Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/02/2007 Hearing 1 { 4 2 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK 5 ------------------------------------------X 6 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 ------------------------------------------X 10 Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11 12 August 2 , 2007 ' 13 9 : 30 a .m. 14 15 Board Members Present : 16 17 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Chairman/Member 18 GERARD P . GOEHRINGER - Member 19 RUTH D . OLIVA - Member 20 MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member 21 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member 22 LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant 23 KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney ( 11 : 10-1 : 50 24 p .m. ) 25 2 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 INDEX OF HEARINGS : 3 Hearing : Page : 4 5 Katapodis #6027 3-26 6 Reeve #604 26 7 Dickerson Peters #6053 27-30 8 Dey #6056 30-44 9 Casey #6064 45-51 10 Seifert/Gerard Holding #6059 51-59 11 Bulis #6055 59-62 12 Avdoulos #6060 62-68 13 Sherman #6063 69-71/115-116 14 Daneri #6029 72-115 15 Reinken #6052 117-125 16 Planitzer #6057 125-126 17 Grebe #6043 126-128 18 Girzadas #6061 128-130 19 Lampl #6062 130-142 20 Landau #6033 142-158 21 Cingular at EM #5826 159-177 22 23 24 25 3 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. I ' d like to call 3 August 2 , 2007 ZBA meeting to order . We first need a resolution for SEQRA. 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion is made and seconded. All those in favor . 6 ( See minutes for resolution . ) 7 Hearing #6027 - Katapodis CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. The first hearing is 8 Nick Katapodis and that ' s Leslie ' s . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. So let me read 9 the notice for the record . "Requests for Variances under Section 10 280-116, based on the Building Inspector ' s June 14 , 2007 amended Notice of Disapproval for 11 proposed accessory swimming pool and related equipment; ( 1 ) at less than 100 feet from the top 12 of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound, and (2 ) with lot coverage in excess of the code 13 limitation of 20% . Location of Property; 1540 The Strand, East Marion; CTM 30-2-65 . " This 14 application, in summary, is for an in ground swimming pool at 50 feet from the top of the 15 bluff . The code requires 100 feet and lot coverage of 24 . 6% . The code allows 20% . There ' s some 16 information we have and I 'm sure you have, Pat , from soil and water? 17 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Regarding the 18 condition at the bluff . The pool is, as proposed, 41 . 8 feet by 21 . 8 feet; is that correct? 19 MS . MOORE : No . It ' s been reduced. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I 'm sorry. It was 20 reduced to 18 by 36 from the original . MS . MOORE : The original was 30 feet from the 21 top of the bluff and that was increased to 50 , just for the record. 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. Now, we will turn this over to your presentation. 23 MS . MOORE : Okay. Good morning . Thank you. This morning I have with me Mr . Katapodis, who ' s 24 the owner . This is my side of the wedding party. I also have a Cathy from Swim King Pools and Joe 25 Fischetti, professional engineer, who I ' ve asked also to come and speak with respect to technical 4 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 issues that I thought needed to be on the record. So what I ' m going to do is first deal with the 3 lot coverage issue since that is the least technical of the two issues . Just first and 4 foremost with respect to the lot coverage, as you all know, the lot coverage was just adopted the 5 last couple of months with respect to using buildable area for determination of the lot area 6 that you ' re allowed to build on . The lot -- this lot is a lot on Peeble Beach Farm. The Peeble 7 Beach Farm subdivision was approved under the one acre zoning and it is a clustered subdivision that 8 the lot is in the -- a little over a half acre in size . The adoption of the lot coverage change or 9 area calculation change, the legislative intent behind that, and I ' d ask to have it put on the 10 record, it was to address situations where there were large lots and the houses that were being 11 built on those large lots were also including non-buildable areas so that the size of the 12 structures , the principal structures, in particular, were out of character with the size of 13 the properties and the community. What has resulted in the adoption of that section of the 14 code, I would hope that this Board tries to correct through legislative process, is that often 15 times now in particular these lots that have been created, particularly water front properties on 16 the Sound, result in the lot, as in this case, the lot becomes a 16, 000 , a little over a 16, 000 17 square foot building area . That is, on a clustered lot, a very restricted building area and 18 it affects , in particular, accessory structures . So that has created a problem. It is creating a 19 problem and I 'm sure you ' ll be seeing a lot of area variances with respect to lot coverage as to 20 accessory structures . With respect to this property, the accessory structure has been reduced 21 to 18 by 36 in compliance or in attempt to mitigate the lot coverage issue . The house was 22 constructed prior to the adoption of the lot coverage change . So the house, which is not -- 23 it ' s a nice house but it ' s about a 3 , 600 square foot house . The house, itself, in relation to the 24 size of the houses in that neighborhood are all in that range of size . 25 With respect to the pool, these amenities ; a pool, a tennis court, it is not a structure that 5 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 sticks out of the ground . It does not impact the volumes with respect to the intensity of the 3 property and it ' s impact on the neighbors . A water front house with a pool is not an unusual 4 amenity and, in fact, there are many pools in this subdivision as in all the water front subdivisions 5 in this town . So with respect to lot coverage, I would ask you to please keep that in mind given 6 the change in the code and it ' s impact on accessory structures and Sound front properties in 7 particular . I would also like to now address the set back from the bluff . The set back to the 8 bluff has been increased to 50 feet . We did get the report from Soil and Water . It was a very good 9 report . It did confirm what we could see from visual observation, which is that it is a very 10 stable bluff . Mr . Fischetti will testify with respect to the angle of repose and it ' s stability . 11 It is vegetated . The property, as it is presently, and it hasn ' t been -- it ' s still partly under 12 construction . The site has not been graded and it ' s still in the construction stages of rough 13 grade and the property right now does slope all to the street . There is no issue here with respect 14 to changing the topography in any way so that the water flows down the bluff which, obviously, is a 15 concern to this Board and to all the Boards dealing with development on the water . We want to 16 protect the bluff and the surest way to protect it is to keep the water off of it . The house will 17 have dry wells, gutters and the pool , all the pool equipment will be properly drained. At this time, 18 I think I will have Joe Fischetti come and deal with certain issues with respect to the drainage 19 and the topography of the property. MR . FISCHETTI : Good morning, Mr . Chairman 20 and Members of the Board . It ' s nice to see all of you again . I don ' t come here often but it ' s nice 21 to see you . I have my office in Southold. I was asked to analyze this property . I visited it 22 earlier this week and pretty much confirm what Tom McMahon ' s results were in the letter that he sent 23 you from Suffolk County Conservation . The slope is stable, very well vegetated. I did an analysis 24 of the topography and the present slope of the bluff is 33 degrees, which is a very stable 25 slope, as you know . Those areas , the angle of repose is probably around 38 , 39 degrees . This is 6 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 33 so it ' s a very stable slope . The chances of any erosion that would affect a pool close to the 3 bluff line is minimal at this point . The site plan that was sent to you and the topography is 4 incorrect . John Metzger, I don ' t know where he got those lines from but the slope of that property is 5 probably 2 feet higher at the bluff then it is at the house line and it slopes directly back. So 6 drainage from the pool and again the affect of the pool and the grading . The pool will have to be 7 installed and would continue to contain that slope backwards . The site plan again that was sent to 8 you showed kind of going off to the side, which concerned me too until I actually saw the site . 9 As Pat said, we were not able to get John Metzger to redo the topo in time to do this . But it will 10 slope backwards . We will not change that topography any. We have -- (off to the side) 11 should I talk about the propane tank? There is a propane tank located on the east side of the 12 property. The propane tank is for house heating and it will probably be used for heating of the 13 swimming pool . If this Board recommends that an additional movement of that pool from the 50 feet 14 we have now -- National Fire Protection Association recommends a 10 foot separation from 15 the propane tank to any structure . There is some movement that could be but we still need to keep 16 ten feet from that propane tank. I think that ' s about it . 17 MS . MOORE : With respect to the pool equipment, where will it be connected for 18 drainage, typically? MR. FISCHETTI : There was a question -- we 19 read the letter that was -- MS . MOORE : Well, it hasn ' t been submitted 20 yet . MR. FISCHETTI : We have a neighbor who ' s 21 complaining about back washing and most of the time we do backwash into the roof drain areas and 22 it doesn ' t affect it because you ' re not back washing at the same time that it ' s raining . Any of 23 the pool equipment and the backwash would be placed into the dry wells of the roof drains which 24 are required by the Town . BOARD MEMBER' GOEHRINGER: May I ask a 25 question? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yeah, sure . 7 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr . Fischetti , I have to tell you that I accept anything that you 3 say as really very well pointed. About 3 years ago we started with the insulating of pool filters 4 and placing them in facilities , small storage facilities so the noise emanating from the filter 5 and so on and so forth -- I don ' t really know what, we ' ve enhanced it with certain words in some 6 of the decisions . That first decision was down in Yennecott Park in that new section that runs down 7 on Laurel Avenue, the east side of Yennecott Park, over on the creek. Now, in a lot of this 8 dimension, there ' s no question that this is a magnificent house . But even with the stone work 9 or the exterior of the house, you may even get more noise than if you had a wooden house, with 10 wooden shingles . I think it ' s probably necessary to take that pool equipment and put it in some 11 sort of sound proof storage shed. MS . MOORE : That ' s not an unreasonable 12 request . Actually, I discussed it with Swim King and also the client . They have absolutely no 13 problem with that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So that ' s not 14 going to be an issue today? MS . MOORE : No . 15 MR. FISCHETTI : You have an interesting point in that if you buffered it with something, 16 it would still have the possibility of bouncing off that wall . That ' s a good point, Jerry. But, 17 again, I have no problem with building a structure that ' s maybe wood framed where you can get access 18 to it . I ' ve seen that done often and that can be done by insulating that . 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Joe, how for back could you get the pool without interfering with the 20 propane tank? MR. FISCHETTI : From what I can see, I 21 didn ' t take a measurement of the tank underground but I know where the fill line is , I think 22 reasonably, you could move that pool maybe another 12 to 15 feet back. 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That would be good. MS . MOORE : We would certainly have no issue 24 if the Board, in their decision, had us maintain an FPH standard so from the edge of the tank, 25 maintaining the 10 foot separation, we would certainly attempt to move the pool back to 8 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 whatever safe -- certainly there ' s construction . We don ' t want to jeopardize the tank so 10 feet is 3 an FPH standard but we don ' t want to -- MR. FISCHETTI : What Pat is saying is don ' t 4 give us a distance . Just say keep the minimum FPH because I don ' t know where that tank edge is . 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: One other question . The pool is going to be heated? 6 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it going to be 7 covered then to use in inclement weather? Is it going to be an exposed pool or open? 8 MS . MOORE : There will be a cover . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: A regular solar cover, 9 you mean? MS . MOORE : Like a safety cover . 10 MR. FISCHETTI : Ruth is asking a solar cover to keep the heat in while it ' s heated . 11 MS . MOORE : I think it ' s a safety, certainly it ' s a safety . Is it also a solar? 12 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It doesn ' t have to be . MS . QUIGLEY : No, the safety cover is 13 separate . MS . MOORE : Okay, so there are two covers . 14 BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI : We ' re not getting the names and who is that gentleman who noded in the 15 back of the room? MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry . The nodding is the 16 owner, Mr . Katapodis . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on a second. Number 17 one, the Board members, we go in order and I ' d like to continue that if you don ' t mind. When you 18 have questions , do it in your turn . Number two, if you need to speak to anybody, bring them up to the 19 mic and introduce them, please . We don ' t want to drive our new secretary away . 20 MS . MOORE : Are we trying to address Ruth ' s? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You can now. 21 MS . MOORE : Cathy from Swim King if you would come forward, please, and tell us what type of 22 equipment could be provided. Cathy, give me your last name, I 'm sorry. 23 MS . QUIGLEY : Q-U-I-G-L-E-Y, Cathy . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just wanted to know if 24 the pool is heated, is it also going to be closed? MS . QUIGLEY : The solar cover is not a safety 25 cover . That ' s a cover when you heat the pool, it goes on the top . It ' s the bubble . It ' s the 9 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 insulated bubble that goes on the top to hold the heat in . A safety cover is a separate cover . 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There will be no actual structural enclosure of the pool? 4 MS . QUIGLEY : NO . MS . MOORE : No . 5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s going to be open to the sky? 6 MS . QUIGLEY : Yes . MS . MOORE : Yes . 7 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. That ' s what I wanted to know . 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, Mr . Fischetti , do you have anything? 9 MS . MOORE : Well, no unless you have other questions . 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think we ' re going to start with Leslie . Leslie, do you have any 11 questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I do . When I was at 12 the site, I paced out the, based on where the pool was staked because there ' s no call outs other than 13 on the survey by Metzger on certain kinds of dimensions . For example, it doesn ' t say what the 14 distance between the propane tank is and the proposed edge of the pool . But one thing that I 15 observed in pacing things out is that the proposed placement of the pool is along the side of the 16 property, in a kind of parallel, you know, the long edge of the pool is parallel to the property 17 line . I paced it so that at your proposed length if you rotated it 90 degrees sideways instead of 18 longways, you would automatically gain half that dimension in terms of an increased setback from 19 the bluff and you would not have moved it any closer to the propane tank which I understand is a 20 safety issue . I 'm assuming where it ' s sited now on this survey is acceptable in terms of distance? 21 MS . MOORE : Oh, yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But we don ' t know 22 exactly what that is . However, how would you feel about, you ' d still have adequate side yards on 23 both sides if you rotated it this way, which will then set it back -- 24 MS . MOORE : That was one of the first questions I asked Mr . Katapodis and he explained 25 to me and I went and confirmed it, you would see from the site . He has young children . The way 10 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 this house is designed, the kitchen and the patio, that is the elevated patio that ' s on the easterly 3 side of the house is where all of the house, all the activity is and when Mr . Katapodis and his 4 wife are sitting or watching from the kitchen or the living area, the line of sight is directly at 5 the pool so that their concern for the original placement of this pool was to keep a clear line of 6 sight for the children . So obviously keeping an eye on them at all times . That was the reasoning 7 behind placement of the pool here if -- I think we would prefer to move the pool back a little bit 8 but keep that line of sight . I asked about that preference being, if you had to choose between 9 pushing it back a few feet, again keeping the FPA, the distance from the propane at an appropriate 10 distance, keeping it on the east side, that was the important issue . So there was consideration . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So the question then really is, not knowing exactly what those 12 dimensions are, are you guesstimating, Mr . Fischetti , that it ' s 12 to 15 feet? 13 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes, I 'm pretty sure that I 'm being very conservative when I did that 14 because I paced it too and my understanding of the size of propane tank, I ' m saying, I could probably 15 get at least 15 feet, maybe even more but I can ' t make that . But I think 15 feet is a reasonable 16 guesstimate and and it may even be, more than 15 feet . A few feet more, not a lot of feet more . 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That would bring it up to a minimum of 65 . 18 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes , I 'm my professional opinion . 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. I just wanted to clarify what the possible options where . I wanted 20 to understand the rationale for it being sited lengthwise clearly clipping it . 21 MS . MOORE : That would have simplified things . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Thank you . No further questions . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I was also going to 24 raise the question about the orientation of the pool . What we will have to do when we consider 25 this is to see is the reason for having the pool of this size visable to the house be weighed 11 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 against the advantage or disadvantage of having it a given distance from the bluff . It ' s a balancing 3 of two different kinds of considerations . Your point is that you can respond to some of the 4 closeness of the bluff by moving the pool closer . There are other ways of responding to the safety 5 issue such as having the pool at a different place, different size, whatever it is . I ' m not 6 saying these are realistic but there are always alternatives . Regarding the lot coverage issue, I 7 agree with what you said and, I 'm sure, you ' re as familiar as I am with the discussion that lead to 8 the adoption of the 2001 amendment to the code . MS . MOORE : 2007 . 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : As it was originally written as I understood, -it was left open to 10 interpretation as to whether buildable area should be, whether the lot coverage should be limited to 11 buildable area or not . And it had to do with wetlands . Not necessarily very large wetlands . It 12 had to do with coverage and ecological considerations regarding that . So now that may not 13 apply to this case . As I understand what ' s special about this case, and this is happening to all the 14 Sound front properties , is the part of the land from the edge of the bluff all the way down to the 15 water and that is different from the wetlands consideration . So it does have a peculiar affect 16 on percentage of lot coverage . Now, having said that, it is worth noticing that under the new 17 amendment to the code, the house itself without the pool is nonconforming . It covers about 240 of 18 the buildable area . So, it ' s already nonconforming given the 16, 000 feet, if you do the arithmetic on 19 this , you ' ll see that even with no pool, it covers more than 200 of the 16, 055 feet that is left . Not 20 easy to do the arithmetic . MS . MOORE : It ' s close . I don ' t know. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They don ' t tell you how big the house is but you could figure out -- if 22 24% includes the pool, subtract the pool from that and you get a number which is less than, which is 23 more than -- MS . MOORE : Yes , it became nonconforming . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So it ' s already nonconforming . So what is being requested is 25 essentially an increase in the nonconformity. Nonetheless, I think a case can be made, you ' ve 12 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 done pretty well, at suggesting that this should not necessarily keep them from having a pool and 3 provided certain other accommodations are made . The fact that the law was just passed this year is 4 really not terribly important because it probably should have been passed ten years ago for some of 5 its purposes . We could argue that . However, I would take one minor exception to the point about 6 having a pool being a frequent common amenity for waterfront property to have a pool as though it 7 were not an important amenity for places which are not on the waterfront . One could, in fact , argue 8 that -- I wouldn ' t really lean too hard on that point . If you ' re going to say if there ' s anybody 9 who needs a pool, it ' s not the people who are already on waterfront property. Having said that, 10 I would wipe out that argument if I were rewriting this for you . You can say a pool is a reasonable 11 amenity in the Town of Southold. MS . MOORE : Thank you . I will amend my 12 comments to say a pool is a common amenity. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So, I think I would, I 13 am concerned about trying to accommodate to the closeness to the bluff and also noting the 14 willingness of the applicant to place the pool slightly closer to the house . Whether this would 15 be done by size and shape of the pool, we will certainly pay close attention to . 16 MS . MOORE : Okay. I think that the size and shape has been reduced to a minimum standard but 17 yes , we do have a little flexibility as we ' ve already testified to . 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, you ' re all set? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How large is the pool? 20 MS . MOORE : 18 by 36 . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anything else, 21 Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, thanks . 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this 23 time . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I just have a couple of 24 concerns . I think that we shouldn ' t exclude waterfront lots from having normal accessory 25 structures . Just because they ' re on the water doesn ' t mean they should be precluded from having 13 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 a pool . They are two different things . I live 500 feet away from the Sound and haven ' t been in the 3 Sound in 30 years . I look at it everyday. It ' s really nice to look at but I don ' t go swimming in 4 it . I have a pool . And so I think when we ' re doing our applications and we ' re listening to 5 people, we have to take into consideration that these are residential lots and that a normal, 6 common residential use is a swimming pool . And I think that ' s what you were getting at, Pat . Not 7 necessarily because it ' s a waterfront lot, it needs a pool but rather it ' s just a lot and a 8 person resides in it and a pool would be a normal and customary thing to have for a person on a 9 residential lot . I want to give you that . That ' s my opinion at least that ' s what I ' m thinking. 10 Number two, I 'm a little concerned about lot coverage and I understand that the law is new . I 11 didn ' t anticipate getting this type of application with that law . 12 MS . MOORE : I think everybody was believing it was going to be principal structures . I don ' t 13 believe accessory structures was really what that law was trying to address . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As I followed it, I thought it was the same thing . That we were 15 getting larger houses based on 7 acres . MS . MOORE : The New Suffolk is the example . 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, we ' ve ended up with this . So I would appreciate any comments you could 17 forward to us on this . MS . MOORE : I think this gives you a capsule 18 example of maybe very quickly a law that needs to be tweaked and it comes apparent very quickly when 19 you start getting applications . And every law that we pass , often times we try to address one 20 issue and don ' t anticipate other issues that might come up . I would ask you to keep that in the 21 forefront . I didn ' t think that this Board wants to entertain continuous applications for accessory 22 structures . The issue of setback to the bluff has been the way to address placement of accessory 23 structures and that has always worked for this Board. The lot coverage really does create an 24 extra variance that really -- it ' s a burden that the applicant has to overcome . 25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And the Town Board 14 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MS . MOORE : Absolutely. This Board has -- it has nothing to do with this Board. For the record, 3 the Town Board passes them but Code Committee, I think, is instrumental in addressing problems and 4 you as a Board are the first line of attack in the sense that you will get the variances that are 5 created from the legislation. So really your message back is the only way the Town Board ever 6 knows whether what they' ve adopted works or not . The Town Board doesn ' t get any applications so 7 they really don ' t know the impact of what they approve . 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We ' ll have the discussion on that . I 'm thinking maybe increase the lot 9 coverage for waterfront lots from 20 to 30 or something . I ' d be concerned about granting an 10 almost 250 lot coverage . MS . MOORE : Ordinarily that has been a 11 concern . I know the history when I ' ve dealt with applications for lot coverage on very small lots, 12 in particular, in like Greenport area where the houses -- you ' re dealing with the lot coverage and 13 the sizes of principal structures particularly in relation to the neighborhood. That has been 14 historically how the lot coverage issue has come about and been treated and I know the Board ' s 15 unwritten numbers with respect to lot coverage . I don ' t think you can use those numbers anymore 16 because of the change in the code . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think you ' re right . 17 Anybody have any other questions? Anybody in the audience have any questions concerning this 18 application? Mr . Fischetti, do you have anything else to add? 19 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Good morning . My name is Kevin McLaughlin . I 'm an attorney here in Southold 20 and I ' m here representing the neighbors directly to the west of the property. I also got faxed to 21 me this morning from the neighbor to the east, a letter that he has asked me to submit on his 22 behalf regarding the pool . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I just want to 23 mention for the record that that is signed by Demis Karousos . Thank you . 24 MR. McLAUGHLIN : I represent the Kutsubis ' (phonetic) who are here today. They own 1610 The 25 Strand. Again, it ' s directly to the west of the subject property. We are opposed to the requested 15 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 variances for the swimming pool . As has already been indicated, the buildable land area on this 3 lot is approximately 16, 000 square feet and it is already exceeded slightly the 200 lot coverage 4 allowance . I think if you had an application come in through the Building Department today, for 5 exactly what they ' re proposing and they ended up coming here for a variance as a result of being 6 excess lot coverage, there might be some thought of reducing the size of -- there might be some 7 consideration to reducing the size of the dwelling in order to reduce the amount., if any, of the 8 excess lot coverage . Unfortunately, we can ' t do that today . There is a very substantial structure 9 on that property already and again it does already exceed what the present lot coverage is . I 10 understand it ' s legal because it preexists but it does already exceed the acceptable lot coverage . 11 When you buy waterfront property, particularly on the Sound where there ' s a bluff, I think there ' s 12 an understanding of what you have . You have a reduced building area and in exchange for that, 13 you get the benefits, obviously, of beautiful views and waterfront property. But there are also 14 responsibilities that go with that . You do have a reduced lot coverage amount because you do have a 15 reduced buildable area . And you also have the concerns on the Sound of the bluff and the 16 stability and all of that . The application today is for some pretty substantial relief . As it 17 presently exists, it ' s basically a 50o variance from the 100 foot setback from the bluff and it ' s 18 basically a 23% variance from lot coverage . Lot coverage being 20o and they ' re almost up to 250 19 with this application . So these are not insubstantial variances . They ' re quite 20 substantial and I think the Board has to look at them very seriously. That ' s basically my legal 21 argument that the pool should not be allowed. I think if -- you ' re going to get into this and I 22 understand that the law is relatively new but if you allow this, then what ' s the next step? The 23 next person comes in and says I ' ve already exceeded the lot coverage and I want a pool and 24 that ' s going to result in 300 lot coverage or 350 lot coverage . Where are you going to draw the 25 line? Perhaps the real remedy is for the law to be rewritten so that maybe accessory structures 16 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 can exceed the 20% lot coverage . That ' s for somebody else to decide . We feel that if these 3 variances are granted and this pool is allowed, it ' s going to have a very detrimental impact upon 4 my clients and the neighbors to the east and we would respectfully ask you to deny this 5 application. I think my client , Alex, would also like to speak to you this morning . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on a second. Leslie? We ' ll go through the Members first . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : May I ask you, sir, to please elaborate a little bit more in what ways 8 you believe there would be detrimental or adverse impact on the neighbors . 9 MR. McLAUGHLIN : These are very, very narrow lots . They ' re 77 feet wide and there is going to 10 be a pool wherever it ' s located on that property that will bring a lot of new and different 11 activity to that area that obviously will have an impact particularly on the adjoining landowners . 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you feel it ' s primarily because there will be increased noise; 13 kids out there playing or whatever? MR. McLAUGHLIN : Yes . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just wanted to understand what your particular premise of adverse 15 impact was . MR. McLAUGHLIN : In addition to whatever 16 environmental impacts the Board has to take into consideration regarding the site of the pool . 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Leslie? Michael , you have any questions? 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No questions . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth? 19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I 'm just curious . Also, the people, I was just quick reading that letter, 20 have a concern about the water issue . Is it public water up there? 21 MR. McLAUGHLIN : There is public water up there . I don ' t believe -- again, I do not 22 represent the neighbor to the east . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I understand that . 23 MR. McLAUGHLIN : However, it ' s my understanding from reading his letter that, 24 although there may be public water available, I don ' t believe he is hooked up to public water . 25 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: ( Inaudible . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Speak into the mic, sir . 17 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: He is really concerned, then, with the backwash with the chemicals from 3 the pool? MR. McLAUGHLIN : That ' s what I gleam from his 4 letter, yes . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other words , and I was going to ask this question . This is not 6 a set-up question . If we were granting a storage building, your clients would be less likely to be 7 concerned for this assuming it didn ' t block a view or whatever the case might be . It ' s really maybe a 8 noise issue emanating from the pool? MR. McLAUGHLIN : I think they would certainly 9 have different issues with a storage building then they would have with a pool, yes . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason I said that Mr . McLaughlin is because this Board has 11 probably had every issue that concerns a pool before it and we understand, I understand, where 12 you ' re coming from in reference to your representation. However, I also see, I know what 13 Leland Cyprus do around the pool . I know what all the things that stop noise do and I 'm not saying 14 that I ' m necessarily fixated on the size that the applicant wants at this time because I know a 15 smaller pool would mean less lot coverage and so on and so forth . So I mean if we need to address 16 those issues in reference to noise, those are an issue that can be addressed also . 17 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Obviously, my client ' s first preference would be there be no pool there . If the 18 Board chooses to decide differently, then whatever mitigation you could come up with that would 19 reduce the impact on the neighbors would obviously be a benefit . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anything else that impacts the neighbors that you would like to 21 introduce into the record? MR. McLAUGHLIN : I think my client might be 22 better able to speak on that issue . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Let me ask you a couple of 23 questions first then we ' ll hear . Would it be fair to say that a reasonable person reading the code 24 as it exists today would assume that a pool wouldn ' t be allowed on that piece of property? 25 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Would not be? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Would not be allowed. 18 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Well , I think -- we ' re talking about nothing on the property now or -- 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, we ' re talking about that house as it exists with 22 , 230 lot coverage . 4 I guess it ' s probably at least 22 now without a pool . 5 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Well , I think it ' s fair to say it would require a variance in order to get 6 that and the question becomes whether or not it should be granted. I think that, again, if an 7 applicant was coming in today and that was a raw piece of property and they came in with a size 8 house that presently exists there and accessory swimming pool or whatever, tennis court, there 9 would be some ability to work with the size of the house to shrink it down so as to, at least lessen 10 if not totally do away with the need for a variance and unfortunately we don ' t have that 11 situation here . We ' ve got an existing, very substantial building and now they ' re asking, on 12 top of that which already exceeds the now lot coverage percentage, let us add more . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay . So we ' d like to hear from 14 your client . MR. McLAUGHLIN : Yes, please . 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : State your name and address , sir, to the mic . 16 MR. KUTSUBIS : Good morning, Board . My name is Alex Kutsubis . I ' m adjoining neighbor, 1610 The 17 Strand. I build this house about 7-8 years ago . It was nice, beautiful area . I choose to live me and 18 my family over there . Since this gentleman he came over there, he put a four-story building over 19 there . Very crowded. In the weekends , you have about 10 cars over there . I don ' t know if he ' s 20 party person or maybe he ' s doing for business . That the future will show but I keep on eye on it . 21 Excuse me, I ' m being sick and that ' s kind of why I 'm -- last 7 months I 'm dealing with the cancer . 22 Thank God, I 'm recovered now that ' s why I 'm a little bit of shake . But I express my feeling . 23 I 'm a family man and I like nice peace and quiet and I 'm sure in the future, if you go by and see 24 10-15 cars outside over there, you will understand me a little bit better if you decide to give him 25 the right to put up the swimming pool . Which I 'm against it . Not me but ten other people in the 19 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 area . They claim about the building how tall it is . Doesn ' t belong in the area and who needs a 3 pool, ten kids screaming and yelling in your backyard? When you chose this place to come and 4 rest and enjoy the beauty of the water and the green . It ' s sad to put myself in this position 5 against somebody else but I 'm protecting my property. I have no hate of anybody. I don ' t 6 like to step anybody feet but sometimes the life, it leads you to the situation that you have to 7 protect your family and your peace and quiet . Other than that, if you want me to bring ten 8 neighbors, ten letters of neighbors over here -- nobody likes the swimming pool because we have 9 another neighbor five houses far away from us in the weekend they ' re screaming, yelling . Kids are 10 kids . I mean, God bless them but why should I take somebody else ' s noise? And he has 3 kids . Very 11 wild. Very life . Healthy kids . Play soccer and come in my backyard. They throw the ball in my 12 backyard. Enough is enough . I 'm over here to tell him respect yourself so we can respect you. 13 But unfortunately this person, he has been rumors . They talking, with my money I can buy anything . I 14 can do anything I want . That ' s his attitude, that ' s his mentality. That ' s all . Thank you . 15 Thank you for minute to hear me . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Does anybody have 16 any questions? MS . MOORE : Well, we would need to put 17 something on . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, Kevin, do you need 18 to add something? MR. McLAUGHLIN : Not at this point . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Mr . Fischetti? MR. FISCHETTI : From that letter that was 20 sent , I ' d just like to put on the record that pool backwash, according to Suffolk County Health 21 Department codes does not affect wells . There is no regulations as to pool backwash as to distance 22 separation or even any mention of those as to the affect of the wells . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That is acceptable because it ' s just chlorinated water? 24 MR. FISCHETTI : That ' s correct . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody else? 25 MS . MOORE : I want to -- it ' s my understanding that the well, it ' s showing on our 20 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 property was actually a replacement well . The owner put it there . It ' s encroachment . They have 3 not been asked to remove it or anything just so you know it ' s there . It is not legally permitted 4 to be there but it has not become an issue . It is an irrigation well . It ' s connected to their 5 irrigation system. So with respect to the letter that was submitted . With respect to Kevin ' s 6 comments on lot coverage . I think you all know the legislative history with respect to lot coverage . 7 Again, I would emphasize lot coverage is dealing with structures and the volume of structures . An 8 accessory structure, tennis courts are a huge lot coverage . I ' ve come before this Board with tennis 9 court applications on the normal, a very normal size property. It ' s ground level . Yes, it is a 10 lot coverage issue only because this Town identifies a pool and a tennis court as a 11 structure for lot coverage calculations . Many towns do not . So that ' s another point I would 12 like to make . I believe we ' ve addressed the technical issues . With respect to noise, all I 13 can tell you is that they ' re waiting to complete this pool in order to complete the ground, the 14 landscaping . So as soon as the yard is graded, I ' m sure the children will be staying on their own 15 property and out of the street and so on . I 'm sure you will carefully watch the children so that 16 they don ' t meander beyond the property line . Noise, I ' m sure this Board has heard many of times 17 issues with noise . We all have -- any of us who have children knows that they eventually grow out 18 of it . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on a second. Ruth 19 would like to ask you a question . MS . MOORE : Okay . For the record, he has two 20 children. They may make the noise of three but he has only two . 21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Could you make the pool a little bit smaller, say 16 by 32 ? 22 MS . MOORE : Okay. If you needed him to move it, he ' d rather flip it on a horizontal than make 23 it smaller . That ' s relatively small -- normal but on the smaller size pool . He ' s already reduced the 24 size of the pool once in order to deal with environmental issues . Again the lot coverage, I 25 would ask you to pull the neighbors building permit . The house that he has is almost comparable 21 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 in area as are all the houses along The Strand. They are of similar size and the lot coverage is 3 preexisting, nonconforming but only because of the adoption of the 2007 ordinance . It is -- it ' s not 4 a 6, 000 footprint . It is a 3 , 600 square footprint . So I will hope that you keep that in mind. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you all set? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else? The only thing I think we ' re going to need is a revised 7 topo map . MS . MOORE : I spoke to John Metzger . I was 8 trying to get a topo from him. You have a topo . The original application had the topo of the 9 bluff . That was already there . The problem is that this construction topo right now so it ' s -- 10 an inspection of the property would show you it ' s 2 feet differential all sloping down to the 11 street . It ' s not going to be the topo, the final grade . I will provide that to you but it ' s an 12 under construction topo . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: How ' s the Board feel about 13 that? Anybody? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr . Fischetti, how high 14 do you think it is , the bluff in that area, MS . MOORE : Oh, the bluff height? That is 15 accurate . That hasn ' t changed because there ' s been no disturbance in the area of the bluff . Let me 16 look here . The area that was inaccurate was from the top of the bank down to the street . That ' s 17 where the topo that was provided really didn ' t reflect the existing conditions right now when you 18 inspect . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I see it on the old one . 19 MS . MOORE : That ' s not a problem. If you need a topo, we ' d be happy to provide it . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My thinking is this , that if we ask you to turn that pool around and you ' re 21 going to have 36 feet going across that property which slopes from west to east down, then you ' re 22 going to have to do some regrading . I think we ' re going to need to know how far that pool sticks out 23 or how deep into -- MS . MOORE : Obviously, we ' d need retaining 24 walls at that point . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Is it 4 feet, is it 10 25 feet? MS . MOORE : I ' ll get it for you . That ' s 22 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 fine . I ' ll leave it for you to decide how to use it if you need it . 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s the thinking of the Board that if you turn it around, you ' re going to 4 gain 20 feet that way just by turning it around, getting it away from the bluff . If you gain 20 5 feet and move it back 15 , we ' re talking pretty good. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re not going to make 100 feet . 7 MS . MOORE : No . (Members talking at the same time . ) 8 MS . MOORE : That will be significant increase . I mean, we will sacrifice the view, the 9 line of sight if we have to . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' ll also need where 10 you ' re going to put the equipment too . In other words, the pump and stuff . We ' ll need to know on 11 that map, we ' ll need to have that on there too . I ' m sure that will be part of the discussion. 12 MS . MOORE : I can provide that . At this point, we would be at a point where we could 13 design something . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And dry well for 14 backwash . MS . MOORE : The drywell ' s already there . 15 They ' re existing . They ' re going to connect . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Just show where it is . 16 MS . MOORE : Do we know where they are? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' ll know because it ' s 17 going to the side of the house . MS . MOORE : I ' m wondering how John Metzger 18 will figure that . But he ' ll see the down spouts that go in . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Right . Linda, am I okay? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Jerry had talked 20 about screening. MS . MOORE : Screening, yes . We have no 21 objection . We ' re planning, my client has a plan to do landscaping there so there ' s no objection if 22 you want us to on the side of this gentleman, there is a row a cedar trees . Are they still 23 there? It shows on the survey a row of cedar trees . We will screen . 24 MR. McLAUGHLIN : There are cedar trees but it ' s partial . 25 MS . MOORE : We will add but if we put additional next to the others, I 'm just asking . 23 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Do you have a landscape plan already developed? 3 MS . MOORE : No, not really. It was based on a different house plan . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can you make some suggestions on the survey about screening? 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Clearly, it would be a great advantage to everyone if you can provide 6 vegetated buffering that provides not only privacy but sound absorption . 7 MS . MOORE : We already had that in mind, yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I assumed you likely 8 would but if we have the proposal , it would be hlepful . 9 MS . MOORE : Okay. That ' s fine . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody else? 10 MR. McLAUGHLIN : If I could make one last statement? If this Board was inclined to allow a 11 pool, obviously, from my client ' s point of view, they would prefer it at it ' s present site as 12 opposed to getting it closer to their property line by turning it . And I think some of the issues 13 as to the distance from the top of the bluff have already been addressed by the fact that it can be 14 moved back apparently 15 feet without turning it . That would be our preference if you were so 15 inclined to grant this application . MS . MOORE : And the applicant ' s preference as 16 well . But again, it ' s, the Board can decide . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : There ' s nothing you feel 17 you can do to reduce the lot coverage? MS . MOORE : What we can do to reduce the lot 18 coverage? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Right . There ' s nothing you 19 feel like you can go -- MS . MOORE : You ' re asking -- obviously, we ' d 20 rather if you come up with a consensus that we ' ve got to have a smaller pool, what can we do? The 21 reality is that the size of the pool is a minimal size . Once you start getting into a very small, 22 it ' s like a little pond. It ' s a jacuzzi . So what we ' re asking for, again, is not an unreasonable 23 request given that lot coverage has been -- ' 16, 000 square feet of this property has been eliminated 24 with stroke of the pen not based on anything other than -- I think that the way that the code was 25 written did not address accessory structures . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly, I ' d like to get 24 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 going on this but I have to say that the Town in its infinite wisdom did have public hearings, did 3 consider this and they have now basically said that this is what they would like to have the Town 4 people follow which is eliminate that unbuildable part and base the house and everything else on 5 that lot on the buildable part of the land. I think that we have to respect that regardless of 6 the time when it was passed . And I realize how restrictive it is but I ' m sure that the Town ' s 7 people on board felt that way too . They wouldn ' t have passed the law . 8 MS . MOORE : With all due respect, I sat through Code Committee . They did not discuss 9 accessory structures certainly to no level of degree . And I know when they look at the law they 10 don ' t take lots as examples . They just look at it on a general based on their zoning, on a one acre 11 lot on circumstances and situations . They don ' t take an existing subdivision like Pebble Beach and 12 pull one lot out as an example and say how will it apply here? I have rarely seen them do that . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That law does include Pebble Beach. 