HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/13/2007 Hearing 1
2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
4 ------------------------------------------X
5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
6
7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
8 ------------------------------------------X
9 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
10
11 September 13, 2007
12 9 : 30 a .m.
t w 1 13
14 Board Members Present :
15
16 JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Chairman/Member
17 RUTH D . OLIVA - Member
18 MICHAEL A. SIMON - Member
19 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Member
20 LINDA KOWALSKI - Board Assistant
21 KIERAN CORCORAN - Assistant Town Attorney ( 10 : 00-end)
22
23 Absent :
24 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
t° 2 5'
2
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2
3 INDEX OF HEARINGS :
4 Hearing : Page :
5 Coffey #6068 3-5
6 Hayward #6054 5-27
7 O ' Brien #6075 27-31
8 Hassildine #6072 31-36
9 Scripps #6069 37-40
10 Catania #6071 40-49
11 Manganiello #6066 49-62
12 Lomas #6067 62-67
13 Bebbe #6073 67-82
14 Brokaw #6070 82-85
15 Callahan #6038 85-100
16 Reeve #6041 101
17 Simon #6076 101-108
18 Sherman #6063 108-115
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I need a resolution to
acknowledge the receipt of all submissions
3 received for Daneri and Lampl .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded.
5 All those in favor .
(See minutes for resolution . )
6 ** *********************** **** ******
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I guess it looks like
7 we ' re going to table Katapodis? Okay. We need a
motion to do that .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor .
9 ( See minutes for resolution . )
10 Hearing #6068 - Coffey
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our first hearing is for
11 Richard and Eleanor Coffey and that is mine so
I ' ll reed the Notice .
12 "Request for a Special Exception in
accordance with Code Section 280-13B ( 14 ) to
13 establish Accessory Bed and Breakfast , as an
accessory use in the existing single-family
14 dwelling, with owner-occupancy, for the purpose of
lodging and serving of breakfast for up to ten
15 ( 10 ) casual, transient roomers in four ( 4 ) guest
bedrooms, at 5705 Main Road, East Marion; CTM
16 35-2-16 . 1 . "
In going over the application I noticed you
17 had a previous variance granted for a setback and
you also had a previous bed and breakfast approved
18 at this site and you had a variance also for a
building . And that may not have been you, it was
19 1999 . On that property, another storage building .
So I guess you just need to discuss -- you already
20 have it a bed and breakfast . What is it that you
need from us in addition to that?
21 MR. COFFEY: I think we were told that the
approval had expired.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Can you tell us how that
came to be?
23 MR. COFFEY : The construction wasn ' t
completed so we let the original application lapse
24 and now the construction is completed so we
reapplied for the bed and breakfast .
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So nothing has changed
other than the fact that you had a worker ' s truck
4
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 parked out there because I drive by there mostly
everyday for the past two years .
3 MR. COFFEY : Yes . They are gone now .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I guess I can turn this
4 over . Leslie, do you have any questions on this?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No . I assumed that
5 it must have been a lapsed permit or special use
permit . It looks to me as though you have plenty
6 of convenient parking. You ' re putting in a
circular driveway and parking area so people don ' t
7 have to back out onto the street which is very
important . You clarified the purpose for the
8 application so I don ' t have any further questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : In a situation like
this where there is a plausible explanation for
10 the delay, I think it would depend upon someone
being able to put forward some argument why it
11 should not be extended. I ' m not aware of any and
if anyone here has some, that would be the only
12 consideration that would leave me to do anything
but approve this .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : This certainly -- the
hearing leaves that open . So we haven ' t heard
14 everybody yet so we might . Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes . I ' ve watched the
15 progress of your construction as I go by there
probably a couple times a day and I was just
16 wondering, because I do like to come inspect the
different B&B ' s, I didn ' t see anybody there last
17 weekend so I didn ' t call . But I was wondering if
you were going to be there sometime this weekend
18 that I could stop by?
MR. COFFEY : Certainly. We ' ll be there .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay. I will . Thank
you . Otherwise, no problems . You ' ve done a
20 wonderful job .
MR. COFFEY : Thank you .
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Do you have anything else
you would like to add to this?
22 MR. COFFEY: That ' s it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You want to get going.
23 MR. COFFEY: Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Does anyone in the
24 audience wish to speak for or against this
application?
25 If not . I ' ll entertain a motion that we
close this hearing .
5
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : When ' s our next hearing
3 date?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : There will be a
4 special meeting where they make decisions on
September 27th in the evening at 5 o ' clock they
5 start in the other building .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So we ' re going to
6 deliberate then and probably make a decision on
that day.
7 MR. COFFEY : Okay. Will do .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Have a motion made and
8 seconded.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I moved.
9 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Seconded then .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We have Ruth and Leslie .
10 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
11 ***** * ****************** **** *** ****
Hearing #6054 - Hayward
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for
James and Judy Hayward. That ' s yours , Leslie .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s yours, Leslie .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Anyone here for the
14 Hayward?
MS . DOTY : Yes , I ' m sorry.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Let me read the legal
notice .
16 "Request a Variance under Section 280-15,
based on the Building Inspector ' s amended June 20 ,
17 2007 Notice of Disapproval, updated July 17 , 2007 ,
which states that the proposed accessory garage
18 will be located in a yard other than the
code-required rear yard, at 1450 Three Waters
19 Road, Orient ; CTM 15-3-19 . "
It would appear upon site inspection that
20 there is no rear yard. That this house -- this
property is located on, has two front yards and a
21 waterfront property boundary as well there along
Lands End Road in the neighboring development and
22 fronting on Three Waters Road. So therein lies
the dilemma . The garage is about 672 square feet
23 in size?
MS . DOTY : I think that ' s correct .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Twenty-two feet high,
one and a half stories tall with a half bath and
25 an open covered entry on the first floor, storage
and art studio on the second floor according to
6
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 the plan . Can you elaborate?
MS . DOTY : I ' m Deborah Doty. I ' m the
3 attorney for Mr . and Mrs . Hayward. Mrs . Hayward is
here and Amy Martin is here from Fairweather
4 Brown, the architects who prepared the plan and
also the submission to the Board. I think the
5 issue really is the location of that garage and as
you said, Ms . Weisman, there are two front yards
6 and there ' s a waterfront yard, it ' s on the
waterfront . So it really doesn ' t have a side yard
7 and it doesn ' t really have a rear yard and they
need the detached garage in order to shelter the
8 large van that ' s required for their handicapped
son . It can ' t fit under the house . So they were
9 looking for an alternate location which presented
itself as this corner of the yard . That ' s all I 'm
10 going to call it is a yard because that ' s what it
is . It ' s an M2 District surrounded by R40 . The
11 access is and always has been from Three Waters
Road . They don ' t intend to change that at all .
12 Because it ' s a waterfront lot, front yard location
on an accessory structure is permitted according
13 to the code . So the question is where? And we
propose that the garage be placed within 25 feet
14 of Lands End Road, the adjoining development, to
which we have no access, to which we plan no
15 access and which right now is hidden from view
from Lands End Road and the other neighbor by
16 shrubs , etc . It ' s setback there because of the
size of the van, you need additional access to
17 turn it around when you get it out of the garage .
And that ' s why it ' s setback 10 feet closer to
18 Lands End Road. If you look at the location of
each of the houses surrounding this, you ' ve got
19 one house to the south which is not impacted
because we meet that setback, if you use the 25
20 foot setback for that . There is an adjoining
neighbor in Lands End but it ' s a miniscule
21 adjoining . It ' s maybe 3 feet, 4 feet, 5 feet and
his house, as I recall, is over on the other side
22 of his property, away from this property . The
premises actually really abuts Lands End Road, per
23 se, and on the other side of Lands End Road is an
oddly shaped waterfront parcel where, if there is
24 a house and I couldn ' t tell when I was out there .
(To audience member) There is none . Okay, thank
25 you . If there were a house, I am willing to bet
the Board it ' s no.t going to be put close to the
7
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 detached garage . It ' s going to be put up by the
water . So they ' re not going to be affected by
3 this garage at all . So in essence, we don ' t
really have neighbors that are going to be
4 impacted by that small 10 foot variance that we ' re
requesting . Therefore, I 'm requesting that you
5 grant the variance and I think Amy is going to
talk, Ms . Martin is going to talk about the
6 interior of the garage and the reason that it has
what it has in it . But if you have any additional
7 questions for me?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just let me verify
8 once again because I had wondered upon site
inspection why the need for a second garage when
9 there is a garage below grade already attached to
the dwelling . You ' ve clarified that this is for
10 the van?
MS . DOTY : Yes and I believe that ' s going to
11 be the only garage as it turns out . We ' re going
to eliminate the under garage totally but we
12 couldn ' t get the van in there anyway even if we
wanted to .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. Well let me
listen to the architect who ' ll probably clarify
14 some other odds and ends .
MS . DOTY : Okay.
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Should be fine . I have
nothing else .
16 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just wanted to
clarify something . We did receive a letter from
17 Mr . Doug Fleming and he thought Ms . Hayward was
going to put on road onto Lands End Road which of
18 course she isn ' t . I just wanted to have that in
the record that that is not the case . That you ' re
19 access will be only from Three Waters Lane .
MS . DOTY : I said that early on that we will
20 only have access from Three Waters Road . We don ' t
want to go via Lands End at all .
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I just wanted to so
that it ' s in the record that Mr . Fleming is
22 assured that the only access is from Three Waters
Lane .
23 MS . DOTY : I believe that the owners would
accept a condition that we don ' t have access from
24 Lands End. We don ' t intend . We don ' t want to .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don ' t think you could
25 if you wanted to .
MS . DOTY: Well , I don ' t know. We might be
8
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 able to but we don ' t intend to and we don ' t want
to .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Will you be leaving
the vegetative buffer?
4 MS . DOTY : We would be willing to . Not
necessarily what ' s there right now .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes , it ' s pretty
rambled and difficult . She ' d probably have to do
6 a lot of cutting to excavate . But you ' ll leave
some sort -- you ' d do that as a condition?
7 MS . DOTY : They intend to put in a privet
hedge .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, do you have
9 anything?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I have no questions .
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth, do you have
anything?
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Is there a 6 foot
fence?
12 MS . DOTY : There ' s no fence .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It was showing on
13 the site plan, a 6 foot fence .
MS . DOTY : The fence was approved .
14 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Do you want us to
revise the site plan?
15 MS . DOTY : If we were going to put in a
fence, we ' d have to get a building permit for it .
16 We do not , right now, intend to . We intend to do
a vegetative buffer .
17 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Thank you .
MS . DOTY : I ' ll turn it over to Ms . Martin .
18 MS . MARTIN : I don ' t really have much to say
after Deborah ' s presentation but I would like to
19 just -- I ' ll refer to the one paragraph that I was
going to say. The confusion about the driveway.
20 There seems to be some confusion and concerns with
neighbors from the adjoining development . The
21 Haywards have never entertained having an entry
onto Lands End Road. I have spoken on the
22 telephone with Ivanka Puhalobic, a noticed
neighbor to the east from the Lands End
23 subdivision who ' s concerns were similar to those
addressed in the letter to Mr . Dinizio from DH
24 Fleming . I assured Ms . Puhalobic and at this time
would like to assure the Board and the neighbors
25 in the adjoining development that there are no
doors on that side of the proposed garage and the
9
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 Hayward ' s only driveway is to be that previously
described as being onto Three Waters Lane . And
3 the only thing that I did have to submit was I did
a small mock-up of the actual location and the
4 only thing that might change a little bit is the
driveway will have a turn-around so that they can
5 back the van out and not be backing onto Three
Waters Lane . So there might be a slight change of
6 the access to Three Waters Lane just to
accommodate a gradual curve that they can get out
7 of easily from both directions .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s fine . You
8 don ' t need a variance for that . It ' s much better .
MS . MARTIN : It also gives you the idea of
9 where the garage is in the woodland area . If you
have any other questions?
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just want to ask to
confirm that the garage is going to remain
11 unheated?
MS . MARTIN : I don 't know . The only
12 thought was it will be a wood working shop o.n the
ground floor because Mr . Hayward likes to do wood
13 working. There may be a space heater or something
like that so he can work in the winter . But it ' s
14 not meant as a residential area or a sleeping area
and it ' s storage above and it ' s an art studio to
15 finish work upstairs . It really is a garage with
a work shop .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : All right . I 'm done .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else have any
17 questions of Ms . Martin? Hearing none . Anybody
in the audience? Deborah, are you finished with
18 your presentation?
MS . DOTY : I ' ll wait .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Come on up and state your
name and address , please .
20 MS . PUHALOBIC : My name is Ivanka Puhalobic
and my address 1685 Lands End Road in Orient . I ' m
21 here today with a few of my neighbors because we
have concerns with reference to this construction
22 of this garage barn . It ' s fairly large and we
have some points that we wanted to bring out .
23 First, I have a list of different issues . First ,
I respectfully submit a denial for the variance
24 that Mr . and Mrs . Hayward have requested for the
construction of this garage based on the reason of
25 hardship . The Haywards purchased the house on
Three Waters Lane in 2004 . The home does have a
10
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 two-car garage . They were aware of the size of
the garage and the disability which they have was
3 prior to the purchase . So they were well aware of
what this home offered for them. The structure
4 that they propose would be in the furthest corner
from where their house is but would be the closest
5 to my home . So in the front when I go in the
front of my house and look out of my balcony which
6 I will be seeing the back of their barn, their
garage, which is very large . I don ' t know if
7 you ' re aware of it, it ' s 22 foot high, which is
closer to two and a half floors . Not one and a
8 half floors as they propose . I really have
questions with the size of this and this is going
9 to be very unsightly for me to look at when I look
out my front yard to look at the back of their
10 barn . I don ' t think that ' s fair . It increases
the value of their property but it ' s definitely
11 decreasing the value of my property. There ' s also
a few other things . The size of this garage, this
12 barn, is going to be larger than three of the
homes that are adjacent to them on Three Waters
13 Edge . They ' re all little homes there and this
barn is actually larger than the houses in the
14 area . There ' s a few other things here . I have no
problems with houses being built in the area or
15 garages as long as they' re abiding to the law and
the regulations of the building department . This
16 is an unusual situation because their front yard
is right up against my front yard. They ' re saying
17 it ' s only three feet but that' s the view that ' s in
front of me . When the first lady spoke, she said
18 that it ' s all shrubs there and that it ' s a big
buffer but that ' s not really true . Once this
19 garage is to be built, all that will be cleared
out . You ' re not going to have anymore shrubs
20 there because this is so close to Lands End Road .
So it will be a full view of this garage .
21 Mr . Hayward had mentioned once to me and also once
to my husband of the possibility of having an
22 access on Lands End Road. So I question in the
future being this garage is going to be so close
23 to Lands End Road, will they be wanting to open up
some area there where they can put their boats,
24 where they can have their possibly garbage
dumpsters and all of this which is so far away
25 from their home will be right up in' our community
and I have questions for that . Because it would
11
I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 be right on the road which leads down to the beach
where people come from the -- it ' s a Town beach.
3 They have stickers from the Town and they are able
to park there legally to enjoy the beach . If they
4 do open, where will these cars then all be
parking? It ' s going to make a traffic situation
5 in Lands End Road. Like I said, this garage will
be closer to my home then to their home and I
6 really feel that I don ' t have a problem with the
garage . If it were smaller in size as a normal
7 garage and if it was closer or some other
position, not right up against the Lands End Road
8 community. That ' s pretty much it that I have but
I know that my neighbors are here and they also
9 have issues that they are concerned with .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you . Does anyone
10 have any questions?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' d like to ask her a
11 question . Could I ask you to approach and just
identify on this map which is your home? I just
12 want to be sure .
MS . PUHALOBIC : I ' m right here ( indicating) .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re there
(indicating) . You ' re in this community?
14 MS . PUHALOBIC : I ' m in this community and my
house looks out this way and this is what I see
15 when I look outside . The structure will be here
and this will all be cleaned out and this will be
16 an eyesore . I also have here an open driveway.
(All Members talking at same time . )
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I can explain it .
You ' re the house that is actually fronting on the
18 neighboring development on Lands End Road which
curves and terminates at the beach?
19 MS . PUHALOBIC : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It would be at the
20 top of this .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Maybe I can ask a
21 question. Approximately how many feet would you
be away from that garage, your property?
22 MS . PUHALOBIC: How many feet? I really
don ' t know. Maybe three hundred feet .
23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hundred feet .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re just trying to get
24 a description written down so when we read this we
have an idea . When you first spoke, I thought you
25 were the house next door which would have been 25
feet from the property line . But that ' s not the
12
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 case . If you ' re a house that ' s furthest back in a
different development -- you ' re the Lands End
3 development . These people are in Orient by the
Sea .
4 MS . PUHALOBIC : Yes . The house that you
just mentioned that you thought I was , that would
5 be they ' re adjacent to their backyard . But with
me, it ' s my front yard.
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes .
MS . PUHALOBIC : There ' s the difference .
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else would like
to speak on this application?
8 State your name and your address , ma ' am.
MS . CUZO : Good morning . My name is Marie
9 Cuzo . I live at 1500 Lathan Lane in Orient and I
want to speak this morning on behalf of Ivanka
10 Puhalobic and all of my neighbors . Naturally, we
have a lot of concern for what happens in our
11 community . We ' re a tight knit community and the
issue of this new construction really does concern
12 us quite a bit . Mainly, the structure we feel is
too large and we just had some discussion about it
13 becoming a workshop and you know possibly putting
some heat in it and it may be a studio . When I
14 hear the word workshop, all I can think of is
noise . And because this structure is so close to
15 Ivanka ' s house and all of us that walk down to the
beach, we ' re concerned that we ' re going to lose
16 our park-like setting there . We have a very open
area there . The houses are all built on one plus
17 lots . It ' s very wide open. When you come down
Sound View Avenue which is in Orient by the Sea
18 where the Hayward property is located, when you
come down that street, you have a number of small
19 properties . These are little houses that started
out as bungalows and then you get up to the
20 Hayward community. In our area in Lands End, we
have very large houses . So we know that there is
21 a public access there to the beach . We have a lot
of people who walk up to the beach . We have
22 children who are riding their bikes down there .
We have motorcyclists . We have a ' number of issues
23 to deal with and I think really what our concern
here is is that we basically have been good
24 neighbors . We respect the fact that there is a
public beach and people are allowed to walk there,
25 they ' re allowed to fish and do things . We have
noticed that these people have not necessarily, in
13
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 my opinion, been good neighbors for a number of
reasons . And what this is all building up to is
3 we feel as though our property rights are going to
be infringed upon . Basically what I want to say
4 is that in my opinion, I think much of this is
self-serving . My heart does go out to these
5 people the fact that they do have a handicapped
child. But when I look at the plans and I see
6 that they ' re planning other construction to
enlarge this house, to take away the garage . Put
7 it in the furthest part of the yard away from
their view . I think that that, in my opinion,
8 could be a lot taken as being self-serving . There
are fences going up . There were signs private
9 property, keep off, public beach ends here .
There ' s policing of the area every other week.
10 They call the police to chase people off the
beach. You know I believe in live and let live .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ma ' am, ma ' am. I would
hope that you would keep this to what the
12 application is asking for which is a garage in a
nonconforming location on that lot . Everything
13 else even though it may be important really isn ' t
relevant to the application, okay. Of course,
14 that ' s probably only my opinion up here but we
need to just concentrate on that particular barn,
15 what they ' re asking for . So if you could just
address yourself to that , I ' d appreciate it .
16 MS . CUZO : Well, I think that some more of
my neighbors would probably have more to say about
17 this . But I think we don ' t want to make this a
personal issue . I think our real concern is that
18 when we look at this plan for construction, our
concern is that we don ' t want it to escalate .
19 Because you know maybe they ' re asking for this
much today but you know after all is said and done
20 tomorrow it might be a different situation and it
might be too late to do anything about it .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Let me just respond
that one of the things that is frequently done
22 with variances when granted are placed with
restrictions and conditions on the granting of the
23 variance . We ' ve already talked about some of them
and so your comments can be, in some respects,
24 dealt with by conditioning no access from Lands
End Road, a very heavy planting screening to
25 mitigate any views that are obstructed so that in
future it will not be legal for them to have
14
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 access in any other way than what is described in
this variance . So bear in mind that listening to
3 your comments is constructive and helpful in that
we can incorporate some of them in consideration
4 of this application .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I ' d like to add
5 something but I don ' t want to interrupt you if
you ' re still continuing with further remarks .
6 MS . CUZO : I think I ' ve said enough .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Just maybe a bit of a
7 general understanding of how this Board works and
what we are limited by the law . You mentioned two
8 phrases which are very important to people . One
had to do with whether something is a personal
9 issue or not and also the notion of property
rights . Now, if something is not a personal
10 issue, it must be a legal issue . And we ' re
limited and this is another way of saying what Mr .
11 Dinizio said. We have to be bound by the legal
issues not by the personal issues however they
12 fall . And the whole idea of private property is
that you can do certain things within the
13 constraints of law on your property. That ' s what
your property rights mean . So the issue is going
14 to be whether whatever the applicant is doing on
the applicant ' s property is consistent with the
15 legal constraints aside from the personal issues
and I agree with him. And from a legal point of
16 view, these things are not relevant to us . They
are certainly relevant . As the code is written
17 and we ' re bound by the code . We make a decision
that must be consistent with the code . We ' re
18 allowed a certain degree of discretion . When we
go beyond the code, we ' re subject to reversal on
19 appeal by the Supreme Court of the State of New
York. And the idea is , they have for example, a
20 25 foot setback. What they do beyond that further
in from that setback is pretty much their business
21 and we could not control that . We could put some
conditions on it with regard to the neighbors but
22 a lot of us I think and, personally, had the
problem of having people who are neighbors do
23 things that we wish they wouldn ' t do . But
unfortunately for us it ' s absolutely consistent
24 with their legal right to do so . My own house, I
had somebody put up a large garage which is
25 blocking my view of Peconic Bay. Nothing I can do
about it . On a personal issue, I say please don ' t
15
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 put up a garage blocking my view but that ' s about
as far as it can conceivably go . The law, for
3 better or worse, simply doesn ' t reflect all of the
kinds of concerns that the last two speakers have
4 raised. Maybe they should. But this Board
certainly doesn ' t have the power to rewrite the
5 code to prohibit certain kinds of things which we
think should be covered by the code are not . The
6 issue has to be focused on whether what they are
doing is consistent with the words and the spirit
7 of the code . And that unfortunately perhaps for
people who want to comment on this limits the
8 kinds of concerns that could be raised. Luckily,
for us, we don ' t get into the question of who ' s
9 the better neighbor or who ' s a worse neighbor .
You can say so and so is a bad neighbor .
10 Unfortunately, if you don ' t like -- if I don ' t
like my neighbor because he ' s a bad neighbor, I
11 don ' t have much option except to move away or buy
his house from him. I think we can all be
12 sympathetic to these kinds of concerns and it ' s
probably useful for the applicant to hear about
13 them because on a personal level they can be
mitigated to some degree as long as it doesn ' t
14 seriously interfere with what they want to do,
their use of their own private property. That ' s
15 just a statement about the general legal
background of the whole system. Their points can
16 have some great moral appeal but we can ' t deal
with those .
17 MS . CUZO : I have one comment regarding
that . Right now under the guise of a garage,
18 we ' re having a structure that will be built that
will be almost the size of another house . So I
19 mean, legally, are they entitled to put up
something that large on this parcel?
