1 TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARINGS TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD Town Hall 210 Plandome Road Manhasset, New York Wednesday, July 15, 2020 10:00 a.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: DAVID L. MAMMINA, Chairman LESLIE FRANCIS, Vice-Chairman DANIEL D. DONATELLI, Member JAY HERNANDEZ, Member DAVID I. LEVINE, Member ALSO PRESENT: DEBORAH ALGIOS, Deputy Town Attorney VIRGINIA WAGNER, Secretary DANIEL GUILLERMO, Commissioner of IT STEVEN PERROTTA, Planner AMY BOGUSZEWSKI, Court Reporter

2 MS. WAGNER: Good morning. This is

Virginia Wagner, Secretary to the Town of North Hempstead's Zoning Board of Appeals. Welcome to our Zoning Board Hearing on July 15th being conducted via Zoom.

This Hearing is also being

live-streamed on the Town of North Hempstead's website, www.northhempsteadny.gov.

This Hearing is also being transcribed

and the transcript will be made available on our website at a later date.

If you are listening in and you would

like to comment on a specific Appeal, you can do so, either by indicating that you would like to speak in the chat feature of Zoom or by sending us an e-mail at bzadept@northhempsteadny.gov.

You may send us an e-mail at any time

during the Hearing. However, please do not comment via Zoom audio or by chat till prompted to do so by the Chairman at the end of the Applicant's presentation.

You could also raise your hand in the

Zoom Hearing using the Zoom feature of raising the hand. Obviously, there is no video so we cannot see if somebody is raising their hand so it has to be done through the "raise your hand" feature of the Zoom presentation.

I'm now going to do a roll call. Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Present. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Here. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Here.

3 MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Present. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Present. Also present during this Hearing is

Deborah Algios, Deputy Town Attorney and Counsel to the Board; Steven Perrotta, Planner with the Town of North Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals; Dan Guillermo, Commissioner of the IT Department; and our Hearing Stenographer. I'm now going to turn the meeting over to the Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you, Ginny.

Would everyone please rise or rise virtually and join Mr. Levine in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance

was recited in a body.) CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you and

welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the Town of North Hempstead. Today is July 15th and what we will do is I'm going to speak a moment or two just to go over the way that we conduct business in the Town of North Hempstead in case it's different than you might have done in another municipality or in case you have never been before a Zoning Board or never testified at a Zoning Hearing.

So, what we will do is as each case is called by -- I'm going to call you Ginny instead of Ms. Wagner, if that's okay?

MS. WAGNER: That's perfect. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We will, at that

point, ask for the Applicant to identify themselves by, I guess, coming onto the Zoom chat and we will also ask for anyone who might want to speak in support or in opposition to raise their hand. And as Ginny said before, by raising your hand, don't raise your hand in your house or your office, you have to do that on the screen. You know, there is a function, you

4 know, for that or if you are calling in by telephone, you press *9, and then our technician, Dan, will be able to recognize that.

We want to make sure that everyone has

an opportunity to speak. So, I will also say Steve Perrotta had posted the e-mail address that Ginny had given earlier. He put it up there again for everyone so that you got it there. Again, so that everyone has a chance.

What we will do then is the Applicant

will give their name and address to the Court Reporter; everyone will do that as they have the opportunity to speak. At that point then, the Hearing will commence.

I might have left something out. I have

to admit, this throws me a little bit off. I'm used to doing it in the Town Board room. I don't know why this feels so different, but Ginny will call the case first. I will then give the official calling of the case and at that point, the Applicant will give their name and address. Then the virtual podium will belong to the Applicant. Then the Applicant will put whatever testimony he or she wishes to onto the record. During that time, the Board will ask whatever questions it might seem relevant. Should the Applicant have any other witnesses or anyone else who they would wish to testify, then they will come up one at a time. They will put their name and address onto the record. They will then give their testimony and the Board will ask whatever questions. So, that's it, et cetera, et cetera.

When that is done, the Applicant, and

typically only the Applicant, and that's not an absolute rule, but like I said, typically, only the Applicant will have a second chance to speak because the Applicant will then -- I'm sorry, I left a step out. This is really getting to me.

MEMBER LEVINE: Start over again. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, what we will

then do is when the Applicant then has presented

5 all of its witnesses, at that point, we will then recognize anyone who has their hand up and they will then have the opportunity to speak one at a time, and the Board will also ask whatever questions it feels are pertinent.