14 MS . MOORE : Of course but this is already a clustered lot . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : A jurisdictional question. Regardless of what was actually said in 16 the Code Committee or said in the public hearings , that was an opportunity to address what to many 17 would seem to be an obvious change in the law; namely having to do with accessory structure . That 18 has been bedded or not bedded, that has been part of a public forum. The Town Board decided not to 19 distinguish between principal structures and accessory structures . So that was their right, 20 that was through jurisdiction. We had the due process for that . I don ' t think it will be 21 appropriate for this Board to try to introduce such a distinction just on the basis of our small 22 committee vote where it was more or less specifically rejected, or at least implicitly 23 rejected, in the previous thing. This is not the kind of thing that the Zoning Board should be -- 24 MS . MOORE : I understand that but when you ' re talking about making a change to the size 25 of the pool, 100 square feet on a 16, 000 is not even 10 . So you ' re dealing with -- a pool in 25 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 particular is such -- the reduction of it is so miniscule in relation -- 3 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : If you can reduce the size of the pool, it could be related to the 4 setback to the bluff . It might not all be lot coverage . I just wanted to mention that . 5 MS . MOORE : We ' ve already addressed alternatives for setbacks from the bluff . 6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The question was can you reduce the size of the pool and it wasn ' t 7 the reason for lot coverage . It was for any reason at all . So you ' re answer is? 8 MS . MOORE : My answer is that please keep in mind that the lot coverage, reducing the size of 9 the pool impacts , as far as zoning standards go, adversely impacts the applicant much more so than 10 the benefit that it aims to address . So when you ' re looking at the standards for this variance, 11 I would ask you to look carefully at the standards because they have already come to this Board and 12 reduced and tried to mitigate to the extent practical and addressed the issues and the impacts 13 that are obvious as to this property. So I would hope that your good judgment prevails . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you . Does anybody have anything to add? Sir? Just state your name 15 again for the record. MR. KUTSUBIS : Again, I would like to 16 express myself . That I 'm against totally not to give any rights to this person to put a swimming 17 pool either this side or that side . Swimming pool is swimming pool . Trouble is there . Parties going 18 to be there or business will be run. You will realize next year when you ' re going to stop by on 19 the weekend. You will see ten cars outside of this house which is four stories high and 20 20 people make a party. With all due respect I have to the Board, if you will pass by a year from 21 today from there then you will understand how I feel and because already I have a taste in my 22 mouth how they ' re going to run these people . As far as people that drink the water, yes, there is 23 a well over there . They drink water because the city water comes in last 4 or 5 years, 6 years, I 24 will say. Before that, all these houses that have been built, they have a well water and they drink 25 from that water . So all these came because he ' s going to let it go to the ground. It ' ll come back 26 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 to the people . Please take that into consideration . Thank you . I respect you to hear 3 from me . Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir . Okay. 4 Anybody else in the audience have any comments? I ' d like to entertain a motion on this . 5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Seconded. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What are we going to do? I ' ll close this hearing until -- 7 MS . MOORE : Subject to -- I ' ll just reiterate what you ' ve asked for . Equipment location, 8 topography, topo map, the connection to the dry well shown and screening . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay, screening . MS . MOORE : Anything else? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can you please indicate the distance between the propane tank -- 11 MS . MOORE : Equipment location, pool equipment location goes first . I ' m sorry. The last 12 item? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Call out the distance 13 between the proposed siting of the pool and the propane tank. 14 MS . MOORE : You want me to try to locate edge of propane tank? 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re going to have to do that . It ' s a standard size probably. 16 MS . MOORE : It ' s either one size or another . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Not going to know which 17 way it ' s placed in the ground. MS . MOORE : We pretty much know that . It ' s 18 going towards the left . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. We got that all 19 straight . Now, we have a motion made by Leslie . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Seconded by Ruth . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? ( See minutes for resolution . ) 21 Hearing #6041 - Reeve 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Reeve . Looks like we ' re going to have a resolution 23 to grant the applicant ' s request for an adjournment to September 13 , 2007 at 9 : 30 . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll grant that . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 27 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 ** **************** ***** *************** Hearing #6053 - Dickerson/Peters . 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for Dorothy Dickerson/Peters . That ' s Michael ' s . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : "Request for a Variance under Section 5 280-124 , based on the Building Inspector ' s April 23, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a 6 proposed single-family dwelling at less than 40 feet from the front lot line, at 2280 Deep Hole 7 Drive, Mattituck; CTM 123-4-6" This is going to be new construction involving a 35 front yard set 8 back where 40 is required. Mr. Olsen? MR. OLSEN : Good morning . My name is Gary 9 Olsen. I ' m the attorney for the applicant, Dorothy Dickerson Peters , having my offices at Main Road 10 in Cutchogue . This application is for a variance under Section 280-124 concerning the construction 11 of a proposed single family dwelling at less than 40 feet from the front line at 2280 Deep Hole 12 Drive, Mattituck having the Suffolk County Tax Map number 1000-123-4-6 . This is parcel of real 13 property that fronts on Deep Hole Creek. The applicant has approval from the Southold Town 14 Trustees , the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Suffolk County 15 Department of Health Services and an exemption letter from the local water front revitalization 16 program coordinator to locate a proposed house as shown on a survey last dated April 20 , 2006 17 prepared by Stanley J. Isaacson, surveyor . Copies of all the approvals and the survey have been 18 submitted as part of this application . The proposed development is situated in an existing 19 developed water front hamlet community and will be consistent with the character thereof . This 20 property has been owned by the family of Dorothy Dickerson Peters since the 1930 ' s . As shown on the 21 survey, the applicant seeks to set back her house 35 . 7 feet on the northeast corner from Deep Hole 22 Drive and 36 . 4 feet from the northwest corner Deep Hole Drive . The required set back distance under 23 the current zoning code is 40 feet . The square footage in violation of the zoning code is only 24 approximately 200 feet . The reason the house cannot be set back the required 40 feet from the 25 road is the result of accommodating the set back requirements from the wetlands of the Town of 28 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Southold Trustees , the New York State Department of Environment Conservation and the Suffolk County 3 Department of Health Services . This results in a small building envelope . The only way the 4 applicant could comply with a 40 foot set back would be to reduce the width of the house from 21 5 feet to 16 . 68 feet which is not a realistic or viable width for a house in this day and age . The 6 applicant has no other recourse but to seek a variance to locate the house 35 . 7 feet from Deep 7 Hole Drive rather than the required 40 feet . It is respectfully submitted that the requested 8 variance is minor since the proposed house location is only 4 . 3 feet at most closer to Deep 9 Hole Drive than the required 40 feet . The total area of the parcel is 20 , 560 square feet . If the 10 parcel was 560 square feet west, i . e . 20 , 000 square feet, the required set back under the 11 zoning code would be 35 feet and this variance application would not be necessary. Under the 12 Southold Town zoning code, the Zoning Board has the power to grant a variance where there are 13 practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships and the way of carrying out the strict letter of 14 the zoning code so that the spirit of the code shall be observed, public safety and welfare 15 secured and substantial justice done . It is respectfully submitted that the granting of this 16 variance will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a 17 detriment to nearby properties . This is an established neighborhood with improved parcels and 18 the proposed house will be in keeping with the character of other houses in the community . The 19 benefit the applicant seeks cannot be achieved in any other method other than seeking a front yard 20 set back variance because the building envelope is restricted caused by set back requirements from 21 Deep Hole Creek and wetlands . The relief requested is not substantial because the square 22 footage of the area in violation is only approximately 200 square feet and as stated 23 before, if the total lot area was 500 square feet less , the set back, the permitted set back would 24 be 35 feet and this application would not be necessary. The applicant is 90o in compliance 25 with the code set back requirements . The variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the 29 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because the other appropriate 3 governmental agencies such as the Trustees, the DEC and the Health Department have approved this 4 project . As stated before, this variance is not self-created because of the constraints imposed on 5 this water front parcel . The applicant has made every effort to comply as close as possible to the 6 permitted set back and only needs a minor variance from the code . It is respectfully submitted that 7 the requested variance is the minimum that is necessary and adequate but at the same time 8 preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of 9 the community. I respectfully request that the Board grant favorable approval to this application 10 since it ' s the last hurdle that the applicant must cross before construction can begin. Thank you . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : One question . When you 12 talk about the width of the structure, 21 feet, are you referring to the depth? 13 MR. OLSEN : The depth, from the road to the water . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s a pretty comprehensive statement and argument . I wonder if 15 we might have a copy of your statement . I 'm writing this myself . I think some of it might be 16 helpful because there are some facts in their that are noted -- 17 MR. OLSEN : I ' d be happy to provide a copy. I may have to clean it up a little bit . 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s not going to be published. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think you answered that when you did the area variance reasons too . It 20 pretty much follows that . Michael , anything else? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Nothing further . 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I noticed you really 22 have a 3 story house with a loft or is that -- MR. OLSEN : It ' s a 2 story house . 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just attic space above it? 24 MR. OLSEN : I didn ' t really look at the plans that carefully because that really wasn ' t 25 the issue that was addressed here . But obviously, whatever they build has to meet the code . 30 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The peak at 45 feet . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth, anything 3 else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really have no 5 comment . The only thing that I did want to say that I suspect that all of the issues referred to 6 roof drainage have been addressed in all of the approvals that you have garnered. 7 MR. OLSEN: All the requirements of the other governmental agencies would have to be met when 8 the house is constructed. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. OLSEN : You ' re welcome . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Leslie? 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I think this is a very compelling argument for a most reasonable request 11 for a very minor variance in order to comply with a very important set back regulation from the 12 water . I have no questions . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We ' re not hearing 13 too well . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You have to speak into the 14 mic . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I never even knew they 15 were on . I was only saying that I don ' t have any issue at all with what I think is very compelling 16 case for a reasonable minor variance to mitigate any adverse impact on the water front and so I 17 think that it ' s perfectly reasonable and I think it will be a very nice house . I have no questions . 18 MR. OLSEN : Thank you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I don ' t have any questions 19 either . Can I ask if anybody in the audience has anything for or against this application? Mr . 20 Olsen, are you complete with your presentation? MR. OLSEN : I am. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : With that said, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing . 22 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Second. 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All those in favor? (See minutes for resolution . ) 24 ************* **************** ******* Hearing #6056 - Dey 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is Doug Dey . That ' s Jerry ' s application and he ' ll have to read 31 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the notice . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 3 "Request for Variances under Section 280-121, based on the Building Inspector ' s amended 4 May 22 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed additions and alterations to the existing 5 nonconforming building (garage with apartment above, as an accessory to the main building) for 6 the reasons that the proposed construction is not permitted to be enlarged, altered, extended, 7 reconstructed or restored or placed on a different portion of a lot . . . occupied by such use on the 8 effective date of this chapter, nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any 9 means whatsoever . " The building was erected in 1965 under a permit to alter and add to an 10 existing garage with apartment above ; the current plans indicate reconstruction of windows and 11 doors , with decorative dormer addition at 9 feet, and upper deck and storage structure at 15 feet, 12 from side property line . Also, the interior living area will increase with conversion of 13 garage to recreation space in addition to the apartment above garage (also see Building Permit 14 #2867-z and C . O . #Z-2421 dated May 31 , 1966 for a private one family dwelling and garage building) . 15 Location of Property: 1000 Paradise Point Road, Southold; CTM 81-3-24 . 2 . " 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Go ahead. MS . DOTY : Deborah Doty, for the applicant . 17 Let me start to clean up a couple of things and then I can go into the presentation. The permit 18 for the house which is under construction expired. I have a new permit which I will hand you . It was 19 issued yesterday. I also received yesterday from the Building Department a pre-CO for the garage 20 with the apartment above . Does that take care of those two? Therefore, I need to ask the Board ' s 21 indulgence to amend the application slightly. We should also check on the application the box 22 before reversal and the reason I 'm bringing that up is that the Notice of Disapproval is actually 23 now incorrect in that it states that the structure was erected in 1965 under a permit . It preexisted 24 1957 , therefore the structure itself was not erected in 1965 . Rather, in 1965 there was an 25 alteration and an addition to the structure . So the sentence "this structure was erected in 1965 32 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 under a permit" should be deleted . The next sentence should read "the 1965 permit was to alter 3 and add to an existing garage with apartment above . " 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you use the word apartment, this is my file, it ' s rather 5 ironic -- I went back last night trespassed probably and left the file in the car . That ' s the 6 reason that I just asked for the main file . I saw no kitchen in the facility. Are we referring to 7 the apartment as an apartment with kitchen facilities? 8 MS . DOTY : There is a kitchen . It ' s on the northwest corner . 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I must have missed it . It has a heating system. I saw duct work 10 downstairs . MS . DOTY : It ' s heated. 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s a heated structure, right? 12 MS . DOTY : The pre-CO says oil hot water . There ' s a kitchen. There ' s no refrigerator, no 13 dishwasher because the tenant who just moved out about a couple months ago took them with him. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can I make a statement here first . I ' m a little concerned about what 15 you ' re saying about the Notice of Disapproval not being proper and us having to rely on your 16 research for something that the Building Inspector probably should have taken care of . 17 MS . DOTY : You have the pre-CO right now . It was issued yesterday. I just got the 18 documentation necessary to apply for it recently. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : You applied for it 19 after you filed with us? MS . DOTY : Yes . I think last week or the week 20 before . I had to get an affidavit . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You had to get an 21 affidavit about the building permit? MS . DOTY : Yes, uh-hum. So. I apologize . I 22 would have gone back and amended it but it was really -- 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I 'm just concerned about amending the Notice of Disapproval on the fly, so 24 to speak. I 'm wondering if we shouldn ' t have the Building Inspector review your information . 25 MS . DOTY : First of all, the Building Inspector reviewed it yesterday. Not yesterday, 33 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Tuesday . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re relying on what you 3 say and we ' re supposed to rely on the Notice of Disapproval basically. We can ' t amend that in our 4 hearings . We either need to have the Building Inspector amend it according, based on the 5 information that you present to them or we, I don ' t think, we are legally -- 6 MS . DOTY : There are two problems with that . Pat Conklin, who prepared the Notice of 7 Disapproval, I understand is out sick. So she can ' t do it . I did talk with Mike Verity 8 yesterday. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re stating what you 9 said. But honestly, we can ' t rely on that . We have to rely on a Notice of Disapproval . That ' s 10 what we rely on when we have a hearing and I 'm not so sure that -- perhaps maybe we should adjourn 11 this hearing until this afternoon so you can go there -- 12 MS . DOTY : Mr . Verity was supposed to be here this morning . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I can ' t help you there . If you want, I can subpoena him for the next meeting . 14 But it ' s not our purview to make sure the Building Inspector is here to correct any mistake you feel 15 may have been made . I haven ' t reviewed it and I think that if we ' re holding a hearing, we should 16 hold a hearing based on correct information . If you ' re saying it ' s incorrect , our responsibility 17 is to rely on the Notice of Disapproval . If you ' re saying the Notice of Disapproval is incorrect, we 18 need to have that amended. That means you should go over to the Building Inspector and have him 19 amend the Notice of Disapproval . Now, I think the Board is perfectly willing to fit you in this 20 afternoon or even before lunch, if that ' s the case, if you can go over there and present your 21 information to him and let him base his Notice of Disapproval on the information that you currently 22 have . That would be my -- I don ' t know how the Board feels about that . But maybe your 23 presentation is better spent based on the Notice of Disapproval that ' s correct . 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : How would it be if we heard testimony subject to an amended Notice of 25 Disapproval and we could proceed -- CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Here ' s my problem with 34 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that . The Building Inspector may be looking at the information and interpret it differently from 3 the applicant . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s not a problem. 4 We ' re not making any decisions , we ' re only having a hearing . 5 MS . DOTY : If Mr . Verity were here, would that make a difference? 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yeah . MS . DOTY : I just asked Mr . Burger to see if 7 Mike can come over . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : How about if we adjourn 8 the hearing until he comes back and we ' ll go on to the next hearing and we ' ll put you in the next -- 9 when the next hearing . MS . DOTY : Do you have any idea? I mean, 10 this morning, if I can find .him? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' ll be pending, that ' s 11 all . Is that okay? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Can I just ask 12 one question . At this point, the way our file is , if you ' re saying that this Disapproval is 13 incorrect, it kinds of causes a floor on our whole appeal that ' s before the Board. Could you give us 14 a little paragraph as to how you feel it should have been written or how does it affect the legal 15 notice . MS . DOTY : I just did. 16 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Write it on a piece of paper . 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : She just testified to that . 18 MS . DOTY : You have existing evidence issued by the Building Department in the Town of Southold 19 reflecting that the structure was built prior to 1965 , in fact, prior to 1967 . I ' m just asking you 20 to take what we would call in court judicial notice of a fact that just arose . That ' s all I 'm 21 asking . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: One person at a time . 22 Linda? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The only reason I 23 ask that is because you ' re still before the Board for a variance because it ' s a nonconforming use 24 built before 1957 . The jurisdiction of the Board does not change just a matter of the year . I just 25 want to be sure about it . MS . DOTY : I 'm trying to clear up -- do a 35 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 little housekeeping which I apologize, but if you look at that pre-CO, it was faxed to me at 14 : 58 3 yesterday afternoon, which I think actually was two minutes to four . 4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And you weren ' t able to get that before you filed with us, right? 5 MS . DOTY : Yeah . I had to track down somebody to get what I needed. So, I apologize for 6 the delay and the reason you got the building permit was because they were holding the pre-CO 7 hostage . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Here ' s the thing . We 8 can close the hearing and say it ' s going to be contingent on reception of the Notice of 9 Disapproval that says what you say it says before we can make a decision . If for some reason it 10 doesn ' t say in sum and substance what you said, then we will not be able to make a decision and 11 then you have to open up the rehearing and do the whole thing over again . So it would be easier if 12 we had all this today. MS . DOTY : I understand that and I will 13 exceed to the Chairman ' s request that we adjourn the hearing until I track down Mr . Verity. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You said yes , you would agree to that? 15 MS . DOTY : I ' m exceeding to it . I 'm not saying yes . I 'm exceeding to it . 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still need you to reduce that statement where you said that there 17 are inconsistencies because it ' s my file and I need to address those issues within that 18 situation . MS . DOTY : Do you need it today in writing? 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No that can be between the time we have our hearing . 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I ' d like it by early next week. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, here ' s a gentleman. Come before the mic, sir, and state your name and 22 address . MR. MILLER: My name is James Miller . I 'm one 23 of the adjacent neighbors and I object to you adjourning this meeting so that testimony may be 24 taken now . It would be extremely inconvenient for me to come back later this afternoon . I would 25 like the hearing to continue and at least take testimony from the adjoining neighbors . 36 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, I think that ' s not a problem, sir . Anyone else? 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, would you like to make your statement now? 4 MR. MILLER: My name is James Miller . I own the property at 1610 Paradise Point Road and I own 5 the property across the street from the existing dwelling. Mr . Dey is a very valuable member of the 6 community. He ' s building a beautiful home, an asset to the community and I urge you to go 7 forward and give him the permits necessary to complete the dwelling as designed. I think he ' s a 8 a very, very upstanding member and his approval should be granted. Thank you . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Thank you, Mr . Miller . Okay . Deborah, the Building Inspector is 10 here . Do you want to make your presentation or do you want to have him? 11 MS . DOTY : I did not hear what Mr . Miller said but all I heard was approval should be 12 granted. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He said he ' d love to see 13 it there . MS . DOTY : Thank you, sir . Mr . Verity to 14 bring you up to speed, as they say, as to what was happening, I suggested to the Board that the 15 Notice of Disapproval be amended to delete the sentence that said this structure was constructed 16 in 1965 under a permit . . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we know what 17 we ' re talking about . We ' re referring to the amended May 22 , 2007 Disapproval . 18 MS . DOTY : The one that accompanies my application. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to keep this -- 20 MS . DOTY : And the reason I was requesting that that be deleted was because we just received 21 the pre-CO which reflects that the structure was built prior to 1957 . The sentence does not belong 22 there . The next sentence should read the 1965 permit etc . 23 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Would you like to see the file, we have the Disapproval in it if you 24 want to take a look at it . MS . DOTY : I just handed him the Disapproval . 25 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : I need to see all the paperwork if I could. 37 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Do you want to continue while he ' s doing that? 3 MS . DOTY : Sure . I 'm sure he can multitask. He might want to listen to this also . My 4 understanding from my conversation with Mr . Verity yesterday that we ' re really only looking at 3 5 issues on this application . The doors and windows that are "being reconstructed" are, in fact, being 6 replaced and changed out for new doors and windows . The 3 matters that are before the Board 7 are the decorative dormer on the north side of the structure which has no practical use . A small 8 portion of this semicircular exterior staircase on the eastern side of the building away from the 9 street and the conversion of what has been a 3 bay garage to recreation space . That ' s the only 10 interior work that causes the problem with respect to the garage and the apartment . According to 11 Mr . Verity, the other interior and exterior work does not require a variance . The apartment is not 12 being enlarged or expanded and there ' s no change in that use . It ' s a pre-existing, nonconforming 13 use . The dormer is purely decorative . It has no practical function . It ' s small but unfortunately 14 it encroaches on a preexisting small side yard. That side yard would not be decreased as a result 15 of the dormer and I 'm not going to focus a lot on the dormer if that ' s all right with the Board 16 unless you wish me to talk about it . The exterior staircase which is semicircular and mimics and 17 mirrors the house, that encroaches , according to my calculations , less than 210 square feet into 18 the side yard and that is taking a rectangle, not a semicircle, but a rectangle on the size of it . 19 We, however, are not diminishing the 8 foot side yard that currently exists as a result of that 20 addition . I think probably one of the biggest reasons to have that addition is that it provides 21 a second emergency access to the apartment in the event it ' s needed. The 3 bay garage, as I said, 22 we don ' t need it . We have a 3 bay garage in the house and it ' s unnecessary now . For safety 23 reasons among others , we ' re abandoning the garage use down below. However, what are you going to 24 do with it because it ' s space, it exists , we can ' t just cut it out . We ' re removing a potential 25 hazard. Nobody wants a garage under living space . And while it might be categorized as living space, 38 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 it ' s not habitable space . There ' s no increase or change in the use . According to Mr . Verity, the 3 only reason this is part of this application is there ' s a door that links the hallway with that 4 recreation, interior door . I 'm asking the Board to grant this variance because there are a whole 5 bunch of different reasons but there are safety and health issues that this variance application 6 addresses . You ' re going to have immediate access to the apartment from the street on the western 7 side of the property. You ' ll have a second exit and entrance on those stairs on the eastern side 8 of the property. We ' re getting rid of the potential safety hazard of the garage under the 9 apartment . We ' re going to put in proper egress (phonetic) windows in the apartment, obviously and 10 we ' ll have code compliant and energy efficient windows , doors , etc in the building . All of the 11 additions when you come right down to it are nonhabitable . They ' re just additions to a 12 preexisting dwelling . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You say that but 13 let ' s discuss the affect of heating the lower half which was not heated before . That ' s a significant 14 change . This is not a sarcastic statement , Ms . Doty. That may have been construed in your mind 15 not to be a significant change . But the question I was going to ask you in the middle of this 16 presentation was , is the reck room going to be heated? 17 MS . DOTY : It ' s already heated . (Unidentified audience member speaking . ) 18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We need your name please, and to use the mic . 19 MS . BERGER: Eugene Berger . I just want to point out that that space is heated now . There ' s a 20 modaine (phonetic) heater in that space . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that what I 'm 21 looking at when I look at the door, the furthest door to the right through the duct work, Gene? 22 MR. BERGER: Well, you know, I have construction stuff, shingles and stuff stored in 23 there for the main house . You may not have seen that heater but it is definitely in there . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS . DOTY : Does that answer your question? 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Uh-hum. MS . DOTY : Therefore, I 'm asking you to grant 39 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the variance . I ' m doing going to go through all the criteria on an area variance . It ' s already in 3 my application . If you wish me to, I will . The Board is already running late this morning and I ' m 4 sure we ' ll keep on talking so I will stop . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael . Do you need a 5 little more time or are you all set? BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : I 'm good, Jim. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can you come up . We just want to discuss the Notice of Disapproval and 7 whether we can get just get an amended one . BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : Mike Verity, 8 Chief Building Inspector, Town of Southold . It could be cleaned up a little bit, Jim. The one 9 statement -- sentence that was highlighted. It could be cleaned up . 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Based on the information that Ms . Doty presented today, it would be 11 different from what you were writing the Notice of Disapproval for when you did. 12 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: No . I mean you have how many people up there? Everybody is going 13 to write a paragraph a little differently but it ' s going to mean the same thing . It ' s either one plus 14 two equals three or two plus one equals three . That ' s what Pat intended to come out a little 15 differently than that . I would not have worded it that way. It needs to be changed, long story 16 short . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Heres my concern and this 17 is the reason why I asked and what not, it ' s because often times people will come in and say 18 you said something and quite honestly, I can ' t take that as your testimony. I know we hunted you 19 down this morning and I appreciate the fact that you came in and people have to know that if 20 they ' re going to make statements that are attributed to you, that I feel it ' s fair to you to 21 hear what you have to say. BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : I appreciate 22 that, thank you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I don ' t think your need to 23 set your time aside . But I know Eugene is extremely pit bullish when it comes to getting 24 things done . I knew it would get done as soon as I saw him go out that door . 25 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: I was at a Department Head meeting. I mentioned yesterday 40 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that I would try and get here if I could. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I know that you did. I 3 appreciate that . So we can have that in a couple of days, we ' ll put that in our file . 4 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: We can do that immediately. It ' s just a couple of words that 5 need to be changed. It was a preexisting building and it was altered under a 1965 permit . That ' s 6 the way it should be . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It ' s my concern that we 7 publish something they may have not been the full information. People read it in the publication 8 and think, oh, well it was built in 165 when it really wasn ' t . I ' m just concerned about that part 9 of it . BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : This is actually 10 to their benefit to have it done prior to . It would be a harder decision to make if it was built 11 in ' 65 . But it was definitely pre- 157 and the alterations were made under a permit in 1965 and 12 that ' s the way the sentence should read if that does help . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly. And it was certainly my impression when I read it and it was 14 going to be a question from me . BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : If you look at 15 the supporting documentation that ' s in your file, you can see that that ' s incorrect and it should be 16 worded differently. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thanks Mike . 17 MS . DOTY : While Mr . Verity is here, I said that he said a couple of things yesterday and I 18 just want to make sure that he said them so the Board is happy. 19 One was that the reconstruction of the windows and doors , they ' re really replacements and 20 they ' re not being reconstructed and they do not require a variance, correct? 21 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : That ' s correct . Our biggest concern would be, if any, would be the 22 area below as Jerry pointed out . The use of that area . Everything else, in our eyes, is basically 23 minute . Just an increase in area . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question would 24 be then -- I 'm not running a hard nose situation -- I have to write this, it has to be reduced to 25 somewhat of a passage to be voted on . How do you segregate the two of them? Gene says there ' s a 41 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 modiem (phonetic) heater in there . The question is, is that heater going to stay or is there going 3 to be a more sophisticated heater placed in there . Noone doubts that this applicant, after seeing 4 what is constructed there and seeing the builder that ' s constructing it , that it ' s a magnificent 5 place . There ' s no question about it . It ' s a magnificent place in a magnificent location but we 6 don ' t know what ' s going to happen in the future . He may decide to sell it and so on and so forth . 7 So that ' s the reason I 'm a pinned on that issue . How far can we go in reference to the construction 8 of a rec room and based upon a decision of converting a three car garage into a rec room. It 9 was moderately heated, I assume, at one time . So what ' s your suggestion? 10 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : We have to keep in mind too just by removing as she did repeat a 11 statement that I did make . If you remove the door and stop the flow between the second floor and 12 first floor, and technically that could be accessory to a pool and it could be in a pool 13 house, which is a permitted use, she wouldn ' t even have to be here at all . It ' s just a matter of a 14 door equivalent of a few hundred dollar item. You would not have the internal access anymore . If you 15 have the flow by design, you ' re increasing the nonconformity upstairs . You remove the door to be 16 an accessory to a pool which is a permitted use . Again, they wouldn ' t have to be here . The dormers 17 are for aesthetic purposes only. They ' re not something that you can go up and stand in . And 18 the only thing then would be the, staircase and that could be removed to a point and pushed out of 19 the way to possibly avoid any variance issues as well . There ' s other sections of the code that do 20 allow encroachments on yard requirements for access to a building. So that could be open to 21 interpretation as well . What they ' re seeking, I feel, is basically the increase in the downstairs 22 area which could easily be changed by removing a door . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re just really considering the flow. Allowing that staircase -- 24 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: By design, that ' s correct, by design . If you ' re going to allow that 25 to remain or make an outside . But I mean the life safety issues that are going to be corrected there 42 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 are, I think in my mind, paramount . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : With cars being parked 3 under -- BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : Exactly. The 4 potential of having four cars in that area is a hazard. Not only because of fire but carbon 5 monoxide and other issues . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie, do you have? 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I was going to ask or point out that there is a proposed pool location 7 right there and when you say recreation space, what kind of recreation? It could clearly be in 8 relationship to pool storage, a cabana of some sort or another . That to me is still a 9 recreational use and you can just change the name on the floor plan or you can call it recreation in 10 relationship to pool use . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No the problem comes with 11 having access to that from the apartment . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I totally understand 12 that . That ' s not where I was going . The question that I have was since the applicant stated that 13 the tenant above will not be using the recreational space proposed below, and there is 14 egress (phonetic) through the existing one car garage from the interior . 15 MS . DOTY : There ' s also a direct access out . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : From the proposed 16 circular stair . There ' s also an interior relationship between the apartment and the 17 existing one car garage which they use . So why then is the door that connects that foyer into the 18 recreation space included. If, in fact, the applicant is proposing a segregated use from the 19 tenant space above? What ' s the benefit of having that door? 20 MS . DOTY : Maybe Tom Samuels , who designed it, can explain it . Can you? 21 MR. SAMUELS : Tom Samuels . It ' s purely convenience . To have two spaces that are not 22 connected is a little frustrating at times . It isn ' t intended as a living room for the upper 23 space . It was just because it kind of makes sense to have the link other than for zoning reasons . 24 Obviously, for zoning reasons it may be impossible . To not put a door between two spaces 25 that are in the same building and force people to go outside and around is a little bit awkward. 43 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 It ' s not fundamental to our need but it would make things easier at certain times . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I would agree that it ' s awkward if, in fact, there is a relationship 4 among the spaces . But if there is no relationship among the spaces , segregating them is acceptable . 5 MS . SAMUELS : It ' s acceptable, I agree . MS . DOTY : I believe my client would 6 reluctantly. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Again, the intent is 7 to clarify use . Use is part of the variance . So if it is meant to be used as an external , inside to 8 outside relationship to the pool or the inhabitants of the principle dwelling and they ' re 9 recreational purposes , then the connection though awkward spatially in the total use of the building 10 is perfectly justified . Then that variance goes away. 11 MS . DOTY : With the staircase there would be the stairs going down to the western side of the 12 building as well as the staircase, so there ' s two different access . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was a little confused, one of those bays for the garage is 14 still going to continue? MS . DOTY : The one on the northern part of 15 the building . It ' s a four car garage . There ' s the three bays and then there ' s one on the north side 16 of the building . That ' s a single that the tenant uses that right now, to get into the apartment you 17 have to go through the utility room, go outside and go up the door . 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : One question . The part 19 that nonhabitable, it ' s just a recreation room, right? 20 MS . DOTY : Yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Obviously, you ' re not 21 talking about a nonhabitable apartment . Then you could argue in response to the question about the 22 availability of getting into the recreation would be something like availability to a nonhabitable 23 attic . MS . DOTY : Correct . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : There ' s no problem with having stairways going up to a nonhabitable attic . 25 MS . DOTY : Or a nonhabitable basement . There are basement doors , there are attic doors . You ' re 44 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 absolutely correct . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The doors cannot be an 3 obstacle to a room. MS . DOTY : I would hope not an'd I would hope 4 that it would remain open because it makes sense to have it there . But I 'm not demanding that . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, are you okay? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes, I 'm done . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, do you have anything to ask? 7 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry? Leslie? 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' m done . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m pretty good. 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All right . Anybody else MS . DOTY : Once again I 'm going to request 10 that you grant the variance as presented and we will provide you with a new Notice of Disapproval . 11 I have no problem with it being amended at this point . It doesn ' t do anything to what I have 12 submitted to you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Thank you . Eugene, 13 do you have anything else to add? (Non audible response) 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Again, I ' d like to thank the Building Inspector for coming . 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you again, Mike . Anybody have any comments against this 16 application . Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to close this hearing until the 16th . 17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHERINGER: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I ' m going to entertain a 20 motion for five minutes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . 22 (See minutes for resolution. ) (Whereupon, a short recess was held from 23 11 : 20 - 11 : 35 a .m. ) (Back on the record. ) 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We need a motion to reconvene . 25 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second . 45 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 3 Hearing #6064 - Casey 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for Janina A. Casey . Application 6064 . 5 "Request for a Variance under Section 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector ' s June 6 17 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing 7 dwelling, which new construction will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, concrete wall, riprap 8 or similar structure adjacent to tidal water body (Hog Neck Bay) , at 275 Waters Edge Way, Southold; 9 CTM 88-5-58 . " I understand, sir, that you ' re asking for a 10 set back from the bulk head of 63 feet . MR. OLIVER: That ' s correct . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You can start your presentation with your name and address . 12 MR. OLIVER: My name is Dennis Oliver and I ' m the architect for the project . My address is 13 924 Newbridge Road, Bellmore, New York 11710 . Good morning, Mr . Chairman and Members of the 14 Board. The case this morning is concerning 275 Waters Edge Way . As stated this is under Section 15 280-116B distance to bulkhead not the required 75 feet for the proposed construction . The proposed 16 construction is a second floor addition over the main footprint of the house with a one story rear 17 screenroom and a deck above that . We ' re also proposing to construct a front roof over porch in 18 addition to the above items I ' ve already mentioned. The existing house was constructed in 19 1960 and is currently a one story ranch . The house currently contains four bedrooms , one and a 20 half baths , a kitchen, a dining room, a living room and a dining room combo and a garage with an 21 enclosed breezeway. The bedroom sizes currently go from 11 . 9 by 12 feet down to a 8 ' 5" by 9 ' 7 " . 22 As far as the proposed construction on the first floor . Most of the work that we ' re looking at 23 would be interior of this area . We are going to enlarge the existing kitchen, remove the bedrooms 24 and relocate them to the second floor . Hence the reason for the proposed construction . We are 25 going to cut back the line of the garage in the front and set that back to give the font of the 46 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 house a little personality and create a two car garage by taking the area of the existing 3 breezeway . The house currently has a one car garage on it . We ' re looking to increase that to 4 two cars . The addition on the back for the screenroom, because it ' s a tidal area, the client 5 felt that it might be more conducive to be able to sit outside and have a screened porch . Hence the 6 reason for this area in the back. It is a three season room. It will not be heating in any way . 7 Strictly constructed of screening . The set back for that area would be 67 ' 4 " from the bulk head 8 to that screen room. We ' re proposing on the second floor to construct three bedrooms and two 9 baths with a washer/dryer closet . The bedroom sizes would be increased significantly owing to 10 the fact that we do not require a kitchen or a dining room on the second floor . The master 11 bedroom would go to 22 ' 4 " by 19 ' 10 " with a separate sitting room and two other bedrooms which 12 would be 15 by 12 and 16 by 3 . The proposed construction square footage wise would be 13 approximately 1700 square feet with the existing house construction of approximately 2000 square 14 feet which would give us a total square footage wise of 3700 square feet for that house . The new 15 construction on the second floor is the primary reason we are here for this variance . The set 16 back as stated would be 63 ' 3" . It should be pointed out that the house as it currently exists 17 has a set back to an existing rear addition of 55 ' 1" . Now this house as I stated before was 18 constructed in 1960 . We are not proposing to build over that portion that projects so far out . 