 188?
MR. LANG: This is 2002 .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is on your
recent renovation?
21 MR. LANG: No.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: When you first --
22 MR. LANG: Started.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: He was building
23 inspector at that time?
MR. LANG: Yes .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, he was in his
capacity of a building inspector?
25 MR. LANG: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So had he written
February 22 , 20.07
6
1
2 this more closely you think therefore you wouldn' t
have been given this notice of disapproval with
3 respect to the deck?
MR. LANG: Correct.
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Did you ever get a CO
for the deck?
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. We need to
ask one at a time, we used to go one person at. a
6 time and I'd like to continue that,, please. Poor
applicant is getting bombarded and I'm sure the.
7 people taking the minutes are not going to be too
happy about everyone speaking at once. So,
8 Michael, you had the floor.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I completed my
9 questions.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie, would you
10 like to ask any further questions?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I want to just.
11 clarify, I suspect what happened in this
particular case is because you were doing changes
12 to a preexisting nonconforming deck that there was
a notice of disapproval because you may have been
13 increasing the degree of' nonconformity in doing
the repair. Nevertheless, it' s before us and our
14 task will be to approve or disapprove the
existence of that deck with its repair in- place.
15 I had an additional question simply out of
curiosity. Your survey shows a shed, not the
16 lighthouse, but the shed, and now there is a small
foundation wall; are you rebuilding that shed in
17 place?
MR. LANG: That' s a new shed.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s torn down?
MR. LANG: No:
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You' re building a
new one because it' s on your survey?
20 MR. LANG: Right. The new survey.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes, it is . I just
21 wanted to clarify that that' s not anything that' s
on your survey, it' s something that you are
22 actually undertaking.
MR. LANG: Yes .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have other
questions when we look at the second part, but for
24 now I don' t have any additional questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: ' No, there was just a
big mix-up as far as that deck was concerned
February 22 , 2007
7
,; 1
2 because if it was already there when you bought
the place and you had no knowledge that it was
3 nonconforming or what have you --
MR. LANG: Right.
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How many feet is it
from the bulkhead?
5 MR. LANG: To the point where you see it
on the surface.
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 64 I thought.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have 36 feet.
7 MR. LANG: Okay, that' s about right.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That' s not noted on the
8 survey. We may require you to put that on
there. Jerry?
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was my
question, the survey was showing 53 .
10 MR. LANG: It is 53 from the point they
measured from, the bulkhead goes like this and
11 then comes back. The bulkhead is a jog in it and
then goes back towards the house like 20 feet or
12 something.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think we have to
13 ask Mr. Chairman when he would like to discuss the
playhouse.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We' re going to do that
second. This is two separate things here, quite
15 honestly, it should have been two. I'm going to
just clarify a couple of things . After the
16 hearings that we have had and after I've heard, my
suspicion is in 2002, we had something, I think in
17 2001 called the Walz decision, . and I'm not so sure
that Bruno Simone didn' t think that because he
18 wanted to do something on a nonconforming deck as
Leslie said, that this didn' t fall under that,
19 quite honestly. And I think that even though it' s
not mentioned in here, and may not at this time
20 have come here because that' s been kind of
clarified, *back then I think things may have been
21 just a little confusing and that may be the
reason, you would have come here regardless . So I
22 think we can clear that up.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You' re suggesting
23 that by now the boiler plate, referring to the
Walz decision, but it was not at the time of this
24 decision.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. I suspect that
25 that' s what it is . I know it was something to
deal with.
February 22 , 2007
8
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The simplest way to
proceed is a reversal of the disapproval .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we can have that
discussion. It was not clear, it' s clear to me
4 now.
MR. LANG: I'm a local builder, so I'm in
5 the Building Department all the time. So I always
ask, make sure I am doing the right thing.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, no, again, I ' think
that' s where we went wrong. Now, we also have a
7 lighthouse, the setback is 12 feet from the side
yard and 17 feet from the front yard; is that
8 correct?
MR. LANG: That' s correct.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you need a minimum
35 feet. Did you apply for a building permit for
10 that; and how did that come about?
MR. LANG: I actually went down to the
11 Building Department, I had a sketch, and I
confronted my neighbors before I started
12 construction on these things, and I said I want to
build a playhouse/bus stop for the kids, a
13 lighthouse. And he saw the drawing and it had 19
feet on there on height and he said can you make
14 that 18 feet. I said I didn' t build it yet, I
says I want to make sure I can build it before I
15 start construction on this thing. He goes, oh,
yeah as long as it' s under 100 square feet, under
16 18 feet tall, it' s out of our jurisdiction. So I
had the thing almost constructed and then the new
17 building inspector, George, shows up when I wasn' t
there and writes me up that I need surveys,
18 blueprints, this, that, and I was like what? So I
ran down to the Building Department and I said,
19 Damon, you told me that I didn' t need anything,
and he goes well, did you put it in your
20 setback? And I said I didn' t even think about
setback. 'Cause I built it as a bus stop for the
21 kids, and where do you build a bus stop?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah, on the street.
22 MR. LANG: You know, close to the road.
So that' s how it started. And I started building
23 this thing I was going to put it on railroad
ties . And it might blow over, so I put a full
24 bore foundation in and poured two yards of
concrete under the main lighthouse.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, so now you got
this bus stop and it' s all constructed. It' s all
February 2-2 , 2007
9
1
2 ready to go. And I'm assuming that you just
relied on what the building inspector said. On
3 faith, you don' t need a building permit for
anything 100 square feet, right?
4 MR. LANG: Under 18 feet, right. So it
was out of their jurisdiction. I think I went
5 there and told him about it and he goes where are
you going to put it. I said it' s going to be a
6 playhouse/bus stop for the kids, you know.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You didn' t mention
7 setback?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let' s just go one at a
8 time, okay. If you want to go next, Michael, you
can.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell
you it' s a very tastefully done building. I have
10 to tell you on the 27 years I've been on this
Board I've never seen anything like this that
11 close to the property line. And I don' t know what
to suggest to you. It' s absolutely beautiful, but
12 I'm going to say it' s inappropriate in the front
yard in a nonconforming location. So I' ll kick
13 that around. I have nothing against it
personally. It' s large.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry, one question
then. It would be allowed, I'm assuming, to
15 clarify, at 35 feet?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s correct.
16 MR. LANG: If I could have moved it, I
would have moved it already.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, just clarifying.
You could have it in that front yard but it would
18 have to be 35 feet.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, you could
19 grant -- you want an if?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: An if? No, just for
20 discussion I think we want it in the record.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion
21 is you could allow the gentleman and his family to
leave it there for a certain period of time. I
22 mean, there is going to come a time when the kids
aren' t going to need a bus stop. That' s what you
23 could do.
MR. LANG: Then I' ll donate it to the
24 park.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Similar comment. The
problem of this, the code is silent on bus stops .
February 22 , 2007
10
1
2 And the idea is that did you say it should be an
exception during the time that kids are using it
3 as a bus stop might be a fairly reasonable thing.
The problem we have now is unless we can put a
4 time limit on this, 10 years from now there
perhaps will be no children using that and then
5 'you will have a nonconforming building that can
now be used for any kind of the purposes of an
6 accessory building, and that would be a problem if
we have 100 of these throughout the town. So
7 that' s not your problem immediately. So would you
be willing to accept a condition on it so that
8 this permission would expire after a certain
period of time?
9 MR. LANG: Yes . I actually said if this
didn' t go, that would be a great idea, and I would
10 donate it to a park or a school or something like
that.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
12 questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This is a situation
that comes. up all too frequently in which
14 individuals go to the Building Department for
accessory structures like sheds and are told it' s
15 not their jurisdiction because of the size and
height, which is conforming. But there is very
16 . little mention of setback requirements, as most
people know that accessory structures need to be
17in rear yards except in your case, you' re on a
dredged canal . So because it' s got water back
18 there, you can legally put an accessory structure
in a front yard. However, in most instances, the
19 Board has had to rule that the circumstances are
that the applicant is required to know this . And
20 as a builder, someone who is familiar with putting
up sheds and other kinds of structures, I would
21 assume that understanding that setback
requirements are part of a placement of such a
22 structure would be something that you are aware
of . Having said that, it is in place, and I would
23 also argue that it' s also not just a bus stop it' s
clearly a play structure. It will be used more
24 than just shelter for waiting for a bus . So it' s
a multiuse structure, and it' s primarily a play
25 structure that the kids can go into if it' s
raining or raining while waiting for the bus . So
February 22 , 2007
11
1
2 I just want the record to reflect that the setback
that is nonconforming and is substantially
3 nonconforming is not something that this Board,
necessarily has to endorse as a result of the fact
4 that it' s as built. And I can see where kids
would enjoy it; it' s a lot of fun, very nicely
5 built. So I think we' ll simply have to deliberate
and see what kind of solution we can
6 collaboratively come up with for you.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Just to add a point
7 to that, it' s hard to see how that wonderful
spiral staircase that you have built is necessary
8 for a bus stop.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, it' s a play
9 structure.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s a play
10 structure, she' s right.
MR. LANG: It' s a play structure, I mean
11 the lighthouse --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I know, you' re not
12 claiming it' s solely a bus stop.
MR. LANG: No. I put that in there --
13 play house/bus stop. So the actual hang out area
for the kids is actually really small, it' s just
14 that little house then they go upstairs and they
go outside.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Frankly, I mean, I
16 love the structure and I think it' s totally
inappropriate for where it is . It' s just too
17 close to the edge of the road. You take a chance
maybe some cars coming down the road go so close
18 to banging into it. So I don' t approve of having
it in the place that it is . I know it would be a
19 great expense to move it, but it' s just too close.
I'm sorry, but you should know as a builder there
20 are setback regulations.
MR. LANG: Well, when he said it was out
21 of his jurisdiction.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It really is pretty,
22 I love it.
MR. LANG: I mean, I made sure. I went
23 down there. I made sure that I was doing
everything right before I built this thing. When
24 he said it was out of his jurisdiction -- because
all the jobs I do have permits, I don' t do
25 anything without a permit -- so he said it was out
of his jurisdiction so I didn' t even think about
February 22 , 2007
12
1
2 it. I was like it' s on my property.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I would. say it' s half
3 your fault and half the inspector' s fault for not
informing you.
4 MR. LANG: And I've heard this before from.
other people too, this has been an issue with the
5 Building Department.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That' s too bad
6 because it puts you in the had position.
MR. LANG: And I wish I could move it, I
7 wish I didn' t pour concrete.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Because it really is
8 cute.
MR. LANG: I'd say I' ll slide it back 35
9 feet, no problem. But it' s concreted in and
strapped down.
10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Can you move it
back?
11 MR. LANG: No, I would have if I could
have.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
13 MR. LANG: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any
14 complaints about it, about the color of it in any
way with the red stripe?
15 MR. LANG: I don' t know. I discussed it
with Mr. Hughes before I did it, and we were
16 talking about either horizontal stripes or candy
cane stripes, and my other neighbor, Conklin, the.
17 other kids that use it, so my immediate neighbors
knew what I was doing before I did it.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' ll see what
19 develops throughout the hearing.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have a letter that
20 was handed up to us from Richard S . Burton, Linda
would like to read that into the record and maybe
21 you can comment on it afterwards .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : "Dear Board of
22 Appeals : I am writing this letter due to my work
schedule makes it impossible for me to be present
23 this morning.
"One, a variance is a special needs
24 situation where there is a hardship. The
structure does not meet this requirement.
25 "Two, the structure is not needed, and
there is no purpose to its existence in this
February 22 , 2007
13
1
2 location where it has been built.
"Three, it is insulting that it has been
3 built with no ' regard to what effect it has on the
neighborhood, and a total disregard for . the
4 process of law that is required to build a
structure like this. Now you are being asked to
5 justify this .
"Four, I know there are other people that
6 would be against this, but they are away at this
time. I am asking for a four week stay so that
7 others may be able to speak their. opinion.
"Five, there were no notices posted on the
8 property that the neighbors would know about the
hearing.
9 "Six, plain and simple this structure is
illegally built and it is not located within the
10 confines that the Town allows.
"And finally, let' s be honest, would you
11 want to look at this from your house?
"Richard F, Burton, Ole Jule Lane,
12 Mattituck. "
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER.: Do you know what
13 his address is,' Linda?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 2800 .
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s the same side of
the street.
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
address of your house?
16 MR. LANG: 3480 .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Quite a ways away. Do
17 you have any comment?
MR. LANG: I'm surprised because I did
18 talk to my immediate neighbors about this before I
started any of this .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, anybody can
come in once you file for a variance, you' re well
20 aware of that. I looked at this long before you
had even reason to put any notices on that
21 property, so I don' t know if it was actually --
did you put out the signs that we gave you?
22 MR. LANG: I have it in the window:
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Which. window, of
23 the house?