When that is completed, then the

Applicant will have that last turn at the podium, that way the Applicant can address anything that might have been put onto the record. Also, there may be things that were put onto the record that the Board may want to then question the Applicant on in order to elicit an answer from them, you know, on that.

When that is done, the Hearing is

completed. Because of the way that we are conducting the Zoning Hearings, and we are trying to be more than fair to everyone, no decisions will be made on any of the Hearings today. All Hearings will be continued. So, what continued means is that there is no decision and the record will remain open for two weeks. During that two-week period, anybody has the ability and the time to submit something else to the Zoning Board. That, will then be shared either with the Applicant or with the residents that spoke so that there could be an exchange of any further comments.

Then after that two-week period, then

the Board would be able to then make a decision either to approve or to deny the application. I think that I've got everything covered. We don't have the cell phone announcement.

MEMBER LEVINE: I turned my cell phone

off. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yours is off, okay. MEMBER LEVINE: Well, I don't want it

going off in the middle of the Hearing. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MS. ALGIOS: Chairman, it's Deborah.

I just wanted to add. You had commented the record would be open for two weeks. The record will actually be open until Friday, July 24th.

6 So, a little less than two weeks. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. Thank you

for the specificity on that, Deborah. I appreciate that.

MS. ALGIOS: You are welcome. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And I will ask

everyone if I miss anything during this, I don't know, it throws me off a little bit, but I'm getting used to it as we do more of these. So, with all of that said --

MEMBER LEVINE: I hope we don't do too

many more of these. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Ginny, do we have

any modifications to the calendar this morning? MS. WAGNER: Yes, we do, but before I

read the adjournments, I just want to also clarify that when the record is left open, members of the public or anybody concerned about a particular application can contact the Zoning Board office to see if any additional information has been submitted.

So, typically, we don't reach out to

every person concerned. When the record is left open, people are able to come and view anything that is submitted onto the record before its closed.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, thank you.

That would be a little unwieldy for you to do that.

MS. WAGNER: Yes. So, with that said,

we have an adjournment of Appeal #20895 – Seymour Chaperon, variance 70-100.2.A(4)A.5 build a fence that is too tall; S/side #40 Oak Ln., 77.35’ W/of East St., New Hyde Park, Sec. 9, Blk. 581, Lot 6, R-B District.

That's adjourned to September 2nd. We also have an adjournment of Appeal

#20925 - Country Realty (Lexus); 250 Northern

7 Boulevard, Great Neck; Section 2, Block 104, Lot 9; Zoned: Business-A. Variance from §70-196.J(1)(f) to erect signage exceeding the permitted height.

That's adjourned to August 12th. We also have an adjournment without a

date of Appeal #20856 - Grand Westbury Realty Association, variances 70-103.A(1), 70-103.B, 70103.C, 70-103.G, 70-103.M, 70-203.J, 70-212.B, and 70-213, to store unlicensed motor vehicles on an unpaved lot which is visible from ground level and is located in an area which was previously used for parking and which is too close to the front property line, and to perform site alterations on a property without enough parking and with parking spaces which are too small and with entrance gates which are located too close to the property line; N/side 474 Grand Blvd., 541.34W/of Grand St., Westbury, Sec. 11, Blk. 330, Lot 3, I-B District.

That's again adjourned without a date. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, if anyone is on

the Zoom, while you are certainly welcome to stay on for a case or two or for all of them if you want to see the way that it works, you are more than welcome to, but those three cases will not be heard today.

Also, just one other point, at some

point, perhaps, I may have to step away for a personal matter. At that point, Mr. Francis will then take over the meeting. So, with all of that said, Ginny, can you call the first case, please.

MS. WAGNER: Yes. Dan Guillermo, if

you could please make Bruce Migatz a panelist. The Appeal is Appeal #20922 - Michael &

Christiane Franzese; 170 Sussex Drive, Manhasset; Section 3, Block 189, Lot 42; Zoned Residence-A. Variances from §§70-29.C, 70-30.C, 70-100.2.A(4) 70-100.2.A(2) to legalize an addition that is too large and too close to the street and erect fencing that is

8 too tall and fencing in the front yard. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You've heard Appeal

#20922 - Michael & Christiane Franzese. If there is anyone who wishes to be recognized to speak at any point during this application, you may do so after the Applicant has put their case onto the record. Again, we will ask that you please raise your hand virtually and again you can also do that by pressing *9 if you are on the phone. Just as a reminder, we can't physically see you the way that you can see us. So, raising your hand means putting it up so that Dan knows that it's up and that we know.