19 We are holding the addition back over the main portion of the house in reference to the zoning 20 requirements . We have also set the second floor in on the east side of the property so that we 21 would not require a side yard variance . In all other respects in reference to zoning, we have 22 done as much as we can so that we would not require any variances for height or side yard or 23 front yard. In reference to the neighborhood, the house itself as proposed, the neighborhood has 24 been extensively developed. There are other houses in the area which appearance from the 25 street are going to be higher and will have more street presence . The client was just looking to 47 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 increase the size of a little area . She was not looking for a monument to herself . The house has 3 been owned by the family since 1998 and she ' s just looking to increase the living area so that she 4 would be just a little bit more comfortable . As I stated previously in all other respects, the house 5 itself is in compliance with all the other zoning requirements . It will not be a detriment to the 6 neighborhood. It will be lower than most of the existing houses there . It obviously will be higher 7 than the house next door because that house is a one story house but it will not overpower it in my 8 opinion . I would request that the Board please consider all the options as they were presented 9 and if so, please grant favorably. Thank you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry? 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is all the roof runoff contained on site? 11 MR. OLIVER: Yes , sir, it is . We have taken that into account and done calculations for dry 12 wells and we have plotted those on the site plan for the Building Department . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what did you say for the record that the height to the ridge 14 is? MR. OLIVER: Height to ridge will be based 15 on an average grade at the house . That would be 27 feet and that ' s to the ridge not to the 16 midpoint . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you 17 at field inspection, of course the house to the east is two story. It ' s hard to superimpose a 18 second story on that . However, the property itself gives it a little bit of an air . There ' s 19 room there . It ' s not a tight situation . And by the mere fact that you ' re not necessarily 20 increasing anything there except for that set back which is not being increased to the bulk head 21 except maybe inches . MR. OLIVER: Inches . Our intent is to stay 22 within that main line of the existing house . We ' re not going past that line . We want to make sure 23 that it fits the character of the neighborhood. We don ' t want to overpower anything. Again, like I 24 said, we ' re trying to keep the design simple and just give the owner the basics of what she was 25 looking for . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you . 48 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Lelie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just want to 3 clarify . The application says you will be 63 feet from the bulk head? Did you not just say that the 4 current set back is 5511? MR. OLIVER: That ' s correct . That ' s for an 5 existing rear one story addition . We ' re not building over that . We ' re not touching that in any 6 way whatsoever . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. So that ' s 7 remaining. This portion remains and you are actually increasing the set back from the bulk 8 head with new construction . MR. OLIVER: That is correct, yes . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can you guesstimate what pecentage of new construction there will be 10 relative to the amount that will be demoed? MR. OLIVER: The demo for the most part will 11 take place on the interior of the house because we ' re just moving walls around on the inside . The 12 biggest rip out would be the area where the screenroom is where we ' re increasing the size of 13 the garage . Percentagewise based on the existing floor area, it ' s no more than 8 to 10o at the 14 most . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One other question . I 15 don ' t know whether this is operable or not and I don ' t know whether to comment or not but I 16 observed on site inspection a sprinkler head within some Junipers along the bulk head -- not 17 the bulk head but the top of the bluff . Is there an irrigation system, do you know an underground 18 irrigation system on that property because the property slopes just slightly towards the bluff . 19 I 'm just curious about that . MR. OLIVER: To the best of my knowledge I 20 don ' t know if there is an irrigation system in place . I can find out . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I only saw the one sprinkler head. 22 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would say there would have to be because the grass was pretty 23 plush when I was there . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s not before us 24 but it ' s an site observation . One last thing, the gravel driveway that ' s there now, it looks as 25 though you ' re going to leave it the way it is? MR. OLIVER: It is going to say. We may just 49 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 dress it up and add some more gravel to clean it up and make it nicer . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So that the front elevation essentially remains -- other than 4 elevational change obviously the architectural -- but that set back remains the same? 5 MR. OLIVER: That is correct . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No other questions . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No questions . 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I think he ' s done a 8 good job . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I have no questions . I 9 guess I would just like to state if you do tear this down at some point in time, you know you ' ll 10 need another variance . You want to be very careful about that . 11 MR. OLIVER: It ' s not our intention to take the house down at all . The four exterior walls 12 will remain . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody else have 13 anything to add? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, you can come on up . State your name please . 15 MR. QUARTARARO : My name is Thomas Quartararo . I 'm representing Crown International 16 Trading Corporation, the owner of the adjoining property to the west . It ' s referred to as Lot 59 , 17 House 439 . For the record, the house number is 435 not 439 . And the company ' s name is not Crow, it ' s 18 Crown International . Having heard Mr . Oliver ' s statements , I 'm relatively pleased with the 19 application before you . However, there was a bit of a mix up here and I just want to bring it to 20 the Board ' s attention . The drawings that were presented to myself and I assume the adjoining 21 neighbor do not reflect the construction that is being proposed and the variance request that ' s 22 before you. And I ' d like to present that to you right now, if I may. I want to qualify I ' m not an 23 architect but certainly anyone addressing that drawing would be confused as to the nature of the 24 variance request . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm not sure what ' s 25 different from what ' s been handed to us? MR. QUARTARARO : Again, I 'm not an architect 50 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 but as a layman looking at that , it only seems to indicate that the proposal for variance only 3 covers a deck and the back room not a dormer . Now, can you find a dormer on that drawing because 4 I couldn ' t . I had to assume there was . They do indicate what ' s proposed. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It does say proposed second story addition . 6 MR. QUARTARARO : How do you determine that from that drawing? 7 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The cross-hatch . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The cross-hatch is what 8 they ' re proposing we look at . We ' re only concerned basically about set backs . 9 MR. QUARTARARO : Again, I 'm looking at the drawing here that refers to this room and that 10 room. Not this . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s the subject of this 11 whole application is that gray spot . MR. QUARTARARO : I see . 12 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : To let you know, we have a file with more information that you ' re 13 welcome to look at . MR. QUARTARARO : That ' s quite all right . 14 Basically again, being a next door neighbor to this property I have no objection and I think it ' s 15 going to be a benefit to the community and to our area . The only other comment I ' d like to address 16 is the proposed propane tank location . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What would you like to 17 say? MR. QUARTARARO : I would like to say I ' d 18 like to see that a little bit further from the property line if at all possible . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We can ask the applicant . I don ' t think there ' s any restriction on that in 20 our code but perhaps if you ' re offended by it -- MR. QUARTARARO : I think with the price of 21 propane it might be an issue . All right . That ' s all I had to say thank you for your time . 22 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : If I can just ask for the spelling of your last name . 23 MR. Quartararo : It ' s Q-U-A-R-T-A-R-A-R-O. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Thank you . 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, Mr . Oliver . I was just wondering if you could address the propane 25 tank in some way . MR. OLIVER: We would be more than happy to 51 r 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 relocate that or move that further off the property line without a problem. 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : How much further, any idea? 4 MR. OLIVER: The only thing I 'm concerned with is just the location of the dank to the 5 driveway. I want to make sure we have sufficient clearance for that . I would say at least another 6 five feet minimum. We ' ll push it as far as possible . 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Thank you very much . Anybody else have any other questions of 8 Mr . Oliver? No . Anybody have anything for or against this application? Hearing none, I ' ll 9 entertain a motion to close this hearing . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. 10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . 11 (See minutes for resolution . ) 12 Hearing #6059 - F. J. GERARD HOLDINGS/SEIFERT CONSTRUCTION . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for F. J. Gerard Holdings, LLC/Seifert Construction . 14 That ' s Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances 15 under Se.Fctdons 280-64 , based on the Building Inspector ' s June 4 , 2007 amended Notice of 16 Disapproval concerning proposed construction for use as a custom workshop in this LI Light 17 Industrial Zone District . The reasons stated for disapproving a building permit application are 18 that the new construction is : ( 1 ) less than 100 feet from the right-of-way; (2 ) will have a single 19 side yard at less than 10 feet ; (3 ) will have a total side yard at less than 40 feet for both 20 setbacks ; ( 4 ) the rear yard is less than 70 feet . Location of Property: 11780 Sound Avenue, 21 Mattituck; CTM 141-3-44 . " CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ms . Moore? 22 MS . MOORE : Yes . Thank you. I have with me today for the this hearing John and Fred Seifert 23 who are the principles of Seifert Construction . Mark Schwartz is the architect on this project . 24 They are all here to assist me and answer questions that you might have . This property is 25 in fact LI zoned. It is proper zoning for this use . The use that we ' ve proposed here is a i i 52 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 permitted use . The LI zoning presumes a one acre lot . However, this corridor here is preexisting 3 nonconforming with respect to the lot sizes . This parcel is 11, 517 square feet in size . We do meet 4 the lot coverage criteria of 30 not exceeding 300 . So the size of the building is in compliance with 5 the code . However, set backs obviously are an issue . There is an existing residence on the 6 property. The residents had previously sought to run a business of a tower . I believe you have a 7 long record of that -- the Rosen property. That was denied. And the house that is presently on 8 the property, in fact , is a preexisting nonconforming use because LI presumes the 9 residences are not to be in that zoning . It ' s a business zoning, industrial zoning . Mr . Seifert 10 provided me photographs . Some of you probably if you were smart did not enter the back end of the 11 property. The house is in very poor condition and I will provide photographs for you for the record 12 just so it shows this is the back of the house that probably none of you were able to access . So 13 if you can put that in your file . We provided for you a site map that shows the set back of the 14 other structures along Sound Avenue and you can see from the site map that has the average set 15 back showing -- which is one of the maps you have in front of you -- shows that you have Cold 16 Mechanical that is to the west of this property is at twelve and a half feet . You have two houses 17 that are again to the west between Cold Mechanical and this property. They are set back a little bit 18 further thirty-two and half and fifty-eight and a half . Then this property which has an existing 19 set back that is nonconforming. And our proposed building is to begin at the location of where the 20 house is . But we have a front porch, a covered porch at the start of our building which tries to 21 create a nice design, somewhat residential looking structure . So it doesn ' t look like an industrial 22 building as Penny Lumbar over to the east . Penny Lumbar is only three and a half feet from the 23 property line so that the properties that have developed along Sound Avenue are certainly very 24 close to the property line .. The average set back of these properties would be 23 . 9 . We provided 25 that number for you . We are at 22 . 9 in order to push the building towards the front and keep the 53 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 parking in the back. The Long Island Railroad abuts on the back of the property and it seemed 3 appropriate to have all parking be in the backside of the structure . I provided for you a very 4 recent landscape plan prepared by Briarcliff which has the proposed landscaping . The Planning Board 5 had seen the same drawing that you had in your file when we submitted the application . Their 6 suggestion was that two of the large trees that are presently -- that we try to preserve those . 7 We ' ve included them here in the landscape plan and to the extent we can, we will certainly try to 8 keep them. The two trees are the one right in front of the existing house now and the one over 9 to the west of the property line . The placement of this structure certainly could be moved over if 10 the Board wished to even out , create greater set back to the property owner on the east . We have 11 to maintain a driveway that is adequate for the truck vehicles to come in and turn around and go 12 into the building . The building has garage doors in the back. Again, because we are cognizant of 13 the continued residential uses adjacent on both sides, we have tried to design a building that is 14 fully insulated, fully heated. I ' ve asked if they would mind including air conditioning as well for 15 the entire building in order to keep noise and disturbance from the residential property owners 16 and they certainly had no issue with providing air conditioning for the entire building even the back 17 end which is the workshop storage area . We have provided, as you can see, the landscaping site 18 plan but we are, again, our reasons for pushing the building closer to the front rather than 19 pushing it to the back and make it a lesser variance is that it would unfortunately place all 20 our parking towards the front and that we thought was not the best site plan for this property. So 21 given the size of the property, the variances are a preferable way of building out this site than to 22 try to conform to the set back code . Finally, we show you the arborvitae to protect against 23 intrusion into the neighbors . So I ' m sure you have questions and I ' d rather entertain the 24 questions than -- my written application talks about the area variance criteria . It think this 25 time is better suited for questions . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is it the reason that 54 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 you ' re keeping the one side yard 27 . 94 the big trucks that might be coming in? 3 MS . MOORE : Yes . Twenty-seven point nine . The driveway is actually 5 feet less so it ' s 22 . 9 . 4 We hope that it ' s both for the truck vehicles and also to be able to if a car is parked along the 5 driveway, it provides access for a car to pass or even if a car is coming out, a car to come in . So 6 it does allow for two-way vehicle movement so that was the design. 7 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Actually as a whole, I think it ' s a good way of dressing up the whole 8 area . MS . MOORE : This will be a significant 9 improvement . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It looks really nice . I 10 like it . Maybe somebody else doesn ' t but I think it ' s a very good job . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay Ruth? Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only issue I 12 have is in the mix use, not mixed use of the zoning but mixed nonconforming use area . The 13 issue of air conditioning is important for the noise factor with the houses around. 14 MS . MOORE : Personally, I thought so . I know that they are insulated building windows keeping 15 window size, insulated windows are proposed here . The access point being in the back, the garage 16 door, so it seemed to me that since they were making already such a significant effort, that the 17 air conditioning would make his dad, who is the one employee who ' s going to be working in here, 18 probably more comfortable but also keeping in mind the noise abatement to the property. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie? 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : First of all, it ' s in a mixed residential area, it ' s very appropriate to 21 put parking in the rear . I think that residential scale of the front elevation is very, very nice in 22 terms of being able to retain some of the character of the mixed use neighborhood and 23 placing parking in the rear is also a great amenity in terms of retaining the character of the 24 street scape . Is there anyway that -- .I understand now that the width of the driveway and r` 25 you want two-way -- it ' s actually safer to have it that way than to have to backup . But is there any 55 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 chance of reducing the width of the actual building by a few feet simply to increase the side 3 yard from the other neighbor? It ' s called out at 40 feet wide which is not an unreasonable size for 4 an industrial building at all but if it were 38 or 36 feet wide, a couple more feet gives you just -- 5 I mean the landscape plan shows just one single line of arborvitae which is not a very substantial 6 vegetative buffer even when they grow over time . If you just simply could scoot it over slightly, 7 you would have room for larger more mature plantings , perhaps , and I don ' t know whether you ' d 8 be compromising the floor plan any by a few feet but perhaps you could address that while we ' re 9 here . MR. SEIFERT : Hi . I ' m Fred Seifert . As far 10 as the size of the width of the building, we wouldn ' t have a problem going down to 38 feet and 11 maybe making the asphalt less wide but the storage space, the size of the lot being so small and the 12 building -- we were hoping to maximize our storage space in that building . But we wouldn ' t be 13 objected to taking a few feet off and maybe a little less asphalt in the width of the driveway 14 to the back to give us more of a border for plantings and screenings . We wouldn ' t have an 15 objection . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You can scoot it over 16 altogether with reducing . How many feet do you think? 17 MR. SEIFERT : Say maybe we took two feet out of the building and took another two feet out of 18 the pavement, that would give us another four feet in screenings that we could put along that east 19 side of the property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That would be great . 20 That ' s then a 14 foot side yard which I think is quite good. 21 MS . MOORE : If I may suggest, the building would be your prerogative . The blacktop we can 22 certainly send internally a memo back to the planning. We ' re willing to do that . My 23 suggestion and I thought pushing the building over since we don ' t have any, other than windows, we 24 could possibly increase the vegetation a more mature vegetation and push the building away so we 25 can increase in the open area the screening . I ' ll leave you to deliberate, but yes , we have a little 56 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 flexibility. MR. SEIFERT : One question I have, are you 3 talking about the west side or the east side? Because I ' m talking about the east side of the 4 property. I thought it would be more important to have more screenings on the east side being that 5 that ' s the driveway and where deliveries might be coming in and what not . Where on the ten foot 6 side, the west side that we ' re proposing could be all plantings . It ' s going to be grass and it ' s 7 going to be vegetated rather nicely. If I was the neighbor, I would prefer to see more screenings on 8 the east side of the property. If we took two feet out of the width of the building and then took 9 maybe another two feet out of the width of the asphalt driveway through the back, I would prefer 10 to add it to the east side for more screening for that neighbor . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And then retain your ten foot siding . 12 MR. SEIFERT : And retain the ten foot . Another thing for the Board to take note of, this 13 is a storage and a cabinet shop is what we want to do here . We are custom home builders and we build 14 cabinets for our own projects and what not . This isn ' t a high end ten employee type shop where this 15 is all we do and it ' s a lot of traffic in and out . If we have one truck delivery every two weeks with 16 some lumbar, that would be a lot . Our main business is, like I said, custom home buildings 17 and we ' re just looking for a place to have our offices . We build, like I said, some mantles and 18 some bookcases for our projects . It ' s not even though we ' re calling it a cabinet shop, it ' s not 19 per say a high end manufacturing, people walk in and we have a showroom to show them cabinets and 20 what not . We build our cabinets strictly for our homes that we build . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Will you be doing any of that cabinet making on the premises? Will you 22 have power equipment there or are you just doing a showroom and storage? 23 MR. SEIFERT : There will be some equipment in the shop . It ' s probably about half storage and 24 half equipment but it ' s very light stuff . We don ' t build kitchens . 25 MS . MOORE : Let me clarify that , it ' s not a showroom. 57 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. SEIFERT : Not a showroom. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No retail anything . 3 MR. SEIFERT : No . It ' s not retail . They ' ll be no cash register there . It ' s really for our 4 storage and storing some of our lumbar equipment and we will be having a small area that will be a 5 shop with our offices . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I assumed there will 6 be a shop in there but it didn ' t show that on the plan . 7 MR. SEIFERT : It is a shop . We ' re not trying to hide that fact . One thing my brother and 8 I as we looked for properties , we were very cognizant of looking for a property that was zoned 9 correctly . As you ' re well aware of, there ' s a million barns that we can just go and put 10 equipment in and run and not really care if we ' re zoned right or not . We were very cognizant of 11 buying a piece that was zoned correctly and wanted to do it correctly. So that ' s how we ended up 12 here being that we ' re in the right zoning and we are very cognizant of the fact that there ' s 13 neighbors next to us and we will make every attempt to please them. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : How might the noise of the equipment, assuming windows are closed, 15 because you ' re air conditioned, in the winter you wouldn ' t want them open . I 'm sure you ' ll ventilate 16 your space properly for indoor air quality. How might that noise of the equipment impact the 17 neighbors , the residential? MR. SEIFERT : Like I said, we are not a high 18 end manufacturing facility. Basically right now we ' re just a one man shop, which is what my 19 father does . He runs the shop for us . He works probably half a day . He comes in his van . Works to 20 12 o ' clock and he ' s done . Not really very heavy equipment . We have some table saws , chop box . It ' s 21 pretty standard as the neighbor who would be building something in his garage . We ' re not a high 22 end cabinet manufacturing business . MS . MOORE : I think what you were asking and 23 I mentioned it earlier, is that the building is insulated. It ' s going to be heated. They ' re going 24 to be insulated windows as well . Mark, maybe you know what your plan is for the materials? But 25 everything is intended for sound covering . MR. SEIFERT : Yes . The building will be 58 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 heated and air conditioned so it will be closed other than the times the doors open up to bring 3 deliveries in . So I think to the best of our ability, we will keep the noise down . Again, I 4 just wanted the Board to realize, it ' s not a high end manufacturing facility that we ' re trying to 5 put here . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One last question . I 6 assume that you will be discussing any kind of security lighting or anything with the Planning 7 Board? MS . MOORE : Yes . Probably just motion 8 detectors in the back for security . But very little lighting is needed there . 9 MR. SEIFERT : We don ' t intend to have anything more than that ' s needed. Whatever 10 Planning Board wishes us to have . I ' m not looking to put lighting up on the property. 11 MS . MOORE : The other businesses , Cold Mechanical and Penny Lumbar, really don ' t have a 12 lot of lighting . Southold is still pretty safe . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s it . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I think it ' s an 14 interesting plan . It raises an interesting question and I think you ' re dealing with it pretty 15 well . Namely, a 100 foot set back required for LIL . Here we have a case which is preexisting 16 mixed neighborhood and I think I would agree that to expect new businesses to conform to the 17 basically industrial park problem would be quite inappropriate . I certainly applaud the idea of 18 making it look to fit in with the residences and the parking behind. With the suggestion that 19 Leslie made and the possibility of altering this , I 'm interested in what you were saying about the 20 warehouse . So I ' d like to ask a couple of questions . When you say warehouse, what kinds of 21 things are going to be stored there? Basically uncut lumbar? 22 MR. SEIFERT : Uncut lumbar, scaffolding, pump jacks, those types of things . 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Equipment used for variance building functions . It ' s going to be your 24 center of operation? MR. SEIFERT : Exactly. 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I was wondering whether since you were willing to consider making the 59 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 building a little narrower in order to have greater set back on the east side, would it be 3 useful to lengthen the warehouse in compensation that you ' re losing room in the warehouse . The 4 question comes in, I notice you have five parking spaces . 5 MS . MOORE : I honestly don ' t think they need it and I would suggest when we get to the Planning 6 Board, I would suggest reducing the parking to the minimum that is really necessary. 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That is what I ' m getting at . If you were going to lose the parking spaces 8 because of Planning Board consideration, then you would have more room to extend the warehouse and 9 perhaps it can be easier for you to accommodate yourself to a slightly narrower warehouse . 10 MR. SEIFERT : Well , as of right now I don ' t think losing two feet in the width of the building 11 would need to add it in the back. We ' re happy if it was just a matter of making it two feet wider, 12 we ' d be happy with what we proposed. We do appreciate that . 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No further questions . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody have 14 anything else to add? MS . MOORE : Not unless you have a question . 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, I don ' t . Anybody else in the audience that would like to make a comment 16 on this application for or against? Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing to 17 August 16th . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' ll second . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. 19 All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 20 *********************** * *********** Hearing #6055 - Bulis . 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Next hearing is Eric and Maria Bulis . Who ' s is that? 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, Ruth . You get to 23 read . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for a Variance 24 under Sections 280-122A and 280-124 , based on zoning Code Interpretation ZBA #5038 in the 25 Application of R. Walz, and the Building Inspector ' s April 3, 2007 Notice of Disapproval 60 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 concerning proposed additions to the existing dwelling, which will be an increase in the degree 3 of nonconformance when located at less than 40 feet from the code-required front lot line, at 490 4 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion; CTM 21-3-5 . " CHAIRMAN DINIZO : State your name, please . 5 MS . DWYER : Nancy Dwyer . I did the design work for the plan . The Bulis family is here with 6 me . We are proposing to add 25 feet off to the side of the house for a growing family. We are 7 currently 24 feet from Aquaview right now and where we ' re going to be adding on is actually 8 getting further from Aquaview. Even though we ' re increasing the area of nonconformity, we are 9 getting further away from Aquaview . The adjoining neighbor, because of the angle of the property and 10 all the existing houses are all in line with one another, the adjoining neighbors are actually 11 closer to Aquaview than this existing house . So we feel that the request sought is minimal due to the 12 existing properties that are up there right now . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. That ' s all you 13 have? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you have any response 14 to the original Notice of Disapproval and the denial that was given back in 1997 about putting 15 something on the front of the house, a deck addition, at the front of the existing building 16 which was turned down by the Zoning Board? MS . DWYER: No, I was actually unaware of 17 that, a denial from a variance . MRS . BULIS : Maria Bulis . We were denied. We 18 wanted to put a deck on the front of the house not knowing anything about the restrictions to 19 Aquaview Avenue and we were denied that and we just dropped it at that time . 20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. So basically you want to go out to the side and not come further? 21 MRS . BULIS : Correct . We ' d like to go west . Trying to keep in line with the design of the 22' house and it actually takes the house back from Aquaview Avenue just because the lay of the road 23 itself . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What would be the square 24 footage now of your new addition? MS . DWYER: The addition is 500 square feet 25 first floor and second floor . So a total of 1 , 000 square feet . Not all of that is habitable being 61 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that we are keeping within the existing roof line of the house . So it ' s roof across the front with 3 a couple of dormers and then a full second story across the back of the house . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth? Anything else? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, not right now. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I really don ' t have 6 any specific objection to this plan at all at this time but we ' ll see how it goes . 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just to point out that 8 the addition that you are proposing is headed toward the right-of-way which is very heavily 9 wooded and vegetated and I think has virtually no impact since they happen to be owned by the Bulis 10 family and they have houses up there . Just two houses altogether, correct? So I think that it ' s 11 a well placed addition that certainly doesn ' t affect any neighbors in any way. It doesn ' t 12 encroach any further on the front road and it will certainly retain the visual appearance of your 13 existing house and enhance it . So I have no questions or problems with it . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I also noted that this 15 heavily vegetated right-of-way is on the side . Strictly speaking, as I understand it , the 16 right-of-way is owned by a Home Owners Association and if anyone were to object to that, it would 17 presumably be the Home Owners Association and we haven ' t heard from them yet anyway. 18 MR. BULIS : My name is Eric Bulis . I 'm the son of the owner . We have a tenant with us Vincent 19 Gerosa, the President of the Home Owner ' s Association . 20 MR. GEROSA: Vincent Gerosa, G-E-R-O-S-A. I 'm President of the Aquaview Home Owner ' s 21 Association . Six of our members are along the area covered by the projected. No owner objects this . 22 Just a comment so you know the neighbors don ' t object . 23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any 24 questions up from the Board? No? Hearing none, ma ' am, you ' re company is Design Consulting Inc, of 25 Miller Place, correct? MS . DWYER: Yes . 62 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Do you have anything else to add? 3 MS . DWYER: No . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll just ask if anyone in 4 the audience has any comments for or against this application? Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a motion 5 to close this hearing to August 16th . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded . 7 All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) g ********* ****** ****** ************** Hearing #6060 - Avdoulos . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next application is Spyro Avdoulos and that ' s going to be Michael . 10 Hold on, that ' s Jerry ' s . Sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: "Request for 11 Variance under Section 280-116A, based on the Building Inspector ' s amended June 13 , 2007 Notice 12 of Disapproval concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing single-family dwelling 13 with a setback at less than the code-required 100 feet from the top of the bank or bluff adjacent to 14 the Long Island Sound, at 54985 North Road, Greenport; CTM 44-1-5 . " 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Pat? MS . MOORE : Mr . Avdoulos has a two-story 16 house there . The house has a full basement and when we started this project, the first thing 17 Angel Tourno (phonetic) is the architect . The first thing that he did was to check with the 18 Trustees and say would you, when we ' re designing this , would you prefer that we address the portion 19 of the house that is in the coastal erosion hazard area? So the first step in this process was to 20 eliminate the corners , the triangular portions of the house that went beyond the coastal erosion 21 line . So in order to do that , it was taking an existing house with an existing foundation and not 22 demolishing the foundation, not doing anything to the foundation but taking the portion of the 23 house, the first floor and cutting off those portions that are encroaching in the coastal 24 erosion hazard area . This particular house appears to have been built sometime in the ' 60 ' s . 25 I see from photographs in the tax assessor ' s records that the back -- a lot of the house was 63 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , , 2007 2 covered porches that over time got enclosed so the portion of the back end of the house, the 3 waterfront portion of the house that is being cut off is being cut to a point where the roof line 4 makes sense . Where you can cut what appears to be a small nonstructural element . Then keeping again 5 the foundation that is there, cutting the building back in order to provide for a patio or a deck 6 area, taking the foundation, converting the existing foundation to decking . The house then 7 is , the first floor, required renovation . The first floor wall, obviously that you ' re cutting 8 off, is gone and you have to rebuild the waterfront wall . The second floor are dormers 9 right now and what the owner wishes to do is increase the second floor and essentially put a 10 full second floor over the house . At the time that this project started, the intention was to 11 build all new structure, landward of existing structures so on the landward side of the house 12 was any new construction, any new first and second floor . So that was the overall design plan at the 13 time that we started this project . There is bulkhead. The waterfront also has a lot of 14 natural stones, rocks , so that the waterfront is very stable at this site . The bank is only about 15 19 feet above sea level and then the top of the bank we have already addressed nonturf buffers 16 with a nonturf buffer area, new dry wells and gutters . Essentially, this is putting a typical 17 second floor over an existing house . What made this a little more complicated is trying to 18 correct the nonconforming portion of the house that was in the coastal erosion hazard line . 19 Obviously, keeping the house, the first floor exactly where it was, was the most , would have 20 been the easiest solution here . But in attempting to satisfy this Town ' s goals not to build in a 21 coastal erosion area, we addressed that first and that ' s why that portion of the, the corners of the 22 house were being removed. I will answer any questions that you might have . I have Angel here 23 that can answer you any structural issues . The client wants a garage, another garage . The old 24 garage there is a one-car garage . This actually conforms a little . Instead of expanding the 25 existing garage, which would be another variance, we have actually a conforming request for a garage 64 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 and the client wants to have the two garages with a walkway so that it creates a buffer from the 3 North Road and creates a visual barrier so it creates more privacy. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much of the first and second story, we ' ll refer to the second 5 story as a partial second story, is going to be torn down? Is this a rip down to the foundation 6 Mr . Tourno? MR. TOURNO : We keeping the basement . We 7 keeping the exterior walls of the first floor except for the front and back. The front because 8 we adding ten feet to increase the size of the house . And the back where the water is because we 9 demolish the existing enclosed porch or whatever and we don ' t have any wall . So the first floor 10 will have a new wall from the water side and a new addition on the street side . Now, when a second 11 floor, if we tried to put the second floor over the old first floor, we would not comply with the 12 setback for the second floor on the right side of the property . At the time I went to talk to the 13 Building Department and they told me that if I do the second floor with a right set back on the side 14 yard, then I would be complying and everything was fine because the other is existing and it was 15 acceptable . But adding to that would not be acceptable . So we pushed the second floor and 16 allow all the right side of the first floor to make like an encroachment in the design . So the 17 design has a little odd shape but the reason is that . 18 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: When you refer to placing the front of the building or adding to the 19 front of the building, you ' re taking off the existing front porch that ' s in the front of the 20 building; is that correct? MS . MOORE : The front door, there ' s no sense 21 for it . Are we talking about the waterfront side? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGHER: You ' re taking that 22 off and making that a porch, patio . Right . MS . MOORE : Is there basement under it? 23 MR. TOURNO : No that ' s -- we ' re just filling up to the height of the existing footing and 24 putting a patio there and then the steps around to get out of the patio . 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it ' s 19 feet measured on the easterly side of that to the 65 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 bulkhead and it ' s 20 feet measured -- MS . MOORE : There ' s so many lines here, I ' m 3 sorry. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Twenty-one foot, seven 4 inches from the bluff. The concrete patio over the existing foundation should be at 21 ' 7 " from 5 the bluff . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s showing 19 6 right here . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s the steps . 7 MR. TOURNO : We have to modify the plan in order to add those steps so we can -- 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is at it ' s closest point . 9 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I don ' t see 21 on the map . I see the old step is 20 . 5 but the old 10 step is coming out . If you had two or three feet to that, it would make it -- 11 MS . MOORE : Well because the angle of the bluff that alters, so it ' s really -- all the 12 measurements are almost -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It ' s 19 then on 13 the corner, right? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go a little bit 14 farther, Linda . MS . MOORE : Nineteen is the closest point to 15 the end of the step on the east side . That ' s the measure . 16 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I see that . What was the 21? 17 MS . MOORE : Twenty-one is the foundation . The existing foundation . 18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : At what corner MR. TOURNO : Which now is going to be the 19 patio . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : That ' s coming out? 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, it ' s staying . Just being poured in, filled in . 21 MS . MOORE : It ' s being filled in. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s solid . 22 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : But it ' s not labled on here but it ' s written somewhere . 23 MS . MOORE : Yeah, it is . It says existing stoop to be removed. Proposed steps -- it ' s 24 identified as proposed patio . Nathan put it all on the left side of the drawing, on the west side of 25 the drawing . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : So that includes 66 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that new step area? MS . MOORE : Yes . The step down . 3 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Thank you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So then we ' re 4 putting, when you refer to one and a half story, it ' s really going to be two stories over the rest 5 of the house? MR. TOURNO : Except on the right side which 6 is nonconforming . We ' re not putting a second floor there . 7 MS . MOORE : On the east side of the house is presently at 1212" . In order to make it a 8 conforming 15 foot side yard, it means that the second story can only start at the 15 foot set 9 back. (Everyone talking at once . ) 10 MS . MOORE : We really tried to make as much of this conforming . When we started, it was under 11 the interpretation of landward of existing structure . So we were trying to make everything 12 landward of existing structures . MR. TOURNO : I went to the Building 13 Department asking what do I have to do for this to comply I said without any variances except for the 14 front, the waterfront . He told me all the instructions . I did all what he said and then when 15 we presented the drawings, he said, no, you have to go to Zoning anyway . That was Mr . Verity. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Because of the water . MR. TOURNO : Any property in the water has to 17 come to you, I understand. MS . MOORE : It would have probably made sense 18 to do a variance for the side yard at 12 ' 2" but at that point the design had already been approved by 19 the client . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a 22 by 23 20 foot garage . MS . MOORE : That requires no variances . 21 That ' s compliant . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Twenty-three by twenty 22 foot wide . MR. TOURNO : It ' s a replica of existing . 23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : With a 15 foot door clearance . Is that unheated? It ' s got a half 24 bath . MR. TOURNO : It ' s just a garage . Has a half 25 bath because of the people using the, coming from the beach . But it ' s not heated, no . 67 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Unheated . And the sink and counter is handwashing, cleaning fish . 3 MR. TOURNO : Fishing and things of that nature . It ' s not habitable . It ' s not intended to 4 be . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for 5 explaining that . MS . MOORE : There are a lot of lines , I ' m 6 sorry. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s kind of 7 narrow, the property and you fit everything in that area . Just for the Board ' s own 8 identification . Joe Ingegno (phonetic) sold his office and Nathan is now the new owner . Do we know 9 Nathan ' s last name? MS . MOORE : Corwin . Nathan Corwin, III . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So Joe will be there until the end of the year . 11 MS . MOORE : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I had a question about 12 the driveway. Right now, who ' s driveway is that when you come in? It looks like the neighbor ' s 13 driveway. MS . MOORE : There is no driveway. 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : There ' s no driveway on your client ' s side . 15 MR. TOURNO : It looks like initially the neighbor ' s driveway was shared by both . 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It would appear so because then suddenly you have to veer off to your 17 client ' s property and I was wondering because it ' s not clear on the -- I guess it would appear as 18 though you ' re adding a gravel driveway on your property. Makes perfectly good sense . Okay . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael? BOARD MEMBER S.IMON : No questions . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO.: Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I guess not . Yes . 21 What kind of condition is that foundation in after four years? 22 MR. TOURNO : The existing basement is fine including the sort of crawl space that this porch 23 had. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Part of it is crawl 24 space . MR. TOURNO : And that ' s going to become a 25 patio so actually there ' s no issue there . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So it will support the 68 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 second story without any problems? MR. TOURNO : Oh, yes, yes . Definitely. It 3 has a second story now. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody else? I just 4 have one question . It says existing steps to be modified. I know you weren ' t turned down for that 5 but I 'm assuming that ' s because why? On the east side? 6 MR. TOURNO : That ' s modified by just pushing towards the street . 7 MS . MOORE : The stoop out the door? MR. TOURNO : The father of the owner is 8 somewhat handicap and he goes to his bedroom directly from the beach so he doesn ' t have to walk 9 more than is absolutely necessary . So those steps are going to what is going to be his room. 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : This looks like about 16 steps . 11 MS . MOORE : Is it going to be more of a ramp or steps? 12 MR. TOURNO : No steps but only three steps . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think on the east side 13 of the house, the 12 . 2 set back. MS . MOORE : This side? 14 MR. TOURNO : Yes that ' s the doing of the surveyor, I guess . If you look at my drawings 15 they ' re only a few steps there . MS . MOORE : Oh, yeah . A stoop and three 16 steps . MR. TOURNO : Three steps , that ' s all there 17 is . MS . MOORE : He probably didn ' t see it right . 18 MR. TOURNO : I don ' t know why he put that many . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So it exists already? MR. TOURNO : It exists but we are moving it . 20 It ' s almost a replica of what exists but moved because of location of the door going to the 21 bedroom to help the parents . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Everybody satisfied 22 with that? Do you have anything else to add? MS . MOORE : No . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Hearing none , I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing to August 24 16th . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. 25 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . 69 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 (See minutes for resolution . ) 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We need a motion to recess . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. Got a second. 5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Second . (Whereupon, a short lunch break was held 6 from 12 : 35-1 : 05 p .m. ) (Back on the record. ) 7 ***************************************** Hearing #6063 - Sherman 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Next is Hearing #6063 - David Sherman . Ruth, that ' s yours . 9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Requests for Variances under Sections 280-10 and 280-124 , based on the 10 Building Inspector ' s April 12 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed deck addition, 11 disapproved for the following reasons : ( 1 ) the deck will be less than 10 feet on a single side 12 yard; (2 ) the deck will be less than 35 feet total side yard setbacks ; ( 3 ) the deck will exceed the 13 code limitation of 200 lot coverage; ( 4 ) the shed is proposed in a yard other than a code-required 14 rear yard; ( 5 ) the shed is less than three feet from the property line and exceeds the code 15 limitation of 200 lot coverage . Location of property: 260 Founders Path, Southold. " 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, your name and address . 