MR. LANG: Of the play house, so it' s
24 right up by the road.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:, I mean, did anybody see
25 those?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
February 22 , 2007
14
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Probably looked at the
red stripes .
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Looked at the play
house, that was enough.
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can understand why he
would look at that if he' s feeling the way he is .
5 1 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: And we' re also
waiting for three green signature cards from the
6 neighbors, we didn' t get those back.
MR. LANG: My secretary Rita mailed them
7 out, he' s the neighbor that got one, right, that' s
why he knows about it.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We're going to need
those before we do anything anyway. Do you have
9 any comments on that other than what we just
discussed?
10 MR. LANG: I guess I didn' t wander down
the road far enough. I'm trying to keep the peace
11 in the neighborhood, I'm not trying to disturb
it.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on. That' s not
necessarily your responsibility, sir. But he has
13 a right to comment on it because it' s a public
hearing. And you can' t go to every neighbor and
14 try to convince him, but he has an obligation to
do what he needs to do and that' s what he did. If
15 you have nothing further constructively to say
about it.
16 MR. LANG: No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I
offended him. I don' t want to offend anybody in
17 the neighborhood, I don' t. I mean, I built this
for the kids . It' s not for me or to upset any of
18 the neighbors . We didn' t do it for that reason.
I mean, I thought this was going to be a week
19 project. It took me like four months . I thought,
geez, what did I get myself into.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say
something? Mr. Lang, that was the reason why I
21 raised the issue of the color. Certainly the
thing can be -- and we' re not referring to it as
22 the thing, it' s a lighthouse with a little
building attached to it -- certainly the color can
23 change.
MR. LANG: Tone it down.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A safety barrier
can be put up between the street and the
25 structure, okay. Some bushes can be planted
around it to make it more woodsy looking. All of
February 22 , 2007
15
1
2 of those things are issues that I have dealt with
on this Board over the years, and that' s the
3 reason why I raise that issue. And we' ll see how
the situation goes in the future.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have one question,
how long actually has it been since the lighthouse
5 has been completed?
MR. LANG: Only a few months.
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So it hasn' t been
here over the summer?
7 MR. LANG: No.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Are there any people
8 who live on Ole Jule Lane who live here mostly in
the summer and not here during the winter? I
9 guess I'm saying is there anyone who is going to
see it this summer who didn' t know it was going to
10 be there last summer or last time they were here?
MR. LANG: No, no, no, the only one that
11 travels a lot is Mr. Spar, which is directly
across the street, and I don' t even know,
12 Florida.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You don' t have summer
13 residents there?
MR. LANG: No, not really.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just so we have a
little bit better understanding of the
15 neighborhood use of the structure, how many
children would you estimate that actually use that
16 play house for playing and for bus stopping.
MR. LANG: Well, I have three kids, well,
17 five for the bus stopping, three, minus two of the
neighbors there' s a lot of kids in the
18 neighborhood. So they' re all in and out of it
playing. We have 13 stops for the bus on that
19 road alone. So there' s a lot of kids . It' s a
great neighborhood for that.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would anybody else like
to comment on this? Come on up, sir.
21 MR. HUGHES : Arthur Hughes, next door
neighbor, I just talked to you before. I have no
22 problem with it. I think it' s in good taste. If
it was a designed neighborhood where we had like
23 say across from the country club maybe it would be
out of place. Where we are, Ole Jule, we put the
24 street in with a horse and buggy and said this is
where everything' s going to go and lined up
25 everything and the houses are built all
helter-skelter, bulkheads, and I don' t see any
February 22 , 2007
16
1
2 problem with it. And I'm his next door neighbor.
I can' t change your opinion on setback and this
3 and that, but I think you' re on the right track
with maybe putting some bushes or fences around
4 it.
MR. LANG: Or I could tone it down with a
5 color.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Yes, I think we would
take seriously the suggestion for keeping the
7 hearing open partly because of the letter, the
letter raises the kind of concerns which don' t
8 peculiarly fit just the immediate neighbor, those
that get notice; it could very well be a general
9 issue. And if there are continued hearings from
people who just routinely drive by it and if, for
10 example, 10 people showed up and said I don' t have
any problem with it, that would be some relevance.
11 On the other hand, if 10 people showed up and
eight of them said, how did that get there I
12 didn' t know it was happening, so I would like to
see the hearing kept open.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone else
that would like to comment on this? I agree on
14 this, Michael, we usually grant a person who sends
a letter, we usually grant them their request for
15 another month. It' s not unusual for us to hold
the hearing open.
16 MR. LANG: Sure, like I said, I apologize
if I offended anyone.
17 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If it' s all right,
I would like to ask that a new sign be put up" and
18 it be posted 10 feet from the road so it' s more
visible. That' s what the code requires .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So if you could repost
that sign.
20 MR. LANG: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I must say as far
21 as the notice is concerned, I did not find the
house by seeing the notice; I found it by seeing
22 the lighthouse and by seeing the street number.
And on other properties I would be dependent on
23 seeing that notice, and I didn' t even recall that
there really was a sign perhaps because it was on
24 the lighthouse. So I think it would be a good
idea to put it in a more conspicuous place.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean,
Michael, that that is the only house on the block
February 22 , 2007
17
1
2 with a lighthouse?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I didn' t look at all
3 the houses, it' s also the only one that' s 3480 .
- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So we' ll have
4 the hearing next month, and you would be well
advised probably to show up I would think for
5 that. >
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Thursday, March
6 29th at 9 : 30 .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would just like to
7 say one more thing about the time limit. Do you
have any idea of how long you would think you
8 would need that, the kids are young now?
MR. LANG: The youngest kid is nine.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Five years, 10 years?
MR. LANG: Tell you the truth, I don' t
10 know, how long do you think they would stop using
it, until they were 15 -- six years maybe.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So between five and 10
years is good, right?
12 MR. LANG: Yeah, I mean he' s third grade
now, high school he' ll be driving.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So hearing
nothing else, I' ll move that we hold the hearing
14 open until next month.
w (See minutes for resolution. )
15 ----------------------------------------------- --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
16 Dorothy E. Lockridge, a request for a Special
Exception under Article III, Section 100-30A.2B
17 and 10-31B, Subsections 14 (a-d) of the Southold
Town Zoning Code. The applicant-owner requests an
18 accessory bed and breakfast for the renting of
three guest bedrooms for lodging and serving of
19 breakfast to not more than 10 casual and transient
roomers, providers that the renting of such rooms
20 is clearly incidental and subordinate to the
principal single-family dwelling use.
21 Location: 9625 Main Road, East Marion.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anyone wish to speak to
22 that?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, before you speak
23 to Miss Lockridge, I made an appointment to go and
inspect the house Saturday at 9 : 00 a.m.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: This coming
25 Saturday.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is anybody else
February 22 , 2007
18
1
2 invited?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just did it on my
3 own because I do like to inspect the houses .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Can we join you?
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Because I was going
5 to request an inspection.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you may have two
6 Board members show up, okay?
MS. LOCKRIDGE: Fine.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you are?
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Dorothy Lockridge.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you want to get
three bedrooms, and my original reading of the
9 notice of disapproval was six guests, right?
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Right.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Because what I just
read says 10 . But it' s six, right?
11 MS . LOCKRIDGE: I requested six, I don' t
know where the 10 came from.
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I can explain.
You' re allowed to have extra guests.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So that' s what the code
reads, right?
14 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you are the owner so
15 you will be living there?
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Yes .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I noticed that there
are quite a few legal things going on there about
17 the ownership, but you had been granted a bed and
breakfast before on this?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No prior owner, Lydia
and I had gone there years ago.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So I guess we' ll
just take your testimony and tell us what you
20 would like to do.
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Well, just that I would
21 like to open the house as a bed and breakfast with
three guest rooms .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You' re going to meet
all the requirements of the code concerning a
23 ladder in each room and those kinds of things,
right?
24 MS . LOCKRIDGE: Okay, whatever.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Whatever it says to get
25 the permit, right?
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Right.
February 22 , 2007
19
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was looking
3 over, Miss Lockridge, the decision of 2002 from
the prior owner, the only difference I will like
4 to deal with between that decision and this
decision today is that we specifically state
5 because of the width of the driveway that all
parking is in the rear of the property as per your
6 plan.
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Absolutely.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second thing
I would like to state is that a sign be posted on
8 the way out saying "No Left Turns" into that
traffic and I know that probably it would be used
9 mainly around the summer time and the fall when
the greatest amount of traffic occurs on State
10 Road 25 . I have no objection to anything else
regarding your property. It' s a very nice house.
11 MS . LOCKRIDGE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that it, Jerry?
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Would the suggestion
no left turn be acceptable to you?
14 MS . LOCKRIDGE: You' re talking about at
the end of the driveway? Yes, that' s fine with me
15 because they can make a right and then turn
around.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: You would not
consider that that would be a hardship on your
17 guests?
MS . LOCKRIDGE: No, actually it would be a
18 safety issue. I have no problem with that.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I assume it would not
19 be more than three cars at any one time.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Some of this will
probably be answered upon inspection of the
21 interior, your hand-drawn plans were not exactly
clear enough, but I presume there will be no
22 structural changes on the interior, no
additional -- you have the three bedrooms upstairs
23 and the bathrooms and you' re simply going to make
them available for guests, and you' re going to
24, continue living downstairs in the other bedroom
and bathroom.
25 MS . LOCKRIDGE: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to
February 22 , 2007
20
1
2 make sure that you did not anticipate any other
P
structural changes in the house. You have more
3 than ample room in the back for additional cars .
So, site plan should not be a problem and I' ll
4 look forward to seeing the interior on Saturday.
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Good enough.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: In other words, there
6 has been no change since the previous owner had a
bed and breakfast there. I don' t know if she ever
7 really fully implemented it, but we had looked at
the parking back there so there is sufficient
8 parking for the cars .
MS . LOCKRIDGE: Right. And I had a layer
9 of underlay put down.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, so we' ll see
10 you Saturday.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, is there anybody
11 else that wishes to comment on the bed and
breakfast in East Marion? State your name, ma' am,
12 please.
MS . IKABRODE: My name is Lois Ikabrode, I
13 own property directly across . I am here in
support. We came the last time when the prior
14 owner asked for permission. I think it' s nice
that the parking is going to be off the street
15 rather than tie off the road out front. My
concern with your suggestion is that we already --
16 our house fronts on Main Road, but we have our
driveways on Bay Avenue, which already is a
17 turnaround for people who have gone the wrong way.
I see them making a right out of your place, left
18 on Bay Avenue and turning around in our
deteriorating driveway. You can' t believe how
19 many trucks and vehicles come in there and turn
around. So that' s my only concern. I mean, it' s
20 making some presumptions about what' s going to
happen with the traffic. That would be my only
21 concern, but it' s not a huge volume of people.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
22 say that I didn' t say to that nice lady - - but I'm
saying to you nice . lady -- we also normally put
23 in, and I'm speaking for the Board now, that there
be no backing out on the Main Road, it would be
24 absolute suicide.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that' s in the
25 old decision already.. So we basically are going
to have you abide by that decision that was made
February 22 , 2007
21
1
2 before, and that maybe you can live with and maybe
put this sign out there.
3 MS . LOCKRIDGE: I don' t presently let
anyone back out. There is truly plenty of room to
4 turn around in that driveway, and I would
certainly suggest that to any guest that they not
5 back out.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem is
6 when someone' s pulling out of the driveway and
someone may be pulling in, sometimes the person
7 pulling out doesn' t yield to the person pulling
in, and that person is forced to back out; where
8 that person pulling out, this is not science here,
that person should really back up into the parking
9 area and allow the other person to come in.
MS . LOCKRIDGE: That would be common
10 courtesy to me. I don' t know about other people.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, if we can
11 mitigate the potential traffic impact in our
decision, I think that' s a perfectly appropriate
12 use of an owner-occupied structure and you' re not
anticipating a great number of vehicles . Safety
13 is of real concern and people do it all along that
stretch because the traffic is increasing. So
14 it' s becoming a problem I think all along that
stretch, all along to Greenport practically from
15 Greenport all the way out to the point people are
forced to do that because of oncoming traffic in
16 one direction or another.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, everybody
17 through? Is there anyone else who would like to
make a comment on the nice bed and breakfast in
18 East Marion? I' ll entertain a motion to close the
hearing pending any written information, if they
19 come and they have something they want to have in
writing, and if it does change things, we could
20 take that opportunity to open up the hearing if we
so chose.
21 (See minutes for resolution. )
- ------------------------------- ------- -- ------ --
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
George and Jeanne Braun. It' s a request for a
23 variance under Section 280-124 based on the
building inspector' s October 25, 2006 Notice of
24 Disapproval concerning a proposed addition to the
existing dwelling at less than 10 feet on a single
25 side yard and less than 25 feet for the combined
side yards at 2005 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
February 22 , 2007
22
1
2 Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
3 MR. BRAUN: George Braun.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hi, Mr. Braun, looks
4 like the information I have is the side yard
setback is required at 10 feet, you' re proposing
5 5 . 3 feet; is that correct?