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Put it this way. If it
weren ' t for that front yard, side yard, rear yard
21 situation, they wouldn ' t even be before us about
the size of the garage . That simply would not be
22 an issue . We ' re here only because there was a
Notice of Disapproval granted by Building
23 Department because of the rear yard issue . If
there hadn ' t been a Notice of Disapproval or had
24 it been a different situation, there would be no
opportunity for us or any court to review it . So
25 these are matters but they simply don ' t come
before us .
16
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I want to point out
that there is an accessory structure code
3 relatively new that basically determines the size
of a structure that is legally allowed based upon
4 the size of the lot, the square footage of the
lot . That will determine height, setback and
5 square footage . And I will double check to make
absolutely certain that on their 64 , 990 square
6 foot lot, which is very large, that the code
allows a structure of 672 square feet . I believe
7 it does but I will be sure to double check that .
I have to write the draft finding on this that we
8 will be deliberating on . So we will make very
certain that whatever variance we grant is within
9 the limits of the code and the law and we will do
everything possible to make sure that your
10 concerns are taken care of .
MS . CUZO : Thank you, Ms . Weisman .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, ma ' am, they
can build something much larger on that piece of
12 property. Much larger if they attach it to the
house . And I 'm not saying that that is part and
13 parcel of any reason to give them a variance for
what they want but we are constrained by the law .
14 We have to look at just the setback. We ' re really
just looking at a flat piece of paper with
15 markings drawn on it . We ' re not really looking at
the final product, the hedge, the fact that you ' re
16 going to look at this . People have certain
rights . Certainly they should be neighborly and I
17 think we all have not necessarily problems with
our neighbors but we all have things we would like
18 the way our neighbor to be . But other people have
other rights . This particular application is
19 constrained by the fact that they are zoned in
such an odd way for a residential area, an M2 .
20 And I know what that used to be because I used to
get the rowboats out of there . I used to go
21 there . I used to work. It ' s very unique and at
the time they wanted to preserve that . That ' s the
22 way it has ended up . They probably should have
switched it back to residential at some point in
23 time . No one has bothered to ask for that . It
doesn ' t seem like -- it was sold and someone built
24 a house on it and they did it legally and now
their constraint is that they have two roads on
25 either side of their house and they want to try to
put a normal -- anyone normally could have a
17
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 building. Certainly they are allowed up to 750
square feet with the new accessory code that we
3 have . I 'm sure that applies to M2 just like
anybody else .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : There ' s a letter
clarifying that in our file .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' ll try to mitigate
things . Certainly the having access to two roads
6 on one piece of property is something we can
certainly restrict and that we should restrict .
7 The privet hedges, they ' re nice but boy, they can
grow pretty high too . But people can have those .
8 Six foot fence is probably better because at least
you know it can ' t go to seven . But people can
9 have privet hedges . There ' s no law that says they
can ' t . I have a lady who has a privet hedge
10 behind me and I cut it because I want my height
and she has no objection to that . But you ' d have
11 to get their permission to do that . Beyond that,
we can ' t go any further . Ruth, do you have
12 anything else to say?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I ' d like to ask Ms .
13 Doty one question . Why has the garage been
placed --
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on . You want to ask
Ms . Doty a question?
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can we just wait till
16 everybody has their say?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well I think it might
17 answer their question . Is there any reason that
the garage cannot be moved closer to the house?
18 MS . DOTY : Closer to the house? I think
that would impinge upon views more than where it ' s
19 located in terms of views from the neighboring
subdivision . I would suggest that .
20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just to build upon
21 that before .we hear other things . All of you
should be aware of the fact that every time we
22 have an application, we all visit and inspect the
site . In doing that, I not only approached from
23 Three Waters but I drove around to the neighboring
subdivision and drove down to the beach and past
24 your house and stood there and looked at it from
all angles . That ' s part of our responsibility is
25 to look at potential impact . So when you ' re
describing your experiences , I would venture to
18
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 say all of us have done our homework and are able
to understand what you ' re talking about because
3 we ' ve seen what kind of bramble and trees are
there and how close things are and where access
4 comes from and where circulation goes . So that is
part of our job and we ' ve done that . So we can
5 understand what you ' re talking about .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It certainly -- a view
6 over somebody elses property is not under the view
of this Board either . Just to make that clear .
7 So Ruth, you got the answer to your question?
Does anybody else want to come up? Come up . Just
8 stand to the microphone, please . Just state your
name and address .
9 MS . CASEY : My name is Lisa Casey. I ' m the
owner of 1370 Lathan Lane which is four lots east
10 of the Hayward property. I 'm also the president
of the Lands End property owners association. At
11 this juncture, I have a question. My neighbor has
talked about the other neighbor stuff and I
12 respect your limitations around that type of
issue . If you grant this variance and you put in
13 the language of no access to us which is , for the
rest of us here, absent Ivanka, is of concern, and
14 you have something about vegetation or a hedge,
what is the mechanism to make sure that that
15 happens?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You are the mechanism.
16 Home Owners Association or anybody that would be
hurt by that would go to the building inspector,
17 file a complaint and ensure that that right that
you ' ve been granted which is not to have them have
18 -- I should say restrictions that they have upon
their property is enforced.
19 MS . CASEY : Okay. And the fact that it ' s a
Town access point is not material to that
20 complaint?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' m not a lawyer . You
21 can probably ask Kieran . I can tell you that our
restrictions are enforced by the code inspectors ,
22 our building inspectors . So beyond that, the way
that it happens is someone complains .
23 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Are you trying to
say that somebody should not be allowed to access
24 their own property from a Town road?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No . Two separate
25 developments here, Kieran . One is Lands End. The
other one is Orient by the Sea . This house
19
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 straddles , not straddles that property but their
property line, they are in Orient by the Sea .
3 Lands End is another road that goes on either side
of this house . They have two streets on either
4 side of this property. And their access mainly
is , the main access is from -- what ' s the name of
5 the road Three Waters Road. However, there ' s
nothing really to stop them from going onto Lands
6 End Road.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : No . Quite the
7 opposite . They have a pretty unfettered right to
use both if they ' re both town or public highways .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Right, as a condition to
granting a variance, we can restrict them to
9 access to that road. They want the building, we
can add that restriction .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Restrict the driveway,
not the use of the road.
11 MS . CASEY : No, it ' s the access to --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But access means the
12 driveway.
MS . CASEY : Correct . We do not want a
13 driveway into Lands End Road.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That can be in the
14 condition .
MS . CASEY : My question is because I
15 understand I spend a lot of time with the code
preparing for this meeting and I do understand
16 that technically a property can have access to two
different town roads .
17 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : It ' s not even so
much a code issue . It ' s a State Law issue . It ' s
18 a public issue .
MS . CASEY : That was the reason for my
19 question to the Chairman about how would this get
written such that --
20 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : They can
definitely restrict that there shouldn ' t be a
21 driveway from this new structure to the road. I
think it might be overreaching to say that the
22 person should not be able to access their property
from this road. You know maybe the new structure .
23 But I don ' t know about saying that they are not
allowed to reach their house from this road. It ' s
24 public highway.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No driveway .
25 MS . CASEY : No vehicular access .
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : They may be able
20
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 to drive to another part of the property from --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I don ' t see any reason
3 why they can ' t park on Lands End and go in .
MS . CASEY : That ' s not our point .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s a driveway.
MS . CASEY : Driveway .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: They ' d prefer to have the
people enter where they ' ve been entering and not
6 have the additional traffic coming in to feed the
barn, the new structure . That ' s all I mean . I 'm
7 assuming it wasn ' t --
MS . CASEY : It ' s been unclear in
8 conversations with --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One thing that you
9 should all know is after we deliberate, they ' ll be
draft finding that I 'm assigned to write in this
10 particular case that we will be talking about and
agreeing on or modifying changing, disagreeing on,
11 discussing, two weeks from today at 5 o ' clock in
the evening in the conference room of the annex
12 upstairs right above the bank. That finding, once
determined, will be available through the Zoning
13 Board office . So all of you can get copies of
directly how it was written and then you can make
14 sure that you ' re informed about follow-up on
conforming with the requirements and any variance
15 granted. Just so you know that you have public
access to that information .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly, at that point ,
you ' re next step is not to come back to us but
17 rather file --
MS . CASEY : To the next .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But my -- I just want to
clarify my sense of the restriction would be that
19 there would no access by automobile . But beyond
that I don ' t see -- unless you have them build a
20 six foot stone wall and don ' t let them knock any
holes in it . I don ' t know how you can do the rest
21 of it .
MS . CASEY : Vehicular is what we were .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly, again, I can
tell you that while that is a good restriction,
23 you know I see both of those roads as being part
of their hardship . Their lot does have a unique
24 sense to it that it has two roads on either side
of it . They are very constrained as to where they
25 can put buildings on this piece of property . I ' d
like to see it built maybe closer to the house . I
21
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 think we ' re probably going to address that as we
go along here .
3 MS . CASEY : Thank you for your time . I
don ' t think any of my colleagues -- thank you
4 very much .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you . Okay,
5 Deborah .
MS . DOTY : I guess I want to start with
6 saying or stop with saying -- I 'm not sure which
-- that we began early on in this hearing saying
7 that we never intended there to be any access from
Lands End Road for the van or for a car or
8 whatever and my clients continue to say that and
will accept a restriction . As far as vehicular
9 traffic is concerned, I would propose that a
bicycle be permitted if they want to go that way.
10 The other thing to remember is the size of an
ordinary garage is 24 by 24 . The only reason this
11 is a little deeper is because of the workshop . We
have proposed screening and we will willingly put
12 in screening . Mr . Dinizio, you mentioned that we
could build a lot larger structure on this
13 property. The code coverage is 30 percent which,
if I calculated right is an excess of 19 , 000
14 square feet . We ' re not doing that . We ' re not
even coming close to that . And we do have a
15 compelling reason for this large garage . It ' s
because we need to park this large vehicle for a
16 handicapped child. One of the many reasons we
can ' t use the existing garage is you all know
17 waterfront , you know humidity and you know the
extent of humidity the closer you get to the water
18 and this van has a lot of metal parts in it that
rust and corrode . I live on the water and I can
19 tell the difference in humidity between one side
of my house and the other . It ' s dramatic and I
20 would suggest that parking this rather expensive
vehicle in an area where things are going to rust
21 is not a good idea . So it ' s important to get it
away from the water and that ' s another reason to
22 put it back in the back location where we proposed
it . Where it ' s least likely to impact the
23 neighbors . I believe the closest neighbor is , if
I scaled it right today, more than a hundred feet
24 away from the house . So I would request that you
grant the application as applied for and if you
25 have any additional questions, I ' ll stay up here .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just have one . I mean
22
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 if you ' re just saying that climate has something
to do with the reason why you need to park this
3 van.
MS . DOTY : I 'm saying that ' s another reason .
4 I didn ' t say that was the only reason .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can we just discuss why
5 you cant move it closer? I heard that it would
block other people ' s views if you moved it . I
6 heard you say that . I also know that the view is
not really something that we can control . And I
7 mean I catch myself wondering why, if you have a
need for a van for a handicapped person, why you
8 would park it some two hundred feet away from the
place where that person has to go to live . Maybe
9 you can answer that question .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You drive the van to
10 the house .
MS . DOTY : You drive the van to the house .
11 There ' s going to be a ramp . A better ramp . If
you ' ve. seen the ramp there now, it ' s not
12 particularly adequate . There ' d be a better ramp .
It gets it away from the house . It provides a
13 detached area rather than making a larger
structure by the water either wider or deeper
14 because we can ' t put it in our real backyard which
is waterfront and we ' re putting it back in a
15 currently unused portion of the property and we ' ve
done a lot of very nice landscaping in that
16 property and I imagine they ' re going to continue
to landscape accordingly when they put the
17 detached garage in . I think it ' s just a matter of
the logical location rather than plopping it in
18 the middle of the yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And attaching it to the
19 house is not --
MS . DOTY : That would make a larger more
20 imposing structure I would suggest . Ms . Weisman
can talk about --
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : She can ' t testify to
that . I ' m asking you .
22 MS . DOTY : It would enlarge the street
scape . It would probably make it more massive as
23 a structure . I think it ' s a nice building right
now personally. That ' s not a legal opinion .
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But it could be done
without the need of a variance?
25 MS . DOTY : No, because we can ' t go to the
side .
23
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The whole yard is
a side yard from the house back.
3 MS . DOTY : We have two front yards .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And a side yard
4 on the other side .
MS . DOTY : When you really come right down
5 to it, the issue here is ten feet .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Listen, I ' m trying to
6 create a record here . I know there are questions
in people ' s minds and they need to be asked . I
7 prefer not to assume anything. I prefer to have
you testify to that .
8 MS . DOTY : The issue is basically ten feet
too close to Lands End and we ' re proposing to put
9 it there because we feel that it ' s the correct
location for it in order to provide the turnaround
10 for the large vehicle . You get too much closer to
the road, then you ' re going to get a lot of
11 driveway by the road and we ' re trying not to do
that . What I would call the backyard which is the
12 property adjoining the house on Three Waters is 25
feet . So we just have that one setback on the
13 Lands End side which is 25 feet instead 35 feet .
May I consult with my client for a second?
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes , go ahead.
(All Members talking at once off the
15 record. )
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : They can locate this
16 garage in that location because it ' s waterfront
but they can ' t build it so close to, I believe,
17 it ' s the house on Orient by the Sea . That is the
nature of this application.
18 MS . DOTY : No . That would be the rear yard
and that ' s 25 feet . Your front yards are on Lands
19 End and Three Water and that ' s 25 feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : To build it in the side
20 yard, they don ' t have to conform to a front yard
setback.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Then the Notice of
Disapproval is wrong . Because it says side yard.
22 It says proposed accessory garage and is noted as
being located in the side yard.
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No . In a yard other
than the code-required rear yard.
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The Notice of
Disapproval . That ' s what you have to base it on .
25 That ' s what I ' ve been basing it on this entire
time .
24
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 MS . DOTY : The issue is to the extent we
abut a parcel to the south of us . That I believe
3 because we have two front yards, is the rear yard.
We meet that setback of 25 feet .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes .
MS . DOTY : We meet the front yard setback on
5 Three Waters of 35 feet .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think you ' re wrong,
6 Deborah . I think that when you have a waterfront
piece of property, you can build that structure on
7 the street side based on the dimensions of the
setback of the principle structure .
8 MS . DOTY : That ' s correct .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, that is still a
9 front yard.
(All Members talking at once . )
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s a front yard,
that ' s a front yard and that ' s a side yard. So
11 you have a front yard, a front yard and a side
yard.
12 MS . DOTY : In the case of waterfront -- I 'm
quoting 280-15F . In the case of waterfront parcel
13 accessory buildings and structures may be located
in the front yard provided that such building and
14 structures meet the front yard principle setback
requirement as set forth by this code and the side
15 yard setback requirements for accessory structures
in Section B . You go to Section B, it ' s 25 feet .
16 Then you go to the bulk schedule and the front
yard is 35 feet . We ' re talking about ten feet .
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It ' s not insignificant .
MS . DOTY : On one side .
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just on the Lands End
side .
19 MS . DOTY : And the reason for that ten feet
-- it ' s not just because we want it -- it ' s
20 because you need the space to back out . That ' s
one reason why handicapped parking spaces are
21 larger then other spaces . You need the space to
move this vehicle . And yes , we could move it ten
22 feet but then you got the turnaround spot right by
Three Waters Road which, frankly, doesn ' t
23 aesthetically make sense to me .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What is that distance?
24 MS . DOTY : What distance?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : From Three Waters Road to
25 the front of this garage?
MS . DOTY : It ' s 68 feet , It ' s 35 feet from
25
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 the turnaround.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s 68 feet from
3 Three Waters and 25 from Lands End .
MS . DOTY : If you look at it as Three Waters
4 being our front yard, and Lands End being a
backyard or a side yard, we meet our requirements .
5 In other words, we have 25 feet from each .
Perhaps we can move it five feet closer to Three
6 Waters if the Board requests . I don ' t see this as
a huge looming structure that ' s going to affect a
7 lot of views or anything like that . It ' s a
structure that ' s needed to house a garage -- I
8 mean to house a car, a van . And as you know, we
could put it almost any place on the property if
9 we didn ' t want to put it in this corner which is
the level part of the ground. That ' s another
10 reason to put it there . It ' s flat there .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Honestly, Deborah, I
11 really don ' t see the need for a variance . There ' s
plenty of places where you could put it if, I
12 think the turnaround is not really an issue . I
mean, I drive vans all the time . I know that they
13 have to be a little bit bigger and I know that
even the driver has to have something to do with
14 that . But that could be mitigated in other ways ,
many other ways . By turning the door the other
15 way so it goes between the house and the garage
and pulling in that way. There ' s plenty of other
16 ways for you to finagle that around so that you ' re
not asking us for a variance which is the crux of
17 this whole -- why we ' re here .
MS . DOTY : It ' s ten feet .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You felt it important
enough to come because you felt you needed that
19 ten feet .
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : I think they need
20 a variance because of the side yard issue because
of the way the roads are aligned. Is there
21 anywhere on the, I don ' t know if it ' s north or
south here, the bottom side of that house, south
22 side of that house, they ' re going to be in a side
yard . So they need a variance no matter where
23 they put the structure on that side of the house,
I think .
24 MS . DOTY : And I would suggest --
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Even if they ' re
25 right up next to the house, they ' d still need a
variance because it ' s still in a side yard.
26
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, if they attach it
to the house --
3 . ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Well, that would
be different, correct .
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All right .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I think I ' ve got it .
5 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : That ' s probably
why the Building Inspector didn ' t give a setback
6 because there ' s no setback since it ' s not supposed
to be in the side yard but they don ' t really have
7 any choice here because they have a road on either
side of their house .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Which is how I looked at
it . It wasn ' t Lands End I was looking at . I was
9 looking at the house next door . That ' s what I was
looking at .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s a 25 foot side
yard setback .
11 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : No, because
you ' re not supposed to have an accessory structure
12 in the side yard, so there ' s no setback for that
structure . So you guys have to decide where it
13 should be .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Another way of putting
14 it is, if the variance application is to put it
into the side yard, it doesn ' t say a variance to
15 put it in the side yard and obey the front yard
setback. So it ' s subject to the side yard setback
16 if we give permission.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : There ' s a
17 difference between side yard setback meaning the
setback you have to have from your side lot line
18 of your principle structure and having an
accessory structure in a side yard. Those are two
19 separate things . When we say side yard, we ' re
confusing them here .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly the Building
Inspector is the person that determines that .
21 Quite honestly.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : You need a
22 variance to put it anywhere on that side of the
house .
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I agree with you .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s why the notice
24 was written that way.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And certainly the setback
25 that the applicant is offering certainly really
hasn ' t got much bearing on this either . We ' d be
27
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 talking about two or three hundred percent
variances if we put it that way . So I don ' t think
3 that that ' s relevant . Deborah, do you have
anything else?
4 MS . DOTY : No . I just request that you
grant the application as applied for . And once
5 again, we ' ll put in screening. We intend to put
in screening . We ' ve done a lot of landscaping .
6 We ' re not going to leave it un landscaped and
unscreened. And we have no intention and do not
7 wish the Board to give us permission to use Lands
End Road for vehicles . We don ' t want to do it .
8 Thank you .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else have
9 anything to contribute to this application?
Board Members? Okay. Hearing none, I ' ll
10 entertain a motion to close this hearing .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor .
12 (See minutes for resolution . )
13 Hearing #6075 - O ' Brien
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay, the next one, Ruth,
14 is yours . Robert O ' Brien .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
15 "Request for a Variance under Section
280-116, based on the Building Inspector ' s August
16 7 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
additions and alterations to the existing
17 single-family dwelling, for the reason that the
new construction will be less than 75 feet from
18 the existing bulkhead adjacent to Gardiner ' s Bay,
at 1955 Truman ' s Path, East Marion; CTM 31-13-2 . "
19 Is there someone here to represent? My
understanding of your problem is that due to the
20 angle of your house, the placement of it for the
winds that are coming in off the water, the house
21 has always been 28 feet from the bulkhead and you
need to do some work on the roof line and then
22 doing that making some extensions so you don ' t
have the leakage that you have today. Is that
23 correct?
MR. O ' BRIEN : That ' s my problem since I
24 bought the house 15 years ago . Bob O ' Brien, 1955
Truman ' s Path, East Marion. Yes . That ' s been a
25 problem since I bought the house because the
previous owner allowed the original roof to stand
28
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 under the new roof . So there ' s like three roofs
that intersect and to. determine where the leakage
3 is, is almost impossible at this point . It just
travels in all different directions . It doesn ' t
4 always leak. It leaks when the wind comes from a
certain direction . Many times I thought I had it
5 fixed and a month later it would show up again .
Right now we have pans in the middle of the living
6 room floor . I like the craftsman style of the
sloping roof, I really do, but it ' s just
7 impractical on the water .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Not working . So you
8 really just -- that ' s all you ' re asking for . And
your making a renovation to make a master
9 bedroom/bath .
MR. O ' BRIEN : Right because we only have
10 small baths in the house and the bath would go
back -- it would be outside the 75 foot setback to
11 begin with . And basically all we ' re doing is
increasing 12 feet above the living room. That ' s
12 the whole alteration and squaring up the second
floor .
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And, as I said, you ' re
28 feet from the bulkhead and it ' s always been 28
14 feet .
MR. O ' BRIEN : To the porch .
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: There ' s no way that you
can move the whole thing back without destroying
16 the whole house .
MR. O ' BRIEN : Well, yeah . My cesspool is
17 right in the back of the house also . Plus I would
have to take down trees which I don ' t want to do .
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You ' re well wooded back
there .
19 MR. O ' BRIEN : I want to keep it rustic .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I don ' t have any
20 further questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie?
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It would appear that
you ' re proposing to add a roof deck over your
22 porch?
MR. O ' BRIEN : That ' s correct .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : In what structural
condition is that porch? Will you need to do any
24 rebuilding of it to bear the weight of that?
MR. O ' BRIEN : What ' s happened in the interim
25 is that they had the supports underneath the 4x4
columns and due to the salt air, they are
29
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 deteriorating . So I have to replace three of the
columns . I 'm going to put steel columns with
3 stainless steel bases .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s what I thought .
4 By looking at it, it would appear, especially if
you ' re going to have some weight bearing on the
5 porch.
MR. O ' BRIEN : I ' m more worried about uplift
6 right now . If we get a hurricane, it may be gone .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just wanted for the
7 record to understand that you ' re not changing the
footprint of the building but you will have to do
8 some renovation of the existing porch to
accommodate .
9 MR. O ' BRIEN : That would need to be done
anyway .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But you ' re proposing
to add a little deck on that?
11 MR. O ' BRIEN : That ' s correct .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Michael?
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes . I understand
footprint is staying the same because the -- but
13 there is an issue that I think needs to be
considered . The 28 foot setback and that is
14 because of the arm of the -- consisting of the
porch at the moment; that reaches out closer to
15 the bulkhead than any other part of the house .
MR. O ' BRIEN : That one corner point, that ' s
16 correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That whole side of the
17 porch is, right?
MR. O ' BRIEN : No, it ' s on skue to the
18 bulkhead so the closest point is 28 feet .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But it ' s still
19 nonconforming . So the question would be how much
-- this is a weight bearing question . If you had
20 this porch which was sort of all by itself and you
wanted to build a full two-story addition, you
21 wanted to turn that into a two-story addition .
MR. O ' BRIEN : I originally proposed that to
22 the trustees and that was granted based on doing
that and then I decided to pull it back .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Aside from the Trustees,
the question would be about the affect, since it
24 would essentially be part of our jurisdiction, of
additional weight on that nonconforming piece of
25 land and I think it probably makes a difference
that it is just a deck rather than a full
30
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 addition . We ' re not concerned with the particular
Trustees reasoning but when we are granting this ,
3 this is under the general Walz interpretation and
we take lots of things into consideration because
4 what are the overall affects of increasing the
vertical nonconformity at that time . And if your
5 argument is that because it ' s already a porch and
because what ' s being built above it is only a
6 deck, then it ' s a relatively minor addition to the
weight . Is that what --
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, you should
clarifiy that .