17 MR. BOHN : Robert Bohn, 95 Terry Court, Southold. There ' s been a few changes if I could 18 ask you to listen. If we remove the shed completely and then drop the deck to grade, will 19 that suffice? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Drop the deck? 20 MR. BOHN : Down to grade . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Down to grade . 21 MR. BOHN : Keep the deck at grade . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Instead of 4 foot 22 high . MR. BOHN : Exactly. 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That will eliminate the need for a variance . 24 MR. BOHN : There was a bit of an error on my part from the beginning . If we can go forward with 25 that , if I submit a new diagram with regard to that, will that -- 70 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What else would you need besides that? 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Is it lot coverage issues? 4 MR. BOHN : That ' s part of the issue, yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It would depend on how 5 big the deck is . MR. BOHN : The proposed square footage of the 6 deck would be -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Same? 7 MR. BOHN : Same square footage of the deck at grade . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : 18 ' 2 " by 32 . MR. BOHN : Twenty-three to the line . Looks 9 like we ' re going to have overall 20 by 19 ' 611 ; excuse me 32 by 20 . 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : About 430 square feet . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say 11 something? I ' m the one who has said in the beginning forever that no lot is flat . I 'm telling 12 you, Rob, that some section of that deck is going to be out unless it ' s built subterraneum. 13 MR. BOHN : I understand what you ' re saying . Some part of the skirt board will be sticking 14 above grade . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So just make sure 15 that it fits in with the Notice of Disapproval because if you ' re going to be out, you ' re going to 16 be out and you ' re going to be back. MR. BOHN : With regard to at grade 17 application, the skirt board and frame touching the ground is considered at grade or the decking 18 itself? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The decking is being 19 j oyced. MR. BOHN : Yes . Is the joyce buried at grade? 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think you would be 21 better served by having the Building Inspector tell you that . I 'm thinking maybe perhaps you 22 should find that out first before you have us consider it . We may say you can eliminate even 23 the lot coverage part of it . But it really should be calculated by the Building Inspector so we know 24 what the Notice of Disapproval will finally say. Maybe you can run down there now and see -- we can 25 have you, when you come back, we ' ll hold the hearing until you come back. 71 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. BOHN : Wonderful . I ' ll do that . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think you ' d be better 3 served by that . What does everyone else think? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I agree . 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s the only way to do it . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Tell him what you want and maybe he can either just write it down or 6 however they have to do it to convey to us when they come back. Something in writing would be 7 nice . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I wonder if before he 8 does this he should address another question which could conceivably make this moot . As I understand 9 this , there ' s already 280 lot coverage , So it might be argued that the applicant has no business 10 asking for a variance for the deck at all because it ' s already over minimal lot coverage . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But if he drops it down to ground level, it would eliminate that need for a 12 variance . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They wouldn ' t need a 13 variance for the deck at all? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : If he can convince the 14 Building Inspector . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s the only thing 15 that ' s contributing to the variance? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Amongst other things . 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Lot coverage, he ' s 4 foot above the ground. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So why don ' t we just hold this hearing open . I ' ll entertain a motion to 18 hold this hearing open . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 19 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Do you have a time, approximately. 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Until, I ' ll say 2 : 30 . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Is 2 : 30 too late 21 for you? MR. BOHN : No, it ' s fine . Whatever is good 22 for you guys . Thank you . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll second it . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So we have a motion made by? 24 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Me . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Seconded by Jerry . All 25 those in favor? ALL MEMBERS : Aye . 72 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 (See minutes for resolution . ) 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is Daneri . 4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We ' re 10 minutes early on that . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We ' re early on that one? So we have to wait 10 minutes . Okay, so we want to 6 entertain a motion to take a break? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. 8 All those in favor? ALL MEMBERS : Aye . 9 (See minutes for resolution . ) (Whereupon, a short recess was held at 1 : 10 10 p .m. ) (Back on the record at 1 : 20 p .m. ) 11 Hearing #6029 - Daneri 12 CHAIRMAN. DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for Katherine Daneri . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Legal notice is as follows : 14 "Request for Variances under Sections 280-114 , 280-15B, D, F, and 280-116 based on the 15 Building Inspector ' s October 31, 2006 Notice of Disapproval amended on June 19, 2007 ; concerning 16 two proposed buildings after demolition of the existing building: ( 1 ) a single-family dwelling, 17 after demolition of the existing building, proposed with a single side yard at less than 15 18 feet , less than 35 feet total side yards , less than 75 feet from the bulkhead; and (2 ) an 19 accessory garage with proposed roof dormers exceeding the 40% width limitation, with a setback 20 at less than the code required 15 feet minimum from the side property line, and with a height 21 exceeding the 22 foot code limitation . Location of Property: 200 Private Road #17 , or Terry Path 22 extending easterly of Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck; CTM 123-6-14 . " That is it, Mr . 23 Anderson. MR. ANDERSON : Good afternoon . My name is 24 Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants , Gene and Katherine Daneri . 25 You have in front of you -- a good guide would be the survey of the property prepared by Nathan Taft 73 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Corwin, previous surveyor, Joe Ingegno . It ' s important to note what we have on this property 3 today and that is, we have a dwelling that ' s ten feet from the bulkhead and that ' s indicated in 4 dashed outline . We have a second cottage which is in disrepair that ' s 95 feet or so landward 5 thereof . We have a canvas car port and we have a frame shed . The existing dwelling to be 6 demolished was 1142 square feet . Again that ' s about 10-11 feet from the bulk head, 25 and a half 7 feet from the knee high water . The existing cottage behind it measures 820 square feet and 8 that ' s 127 feet from. the bulkhead. The existing frame shed is 168 feet and that ' s noteworthy that 9 that is 1 . 6 feet from the easterly side lot line and existing canvas car port which measures 334 10 feet for an existing lot coverage of 6 . 1 . This is in an R-40 zone and although the property contains 11 in excess of 40 , 000 square feet, it is still a preexisting nonconforming parcel because in the 12 R-40 zone, minimum lot width is 150 feet . This is of course a waterfront parcel . Of interest to note 13 that the southerly lot line, the lot line facing the bay is 67 . 18 feet in length and the northerly 14 property line, which is the property line adjacent to the right of way known as Terry Path, measures 15 62 . 26 square feet and so -- BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Lineal feet? 16 MR. ANDERSON : Lineal feet , I 'm sorry. So the property slightly narrows as you go from south 17 to north and that ' s my point . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What did you say 18 the width was at the bay? MR. ANDERSON : At the bay? 68 . 18 feet . So 19 the principal constraint in this property is its width. The variances, I think folks 20 misunderstand, deals with side yard and total side yard relating to the proposed dwelling. The 21 survey will show you 8 . 8 feet from the bay window along the easterly face of the building . The 22 actual foundation will be 10 feet from that side lot line . Please take note of that . Our total 23 side yard even including the bay window which is a cantilever in structure will be 16 . 8 feet or 35 24 feet as required. The new dwelling would be setback 30 feet from the bulkhead . The existing 25 dwelling being 10 feet to the bulkhead. So we ' re relocating the principal dwelling an additional 20 74 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 feet back from the bulkhead in comparison to where the existing dwelling is today. The garage is 3 24 . 58 feet in height and that ' s -- understand with the garage, the garage designs , all that occurred 4 prior to the enactment of the the Town ' s accessory building law and I ' ve discussed with the client 5 that the height issue, we would redesign to comply with the maximum height for this structure to be 6 22 feet and not the 24 . 58 feet . So I ' d like to sort of take that off the table . The dormers we 7 will leave to your discretion because we think it makes for a more attractive building . There is a 8 dormer limitation on accessory structures at 400 and that ' s measured along the width of the 9 building and in this case, the dormers that are laid out in font of you are showing a 77 . 80 of 10 roof width . Now, I 'm going to hand up to you, because I know you guys don ' t like me to go on and 11 on, this is essentially the factual data relating to the character of the neighborhood. 12 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : You want to use one of these for the file or do you have an extra 13 one for the file? MR. ANDERSON : Not on me . I can get you 14 one . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I ' ll use the 15 Chairman ' s copy . MR. ANDERSON : Okay, fine . The first thing 16 you notice with -- I ' ve provided an executive summary which you can read while you ' re 17 deliberating on this . We ' ve defined this neighborhood to be sort of the Camp Mineola 18 neighborhood. We ' re very familiar with this and what we know -- and page 1A will be an aerial 19 photograph of what comprises the neighborhood -- and the first thing that needs to be known about 20 this is that the entire neighborhood consists of lots that are preexisting nonconforming . Most are 21 nonconforming with respect to lot area and lot width. There are only two, perhaps three lots that 22 would conform with respect to lot area but they do not have the required 150 foot lot width which is 23 required in the R40 zone, which the neighborhood is zoned. And there ' s a long history before this 24 Board in recognizing that fact . So that aerial photograph follows with a synopsis of the relief 25 that has been granted in the area . You may know that I was here not too long ago . I guess it was 75 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 last year in the application of Paul Long and suffered similar constraints and those variances 3 were granted. When completed, the total lot coverage on this line will go to 10 . 1% where 20% 4 is permissable in this zone . So we ' re about half of what the required zoning is . And then we take 5 you through the neighborhood and we shoot and show you what every house looks like . How it sits on 6 the land and what their relative setbacks are . I invite you to take your time and look through that 7 at your leisure . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Excuse me . On the aerial 8 overlay, which one is the Daneri property? MR. ANDERSON : It ' s the one in yellow. I 'm 9 sorry. On the Daneri property, we ' ve already shown you how that house sets up on that lot and 10 how the garage sets up . What you can see there is, number one, among the waterfront properties , 11 the Daneri house would be setback further from the bulkhead than any house in the neighborhood and 12 that ' s important to note, and number two, that when we look at accessory structures , we ' ll note 13 that nearly all accessory structures would be nonconforming with respect to the accessory 14 structure law in this Town . So we think it sort of fits the area . A great deal of time and 15 expense has gone into designing the house and designing the garage and this is something that 16 I ' d like this Board to consider because people ' s pocketbooks are not unlimited but clearly, it ' s a 17 big upgrade to the parcel and it ' s a big upgrade for the neighborhood. And it ' s not dissimilar to 18 the types of upgrades we ' ve already seen in this neighborhood. So when you go down there, you ' ll 19 see many of the houses, many of the parcels have been similarly redeveloped and that ' s important to 20 note . And that redevelopment is by and large supported by the neighborhood. Now, so we ' ve 21 defined what the character issues are and that the change to the neighborhood will actually be a 22 desirable change . I think we satisfy that first variance criterian. Obviously, we have to come 23 before this Board because we ' re dealing with a preexisting nonconforming lot with respect to lot 24 width and that ' s why we ' re here and that ' s the benefit that can only be achieved with your help . 25 Again, we ' re talking about a lot that ' s approximately 1/3 of what the required width 76 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 should be . The variances are not substantial in our view because when you look at this 3 neighborhood and you look at what we ' re asking for, what results is the development pattern that 4 fits right in . In other words, it ' s not really a physical, a substantial alteration to the 5 neighborhood with respect to lot setbacks and so forth . And finally, you should know that the 6 applicant has applied for and received all their other required environmental permits including the 7 DEC, the Town Trustees and also the Health Department . At the end of the day, the interests 8 of the environment are served in this application statically, as I think I just explained. 9 Understand that we would be eliminating two noncomplying cess pools and we would be 10 constructing a new compliant septic system. So that ' s an important land use control that is 11 favored by the regulations because it protects the bay among other things . Critically important is 12 that we are compliant with the objectives of wetland regulations and that is to retreat from 13 the water . And what we ' ve done is pulled our structure back 20 feet so that ' ll be 30 feet back 14 from the bulkhead. Today the existing structure is 10 feet back. That separation distance would be 15 the largest in the neighborhood . I think that ' s worthwhile noting . Finally, the dwelling would be 16 constructed in compliance with all applicable FEMA codes, a FEMA A zone requires a first floor 17 elevation of 8 feet . We intend to comply with that . We ask for no relief for that . And then 18 finally, the survey will also show you the placement of dry wells . The house would be 19 equipped with gutters leading to down spouts and dry wells . The applicant would comply in every 20 respect to the Town ' s newly adopted drainage law. We are in receipt of 3 letters of support and I ' d 21 like to Board to take note of that . The first one comes from a William Laskell and Elizabeth 22 Richards who write, "we as property owners on Terry Path, aka, Private Road #17 , wish to provide 23 our reaction to Katherine Daneri ' s intent to appear before the ZBA on August 2nd in order to 24 secure the necessary variances for the construction of a new single-family dwelling and 25 accessory garage . We have reviewed the materials supplied by the ZBA and have also reviewed a set 77 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 of building plans available through the ZBA office . We find the design concept of the new 3 structures to be acceptable and expect it will enhance the property and will provide an aesthetic 4 quality to the shoreline profile . It should fit nicely in the neighborhood. " So they urge the 5 approval of the variances as requested. Our second letter comes from a Mary Hallock Smith who 6 writes this Board saying, "this letter is in regards to the permit submitted by Mr . and 7 Mrs . Gene Daneri for the renovation of their house is Mattituck. I am a neighbor and I have known two 8 generations of the Daneri family. It is my opinion that the proposed renovations will be in good 9 taste and in keeping with other existing residences in the area . Indeed, it will be an 10 asset to our community and I strongly urge you to grant this permit . " She goes on to say she cannot 11 be here because she ' ll be out of town . The final letter that we ' re in receipt of, and you may have 12 more, comes from an Adeline Sieverson who writes, "I am writing this letter on behalf of Mr . Eugene 13 Daneri who resides at 200 Terry Path . We are aware of the project Mr . Daneri has presented before 14 your Board and want you to know that we are in favor of his request . Mr . Daneri has been a valued 15 and respected neighbor for many years . We have seen the plans for his new dwelling and are 16 convinced that it not only conforms to the neighborhood architecture but will increase the 17 value and aesthetic appeal of all the homes on Terry ' s Path . " So there is a fair amount of 18 support for this and obviously if you ' ve been down there, you ' ll see that this is a neighborhood that 19 is undergoing a redevelopment . It ' s being upgraded one by one .and there seems to be community support 20 for those upgrades . I ' m here to answer any questions you may have and I note that the 21 Daneri ' s are here . I note that we have some interested neighbors that are here and again, I 22 make myself available to answer any questions you may have . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Jerry? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr . Anderson, we 24 asked Mr . Lund to give us the most recent survey which is an August 1st survey. 25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : July 25th . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We received it 78 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 August 1st , excuse me . Indicating that it appears that the steps go out about almost 3 feet 3 or protrude out almost 3 feet . Your actual setback, since the steps are more than the 4 required zoning amount , we ' re talking 27 ' 2 " to the bulkhead. Would you like a copy of this? 5 MR. ANDERSON : No, I have a copy of that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we have the 6 wrap arounds on both sides which restrict it back to 6 . 6 feet and 7 feet on the westerly side . I 7 was looking at the floor plan of the house . Uniquely, you know my opinion regarding access to 8 at least the rear yard in some respects when you look at the floor plan, standing in the rear yard 9 closest to the bulkhead, you ' re looking at the front of the house and you have a bay window in 10 the kitchen, you have steps on the west side . On the east side, you have bay bow type of window in 11 the pool room and again you have the wrap around steps on both side which restrict the access . 12 MR. ANDERSON : Those steps are limited to the deck, right? 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s correct . I would be requesting whatever maximum setback you 14 could give us I don ' t really care which side but I think it ' s probably easier on the east side 15 because the only thing you have really obstructing it is a shallow bay bow window . 16 MR. ANDERSON : You mean the elimination of those steps on the east side? 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes and the elimination of those steps . 18 MR. ANDERSON : I don ' t think that ' s a problem. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Meaning the return of the steps which is really what they are . 20 MR. ANDERSON : I understand what you ' re saying . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don ' t know what that depth is calculated but you know if we could 22 get like 8 . 8 feet on that side clean . Ideally, as you know, we ' d like to get 10 but I could probably 23 live with 8 . 8 feet . MR. ANDERSON : I think that ' s reasonable . 24 Your concern, for the benefit of the applicant is -- Mr . Goehringer is very involved with fire M 25 protection in this town. His concern is emergency access around the perimeter of the building . 79 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 That ' s what he ' s talking about . On behalf of the applicant, I think that ' s entirely reasonable . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The other issue is if you ' re going to come up with a figure of 27 . 2 , 4 I would rather see 30 feet clean if you want to leave the steps for the 30 foot setback from the 5 bulkhead which would put you back at 32 . 8 , 32 . 10 . MR. ANDERSON : I 'm sorry. Say that again . Now 6 you ' re losing me . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The steps protrude 7 into 30 feet at their closest point showing us at 27 . 2 not clean to the bulkhead. So if we wanted 8 to be clean to the bulkhead, you would have to set the house back 32 feet . 9 MR. ANDERSON : Yeah, but you know, that ' s fine . I don ' t think the steps are much of an 10 issue of harm to anyone . I understand your argument on the side yard and I would say to 11 simply say let ' s move the house -- I don ' t know that I 'm going to fight you on that but I would 12 point out to you that as we move to the north, the side lot line setbacks are going to become less 13 because the property slightly narrows from south to north. I don ' t think we have a concern with 14 that but you might as a Zoning Board member . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' m not speaking 15 for the Zoning Board, I 'm speaking for myself now. From my ' understanding, the frame one story summer 16 cottage is going to be destroyed? MR. ANDERSON : Yup . 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the garage is requested at 5 feet ; is that correct? 18 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My suggestion to 19 you on that is that you give the Board alternate relief because I don ' t know if we ' re going to 20 grant -- I don ' t know what ' s going to happen under the new law. 21 MR. ANDERSON : I ' ve advised the client of the concept of this alternate relief and Mr . 22 Daneri is going to speak to that so I ' ll let him answer that question. Again, the concern being to 23 get around the garage . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to hold 24 here Jimmy and let everyone here run through Bruce first? 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Yes . If you ' re done with your questions, then Leslie, do you have any 80 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 questions? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Two . You indicated 3 earlier that you ' re going to try to comply with the height of 22 feet . So at this point we ' re not 4 looking -- if you wanted to just get it all over with, we could grant alternate relief at 22 feet 5 in height . In other words , just deny the height area or do you want to reapply? 6 MR . ANDERSON : That ' s fine . We didn ' t want to change it . You know, you ' re an architect, 7 correct? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I am. 8 MR. ANDERSON : So you know that cost money to design everything . Frankly, it was all designed 9 before the change in the code so it would have complied under the previous code both with respect 10 to the setback of 5 feet which is by no accident and the heights . But my feeling is if you ' re 11 going to drop the height of this roof 2 1/2 feet and I ' ve spoken to the Daneri ' s about this, not 12 really materially affecting it and it ' s probably a variance that you might not want to grant because 13 you might not need to . You just simply drop the roof . That was my thinking behind that . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But the dormers you want to try to retain as is? 15 MR. ANDERSON : To me it makes it more attractive . That ' s an aesthetic concern and I ' ll 16 defer to this Board to make that decision . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : My other question was , 17 it ' s very, I think it ' s an excellent move attempting to move back as far as you feel 18 reasonably possible from the bulkhead for the property owners sake as well as the sake of the 19 shoreline . Let me ask you why, since it ' s a teardown just for the record, I think I know the 20 answer but I 'm going to ask you to say, why you feel that that is the optimum setback that you can 21 accommodate rather than pushing it back even further . You know that if you went by the law, 22 that still since it ' s new construction, a very substantial relief from the 75 foot setback . So 23 I ' d like to ask you to explain for the record why you feel that that ' s the place where you can 24 locate it? MR. ANDERSON : The first point again is that 25 the property: does narrow . So the further you move it back, the more you diminish your side yards . 81 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 The second point is if you actually were to move it back to that degree, you would have all the 3 houses looming in front of you . And I think if you want to preserve characters of the 4 neighborhood, there has to be some relationship of dwelling setbacks . Not only the streets and stuff 5 but also the bulkheads . This lot and the entire neighborhood, if you go down there, they ' re all 6 focused on the waterfront . If you go down there today you ' ll probably see at least half of them, 7 you ' ll see people milling about . They ' ll all be milling about in front of the house on the beach 8 for the most part . If you move it all the way back, you certainly detract it from the 9 neighborhood. You ' re discouraging the kind of upgrades because you ' ve taken the benefit of the 10 property away. And you ' re saying to people maybe you should just expand your cottage . We felt 11 that this approach was reasonable given .the neighborhood conditions and it is, in fact, a 12 balancing act and a lot of thought went into that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just wanted it for 13 the record. I know it will have an impact on view of the water and so on . 14 MR. ANDERSON : Which is kind of what the bulkhead setback is about, in my opinion . That is 15 to say that absent of this, if I were to go into the neighborhood and everyone was setback 75 feet 16 from the bulkhead, absent of that restriction if I was able to get a Trustee permit and a DEC permit 17 perhaps because I had a broad beach and the setback being from high water, if you didn ' t have 18 that restriction, you would have situations in this town where houses could actually be placed in 19 front of other houses . My feeling on bulkhead setback rule, that one of its purposes , was so 20 that houses could line up, so that people wouldn ' t be impeding upon on others views . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I have no more questions . 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I have questions that 23 partly go on this . As I see this , first of all, I don ' t find it at all surprising that there is as 24 much support and agreement with the Daneri ' s for this because given the law and the setbacks and so 25 forth, I think what is really being asked, this is essentially a neighborhood variance . What I 'm 82 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 saying here is, and you mention yourself, is there going to be redevelopment of houses and people are 3 going to want to tear down their houses if not this year, next year, and they ' re going to want to 4 rebuild it . This would be a very important precedent for people who want to rebuild their 5 house at 30 feet from the water instead of 75 feet from the water . So a lot is at stake in this and I 6 understand the enthusiasm. The idea of having these 10 foot setbacks which are all over the 7 town, there are also lots of places in the town where people are setback a lot more than that . 8 You don ' t have to be 10 feet or 30 feet from the water in order to enjoy your property. 9 MR . ANDERSON : The point here though is we ' re not analyzing this town wide . We ' re trying 10 to analyze the redevelopment of this property within the neighborhood that it exists . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What I 'm saying is that we are not analyzing this town wide either nor are 12 we saying that each neighborhood is a world unto itself and that because the law is town wide law 13 and there are reasons why you could never build any of those houses today if they weren ' t already 14 there . They ' re grandfathered. MR. ANDERSON : You wouldn ' t develop that 15 property. The point here is that the entire neighborhood is compromised of preexisting 16 nonconforming lots . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What you ' re saying is 17 the whole neighborhood is effectively grandfathered . Is that what you ' re saying? 18 MR. ANDERSON : What I ' m saying is because they are preexisting, nonconforming lots , they all 19 enjoy practical hardships and that ' s why we ' ve come before this Board . 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They have hardships because they are so narrow. They don ' t have 21 hardships because they are not deep . They' re all very deep . 22 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s not true . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : This is something like 23 600 feet from the house to the -- MR. ANDERSON : That ' s true on this 24 particular lot, yes . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : And some of the others . r 25 MR. ANDERSON : That ' s right . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So, there ' s no room on 83 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the property to build a house . If this house, I ' m not recommending this or saying this but God 3 forbid, as people say, if this house burned down to the ground and they wanted a permit to rebuild, 4 just a building permit, could they rebuild it 30 feet from the water because after all the other 5 houses that haven ' t burned down or haven ' t been torn down are that close? It ' s a tough question . 6 It certainly would be setting the measure for how close to things it can be . We have cases having 7 people wanting to build very close to the bluff on Long Island Sound and the argument is well 8 everybody else has been doing it . MR. ANDERSON : You ' re trying to argue 9 precedent here and I ' ve already given you the zoning history of this neighborhood. 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I 'm talking about this as precedent here . I 'm talking about future . I ' m 11 talking about this as precedent and certainly a powerful argument for doing more things . There are 12 several ways of looking at it . These properties have been here for eternity and therefore they and 13 their replacements should also be that close to the water . The other argument is that if we had 14 our druthers , we wouldn ' t have houses built that close to the bulkhead, but of course we can ' t do 15 that without taking people, making people move their own houses which would be unreasonable . So 16 here we ' re talking about a demo and the rebuilding of a house pretty much where it used to be . 17 MR. ANDERSON : The flip side of that is to say we would favor expansion of nonconforming 18 cottages as long as they are in the landward side and you would accomplish nothing . In other 19 words , they are also presented with a choice to renovate and expand the existing house which is 20 20 feet closer to the bulkhead then what we ' re doing today. 21 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What you ' re saying is, under the law, they ' re entitled to rebuild their 22 house without replacing it? MR. ANDERSON : That ' s correct . 23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : This is true . I ' m not sure how important that is . 24 MR. ANDERSON : The important thing is that we are trying to balance a setback issue with the 25 character of the neighborhood and the geometry of this particular lot . That ' s why that ' s important . 84 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 And to say that well if you just expand on your cottage, that ' s not serving -- that wouldn ' t be a 3 very good balance between community and individual needs . 4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What counts as a balance depends on, one, the weight of the items and what 5 kinds of things you take seriously. People will go to all kinds of lengths to save 30 square feet of 6 a house in order to take advantage of a current nonconforming setbacks . Whether that ' s our domain, 7 our responsibility to worry about loopholes that people exploit -- 8 MR. ANDERSON : It ' s not a loophole . It ' s stated in the code . 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s a loophole . As you know if you go to some of these hearings , we have 10 cases of people who totally demolish a house and then save just a little bit of it so they can 11 build -- that ' s not what the code says . That ' s not what writers of the code intended and it ' s 12 probably going to be changed. There are broad issues here which go to this -- the reason I ' m 13 mentioning this now is we ' re talking about the next ten rebuilds or demos along places like Camp 14 Mineola where houses are going to be in perpetuity there until they ' re washed out . 15 MR. ANDERSON : You need to see the neighborhood because there has already been a 16 significant amount of redevelopment in this neighborhood. We ' re not talking about the first 17 one through the door . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So what you ' re saying is 18 we ' re already at the point of no return . Is that what you ' re saying? 19 MR. ANDERSON : What I 'm saying is that we ' re in the world of zoning and we ' re trying to take 20 into account the character of the neighborhood and arriving at some sort of rational design that 21 attempts to balance these factors . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The character of the 22 neighborhood is certainly very important . Zoning and new zoning and increased setbacks from the 23 sound and bay are also new things we are taking into account . Characters of the neighborhood 24 sometimes come in conflict with one another when it comes to a matter of how you rebuild a house 25 when it ' s no longer there . The grandfathering is a step in the direction of accommodating houses that 85 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 are already there . Is policy ever going to be changed in a way that was intended when the code 3 was changed to pertain setbacks? That ' s a broad issue and I know you don ' t represent your client 4 over those issues . MR. ANDERSON : No but we ' re in the world of 5 zoning and our presentation, because that ' s what the zoning ' s about, is centered around the 6 character of the neighborhood. That ' s the whole point of this . 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : One thing I can say is nowhere in the zoning rule accepts as one of 8 several factors that we are operating under does character of the neighborhood turn out to be 9 primary of zoning decisions . If character of the neighborhood was the only thing, we wouldn ' t even 10 have to have zoning laws . We would have to say -- MR. ANDERSON : Yes you would because you ' d 11 have to define what the character is in order to make a determination. 12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The character of the neighborhood is not defined by the zoning law . The 13 character is defined by real people on the ground and people like us who go out and look at them and 14 say this is the character of the neighborhood . Nobody would be foolish enough to try to write a 15 sanction around defining character . What I ' m saying is that ' s not the only issue . It ' s an 16 important issue and it does make this hard. I think the idea of moving 10 feet to 30 feet is a 17 very constructive step because it means the next rebuild is probably not going to be closer than 30 18 feet . Whether it ' s going to be 30 feet or 40 feet or 50 feet . 19 MR. ANDERSON : Won ' t the next rebuild depend on how deep the lot is and things of that nature? 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I think when we get applications , where it ' s going to be built is 21 dependent on how close the ZBA will let them build to the water . I mean that seems to be the 22 principal . Aside from the setback, the discussion of 23 the dormers and the change in the law regarding accessory buildings, as you said, you know very 24 well the height -- that you ' re willing to go back to the original height . With regard to dormers , 25 that ' s something to be -- that clearly is an aesthetic issue presumably one of the reasons why 86 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the Board may have changed this dormer issue may have been something to do with aesthetics, I don ' t 3 know . Another one has to do with the 20 foot setback instead of the 5 foot setback. I would 4 like to hear you address the question of whether that 5 foot setback for the accessory building 5 ought to be increased in the light of the accommodation to the change in the code . 6 MR. ANDERSON : Well, I think what you ' re saying is why the need for the variance at all? 7 Is that what you ' re saying? BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No . I understand why 8 there ' s a need for a variance . Why change the code if we ' re going to ignore the changes in the 9 code -- MR . ANDERSON : I ' m not asking you to ignore 10 the code . I 'm asking you for variance relief from the code because the lot is a preexisting, 11 nonconforming lot with respect to lot width . This lot is 60 some odd feet wide . It ' s supposed to be 12 150 feet wide . If it were 150 feet wide, believe me, I wouldn ' t be here . 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I suspect you would not . Not on that issue . I think that ' s fine . You ' re 14 right . The fact that maybe the 20 feet is unrealistic, this side setback, is unrealistic in 15 a lot like this one . MR. ANDERSON : Correct . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So you feel that -- MR. ANDERSON : That ' s what I said, yes . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : A decrease in the required setback of 750, from 20 feet to 5 feet, 18 would be warranted in your view when it comes to the side setback of the garage? 19 MR. ANDERSON : Sure, for a lot that is 66 feet, not to split hairs , wide that ' s supposed to 20 be 150 feet wide . Now, the client is here and he will speak on it because I think there probably is 21 some flexibility but certainly relief is warranted in this case due to the limited lot width and then 22 we go on to point out by showing you that in many cases, if not most cases , if not every case, you 23 don ' t have accessory structures that are setback 20 feet from property lines . 24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Not yet . MR. ANDERSON : I have to go on what the 25 character of the neighborhood is today . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We ' re getting more and 87 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 more of them as time goes on since the code was amended. Twenty years from now, there will be a 3 lot -- it wasn ' t the intention of the Board when it went from 5 feet to 20 feet that it would not 4 make any difference over a period of years . So the fact that it hasn ' t made much difference yet is 5 not a very strong argument . MR. ANDERSON : Yes , it is . We ' re here in 6 front of a Zoning Board talking about an accessory structure setback from a side lot line created 7 because the property doesn ' t have -- has insufficient lot width . That ' s why we ' re in front 8 of the Zoning Board . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s a matter of degree . 9 It ' s not 5 or nothing for you? MR. ANDERSON : No, no . I think 10 Mr . Goehringer already raised that point . I think what I said is I would let Mr . Daneri address it 11 because it is his property. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I don ' t have any 12 further questions . MR. ANDERSON : Okay. 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie, did you need -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes . One quick comment 14 which is I think the very well documented characterization of this neighborhood will show if 15 you look carefully at what is submitted that there already is substantial renovation of a number of 16 structures along there which is already defining a character of the neighborhood as existing . Not 17 future but as it is today. MR. ANDERSON : I agree with that . 18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Secondly, on a 24 foot deep garage on such a narrow lot, 24 feet is 19 required actually for the depth of a garage, it does not seem unreasonable to consider relief from 20 a side yard setback on an accessory structure . MR. ANDERSON : I agree with that . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The most unusual kind of a nonconforming lot . There are a whole series 22 of these slices that are extremely long and deep and very narrow and they do characterize the 23 property really along Terry ' s Path almost in it ' s entirety. I think it is not at all an unreasonable 24 request to take into serious account the nature of what is there . Primarily, environmental impacts 25 have been addressed already by variances from other Boards that have jurisdiction to some extent 88 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 over water and I just wanted to go on the record as having made those observations . 3 MR. ANDERSON : Thank you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth? 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Since you ' re doing a complete tear down, I admire the fact that you ' re 5 going back 30 feet from the bulkhead, but it ' s a very substantial house . We gave permission to 6 somebody to do almost exactly that and we had to go down there on a different occasion and I was 7 really appalled just at the 30 feet setback with a huge house, it just doesn ' t make sense, it doesn ' t 8 look right . You know, you ' re talking about the character of the neighborhood. To me to set it 9 back 40 or 50 feet would be far more reasonable for the size of the house and the property even 10 though I know it ' s long and it ' s narrow. I don ' t have any trouble with the accessory garage, but 11 the house, I would really prefer seeing it back just a bit further . I admire you going back as far 12 as you have . Having seen what happens with a large house such as this is and the other one that we 13 did grant , I would be much happier with a 50 foot . I think the scale of the whole thing is just 14 better and it ' d be a good example for the rest of this community. We do have storms and you know 15 that Mr . Anderson and I ' m looking for the interests of the property owner too . We ' ve had 16 people who ' ve had to move their bulkheads back, they ' ve fallen after a lot of erosion . So to me, 17 you ' re safest at 50 foot and you have an elevation of 8 feet . How high are you going to have to raise 18 that house? MR. ANDERSON : We ' re not raising it at all . 19 We ' re at 8 feet . This house would be flood compliant . That ' s the point . I 'm not going to ask 20 for any relief and you ' re not the relief Board to grant it anyway I don ' t think maybe you are . But 21 our intention is to construct a dwelling that will conform in all respects to the regulations of the 22 Federal Emergency Management Act . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Good. Thank you . 23 MR. ANDERSON : Okay. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I would basically like to 24 comment on all three of these . Number one, the reason why the Town makes buildings nonconforming 25 is because when they get beyond the usefulness of the owners, they want them to be more compliant if 89 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 they ' re going to be building . I understand about if they ' re going from 10 to 30 feet that may be 3 more compliant but quite honestly, the 75 foot setback in my mind and as I can recall from how 4 this discussion came about is that is an environmental reason and I ' m thinking because 5 we ' ve had laws passed recently that become much more restrictive, we should, when a person, if 6 they just want to add a room to a house that ' s there already and it ' s in the same place and they 7 just want to make it and they can continue to live in it the way it is , I have no objection . But when 8 you ' re taking a house down, a single-story cottage house, and making it a two-story house, a full 9 two-story house, I think there is a good reason to move that thing away. I ' m not worried about 10 floods . I 'm not worried about anything other than the fact that our code says it should be 75 feet 11 and when the opportunity comes to make it 75 feet , is when you tear that house down. So, with that 12 said, the accessory garage and that wall that we ' ve created has been punctured by this Board to 13 the point that it ' s a pin cushion . The 5 foot setback that you request is for you so that your 14 lot can be complied with but the law in the height of that building were made for the neighbors, to 15 protect the neighbors . To listen to the debate on accessory structures, there were people 16 complaining that other people were building these high structures too close to their property line, 17 the neighbors property line and I think that if we ' re not willing or maybe we are, I certainly am 18 not, willing to have two buildings 10 feet apart from each other in the face of this new law, then 19 we ' ve got to hold the line on how close we ' ll allow these structures to be and how high we ' ll 20 allow them to be . Now, the dormer problem, that ' s a problem. I understand that that place would 21 look a lot better with a 70% dormer . It will look nice . But the law is 40% . All our Town ' s fathers 22 made this law, had a public hearing on it and voted it in . I think for us to say now no we ' re 23 going to allow 100% variance of that particular law, I think flies in the face of every person who 24 came to that meeting and requested that something be done about structures that are so close to 25 their house . Again, I think that it ' s more a law for the neighbors and not necessarily for this 90 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 applicant or any applicant that would like to build a structure that ' s 22 feet high 5 feet away 3 -- MR. ANDERSON : Well, I think as I said, we 4 don ' t need to beat this to death, but I ' ll defer to you on the dormers . I 'm not going to beat that 5 to death . As far as the maximum height is 22 feet and it ' s divided at 24 . 58 feet . We ' ve already 6 said we ' ll redesign that . You have what you have before that because applicants go through a year, 7 a year and a half of permit misery and expense, architectural included. 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I couldn ' t agree with you more, Bruce . 9 MR. ANDERSON : It costs a lot of money . You need the patience of Job to get through this 10 process . But at the end of the day in the world of zoning, I look at things , because this is what 11 the zoning law tells you to do, is how does this fit with the neighborhood . You seem to say that 12 that doesn ' t matter . We ' re just going to disagree on that point . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Bruce, I can ' t let you get away with that . I don ' t think that it doesn ' t 14 matter . I do think though that we have a law, the- law is in effect and for us to take that law now 15 that should be 20 feet regardless of how narrow the lot is, you should be 20 feet away and say it 16 should be 5 feet and because before that law, you weren ' t allowed to have that . 17 MR. ANDERSON : Here ' s where I disagree with you . If you look at the height provisions and the 18 setback provisions of accessory structures, you will see that their height and their setbacks are 19 indexed relative to the lot area of the lot in which it sits at . In other words, if you have a 20 larger lot, you can build a higher accessory structure but you gotta set it back further from a 21 property line . That ' s how that entire law is drawn . It ' s a balancing act between the height 22 and the setback of an accessory structure relative to lot area . Lot area is not our problem here . 23 Our problem is lot width and the law is silent on what to do with lots that conform with respect to 24 area but do not conform with respect to lot width . It ' s silent . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: As well it should be . MR. ANDERSON : Leaving that matter to the 91 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Zoning Board. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : He ' s forgetting 3 that there ' s other land available that ' s included in that . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm trying to figure out why can ' t it be 15 feet away from the property 5 line? Why does it have to be 5? MR. ANDERSON : I ' m going to let Mr . Daneri 6 speak to that and I suspect there is some flexibility but to say that it ' s -- the problem is 7 that you have these long bowling alley lots in this particular neighborhood. So it ' s unique . 8 It ' s not that you ' re setting a precedent town wide for these types of variances . Although, when the 9 next guy comes in with a lot that ' s 60 feet wide or whatever, my sense would be, I would tend to 10 give him that variance because he ' s got an obvious practical hardship . 