MR. BRAUN: It' s whatever it is .
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It' s already built.
You' re not proposing any more than 5 . 3 feet
7 already, right?
MR. BRAUN: The property is 50 feet wide
8 now. The house is already 33 feet wide, so the
two proposed rooms would follow the building line
9 of the house, and it' s not a front setback issue,
as I understand. It' s the ruling which I think
10 must have come in after the house was built. I
think this must be a pre-existing condition.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, it certainly is .
It' s a Walz decision. You have a nonconformity,
12 and you want to expand that nonconformity that' s
what it is . I'm clarifying that. 5 .3 is what
13 exists, and you' re not going any closer than that?
MR. BRAUN: That' s correct.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the combined side
yards are going to remain the same as they are
15 now, which are 17 feet; that' s your proposal?
MR. BRAUN: That' s correct.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything to
add to that?
17 MR. BRAUN: Just a couple of points in my
opinion at least. What we' re trying to do here
18 makes no change in the character, the health, the
safety or the welfare of the neighborhood. These
19 are not substantial changes. The two rooms will
add about 10 percent to the living space of the
20 house. They represent less than two percent of
the plot size as a footprint. And because of the
21 way that the houses are laid out, and I don' t know
if I included this in the application, but I made
22 copies, my house to the west to 300 feet property,
whereas my neighbors on either side are to the
23 east. So subsequently, the two rooms we' re
proposing don' t abut their properties in any way.
24 There' s just a yard there. Can you tell me,
folks, is this in the file? You folks look at
25 these things first?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Sure.
February 22 , 2007
23
1
2 MR. BRAUN: So you understand that the
other houses are set back. The neighbors have
3 absolutely no objection to this . I have talked to
them personally. I have the cards .
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You' re just bumping
out the front?
5 MR. BRAUN: Two small rooms in the front.
What we'd like to do is make it a permanent
6 residence.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it one story?
7 MR. BRAUN: One story.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have any
8 more questions?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
10 absolutely no objection.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: No questions .
CHAIRMAN. DINIZIO: Leslie?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Just clarification,
you' re extending the front portico as it exists
13 now, not extending it forward, lateral, sideways,
you' re going to extend it on either side so it
14 becomes a continuous facade at one story height.
The two rooms will abut the existing front
15 entrance.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think it goes
16 beyond that.
MR. BRAUN: The portico/foyer is seven
17 feet out from the house. The rooms are nominally
12 feet.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Eleven by 12 .
MR. BRAUN: Right. Which.means we' re
19 about five feet closer to the street. But. as I
understand that' s not the issue.
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right. That' s not
the issue, it' s the side yard. And I just wanted
21 to clarify that that is going to be one continuous
elevation for the record that is slightly closer
22 to the road.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Mr. Braun, do you
23 have the affidavit of signed posting, a form that
you have to sign?
24 MR. BRAUN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anyone else
25 who wishes to comment on Mr. Braun' s application?
Hearing none, I' ll entertain a motion that we
February 22 , 2007
24
1
2 close this hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
3 - -------------------------------------------=----
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
4 Linda Commender and others . Request for a
variance on under Section 280-15 based on the
5 Building Inspector' s November 6, 2006 Notice of
Disapproval concerning a proposed addition to the
6 existing dwelling, which created a side yard
instead of a rear yard on an existing accessory
7 garage at 1370 Highland Road, Cutchogue.
The applicant' s building a one-story
8 addition to his house over a deck and because
you' re doing that, because you' re extending it, it
9 makes it appear that the garage that has existed
in that lot for a while is now in your side yard;
10 is that pretty much what' s going on here?
MS . MEADE: That' s correct. Just so you
11 know, my name is Marilyn Meade, I'm the contractor
for Mrs . Commender.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything to
add?
13 MS . MEADE: No. Just an 18 by 16
one-story addition removing portion of the. deck,
14 putting the extension there, and the garage
becomes a side issue because it' s not behind the
15 structure.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it' s going to
16 replace more than just the deck. It' s going to go
further than the deck goes right now?
17 MS . MEADE: No, it' s not. The portion of
the deck we' re going to remove, put the extension
18 right where the deck is .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you' re following
19 that footprint?
MS . MEADE: Yes .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
21 problems.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I don' t have a real
problem. It sounds as though you' re before us
23 because of the garage in the side yard. . So
without actually moving the garage, the garage is
24 moved from the back yard to the side yard, even
though the garage is not being moved at all .
25 MS . MEADE: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s why this is
February 22 , 2007
25
1
2 not a hard case.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Moreover, it' s only
3 partially in the side yard. So it' s an extremely
small addition in the rear that has absolutely no
4 visual impact on anyone or anything. Completely
screened in every direction by vegetated buffer.
5 So .the impact is absolutely negligible if any in
terms of what you' re intending to do. It' s simply
6 a legal matter of allowing something to change
location technically.
7 MS . MEADE: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have no further
8 questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, no problems .
You' re just caught between a side yard and a rear
10 yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have the
11 affidavit of posting?
MS . MEADE: Yes .
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to bring
that up and hand that to Linda?
13 MS. . MEADE: (Handing. )
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So I' ll entertain a
14 motion to close the hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
15 7 - --- ---------------------------------- ----------
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next application is for
16 Carole Donlin, a request for a variance under
Section 280-124, based on the Building Inspector' s
17 December 4, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning
a proposed addition and alterations to the
18 existing dwelling at less than 15 feet from the
side yard line, at 910 New Suffolk Avenue,
19 Mattituck. Miss Doty?
MS . DOTY.: Debra Doty.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO:` The proposed side yard
setback is going to be 12 .4 feet according to the
21 Notice of Disapproval and that' s right?
MS . DOTY: Right.
22 CHAIRMAN. DINIZIO: You have an approval
1999, for an attached carport; is that correct?
23 MS . DOTY: Yes, and that was a three foot
side yard on the western side, and we' re actually'
24 3 . 5 .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So that' s been
25 all approved, and it' s not the subject of this
hearing?
February 22 , 2007
26
1
2 MS . DOTY: I hope not because I'm not
ready for it.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then there' s a letter
in the file from you discussing setback from the
4 wetlands, I guess there was some question of that.
MS . DOTY: Yes . This is a long, narrow
5 lot. I think it' s 230 feet away, way at the south
end of the property there may be some wetlands .
6 But we didn' t stake them. It would have to be 130
feet at least.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. Then there was
an answer in there from somebody else about the
8 wetlands?
MS . DOTY: I answered. I said the
9 surveyor said there were none on his field notes
and Don Filer, who is the architect that' s here,
10 said if there were any, it would be 130 feet away
from the structure.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which would not impact
on this application?
12 MS . DOTY: Right. I would hope.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right, Miss Doty,
13 do you have anything you would like to say?
MS . DOTY: Let me start with the
14 administrative, I have the affidavit of posting
from B. Miller and apparently Miss Donlin told me
15 that her neighbor to the east picked it up this
morning and has no objection. And those actually
16 are the neighbors that would be most impacted by
this because our proposed addition is to the east
17 side. Miss Donlin is here and Don Filer is also
here, the architect. We' re the victims, - - or Miss
18 Donlin' s the victim of something that happened
almost 100 years ago. The house was put on the
19 lot on an angle in 1910 . And the original
structure is a maximum of 14 feet from the eastern
20 side yard and 12 feet on the southern part.
Additions have been made to the house and just by
21 the fact it' s on an angle, the eastern side yard
keeps getting smaller and smaller, we' re not
22 proposing going any closer than we are right now,
which is 12 .4 feet. And I think it was 2003 ,
23 there was a CO for an addition to the back of the
house which was for the dining room and a
24 renovated kitchen. We are suggesting or proposing
an addition over that portion of the building, and
25 that portion of the building is in one spot 12 --
13 .4 feet. And the addition has a one foot
February 22 , 2007
27
1
2 overhang, which reduces the side yard to
12 .4 . The purpose of it is that we want to move
r "
3 the master bedroom off of New Suffolk Avenue. It
currently faces New Suffolk Avenue. There' s only
4 only one bathroom on the second floor and that one
we have a New York State variance for because the
5 ceiling height is too low. We would bring that
bathroom up to code and we would add a master
6 bedroom and a master bathroom and a closet in the .
back portion of the house over the existing
7 structure. So there would be no visual or
physical impact to the streetscape on New Suffolk
8 Avenue. The property is treed on both sides so
the neighbors wouldn' t see much of anything. It' s
9 really the only way of doing it because we have a
very narrow lot, we' re only 60 feet wide. And
10 short of moving the house, which we are not going
to propose, there' s no way of accommodating a new
11 bedroom and bath at the back of the house.
Miss Donlin was in the city, was in the
12 city, she' s retired, she' s moving out here. She
intends this to be her retirement home. I think
13 you may know, she' s a trustee of the hospital and
on the Arts in Southold Town committee as well .
14 She' s very much involved in the community and
wants to make this her retirement home. We
15 considered the possibility of adding a master
bathroom at the front of the house, but Mr. Filer
16 believes that that structure is not strong enough
to accommodate. the weight of a bathroom up there
17 and therefore we request that the Board grant the
variance. It' s 12 .4 feet, would be the side yard.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s the setback
on that, one foot?
19 MS . DOTY: Originally on the carport asked
for one foot, but it' s not one foot.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The carport is 3 . 5?
MS. DOTY: You gave us three feet, we did
21 3 . 5, so we get some credit for that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything
22 else to add?
MS. DOTY: If there are questions we will
23 respond.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The house has
great significance to me because many years ago
25 when I first joined the fire department we had a
fire at this house, which Miss Donlin' s probably
February 22 , 2007
28
1
2 not aware of, and was easily taken care of some
time later and that was in the very early 170s,
3 but the house is actually beautiful. It has great
grace, and it was very nice to park underneath the
4 carport during one of those cold days for a second
just to get out and take a look at it. I wish you
5 the best of luck.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael?
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will the second floor
extend closer to the south boundary than the floor
7 over which it' s built?
MS . DOTY: Yes, just the foot. So it' s a
8 foot on three sides .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Will that extend,
9 would the reduction of setback beyond be on any
other point on that house?
10 MS . DOTY: You mean on the new, no.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So there are other
11 parts of the house that are as close or closer?
MS . DOTY: The original house is 12 feet,
12 and the current closest I think is 12 .4 and we' re
proposing 12 .4 because we're stepped in on the
13 back.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have no further
14 questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s always a
pleasure to write up findings with your
16 application because they' re meticulously thorough.
You clearly went over everything I have in my
17 notes, and that were in the file; and upon site
inspection, there was no alternative
18 architecturally reasonable place to put an
addition, and the addition as proposed has
19 literally no impact visually on the rear yard,
front yard and minimal impact on the side yard,
20 which is already well screened. So I don' t see
any particular problems with this application and
21 we' ll have to confer as a group, but I think it' s
very clear what your intent is . And it' s
22 certainly not increasing nonconformity, and it
structurally makes sense to approve that bathroom.
23 MS . DOTY: Well, we' re improving that
nonconforming bathroom and adding another one.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s what I mean.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth?
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Lovely house. I
enjoyed walking around it, and I think the
February 22 , 2007
29
1
2 addition will be an addition in the house that
will fit in perfectly. I have no problem.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything
else to add to this? Is there anyone else who
4 would like to speak?
MS . DOTY: I will bring that other card in
5 once I get it.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We won' t make a
6 decision until we do.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They called this
7 morning and said they signed it this morning and
are sending it back to the post office.
8 MS . DOTY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I would entertain a
9 motion that we close this hearing.
(See minutes for resolution. )
10 - - - ---- - -------------------- ------------ ------ - --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
11 Barrows Hall, a request for a variance under
Section 280-15, based on the Building Inspector' s
12 November 30, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning
a proposed accessory garage in a yard other than
13 the code required rear yard. Location of property
is Private Road off East End Road near Block
14 Island Sound, Fishers Island.
Mr. Hamm, I can tell you I was out there
15 two weekends ago and inspected the place, it looks
like you' re replacing a pool that had previous
16 approval in that location with a garage that you
want to put in that same location?
17 MR. HAMM: That' s correct. I' ll just do
my appearance, Steven Hamm, 38 Nugent Street,
18 Southampton, for the applicant. That' s correct
and I have the presentation in writing so we don' t
19 have to take too much of your time.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my file,
20 can I just ask one question of Mr. Hamm when he
comes back? Mr. Hamm, I understand, and of course
21 I could ask the Chairman the same question, but I
understand there' s some topography issues on this
22 property?
MR. HAMM: That' s correct. The rear yard
23 is severely sloped and that was the basis of a
1997 variance that your Board granted to the prior
24 owner who had wanted to construct a swimming pool .