So, with all of that said, please gave

your name and address, Mr. Migatz. MR. MIGATZ: Bruce W. Migatz with

Albanese & Albanese; 1050 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York. If you could make the Applicants, Michael and Christiane Franzese, join the meeting, please.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MRS. FRANZESE: Good morning,

everybody. MR. MIGATZ: Also, their architect,

Andrew Caplan, is present. He did not get back to me on that. Do you see an Andrew Caplan?

MS. WAGNER: I don't see an Andrew

Caplan. Does anybody else? MR. MIGATZ: I guess, he is not on with

us. MS. WAGNER: Okay. MR. MIGATZ: Good morning, Chairman and

Members of the Board. The subject property, as described, is 170 Sussex Drive in Manhasset. It is in the Residence-A Zone. The application before you is two-fold. One, to maintain a two-story addition to an existing den with a walk-in closet on the second floor, which existed when the Applicants purchased the

9 property in 2018. This structure requires a gross floor area variance and a front set back variance.

Now, the Disapproval Notice states that

with respect to the gross floor area, 4,000 square feet is permitted and 4,345.63 square feet is existing. However, of that excess, the 345.63 excess, 206.19 square feet is prior nonconforming. So, a variance for FAR is required for 139.44 square feet. That figure does not include a deduction, so it's a little bit less than that, as well.

The front yard set back variance, as the

Disapproval Notice states that it's based on the average, which is 32.7 and existing is 21.5, but the code says it's the average or 35, whichever is greater. So, it really should state that 35 is required and 21.5 is existing.

The second aspect of the application is

to erect new fences. The side yard fence requires a height variance and it also extends passed the front building line. Now, the Disapproval Notice states that 4 feet is permitted in a side yard, but actually 5 feet, I believe, is allowed for the side yard; 6 feet is sought. The front yard fence proposed is 4 feet and extends passed the front building line.

Now, Exhibit 1 is a recent photograph of

the subject house. It's a corner parcel of Sussex Drive and Harrow Lane. The two-story addition is to the left of the house. Now, only the last 4 feet of the width of that addition is what requires the variance that is before the Board today.

Exhibit 2 is a section of the filed plans

of which I highlighted in yellow, the existing two-story addition that requires a variance is 4 feet by 17.43 feet.

Exhibit 3 is an e-mail exchange I have

with the plans examiner.

10 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Mr. Migatz, just one clarification. You are showing the highlight on the second floor, but that also applies to the ground floor, correct?

MR. MIGATZ: Yes, it does. Exhibit 3

is an e-mail exchange with the plans examiner. The history of this is a little confusing, which I will get into, but I want to confirm that we are addressing just the 4 foot by 17.43 foot addition. I did get back an e-mail that, yes, I am referring to just the 4 foot by 17.43 foot shown on the drawings. So, that's what requires the gross floor area variance and the front yard set back variance.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Mr. Migatz, I'm not

big on interrupting. You know, doing a lot of what you do for a living, I don't mean to throw your pace off, but I'm looking at that picture, and it was what I assumed. Now, they are calling that an addition, yet, you know, for me, as an architect, it looks like it was all built at the same time and not yesterday. So, was there an application filed for that addition? In other words, I'm assuming -- well, let me back up, I'm sorry, I'm not being clear.

Was that entire piece of building built

all at one time? You know, there is a clear separation in the roof. So, I don't know if you can answer that question, you know, or not because I don't know if this is just a leftover piece that went beyond the floor area. And if that was the case, do we know when that was done?

MR. MIGATZ: My very next line,

Mr. Chairman, was going to be when that extra addition was built is a mystery.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MR. MIGATZ: I'm going to go through

some exhibits and documents to try to put some clarity as to when that was actually constructed, so if you could bear with me on that.

Exhibit 4 is a 1989 building permit

11 application. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You have to go down

a ways. There you go. MR. MIGATZ: And it is for an addition

of a den and second floor closet. Now, if you go to the next exhibit,

Exhibit 5, which is the filed plans with that application. If you could rotate that, Ms. Wagner, I would appreciate that. Now, that shows, that bottom part of the drawing, shows a one-story den addition, but that's not the subject den addition. That's an addition to the rear of the building.