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You know this is not unique . It happens to be unique to Mattituck 12 perhaps, even that part of Mattituck. But you go down to Beach Road or you go to anywhere along the. 13 bay, it repeats over and over again . There are long narrow lots all the way from Laurel all the 14 way through to East Marion . So, it ' s not unique . MR. ANDERSON : It is unique . 15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Unique meaning one of a kind. 16 MR. ANDERSON : I don ' t know how to address that . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What I 'm saying is this is not pertaining to just Camp Mineola . It ' s 18 familiar to hundreds of lots around the Town . MR. ANDERSON : In a Town comprised of 19 thousands of lots . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Okay. That ' s not very 20 unique to me . MR. ANDERSON : This lot -- this doesn ' t 21 sound unique . I think it ' s very unique that we are dealing with a lot that ' s 600 plus feet long and 22 only 66 feet wide . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : How rare would that 23 type of lot have to be in order to qualify as being called unique? If there are 100 in a Town, 24 would it still be unique? MR. ANDERSON : Excuse me? 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : If there are 100 such lots, when we get these cases every month of 92 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 unique lots , sometimes -- MR. ANDERSON : You ' re supposed to get the 3 applications that have the practical hardships . People should not be coming to this Board -- if I 4 have a lot 150 feet wide, I should not be coming before this Board for an accessory structure less 5 than 20 feet from the side lot line . I agree with that . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Everybody with a 60 foot lot comes to us with the same kind of hardship 7 that the Daneris have . MR. ANDERSON : Yeah . 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : And there aren ' t just 3 or 4 of them. There are a lot more . 9 MR. ANDERSON : Okay. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So I think the 10 uniqueness is fairly weak as an argument unless you ' re saying we should subdivide lots and say now 11 we can amend the code and say if they are less then 75 feet in length, then they qualify for 12 different treatment . But not on grounds of uniqueness . 13 MR. ANDERSON : I 'm in front of a Zoning Board. I 'm not in front of a Planning Board here . 14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes . So we ' re only applying the zoning law. The zoning law doesn ' t 15 make the kind of distinction your begging us to make for Camp Mineola and for, whether you know it 16 or not , hundreds and hundreds of other lots around this Town . It ' s not in the code . 17 MR. ANDERSON : This neig-hborhood is Zone R40 . Do you realize that? 18 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Many of them are . MR. ANDERSON : Okay. That ' s 40 , 000 square 19 foot minimum lot area with 150 foot minimum lot width . That ' s what R40 means in the Zoning world. 20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I know. MR. ANDERSON : Okay. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Again, you have to realize that that is what the code says . If this zoning 22 map says that it ' s R40 , then it ' s R40 . It ' s as simple as that . It ' s not that you get an exemption 23 from R40 because your lot is so narrow . MR. ANDERSON : I 'm not asking for an 24 exemption, I ' m asking for a variance . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But I 'm looking for some 25 statement of hardship concerning why it has to be 5 feet? Why it has to be 36 by 24 ? Why it has to 93 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 be 22 feet high? You know, there are limitations to the lot and perhaps that size building doesn ' t 3 belong on this lot . MR. ANDERSON : Let me -- if 24 feet bothers 4 you . Twenty-four feet is a standard depth for any garage . They ' re built to 24 feet and I think 5 that ' s how big a car is because you need to walk around your car . Now, if you were going to drive 6 a little mini or golf cart or something, yes, you can have that . But most cars require -- 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What about 36? MR. ANDERSON : Thirty-six has three bays . 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Why dormer? MR. ANDERSON : The dormer was done for 9 aesthetic reasons . I explained to you before that it was designed prior to the adoption . I 'm not 10 going to fight you on the dormers . Let ' s move away from the dormer issue . We ' re not fighting on the 11 roof . If you want us to lower it, fine, we ' ll lower it . 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Is the roof that high because of the width of the garage? 13 MR. ANDERSON : What I said is we will lower the roof to 22 feet so we don ' t need to talk about 14 that . So what controls the setback here is , I think we can all agree that garages are all 24 15 feet deep . I think we can all agree that there has to be room to turn it around. So there ' s a 16 parking area next to the garage . Mr . Daneri will speak on that . I suspect there is some flexibility 17 there . If you ' re asking for the rational as to why it was laid out, it was laid out with those 18 constraints in mind during a time when the code said 5 feet was adequate and that the height 19 complied. We understand that . We put it in so that , to give you a chance to comment on it . We ' re 20 not fighting on the height of it . We ' re not fighting on the dormer of it . But we didn ' t want 21 to go through the exercises of yet again going through more, no offense, architectural fees . I 22 defer to the Board on that issue is what I 'm saying . 23 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Can I ask a question? Is there a second floor on the car 24 beds? MR. ANDERSON : There is a partial second 25 floor . It ' s shown on the plans submitted with you . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : For storage? 94 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. ANDERSON : Yes , a little loft area . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I couldn ' t 3 remember . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else have any 4 questions for Mr . Anderson? Mr . Anderson, would you like to present 5 somebody. I think the owner wanted to come up . Are you the owner, sir? 6 MR. SMITH : If Mr . Daneri wants to speak in favor of his application which is what I heard, I 7 think he should come before me . But if he does yes , otherwise, I 'm here . 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So you ' re Mr . Daneri? MR. DANERI : (From the audience) I 'm Mr . 9 Daneri and I ' d like to hear what Mr . Smith has to say. 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. We ' ll need your name and address , sir . 11 MR. SMITH : My name is Thornton Smith . My address is 37 Sandpiper Lane in Greenport, New 12 York. I have two prepared documents prepared before I listened to this discussion . I have 13 copies of both of them, sir, which I ' d like to present to you and I have copies for the Board. 14 I ' d like to read them both after which I have just a few comments based on the discussion that I ' ve 15 heard earlier today. If I may give you those two copies . 16 The first document is the document addressed to the Zoning Board dated July 30th and signed by 17 my four children, five children, one of whom is here . "We are the owners and tenants in common of 18 the adjacent parcel to the east of the above referenced property. We strongly oppose the 19 granting of the variances requested by the applicant . We hereby appoint Thornton E . Smith as 20 our agent with full authority to represent us in the matter . Attached is a copy of the deed 21 indicating our ownership in the property. " My second document starts , "My name is Thornton 22 Smith. I am an immediate neighbor of the Daneri ' s to the east . In 2006, I transferred my property 23 to my 5 children and I appear here as their agent . My sister, Shirley S . Anderson, owns the next 24 property to the east . Our lot numbers are 15 and 16 on an aerial photograph filed in this manner . 25 My number is erroneously listed as 19 . The Daneri ' s own the second of ten lots that are all 95 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 in a row in this community. They are characterized by short dimensions on the bay and at the north 3 end and long 600 feet dimensions in the north/south direction . On the northern 400 feet, 4 nothing is built on any of them. The land contains only driveways . Along the bay, these 5 houses were all constructed to architectural designs that were in keeping with the customs at 6 the time with special attention to setbacks and landscaping. We have known Mr . Daneri for many 7 years and his late parents before him. I 'm a professional engineer registered in New York State 8 inactive status . I 'm also registered in 3 other jurisdictions . I 'm a fellow of the American 9 Society of the Civil Engineers and I 'm on the retired list of the Core of Engineers . In the past 10 in other jurisdictions , I have served both as a building inspector and as a member of the Zoning 11 Board of Appeals . Last August I appeared before the Board of Trustees on this matter . I pointed 12 out then, "on the northern 500 feet, he is abandoning about 400 feet of pine woods in order 13 to put a driveway next to the one which already exists . " I don ' t see any reason why he should make 14 a change . More importantly, I also raised the issue of the side line building setbacks . I 15 stated, "I do believe that they could design two structures which would be suitable for the 16 property. Allow them to have whatever area they might want and be able to meet the building code 17 requirements and that will not have to be a violation which they will have to take to the 18 Zoning Board. " Obviously, for the current owners of my property and we believe, or at least some 19 members of the community, the issues of setbacks , sideline setbacks, is the controlling issue for 20 this application . While my practice as a civil engineer has been mainly as a constructor, I have 21 on several occasions also controlled the design of both buildings and land development including 22 projects in the Town of Southold. Professionally, I strive to achieve high standards of design that 23 are compatible with the area . This project as presented violates these standards . The house has 24 a single setback of 7 feet whereas the code requires 15 . It has a total setback of 14 whereas 25 the code requires 35 . I will discuss the garage as I knew it yesterday. The garage has a setback 96 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 of 5 feet whereas the code requires 20 . It also has a height of 24 . 58 feet whereas the code 3 requires a maximum of 22 . The dormers encompass 730 of the roof width whereas the code limits them 4 to a maximum roof width of 400 . There is a reason why these requirements are incorporated in the 5 code . That reason is to protect the legitimate and recognized interests of neighbors not to have 6 houses built too close to their structures or too high . As neighbors, we care about these issues . 7 The plan is not an appropriate solution for this site or this community nor is it in keeping with 8 the standards which the citizens of the Town of Southold wish to maintain as indicated by the 9 approved building code of the Town . As an example of the sensitive treatment of a similar site, I 10 submit the development of our own adjacent property. It is of similar width. The house is 11 L-shaped with the base of the L on the water . The vertical part of the L stretches to the north 12 where there is effectively no setback limit . The east side has a single setback of 19 feet on the 13 southern side of the building versus the code requirement of 15 and a 29 foot setback on the 14 northern portion . On the west side, there is a setback of 22 . 5 feet . Thus, on the southern 15 portion of the building, the total setback is 41 . 5 feet versus the code requirement of 35 and on the 16 northern portion of the building, the total setback is 51 . 5 feet . We submit that this layout 17 is an excellent solution to an admittedly limiting problem of the width of the site . We achieved 18 functional requirements for the building without breaching or even reaching the limits of the 19 building code, thus we encountered no hardship . With competent architectural design, the Daneri 20 property on the western boundary would present no hardship either . We ask for a compatible solution . 21 The Board of Zoning Appeals has responsibility in the first instance to monitor adherence to the 22 accepted standards of the Town . Since it is apparent that Mr . and Mrs . Daneri do not intend to 23 adhere to the code, we express our strong disapproval of this application and plead with you 24 to disallow it in it ' s entirety and therefore force them to adhere to the code . That is my 25 prepared statement . I ' d like to make comments and I hope to make 97 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 them brief on the discussion I ' ve heard so far today. First, Paul Long is not among the ten 3 houses which are in the Camp Mineola East Community . The height of the garage has already 4 been discussed here . The distance back from the faller line, if there had been any discussion of 5 this application between me and the Daneris and there has been none, I could easily support them 6 in the position in which the building has been setback. It ' s behind the A-E line as opposed to 7 the V-E line that has to do with flood control . It happens to be in line with the next two structures 8 to the east in terms of setback from the water which are mine and my sister ' s and, as a matter of 9 fact, the next structure too who ' s owners are here . On the west side, the house existing is a 10 little further forward then where they would be in that new location and the idea of setting them 11 back further then where they are now would be, I believe, an unwarranted burden on the site . I have 12 not had a chance to communicate this before unless I did discuss it in the Board of Trustees meeting, 13 I didn ' t remember . On the matter of preliminary plans, the fact that Mr . Anderson says a little 14 money has been spent on preliminary architectural plans, of course without the intent to follow the 15 code, and that has lead to other proposals before other Boards , just as a professional does not cut 16 any ice with me . I happen to remember in the case of the structure which I designed next door . It 17 took me 17 sets of plans before I could get my wife, who is here, and my late mother to agree on 18 a set of plans . And I finally got a set of plans which not only met their requirements but, of 19 course, did not require that I appear before you . With regard to the 3 sites from which letters have 20 been of returned; Colonel LaSalle of the Army, Mary Hallock Smith and Adeline Siverson, they are 21 lot 6, 7 and 8 in this line of ten lots of which Mr . Daneri is 2 and I am 3 . The Siverson site is 22 very unusual . It only has a 26 foot width. The next one has a 46; 26, 40 and 50 are those three 23 lots . Those lots are fully built out sideline wise . I don ' t think, and I think this statement 24 applies to most of the houses in the area, there has been construction over the years . I don ' t 25 think I see any intention with one exception way up north at the east end to attempt to renovate 98 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the buildings and in all cases , as I think I said in my memorandum, those buildings are in 3 accordance with the code . They have grandfathered certificates of occupancy. They are in accordance 4 with the code that existed at the time . As I mentioned in my memorandum, they were constructed 5 with adequate reference to the sidelot setbacks and in each case they have as attractive side lot 6 setbacks and landscaping as the lots would allow . The elimination of steps , I think the elimination 7 of steps is not a serious problem and I will leave it for now . There are many details here which if 8 there had been competent architectural design under the direction of an owner that wanted to 9 meet the code, those discussions should be taking place not in this venue . The demolition of the 10 entire house does allow an opportunity, as I said in the Board of Trustees , the demolition of this 11 house would be a good thing provided there ' s adequate, which I didn ' t say then, provided 12 there ' s adequate architectural treatment of what they ' re going to put in it ' s place including 13 setbacks , sidelines and the provision thereafter of adequate landscaping . Mr . Anderson mentioned 14 that there ' s some room for flexibility. So far I have not seen any flexibility here and that ' s one 15 of the reasons that I 'm here representing my five children . I think the comments of Ms . Oliva and 16 Mr. Dinizio are in line with our concerns with regard to this property. We are the closest 17 neighbor . We think that a competent architectural design could be obtained which could meet their 18 requirements . Whatever the square foot area they wanted this house, ladies and gentlemen, they ' ve 19 got 600 feet north in which to build it . Which is exactly what I did in my situation to make sure 20 that I limited the frontage of the house in the front and had what I considered to be an excellent 21 side lot that exceeded the code and that is an excellent solution . We must leave it to you, 22 ladies and gentlemen, to do justice to this problem. Thank you . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you, sir . Does anyone have any questions of this gentleman? 24 Thank you very much . MR. SMITH : Thank you . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Does anybody else wish to speak? 99 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. TOPPER: Yes . My name is Louis Topper and I ' m a neighbor of the Daneri ' s . I prepared a 3 letter . I appreciate the opportunity to speak here . I made sure that I had the time to come 4 because I know a lot of the other neighbors were not available and I wanted to tell you exactly as 5 I see it . I live two houses down from Charlie and Kathy. I recently purchased my home which sits 6 right on the bay and although I 'm not part of that Terry Path community, I directly abut all the 7 houses on Terry Path. Even though I 'm Camp Mineola, I appear on the east side of the 8 right-of-way which really puts me more part of the Terry Path community then it does the Camp Mineola 9 Community. I could read my letter and then I just have a few other comments to make, "Dear Members 10 of the Board, I 'm writing to express my feelings regarding the proposed development of the new 11 Daneri residence . Almost all of the properties that abut the waterfront have been constructed in 12 proportion to their lot size and in many cases have been completely rebuilt or substantially 13 remodeled and extended. The Daneri property is the only one that is disproportionately undersized and 14 has never been improved. I am fortunate to be the Daneri ' s neighbor and I am very pleased for them 15 that after all these years they plan to build such a beautiful and appropriate home on their 16 property. Their plans call for an elegant building substantially setback from the water and as a 17 result a structure that will not be raised on pilings . They have been quite thoughtful in 18 choosing this location and construction method. As a result, their immediate neighbors will have 19 better views of the bay. Further, their structure will not have an elevation that begins 5 feet 20 higher than the adjoining properties . My home at 3605 Camp Mineola Road is just two doors down and 21 I have a substantial amount invested in my residence . There is no doubt that the Daneri 22 project will enhance the value of all of the properties in this small waterfront community . I 23 believe it is important for the Board to act as quickly as possible because the present cottage is 24 not a suitable habitation for this family and as their friend, I feel it is very important for them 25 to be able to reside in a new beautiful home both reflective of the kind of people they are and 100 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 consistent with the character of the neighborhood. " I understand I ' m not well versed 3 in variances but obviously I have a vested interest in this project and I frequently find 4 myself as was described earlier sitting on the beach and just looking across the sorted and all 5 different types of homes that comprise maybe 20 different homes on the waterfront . It ' s not 6 logical to me to see anybody push their home too far back because then basically what they do is 7 they eliminate themselves from the community. They become invisible from the overall scheme of 8 things . It makes it look like a checkerboard from the water . And so I think it ' s great that some of 9 the houses are pushing somewhat back from the water and I think this is a real positive, from my 10 point of view, it ' s a real positive thing, but not so far back as to create gaps and other 11 decisiveness from being able to communicate or actually sit on the beach where most of us spend a 12 lot of our social time . Of course, if there is anyone that spends a great deal of time on the 13 waterfront, it ' s Charlie and Kathy . They appreciate it probably more than anybody else . 14 They ' re always out there . They ' re always socializing. They ' re wonderful neighbors and I ' ve 15 seen the plans for their home and I think it ' s -- and truly I live two doors down . The next house 16 is an abandoned cottage . It ' s an extremely old structure . It ' s actually falling apart as we speak 17 and it happens to be right next to my residence . I don ' t mind the fact that it ' s 10 feet away. I have 18 a privet that gives me the privacy I need and precludes me from looking at it . I would be much 19 happier if I could be looking at something that is clearly more appropriate for the neighborhood and 20 for the amount that I invested in there . It ' s obviously a good thing . We all want to support the 21 community . We have no problem paying more and more taxes . This all seems to me to be an economic 22 benefit and I think it will be a real plus for everyone . I just wanted to be present to let my 23 feelings be known . Thank you very much . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you, sir . Anybody 24 else who would like to speak? MS . ARNOLD : Very, very brief . I 'm speaking 25 on behalf of my parents, Margaret and Joseph Best . My name is Eleanor Best Arnold . I 'm speaking on 101 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 behalf of them. They are 83 and 84 and they are the current owners at the house . I will be the 3 fourth generation, my siblings and I , to own that house . We love the home . Our neighbors, we all 4 call them aunt and uncle because we grew up there . I 'm writing this letter on behalf of Mr . Eugene 5 Daneri who resides at 200 Terry Path . "We have known Mr . Daneri from his youth to adulthood. He 6 has always been a considerate neighbor and shown an interest in our small beach area . We 7 understand he is requesting to make changes in his home and we feel these changes will enhance this 8 beach front area . By moving this house back, it will increase the bay visibility for all of his 9 neighbors . We are in support of his request . If you have any further questions . " I ' ll give you 10 this letter . It has our phone number and my father is with me to verify. Thank you very much . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you . Anybody else? MR. DANERI : Yes , I ' d like to have a few 12 words . Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the 13 Board. My name is Gene Daneri and it ' s my application that you have before you today . First , 14 I ' d like to say what I have to say and then I ' ll answer whatever questions that you may have of me . 15 My parents purchased this home in 1967 . Initially, it was a summer home . Ultimately, my parents 16 retired there and they passed away. My mother passed away in the house . My father passed away in 17 a nursing home shortly after he moved out . I currently reside in this house on a full time 18 basis . My office is in Riverhead. I submit to you this application in order to construct a home that 19 is more comfortable for myself and my wife and our family . Now, unless you live on the water or had 20 any experience living on the water, you don ' t really understand what it ' s like to be a 21 waterfront homeowner . The focus of everyone who owns a piece of property on the water is the 22 water . It ' s the proximity of your home . Obviously, you don ' t want to be too close but you 23 want to be able to see the water. You want the best view you can have . Now, one of the things 24 that I can guarantee that any person who owns a home would come in here and tell you is that the 25 side yard view is not the asset of the property . No one would tell you I got a great view of the 102 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 side of my neighbor ' s house . That ' s not a reality. Now, I think it ' s important for you to 3 know there are a number of concessions that I ' m making by bringing this application to you . My 4 house right now is 10 feet off the bulkhead and when it ' s stormy, it ' s close . One thing you can ' t 5 dispute, I can sit on my porch and I can see from Jamesport Point to Nassau Point all the way down 6 the bay . My house is the closest to the bulkhead, closest to the beach of anyone else ' s . I have an 7 unbelievable view. Now, in presenting this application, I 'm pulling my house back. Pulling 8 my house back. It ' s going to be 30 feet from the bulkhead. Those of you who went down to the 9 property, if you stood where the front of the house is going to be, you ' ll see my view which was 10 once this (indicating) will be this ( indicating) . That ' s a concession . That ' s a serious concession 11 for a waterfront property owner . Now, in addition to that, our plan involves the destruction removal 12 of a second smaller cottage on the property. When I was a kid, my parents rented that house . If our 13 application is granted, that house will no longer exist . I will no longer have the right to 14 construct that house . Now, what we ' re looking for here is to appease you, get what we want and wind 15 up with the maximum view that we can . I submit that there are a number of benefits that our 16 proposal has for all of the neighbors ' s including Mr . Smith . He hasn ' t mentioned this and apparently 17 doesn ' t recognize it but when we move our house back, he ' s no longer going to have to look at the 18 side of it . His view, the critical part of waterfront ownership is going to get better . Same 19 for the property to the west of us . In addition to that, obviously, we ' re going to have the renovated 20 structure or a new structure that ' s going to increase my property value and the surrounding 21 property value . Now, by eliminating the second structure, that also produces a benefit to the 22 community in that I ' ll no longer be able to rent that second structure . That will reduce traffic in 23 the area . Now, Mr . Anderson has already covered the environmental issues . I just want to recap 24 them. Obviously, the construction of this home would involve an updated septic system, an updated 25 septic system that ' s going to be further from the bay then the present septic system is . In 103 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 addition to that , there will be the installation of dry wells or run off from the house which will 3 also be further from the bay. As Mr . Anderson indicated, the removal of the second cottage also 4 eliminates the second septic systems . Now, despite all these things, Mr . Smith stood before 5 you this afternoon and tells you he objects . He objects to the project as a whole, everything 6 about it and he even insults my architect, Mark Schwartz, by implying that he ' s not a competent 7 architect . I submit to you that the objections he ' s raised are not reasonable . 8 Now, everyone knows that there ' s reasons for the zoning requirements but there ' s also a reason 9 for variances to the zoning requirements . If there weren ' t, you folks wouldn ' t be here nor would I . 10 It would be the strict letter of the law and the zoning law would be applied without any type of 11 flexibility. I put to you that this property cries out for variances for the reasons already stated. 12 Yes , one of the things that Mr . Smith has mentioned is that apparently he thinks I should 13 construct a house that looks like his . Well , how my house looks is my choice, not his . Yes, I 14 could build a house that fully complies with all the zoning requirements and what I ' d wind up with 15 would be a long, narrow trailer house . That would not be a benefit to Mr . Smith, to my neighbor to 16 the west or any member of the community. Now, it ' s also significant to note that Mr . Smith and 17 all of his children who own or hold title to the property to the east of mine, not one of them 18 lives there . Mr . Smith lives in Peconic Landing . Neil Smith, his son right here, lives in 19 Massachusetts . The most these people ever spend in this house is two weeks out of every year . Yet 20 despite these things, they come before you and state they object . What ' s the hardship to them two 21 weeks a year compared to the hardship to me . I live here year round. Now, you have a number of 22 letters in front of you. I don ' t know if you received a letter from Dorothy Uldany (phonetic) . 23 She indicated to me that she was going to be mailing one . I spoke to her . I spoke to all of my 24 neighbors with the exception of Mr . Smith and they all support the present application. I think it ' s 25 also significant to note that I think Mr . Smith indicated this himself, that his sister lives on 104 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the east side of him; immediately adjacent property. She hasn ' t objected to our application . 3 Now, these letters, Bruce Anderson, the neighbors in support of our application, I submit are the 4 voices of reason . I also submit to you that there is no legitimate purpose to denying this 5 application . That ' s basically all I have to say to you folks today . So if you have any questions , 6 I ' d be happy to answer them. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing 7 we ' re discussing Mr . Daneri was the issue of the 5 foot setback for the garage . And I think Mr . 8 Anderson said you were going to address that . MR. DANERI : Yes , well, honestly, as Bruce 9 had indicated when the plans were drawn up, it was before the code was amended in January. I 10 honestly don ' t know how far we could move the garage from the side yard, from 5 feet to whatever 11 and still be able to get in and out of the garage . One of the concerns that I have is that you have 12 the 5 foot setback, you have the 24 foot of the garage, then obviousl-y you need a certain amount 13 of room in order to be able to maneuver into and out of the garage . I don ' t know -- 14 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a suggestion for you? 15 MR. DANERI : Certainly . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you put a 16 stake at that 29 feet and see how the turning radius is? 17 MR. DANERI: Absolutely. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And see if you can 18 give a little on the turning radius? MR. DANERI : Absolutely. 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think my colleague who is better suited than I am had 20 another suggestion . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : There are a number of 21 ways -- clearly, this is not something you ' ve had a great deal of time to reflect upon and there are 22 viable alternative solutions that will still allow you a 3 bay garage with a slightly larger side 23 yard setback and I don ' t think that ' s the crucial issue that ' s before us here . I think if you ' re 24 given some time to talk to your architect, you ' ll come up with something a little better . One 25 answer is to rotate it so that the 3 bays face -- obviously, you don ' t want to necessarily obscure 105 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the entire elevation of your house which is a consideration . But those are the kinds of things 3 you can discover in reevaluating the site and it ' s strict limitations . I think probably the primary 4 focus of your presentation has been about the placement of the dwelling itself, the proposed 5 dwelling, and I think. that testimony has covered all bases on that score . That ' s all I would say. 6 Perhaps, Jim, I don ' t know what the protocol would be but maybe you might want to have the time to 7 take a look at perhaps an amended site plan relative to the accessory garage . That ' s up to 8 you, I guess . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly we could, if we 9 want, felt so, just grant him whatever side yard setback we want to grant him and he could deal 10 with it in any way, any fashion he ' d like . If he went 15 feet, he could have the same size building 11 just turn it around and come in on the front . You know, that ' s a compromise between the -- 12 MR. ANDERSON : I want to make one point that with regard to issues of fire protection . We ' re 13 talking about trying to get 10 feet . If we increase the setback of the garage from the side 14 lot line beyond that which the house is setback, I don ' t know that we ' re accomplishing a whole lot in 15 that regard. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It figures out , if you 16 just twist that thing around, you could have like 20 feet on that one side which is more than -- 17 you ' re welcomed to have, that ' s what you need. MR. DANERI : I ' m certain that if the sticking 18 part of our application is the garage, we can reconcile that issue in a manner that will be 19 satisfactory with the Board. We are not quite as inflexible as Mr . Smith would lead you to believe . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that quite honestly when you present it in that way, and I ' m 21 glad that we heard from you but in all honesty, I would like to see what would be acceptable to you 22 and if that ' s the case, we probably need to hold the hearing open until we get that and have 23 further comments on it if we ' re going to change it . But if you ' re saying to us , your application 24 stands , we ' ll make a decision on it based on what we feel the Town can handle . 25 MR. ANDERSON : My preference, because we ' ve been at this so long, would be to simply provide 106 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 you with alternatives in writing and let you make the decision rather than prolong this . 3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We don ' t know what you ' re priorities are, it might be that you would 4 prefer, the one option might be to have a two car garage instead of a three car garage . I 'm not 5 recommending that but. that ' s among the kinds of options to think about and the idea of turning it 6 and so on . All of which can be considered. We think that the idea of options A, B and C makes 7 our job a lot easier and we can come a lot closer to satisfying your order of priorities . Coming as 8 close to it as we can . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think if I can ' t get 9 from you that it would be okay to turn that thing around and keep it 15 feet from that side yard, 10 that ' s still basically granting a variance . MR. DANERI : I understand that . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: And if I can ' t get that from you today then we have a discussion and it 12 goes one way or the other . Now, I gotta say this to you and I ' m sure Bruce will tell you, that if 13 you heard me speaking 5 years ago about applications like this , you would not hear me 14 speaking about asking you to do things . But it ' s a different time now. The Town has made different 15 decisions and some of the decisions , although I don ' t agree with them, are part of our law. If 16 people go into the code book, they read that code book and say this is what I can do . They don ' t 17 say, oh, I can get a variance for this . Most people just say okay, here ' s what I can do with my 18 piece of property. And what you hear from me now is we ' re trying to apply a Walz decision, which 19 this certainly falls under, an accessory structure decision we just got . And I know you got caught up 20 in the middle of . I 'm trying to at least adhere to the spirit of what the Town Board is trying to 21 get us to do and not overgrant variances . I realize that they are minimal when compared to 22 what they used to be . But what that are now, the maximum. You ' re supposed to be 20 feet away and 23 you ' re asking for 5 feet , that ' s a 100o variance from the code . That ' s a lot and I think in 24 percentages . Some of us up here don ' t . But I do and I just can ' t reconcile myself making a 25 decision for you at 5 and then having to say to someone else you can only have 10 or you can only 107 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 have 15 . I realize that there is a problem with the narrowness of that lot but you can put the 3 same size building, we can grant you a variance, but I think the 5 feet is just not going to fly as 4 far as I 'm concerned. I would like to see if it ' s okay to you to have those garage doors facing the 5 street , you ' re driving into it, if you think that that ' s okay, then I think the conversation that we 6 have on the 16th will probably be a lot less contentious . 7 MR. DANERI : I can tell you that I don ' t have a problem with what you ' re saying at all , but 8 you have to understand, I 'm not an architect . I haven ' t had a chance to talk to my wife about it 9 and make sure that it ' s okay with her . I think what Bruce has said, we can leave today and submit 10 something to you in writing that we believe given what we ' ve heard here today is more in the form of 11 what you ' re looking for I don ' t think we ' re going to have a problem. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. We ' d need that by the 13th by 1 : 15 . 13 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALKSI : We ' d actually need it the Friday before the deadline . That ' s the 14 public hearing date, if we adjourned it . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re not going to adjourn 15 it . We ' re probably going to close it . So if you can give it to us by the Friday before we make our 16 decision which is the 16th . (All Board Members talking at the same 17 time . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : A week from tomorrow. 18 MR. DANERI : I don ' t think that ' ll be a problem. 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Same with the dormer thing . If you could just go by the 400 , that 20 would be nice . If not , let me know . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim? 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I would say, use the 22 same criteria for the setback. We ' re giving you over a 50o relief from that setback of 75 feet . I 23 would like to see it moved back a bit . It ' s a nice house but it ' s a 50 foot wide house with a 24 cantilever . That ' s a big house . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Move back from 25 where though? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Move back from the. 108 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 bulkhead to about 50 feet . That ' s an over 50% relief . 3 MR. DANERI : The additional distance is considerable if you go and look at the property 4 and you look at the view of the water . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr . Daneri , I appreciate 5 the views of the water, believe me . But we ' re not here to protect or provide views of the water . 6 We ' re here to protect what the code says is allowed. 7 MR. DANERI : Well, you ' re here to protect the interests of the community. Certainly, I 'm a 8 member of the community as are all these people here . I can tell you this, that if my neighbors 9 were to see my house 75 feet back from the bulkhead, there ' s not one of them that would be 10 happy about that . Not even Mr . Smith . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mr . Daneri, I 'm not 11 telling you 75 feet . I 'm saying 30 feet is over a 50% variance . 12 MR. DANERI : And I understand that but the one thing that I would like to say with regard to 13 that is that obviously that ' s code . That ' s new construction code . I don ' t think that you can 14 apply it strictly into a neighborhood with preexisting structures that are considerably less 15 than that from the bulkhead. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It has been done . 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Actually, sir, that ' s the problem with the new way of thinking . Is that, 17 quite honestly, it used to be you wouldn ' t even be before us at 10 feet if you just replaced in kind . 18 But now that ' s all out the window and it all has to do with bulk and there ' s no more preexisting 19 nonconforming. So I agree with you that from going from 10 to 30 , that is a good thing . I probably 20 can, myself, live with that . But don ' t think for a moment that you ' re doing the Town any favors by 21 asking for that . The Board has to really stretch when you tear down houses . If you were adding 22 onto that house, the Board doesn ' t stretch so much . It ' s there, it ' s existing, you put another 23 room on . But you tear it down and then you read our code, our code says if 50% of that building is 24 in any way blah, blah, blah, burnt down, missing, you gotta start new at 75 feet and work your way 25 back. That ' s what we ' re looking at . We look at the code . It ' s not your fault, it ' s not anybodies 109 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 fault other than the code ' s there and the code does exist . We try to apply that to everybody in 3 a fair manner . I think it would be a travesty to be 75 feet back because the way the houses are 4 there . MR. DANERI : Absolutely. That ' s my point . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: But consider what we have to look at because we have to look at it from the 6 opposite way . You ' re tearing it down therefore you no longer have an existing setback other than 75 7 feet . We ' re granting you now about a 60o variance even when you say you ' re moving it back. So 8 that ' s how we look at it . We do try to accomodate, but again, and I certainly understand 9 the confusion, the amount of money you ' ve spent and the merry-go round that you have been placed 10 on in this Town . I understand that and I think everybody up here does . I wish there was some 11 other way to alleviate that but I don ' t have the hours to spend, quite honestly. So, Ruth, are you 12 done? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Does anybody else wish to comment? How about out in the audience? 14 MRS . SMITH: Shirley Smith . I 'm Thornton Smith ' s wife and we ' re the house next door . I 15 think there initially has been a misunderstanding . We are not objecting to them tearing down the 16 house, building a nice house next door, the setback seems fine . We didn ' t object to the 17 setback from the bulkhead. I 'm surprised Charlie, wherever he is, that he never talked to us . He 18 never came over and asked us how we would feel if he put his new building as close as he is 19 intending to do . What Thornton has really been objecting to is the side lots and the side lot to 20 the east which is where we are, front , back, the garage, the height of the garage . I ' m glad that 21 you sort of resolved that that ' s a little too high beyond the zoning. But I think to equate, we ' ve 22 been there well over 50 years . We love the house . Our children love the house and because they live 23 at a distance and aren ' t here all the time is really not the point . Charlie has, I think, two 24 houses in the Mattituck area and he ' s free to go back and forth . Our children are further away. 25 I 'm sorry that someone from the house next door to us, our sister, is not here . She is not here 110 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 because she agrees to it . I 'm not saying she objects to it . I 'm just saying she chose not to 3 engage in this thing . I liked what Ruth said at one point about the scale . I think the scale is 4 overly large, pretentious but truly we were not objecting to the whole house . It was the side 5 setback. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can I ask a question? 6 Can you tell us what your side yard is from the adjoining property line? 7 MR. SMITH : Twenty-two and a half feet on the Daneri side and it ' s in the paper . Nineteen feet 8 on the east side, 22 1/2 feet on the west side . The entire dimension on the west side is 22 1/2 9 feet . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What I ' m trying to do 10 is see what the distance between the proposed new house would be, the side of that house, and the 11 side of your house . MR. SMITH : They ' re 10 feet on the west side 12 so and it would be 32 1/2 feet of which only 22 1/2 feet are ours . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But I 'm saying you ' re about 32 feet away from each other . L 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don ' t think that that ' s fair to base the distance of the house on their 15 property. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No . I just want to 16 understand visual impacts . MRS . SMITH : We tried very hard to make sure 17 when we did our renovations that we stayed within the code . What we object to is having the code 18 exceeded and not having to neighbor come to us and say, this is what we ' d like to do . We ' ve never 19 had any approach from them. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir? Mr . Smith? 20 MR. SMITH : Maybe all of those comments are not completely professional but at least you ' ve 21 heard them. You, madam, are an architect . So are obviously architectural solutions involving 22 layout , the facade of the house is not an issue as far as we ' re concerned. It can ' t be under the 23 code . But there are architectural solutions with regard to layout which would allow them to build 24 whatever they want to build on the property. But they' ve shown, up until now, I ' m happy that by 25 virtue of being here, we have got some signals that maybe there ' s some flexibility here . But up 111 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 until now and I still think our future on this matter rests in the monitoring of your Board. 3 With regard to Mr . Topper, I 'm pleased that he agrees with the front line setbacks as we do agree 4 too . The bone I have to throw Charlie, and once again, I think I threw it to him in the Board of 5 Trustees , I have those notes of my presentation but I ' d have to go back and look at it . 6 Mr . Topper is not a member of the Camp Mineola East community. He is member of the West End 7 Association of Camp Mineola and he ' s not one of the ten houses that have these long lots . His 8 depth is very short and there are several houses behind him on the same piece of property. It used 9 to be 600 feet long but it ' s not anymore . His house has been renovated twice in the last ten 10 years . It ' s an excellent house but it has very short side lots too, as does the one next door to 11 it which is a violation of the building department now. It will have to be worked on . What will 12 happen to the house, we don ' t know. It has a 15 foot setback from the Daneri property at it ' s 13 closest location; even more than that on the water.. but 15 foot at one place in the house . The 14 Daneri ' s have 10 now and they ' re reducing that by my numbers to 7 on the west side . Also, the 15 proposed plans of this house, are not something that you have jurisdiction over, but the proposed 16 plans of this house are 35 feet in height . My house 24 . It will be the highest house in either 17 direction, I think, for maybe 10, 15 houses in either direction . This is a humungous structure . 18 With regard to Charlie ' s comments - we call him Charlie, his name is Eugene . I think he said that 19 he was giving me a concession with regard to the front line setback but I believe the reason the 20 house is there as I said before has to do with the flood line and if he hadn ' t put the house there, 21 he wouldn ' t have gotten past the Board of Trustees . Let ' s put it the other way, the Board 22 of Trustees accepted his proposal because he put the house where it was and I 'm not sure that that 23 was a concession to me . I happen to think it ' s the proper professional solution but he happens to 24 have gotten in the process of putting the house where he proposed to put it because of the i 25 approval of the Board of Trustees . My wife has covered the issue of lifetime occupancy. My 112 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 sister and I have been on these two sites , one since 1932 and the other since 1965 . How far they 3 will be in our family in the future is something that I do not have control over but everybody in 4 the family likes the site and we hope to be there a long time . My sister has seen my presentation 5 here and she has , whatever objections she had to this presentation, I have made them before they 6 were given to you. She has no objections , to my knowledge, to the presentation . She ' s probably 7 seen 3 drafts of my presentation . I hope that maybe this discussion here today will lead to some 8 serious discussion about solutions to this problem which essentially would require that they don ' t 9 have to come back here at all . Thank you very much . 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Is there anybody else that wishes to comment on this application? 11 MR. LASALLE : Very quickly. I live in Camp Mineola, several houses . My name is William 12 LaSalle, 540 Terry Path . This house has the same architect , this building, as Paul Long ' s house . 13 If it ' s anything like that, it will be a very fine house and we welcome it . You heard all the other 14 arguments . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you, sir . Bruce, we 15 can expect that information by the 10th, right? MR. ANDERSON : Yes , sir . 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And so we ' ll get that information . Anybody else? Okay. I ' ll entertain a 17 motion that we close this hearing pending that information from Mr . Anderson . 18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 19 (See minutes for resolution . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Here ' s what we ' re going to 20 do . We are going to reopen this hearing right now and we ' re going to, I guess, leave it open until 21 the 16th . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : To the next hearing . 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: The next hearing is September 13th . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I don ' t really like that idea . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a suggestion to you please? 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes, let ' s hear a motion, that ' s all . 