So it was mentioned, there is at present a
25 variance for a pool that was never built. This
particular owner wants a garage. It' s pretty much
February 22 , 2007
30
1
2 the same issue and in my memorandum, I addressed
one possible alternative, which is not feasible
3 other than the rear yard, to connect it to the
house which does not work very well either. I
4 have an affidavit from an engineer, Richard
Straus, who can testify to some of the reasons for
5 that. Also you should note, and this was
important in the earlier decision, that the
6 structure does meet the setback for a principal
dwelling, and will not be visible.
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other
question is that in writing a decision like this
8 that is in reference to a conditional decision, my
suggestion will be to the Board to limit the.
9 conditions to two, and that is that the building
be only used for storage purposes, there is a loft
10 area I suspect for storage as proposed; and it
contain only the utility of electricity; do you
11 have any problems with that?
MR. HAMM: Whatever the plans show. The
12 builder told me something about that they might
want to put a toilet or something in there.
13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: . That really is
not part of the application.
14 MR. HAMM: It' s not. The plans were
denied as is .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If that were the
case in the future, you would have to come back
16 and modify them. That is the normal standard
thing that we use for storage buildings -- I'm not
17 speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There is no
18 toilet.
MR. HAMM: I didn' t see it.
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: It' s not part of the
application.
20 MR. HAMM: It' s not so I can' t --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm not putting
21 you on the spot, I'm just saying.
MR. HAMM: No, there was just a reference
22 by the builder about a toilet, and I looked for it
in anticipation that something might come up about
23 that, but I didn' t see it in the plans . So I
think that would be fair.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can say that there is
something in that location that. has to do with
25 plumbing. I don' t know what it was . There are
some hoses. I don' t know exactly what it was . I
February 22 , 2007
31
1
2 don' t know if it was a gas tank?
MR. HAMM: From the photographs you can
3 see a propane tank there, and I asked the
surveyor, he thinks it' s for cooking. And so
4 forth.
BOARD MEMBER 'GOEHRINGER: When we referred
5 to the utility of electricity, doesn' t mean a
person can' t put an outside hose on the building
6 attaching it exteriorly. It just means we don' t
want plumbing on the inside and water running
7 through the building on the inside.
MR. HAMM: I understand that, and if they
8 didn' t show that on the plans, and I think it' s
fair that you would so state and we would come
9 back.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anyone else have a
10 question?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question. I
11 guess the concern is whether this will ever be
more than a garage. It' s going to be for storage;
12 will there be a staircase?
MR. HAMM: Two-car garage, and I believe
13 there will be a staircase, it' s a .loft.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Two floors and four
14 windows .
MR. HAMM: I think so by design, we have
15 some elevations I submitted.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay, building as
16 described in this case no internal plumbing.
MR. HAMM: If that' s not the plans than
17 this is what they intend to build, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I should state for
the record that the mean height of 18 feet with
19 21 . 10 and a quarter inch to the ridge falls,
according to your setback is in the approved new
20 code for accessory structure. It is conforming in
that sense. So that' s good. I'm very glad you
21 submitted photographs because there' s no contour
intervals on the surveys or the site plans and
22 without them it would be very difficult to imagine
the severity of the slope but the photographs do
23 show those conditions well.
MR. HAMM: As an exhibit I have a contour
24 map which to my memorandum, this is probably going
to be clear, I only have one copy, it' s the former
25 owner' s survey which did have the contour.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Is it in your
February 22 , 2007
32
1
2 submission?
MR. HAMM: Unfortunately, no.
` 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a further
short question: What is referred .to as the pantry
4 in this loft?
MR. HAMM: Storage.
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What is the meaning
of pantry?
6 MR. HAMM: Pantry would mean food to me,
food stored there.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: And food suggests
preparation, cooking.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you' re on
Fishers Island.
9 MR. HAMM: I think it' s a permitted part
of an accessory building to have a pantry or else
10 we would have been denied.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we' ll just get to
11 the heart of the pantry thing, in your opinion
that' s storage? That' s part and parcel of
12 accessory structure?
MR. HAMM: As we said, you' ll stipulate
13 that there' s no interior plumbing will be
permitted. So it' s not going to have living
14 facilities in it.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is' a propane- stove
15 considered plumbing?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: What I'm talking
about is cooking facilities.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Without heat --
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can' t use it
18 inside, it' s got to be vented, that' s why you have
to take a propane grill outside.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? Do you have
any more questions?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. I can already
tell from this that you' re changing elevations
21 from the rear of the house.
MR. HAMM: Thirty percent according to the
22 survey.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That' s exactly
23 right. It' s about 60 feet horizontally, and it' s
a 30 foot drop so it' s about a 30 percent slope.
24 MR. HAMM: You' ll see in my affidavit and
submission.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for .
bringing this, Mr. Hamm.
February 22 , 2007
33
1
2 MR. HAMM: I'm sorry I didn' t have them
put it on the current one.
3 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Why don' t you read
the date of the map into the record?
4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: June 9, 1997,
shows additions to swimming pool .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have to say it' s a
nice piece of property, and I understand that
6 location because the rest of the place, if you
tried to attach it to the house, you'd be below
7 the basement of that house. So I don' t think
you' d want to do that. There' s some fairly large
8 boulders there too, rocks and such. Do you have
anything else to add, Mr. Hamm?
9 MR. HAMM: No, it' s in Mr. Straus' s
affidavit about,visibility and other neighborhood
10 issues, so I think it' s pretty well addressed.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have
11 anything to say about this application? Hearing
none, I' ll entertain a motion to close the hearing
12 and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
13 - ------ ---------------------------------- -- -- ----
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The next hearing is
14 going to be long so the Board would like to take a
five minute recess .
15 (See minutes for resolution. )
-- ------------------------------------------ ------
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
Vicki Haupt, Application Number 6000 . This is a
17 request for a variance based on the Building
Inspector' s December 18, 2006 Notice of
18 Disapproval concerning an application for a
building permit. The grounds cited in the
19 disapproval are: The proposed construction is not
permitted under Section 280-121 except as provided
20 hereinafter nonconforming use of buildings or open
land existing on the effective date of this
21 chapter or authorized by a building permit issued
prior to, regardless of change of title,
22 possession or occupancy or right thereof, may be
continued indefinitely, except that such building
23 or use: A) shall not be enlarged, altered,
extended, reconstructed or restored or placed on a
24 different portion of the lot or parcel of land
occupied by such use on the effective date of this
25 chapter; nor shall any external evidence of such
use be increased by any means whatsoever. The
February 22 , 2007
34
1
2 structure was erected in 1960 under a permit, and
under current zoning regulations, the structure is
3 nonconforming. The applicant states that the
structure is a seasonal, one-story structure with
4 a bedroom and a bathroom, and is part of a
single-family dwelling, two section construction
5 noted in the July 22, 1960 Certificate of
Occupancy, and it gives us the certificate of
6 occupancies for both of those structures .
Sir, you are?
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: I am Nigel Williamson,
architect for Miss Haupt.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So you are familiar
with the application?
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct, I made the
application.
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What I just read is
basically what we' re here for?
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. I mean, I think
it' s longer than what we' re requesting.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Did you care?
MR. WILLIAMSON: May I approach, first,
13 please for affidavits .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Oh, yes, please hand
14 that up.
MR. WILLIAMSON: (Handing. )
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Why don' t you just tell
us the story.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, as noted in the
1960 C.O. and also with the building permit
17 application, which you should have a copy of, on
the building permit application there is a sketch
18 of two structures that is barely legible and on
the C.O. it says single-family dwelling and built
19 in two sections . Again, I think the confusion is
back then I guess things were done on a handshake
20 and the sketches that were provided were
acceptable, and now we' re into an issue of trying
21 to reconstruct the existing single story by
replacing windows and removing windows and
22 relocating them and we' re making repairs to
existing piers and hence we' re at the Zoning Board
23 because of alterations/reconstruction. The
dwellings were there since 1960 . I think that' s
24 all I can really say about this .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So, these structures,
25 they were some kind of kits. or something like
that?
February 22 , 2007
35
1
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: From what I understand,
and again it' s hearsay to me, they were either a
3 Sears kit or some unit you could buy out of a
magazine. I have a letter from Mr. Levin, who was
4 the actual owner/builder, that I could submit to
you. I was keeping it for the Building
5 Department.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, if you would, we'd
6 be interested in that.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have to write it.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, that' s fairly
obvious what that says .
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically he built the
9 structure. Do you have anything else - to add or
could the Board ask you some questions? Ruth,
10 this is your application so maybe you could
start.
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . I would like
for you to explain just exactly what you' re going
12 to do. Because it is in poor repair, it looks
unsafe.. It' s rather confusing what you' re going
13 to do. Are you keeping the bedroom downstairs in
the lower level of the two-story house and the
14 living room on the upper floor, and then going up
the stairs -- doesn' t look too comfortable -- to a
15 master bedroom and a bath; am I correct on that?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And the upper
16 one-story structure is going to be nonconforming
now, and the reason I'm here for the alteration,
17 even though it' s listed on the assessor' s card as
a bunk house. And again, I think this was on the
18 original paperwork for their individual
interpretation of what it was .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And you' re putting
new pilings on that upper structure?
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: No, we' re replacing two
piers; there' s a pier on the north and east.
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
MR. WILLIAMSON: And you can see the two
22 by eights I guess about' two and a half inches
down, the structure is stabilized. It hasn' t
23 moved or anything. We would like to replace that
pier and the one on the southwest corner, which
24 would be by the bathroom.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then you' re putting
25 new windows in, floors, what?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. We' re removing
February 22 , 2007
36
1
2 and replacing existing windows, do you want me to
go through the elevation?
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . It would be
helpful . I've been up there twice.
4 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay. This is drawing
A3 , drawn by me. I' ll start with the southeast
5 elevation, which is the elevation where the
bathroom is going to come into. There' s an
6 existing patio door that' s showing dashed lines;
we would like to put two new windows. On the
7 northeast elevation, there' s an existing door,
three existing windows, we' re going to replace the
8 three existing windows in-kind and a door in-kind.
On the northwest elevation, there' s three existing
9 windows, we would like to remove, patch and
install one window as drawn. And on the southwest
10 elevation, there are three, actually four windows,
we would like to remove three, remove and replace
11 in-kind one and install a new window. And on the
interior, the enlarged bathroom and make the
12 bedroom smaller without increasing the footprint.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And the stairs, are
13 the stairs going down? It' s very awkward when you
come to the last step on those stairs, you kind of
14 have to turn your whole body around to get to the
first floor.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, there was no
mention in the Building Department.
16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, you' ll have to
work that building, but both Leslie and I noticed
17 that it' s- very difficult.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER; ' I have a
18 suggestion on that when you get to me, I'm not
jumping the gun, I just want to tell you.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all set?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. I'm going to
20 keep going, Jerry, hold your thought. Okay, then,
on what' s this, B2, where is the master bedroom?
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: The master bedroom is the
existing one-story structure. The higher level
22 one.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then what is A3 ; is
23 that not the higher structure too, the one story?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The elevations we just
24 looked at?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct, that' s the
existing one-story structure.
February 22 , 2007
37
1
2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. All right,
that makes it a little .clearer. Then the first
3 one then is the living room Bl?
MR. WILLIAMSON: B1 is the existing
4 two-story structure; which is the first one you
come to when you drive in.
5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So then the living
room is' going to be on the upper level or the
6 lower level?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The upper level .
7 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then the lower level
will be the new deck and then right off that there
8 will be the kitchen that will no longer be a
bedroom there?
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Am I correct? The
10 kitchen and the dining room will be on the lower
level of the two-story structure?
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: No, no, no, ma' am, the B1
plan that you' re looking at. is all the same floor
12 level .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Then you have no
13 plans for the first level?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The lower level of this
14 two story?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, we do. If you go
back to B2 again on the top of the sheet.
16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It' s crossed out.
BOARD-SECY. KOWALSKI: You have "n/a" not
17 applicable.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, it is applicable.
18 BOARD MEMBER. OLIVA: You have me confused.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Then I apologize, ma' am.
19 Originally when I submitted them I crossed them
out because I was dealing with the existing
20 one-story structure that we were altering and Mrs .
Kowalski said leave it in so there' s no confusion
21 and so that I can explain everything.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, that makes it a
22 little more understandable.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me,
23 again, Ruth. So the top of B2 is the lower end of
the main structure, which is the most easterly
24 structure and the one you see when you come in?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s not my
question.
February 22 , 2007
38
1
2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: This is different
than anything we've ever had.
3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s why I
think I'm going to clear it up, Ruth..
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Go, go ahead, Jerry.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I take it that
5 one of the situations that exists here is that
there was never a CO granted on the buildings?
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: There' s a CO on the
buildings from 1960 .
7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What does the CO
read?
8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right there, Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER:. I may have seen
9 it.
