Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5039 15-0175"-- 4E72 / . 4i °M1vi.t-®7v 1/z070r; ' /; w- ) e 5703? -_4 7. eQ a V2/9- 4,94nn - kre.ed "`.l APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. cz P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora C* Southold,New York 11971-0959 W Lora S. Collins ip ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Homing Telephone (631) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 00 K-T,' R.." ..................... . ..................... ... .....................MttTING OF JANUARY 24, 2002 Appl. No. 5039—ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ STREET& LOCATION: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 15, 2001; November 29, 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ,APPLICANTS, FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Article XXIV Section 100-242A, entitled "Nonconforming buildings with conforming uses", to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellants Roger and Leslie Walz are appealing the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001, Notice of Disapproval for a building permit to construct a second- story addition to a one-family dwelling. The May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval recites the following: "Proposed addition not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100-242A which states Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or renovation of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provide that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. Existing structure has a nonconforming setback of 3 feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet in the westerly side line. The addition of the second floor represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity." PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a nonconforming lot, containing approximately .25 acres, located at 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion-, SCTM 100-37-6-6. The lot is improved with applicants' house, which is a one-story building with side yards that are nonconforming under Section 100-242A for nonconforming lots, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 ft. and a total of 25 ft.for both side yards. The building has a nonconforming setback of 3 feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet in the westerly side line,. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request the Board of Appeals to reverse the Building Inspector's determination that the proposed second-story addition over the "footprint" of the existing house represents " an increase in the degree of nonconformity" per Section 242A. They contend Page 2-January 24, 206z Appl. No. 5039-R. and L.Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion that the Building Inspector improperly applied Section 242A, and request an interpretation of the code provision. Applicants request the Board of Appeals to reverse the Building Inspector's determination on the following grounds: 1. Applicants maintain the second-story addition does not constitute an "increase in the degree of nonconformity" because the addition "goes up and not out", and is therefore no closer to the lot line. 2. Applicants contend that the degree of nonconformity should be measured as the horizontal distance from the "footprint" of the existing nonconforming building to the property line. Applicants acknowledge that existing side yard set backs are nonconforming and that the second-story addition would retain the nonconforming setbacks. However, applicants maintain that there is no change in the degree of nonconformity since "nothing is closer than that which exists" and therefore the code requirement is met. WHEREAS, the following code provisions are pertinent to this request: I. Article XXIV Section 242A, Nonconforming buildings with conforming uses, reads: Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or renovation of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. II. Section 100-13 Definition of the zoning code, NONCONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE -- A building or structure legally existing on the effective date of this chapter or any applicable amendment thereto but which fails, by reason of such adoption, revision or amendment, to conform to the present district regulations for any prescribed structure or building requirement, such as front, side or rear yards, building height, building areas or lot coverage, lot area per dwelling unit, dwelling units per building, number of parking and loading spaces, etc., but which is continuously maintained after the effective date of these regulations. WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on the matter on November 15, 2001 and November 29, 2001, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the board and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1. The head of the Building Department testified that an increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur if the new construction or renovation to a nonconforming building is located at/ or closer to the pre-existing nonconforming set back line. As example, he stated that if the nonconforming building has a side yard setback of 3 feet, Page 3-January 24,2001 Appl. No. 5039-R. and L.Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion and the proposed single-story addition is set back 3 feet 10 inches, there would be no increase in the degree of the building's nonconformance. Similarly, he said, the Department believes that a second-story addition over the exact footprint of a nonconforming building would increase the degree of nonconformity, but if the second- story addition were set back more than existing footprint, for example 3 feet 10 inches, no increase in the degree of nonconformance would occur, and the code provision of Section 242A would be met. 2. In examining the provisions set forth in 242A, the Board finds that the degree of a building's existinq nonconformity is clearly established by the three-dimensional space, which does not comply with the regulations pertaining to such buildings. For example, if the code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, and a single-story building's has a nonconforming set back of 3 feet, the degree of nonconformity is the 10 ft. by 20 ft. area, or 200 sq. ft. space which occupies the 10-foot, non-permitted building, side yard area. The degree of existing nonconformance has been established by the space which does not comply with the zoning regulations. 3. The Board finds that pursuant to section 242A, if the new construction, remodeling, reconstruction, or addition, to a nonconforming building creates a new area of nonconformance, where none existed before, the degree of a building's nonconformity will be increased. For example, if the building's nonconforming 10 ft. by 20 ft. dimensions are expanded, any part of the new construction which encroaches into the 10-foot, non- permitted building, side yard area would create a new area of nonconformity, where none existed before, and would increase the degree of nonconformity. Similarly, if a second- floor were added straight up over the nonconforming 10 ft. by 20 ft. area, the addition would create a new area of nonconformity, where none existed before, and would increase the degree of nonconformance. 4. Although applicants contend that the proposed second-floor addition over the building's existing footprint does not increase the degree of nonconformity, we find no legal basis for this conclusion. The second-floor addition will increase the building's established degree of nonconformity because there would be more area, more square footage, more volume, and more building within the 10-foot, non-permitted side yard area. Simply because the second floor is built on top of a nonconforming footprint does not grandfather it or negate the fact that it will create a new area of nonconformity,where none existed before. 5. The Board agrees with the Building Inspector's determination that the appellants' proposed second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. 6. The Board finds that there is no basis in Section 242A to substantiate the Building Department's position that permits a nonconforming structure to expand into a nonconforming area if the expansion is an inch less or a foot less than the existing building's nonconforming setback. This approach permits new nonconforming construction where none existed before. This position could be viewed as arbitrary Q, Page 4-January 24,20C- ��J� Appl. No. 5039-R. and L.Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion because the three dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot is defined by the town code regulations governing building set backs, maximum height and bulk. NOW, ON MOTION BY MEMBER TORTORA, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeals Interprets Article XXIV, Section 242A to mean that: Remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building with a conforming use is permitted provided that such action does not create and new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. An increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur if the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement creates a vertical or horizontal expansion of the established pre-existing dimensions of the nonconforming building, and the new construction does not comply with the regulations pertaining to such buildings, and/or if the new construction creates a new area of nonconformance, either vertically or horizontally,where none existed before. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to DENY the applicants' request to reverse the Building Inspector's determination. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Collins, and Horning. NAY: Member Dinizio (voting against the decision for the reason that the decision goes beyond the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-1). Drawing Addendum Attached for Filing with ecisio Gerard . Goehringer, Chairman Approved /- 2 7-6 z Chairman /I,- . I�E�'EIVED AND FILED B ` 1'UE SOUTHOLD TOWN CL s DATE I I b-2_ UR 7_1 '30 l� i Town Clerk, Town of Southold Southold Town Board of Appeals Drawing Addendum to Appeal No. 5039 for an Interpretation of Article XXIV, Sections 100-242A, of the Code of the Town of Southold, entitiled "Nonconforming buildings with conforming uses. Figure A and B are an example of a pre-existing single-story building with a noncomforming side yard set back of 3 feet, instead of the code-required 10-foot minimum. As noted in the decision, the three-dimensional space within which a building is permitted to be built on a lot, or a nonconforming building permitted to expand, is defined by the town code regulations governing building set backs, maximum height and bulk, and lot coverage. Figure A-Hozizontal View lot line T minimum front yard Permitted building area within ...._......... ...._... ...... ........... ............................. ... which a nonconforming building use ma y a cnX. a inin a conforming of g Y s � n ructed 0 r m reconstructed remodeled, recoare be i '1 n create which will of r c w.- enlarged,w g any new nonconformance or increase minimum Pre-existing ' the degree of nonconformance with F--side yard ': `<> single-story building regard to 3 <''' with nonconfoming 3 the regulations pertaining to such `«" »': side yard setback ; f buildings. }" i:.:iC•'�•. ;: `ri'YCC:}}2:.•.��{'}�',:...'• `Y<i:< •S�•���'v`i:: ............................................:.....:....................................................:............ T 4'10 ft minimum side yard minimum rear yard Non-permitted building area ! within which an increase in the degree of nonconformance will Figure B-Vertical View 'f occur, and/or which will create a new area of nonconformance where none existed before, if the �' AL nonconforming building s g i remodeled, reconstructed or emode , enlarged either vertical ly or horizontally. 35 ft maximum height g ninimu i` r ide yard a (--- 10 ft minimum side yard setba 1 Page 4-January 24, 200z Appl. No. 5039-R. and L.Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion because the three dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot is defined by the town code regulations governing building set backs, maximum height and bulk. NOW, ON MOTION BY MEMBER TORTORA, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeals Interprets Article XXIV, Section 242A to mean that: Remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building with a conforming use is permitted provided that such action does not create and new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. An increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur if the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement creates a vertical or horizontal expansion of the established pre-existing dimensions of the nonconforming building, and the new construction does not comply with the regulations pertaining to such buildings, and/or if the new construction creates a new area of nonconformance, either vertically or horizontally,where none existed before. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to DENY the applicants' request to reverse the Building Inspector's determination. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Collins, and Horning. NAY: Member Dinizio (voting against the decision for the reason that the decision goes beyond the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-1). Drawing Addendum Attached for Filing with ecisio Gerard . Goehringer, Chairman Approved /- 2 7-0 •F\ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman h�0 �Gy 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. c P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora * ,? Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lora S. Collins � • �� ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning �I01 �.a0 Telephone(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 31, 2002 By Fax 298-8565 and Regular Mail Eric J. Bressler, Esq. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. 10315 Main Road P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Appl. No. 5039 —Walz Application Dear Mr. Bressler: Enclosed please find a .copy of the January 24, 2002 Interpretation determination rendered by the Board of Appeals regarding your application. A copy of the Board's decision was recently transmitted to the Building Department for their permanent records. Very truly yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department i. OFFICE OF t 9NING BOARD OFAPPEAI f 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski rr,TownofSouthold.ny.us or Paula.QuintierinaTownofSouthold.ny.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION FAX# 0�9 ��P J ATTN: DATE: / 3 1/2002 REF: MESSAGE: 5 - � Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. S Pages to follow: RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 01/31/2002 15:27 DATE J I ME 01/31 15:25 FAX NO./NAME 2988565 DURATION 00:01:58 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM - ' RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT' TIME : 01/31/2002 15:33 DATE DIME 01/31 15:31 FAX NO. /NAME 2968565 DURATION 00:01:56 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM I® • •TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT !, TIME 01/31/2002 15:27 DATE DIME 01/31 15: 25 FAX NO. /NAME 2988565 DURATION 00:01:58 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM �1 !RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT I, TIME 01/31/2002 15:33 DATE DIME 01/31 15: 31 FAX NO. /NAME 2988565 DURATION 00:01: 56 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 1� J �4Jr 5 \/ TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD NOVEMBER 29,2001 Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio,Jr., Member Lydia Tortora, Member Lora S. Collins, Member George Horning, Member Also present was Linda Kowalski, Secretary to ZBA. 7:30 — 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 5021 - THOMAS P. and ANNETTE JORDAN. This is a request under Code Section 100-26 for a Lot Waiver to Unmerge property shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-79-4-25 from 1000-79-4-26. This request is based on the Building Inspector's August 22, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lot 25 has merged with an adjacent lot to the north (79-4-26) pursuant to Section 100-25 which lots have been held in common ownership during a period of time after July 1, 1983. Location: 1550 and 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southold. CHAIRMAN: We received some correspondence from you Ms.Wickham? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: What would you like to add, subtract? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I note that the agenda gave me about fifteen minutes time, which is about 300%more than I usually get. So I feel compelled to say something. CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to the normal agenda, or our Special Meeting Agenda? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: Your normal agenda I get five minutes, I get fifteen tonight. CHAIRMAN: That's only because I've been reading a little faster. MEMBER TORTORA: It's never stopped anybody before. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I know that, and I guarantee you that I'll be quicker than the other two fifteen minute hearings. I just wanted, in addition to what I submitted, to call to your attention an aspect of the deed that was not mentioned at the last hearing which pertains to the ownership. Lot 55, which is the house deed, is in the name of Thomas and Annette Jordan his wife, as tenants by the entirety. While Lot 56, which is the vacant lot, is in the name of Thomas Jordan and Annette Jordan as tenants in common. I don't know if the Board has ever ruled on that issue but I would like to submit that perhaps that would constitute a single and separate ownership since, under the Town Code definition of common ownership you must, the person has the same percentage of ownership. On the house on the vacant lot, where they own tenants in common, they each own an undivided 50% interest. On the residents parcel which they own as tenants by the entirety by virtue of the fact that they are married under the State of New York, they each own a 100% interest which cannot be divided or partitioned as the tenant being common hands. So I would just like to submit that as an additional argument that the lots are, in fact, single and separate, in which event the merger may not in fact even be necessary. CHAIRMAN: Very interesting. MEMBER DINIZIO: I noticed that when I was going through it. PAGE 2,NOVEMBER 29,2 �.- ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT l< ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: And I'm sorry I took up all this time. I was looking at the prior deed. I should also add to the record, the prior deed to the vacant use was in tenants in common but that was changed before the merger occurred in 1997. That's all I have to say. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not sure I understand. Because the husband and wife New York State Common Law that each own 100%? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: A tenants by the entirety is the lead form of ownership between only married people, and neither can separate it, and they each own the entire ownership. Where in tenants in common, which is how the lot is held, they each own a 50% ownership and neither one can sell it, sell their 50%. CHAIRMAN: That is assuming that there is a marriage contract. If it were a common law situation, how would that affect it? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: I honestly don't know the answer to that. But they were married in the State of Nev.,York. I'll put that in the record. I would submit that it doesn't apply. MEMBER COLLINS: I think that's a nice lawyerly argument. MEMBER DINIZIO: I noticed the difference, I thought that they didn't know the actual answer. One is 100% ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: It's the same names, but it's not the same percentage of ownership. When I looked up the common ownership definition. MEMBER DINIZIO: So the house lot is each owned 100%? ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: At tenants in the entirety,yes. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins you don't want to reflect anything? MEMBER COLLINS: At length? CHAIRMAN: No,we sincerely hope not. If you want to, I'll MEMBER COLLINS: Oh no, I told Ms. Wickham I think that's a nice lawyerly argument that appeals to me. In fact, I think there's substance to it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio, no other comments. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well like I said, I wrote and I didn't know that and I just glanced over it because I had no idea what the difference was. I mean, if that's the case, I mean certainly I wrote it to approve it, so it wouldn't make any difference but I think I should re-write at least add this part in. ABIGAIL WICKHAM, ESQ.: And I'm sorry I didn't mention it at the hearing. MEMBER COLLINS: Actually I'm amazed I didn't notice it. It's the sort of thing I notice. CHAIRMAN: Well that's the reason why we had this second hearing. Sometimes there's a benefit of having a second hearing. Okay, we thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. PAGE 3, ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT 4/4q6 SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:3 p.m. Appl. No. 5023—NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. This is a request for a Variance under Artic III, Section 100-31 B(7), and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based on the Building Inspec is September 7, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. The reasons stated in the Disapproval is that Bull ing Permit #27135 was issued in error because the building is located at less than 50 feet from t,e rear lot line, is 96+-feet from the Main Road, and that the building addition exceeds the 20% lot overage limitation. Location of Property: 300 Linden Avenue (a/k/a Moore's Lane), Cutchogue; arcel 1000-109-3-8.1 (7.1 and part of 4). Zone District: RO Residential Office, and R-40 Residenti (northwest corner). CHAIRMAN: We ave read some correspondence from both the applicant's attorney and the attorney for the opp sition. What would you like to add? PATRICIA MOORE, E We're almost there, we were out in the hallway and were hoping to resolve it in such a wa that coming up with some compromises and conditions. We had given you a plan. Mr. McLaug in had sent a letter which we had some concerns with. We'd like to have an opportunity to con 'nue this for the next meeting; because what Mr. Surozenski asked is that we go to the site. He w is to be able to visualize what we proposed and North Fork Country Club will certainly honor his r uest to continue this to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was over th re the other day and took some measurements myself. That's fine, so we'll PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Maybe we an get on the next,the December 13`n� CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you're going to a late so I'm just warning you about that. If for some reason something happens because it's ring the Christmas season,we'll call you and say come on down here real fast. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: Or if you should ut in a special meeting before the December 131n meeting, certainly let us know. CHAIRMAN: No,there won't be a second meeting. We're booked beyond. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I would say about :25, say 8:20. CHAIRMAN: Just don't hold us to that time. PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ.: I'll be holding up the process so CHAIRMAN: I'll make a Resolution to continue the hearing on December 131n at 8:20. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 7:40 p.m. ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ. Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; Parcel1000-37-6-5: (1)Appl. No. 503?'.This is an Amended Appeal for an Interpretation of the Southold Town Zoning Code, Section 100-242A, requesting a determination that additions and alterations within or over the footprint of existing dwellings with nonconforming setbacks do not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard PAGE 4,NOVEMBER 29,20U1 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT to the zoning regulations, and Reversal of the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Code Section 100-242A states that: Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. (2) Appl. No.4962-(Carryover from September hearing calendar). Appeal requesting a Variance under Article IV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of Disapproval. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of three feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line, and as a result, the second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. CHAIRMAN: We have the person in charge of the Building Department, Mr. Michael Verity, with us tonight. Is there something that you want to say as an opening remark Mr. Bressler? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: No. CHAIRMAN: No? Okay. Mr. Bressler I just want to say something, I'm commending you, and your presentation was very well done regarding this Interpretation two weeks ago. I think that over the years, and this is not in any way a criticism of you, I don't think you and I have ever had any ill words, even when you subpoenaed me to Federal Court. So I'm just asking you that if you ask the Building Inspector a specific question tonight, we're here to gather information we're not here to interrogate anybody. That's what we are asking. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: No problem. CHAIRMAN: I hate to say that on the record but okay. Mr. Verity we thank you for coming and could we ask you to come up here and use the microphone? I'm not going to get into specific sections of the Code, but we do thank you for coming to clear up some of the issues that we've had from Notices of Disapprovals from your office. Those particular Notices of Disapproval indicated that in non-conforming buildings with non-conforming setbacks that your office has denied those specific applications for specific reasons and you've mentioned the Code in those particular areas. There was an indication that there was a change in this between the two administrations. My discussion with you is that there was no change in effect during the prior administration, and we're referring to the administration of the prior head of the Building Department and the present situation there really has been no change. MIKE VERITY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. You may want to expound on that in some way, but I'm sure my Board Members want to ask specific questions. MIKE VERITY: If you want to ask a question, I can answer it that way if you want to get specific. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: On several occasions Mr.Verity. l MIKE VERITY: You can say Mike, Mike t t PAGE 5,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT / MEMBER TORTORA: Well actually Mr. Verity is, because recently we were accused of being too informal. MIKE VERITY: Okay,that's fine. MEMBER TORTORA: So I'm trying to be very, very formal. To make a long story short, there has been a lot of hearsay by applicants, by attorneys and their representatives that there has been a change in the manner in which the Building Department interprets whether a structure or a proposed addition is, in fact, is inconceivably of non-conformity. It has also been said that if you have, for example, a 40 x 50 foot house which is four feet from the property line and you want to build an addition that is 3.9 feet from the property line that you with the Building Department has a new interpretation does not feel that this would be a degree of non-conformity. That's one issue I just wanted to ask you about. Is that so? MIKE VERITY: Yes 3.9 would be a problem if you had an established amount of 4 feet. Now if you were referring to 4.1. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, 4.1 I'm sorry. If you wanted the line to be 4.1 inches and the existing setback was 4 feet would that, in your mind, enter an increase of non-conformity? MIKE VERITY: Not in my mind, no. MEMBER TORTORA: How do you measure increase of non-conformity? MIKE VERITY: Basically if you say we have a side yard of three feet and they want to continue with that three feet down the line however far, I would say that could be an increase in non-conformity and that's the way the Department's done it with the previous head. Prior to that any existing or pre-existing setback you could maintain that, continue that on up along the property line and up without a problem. Then that was changed and now it's continued as Mr. Forrester originally changed it to which would be, if it were a three foot line if you did not increase that you could build what you wanted to build. But if you're going to increase that degree of non-conformity, you would not be allowed. So whether it was an inch, whether it was two inches, whether it is three feet that's the way it is interpreted. MEMBER TORTORA: How do you define the word increase? In other words, in the Town we measure things, we measure lot coverage whether it be an increase or decrease in lot coverage in terms of square footage is that right? The Assessors look at the property and they say X, Y Z square footage. So how you determine volume, in other words, does volume constitute an increase? MIKE VERITY: Technically, yes. We deal with also, for instance, if someone had 24% lot coverage and they wanted to build at that 24% or beyond that, obviously you'd have to go for an appeal. We try to, when someone has an existing house and they want to knock it down and re-build, we do not allow them to continue at that 24%. We would ask them to not increase the non-conformity and decrease it and still they had it at 24% so why would 22% be an increase it wouldn't be an increase. There is really no clear determination whether it's volume,whether it's height,whether it's length, width. MEMBER TORTORA: So it's area. MIKE VERITY: That's the way we're viewing it,yes. E PAGE 6,NOVEMBER 29,2iui ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER TORTORA: The physical area. So the area determines the increase in the percentage of lot coverage the area that determines the lot coverage is the area that we are assessed and what I'm trying to say is if I have a 45 or 50 foot house that is four feet from the property line and I tripled the size of that house have I not increased the area? MEMBER COLLINS: How did you triple it Lydia, did you go up? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just want ed to get Mike's response, what was your answer, no you had? MIKE VERITY: Yes,you have. MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted to know how Lydia tripled it. MEMBER TORTORA: There are two different ways you can triple it. You could go up and we could put the identical house. MEMBER COLLINS: You could expand its footprint or you could go up. Right? Have you stipulated that your house was non-conforming, that 45, 60 that the setbacks were non- conforming. We started with that. Okay. So that you're asking Mr. Verity was, you have a house that the setbacks are non-conforming and you make it bigger is that an increase in the degree, that was part one of your question. I meant bigger in terms of square footage. Her next question was, if she increased the house by going up. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I'm trying to determine this is an area in my own mind, Mr. Verity, that is not clear. It's not a cut and dry issue by any means. But one thing that is clear is there has to be some method of determining where the existing degree of non-conformity is. There has to be a starting point. That starting point measured by a foot, is that a reasonable thing to say? Or is it reasonable to look at the area, the area which is non-conforming. So those are some of the questions I'm looking at in my own head. I'm looking at for many, many years all the legal talks about footprints. One of the words and I think it's still used quite a bit, that a structure that as long as you did your alterations within the existing footprint of the structure that did not increase the degree of non-conformity. There is no real cut and dry formula, so that's why I'm asking. But it's your thinking that if we, for example, here's our house and our house is still four feet from the property line, now if I want to put on a second floor addition and I stay within the existing footprint, is that an increase in the degree of non-conformity? MIKE VERITY: You said the house is non-conforming? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MIKE VERITY: Side yards,whatever they may be? Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: If I want to go up? MIKE VERITY: Yes it is. MEMBER TORTORA: Now if I want to go up and the existing side yard setback is non- conforming at the four feet and on the four feet I want to make my second story at three feet six inches,would that be—four feet six inches. MIKE VERITY: Then you're further away,that would not be an increase in non-conformity. MEMBER TORTORA: That is what we had heard. That's what I wanted to confirm. PAGE 7,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MIKE VERITY: And that's the way it's been prior to me, with Ed Forrester. That has not changed. MEMBER DINIZIO: Wouldn't it still be non-conforming? MIKE VERITY: Technically, Jim, if you want to say that, I don't want to add another twist to this but, if there were a less than 20,000 square foot lot you have to have ten on one side, fifteen on the other if you want to draw those two zones of ten feet and fifteen feet in any area in the ten or fifteen regardless of what your existing setbacks, yes that would be 100% in a perfect world. But I don't think that's any proper way to deal with. MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess I'm trying to follow the logic of why you consider going up is not a non-conformity. In other words, if a principle structure is thirty-five feet, anything over thirty-five feet that's non-conforming? MIKE VERITY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: And your using a side yard setback to control a non-conformity in the bird hold sense. I'm wondering just how you come to a point where if it's built four feet, using Lydia's, because I'm at least as dense as she is, if not more, how four feet of a fifteen foot setback say or ten foot, minimum ten foot setback is non-conforming but at five feet suddenly you can go up. How do you come to that? MIKE VERITY: Basically what you're telling me you had allowed a vertical to be continued but not horizontal. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I'm just trying to follow the logic of how you measure vertically utilizing the horizontal setback. You're denying a person a horizontal setback. MIKE VERITY: We're denying it equally,whether it's horizontally or whether it's vertical. MEMBER DINIZIO: But wouldn't it follow if it's non-conforming at four feet then it's non- conforming at five? MIKE VERITY: Sure if it was in a perfect world,yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just, what I'm trying to get is where is the guidelines that say it can be four feet one inch or it can be four feet one inch, where is the point that allows it to suddenly become conforming? MIKE VERITY: The guidelines are the Board that are sitting in front of me. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but see there's a problem with that, because we can't change the law Mike. We can only interpret what we. MIKE VERITY: And that's what we're asking for, we're asking for it to be interpreted. Because that's the way we view it. MEMBER DINIZIO: It hadn't always been that way. I'm just trying to MIKE VERITY: Actually at one time when I first started here, if you had three feet, you could do whatever you wanted. MEMBER DINIZIO: You could go straight up. Ilk PAGE 8,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MIKE VERITY: Yes, any which way you wanted to go, whether it's three feet, four feet, five feet, whatever it was you could just follow it and continue as long as you didn't exceed your lot coverage. MEMBER DINIZIO: And I can't recall being on the Board and ever denying anybody that. If there were a change in policy on the Building Inspector's end I have to know the reasons for that. MIKE VERITY: Yes, it was changed, like I said from when I started,then Ed took over and it was changed. But it's continued with that from that point forward the same as Ed. haven't changed back and forth. We're trying to logically work this out. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think maybe we ought to make a decision like we made the last time with, of course it was ignored, but we made the decision on who in the first instance, remember the Building Inspector made that decision. We have applicants coming to us and saying but the Building Inspector said if I move it in an inch then I have it. That's okay, but where is that written that that can be. MIKE VERITY: I understand that. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know how you made your decision and I even know what it's based on. There's probably a decision somewhere that said it came down and someone lost and this is what they're doing. I'm having a hard time following just what the standard is that you're going to follow. I know that Lydia has that same question. MIKE VERITY: I understand exactly where you're coming from basically, we're trying every case that we have in front of us Jim, we're making the same decision on. We're keeping it consistent with everybody, we're not, like I said a squirrel in the road, we're not going back and forth. We want to keep it like that, fair for everyone. I hate to put it in the Board's lap, but it's really, I don't think I have the power to make that decision. I would love to. I think you have to make it, I think we're following the,letter of the law. MEMBER TORTORA: The letter of the law is if you, we've been asked for an interpretation of the Code. Actually we've been asked to reverse the Building Department's rendering of this. With an Interpretation of the Code, one of my favorite things that I can remember where the language of the law is clear, there is no need for an interpretation. So we have to look at the language of the Code, in my mind, an increase in the degree of non- conformity. So how we define increase and degree. That's why I had asked you about the area, the volume, the air space, the vertical space, the horizontal space, the existing footprint where it increased. I did want to know, I didn't want to hear an attorney say this is the way the Building Department. We like to get it from you first hand. CHAIRMAN: Miss Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Verity did you say, I think you did, but if a house has a non- conforming setback and the folks want to put a second floor on, which is a common thing, but if they want to put the second floor on flush, just go straight up and it had a non- conforming setback then clearly you are going to say that's an increase of non-conformity; and I think the logic there would be the reason you have setback was to keep buildings from being too close to other peoples property lines. I guess the notion, the policy notion is, a one-story house that's too close to the property line is what it is and if it becomes a two-story house and it's too close to the property line there's more of it. That's an argument that appeals to me and I think it's an argument I could make in public and hold up. One thing that has become muddy here, folks have come in saying what they were proposing is to put a second story on but they weren't going to be flush. They were going to go up with a bit of a setback, It a architectural reasons or because they believed PAGE 9,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT rightly or wrongly that this would get through the Building Department without being called an increase in the degree of non-conformity. That's a new wrinkle, a new slice on this, because, it's new to us, because until very recently I would say until only a year or so agog we never saw a request for a variance where what somebody wanted to do was put on a second floor. That's why Mr. Bressler is here saying how did this come to be. How come clients are now finding they can't put a second floor without getting a variance. In the simple case where you want to put one on that's flush, it's easy to talk about, it's easy to describe, you know what it is and it's kind of a straight forward issue and I think you folks have taken a policy position in applying the law that going straight up with a non- conforming setback make more of it and it's an increase in the degree. The muddy area is if going straight up is an increase in the degree of non-conformity, whether we agree or not, but if it is, is going not quite straight up an increase in the degree of non-conformity we have no way of answering that. That's what I think Lydia was getting at. We don't have an answer for it. MIKE VERITY: That's the reason why we're going to penalize someone that has an existing setback of three feet, a lot of the three feet,four feet,whatever it may be were created there was Zoning, before we had a Building Department. It's the policy of the Building Department not to penalize anyone that's going to decrease the degree of non-conformity. We're trying to improve a bad situation already, if I can say a bad situation. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you for saying that, because I'm glad we go that in the record _that we can read, because at least it follows the logical line here. You're saying if, in going up, you actually reduce the incursion of the building onto the forbidden space,you actually cut it back a little bit upstairs that that is not an increase and it's probably a, you could say a decrease, I understand your reasoning I'm glad to get it here, I have no idea whether I agree with it, I'm just very glad to get it out clear. MIKE VERITY: So basically, MEMBER TORTORA: So then the same principle would apply, situated diagonal on the property and my house is like this and one of the corners is four feet, I could extend my house 4.5, 4.3, 4.7 but I could use anything over four feet from that side of the line, is that right? MIKE VERITY: Right MEMBER COLLINS: May I interrupt? It's Gaddis, it's not Shannon. Of course, I was not here, I left, I unfortunately became ill not at the prospect of discussing this case, but and left before we got to this case at our last hearing. I have read the transcript and I've listened to the tape and I know what went on. Everybody is calling it Shannon and it was Gaddis. I brought along my Gaddis file and it was really a classic because the house was set at an angle on the lot, so one corner of the house was really close to the adjacent lot. That was the easterly side, and the folks came in bought the property,tore down the house and wanted to put up a new bigger, better house. What they did was they took advantage of the, then view, in the Building Department that Lydia just enunciated, which was, if you're this little corner of the house is four feet from the property line, you can draw a line four feet from the property line the entire length of the house and use it and it was used they didn't actually build a massive wall but it had, it was like a zigzag wall and it came out. In other words the property owners next door now had a four-foot, a lot more four foot set. MEMBER TORTORA: I actually voted against this because, if it's not ruled long the question that the Building Department, did it increase the degree of non-conformity of that house? �1 PAGE 10,NOVEMBER 29,iiiu 1 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER COLLINS: We thought so, we were very glad, I was very glad to see the Building Department change, they were as Mr. Bressler knows, sued. I was very glad to see the Building Department change its view and start calling such, saying that you couldn't take advantage of one little spot and boot strap it to an enormous. MIKE VERITY: Wasn't that Bloom? CHAIRMAN: No Bloom a little MEMBER COLLINS: No Bloom's a cottage. In the Gaddis case, as we both remember it quite well, that little house that dragon's tooth was on the east side and because the new house never exceeded that four foot existing little corner setback, the Building Department didn't call it, there was no need for a variance on that side and it was the neighbor on that side who got very angry and sued. On the westerly side, they had an existing 14 foot 9 inch setback where they needed a bit more and they ultimately came in proposing a 13 foot setback, but it was a corner just like the existing one. I wrote the decision I remember the reasoning. I don't feel that we, in fact, blessed the rule we simply accepted the fact that the way the Building Department ruled on these things was if you had an existing 14 foot 9 foot setback you could go out that far and take advantage of that and our decision simply said well they want 13 feet and that's not a big difference and we gave it to them. We were not, contrary to what Mr. Bressler said in an earlier hearing, we were not making a ruling about that we were just acknowledging that that's how the Building Department read this and we lived with it. We also denied the proposed front porch. In another case, on our own initiative, we did something about this and that was Frentzel out in East Marion. Frentzel wanted to carry an existing non-conforming setback in a case you gave earlier, they had a house with a non-conforming setback and wanted to expand the house another twenty feet back there and carry the non-conforming setback all the way back and the Building Department did not deny it under the same theory. We actually, on our own initiative feeling quite daring, forced them to increase the setback a bit on the new part of the _ building. MIKE VERITY: So it decreased the non-conformity. MEMBER COLLINS: Decreased the non-conformity. We did it on our own initiative, and again, I was personally very glad to see the Building Department start to take the view that you can't boot strap from an existing setback to take it from here to China. I wanted to get some of these thoughts on the record so that when I read I'll know what they were there. I have personally welcomed the Building Department's view, although ambiguities are a nuisance. But I think the Zoning Board of Appeals should have more of an opportunity in these kinds of cases to have a say, and the neighbors should have more of an opportunity. CHAIRMAN: Let me just say one unique thing about Peconic Bay Boulevard and that is that if you look at the way that that property was laid out, there are really no perpendicular property lines except for the road if you can construe the road to be straight. So that further adds a little edge to the whole situation in general, although the Gaddis house was the building so the view was toward Robins Island or toward the east. MEMBER COLLINS: Jerry I know I've spoken a little too much, let me just ask Mr. Verity and kind of round out the record. We did clear the record on your view and your interpretation about going up and that's clear. I think, when you were talking with Lydia before that you also made clear in the record that I just want to repeat it, the Building Department's view about not going up but simply setbacks. I think you answer to this Gaddis case where you have a corner that's non-conforming, that you would not think it was appropriate for them to take that setback and run it the entire length, in other words fill in the gaps. You would not think that was appropriate, I thought that was what you said. I think that covers my loose ends. PAGE 11,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER DINIZIO: Staying with that, if the four-foot setback were, or if they wanted to add onto that side,they could,they just couldn't exceed four foot one inch. MIKE VERITY: They would have to decrease the non-conformity. It doesn't really say an amount. It doesn't give an amount, so they're not increasing it, they're decreasing it whatever the amount may be, if it's one square foot. CHAIRMAN: But if you thought that decrease was significant enough to trigger a variance you would still deny it? MIKE VERITY: No I wouldn't. MEMBER DINIZIO: He's saying he can't. MEMBER TORTORA: The existing non-conformity is what exists, twelve hundred square feet, five hundred square feet of the house is non-conforming. In my mind, it doesn't matter whether you're going up, out catty-corner or perpendicular, if you're increasing it the bottom of non-conformity, you're increasing the non-conformity. So whether it's a little game of whether you're four feet three inches, or not that, in my mind, is time to circumvent the intent of the Code and the intent of all dealings in Code in dealing with non- conformity is the eventual elimination of non-conformity. MIKE VERITY: So basically, MEMBER TORTORA: So in other words, when you tell me it's okay if I go with the existing non-conformity of four feet, then it's okay if I go four feet because I'm decreasing the degree of non-conformity, no you're putting on an addition, in my mind, that is increasing. All you're saying is your decreasing the new non-conformity. MIKE VERITY: You made a statement about it disappearing. Isn't that exactly what this non-conforming law was written for? So it would eventually eliminate, we're slowly creating that over time. MEMBER TORTORA: How? MIKE VERITY: Each time they have to step it back or step back in an area, it decreases. CHAIRMAN: Still it's a decrease is what you're saying. MIKE VERITY: We could argue this fact MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, what you're judging, you're judging the new addition. You're saying this is a new addition, it's non-conforming. So there's two ways of judging it, there's the new addition,which is non-conforming, which is increasing the existing degree of non-conformity, as long as it does not comply with the Code. MIKE VERITY: So basically,the way we should view it. MEMBER TORTORA: No. MEMBER COLLINS: No we're just arguing. MEMBER TORTORA: Let me caution you, I am one Board Member, we all are going to discuss this, believe me. It's simply my opinion and I'm kind of thinking out loud after discussing this with the other Board Mer.&_- may come out somewhere else. PAGE 12,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MIKE VERITY: It's very hard to interpret this part of the Code because I mean if you set a guideline for every case you couldn't do it, because each property has it's own individual characteristics. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why the first question I asked you was what is your method of measure, area, square footage,what is your method of measure? MIKE VERITY: It's all of it together. MEMBER TORTORA: You can't do that though. In my opinion, you have to have the same kind of basis for determination that you do in determining. MIKE VERITY: Which we do. MEMBER TORTORA: Of lot coverage, the assessors they base your assessment based on your square footage in a formula. MEMBER DINIZIO: Like I said I think either we do an interpretation on that that he can follow or they sit down a Code Committee and they write it down. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim, we could do both, we could do an interpretation that would force the Code to change. MEMBER COLLINS: Lydia a little cliquey here, the square footage concept, I hadn't really thought of it in those terms, until you said it, of course, tonight. But suppose you had a house that had a wing on it that was too close to the lot line, it's only a wing the west of the house is far enough back. CHAIRMAN: You had that on MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, don't confuse me with the facts Jerry. The house has an element to it that is too close to the lot line and what they want to do is they want to put on a new kitchen and that involves building out on that side of the house but not as far out as the existing non-conforming porch or wing they just-Kant to add to that side of the house. But it will be non-conforming; it will just be further back from the lot line than the existing non-conformity. Under most of the rules that we've had in this town, that would be okay because of this existing wing of the house is ten feet from the line and you need fifteen if along that same wall of the house you want to add a kitchen and it's going to be something between ten and fifteen, like twelve, it's going to be further back; your view would be although it's not as close to the lot line as the existing house, you are adding to the total non-conformity of the structure measured in square feet, that's your theory, square feet's easy. If it's upstairs, you just double it. That's an interesting way of looking at it, that the non-conformity is not from here to here. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to look at ways we look at other parts of the town and, as I say, in terms of lot coverage, in terms of area, in building measurements. MEMBER COLLINS: It's also true that in a lot of our decisions, for instance, in the one we did tonight on Milner the question was, to what degree is his pool house non-conforming and we were interested in the square footage of that corner that was over the backyard line, and I think that's how we were thinking. MEMBER DINIZIO: But we're talking established setbacks here and we're also, I think it's a really good reason why the law does say footprint. I think I can argue that footprint is the standard and beyond that, and certainly when it comes to height or volume as you say. I PAGE 13,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT think that height has a non-conformity which is 35 feet or whatever it happens to be. No matter how close to that line or what the setback is the footprint, height is controlled by a different set of standards. MEMBER TORTORA: I am leaning very heavily towards the footprint thinking. MEMBER DINIZIO: We have to discuss that,there has to be something we can MEMBER COLLINS: Jimmy you just said that the law talks footprint, but our statute doesn't say footprint anywhere. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but we always based it on, it's always based on the footprint. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I understand, I just wanted to get that out. MIKE VERITY: All the decisions are based on square footage. We keep going back to square footage, you can't increase or decrease the non-conformity without decreasing the square footage, correct? MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you talking volume or are you talking footprint? There's two different, if you have a house on a lot that's building 24% of that lot, can you put a second _ story on that house if you stayed in the same footprint? MIKE VERITY: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's non-conforming, it doesn't conform to the MIKE VERITY: If all the setbacks conform, but you're telling me MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't conform to the 26%. MIKE VERITY: Okay, if the existing house is at 18%, and has the proper ten-foot and proper fifteen-foot. MEMBER D:NIZIO: It has all the proper setbacks with the exception that it builds 24% of the lot. MIKE VERITY: That's right. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's the non-conformity, now can you build a second story on that house? MIKE VERITY: Technically, no. MEMBER DINIZIO: Because you're measuring the volume of that height. MIKE VERITY: We're measuring the square footage, and that's what I said before, the square footage needs to be dropped back. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it square footage for setback or square footage for lot coverage? What's the square footage for? MIKE VERITY: That would be for lot coverage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For lot coverage. Even though you're not covering more of the lot. � V PAGE 14,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT r! MEMBER DINIZIO: No,you're not, you're not increasing. MIKE VERITY: Now you're mixing apples with oranges. MEMBER DINIZIO: Actually we're not Mike because it's still non-conformity. MIKE VERITY: I understand what you're saying. MEMBER DINIZIO: You have to treat them all the same. CHAIRMAN: Bayshore Road is a good example of that because that's what you have and that's what's existing on Bayshore Road now. Unfortunately, it has existed and why we've gotten to this point is because that's what everybody is doing in these districts, be it Gardiner Bay Estates, be it Bayshore Road, be it Sigsbee Road, be Peconic Bay Boulevard, it doesn't make any difference. They're taking substandard lots and they're blowing the house to the max if they can possibly blow it with or without a variance. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the big problem here. MIKE VERITY: Yes, I understand and each one is its individual case. I can give you an example just quickly; I'll just give you a hypothetical. Say we have an existing house that has two front yards, non-conforming, a side yard non-conforming, a rear yard non- conforming it's 24%. The person knocks the house down, comes in at 22% and one yard non-conforming. Is that four non-conforming? MEMBER DINIZIO: I say he doesn't get 20%. MEMBER COLLINS: He doesn't get anything at this point. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I say, he ripped that house down. CHAIRMAN: We've had that problem too. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right,we've had that. McAllister was a classic example, he was told by the Building Department to tear the house down, he tore it down, and we told him. MIKE VERITY: Well we have a lot more work for you now. A lot. We're trying to stay within the letter of the law and like I said, be consistent with everybody,whether it's lot coverage I understand exactly where you're going but it's hard to just, case by case would be a lot easier to do. MEMBER TORTORA: But with something like this, MEMBER DINIZIO: This is the lawnmower rule, you know that one where you, it's the same thing, it's so ambiguous. MIKE VERITY: But that's five people here saying we hate it, five people over here saying we love it. Who's right and who's wrong? CHAIRMAN: I just threw some ground rules Mr. Bressler you're going to make generalizations based upon what Mr.Verity said to the Board? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I was going to address the Board in the first instance. I think that maybe the degree, at least from my point of view with a greater focus to everything that's been said here it seems to me that a haven't heard the answer to Mrs. Tortora's question 1 PAGE 15,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT that she posed at the very beginning. That a lot of bobbing and weaving and ducking, in a very nice way, but we haven't heard the answer. I have an answer, and I told you what my answer is and I haven't heard anything to the contrary. The answer that I gave has several very positive attributes to it. Number one, it's certain. Number two it's easy to understand and number three it's easy to apply. And what that is is, I think it's what Mr. Dinizio was talking about, the measure, when you're talking about a side yard, is how far away you are. That's what you're dealing with. We're not talking about areas or volumes or anything else, we're not talking about lot coverage,we're talking about how far away you are. MEMBER TORTORA: Footprint? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Footprint. We're talking about how far away, because I know this Board, in talking about the degree of non-conformity on a side yard for the sake of argument is ten and you allow five? That's 50%, that's what we look at. That's how you determine whether its, and I urged you in the first instance to adopt that because you have to answer your question Ms. Tortora, if you're going to do this analysis. If you don't answer that question, you don't have a yard stay. I think once you do that analysis, then think it comes down to this and this is what I'm hearing, here and this is what I'm not hearing. What I'm hearing is that having, as you say going up, is not okay but if you go back one inch it is okay, or two inches or three inches or five inches. I've heard no legal or philosophical justification as to why that would escape your reasoning Ms. Tortora and that's diagram C which I urge you to reject because nobody has ever adopted that rule here. Now, doesn't it just come down to this then, if this is what the Building Department would have you do? Isn't this a simple sixth grade arithmetic problem where you can have three different things? You can have less than, you can have more than, or you can have equal to. When the Building Department tells us that if you go four feet one instead of four, that's less than. I say, if you stay at four feet, it's not an increase, it's not more than. The rule they applied before was rational. The Code says you don't increase the degree of non- conformity, if you keep it the same; you're not increasing it. The benefit of this rule is again, it's simple, it's easy to apply and with all due respect it doesn't lead to a Mickey Mouse situations that the Board Members were asking about. Well,what difference does it make really, whether it's four feet or four feet one inch except it makes architects like Mr. Brown go crazy, because now he has to design a one-inch overhang. So, I think what I've heard in here certainly doesn't persuade me that that particular rule is an interpretation that we should adopt. I think we should adopt a yardstick the distance of what we're talking about. I think we should adopt a yardstick. MEMBER TORTORA: You're talking about B, not A, B? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: B. MEMBER COLLINS: I got lost slightly. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'm not urging A. MEMBER TORTORA: B is the one I'm closest to and I think Jimmy is closest to. We call this a footprint. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: B is the footprint rule A is gaps. MEMBER TORTORA: Now let's go through the footprint rule clearly. The footprint rule says, and we've applied this to all the Board Members are well aware of this, the footprint rule says that if you have a non-conforming setbacks you can do an addition, renovations whatever within the footprint, the existing footprint of that house. That also means that you can extent upward to the allowable hei ht limits, and that's called the footprint rule which we hear so much about and, is that t e on u're talking about Jim? d7 PAGE 16,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh yes. What Mike is saying is that we're going to see a lot more, because they, we think from the lot line back. You think from the house to the lot line. There's two different ways of thinking, but now I understand what you're saying. We don't think that way. We think the increase in amount ability is one inch. If you're at four and you're supposed to be at ten, so is seven, so is 9.5. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That's why that one doesn't work. I think either that or you adopt a fifth point ruling and chuck it completely and I certainly don't want you to do that, because that would reach havoc. It would be inconsistent with god knows how many years of what you've done in this Town and, at least from my research, what happens pretty much Island wide. I took the occasion to talk to one of my fellow attorneys who practices in Brookhaven, and what I got back was yes, different. It's certain, everybody knows what it means and it doesn't put you in situations where, to avoid coming before you folks, we have to step this thing back. So what does that mean in our case? What it means in our case is, on the side of the objective neighbor, I don't have to do anything because I'm not doing anything. I'm going to put up a gable and I'm shedding and I'm okay. The neighbors on the other side, I'm going to step it back an inch. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I think there is an old interpretation in writing from the former Board of Appeals by letters. In fact, Jerry had signed a few of the letters; it said that the footprint is allowed to be square off on the corner. MEMBER DINIZIO: I remember doing that, that was one of the first things I learned from Jerry,was, if you want to put a deck in that little BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: corner and square it off MEMBER DINIZIO: You could. It would come to us. It wasn't necessarily a rule. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No it was an interpretation. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, people took advantage; since I was on the Board,we had the footprint rule and what actually happened was it would be a little tiny corner of the house like it was cut out. You could square that off, that's nothing. Then the corner got bigger and the corners got odder, and then we got to Gaddis where we had just one little corner sticking out. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I guess if I had one question for Mr. Verity, I guess it would be this, if the rule that's being applied by the Building Department is, instead of four feet it's got to be four feet one. What ultimately is that accomplishing as a practical matter? You say that it's decreasing the amount of non-conformity, but doesn't that exalt form over substance? And before you answer that, if you were to take the position, that, you know what Eric that's a silly example. I didn't really mean that it was one inch. It has to be a foot. Well you can't urge that either, because that ain't written anywhere and that's the really the philosophical difficulty with that argument. It's neither fish nor fowl, and you can't pin yourself down to anything in that never, never land. I think that A,the Gaddis rule I don't think you should apply and I could make a very strong argument and certainly would have; but that is wrong because you're going somewhere where there never was anything at all. MEMBER TORTORA: Like the squaring off rule. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That's right, there never was a line from the building to the line, at that point, and I think that the rule that I'm urging, like I said, is sensible, it's easily applied and it avoids the mischief that's cr$ ted by putting an artificial overlay on something that PAGE 17,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT is a practical matter if you ride down the road is going to have no effect whatsoever on the appearance or in with the goals of the rafters of the Code. I think, for that reason alone, you can reject that. No, I don't have a question, but if I were to put the question I guess that would be it. I think the Building Department has explained it's position and philosophically I find it not supportive and I think ultimately the Board could find a yard stick and say equal too is not greater than like it happened year, after year, after year. CHAIRMAN: We thank you gentlemen for coming in. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Is the hearing closed? CHAIRMAN: We are going to close it very shortly. MIKE VERITY: One more thing if I may Jerry. Just to finalize this for myself. If we had a non-conforming setback at four feet, and we needed ten on that side and so on in order to put a second floor one, and they were at ten feet with the second floor, is that an increase in the non-conformity? MEMBER TORTORA: Aren't you conforming then? MIKE VERITY: But you're still adding to, I'm going back to your, the way you were viewing it. You're still increasing the square footage of the non-conformity. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is the ten-foot required by Code? MIKE VERITY: Yes the ten-foot is required by Code and you're at four feet and you drop back to ten feet, but technically you're still increasing. Well, that's the way I'm visualizing what you explained to me. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words,you're not increasing the non-conforming area. MIKE VERITY: Okay. CHAIRMAN: The footprint of the ground floor of a non-conforming lot. MEMBER TORTORA: Here is our house, our house is non-conforming, but you're way over here. MIKE VERITY: So why is way over here different than one inch or one foot? MEMBER TORTORA: It's conforming, so how can you be increasing the degree of non- conformity if the new MIKE VERITY: Because the house is always non-conforming, anything you do to it will increase the non-conformity. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: If that were the case then the Code Section would have no meaning. MIKE VERITY: That's what I'm getting at;we can interpret this how many different ways. MEMBER COLLINS: I think, Mr. Verity, that was a very nice example there because the problem that Mr. Bressler MIKE VERITY: Because you're talking square footage, you questioned the square footage before. 1 just increase square footage. PAGE 18,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER TORTORA: We're talking area. MIKE VERITY: So basically, if we were not at ten and fifteen, or twenty and forty-five, or twenty and twenty-five then anything inside of those areas would have to go. MEMBER COLLINS: Our example here was a house with a non-conforming setback. We want to put a partial upstairs on it. The partial upstairs is going to be small enough; it's like a story up above the living room or something. Small enough that it doesn't cover, by any means, the whole house. And, in fact, upstairs the setbacks are conforming. Now the house itself is still a non-conforming house because it has non-conforming setbacks. Lydia's measurement of square footage of non-conforming structure hasn't increased because what's upstairs conforms to the setbacks so there' s no increase in square footage of non-conforming building. And the problem that came up before when folks were following the line of the Building Department and theorizing through if going straight up on a non-conforming setback isn't good, but going up a little bit back is okay because it doesn't increase the degree of non-conformity and the question Mr. Bressler raised was how do you know how much enough. 1 mean is an inch enough, or do you need a foot or do you need and the example we just had we went back so far that we go rid of the problem and there was no problem. So I think it was really,we went right to the end of the logical scan, that adding a second floor either going up within the footprint is okay, which is what you're arguing, or going up within the footprint if the footprint is non- conforming is not okay and the question is how much do you have to come back and that's a very, very gray area that had everybody bothered but in this example we solved it by going all the way back and complying. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm going to tell you where Mike disagrees with you. He's saying that that's an increase in the square footage. _ E MEMBER COLLINS: of the house. MEMBER DINIZIO: the square footage of the house and I would say this that the square footage of the house can never be non-conforming, okay. It can never be non-conforming if it's built within the Code. In other words, if it's 35 feet high, if all of the setbacks are proper it can't be non-conforming, the square footage. I'm talking about 1600 square feet on the bottom or an 800 square feet on top. That you can never go non-conforming with that. The only in Town that uses that is the Assessor. He uses the volume of that house to tax it. But setbacks and non-conformities, and that is my opinion but I think it's how read the Code, doesn't have anything to do with volume of that house. It doesn't have anything to do with bathrooms or MIKE VERITY: You don't have to convince me because that's the way I am looking at it. MEMBER DINIZIO: So the increase in the non-conformity when you add a second story, whether that second story meets the Code, in other words setback or does not exceed the established setback it's still conforming. It's still no matter how you look at it. So four feet, is four feet at eight feet high or 35 feet high. MIKE VERITY: So I'm doing one step better, I'm even saying you go back an inch and we're even increasing MEMBER DINIZIO: But like the jagged house I think we did go astray, I say myself as I looked at that decision that was crazy,that we increased the non-conformity. MEMBER COLLINS: We didn't decide that. PAGE 19,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT MEMBER DINIZIO: I know but I mean we looked at that MEMBER COLLINS: We had no say in that at all. MEMBER TORTORA: The Building Department never disapproved that Jim. MEMBER DINIZIO: But what I'm saying is I would've agreed with it at the time. I would've agreed with their decision,the Building Inspector's decision to let them have that permit. MIKE VERITY: Yes, that's where it all started Jim. That's why you're seeing now the disapprovals that you are, for that reason, because we do have stay consistent. We don't want that to happen like this. MEMBER DINIZIO: If that particular application, had that person come in, I would think that it's non-conforming at four feet and if it goes back at an angle and some point that house is five feet that's still non-conforming. If that goes back to seven feet, that's still non- conforming. At anything on the other side of that seven foot is an increase of non- conformity. That is how I always thought the law worked. When I looked at that, I thought, yes that makes sense but it really doesn't. I know that's what got us into all this trouble. We need to put it down in writing,there's no doubt about it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But'it was also something else when you have a non- conforming house if only a part of the house is non-conforming is and part of the house could be conforming. So we always work with that area, that yard area that's non- conforming it could be just a front yard, and the rear yard may be fine. CHAIRMAN: Can we wrap this up gentlemen? MIKE VERITY: Sure. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: .Just to summarize our position, I think that is the yardstick and I think that's the measure and as long as we don't exceed that I think you're okay. The rule has a lot to recommend it. It's up to you then, I think you should adopt it. I don't think you should allow slope for slope. It's going to create more problems, and I think one of the Board Members or more said if the legislative body doesn't like that, then they can do something about it. But I think to the part from the footprint, at this time, is somewhere you really don't want to go, and obviously,from my client's point of view I think you should clarify it and adopt it and if the legislative body wants to, god forbid, put a definition in the Code as to exactly what that means, they can do that. Or if they want to put a pyramid ruling, they can do that. There's all kinds of things they can do. I think that they, that type of solution, I think in the short run, the rule that we urge you to adopt has much to recommend it and it's not built out of tissue paper, there is substance to it. It's something you can rely on, and it's on the applicant I have the last word. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for sitting down Mr. Bressler. MIKE VERITY: Jim, in your last statement he just described the footprint rule and you just were 180 degrees on that footprint rule. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. I agree 100%with what exists. MIKE VERITY: What exists on five feet was no good. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, what I'm talking about is the angle, that one application,that house was built as an angle to the property line and what happened they took a line from the four foot and drew a four foot line all the way along the property line, that's what they did and PAGE 20,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT then they jutted out and they said. No that I disagree with, that's an increase. But they could've taken that house and built up or squared it off to keep that angle the same way and still not become non-conforming. I think that could've happened. So, I think the footprint of that house is very important for us to, because that doesn't change it's there, it exists and it's measurable and everything else is subjective. Yes, to an extent everything else is subjective, but where that foundation is MIKE VERITY: Yes, there are two different—one time we were together on that, now we're totally apart. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's where I've always come from; you could go up from that point to anything that's not non-conforming. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But the Board still has to put their decision in writing. This is not a decision. MIKE VERITY: No what I'm saying is we started together on the ends, and now we're further apart than when we started. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, that's where I've always been. No I think that footprint is where want to be. MIKE VERITY: He's allowing the footprint, I was allowing back from the footprint and that still wasn't good so then the footprint rule can't work, if that's the case. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm not sure you're understanding. The footprint rule is something—here's the footprint of the house. MIKE VERITY: No I understand the footprint, now that it goes up, okay, but if I go back an inch it's not good? MEMBER DINIZIO: You can go back an inch. MEMBER COLLINS: What does go back an inch mean? MEMBER DINIZIO: You can't go forward. MIKE VERITY: Yes, exactly. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, you can't go, but that was what I pointed out before, you think one way we think the other. You can't go any closer to the property line okay than is already established by that setback. MEMBER TORTORA: You said a different word. I thought you meant back, meaning you can't go back from here. MIKE VERITY: And I don't have a problem so basically I'm not making your decision, but it's following the old,the way the Building Department used to MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly, and what that means though is here where I legally agree with Mr. Bressler, what that means is the existing footprint of the house has a notch here, you can't fill it in and the reason why is because the notch turns into a corner, turns into a point and turns into MEMBER COLLINS: turns into a f ss, PAGE 21,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT CHAIRMAN: turns into a house, another house. MIKE VERITY: I understand that. MEMBER TORTORA: I guess the real horror thing here is you've been thinking out loud and really(inaudible) MIKE VERITY: Yes, it really is. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, and we're looking to something that can remain consistent, that's reasonable and that we can use as a rule. MIKE VERITY: Other Townships have a pyramid rule, that might be something that could be considered in time? MEMBER TORTORA: (inaudible) MIKE VERITY: No, I'm just making a statement,that's all. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again Sir. MIKE VERITY: Okay. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you very much. TALKING AT ONCE: MIKE VERITY: very helpful CHAIRMAN: We're going to hear from Mrs. Martin. MIKE VERITY: I hope so. MEMBER DINIZIC: It's in writing, because you do think a different way. MIKE VERITY: We could argue it three,four different ways, so hopefully we can all work Together on it. NORMA MARTIN: I'm Norma Martin and my husband has an EMT class and is unable to attend. But just wanted to let you folks know in the past two weeks what has taken place. When we ended we said all the concerned parties regarding the Walz's application were to get together in an effort to try to lay out fears, answer questions and so forth. On Wednesday, the 21s`of November, the day before Thanksgiving at 1:44 in the afternoon, Mr. Brown called us and left a message indicating that he had been advised by the Chairman of the ZBA to contact us in an effort to set up an appointment to discuss the Walz project and answer any questions we may have. He concluded the message with perhaps I'll call you back on Monday. On Friday, the 23`d at 9:40 in the morning we returned his call and indicated that we would be more than happy to meet with him and the Walzs and Mr. Bressler, should they so desire, at their earliest convenience. We asked if he would let us know when would be a good time for all of them and we would make every effort to be available. At 1:45 that afternoon Mr. Brown called us back and advised us that the Walzs were unable to come out since they had closed up the house for the winter and have other plans. If they have, in fact, closed up for the winter it will be the first time that I can remember in twenty years that they've left furniture outside, haven't put up their storm l shutters and have left the kitchen window ajar. Mr. Brown said that he was their P 33 PAGE 22,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT representative in this matter and my husband replied that he'd discuss it with me and Tuesday, the 27`h we indicated that was okay and Mr. Brown said that was okay and we were to call and let him know what we decided. On Monday the 261h at 1:15 in the afternoon we contacted Mr. Brown and advised him that we saw no point in meeting with him without the Walzs -being present. We explained that inasmuch as they are the applicant's for the variance, and we are the next door neighbors which whom it was suggested they open a line of communication and respond to whatever questions we may have, it seems reasonable to expect that they would want to participate in whatever discussions took place. Also, it's possible that we may have some questions that Mr. Brown may not have the answers to. We have indicated our willingness to sit down and discuss in an effort to resolve the problems that exist, but it seems pointless to take everyone else's time at a meeting that the Walzs have declined to attend. That's all I have to say,would you like a copy of this. CHAIRMAN: Surely. Mr. Bressler, this is an issue that I had discussed and only briefly touched on and that is, if we had a rendering of this property as it is to be built, it would clear up so many areas of concern. So that people would be able to see what these things are going from. In other words, what's going to happen to the property next to them? We asked this applicatant or the agent of the applicant at that time,who was the architect,who was told many, many times at this hearing, is really a very wonderful individual as well as his partner, to put up these boards to see what the height situation is. But that still doesn't indicate the rendering of what it's going to look like; do you know what I'm saying? We've had applicants come in here with smaller projects and much larger projects, they have the rendering done. Now the person next door or the neighbor in the back has a concrete view of what this building is going to look like. Maybe one one hundredth the size of what the building's going to look like, but they can at least visualize what it's going to look like on their side, as opposed to the other situation and that is one of the major problems that we are experiencing today with this expansion theory that we have apart from the discourse that went on here. I'm not putting you on, laying you out on the carpet, I'm just saying to you that these are some of the problems that exist when we deal with these issues. I understand the shed type of roof now, okay, on the Martin side. I'm not sure I agree with it totally, at this point, but certainly we probably could've eliminated a whole hearing here if we had a rendering made out of cardboard so that we could understand exactly what the house was going to look like. It would make it much easier for us to understand. I'm just mentioning that to you. I'm not necessarily asking you to for a response, I'm asking, I'm not necessarily asking for a response from you, but I'm just telling you that that's some of the problems that we have. Hearing no further comment I'm open to make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION PAGE 23,NOVEMBER 29,2001 ZBA PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT End of hearings. Transcript Prepared By: Paula Quintieri • OFFICE OF IN ING BOARD OFAPPM 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Ldnda.KowalskiATownoiSouthold.nv.us or Paula.Ouintieri(&-TownofSouthold.ny.us (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: �' �J/ A/c, 521z��hj DATE: /( I z� /2001 REF: -- c� -0 of MESSAGE: "OD y' - � Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Our office hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. #of pages to follow: . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �fFO1 O�OS BCD Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman h� Gy 53095 Main Road James Dinizio, Jr. c � P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A.Tortora W �? Southold,New York 11971-0959 Lora S. Collins ZBA Fax(631) 765-9064 George Horning y�I01 �.a�! Telephone(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 11/28 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2001 6:45 p.m. Call to Order. I. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (SEQRA) REVIEWS/RESOLUTION: (Reviews pending inspections; none proposed at this time). II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Recessed as a carryover from 11/15/01, and expected closure of hearing tonight): 7:00 p.m. Appl. No. 5021 - THOMAS P. and ANNETTE JORDAN. This is a request under Code Section 100-26 for a Lot Waiver to Unmerge property shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-79-4-25 from 1000-79-4-26. This request is based on the Building Inspector's August 22, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lot 25 has merged with an adjacent lot to the north (79-4-26) pursuant to Section 100-25 which lots have been held in common ownership during a period of time after July 1, -1963. Location: 1550 and 1680 Brigantine Drive, Southold. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5023 — NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section. 100-31B(7), and Article XXIV, Section 100- 244B, based on the Building Inspector's September 7, 2001. Notice of Disapproval. The reasons stated in the Disapproval is that Building Permit#27135 was issued in .error because the building is located at less than 50 feet from the rear lot line, is 96+- feet from the Main Road, and that the building addition exceeds the 20% lot coverage limitation. Location of Property: 300 Linden Avenue (a/k/a Moore's Lane), Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-109-3-8.1 (7.1. and part of 4). . Zone District: RO Residential Office, and R-40 Residential (northwest corner).• Patricia Moore, Esq. 7:40 p.m. ROGER AND LESLIE WALL Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; .Parcel 1000-37-6-5: (1) Appl. No. 503V- This is an Amended Appeal for an Interpretation of the Southold Town Zoning Code, Section 100-242A, requesting a determination that additions-and alterations within or over the footprint of existing dwellings .with nonconforming setbacks do not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the zoning regulations, and Reversal of the Building Inspector's May. 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Code Section 100-242A states that: 4 Page 2 —Agenda(Upd. ��,28101) November 29, 2001 Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming .building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. (2) Appl. No. 4962 - (Carryover from September hearing calendar). Appeal requesting a Variance under Article IV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of Disapproval. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of.three feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line, and as a result, the second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. III. POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS: A. Appl. No. 5029 — ROBERT KRUDOP. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, based on the Building Inspector's September 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to move one dwelling to a new location with a side yard setback at less than ten (10) feet, at its closest point, and to relocate an accessory framed garage in a nonconforming location, at 170 Tuthill Lane, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1-8. The reason for the Disapproval is that a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming residential use in this Light Industrial Zone District, shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, or structurally altered or moved. B. Appl. No. 5026 — INLAND HOMES, INC. (KAVANAGH) This is a request under Code Section 100-26 fora Lot Waiver to Unmerge property shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-110-3-31 from 1000-110-3-32. This request is based on the Building inspector's September 24, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lot 31 has merged with an adjacent lot to the north (1000-110-3-32) pursuant to Section 100-25 which lots have been held in common ownership during a period of time after July 1, 1983. Location of Property: 4400 Pequash Avenue and 95 Midwood Road, Cutchogue, NY. Patricia Moore, Esq. C. Appl. No. 4965 — NORMA MILLER. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-31A.2, based on the Building Inspector's May 21, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that renovation of the existing accessory building constitutes a second dwelling use on a lot. Location of Property: 12920 Main Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-31-14-14. D. Appl. No. 5030 — FRED AND MARY MILNER. This is a request for a . S f ` Page 3 —Agenda(Upd. ..,-8/01) November 29, 2001 Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4,- based on the Building Inspector's August 9, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that the accessory pool house structure is required to be located in the rear yard, and the pool house, as placed, is located in the side yard. Location of Property:. 985 .White Eagle Drive, Laurel; Parcel 1000-127-9-22. E. Appl. No. 5028 — ANN LENCESKI. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4 based on the Building Inspector's August 6, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition which will be less than seventy—five (75) feet from the bulkhead at 3700 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; Parcel1000-87-3-5. F. Appl. No. 5017 — THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF CUTCHOGUE. This is a request for a Special Exception under Zoning Code Section 100-31 B(2) for a Place of Worship and related accessory uses, at 15945.County Road 48 (a/k/a Middle Road), Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-101-1-14.5. Diane Herold, Architect. G. Appl.. No. 5018 — ST. PETER'S LUTHERAN CHURCH. This is.a request for a Special Exception under Zoning Code Sections 100-31B(2), and 100-81b(1), for expansion/additions to an existing Place of Worship, at 71305 Main Road (a/kla Route 25), Greenport; Parcel 1000-45-2-7.1. Zone District: Limited.Business. Diane Herold, Architect. H. Appl. No. 5020 — BRUCE AND MAUREEN CAMPBELL. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-3.3, based on the Building Inspector's August 13, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicants are proposing to construct an accessory garage in a front yard location "instead of the required rear yard at 620 Meday Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-113-10-15.7. I. Appl. No. 5027 — JOSEPH BENDOWSKI. This is a request for a Variance to construct and replace accessory garage with nonconforming setbacks, based on the Building Inspector's September 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A for the following reasons: (1) the.proposed reconstruction of the accessory garage will increase the degree of nonconformance and (2) the proposed height of the garage measures greater than 18 feet under Section 100-33A. Location of Property: 3060 Park Avenue, Mattituck; 123-08-19. J. Appl. No. 5022— CATHERINE LYNCH with Power of Attorney for JANE BEAR. This is a request for a Variance under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A, based on the Building Inspector's September 4, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that the "as built" greenhouse and frame shed addition to dwelling do not meet the Page 4—Agenda(upu. ..,28roi) 1 November 29, 2001 Meeting Southold.Town Board of Appeals minimum 50 ft. rear yard.setback requirement. Location of Property: 374 Wampum Way, Southold; Parcel 1000-87-2-37 & 38 (combined). K. Appl. No. 5024 — ROBERT RUTKOSKI. This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based on the Building Inspector's September 12, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool in a yard area defined by the Code as front yard. (The Building Department confirmed that this lot has two front yards and two side yards, and that the Code does not define a rear yard for this 'parcel based on its frontages.) Location of Property: 11165 C.R. 48, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-108-1-2. L. Appl. No. 5029 — ROBERT KRUDOP. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-243A, based on the Building Inspector's September 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Applicant is proposing to move one dwelling to a new location with a side yard setback at less than ten (10) feet, at,its closest point, and to relocate an accessory framed garage in a nonconforming location, at 170 Tuthill Lane, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1-8. The reason for the Disapproval is that a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming residential use in this Light Industrial Zone District, shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, or structurally altered' or moved. M. Appl. No. 5026 — INLAND HOMES, INC. (KAVANAGH) This is a request under Code Section 100-26 for a Lot Waiver to Unmerge property shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-110-3-31 from 1000-110-3-32. This request is based on the Building Inspector's September 24, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which states that Lot 31 has merged with an adjacent lot to the north (1000-110-3-32) pursuant to Section 100-25 which lots have been held in common ownership during a period of time after July 1, 1983. Location of Property: 4400 Pequash Avenue and 95 Midwood Road, Cutchogue, NY. Patricia Moore, Esq. N. Others deemed appropriate by Board (from tonight's hearings, II above). RAhdSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT T TIME : 1.1/29/2001 11:29 DATE,TIME _ __ ----._----...— 11/29 11: 26 FAX NO. /NAME 2988565 DURATION 00: 02:53 PAGES! 05 RESULT OK MOLE STANDARD L � _ ECM i I .�\ LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c. 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J.BRESSLER 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAILA.WICKHAM SUITE III LYNNE M.GORDON 631-298-8353 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 JANET GEASA TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO.631-249-9484 November 27, 2001 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals `t' E~ 53095 Main Road Post Office Box.1179 Noy 2 :8 2001Iil ;j Southold,New York 11971 � �L Re: Application of Roger Walz SCTM# 1000-37-6-5 -� ZBA Application #5039 Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request I have enclosed for your consideration drawings A-D on individual sheets, rather than on one large drawing as introduced at the hearing. In addition, as. requested I have briefly described each of the drawings at the foot thereof. As stated at the hearing, I believe that'degree of non-conformity is measured by the horizontal distance from the structure in the case of B (or the closest point thereof, in the case of A)to the property line and, therefore only the interpretations represented by drawings A or B are consistent with Code section 100-242. Robert Brown has, as requested, contacted the objectants to attempt to explain the project,the conformance of the project on their side of the property, and the design features voluntarily employed to mitigate potential impact. The objectants did not wish to discuss the design features, but, rather, attempted to discuss their unhappiness with the perceived lack of notice of the project until the instant appeal. Mr. Brown was not in a position to discuss that issue, as it did not relate to the project-and was, in any event,beyond his knowledge. Based upon the information adduced at the hearing I ask that the determination of the building inspector be reversed. In the event you determine not to reverse, then I ask that a variance be granted, as the project meets all applicable standards for relief. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Eric J. essler 30/shdzba\\ -� end (y J EJB/al Pep-coop G -- II 1 I A� PG 1. �11 i ? NOV 2,8 2001 A: Permitted construction under prior rule The degree of non-conformity was measured by the closest or most non- conforming point"MNP". A line parallel to the property line involved through the MNP delineated the new permitted set back. Under this rule the entire house could be "squared off'and placed on MNP line and a second floor added above. Since nothing is more non- conforming (closer)than the MNP,the code requirrement is met. J£7 6/1 i I I I , I 3, AROA�� 1 S O�j� DF 4 aiST 7p 01R 1 A O�O�FO G l l 4 I 1 4�1 I NOV 2 8 200 B: Footprint rule The degree of non-conformity is measured by the existing footprint and a second floor can be added within the footprint. Since nothing is more non-conforming (closer) than that which exists, the code requirement is met. i SE"7 GA CRL L 11 1 1 3' I FC F`< ODAQo� ` NDq ,h 1 'eD IS �!T 1 .4 N rh I 10 1 I I 4 1 -�31-- NOV 2 8 i C: Absolute rule �� Any new construction, whether on st or second floor must meet code set backs. This interpretation is not consistent with permitting construction so long as the degree of non-conformity does not increase. The degree of non-conformity should be measured by either the NM or footprint, as above. I I 1 4 , 3 C ' 3. I S l I � 2 12)IS �oat D: Permitted construction under new rule New construction on second floor per o long as set back infinitesimally more than footprint line. This rule results in essentially same configuration as footprint rule, only with aberrational construction along footprint line. This interpretation is not consistent with the code, since staying within the footprint does not increase the degree of non-conformity. ` Page 61 -November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transciipt(s) Town of Southold ti CAROL GUNN: My name is Carol Gunn and I'm a Fleets Neck resident. I happened to 5x be in real estate about three years ago, at the time that Father Henry's house was on the market. At that time, that house was on the market with the idea the lot adjacent to the home was not a buildable lot, it was all one parcel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you ma'am. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Seeing no further hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision. We are awaiting, however, the information from Mrs. Moore. If we don't receive that in a timely fashion, we will just make a decision sometime after the 29th. We are not bound to make a decision on the 291h, we have sixty-two days to make a decision at the close of this hearing tonight. I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. SEE MINUTES_ FOR RESOLUTION 10:35 p.m. ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ. Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion: Parcel 1000-37-6-5: (1) Appl. No. 50Ithe — This is an Amended Appeal for an Interpretation Southold Town Zoning Code, Section 100-242A, requesting a determination that additions and alterations within or over the footprint of existing dwellings with nonconforming setbacks do not create any new l nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the zoning regulations, and Reversal of the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Code Section 100-242A states that: l Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a \J conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new © �\ nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to l� \ the regulations pertaining to such buildings. (2) Appl. No. 4962 — (carryover from September hearing calendar). Appeal requesting a Variance under Article IV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of Disapproval. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of three feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line, and as a result, the second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. CHAIRMAN: We have before us Appeal #5039, which is the Interpretation which we discussed with you two meetings ago. Just so I have this for the record who are you representing the Walzs? Page 62-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Heating Transcript(s) Town of Southold ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay, and are you incorporating this particular into their file or are you keeping them two separate files? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: This is a two-pronged application. CHAIRMAN: So you don't really care what we do with it. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: No, but I would ask you to, I don't care from an internal point of view but I going to ask you first to consider the Interpretation because if you interpret it in the way that we are requesting, the matter is over. If you do not address the Variance. If you interpret it some other way then you may have to address the issue of the Variance. Which is why the last time we were together I ask for a leave to do this so that you could consider it as a whole and in the proper order. I think I have only one other jurisdictional document to add to your file, that is the Affidavit of Posting. CHAIRMAN: That's wonderful. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: We are here before you on this combined application which see in the first instance the Reversal of the Determination of the Building Inspector which disapproved the application for a.Building Permit. The basis of the Disapproval was Section 100-242A, nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, the reconstruction or enlargement of the nonconforming building. Well that's what we forgot, provided such action does not contain any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. So what we have here is an issue as to whether or not the application creates a new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance; and specifically of those two the Building Inspector relied upon the later part of that particular section in any Disapproval he stated that the second story addition represented an increase in the degree of nonconformity. So that's what we're talking about tonight. What is an increase in the degree of nonconformity, and before we get to that I guess we have to answer the question which the Code does not, which is what is the degree of nonconformity because if we don't know what that term means then we certainly can't know what an increase in the degree of nonconformity is. It can be any number of things based upon that crystal clear language used in the ordinance. Let's state with what it always has been historically before this Board. I think I eluded to that briefly at the last meeting when I referred to the Shannon case and the rule that this Board applied which is that the degree of nonconformity where you have a nonconformity, say a side yard since that's what we're dealing with here, is measured by the closest point of the building to that side yard. This Board's rule was that there would be no increase in the degree of nonconformity provided that the work remain within a line drawn through that point and parallel to the side yard. What does that mean? That means that if you had a building and the setback was ten feet and the closest point of that building was four and a half feet, but the building was angled such that that four and a half feet came on a ez , you draw a line through that corner Page 63-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold parallel to the side yard and that would be four foot line. You could in essence turn the building some number of degrees and as long as you didn't get closer than the closest point that would not increase the degree of nonconformity, and I think inclusive in that determination was the definition of degree in nonconformity which was what was the closest point. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler, I'm going to stop you right there. In the Shannon case I do not believe it was the Zoning Board of Appeals who made that determination. I believe that was the Building Department's determination. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I refer to the statements on the record that I put before you at the last hearing, where Members of the Board reflected the fact that if a line were drawn through that point that would represent. MEMBER TORTORA: In the Shannon case I believe that what happened, the Building Department determined that there was no Variance required on the point that you were taking and correct me if I'm wrong let's go through it together, there was no Variance on that one side yard because the line existed as nonconforming, therefore they could fill it in. That was no before our Board in that case in the Shannon case, is that correct? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: However, if you read the Minutes of that particular hearing, which I sited at the last meeting and handed up a copy you will note that the Board approved that particular standard. MEMBER TORTORA: It wasn't before us. It wasn't before us; it wasn't incorporated in our.Decision. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Nonetheless, it was stated by Board Members. MEMBER TORTORA: But there was no vote taken on this. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That may very well be, however, the Board stated that was the rule that would be applied. MEMBER TORTORA: That was the rule that the Building Department had presented to us. The side yard that was before us was on the east side of the property, not the west side which you're referring to. This is what came over from the Building Department from us. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman do you have those minutes that I introduced? TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: If I may just interject here to move things along. I think that the legal technical that Mr. Bressler here, that the ZBA speaks through Resolutions and its Decisions. Individual comments by Board Members is not part of the decision. I think that there was no formal decision in the Shannon case which was on that particular date, a formal Board decision. Page 64-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Heajing Transciipt(s) Town of Southold ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: So I believe with respect to that, respectfully that it was. But that's neither here nor there. That's the position that I'm taking and it is my position that not only was the Building Department approving that but that was the standard that was adopted in this Town. A second possibility that could exist with respect to this particular degree of nonconformity could be that a building that ran parallel to the line, say four feet away, was nonconforming to that extent and that the nonconformity would be measured along the building line as opposed to a line that is drawn parallel to the building line. That is to say if the building were parallel to the line then that's where the nonconformity would be; but if the building were angled the nonconformity would run along where the building line went. That's a second possibility. The first possibility is regardless of the orientation of the building, you take aline to the closest point and you run that parallel. The second possibility is you take the building itself and the nonconformity line, if you will runs along the line of the building. So that if it's four and a half, five and a half, six and a half, at it's angle, that's where your nonconformity is. We don't take a line through the nearest point and run it parallel, that's a possibility so in the case of a building that were parallel, the walls were parallel to the line, the line of nonconformity would run along the line. If the building were turned, the nonconformity line would follow the footprint of the building. That's a second possibility as to what the degree of nonconformity could be. It is my understanding that regardless of which of those two interpretations was used, that it was the building footprint. Regardless of whether a one- story or if you were going up two stories, the degree of nonconformity would not increase because whether measured by a line parallel or the actual footprint it never got closer to the side yard. That's what the degree meant, and if you wanted to put that in numerical terms, if it were ten feet in lieu of four feet, you would have a 60% nonconformity, if you only had four instead of ten. Those are two things that it could be. I asked Mr. Verity if he wouldn't show up tonight and talk about what the Building Department actually believes. I don't see him here but I did have the opportunity to talk to him about what the Building Department felt that gave rise to this Disapproval. Since all the Board Members are aware we plan to go up inside the footprint. So for our purposes we don't need you to do an interpretation whereby you take a line through the nearest point, we're content to have it be within the footprint. Because that's all we're doing. So we're not calling upon you to necessarily chose between the twisted building and the parallel building. We think that's a rational determination. Because whether you're one story, two story or thirty-five feet, you're not getting any closer to that line, therefore the degree of nonconformity is not increased. I suppose that another possibility would be . The third possibility would be that if you're going up from the first to the second story, then you couldn't go inside the ten feet at all. And then if you were first story were four feet from the line, then anything closer. to ten would be an increase in the degree of nonconformity. You could say that, but the Building Department's not saying that. Are you with me on that one? TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: I'm with you on that one, I'm just going to respectfully suggest my advise to the Board in public here, that is I understand you talked to the Building Department but with all due respect, I think if the Board wants to hear from the Building Department, they should have the 'ut ing Department in. � l Page 65-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transciipt(s) Town of Southold ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well they're going to hear form me anyway. TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: We won't with that particular topic as to what Mike might have said or did not say. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well we're in an administrative hearing and I'm going to say what he said to me. He's not here, I invited him to be here and quite frankly this has been held over a number of times and not all of them are chargeable to us. My client's want to get done. So I asked him, I said so if it's not what I say is the Shannon formula, if it's not the actual footprint formula and it's not the fourth one, where you can't encroach any more on the second story, what is it? And what he said was, well what it is, you can go up but you can't go up on the footprint line. You have to be in. I said, okay, how far in do I have to go. He said, I don't care, you have to go in. I said well one foot in, six inches in. He said you have to be in. Well it seems to me that if this Board wants to interpret the meaning of degree of nonconformity, that's one interpretation you can't adopt, because that doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that of those four, that's the one that doesn't make any sense at all. You could philosophically argue for the first one and say, if that frame is four feet away and you don't get any closer than four feet you're okay. I could live with that. If you take the second one, and say as long as you stay within the footprint and you don't get any closer than that you're certainly not increasing the degree of nonconformity. And I could live with that. That certainly made sense. But I don't see how permitting something an inch or two inches or a foot in is a rational interpretation, and I think if you think about it and you look at the shape of the building, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing; except as Mr. Brown will tell you, an architectural nightmare. He said what am I supposed to do with that little thing that I step back. I don't want to have a little flat place, that means I have to build a roof, that means I have to have an overhang. That means I have to go crazy doing these things. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler this is actually the third time I've heard this, we heard this from an architect the last meeting. I would kind of like to have Mr. Verity present. Are you saying that essentially what he said was that if the existing nonconformity is at four feet and you built something on the second floor or an addition at four feet six inches, then that would not be in conformity? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That that would be fine. He took the position. MEMBER TORTORA: Did you ask Mr.Verity to be present? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I invited him last time to be here, and he didn't stick around. I invited him this time respectfully to be here. That's the position that he's taken. And I talked to others who modified their plans and have gotten approvals on that basis. And respectfully I don't think that that's an appropriate determination. Now why? Let's think about this. In terms of the degree of nonconformance, as long as you're not getting any closer, that's what I think the Code is aimed at. Although I didn't draft it and nobody here drafted it, it seems to me that if you look at 100-242A, provided such action does not 0 Page 66-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold create any new nonconformance. Well what's a new nonconformance? Well, maybe now you have a front yard problem. Maybe now you have a rear yard problem. We don't have that. Or contra cite with that a degree of nonconformance. Well if you're at four feet and you don't go any closer than four feet, then the degree of nonconformance is not changing; and that's how we would urge you to read this particular ordinance. I think that in reading it you have to address the Shannon issue though, because there's a lot of stuff floating around out there and I think you have to clarify whether it's going to be the footprint or whether it's going to be a squared off footprint. It seems to me with the appropriate answer to that question is the actual footprint. Because you don't want anything closer to that line in terms of distance that's already there and if it's four feet here, five feet here, six feet there, seven feet there, you ought to maintain that. I think you ought to be able to maintain it as you go up, because you are not getting any closer to the line. What I've done in an attempt to illustrate that is, and I gave it to Mr. Brown because I'm a terrible artist and I asked him to draw those four scenarios and I will label them A, B, C, D; and A is the, I'll call it the Shannon issue; B is the straight building footprint; C is where you're setback two or three inches and you can see it looks almost identical to B; and D is where you're not allowing anything to be done within the set back area on the second floor. So you can see over here with the twisted one you can see how you can draw that line to the corner. MEMBER TORTORA: This was the side yard from before. Not this one. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well, I think if you look at this and the deck decision together, I respectfully think that the issue of the twisted thing comes before you. This one is what we are urging you to adopt. Here's the building; here's the line and as long as you stay within the footprint you're not getting any closer. MEMBER TORTORA: You're going up. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: You're going up. MEMBER TORTORA: Air space doesn't count. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well no, because you're not getting any closer, you're already here. We don't have a pyramid law. If we had a pyramid law then I'd say to you, okay let's deal with it; but the Town and it's wisdom has not chosen to have a pyramid law. MEMBER HORNING: Brief us on a pyramid law if you would. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: The pyramid law is something that originated in the Hamptons. The pyramid law, you all know what pyramids look like right. And the pyramid law is drafted in terms of distances and angles such that the higher you go; the less massive you are as you go up. Thus the pyramid. So that at the top of the thirty-five feet so you don't have the box-like structure. Any architect worth his salt is going to give you a modified pyramid, at least in my opinion. And I think if you look at Mr. Brown's drawing, you will see that there is some f a modified pyramid. He doesn't go up Page 67-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold box-like and give you a flat roof, and, of course in the Hamptons that's what caused the problem. Everybody was going up box-like with flat roves and it looked like hell quite frankly, so they said no, we don't want that we want a pyramid law and the effect of a pyramid law is to have to have the gabled roof and the setback. So if you look at our drawing you will see that on the left side you have exactly that. You have a shed and then up and you're well within that. On the east side, where there's no objection you have, again, a gabled roof coming down and then you have a piece where it goes up above the first story; and, in fact, that's what is causing the problem here not the complaining neighbors' side. Because the complaining neighbors' side is D, because there's a gable roof over here that's disappearing and we're replacing it with a shed. So at any point that you look along the west side as the shed goes up and you get rid of the gable it's actually less intrusive on the west side. It's only the east side that's creating a problem for us here. Mr. Brown can speak to that with the drawings, and I talked to Mr. Verity about it, and there is no problem on the shed side. In fact, it's much less massive and it falls within any interpretation you want to have. The east side is a little bit of problem because we are going up for a distance and then we're gabling it over. I think that B is the appropriate interpretation, as long as you don't do anything going up and you stay within that footprint you're going to be okay because you're not increasing the degree of nonconformity. The distances remain the same. I don't think that A is an appropriate result, although I had seen it applied, and the Building Department seems to have abandoned that. I think that's what degree means, and I would urge you adopt that particular interpretation. Under that interpretation the determination of the Building Inspector should be reversed, because we are within the footprint on one side and we have no problem on the west side. That's what I think the issue is, and I think that it's an important issue. It's an important issue for several reasons. First,because there is a lot of it going on; and the Building Department has apparently flip-flopped. I think we can all agree on that, even though we may disagree on what actually came before you. We know the Building Department has flip flopped and they're creating a lot of difficult problems for everybody. Number two; the solution that has been urged by the Building Department is no solution at all. It doesn't do anything. If the Building Department had adopted some sort of a rational solution, and I don't know how they could, absent legislation, there would be this dysfunctional equivalent of a pyramid law. Well maybe that would be something I could understand. But I can't understand this, this makes no sense architecturally, it makes no sense to the neighbors it only creates additional difficulty, confusion and hardship. So I would urge you to reject that. I think also, philosophically it doesn't make any sense. How could it not be okay there but it's okay there. That to me doesn't make sense, either you're increasing the degree of nonconformity or you're not. Because if you don't go any further you're not increasing it. The alternative is D, which is the permit nothing area. I think that would be great mischief, because then nobody would be able to do anything and the Board would be inundated with all kinds of applications. That would really be violent. So I think for now, pending what the Town Board may or may not do, I think B is an appropriate middle ground that satisfies everybody's needs. That's all I've got on the Interpretation argument and I think that the drawings illustrate what we're asking you to do. I don't know whether you want to get the questions or you want to take testimony on that issue before I Page 68-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transciipt(s) Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: It's very hard without Mr. Verity, with all due respect, because the Board has talked about the difference the reading of the Code over the last six months, but in his defense I would like him to speak for himself. It is a very important issue. I see there's an architect here that also has another application before us. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well you know my problem is, with all due respect to Mr. Verity this is the second time I've asked him to please be here. I know this thing was kicked over from July and my people need to get this done. I have Mr. Brown here who can speak for this. I know Mr. Strang is familiar with what they're doing down there. I understand that the Board may want to hear from him. I don't know that, I think it would be interesting probably to verify what he said. I'm certain that he will. I don't know that is just positive to your determination. I think you people have a pretty clear idea of what's going on here. I think you have a pretty clear idea of what you're choices are. I think that probably the choices that are laid out there are all the choices. The only other thing that I can think of is something that has no basis whatsoever in any fact or law and that's what Mr. Verity could come back and say; well it had to be set back at least a foot. And my answer would be well why not a foot two inches. Why not eight inches. There is no rationale to that. It seems to me that the scenario that I've laid out for you had to encompass in one way or another what he's going to say. Because there are no other choices. So I would urge you to put some finality on this, to say my clients are frantic understates the case. I don't think there are any other choices. If you have any questions for me, or if you want to take testimony on this branch of the application, I'm happy to try to answer your questions or have Mr. Brown answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN: I think we're fairly familiar with what the new changes are on the Walz house. Have you reduced any of this Mr. Brown, any more than the copy that you had given us? ROB BROWN: As I've indicated in the past, we felt and strongly feel in the process of the design we took the impact on the neighborhood with a great deal of seriousness and have done, in the design process, everything we could to mitigate any impact which I believe that we have done and maintained the integrity of the building. Any less impact on the east side of the building would render a good portion of that space and have a serious impact on. CHAIRMAN: You haven't given us, all you showed us was the original copy with the part that you have now changed. We don't have the actual plan of the new proposed change. ROB BROWN: Those were the plans that were originally submitted. CHAIRMAN: What I saw was the easel type with the new plan shown. I didn't see it in a hard copy situation. ROB BROWN: Did you get a set of bluepri ts? Page 69-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: I don't think we have blueprints of the new plan, no. ROB BROWN: There's the, maybe I'm misunderstanding. The new plan that was originally presented was the plan that was presented later in easel form. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. ROB BROWN: There was no change to that. CHAIRMAN: There was no change to that plan? ROB BROWN: Not with the impact. CHAIRMAN: So the plan that I have in the file is the plan? ROB BROWN: That's correct. The other one is a three-dimensional representation of what that would look like. CHAIRMAN: That is the plan that takes the house on the west side into consideration for the changes. ROB BROWN: In fact, what is now a gabled roof facing the west, has been reduced to a shed with an eave that's actually lower that the eave of the gable. CHAIRMAN: I misunderstood, I thought that that easel that you showed us was a third plan, or a second plan. ROB BROWN: It was always the same plan. CHAIRMAN: It was always the same plan, I apologize. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: What is shown on the west is the removal of that gable and the shed roof on that side to try to minimize the impact; and I think, Mr. Chairman, if you look at that side particularly it is almost dead perimeter with a very short knee wall and then you go right up to the roof again. So on that particular side, that is just about as minimal as we can get, in fact there is basically no usuable space added on that side out of consideration to that problem. If the space hadn't been counted for somewhere, hence our problem on the east side. If we were to do something similar on the east side then we end up with essentially a lot of muddy, or not much of anything at all. ROB BROWN: In fact on the west side, I don't think that the Building Department had any objection to the design. That was not part of what they objected to. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: It's just that each side's problem we have over there with basically no objection from the neighbor. _ Page 70-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: Alright I need to study that just to make sure that that sits right in my mind and so I'll close the hearing, we'll close it to verbatim tonight and I'll close it as a matter of fact at the Special Meeting just so if I have any questions I can call Mr. Brown regarding the review of that. I glad you brought that, because I sincerely thought there was a modification there in between those two. ROB BROWN: I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I think one of the things you might be thinking of Mr. Chairman was that the drawing that I was looking at was drawn in such a manner and at such an angle that it didn't look like what it was supposed to look like. And over on the west side, because of the angle at which it had been drawn, it looked like the walls were not in exactly the same place; and I think that you asked Mr. Brown to re-do that over here to eliminate that problem. Do you recall that? ROB BROWN: No, because actually the problem is the east side. The problem on the east side is better represented by the other view. This was intended just to show the situation on the west side. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: Just before we close the hearing, CHAIRMAN: We're not closing it, we're going to leave it open just so I can review this. MEMBER TORTORA: Since it is kind of a two-prong, do you want to address.the other variance? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes, I was wondering whether you wanted to take any adding other testimony or anything on the first issue before we go on. CHAIRMAN: No we're done on that. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Okay, moving on to the variance aspect, we touched on that briefly last time and I think in that regard, we introduced an area map, did we not, that was marked with numbers and yellow markings? I would like, at this time to hand up other graphs which are keyed on the back, or do you have those, that are keyed? CHAIRMAN: I have them. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Do you have them all? CHAIRMAN: I don't know, I can't tell you. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I don't know whethe hey're all keyed on the back or not. Page 71-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: Well why don't you do this. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'm going to offer these up. They're all keyed on the back to your key map that indicate. Those are your photos in total that are keyed on that particular map that indicate the area of the surrounding neighbors. Number one, the character of the neighborhood, that's what I just introduced, the photographs and the area map. The character of the neighborhood is not going to change. The area, as you know, consists of small non-conforming lots with non-conforming setbacks. That's what it's like down there. Many of the waterfront houses are one and a half and two stories, as the applicant requests here. So it clearly would not work a change in the character of the neighborhood. The nearby properties are not going to suffer a detriment, so let's talk about the neighbor to the west. We already know from the exhibits that were introduced the last time, do you have those? You know that the house to the west is not going to suffer a detriment with respect to light and air due to the location of this particular house. The roof lines going to be less severe on that side, in fact, it's going to be beneficial to that particular neighbor. There is no impact on the house to the east and the neighbor has no problem. So, in sum, the nearby properties are not going to suffer. The Board can readily see that the applicant has no alternative but to expand upward. They're certainly not going to ask for greater variance on the side yard, and we can't go forward and we're not going to go back; so we've got to go up, just like everybody else has done. Is the relief requested substantial? No. The relief requested is not substantial, why not? Well because the footprint is not going to change, the setbacks not going to change the west side doesn't require any sort of relief and the east side only requires with respect to the second story before the roof starts going down. So we're not asking for a lot, we're only asking on the other side. Will it have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? No. The footprint's going to remain the same. There are no other environmental factors implicated, since the footprint's the same there are no run off problems, there is not a greater lot area coverage issue. The difficulty is not self- created, because we have no place to go but up. It is a small, as originally built place and I believe that the applicants are entitled to more. I think that Mr. Brown has done a nice design. He has attempted to minimize, at least with respect to the objecting neighbor, the impact; while, at the same time, maintaining a nice shape basically perimetal in shape which preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood because it is similar to what's there. We believe that if the Board finds that the Interpretation, the ordinance, is not as we proposed then surely the Board should grant us a Variance so that we don't have to set that wall back a little bit. Mr. Brown has indicated to me that that's going to create all kinds of architectural problems; and I don't want to go back to the Building Department and amend this plan to create something that architecturally doesn't make sense, and from a neighborhood point of view adds absolutely nothing. It will not affect the characteristics, it will not affect the impact, it won't do anything other avoid a hyper- technical application of the ordinance. That's why I believe that you should ground your decision at the first instance of the first prong of this application and get rid of, what we believe, a pernicious, not malicious, but a pernicious trend that we see developing here of all these things coming before you; and the alternative being the design in many cases, that makes no sense whatsoever and n t serve the purpose of what the Zoning Page 72-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold Ordinance is designed to try and preserve, in what I consider to be a hyper-technical application that really has no substance. If the Board has any questions, I would be happy to entertain them. CHAIRMAN: I believe, Mr. Bressler, that when one constructs these additions that it's very difficult for the neighbors to understand. I would hope that between now and the time that I close this hearing in two weeks, that Mr. Brown speak to the neighbors who are sitting in the rear of the room, and explain to them exactly the way that roof line is going to affect them if it does affect them and how this thing is going to work. There are times in this world, and in this Board, when we can't reach a certain agreement. But, knowledge is a great thing; and I would really ask him to do that so that we could, at least, cover any furrows that have not been covered at this point. That's just an opinion at this point, I can't force anybody to do anything. That would be greatly appreciated. We had him put up those boards so that we know what the height is. In my discussions with the neighbors, they are still very much concerned about the affect of their air, the affect of their overall value and how this project is going to affect them. We're talking seasoned neighbors, we're talking neighbors that these are not people that move in and move out on a yearly basis or a bi-yearly basis, or every five years. They've been there for a long time,just as the Walzes have and they still have a distinct concern. I'm not speaking for them, I'm only relating conversations that I've had with them regarding this. I think it's important that they understand exactly what that situation is. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: We are certainly willing to undertake that Mr. Chairman, and I think there was one other point that I neglected to bring up, and that is that I think this Board, if you get to the Variance issue, this Board has granted Variances under similar circumstances and I would site just this for the record, incorporated by reference read from #4971 Frentzel in which relief similar in some respects the relief was granted in those decisions and I don't want to get into them in detail. I do believe that the point is well taken, and I think that Mr. Brown and I will undertake to do that with drawings to try to explain just what the situation is. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler, the map that you handed to us, would it be possible just to put one page together with a paragraph explaining to the different when the Board Members review this? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well certainly. CHAIRMAN: We have Miss Collins was not feeling well tonight, she had to leave and for us to cause any misconception, it would help. MEMBER TORTORA: It would help all of us. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point Lydia. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'll ask Mr.ph n to reduce that to a manageable size and then. Page 73-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: Just one little paragraph. That would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown? ROB BROWN: If I may, I think the Board knows me well enough to know that whatever is deemed necessary by the Board to clarify this issue, I wouldn't hesitate to help the Board in this matter. Regarding your statement before, it raises the question in my mind, is there anything that I can do to explain to the Board exactly what's going on here. Things that you might not understand at this point. CHAIRMAN: Well, that goes back to my other question. That's the difficulty of not having a rendering in front of you. I'm not asking you to create a model for me okay, but that's what usually eliminates all of the problems. The next thing I asked you to do was put the poles up so that we knew how high we were going. But without the rendering in front of us, this is the difficulty of what we see. Perception is a very important part of the presentation at this point, and that's why I'm telling you where the problem lies. Because there are misgivings, and I created that same problem tonight by explaining to you, thinking that you modified the second plan where, in effect, you didn't modify the second plan. The perception was that you changed that wall on the west side, which in reality you didn't change the wall. ROB BROWN: That was always the design. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I'm glad that you brought that up, because this is the problem that we have in pre-existing neighborhoods. If we were building on a five-acre lot, we granted a house over here, right across from Kace in fact, that's 10,600 square feet. It's on 2.5 acres on the Long Island Sound and they're going to build a 8,500 square foot house on one side and 8,600 square foot house on the other side and they're all friends, they're all related, they're all in the same corporation. No problem, we don't need a rendering they know what they have, this is what it's going to look like, this is what's before us, this is what's going to happen. But here we have pre-existing neighborhoods. These were neighborhoods where these houses at one time sold for $85,000. They now sell for half a million or more. Money should have no real object tonight because you heard me say that you heard me say that regarding that situation of$125,000 and it went on and on and on. It has nothing to do with it, it was done three years ago, it's a mute point of how much these people paid for the house. What I'm trying to say is when a person has their entire livelihood in this piece of property, and they honestly, conscientiously feel that this is going to affect them, then it is encumbered upon us, and maybe that's one of the reasons why I'm people orientated, to try and solve as much of the concerns that they have from this particular dais as we can do. Because, some people are just not paper orientated, they just can't look at the piece of paper and say that this is the way that this situation is going to be, in comparing an existing one-family, one-story house to now what we refer to as a two-story, or a portion of a two-story house. ROB BROWN: I agree with yo e-tirely. What I'm asking you is given the overlay drawing that I presented at e last me ting. Does anybody on the Board have any 79 Page 74-November 15,2001 " ZBA Public Hearing Transwipt(s) Town of Southold questions about those, about what they represent and about what's intended with the construction? CHAIRMAN: No I don't have any concerns about that, but I still have difficulty understanding and super implanting that new roof line on the existing structure. And that's, of course, one of the mistakes I made by saying that. I don't mean to be redundant tonight over this whole issue, okay. Because I honestly thought you changed that roof line on the west side. ROB BROWN: If there is anything that I can do to explain the project to anybody. CHAIRMAN: I would really, honestly appreciate you contacting or having them contact you and discuss this whole situation. I'm sure they're going to speak tonight anyway. Do you want to say something Ralph? Come on up Ralph. This is now, Mr. Martin, six hours and ten minutes. 77 R77ALPH MARTIN: I don't envy you folks. In a moment I'll ask my wife, with the Board's permission, to bring something forward for their visual interpretation. Ladies and gentlemen I will try not to take up too much of the Board's time reiterating our previously voiced concerns regarding the addition of a second story to the Walz house. However, I would like to submit these pictures showing the impact this addition would have on the views from our house and entryway. The photo showing the views from our porch in #1 and bedroom in #2 were taken outside with my back to our windows rather than trying to take them through the glass. The picture taken from the sewing room #3, thru an open window. The overall view, #4, taken from our walkway indicates very clearly how large this new structure would be. Upon approaching our entryway and looking up you would only see their house. The sky would be virtually obliterated, we feel our pictures of their proposed addition taken from directly next door, not from down their driveway Page 72-November 15,2001 l ZBA Public Heating Transcript(s) Town of Southold Kavanagh got away with it. The person that's getting hurt in this is Fleets Neck and Inland Homes. The person that got away with it, Kavanagh. The fact that he didn't apply for a Building Permit, he never came before our Board for a Waiver of Merger. Had he applied for a Building Permit for that property, the Building Department (inudible). JOHN KLUKO: The recourse for that should fall back on Mr. Kavanagh or the title company. MEMBER TORTORA: But the problem is, who's here tonight, the Zoning Board of Appeals, Fleets Neck and Inland Homes. PAT MOORE, ESQ.: The credification, so everybody knows, a title company does not do that type of search. The title companies don't insure against any kind of zoning issues. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Ma'am you raised your hand in the back? CAROL GUNN: My name is Carol Gunn and I'm a Fleets Neck resident. I happened to be in real estate about three years ago, at the time that Father Henry's house was on the market. At that time, that house was on the market with the idea the lot adjacent to the home was not a buildable lot, it was all one parcel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you ma'am. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Seeing no further hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision. We are awaiting, however, the information from Mrs. Moore. If we don't receive that in a timely fashion, we will just make a decision sometime after the 29th. We are not bound to make a decision on the 29th, we have sixty-two days to make a decision at the close of this hearing tonight. I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 10:35 p.m. ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ. Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion: Parcel 1000-37-6-5: (1) Appl. No. 5031 — This is an Amended Appeal for an Interpretation of the Southold Town Zoning Code, Section 100-242A, requesting a determination that additions and alterations within or over the footprint of existing dwellings with nonconforming setbacks do not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the zoning regulations, and Reversal of the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Code Section 100-242A states that: Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, pr ed that such action does not create any new Page 73-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. (2) Appl. No. 4962 — (carryover from September hearing calendar). Appeal requesting a Variance under Article IV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of Disapproval. The Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of three feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line, and as a result, the second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. CHAIRMAN: We have before us Appeal #5039, which is the Interpretation which we discussed with you two meetings ago. Just so I have this for the record who are you representing the Walzs? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Okay, and are you incorporating this particular into their file or are you keeping them two separate files? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: This is a two-pronged application. CHAIRMAN: So you don't really care what we do with it. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: No, but I would ask you to, I don't care from an internal point of view but I going to ask you first to consider the Interpretation because if you interpret it in the way that we are requesting, the matter is over. If you do not address the Variance. If you interpret it some other way then you may have to address the issue of the Variance. Which is why the last time we were together I ask for a leave to do this so that you could consider it as a whole and in the proper order. I think I have only one other jurisdictional document to add to your file, that is the Affidavit of Posting. CHAIRMAN: That's wonderful. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: We are here before you on this combined application which see in the first instance the Reversal of the Determination of the Building Inspector which disapproved the application for a Building Permit. The basis of the Disapproval was Section 100-242A, nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, the reconstruction or enlargement of the nonconforming building. Well that's what we forgot, provided such action does not contain any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. So what we have here is an issue as to whether or not the application creates a new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance; and specifically of those two the Building Inspector relied upon the later part of that particular section in any Disapproval he stated that the second s o addition represented an increase in the degree �1 Page 74-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold of nonconformity. So that's what we're talking about tonight. What is an increase in the degree of nonconformity, and before we get to that I guess we have to answer the question which the Code does not, which is what is the degree of nonconformity because if we don't know what that term means then we certainly can't know what an increase in the degree of nonconformity is. It can be any number of things based upon that crystal clear language used in the ordinance. Let's state with what it always has been historically before this Board. I think I eluded to that briefly at the last meeting when I referred to the Shannon case and the rule that this Board applied which is that the degree of nonconformity where you have a nonconformity, say a side yard since that's what we're dealing with here, is measured by the closest point of the building to that side yard. This Board's rule was that there would be no increase in the degree of nonconformity provided that the work remain within a line drawn through that point and parallel to the side yard. What does that mean? That means that if you had a building and the setback was ten feet and the closest point of that building was four and a half feet, but the building was angled such that that four and a half feet came on a corner, you draw a line through that corner parallel to the side yard and that would be four foot line. You could in essence turn the building some number of degrees and as long as you didn't get closer than the closest, point that would not increase the degree of nonconformity, and I think inclusive in that determination was the definition of degree in nonconformity which was what was the closest point. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler, I'm going to stop you right there. In the Shannon case I do not believe it was the Zoning Board of Appeals who made that determination. I believe that was the Building Department's determination. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I refer to the statements on the record that I put before you at the last hearing, where Members of the Board reflected the fact that if a line were drawn through that point that would represent. MEMBER TORTORA: In the Shannon case I believe that what happened, the Building Department determined that there was no Variance required on the point that you were taking and correct me if I'm wrong let's go through it together, there was no Variance on that one side yard because the line existed as nonconforming, therefore they could fill it in. That was no before our Board in that case in the Shannon case, is that correct? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: However, if you read the Minutes of that particular hearing, which I sited at the last meeting and handed up a copy you will note that the Board approved that particular standard. MEMBER TORTORA: It wasn't before us. It wasn't before us; it wasn't incorporated in our Decision. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Nonetheless, it was stated by Board Members. MEMBER TORTORA: But there was no vote taken on this. Page 75-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That may very well be, however, the Board stated that was the rule that would be applied. MEMBER TORTORA: That was the rule that the Building Department had presented to us. The side yard that was before us was on the east side of the property, not the west side which you're referring to. This is what came over from the Building Department from us. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman do you have those minutes that I introduced? TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: If I may just interject here to move things along. I think that the legal technical that Mr. Bressler here, that the ZBA speaks through Resolutions and its Decisions. Individual comments by Board Members is not part of the decision. I think that there was no formal decision in the Shannon case which was on that particular date, a formal Board decision. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: So I believe with respect to that, respectfully that it was. But that's neither here nor there. That's the position that I'm taking and it is my position that not only was the Building Department approving that but that was the standard that was adopted in this Town. A second possibility that could exist with respect to this particular degree of nonconformity could be that a building that ran parallel to the line, say four feet away, was nonconforming to that extent and that the nonconformity would be measured along the building line as opposed to a line that is drawn parallel to the building line. That is to say if the building were parallel to the line then that's where the nonconformity would be; but if the building were angled the nonconformity would run along where the building line went. That's a second possibility: The first possibility is regardless of the orientation of the building, you take a line to the closest point and you run that parallel. The second possibility is you take the building itself and the nonconformity line, if you will runs along the line of the building. So that if it's four and a half, five and a half, six and a half, at it's angle, that's where your nonconformity is. We don't take a line through the nearest point and run it parallel, that's a possibility so in the case of a building that were parallel, the walls were parallel to the line, the line of nonconformity would run along the line. If the building were turned, the nonconformity line would follow the footprint of the building. That's a second possibility as to what the degree of nonconformity could be. It is my understanding that regardless of which of those two interpretations was used, that it was the building footprint. Regardless of whether a one- story or if you were going up two stories, the degree of nonconformity would not increase because whether measured by a line parallel or the actual footprint it never got closer to the side yard. That's what the degree meant, and if you wanted to put that in numerical terms, if it were ten feet in lieu of four feet, you would have a 60% nonconformity, if you only had four instead of ten. Those are two things that it could be. I asked Mr. Verity if he wouldn't show up tonight and talk about what the Building Department actually believes. I don't see him here but I did have the opportunity to talk to him about what the Building Department felt that gave rise to this Disapproval. Since all the Board Members are aware we plan to go up inside the footprint. So for our purposes we don't need you to do an interpretation whereby you take__a line through the nearest point, we're content to Page 76-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold have it be within the footprint. Because that's all we're doing. So we're not calling upon you to necessarily chose between the twisted building and the parallel building. We think that's a rational determination. Because whether you're one story, two story or thirty-five feet, you're not getting any closer to that line, therefore the degree of nonconformity is not increased. I suppose that another possibility would be . The third possibility would be that if you're going up from the first to the second story, then you couldn't go inside the ten feet at all. And then if you were first story were four feet from the line, then anything closer to ten would be an increase in the degree of nonconformity. You could say that, but the Building Department's not saying that. Are you with me on that one? TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: I'm with you on that one, I'm just going to respectfully suggest my advise to the Board in public here, that is I understand you talked to the Building Department but with all due respect, I think if the Board wants to hear from the Building Department, they should have the Building Department in. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well they're going to hear form me anyway. TOWN ATTORNEY GREG YAKABOSKI: We won't with that particular topic as to what Mike might have said or did not say. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well we're in an administrative hearing and I'm going to say what he said to me. He's not here, I invited him to be here and quite frankly this has been held over a number of times and not all of them are chargeable to us. My client's want to get done. Se I asked him, I said so if it's not what I say is the Shannon formula, if it's not the actual footprint formula and 'it's not the fourth one, where you can't encroach any more on the second story, what is it? And what he said was, well what it is, you can go up but you can't go up on the footprint line. You have to be in. I said, okay, how far in do I have to go. He said, I don't care, you have to go in. I said well one foot in, six inches in. He said you have to be in. Well it seems to me that if this Board wants to interpret the meaning of degree of nonconformity, that's one interpretation you can't adopt, because that doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that of those four, that's the one that doesn't make any sense at all. You could philosophically argue for the first one and say, if that frame is four feet away and you don't get any closer than four feet you're okay. I could live with that. If you take the second one, and say as long as you stay within the footprint and you don't get any closer than that you're certainly not increasing the degree of nonconformity. And I could live with that. That certainly made sense. But I don't see how permitting something an inch or two inches or a foot in is a rational interpretation, and I think if you think about it and you look at the shape of the building, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing; except as Mr. Brown will tell you, an architectural nightmare. He said what am I supposed to do with that little thing that I step back. I don't want to have a little flat place, that means I have to build a roof, that means I have to have an overhang. That means I have to go crazy doing these things. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler this is actually the third time I've heard this, we heard this from an architect the last meeting. I would kind of like to have Mr. Verity Page 77-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold present. Are you saying that essentially what he said was that if the existing nonconformity is at four feet and you built something on the second floor or an addition at four feet six inches, then that would not be in conformity? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: That that would be fine. He took the position. MEMBER TORTORA: Did you ask Mr.Verity to be present? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I invited him last time to be here, and he didn't stick around. I invited him this time respectfully to be here. That's the position that he's taken. And I talked to others who modified their plans and have gotten approvals on that basis. And respectfully I don't think that that's an appropriate determination. Now why? Let's think about this. In terms of the degree of nonconformance, as long as you're not getting any closer, that's what I think the Code is aimed at. Although I didn't draft it and nobody here drafted it, it seems to me that if you look at 100-242A, provided such action does not create any new nonconformance. Well what's a new nonconformance? Well, maybe now you have a front yard problem. Maybe now you have a rear yard problem. We don't have that. Or contra cite with that a degree of nonconformance. Well if you're at four feet and you don't go any closer than four feet, then the degree of nonconformance is not changing; and that's how we would urge you to read this particular ordinance. I think that in reading it you have to address the Shannon issue though, because there's a lot of stuff floating around out there and I think you have to clarify whether it's going to be the footprint or whether it's going to be a squared off footprint. It seems to me with the appropriate answer to that question is the actual footprint. Because you don't want anything closer to that line in terms of distance that's already there and if it's four feet here; five feet here, six feet there, seven feet there, you ought to maintain that. I think you ought to be able to maintain it as you go up, because you are not getting any closer to the line. What I've done in an attempt to illustrate that is, and I gave it to Mr. Brown because I'm a terrible artist and I asked him to draw those four scenarios and I will label them A, B, C, D; and A is the, I'll call it the Shannon issue; B is the straight building footprint; C is where you're setback two or three inches and you can see it looks almost identical to B; and D is where you're not allowing anything to be done within the set back area on the second floor. So you can see over here with the twisted one you can see how you can draw that line to the corner. MEMBER TORTORA: This was the side yard from before. Not this one. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well, I think if you look at this and the deck decision together, I respectfully think that the issue of the twisted thing comes before you. This one is what we are urging you to adopt. Here's the building, here's the line and as long as you stay within the footprint you're not getting any closer. MEMBER TORTORA: You're going up. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: You're going up. Page 78-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: Air space doesn't count. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well no, because you're not getting any closer, you're already here. We don't have a pyramid law. If we had a pyramid law then I'd say to you, okay let's deal with it; but the Town and it's wisdom has not chosen to have a pyramid law. MEMBER HORNING: Brief us on a pyramid law if you would. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: The pyramid law is something that originated in the Hamptons. The pyrainid law, you all know what pyramids look like right. And the pyramid law is drafted in terms of distances and angles such that the higher you go; the less massive you are as you go up. Thus the pyramid. So that at the top of the thirty-five feet so you don't have the box-like structure. Any architect worth his salt is going to give you a modified pyramid, at least in my opinion. And I think if you look at Mr. Brown's drawing, you will see that there is somewhat of a modified pyramid. He doesn't go up box-like and give you a flat roof, and, of course in the Hamptons that's what caused the problem. Everybody was going up box-like with flat roves and it looked like hell quite frankly, so they said no, we don't want that we want a pyramid law and the effect of a pyramid law is to have to have the gabled roof and the setback. So if you look at our drawing you will see that on the left side you have exactly that. You have a shed and then up and you're well within that. On the east side, where there's no objection you have, again, a gabled roof coming down and then you have a piece where it goes up above the first story; and, in fact, that's what is causing the problem here not the complaining neighbors' side. Because the complaining neighbors' side is D, because there's a gable roof over here that's disappearing and we're replacing it with a shed. So,at any point that you look along the west side as the shed goes up and you get rid of the gable it's actually less intrusive on the west side. It's only the east side that's creating a problem for us here. Mr. Brown can speak to that with the drawings, and I talked to Mr. Verity about it, and there is no problem on the shed side. In fact, it's much less massive and it falls within any interpretation you want to have. The east side is a little bit of problem because we are going up for a distance and then we're gabling it over. I think that B is the appropriate interpretation, as long as you don't do anything going up and you stay within that footprint you're going to be okay because you're not increasing the degree of nonconformity. The distances remain the same. I don't think that A is an appropriate result, although I had seen it applied, and the Building Department seems to have abandoned that. I think that's what degree means, and I would urge you adopt that particular interpretation. Under that interpretation the determination of the Building Inspector should be reversed, because we are within the footprint on one side and we have no problem on the west side. That's what I think the issue is, and I think that it's an important issue. It's an important issue for several reasons. First,because there is a lot of it going on; and the Building Department has apparently flip-flopped. I think we can all agree on that, even though we may disagree on what actually came before you. We know the Building Department has flip flopped and they're creating a lot of difficult problems for everybody. Number two; the solution that has been urged by the Building Department is no solution at all. It doesn't do anything. If the Building Department had adopted some sort of a rational solution, and I don't know how they could, absent Page 79-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold legislation, there would be this dysfunctional equivalent of a pyramid law. Well maybe that would be something I could understand. But I can't understand this, this makes no sense architecturally, it makes no sense to the neighbors it only creates additional difficulty, confusion and hardship. So I would urge you to reject that. I think also, philosophically it doesn't make any sense. How could it not be okay there but it's okay there. That to me doesn't make sense, either you're increasing the degree of nonconformity or you're not. Because if you don't go any further you're not increasing it. The alternative is D, which is the permit nothing area. I think that would be great mischief, because then nobody would be able to do anything and the Board would be inundated with all kinds of applications. That would really be violent. So I think for now, pending what the Town Board may or may not do, I think B is an appropriate middle ground that satisfies everybody's needs. That's all I've got on the Interpretation argument and I think that the drawings illustrate what we're asking you to do. I don't know whether you want to get the questions or you want to take testimony on that issue before I MEMBER TORTORA: It's very hard without Mr. Verity, with all due respect, because the Board has talked about the difference the reading of the Code over the last six months, but in his defense I would like him to speak for himself. It is a very important issue. I see there's an architect here that also has another application before us. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well you know my problem is, with all due respect to Mr. Verity this is the second time I've asked him to please be here. I know this thing was kicked over from July and my people need to get this done. I have Mr. Brown here who can speak for this. I know Mr. Strang is familiar with what they're doing down there. I understand that the Board may want to hear from him. I don't know that, I think it would be interesting probably to verify what he said. I'm certain that he will. I don't know that is just positive to your determination. I think you people have a pretty clear idea of what's going on here. I think you have a pretty clear idea of what you're choices are. I think that probably the choices that are laid out there are all the choices. The only other thing that I can think of is something that has no basis whatsoever in any fact or law and that's what Mr. Verity could come back and say; well it had to be set back at least a foot. And my answer would be well why not a foot two inches. Why not eight inches. There is no rationale to that. It seems to me that the scenario that I've laid out for you had to encompass in one way or another what he's going to say. Because there are no other choices. So I would urge you to put some finality on this, to say my clients are frantic understates the case. I don't think there are any other choices. If you have any questions for me, or if you want to take testimony on this branch of the application, I'm happy to try to answer your questions or have Mr. Brown answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN: I think we're fairly familiar with what the new changes are on the Walz house. Have you reduced any of this Mr. Brown, any more than the copy that you had given us? ROB BROWN: As I've indicated in the past, we felt and strongly feel in the process of the design we took the impact on the-neigk orhood with a great deal of seriousness and Page 80-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold have done, in the design process, everything we could to mitigate any impact which I believe that we have done and maintained the integrity of the building. Any less impact on the east side of the building would render a good portion of that space and have a serious impact on. CHAIRMAN: You haven't given us, all you showed us was the original copy with the part that you have now changed. We don't have the actual plan of the new proposed change. ROB BROWN: Those were the plans that were originally submitted. CHAIRMAN: What I saw was the easel type with the new plan shown. I didn't see it in a hard copy situation. ROB BROWN: Did you get a set of blueprints? CHAIRMAN: I don't think we have blueprints of the new plan, no. ROB BROWN: There's the, maybe I'm misunderstanding. The new plan that was originally presented was the plan that was presented later in easel form. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. ROB BROWN: There was no change to that. CHAIRMAN There was no change to that plan? ROB BROWN: Not with the impact. CHAIRMAN: So the plan that I have in the file is the plan? ROB BROWN: That's correct. The other one is a three-dimensional representation of what that would look like. CHAIRMAN: That is the plan that takes the house on the west side into consideration for the changes. ROB BROWN: In fact, what is now a gabled roof facing the west, has been reduced to a shed with an eave that's actually lower that the eave of the gable. CHAIRMAN: I misunderstood, I thought that that easel that you showed us was a third plan, or a second plan. ROB BROWN: It was always the same plan. CHAIRMAN: It was always the same pla IX, ologize. Page 81-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Heating Transcript(s) Town of Southold ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: What is shown on the west is the removal of that gable and the shed roof on that side to try to minimize the impact; and I think, Mr. Chairman, if you look at that side particularly it is almost dead perimeter with a very short knee wall and then you go right up to the roof again. So on that particular side, that is just about as minimal as we can get, in fact there is basically no usuable space added on that side out of consideration to that problem. If the space hadn't been counted for somewhere, hence our problem on the east side. If we were to do something similar on the east side then we end up with essentially a lot of muddy, or not much of anything at all. ROB BROWN: In fact on the west side, I don't think that the Building Department had any objection to the design. That was not part of what they objected to. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: It's just that each side's problem we have over there with basically no objection from the neighbor. CHAIRMAN: Alright I need to study that just to make sure that that sits right in my mind and so I'll close the hearing, we'll close it to verbatim tonight and I'll close it as a matter of fact at the Special Meeting just so if I have any questions I can call Mr. Brown regarding the review of that. I glad you brought that, because I sincerely thought there was a modification there in between those two. ROB BROWN: I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ: I think one of the things you might be thinking of Mr. Chairman was that the drawing that I was looking at was drawn in such a manner and at such an angle that it didn't look like what it was supposed to look like. And over on the west side, because of the angle at which it had been drawn, it looked like the walls were not in exactly the same place; and I think that you asked Mr. Brown to re-do that over here to eliminate that problem. Do you recall that? ROB BROWN: No, because actually the problem is the east side. The problem on the east side is better represented by the other view. This was intended just to show the situation on the west side. CHAIRMAN: Okay. MEMBER TORTORA: Just before we close the hearing, CHAIRMAN: We're not closing it, we're going to leave it open just so I can review this. MEMBER TORTORA: Since it is kind of a two-prong, do you want to address the other variance? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Yes, I was wondering whether you wanted to take any adding other testimony or anything on the first issurbefore we go on. Page 82-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: No we're done on that. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Okay, moving on to the variance aspect, we touched on that briefly last time and I think in that regard, we introduced an area map, did we not, that was marked with numbers and yellow markings? I would like, at this time to hand up other graphs which are keyed on the back, or do you have those, that are keyed? CHAIRMAN: I have them. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Do you have them all? CHAIRMAN: I don't know, I can't tell you. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I don't know whether they're all keyed on the back or not. CHAIRMAN: Well why don't you do this. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'm going to offer these up. They're all keyed on the back to your key map that indicate. Those are your photos in total that are keyed on that particular map that indicate the area of the surrounding neighbors. Number one, the character of the neighborhood, that's what I just introduced, the photographs and the area map. The character of the neighborhood is not going to change. The area, as you know, consists of small non-conforming lots with non-conforming setbacks. That's what it's like down there. Many of the waterfront houses are one and a half and two stories, as the, applicant requests here. So it clearly would not work a change in the character of the neighborhood. The nearby properties are not going to suffer a detriment, so let's talk about the neighbor to the west. We already know from the exhibits that were introduced the last time, do you have those? You know that the house to the west is not going to suffer a detriment with respect to light and air due to the location of this particular house. The roof lines going to be less severe on that side, in fact, it's going to be beneficial to that particular neighbor. There is no impact on the house to the east and the neighbor has no problem. So, in sum, the nearby properties are not going to suffer. The Board can readily see that the applicant has no alternative but to expand upward. They're certainly not going to ask for greater variance on the side yard, and we can't go forward and we're not going to go back; so we've got to go up, just like everybody else has done. Is the relief requested substantial? No. The relief requested is not substantial, why not? Well because the footprint is not going to change, the setbacks not going to change the west side doesn't require any sort of relief and the east side only requires with respect to the second story before the roof starts going down. So we're not asking for a lot, we're only asking on the other side. Will it have an adverse affect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? No. The footprint's going to remain the same. There are no other environmental factors implicated, since the footprint's the same there are no run off problems, there is not a greater lot area coverage issue. The difficulty is not self- created, because we have no place to go but up. It is a small, as originally built place and I believe that the applicants are entitled toipore. I think that Mr. Brown has done a nice Page 83-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Healing Transcript(s) Town of Southold design. He has attempted to minimize, at least with respect to the objecting neighbor, the impact; while, at the same time, maintaining a nice shape basically perimetal in shape which preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood because it is similar to what's there. We believe that if the Board finds that the Interpretation, the ordinance, is not as we proposed then surely the Board should grant us a Variance so that we don't have to set that wall back a little bit. Mr. Brown has indicated to me that that's going to create all kinds of architectural problems; and I don't want to go back to the Building Department and amend this plan to create something that architecturally doesn't make sense, and from a neighborhood point of view adds absolutely nothing. It will not affect the characteristics, it will not affect the impact, it won't do anything other avoid a hyper- technical application of the ordinance. That's why I believe that you should ground your decision at the first instance of the first prong of this application and get rid of, what we believe, a pernicious, not malicious, but a pernicious trend that we see developing here of all these things coming before you; and the alternative being the design in many cases, that makes no sense whatsoever and does not serve the purpose of what the Zoning Ordinance is designed to try and preserve, in what I consider to be a hyper-technical application that really has no substance. If the Board has any questions, I would be happy to entertain them. CHAIRMAN: I believe, Mr. Bressler, that when one constructs these additions that it's very difficult for the neighbors to understand. I would hope that between now and the time that I close this hearing in two weeks, that Mr. Brown speak to the neighbors who are sitting in the rear of the room, and explain to them exactly the way that roof line is going to affect them if it does affect them and how this thing is going to work. There are times in this world, and in this Board, when we can't reach a certain agreement. But, knowledge is a great thing; and I would really ask him to do that so that we could, at least, cover any furrows that have not been covered at this point. That's just an opinion at this point, I can't force anybody to do anything. That would be greatly appreciated. We had him put up those boards so that we know what the height is. In my discussions with the neighbors, they are still very much concerned about the affect of their air, the affect of their overall value and how this project is going to affect them. We're talking seasoned neighbors, we're talking neighbors that these are not people that move in and move out on a yearly basis or a bi-yearly basis, or every five years. They've been there for a long time,just as the Walzes have and they still have a distinct concern. I'm not speaking for them, I'm only relating conversations that I've had with them regarding this. I think it's important that they understand exactly what that situation is. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: We are certainly willing to undertake that Mr. Chairman, and I think there was one other point that I neglected to bring up, and that is that I think this Board, if you get to the Variance issue, this Board has granted Variances under similar circumstances and I would site just this for the record, incorporated by reference read from #4971 Frentzel in which relief similar in some respects the relief was granted in those decisions and I don't want to get into them in detail. I do believe that the point is well taken, and I think that Mr. Brown and I will undertake to do that with drawings to try to explain just what the situation is. ��N Page 84-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Heating Transctipt(s) Town of Southold MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Bressler, the map that you handed to us, would it be possible just to put one page together with a paragraph explaining to the different when the Board Members review this? ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: Well certainly. CHAIRMAN: We have Miss Collins was not feeling well tonight, she had to leave and for us to cause any misconception, it would help. MEMBER TORTORA: It would help all of us. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point Lydia. ERIC BRESSLER, ESQ.: I'll ask Mr. Brown to reduce that to a manageable size and then. MEMBER TORTORA: Just one little paragraph. That would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown? ROB BROWN: If I may, I think the Board knows me well enough to know that whatever is deemed necessary by the Board to clarify this issue, I wouldn't hesitate to help the Board in this matter. Regarding your statement before, it raises the question in my mind, is there anything that I can do to explain to the Board exactly what's going on here. Things that you might not understand at this point. CHAIRMAN: Well, that goes back to my other question. That's the difficulty of not having a rendering in front of you. I'm not asking you to create a model for me okay, but that's what usually eliminates all of the problems. The next thing I asked you to do was put the poles up so that we knew how high we were going. But without the rendering in front of us, this is the difficulty of what we see. Perception is a very important part of the presentation at this point, and that's why I'm telling you where the problem lies. Because there are misgivings, and I created that same problem tonight by explaining to you, thinking that you modified the second plan where, in effect, you didn't modify the second plan. The perception was that you changed that wall on the west side, which in reality you didn't change the wall. ROB BROWN: That was always the design. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I'm glad that you brought that up, because this is the problem that we have in pre-existing neighborhoods. If we were building on a five-acre lot, we granted a house over here, right across from Kace in fact, that's 10,600 square feet. It's on 2.5 acres on the Long Island Sound and they're going to build a 8,500 square foot house on one side and 8,600 square foot house on the other side and they're all friends, they're all related, they're all in the same corporation. No problem, we don't need a rendering they know what they have, this is what it's going to look like, this is what's before us, this is what's going to happen. But here we have pre-existing neighborhoods. Page 85-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Heating Transciipt(s) Town of Southold These were neighborhoods where these houses at one time sold for $85,000. They now sell for half a million or more. Money should have no real object tonight because you heard me say that you heard me say that regarding that situation of$125,000 and it went on and on and on. It has nothing to do with it, it was done three years ago, it's a mute point of how much these people paid for the house. What I'm trying to say is when a person has their entire livelihood in this piece of property, and .they honestly, conscientiously feel that this is going to affect them, then it is encumbered upon us, and maybe that's one of the reasons why I'm people orientated, to try and solve as much of the concerns that they have from this particular dais as we can do. Because, some people are just not paper orientated, they just can't look at the piece of paper and say that this is the way that this situation is going to be, in comparing an existing one-family, one-story house to now what we refer to as a two-story, or a portion of a two-story house. ROB BROWN: I agree with you entirely. What I'm asking you is given the overlay drawing that I presented at the last meeting. Does anybody on the Board have any questions about those, about what they represent and about what's intended with the construction? CHAIRMAN: No I don't have any concerns about that, but I still have difficulty understanding and super implanting that new roof line on the existing structure. And that's, of course, one of the mistakes I made by saying that. I don't mean to be redundant tonight over this whole issue, okay. Because I honestly thought you changed that roof line on the west side. ROB BROWN: If there is anything that I can do to explain the project to anybody. CHAIRMAN: I would really, honestly appreciate you contacting or having them contact you and discuss this whole situation. I'm sure they're going to speak tonight anyway. Do you want to say something Ralph? Come on up Ralph. This is now, Mr. Martin, six hours and ten minutes. RALPH MARTIN: I don't envy you folks. In a moment I'll ask my wife, with the Board's permission, to bring something forward for their visual interpretation. Ladies and gentlemen I will try not to take up too much of the Board's time reiterating our previously voiced concerns regarding the addition of a second story to the Walz house. However, I would like to submit these pictures showing the impact this addition would have on the views from our house and entryway. The photo showing the views from our porch in #1 and bedroom in #2 were taken outside with my back to our windows rather than trying to take them through the glass. The picture taken from the sewing room #3, thru an open window. The overall view, #4, taken from our walkway indicates very clearly how large this new structure would be. Upon approaching our entryway and looking up you would only see their house. The sky would be virtually obliterated, we feel our pictures of their proposed addition taken from directly next door, not from down their driveway or from out on the beach as with the picture taken by their architect give a much more accurate representation of the height of the proposed structure. On September 201h the Walz architect presented aphs based on information provided by Page 86-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold Brookhaven Laboratory showing only a minimum amount of light and fresh air would be lost as a result of the proposed opening argument. The point I'm trying to make regarding that issue is this, at the present time our bedroom windows in our house face the Walz house are curtained on the lower half for privacy. If, however, their house is enlarged up with this plan we will be forced to lower our shades completely so that they cannot see downward into our bedroom. Therefore, the lowering of our shades will result in less light and air coming into our windows. Also, on September 20th Mr. Brown presented in a rather cavalier fashion a map to denote the location of existing two-story homes in Gardners Bay Estates. Upon closer examination of this map it appears that none of these houses except for one is built on a single narrow lot less than 50 feet wide front and back. All are larger double or triple lots except that which is owned by Trenchnay which is on a 30 foot wide lot. According to the survey submitted by the Walzs, their lot is less than 47 %z feet wide on which has been built an approximately 30 foot wide single story house. They now wish to add a second story. I cannot see how this could not be considered totally overpowering and overwhelmingly large for that small narrow lot. Mr. Bressler requested an Interpretation of the Southold Town Building Code as it pertains to existing dwellings and non-conforming setbacks and Reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. May I suggest that in your considering whether or not a second story addition within the footprint of an existing, non-conforming dwelling increases the degree of non-conformance you consider the following. Perhaps if some of the second story additions that were constructed on already non-conforming buildings were not as humungous and as hideously out of place as they are, re-examination such as this would not have to take place. Waterfront homes built here many years ago took the advantage of almost every inch of land were built very close to one another. Keeping them as low as possible, at least helped them be somewhat less imposing and more in keeping of the overall look intended for Gardner's Bay Estates. Because the Walz's existing house is on the highest portion of the slope of land between our two houses, their one story house is approximately the same height as our house, which is considered to be a story and a half, not a two-story as indicated by information supplied by the Walz's architect. Adding a second story to this will surely result in an overwhelmingly top heavy look on a very small piece of property. I feel that look is more in keeping with the South Shore not the North Fork, and certainly not Gardner's Bay Estates. It seems to me that whatever hardship the Walzs alledge, they have completely self-created. Inasmuch as they have managed to vacation in this house for approximately twenty years with no previous need for expansion; with regards to four bedrooms and four bathrooms that we understand are proposed, the Suffolk County Department of Health Service Sewage Disposal System for single family residences approval under Section 5-120 Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 states that new construction having one to four bedrooms requires a minimum septic tank capacity of 1,000 gallons with a minimum legal surface area of 27 square feet. Also with a depth to ground water of 11 to 17 feet, a minimum requirement of two pools, six feet deep and eight feet in diameter or three pools four feet deep and eight feet in diameter are required. Inasmuch as these are the minimum Suffolk County Department of Health requirements for a four bedroom residence, I would like to know where the new and/or enlarged septic system will be constructed on a small piece of property. In addition, there are other considerations, such as distance to water supply lines, property lines, etc. Will the Southold Building Department seek appro of the septic system from the Suffolk 4 Page 87-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold County Department of Health, and if not, why not? I would also like to know if the Town Trustees have made a determination of jurisdiction regarding this construction due to its closeness to of tidal water. I also find it quite puzzling if not amusing, that during a hearing before this Board in the Spring of 1999 regarding another resident wishing to expand their home, Miss Abigail Wickham representing Gardners Bay Estates Homeowners Association asserted that and I quote, "if they want a bigger house they should get a bigger parcel." In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, it is obvious the Walz have been in touch with a number of residents in Garners Bay Estates, in an effort to gain support for their addition. However, with the exception of Mr. Edward Forth, whose house is but three feet from the easterly side lot line, not one of their supporters has a residence immediately next to the Walz house. Also, none of them are year round residents and, therefore, would not have to look at this overly large structure on a daily basis as I would. In fact, because they do not live here all the time, they may not even look upon their residences in these Estates as home the way I do. I would like to give you a copy for your files of my comments this evening, as well as a copy of those made at the June 71h hearing and thank you again for taking our concerns and opinions into consideration. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Martin. Mrs. Walz, how are you? MRS. WALZ: Good evening, I just want to let you know, my husband has just retired. We are residents of Southold Town, we love Southold Town; we've owned the house it will be twenty-three years as of January, and we are selling our home in New Jersey. I have grown up here, I'm fifty-five years old. My father bought the cottage in Southold on Mill Creek the month after I was born. I have never in Southold Town. We were not permanent residents before because what I did for a living and what my husband did for a living would not allow us to live here. Well, now that's changed. That is the reason for our expansion. CHAIRMAN: Sir? Please state your name for the record. FRANK THORPE: I am Frank Thorpe. I know (inaudible) Mr. Chairman. I spoke with one neighbor, I didn't all the neighbors down. I've been here for sixty-three years; a permanent resident, a voting resident for over twenty-five years. I live here full time. I live granted three houses away from the Walzs, but they get a complete view of my house. They've been to my house, they've seen my deck, part of my deck is in complete view. There's my brother, whom I also represent, Edward Thorpe, who lives right next door; whose house is not three feet but five feet from the property line at its closest point. He has absolutely no objection to this. So I just want to make it clear that there are others of us who are there full time and have been there for many, many years. There is my family, my grandfather and two other gentlemen who developed Gardners Bay Estates. We had, with the exception of these few lots, we instituted Zoning long before the Town ever noticed it. After these few lots were sold it was realized that they were building too close to the property line. So in the deeds of almost every other lot that was sold in Gardners Bay Estates the closest you could every build was eight feet. We recognize that, maybe too late. Page 88-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thorpe I just want to mention to you that my conversations are not limited to just the neighbor on the west side. This is a conglomeration of concerns, as you know and as you have seen that we have had these hearings, at least six hearings a year. In other words, in six month intervals depending how they flip flop, we will usually have a hearing at least half the time on Gardners Bay Estates. These are all concerns that we are dealing with. I am dealing with this neighbor only because he has an actual concern, in his opinion. I am trying to minimize that concern to the best of my ability. I have not been successful in doing that, and that is the reason why the only other concern I can have is have the architect talk to him to the best of our ability. FRANK THORPE: I would appreciate that very much. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Good evening, I'm Norma Martin I live next door. I just want to say very briefly I find it very interesting and very nice that your idea of possibly getting people all of us together in an effort to array our fears. Its unfortunate that although in obtaining this house they went to every, to some of the neighbors I shouldn't say every, but to many, many neighbors and we were totally relieved and not approached. The one weekend that they chose to come to our home, I understand, was of course the weekend when there wasn't any car in the driveway so they knew we weren't there. They have never spoken to us, although they've spoken to other neighbors months in advance. We knew what was going on because the neighbors told us not to . And I know that its not part of this, but I just wish that we could've been approached and maybe its not too late, but it would've been nice and it would've eliminated a great deal of all of this. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Its getting late, so unless its really relevant to the issues here please. ROB BROWN: Just briefly Ms. Tortora, I think the issues that were raised with respect to the Health Department and Trustees are properly taken up by with Health Department and Trustees, if such issues actually exist and we're not going to address them. I think to the extent that a member of my firm made an argument before this Board, I'm sure she is 100% justified in making the argument she made and was probably right and was the signature in this case whatever it was she argued. I need that in the record with any comment of who talked to who, they obviously dispute and we're just going to leave it at that. MEMBER TORTORA: Alright. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay, I'm recessing this hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting. It will be closed at approximately 6:30. I will review those documents that I was so indicated by architect Brown that I didn't understand, so to speak, and I'll make that, I'll justify that in my own mind and if I have any questions I'll call you. ROB BROWN: If there's anything you need. Page 89-November 15,2001 ZBA Public Hearing Transcript(s) Town of Southold CHAIRMAN: So that is the standing, have a safe home, or get home safe everybody and have a happy holiday. We will start deliberating sometime thereafter the 29th. Either that evening or sometime thereafter. I offer that as a Resolution ladies and gentlemen. SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION r * rya Reference: Roger&Leslie I Presente_ _ ZBA 11/15/01 Appl.#4962 I will try not take up too much of the board's time reiterating our previously voiced concerns regarding the addition of a second storyy to the Walz house. However, I would like to submit these pictures showing the impact this addition would have on the views from our house and entryway. The photos showing the views from our porch(#1) and bedroom(#2)were taken outside-----with my back to our windows-----(rather than trying to take them through the glass). The picture taken from the sewing room(0) is through an open window. The overall view (#4)-----taken from our walkway f---indicates very clearly how large this new structure would be. Upon approaching our entryway and looking up,we would see only their house-----the sky would be virtually obliterated. We feel our pictures of their proposed addition taken from directly next door--not from down their driveway or out on the beach-- (as were the pictures taken by their architect)--give a.much more accurate representation of the height of this proposed structure. On Sept. 20th,the Walz's architect presented graphs based on information provided by Brookhaven Laboratory showing that only a minimum amount of light and fresh air would be lost as a result of this proposed upward enlargement. The point I am trying to make regarding that issue is this: At the present time,the bedroom windows in our house that face the Walz house are curtained on the lower half for privacy. If,however, their house is enlarged upward as planned,we will be forced to lower our shades completely so that they cannot see DOWNWARD into our bedrooms. THEREFORE, the lowering of our shades will result in less light and air coming in our windows. Also on Sept. 20th, Mr. Brown presented, in a rather cavalier fashion, a map colored to denote the location of existing two-story homes in Gardiners Bay Estates. Upon closer examination of this map, it appears that NONE of those houses, with the exception of one, is built on a single, narrow lot, less than 50 feet wide, front and back. All of them are on larger, double or triple lots, except that which is owned by Trencheny--which is on a 30-foot wide lot. According to the survey submitted by the Walzs,their lot is less than 47.5 feet wide on which has been built an approximately 38-foot wide single story house. They now wish to add a second story. I cannot see how this could not be considered totally overpowering and overwhelmingly large for that small narrow lot. Mr. Bressler has requested an Interpretation of the Southold Town Zoning Code as it pertains to existing dwellings with nonconforming setbacks and a reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval. May I suggest that in your considering whether or not a second-story addition within the footprint of an existing non-conforming dwelling increases the degree of non-conformance, you consider the following: Perhaps if some of the second-story additions that were constructed on already non-conforming buildings were not as humungous and as hideously out-of-place as they are,re-examinations such as this would not have to take place. Waterfront homes built here many years ago took advantage of almost every inch of land. and were built very close to one another. Keeping them as low as possible at least helped them- be somewhat less imposing and more in keeping with the overall look intended for Gardiners Bay Estates. Because the Walz' existing house is on the highest portion of the slope of land between our two houses, their one-story house is ap roximately the same height as our house, Reference: Roger&Leslie ) Presente, ZBA 11/15/01 Appl. #4962 which is considered to be a story-and-a-half,not two-story as indicated by information supplied ied by the Walz' architect. Adding a second story to this will surely result in an overwhelmingly "top-heavy" look on a very small piece of property. I feel that "look" is more in keeping with the South Shore,not the North Fork--and certainly not Gardiners Bay Estates. It seems to me that whatever "hardship" the Walzs allege they have is completely self-created, inasmuch as they have managed to ii-e•-in this house for approximately 20 years with no previous .need for expansion. VM CR T'd 1 With regards to the four(4)bedrooms and four(4)bathrooms that we understand are proposed: The Suffolk County Dept. of Health Service, Sewerage Disposal System for Single Family Residences,Approval under Sec. 5-120, Tables 1,2,3 and 4 states that new construction, having one to four bedrooms, requires a minimum septic tank capacity of one thousand(1,000) gallons,with a minimum liquid surface area of twenty- seven(27) sq. ft. Also, with a depth to groundwater of 11 to 17 ft., a minimum requirement of two pools-- 6 ft. deep and 8 ft. in diameter or--three pools; 4 ft. deep and 8 ft. in diameter--are required. Inasmuch as these are the minimum Suffolk County Dept.of Health requirements for a four-bedroom residence, I would like to know where the new and/or enlarged septic system will be constructed on this small piece of property. In addition,there are other considerations, such as distance to water supply lines, property lines, etc. Will the Southold Town Building Department seek approval of the septic system from the Suffolk County Department of Health? And if not, why not? I would also like to know if the Town Trustees have made a determination of jurisdiction regarding this construction, due to its closeness to tidal water. Also, I find it quite puzzling, if not amusing,that during a hearing before this board in the Spring of 1999 regarding another resident wishing to expand their home, Ms. Abigail Wickham, representing Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Asso., asserted that, and I quote, "If they want a bigger house,they should get a bigger parcel." In conclusion,Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, it is obvious that the Walzs have been in touch with a number of residents of Gardiners Bay Estates in an effort to gain support for their addition. However,with the exception of Mr. Edward Thorp, whose house is but three feet from the easterly side lot line,NOT ONE of their supporters has a residence immediately next to the Walzs'house. Also,NONE OF THEM ARE YEAR-ROUND RESIDENTS and,therefore, would not have to look at this overly-large structure on a daily basis as I would. In fact,because they do not live here all the time,they may not even look upon their residence in the Estates as "HOME",the way I do. I would like to give you a copy for your files of my comments this evening, as well as a copy of those we made at the June 7th hearing and thank you, again, for taking our concerns and opinions into consideration. Ralph Martin, Jr 2555 Old Orchard Lane East Marion,NY 11939-0203 t y Reference: Roger and Leslie Walz Presented to ZBA 6/7/01 Appl. #4962 We have some comments and concerns I would like to voice regarding the pending addition of a second story to the Walz house,which is directly next door to us. Because of the sloping"lay of the land" and their house being on the highest portion of this slope, the height of the single story house they now occupy is approximately the same height as our house, which is a story-and-a-half. Wefeel adding a second story to this existing single level structure will result in something that far exceeds the height and detracts from the look of the surrounding dwellings. Also to be considered, I should think, would be the impact on the cesspool that would result from the additional two bedrooms and baths that are included in the new plans. This addition would mean there would be 4 bedrooms and 4 baths in the house. With our house situated directly next door on the downward side of the slope from their existing cesspool, what effect would that have on us? I am sure that when the Walzs purchased this house, one of the things that impressed them was the"look"of Gardiners Bay Estates. This traditional and understated private community, which has been in existence for approximately 72 years,has been achieved and maintained through the years by the diligence and cooperation of the homeowners and their Association. Although we have a Real Estate Committee, it is my understanding that the Walzs have yet to submit these plans for review and consideration. I am concerned as to why they by-passed this step. It insinuates that they are not concerned with what effect it may have on their neighbors. When you become a resident of Gardiners Bay Estates and a member of the Homeowners Association, it is assumed that you will abide by the guidelines that have been agreed upon by all, not develop your own agenda and expect to be allowed to be the exception to the rule. We already have a yM visual example,just down the street on Old Orchard Lane, (designed by these same architects, I might add) of what can happen when a homeowner's vision and an architect's view of what is appropriate collide with what the surrounding neighbors feel looks best and is in the best interest of the appearance of the community as a whole. It is for the above reasons that we are opposed to the pending plans for the addition of a second story to the Walz' house. Thank you for listening. Ralph Martin, Jr. 2555 Old Orchard Lane PO Box 203 East Marion,NY 11939-0203 (631)477-0428 �,� ..�� " Z.�-- _ s . � �s ;::. i �� �� -- ,��- .� ��� .�. ,� ;; ..."�.. ' ,� r y ,:. ;. _ ^` f . .. s /<no �' .r' •sue � �� r ` T�' "7 r��•4� � 1 f .v � • r_ i e ' ``' �� t ' •' .� /a r wr�R � �" _Rath'' ��� •�•;� ♦� s � w.�t lob le i yMFW t _ 1 t - -: �: Y -- i 4y i•.yS-.��� ' C'�w �7► �....; 7T3 TY e. � J ems• f i 1 \'\'"� ♦ t v Irv: r I DCL�� Cc� ' J 4} I w i „ w jel�4 e IN _ ,} yF _ I - cam:+�� __ �=��_�_: i r �.r 1 L TIQ - I!� —_��� _. -� _ ��•�—a-^ �_ r__.may_ tit !'�•-.L��� �y��_-�.��•' - _.+�J �--- _`�'" ''r�Yw.ts�. r Y�. �T ;��" ..•ifs..: . . i • ''' r'-" i� i � � r x ' s . Mli�i�1Y ,•� 1� er S � - 7-� -_ •mot�e e j 1:.t VY - - .. � w Y " I t y rf set ,M,.q� r AL /, IF ML •s 1,a '' R " a � liz "► d��D►� a °' 1 rgas ~���. i de s . .. �r5� � ` f f t y ♦`I 1 Y i ap C oo, M. low Nola NO I _ _ � R -����. � � r t i ;. ;. � �� �, ,as � - -� ��"�: . ,�� ��� � / aT�_ a •!"'��'"F''— _ �o i I `� .. 1• • - MEMO us raw `I E is�:� �-.:�::•�* ..: � ,...,,.. � . .. '!'•�,i�•i 1jo _ /�' .ram � .x✓ 1 O/c ore�Q s p •f, 1�. - lei { �j iA; o WA 0 WA KV e. AffiaLL ... ' � �.`. s �. 1 w r ,. ,1i � . �� • � � � ,� ; • ,�r � .. , � .. f� � : .� _ �- f. � �_���` ,r �i _ •��' �� ,� •�TT ` .►��j. �; rr� .�,f- ;� ' • i � � • :. 1.• •'� tri -��♦jra ram" M.�- � ,!1r r!' .6j�' „�^y._.'1a f L ., .. y-�- �r. 'ir � r , -�—A -y <' Y� r•'•;w,-, '•� 14 � r. �: �;4.. t'4•..`•S. rt �, . ._ - -1•�- f- ,�.. y�T ' fT 400 R L / r / I ,.•.� • ' , rl y. I 40 t � • / I • r • , AO � �, �: �� � f sly ��"I'• �� � •'a. � ` je • • •� I Ilk If NIP— r ♦ . �' 'r 0t,-, r . • . - •. -to ,: /. •M 1 •# r• ♦ v P�! ���,LLrr ) !SY$ •lam '�,• . ��: �..: }��. Ito ./ � `ate _„ �, ••• •i _+ • � r+�t,'n�� w ,. 7�1 V. ion ���•. ,I «`���� t • • r`✓.\,.�w+f�i:Y"�. w �•tea. . -Al �'•+1 ash `. '��� / .w '•! ,...' ,. �.!� ' i �_ ' ��� � . # ! • •` - !' „f't i \ _ - • .may„ �• j .� IWW ~ * •• � — � ' ♦-.ate �. a ♦ _ ; _ T Jt .r ...ti ZV Ir • .}�; i ce, ts, - 'f • . ,�.r e _ Z NIL- all i�• - _�: - !•'' � r � � +� M'�-'- � -may~.� -� .v- -= '' " "� ' _ �.,► _ ,..� _ :• "r► . aJ+b 416. t AT ... Mr OOP -40073L - _rll� S _ a OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski a,Townof5outhold.ny.us or Paula.Quintierio,TownofSouthold.nv.us (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE: /0 / /2001 . REF: MESSAGE: J733 (0107 393k Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Our office hours are between 8 and 4. Thank you. #of pages to follow: Y' DEPARTMENTAL MEMO TO: Town Clerk's Office FROM: Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairman DATE: ©Lf: a 3 2001 SUBJECT: Assignment of Project Number of 5_0 39 According to the ZBA adopted rules of procedure, please assign Number 5D3 to;the above-referenced new submission. While the documentation may not be in complete form, it is assigned a number for the purpose of commencing reviews. The documentation has not as of today been accepted as a complete file by the assigned member. AS �—®— check is attached (which is required by.your office for assignment of a project number). This number was assigned by our office on (Projects are assigned.chronologically.) . Thank you. � �„� 7X-cam Oct Attachment J® J. -'R',I••ISMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT ti TIME 10l29/2 001 13:15 DATE,TIME 10/29 13:14 FAX NO./NAME 2988565 DURATION 00: 00:44 F'AGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 01 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE _ 'y� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK y P.O. Box 1179 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS a Southold, New York 11971 MARRIAGE OFFICER ,L Fax(631) 765-6145 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER Fax ���� Telephone (631) 765-1800 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville DATED: October 29, 2001 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 5039 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 5039—Roger -Zoning Board of Appeals application for variance. Also included is cover letter from Wickham, Wickham &Bressler. I I LAW OFFICES WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, P.c. 11/1S-16 10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND WILLIAM WICKHAM NEW YORK 11952 MELVILLE OFFICE ERIC J. BRESSLER 275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD ABIGAILA.WICKHAM SUITE III LYNNE M.GORDON 631-298-8353 MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747 JANET GEASA TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565 631-249-9480 TELEFAX NO. 631-249-9484 October 16, 2001 i Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals jJ Ll i=J 'i 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 ® !' 2001 i�f`i �I Re: Application of Roger and Leslie Walz PP g Premises: 2505 Old Orchard Road,East Marion SCTM# 1000-37-6-5 Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to the discussion had at the last public hearing regarding the above referenced application, enclosed is an amended application for a reversal or a variance. Please contact the undersigned if anything further is required. Very truly yours, Eric ressler 30/shdzbal encl. EJB/al e, 1fT ' 17 2001 TOWN OF SOUTH OLD, NEW YORK ^� AMENDED APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. 4962I�39Oa,,4ne(, A DATE ,October..16...2001 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We) Roder. &,.Leslie Walz ................. .of 2505 Old Orchard Road Name..of Appellant .. ................... Street.and..Numb.........er............................. .. East Marion New York ..........HEREBY APPEAL TO .................................................................................... .................. Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NO. .................................... DATED .......n y..2,,,,, ............................... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Roder. &•.Leslie Walz ........._. .............................................. Name of Applicant for permit of �..• 2505 Old Orchard.Road.•East•Marion:•New York Street and Number Municipality _ .......State....................... ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY (X ) Building Permit 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ....2505 01d Orchard Road, East Marion Street/RamleF%• "Use•District •onZoning •Map District 1000 Section 37 Block 6 Lot 5 Map•No.~��_.._...._.�. ..'....... _ -.•••-•-•-w.Current Owner Rodr & Leslie Walz Lot No. Prior Owner 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordinance.) Article xxiv Section 242A 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (please check appropri ate box) (X ) A.VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Low Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 (X ) Reversal of determination -of BuildingIns ector 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal MW (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such appeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No. .................................Dated ................... ........ . ................................... .. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (X) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( X) Reversal of determination of Building Inspector is requested for the reason that PLEASE SEE ATTACHED (Continue on other side) � 0 4 S t 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sary HARDSHIP because 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all p operties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because 3. The Variance would observe the spir' of the Ordinance and WOULD NOT CHANGE . THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT becaus STATE OF EW YORK ) ss ................................ ............................................ COUNTY OF ) Signature . Sworto this .............................................. day of........................................................ 19 C E� (A) Reversal is required because the Building Inspector improperly applied 242A to the project. The existing house on the property is non-conforming with respect to side yard setback. The proposed improvement does not increase the degree of non-conformity since the improvement goes up and not out and therefore, is no closer to the lot line. The Zoning Board of Appeals and, indeed, the Building Department until several months ago, uniformly held that an improvement to a non-conforming structure which was no closer to a lot line did not constitute an increase in the degree of non-conformity. This interpretation is sound since the degree a non-conformity with respect to a lot line is always measured by the shortest distance thereto. In this case, there was no shortening of that distance. The determination of the Building Inspector to the contrary was erroneous and inconsistent with the prior determinations of the Board. (B) In the event reversal is not granted, a variance is requested. The basis for the request is: (1) The character of the neighborhood will not change since the area consists of small non-conforming lots with houses with non-conforming setbacks. Most waterfront houses are of 2 stories, as the appellant requests. (2) Nearby properties will not suffer a detriment since the applicant's house is set back from the house to the west and will not interfere with light or air. Moreover, the roofline will be less severe on that side. There is no impact on the house to the east. (3) The appellant has no other alternative but to expand upward. (4) The relief requested is not substantial since the footprint and setbacks will not change. 