113 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here ' s the motion . The motion is to reopen the hearing. We need a 3 unanimous vote which we probably do have . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 4 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let Mr . Anderson have at least two weeks or ten days to do what he 5 has to do and then let the remaining -- Mr . Smith, let him react to it at which point they can, in 6 writing . The purpose of the motion today and my suggestion is to take no more oral testimony at 7 this hearing and therefore, not taking any oral testimony will then give you the right to produce 8 any further letters that you want . Pick a drop dead date to stop the letter writing and that ' s 9 it . We address the issue in September when everything is done . And that ' s it . 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I ' m just a little concerned about the time . I don ' t think anybody 11 objected to us making a decision on the 16th . I just think that what the both sides wanted was to 12 be able to comment on -- (All Board Members talking at one time . ) 13 MR. ANDERSON : Honestly, if you -- I don ' t want you to rush it either . If you ' re trying to 14 cram this stuff in so you can -- I appreciate your trying to accommodate but I want a just decision . 15 What ' s the next date? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The 13th of September . 16 MR. ANDERSON : Why don ' t you make your decision on the 13th? That way you ' re not under 17 the gun . Now, here ' s my only concern . We ' re going to come back with an alternative that you ' ve 18 requested and that they ' re going to comment on the alternative . I ' m fine with that . I will not be 19 fine if we use that opportunity to introduce all other kinds of stuff that may be factually 20 inaccurate . So if the understanding is I 'm going to come back with an alternative and Mr . Smith 21 wants to submit comments having to review my alternative, I ' m perfectly -- 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We can limit it to that . MR. ANDERSON : Yes . I ' ll send him a copy . 23 That ' s fine . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Bruce, you ' re willing 24 to waive your rights to respond -- MR. ANDERSON : On the provision that he ' s 25 going to simply respond to my -- and not introduce other . 114 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. SMITH : Let me get this clear . You ' re going to give me some comments -- 3 MR. ANDERSON : One more time . They ' ve asked us to submit some alternatives , for example, the 4 garage . We ' re happy to do that . We ' re agreeable that you can comment on those but limit your 5 comments to the alternative, what ' s in front of you, that ' s all . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You ' re going to give us -- what you would like to give us with regard to what 7 we ask. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : In writing or 8 orally? MR. ANDERSON : I 'm going to give you a site 9 plan and I 'm going to give you a letter . I hear the garage, I ' ve heard about the steps, I ' ve heard 10 about the bulkhead. I ' ve heard about all these things . I have a good decent memory, not perfect . 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : If you ' re going to resubmit that, how long do you need for that? 12 MR. ANDERSON : I ' ll take ten days . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ten days will get us to . 13 MR. ANDERSON : Make it two weeks . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That will be the 16th . 14 We ' ll receive your stuff on the 16th . It ' ll be available to you on the 16th . We will receive 15 stuff from you till the 31st, in writing only. MR. SMITH : Of August . 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Of August . And we ' re going to have a hearing on the 13th and after reviewing 17 this information, we ' re going to close that hearing . 18 MR. ANDERSON : I ' m not coming back on the 16th, right? 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, we ' re just going to leave it open for written comments . 20 In any case, on the 31st , we ' re done with this application as far as anyone handing anything 21 into us . Now, so how do we -- what do we have to do first? Open the hearing? 22 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Just amend the resolution . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to amend the resolution . Anyone want to make that amendment? 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll make it . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : To August 31st . 25 MR. SMITH : I 'm available September 13th but a couple of days thereafter, I 'm sort of out of 115 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 action for a while . So I guess you ' re going to have on meeting on September 13th and whatever has 3 to happen then, you ' re going to make a decision then . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You don ' t need to appear . You don ' t have to be there . There won ' t be 5 anymore testimony. You ' re going to do it in writing beforehand. We ' re going to talk about the 6 whole record amongst ourselves . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re not going to take 7 any further testimony. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just written comments . 8 MR. SMITH : By the 31st . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : After that, we ' ll do 9 something . The decision won ' t be made until the middle of, the end of September . That ' s when we ' ll 10 make a decision . MR. ANDERSON : I will deliver him a copy at 11 Peconic Landing . My father ' s there as well so I ' m there all the time . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want me to do anything, Counselor, other than amend that 13 resolution? ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Just amend the 14 resolution . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We ' re going to 15 amend the resolution to extend the written record to August 31st . Resolution on 9/13 will close the 16 written comments . We offer that as a resolution . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Seconded. 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 18 ****************************************** Hearing #6063 - Sherman 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Mr . Bohn . Do we have to reopen this hearing? 20 MR. BOHN : It ' s still open . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. What was the result? 21 MR. BOHN : I went to the Building Department . They said now it ' s different from what Mr . 22 Goehringer told me . Cement or brick at grade is acceptable . Wood structure is not . But this house 23 is 78 years old and there ' s a lot of lots around there that are very small . So nothing that ' s 24 built around there, I can pretty much grantee you, conforms to any kind of zoning laws . What I ' m 25 asking you to do, if you could, is give me a 5 foot setback for the side yard because he has two 116 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 frontages . A 35 foot setback would give him nothing of a deck but this table . If we could 3 fill in that outside corner at a 5 foot setback to achieve, we ' d lose 2 feet of our deck but he would 4 still get a usable area . It ' s a dead area now. All 4 neighbors are in favor of the project . They 5 love his plantings . The house is beautiful . This would be a definite positive note for the 6 neighborhood. Would you give us that on a wood structure? Because the house being a wood 7 structure doesn ' t comply with pretty much any setback because it ' s so old. 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At grade? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Wood structure at 9 grade? And what would you do about access from the sliding patio doors? Will you have steps down to 10 the lowered deck? MR. BOHN : Yes . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And what about the existing shed? 12 MR. BOHN : Gone if that works for you. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who ' s is this? 13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Mine . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You got that, Ruth? 14 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just go through it once more for me . 15 MR. BOHN : We ' re going to take 2 feet off the deck to achieve a 5 foot setback on the side yard. 16 Enclose the outside corner which will give us , still have a 32 foot long deck, that will be 21 17 foot east to west . Lose the shed completely and have a set of steps from the slider down to the 18 first level of the deck and maintain grade in two steps . If that ' s acceptable . 19 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will you do a little sketch on that for us, please . 20 MR. BOHN : Yes, I will . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bring it in by the 21 early part of next week. MR. BOHN : Absolutely. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anything else you want to add? I know it ' s been a long day for you . Anyone 23 in the audience that would like to make comments on Sherman? 24 Okay. Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this . 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second. 117 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor . 3 (See minutes for resolution . ) 4 Hearing #6052 - Reinken CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for 5 Richard and Cathy Reinken . Whose is that? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s mine . 6 "Request for Variance under Section 280-116B, based on the Building Inspector ' s May 7 24 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning new dwelling construction, after demolishing the 8 existing construction, disapproval for the reason that the new construction will be less than the 9 code-required 75 feet from the bulkhead, at 1935 Pine Tree Road (at Little Creek) , Cutchogue ; CTM 10 98-1-11 . 1 . " And how are you, sir? Would you state your 11 name for the record. MR. HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of 12 EN-Consultants, 1319 North Sea Road in Southampton, New York . I 'm exhausted from the 13 prior hearing . Mark Schwartz, the project architect is here and Gene Berger, the builder and 14 Mr . Reinken is here from Arizona . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is my file but 15 I just want to . Mr . Schwartz, what are you doing, moving around? 16 MR. HERRMANN : He ' s avoiding your deems . In case you didn ' t have enough discussion of the demo 17 and rebuild and bulk head setback on the Daneri application, we can revisit it here . Ruth probably 18 remembers from conversations I ' ve had with here in the past, this is my least favorite section of the 19 code . This is the 75 foot from bulkhead setback which I ' ve addressed with this Board an the Town 20 Board in the past . It ' s a troubling section of code that I think is worth putting in the context 21 of this application for a couple of reasons and sort of the spirit of this section of code was 22 discussed at the prior hearing . I think it ' s problematic because if it ' s viewed as the Chairman 23 mentioned as sort of an environmental protection section of the code, it ' s in the wrong chapter of 24 the code . I think it ' s an antiquated in that sense ini that it was written at a time when the 25 Town did not have as sophisticated a wetlands law as it has know nor a Trustee Board that was as 118 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 active in environmental protection and wetlands protection as it is now with these sort of upland 3 projects . Threw the years that I ' ve done this , I ' ve gotten a sense from various people in the 4 Town that it was in part what Mr . Anderson had said, to try to make sure that people weren ' t sort 5 of having these sort of stepping stone approaches to the bulkhead but also more appropriate for 6 sections of shore line where you had long stretches of bulkhead like on Peconic Bay as 7 opposed to areas like this where not only are not all of these properties bulkheaded but this 8 property in particular is not really bulkheaded . It has on it a section of very low bulkhead that 9 could almost be deemed a retaining wall at the bottom of the bluff . So interestingly, if the 10 Building Department called this a retaining wall , we wouldn ' t be here . Interestingly, if the 11 Reinken ' s chose to get rid of this section of wall, we wouldn ' t be here . But troubling, if you 12 look at this section of code not just as an environmental protection piece but also from a 13 pure zoning perspective, it also has the opportunity, as I discussed with prior Town 14 Boards , to be discriminatory but in an illogical way. What I mean by that is if you had two 15 projects that were immediately adjacent to one another, same setback from the water, same scope, 16 demo and rebuild, each requiring Trustees approval under the Town wetlands law, each requiring DEC 17 authorization under the State wetlands law, each requiring Health Department approval, if you had a 18 property where there was no bulkhead, you could go straight from that year long process to the 19 Building Department and get your permit . But if you have a bulkhead or in this case a section of 20 bulkhead, you then have to come before you folks for yet another approval . Now sometimes we want 21 our code to be discriminatory not in a prejudicial sense but in the sense that you want to have more 22 extensive review for certain kinds of projects . But my problem with this section of code is that 23 it ' s backwards . It says that somebody who has a completely undeveloped shoreline with pristine 24 wetlands need not come before you . That decision is left strictly with the Town Trustees . But 25 somebody like the Reinkens who have a partially more developed shoreline insofar as it has a 119 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 bulkhead as to come for this additional review . Which to me seems a bit backwards because you ' re 3 taking a property that ' s somewhat more developed and saying it requires two environmental approvals 4 from within the Town and I ' ve always been curious as to how the Zoning Board finds itself in a 5 position where somebody has an approval from the State, somebody has an approval from the Trustees . 6 In this case, two approvals . The Trustees have seen this project twice . Once in its original form 7 and then again in its more recent form where we took the one section of the house and kind of 8 weaned it away from the shoreline and added some additional environmental mitigation . But how does 9 the Zoning Board then make a decision that ' s anything other than approving the same thing 10 without effectively usurping the Trustee ' s authority? Having said all of that, it is as the 11 Chairman has mentioned, the code and that ' s why we are before you . So with that as a context in the 12 back of your brains , I want to discuss the specifics of this project . What we did for your 13 reference is we added to the survey the adjoining houses so that you could see with respect .to the 14 Zoning spirit of the Code that these houses are essentially in line . And what the Reinken ' s are 15 proposing to do is in effect construct in the same area as the existing house a larger house that is 16 designed to sort of step its way back away from the water . The hardship that the Reinken ' s face, 17 I mean they do have all the same desires as discussed in the prior hearing, to maintain the 18 views, maintain the proximity to the water, etc . It ' s a bit of a different application because, 19 number one, they are on an embankment here . Not the entire property but a portion of it is an 20 embankment and that ' s the section that ' s bulkheaded. But despite the adjacent property, 21 it ' s actually very well vegetated and very well screened from the water and the plan calls for 22 nothing to change that . What creates a bit of a hardship here is the sense that what the Reinken ' s 23 are trying to do is recreate and expand upon the existing house in between existing structures that 24 they intend to leave in place . As you can see from the survey, the existing house fronts up to a 25 existing wood deck and set of stairs that goes down to the bulkhead. On the roadside, there is an 120 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 existing framed garage and an existing paved driveway all of which is intended to remain . So 3 what they are doing is building within what is the presently cleared and developed area of the 4 parcel . A larger house, again designed to step back toward that existing driveway without 5 encroaching too much upon the existing garage . The other use for that space is the upgraded sanitary 6 system which obviously is an ecological improvement to the property in that they are 7 taking a preexisting nonconforming septic system abandoning that pursuant to Health Department 8 regulations and establishing a new system landward of the Trustees wetlands regulated area that is 9 more than 100 feet away. We saw a couple of comments from the LWRP coordinator with respect to 10 to consistency of this project and what we actually had done and submitted and what I hope 11 you have before you is a plan that was approved just last week by the Trustees that actually 12 relocated one of the dry wells that ' s proposed as part of the drainage system to capture runoff to 13 the landward side of the house as Mr . Terry suggested. And it also implemented a nonturf 14 buffer in areas which previously were not established as such . When the Trustees had 15 originally reviewed this, there was no nonturf buffer imposed because' as I mentioned, unlike 16 adjacent parcels, there is very heavy screening vegetation in front but what we ' ve done is expand 17 upon that and I have just shown in yellow the areas here which currently are not part of that 18 vegetated embankment but which would now be comprised of a nonturf buffer and again that it ' s 19 unusual on the property and sort of falls away from the embankment here, runs down the lawn to 20 what again is a natural shoreline which I would repeat if the whole shoreline were like this, we 21 wouldn ' t be here . So we are looking to protect some additional areas of the property that are not 22 vegetated now that will enhance what is already there . I will just hand up a few photographs . 23 This is the property to the north . The second photograph is the property to the south and this 24 is the Reinken ' s piece . You can see the difference in the view from the water of that shoreline . 25 Because of the configuration of this house, the view of that from the water really will not change 121 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 much . This is the dash line on the survey, the footprint of the existing house so most of the 3 expansion here really is heading in the landward direction although we ' re not going to get into 4 that discussion here . The porch on the corner here and again originally this section of the house 5 kind of went more north/south and it was redesigned by Mr . Schwartz to bring it back away 6 from the water which the Trustees thought was an improved scenario here . I don ' t think I have 7 anything else to offer but I 'm certainly here to answer any questions the Board has . And again, 8 Mr . Reinken is here and the builder and the architect are here as well if you have any 9 questions specific to the design or the building itself . 10 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that I was to the site twice . It is truly a 11 magnificent site . There ' s no question about it . I just don ' t understand why the applicant doesn ' t 12 want to move the house back a little bit fart4er away? That deck is like a little parapit out ' 13 there and I can see it go back another 20 feed and I realize that the driveway area is very, very 14 nice and it ' s very unique also . I think if I was building it, and this is just a statement, that 15 I ' d go back at least another 20 feet . MR. HERRMANN : I ' ll let Mr . Reinken speak to 16 part of his intent but again I know this plays upon the themes of the prior hearing but I want to 17 stay focused on the Board having some specific purpose of why to do that other than just because 18 that ' s what the code says . Because if we were to move back 20 feet, this house would then be 19 setback beyond the line of the adjoining houses and the house to the south is a rather newly 20 renovated structure and again it ' s hard to tell from the water but I don ' t believe this property 21 has a bulkhead. So this house is as it is with respect to the water but with much less screening. 22 This house here again is actually much closer to to water in terms of the way the shoreline curves 23 in where as here, in some corners here you ' re more than 100 feet from the wetlands . The only relief 24 we ' re looking for is, again, less than 75 feet from what is a section of bulkhead. So I think it 25 bears repeating that the Town Trustees who are the Board and the Town that are politically elected 122 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 officials and their hired staff people have looked at this twice and felt that this is a reasonable 3 and approvable, as they ' ve approved it twice, development or redevelopment scheme on this 4 property with respect to the setback. There are no flood issues here . We don ' t really have an 5 erosion issue here . The house as it would be reconstructed is in line with the adjoining houses 6 certainly within the character of this shoreline community. And we have a situation where there is 7 a combination of the aesthetic desire to try to maintain the way this house has always existed in 8 its location with a minor setback of several feet but also to maintain and keep it tied into that 9 waterfront deck and be able to tie into that driveway without compromising the area that ' s , 10 number one, required for the septic system and, number two, required to maintain that accessory 11 garage . As discussed before and I feel like this argument, it may fall on deaf ears with the Board, 12 but all of these applicants have the choice of leaving these older structures in place and 13 expanding in a landward direction with the same dwelling. But here, it ' s almost because they have 14 the where with all and the desire to rebuild it , it ' s almost as if there ' s a suggestion that they 15 should be penalized for that . If they want to add an extension, that ' s fine but if they ' re able 16 to knock down the house and reconstruct a new one, then they should be held to all of these new 17 standards even if it puts them in a completely different location with respect to the water . I 18 don ' t want to spend two hours like the prior hearing debating the philosophies of that because 19 I know that it is being debated within the Town and there is a lot of debate . I ' ll focus on this 20 one section of code . Both the idea of building a landward of preexisting structures and also these 21 preexisting setbacks both to the bluff and to the bulkhead. I think we all and you all are just 22 caught in a bad spot at this time because it has yet to be ironed out . But I think you have to look 23 at each site and I think if you look at this site and you look at it relative to the adjoining 24 parcels , I don ' t think there is any downside to the Reinken ' s doing what they ' re doing in terms of 25 just trying to maintain that most seaward portion . In other words, if you look at the site plan, I 123 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 mean there are portions of this house that are entirely outside the 75 foot setback. Most of the 3 portion of the house that ' s within 75 feet is the area of the existing house that already is within 4 75 feet and it was designed specifically to sort of hold the line only at that most seaward point 5 and then jog backwards in a way that doesn ' t look stupid. 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it ' s very nicely done . I just want to say this and I said 7 this at the last hearing which will be a final hearing hopefully today on Soundview Avenue in 8 Mattituck and that is , seeing storms that we had in the ' 80 ' s and the height of the water in the 9 1801s, I was subject to that as a public official and it actually destroyed 800 feet of bulkhead on 10 the Peconic Bay and I realize that this piece is not on the Peconic Bay . I realize it ' s much more 11 protected than Peconic Bay and affords almost the same view as on Peconic Bay but that water was 12 extremely destructive and I don ' t know if I was going to invest that kind of money, I 'm just 13 saying that I would probably set it back just a little bit more . I have no real significant 14 objection to this plan, Mr . Reinken, at all . I just wanted you to be aware . There ' s nothing I 'm 15 saying that ' s either distasteful or destructive to anything about you, your builder or your wonderful 16 architect . MR. HERRMANN : Rich, did you want to speak a 17 little bit to your rationale? MR. REINKEN : Couple comments but I ' ll be 18 brief . I don ' t know how you folks sit up there from 9 : 30 . My wife and I are working very 19 diligently to try to move back to the Island. Work took us away. We ' re trying to come back and as you 20 said, this piece of property is just magnificent and the house is positioned optimumly. We looked 21 at any number of options and possibilities and where the ideal location would be for a rebuilt 22 house . As Rob said, we could have just renovated the house, if you will, and try to bypass this 23 whole step . In our hearts , we knew the right thing to do, this is going to be our forever dream house 24 that our grandkids will come back to and so on and so forth. We wanted to do it right . And one of 25 the reasons for not moving it back any further is, one, we have a very wooded lot . There ' s just 124 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 magnificent oak trees . I think we have one oak trees that may be the oldest oak tree in 3 Cutchogue . To touch any of those oak trees unnecessarily would just break my heart, quite 4 frankly . We can reuse a lot of the infrastructure . It ' s just such a unique layout 5 that you hate to change anything significantly from the way the house is structured right now . We 6 are blessed to be up 14 feet . So to your concern about being so close to the water . I hear you . We 7 went back and forth on that, my wife and I , but we feel it ' s adequately protected. It ' s just a very, 8 very special spot to own a home . Also on the landward side, we have a detached garage and 9 moving it back anymore than it is right now, that garage is staying, would basically create almost 10 an urban feel if you really want to retain that courtyard and those of you that mapped the site 11 know that there ' s actually a courtyard area between the house and the garage and squeezing 12 that would basically ruin a lot of the charm of the property. We really did look at all the 13 different options and in my heart , I think from an environmental standpoint and practicality 14 standpoint, environmental, not even talking about the views which will stay basically the same . That 15 really was just one of our criteria . I think the house is in an ideal position and we ' d like you to 16 consider that and hopefully approve my request and get me out of trouble with my wife . I told her 17 this was going to be simple . Boy, did I lie to her . 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else wish to comment on this application? Board members? 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Two questions . We don ' t have a foundation plan . Can you talk to us 20 a little bit about the foundation of the house and land disturbance . 21 MR. SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz, architect of the project . The foundation will be a standard 22 concrete foundation 8 to 9 feet deep . We ' re intending on using, obtaining the existing 23 excavation because there is a full basement underneath what ' s there now . Disturbance would be 24 as minimal as possible . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s a full 25 basement and you ' re leaving what ' s there now or reconstructing in place and kind or what? 125 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. SCHWARTZ : No . It ' s probably going to end up being a new foundation by the time we ' re 3 done . The existing hole that ' s there is going to remain . We ' re expanding from that point on . 4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The other question is, what use do you have in mind for the existing 5 framed garage that you proposed leaving? MR. REINKEN : Actually, it ' s got a couple of 6 uses . It ' s partially, I do a lot of woodwork, so I ' d be doing woodworking there as well, and it is 7 actually a full garage for storage of a car or could be used for equipment for mowing the lawn 8 and things like that . I haven ' t decided what is going into what garage at this point in time . It 9 actually adds to the charm of the property if you ' ve seen it and we would not want anything to 10 happen to it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re adding an 11 attached garage for your cars so I just wanted to -- will it remain unheated? 12 MR. REINKEN : Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else . 13 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to say one thing after seeing Mr . Dey ' s house yesterday, 14 I do apologize Mr . Berger . You are a wonderful builder also and Mr . Schwartz is a wonderful 15 architect and I do apologize . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I ' ll entertain a motion 16 that we close this hearing until the 16th. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. 17 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. 18 All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 19 Hearing #6057 - Planitzer 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for Russell E . Planitzer . Michael, that ' s your 21 application . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : "Request for a Variance 22 under Section 280-15 , based on the Building Inspector ' s June 8 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval 23 concerning proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling which result would change 24 the conforming rear yard to a nonconforming yard for the existing swimming pool construction, at 25 Ocean View Avenue, Fishers Island; CTM 9-11-3 . 1 . " I understand the pool isn ' t being built but 126 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the house is being added onto . This is on Fishers Island and I invite the representative . 3 MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton for the applicant . That ' s correct . The 4 pool was built around 2001 . Mr . Planitzer had acquired the property in 1999 . There ' s a CO 5 attached to that memorandum I just distributed for the pool . At the time, I guess they didn ' t forsee 6 that this was an issue if he decided to add onto the house . So what we have here is a legal 7 existing pool and a legal proposed addition that needs no setback relief . Just a definitional 8 quirk that throws the pool into the side yard as opposed to the rear yard. The alteratives would 9 be possibly flipping this addition to the west a bit which would satisfy the definitional 10 requirement but be much more obtrusive from a sight point of view, create an odd V-shaped 11 structure that would be closer to the westerly property line and of course the other alternative 12 is moving the pool or getting rid of it which is silly. It ' s a functioning pool . It was built only 13 6 years ago . I hope this is an easy call for you but if you have any questions, I ' ve laid out the 14 legal arguments in that memorandum. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I don ' t have any 15 questions . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? 16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don ' t . It ' s fine . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie? 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No questions . It ' s pretty straightforward. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody in the audience wish to comment? 19 MR. HAM: You probably wish I came here two hours ago . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. 22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I already made the motion . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Ruth made it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll second it . 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. All those in favor . 25 ( See minutes for resolution . ) 127 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Hearing #6043 - Grebe . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Next hearing is Albert R. 3 Grebe, Jr . That ' s Ruth . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: "Request for Variances 4 under Section 280-114 , based on the Building Inspector ' s April 9 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval 5 concerning proposed rearrangement of lot lines for three existing nonconforming lots . The 6 rearrangement of lot lines will change the size of nonconforming lots located in the R-40 Low-Density 7 Residential Zone, and will change the size of nonconforming lots located in the R-80 Residential 8 and Limited Business (LB) Zone Districts . Land area shown as #14 with an existing dwelling will 9 be increased in size; Lot 15 with an existing dwelling will be increased in size . Land area 10 shown as 17 . 1 will be reduced in area to 69 , 428+/- square feet . Location of Property; South Side of 11 Avenue B, and the north side of Fox Avenue, Fishers Island; CTM 6-2-14 , 15, 16 and 17 . 1 . " 12 MR. HAM: The only thing that .you have to decide is whether we can reduce a 71, 000 square 13 foot lot to 69, 000 square feet and add the land, reduced area to make a nonconforming lot less 14 nonconforming . So we ' re making a nonconforming lot more nonconforming but we ' re, at the same time, 15 we ' re increasing the conformity of the adjoining parcel . There are some other swaps going on to 16 rationalize the use that ' s in here . We have a flagpole section that stands alone which is tax 17 map 16, you ' ll see . That will be added to the property that Raferty is getting from Greevy, this 18 parcel that ' s coming out of the 71, 000 foot parcel to create .a more rational flaglot and the owner of 19 14 will get some land that ' s now owned by 15 which adjoins its property. But that ' s before the 20 Planning Board. The only variance that ' s necessary is the reduction of tax lot 17 . 1 from 71, 000 to 21 69, 000 square feet . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don ' t have a problem 22 with that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No comment . 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have a comment? 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Now that I understand what you ' re talking about . 25 MR. HAM: It ' s part of a larger swap and one variance is needed. The neighbors are changing 128 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 their lot lines to perform a more rational basis of the way it ' s used. 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Should we look at it while we ' re going over next Tuesday? 4 MR. HAM: If you like . Are you going Tuesday? 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But I think that we don ' t need to hold the hearing open . 6 (All Members talking at the same time . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on, one at a time . 7 The basic hardship is you got a piece of land that ' s an R-80 and you have other pieces of land 8 that are in R-40 . MR. HAM: Correct . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: So basically, that ' s what it comes down to . 10 MR. HAM: All of which are nonconforming in their respective zone districts . 11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Three zones actually, right? 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. So anybody have any comments on this hearing? 13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : My only comment is that this is pretty straightforward but it ' s worth 14 having a hearing on because if one of the nonconforming lots was made more conforming down 15 to a ridiculously small size, then it would be a problem. The point is , these are relatively minor 16 changes . MR. HAM: Yes , 1 , 647 square feet and the 17 nonconforming lot is going from the reduction in conformity is from an 88% nonconforming to only an 18 86% nonconforming . So it ' s not substantial . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion 19 that we close this hearing until the 16th . BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved. 20 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. 21 All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 22 ************************************ ***** Hearing #6061 - Girzadas 23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for application 6061 , Chris Girzadas . Who ' s is this? 24 That would be Michael ' s . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : "Request for a Variance 25 under Sections 280-122A and 280-124 , based on Zoning Code Interpretation under ZBA #5039 in the 129 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 Application of R. Walz , and the Building Inspector ' s June 13 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval, 3 concerning proposed additions to the existing dwelling, which will be an increase in the degree 4 of setback nonconformance when located less than 35 feet from the front lot line, at 600 Mill Creek 5 Drive (a . k. a Mill Creek Road) , Southold; CTM 135-3-42 . 3 . " 6 As I understand, this is a lot that potentially has three front yards but only because 7 of the curvature of the road. MS . GOLDING : Correct . My name is Agnieszka 8 Golding . I 'm here to represent the client . We are in essence proposing an addition to an existing 9 cottage . The existing cottage, we have reviewed and have also looked at the conditions of the 10 structures -- basically we are proposing a brand new addition to the existing cottage . It ' s 11 completely beyond the foot print of the existing cottage but it ' s attached by a passage . The reason 12 being so and that is actually putting us in a nonconforming front yard setback off of Mill Creek 13 Drive as close as 27 ' 10" and another location of 34 ' 2 " instead of the allowable 35 foot setback on 14 the front yard side setback, excuse me . The addition is going to house a great room and a 15 master suite up above that with clipped ceiling . So we ' re expanding on the foot print of the 16 existing house without touching any of the construction of the existing conditions to be 17 honest with you . The house does not have a foundation wall beneath it . It ' s an older cottage . 18 The owners would like to keep it intact, as it is and still expand on their living space by adding 19 an addition to the side of the house . I almost want to say the back of the house towards . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Architectural rear yard. 21 MS . GOLDING : In essence being the front yard setback of the nonconformance that we are 22 creating. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Since you ' ve made it 23 clear that the application says what I suspected it said, I have no further questions . 24 MS . GOLDING : Thank you . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth? 25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No questions . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry? 130 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the reason why you pulled it out so far and didn ' t push it 3 back a little bit toward the rear or toward the architectural rear of the existing cottage? 4 Ms . Golding : The reason we didn ' t push it out towards the inside of the land, if I just may 5 explain it in that aspect, is Mr . and Mrs . Girzadas have recently renovated their kitchen and there ' s 6 a window facing out and if we were to go any farther over to meet the 35 foot or even come any 7 closer to meeting any beyond going a little closer than the 27 , we would be blocking that view into 8 the backyard and they would like to, they have two children they would like to be able to look at the 9 backyard through the kitchen window. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you . 10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re maintaining the 11 27 ' 10" setback, so there ' s no increase in that . It ' s a very modest addition . Very much in scale 12 with what ' s already there . I think it will enhance the house and have no significant impact on the 13 neighbors . It ' s still going to retain it ' s character . I have no questions . 14 MS . GOLDING: We ' re trying to do, if I may quickly just express, we ' re trying to keep it as 15 low key as we can due to the existing cottage elevation that ' s there now. 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Plus it ' s very exposed all the way around. 17 MS . GOLDING : Very much so . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I have no questions . Do 18 you have anything else that you would like to add? MS . GOLDING : No . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hearing none . Anybody in the audience would like to add? No . I ' ll entertain 20 a motion that we close this hearing until the 16th . 21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor . 23 (See minutes for resolution . ) ****************************************** 24 Hearing #6062 - Lampl . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is Mark 25 and Patricia Lampl . That is who? Leslie . Are you here for that too? 131 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : "Request for Variances under Sections 280-116A ( 1 ) , 280-122, 280-124 , 3 based on the Building Inspector ' s June 5 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed 4 additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, disapproved for the following reasons : 5 ( 1 ) the new construction will be an increase in the degree of nonconformity when located less than 6 15 feet on a single side yard, and less than 35 feet for total side yards ; and (2 ) the additions 7 and alterations are not permitted at less than 100 feet from the top of bank or bluff adjacent to the 8 Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 910 The Strand (Lot 127 at Pebble Beach Farms) , East 9 Marion; CTM 30-2-81 . " Okay. Rather than my summarizing this , why 10 don ' t we just have you proceed. MS . GOLDING : I ' ll take you step by step . 11 Basically, we are proposing the following additions to the existing dwelling; an attached 12 two car garage which is creating a new side yard nonconformance of 14 . 4 feet and 13 . 6 feet along 13 with a proposed new roof pitch over the entire existing structure of the home which is, again, an 14 existing nonconforming setback of 13 . 6 feet of the side yard setback. And so forth going towards the 15 rear which is the waterfront of the property and proposing a second floor deck addition in place of 16 an existing fireplace which is proposed also to be demoed which is at the closest proximity to the 17 top of bluff located at 86 feet instead of the 100 foot setback that is required. There are two side 18 yard setbacks along with waterfront side setbacks that we are requesting from you . 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You will be maintaining the existing setback fundamentally 20 from the bulkhead. MS . GOLDING: We ' re maintaining the existing 21 setback based on the fact that we do have an existing fireplace that ' s in place and it ' s a very 22 large structure . I don ' t know if anyone has gone to the site . So in essence, what we ' re doing is 23 removing the concrete block and proposing two new footings which will probably actually lay in place 24 of the existing block that ' s there now after being filled in to begin with. At least that ' s what 25 we ' re hoping for . It ' s intact by all means . And the deck is going to be located off the.. second 132 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 floor master suite basically a small deck just overlooking the rear . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I was also on the inside of the structure . It happened that the 4 home owners were there when I made the site inspection and clearly they have a cathedral 5 ceiling now and with a mezzanine, you ' re simply going to extend that out so that the master 6 bedroom will fill in that second story volume . MS . GOLDING : Correct . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : On the interior . And the exterior differences will be minor elevational 8 changes ; a window and a removal of the chimney. There ' s no front yard setback variance required 9 for the addition of the garage . It ' s simply maintaining existing side yard setbacks of the 10 house . MS . GOLDING : Correct . It is in line with the 11 existing house if you were to shift the line back as it does say on the site survey. But it is 12 nonconforming close towards the street . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And almost all the 13 other houses in the area have an attached garage as far as I know . 14 MS . GOLDING : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. Let me just 15 look. I don ' t think I have any other questions . The pool now has a dry well, correct? The existing 16 pool has a dry well for backwash? MS . GOLDING : Yes . I can have that -- I 17 don ' t know if it ' s sited on this survey from Mr . Nathan but I know that Mr . Lampl has a very 18 big concern about drainage and things of such . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : There is one on the 19 survey. The one thing that I am concerned about that Soil and Water reported on was the problem 20 with erosion on the bluff is being created by the existing outside shower . 21 MS . GOLDING: Right . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : With brick patio . 22 There was some concern from Soil and Water about that structure . It is not a part of this 23 application, per say, but since we automatically get feedback from them on any waterfront property, 24 have you or your client talked about that in any way? Have you had an opportunity to see that 25 letter? MS . GOLDING : No . 133 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I wonder if the applicant saw that . 3 MS . GOLDING: I spoke to Mrs . Lampl yesterday. She didn ' t mention anything to me . 4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Actually, it came in late . 5 MS . GOLDING : It ' s a matter of containing the water runoff that ' s created when -- 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Either moving it closer to the house and tying it into the existing 7 pool backwash, you know the dry well or the pool backwash which is located fairly near the pool . 8 MS . GOLDING : It ' s small enough of an issue . I think we ' ll be able to accommodate . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But it is causing some erosion . It ' s clearly causing some problems to the 10 bluff and there are mediation suggestions made in this letter . What protocol can we follow to see 11 if perhaps in writing -- MS . GOLDING: May I ask who am I responding 12 to besides the Board? Is this a neighbor ' s concern? 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No . It ' s strictly the County ' s response to our request for an 14 interpretation -- (All Members talking at the same time . ) 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He basically says he would like you to mitigate that problem that is created 16 by water running. MS . GOLDING: May I ask a question? Would 17 it be feasible for us to propose a dry well near the location of that shower more landward or is 18 that out of the question? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You can propose that . 19 I think what we should do is give you a chance to reed that, talk to your clients and make a 20 suggestion as to how you ' d like to respond . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : She can also 21 contact the County -- MS . GOLDING: It was never -- to be honest 22 with you, I ' ve seen the shower, I never gave it any attention, 23 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It just came in . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are aware that 24 this office sends, this Board sends that technical information to any construction that ' s on Long 25 Island Sound? You ' re aware of that , right? MS . GOLDING : Yes , I am. 134 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You just didn ' t see the letter . 3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We got it late . It ' s a bunch of things . I don ' t think we need to hold her 4 up on this . We can close the hearing . MS . GOLDING : We will attend to it, of 5 course . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can you in writing 6 provide something to the office about how you mean to address the issues raised in that? 7 MS . GOLDING : Yes . Can I have a few days . (All Members talking at the same time . ) 8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You have a week from tomorrow. Just something in writing which could 9 then be read by the Board at the time of the special meeting . 10 MS . GOLDING : I can come by and get that copy of the letter . 11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Is that okay, tomorrow? 12 MS . GOLDING: Yes , that ' s fine . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. So I ' ll entertain a 13 motion if we haven ' t got anything else to say on this . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Unless Gail wants to comment on this . You don ' t want to comment on this 15 application, do you? MS . WICKHAM : I do . 16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Oh, you do . MS . WICKHAM: I ' m not here to enjoy the air 17 conditioning . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Go ahead. 18 MS . WICKHAM: Good afternoon . My name is Abigail Wickham of Mattituck and I 'm representing 19 Mrs . Carsonas (phonetic) who owns the vacant lot to the west of this property. They are planning 20 at some point in the near future to build on that lot and live there and so they are concerned, very 21 concerned about the renovation that is proposed and a few specifics that I ' d like to address . The 22 request is to decrease the existing or expand the degree of nonconformity of the side yard setback 23 on the west side and just going to a broader overview first . The lots in this Peeble Beach 24 subdivision are too narrow to begin with . This pattern in and of itself, I think lends 25 construction to have to curtail the size of buildings to accommodate the fact that the lots 135 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 are very narrow and even beyond that , if you have a 15 foot allowable setback and you ' re dealing 3 with a two-story building, that ' s not a very big side yard. What ' s happening here is there is 4 currently a small one-story structure which is really not much bigger than one room on the west 5 side . They are seeking to make it two story to then expand a large length toward the street for 6 the entire garage and additional front extension towards the street and as I read the map in the 7 file for the old survey, it is actually a foot closer on the northeast corner than the house now 8 exists . Further, they ' re seeking to put an entryway which is only 9 . 