In the upper left-hand side, it shows

the walk-in closet, 11 feet by 8 inches by 17 feet by 8 inches, and it says over-existing. Now, the original 1940 survey, which I neglected to submit to the Board, but I will do that today. What that walk-in closet was built over, the 1940 survey shows it has an open porch. So, sometime prior to 1989, apparently, that open porch was enclosed. They then, in 89', sought to add the walk-in closet above that, above that den. Well, above that porch that was enclosed into a den. So, the building department recognizes that the 11 foot 8 inch by 17 foot 8 inch two story was built either prior to the 1989 permit or as part of the 1989 permit. There is no permit for the extra 4 feet that is now on that addition.

If you turn to Exhibit 6. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, the 11 foot 8

that I see there, Mr. Migatz, it's not an 11 foot 8, it's 15 foot 8, is that right?

MR. MIGATZ: Now, it is. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's what I'm

saying, now it is. MR. MIGATZ: Now it is. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. I got you. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Basically, there

12 was a permit to build a particular size room and they made it a little bigger?

MR. MIGATZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: They made it a

little bigger. MR. MIGATZ: Correct. Now, I'm going

to show you some photographs that, I think, will document that.

Exhibit 6 is the Certificate of

Completion that was issued pursuant to the 1989 building permit. It is for a den addition and second floor closet addition to an existing dwelling. So, it covered the rear den addition and it covered a walk-in closet over the existing porch that was enclosed.

Now, that C-of-C was issued to Joseph

Panico, who was the owner on the 1989 building permit application. The C-of-O search that was done when the Applicant purchased the property, which I will get to, also shows that the 2002 Certificates of Completion were issued for a front portico and a wood deck and a hot tub.

So, I surmise that in 2002, Mr. Panico

was contemplating selling the house and he said he better get his certificates in order. So, he got those certificates issued. Mr. Panico sold the property in 2004 to Vincent and Ann Marie Demora (phonetic). And the Applicants purchased from the Demoras in 2008.

Exhibit 7 is the 2004 survey guaranteed

to Vincent and Ann Marie Demora when they purchased the premises. It shows the addition we are talking about to be the present size it is now. It shows that 15 feet and it shows the 21.5 foot set back from the front property line. And the current survey submitted with the application has the exact same dimensions. So, that two-story addition to the house existed since, at least, 2004.

Now, it's obvious that the prior owners,

the Demoras, relied on that completion certificate and relied on that survey when they purchased the house. In fact, the Applicants

13 did rely on the completion certificate and that survey when they bought the house believing that that two-story addition, including the extra 4 feet, had a certificate, and that reliance was justified.

If you look at Exhibit 8. The Chairman,

he noted that the roof line was different. Here, if you look at the brickwork, the addition is on the left and the main house is on the right. You can see the difference in not only the color of the brick, but in the thickness of the mortar between the brick. It is obvious that that addition to the left was added to the house.

Now, the next photograph, Exhibit 9, is

a close up. You can see that all of that brickwork and all of the mortar work is uniform. That extra 4 feet on the left has the exact same color, brick, and the exact same thickness in the mortar. So, to me, that is good circumstantial evidence that that addition was all built at the same time.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And that was my

point, Mr. Migatz, is that I don't discern any difference in there. The only change in the roof line would be where this entire addition was added. You know, you can see a little bit of a Rake board when you looked at that other photo.

MR. MIGATZ: Right. So, although

there is nothing actually documenting it, I think these photographs is good evidence that it was all constructed at the same time. And it was built 4 feet longer than it should have been than the permit had authorized.

Now, Exhibit 10 is the C-of-O search

from the title report when the Applicants purchased the property. The C-of-C for that den addition and second floor closet addition is in the search and a copy of that certificate that I put into evidence was also included in the report.

Now, Exhibit 11, there's the survey

14 reading. The Applicants relied on a 2004 survey, which it's not that old of a survey; that's not unusual. And the title company does a reading, they go out, look at the property, and they note any changes. And there was some changes, but nothing that had to do with that den or that two-story addition. So, there is no mention of any kind of irregularities that would come to the attention of an Applicant who relies on a C-of-O search when they purchased the property.

Now, the way in which this variance

weighs the benefit to the Applicant versus the detriment to the community, the benefit to the Applicant is obvious, to maintain the house that they purchased that they bought and in good reliance thought was legal. And what is the detriment to the community. I submit that there would be no undesirable change in the character of the community. This addition has existed since, at least, 2004, we know that by the survey; that's 16 years ago. It is well-screened from the street, and the next three photographs show that. I think Ms. Wagner has them up.