8 MR. O ' BRIEN : Again, I dropped back from
putting a full addition over the deck and decided
9 just to put a --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : For that reason?
10 MR. O ' BRIEN : For that reason .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Okay.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So the deck is a part of
that house; 14 feet?
12 Mr . O ' BRIEN : Twenty-eight feet .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I know it ' s 28 feet away
13 from the bulkhead but you ' re going in not more
than 28 feet . At what point do you start your
14 addition?
MR. O ' BRIEN : At 40 feet .
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So that deck --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s between 48 and 28 .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So you ' re welcome to
maintain that anyway you need to maintain it .
17 Michael, do you have anything else?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I looked at your
application as you ' re not increasing anything
19 except you want to add something to the top that ' s
going to help you with the roof . That ' s your
20 major hardship .
MR. O ' BRIEN : I want to keep it to scale . I
21 don ' t really want a big, big house . I just want
to keep it to scale . We ' re going to retire there
22 and we need a little more room too .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. Anybody in the
23 audience? You have anything else to add, sir?
MR. O ' BRIEN : First, I would like to thank
24 you for hearing so quickly . When would I get a
decision on this?
25 CHAERMAN DINIZIO : Two weeks from today .
MR. O ' BRIEN : If it ' s favorable, I have to
31
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 order windows for the house which has a lead time
of four to six weeks and I can ' t do that until I
3 have the final decision .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We have to see if anybody
4 in the audience has any objections and then we
have the hearing . Normally, we make our decisions
5 then and we ' ll just have to see . I can ' t tell you
yes or no now .
6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : He has an
emergency with the weather and everything, right?
7 MR. O ' BRIEN : We ' ll get more pots and pans .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And hope it doesn ' t
8 rain too often .
MR. O ' BRIEN : It rained pretty good the
9 other day.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, I just need to ask
10 you, we ' ll need for the record, the porch, how
wide that is?
11 MR. O ' BRIEN : The porch is 16 feet wide .
It ' s a little narrower than the living room.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So it ' s 12x16?
MR. O ' BRIEN : Yes, approximately .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And the deck size
will be the same?
14 MR. O ' BRIEN : It ' s going to be the same,
yes .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s really the
roof and the porch? Okay .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion .
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on . Anybody in the
audience? No . Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a
18 motion by Ruth. Seconded by?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I ' ll second.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael . All those in
favor?
20 (See minutes for resolution . )
21 Hearing #6072 - Hassildine
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for
22 Scott and Sara Hassildine . I have to read this .
"Request for Variances under Section
23 280-124 , based on the Building Inspector ' s July
19, 2007 Notice of Disapproval, which states that
24 the proposed construction (after substantial
demolition of the existing building) , with
25 additions and alterations , for a new single-family
dwelling, with less than 10 feet on a single side
32
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 yard and less than 25 feet total side yards .
Location of Property: 2775 West Creek Avenue,
3 Cutchogue; CTM 110-5-4 . "
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Does anybody wish
4 to testify?
MS . WICKHAM: Good morning .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The existing front yard
setback currently is 5 . 6 northwest side and 4 . 5 on
6 the southeast side; is that correct?
MS . WICKHAM: 5 . 6 on the south side and 4 . 5
7 on the north side . My name is Abigail Wickham
representing the Hassildines .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, you have a previous
variance in 1972 which was granted for the side
9 yard setback, are you aware of that?
MS . WICKHAM : Yes, on the south side, I
10 believe I submitted that . That side is not
changing nor is the height of that structure on
11 that side .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now that is the 4 . 5 side?
12 MS . WICKHAM: No, that ' s the 5 . 6 side where
the one-story portion of the building now exists
13 and that will remain one-story. The Hassildine ' s
are here . They really have the numbers down cold .
14 If I could just give you a quick overview . There
existing home consists of a total of 1, 105 square
15 feet, one story . What they are proposing is a new
structure partially having a second story with a
16 total footprint of 1, 585 square feet . However,
the side yard on the north which is now 4 . 5 feet
17 will be increased to --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : 7 . 5 .
18 MS . WICKHAM: 7 . 5 feet . So while they are
increasing -- and that 7 . 5 feet will, at that 7 . 5
19 foot mark, there will be not a full two-story
structure but a one-story open porch for an
20 additional 6 feet . So the actual two-story home
will not start until 13 . 5 feet from the side yard.
21 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I ' m trying to
write the numbers , check the numbers on the map .
22 Off only by a couple of inches . You have 7 . 8 on
the survey --
23 MS . WICKHAM: Mine says 7 . 5 on the master --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I have it right
24 here, Linda .
MS . WICKHAM: Yes . 7 . 5 there
25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And 4 . 6 for the
new st-ep area .
33
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 MS . WICKHAM: Yes . The steps are not
included in that .
3 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : They are not
included?
4 MS . WICKHAM: I 'm sorry, I just pulled the
wrong one in front of me . Yes, those numbers are
5 correct, 7 . 8 plus 6 feet from the porch would be
4 . 6 for the steps, 7 . 8 for the porch, 13 . 8 , I
6 guess, for the house .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: 13 . 6 .
7 MS . WICKHAM: Okay. Thank you . And the
total size of the house with the second story will
8 be about 2500 square feet . So it ' s not a large
house . It ' s not a situation where they are taking
9 a small lot and building a mega-mansion . But they
are building a house that is modest in total size
10 and fits their needs as a family. One thing the
application did not mention is that this property
11 is directly across the street from a marina zoned
property so they do have those traffic and noise
12 and other issues to deal with as part of their
residential area . If the Board has any other
13 specific questions , I ' d be glad to try and address
them.
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : This is a modular home?
MS . WICKHAM : It will be a modular home,
15 yes . They investigated Stick Build (phonetic) and
this was the only way that they could afford to --
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So it ' s less expensive to
build that . What is the standard size for modular
17 homes, do you have any idea?
MS . WICKHAM : That ' s in the application .
18 It ' s 26 feet wide .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So what is that, two
19 sections, two 13 foot sections, I guess .
MS . WICKHAM : Yes .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: The length, is that also
determined?
21 MS . WICKHAM: Why don ' t you up here . Mr .
Hassildine has been through this in excruciating
22 detail . He can give you the details .
MR. HASSILDINE : Scott Hassildine, 2775 West
23 Creek Avenue . The standard for a modular home is
26 feet wide for two boxes . So what we ' re
24 proposing is four boxes which would be a two-story
structure and the depth, I guess in this case, can
25 basically be whatever you want because it is a
custom structure .
34
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So I mean, the 36 feet ,
is is that a standard?
3 MR. HASSILINE : That ' s what we could fit on
the lot so we didn ' t have problems with the rear
4 setback.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Could you go less , more?
5 I know it ' s a modular and I know it ' s going to be
built somewhere and --
6 MR. HASSILDINE : If it was less, we wouldn ' t
have enough room upstairs for the bathroom and for
7 the laundry room upstairs . Unfortunately, I can ' t
carry laundry up and down the stairs anymore after
8 three back surgeries so that ' s one of the things
we were trying to do is get a laundry room
9 upstairs .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now the setback is at
10 5 . 6, the south side . That setback is created by
your existing home .
11 MR. HASSILDINE : Correct .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : How does that remain the
12 same when you ' re getting four boxes and stacking
them on top?
13 MR. HASSILDINE : Because that part of the
structure will not be demoed . That ' s actually the
14 newest part of the structure . I don ' t know when
it was built , but it is the newest part of the
15 existing structure .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It was granted a
16 variance .
MR. HASSILDINE : Correct . So the foundation
17 on that an everything else is structurally sound
which is the reason why we did not want to remove
18 it . There would be environmental impacts and
things of that sort so what we wanted to do is
19 just remove the structure that was in need of
being removed and replace it with a new home .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What will that be? That
piece that ' s existing and is going to remain, what
21 will that be?
MR. HASSILDINE : That will be a spare
22 bedroom, most likely an office for myself and my
wife and then downstairs is an existing entrance
23 to that structure so we ' ll have another fire
escape, if you will .
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No garage?
MR. HASSILDINE : There ' s a garage .
25 Partially exterior and underneath the house so the
garage will basically be half under the house and
35
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 half outside .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Attached to the house?
3 MS . WICKHAM: Yes , part of the house .
MR. HASSILDINE : Yes , absolutely, correct .
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Anybody else have
any questions?
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just want to
clarify. That ' s a question I had, the garage and
6 the foundation will remain?
MS . WICKHAM: Yes .
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And you ' re going to
essentially do. a demo from the first living floor?
8 MS . WICKHAM: Are you going to rebuild the
foundation?
9 MR. HASSILDINE : The foundation will remain
under the section of the house that ' s there . We
10 cannot add a new foundation without removing the
side walls of the existing garage . So at the end
11 of the demolition, there will be a small box,
which is the part that says section to remain,
12 that will be the structure and the foundation an
that was it .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What I 'm asking is ,
the existing garage and the foundation, well
14 there ' s no foundation actually on the garage part .
It ' s just a grade . And your house is currently
15 built above that garage . That whole thing is
removed. Are you building a foundation where the
16 garage was in order to support the new modular?
MR. HASSILDINE : That will be the new,
17 essentially the way it is here .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you ' re recreating,
18 rebuilding in place and in kind the garage that ' s
there now as the foundation or the bearing walls
19 basically for the upper portion to the new
modular .
20 MR. HASSILDINE : Yes ma ' am.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : While you ' re there, I
21 want to compliment the two of you for the
incredible detailed staking and signage on this
22 site . I resonate with this homework. It was just
a pleasure because everything was so clearly
23 labeled . It was very easy to understand.
Property boundaries , where new additions were
24 proposed, where things were to remain and if
everyone was as conscientious as you, we ' d be able
25 to do our site inspections in a much more careful
way.
36
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think we should
require everyone to do what they did. I love
3 those little signs . They were great .
BOARD MEMBER WESSMAN : Compulsive/obsessive,
4 are we?
MR. HASSILDINE : A little .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I so appreciated
that .
6 MR. HASSILIDNE : Thank you very much .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Aside from the
perspicuity of the presentation of the house,
8 which I also admire, I think it ' s a rather
efficient plan to deal with an attractively placed
9 overly modest house and turn into one less modest
but appropriate . It looks pretty good so far .
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just I know it ' s a
11 difficult lot and I think you ' ve done a great job
and I want to reiterate what Leslie said, if
12 everybody marked these out the way you did, we ' d
have a much easier time . Thank you .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I got the sense that you
wanted to start building . Anybody in the audience
14 who would like to make any comments on this
application? Sir?
15 MR. HUNTINGTON : Ray Huntingon, President of
the Fleet ' s Neck Property Owner ' s Association . I
16 just want to comment that the Hassildine ' s have
done a very good job of dealing with a difficult
17 site and we can only give them praise for what
they ' re doing .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. Okay.
Anybody else wish to comment on this? Hearing
19 none, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this
hearing .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made by Leslie,
seconded by Ruth . All those in favor .
22 (See minutes for resolution . )
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to break for
five minutes .
24 So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second .
25 (Whereupon, a short recess was held . )
(Back on the record. )
37
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 **************************************
Hearing #6069 - Scripps
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next application is
for Robert K . Scripps . Michael, that ' s yours .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s mine, right .
"Request for Variances under Sections
5 280-166B, 280-122A and 280-124 , based on the
Building Inspector ' s July 19, 2007 Notice of
6 Disapproval concerning proposed addition (s) and
alterations to the existing single-family dwelling
7 which will increase the degree of nonconformance
under Zoning Code Interpretation #5039 when
8 located less than 15 feet on a single side yard,
less than 35 feet for combined side yard setbacks .
9 Also proposed is an addition at less than 75 feet
from the existing bulkhead. Location of Property :
10 2745 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue; CTM 104-3-6 . " The
question has to do with the addition which will
11 have only 65 feet from the edge of the bulkhead
and, therefore, a variance for the 75 foot code
12 requirement is being sought .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, do you have any
13 questions?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would like to hear
14 the presentation from the representative first .
MR. WEBER: Sure . I 'm Fred Weber, 41 East
15 Maple Road, Greenlawn, New York . I represent Mr .
Scripps who is actually here as well . I ' d first
16 like to address the bulkhead issue . I have a
couple of pictures here of the bulkhead with three
17 copies . The bulkhead is actually a concrete wall
wall and as it passes this corner right here
18 ( indicating) , the bulkhead is almost in ground . I
have an x at that corner shown on that picture
19 with a little red mark. So the ten foot length of
the bulkhead that runs parallel to the property
20 line running to the base to the west , the majority
of that bulkhead is actually in the ground and
21 visible above the surface, probably 6 or 8 inches .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And well vegetated, I
22 might add .
MR. WEBER: So that ' s the issue as far as
23 the bulkhead. I had a discussion with the
Building Department . They said because the
24 bulkhead is shown like this, we needed to include
that as a variance . But to a large extent, it is
25 underground.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : If the bulkhead were
38
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 flush with the ground, because there ' s not really
a bulkhead, it ' s only a little tiny bit of
3 bulkhead, then there would be no variance required
for that particular aspect of the property?
4 MR. WEBER: That 's my understanding, yes .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So it ' s only those two
5 inches that are triggering this?
MR. WEBER: And the second issue is the
6 dimensional variances . The lot itself is in an
R-40 district which requires a 150 foot lot width .
7 The lot itself is only 90 feet so it ' s a
nonconforming lot as far as a lot width . And the
8 nonconforming lot section of the code doesn ' t give
any relief for side yards so they still maintain a
9 15 foot minimum side yard for one and a 35 foot
side yard combined for both . What they would like
10 to do is to add to a bedroom space that ' s on the
south side of the property and extend out in the
11 line of the existing house not coming any closer
and that part of that addition is only a
12 one-story. It ' s setback so it doesn ' t affect any
second story portions . On the other side, they
13 want to and an addition that would include kind of
a den area that could be set off . The living area
14 of the house is all open to one and fairly tight .
You come right in the entrance and you ' re in the
15 living room. The furniture is all tight . So
they wanted to add a separate living area and a
16 bedroom up above with a combined width of that , we
fall , I think one foot short of the total combined
17 setback. When we get all done, I think the lot
coverage is 9 . 9 feet . It ' s allowed to be 20 .
18 We ' re not trying to overpower the site and we ' re
trying to keep the house more or less in keeping
19 with what ' s there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You meant 9 . 90?
20 MR. WEBER: Percent . What did I say?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Feet .
21 MR. WEBER: I 'm sorry . Yes , 9 . 90 . And we
do, as far as the bulkhead situation, we actually
22 do have already Trustee approval for that . I
don ' t know if you want a copy of that . Is that of
23 value for you to have?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No .
24 MR. WEBER: We do have the Trustee approval
as well for that setback.
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Michael, you have
anything? You have anything more to add, sir?
39
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Just the side setback
on, I guess it ' s the east side is only a
3 continuation of the already existing setback of
that side .
4 MR. WEBER: Correct .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s not decreasing the
5 setback overall .
MR. WEBER: No . It ' s not decreasing at all .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I have no further
questions .
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No just to say it ' s a
8 lovely piece of property and I think you ' re doing
a very nice job . The bulkhead is a non issue
9 because of the vegetation around it . I don ' t see
any problem at all . Thank you .
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes, just to
11 reiterate what a beautiful spot you have there .
It ' s quite something really. It would appear from
12 this construction there ' d be no additional land
disturbance anyway because it ' s all kind of to the
13 side and landward of the closest point to the
water .
14 MR. WEBER: There ' s a hay bail requirement
that ' s going to be addressed as well .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Sure . It ' s a quite
clear presentation of what you ' re proposing . No
16 further questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I have no questions .
17 Anybody in the audience would like to make a
comment on this application?
18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes , I would.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : State your name and your
19 address, please .
MR. DOMINICO: Robert P . Dominico, 2655 Pine
20 Tree . I live next door to the Scripps and for
lack of a better term, I probably would be the
21 most affected by this addition . I ' d like to speak
in two turns , one for myself and my family, and
22 that is we approve of this completely. It ' s a
very thorough job and sensitive to issues that
23 you ' re all sensitive to . Secondarily, informally,
I 'm a very neighborly guy . I chat with lots of
24 folks and we all live around and everyone I spoke
to, there wasn ' t one word of dissent that I heard
25 from anybody. So I just want to add those
comments that we ' re very much in favor of folks
40
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 that want to improve property and stay within the
code . Thank you .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you . Anybody else
wish to make a comment on this application? Sir,
4 do you have anything else to add?
MR. WEBER: No, that ' s it . Thank you .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hearing none, I ' ll
entertain a motion to close this hearing until two
6 weeks .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made by Ruth,
8 seconded by Leslie . All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
g
Hearing #6071 - Catania
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for
Joel and Donna Catania . That ' s Ruth ' s .
11 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: That ' s mine .
"Request for a Variance under Section
12 280-124B, based on the Buildi.ng Inspector ' s June
7 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an
13 application for a building permit for an as-built
deck addition to the single-family dwelling, for
14 the reason that the requested construction will
exceed the 20o code limitation, at 760 Oakwood
15 Drive, Southold; CTM 70-12-26 . 2 "
You ' ve got a problem. You are maxed.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, keep it relevant,
okay .
17 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Go head.
MR. McLAUGHLIN : Kevin McLaughlin, I 'm here
18 on behalf of the Catania ' s . The Catania ' s
purchased this property in January of this year
19 at which time they became aware of the fact that
there was no CO for this deck. However, they
20 didn ' t realize the issue of lot coverage at that
time being not attorneys and not really aware of
21 the Southold Town code . So what we ' re doing here
today is trying to rectify a situation that wasn ' t
22 really of their own making. It was thrust upon
them as a basically, take it or leave it
23 proposition on the purchase of what, if you ' ve
gone to visit there, I think is a very beautiful
24 house .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It is .
25 MR. McLAUGHLIN : Very well landscaped. Very
well screened and we ' re here to try to see if we
41
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 can find a way around the problem of the excess
lot coverage . I am only aware of one neighbor
3 having any communication with the Board, the
Goldman ' s who do not make an objection to the
4 issue of the deck and the excess lot coverage .
Their only issue is that there is a swimming pool
5 on the site and they will hear some noise from the
pool motor . I have spoken with my client about
6 that . He tells me that he thinks the motor is
running a little loud and his company is coming to
7 investigate that and hopefully take care of that
issue . Again, the lot is very well screened. The
8 deck is there . When my clients went to the
Building Department to try to again rectify what
9 they knew was a deck without a CO, that ' s when
they became aware of the fact that there was a lot
10 coverage issue that would require a variance and
that ' s why we ' re here today.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I agree with all that
12 you said as far as it ' s a beautiful house, the
deck is gorgeous , the pool, the wonderful
13 landscaping . But we do have a problem with the
lot coverage . Is there any way that the deck
14 could be cut down to say meet maybe a 250 lot
coverage?
15 MR. McLAUGHLIN : I did discuss that with my
client . He has come forward and given to me a
16 proposal to cut down on the size of the deck. My
calculations would show it would be a 35% decrease
17 in the size of the deck from 1 , 155 square feet
down to 752 . My rough calculations would indicate
18 that would be a 270 lot coverage at that point .
What I ' d like is for Mr . Catania, who is here, to
19 come up and explain you how he arrived at that and
I can give you copies of his proposal .
20 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
MR. CATANIA: My name is Joel Catania .
21 First of all, I want to preface this by saying I
live in a hometown and have lived for 50 years in
22 a community very much like Southold that has
strict zoning board regulations , wants to keep
23 their property under certain parameters . I do
respect that . And I have always tried to be abide
24 by the rules in that home and I expect to do the
same things here and hope to do the same things
25 here in Southold. Again, I became aware of this
deck issue late in the process . I believed it to
42
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 be an erection type mistake, the way it was built ,
a structural mistake . I was not aware of the lot
3 coverage issue until it became an after-the-fact
matter . My wife and I looked at some 40 houses
4 and we kept coming back to this house . It is a
very nice house . A low maintenance house . The
5 size of property we wanted. We really loved it
and that ' s why we went for it . Again, now we ' re
6 facing an issue and when I became aware of the lot
coverage being a problem and speaking to Kevin, I
7 examined the deck and I have a proposal which you
have copies of . It ' s color coded to help you .
8 The red outline which is basically a rectangular
area of 15 feet deep by 45 feet long is where I
9 propose to bring back the upper level of the deck.
You ' ve seen the property, the deck is at a level
10 with the house so you walk right out from the
doorway onto the deck as opposed to having to step
11 down three or four steps to a patio which again
was an attraction with the house . We could just
12 walk out . It makes it so much easier that way .
The reason I went 45 feet and I did anything I
13 could to cut it back as much as possible to make
it reasonable and acceptable, hopefully, there are
14 doors near both ends of the deck, there are three
egresses from the house . There ' s that center bay
15 which is the kitchen area to the left side where
the wood steps by the chimney side . There ' s a
16 door from the family room which is almost at the
end of the deck and towards the hot tub side there
17 is another bathroom door which is about a foot and
a half, two feet off of that line there . So
18 that ' s why I felt it necessary, if you will, to
stretch it to that realm, so we could get access
19 from all three egresses to the house onto the
deck. The hot tub which is now set in the deck, I
20 proposed to put it more on a platform. I realize
that is part of the lot coverage but that will be
21 in a platform but the deck will end right where
the hot tub is . So that ' s only about a 49 square
22 foot area plus two feet from the house there . I ' m
cutting back the entire, it had steps all around
23 it . Now, you ' ve seen I ' m cutting back to just
having three areas of steps . I propose a twelve
24 foot wide area in the middle with railings will be
built and two three foot steps on either end of
25 the deck so we can at least get up and down the
deck from the sides , if necessary. That is why I
43
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 have these dimensions . I ' ve done what I felt I
can do to cut it back to make it reasonably usable
3 and hopefully meet some acceptable guidelines that
you can understand the use of the deck. I ' m
4 perfectly willing to do what needs to be done to
get it within an acceptable regulation and
5 hopefully an acceptable variation for you .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Why do you feel that
6 you need three entrances to the deck?
MR. CATANIA: Again, the hot tub would be
7 the logical entrance because as you say, if you ' re
coming up, the hot tub there -- first of all, it
8 can ' t be all surrounded by deck because the excess
lot coverage -- I just thought that would be a
9 logical area to get down, go to my garage and get
down by the pool area . The proposal for the other
10 side by the chimney side again, there ' s a hose
there, there ' s an air-conditioning system there if
11 you want to get out . Frankly, are three
necessary? Perhaps not . Perhaps I can cut one of
12 the side ones back. It doesn ' t seem to make a big
difference because you ' re only talking 3 feet by 3
13 feet , maybe a 9 foot square foot area we ' re
talking about . It ' s a possibility . Certainly the
14 12 foot one in the middle going to the pool . I
consider that kind of important to bring equipment
15 and tables and things up onto the deck. The one
by the hot tub I think is important . The one by
16 the chimney, I just thought it ' s practical to go
down that side if I had to bring something down
17 that side of the house but it certainly could be
eliminated, I think, if necessary.