8 feet from the line . 9 What that means is that the lot to the west, my client ' s lot, will now have this huge edifice less 10 than 15 feet from the line as close as 12 feet in one spot and it will contain not only the edifice 11 itself, the side elevation, I guess is the architectural term, there is going to be an 12 entryway with steps on that side of the building which will create noise and disturbance . There ' s 13 also going to be a basement ramp and entry on that side which will create the same type of noise and 14 disturbance and I , frankly, looking at the file and hearing the testimony today, I didn ' t see any 15 reason why the house has to be that large . Why the garage addition towards to front has to be that 16 close to the line . Why they can ' t just move it over, it ' s a new addition . Why can ' t they move it 17 closer to the center of the lot within conforming setbacks and put the entry -- move the side entry 18 and the side basement entrance into the garage or somewhere else so that it ' s not interfering with 19 the neighbor ' s peace and quiet . For the same reasons they are concerned about the encroachment 20 towards the bluff as not really being a good reason, I don ' t think in response to Ms . Weisman ' s 21 question that they actually are maintaining the existing setback. They are mirroring or running 22 the line from where the fireplace extends now to just a small box like structure and they are 23 greatly increasing the degree of nonconformity by adding that upper deck, some additional steps and 24 an entire outdoor living area in terms of the deck area overlooking the Sound. I understand why 25 they ' re doing it . It makes absolute sense and certainly people should be allowed to increase the 136 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 size of their house and maximize the waterfront . But I don ' t see anything in the record as to why 3 they have to encroach on that side yard when they are basically rebuilding the house . Let them 4 conform. If you have any further questions, I ' d be happy to answer them. 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I guess Leslie, you can ask any question you ' d like . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just want to make sure I understand the dimensions correctly. I ' ve 7 got the survey in front of me and I see that the setback, the front of the garage on the street 8 side is 14 . 4 tapering to 13 . 6 and then finally down to 12 . 5 . Are we? 9 MS . WICKHAM: I was sent a different map; 13 . 6 on the . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I 'm looking at the west side side yard that you ' re talking about 11 where the ramp is proposed. MS . WICKHAM: It shows 13 . 6 feet from the 12 front corner of the garage to the side yard. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And at the closest 13 corner to the road, it ' s 14 . 4 . MS . WICKHAM: I don ' t have that map . 14 MS . GOLDING : That may not have that on there . The survey was updated to include more 15 dimensions . I would like to reflect . I don ' t know when I can . 16 MS . WICKHAM: May I see the correct map? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Sure . This is July 17 24th . MS . WICKHAM: I 'm reading from the map that 18 was sent to the adjoining owner . MS . GOLDING : We had to update the map about 19 two weeks ago as per the request of the Board in order to provide more adequate information to 20 explain the site more . MS . WICKHAM: This moves the house over 21 slightly but it does maintain the entryway and the ramp to the basement, again, on that side . 22 MS . GOLDING: May I comment on some of the things . First, if I may address the issue of the 23 two story addition on the left side which is existing one and a half story section where there 24 is a kitchen and a bathroom. We ' re just resided and reroofing with a new pitch . We ' re not going 25 up . We ' re not doing anything other than that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s on the west 137 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 side . MS . GOLDING: That ' s on the west side . So 3 there is no new second floor being proposed on that side at all . The house, in fact , the whole 4 outside is being kept . We ' re renovating it in the sense of applying new siding and a new roof pitch 5 with a new overhang but that ' s about it . We ' re not creating any more height construction . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Did you say a new roof pitch? 7 MS . GOLDING : Roof pitch as applied for, yes . That was one of the main reasons why we were 8 applying for the other side yard setbacks because the whole roof is getting replaced in kind. Not in 9 kind but it is getting a new roof pitch . The clients want more of a slopier roof with a bigger 10 overhang and that ' s what we ' ve come up with over the existing footprint and I think as a whole -- 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How much bigger is the overhang? 12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Is the overhang on the new roof pitch encroaching on the existing side 13 yard? MS . GOLDING : About a foot . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One foot . On the east and west? 15 MS . GOLDING : Yes, it ' s all around. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So the new roof pitch 16 will cause, not on the ground but in the air, a one foot sofet . 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is that the setback that we ' re looking at . 18 MS . GOLDING: You ' re looking at the existing setbacks of the house . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Of the house, not the sofet . So we ' re going to add another foot that 20 way? MS . GOLDING: You ' ll be adding 24 inches of 21 sofet not the house because the existing is, I believe, it ' s about 14 inches . Please don ' t hold 22 me to that measurement exactly. MS . WICKHAM: If I can interject, I think we 23 need to know exactly what they ' re doing . MS . GOLDING: I can provide that information . 24 What I ' m asking for is not quoting me on it later on when I submit a letter to it ' s affect and it ' s 25 not 14 inches . That ' s all I ' m saying . MS . WICKHAM: So we ' re talking about 24 138 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 inches that would bring the northeast corner down to ten and a half feet . 3 MS . GOLDING: Roof line . MS . WICKHAM: Side yard setback. 4 MS . GOLDING: As far as the -- there is an existing side yard entry there . Now, in fact, we 5 are reconfiguring it and there is an existing steps and walk to be removed. 6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We don ' t have the setback to that step area . Could you furnish that 7 also please . MS . GOLDING : Yes, by all means . 8 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a question please . What is code required; 18 inches 9 code required, isn ' t it? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The sofet is exempt from 10 the side yard setback. MS . GOLDING : We can keep it at the 18 11 inches . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You can? 12 MS . GOLDING: By all means . I apologize for not noting that . We ' ll go back to 18 inches . I 13 don ' t want to delay or cause any hardship to any neighbor, of course . 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That sofet is not the subject of anything . 15 MS . GOLDING : We ' ll keep it at 18 inches and it ' s not even a problem. But as far as the steps 16 on the side, I guess I have to speak with Frank. When Frank and I sat down and looked at what is 17 really nonconforming, we figured that since steps were never an issue, we just assumed. 18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I didn ' t realize they were new steps . We can include that in the 19 decision. It ' s not an issue . MS . GOLDING : It ' s something that the client 20 would be willing to do but again, it is exact location. It ' s not rebuilding in kind of what ' s 21 there because how the steps come down now, you can lead right up and make a right and go into the 22 laundry area . Right now you ' ll have a 3 foot 6 path down into the basement which is a ramp, 23 uncovered with a dry well on the bottom and the steps are beyond that . So the steps existing are 24 about -- I would have to measure . I can get that measurement to you, that ' s not a problem, and I 25 can let the Board know exact of how we are extending that new platform over from the existing 139 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 step area . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What ' s there is going 3 to increase the nonconforming side yard. MS . WICKHAM: And the platform which is not 4 there now, they ' re flush with the house now . And the steps to the basement are not there now and 5 that will be within the required side yard . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So will you be able to 6 address that stuff in writing and Gail maybe you ' ll need to see that information also . 7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What about putting those steps inside the garage . Any reason why you 8 couldn ' t do that? MS . GOLDING : The access down to the ramp is 9 actually through the garage . MS . WICKHAM: The other point is that they ' re 10 rebuilding that whole part of the house so why do they have to design the steps on that side? 11 They ' re starting with a new structure . They can design it better, I think, with preserving the 12 privacy of the neighbor significantly. And I have to repeat, I don ' t understand why the extension 13 has to encroach on what is already a very small side yard. 14 MS . GOLDING : May I? We have a bedroom, if I may point it out on the survey and I can also 15 show it on the plan . There ' s a bedroom on the first floor that ' s done and we ' re just utilizing 16 it and moving the windows over . It ' s within this section right over here so the closer we move to 17 the garage towards conformance, the less light we have coming into that room. I don ' t know, in 18 addition to the fact that we have a bedroom in the garage . We ' re at 22 feet . There have been cases 19 made in front of you as to a garage being a minimum of 24 feet . We ' re making a compromise 20 that 21 feet is good enough for that garage . MS . WICKHAM: You have room to move into the 21 middle of the lot so I don ' t see that as an argument . 22 MS . GOLDING: Is it doable? I 'm sure if we were to redesign that and go back to the client 23 but the entry is where it is because of the garage conflict with their existing entryway as well 24 which we are trying to contain . MS . WICKHAM : I just think there ' s a 25 tendency these days, people want to make big houses and they go to their architects and say 140 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that is what I want, the architect will come up with a plan and say this is the best way do it 3 architecturally but we can ' t do it within the legal building envelope . What happens is people 4 say well let ' s go to the ZBA and see what we can get . Forget the neighbors and drop it in your lap 5 and I just think that if they ' re redesigning an entire house on a narrow lot with already narrow 6 setback, there ' s no reason they can ' t comply. Certainly more so than they have and I would 7 really like to see the comparison of the actual existing house . The map that I read indicated it 8 was further than twelve and a half feet from the side yard to the existing house . There was a map 9 in your file . MS . GOLDING : You might of not had -- we had 10 the map updated to give more dimensions of the existing . That was something that was addressed by 11 our office and submitted to the Board . If I would have known that I had to submit to anyone other 12 than the Board, I would done so . It ' s so easy to obtain copies right away. 13 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It ' s always best in the beginning when you know you ' re planning a 14 second floor -- MS . GOLDING : The Building Department was 15 fully aware of that . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Better to wait 16 until after you know it ' s approved by the client and then the Building Department . It saves a lot 17 of this for everybody down the road. MS . GOLDING : If I may, the Building 18 Department was fully aware of that . Simply did not know the facts -- they were fully aware of the 19 fact that the closest proximity to a second floor deck was what it was . Simply not noting it . Again, 20 that ' s my fault for not reading the Disapproval right . Closest proximity is what we applied for . 21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I 'm just letting you know it ' s easier . 22 MS . GOLDING : By all means . I try not to make the same mistakes over and over again . 23 Every site has their own can of worms . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Look, we did change the 24 way we do things around here and we try to address the fact that when you come to a hearing and you 25 bring a different thing than the Building Inspector has seen, what we changed was the fact 141 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 that we ' re not to look at any map that hasn ' t been seen by the Building Inspector . Whether you change 3 anything or not, that shouldn ' t make any difference . If we don ' t have something from the 4 Building Inspector that says , okay, I ' ve looked at this and I 'm hoping that that ' s what happened. 5 MS . GOLDING : What I 'm saying is that ' s not the case . That ' s what I 'm trying to explain . 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now they have . They' ve seen it and everything else is good. We got an 7 amended disapproval . MS . GOLDING : I understand that it ' s 8 irrelevant to the fact that they had known about it to begin with . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It is irrelevant . MS . GOLDING : I know. That ' s obvious . I found 10 that out two weeks ago when I was scrambling for the surveyor to do me a favor now . They took it 11 off the closest proximity and that was good enough for me . That was good enough for an application 12 submission at the closest proximity to what I ' m applying for on the bluff . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Basically, the jist of your argument is , you ' d like for them to comply 14 because they ' re building new construction . MS . WICKHAM: They ' re building new 15 construction, they have ample room within the legal building envelope in the front of the house 16 and they don ' t need to build structures on the side which are going to create additional noise 17 and disturbance where they have another way to design it . 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So that ' s your objection . MS . WICKHAM : I 'm not going to repeat the 19 prior hearing and say it three more times . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm trying to get to the 20 endpoint right now . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The request is made 21 and it appears you have no problems with providing additional dimensional information explaining 22 specifically what, where, why in addition to addressing the Soil and Water report . 23 MS . GOLDING : By all means . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That will then be 24 available in the file . You can take more comments in writing . 25 MS . WICKHAM: I would like to have an opportunity to comment in writing prior to the 142 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 next hearing . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : So that ' s 3 expanding the written record. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' ll have to then close 4 the hearing except for written comments . MS . GOLDING : May I just ask if I should 5 respond to Ms . Wickham from our office or would you like to pick it up? 6 MS . WICKHAM: I assume you would want her to send it to the Board and send a copy to me . 7 MS . GOLDING : I just don ' t want anyone not to get a copy. 8 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : How much time do you think you ' ll need to do all that? 9 MS . GOLDING: I ' ll need at least to Tuesday, if I may. I have to meet with the client . I have 10 to contact the surveyor . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Do you think you 11 can have it to Gail within a week? MS . GOLDING: Definitely. 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Why don ' t we just do the same thing we did with -- which will be you ' ve got 13 until the 17th and you ' ve got until the 31st . MS . WICKHAM: Fair enough. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion . What ' s the Board ' s pleasure? We ' re going to close 15 the hearing -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Extend the written 16 record until the 31st of August . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion . 17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seconded. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. All those in favor . 19 (See minutes for resolution . ) ************************************ 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We ' re going to take a five minute recess . 21 (Whereupon, a short recess was held at 4 : 30 P .M. ) 22 (Back on the record. ) 23 Hearing # 6033 - Landau . . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We have Landau now . Jerry, 24 that ' s yours . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . What would you 25 like to show us? MR. PASCA: When we left the last time -- 143 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You were going to move the 14 foot back . 3 MR. PASCA: Right . We had 2 inches to move the upper section back, rotate it back, and to 4 turn the lower section to breakaway. We developed some new design suggestion and the architect will 5 take you guys through that . MR. NAROFSKY : It ' s pretty straightforward. 6 Can I put that up for you guys . This is the original and then, again, the two items that we 7 discussed were we ' re trying to get this upper section back as far as it made sense without 8 compromising the client too much. The diagram here shows it pretty clearly. This was the original 9 proposal last month . The upper section which at the time was 25 ' 4 " floor from top of the bluff . 10 Now, we slightly rotated and moved it back and it ' s 37 ' off from the top of the bluff . The 11 character and the design is a little bit simpler . It ' s not as intricate on this side . It ' s a simpler 12 form which I actually think in some way improves the side elevation a little bit . On the lower 13 level, part of what we submitted was techniques for breakaway construction with that lower 14 section . Those are the two main areas . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, on the lower 15 section, how far are we away from the bluff? MR. NAROFSKY : From existing footprints , that 16 was -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s 14 . 17 MR. NAROFSKY : No, 19, 1915 . " BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This point is still 18 19 ' 5" . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But that ' s now 19 breakaway. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What do we 20 breakaway up to now? How far? MR. NAROFKSY : It ' s the entire volume . What 21 we do is set up structural posts and do the breakaway wall construction . One of the techniques 22 that was submitted to you . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we say that 23 breakaway is from here all the way over or is it actually a little deeper than that? 24 MR. NAROFSKY : It ' s deeper . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It ' s deeper than 25 that . It ' s really like this . You see that Ruth? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So how many feet? 144 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR. NAROFSKY : Of the whole volume? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Can I ask you a 3 question? Is it 37 feet to the breakaway wall from the top of the bluff? What is the setback to the 4 breakaway wall from the top of the bluff? MR. NAROFSKY : The setback to the breakaway 5 wall from the top of the bluff is 19 ' 5" , the closest . 6 BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI : The one story is how far? 7 MR. NAROFSKY : The structure is 30 feet so it would be about 49 feet . 8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So that entire 49 feet was the interior space, will be constructed as 9 breakaway? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I 'm not sure they 10 understand. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It doesn ' t show 11 the breakaway on the site map . Is there a way of identifying it for the file? 12 MR. NAROFSKY : Our first floor plan and the follow-up construction cross sections and details 13 that will be submitted to permitting will show breakaway and will be defined in what I ' ll say is 14 the northwestern section of the house . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Okay, but on here 15 for our Zoning Board decision, we ' re talking about in the end, in order for us to write it up so we 16 can describe exactly the difference in setback between the one story, the second story, the 17 breakaway, the nonbreakaway areas , if we can clarify it on the site map, would you be able to 18 submit something . MR. NAROFSKY : Yeah . The remaining footprint 19 of the existing residence is completely graded. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Even the existing 20 one story section that ' s going to be demolished? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we can in effect 21 say that the entire building will be demolished, the existing house? 22 MR. NAROFKSY : We ' re still working with the existing foundation that ' s there . Nothing we can 23 see right now is forcing us to remove that . I 'm sure there will be some remediation and again, 24 some of the existing floor structure . It appears to be in fine shape . Our intention is to keep the 25 existing foundation area other than what we ' re cutting off . Keep as much of the floor space as we 145 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 can and frame up new structures in the existing area . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we explain that to the Building Inspector? He just walked in . 4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jerry? You asked for 30 feet , right? 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I asked for 30 feet . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s now 37 . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, it ' s not . 7 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think there was a misunderstanding about that . 8 MR. NAROFKSY : From my recollection, Jerry was honest and said he didn ' t know where he came 9 up with the number but he was looking to make it 38 feet . Well, the 37 worked out well . Wasn ' t it 10 depicted randomly? It wound up being the corner of the existing building just wound up being the 11 perfect juncture to take off, from a structural point of view, to take off the view of the 12 structure . In other words , this point right here that the existing southwestern corner, we lined it 13 up and it happens to be by survey 37 feet . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Okay, then this 14 point is how far from the top of the bluff? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s still 19 . 15 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : So you were talking about this corner, not this corner? 16 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that ' s where the misunderstanding came in but I have to 17 tell you that the whole breakaway technique, in my particular opinion, is a positive step in general . 18 If you have a cliff score and you have a slide, it doesn ' t make any difference what it is as long as 19 that breaks away. You understand, Ruth? I ' m not taking that away from -- there was a 20 misunderstanding . MR. NAROFSKY : The logic and why we ' re moving 21 forward in that direction is that that existing footprint that ' s there that we ' re trying to 22 utilize it ' s location and for some of the presence making it breakaway, that does accommodate some 23 future concerns . It ' s a fair straightforward construction . If moving the second story back 24 gives it 37 feet, I think, you know, I haven ' t compromised the design nor the existing pool 25 location . And, if anything, they got more depth . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is this water 146 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 runoff going right now? MR. NAROFSKY : The dry wells . 3 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The dry wells in the back of the house? 4 MR. NAROFSKY : Yes . MR. PASCA: That was one of the issues that 5 was raised because there are more dry wells showing on the site plan . 6 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right . You gotta understand, Tony, that we ' ve been in session today 7 for eight hours and it ' s been a little much . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We ' re trying to 8 understand what the change was from the last map . The setback was modified or it was not? 9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not really. MR. NAROFSKY : The existing one story 10 section, no . We left that footprint exactly the way it was . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we thought you were going to do and I 'm just going to raise this 12 and this is the reason why Ms . Oliva is raising this . We thought you were going to pull this 13 whole thing back right into here . That ' s what we thought you were going to do . 14 MR. NAROFSKY : You asked that and not that I ' ve seen the visual record. 15 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, actually, Jim asked that . 16 MR. NAROFSKY : And I actually mentioned that that would be a problem. That with the existing 17 pool location and their desire to have an exterior viewing deck. That is where I recollected the 18 conversation of breakaway construction came about . That if we were to utilize the existing footprint 19 -- I ' d really have to redesign the whole structure and I ' d have to relocate the pool . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll comment when everybody else is done . 21 MR. NAROFSKY : Listen, I apologize and you can speak to Tony, I don ' t recollect that that 22 condition was discussed but to summarize that at the last hearing, the direction was pretty 23 specific . Because at that point why consider breakaway construction? If I move the whole thing 24 back -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Then you don ' t need 25 it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be honest with 147 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 you, it ' s either/or . You understand. And I 'm confident that as long as the water is being 3 retained in the rear, which I knew it was but I needed you to say it . 4 MR. NAROFSKY : Totally. All the hardsurface water runoff is being retained. 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then if we have the slide, we have the loss, we have the undermining, 6 then it ' s not going to affect the three quarters of the principle dwelling which is what I ' m 7 concerned with . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I think we ' ve had 8 different requests and you responded to one and not the other . So that ' s where the 9 misunderstanding comes in . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think maybe if we can go 10 one at a time, we can get through this . Ruth, do you have some questions you ' d like to ask at this 11 time? BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, specifically, I 12 wanted the whole thing moved back. Nineteen feet even in the corner to me is too close for a bluff 13 which is supposed to be 100 feet back and we ' re doing 19 feet? I mean, I might be the only one but 14 to me -- even though it ' s lovely architecture of the house and everything else but I really have 15 great difficulty with that 19 feet . Knowing the condition of the bluff and especially knowing the 16 condition of his neighbor to the west . It ' s a bad condition . Not his, his is fine . 17 MR. NAROFSKY : The existing foundation area which is stable, has been structurally reviewed 18 and -- BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don ' t doubt that at 19 all . It ' s just, again, the bluffs in that whole area are not good. They' re going to have to take 20 their chances but I ' d hate to be the one saying yes, and have something happen . 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s the only reason why, Ruth, you can predicate the entire 22 decision based upon the breakaway. I 'm not pushing for it , we did have a misunderstanding, but that ' s 23 it . We can predicate it on a breakaway. MR. NAROFSKY : From my understanding, I 24 thought that ' s what it was predicated on . To take that extreme section of the residence and build it 25 out in type of construction that would in no way create any additional casualty to the balance of 148 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the home . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth, are you done? 3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I ' m done . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie, do you have 4 anything to add to this? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just if we backtrack 5 for a moment to start with the initial premise which was perhaps a misunderstanding about what it 6 meant to rebuild from the original point of setback from the bluff based on conversations with 7 the Building Department . The generation of a design strategy which essentially retains certain 8 sight elements to a different understanding where it was considered primarily a demolition and 9 therefore we really had to consider setback, in my opinion professionally not as a Zoning Board 10 Member particularly. As a ZBA member, I would be very loathe to grant setbacks so close to the 11 bluff . When you look at the entirety of this design proposal the way it ' s built being built out 12 of steel . Being built upon very little additional land disturbance, if any . Retaining some aspects 13 of the house . Building the part that ' s close to the bluff in a way that is environmentally very 14 responsible and setting back the upper story which is new construction 37 feet away, it seems to me 15 that the design without total compromise as progressed substantially to what I would feel far 16 more confident in endorsing as a compromised situation . I don ' t think we ' re going to come to an 17 ideal situation . For you to really remove it substantially farther back really will require 18 losing the pool and losing the design concept . From all I understand, I think that this is a 19 responsive proposal relative to requests that were made whether it was fully -- you know, we ' re all 20 on the same page about it , is another story . I think it ' s very clear what you ' re intending to do . 21 I don ' t have any question about it , particularly, in terms of what you ' re proposing . 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : My only comment is first of all, I have no competence whatever to assess 23 the architectural aspect of this . I essentially have a linear one dimensional mind so I can only 24 focus on, dispute over what the code says and how we interpret it and how do we deal with the point 25 that Ruth raises is on one level, and it ' s a popular level as well . Whatever the code allows 149 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 with regarding to a place that is existing too close to the edge, it ' s not a good idea to allow 3 very much that ' s going to be too close to the edge . The other side is, what you ' re trying to do 4 and you think you ' re doing a really good job of trying to see how we can accommodate the words and 5 the spirit of the code as it exists with trying to save as much as possible . Otherwise, you get into 6 hard choices, such as, do you want to remove the pool or do you want to make the house smaller so 7 you don ' t have to remove the pool? Those are really major expensive decisions . I just see kind 8 of a paradox in a way or conflicting values about the whole thing . There is something funny about 9 almost every detail in the code . As long as you retain one corner of the existing house, you can 10 do whatever you want, even if it ' s only one inch from the edge of the bluff . The common sense 11 approach says there ' s got to be something wrong with that . So we ' re trying to work somewhere in 12 between there . MR. NAROFSKY : I think from the first meeting 13 through the inspections, from our first meeting here to where we ' ve evolved, we ' re not -- at this 14 point, we ' re asking for relief from the code . So we ' re not trying to interpret or get into that 15 battle, we ' re past that . What I 'm trying to balance now is what is as environmentally 16 respectful as possible and as budget respectful as possible because I think the reality is to shift 17 things back, to remove the pool , build a new pool , to even move the rest of the existing basement 18 that ' s there, it ' s not a large home . We ' re not talking about a large home so even if it ' s 1/3 or 19 slightly less than 1/3 has to be demolished and rebuilt and new construction, rebuild a new pool, 20 scopewise the cost of the construction, that ' s a huge part of their construction budget . One of the 21 things that I have to answer relative to this, I tried to stay away from any new -- we ' re doing 22 slab on grade, we ' re doing very little disturbance . One of the reasons for steel 23 construction besides making the structure able to stand up to wind condition or hurricane condition 24 is that it is a point low condition ( inaudible) . So, you ' re not putting a lot of pressure on 25 this ground especially that all of that new work is at this point 50 feet back and then we have one 150 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 point at 37 feet now and if you start to look at the fact that it ' s all diagonally based, most of 3 the structure is almost 47 feet and 50 feet back. BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : That ' s what I was 4 trying to figure out in my mind. MR. NAROFSKY : You ' re talking about, because 5 of the diagonal nature relative - thank God, the one thing going for us is that the bluff is not 6 doing this . The top of the bluff is doing that . So we ' re actually working, we get better as we head 7 eastward on the bluff . Look at the top of the bluff here relative to this . So, I think trying to 8 find that balance to accommodate the client and accommodate the site as best we can and hearing 9 some of the discussion at the first hearing, I really think that it begins to address some 10 serious concerns . Even as far as the breakaway construction, I think it does make it practical . 11 The design allows for it . The whole section here is floating on columns . This bottom section is 12 independent on the upper section. So if we do that kind of construction, it is truly breakaway 13 construction . We ' re not forcing it . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well , it ' s also 14 single story load. That ' s the only true advantage . You ' ve got single story load which is the 15 breakaway and that ' s it . As long as there ' s not a slider on 2/3 ' s of the house, God forbid something 16 happened. Because I couldn ' t live with myself . MR. NAROFSKY : Again, I think the client 17 doesn ' t want to spend all this money, effort and time and construction to do something that may be 18 compromised in the future to begin with . With many of the discussions we had since the last hearing 19 describing to them what the breakaway was . They were puzzled about what that way. It was 20 explaining the benefits . Let ' s not look at it as something that ' s anchoring this project . Let ' s 21 look at it that maybe it has practicality in its incorporation into the design . 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I ' ll tell you, I expected something a little different myself . I ' d like to 23 go back to the verbatim and just refresh myself as to the conversation we had. I don ' t know how long 24 that ' s going to take me . As I recall, I know that breakaway construction was something that was 25 considered. But I was under the impression that you could move that back some into the underneath 151 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 where you have the second story currently and not have too much trouble . I ' d kind of like to see 3 that . I think that 19 feet is not good and if you ' re demolishing the entire thing anyway, so 4 now ' s the time . You ' re assumption because you have something existing means that you have that 5 forever is just not so anymore . There is no such thing, I said it once today, of preexisting 6 nonconforming . Anything that ' s nonconforming is just nonconforming . You don ' t get to do a thing 7 without getting a variance . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It ' s on page 46 of 8 the transcript . I 'm going to take the excerpt out of it . "Member Goehringer : I don ' t have to tell 9 you as many years as I ' ve been on this Board and have had the honor of sitting at the hearings and 10 this whole aspect of having setbacks so close to the top of the bluff is something I have great 11 difficulty in understanding particularly with virtually almost brand new construction . This is 12 virtually almost brand new. Even though we ' re talking about wrap around renovations for an 13 existing house that may have been there for 35 years, I just think that you can take a more 14 favorable approach and move this entire construction back at least 20 feet to give us like 15 a 38 foot setback. When I say us, I ' m referring to the Town in question and I 'm speaking for myself . " 16 And then Mr . Narofsky says, "most of the construction is 50 feet and beyond. " Then Member 17 Goehringer, "that ' s the opposite side . Having had relatives that owned property on the cliff and at 18 77 feet, they had to move their house back 140 feet . " 19 MS . PASCA: That ' s when the dialogue occurred. Talked about the changes occurred a 20 little bit later . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Here the Town 21 Attorney starts talking about the interpretation of the law . Okay. Chairman Dinizio, "so if you can 22 commit to say 38 feet right now and you can give us the drawings and all the stuff to accompany 23 that when we meet on the 12th, you can give us that information beforehand . " Member Simon, "I 24 have a question though, the number 38 was first introduced by Jerry Goehringer and I don ' t know 25 whether we have a consensus with that number . " Chairman Dinizio, "no, but I think it ' s as far as 152 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 he ' s willing to go" . Member Goehringer, "I figured we needed to go back a minimum of 20 feet to make 3 it a total of 38 . I ' d rather have it straight on at 50 but if you can create the breakaway which is 4 what you need at the top of the bluff, then I would be happy with limiting it to 38 feet" . 5 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that ' s where the disagreement happened. 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I don ' t think there ' s any misunderstanding . I know that that ' s what I 7 recommended. That ' s just a completely different thing then what I was expecting . 8 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : There ' s a little more . Chairman Dinizio said it would be another 9 month and I mentioned that if you ' re not able to submit that plan, maybe you ' d like to submit plan 10 A, B and C . You ' ve done that before . If you find that 38 feet or 40 feet isn ' t working for you . 11 Chairman Dinizio, "so if we grant , we move the existing setbacks back. " That ' s basically how it 12 ended. Mr . Narofsky, "can I just answer to that . The Building Inspector had a question about 13 stabilization of the bluff . " Mr . Narofsky says , "behind the current home there is a dock on many, 14 many piers and the land for quite a bit of distance under that deck is quite disturbed right 15 now . Once we remove the deck, the area that we will be waterproofing would only improve the space 16 the way it can. I appreciate the technical idea but if you look under the deck now, we ' re going to 17 do a good thing by moving the existing deck behind the house . " 18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Is that on the first plan though? 19 MR. NAROFSKY : It was at the very end before we walked out the door . 20 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : That ' s the way it -- "is there anybody else that would like to 21 comment? If not, we ' ll leave this open. " BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Flip back a couple of 22 pages . MS . PASCA: I know we did go through it, what 23 we though our assignment was . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The assignment was 24 you could give three alternatives if you ' d like rather than just one . You ' ve come back with one . 25 The Board is saying maybe they have a consensus, maybe they don ' t . So your option then would be to 153 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 go to plan C and come up with an alternative so maybe you can get a consensus on plan C . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I think there may be a consensus on this one . 4 MR. NAROFSKY : I have to say, I know the concept of options came up earlier but -- I really 5 do think that to take this part out and redesign this to remove the pool is going to mean not 6 coming back with an alternative plan . It ' s that I 'm going to be coming back with an entirely new 7 home . Done for very different reasons . Asking for a variance for a pool which is now going to be 8 very close to the driveway. It ' s going to be a newly configured house not functioning the way 9 they wanted it to and I have to say it ' s not then a matter of an alternative, it ' s a matter of 10 whether my client gives me the funds and the ability to redesign the house . It ' s not, I ' m not 11 saying there ' s a consensu here . It seemed pretty clear to me, our attorney and other people present 12 that the goal here was to get a significant part of the construction back and build breakaway 13 construction . I wouldn ' t have come up with the idea of breakaway construction in any alternative . 14 By moving this back, there ' d be no reason for it . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : In defense -- it 15 says move the entire construction back to 88 feet and now it ' s up to him to speak on that, I guess . 16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I gotta tell you, we ' re running a little long and what I think we ought to 17 do is go over that record and either close the hearing now and make a decision or if you would 18 like to have a second shot, come back and take another shot . 19 (Everyone talking at one time . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Honestly, I remember 20 differently. What she read to me confirms what I remember . I want to go through the record to see 21 if I misunderstood anything that you said. I don ' t think we have the time to do that today . 22 MS . PASCA: I know we had a very clear discussion of what we thought he was going to do 23 and maybe some of you had a different idea, maybe all of you had a different idea . This is a plan 24 and ultimately, we have two arguments . One is , we can do construction based on interpretation of the 25 code . Second argument is , give us a variance to allow us to do this construction . Any time you ' re 154 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 in variance context, there ' s a weighing . The weighing of benefits to the applicant versus the 3 detriment to the community. We tried to present a lot of reasons to try to get to a point where that 4 balancing act , we think, comes out in favor of granting it . I think at this point, we should be 5 entitled to a decision on this application . (Everyone talking at one time . ) 6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I was just thinking you wanting to look at the record. But certainly if 7 you ' re willing to close it, I am too . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I can explain why 8 it does make a difference procedurally. You ' re saying you won ' t accept alternative relief, 9 correct? Alternative relief would mean that the Board would not accept that . They would alter and 10 come back with another setback. Then you go back to the drawing board and try to meet that setback 11 the Board grants . I 'm asking if you ' d accept alternative relief and if you don ' t, then if the 12 Board denies the application, you need to reapply. MR. PASCA: We ' re saying this is alternative 13 relief that we are willing to accept . We originally applied with one set of plans . We came 14 back and thought we made compromises and this is what we call the alternative relief . 15 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : So there ' s no other alternative relief at this time? 16 MR. PASCA: There is no other alternative relief . 17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We ' ll make a case for our record and we can go from there . 18 MR. PASCA: The reason I say it shouldn ' t matter is that whether you said something formally 19 or not, that ' s not going to dictate whether you have to approve it or don ' t have to approve it . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Sir, none of my comments are informal . All of my comments are on the 21 record. MR. PASCA: All I 'm saying is if you had said 22 we ' d like to see 38 feet and we came back with 38 feet, you wouldn ' t say I 'm bound by what I said, 23 right? So it ' s still part of a give and take anyway. I ' m not sure -- if that ' s the only part of 24 the transcript, I don ' t think it ' s correct . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, I ' m offering to 25 review that . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would like to say 155 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 something about how this process works . We ' ve had cases where people have tried to sue our decision 3 on the basis of statements that one Board member made which was out of order, wrong . And to try to 4 get a decision overturned on the basis of what one Board member said foolishly regretted and the 5 Court said that ' s of no relevance because what any one of us says in discussion is simply not of the 6 force of legal significance as to turn the outcome . I agree with Mr . Pasca that a lot of 7 things have been considered and in a sense it doesn ' t really matter because we have considered 8 the alternatives , some of the alternatives , and to base a decision based on what is and what is not 9 in the past transcript is simply ducking or dropping the ball . Because we cannot turn on 10 something so frivolous , if you will, as to whether somebody misremembered because we ' ve expressed our 11 opinions and we expressed different opinions then and now and I think we can go ahead with the 12 record as we now have it regardless of who misunderstood or not . We can get past all the 13 possible misunderstandings and look at it on its merits . If the applicants are willing to do that, 14 I would think that we would be also . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I certainly agree with you 15 1000 . My offer to look at the record was to actually confirm what this gentleman is saying . 16 Honestly, I 'm willing to make a decision and it doesn ' t really make a difference to me only that 17 I 'm offering to give you another chance at swaying me or perhaps maybe I did misremember . That ' s not 18 something that is wholly unreal for me but quite honestly, I ' ll review the record and I ' ll base 19 myself certainly on that and if I find that I 'm wrong, I ' m going to certainly make that decision . 20 (Everyone talking at one time . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The problem is with that 21 is that when I make a decision, it ' s going to be based on that record. 22 MR. PASCA: That ' s up to you. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And I would have thought 23 that you would have wanted to at least have the opportunity to say, no wait, we can move it back 24 one feet . MR. NAROFSKY : I 'm not trying to delve into 25 what the record says . I will say for the record, I am confident in what I understood my direction was 156 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 maybe that was not on -- of the Board. But I will say relative to the broad comment of moving it 3 back to that point of 20 feet and the concern -- if this was a new construction, I can understand. 4 However, picture coming into this site and that existing home . Now, completely removing that home 5 which has a full basement , digging out that hole , all that new construction that is proposed to be 6 set either up on poles or on minimum slab areas because the downstairs plan is very minimal 7 compared to the upstairs plan . Small mechanical area and segments of the old house footprint 8 leftover . Picture this completely being removed and have the old basement sit there that I now 9 have to bring in filled to reconstruct . Now, I 'm having to rip out the pool and have another hole . 10 Demolish or create an excavated area which I ' m doing none . And I think as much as there is a 11 future concern with the existing footprint area, one story construction proximity to the bluff, I 12 actually think you would be forcing us to cause more damage on the site . You go back to the site 13 photos again and see the trees, the foliage, the plantings that we are leaving undisturbed and 14 picture those gaping holes 30 foot by 50 foot holes, 14 , 15 foot by 32 foot hole and all the 15 disturbance . I think coming in and tubing that breakaway construction and alluding to the fact 16 that God forbid that there is some storms and major rough erosion, that this segment, this 17 studio area of the house can fall away but the rest of the structure which is setback, is intact . 18 I really find that, in fact, moving it back and working in this realm would actually be more 19 detrimental to the site . The other think I can say is, it ' s a steel structure . One of the areas 20 without redesigning that could accommodate us to say if you accept the breakaway area, accept it . 