MR. WILLIAMSON: It says to Eugene Horton
10 AC Tom Levin, New Suffolk, to build new -- Oh,
this is the building permit. Sorry.
11 Okay, certificate of occupancy, July 22,
1960, Number 0792, private one-family dwelling.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Private
one-family dwelling?
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And the
building. permit for this certificate of occupancy
14 dated May 3, 1960 is to build new one-family
dwelling -- in parens -- built in two sections .
15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Built in two
sections"?
16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn' t say
17 the two sections are separated, though.
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, it does not. But if
18 you look at the actual application for building
permit, on the second page that I have submitted,
19 which is I guess it' s a plot diagram, you can
actually see that there are two separate
20 structures on that application.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am
21 leading to, Mr. Williamson, is that this is going
to be a really kind of total renovation of both of
22 these structures, and I don' t have any problems
with pursuing what you' re looking for if you were
23 to permanently link these two structures together
as one structure. We are looking at a substandard
24 stairway, which Mrs . Oliva has mentioned to
you. In the past we have had people that have
25 requested new structures and we have required them
to have heated hallways between the two and so on
February 22 , 2007
39
1
2 and so forth. It is my understanding that at this
time and after your construction that you' re
3 officiating at will be unheated, but that has no
bearing on it; these structures need to be
4 interconnected. Arid they need to be
interconnected with some sort of permanent
5 interconnection. I don' t care if it' s glass . I
don' t care if it' s walls . I don' t care if it' s a
6 combination of glass and walls . But my opinion is
that they need to be interconnected, and that' s my
7 opinion in general. And I'm saying that for the
sole purpose. .that we have one single unit that
8 we' re dealing with now, not two separate units,
one of which everything has been taken out of .
9 It' s gutted, and in the future for any future use
of this property, you will have much less trouble
10' in dealing with this when these structures are
interconnected. I concur with what Mrs . Oliva is
11 saying in reference to the access, and I' ll refer
to the westerly structure or the lofted structure.
12 I don' t care if you do it with a series of ramps
that meet the present code and stairways going up
13 to landings and stairways, whatever the case may
be. It has to be a permanent structure. I don' t
14 care if you use pilings, which we know that the
loft structure is done with pilings . It has . to be
15 wide enough, and code enough ,for access and so on
and so forth and that' s just my opinion. That' s
16 what I'm offering as a suggestion to you. If you
were not totally renovating everything, I could
17 see the possibility of doing something else. „
There is no doubt that during the renovation
18 you' re going to run into not only substandard
construction, but deterioration. I can tell you
19 the deck is not so hot now. I'm not going to tell
you on the record how much I weigh, but I'm going
20 to tell you I was on the deck, and it' s not so hot
now, and I'm probably a good test for that deck.
21 Nor am I a builder.- That' s my suggestion and- it
could be done quite easily. As I , said, I don' t
22 care if you elevate it, what you suggest to the
Building Department, but they should be
23 interconnected.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Aside from the
24 various practical advantages, legal and otherwise
down the road, what have I missed, what the
25 reasons are for not going ahead with it as it is
now?
February 22 , 2007
40
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The stairwell is
totally substandard; it' s dangerous. It does not
3 provide adequate ingress and egress to this
structure. And this is a bedroom structure, if it
4 were a structure for the purposes of a library
that you were only going to habitate on
5 conceivably if you fell asleep in a recliner
reading a book, that' s not an issue, this is going
6 to be a permanent master bedroom, so to speak, one
that you' re going to be using for at least eight
7 hours a day or six hours a day or seven hours a
day in a sleep mode. It is not something that we
8 are used to seeing that doesn' t violate health,
safety and welfare.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Is there actually a
code that requires those points?
10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: So what you' re saying
11 to bring it up to code for reasons of safety would
be more elaborate and more complicated than
12 following your suggestion.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, you could
13 build this, thing outside, but again, we now have
two disenfranchised structures that it appears
14 that the CO may or may not have covered it. I'm
just saying that if you' re going to do the
15 renovation, and this is not a reflection on you,
sir, you' re taking the direction, they have got to
16 be connected.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s also some
17 other issues structurally and architecturally.
I'm an architect. In examining it. I'd like you
18 to address before I ask some questions, the extent
to which you or a .P. E. , a professional engineer,
19 has really examined the underlying structure aside
from the piers . I understand that you' re
20 replacing and. removing windows and doors and so
on. To what extent have you really examined the
21 studs; have you any idea of what is really
involved in the building envelope itself and its
22 restoration as well as the roof, which it is not
only substandard in cases it' s extraordinarily
23 deteriorated.
MR. WILLIAMSON: You mean the roof
24 covering?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the
25 structure, the joists and so on and the rafters of
the floor and the roof. I want you to address the
February 22 , 2007
41
1
2 structural conditions as you understand them of
the actual floor, the joist, the rafters and the
3 stud walls.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay, I can only address
4 what I have seen, and I' ll start with the upper
structure, other than the 2 X 6s that are exposed
5 on the roof, right now they' re preexisting and
there' s no visible deflection of them. The
6 underside of that structure, the floor joists are
in I will say good shape. There' s no signs of
7 subsidence other than the pier on the northeast
corner, and other than the hold down straps to the
8 garters, which have some rust exposure from the
salt air, the present condition of it as it stands
9 now would not cause me great concern.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: What about the
10 lower structure?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The lower structure, the
11 deck I guess is questionable, I haven' t taken --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And stairs leading to
12 the deck?
MR. WILLIAMSON: I mean, the stair as it
13 exists now, I mean, I_ can' t say that it' s not up
to code.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It' s not code. You
need a couple of winders in there to have an
15 appropriate landing in the bottom.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Without a doubt it
16 doesn' t comply to those; I was dealing with that
as preexisting. The upper part of the lower
17 structure again from what I've seen, the walls are
in reasonably good condition. The lower footings
18 and basement walls to the lower two-story
structure, no visible signs of cracking on the
19 exterior other than degradation of the bituminous
coating and that was done. in the report that I had
20 done because there was an issue of what appeared
to be water marks on the lower level because there
21 are cobblestones set in there, and I could find no
new visible signs of water damage other than the
22 south connection to that. where I could actually
see a drip of water coming in where the steps, not
23 to the main front door but to that side door, go
off . You can see that the detailing of there has
24 a dove cove molding on that, there' s water
infiltration, and that is done on a report that I
25 did on specifically addressing the water or the
viewing of the water marks on the interior floor
February 22 , 2007
42
1
2 there. I would say the building is in reasonable
shape.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Not great.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Not great, I'm not going
4 to say it' s great and I'm not going to nail myself
to a cross here. It' s in reasonable shape.
5 Again, I can only address that their preexisting
roof structure doesn' t have any noticeable signs
6 of excessive deflection. And we are replacing the
part with the kitchen dining room with new roof
7 rafters and roof covering, correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The reason that I
8 asked for this for the record is because there
have been many circumstances under which we have
9 listened to applications that we have approved
that would be working with a nonconforming
10 structure and making alterations and in many
cases, the applicant or their architect or
11 builder, has discovered that once they tore into
the wall that the deterioration was far more
12 substantial, and they were not able to reasonably
sister up and so on and so on and the next thing
13 we know they' re gone, and they' re back before us .
So I want to make sure that the record
14 incorporates your expert testimony about the
structural soundness of the general thing.
15 I would also like to suggest as some of my
colleagues have, that it would be extremely unwise
16 to proceed with renovations without making
everything code compliant, including that
17 connecting piece. And certainly to resolve once
and for all the contemporary interpretation of
18 single-family dwelling. I agree completely that
seasonal use or not, unheated or not, that not
19 only making them compliant but making them
enclosed in such a way that it is very clear that
20 there is two modules and a connecting piece that
creates an internal corridor that links them so
21 that it' s very clearly one structure as opposed to
two structures with a very flimsy kind of
22 exterior.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask one
23 more question?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Yes.
24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You honestly
believe -- and this is not a sarcastic statement
25 it is only truly pragmatic --
MR. WILLIAMSON: Okay.
February 22 , 2007
43
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That upper loft
will be able to support the new windows that are
3 required for not only energy but for hurricane
proofing, which are at least twice the weight of
4 the older new windows, which let' s just take
straight line Anderson windows, but the new ones
5 are as you know, double the weight. It will be
able to support that?
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm not going to commit
myself to whether it' s going to support that or
7 not because we' re not using hurricane windows .
It' s going to be I'm sure shutters, plywood
8 shutters . .
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You' re going to
9 use regular windows, shutters over the window?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. I mean there's
10 three items in the code that allow for this . You
either use plywood shutters or I mean, you can
11 expose the whole building and let the window and
doors blow out.
12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But even with
the weight of double insulated windows today, you
13 feel that that upper structure will be able to
support that?
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, I do, sir. Again on
the northeast elevation where there are three
15 large windows, they' re I'm guessing five feet wide
by six feet high, they' re insulated right now and
16 we' re just replacing those. Again, I can only go
from what I've seen right now. There are no
17 visible signs of subsidence other than that
corner, which appears to have been undermined at
18 some stage along the way and that seems to have
been for quite a while, and it hasn' t been a
19 continuous thing. It' s obviously settled at some
point.
20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I have one other
21 question. Your application as proposed will not
increase the footprint of the existing structure
22 with the exception of the small additional deck.
There' s a new deck proposed that is not there now?
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: Oh, correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So there is a small
24 new deck on that lower structure.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And of course
there' s the stairs that go along with that.
February 22 , 2007
44
1
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Other than that
3 you' re not increasing the building envelope --
other than that you're not increasing the building
4 envelope other than what you might end up having
to do in relationship to the connecting stairs,
5 which you had not planned on.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I just wanted to
make sure I understood for the record that because
7 we are concerned with the increased degree of
nonconformity. The only additional piece here is
8 the rather small deck and stair.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. And with
9 nonconformance, I don' t believe it comes close to
the lot coverage.
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No. The lot
coverage is not an issue.
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: Right.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Okay, I just wanted
12 to mention that.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody on the
13 Board? Okay, I have some questions, quite
honestly. I looked over the notice of disapproval
14 and I can' t quite understand why you' re here, sir.
Let me ask you a few questions . It doesn' t say
15 anything in here that you need a side yard
variance.
16 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.,
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Doesn' t say anything in
17 here that you need a front yard variance.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn' t say anything
in here that you need a rear yard variance.
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you' re not going
20 over 35 feet, so you don' t need a height
variance.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And you' re not going
22 filling up more than 20 percent of the lot?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That' s the criteria for
a variance, so why are you here?
24 MR. WILLIAMSON: Because in the notice of
disapproval it mentioned the alterations .
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It doesn' t mention
Walz .
February 22 , 2007
45
1
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But it describes
it.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No. This has stated a
part of the code that quite honestly, my 20 years
4 on this Board, 'I have never had to deal with. So
I'm not quite sure. I have a feeling that there' s
5 some confusion between a nonconforming building,
which yours obviously is and nonconforming
6 setback, which is what we deal with. We don' t
necessarily deal with nonconforming buildings . We
7 don' t really care much about what kind of windows
you put in there. We care more about whether
8 you' re going closer to someone else' s property
line. And I would like to suggest -- and I have
9 already spoken to the person who wrote this notice
of disapproval -- that we ask that person, Pat
10 Conklin, to come in at the next meeting, I' ll give
her enough advance warning. She seemed like she
11 would come in and explain to us, unless there is
somebody on this Board that can explain exactly
12 just what we' re going to grant, because if we deny
it, that' s fine. This gentleman can go on his
13 merry way, but I don' t see where we can pick
anything out. That' s only me and certainly I
14 didn' t hear anybody on this Board say anything
about the side yards or anything about the rear
15 yards that can pertain to anything that this Board
can make a decision on.
16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I spoke to Miss
Conklin, and she felt that the permit in 1960 was
17 issued not in compliance with today' s code as far
as the whole building was concerned and the
18 building was going to be somewhat constructed,
somehow part restored that that constituted a
19 notice of disapproval for the house.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Under Walz, right?
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Go ahead, Mike.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Specifically it says
21 nonconforming use of the buildings; what is the
nonconforming use, is that what was rendered under
22 Walz; what is a nonconforming use?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, under Walz it was a
23 nonconforming setback, and this has a conforming
use. It' s residential.
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Right. What I'm
saying is that that sentence doesn' t help us then.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we need to
explore this more before we can come to that
February 22 , 2007
46
1
2 because I have no idea what our decision would
look like.
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I would need to know
this further because what you' re saying besides
4 Walz considerations.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which they weren' t
5 denied for.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But it appears,
6 Leslie seems to think, it could only be for Walz
considerations and we need clarification.
7 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : They were in part
denied for Walz .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But there' s nothing
that really pertains to Walz .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the part we
need to have explained.
10 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : That' s the part
that' s unclear.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: There' s no language
in there to that effect in the notice of
12 disapproval .
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It was explained to
13 me by the applicant and the Building Department.