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I ' d like to hear what
my other Board members think .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, I have to say I
20 really appreciate your effort to redesign this and
to bring it forth at this hearing rather than
21 having us tell you how you can go about making it
smaller . In looking at it myself, I realize the
22 only way that you can mitigate what would a 500
variance, which is really substantial , would be to
23 cut back the steps , perhaps reduce the deck size,
get rid of the shed, which, you know, is probably
24 something you don ' t want to do but that ' s an
option . That ' s part of the lot coverage . I
25 assume you use that for pool equipment and things
like that . I think that frankly you ' ve done a
44
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 very good job in reconsidering how to design this
in a way that really allows you to continue to use
3 the things that you ' ve already got there . I
certainly think it will be a hardship to get rid
4 of your hot tub . It doesn ' t have, because of the
nature of the mature landscaping, in the back and
5 then on either side and the location of the houses
on either side . It really has no visual impact on
6 your neighbors . It ' s simply more a matter of
trying to have the least nonconforming variance as
7 possible . So I guess I need to think about this
but I think this is a very viable proposal .
8 MR. CATANIA: As I said, I 'm trying to bring
it in line with whatever can be acceptable --
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You know, if you
reduced the depth to twelve feet, then you have a
10 really narrow, relative to the length and to the
size of the house, you really have a very poorly
11 proportioned deck. So I can appreciate why
fifteen feet was selected. You can push it and
12 say no, it ' s got to be twelve . Then you ' re
starting to have back up problems with patio
13 furniture, with chairs and things like that . It ' s
a very large elevation and I think you ' ve done,
14 from what I can see a very good job of finding a
balance . It ' s still a large variance that you ' re
15 going to need you calculated it up to 270 .
MR. McLAUGHLIN : Up to 27% percent .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Looks like it ' s
almost less than that but we ' d have to try and
17 calculate it and ourselves as well and see what
the actual numbers are . That ' s all . I don ' t have
18 any other questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael .
19 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : This is not the first
time we ' ve had to deal with an as-built project .
20 MR. CATANIA: I 'm sure .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : One general rule of
21 thumb and you may be an exception to this is that
we are inclined to grant variances for as-built
22 things if we would have been willing to have
granted it in the first place had it been in the
23 application . That wasn ' t possible . I don ' t quite
understand quite how this happened. You said you
24 bought this house at the beginning of 2007 ?
MR. CATANIA: The beginning of this year,
25 right?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I presume the CO that
45
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 was submitted at the time of this transaction was
an outdated one?
3 MR. CATANIA: My major concerns were, of
course, the CO for the house and the CO for the
4 pool .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : In other words , there
5 was an unapproved deck at the time that the house
was sold?
6 MR . CATANIA: Yes , I did find that out at
the time that the house was sold.
7 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That was not discovered
by the attorneys or by the banks .
8 MR. CATANIA: Just to clarify, there wasn ' t
a bank involved in the deal .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It was cash?
MR. CATANIA: Cash . I went in at the last
10 minute after the negotiations had progressed to
the point they accepted my offer and I had an
11 engineer come in to do an inspection report . He ' s
the one that brought up the issue of the deck .
12 But the issue he brought up to me was an issue of
how it was built .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : My question was , could
it have gotten a CO if they had taken the trouble
14 to get a building permit and so on .
MR. CATANIA: I understand your concern .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Then if they had, going
back on this thing because I think it ' s
16 methodologically important, if the previous owner
had applied for a building permit, he would have
17 not gotten the building permit without a variance
at that time .
18 MR. CATANIA: I understand.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So we would have had an
19 opportunity to do this . Since in a sense this is
not your fault but in some ways this property was
20 either intentionally or otherwise misrepresented
to you at the time you purchased it .
21 MR. CATANIA: No .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It was misrepresented
22 at the time is that you bought a house with a deck
for which there was no CO .
23 MS . MOORE : Yes , I knew that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You were fully aware of
24 that .
MR. CATANIA: I was aware of it but I had
25 spoken to a number of people, including, after I
got the engineer ' s report and again at that point
46
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 I knew a CO was not existing, I knew about it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But you didn ' t
3 anticipate there would be a problem with getting
it .
4 MR. CATANIA: After speaking with some
people, I just got the impression, and again,
5 having lived in a similar community, that some
middle ground could be found and I was perfectly
6 willing to say I had to restructure that deck, I
would do it .
7 MR. McLAUGHLIN : The point is he understood,
let me clarify the whole thing . I didn ' t
8 represent him when he bought this property.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : There ' s nothing
9 against the law .
MR. McLAUGHLIN : He understood by the time
10 of closing that there was no CO for this deck and
the sellers were not going to give him one, take
11 the deal or leave it . He did not understand that
there was a lot coverage issue that went along
12 with being able to go to the Building Department
to get a CO . So he didn ' t anticipate this step of
13 things . He thought he could just go to the
Building Department and get a CO for the deck.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Fine . So there was no
sense in which he overpaid for the property
15 because he didn ' t know that there was a problem.
That the seller did know?
16 MR. McLAUGHLIN : He was aware .
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Let ' s not get too
17 far off field here . I don ' t think it ' s entirely
relevant to his variance application, all the
18 details of his transaction . There ' s nothing wrong
with buying a piece of property that doesn ' t have
19 a CO . It ' s maintaining a property that doesn ' t
have a CO on a structure and he ' s here to get it .
20 We should focus on whether you ' re willing to grant
a variance in the nature he ' s proposed or whether
21 something further needs to be done .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Fair enough . And I
22 think and I 'm coming up to the same general
conclusion that other people have is and it
23 wouldn ' t surprise you that some kind of a
compromise looks like it ' s going to have to be
24 worked out and what that compromise is none of us
individually know at this time and I think it is
25 very helpful for you to have made a proposal as to
what, to you, would be an acceptable compromise .
47
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 I just wanted to get clear the whole history and
the background of this . Just one thing, which may
3 be far off field but it ' s a general point . If you
were the owner and you had built it without a
4 permit and then you sold it to someone, no, then
you decided you wanted a CO later on in order to
5 sell it , then there would be a problem because you
then would be the person who could have and should
6 have gotten the CO . But you ' re not that person .
MR. CATANIA: I understand . First of all ,
7 you don ' t know me, I would not have built a deck
without going through the proper procedures .
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But the point is , you
should be penalized to the same extent .
9 MS . MOORE : That ' s why I 'm hopeful .
Hopefully, you ' re understanding of that . I went
10 into this eyes open towards the end of the deal .
But hopefully, there is that middle ground.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s why I was asking
questions about the details of who knew what at
12 the time . Thank you very much . I don ' t have any
other questions .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No . I do appreciate
14 the fact that he has come in with an alternate
plan that we can deliberate on . You ' re willing if
15 everything else fails to cut it back further at
least in length, shall we say, not the width, keep
16 the 15 foot width .
MR. CATANIA: The length can ' t go too much
17 because of those doors . There may be room for a
foot , we could if it ' s going to make a difference .
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: If you just had the
doors and we cut the deck, you ' d still need steps
19 from those doors to go down to --
MR. CATANIA: Yes , if the deck was cut
20 inside the doors , then we ' d have to step down and
it makes it less practical to use .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Are those steps
calculated in lot coverage?
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes .
MR. CATANIA: The steps are calculated in
23 lot coverage and right now there are steps all
around the entire deck which is why --
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I couldn ' t calculate
these in my head at the moment but if you chapter
25 the corners of the deck on both sides and use one
of the cuts for a set of steps on the diagonal as
48
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 opposed to coming straight out from the bay, it ' s
possible you can reduce even more that lot
3 coverage . Maybe to 25 , 26% . Which would be a
much lesser variance . Probably, I would propose
4 it on the hot tub side since you really want the
circulation area for where you have your furniture
5 right now .
MR. CATANIA: Furniture is on the chimney
6 side .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . I would
7 probably not --
MR. CATANIA: Those corners, that was one of
8 the issues . I almost was going to cut those
corners . Those corners probably could both be cut
9 off .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you could probably
10 squish it down to 26% by doing it that way. Every
little percentage is important because it ' s less
11 of a variance .
MR. CATANIA: Like I said, I ' ll do whatever
12 is practical and feasible for me to have a
workable deck and make it acceptable to the Board.
13 I 'm here to try and find that middle ground.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Thank you .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . I guess we could
grant, if we were so inclined a certain percentage
15 as opposed to a design and then you can work with
it . Certainly, when I first looked at it, I said
16 he can just cut the steps off and that would give
him something and I would be happy with that . I
17 understand why it has to be so long because those
doors have to open up to steps by code . So
18 there ' s nothing you can do with that anyway . So
if we grant it, I would say we ' d grant it by
19 percentage .
MR. CATANIA: I can definitely work within
20 that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And this lot was created
21 by a variance way, way back when, just so everyone
is aware of that . The pool was built in 103 . So
22 as long as you admit that you went into it eyes
wide open, there 's not a whole lot you could have
23 done about it and I 'm sure there was some
negotiations as far as monetary that you dealt
24 with . Okay. Anybody else in the audience have
any questions concerning this applications?
25 Hearing none, I ' ll entertain a motion to close
this hearing .
49
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion by Leslie, Second
by Ruth . All those in favor .
4 (See minutes for resolution . )
5 Hearing #6066 - Magganiello
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Our next hearing is for
6 Peter and Sharon Manganiello . State your name
please, sir .
7 MR. HILL : My name is Ronnie Hill and I 'm
with RLH Land Planning Services .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Just hold on, Leslie has
to read the legal notice and then we ' ll ask you
9 some questions .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : "Request for
10 Variances under Section 280-124 , based on the
Building Inspector ' s June 21, 2007 amended Notice
11 for Disapproval concerning as-built deck additions
to the existing single-family dwelling, for the
12 reasons that the construction will be (a) less
than 10 feet on a single side yard; (b) less than
13 25 feet for both side yard setbacks, (c) exceeding
the code limitation of 20% maximum lot coverage,
14 at 58315 Route 48 (a/k/a North Road) , Greenport ,
CTM 44-2-12 . "
15 As I understand it, you have an extremely
small non-conforming lot .
16 MR. HILL : Anything that would like be done
to it --
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Pardon?
MR. HILL : It was rather restricted from the
18 onset .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Sure . Now you have a
19 total side yard setback of zero . You ' ve got decks
that are really going from the house right to the
20 property on either side .
MR. HILL : Yes .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And a lot coverage of
50% where the code allows 20% . The lot area is
22 only 4 , 850 square feet . So it ' s less than 1/8 of
an acre .
23 MR. HILL : Can I just interrupt here . A lot
of that is because the area of the lot can only be
24 calculated from the front of it to the landward
side of the ripwrap . The property extends much
25 further beyond that but that wouldn ' t be
considered buildable area, therefore, it is
50
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 deducted from the lot area .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . Well, at the
3 moment, I have some questions but I would like to
point out that the survey does not indicate the
4 setback of the dwelling from the ripwrap . It
simply isn ' t noted on there and the LWRP does make
5 a notation of it but it isn ' t showing on the
survey. Moreover, the Notice of Disapproval does
6 not include the nonconforming setback from the
ripwrap . So, in a sense, there ' s some incomplete
7 information in the application . I think we
want --
8 MR. HILL : I would have to agree with what
you just said but I ' m not sure that they
9 understood nor would I have understood that the 75
foot setback that you quote based on the zoning
10 regulations would have required that to be from
the landward side of the ripwrap . I can
11 understand that it would have because that ' s as
far as you can go regardless .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . For the
record, I just want to enter that information and
13 we ' ll go ahead and let you explain whatever it is
you want to say. Does that make sense?
14 MR. HILL : I 'm not sure that I can add
anything else other than the fact that from the
15 onset, the property was rather restricted. The
applicant is seeking to obtain variances for the
16 existing decks . The necessity of the request is
not so much a self-created hardship, I believe .
17 In 1977 a 7 by 12 porch was constructed on the
western side of the residence, a Certificate of
18 Occupancy was issued for the property in 1981 .
It ' s assumed that the porch was legalized by the
19 1981 Certificate of Occupancy.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s the eastern
20 one?
MR. HILL : On the western side .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That was already
preexisting .
22 MR. HILL : That was always there and I have
pictures that can confirm that .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it was there in
' 81 when the CO was granted.
24 MR. HILL : When the CO was issued. So the
assumption there is that in 1981, anything there
25 at that time would have been legalized. Now, we
could assume the same thing today because there
51
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 had been a Certificate of Occupancy issued for the
decks after Mr . Manganiello purchased the property
3 in 2004 and in 2005 , a Certificate of Occupancy
was issued. Unfortunately, some questions were
4 raised because he was then looking to sell the
property by a realtor . They went in, I guess the
5 Building Department reviewed it and indicated the
decks, themselves, were not clearly called out on
6 the Certificate of Occupancy. It then led to the
fact that the Certificate of Occupancy may have
7 been issued in error and, as a result it meant
that they needed to now make those decks legalized
8 which is why we ' re here .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it was 2004 when
9 your applicant purchased the property with a CO
that included the deck to the east as well .
10 MR. HILL : That ' s correct . And I have
pictures that can show you what they look like and
11 I don ' t know, if we all lived around here for any
length of time and prior to that, in driving past
12 those properties you would have probably noticed
that it was rather a dilapidated cottage then .
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Wasn ' t there a fire in
there?
14 MR. HILL : Something . I know if you drove
by it, it was an eye sore .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Are those pictures
other than these?
16 MR. HILL : Yes , those are pictures that I
asked him to provide if he had at the time of his
17 purchase of the property.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We don ' t have those .
18 MR. Hill : No, you don ' t . Those are
pictures that he took at the time that he
19 purchased the property.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It looks like the
20 decks are actually demoed. That one ' s there .
MR. HILL : They were in very bad disrepair
21 because the property had just sat there .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That was in 2004 .
22 MR. HILL : A survey that was dated June 8th
of 2004 actually depicted those decks at that time
23 and I 'm not sure if that survey --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s on the 2004
24 survey also, both decks?
MR. HILL : Yes . Now, I 'm not sure as to
25 whether or not that survey was done at the time
before their purchase or afterwards or when . I
52
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 have no way of gauging that and this is all based
on the information that I was able to research and
3 gather .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So your applicant
4 went to sell this in 2005?
MR. HILL : In 2006 .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And that ' s when the
issue arose of the legality of both decks .
6 MR. HILL : Of both decks because they were
not and a Certificate of Occupancy had been issued
7 at that time but it was recognized then that it
wasn ' t clearly called out and although the plans
8 that were submitted for the building permit
indicated the decks since there were no changes to
9 it, he renovated and reconstructed the decks .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. Let me pass
10 these down .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Linda had emailed us a
11 survey, questions concerning a survey that apply
to this property .
12 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The next door,
the lot was a different size . .
13 MR. HILL : So the only thing that I can say
in addition to what we ' ve already said and
14 discussed about the property is that it was rather
restricted from the onset . There was not very
15 much that even under the best of circumstances
could be done for the property given it ' s size and
16 location. They all seemed to have been, those
properties, at that time, meant to be nothing more
17 than summer cottages and so forth and as a result,
you know, it ' s I don ' t know . I don ' t know what
18 else I can say except that to have a property like
that on the water without a deck would seem like,
19 to me, like having a house without windows
somewhat . It just goes without saying that you
20 want to have a deck there to enjoy some portion of
what you purchased it for and that would be, as
21 far as I would be concerned, the water . The front
of the property, of course, fronts onto the north
22 road, Route 48 and there ' s not very much that you
can do there because just looking at the survey
23 you can see where it ' s very close to the highway,
to the County Route 48 .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, it looks like
we need a new notice and the information on the
25 survey to include in whatever variance gets
granted t--he nonconformity from the ripwrap, the
53
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 setback to the ripwrap .
MR. HILL : Yes , no question .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And if you ' re going
to do it, you have to make sure you have
4 everything . So you need three variances . One is
for the side yard setbacks which are zero .
5 MR. HILL : Which is the one that we ' re here
for today.
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Another would be the
lot coverage which is currently --
7 MR. HILL : If you took the total lot area of
the property and took 200 of that, you get a lot
8 smaller number . You get something like 240 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Sure but the code now
9 requires it to be the buildable area, so it ' s 500
lot coverage of the buildable .
10 MR. HILL : 50 plus , it ' s 50 . something but
it ' s certainly 500 .
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you need three
variances really; lot coverage, and side yard
12 setback .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think we should, before
13 we decide what we ' re going to do with the
additional variances, we should have this hearing
14 and then we ' ll make our decision based on -- not
make a decision for or against it, but where we
15 want to proceed . I ' d like to just ingest all the
testimony first and go from there . Are you
16 finished, Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I am.
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes, a question . Now,
18 what does the owner plan to do with the house now
if he gets the variance? Just leave it as?
19 MR. HILL : Yes . At the moment he ' s only
trying to legalize the existing as-built
20 conditions .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What ' s confusing to me
21 anyway was on the application it says for a
demolition, describe areas being removed. It
22 makes it sound as though it ' s a demolition and a
reconstruction unless it ' s just an error on the
23 application .
MR. HILL : I agree with that but I left that
24 off of there and I was instructed to put it back
because it was a conversation that I had with
25 Linda . She had indicated that there was some
demolition so I didn ' t see how it was relevant to
54
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 the as-built conditions .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s the problem of the
3 time period, the tense, of this because it ' s one
thing to get an ex post facto variance including
4 demolition and reconstruction which has already
happened.
5 MR. HILL : Which is a renovation which is
why I refer to it as an as-built conditions .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : And it ' s in the past
because it would matter if we interpret it, maybe
7 it ' s the wrong interpretation, is that looking at
this right now, what they want to do is tear it
8 down and rebuild it . That ' s a problem. That ' s a
very different type of problem.
9 MR. HILL : I can assure you that that ' s not
the intent .
10 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Well, that ' s what
confused me . I have no further questions .
11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The site plan
that you gave is the as-built conditions that are
12 there now, right?
MR. HILL : That ' s correct .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Michael, are you all set?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Well, I just remember
15 we had given a variance on the house, I believe,
to the west of that . So when I inspected that
16 property, and this is several years ago, your
property that you ' re speaking of was completely
17 covered by trees and I was able to peer through
the trees and I saw the house and then I
18 remembered, I believe, there had been some sort of
a fire in the house and it had been abandoned or
19 what have you . Then all of a sudden, because I
drive by, I live in Orient, you live in Orient,
20 then all of a sudden I saw the trees were taken
down, the house was really reconstructed. There
21 were new windows . The decks were reconstructed
and I ' ve seen a For Sale sign up there . So I ' m
22 curious as to whether the person who bought this
property is going to live there or are they
23 planning to sell the property and must get these
variances in order to do it?
24 MR. HILL : The intention of my client was to
legalize the deck. I believe there is a contract
25 currently for the property. I ' m not sure if they
intend on living there on a year round basis
55
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 because I ' m not sure if it ' s year round
conditions . If it ' s capable of handling year
3 round conditions . I don ' t know .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think I understand .
4 You need all the variances that have already been
spoken for .
5 MR. HILL : Right . Because now that the
issue has come up regarding the legality of the
6 decks, it is my clients intention to legalize on
the C of 0 and have it shown that the decks were,
7 in fact , constructed and now part of it so that
there was no question in the end as to their
8 legality.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I have no further
9 questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: When I first looked at
10 this, I said I don ' t even know why we ' re having
this discussion . You made some statements , sir,
11 that concerning CO ' s that you banked on as , I
guess, evidence that can somehow improve these
12 decks . I would like for you to -- I don ' t believe
we ' re going to close this hearing today -- to go
13 to the Building Inspector and get the information
that we ' ll use to gain those CO ' s .
14 MR. HILL : I did. I have copies of them
because I went there and did the research myself .
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: You want to hand them in
now?
16 MR. HILL : I don ' t have anything but the one
copy. I can certainly make copies and give them
17 to you .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to hold this
18 hearing open until next time unless we decide on
another thing that we might want to do . I tell
19 you, I drive by that property and I ' ve seen some
changes on that property since I was a kid too .
20 And I look at the property card and there ' s really
only one building permit since in 172 on that
21 thing and that was in ' 04 a month after these
people purchased that property .
22 MR. HILL : That ' s correct .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I 'm wondering if you can
23 tell me what that was for?
MR. HILL : That was for the renovation of
24 the way you see it today .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : For the decks and all
25 that? So that should be a fairly detailed
building permit?
56
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 MR. HILL : That ' s correct . I have the
number of the -- the building permit was --
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I got it right here .
It ' s 30450Z . I think we ' re using it as a basis to
4 grant a variance, I think you ought to present
them to us and let us have a discussion in open
5 meeting to see if, not what you say is true, but
certainly it jives with everything .
6 MR. HILL : True . I will do that but I want
to assure you that I do my research . I went to
7 the Building Inspector ' s office . I not only
talked with the Building Inspectors and the permit
8 examiner, Damon, regarding this . I stood there on
their computer and went through all of those files
9 to pull that information and then paid for it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: We need to have that
10 presented to us .
MR. HILL : I agree and I will do that but
11 nothing here that I ' ve presented and said today is
a fabrication .
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It ' s not a fabrication .
We just need to verify it . Nothing in the record
13 indicates what you said and we need -- we have to
build a case for or against anyway so we need that
14 information . I wasn ' t quite -- from reading the
application, I had a different connotation of
15 where you were going with this than what you
presented today.
16 MR. HILL : What did you think I was looking
for?
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: My assumption was you
just built these things and now you want to do it .
18 Now, you ' re saying that that isn ' t the case . That
there are CO ' s for these .
19 MR. HILL : What I 'm saying is that in 1977
that there was a drawing that I have that shows a
20 7 by 12 deck.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s fine . There ' s no
21 indication on the property card that there was
anything that said that .
22 MR. HILL : I agree with that because I went
and I pulled the property card myself from the
23 Assessor ' s office .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : If you give that to us,
24 was that the basis for another building permit? I
mean, we need to tie that all in . Beyond that,
25 and I think Michael says it a lot so I ' ll say it
now, we make decisions on variances based on,
57
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 especially as-built variances, based on whether we
would grant them if they were not there . And I
3 can never recall in my 20 years of being involved
with this Board, granting a zero lot line
4 variance, let alone two, on a piece of property.
This has more than that if you apply the Walz
5 decision, which would be if you have a problem
with the front yard, you have a problem with the
6 rear yard, you have a problem with both side
yards, there ' s ash lot coverage .
7 MR. HILL : True but one of the things we
would have to frame that and put it within the
8 context that some of those things probably
predated and were pre-existing, nonconforming
9 prior to some of the zoning regulations that are
currently in place .
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Certainly not 2004 . If
you were renovating something in 2004 , now Walz
11 was 2001, and Walz said if you were going to
expand a nonconforming, if you were going to
12 increase the degree of nonconformity on a house,
which at zero lot line and you can ' t increase it
13 other than go up, and you have to have a variance
on that .
14 MR. HILL : I agree with you but at the time
that the building permit and the plans were
15 submitted for the building permit, the applicant
was certainly submitting those plans to the permit
16 examiner, they reviewed them and it was for
nothing more than to renovate what was existing .
17 If it had been determined that there was a need
for variances or anything else, I am certain that
18 the building inspectors or examiners would have
indicated that and then issued a letter of
19 disapproval . But that was not the case . They
actually issued a building permit for this . So
20 the building permit was accompanied -- in order to
get the building permit, a set of plans were
21 submitted and the plans indicated what they were
going to do .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So we just need to see
that . That information would be --
23 MR. HILL : And I understand and I ' ll
certainly supply it .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That was 2004 that
you ' re talking about .
25 MR. HILL : That was in 2004 that the
building permit was issued and in 2004 --
58
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Without notice of
disapproval .
3 MR. HILL : Without notice of disapproval,
that is correct .
4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And the deck was
on those plans that were approved under that
5 building permit?