21 There ' s a house there now that ' s been there, it ' s substantial . It ' s not architecturally substantial 22 but it ' s there . It ' s in good shape . It will be there for a long time . The steel part that I 'm 23 floating, I don ' t have to put my column at the 37 foot corner . I can put my column further back. You 24 want me to have the first structure that touches ground to be 40 feet back and the rest is floating 25 over . Again, it ' s only pinned down by columns so you can see in the model, it floats . So unlike a 157 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 stately colonial flat construction and basement , I put a light sensitive footprint on here and I 3 could and that ' s why I would be accommodating . Let me do the breakaway construction on the existing 4 remaining portion of the footprint which is roughly 60 , 65 . Again, it represents a small 5 percentage of the new construction . I ' ll pull the structural columns back on the new less unique 6 construction portion. Cantilevering over two, three, four feet and now I ' m easily behind that 40 7 foot line then any of my significant reconstruction . But at least the basement, 8 existing basement, stayed. I don ' t have to dig it up . I don ' t have to fill it . I don ' t have to touch 9 the swimming pool . I think those are more significant disturbances than being concerned 10 about this one section out on the bluff . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else have a 11 comment on this? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I just want to 12 mention that the transcript I read is a draft . We haven ' t had time to double check it and file it so 13 it ' s not in official form yet . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I ' ll review that when it ' s 14 official . Okay. I ' ll entertain a motion that we close this hearing. 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded. 16 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Not yet . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before we vote, can 17 I just ask a question? If this gentleman had said that he would move the plan back, should we have 18 that from him in writing prior to us making a decision? 19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I think it makes a very compelling argument about environmentally 20 responsible construction stronger . (Everyone talking at one time . ) 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I have a motion on the floor . 22 (Everyone talking at one time . ) MR. NAROFSKY : We ' ll certainly put in writing 23 that the single point column can be moved back beyond the 40 foot line . 24 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we have that by next Friday? 25 MR. NAROFSKY : Easily . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we ' ll close 158 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 the hearing -- do you want to close the hearing pending that or do you want to close the hearing 3 on the 16th? BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One other thing that 4 could be helpful simply because there is some confusion of how to read setbacks of various 5 points of the seaward elevation because it ' s a complex, compound elevation, that for Linda ' s sake 6 and the rest of the Board ' s sake, also in writing or perhaps just marking up on the survey, you can 7 circle it by hand, whatever way makes it a very clear simplified diagram, all of the setbacks as 8 they receed from the bank. MR. NAROFSKY : The key points . ( Inaudible) . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We do but I believe it would be easier if you would just do an overlay. 10 Something very simple . Don ' t show a volumetric relationship . Simply linear dimensions, okay? 11 That ' s what the Board is used to seeing . MR. NAROFKSY : By the way, that is a minor 12 enhancement of this diagram. We clearly by color and shading are showing the bluff, first floor 13 setback from the bluff, second floor setback from the bluff . So we can enhance . 14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Fill it in with numbers and written word. 15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Let ' s be clear on that, please . 16 MR. NAROFSKY : The key points . The first floor section to the setback, second floor, the 17 point of the column at the base where it ' s going to be touching the ground, the point of the corner 18 that the cantilever is in, right? Those are the key. Now just to be clear too, the site plan 19 itself is extraordinarily messy. You just want this as a separate diagram, right? 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Remove all the -- the data is too visually complex . 21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We ' ll need the top of the bluff line . 22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Now we ' re on to the motion that we close this hearing pending the 23 resubmission . Who wants to make that motion? BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll make it . 24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Jerry made it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' ll second it . 25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie seconded it . All those in favor . 159 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 (See minutes for resolution . ) 3 Hearing #5826 - Cingular . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Next hearing is for Cingular . It ' s a carryover . We don ' t need to read 5 anything. Michael, let ' s get this over with, will you . 6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What do you have? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, I have a letter that 7 I ' d like to read first and then we ' ll just go from there . I want to get this into the record. It ' s 8 from Artemis Lekakis . He was the gentleman that was here the last time and submitted that four 9 inch thick volume of information that we all read. It says , "Dear Chairman Dinizio and Members of the 10 Zoning Board of Appeals , This letter supplements my July 26, 2007 11 letter requesting adjournment of the hearing which did not fully explain the reasons for requested 12 adjournment . In addition to reasons set forth in the July 26, 2007 letter, the adjournment was 13 necessary because my family and other neighbors are interested in retaining experts who would 14 present evidence to the ZBA as to the impact on property value, an appraisal expert, and public 15 necessity of the proposed installation of a wireless communication tower, an engineering 16 expert . Both of these factors have been recognized by the Federal Courts as appropriate relevant 17 grounds for local zoning authorities to consider with regards to cellular communication tower 18 application . See Albepoin (phonetic) vs . The City of White Plains . 19 That affirmed the local board ' s decision to reject cell tower application for the zoning 20 variance based on interalia (phonetic) , demutation of property values and a lack of public necessity. 21 Several of the neighbors who ' s property is in plain site of the tower advised that they did not 22 receive notice of the June 28 , 2007 hearing . In addition, some of the neighbors are contemplating 23 retaining an attorney to represent them with regards to this matter but have not yet done so . 24 Because these matters did not receive notice of the prior hearing, if the August 2 , 2007 hearing r` 25 is not adjourned, it would deprive these neighbors of their opportunity to be heard with regard to a 160 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 decision that would have a very significant impact on them. Conversely a one month delay will have a 3 diminutive, if any, real impact on a multi-billion dollar corporation such as Cingular . 4 As previously noted, this is a first request by my family on behalf of themselves and certain 5 neighbors for adjournment of this hearings . Your consideration of this request is greatly 6 appreciated. Very truly yours, Artemis Lekakis, Jr . " 7 We received this on August 2nd . It was written on August 1st . I ' d just like to know if 8 the Board has any comments on that particular letter? 9 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He hasn ' t requested one prior to this? 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : He wrote a letter earlier . 11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : He wrote a letter on Friday, the 27th . 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I gotta tell you, with respect to this application, the tower has already 13 been approved. The real estate value has already been affected and this application doesn ' t propose 14 a tower . We have already made that decision, a decision that he would like for us to consider . 15 For that reason, I think that we do not need to grant an extension on this . 16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Here ' s my reply to that point . At first, I was skeptical of his request . 17 The Federal Law, Federal Court, Second Circuit did note that people ' s concerns about loss of property 18 values can be legally sufficient reason for a zoning board to take this sort of thing seriously. 19 It isn ' t whether he ' s right or wrong or whether we can preempt that issue . 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, Michael , I 'm not saying that . I ' m saying that this gentleman is 21 asking us not to build a tower that we ' re not being asked to build. 22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Wait , wait . He ' s asking us to have a hearing on this because it may very 23 well be, you may say that people are irrational but there ' s a certain amount of irrationality that 24 is recognized by the law. If people know that part of this tower is being used for a cell -- when 25 that ' s known it could have an affect on the property values . I don ' t care how far fetched you 161 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 believe, that is something that might be sufficient to get us to extend the hearing for 3 another month even if nobody is going to be persuaded by that argument . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: For the record, I did not say what Michael just said I said. I don ' t care 5 whether it ' s ridiculous or not . But what I ' m saying to you is that the real estate part of 6 this, the demutation of their property value comes from seeing the physical tower . The health part of 7 this has already been decided for us through the Federal Government . So if he ' s saying that the 8 actual sight of this tower is going to diminish his property value, he ' s at the wrong hearing . 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No, what I 'm saying is something a little bit subtler than that . It ' s not 10 the tower itself which might , like a flagpole, would not lower property values . But if people 11 know or believe that there ' s something in that flagpole that is going to lower their property 12 values , that is , however foolish or wonderful you think that claim is, that ' s a very different claim 13 from having decided that the existence of a tower is no cost to property value . It ' s what people 14 believe about what the tower contains . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I have another just 15 additional take . Yes, I did say previously that I agree with Mr . Rey that our jurisdiction does not 16 incorporate concerns for health issues whether we have them personally or not is not related to 17 anything that we can act upon . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s preempted by the 18 Federal Law. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . I did say that 19 and I uphold that statement . I think in fairness , however, to the fact that we need to balance our 20 decision based upon (a ) science and (b) impacts on community that hearing as much from the community 21 as we possibly can is a kind of due process or democratic process which I think is something that 22 we should take very seriously. There has not been a request previously for an adjournment . I know 23 that it certainly is a concern to Cingular in they ' d like to get this done . But it ' s a 24 substantial investment and I feel that our taking the appropriate amount of time necessary to make 25 sure we make the correct decision is a reasonable approach . I ' m not saying how I would vote or how I 162 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 would feel but I think just hearing full testimony is simply a part of what this democratic process 3 is about . The other thing that we need to examine is 4 the conversation that has not been concluded yet about the possibility of an RF Engineer evaluating 5 the necessity for co-location by Cingular at that site relative to other sites that may be pending 6 or that may already exist and so on and we need to al'so address that, I think, at this point . At 7 first I thought there was probably since it was , the tower was already approved and there was no 8 visual impact or additional impact by co-location that perhaps it was not a necessary thing to have 9 at this point , an expert consultant come in . In thinking that through more fully, there is nothing 10 to be lost by having someone able to evaluate the cumulative effect of co-location and coverage from 11 the point of view of wireless communications, not the emergency communications but wireless 12 communications . So I think there is potential value in having the consultant that we had talked 13 about take a look at this and that would, if we met Mr . Lekakis ' request and gave that consultant 14 an opportunity to do so, I don ' t think it would create an extremely long process . I think it could 15 be done in a fairly swift way. BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just say one 16 thing. The issue of taking testimony is an issue but the issue of taking germaine testimony is the 17 issue here . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : This has to address 18 the co-location, not the tower . If that ' s what he wants to do, that ' s fine . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: He ' s not asking for that though . He doesn ' t mention that in his letter . He 20 mentions a tower being a detriment to his property. 21 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But this is how it could be handled and I 'm sorry counsel isn ' t here . 22 I certainly applaud and completely affirm Leslie ' s concern about having the cumulative effect 23 evaluated, that ' s number one . Number two, I also think that if we sent a letter back to him and 24 said, yes, we can have a hearing and we can allow you to come but we are only going to entertain 25 germaine issues and those are the issues . Those are the issues that concern co-location and 163 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 nothing else . And that ' s it . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' d be happy with 3 that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s the way it ' s 4 got to be . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That is what the 5 application is for . The rest is accomplished. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I think that if he had 6 asked for that, I ' d be willing to grant it, but quite honestly, he didn ' t ask for that . 7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Well, you ' re taking that sentence in which he -- 8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, I 'm reading his letter, Michael, and I ' m understanding what he 9 says . If you can show me without saying you mean or some other thing and putting words in there, 10 then please explain it because I ' d love to hear it . But what I read from this is that he wants to 11 make points that are not relevant to this particular application . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then we won ' t accept them, that ' s all . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I say there ' s no reason to give him what he wants , quite honestly. Now, I 'm 14 one member on a five person Board. I won ' t be angry one way or another on how you vote on this 15 but you should at least discuss coherently why we need to have this besides saying we want to hear 16 more testimony. Because I 'm saying that this particular letter is asking for something that is 17 not relevant to this particular application . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then what you do is 18 you send a letter back saying to him what I just said that if you ' re not going to give us germaine 19 testimony that is germaine to this case, then we are not going to grant you the ability to come 20 before us . And we have the time to do that right now . You can leave this hearing open . 21 MR . REY : Can I say something? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes . 22 MR. REY : You have to remember, this hearing was held in June and Mr . Lekakis came to the 23 hearing and testified at length against the application and came very well prepared with about 24 300 pages of documents that he submitted to. the Board. Then it was adjourned for some housekeeping 25 issues and the issue Ms . Weisman just arose and from then no others . We were pretty much at the 164 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 end of the hearing and to debate as to whether it was closed or left open. Now, the day before the 3 hearing, more than a month later, he suddenly says he wants to retain an expert on an issue that ' s 4 totally not germaine . I think it ' s quite obvious it ' s just a ploy to further prolong the 5 application and the hearing . If he really wanted to retain an expert, he would have done so before 6 the last hearing or he would have retained an expert between June and now and not suddenly come 7 up with the idea the day before the resumption . I think it ' s patently unfair to the applicant to be 8 the subject of these whims . He had the opportunity back in June . He had actually the opportunity when 9 the fire district brought the application last year . He didn ' t bring it then . He didn ' t bring any 10 expert to our hearing nor did he mention retaining an expert at the hearing nor did he write to the 11 Board in June saying he wanted to do it or even in July. He wrote August 1st and as the Chairman 12 indicates, he still insists on calling this the proposed tower . Personally, I find it an affront 13 and I feel that it would be patently unfair to the applicant to have an adjournment again to allow 14 this gentleman who is remise in his -- if he really wanted to obtain an expert, he should have 15 done it back in June . I don ' t think the Board would stand for the same action on our part if I 16 showed up months later and said, oh I forgot to bring my experts and I want to adjourn it again . 17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : First of all, that fact that in his letter he said only the pole and 18 rather than having given the gloss on it which I tried to give before, doesn ' t completely 19 disqualify it . But it does disqualify him I would say to to say what is germaine and now you say, 20 you ' ve asserted that he had nothing germaine to say about what kinds of objections he was going to 21 raise and I don ' t know how you can make that assumption . 22 MR. REY: No, I didn ' t say that . I said that he was here in June and argued at length and 23 raised all kinds of issues mainly the health issue but he raised other issues . They had the full 24 opportunity to testify and he knew when the date was , the adjourned date and he knew the whole 25 situation . Now, on August 1st, the day before the hearing, he suddenly writes a letter saying I want 165 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 to retain an expert . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just be fair 3 with you and say, and unfortunately we don ' t have Counsel here, okay. He left . I think we need the 4 Chairman to speak to Counsel regarding this to see if we need to answer this man or not answer him. 5 Certainly, in one way or another, he needs to be answered. 6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Well , there is some other information that you ' re not aware of . 7 MR. REY: There was a moratorium so that if this is adjourned -- 8 (Everyone talking at one time . ) CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on. Let Linda speak. 9 This gentleman has introduced other evidence that I don ' t know if the Board has had time to read 10 yet . Quite honestly, I find his letter not to be relevant to this and I ' m comfortable with voting 11 in that direction . Also, if I could just ask our Board members of what they thought of the 300 12 pages that Mr . Lekakis submitted to us . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want my 13 opinion? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yeah, I would like to 14 know . I mean I could go down each one of these segments that he gave us and basically say that 15 most of the stuff that he handed us had to do with RF transmission towers . Not cell towers . Most of 16 which -- and , a study by a school class in space . So, I ' m a little bit skeptical, not to say that he 17 doesn ' t have concerns , he does , but so far he hasn ' t been the shining light of information as 18 far as my concerns are in this particular application which is something inside a tower 19 that ' s already been permitted by us . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay . But the 20 question is , do you agree that we have to answer the letter? 21 BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI : There ' s more conversation that involved the ZBA office that I 22 wanted to enter into the record. I had a conversation with Mr . Lekakis to confirm that we 23 received his letter . I spoke with him on Monday or Tuesday because I was off when the letter came in . 24 I wanted him to know that we were not ignoring the letter, we received it and it would be entered 25 into the record and that we did not expect and adjournment just for that reason he gave in his 166 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 July 27th letter because I believe that the Board was very near closing the hearing . They had enough 3 testimony . It was just an issue of whether or not they were going to hire an engineering expert to 4 review the documentation and also another member wanted to know what the count was of other towers 5 and where those towers were located. But they weren ' t sure if they really needed that 6 information to make a decision . So we adjourned it to August 2nd . I reminded him that he was present 7 and he said, well I did ask the Board for an adjournment at that time because I knew I ' d be in 8 Pennsylvania on August 2nd and I could not make it . They did not answer my request . And I said 9 well, when they don ' t grant your request, that ' s the answer . No answer is usually no, they ' re not 10 going to adjourn it . I then went to what do I do, I 'm in Pennsylvania . I said well, today ' s a couple 11 of days before the hearing. What you can do and we tell this to everyone, is you can have someone 12 represent you, family person, friend, let them appear for you and explain why you need an 13 adjournment . At the same time, if you have somebody present, they ' ll know whether or not 14 there were any changes since the last hearing . If there are changes and new developments, there may 15 be many reasons to adjourn it . If there are no changes and everything stays the same and the 16 Board does not require anymore new information, they ' ll probably close the hearing at that time . 17 But you want to have somebody there on your behalf if you can ' t make it . He said he could not do 18 that . And that ' s where we left it and the letter came in this morning by fax and I thought he ' d 19 have a representative here . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, to follow up on 20 Jim' s comment about the packet of material . I read it too . I have to say I agree with you although I 21 have read peer review journals which were not included in there particularly where there is 22 irrefutable evidence that there is potential health risk with using cell phones , cell towers . 23 The point I made earlier was that that is not within our jurisdiction to discuss . So, for us to 24 sit and debate the relevance of what he submitted in some respects is moot because it is not within 25 our jurisdiction . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I agree . I 'm just going by 167 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 what we ' re faced with . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I am more concerned 3 about the possibility of whether or not it would be a reasonable thing to do to, number one, 4 request a radio frequency engineer to inform us as to whether or not the co-location in East Marion 5 is necessary relative to coverage . There is , I believe, a permit on the tower in Orient Fire 6 Station that AT&T has . MR. REY : We ' re operating on that site . 7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Are you co-located on that now? 8 MR. REY : Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You are already 9 co-located on that , okay . Then what that engineer could tell us was given that location and your 10 coverage, they could interpret the propagation map you ' ve already submitted. They can give us their 11 own -- there ' s also a tower I think that you ' re on in Greenport which is 390 -- 12 MR . REY : Yes , we had the witness here last time who explained all of that . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We ' ve heard a lot of testimony from Mr . Schidel (phonetic) and others 14 and the bottom line is we are not experts . When we hear testimony from an applicant ' s expert, it ' s 15 very clear that while we thoroughly consider it, it is the applicant ' s expert . That ' s why as a 16 Board, not just in your application but in future applications we thought that it was a reasonable 17 thing to do as we do with Soil and Water on environmental impacts on bluffs and so on . We 18 would have someone available to help guide our interpretation of the information and testimony 19 you ' ve presented. I think we still want to look at that . We adjourned, in part, to examine that 20 possibility. We need to continue that conversation today. 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Personally, I buy Mr . Rey ' s explanation . I asked him when we left here 22 give me an explanation as to reason why. I buy that . Mr . Schidel (phonetic) I don ' t believe ever 23 really testified for a cell phone company. He is all fire radio person . I don ' t think he testified 24 to cell phone . (Everyone talking at one time . ) 25 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Didn ' t he also testify in the second hearing? 168 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, he doesn ' t build those types of systems . 3 MR. REY : My point is and I certainly respect your opinion . There ' s always a weighing and if we 4 were here before you with an application to erect a tower, then there ' s a difference weighing that ' s 5 involved. Here we ' re putting antennae ' s inside a pole and so the detriment to the community is 6 virtually nil . So our position is is it worth another adjournment and then being delayed by the 7 moratorium in addition and the additional cost to weigh whether we need the site if we ' ve already 8 indicated by pretty clear evidence that we do need the site . We wouldn ' t have all these experts here 9 and spent tens of thousands of dollars if we don ' t need the site . It ' s apparent that we need the 10 site . I wouldn ' t be here if we didn ' t need the site . It would seem to be unfair to the applicant 11 under these circumstances with the moratorium, the delays involved and so on to use the expert in a 12 site like this as opposed to where we ' re coming before you under different circumstances . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly Michael , you ' re going to address that part of this , right? The 14 moratorium part , is that why you ' re here? BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : No, I don ' t think 15 so . Actually, I had copies of the moratorium for the Board Members and we were advised by the Town 16 Attorney that the moratorium does not affect this application because they have a section in there 17 that says that co-location on towers that have already been permitted are excepted from the 18 moratorium. MR. REY: That must be a different version . 19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It is . It was taken care of Tuesday. That ' s why I thought Michael was here . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s not affected by the moratorium but Michael had something else to 21 add. BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY : No, that ' s it . 22 I 'm agreeing with you, Linda . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I took from your letter 23 that because the Town. encourages co-location and this is a co-locate, the tower already exists . 24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, it doesn ' t exist . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes , it does . The tower 25 exists in the minds of -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : In the minds . It is 169 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 not an existing tower . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It is an existing tower . 3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, it ' s an existing permit . 4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, could this person build that tower tomorrow? 5 BUILDING INSPECTOR VERITY: Yes . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : They can build it but 6 it isn ' t built . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It isn ' t built now. It ' s 7 not an existing tower if it hasn ' t been built . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It doesn ' t make a 8 difference . These people aren ' t asking for a tower . Don ' t misunderstand that . 9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' m not misunderstanding . You can ' t locate on a tower that 10 isn ' t there . It ' s not there . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : There asking for 11 co-location in a tower when that tower is built . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. But the tower can be 12 built tomorrow without our permission . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But it won ' t be . 13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : This man doesn ' t seek our permission to build that tower . We can split hairs 14 on that but quite honestly, this is not a tower application . The Town encourages co-location and 15 that ' s what our law says . I think that we ' ve heard enough information on that that an expert would 16 not help us in that respect because what an expert would say is the tower needs to go there or the 17 tower doesn ' t need to go there . Guess what , we ' re not making that decision now . It ' s already been 18 made . Wait for the next tower then you can say it . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You may think this is 19 splitting hairs but when you say the Town is encouraging co-location, that is not the Town law, 20 that is a recommendation . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, it is in the law that 21 we encourage co-location on towers . MR. REY : In fact it says that if I were to 22 come here with a proposal for a new tower, I would have to prove that I was unable to co-locate on 23 existing towers . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Okay so it gives a 24 preference . It doesn ' t guarantee that any or all applications for co-location will be granted. 25 MR. REY : No, there ' s no guarantee . It says it ' s the purpose of the Town to encourage . 170 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay, I guess, Mr . Rey, do you have anything else to add? 3 MR. REY: No, I don ' t . I think my letter responded to the various questions that were asked 4 at the close of the last session in June provided the information and the articles and the map . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The reason why I asked you to do it is because it ' s easier than me trying to . 6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' d like to clarify something . The granting of the tower by the 7 Planning Board and by the Zoning Board had to do with a request, an application that was from the 8 Fire Department for emergency equipment . That is what that tower was granted for . It was not 9 granted for a tenant to come in and co-locate . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That is not our 10 consideration . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s why he ' s here . 11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just a minute . I ' m asking a question . 12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We both sat through 13 the previous hearing that granted the tower . I want to clarify for the record that the tower was 14 not granted for co-location of a tenant . Though the code as written says that when a wireless 15 company is to propose a location that ' s on municipal property, that is the preferable 16 situation . I 'm just saying that the tower that was granted was for emergency equipment and fire 17 department . The fact that the fire department is now supporting a request from someone for 18 co-location is a separate application and a separate situation . That ' s all I ' m saying, okay. 19 Let ' s not confuse what we granted the tower for . We didn ' t grant it to Cingular . We granted it for 20 emergency equipment for the fire department . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this the first 21 or the second co-location? MR. REY : The fire department brought their 22 application, got their permit and this is the first cellular . There ' s space for other carriers . 23 In effect, this application is a lot like the application that we had before the Board to go in 24 the church in Orient because we ' re going inside something that ' s already there serving another 25 purpose . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we at least go 171 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 down on record saying that assuming that this application goes forward that the next time people 3 come in, that we can discuss the possibility of favorably getting a consultant or something of 4 that nature . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly . I would applaud 5 that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I think that ' s what we 6 were trying to do the last go around, after Orient . That ' s why we started researching it 7 because it was too late . We would have held that application up at nauseum and that wasn ' t fair . 8 Now, we have another one `and we said going forward, we would do this . 9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I don ' t know why you can ' t understand this . This is not a tower application . 10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Why are you suggesting we can ' t understand it? 11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We never claimed it is . We don ' t think that . 12 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is some merit to say that the tower doesn ' t exist . 13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The tower isn ' t there . Will it be built? Will it be built without a 14 tenant to underwrite it ' s construction? Will the tower be built for the fire department? 15 MR. REY : Mr . Coranacia (phonetic) reminds me that his report actually addresses the cumulative 16 emissions of the fire department ' s antennaes and cellular telephone company ' s antennae ' s , Cingular 17 rather . The net effect is that it ' s less than 10 of the FCC standard. 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You testified to that . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate you 19 saying that but again, you work for the company, that ' s the problem. You ' re an expert for the 20 company that ' s making the application . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Frankly, on most 21 respects, I 'm ready to vote . That ' s the bottom line . We ' ve heard lots of testimony. I don ' t want 22 to hold the applicant up unnecessarily. We ' ve been granted a situation where the moratorium doesn ' t 23 affect you . We need to make some decisions on this . However, all I ' m trying to recall here is 24 that we as a Board made an agreement that we wanted to, going forth after the Orient 25 application, have the opportunity to have additional science from an outside disinterested 172 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 party as we do with environmental impact . Now, we ' re saying we don ' t need it, we don ' t want it . 3 So in some ways we ' re contradicting ourselves and I feel we ought to say what we really mean and do 4 what .we really mean . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We were also 5 looking to see who is the agency that would do that . There ' s a question as to whether it would be 6 the ZBA or another town agency or state agency . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : May I comment again on 7 this . I ' d love to sit here and talk about this all night long and I will until we ' re clear . This 8 particular application whether you want to acknowledge the fact that even if the tower 9 doesn ' t exist, this is not an application for a tower . Now, an expert can only testify to the 10 placement of that tower and how it will affect , how much transmission it will propagate . Now, that 11 is not the subject of this hearing . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But he can testify to 12 the use of that tower . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He doesn ' t have to . That ' s 13 not before us . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But he ' s not barred from 14 doing that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Wait . You ' re the one 15 who said and please correct me if I ' m wrong, it ' s important for us to know whether or not this 16 location is necessary to Cingular . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, I never said that . I 17 don ' t know where you got that from. I ' ve always been convinced because I look at the propagation 18 of each tower and I accept that fact that we ' re talking about the transmission from the hand set 19 to the tower as opposed to the tower itself . I said that . 20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Are you talking about emergency? 21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' m talking about cell phones . And I believe their propagation maps . I 22 believe that we have had and I did a map and I wish I had brought it in of all the ones in 23 Cingular . They gave it to me . I outlined them all . Every single one of them is almost an identical 24 propagation to the next one, okay. It covers about three miles and they are on the edge . The only 25 thing I can tell you is if we hired an expert, he would just verify that fact . Now, that would be 173 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 fine if we were to say to him somebody wants to build a tower in this location . What do you think? 3 Is it necessary? That ' s all he can answer . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What' s the tower going 4 to be used for? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That doesn ' t make a 5 difference . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It makes a hell of a lot 6 of difference if you ' re the expert doing the investigation . It could be a tower for putting up 7 a flag and then he ' d give different testimony then a tower sending UV Rays for example . What it ' s for 8 is crucial . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Oh Michael, come on . What 9 it ' s for is what they ' re asking for . That ' s what it ' s for . 10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Well that ' s what can be addressed. 11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well I 'm not going to vote for that . However you guys want to do it is fine 12 with me . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The fact that their 13 expert and you are absolutely convinced that there is no other point of view is not an argument 14 against getting it . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, I just believe what 15 they say. But you certainly can do whatever it is you feel like you want . You just got to vote on 16 it , that ' s all . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The only thing that is 17 a little confusing and I hear what you ' re saying and I hear your frustration . 18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm not frustrated at all . What I ' m trying to say is that we heard so much 19 testimony concerning the reason that the towers need to get built . All we seem to concern 20 ourselves with is that tower and it ' s not that . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, I want to make 21 this clear . I don ' t know how else to say this in simpler terms , Jim. I am not concerned about the 22 construction of the tower, it ' s a done deal when it gets built . It isn ' t there now but it will be . 23 It ' s not the subject of this application . BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : So that means the 24 co-location inside the tower is the only area -- BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s the only area 25 that I would want an expert to say yes or no, they really need it . They don ' t have adequate coverage 174 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 and yeah, they need it . Which is what I wrongly apparently understood your comment . That ' s the 3 only purpose . Otherwise there ' s no use for a consultant in this application . 4 MR. REY : I go back to the fact that we ' re balancing and in this situation, since we ' re going 5 inside, there ' s very little to balance and to take the time to hire an expert to determine whether 6 we ' re here for a reason or whether we ' ve hired all these people just for fun seems like it ' s not 7 appropriate for this kind of a balancing . If we were here before the Board with something that 8 would affect the community more so, then the responsibility of the Board increases and perhaps 9 it would be worthwhile . Under these circumstances , it would seem to me that if the carrier has gone 10 through the expense of being here to put antennae ' s inside the pole, that we ' re going to 11 need them. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Are you saying that it 12 doesn ' t .matter whether you say that, what you just said, or if an expert says exactly what you said? 13 MR. REY: No, that ' s not what I 'm saying. BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Is the strength of your 14 convictions and your arguments are one sided. You get an independent expert who might very well 15 agree with you but it ' s not an idle task to find out whether there ' s somebody who ' s livelihood is 16 tied to -- whether he comes up with the same answer or not . 17 MR. REY : I understand your point but in this situation where the balancing is such that we ' re 18 going inside, is it worth the expense and time? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Well, I don ' t mean 19 to cut you off but do you .have anybody you would need to have testify right now? 20 MR . REY: Only if you have questions . MR. CORNACIA: We are to an extent -- we are 21 independent . We certainly have -- and the extension to that fact is that fact that we 22 constantly are in touch with Ed (inaudible) who ' s just under Cleveland and the office of technology 23 and with Richard Tell who wrote that manual and we are helping in redlining the new manual because 24 the FCC doesn ' t have the funding to do it outside our organization . We are an extension of the FCC 25 and we are reminded of that every time we speak with them. We are providing a service to the 175 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 wireless industry but our responsibility is to the health and safety of the community and to the 3 compliance with the FCC manual . We also include in our study constantly reminding the Board and the 4 community that the FCC in their manual requires that every time a study is done at a co-location 5 study is included in that the next time that a carrier were to wish to attach or mount to that 6 tower . It would have to be the same thing we just did . Include not only the fire department but this 7 applicant as well as themselves . Anyone and it must be continuous effort to provide a co-location 8 study. I just wanted to make that point . I hear this quite often but the truth of the matter is , 9 we are as independent as we can be and at the same time provide a reasonable study for the Board and 10 the community to assure the Board that the site will be in compliance .with the FCC standards . 11 BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what you ' re saying is it ' s really a shared statement that 12 you ' re making and you ' re really representing not only the client but you ' re representing the 13 community at the same time . MR. CORNACIA: That ' s correct . That ' s our 14 responsibility. As I said, if the Board wishes to verify that, I can give you phone numbers . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can you provide that in just a written letter? 16 MR. CORNACIA: Sure, I can . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would help us 17 out tremendously. BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It would help address 18 community concerns . If we ' re not going to extend the options for other members of the community who 19 feel that they are going to be adversely impacted by the co-location an opportunity to be further 20 heard, in other words , no additional testimony, then it would at least be helpful to have letter 21 indicating what your role in this process is as an expert so that we can in the finding quote from 22 that letter . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would concur with 23 Leslie . In your independent capacity, could you imagine that were there another technology related 24 and you could be in the expert working for a citizen group or working to advise a citizen 25 group, would you as an expert felt differently or are you permanently assigned to the industry? 176 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 MR . CORNACIA: We are for example providing pro bono support to the City of Stamford, 3 Connecticut continually. In assisting them to understand the applications . To understand the 4 impact that that site may provide or create and to overview the results of the studies that were done 5 and to provide the health department with a sense of comfort that the report of the application is 6 correct . BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I think it would be 7 helpful if you can put that kind of information in this short statement that Leslie called for . 8 MR. CORNACIA: I can ' t name the city -- (Everyone talking at the same time . ) 9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You ' re not just somebody that ' s assigned by the Federal Government to work 10 with Cingular and Verizon . You are a professional with the independence that professionals have . 11 You ' re not employed by the industry. MR. CORNACIA: I ' ll give you a fine example . 12 We did some work for the Town of Rockaway, New Jersey who wanted a hand radio operator to 13 disassemble his miniature tower that he installed in his backyard with antennae ' s . I not only did 14 speak with that tower owner but I did an analysis of that tower and I also contacted the FCC on that 15 issue and I didn ' t know this for a fact but the fact of the matter was , that particular individual 16 had a safeguard in that he did not require a permit nor was he in any way responsible for the 17 town ' s demand taking that tower down because he ' s considered to be the last bastion in the case of 18 civil disobedience and civil unrest . He ' s a source of information . So that ' s the sort of interplay. 19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So you ' re saying he wasn ' t required to cease and assist his operation? 20 MR. CORNACIA: That ' s correct . He ' s continuing to operate . But he was within the FCC 21 guidelines because he did the study himself . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to ask you 22 this last question . I know you testified very nicely before us, are you duly licensed as an 23 expert? MR. CORNACIA: I 'm a degreed electrical 24 engineer and I worked in the microwave industry with the defense department for at least 25 to 30 25 years . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s all I wanted 177 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 to ask. I apologize for asking . MR. CORNACIA: Certainly. My curriculum vitae 3 is in the report . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I ' ve reviewed 4 it many times , I just haven ' t seen it recently. I do apologize for asking you that . 5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think that sometimes I know that you think I get frustrated but I used to 6 hold a Class 2 microwave license and I know that this gentleman knows what that means . During my 7 past career, I built plenty of microwave links for Cablevision. So if it appears that I 'm frustrated, 8 I 'm frustrated only because I understand what these gentleman are saying to the point that any 9 of the things that seem spurious (phonetic) to me, do annoy me . I apologize if I intimidated anybody 10 but I do thank you all for tolerating it . I just hope that any vote that is made here is made in 11 consideration of what you ' ve heard from the experts . That ' s all I can say. If you guys have 12 nothing more to say, I ' d like to entertain a motion that we close this hearing pending a 13 decision on -- BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : August 16th. 14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : August 16th . I ' ll make that motion . 15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can we also do so based upon the receipt of this information we just 16 asked to have in writing? CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly that will help 17 you in writing that decision . BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I don ' t want to delay 18 the decision and if somebody else wants to write it . 19 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Does anybody want to make the motion? 20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I made the motion . BOARD MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll second it 21 based upon us receiving this information . CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Motion made and 22 seconded. All those in favor . (See minutes for resolution . ) 23 ************ *** ****** ****** ********* (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 24 6 : 3 0 p .m. ) 25 178 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 2 , 2007 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 I , Erika Nadeau, a Notary Public of the State of 4 New York do hereby certify: 5 THAT the testimony in the within proceeding was 6 held before me at the aforesaid time and place . 7 That the testimony was taken stenographically by 8 me, then transcribed under my supervision, and that the 9 within transcript is a true record of the testimony 10 given . 11 I further certify that I am not related to any 12 of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, 13 that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the 14 matter in controversy, nor am I in the employ of any of 15 the counsel . 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 17 hand this ___ day of ��� �_ 2007 . 18 19 20 21 Erika Nadeau 22 23 24 25