I was told that the use of it was also
14 nonconforming, but they didn' t have a name for it
so they called it a seasonal structure because it
15 wasn' t a dwelling, it wasn' t heated, it was a
nonconforming structure but no name for it in our
16 code.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We need more
17 specification.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Just let me say one
18 thing. A building permit issued in 1960 could not
possibly be issued in 2007 .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No way.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: There' s no way. So
20 that excuse was that was then and now is now, it
applies to every building that has gone past the
21 bench marks, 1986, you know all the things that
have changed. Quite honestly, when I spoke to
22 Pat, I understand what she was trying . to say, but
it seemed to me like they were groping in some way
23 to deny to get it to us . So we just need to
clarify it. Maybe we can have our lawyer present.
24 He can explain to us what we would grant if we
were to grant. Because quite honestly, what Jerry
25 said, you can just demolish a house and build
another one if that' s the case if you don' t go
February 22 , 2007
47
1
2 outside the footprint.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
3 that, but I'm just telling you that one of the
glaring aspects of this application that this
4 quote/unquote accessory structure, which is not
necessarily an accessory structure based upon the
5 original building permit is being used for total
habitable purposes and you can' t get more
6 habitable than sleeping purposes .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: My understanding from
7 speaking to Miss Conklin, and Kieran has said this
also, because it was the law years ago and laws
8 have changed today that therefore you have to
apply the new law, not the old law. The old law
9 is extinct, we have to conform to what the law is
now.
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Unless it' s
preexisting.
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: That' s the question
12 here.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Then honestly, and I
13 agree with you, we have never done this before,
but then it would be that they would be tearing
14 this house down or doing extreme amount of
renovation to the point where it would just be
15 built new because, number one, you can' t have two
separate houses or structures that are bedrooms,
16 that just doesn' t happen any more. So if we' re
asking them to now join them together, then
17 they' re increasing the degree of nonconformity.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: They are being
18 joined.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But then they' re back
19 here now for Walz . They should be and we can' t
grant the variance if they haven' t been denied for
20 it . I'm just saying, let' s build the record so we
know exactly what Pat was thinking, and let her
21 testify and let' s bring Kieran in on this thing,
and I have a feeling this is going to be quite a
22 journey. Quite honestly, I don' t think you' re
going to be done today, I can tell you that. Does
23 anyone have anything else they would like to add?
I suggest we leave the hearing open. Did you have
24 anything else you would like to add, sir?
MR. WILLIAMSON: No, my understanding was
25 the reason we are here is because we were altering
the windows, and that gave the Building
February 22 , 2007
48
1
2 Department --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not really.
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We just don' t grant
that kind of thing. It would .seem to me like you
4 need to go to the state and get some kind of
variance.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Unless it' s an
exceptionally unusual case, we don' t usually deal
6 with seasonal dwellings .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, we don' t.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And the fact that
you are going to continue it as a seasonal use
8 unheated, complicates the notice of disapproval
for us because we need to have specific legal
9 grounds upon which to grant variances and that' s
what Jim is talking about getting clarification on.
10 which I think is a really prudent thing to do
because the last thing we want to do is perpetuate
11 more unclear certificates of occupancy. You and
your clients really want to have this straightened
12 out once and for all .
MR. WILLIAMSON: Without a doubt.
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So it' s legal and
it' s appropriate. So I think that' s a very
14 prudent way to proceed to get additional
testimony.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We' ll just ask Pat to
come in.
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm saying now we
need more than that because I think the issue is
17 we haven' t got a clear notice of disapproval, a
complete notice of disapproval from the Building
18 Department, and I don' t think it will necessarily
be to have testimony from the Building Department.
19 I think .we need to essentially send it back to
them for a revised notice of disapproval where we
20 have something we can look at closer within our
jurisdiction, and then have the testimony in
21 addition.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: That' s not always
2.2 easy to get.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I slept on this and
23 quite honestly, what I envision happening is us
turning this down and then, if they want to come
24 back with something that is an up-to-date, 2007
building, then that' s probably what' s going to end
25 up happening. It might be. I don' t know but I
think we need to have the explanation because like
February 22 , 2007
49
1
2 I said, I don' t think we've ever seen this .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think we agree that
3 we cannot base a decision on what someone in the
Building Department said in conversation to
4 members of this Board, that has to be at best in
writing on this at least with testimony before the
5 entire Board at an open meeting.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: While the notice of
6 disapproval is in there in writing to answer to
us, I am still unclear on the notice of
7 disapproval . That' s why I'd like to have her
here.
8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We need a Town
attorney here with Pat.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm thinking that
Michael will probably want her to have the Town
10 attorney here too. He may represent her instead
of us at the time. But any way, we' re going to
11 contact the Building Department, write them a
letter asking them to be here for our next
12 meeting.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: We can try for 1 : 00
13 on March 29th. The only thing is if we put it on
for March 29th and there is a new disapproval, we
14 would have to advertise it, renotice it, if it' s
too late in the time span, we might have to put it
15 over to April .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I'm not interested in
16 us asking for a new notice of disapproval . I
think we ought to pursue this now and after she
17 comes and does her testifying, then if they
decide, let' s just do that.
18 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : Okay, let' s adjourn
to March 29th based on everything the way it' s
19 written.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Would you just give
20 me the square footprint of each of the rooms, not
the rooms, the total, the upper one and the first
21 and second story lower level?
MR. WILLIAMSON: The existing two-story
22 structure, it' s a 622 square foot footprint.
That' s not the total., the surveyor has done lot
23 coverage, the existing upper structure is 347
square feet.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So could you have that
for us, broken down for us at the next meeting
25 because I know Ruth will need that in any case.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Right. And we' ll
February 22 , 2007
50
1
2 confer with the Town attorney too.
MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm going to hear back
3 from the Zoning Board or the Building Department?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You' re going to be here
4 for the next hearing.
MR. WILLIAMSON: So I'm just going to show
5 up?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right. And we' re going
6 to ask them to come and testify, put something on
the record as to what our involvement in this
7 should be, and we go from there.
MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, anybody else wish
to speak on this application for or against?
9 Hearing none, I' ll entertain a motion to adjourn
this to March 29th at 1 : 00 p.m.
10 (See minutes for resolution. )
- - -- - -------------------------- ------------- --- --
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZI0: Next hearing is for
Claire Jannuzzi Copersino, it' s Application 6002 .
12 It' s a request for a variance under section
280-122 and 280-124 based on the Building
13 Inspector' s November 15, 2006 Amended Notice of
Disapproval concerning proposed additions and
14 alterations to the existing dwelling, which will
increase the degree of nonconformance when located
15 less than 10 feet on a single side yard, and less
than 3)5 feet on combined side yards. Also
16 requested is a lot coverage variance in excess of
the code limitation of 20 percent. Location of
17 the property is 580 L'Hommedieu Lane and Old
Shipyard Road in Southold.
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the existing setback
is 1. 5 feet, correct, sir, and your name is?
19 MR. JANNUZZI : My name is David Jannuzzi.
I'm acting as both attorney and husband of the
20 applicant, a nonpaying client I might add.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So we' re looking at a
21 side yard setback that exists there already,
right?
22 MR. JANNUZZI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: 1 .5 feet and you want
23 to add an addition onto the rear of this home;
that addition will be two feet away from the
24 property line?
MR. JANNUZZI: That' s correct.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And the front yard
setback is 14 .1 feet, you' re required to have 35 .
February 22 , 2007
51
1
2 I don' t know if that was the subject of this
application.
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The lot coverage is
4 certainly 21 percent; is that correct, that' s what
you' re asking us for?
5 MR. JANNUZZI : I think the end result is
23 percent. I thought we were over at 20 but
6 according to the surveyor, he thought we were at
20 percent when we began, they thought we were
7 above the lot coverage. The end result is 23
percent, whereas the code calls for 20 percent.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I noticed that in your
paperwork that all the numbers added up to 23 , so
9 the notice of disapproval said 21.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Right and 22 on the
10 application and then 23 on the 'survey
MR. JANNUZZI: Depends on who you ask, the
11 survey, we' ll take the worst-case scenario, at 23
percent.
12 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: Then on the front
yard setback it' s 30 feet instead of 35 .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, I had that in
here. So, sir, do you have anything to add to
14 that?
MR. JANNUZZI : Yes, just that it was
15 really just connecting the garage to the main
house. There was extensive construction done on
16 this house, it started out as a bungalow before my
time as. it were. And at the same time connecting
17 the garage, we would hope to finish one half of
the garage and to use that as living space, and I
18 believe to do that they have to raise it up a
little bit to match the •foundation of the house
19 itself.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You' re just going to
20 have a one-car garage then?
MR. JANNUZZI : That' s correct.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It' s a larger garage
now, right?
22 MR. JANNUZZI: It' s a• two-car garage now
detached from the house. So a walkway connecting
23 the two, this enables us to increase the size of
the kitchen. If you would like me to address the
24 individual points that you would have to cover in
an area variance, I would be happy to.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, please do.
MR. JANNUZZI : With respect to the change
February 22 , 2007
52
1
2 in character of the neighborhood, our architect
went in and did it in such an historical style
3 that we think compliments some of the older houses
in the neighborhood. It' s definitely a mixed
4 neighborhood. There are houses built in the ' 50s
and 160s, but there are a few that were done in
5 this style, and that' s what our architect had
picked up on. I don' t see how we could achieve
6 what we are seeking to do here by any other
method. It' s a strange lot. It' s long and
7 shallow. The kitchen on the original house was
always in the back right corner. So apart from
8 restructuring the entire downstairs, there' s
really no place for us to blow out the kitchen
9 into a larger area for us. The code calls for 20
percent, we' re going to end up I imagine with 23
10 percent, and I would respectfully argue that that
would not be a substantial deviation from what the
11 Town code has for us . I don' t see an adverse
impact on the physical or environmental . The
12 footprint change is very little, it amounts to
about 10 feet visually from the road that you
13 would see of additional living space, and then
again it' s going to be done in a style which we
14 think is in conformity with some of the historical
structures in the neighborhood. And to the extent
15 that we decided to procreate, I guess the problem
is self-created in that we needed to, the house
16 suddenly became a lot smaller with the birth of my
son, but to the extent that this house -- as I
17 said, it' s a strange lot, anything that we are
going to do to the house would require a trip to
18 the ZBA. But as I said, the kitchen was in that
back corner; that' s the only place where we would
19 be able to sort of blow it out.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So the lot coverage is
20 basically going to be taken up with the addition
between the garage and the house?
21 MR. JANNUZZI : That' s correct. I guess
basically a walkway between the garage.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It will be part of the
house, it' s not just a walkway.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: It will make an
attached garage and convert some of the area into
24 another interior room and reduce the size of the
garage, and it' s all one story. Have you spoken
25 to your neighbor to the rear? That' s the only
impact I could see is on that property line.
February 22 , 2007
53
1
2 MR. JANNUZZI : When they did the second
story, that too was sort of intrusive for our
3 neighbor, and we had long discussions about that.
They' re down in Florida now, but he did send back
4 his card before he went, I walked through it and I
said, I have a standing offer for him that any
5 sort of landscaping that he would like done, I
would be happy to make him happy on the southern
6 side. Right now . there is a privet that' s there
that sort of blocks us visually, although the
.7 second story certainly looks down onto their yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, could you just
8 state the neighbor' s name, please?
MR. JANNUZZI : That would be Louis
9 Dinizio.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That Louis Dinizio is
10 my uncle . And I just found out that he actually
lives next to this person when he came up to tell
11 me that.
MR. JANNUZZI: I would only ask you to
12 recuse yourself if you don' t agree with my
application.
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I don' t intend to
recuse myself. I would like to have five minutes
14 to call my uncle to see how he feels . No. I just
wanted to get that on the record, that he is my
15 uncle.
Go ahead, Jerry?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'm always
concerned about these very, very shallow, we' ll
17 refer to it as a rear yard.
MR. JANNUZZI : Yes .
18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What have you
done to mitigate the water runoff off the garage,
19 which is now going to be further exacerbated by
the addition of connecting the two?
20 MR. JANNUZZI : On the garage, I don' t
believe there' s a gutter system on the garage
21 currently.
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my
22 suggestion to this Board that you put gutters on
the new addition and on the garage, and that those
23 gutters go into a dry well and that it' s going to
be big enough to accommodate that.
24 MR. JANNUZZI : I don' t think it' s allowed
to go into the cesspool .
25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, put a dry
well in.
February 22 , 2007
54
1
2 MR. JANNUZZI : There' s plenty of yard on
that side if perhaps not a Yankee drain system but
3 if the drainage went to that side.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The building inspector
4 will probably tell you what choices you have. It
necessarily doesn' t have to be a dry well either.
5 I've been looking at that code but it does have to
be contained to your property. We' re going to say
6 there' s going to be gutters and leaders; it' s
going to be a standard condition what we do.