4 v (5) There is no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood since the footprint remains the same and no environmental factors are implicated. (6) The difficulty is not self-created. This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Wickham, Wickham&Bressler, P.C. (Signature o Appellant or Authorized Agent) by Eric J. Br ,ssler, Esq. Attorneys for Appellants 10315 Main Road—P.O. Box 1424 Mattituck,New York 11952 Sworn to efore me this da 6f October, 2001. i otary Public DONNA M. CHITUK NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York No.4851459,Suffolk Country 10111 Dpi►ae Anpast 18, .�. Z Town Of Southold �- P.O Box 1179 + �J Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT Date: 10/29/01 Receipt#: 0 Transaction(s): Subtotal 1 Application Fees $0.00 Total Paid: $0.00 Name: Walz, Roger 3 Meadow Court Midland Park, NJ 07432 Clerk ID: LYNDAB Internal ID:41579 i1 DEPARTMENTAL MEMO T__7s _ L0- TO: Town Clerk's Office FROM: Jerry Goehringer, ZBA Chairman DATE: ©c71: a 3. Zoo/ SUBJECT: Assignment of Project Number of 5_6 3 a/ According to the ZBA adopted rules of procedure, please assign Number ,SDI to the above-referenced new submission. While the documentation may not be in complete form, it is assigned a number for the purpose of commencing reviews. The documentation has not as of today been accepted as a complete file by the assigned member. A'$ ­0— check is attached (which is required by.your office for assignment of a project number). This number was assigned by our office on ��T o/ (Projects are assigned.chronologically.) • Thank you. Attachment FOR OFFICIAL USF.ONL Y CHECKLIST FOR NEW PROJECTS LABEL ASSESSORS CARD (7 COPIES) NAME CTY. TAX MAP (7 COPIES + 1) CTM INDEX CARD (ATTACH OLD) LIST ALPHA BOOK RESEARCH ALPHA COPY PRIORS r SIX COPIES 0 INSPECTION PACKETS COMPLETE REF: UPDATED NEW INFORMATION 03/12/2001 11:13 6317659064 ZONINGAPP'EALSP^='PD PAGE 04 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK -----------—----------------------------------------x In the Matter of t Application of AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN (Name"M Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1 o00- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) 1, 7 residing at J/f New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the J _ day of A)/1104"'k 200/, 1 personally placed the -Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(10)feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;*and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in p for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, h hear' " s v to be 0)(Signature) Sworn to before met is /,5b�day,af 200'J CRYSTAL ROCK NdVyAft81W0fNwYwk No.dnasm S�c bt1 Fsb�ry�i,,�o� Notary Public) *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. 11r15/2001 11:34 6314770973 FAIRWEATHER BROWN PAGE 02 03,1121,2001 11:13 633 7555e7 4 ZpNINGAPPEALSBQARD PAGE rate e ZONING BOARD OF APPEA $ TOWN OF SOLITHOLVNEW YORK In the Matter of t ,Application Of AFFIQAVIT OF SIGN (Name Applicant) POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land'Identified as COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STAFF OF NEW YOERK) 1k residing at Now York, being duly sworn, depose*lid say that: 0n the d,y of 0)0 200/. I parsOnally plac-ed the ,Town' official Poster, with the date of hear&g and nature of my applicatie�n s noteri thmre®n, 8e1;urely upon my property, located ton(10)toot or closer frorn the street or right-of-way (driveway ontrence)-facing"street or facing each street or right•-of-way entrance:*and that I hereby confirm Met the Poster has remainmd in p for sever~daysto be prior to the date of the subjvct hasring date, hea �.. ��►Igr�ature) Sworn j6.beiore r is � M?60*200� otery Publio) *near the entrance or driveway entrance of•any Property, as the area most visible to passersby. I1 11/15/2001 11:34 6314770973 FAIRWEATHER BROWN PAGE 01 e r D9SIGN ASWCIATES,INC. 413 Malin Sure@ GmVOM N.Y. 11944 631-477.9752 (fax)631-477-10973 E��:FBJAA1a�f�a�l.caum Fax T raBSmittSl Date: Re: .. Please call 631 477-9752 if you do aot have all gages, or have any prob letns with K;larity. Total pages sent,including caner: c 4 R e!marvk*as — Y' / ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK -------------------- In the Matter of the Application of ROGER WALZ and AFFIDAVIT OF LESLIE WALZ SERVICE BY MAIL Parcel ID#1000-37-6-5 -------------------- STATE OF NEW YORK) ) ss.. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Allison Latham, being duly sworn, deposes and says: On the lst day of November, 2001, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Mattituck,New York,by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice and map in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the Southold Town Assessors Office, for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property, as follows: Edward A. &Virginia Thorp 1000-37-6-3.3 12 Norcross Street Rockville Centre,New York 11570 Donald H. Frazier& 1000-37-6-4 Elizabeth H. Frazier as Co-Trustees 1821 Mooringline Drive 3F Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2960 Ralph Martin, Jr. 1000-37-6-6.1 Old Orchard Lane P.O. Box 203 East Marion,New York 11939-0203 Gardiners Bay Estates Club, Inc. 1000-37-5-23.2 P.O. Box 4 East Marion,New York 11939-0004 -- ,J Z0 �� r Allison Latham Sworn to before me this 1st day of November, 2001 Notary lic CHERYLCROHAN 21:affmail NOTARY PUBLIC,state of New Yo* No.31-4971,341 Glualified in ffolk February 4y Commission ExP r s r �Z / Nov--1:�I-Ql -03:35P WWBPC P_02 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YOI1 K in the Matter of the Application c)f ROGER WALZ and AFFIDAVIT OF LESLIE WALZ SERVICE BY MAIL -Pareel ID#1000-37-6-5 STATE OF NFW YORK) COUNTY OI" SUFFOLK) Allison Latham;being dLdy sworn,deposes and says: On the 1" day o[Novcinber,2001, 1 personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Mattituck, New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL,RETURN 1tF.C:FIPT RF.QiJESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice and map in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the Southold Tows, Assessors Office, for every properly which abuts and is across a public or private street,or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property,as Ei�llows: Edward A, &Virginia Thorp 1000-37-6=3.3 12 NUMTOSS Street Rockville Centre,New York 1 1570 Donald H. Frazier& l 000-37-6-4 Elizabeth H. Frazier as Co-Trustees 1821 Mooringline Drive 3F Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2960 Ralph Martin,Jr. 1000-37-6-6,1 Old Orchard Lane P'O, Box 203. Fast Marion,New York 119i9-0203 Gardiners Bay Listates Club,Inc. 1000-37-5-23.2 P,O, liox 4 Last Marian, New York H 939-0004 r� Nov`13-0.1 03 z 35P WWBPC 1631r---I8565 P.03 L • Allison Latham SWorn to belore the this I"day of November,2001 Notary lic Un IC. ale u ,fti! YdnS cjk CoSNo uanwty i Commibs+on Expu®e February 4 �-�` Plav-13-G1 '03:3613 WWBPC 1631$ 8565 P.04 CERTIFIED. MAIL RECE10T to Cumploto iwrns 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. n'turd item A if Restricted Delivery is desired. _r ■ Print your name and address on the reverap Fr1�,_V_t Atldresse r ,n sn that we can return the card to you. •• , 0. R r;eived by(Prfrrh)d Mume) G, ,ate of Uelwer, �+ ■ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece, •+r I or an the front if spat < < Q '., e permits. F'rT Fostartc S �7�f' 4s, .—.--._--.__._.......- -.__...:.fC _ t}• I::rlulivl:ry nddm.-.:ditfnme from itom 17 ❑Y . q l-••-•----t- N. _ I. AA cle Atldresaad to: N YF8,onlordslivery address below: No N 1` CO,IirwJ°:ut l lN7'� 1 �t _d _ Fi;crrnsk Ralpl1 1Y:9Yi11, JL. HeuT,Htxaiyt° -t� ' v I'tln e Old Urckmrd -i-1AL1 P.Q. Box 203 4n (r•.,�,WOW',Honu�mo) r3 -• r - ca acstncicoLKlrvrrr..a p (Fn^^rcmnntHegurrll r✓f East. IAu1:'ir;n, NY 119$9-0203 SBNIDe Tyrre � rota Ptrtta(10 a Feels3.$ ,�.• - ' ru -•- ,. J&TTnrtitiod Mail M Fxprocs Mail fit _ _. —.. O C3 'Sand 7c ❑Registered 5;-Return Reoelpt for Nomhandlse R 1 h Mbrtil'.. Jr, -rt.Nu ........................ .... 0 irteurecmail ❑c.o.o. j ,� rit•Lrf. . u MBox No. 41d Orchard Lune P.0 8�x 203 l 4. Rnrtriowd rloiivery?(Extra Fee) pyre. t` East Marion, NY 11939-0203 1. ArilrioNurnber - ('rranalar rrorn sely . _?.¢01 Q 2 0 0005 6 713 5 9 5'+ 1'S F or n 3811,August 2001 Domestic Hetum ttecelpt ins=gs-0t-M25t �� , ° •. - CERTIFIED MAIL • w Colnplote Items 1,2,and 5,Also complato A.signature w ent Item 4 d Restricted Dalivofy Is desired. v_ a / 13� ■ Print your name and adores-;on the revurse X ��d ZC•r"r L _�--_'�Addresary F- so that we can return tho card to you. B.Heoil tty(Puttied Name) C. ate o Delivnt I ■ Attach tills card to the baCK of the ma 1pioce, ` ` — — or on tlx front if space pormhg. D.Is delivery sidra.s tJilfarent from Rem 17 C!1'e9 rn r ownAo 5 r_ y� I,.artirlr.Addressed to' If YES,enter delivery address below: P<No iL ^anaieuFar �rralk'` GarW.m.,zS Bay F.stiite,% Clubr Inc `., . P.O. Ect 4 rectum fixccpl rn+ C,'�"; ��' rsa ([ndnranaNnrqu;all i• v v' �' .I !East- maiiCill, NY 11939-0004 Hn.trioteu naLvery Fa•r ' . CA IEnd gwnore,noluircA (G+� ;i. Service Type C3 Totalpolta➢e 6 F.a• ,� 1 _ /,. I ��iffnd Mail C1 Expmzu Mail "'•. nJt _. ❑Registered Enoturn Receipt for Marchandla r,r "urn!r.� '•,!(( I ❑_ insured Mail A C.G.O. � i Gat;.dinexti_.13s1Y_.I;�.ts�t�:,...�lub,... •tree,...--- : •'"— .a 4. Ra-.trirttxJ Delivery?(Extra Fir.)) 0 Yes yr rtt Mx Nu. P.O. Box .!...... _._.... ...__... ...... ....... __ _. . 2. Article Nutt' r East Marion NY 11939-0004 (TialtBrerfrornwrvicxrra7, 01 a3.2Q COOS 67L.3 5947 I PS Form 3$1 1,AuguSt 2001 pnRiestic Fleturn Rernlpl ip2594nt•M s Fj-n� . . ,■ ( leto Item9 1.2,gild 3,Also completeA, $lyrs,lureI H Restricted Delivery IS deairod. 4�.•. ❑Agent e Pr your name and address on the reverse XG;.�r r2 rL� Add at • .1 So that we can return the card to you. G. Reocv d by(Frint^d N'm -a a Attach this card to the back of the mailrler:e. F . cr- or on the bunt If gpaca permits, D.is dcVlve rose ttiR -- I .._ '� ._.. .. .....i ... ._ .. - �, ion,Item 1? yr n 1 Ho.Won S 1, Ar11Cle AtldreSSnrf to: If YF9,tlril6i delivery'adrirn::::below: N ram'"" Donald 11. t� Elizabeth H. Fx-%2ier C:w--jtiCd FCC•.11 N..:n'mk 1221 Moor.ingline Dri-rea Fiolm-Rk,ypr No Itntloremcnt Nequlrcal A . L p Hr.IrrteduaUvrrriee '� r �`a%it , VCYO Atiill'h, FL 32 dfi3-296C 11 U (FnMrcamara Hn7elrcdl J, $eni�n 7yp- •aJ?1,,'i"w'" for M 43 Cert1'ied Mail ❑EXPI)B68 MPH [] 'total Po9tofJa a Foos �i ''tees' r ,'J••r ' ry ..•„��: , Registered I ReluYl7 rii3Cewkt art:liantll5 1,111 -soot ro _... .I ❑Inswoel Mail ❑GO.D. O Donald H. A Elfzah th H Fr•;' - ................... . .... ... Mi.............,.,........s�7.7.�r.....,.. ... I 4. HeStrirind Delivery?lf&lm Fat) ❑Yv5 etioet,Nit No.; —_„ .. ... _ --- ra aPO-%AW 1621 Moaringline. Dr., .:3P'.,,,._ -_._._..___•..-•...................... ............ 2. Artirlr.Number' Ct rny,s'M,y,err.+ 0009 6 712 5961 Vern Beach. FL 32963-2960 ;�ransrr,.runtse,..,.........., — PS Form 3811,August 2.001 Ourteetic Return Rerziol io2ldx•ut•r:l•ir r� • Nov,13-01 �-03:36P WWBPC 16312WI3565 P.05 •. • ti -MAIL RECEIPT ® Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. t re . ❑Agent Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. X (��Y �+c4lrrsser ■ Print your naina and addre�ap on the re'verse so that we can return the4iRrd to you. B. Received (?rrneadNsm P� H, ilvery a ■ Attach this card to the hart of the maiipiece, 1 in or art the trotri if Space per2p. fJ _... ... . .._.._ ........ .._._ v7 D.6 dal v ay WOres9 cifter o m It—17 CJ Yca�-� v 1lit ❑No �t rT 1. Article Addressed to; Pr' ! •�„ If YF.S,nnitu drtivrry ad I�it below: rr! r` rmarr.ty �i Fdw'..t-ti A. h ViYyinid R'hOTp P, N•yrtmai C. 12 Woccross Street ,n rknCsrtammi Rx uu,.;¢ ,4j� ,: �; �,C I Rockville CHntrey NY 11570 ....... q n"I'im,Odwary I ee t7 (Cnaorm+srt RequvaT) 3. %rvloe Type t� toter Fbstapa a F+•, $ ( prtifiexl Mail ❑E[p►eas Mat t11 =•- � of ❑healatered NJ-Rviwn RecHpt for Marchandlse rr, :.air TI, " � ❑Inured Mall ❑0.0m._ _ a Edward A. & Vix' inid Thor II ...._._.-...................9........._...._._....:2.............. 4. Restr!cled Delivery?(Pxtrs f'ae) ❑Yes r9 Stroat..yot Nn.• ... t` or DcxNo1.2 Norr 9Ste C �arn a, t 6713 5978;. , rr 1 ArtGtbar Rockville Centre—NY 11570 (Trauserv „ _..._.._.......... I PS Forn,3811,August 2001 Domestic Fiotum Rec6pt Ibasps.ot•n:aa ;�'�:i:::�•':+'Y' -.a3P%.lV"�y�°�X`;.. . .... :� 'L:; r .� ..A�'.r q.�?,v....• ... .. 1 Nov-13-01 �O3: 35P WWBPC 1631 38565 P . 01 'VVICKI 1,*CKl-AM &RRFSSL):✓lZ,Y.C. P.O. Box 1424, 10315 Main Road, Mattituck,Now York 11952 Phone(631) 298-9353 -•- lax (631) 298-8565 To: J.•(i- — --- --- Fax No„_ :_'•:?.:' (' ( jf.. _ From: Re Includes: iTI j,.L i `� �.� �, Y� _.... -- 9 of Pages including cover sheet: This transmission contains information confidential and/or legally privileged. It is intended for use only by the person to whom it is directed. if you have received this telecopy in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so that we can ttlnailge for the return of the documents to us at no cost to you, if you do not receive all oftbe pages indicated,please call as soon as Possible at the number referenced above. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the.following application will be heard at a public hearing by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2001, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible): 8:30 p.m. Appl. No. 503?— ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ. Location of Property: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; Parcel 1000-37-6-5. This is an Amended Appeal for an Interpretation of the Southold Town Zoning Code, Section 100-242A, requesting a determination that additions and alterations within or over the footprint of existing dwellings with nonconforming setbacks do not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the zoning regulations, and Reversal of the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. Code Section 100-242A states that: Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of the above hearing. This hearing will not start earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: October 23, 2001. GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 iLl OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OFAPPEAL5 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email: Linda.Kowalski@TownofSouthold.py.us or Paula.Quintieri@T_ownofgouthold.Lny.us (631) 765-1809 fax (631) 765-9064 October 23, 2001 Re: Chapter 58— Public Notice for Thursday, November 15, 2001 Hearing 'C�7-6L� Dear��dam: .037 Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing the recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Suffolk Times.. Pursuant to Chapter 58 of the Southold Town Code (copy enclosed), formal notice of-your application and hearing must be now mailed with a map or sketch showing the construction area.or variance being considered. Send the enclosed Notice CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, with a copy of a map showing your project area, to all owners of land (vacant or improved) surrounding yours, including land across any street or right-of-way that borders your property, on Wednesday, October 31s, or sooner,. Use the current addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office (765-1937) or the County Real Property Office in Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. When picking up the sign, a $15 check will be requested for each metal stand as a deposit. If you already have a sign and stand and only need the laminated printout for the face of the sign, an additional deposit is not necessary and we can mail or fax it to you. Please post the Town's official posterlsicin no later than November 81h. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. (If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is furnished for each front yard.) The sign(s) must remain in place for at least seven (7) days, and should remain posted through the day of the hearing. If you need a replacement sign, please contact us. By November 13th, please submit to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (copy enclosed) with parcel numbers noted for each, and return it with the white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. Later, when the green signature cards are returned to you by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us (but not later than the date of the hearing). If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board at the hearing. On or about November 14th,_ and after the signs have been in place for seven (7) days, please submit your Affidavit of Posting to our office. These will kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. (Please feel free to return the metal stands to our office for a return of your deposit.) If you do not meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Enclosures ZBA Board Members and Staff P.S. Please pick up the posting sig any:day after Tuesday, October 30t". Thank you. . RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT ' TIME 10/24/2001 08:38 DATEJIMEV 10/24 08:36 FAX NO./NAME 2988565 DURATION 00:02:02 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT Oh MODE STANDARD i ECM ! Page 2—June 7, 2001 Appl. No. 4959—D. O'Clair 1000-97-3-11.8 at Cutchogue NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS f' SOUTHOLD TOWN. BOARD OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15,2001 )SS: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, COUN OF SUFF LK) pursuant to Section 210 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning),- a2( of Mattituck, in said Code of the Town of Southold, the following applications will be heard county, being duly swom, says that he/she is Principal at public hearings by the SOUTH- OLD TOWN BOARD OF clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES,a weekly newspaper,pub- APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 lished at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Main Road, Southold, New York j 11971, on THURSDAY, NOVEM- I Suffolk and State of New York,and that the Notice of which BER 15, 2001, at the times noted below(or as soon thereafter as possi- the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly pub- ble): lished in said Newspaper once each week 5:15 p.m.Carryover Hearing in the , Matter of Appl. No. 4927 - KACE for weeks successively commencing LI,INC.This is an Appeal requesting Reversal of the Building Inspector's On the day Notice of Disapproval dated August of /I 6 k5t� 20-0-. 13, 2001, which disapproval denied b an application for a building permit for two-family dwellings under Article IV, Section 100-42A.2. The reason stated in the Notice of Principal Clerk Disapproval is that the proposed project indicates several two-family dwellings on a single parcel,and that S Sworn t0 the Code allows only one such struc- ture per lot as a permitted use.Zone day Of /V d I-. 20 0 i District: Hamlet-Density (HD). Location of Property:South Side of al co North Road(a/k/a C.R.48) (now or DAVID W.OLSEN formerly referred to as"Northwind ----Notary Public, State of New York Village" site), 500+- feet east of No, 020L6020974 Chapel Lane, Greenport; .Parcel Oualified in Suffolk County 3 #1000-40-3-1. 6:30. p.m. Appl. No. 4965 - - 7:10 p.m.-Appl No.-5020'L BRUCE Commission Expires March 8, 20 _ NORMA MILLER.This is a request AND MAUREEN CAMPBELL.This 8:00 p.m. Appl. No. 5029 for Section-Variance under Article III, _ is,-a request for a Variance under ROBERT KRUDOP. This is a - Buili 1 Inspector's based , the Article III,Section 100=33,based on request for a Variance under Article Building Inspector's May 21,reason the'Building Inspector's August 13, XXIV, Section 100-243A, based on Notice of Disapproval for the reason 2001 Notice of,' Disapproval. the Building Inspector's September that renovation of the existing acres- Applicants are proposing to con- 26, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. sory building constitutes a second struct an accessory garage in a front Applicant is proposing to move one dwelling use on a lot. Location of yard location instead of the required dwelling to a new location with a side Property: 12920 Main Road, East Marion;Parcel 1000-31-14-14. rear yard at 620 Meday Avenue, yard setback at less than ten (10) 6:35 p.m:Appl.No.5030-FRED Mattituck;Parcel 1000-113-10-15.7. feet,at its closest point,and to relo- AND MARY MILNER. This is a' 7:15 p.m. Appl. No. 5027 - cate an accessory framed garage in a request for a Variance under Article ' JOSEPH BENDOWSKI. This is a nonconforming location, at 170 Tut- IIIA, Section 100-30A.4, based on request for a Variance to construct hill Lane, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000- the Building Inspector's August 9, and replace accessory garage with 1 96-1-8. The reason for the 2001 Notice of Disapproval which nonconforming setbacks, based on Disapproval is that a nonconforming the Building Inspectors' September building containing a nonconforming states that the accessory pool house 26,2001 Notice of Disapproval under residential use in this Light Industrial structure is required to be located in I Article XXIV, Section 100-242A for I Zone District,shall not be enlarged, the rear yard,and the pool house,as the following reasons: (1) the pro- I reconstructed,or structurally altered placed, is located in the side yard. I posed reconstruction of the accesso- 1 or moved. Location of Property: 985 White D,garage will increase the degree of 8:10 p.m. Appl. No.. 5026 - Eagle Drive, Laurel; Parcel 1000- nonconformance and the proposed INLAND HOMES, INC. (KAVA- 127-9-22. height of the garage measures NAGH).This is a request under Code 6:40 p.m. Appl..No. 5028 -ANN greater than 18 feet under Section Section 100-26 for a Lot Waiver to LENCESKI. This is a request fora g Unmer a ro ert shown on the Variance under Section 100-239.4 100-33A.Location of Property:3060 g P P Y Park Avenue, Mattituck; Parcel Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000- based on-the. Building Inspector's 1000-123-08-19. 110-3-31 from 1000-110-3-32. This August 6, 2001 Notice of 7:20 m. Appl. No. 5021 - request is based on the Building Disapproval. Applicant is proposing P' PP' Inspector's September 24, 2001 to construct a deck addition which THOMAS P. and ANNETTE JOR- will berets than seventy-five(75)feet DAN. This is a request under Code Notice of Disapproval which states that Lot 31 has merged with an adja Section 100-26 for a Lot Waiver to from the bulkhead at 3700 Unmer a ro err shown on the cent lot to the north(1000-110-3-32) Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; g P R Y pursuant to Section 100-25 which lots Suffolk County Tax Maps as 1000-79 Parcel1000-87-3-5. 1 have been held in common owner- 6:45 m. Appl. No. 5017 -THE 4-25 from 1000-79-4-26.This request p• PP ship during a period of time after FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF is based on the Building Inspector's ' CUTCHOGUE. This is a request for August 22, 2001 Notice of July 1, 1983. Location of Property: q Disa royal which states that Lot 25 4400 Pequash Avenue and 95 a Special Exception under Zoning PP Midwood Road,Cutchogue,NY. Code Section 100 31B(2)for a Place has merged with an adjacent lot to 8:30 p.m.-ROGER and LESLIE of Worship and related accessory the north(1000-79-4-26)pursuant to '; WALZ. Location of Property: 2505 uses,at 15945 County Road 48(a/k/a Section 100-25 which lots have been Old Orchard Road, East Marion; Middle Road), Cutchogue; Parcel held in common ownership during a Parcel 1000-37-6-5. 1000-101-1-14.5. period-of time after July 1, 1983. (1) Appl. No. 5039 - This is an Location of Property:-1550 and 1680 i 7:00 p.m. Appl No. 5018 - ST. Amended Appeal for an interpreta- Brigantine Drive,Southold,NY. PETERS LUTHERAN CHURCH. 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 5022 - tion of the-Southold Town Zoning This, is-a request for a Special CATHERINE LYNCH with Power of Code, Section 100-242A, requesting Exception under Zoning Code Attorney for JANE BEAR. This is a Sections 100-31B(2) and 100-8lb(1), a determination that additions and for expansion/additions to an exist- request for a Variance under Article alterations within or over the foot- -ins-Place Section 100-30A,based on the print of existing-ing_P_lace;of Worship,-at 71305 Main P g dwellings with non- Road a/k/a Route 25 , Green ort; Building Inspector's September 4, g conformin setbacks do not create Parcel(1000-45-2-7.1. Zone District:, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which any new nonconformance or increase _Limited Business(LB). states that the"as built"greenhouse I the degree of nonconformance with and frame shed addition to dwelling regard to the zoning regulations,and do not meet the minimum 50 ft.rear Reversal of the Building Inspector's yard setback requirement. Location May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. of Property: 374 Wampum Way, Code Section 100-242A states that: Southold; Parcel 1000-87-2-37 & 38 Nothing in this Article shall be (combined). deemed to prevent the remodeling 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 5024 - reconstruction or enlargement of a ROBERT RUTKOSKI. This is a nonconforming-building containing a request for a Variance under Article conforming use provided that such III, Section 100-33, based on the action does not create any new non Building Inspector's September 12, conformance or increase the degree 2001 Notice of n ��°' g� tl Ais arequest for a Variance under of nonconformance with regard to A^^�'reque, - the regulations pertaining to such Article TII, Section 100-31A(7), and buildings. Article XXIV Section 100-244B, 2 Appl.No.4962-ROGER and I based on the Building Inspector's nspe to 's J L SLIE WALZ. (Carryover .from September 7; , September hearingcalendar.) I DisA__ro_vall ie reasons_stated an Appealrequsting a ariance under Article IV, Section 100-242A, based-on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 corrected Notice of o3 ,JaJua3 10 GOUGS Disapproval. The Notice of p Disapproval states that the existin pis «`P u -�np I��q aye;o uo structure has a nonconforming set- back of three feet from the easterly,_ side lot line and 6.5 feet from the west side line,and as a result,the sec- ond-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconfor- mity. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representative, desiring to be heard at the hearing, or desiring to-submit-written state- , ments before the conclusion of the above hearing.This hearing will not start,earlier than designated. Files are available for review during regu- lar Town Hall business hours (8-4 p.m.). If you-have questions, please do not hesitate to call(631)76.5-1809. Dated:October 29,2001 GERARD P.GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 210 - I Generated 19 Sep 13:16 EDT - Last 24 Hours Wind Direction - 10m in Degrees �.:.i.:.:•i•[.t.:.�:•i^.•:•t✓.ASK^..:.i•:.:.:.t.V:•�:.:•:.���:.�::::rt.�:•:.:.:.i�:...:.:.:.:.i•:.:•:•i•��:::•:•.:.:��:.:.::.�:•:::[.�:::::.:.�:.-.......�:.::.�:.:.�-• - .......•t•:•t•t•:•:.:.:.�:r.:.:..:.,rt•i•t•:•�..:.t•:.�:�:.:.::.:..:..:.t.:.i.:.:.:.:.t...--: \ Wind D i rent i on - 10m , \ 400 \ � #f � J .� �•� i 1 ••:# 300 )� j ti 250 V150 \ � 00 50 � Goo , � o r ° o0 � 18/140. 00 18/80: 00 19/01 % 58 18f07 : 58 PROPOSED 2ND OR / G� \ ADDITION TO EXISTING .GOB 1 STORY FRAME HO S \/ roe Oe` \ O O O ��, o o \ � \ o0 Ol V"L NN O \ e00 0 6- \ \ e \ N �y Q BASED ON \ MAP SURVEYED FOR / \ ROGER J. � LE5LIE WALZ / AT \ / EAST MARION TOWN OF 50U, HOLD, N.Y. \ \ / \/�`r O / A� 5UFFOLK CO, NTY TAX MAP INFO: / \" 1000_037- -5 LOT NO.'S EFER TO MAP OF GARDINERZ5 O° BAY EST TES SECT. 2, FILED IN THE 5UFF. CLERKS OPFFICE AS MAP 275. O N TE: EVERTHING SHOWN 15 EXISTING 0/ 0) EXCEPT A5 NOTED. o�41/ �� P \ / � 2� 40 O �, ✓ n� O I800 ��° �� WALZ 01 _ 013119101 5 1 T E PLAN oQ�r SCALE: I'I=20'0' FAI RWEATH E R-BROWN DESIGN A550CIATE5,INC. 4 13 MAIN 5TREET P.O.BOX 521 GREENPORT, N.Y. 1 1944 G3 1 -477-9752 (Fax) G3 1 -477-0973 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 IG 17 ISSUES / REVISIONS \ u 1700 / 700 ,I K J ` Gcoos�O0 ° moo, S z � PROP SED 2ND FL . / G ��0 \ OO ION TO EXISTING" / O �,ON I FRAME HO w•-. �--- OQ O� �00 v 0 / 0`A O C) 00 o � ) \ P� �P 00 G 0 UJ SEP. 17, 2001 oz ©200 I O ALL RIGIIT5 RESERVED a Of O 1 / ��j ��0 �( ` V i 1 I _ SERVICE SAND ARE AN INSTRUMENT F V � SERVICE AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF 3 THE ARCHITECT. INFRINGEMENTS WILL 0 P�00� < BE PROSECUTED. 0 5 \ '5; 1 f 1 O ��9� P�`LQ- PQ / o O �� �� �a a ° I I 7 0 \ X 00 co \ 0' CLIENT / OWNER BA E ON O • \ AP URV E OR •G0O OO AT J LESLIE 17 O / \ / EA7 M ION Xi T OF HOLD, N. . 5 O S� OF OLK CO N TAX AP INFO 1 W WALZ RESIDENCE - -5 \O 2505 OLD ORCHARD LN. 00 Lo o.s/REEF E / r n /�� � EAST MARION, N.Y. BA ES ,ES SECT. , FILED IN THE N SU F. .C�R S O F ICE AS AP 275. s ° a N T VE N IS XISTING O 00 EX NOTED. ° Q \ PROJECT TITLE 200 / �p��`� O Q � 0 0 Z O � � � ADDITION s �, QD O c' O o \ 4 lV� 10 10 3c - a �h cn 2 10O 00 � 'N ��� U DRAWING TITLE O° 0O � �p � 50LAR PATH DIAGRAM 5 0 LA PATH a^ ✓ SCALE: 1"=20'0" R y' AT400N LATITUDE DATE SCALE " = 20' 0" II ISSUE / SEP. 17, 2001 W DRAWING N0. Z > A • d • .< REF. NO. 002G PROPERTY LINE \ NEW SETBACK \ \ \ PROPERTY LINE { \ \ NEW SETBACK \ \ \ _. SECOND FLOOR \ ADDITION\ \ \ SECOND FLOOR \Z, \ ECOND FLOOR DITI WITH RE-EXISTING \ RE-EXISTININ G ADDITION WITH 2" N-CONFORMING \ ON-CONFORMING SETBACK F ILL STANDARD S BAC \ O ORIGINAL \ \ \ \ \ \ FO TPRINT \ \ 1, WALZ I 1/ 1 5/01 FAIKWEATHEK-BROWN DE51GN A550CIATE5,INC. 4 13 MAIN STREET P.O.BOX 521 GREENPORT„ N.Y. 1 1944 a .. G3 1 -477-9752 (Fax) G3 I -477-0973