Exhibit 12, which is a photograph. If

you go through Exhibit 13, it's from a different angle, and Exhibit 14 on another angle; you can see that from the street. That picture is taken on Harrow Lane approaching the house. Obviously, you cannot see it at all. The other two pictures are taken when you are facing the house on Harrow Lane and you can see that it is well-screened from the street. I submit to you that that 4 feet, that extra 4 feet, will not be discernible to the naked eye.

Whether the variance is substantial.

The FAR is really only 139 square feet over. The rest of that, the building department recognizes is prior nonconforming. That, I submit to you is not substantial. The set back is arguably substantial.

However, the case law says that the

percent of deviation is only relevant if that deviation has an adverse effect in the neighborhood. And for the reasons I've

15 stated, there is no adverse effect by allowing this extra 4 feet to be maintained.

It is a Type 2 action under SEQRA. I

submit it will not have an adverse impact. Lastly, whether the difficulty is self-created as a matter of law. They purchased the property subject to the Zoning code for which they seek a variance that is deemed a self-created hardship, but as a practical matter, the Applicants acted in good faith. I would submit to you, and you have three lawyers on that panel that their real estate lawyer did what every real estate lawyer would do, they ordered a title search, they have a C-of-O search, they have a survey reading, and you rely on that. I would submit to you that, you know, I'm a land use attorney in addition to a real estate attorney, even I would not go to a building department and pull the file if I did not see some kind of irregularity. If you look at the survey and if you look at the house, you have a survey reading, you have the completion. The brickwork on the house all looks beautiful and there is no indication something was added. I would not go down and pull the building department file and start trying to compare plans. I don't think any real estate lawyer would do that. So, their attorney did the right thing and they relied in good faith on that certificate. Now, I know the town is not bound by any mistakes that may be made along the way, but I think their reliance was justified and they are not at fault.

Exhibit 14, there are two consents to

the application that was submitted later, so that may not be on the screen. The house to the right, as you face the house, the house to the right, 180 Sussex Drive, consented. The house on the opposite of Harrow Lane, opposite that addition, also consented.

Now, turning to the fence variance

application. The plan shows a 6-foot fence in the side yard. Now, the side yard is what normally would be a backyard. It is the rear of the house. As you face the house on Sussex, behind the house, which is in actuality a rear yard, but by Zoning Code it is a side yard, which

16 is a corner lot. It's a side yard, it can have a 5-foot fence. If it's a rear yard, it can have a 6-foot fence. The Applicant proposed a 6-foot fence. They are prepared to reduce that fence to 5 feet recognizing technically it is a side yard, so they can reduce that fence to 5 feet.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That's the fence

that would be directly behind that wall of greenery that you showed us in the photograph on Harrow Lane?

MR. MIGATZ: That's the front yard.

Now, normally, that would be a side yard and could have a 5-foot fence, but being a corner lot, it's the front yard and it can only have a 4-foot fence and cannot extend passed the front of the building line. This is the Applicants rear yard and the Applicants would like to enclose that. Mrs. Franzese who is on the Zoom meeting with us would like to address the Board regarding that. Mrs. Franzese.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Before she does

that, can I just ask one question, please. Do you happen to have on the survey marked where these fences are proposed to be placed?

MR. MIGATZ: It's on the site plan.

It's not on the survey because it hasn't been built yet.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, but people

will draw them in to show where you are putting them.

MR. MIGATZ: It's drawn in on the site plan.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Do we have that? MR. MIGATZ: You do. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Ginny, could you

please put that up. MS. WAGNER: Yes. Give me a minute and

I will bring the plans up. Can everybody see that?

17 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Great. MR. MIGATZ: Perfect. Now, the fence

is shown with those round circles with lines connecting it. It starts at the rear of that two-story addition then it, more or less, follows the little brick retaining wall that is there. I was told by the Applicants that they actually intend to put that fence inside that little brick -- that's a very low curb. They would put it inside that curb. So, it would be screened by the trees and the bushes that were shown in the photographs. So, it would follow the little retaining wall along Harrow Lane and then it would make a right-hand turn and go along what is their rear backyard or side yard. Then turn around and go back to the house and enclose the backyard.