MR. HILL : Yes . And part of what I found as
6 research and documentation was a set of plans for
the deck that had been asked for and done by Mark
7 Schwartz . So I have all of those things that were
there and on record and on file there in the
8 Building Department .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We just need to see that .
9 You ' re going to take care of that for us?
MR. HILL : Of course .
10 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie, do you have
something else?
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just a procedural
question . If that information is submitted within
12 x amount of days , would we then be prepared to
deliberate in two weeks?
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No, can is going to be
held open to the next available meeting .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The next public
hearing . That ' s fine . I just wanted to ask
15 procedurally how you wanted to proceed.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I agree .
16 MR. HILL : I ' d like to add one other thing .
I hope and I 'm quite sure that you guys will do
17 this . In the process of considering the
ramifications of giving a variance, the variances
18 that would be needed for this to be legalized,
these properties right there in that area were
19 already, they never met zoning, from the onset .
There was just no way that they could . So they,
20 were pre-existing, nonconforming so basically
anything that anyone would have wanted to do, they
21 would have been handicapped from the very moment
that they thought about it .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : There ' s no doubt about
that . I couldn ' t agree with you more but
23 obviously, zero lot lines on both sides is not --
MR. HILL : But I hope that you can consider
24 that for the area, for the neighborhood, those 4
or 5 lots that are there .
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Honestly, that would not
happen . In any instance in this Town, zero lot
59
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 lines on both sides just would not happen .
MR. HILL : I can agree with that because I
3 tried to dot my I ' s and cross my T ' s and I did
extensive research and I could not find one
4 instance in which a zero lot line variance had
been issued.
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re not going to . So
not to say that -- so, I ' m looking more for a
6 blessing by the Town in the past that says that
this is okay, certainly is something that I 'm
7 looking for .
MR. HILL : I couldn ' t find that so I can ' t
8 provide that .
(All Members talking at one time . )
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You ' ve done a great
deal . The research you ' ve done is certainly going
10 to be very useful to you . It means you have less
to do now and better for us . If we ' re going to
11 steer an original course leading to an approval
and a variance, we want to do it on a complete
12 fact base . That ' s what we ' re asking for .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Those are what you
13 presented to us orally. You just need now to give
us in written form.
14 MR. HILL : I have .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And let us review it .
15 Give us a month to do so .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I 'm just going to
16 remind you about the setbacks to the ripwrap, we
need that by letter from the surveyor or how do
17 you want that?
MR. HILL : Well one of the things that
18 Leslie mentioned that ' s not there that I do have
survey of asking for, I had initially asked him to
19 make some changes . What we wanted to do was to
include what the lot area was, the square footage
20 of the area between the rear of the house to the
landward side of that ripwrap and they didn ' t get
21 that to me until late . What ' s missing from there
and I did ask them to provide which is something
22 that I always see as being very valuable is the
distances from the rear of the house, including
23 from the steps to the ripwrap . That gives you
some idea as to the range of distances along that
24 rear side of the house which will vary based on
whatever is extending out the most . In this case,
25 that would be the stairs . By the way, those
pictures that I passed around, I ' d have to get
60
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 copies of those and then I ' ll make sure you get
some . I can ' t leave those .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We will need for the
record though, sir . We will need them back.
4 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : There ' s 7 photos .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Everybody asked
5 their questions? Anybody in the audience wish to
comment on this?
6 MR. HILL : I just had one other thing to
say . I also wanted to address the comments from
7 Mark Terry regarding the LWRP and I would only
have to echo the same type of sentiment that I
8 said regarding the zoning regulations and that
property and anything wanting to be done there .
9 It ' s pre-existing, nonconforming so it never would
have and never could meet the actual requirements
10 of the LWRP.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I understand that . The
11 LWRP sometimes can be confusing .
MR. HILL : Outside of that , I don ' t have
12 anything else .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Do you want to
13 adjourn this then to October 18th?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That ' s okay with me . Do
14 we have room on that?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Probably not but
15 we ' ll make room if you want .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion
16 that we keep the hearing open --
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Second.
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Motion with a
18 date, or actually, if it requires another variance
for the disapproval from the Building Inspector,
19 you ' re going to have them make a determination
whether you need one or not .
20 MR. HILL : You and I went through that . We
would need now to go back, get the letter of
21 disapproval, modify it to include the setback from
the rear of the house to the ripwrap, the landward
22 side of that, and then submit the paperwork for
the area variance, for that .
23 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : For the
additional variance for that .
24 MR. HILL : And we won ' t have to pay for
anything else because we already capped it to
25 $600 .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Well, yes but I
61
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 do have to re advertise it, Mr . Hill, and I would
need to have that at least two to three weeks
3 before that October 18th hearing date .
MR. HILL : So October 18th is the next
4 hearing date?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : If we don ' t have
5 it in time to advertise, then we would have to put
it over another month .
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to need it in
about a week.
7 BOARD MEMBER KOWALSKI : A weak to ten days .
MR. HILL : That ' s not an issue . I can
8 easily do that .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : October 18th with
9 a date .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So I ' ll make a motion .
10 MR. HILL : Just to be clear, we need the
additional variance, the additional
11 documentation --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : If the Building
12 Department says you need --
MR. HILL : And I would like to make sure
13 that we have all the necessary information onto
the survey and that that survey also be sent out
14 if we have to notice it again .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Yes .
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Let me ask you, how long
ago did you apply for this? How long has the
16 process been from the Building Inspector to this
point?
17 MR. HILL : April 3rd is when I went
initially to talk to the Building Inspector ' s
18 about it and then as we started to go through it
and I started to discuss it with Linda, that ' s
19 when we started to realize that there were some
things that were missing and it meant having to go
20 back to the Building Inspector ' s office, get the
letter of disapproval modified and then to go
21 about the business of getting the information
which included getting surveyors and everybody
22 else involved.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : My concern was that the
23 Building Inspector made a decision based on not
enough information and I was just wondering how
24 that happened? It was before -- we set another
standard that you would not be able to come to us
25 unless you had a survey that was accurate and
that ' s not the case in this but that was before we
62
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 set that standard up .
MR. HILL : One thing is for sure, it wasn ' t
3 until after April of this year that it became
apparent and only in June did Linda and I speak
4 and it became apparent that I needed to now get a
variance for the lot coverage because that would
5 not have been an issue prior to April . But,
unfortunately, all of that caused yet more
6 paperwork to be generated and more information to
be collected .
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That because it ' s now
relative to the building envelope .
8 (All Members talking at one time . )
MR. HILL : That ' s correct . Which did not
9 exist -- that ' s why I continue to say from the
onset with any changes that are likely to be made
10 to the zoning and especially for an R40 district ,
these properties along there, and I can only speak
11 relative to this one, will never be conforming in
any way shape or form.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: That ' s fine . ( Inaudible)
increase that nonconformity.
13 MR. HILL : Well, true . And I ' m glad they
didn ' t increase the footprint but who would want
14 to? You get closer to the water and that would
make more issues there .
15 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else interested
in making a comment on this application? Hearing
16 none, I ' ll entertain a motion to adjourn this
meeting until October 18th provided that we get
17 all the information by 9/23 .
MR. HILL : Ten days from now . That ' s fine .
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' ll second it .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth made the motion,
Leslie seconded it . All those in favor?
20 (See minutes for resolution . )
21
Hearing #6067 - Lomas
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Our next hearing is for
Wendy Lomas and Charlotte Greene . Ruth, that ' s
23 yours .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes .
24 "Request for a Variance under Code Section
280-15 based on the Building Inspector ' s June 18 ,
25 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
reconstruction (replacement ) of an existing
63
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 accessory building, in the same nonconforming
location at less than the code required 10 feet
3 from any property, at 500 Stephenson ' s Road
( Private Road #1 ) ; CTM 17-1-6 . "
4 Actually, it ' s more ten feet from Bird ' s
Nest Road.
5 MR. GARRETSON: I 'm James Garretson residing
at 1620 Village Lane, Orient, New York. I
6 represent Wendy Lomas and Charlotte Greene . We
propose just to replace, well pretty much replace,
7 very little of the existing building would be
there, it ' s early 20th Century accessory building
8 that ' s typical of the North Fork in terms of
style . It originally was called an ice house .
9 It ' s not confirmed it was ever used as an ice
house although it has some of the doors and things
10 where ice was stored for the summertime . We ' re
just restoring it as an accessory building, a
11 little garden shed . It sits very nicely, as you
can see from the pictures, in the hedge row and we
12 would like to leave it in the same place if
possible . Restore it exactly where it is . There
13 doesn ' t seem to be anything nearby on the adjacent
property. It ' s very much in the middle of
14 nowhere . Basically, I did drawings based on my
research close to what it originally looked like
15 and you have a copy of that drawing there .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I really don ' t have any
16 questions . I mean it ' s way up at the end of the
property. It ' s right near the hedge row and that
17 other private row. There aren ' t any houses
anywhere near it really. Not a problem of
18 objection to the site of something like that . In
fact, I think people would rather enjoy seeing it
19 reconstructed. I don ' t have any questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We had a letter from
a neighbor indicating, or was that a verbal, when
21 I went to do site inspection, I ran into, I
believe the builder and he mentioned that the
22 neighbor who ' s on the property much higher
above --
23 MR. GARRETSON : Yes , the Hahn property .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes . Is in favor of
24 this reconstruction and has no objection at all .
Certainly, it ' s not visible from anywhere other
25 than that property. Normally, we wouldn ' t be
entertaining a setback of 1 . 2 feet from a side
64
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 yard especially when you do have room to move it
in a bit . However, because you ' re replacing it
3 in kind exactly where it was and because it is an
historic location and property, I think it ' s not
4 an unreasonable request to leave it where it is .
I don ' t think that it has much impact on anyone
5 actually. It ' s 15 ' 6" by 15 ' 6" ?
MR. GARRETSON : It ' s 15 ' 6" by a little more
6 than 15 ' 6" . We ' re going to make it exactly 1516"
by 1516" just to make it simpler for the builder .
7 That ' s on the existing rocks that are there, the
foundation .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you ' re going to
rebuild it right on the foundation?
9 MR. GARRETSON : Same size, same height,
everything .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well therein is an
argument for wanting to rebuild it on the existing
11 foundation rather than moving the old historic
stone which does have some historic value .
12 MR. GARRETSON : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No further questions .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes . Calling this a
14 reconstruction is plausible . I suppose it ' s a
reconstruction whether any of the boards that are
15 now there will ever find themselves any place
except to land fill .
16 MR. GARRETSON : I think it is possible that
we would use --
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But the question, why,
for example, if they simply took all those boards
18 away today and then tomorrow they applied for a
building permit, would they be able to make the
19 same arguments about the starred site for building
it 1 . 2 feet from the property line?
20 MR. GARRETSON : That ' s a good question . If
it were an actual land marked building, this is
21 not an official land marked building, if it were
an official land marked building, I think the Town
22 of Southold, there would be an argument for
replacing it exactly where it was even if you were
23 restoring it totally brand new to the
specifications of when it was there . I think, in
24 terms of land marking, which it isn ' t but historic
structures , it ' s always good to keep things where
25 they were . If you ' re replacing it in kind to look
very close to what it originally looked like, I
65
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 think there is an argument .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Whether it ' s a land
3 marked building or not .
MR . GARRETSON : Correct .
4 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Then we need to, we may
want to hear more about why it is sort of a de
5 facto landmark building . I mention this because
we often get applications for people who want to
6 replace a building that they ' ve demolished for the
spiritual continuity from the preexisting building
7 to the present one and sometimes we find these
arguments plausible but more often than not, some
8 of us don ' t find them totally plausible . So can
you say more about why this building should
9 qualify as a replacement of a landmark building
rather than as a new building which will remind
10 people of a building that used to be very nearby?
MR. GARRETSON : Anytime you ' re trying to
11 replace a building that has landmark significance,
whether it ' s officially land marked or not, I
12 think once it ' s completed whether it ' s renovated
or totally replaced, it does have a positive
13 impact on the community and that ' s what ,
basically, the whole definition of land marking is
14 about . Is saving some historic value to the area
and this particular building, if it ' s necessary,
15 I ' ve done research on this particular type of
structure which is very much the North Fork type
16 accessory building . You can see them on the North
Road. Basically all we ' re trying to do is repeat
17 exactly what ' s there .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Do you know when it was
18 built originally?
MR. GARRETSON : No . I would say it was
19 probably built in the early 20th Century .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Would you apply that to
20 any early 20th Century building which is in
disuse?
21 MR. GARRETSON : Only ones that had some
historical significance .
22 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : What gives it
historical significance other than being 90 years
23 old?
MR. GARRETSON : The roof line . The roof
24 line is non-gable . It ' s completely sloped all the
way around . Normally, a roof line for a simple
25 accessory building has two gables on the side or
two gables ; a front and back. This has no gables
66
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 and it is not peaked. It ' s pulled back. It ' s a
rectangular structure so it has a slope, the same
3 slope on each side so that it has a look about it
that is unusual . When you look at the drawings
4 I ' ve shown you, it ' s not something you see
everywhere wand and it happens to be, maybe it was
5 one builder, I haven ' t been able to find it, that
had drawings for this , and everybody said I want
6 one that looks like that . There is a case for
making this, you could make a case for making this
7 a landmark structure, in my opinion .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : You certainly have made
8 a case for it being worthy of replicating but then
the additional argument is not just replicating it
9 but replicating it on exactly the same site . That
I think requires a separate argument .
10 MR. GARRETSON : The site because it ' s on the
edge of the property which is typical of accessory
11 houses at that time and it ' s within a hedge row
that was also typical . And I think that it has a
12 setting that it appealing to both neighbors that
look at it . That ' s not landmark. The other two
13 are landmark . The setting is part of your
landmark. The setting and the way it ' s set off .
14 Not in the middle of a yard but on a side of a
yard within a hedge row is the typical setting .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, you also have
the existing old stone foundation .
16 MR. GARRETSON : We have to be careful . I
don ' t know how much, when I say preexisting, this
17 isn ' t a fancy stone foundation . This is the way
it was done where you put stones on the ground.
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : But they ' re there .
Even rubble in some places constitutes historic
19 artifacts .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, you ' re done?
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes , I am.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll give the Dinizio
21 historical part of this . Stephenson ' s Road and
all those roads up there when you turn off the
22 Main Road in Orient is like going into another
time . The houses are different . The roads are
23 very narrow, some are dirt . This particular barn,
which I watch deteriorate since I ' ve been a kid,
24 would just leave a hole if you didn ' t put it there
in a neighborhood . I don ' t know if that ' s
25 historical or if that ' s just the way you want to
keep things . But you ' re doing yourself a much
67
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 bigger favor by building it there, hopefully
emulating what they have . The one foot doesn ' t
3 make or break, in my opinion, anything with
respect to the neighborhood because this is part
4 of that neighborhood. It has been since I was a
kid. That ' s historical when you drive down these
5 roads . When you drive down these roads or if you
turn left when you ' re heading east , you ' re going
6 back into another place and time, same if you go
down the Village Lane, it ' s the same thing .
7 That ' s what I think we ought to try to preserve .
To my mind, the one foot is irrelevant . You
8 couldn ' t tell anyway. The house is as close . So
I think it ' ll be a nice addition if it gets
9 approved. Anybody else have anything else to say
on this? Anybody in the audience want to comment?
10 Sir, do you have anything more to add?
MR. GARRETSON: No .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hearing none, I ' ll
entertain a motion to close this hearing until two
12 weeks .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I ' ll make a motion .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I ' ll second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
14 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
15 ********** ****** ******* * ******* *
Hearing #6073 - Beebe
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Constance Beebe and
Sidney Beebe, Jr . Michael, that ' s yours .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Okay.
"Request for Variances under Sections
18 280-15B and 280-15C, based on the Building
Inspector ' s July 20 . 2007 Notice of Disapproval
19 concerning proposed additions and alterations to
an existing accessory building, for the reason
20 that the new construction will be less than 10
feet from the property line and the existing
21 nonconforming size will increase the code
limitation of 750 square feet, at 24925 Main Road,
22 Cutchogue : CTM 109-1-20 . 3 . "
Now, I guess the question is that in having
23 looked at the application fairly closely, there
are two issues . One has to do with the
24 continuation of an existing nonconforming setback
in another direction that is not going to decrease
25 the existing setback. The other one has to do
with expanding a building to, I believe, 2 , 500
68
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 square feet where the zoning code calls for 750 .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : 2 , 800 square feet .
3 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : It ' s 2 , 800 square feet
as opposed to 750 which is what is now allowed.
4 Also, given that the existing building is, I
believe, approximately 1 , 300 square feet and it ' s
5 a preexisting, so it ' s a legal nonconforming
structure with respect to it ' s size and they wish
6 to approximately double it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s a height
7 variance too .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Is there a height
8 variance also on that?
MS . MOORE : For the peak, yes .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So I welcome your
presentation .
10 MS . MOORE : All right . Thank you . Thank
you, Board. Patricia Moore, 51020 Main Road,
11 Southold. I have the Beebe Builders and Sons, Tom
and Sid are here . Earlier, the neighbor to the
12 east was here and I ' ll present something further .
She chose to go home, she was getting tired. But
13 we worked something out in the hallway that they
agreed to and were comfortable with and I ' ll
14 present that as a modification . Before I get to
that , let me give you a little bit of a history
15 here and some correction of some issues . One was
that when the Building Department gave me a Notice
16 of Disapproval, they labled this as an R40 Zone
and it really should be corrected that the parcel,
17 the house and 200 and some feet probably to the
previous property line in 2006, you granted a lot
18 line change that changed the rear property line .
I 'm sure you remember the application . I have a
19 section of the zoning map, I copied it for the
Board to put in your file, and it reflects the old
20 line of the property prior to the lot line change .
The rear lot is R40 but the front is RO . I
21 believe that that has a great deal to do with this
property because this is very unique . It ' s a very
22 unique application . One that I haven ' t had to
deal with in the past and I know you don ' t get
23 many of these, there may be one property in
Southold similar to it . The property is, as I
24 said, RO . The use is a permitted use by special
exception . But since it ' s preexisting, it is a
25 permitted use . The workshop is a special
exception, it ' s under the RO zoning category .
69
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 When the lot line was changed, the rear of the
property became the rear of the previous lot and
3 what we are attempting to do is to make the
addition to the accessory building not change the
4 character of the area in that from the road you
will not see the addition . The whole emphasis
5 here was to keep the residential look of the
property the same and in order to build onto the
6 garage workshop, the logical way of doing it would
be directly behind it and the property slopes
7 down . So it would be set down . There is a need
for the first floor to have a pitched roof that is
8 a little higher because of the nature of the use
with plywood that you pick up, it can ' t hit the
9 rafters . So it was believed that a little higher
pitch on the roof line interior space was
10 necessary. But also the bottom floor is open for
their continued storage because, as I said, the
11 property slopes down and they can get access to
the basement level . So this will allow the space
12 on both levels . The property, the Beebe family
has owned this property, one of the Beebe family ' s
13 heirs own the property since 1932 . I made a copy
from the 2006 application and hearing and there
14 was -- that ' s in ZBA #5637 -- there was a title
history and that gave you the whole lineage of
15 this property and the historic title of this
property. As I said the Beebe family has owned it
16 since 1932 . It was transferred ultimately to
Beebe Builders or the Beebe Builders started their
17 operation there in the 1960 ' s . In fact , the
Zoning Board granted a variance for a sign for
18 Beebe Builders in 1966 that was in your records .
So this has been a very long standing continuous
19 use of this property and what the third generation
of Beebe Builders would like to do is provide a
20 space that will enable them to work safely and
comfortably because equipment has changed. Things
21 have gotten a little more complicated and the
space -- if you got a chance to go into what is a
22 very tight garage -- it is wall to wall of three
generations of materials and equipment . So it is
23 something that they need in order to keep their
business going and they ' re trying to do it in a
24 very proper way so that it doesn ' t change the
residential look of the property. If you went to
25 see the property, they ' re very, it ' s a manicured
lawn . It ' s very neat . It ' s very nicely done and
70
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 as you go by, you really can ' t tell that the Beebe
Builders operate from the- back of the property.
3 So it is something that they would like to
continue . What we did, our neighbor or the
4 neighbor to the east, Mrs . Harris, again they are
long time, everybody has lived there a long time
5 and the first thing .that we always try to do is
accommodate that neighbors and make sure that
6 there ' s peace . That we can try to mitigate any
concerns that they have and Mrs . Beebe and Mrs .
7 Harris have been long time neighbors for a long
time and everybody wants to make sure that they ' re
8 not imposing on the other . What we worked out in
the hallway, again, certainly, if this Board deems
9 appropriate to grant the variance is to shift the
addition over by ten feet so that , and I have it
10 drawn and everybody signed off on it -- because
she wasn ' t feeling well, I said, listen we ' ll put
11 it on that . I ' ll be sure to submit it . You ' ll
have my representation I will submit it . But we
12 did it on a survey so that you would know what at
least the neighbors and the Beebe ' s all worked
13 out , again subject to your review and approval .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s shifted to the
14 west?
MS . MOORE : Yes . Shifted to the west by ten
15 feet which would give the closest property line of
14 . 6 .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Just the addition?
MS . MOORE : Of course, just the addition.
17 By shifting the addition by ten feet , it doesn ' t
encroach too much into the green space that exists
18 between Tom Beebe ' s house and the Beebe property
where this shop is . And it will work for
19 everybody concerned. Everybody seemed to be happy
with that and we ' re going to submit it to this
20 Board and request that our application be amended
to reflect it if, again, if it ' s accepted by the
21 Board.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So you ' ll still have the
22 7 foot setback that exists now?
MS . MOORE : The existing garage remains ,
23 yes . The whole emphasis , the reason that this is
designed as it is is to preserve the existing
24 garage . Nobody wants to do anything with it other
than clean it up . But the addition will satisfy
25 their needs and provide the storage that ' s needed
there . I also have so you ' ll have it in your file
71
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 in case you need to confirm it , but I have -- what
I 'm giving you is a copy of the zoning map and I
3 highlighted the lot, again, as I mentioned before,
it was prior to the 2006 lot line change . And I
4 also took a copy of the lot line change map that I
got from the computer and it appears that, you
5 would think that generally zoning lines run 200
feet back where it ' s difficult to scale out the
6 zoning map when you ' re dealing with such a large
map and a thick marker . It appears that by the
7 description on the zoning map that the zoning line
went to the property line, the rear property line .
8 It would seem to be logical and, in fact, the code
does refer to zoning lines generally running along
9 property lines . So I provided that for you . The
property line runs 200 , where the midpoint of the
10 garage was, where the old property line was is
216 . 36 .
11 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : The RO zone?
Residential office .
12 MS . MOORE : Res so I have five of each for
you . Here is the title history so you don ' t have
13 to go back to your previous file . Here ' s the
title history provided in the lot line change . As
14 I said, this is a very unique piece of property in
that it ' s RO and the residence is in the back .
15 The nature of this use has been a very long
continuous use and the addition is being proposed
16 in such a way that will retain the RO char,acter
which is defined in our code as attempting to
17 preserve existing visual character, residential
character of an area and the recognition that
18 businesses are allowed in RO . I have the Beebe
Builder sons and the owners here and if you have
19 any questions, certainly, I will try to answer
them. Thank you .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would like to ask
21 what an argument for extending the building rather
than building a second accessory building further
22 back toward the rear of that property. I believe
that in the discussion in changing rules about
23 accessory buildings , there was a sense in the
Board, correct me if I ' m wrong, Leslie knows more
24 about this than I do, a sense to encourage more
smaller accessory buildings rather than fewer
25 large ones .