7 Michael, do you have a comment?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I have a question and
8 a comment. The question. is, I think in this
enclosed area will the new construction at any
9 point reduce the setback in any place? Will it
extend beyond the already nonconforming setback in
10 any place?
MR. JANNUZZI : My understanding it' s a
11 straight line so it wouldn' t.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Okay. The comment is
12 this is relatively unusual based upon my
experience on this Board with regard to lot
13 coverage. In many cases people are building an
addition which then extends the perimeter of the
14 house and therefore forces an increase in lot
coverage. In this case, it' s an interior increase
15 in lot coverage and that would seem to me might
make a difference with regard to the acceptability
16 of giving the variance for lot coverage because
you' re not expanding the perimeter of the house
17 but only filling in. The analogy on that would be
as though you had an attached garage and decided
18 to join it to the house by a matter of a few feet
that would increase lot coverage without
19 increasing perimeter; would you say that that' s
the sort of situation you' re envisioning?
20 MR. JANNUZZI : I guess I'm having. a
problem to the extent the perimeter of the house.
21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Meaning the outside
barrier surrounding the two buildings that now
22 exists, that' s not going to be increased:
MR. JANNUZZI : No. But certainly lot
23 coverage is going to be increased.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: But only in the part
24 interior to the outside perimeter.
MR. JANNUZZI: That' s correct.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Which is the point of
my question before. You' re right. I think
February 22 , 2007
55
1
2 Michael' s point is that that stands to your
benefit. That it' s happening in that way and not
3 some other way.
Leslie, would you like to add anything to
4 this?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, it looks very
6 nice, you did a good job.
MR. JANNUZZI : Thank. you. I have to add,
7 we don' t have one of the signature cards to our
neighbor to the southwest and that' s Mr. James
8 Kelly who' s located at Lot 35 . 1 . He' s a weekender
and I caught him over the weekend and gave him a
9 copy of the notice that I had given to the other
neighbors . I explained our project. I told him
10 about this hearing and the notice obviously was up
as well . And he did express support for that
11 application. I do not know if we' re going to see
a green card from Mr. Kelly.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right. So that' s
all you have, right?
13 MR. JANNUZZI: That' s all I have.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience
14 like to speak for or against this application?
Hearing none I'd like to make a motion to close
15 this hearing and reserve decision until later.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16 - - ---------------------------------- --- - ------ ---
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
17 Ernesto Adriano, Number 6006, a request for a
variance under Section 280-124, based on the
18 January 22, 2007 Building Inspector' s Notice of
Disapproval, ' and the applicant' s request to amend
19 Building Permit Number 32026-z issued on
5/23/2006, concerning the as-built location of a
20 proposed dwelling at less than 75 feet from the
rear yard lot line, at 2195 East Side Lane,
21 Orient. Sir, you are?
MR. PEARSON: I'm Eric Pearson, I'm here
22 for Ernie. When we were laying out for the
foundation there was some ambiguity with the hard
23 corner from the survey company and the mason,
which has brought us to why we' re here today. We
24 are now left with after resurveying the property,
less than 75 rear yard to the southwest side of
25 the property. The topography hides most of this
area. We don' t feel that it' s going to be of any
February 22 , 2007
56
1
2 consequence to adjoining properties as far as
respect to neighborhood or character, and from the
3 street this actually brings us further away from
the wetlands . So there' s no .safety or detriment
4 to the wetlands area and safety of the
neighborhood and so forth. We feel that the
5 corner that' s left there over the 75 foot is
relatively small . The exorbitant cost of altering
6 the structure to allow for that 75 we feel
would -- it' s just not feasible.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you just state what
the actual distance is?
8 MR. PEARSON: I think we' re 73 . 8, it' s one
foot eight is what it comes out to.
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I'm going to be
writing this . The application says -- and you
10 argue fairly plausibly about the honest mistake.
This is not the first case that' s come before us
11 which has apparently turned on an alleged honest
mistake, so we have a problem of the proliferation
12 of honest mistakes that are made. So I guess I
would like to have more information as to what the
13 sequence of events was that led to this mistake.
MR. PEARSON: May I approach?
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Sure.
MR. PEARSON: I don' t have the current
15 survey that shows the existing foundation. This
was the proposed. Here we have -- we' re one foot
16 eight, that' s the hard corner that they gave us .
He was working with the faxed copy in the field, I
17 grabbed this as the hard corner so that' s the
difference. The only encroachment is that piece
18 right there (indicating) .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: So you
19 misinterpreted the survey and you did the
excavation. J
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, could you go back
to the microphone? We have to get this for a
21 recording. For the record, you have a survey of
the old and your mistake was made basically from
22 using a photocopy of that survey, right?
MR. PEARSON: Right.
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess, I could say, is
there any advantage that you would gain from this
24 1 . 8?
MR. PEARSON: No, it even moves the poor
25 guy further away from his view of the ocean, so
there' s no gain there.
February 22 , 2007
57
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It was basically an
honest mistake.
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Diminimus .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: In paperwork.
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON: I think that' s
important because honest mistakes turn out to
5 benefit the applicant.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There' s no gain.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have the person here
who actually made the mistake testifying. Okay,
7 Leslie, do you have any questions?
.BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: No.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry?
BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No. Just that you
10 better start improving that road.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you have anything
11 that you would like to say, sir?
MR. ADRIANO: No, just that the mistake
12 was - -
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: Was the mistake
13 discovered by the building inspector after the
foundation was poured?
14 MR. ADRIANO: No. We resurveyed the area
and we found it.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Why was it
resurveyed?
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They do a foundation
inspection. Okay. So is there anyone in the
17 audience that would like to speak for or against
this application? Sir, do you have anything you
18 would like to add?
MR. PEARSON: No, I'm just anxious to get
19 building.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, we' ll probably be
20 making the decision on March 8th, that' s when we
do our decision. So we' re going to close this
21 hearing until that date.
(See minutes for resolution. )
22 ------ -- - - ------------------------------------ ---
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
23 Kathleen Bower, Number 5981 . There' s a note here
that we' re supposed to wait for the staking, but I
24 was by there last night and it has been staked
out. It' s a request for a variance under Section
25 280-15 based on the Building Inspector' s September
19, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an
February 22 , 2007
58
1
2 as-built accessory shed located in a yard other
than the code required rear yard, at 12710
3 Soundview Avenue and the corner of Horton' s Lane
in Southold. I understand you are the applicants;
4 could you state your names, please?
MS . BOWER: Kathleen Bower.
5 MR. BOWER: John Bower.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You were here before,
6 we considered your application. We asked you to
go back and see if you could make it a little less
7 nonconforming and apparently you have moved the
stakes in a little bit. So do you have any other
8 things you would like to discuss with us; do you
actually have the measurements that it' s right
9 now, the setback?
MS . BOWER: No, I figured you know, I' d
10 wait to hear, get feedback from you guys to see if
it was okay. And I'm also waiting to hear back
11 from the company that we purchased- the shed
from. My husband contacted them to see if they
12 could move it because there' s really no way that
the two of us and our two sons could move it. I
13 don' t know what we were thinking, but they' re
closed right now. They have only short hours for
14 the winter. When they open up in the spring and
when they get busy again bringing sheds out to our
15 area, they may be able to move the shed for us for
a nominal, couple hundred dollar fee. So, I was
16 really waiting to hear back from you guys as far
as is that area acceptable or do you want it
17 somewhere else. I mean, you know how limited this
lot is as far as we have wetlands restrictions, we
18 have to stay -- originally we had to stay 75 feet
away from wetlands, now we have to stay 100 feet
19 away from the wetlands . I thought we had been
grandfathered in but apparently not. I mean, the
20 lot is very restrictive.
I know we received a letter today from our
21 neighbor, to me it' s very insulting because it
kind of says that we didn' t bother to get a permit
22 and I would like them to know that ordinarily for
an 8 by 10 shed a permit is not required. But we
23 did go to the Building Department and ask what was
required for a shed of this size, and they told us
24 that no permit was required. We only found out by
chance when a building inspector came to the door
25 and told us that it was not situated according to
code, because we are a corner piece of property
February 22 , 2007
59
1
2 there are more restrictions on our land. So you
know, I just wanted to clarify that. We' re not
3 people that go around and just plunk buildings
down without getting the proper permits . I just
4 wanted to clarify that with our neighbor, and we
are working to remedy this situation as best we
5 can. But we can' t pick the building up with our
own two hands, we know that. And the other thing
6 is we' re very restricted of where we can put it
because of the Trustee restrictions on our lot.
7 We only have 10 feet to the front of our home to
the north towards Soundview Avenue that we' re
8 technically allowed to disturb. You know, our
side yards, the topography is very, I don' t know
9 if we' re calling side or what, but what we
consider to be the back yard, back of our house,
10 the topography does not allow us to put our shed
anywhere back there.
11 MR. BOWER: And the cesspools .
MS . BOWER: I was going to say that we
12 have an extensive cesspool system there.
MR. BOWER: Also in the front it can' t be
13 moved because of the extreme slope in the front.
So it couldn' t be placed anywhere in the back.
14 MS . BOWER: We had originally planned to
put this shed in the back lining it up with our
15 neighbor' s shed to the rear, but the truck that
brought this, he wouldn' t bring it there because
16 there' s the chance that it would fall off the
truck. He' s not inclined to bring this trailer up
17 an incline. So we' re really stuck. between a rock
and a hard place. It was never our intention to
18 just go put this anywhere we wanted to. That' s
not our MO, if anyone knows us . The original
19 building envelope that was handed down to us by
the Trustees, we followed it to a T, even though
20 that building envelope did not conform to the very
simple setbacks that are required by the Building
21 Department. Instead of taking the time and coming
here and getting a variance, we just said, you
22 know what, we' ll just chop off a few feet of the
garage and that' s when we did. We have not asked
23 for any variances before. We have a very.
restricted lot. We' re only using less than four
24 percent of our land for our structures . And I
hear these other people in what went on today
25 using 20 percent of their lot, I mean, my God,
four percent of an acre of land that we' re paying
February 22 , 2007
60
1
2 taxes on, more taxes than other people in the
neighborhood because we have this wonderful corner
3 property which for some reason by the assessors
determination is more valuable, and then assessed
4 at a higher rate. So I'm very upset today. . I'm
upset by the letter; it implies that we did
5 something wrong and we didn' t. We went to the
Building Department. We asked what to do. And
6 now we' re stuck with this situation. So really,
we came today really trying to get guidance from
7 your Board because I don' t know what to do.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can I just state one
8 thing, as a Board, we' re not really qualified to
judge the distance in which those stakes are now
9 from your front yard. There' s no way we can take
a tape measure and measure it. We' re going to
10 need those numbers before we can even consider
deliberating on it quite honestly. So you' re
11 going to have to somehow get it to us in some
reliable form. Then we can start considering, I
12 mean everybody' s going to have a chance to ask you
questions or not. I looked at it last night and I
13 read the letter. The letter' s a typical letter
from a neighbor. They weren' t involved in your
14 process so they had no idea. I'm not making
excuses for it. We get these kinds of letters all
15 the time. So I'd like to ask, I guess Jerry, you
want to start?
16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
hearing' s when we first met you nice people,
17 Mr. Dinizio asked you if you could move it back
and turn it, and meaning that the largest or area
18 of the building is facing the road.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: The 12 foot.
19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 12 foot
line. So we really don' t know how that' s going to
20 look -- I don' t know how that' s going to look I
should say. Also one of the other major problems
21 is the elevation aspects that you were referring
to. I just need to ask you where exactly are your
22 cesspools; . are they in back of the garage or are
they in back of the house?
23 MR. BOWER: Back of the house.
MS . BOWER: They' re in the back of the
24 house and extend in front of the -- there' s seven,
they' re in back of the garage, they' re in back of
25 the house, they' re all the way back to the
driveway.
February 22 , 2007
61
1
2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask
you, and I think that was a very good question,
3 one of the other major stumbling blocks when I
look at these, and Mr'. Dinizio and I have been on
4 this Board for an excess of 20 years, is the fact
that this building, which is a cute building, is
5 elevated so high, another aspect that could be
done, is you could run a machine in there and cut
6 that hill down a little bit and actually have it
lay on ground level. rather than the elevation on
7 the blocks, and put a little stone wall around the
back of that.
8 MS . BOWER: I had mentioned that last
time.
9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t remember
that.