MEMBER DONATELLI: And what purpose

does that fence serve? MR. MIGATZ: Well, Mrs. Franzese would

like to address that to the Members of the Board.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. MRS. FRANZESE: Good morning. Can you

hear me okay? MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. MRS. FRANZESE: So, we were looking at

the fence as just an extra measure of safety and security for our family. We do have two children and a dog. Anybody that knows Harrow Lane, it's a very heavily traveled street. It's a main cut through to Searingtown Road. And especially, during times of rush hour, the traffic is very heavy. Many, many cars go through that street. So, if my kids are playing with a ball in the back and it ends up, you know, going through the bushes into the street, it's just dangerous.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Mr. Migatz, I don't

see the shrubbery that's on the site plan. So, are they removing the shrubbery? Are they putting it inside of the shrubbery, outside of

18 the shrubbery? Where is it going to be? MR. MIGATZ: Inside the shrubbery. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It just didn't look

like they had enough room, that's the reason why I'm asking. When I drove by the house yesterday, I didn't see the room for it.

MR. MIGATZ: If you take a look at it, Mr. Hernandez, because right behind that shrubbery, there is a little low line retaining wall. And the shrubbery, the large shrubbery, is on the outside of that retaining wall. I don't know if Ms. Wagner has the ability to zoom-in on a picture. Can you do that, Ms. Wagner?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm looking at it. MS. WAGNER: Yes, I can. Which

picture? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Before you move

this, Ginny. I'm looking at the distance between the other variance you are seeking, which is for the existing two-story den. And Harrow Lane, the property line, that is 21 and a half feet. Then I looked where the fence is being proposed. It appears to be right up against the end of the property line.

MR. MIGATZ: Well, yes. I sent you the

site plan. It shows it in the wrong proposed location.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Can we see it

where it's supposed to be, please? MR. MIGATZ: It's going to go on the

other side of that little retaining wall. Ms. Wagner, if you could go back?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, you are going to

move it a foot or two, is what you are saying? MR. MIGATZ: Well, more than that. If

you go back to picture 13, Ms. Wagner. MS. WAGNER: Give me a minute to bring

that back up. From your exhibits?

19 MR. MIGATZ: Yes, 13. MS. WAGNER: I have to bring those back

up. MR. MIGATZ: Mr. Hernandez, we can

certainly give you a corrected plan showing where that fence is going to go and give a little more detail to show you where the landscaping is.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. And I will

drive by the house again to look at it a second time.

MS. WAGNER: I'm trying to find the

exhibits. Here we go. This one? I will rotate it.

MR. MIGATZ: Yes, thank you. Raise it

up a little bit. Now, if you can zoom-in on the left-hand side. It's hard to see it, but that retaining wall is behind that tree.

MS. WAGNER: Right there. Is that it? MR. MIGATZ: Yes. Then it continues to

the left and it goes behind that tree, but we will give you a better site plan that shows the existing shrubbery and that wall and the proposed fence behind that wall.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: What type of fence

would that be? MS. WAGNER: Right here. MR. MIGATZ: It's an aluminum estate

fence. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, it would be and

estate fence? MR. MIGATZ: Yes. MS. WAGNER: Mr. Migatz, I just drew a

circle around the area, I think, you are talking about.

20 MR. MIGATZ: Well, yeah, but it's to the

left of that behind the tree. It's very hard to see. The photo is too dark on that screen. It's an estate-style fence, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you. MEMBER DONATELLI: Now, the other

question that I had regarding the fence is, I believe, the site plan shows that the fence would not be an enclosure, is that correct, or would it be open to the side yard?

MR. MIGATZ: No, it encloses. MEMBER DONATELLI: It encloses. All

right. So, perhaps, when you submit the plans, you can just really show us where the fence will be going.

MR. MIGATZ: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The existing plan

doesn't show the enclosure. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Mr. Migatz,

the shrubbery and the tree, it looks like it's right on the property line. So, the fence would be closer to the house and behind the shrubbery away from the street, is that correct?

MR. MIGATZ: Well, a lot of those trees

are actually on the town right-of-way. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Okay. MR. MIGATZ: Harrow Lane, the

right-of-way is 50 feet, I presume. Harrow Lane is a pretty narrow road, narrower than most streets.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: There are no

sidewalks also. MR. MIGATZ: And no sidewalks. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: There are no

sidewalks in this neighborhood, no.

21 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MR. MIGATZ: So, there is a lot of town

right-of-way and a lot of those trees are the town right-of-way.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: They are the 7 first

feet of your lawn, because I live very close by. I live on Strathmore and Vanderbilt. The first 7 feet of your property for which you pay taxes for is the town right-of-way, that's correct.