MS . MOORE : I ca,n understand that , but here
72
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 you have an existing workshop and what we ' re
trying to do is keep the existing workshop . If we
3 were to build a second accessory building in the
back, it would significantly change -- first, it
4 would further back in the lawn area and
significantly change the character of this
5 property and make it more commercial looking than
residential . Constance Beebe still lives in the
6 front house . Tom lives next door, that ' s the
playground. It looks -- it ' s attempting to keep a
7 very residential character .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Are you suggesting that
8 one 2 , 800 foot building is more residential than
two 1, 400 hundred square foot buildings?
9 MS . MOORE : In this case, yes, because what
you have is, that addition is directly behind or
10 we ' re now popping it over ten feet but still
keeping it, ten feet won ' t really change it , from
11 the street line which they are also throwing the
term of scenic byway. With respect to the street
12 line, there would, by keeping it directly behind,
there was no change to the street scape . There
13 was no change to the property.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Suppose it were
14 directly behind, another 150 feet further behind,
still with the same street scape?
15 MS . MOOORE : I 'm not sure if I understand .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : If you have this
16 building looking like a garage behind the house
and then you put another building instead of
17 building it directly -- extending that building to
build another one near the back of the property
18 which would be even farther from the street .
MS . MOORE : They did consider that . It
19 didn ' t work --
( INAUDIBLE FROM UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE
20 MEMBER)
MS . MOORE : Yes . You would have to change
21 access . It looks much more commercial . Also keep
in mind -- I ' ll put you on the record here . You
22 can respond to it on the record. That was Tom
Beebe speaking. That just didn ' t work in this
23 instance . Also keep in mind that the workshop is
already in place . There is equipment there . It ' s
24 already set up . It ' s been that way for a very,
very long time . Also, I ' m sorry, one more point
25 before I forget, I apologize . Putting a building
even if we were to, as you suggest, put a building
73
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 in the back, we would need variances for the size
of that building as well . Either way we ' d be
3 before the Board on variances and really not
accomplish what they need and looks wise, it would
4 really make the property look much more industrial
than residential .
5 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The reason I 'm asking
this question, we ' re talking about a nearly 400%
6 variance on existing size and that would be true,
for example, I 'm not recommending this , if they
7 built the accessory building that was 750 square
feet, then no variance would be necessary for
8 them.
MS . MOORE : They wouldn ' t do it .
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That wouldn ' t be
practical . But it does answer this question about
10 the size and so forth and you need, you need a
variance any way but at least you wouldn ' t be --
11 in other words, why not get a variance for going
from 750 to 2 , 800 rather than one variance to go
12 from 750 to 1 , 300 and another variance for another
1, 300 .
13 MS . MOORE : I understand. Well, keep in
mind that this is a very unique piece of property .
14 You have an RO property here . So the application
of the accessory, the limitation on accessory
15 buildings I think generally don ' t work in RO .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would like to have
16 clarification . I 'm not familiar with the relevant
difference is .
17 MS . MOORE : In RO?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No . With respect to
18 this kind of building . What would they be allowed
in RO that they wouldn ' t be allowed in R40?
19 MS . MOORE : No . They are applying the same
accessory building limitations in RO but what I ' m
20 saying is because you ' re dealing with businesses
at that point in the RO use, that it becomes
21 difficult to comply . I think that in this
instance, I ' ve shown you why in this circumstance
22 on this property it would be difficult to comply.
Two buildings , just as a personal note, two
23 buildings from my office is a house that has a
gentleman who passed away, unfortunately, but he
24 built a very large garage in the back . Mr .
Goehringer is not here . He ' s one of the old
25 timers that would remember it . Ruth, I don ' t
remember if you were on the Board or not , he built
74
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 a very large garage because he collected antique
fire trucks and you really don ' t notice that it
3 even exists . I see it from the back of my
property just because if I go back there, if I
4 make an effort, I see it . But it doesn ' t bother
anybody. It doesn ' t look industrial . It doesn ' t
5 look out of place on the Main Road in historic
district because it is precisely behind what looks
6 like a very regular garage . So in a sense, what
you see from the road makes so much more
7 difference and our efforts at trying to address
how to mitigate for the neighbor because they
8 didn ' t want the addition too close to their
property, we said well, we have no problem. We
9 will shift it over . But our whole emphasis is
what do you see when you ' re facing the property,
10 where it ' s most visible, what are you going to
see? And this addition you really wouldn ' t see
11 very much different than what ' s there today.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So the size -
12 MS . MOORE : I don ' t think the size is
relevant .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The size doesn ' t matter
is what you ' re saying .
14 MS . MOORE : Right . Other than the fact,
obviously, that you need a significant variance
15 and acknowledge this is a significant variance,
but I think you can distinguish this variance from
16 other variances in the sense that this is for a
business . This is for a very long, three
17 generation continuing a business . Their
alternative would be to go find another. property
18 because they can ' t continue to operate as they are
and that is very difficult on an existing business
19 to be zoned limitations .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Are you saying that
20 that ' s the only alternative?
MS . MOORE : Yes, for this family, this
21 really is the only alternative .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Could they buy another
22 property if they couldn ' t do this?
MS . MOORE : What ' s the choice?
23 MR . BEEBE : If the building is not attached
and it ' s not big enough, there ' d be no point in
24 putting a second building on the property if
they ' re not attached to one another . What we want
25 to do is increase our work area and increase our
work area as one building not as two separate
75
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13'11 2007
2 areas .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, can you just come to
3 the mic . Because I think you ' re more capable, not
that you ' re not capable .
4 MS . MOORE : They are certainly more capable
expressing their unique --
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Right . Describing what
you want to do on this business zoned piece of
6 property.
MR. BEEBE : Sidney Beebe, Jr . We want to
7 increase the size of our work space . The work
space that we have is functioning now as a work
8 space and storage area .
MS . MOORE : Residential storage area .
9 MR. BEEBE : Right . We can no longer run our
business , our workshop, out of this area . It ' s
10 way too small for what we ' re doing . We ' re asking
for, to add onto this building so we can increase
11 our work area and make it as one work area as
opposed to a separate building which would have
12 certainly some functionality but not the
functionality that we need . We need continuous
13 work space not separate work spaces .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: What do you do, Mr .
14 Beebe? MR. BEEBE : General contractor .
MS . MOORE : For the record, because some --
15 most of them know you but for the record.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: I just want it on the
16 record you ' re a general contractor . What are you
storing in there that you need this much floor
17 space?
MR. BEEBE : It ' s not so much the storage as
18 the work area to perform the work we do .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re making stuff
19 there? You ' re customizing.
MR. BEEBE : For the jobs we do . We build
20 bookcases and screens .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s what I was
21 getting at . The items that you manufacture and
I 'm using that loosely, are not birdhouses . They
22 are things that need to have height and they need
to be inside all the time because you don ' t leave
23 them outside . It ' s not framing . It ' s finished
work. I want to be clear on that because I don ' t
24 think that we were clear on that in the beginning .
Builders could be cement . Builders could be
25 framers . They could be roofers . You ' re not that .
MS . MOORE : I apologize . For the record, I
76
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 should have given a lot more history of Beebe
Builders are general contractors but his specialty
3 is the fine specialized carpentry that if you do
cabinetry, specialty doors . Things that are
4 workshop . That ' s why this was called a workshop
originally on the Certificate of Occupancy. It ' s
51 exactly what has always been done . They just have
to meet the needs of the community .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would have no
objection to that work being done at that place
7 just as a matter of carbine . These are not
strictly speaking specified uses under RO, are
8 they?
MS . MOORE : Yes , they are . It ' s a -- there
9 is specific, as a special exception, custom
workshops provided that they shall not be all or
10 part of a commercial center . So this is , again if
you --
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I thought the 0 stood
for office .
12 MS . MOORE : Well is stands for lots of
things . Office is one of them.
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Not really --
MS . MOORE : No . That ' s different .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : It ' s more allowing people
to do a business on their piece of property .
15 Residential office you don ' t need a special
exception .
16 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Fine . So it would be
-- it ' s not like a real estate office . It ' s a
17 kind of business which is appropriate with special
exception?
18 MS . MOORE : Correct . And the reason the I
believe we weren ' t sent in for a special exception
19 is that we have the preexisting use .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s fine .
20 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : The point of
difficulty in this application is it ' s not a
21 typical -- the Building Department ' s applying an
accessory structure limitation is not a typical
22 accessory structure . It ' s a preexisting business
use and it ' s almost a principle use .
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Can I ask, Leslie, I
don ' t want to put you on the spot but this is a
24 law that you ' re very familiar with . Honestly, did
you ever think that this situation would come this
25 way? You were more concerned with --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Residential property
77
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 not legal business operation . That ' s why it ' s a
very unique situation .
3 MS . MOORE : Exactly. And I have to say it
took me, I really had to search this out --
4 (Everyone talking at one time . )
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Does she need to repeat
5 it?
MS . MOORE : I won ' t interrupt .
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I 'm going to repeat
it for the record. The question was asked whether
7 or not in developing the new accessory structure
code anticipation of the impact it may have on
8 accessory buildings in RO which allows for
different uses was anticipated. And I answered
9 no, it was not . That law was directed toward
residential properties and the accessory
10 structures that would be appropriate for those
kinds of properties and the uses therein .
11 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : And specifically
not addressed for legal businesses .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That is correct .
MS . MOORE : Right .
13 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : This would be a
constructive comment . Would you want to argue
14 that the 750 square foot limitation on accessory
buildings on residential properties simply should
15 not apply?
MS . MOORE : Yes . I often times say that the
16 code should not apply to certain circumstances .
This is clearly one of them but unfortunately, my
17 answer back from you guys is usually, "that ' s what
the code says . "
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That isn ' t what the
code says here, particularly.
19 MS . MOORE : No, it refers back to the
accessory schedule and that was the only that when
20 I looked at it, I said I didn ' t think it applied
to commercial until I looked very carefully and by
21 reference goes back to the accessory structure
setbacks .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It certain applies to
commercial . I don ' t doubt that for one minute
23 because it applies to accessory structure . I
don ' t think that we ' re here saying that this
24 particular law doesn ' t apply here . It does . But
I don ' t believe that this law had any anticipation
25 of this type, specifically, an RO, the RO section
of our code which has these types of uses in them
78
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 that require more than a 750 square feet -- you
couldn ' t do any carpentry work in that type of
3 building yet it was allowed in the code . It just
was not anticipated . I wanted to get that on the
4 record.
MS . MOORE : Thank you . I think that ' s a
5 very relevant point .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Do we need to -- Linda
6 just had a question . I want to clarify this .
This building and this use is not nonconforming.
7 MS . MOORE : The building is nonconforming in
setback and size . The use is conforming by
8 special exception that preexisted.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Right . It ' s
9 preexisting . It ' s not nonconforming, I guess
because it ' s a permitted use . It just didn ' t need
10 the permit .
MS . MOORE : Exactly.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Michael, you ' re
done . Leslie?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I have a couple of
questions . In shifting the elevation over
13 slightly, the actual addition over to the west,
you certainly improve the situation with the
14 neighbor to the east but you ' ve also shifted the
elevation and the impact of the peak from that
15 facade from the road front and it would be
helpful, I think, to see a new drawing with what
16 that elevation is going to look like .
MS . MOORE : If this Board is amenable to
17 what we ' ve presented so far, certainly I ask,
unfortunately, Mark had a conflict so he couldn ' t
18 be here . Mark said, if you tell me the box that I
have to work in, then I will work within it .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : This is on Autocad,
it shouldn ' t be that difficult .
20 MS . MOORE : No, it ' s not . Certainly, we can
work on that . It may change the roof pitch .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It will because the
grade is going to change . However, the other
22 question that I had was the elevation of the
garage entry and exit is toward the west ; is that
23 correct?
MS . MOORE : (To Mr . Beebe) It faces your
24 property instead, right?
MR. BEEBE : It faces west, storage building
25 underneath, yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right now the front
79
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 elevation has some garage doors on it but the side
elevation to the west is where you ' re proposing to
3 bring your driveway down .
MS . MOORE : No, wait . That ' s not right .
4 MR. BEEBE : We ' re not proposing to do any
driveway.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It ' s just doors for
so you can get in and out large -- so your putting
6 in garage doors not for garage use . You ' re going
to use the existing garage .
7 MR. BEEBE : Yes .
MS . MOORE : The front elevation is where
8 you ' re going to open up on the first floor and
expand out, the addition is going to expand out --
9 ( Inaudible) .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You have to speak into
10 the mic .
MS . MOORE : I ' m sorry . I ' m trying to get
11 them --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Get them up there then .
12 MS . MOORE : Sorry, I 'm pulling out my floor
plan .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : It shows on the floor
plan . I just want to clarify it because when
14 people see garage doors , they think it ' s going to
be used for a garage and you ' re actually just
15 using it as a means of ingress and egress for
large objects instead of a standard --
16 MR. BEEBE : That ' correct . So there
wouldn ' t be any walk ways or driveway or anything .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So the only impact
essentially other than foot traffic is going to be
18 on your neighbor to the west is going to be simply
an encroachment on that setback now which would
19 not have been the case, it would not have been
increased. It would have been longer . It
20 wouldn ' t have been any closer to your neighbor on
the west .
21 MR. BEEBE : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So my question is ,
22 because that ' s a very open, grassy area back there
and I know it ' s a kind of family compound but , for
23 the record, because we have to take into account
impacts on neighbors, I ' d like to have some
24 information about how the neighbor feels it would
have an affect or not .
25 MS . MOORE : It would, just to give the
dimensions , the ten foot change would bring the
80
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 closest point of the rear of the addition, it was
44 . 6 . It would bring it to 34 . 6 at its closest
3 point . It ' s greater as you go closer . But how
does it impact you guys .
4 MR. BEEBE : It doesn ' t impact me . It would
be fine . There ' s still plenty of room there .
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Enter your name .
MR. BEEBE : Tom Beebe, neighbor to the west .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I have a textbook
question to help in this . Where, exactly,
7 relative to the building is the boundary between
the RO and the R40 on that property?
8 MS . MOORE : From what I could tell from
scale and that ' s why I gave you the zoning map and
9 the old lot line because the old lot line had 30
feet from the old building as the original old
10 property line, the rear property line of this
property in the front . So the only place that it
11 slightly, it may encroach the zoning line may
slightly go through the building is the triangular
12 portion in the back because the angles are
different . It likes like the zoning line runs
13 parallel to the street but the property line was a
little bit different . So I can ' t give you exact,
14 I would have to map it, but since we ' re moving it
now over 10 feet, it may only be a slight .
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I ' m concerning with the
rear end. The existing shop is entirely in the RO
16 region?
MS . MOORE : Yes .
17 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : And part of the
addition would be in what is technically R40 but
18 it would be part of the same building?
MS . MOORE : I would say 90% of the addition
19 is in RO because if you go back to the subdivision
map, the piece that I gave you, it looks like the
20 property line or it is that the property line of
this property used to be 30 feet from the back of
21 the existing garage . So given that ' s where the
property line used to be, I would say that , again,
22 it ' s slightly at a different angle but the 30 feet
still keeps it in the RO .
23 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : And the house itself is
entirely in RO, right?
24 MS . MOORE : Yes, that is .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So the curious thing is
25 that the R40 portion of that lot has virtually
nothing in it and it will continue that way .
81
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No, I have nothing . I
3 think everything has been answered over and over .
I have no further questions .
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So, do you have anything
else to add to this , Ms . Moore?
5 MS . MOORE : No . If you ' re satisfied.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody in the audience
6 with a comment on this application? Hearing none
I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing .
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
MS . MOORE : Did you want me to give you an
8 elevation? A change to the elevation?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes , I think that
9 that would be important for the record since
you ' re proposing to change the actual siting of
10 the addition, I think you can submit a redrawn for
accuracy.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would like a precise
answer to the question about how much of the
12 addition is in RO and how much is in R40 , if you
can do that, roughly.
13 MS . MOORE : I would have to ask the surveyor
to re plot it . I don ' t know. I gave you the best
14 that I could .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I ' m not asking for a
15 drawing . I ' m asking for, at least , a responsible
figure .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Can you do it in a
letter?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes , I will try my best .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Between 20 and 30% or
18 between -- that ' s what I ' m asking for . I 'm not
asking --
19 MS . MOORE : I ' ll have to do an on or about
or more or less type of figure .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm going to entertain a
motion that we close this hearing until two weeks
21 pending the information that was requested which
was the zoning map and elevation .
22 MS . MOORE : I 'm sorry, elevation?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : A letter describing
23 elevation .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : And the
24 percentage of RO zoning to the new addition .
MS . MOORE : You ' re going to get an elevation
25 plan, drawing from .Mark Schwartz and a letter
describing the percentage of the addition within
82
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 the RO versus the R40 .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Correct .
3 MS . MOORE : Okay. That I can do .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
4 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made by Leslie,
5 second by Ruth . All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
6 **************** * * ***************** *
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion
7 for a five minute break.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
8 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor .
9 (See minutes for resolution) .
(Whereupon, a short recess was held . )
10 (Back on the record. )
11 Hearing #6070 - Brokaw
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ladies and Gentleman, our
12 next hearing is for Bennett Brokaw and Leslie,
that ' s yours .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . Let me read
into the record the legal notice .
14 "Request for permit is returned herewith and
disapproval on the following grounds, the proposed
15 construction on this conforming 3 . 16 acre lot in
the AC district is not permitted pursuant to
16 Article 3, Section 280-15 which states that
accessory building on the structure shall be
17 located in the required rear yard, proposed
construction will result in the existing horse
18 barn structure in a location other than the rear
yard. "
19 Upon site inspection it was pretty clear
what happened was that the barn was built before
20 the house . The horse went before the cart . So
clearly there ' s no house and there ' s a very nice
21 barn in a very beautiful agricultural setting, I
might say, and the barn conforms in every way
22 other than the location which is now legal but
will be not in a legal location once the house is
23 built as proposed. So while I 'm still searching
for my notes , would you perhaps like to fill in
24 the rest of this?
MS . MOORE : Sure . This application really
25 is very straightforward in the sense that it ' s a
technical request to put an accessory building
83
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 that is existing in a front yard because the only
logical place for a residence is in the building
3 envelope that was originally proposed. We have
the proposed house and the proposed pool all
4 within the proper setbacks but as you said, the
barn ends up being in the front . In its
5 placement , it ' s logical but under the code, it
ends up in the front yard. There was never any
6 intent to put it in a rear yard in any case
because you want to keep the agricultural use
7 where it is which is with a horse pen is sharing
both the front property and part of this property .
8 The residence is tucked in the back where it is
wooded and outside of the agricultural area .
9 There was some thinking behind this, it ' s just
unfortunately, our code did not provide for it .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I found what I was
looking for . So this nonconforming location of
11 the barn was sort of inadvertently created during
a subdivision process which didn ' t really notice
12 that at the time . Is that part of your
contention?
13 MS . MOORE : Yes . They didn ' t really
consider -- it made sense where it was proposed
14 but otherwise -- I can ' t answer for the Planning
Board but I think that it all made sense given the
15 efforts to keep this agricultural looking . If you
were to push the barn to the back, you would have
16 been pushing the house towards the front and then
you would have really, it would have looked more
17 residential than agricultural .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, I have to say I
18 agree with that completely. It ' s a 3 . 1 6 acre
parcel in the AC district and the barn and horse
19 paddock which fronts along -- well , actually the
right of way but the primary road which is Bergen
20 Avenue also is a very appropriate look and I think
it maintains, visually maintains the agricultural
21 character of the area . It ' s certainly a very
handsome barn and there really is no other place
22 you could put this dwelling anywhere on that lot
that is going to create a conforming location for
23 that barn .
MS . MOORE : Correct .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I also would like to
say for the record that we received a letter from
25 the neighbor, William and Catherine Hinderliter,
neighbors on the east side of Mr . Brokaw, and all
84
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 they want to say is that , I ' ll just paraphrase,
they do not object to the variance but they want
3 on record that the neighbors, the Brokaw ' s , are
aware of the use of their land which includes
4 tractors, trucks , equipment operating on a daily
basis as a working farm for over 100 years . I
5 think the horse barn where it is and the use of
the parcel that way is very much in keeping with
6 100 year farm next door and as long as the
Brokaw ' s are aware of the neighbor ' s concern about
7 the fact that the location of a house and swimming
pool next to a working farm may cause some dust
8 from time to time and a little bit of noise from
time to time and I don ' t think it would have much
9 impact on their decision as to where they want to
site the house but I suspect that it ' s some
10 information we may want to acknowledge for the
record.
11 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They ' re on the east .
MS . MOORE : Yes , they ' re the easterly .
12 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They' re pretty far
away .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes , yes . I think
it ' s an amenity to the area and I have no other
14 questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
15 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes , I agree . I would
say, I wonder if it would be more difficult but a
16 question with the same answer, given the land, if
the barn and the house were presented together,
17 there still would be required a variance for this .
But it ' s not clear to me that that wouldn ' t be a
18 case for approving it exactly as they are planning
it right now given the fact that that ' s the best
19 place for the barn and that ' s the best place for
the house . It all adds up to do with the fact
20 that it ' s a flag lot and somehow the front yard of
a flag lot in this case is not quite like the
21 front yard of a house that ' s right on the street .
So I don ' t have any problems with this .
22 MS . MOORE : Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth?
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think it looks just
fine . I had a little trouble finding it but once
24 I did, I was fine and I think the barn looks
great, the horses look great and I 'm sure the
25 house will look just as nice . It ' s well in
keeping of the area . It ' s an attractive addition .
85
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 MS . MOORE : Good.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I have no questions .
3 Anybody in the audience wish to make a comment on
this application? Ms . Moore, do you have anything
4 else to add?
MS . MOORE : No, I just would introduce you
5 to Bennett Brokaw who ' s here, the applicant , he ' s
in the audience, and just say hello .
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Do you have anything that
you would like to say, Mr . Brokaw?
7 MR. BROKAW: I ' m glad you appreciate my
barn . The horses love it and we love it very
8 much .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : One comment on the barn
9 is the attractiveness of the barn gives us some
confidence in thinking that the house will
10 probably not be an eyesore either .
MR . BROKAW: If you look at the plans for
11 the house .
MS . MOORE : Did you get a copy of the plans
12 in your file?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We have a detailed
13 copy of the horse barn but not for the house .
MR. BROKAW: Basically, the house is a
14 rendition of the barn .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I remember reading
15 that .
MR. BROKAW: It ' s basically a little bigger
16 than the barn, it ' s a barn .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Having seen the barn,
17 we ' ve seen Exhibit A.
MR. BROKAW: I think it ' s going to be very
18 nice when it ' s all completed.
MS . MOORE : Thank you .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Hearing no more
comments, I ' ll entertain a motion to close this
20 hearing .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZO : Motion made and seconded .
22 All those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
23
24 Hearing #6038 - Callahan
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Next hearing is for Ann
25 Callahan . Leslie, that ' s yours again .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay, let me read the
86
I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 notice, please .
"Request for a Variance under Section
3 280-122 , based on the Building Inspector ' s January
30, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
4 additions and alterations to an existing accessory
building, with conversion from the existing barn
5 use, to an accessory playhouse or similar
accessory use as per code . The existing barn,
6 plus the proposed additions , is proposed in the
nonconforming front yard, instead of the
7 code-required rear yard, at 21445 Route 25 ,
Orient : CTM 17-4-15 . "
8 Couple of comments and then I ' ll turn it
over to you . This existing structure, accessory
9 structure fronts on a 20 foot right-of-way which
is not in the architectural front yard at all
10 which is really Route 25 . You ' re looking at an
existing footprint of 28 . 6 by 20 . 3 . We ' re going
11 to wind up with 19 . 3 foot in height . Want to
create a second floor storage with dormers
12 lighting first floor outdoor shower, closet, water
heater and closet, half bath to be used as, this
13 is my question . The use is listed in various
ways, from a garden house to a tool house to a
14 storage building to a play house . It seems like a
multi --
15 MR. FITZGERALD : As I 'm sure you recognize,
those are the listings of permitted uses for
16 accessory structures in the zone .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : State your name and
17 address for the record .