10 MS . BOWER: Which would make it look
more --
11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We' re going to
need to know where this is anyway. That' s my only
12 contention right now.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: First of all, with
13 regard to the letter, I think Mr. Dinizio is right
about these are fairly typical letters . The point
14 of the . letter as far as we' re concerned is not
whether they' re saying whether you did anything
15 wrong, as far as we' re concerned, we believe that
any mistake that you made was in good faith and
16 therefore anybody who tries to blame you for that
is off point and we' re not concerned with that
17 kind of dispute, but the issue is particularly the
one whether good faith, bad faith, whatever,
18 whether this is acceptable. And the other thing
has to do with, yes, to reiterate the point that
19 some of the numbers that we need in order to make
a decision that we can rely upon, and Jim used the
20 word reliable, you know, signed off by a surveyor,
not just us getting out there with a tape measure
21 and then signing an affidavit. So we need things
and it may be determined that you' re going to need
22 a new survey to get this thing approved. And
something that we touched on before, which I think
23 you knew, is that you' re not the only case where
there has been a case of people discover that
24 sheds below a certain size do not need building
permits, and they don' t seem to know that that
25 doesn' t mean that they can put it anywhere they
want to on their lot, and I think that was a
February 22 , 2007
62
1
2 perfectly honest misunderstanding and you' re not
the first person to have that problem.
3 So we basically have to deal with this
thing in terms of what the facts on the ground are
4 or will be on the ground. So I certainly support
the collection of the minimum information that we
5 need in order to make a responsible decision.
MS . BOWER: I'm going to have to weigh out
6 what is going to be -- it' s going to be a
financial Burton for us at this point. If we have
7 to get an entirely new survey, it just may - - we
just will have to put the shed up for sale because
8 it will just be not worth the trouble at all . As
I mentioned the last time we were here, our
9 surveyor that we had made innumerable errors, he
had to go back to the drawing board innumerable
10 times . He moved our foundation five feet away
from the wetlands in error. We fired this man and
11 the thing is, we all know that surveys and
architectural drawings are all done on computers
12 now.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Mrs . Bower, hold on for
13 a second now. Linda may be able to help you now.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : I was just
14 thinking, I have heard of another situation like
yours and rather than having a whole new survey
15 done, it may be possible that there' s another
surveyor you can call and just have him measure it
16 and put it on a letter.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Maybe you can get a
17 letter on that.
MS . BOWER: We know what a new survey is
18 going to cost, it' s going to be thousands of
dollars, and the shed was only like what, five
19 hundred dollars .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You will eventually
20 need to have your property surveyed.
MS . BOWER: Yes, if we sell the house down
21 the road.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: And you did provide
22 testimony about your previous surveyor and all of
that, I'm sure all of this Board as well as I
23 recall your previous testimony. Not only do I
want to reiterate what Mr. Simon has said, I don' t
24 know if you were here this morning when we heard
another case similar to yours about someone
25 building a lighthouse/playhouse in their front
yard, which is technically yours, said exactly the
February 22 , 2007
63
1
2 same thing, went to the Building Department,
wasn' t their jurisdiction because the height and
3 size were fine, didn' t need a permit. Went and
put it very close to the road, and is now before
4 us for the very same reason you are because he was
unaware of setbacks . That, however, is not an
5 issue -- I mean, that' s why you' re here. In
addition to moving it, it would appear from where
6 you staked it out, and this is strictly visual and
this is not enough evidence for us to make legal
7 decisions on, we had previous situations where
someone came in with a hand-drawn survey like
8 yours and in the end, the only way that we could
finalize that case was by having the survey
9 stamped by a licensed surveyor. If you have
someone who has a license who has provided us with
10 numbers of where you propose without perhaps
resurveying the whole thing, we will have a legal
11 basis for making a decision. We can' t just
eyeball it because .it' s a specific proposal with
12 dimensions . We grant area variances which deal
with actual feet, and they have to be not just
13 rough ideas and hand drawn. Having said that, it
would appear that you have proposed by virtue of
14 where your stakes are, which is what Mr. Dinizio
suggested, which is to change the orientation of
15 the shed, simply take the two corners, twist the
thing around, which would give you approximately
16 12 feet of additional setback. If you add that to
what your rough drawing says is 19 feet, you would
17 have a proposed potential of 31 foot setback. In
addition to potentially leveling some of that, you
18 can take that fill, create a slight berm with it
along the property edge and thereby elevate that
19 somewhat. You will then be far enough away from
the existing stand of deciduous trees that you
20 have to at least allow yourself (a) the building
will be a little bit lower, and (b) this be a
21 little higher, you can then put in a vegetated
buffer of some sort which would visually mitigate
22 any impact on the road.
MS . BOWER: Which we plan to do.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: But all of these
things have got to be made concrete in either the
24 deliberation that we come up with, a finding that
creates a condition whereby you are required to do
25 that sort of thing, including the evergreen
screening.
February 22 , 2007
1
64
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, could you just
be a little more clear on the buffer?
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: I can.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We have a lady in the
4 audience that wrote a letter and perhaps you can
clarify, just tell her exactly what it' s going to
5 be.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Should this
6 location as moved closer to your house and farther
from the road, lower down rather than up on cinder
7 blocks be been approved, we have a right as a
Board to condition the approval based upon your
8 agreeing that you will create a row of evergreens
.that will be tall enough and dense enough to
9 screen the shed from the neighbor' s view, from
anybody along Hortons Lane. We' re not necessarily
10 talking about behind the shed, along your property
line, someone might glimpse at something driving
11 on an angle, but we' re talking about primarily
creating a situation that reduces the visual
12 impact to almost nothing from the neighbor' s
across the street. In order for us to truly
13 evaluate how far back you can push it -- and of
course we would all agree as far back as is
14 reasonable -- two things have to happen, one, you
need to speak to that person who' s going to do the
. 15 moving for you, which is what we talked about at
the last hearing, so you would understand if it' s
16 feasible from your point of view; apparently that
hasn' t happened yet. Another thing is this survey
17 that you provided, that you drew on, it does show
cesspools, but it' s so tiny, in this Xerox, and we
18 can' t really evaluate what the difference is
between where your cesspools are, how close you
19 have to get, how far away you have to be. So at
the very least, I would think we would need a
20 couple of things. You could draw in my hand, if
you wanted, some sort of screening, that isn' t
21 required, that' s not a legal dimension, but we
would .need some dimensional proposal stamped by a
22 surveyor, that' s number one, and again, as Linda
said, it doesn' t. necessarily have to be a full
23 survey, it could be just this corner.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: I said numbers in a
24 letter.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Or numbers in a
25 letter.
MS . BOWER: Have you actually seen
February 22 , 2007
65
1
2 surveyors do that, you have?
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : It' s very rare.
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You really can ask
a surveyor to do anything; you can say what I want
4 is for you to stake my property line, and I want
you to stake with a stake where the corner of the
5 shed is, that' s all, I don' t want the property
surveyed, I just want that piece measured.
6 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : If I .could just say
one other thing. On our instruction sheet, which
7 is required for every application, if they have an
available survey, then they could actually go to a
8 draftsman, an architect or a draftsman, and they
can do a very small plot plan of that corner and
9 attach the available survey to that to save the
expense. So it' s probably easier to find an
10 architect or a draftsman instead of a surveyor.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Maybe you could just
11 work with Linda on that.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: We would be happy
12 to do that, but we cannot in good faith make a
determination based upon hand drawings, you have
13 to have a professional stamp on that.
MS . BOWER: May I just say one thing about
14 that, I know you have a somewhat shrunken down
survey and the cesspools are pretty much the size
15 of pinheads . They' re not much larger on the full
size survey, and really, my survey is 40 foot
16 equals one inch, so this shed is going to be on
the drawing a quarter of an inch on one side, it' s
17 going to be no bigger than a pinhead anyway. I
see your point that it has to be legal, but it
18 just seems extreme.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The point is, ma' am, if
19 we make a decision and we say, because we' re going
to put footages and we' re guessing and we' re wrong
20 to your disadvantage, you see how government
works, you' ll be right back before us if you want
21 to keep that shed because there' s no bending of
our decision. Our decisions are hard and fast.
22 So even if we' re wrong by six inches, if you at
the end go and get your survey and find out that
23 it' s six inches off from what our decision was,
you' ll be right back before us .
24 MS . BOWER: It' s really not a setback
issue anyway.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes, it is .
• MS . BOWER: No, it shouldn' t be in this
February 22 , 2007
66
1
2 part of the yard entirely.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That' s what we' re
3 talking about.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: There are two
4 issues, one is in the front yard, the other is the
setback within the front yard.
5 MS . BOWER: So what would be a setback in
a front yard --
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Thirty-five feet.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can' t have an
7 accessory structure in a side yard. That' s number
one. Number two, because it' s a side yard - - it' s
8 a front yard, you need 50 feet, so that' s a
setback issue.
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: You have two.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I mean, besides that
10 you can' t have it in the front yard anyway.
MS . BOWER: I know, but that' s what we' re
11 trying to get. I just a soon have it in the back,
if I could get it back there. If it turns out
12 that this is going to be so costly for getting a
new survey and having it moved, you know, maybe
13 hiring a crane for one day will be cheaper.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don' t think so.
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: That is strictly
your decision. We suggested some of those things
15 last time. Unless you are prepared to investigate
what those consequences are for you, you' ll go
16 around in circles in front of us . You need to
decide what you want to do. If you move it to an
17 accessible rear yard, you won' t need a variance.
If you find that' s costly or not feasible, you
18 believe it' s going to screw up your cesspools or
whatever, then you need the variance.
19 MS . BOWER: I would have to go back to the
Trustees in order to do anything else.
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We can' t tell you what
to do. We know what we need to make a decision,
21 we don' t have everything we ,need. Okay, anybody
else have something to add? Ruth?
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, we need the
numbers .
23 MS . BOWER: I was not going to draw this
out until I had some feedback from you whether you
24 felt that was a fine place to put it.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON: We've given as much
25 feedback as we can and we cannot make hypothetical
decisions .
February 22 , 2007
67
1
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And we have not, ma' am,
we haven' t given you whether you' re going to get
3 it or not, and you won' t get it from this Board
certainly until we close the hearing.
4 MS. BOWER: Okay.
BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI : How much time, Mrs .
5 Bower, would you need to get that information?
MS . BOWER: Well, honestly, if we could
6 wait until the April meeting, this way we' ll have
a chance to talk to the gentleman from the shed
7 company and investigate different architects or as
you said.
8 BOARD SECY. KOWALSKI: The April meeting
is April .26th. I would say the time would be 1 : 15
9 in the afternoon.
MS . . BOWER: Okay, and at that time I
10 should have drawings by an architect or a Plan B.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anything else? Is
11 there anyone in the audience who would like to say
something?
12 MS. WINTERS : I'm Penny Winters and we' re
a neighbor of the Bowers . We have nothing against
13 our neighbors, they' re lovely neighbors, and
whatnot, but the shed itself is an eyesore being
14 as close, but I agree with Leslie, that if it was
moved as much as it could be, and if it could be
15 lowered because as you say it is on cement blocks,
and it could be buffered, it wouldn' t look so bad.
16 It just doesn' t look nice, nobody else has them on
the street, and I think they would feel the same
17 way if mine was on the street that close, they
wouldn' t like that either, it just takes away from
18 the street. So we have nothing against them or
anything, it' s a little bit of an eyesore.
19 MS . BOWER: We had every intention, we
started bringing in trees and we were going to put
20 those big giant arborvitaes, and then we had that
inspection from your department, that' s why we
21 stopped the buffer.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Actually you don' t
22 really have room to put them in because if you
look without moving it because you are about that
23 far away from a clump of deciduous trees .
MS . BOWER: I was planning to put behind
24 the clump of trees .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Then you would be
25 planting right on the Town' s shoulder.
.MS . BOWER: Which everyone does in our
February 22 , 2007
68
1
2 neighborhood, if you take a look.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN: Well, the problem
3 with that is when the snow plow comes by, I live
right around the corner from you, and Suffolk
4 County Water came through on Soundview, they tore
up my shoulder along with it some specimen trees
5 that I put down in ignorance that I didn' t realize
I shouldn' t have put there. So my advice would
6 be, if you' re going to invest in landscaping-, put
it on property that you own and not property that
7 the Town owns, you' re not legally supposed to be
planting there.
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They wouldn' t in this
instance because we would make the decision based
9 on that. You wouldn' t have that option.
Okay, so do you have anything else you
10 would like to add to this? Basically what we' re
going to do is we' re going to adjourn the meeting
11 until April 26th. I' ll entertain a motion that we
do that.
12 (See minutes for resolution. )
-------- -------------------------------------- ---
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is for
Michael Liegey. It' s a resolution to convene the
14 hearing and grant applicants a February 8, 2007
request for more time with an adjournment until
15 April 26th.
(See minutes for resolution. )
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 22 , 2007
69
1
2
3
4
5
6 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
7
8 I, Florence V. Wiles, Notary Public for the
9 State of New York, do hereby certify:
10 THAT the within transcript is a true record of
11 the testimony given.
12 I further certify that I am not related by
13 blood or marriage, to any of the parties to this
14 action; and
15 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome
16 of this matter.
17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
18 hand this 22nd day of February, 2007 .
19
20 � -
Florence V. Wiles
21
22
23
24
25
February 22 , 2007