MR. FITZGERALD : For the record, I ' m Jim
18 Fitzgerald representing Mrs . Callahan . So as I
was saying, the list of uses are those which are
19 listed as permitted uses in that zone . The reason
I submitted it that way is that it ' s hard to limit
20 the possible uses which are not permitted, which
are okay because they are not dispermitted under
21 the code . For instance, one of the uses would be,
one which I 'm sure would get your attention, that
22 would be a cabana or pool house and the reason for
that is Mrs . Callahan owns another piece of
23 property down the road on the Sound and what ' s
happening now apparently is that the grandkiddies
24 are coming back wet and sandy and coming into the
house and that ' s the reason for the shower and the
25 bathroom, the half bath. So it may very well be
used for all those purposes not necessarily
87
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 entirely or at the same time, obviously . In the
winter it would be different from the summer and
3 so on.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : From the way the
4 notice is written, the only disapproval is for the
front yard location, an accessory structure which
5 would be creating a greater nonconformity because
of the additions and be 13 feet and 15 . 2 feet from
6 the deeded 20 foot right-of-way along the property
line . I did notice something that I just want to
7 mention, the proposed dormers on the front are 3
which totals 20 . 3 feet, that ' s 700 of the 29 foot
8 roof width . Now, you know the code does not allow
700 . The code, the new accessory code allows a
9 much smaller percentage . It wasn ' t noticed but I
do think I want to mention that as an
10 inconsistency in the variances that might be
needed. I don ' t know how you handle that .
11 MR. FITZGERALD : In the disapproval notice .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They should have sited
12 that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : They should have
13 sited that in the disapproval .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Actually, what
14 they ' re doing is they ' re leaving it now up to the
Zoning Board to say it ' s the new code and to ask
15 the applicant if they wish to apply for a variance
in that requirement instead of them writing a
16 disapproval, they leave it up to the Board to
redirect the applicant .
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay. Well, I think
it would be important to, since you ' re going to
18 make changes under the new accessory code to try
to at least identify compliance or grant a
19 variance if it ' s not compliant . So, Jim, how do
we proceed on this?
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, honestly, I 'm quite
surprised by what Linda just said because it ' s
21 really not our purview to say whether it ' s a
dormer or not .
22 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : They ' re saying
they want a Board resolution before they would
23 amend it to say they need it . The staff has asked
a couple of the times because they had filed in
24 August of 2006, which is over a year ago, that the
Building Department doesn ' t address the new law.
25 I 'm confused by that .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The procedure is a
88
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 little --
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : We do address the
3 new law . Well this Board has to address the new
law : Whether the Building Department is willing
4 or not to amend its disapproval to reflect the new
law, you can only grant what ' s according to the
5 current law.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Even if it ' s unrelated
6 to the specific issue before us?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I 'm a little concerned
7 about us defining what our notice of disapproval
should or shouldn ' t say.
8 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We can send it back to
the Building Department .
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes, but I don ' t want to
say, tell them, wait this is a dormer, deny it . I
10 don ' t think that that ' s within our --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Let me just point out
11 here that on the plan submitted by the architect ,
so let them speak rather than me, it says dormers
12 on front total 20 feet 3 inches equal 700 of 29
foot roof . So by their submission there --
13 MR. FITZGERALD : That ' s my doing in
response .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That wasn ' t given to the
Building Department .
15 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : No, that wasn ' t
given to the Building Department . Jim said that
16 wasn ' t given to the Building Department . Not the
March drawing with the calculations . So that
17 would be the next step . Nobody has asked Mr .
Fitzgerald to give that calculation to the
18 Building Department . That ' s where we ' re at .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I would think he
19 should, that ' s what I 'm saying .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Because you have one
20 or two choices . Either we have the option --
well, we can ' t do anything until there ' s a notice
21 of disapproval on it .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : That ' s under the
22 old procedure, Jim, you know how some of the maps
didn ' t have all the information and now we have a
23 different procedure with better maps .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So this is January 30th .
24 The Notice of Disapproval hasn ' t been amended
since then . The law changed in the meantime .
25 They need to go back.
MR. FITZGERALD : How about if we take off
89
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 the two dormers and the reason I say that so
quickly is that they ' re really anxious to get
3 going.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I mean I don ' t want you
4 to say that we denied them. I mean, I think we
see a problem.
5 MR. FITZGERALD : I understand and we talked
about this .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : They ' re aware of this
specific problem?
7 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : If you ' re willing to
8 resubmit another drawing to code, the dormers are
to code, then the only thing before us is the
9 setback and you don ' t need anything else except an
amended submission .
10 MR. FITZGERALD : We are willing to do that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We can grant it as
11 applied or not applied. We ' re not asking for more
variances .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Right . We ' ll do
that?
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : As long as you ' re willing
to .
14 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So can you get the
architect to draw something?
15 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We are we now? Leslie,
16 you have your say on this , you ' re okay?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yep .
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes , fine .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, you have two sets
19 of plans for the first floor on the uses . Which
is the one that, the newest one, I would assume is
20 the June 13th one instead of this one?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes . No, this is the one
21 with the -- no, I 'm sorry . This one with the
multiple use description .
22 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Used as a garden house,
tool house, storage house and a play house .
23 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And that ' s the one that ' s
24 dated June 13 , 2007 .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Okay, so I don ' t get
25 confused.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, so Ruth, do you have
90
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 anything else?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Carry on .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I did have one
4 question, sorry. I just wanted to ask, is the
intention here to keep this structure unheated and
5 to use it seasonally?
MR. FITZGERALD : That ' s correct .
6 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay . Thank you .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So we can put in there
7 must remain unheated. Water? You ' re going to
have water, the bathroom.
8 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, if that is a factor
in the approval but toward what end would that be?
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, she asked a
question and you agreed. That ' s why. If you have
10 an explanation for it .
MR. FITZGERALD : Let me put it this way, as
11 far as I know, but I think it would be unless you
need to for some reason that it not be a condition
12 of approval .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That it not be unheated.
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That it be unheated.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie indicated to us ,
14 she asked a question, is it going to be heated?
You said no .
15 MR. FITZGERALD : That ' s correct but that ' s
before you said what you said.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s why I 'm saying it .
I want to make sure you understand what you just
17 said .
MR. FITZGERALD : Okay . May I change my
18 answer then?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes .
19 MR. FITZGERALD : Not necessarily .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it might be
20 heated?
MR. FITZGERALD: It might be at some time in
21 the future . There is no plan to do that now but I
would not want to make a commitment for the owners
22 that would bind them forever more .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Leslie, are you
23 satisfied or you need to follow up on that answer?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, usually the
24 intent with an accessory structure -- well, I
don ' t know . Most accessory structures are
25 unheated.
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : We can impose a
91
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 condition without having him say fine or not .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, I know .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He expressed his concern
for that and we certainly can take that into
4 consideration .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Exactly.
5 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : There ' s plumbing .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : If there ' s plumbing,
6 then you have to drain it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : There ' s heat, you don ' t
7 want it to freeze .
MR. FITZGERALD : I don ' t want the heat or no
8 heat to become an issue with the question of
whether or not you approve this , okay? And if
9 that ' s the case, then tell me that now and I ' ll
change my answer back to --
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Whatever it takes to
get the approval .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re too easy Mr .
Fitzgerald.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You know, obviously,
in part the concern, the reason that this comes up
13 sometime is because when you begin to put plumbing
in some places, as I ' m sure you ' re aware, and you
14 have all those permitted uses listed, if it ' s
heated, it certainly can become livable space and
15 in some cases it can become a small free space .
It can become a little secondary dwelling .
16 MR. FITZGERALD: Exactly. The DEC does that
all the time . They say why do you want such a big
17 dock? Are you going to buy a big boat in the
future? They attribute future plans to the
18 current situation .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well, I think we ' re going
19 to have to hash that out . It may or may not be
able to have heat in it, sir, at this point in
20 time .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : That ' s up to us .
21 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: It ' s something we might
need to discuss . You seem amenable to either
22 decision . You seem non combative to either
decision we make . You would prefer not to have it
23 restricted to not having heat if they ' re allowed
to have heat by code .
24 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s your stance?
25 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes, but I would not like
to have that become a deal breaker .
92
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : So, I understand.
MR. FITZGERALD : If that ' s the case, tell me
3 and I will agree to say it will remain unheated.
But if it ' s not necessary, then I would prefer --
4 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll say this . I have no
objection, personally, to you having heat in that
5 building because you have water there . In other
words, you don ' t want the pipes to freeze up .
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So you drain them.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And as you hear, there
7 are other sides to that story. And when we
deliberate, one person or two people are going to
8 come up on the short end of this . I can ' t tell
you which way that ' s going to be, okay.
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I heard what you had to
10 say and I ' ll have my reasons for what I want to do
and other people will have other reasons and
11 someone will prevail .
MR. FITZGERALD : That ' s all I ask.
12 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else have any
questions?
13 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : There is a
neighbor .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay . Mr . Fitzgerald,
are you completed with your presentation?
15 MR. FITZGERALD : I 'm done .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Just state your
16 name and address , please .
MR. HORTON : My name is Stuart Horton . My
17 wife and I reside at 21335 Main Road, Orient and
we are the adjacent neighbors to Ann Callahan on
18 the west side . And we came here today to clarify
a few things . Our primary concern is privacy
19 because as this is constituted now, I ' ve got to
clarify the sketch, the architectural sketches .
20 I 'm still not sure which elevations are which . I
assume and maybe you can help with this . I assume
21 this is the west side, the right elevation?
MR. FITZGERALD : This is the existing front
22 yard.
MR. HORTON : Now, if we were standing with
23 our backs to that, this would the right elevation?
MR. FITZGERALD : This would be looking
24 north . This is the front door . I 'm sorry looking
west .
25 MR. HORTON : You ' re looking -- your back and
my back is the --
93
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sir, you have to use that
microphone, okay. Maybe Mr . Fitzgerald, you can
3 use this one . I don ' t know but you can ' t have a
discussion in front of us . We ' re the ones that
4 have to ask the questions . .
MR. HORTON : We stopped in see you folks the
5 other day and we still had this question of which
elevation is which and it makes quite a bit of
6 difference to us . Because if the right elevation
is facing us on the west, we really don ' t have an
7 issue . If the left elevation is on the west side,
then we got extra windows that aren ' t there now
8 looking down into our bedroom and our back patio
and backyard. So that was our first concern. The
9 second concern is the cupola . Is that accessible?
Is that going to be a spyglass area? That
10 definitely spans all of our property and my wife
and daughter like to go out and sunbathe . My
11 suggestion, perhaps to rectify that, would be to
louver the window lights and not have window
12 lights there . We don ' t want Ann to be prevented
from what she wishes to do but we have a family
13 concern with the privacy .
MRS . HORTON : Not only that . I feel that --
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ma ' am, your name,
MRS . HORTON : Florence Horton . I feel that
15 with all those windows , I feel that you ' re taking
away a lot of our privacy. It ' s so close to our
16 property.
MR. FITZGERALD : The left side is the one
17 that would be facing you .
MRS . HORTON : And it also depends on the
18 size of the windows and it also depends on the
widow ' s walk that you ' re planning . Is that all
19 glass up there?
MR. FITZGERALD : This is not accessible .
20 It ' s just an architectural .
MRS . HORTON : And it can ' t be changed into
21 glass for the future? Because that would be
awful . It would be like having Big Brother
22 looking right down in our yard. And it ' s so
close .
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All right . Hold on .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Jim, we ' re not
24 picking you up . We don ' t get your answers .
MR . FITZGERALD : The first , the cupola is
25 not accessible and, as far as I know, there are no
plans and it has never come up in my discussions
94
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 with the owners that it would be any different
from what it is now. And that is that it is
3 simply something intended to be an architectural
feature .
4 MRS . HORTON : Right now the picture looks
like it would be, right now it appears to look
5 like it would be glass so they can get a higher
view of the water . That ' s the way it looked like
6 to me .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Excuse me . Can I
7 clarify this because I can read these plans . The
cupola is just decorative . There are no stairs on
8 the inside at all . It ' s only to let light in the
middle because the second floor as proposed has a
9 kind of opening in it with a railing so that you
can go up to the second floor but the cupola is
10 going to shine down to the first floor, the light .
But there ' s no stairs going up .
11 MRS . HORTON : Can they put them in later?
Because that would invade our privacy.
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Not -- well, you can
do anything architecturally, if you want to badly
13 enough .
MRS . HORTON : But if it is stipulated in the
14 present plans then it can never be put it and it
would not take away our privacy. Not only our
15 privacy but the people on Lyle ' s property, Lyle
Suttle ' s property, on the east side .
16 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We can condition this
as, if you ' re agreeable, as uninhabitable,
17 non-habitable space strictly a decorative element .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Non-habitable but
18 non-accessible .
MRS . HORTON : I know that they are not going
19 to be living there, I understand that , but I know
of other places where they do have a staircase and
20 they can go up there and they can get the view . I
object to that because it is an invasion of our
21 property and I feel it would an invasion of the
east side property. And the other thing -- okay,
22 let him speak.
MR. HORTON : I want to hark back to the
23 elevation again because now Mr . Fitzgerald just
told us the left elevation is fronting us .
24 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes .
MR. HORTON : The right elevation we --
25 MR. FITZGERALD: Your property is to the
west ; is that correct?
95
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 MRS . HORTON : We ' re on the west side .
MR. HORTON : The right elevation is
3 basically as it is today . There are two small
windows and a bigger window above as it exists
4 today and that is looking at us . Now, they
changed it around and put four windows in. It
5 seems , and again, on the higher elevation -- the
left elevation we have a greater height . Again,
6 boom, right down .
MR. FITZGERALD : Can we look at the pictures
7 that are in your --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Pictures of the
8 actual elevation?
MR. FITZGERALD : The photographs . The
9 reason I 'm asking --
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We ' re not picking
10 you up, Jim.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Here we go .
11 MR. FITZGERALD : This is the side that faces
you .
12 MR. HORTON : That ' s correct which I hope is
going to be this .
13 MRS . HORTON : You see that has two windows
and a window there . I don ' t want .
14 MR. HORTON : We would object to that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. That ' s enough
15 discussion . Mr . Fitzgerald.
MRS . HORTON : They had mentioned that we had
16 mentioned this was our side but now we ' ve been
told it ' s the other side and that I don ' t, I
17 disapprove of highly.
MR. HORTON : Ann, Mrs . Callahan told us .
18 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Mr . Fitzgerald . Mr .
Horton, please . We ' re trying to hold a hearing
19 here . You guys want to negotiate, that ' s fine .
We will listen to Mr . and Mrs . Horton . You don ' t
20 need to satisfy them in any respect at this point
in time . We ' ll listen to what they have to say.
21 We ' ll listen to what you have to say and then
we ' ll make our decision based on that, okay . But
22 we ' re not here for negotiation . You have an
application. Your application has been submitted.
23 We ' re going to accept it as it is . Mr . and
Mrs . Horton have brought up very cogent points .
24 Certainly not ones that I had thought about and
we ' re going to use them to the best of our ability
25 to make a decision, okay . So Mr . Horton, do you
have anything else to add to this? Now, we
96
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 understand that you have the four windows on the
side and you don ' t like that . You think your
3 privacy is going to be invaded .
MR. HORTON : In closing, if they use the
4 right elevation facing us rather than the left
elevation, just turn things about, that would be
5 fine .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. You feel pretty
6 good about that?
MRS . HORTON : Well, right presently, if you
7 look at the pictures he has , on the west side
there are the two small windows and a larger
8 window up above .
MR. HORTON : Basically, almost a mirror of
9 that elevation.
MRS . HORTON : And that ' s what we were told
10 that that was what -- I just didn ' t want big
windows and everything invading our privacy .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And the cupola thing is
another .
12 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What they ' ve done is
added one small window to what ' s there . Right
13 now, there ' s three windows . They ' ve added one
window .
14 MR. HORTON : The positioning of those
windows .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : They ' ve repositioned
it but they still have one more window.
16 MRS . HORTON : Still takes more privacy away.
MR. HORTON : The other things is --
17 MRS . HORTON : We don ' t care --
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Hold on . This lady over
18 here has to transcribe what you ' re saying .
MR. HORTON : I know she does . .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : And then, guess what , we
have to read it . So one person at a time needs to
20 speak and try to speak into the microphone and
we ' ll go on from there .
21 MR. HORTON : All right . Just in closing,
Mrs . Callahan, Ann, said that they were not going
22 to change anything on the west end of the barn .
So that ' s why we thought the right elevation was
23 what she meant . But now Mr . Fitzgerald says it ' s
reversed. We would prefer the right elevation on
24 the west end .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay.
25 MR. HORTON : Thank you .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Thank you very much . Mr .
97
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD : The right elevation, you
3 will notice, has a door in it on the drawing. The
right elevation has a door in it and it is not the
4 elevation that faces the Horton ' s property. The
one that is indicated here as left elevation is
5 the one that faces the Horton ' s property and as
the Board said, the only difference in this
6 drawing from the photograph is the addition of a
small window in the upper left hand part of that
7 elevation .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Let me ask you this, Mr .
8 Fitzgerald, what utilization do you get out of
that small window?
9 MR. FITZGERALD : I 'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : What utilization do you
10 get out of that small window?
MR . FITZGERALD : I have no idea .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : This is supposed to be,
number one, an accessory structure . So windows
12 aren ' t supposed to be of utmost importance . Do
you think you can take that window out?
13 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes . I 'm glad you asked
that .
14 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay . Could you just
submit to us another map that doesn ' t have those
15 windows in it .
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Now, the cupola .
MR. FITZGERALD : Wait . I ' m sorry . The one
17 window that is added, you ' re talking about?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Right .
18 MR. FITZGERALD: Leaving the three other
windows as they are .
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Certainly. It looks
almost exactly like what they are looking at right
20 now . Now, the cupola . You need to somehow
convince your neighbors that they are not going to
21 be climbing up there and peeking all over the
place . Now, is there a way to put opaque type
22 window in there or something, not glass but
something that ' s opaque that you can get light
23 through but you can ' t see through?
MR. FITZGERALD : I 'm sure that we could but
24 then perhaps the Horton ' s would say couldn ' t that
be changed later on?
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : But they would see it
being changed . You wouldn ' t see a stairwell going
98
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 in .
MR. FITZGERALD : What I would suggest is
3 that the cupola be simply added on top of the
existing roof or the rebuilt roof with no
4 connection between the interior of the cupola and
the interior --
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : My understanding was that
you wanted to gain the light from this thing . You
6 have this hole in the middle .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It gets the light in .
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I have no objection to
that . I mean you just replace the windows with
8 something that is glazed, that allows light in but
you can ' t see out of . Is that a possibility?
9 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Would you be opposed to
10 us making that a restriction?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, I would not be opposed
11 to that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Is everybody happy with
12 that?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : One question . Just
13 to make sure we have this , you ' re going to
resubmit a plan that is going to show compliance
14 with the dormer code, percentage that is allowed
by code . You ' re going to resubmit an elevation
15 for the west that shows no changes in that
elevation relative to windows , okay.
16 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And I think if we
17 condition the cupola as non accessible through any
interior or exterior stair, that as far as I ' m
18 concerned, noone will be able to see out of it no
matter what you put in it whether it ' s translucent
19 or clear .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : If you can ' t get there,
20 you can ' t look out .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : If you can ' t get to
21 it, you can ' t look out of it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Well , I think the concern
22 with that , Leslie, is anybody, you can tell
anybody that but inside a building you can do just
23 about anything you want and get away with it .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Well, if you look at
24 this floor plan, it would be pretty doggone
difficult for them to put in an access stair based
25 on what they ' re being approved on . There ' s a hole
in the middle .
99
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I agree with you on that .
Honestly, the only verifiable way of doing that is
3 so that when someone looks at this thing, they
can tell whether you can see through those windows
4 or not . It ' s probably a $60 fix as opposed to
spending $5, 000 or $6, 000 building a stairwell
5 inside . But certainly it ' s something that ' s
verifiable and certainly that ' s something that may
6 make the neighbors feel a little better . That ' s
only my opinion .
7 MR. FITZGERALD: We will indicate that the
glazing in the cupola will be translucent glass or
8 plastic .
MRS . HORTON : May I have one more?
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sure .
MRS . HORTON : I was also told that there
10 really wasn ' t going to be a lot of change made on
that barn but the dormers, the cupola, all the
11 windows , the doors on all the sides, north and
south side, the east and west side . That ' s a lot
12 of changes for an old antique barn . That ' s what I
feel . I don ' t care about Ann utilizing the barn .
13 That ' s hers . That ' s fine . But I think when you
start talking about all these things and now we ' re
14 having some problem with a cupola which could
easily just get one of those wrought iron winding
15 stairs they could put it at any time they wanted
to .
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Well, we ' re taking care
of that now, Mrs . Horton.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The one thing I want
to point out again is the size of the cupola is
18 such that if you put winding stairs up to it,
there would be no --
19 MRS . HORTON : I 'm just mean one of those
small ones like in a lighthouse .
20 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes but there would
be no physically big enough space for anybody to
21 do anything with . You ' d be going up standing on a
stair landing and looking out . You couldn ' t put a
22 chair in there .
MRS . HORTON : No . What they use them for is
23 just to get the view of the Sound and the Bay.
That ' s all .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : To walk up a flight
of stairs and to look out?
25 MRS . HORTON : Yes, they will . I know
somebody who already has one .
100
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Listen, I think we
ironed most of this out . The applicant is
3 entitled to make changes to this building and
they ' re entitled to enjoy to some respect even
4 entitled to enjoy a variance, you know, if it ' s a
hardship . I think we ' ve covered this enough. If
5 anybody in the audience has anything to say, say
it right now . If not, I ' ll entertain a motion --
6 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I have a
question . A clarification of the record on the
7 use of the building . What it will be used for?
What is it proposed for Is it going to be
8 sleeping or any overnight purposes and intent?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We can ask that question .
9 Mr . Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD : Yes?
10 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Could you hear
me? I was talking kind of low.
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Come up to the
microphone, please . Are you going to have
12 sleeping quarters in this? Any intention?
MR. FITZGERALD : No .
13 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. So it ' s not going
to be inhabited in any way?
14 MR. FITZGERALD : It ' s not overnight .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No kitchen?
15 MR. FITZGERALD : No kitchen .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anything else that you
16 would need, Linda?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : I think that ' s
17 good . Thank you very much .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' ll entertain a motion
18 to close this hearing .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
19 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Subject to receiving --
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Subject to receiving
20 those changes that we talked about ; the dormer,
the indication on the elevation that the glazing
21 will be translucent in the cupola and that you
will remove one window on the west elevation.
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Okay. So we got that
down . Motion made by Leslie .
23 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Seconded by Ruth . All
24 those in favor?
(See minutes for resolution . )
25
Hearing #6041 - Reeve
101
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The next hearing is for
Valerie and Foster Reeve has been withdrawn . I
3 don ' t think we need to do anything on that .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Just a resolution
4 to confirm that , that she ' s withdrawn .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. I ' ll have a
5 resolution to confirm the withdrawal of Valerie
and Foster Reeve ' s application .
6 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : So moved.
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second .
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor?
8 (See minutes for resolution . )
9 Hearing #6076 - Simon .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Next one is Robert K.
10 Simon and that ' s mine and I ' ll read the notice .
"Request for a Variance under Section
11 280-122 and 280-124 , based on the Building
Inspector ' s July 24 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval
12 and Zoning Code Interpretation #5038 (Walz
Application) , disapproving an addition with
13 alterations to the existing single-family
dwelling, for the reason that the new construction
14 at less than 40 feet from the front lot line,
which will increase the degree of nonconformance
15 with regard to the front yard setback. Location :
3715 Main Bayview Road, Southold; CTM 78-2-14 . "
16 Sir you wish to be heard, just state your
name and address , please .
17 MR. SIMON : My name is Robert K. Simon,
property owner of 3715 Main Bayview, Southold .
18 First of all, good afternoon . No relation to
Michael, whatsoever .
19 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Disclosure, right?
MR. SIMON : Disclosure
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The way you said it .
MR. SIMON : Anyhow, I ' ve been trying to, I
21 put in an application to improve this property
March 2003 . It is now four plus years and I gave
22 a brief history synopsis in the application with
my application. I have been rejected because of
23 my first application was to move the house and
make it in compliance with you people, move it
24 back and attach the house to the garage . This
would put it back about 50 some odd feet from the
25 road . Denied. Reason? Board of Health . Board
of Health said you must have a septic system that
102
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 is tested and approved because that ' s what they
require from the Building Department before they
3 will give you an application . Had the system
tested. Denied. Why? Their reason was that they
4 could not get a substantial sizing of the
application because there was no C of 0 submitted
5 with the house . The house was built in 1932 to
the best recollection of neighbors and myself . No
6 existing C of 0 . Applied for a C of 0 . Rejected .
Why? Three violations ; dormer upstairs which is
7 put on the house in 1932 only has a six foot six
ceiling height . Okay. Please give me an
8 application to repair the dormer . Can ' t do . it
because you need the certificate from the Board of
9 Health . After meeting with Mike Verity many
times, he suggested repair the house where it is .
10 I submitted the application to repair the house
where it is . Rejected . Too close to the road.
11 Back to four years ago, all right . So submit an
application for zoning variance . That ' s the brief
12 history. There are other little incidents that
have happened along the way . My plan is to
13 restore the house exactly as it is except with a
new ceiling height upstairs of seven feet six
14 inches which requires a new roof . By the way, the
back roof could be put on because it ' s more than
15 40 feet . The house is only 22 feet wide but the
house because it has a front porch is 27 feet from
16 the road plus the front porch which is
approximately 8 feet . So now the front part of
17 the slanting roof falls less than the 40 feet .
So, I ' m here appealing to you people to approve
18 just the repair . The house is not being any
bigger . There is an outside stairway which is
19 another illegal thing that had been put on
someplace in the 40 ' s or 50 ' s . That will be
20 removed and actually, the house is going to be
smaller with that gone . I don ' t know what else to
21 tell you . Please help .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Do you have approval
22 from the Health Department to just renovate the
house that stands?
23 MR. SIMON : I don ' t need an approval from
the Health Department because it ' s an existing
24 septic system that has been tested by an engineer
and approved.
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Very good.
MR. SIMON : But to move the house, I would
103
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 need a whole new septic system.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I think we all understand
3 that . But basically the reason why you ' re before
us is because this Walz decision says that if you
4 increase the degree of nonconformity which is , you
have to raise that roof a little bit on a
5 nonconforming side of your house and that ' s why
you ' re here . You need that very minimal variance .
6 So let ' s see how it goes . Leslie?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So you ' re proposal
7 now is to leave the house where it is?
MR. SIMON : Yes .
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Not to move it back .
Poor guy ' s been caught in every kind of circular
9 double bind. With regard to the other structures
in the rear yard that are really dilapidated
10 condition, what are your plans for those?
MR. SIMON : Refurbish them.
11 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re really going
to be able to do that?
12 MR. SIMON : Actually, the back house, there
was an illegal residence in the back house,
13 actually it was legal at the time, I guess .
Mr . McCaslin (phonetic) who owned the house lived
14 with his girlfriend and I don ' t know, somebody who
lived in the front, that was originally a scallop
15 shucking shack and, believe it or not, I would
like to return it to a scallop shucking shack
16 rather than -- there is a bathroom in there but
it ' s certainly not in any kind of condition that
17 you would want anyone to even.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Yes, they both look
18 like if you blow on them and they ' re about to fall
over .
19 MR. SIMON : And getting rougher . Every time
it rains, I can ' t keep the water out . I ' ve tried
20 to patch the roof superficially and it ' s just
treading water at this point .
21 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So your plan is to
renovate in place and in kind both of the
22 structures that are there? So your plan with
regard to the original oyster shucking structure
23 --
MR. SIMON : Scallop shucking .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Scallop, to refurbish
that . Will it be heated? Will it continue to
25 have plumbing inside?
MR. SIMON : No . It has an existing toilet .
104
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 I would like to leave the existing toilet that ' s
been in there .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Honestly, that ' s not the
subject of this .
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I just want to
understand potential lot coverage, potential
5 impact .
MR. SIMON : My basic plan to answer your
6 question is to move the house back, to finish the
house in its -- this is what Mike told me to do .
7 Get the house done as it is where it is . Once
that is done, I can apply for the C of 0 .
8 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Wait , sir . Let ' s just
talk about this particular application .
9 MR. SIMON : That ' s what I 'm talking about,
the front house . I ' m not talking about anything
10 else .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Just go as far as getting
11 a CO for this house . Don ' t go any farther than
that . We don ' t need to discuss scallop shops . We
12 don ' t need to discuss lot coverage . We don ' t need
to discuss any other setback other than this 40
13 foot dormer . And I ' d like for that to be just
part of that record.
14 MR. SIMON : Okay.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Leslie, you have anything
15 else you ' d like to add?
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just to clarify that
16 you ' re dealing with an existing 27 foot front yard
setback and the increase in nonconformity is going
17 to be simply as a result of renovation which will
create a second floor that will go from a
18 nonconforming six foot six inch ceiling height to
a seven foot six inch ceiling height . There will
19 not be two houses on the property.
MR. SIMON : No, correct .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Yes . Question . I
21 think the question of the moving of the house is
relevant to part of the reasons for justifying,
22 for giving the variance for the 27 feet . If
you ' re planning to move it, that has some
23 relevance . Now, would it be less expensive, if it
were legally permissible, would it be less
24 expensive to move the house first and then do
these repairs?
25 MR. SIMON : With due respect to the
Chairman, if we don ' t want to address the problem
105
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 but I will be glad to address the problem, if you
don ' t mind .
3 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : I ' d prefer that you did
not .
4 MR. SIMON : It would definitely be smarter
to move the house first because first of all, the
5 original plan that was submitted to the Building
Department included a whole new foundation . So
6 now we ' re starting from something substantial .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The problem with it,
7 Mike, is that we have to hear certain information
pertaining to what we ' re going to make the
8 decision on . We ' re not going to make a decision
that he can ' t put this dormer on based on the fact
9 that he can ' t move the house, okay. I prefer not
to have that as part of this hearing . It ' s not
10 relevant . It ' s not relevant to our decision . It
shouldn ' t be made any part of our record and we
11 should make a decision just based on what we see
which is a very minimal increase, about a two and
12 a half foot increase, in height that is not
nonconforming to this particular building. What
13 Mr . Simon does after that will probably be the
subject of another hearing.
14 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I was trying to pursue
that a little bit further . In the discussion as
15 to award, I think the relevant variance, is
whether to give him the thirteen foot variance for
16 the front yard setback and one of the things that
makes that more attractive is an understanding
17 that that ' s going to be obliterated when he
applies to move the house further back. So
18 somehow there ought to be, the idea of giving
someone a variance with the understanding that
19 they ' re going to remove the house that requires
the variance in the first place seems to be really
20 bizarre and isn ' t ' there any legal way in which we
could link these two things together so that he
21 could then do both things at once?
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Michael, he ' s
22 applying for one thing . He ' s applying to raise
the roof, essentially a foot and a half or
23 whatever it is .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : He ' s applying for a
24 front yard variance .
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Right , as a
25 result of raising a story by a foot, right? He ' s
not applying to move the house back so I don ' t
106
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 think -- I 'm going to try and answer your
question. I don ' t think you can condition the
3 variance of raising that roof a foot on him moving
the house back in the future . That ' s not what
4 he ' s applying for .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I understand that but
5 --
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : So my answer is
6 no .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : Let me try one more
7 paraphrase . Given the history of this , which I
think is of some relevance and it certainly makes
8 me, at least , more sympathetic to his particular
plight , is the decision to give him the variance
9 whether I think Walz is a silly technicality or
not is going to be, based on the fact of whether
10 there ' s going to be a house in perpetuity 27 feet
from the road . And the only reason he ' s doing
11 this is because he wants to move the house is
because it ' s what he wants to do . So we can ' t
12 force him to move the house again after he does
this . He could sell it after he puts in his
13 dormer with a 27 foot variance .
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : Exactly, so he
14 should just -- we should rule on the variance
that ' s applied for then as if there ' s no intention
15 to move it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael, he ' s not asking
16 for a 27 foot variance .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : He ' s asking for a 13
17 foot variance .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He ' s not asking for any
18 variance increase or decrease in variance
whatsoever . That exists already. He ' s asking to
19 raise his roof two and a half feet in a
nonconforming location .
20 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : But is he applying for
a front yard variance?
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: No .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No .
22 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : He is according to Walz .
It increases the degree of nonconformity but not
23 --
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : The front yard variance
24 is for the whole house .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s existing .
25 ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : He ' s not applying
for a front yard variance . There ' s already a
107
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 nonconformity in the front yard setback. It ' s a
nonconforming setback . He ' s applying to increase
3 the degree of nonconformity within that setback.
So you ' re not granting him a 27 foot setback.
4 You ' re granting an increase in the degree of
nonconformance, of existing nonconformity.
5 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Increase in bulk.
ATTORNEY MEMBER CORCORAN : If you choose to
6 grant it .
BOARD MEMBER SIMON : I 'm not convinced.
7 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Just one quick thing.
In doing this , the foundation which exists now, is
8 really cinder block.
MR. SIMON : You ' re looking at only the front
9 porch. The front porch . The rest of the
foundation is poured concrete .
10 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay and it ' s in
decent enough shape for you to proceed with
11 construction without having to tear stuff down?
MR. SIMON : Okay. To answer your question,
12 if you look at all the windows in the house which
happen to have plywood on them now because of the
13 Building Department . All the windows are square .
You look at the lines of shingles not on the porch
14 because it was built on piers and they have all --
they will be repaired.
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Okay . That ' s
sometimes an issue when there ' s renovation going
16 on . Okay . Thank you .
MR. SIMON : Thank you for your time .
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Anybody else wish to make
a comment on this?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Of course you can .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Gee, thanks . I just
want to really compliment you on having the
20 patience to go through all this because the
buildings are in horrible shape all of them and it
21 certainly will, any little improvement, will be an
improvement to the whole neighborhood, which is a
22 little more classy .
MR. SIMON : I do feel bad for the neighbors
23 because it ' s been -- you cut the grass but you
can ' t prevent kids from going in . If I lived next
24 door to it, I ' d be very worried about something
going on that shouldn ' t be going on .
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I thank you for trying
to clean it up .
108
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 MR. BENITEZ : Good afternoon . My name is
Roberto Benitez . I am a resident in Southold . I
3 have known Bob Simon for over 12 years and I
empathize, sometimes at 6 : 30 at the Grateford Deli
4 (phonetic) of all his trials and tribulations in
this process . Is that a fact? So I have grown
5 older with Bob and I would really appreciate it if
you give your utmost consideration and grant this
6 variance so we can enjoy the rest of our lives
with safety in mind . Thank you .
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You seemed to enjoy this
meeting, sir . I watched you back there . You were
8 very entertained by this .
MR. BENITEZ : I listened to every thing .
9 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We don ' t have an easy
job, do we?
10 MR. BENITEZ : I ' ve been a Board Member so
I ' ve been at your seat .
11 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else which to
make a comment on this application? Hearing none,
12 I ' ll entertain a motion to close this hearing .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So moved.
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Second .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All those in favor?
14 (See minutes for resolution . )
********************************************
15 Hearing #6063 - Sherman
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Sherman .
16 MR. BOHN : Good afternoon. How are you?
I ' m Robert Bohn .
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Hold on just a second,
sir . Who ' s application is this?
18 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s mine .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Ruth, it ' s your turn .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You ' ll have to explain
to me exactly what you want to do .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You want to read that
notice, please .
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Oh, let ' s see .
"Request , as amended, for Variances under
22 Sections 280-10 and 280-124 , based on the Building
Inspector ' s April 12 , 2007 Notice of Disapproval
23 concerning a proposed deck addition which: ( 1 )
will be less than 10 feet on a single side yard;
24 (2 ) will be less than 35 feet total side yard
setbacks ; and ( 3 ) will exceed the code limitation
25 of 200 lot coverage . Location : 260 Founders
Path, Southold; CTM 64-2-24 . "
109
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 MR. BOHN : You need to know what we ' re
proposing then, right? You ' re unclear on what we
3 want to do?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Yes , I 'm not clear at
4 all .
MR. BOHN : Okay .
5 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Your name?
MR. BOHN : Robert Bohn, 95 Terry Court,
6 Southold. We propose to, if you ' ll grant it, a
five foot setback on the side yard instead of the
7 three that was proposed. Eliminate the shed and
to shrink the deck down to 20 by 30 overall to
8 will then be, I think, a 330 lot coverage but
every residence in the neighborhood, if you look
9 into it, can pretty much guarantee that they all
exceed. This is an old neighbor with very small
10 lots . The area we want to improve upon is kind of
a dead area in the yard. The rest of the yard is
11 complete, planted, beautiful . All the neighbors
are in favor . We plan to put a deck at grade with
12 a set of steps down from the residence to the
deck.
13 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What is the deck going
to be made out of?
14 MR. BOHN : CCA framework and a composite
decking, wood.
15 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: It ' s going to be at
grade level or it ' s going to be raised?
16 MR. BOHN : Because of the grade situation,
it ' s a gradual slope, portions may be out but
17 we ' re going to keep the decking at grade as much
as possible .
18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : It ' s on the
diagram that you submitted.
19 MR. BOHN : Yes , it ' s on the side of that
very simple diagram but it should explain .
20 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Okay. Ruth, do you have
anything else?
21 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: And how many steps
down?
22 MR. BOHN : It should end up being at least
three or four from the house to grade .
23 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Onto the deck at
grade coming out of the sliding .
24 MR. BOHN : Out of the residence, yes . All
conforming to Town code .
25 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: What are the steps
going to be made out of?
110
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 MR. BOHN : Same material as the decking,
wood .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What ' s the top deck?
Cedar?
4 MR. BOHN : Cedar, yes .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : So it ' s just the
5 underlay with the joist that are going to be CC .
MR. BOHN : Yes , for brick ground contact .
6 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Ruth, are you finished?
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: I think I am.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Leslie, do you have
anything else?
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Nothing .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Michael?
9 BOARD MEMBER SIMON : No, no questions .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : If it ' s going to be at
10 grade, I 'm just wondering how you get to us .
MR. BOHN : The Building Department has
11 issues with the wood structure at grade . They ' re
afraid we ' re going to build a residence on top of
12 this wood structure which we ' re not going to do
which we ' ll put on paper and commit to on paper
13 and get it notarized. For the life of the
residents of the home, they ' re not going to make
14 any attempt .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to say, must
15 remain open to the sky .
MR. BOHN : Absolutely.
16 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Any reason why it can ' t
be concrete?
17 MR. BOHN : They are against concrete, the
people who own the residence . They wish to have a
18 nice softer look.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s kind of fairly
19 impervious , I would say. Water runs through it .
MR. BOHN : Exactly. They have some neighbor
20 issues there, the low spot . It ' s better to have
spacing between the decking so water percolates
21 down .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: How wide will the
22 boards be on the decking?
MR. BOHN : Your typical 5 foot by 6 board,
23 five and a half by an inch and an eighth, spaced a
quarter inch .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : You ' re still going to
sink some, dig and put in some concrete footing to
25 tie in the joist .
MR. BOHN : We ' re going to have to put some
111
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 kind of load bearing -- we ' ll dig them into the
hill .
3 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : There ' s no water
there so therefore, there ' s not going to be an
4 environmental impact on digging .
MR. BOHN : No .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : All right . I 'm sorry. I
was talking to Linda . I didn ' t mean to cut you
6 off .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : No, I got my --
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You did? What did you
say?
8 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : I asked about the
fact that he ' s going to hand dig the footings and
9 pour the concrete into the hole in order to set
the floor joists .
10 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: To the grade .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : At grade and the
11 answer was yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, Mr . Bohn, the record
12 has been somewhat confusing because of all the
different applications on this . And I 'm wondering
13 if you would have any objections to us granting a
five foot variance on that side?
14 MR. BOHN : On the side yard?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re not going to say
15 the deck can be this big . A five foot variance at
ground level . That ' s basically what we ' ll come up
16 with . Five feet from the property line .
MR. BOHN : Side yard setback, correct?
17 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes . That ' s what you ' re
asking for . That ' s what the notice of disapproval
18 says but there are so many different maps in there
that I can ' t rely on any of them. But I can rely
19 on this . If we say five feet and the Building
Inspector goes out there and it ' s four feet, we
20 know there ' s a big difference .
MR. BOHN : We ' ll make sure it ' s five feet
21 from the side yard.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : That ' s something we can
22 verify. We don ' t have to fight over well you
granted a 22 foot deck --
23 MR. BOHN : We ' ll make sure it complies with
the five foot .
24 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Just so you ' re clear on,
that ' s probably, how it ' s going to go .
25 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : They' re not
voting on it right now .
112
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Now, we ' re not voting .
It ' s going to be two weeks .
3 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Just, how big the is
deck altogether going to be just to refresh my
4 memory.
MR. BOHN : Average out 20 by 30 .
5 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : That ' s the only
part --
6 MR. BOHN : Showing 21 foot on the drawing .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You might want to, just
7 be clear on that .
MR. BOHN : We ' ll make sure we hold -- if you
8 want more, we do a little more .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: You better have an
9 accurate .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : When I was
10 looking at the site map, the survey and it looks
like it ' s 18 by 30 .
11 MR. BOHN : It ' s got kicked around a few
times . We ' ll make sure it ' s set in stone before
12 we do anything .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You ' re responsibility is
13 that five foot mark. If it turns out to be
nineteen and a half, you have to deal with him
14 about the wood that you purchased that you can ' t
use .
15 MR. BOHN : Absolutely.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : And the removal of
16 the shed because that impacts lot coverage .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : You said you were going
17 to do that .
MR. BOHN : Absolutely .
18 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We ' ll just put it in
there . So what percentage of lot coverage does he
19 need? Not much if it ' s supposed to be at grade .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Jim, don ' t you want to
20 know exactly the size of the deck?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : No . I don ' t want to know
21 exactly the size of the deck. I want to know the
setback which is what we are supposed to be
22 dealing with .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: Five foot .
23 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : The size of the deck is
irrelevant in my mind .
24 MR. BOHN : The side yard setback is the
issue .
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Right . That ' s what we
grant . I don ' t care how big the deck is .
113
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Now, he said at
grade . There may be a difference of opinion with
3 the Building Department as to what at grade means .
Do you want --
4 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s up to them to
figure it out .
5 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to say at
grade .
6 MR. BOHN : Mr . Goehringer told me in the
past it ' s been rule of thumb, if. you can run a
7 lawn mower over the top of the unit, that ' s at
grade . But they ' re saying it doesn ' t apply
8 anymore, so .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Does that mean
9 this is at grade? No, it ' s not at grade .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : The little sketch
10 over here is what he proposing to do now
structurally . See this little hand drawn thing on
11 the side?
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : No, I think
12 there ' s a misunderstanding. That ' s the old one .
MR. BOHN : This is what they did not pass .
13 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : That ' s the one .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : This is the one
14 you ' re before us on that was denied on August
30th .
15 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : This is the alternate
proposal right here .
16 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We didn ' t get one
since then though.
17 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : What ' s this on here?
(All Members talking at one time . )
18 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We never got the
one .
19 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We should get it .
BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : We never got one
20 is what Ruth is saying .
BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: We should have it .
21 MR. BOHN : If I coordinate the Building
Department as well as you on paper, would that
22 suffice?
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Honestly, really,
23 specifically, they are going to make the decision
as to whether it ' s at grade .
24 BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Jim' s right . We
don ' t need it .
25 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : We ' re going to say at
grade because that ' s what you asked us for and
114
r
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
2 we ' re going to say it ' s going to be five feet away
from that property line and you ' re going to have
3 to live by that . If you did come before us again,
please don ' t end up before us again . You know
4 what I mean?
MR. BOHN : No, absolutely not . It ' s been
5 long enough, yes .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : If I were you, I ' d work
6 really closely with Mike over there and I ' m sure
this is going to be a very nice enjoyable little
7 project for you, if it passes . We ' ll know in two
weeks .
8 MR. BOHN : Thank you . Okay. I think
perhaps Mr . Sherman might have something to say.
9 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Yes, sir . State your
name and address , sir .
10 MR. SHERMAN : David Sherman, 265 Lungier
Lane (phonetic) , I ' m the property owner . I 'm very
11 confused by all of this . I mean, I ' m not a lawyer
or an architect or anything although I have spent
12 most of my life in professional government . I ' ve
been a resident for 14 years in Southold and now
13 that I 'm retired from my full-time employment and
I 'm part-time employed, I 'm looking at making this
14 my full-time residence and that ' s why I wanted to
do this while I was still young enough and healthy
15 enough to enjoy it . I think I understood exactly
what just happened but I thought I understand what
16 happened back on the last hearing on August 2nd
and then it was turned down . So I will have faith
17 and move ahead. I just wanted to say one thing
really and that was, I wanted to thank
18 Mrs . Kowalski because I had made a call which I ' ve
done many times in my professional career for
19 public information and I wanted a copy of the
transcript , I requested a copy of the transcript
20 from the first hearing and usually in some
government that could became a very complicated
21 thing . I just wanted to publicly thank her for
her cooperation and her efficiency and her very
22 nice manner because it doesn ' t always happen . So
thank you very much .
23 BOARD ASSISTANT KOWALSKI : Thank you .
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : We should applaud you
24 for that .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Mr . Sherman, you should
25 know that she worked very hard at getting that
too . I know that you appreciate that but I want
115
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13 , 2007
2 you to know that is not a simple request .
MR. SHERMAN : That is why I wanted to
3 recognize it publicly for the record.
MRS . KOWALSKI : Thanks to Erika too because
4 she did it .
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Anybody else wish to make
5 a comment? All right . I ' ll entertain a motion
that we close this hearing .
6 BOARD MEMBER OLIVA: So moved.
BOARD MEMBER WEISMAN : Second.
7 CHAIRMAN DINIZIO : Motion made and seconded.
All those in favor?
8 (See minutes for resolution . )
9
(Whereupon, the examination of this witness
10 was concluded at 2 : 20 pm )
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - SEPTEMBER 13, 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
4 of New York do hereby certify:
5 THAT the testimony in the within proceeding was
6 held before me at the aforesaid time and place . That
7 said witness was duly sworn before the commencement of
8 the testimony, and that the testimony was taken
9 stenographically by me, then transcribed under my
10 supervision, and that the within transcript is a true
11 record of the testimony of said witness .
12 I further certify that I am not related to any
13 of the parties to this action by blood or marriage,
14 that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the
15 matter in controversy, nor am I in the employ of any
16 of the counsel .
17 IN ``WNNI^^TNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
18 this day of � 2008 .
19
6AJA
20 — — -- — —L.
21 Erika Nadeau
22
23
24
25