MRS. FRANZESE: If I may say something. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, go ahead. MRS. FRANZESE: So, we are planning on

putting -- CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Could you just give

your name for the record. MRS. FRANZESE: Christiane Franzese.

We are planning on putting the fence on the inside of our property, if granted. Also, we are putting up for greenery so that it looks pretty. So, that it's aesthetically pleasing to the street. It's going to be above the retaining wall.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, you are planning

on removing the existing greenery that's there? MRS. FRANZESE: No, we are leaving what

is there. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: In addition to? MRS. FRANZESE: In addition to, yes. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: And the fact

that you are going to be using the black estate fence is really going to mitigate its effect from Harrow Lane. You are not even going to be able to see that fence.

22 MRS. FRANZESE: Right, correct. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: You won't see

it, you know, through the shrubbery. MRS. FRANZESE: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: If you were

putting up a white PVC fence, I might have some more concerns.

MRS. FRANZESE: Right. No, we are not

doing that. MEMBER DONATELLI: And you mentioned

that you have children. For the record, what are their ages?

MRS. FRANZESE: 11 and 14. MEMBER DONATELLI: And you have a dog,

as well? MRS. FRANZESE: We do, she is 5. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: What kind of dog? MRS. FRANZESE: Yorkie. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, I had two

Yorkies. I had to put my old guy down three weeks ago. I haven't quite gotten over that.

MRS. FRANZESE: I'm sorry. That's

hard, they are family members. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yup. It was 16

years, so that was pretty good. MRS. FRANZESE: I'm sorry to hear that. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Since you do

have a dog that's relatively small, you might also want to consider putting some kind of wire fencing in front of the estate fencing so he can't wiggle his way through the estate fencing.

MRS. FRANZESE: Yes, very necessary.

23 VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's what I did. MR. MIGATZ: If I may just add,

Mr. Chairman, I know how this Board feels about giving fence variances, and I explained that to Mr. and Mrs. Franzese. And the more that I looked at it -- and I had a conversation with them again just yesterday -- you know, they convinced me that this is one of those rare cases that a variance is justified. It will be well-screened and I don't think will have any adverse effect on the neighborhood.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, I guess, Jay, do

you want to take another look? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, we are

reserving everything, anyway, so it doesn't matter.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes, but I will go

back a second time. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Jay does live in the

area and he always looks very fairly at everything that's there.

MR. MIGATZ: And we will submit a

corrected plan showing in better detail the fence, that little wall, and shrubbery.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And if you could,

maybe just attach a cut sheet of the fence from a potential fence installer or something you could pick up from the computer online and just put that in with the package, as well.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Mr. Migatz, is

that area of the lawn irrigated or is the whole lawn irrigated.

MR. MIGATZ: I don't know. Perhaps, my

client has that answer. MRS. FRANZESE: It is, yes.

24 VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Thank you. MR. MIGATZ: Now, let me ask the Board

this question. Since they can have 5 foot around the rest of the property, would the Board consider making that 5 feet along the front, as well?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's a tough one.

I can't really think of many circumstances where we've granted that across the front.

MS. ALGIOS: Mr. Migatz, you can ask

the question. I don't think the Board will answer to that now, whether they will consider it, but you can ask the question.

MR. MIGATZ: Well, it's out there. It

will make it uniform. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We will ask

Mr. Hernandez to look. MS. ALGIOS: It's on the record. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. We will ask

Mr. Hernandez to look at that when he goes to see the house.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: And we will

certainly consider that when we discuss this application. Obviously, we can't answer that question right now.

MT. MIGATZ: Right, understood. All

right. We have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Was there anyone who

wishes to speak? MEMBER LEVINE: Yes, there was. There

was somebody. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: She wanted to listen

in, I don't know if she wanted to comment. MS. WAGNER: No. I believe that was

the Applicant.

25 MEMBER LEVINE: No, there was someone,

a neighbor. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think 180. So,

would Dan bring them up. MS. WAGNER: You are right. So, let's

go back in. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: He may or may not

want to speak. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But we will give

them the opportunity. You are not obligated to speak. As one Board Member said, some people just want to listen in.

MS. WAGNER: I think she left the

meeting. She did request our e-mail address and that's the one we clarified with the e-mail address. So, she may be sending us an e-mail. Although, I checked the e-mail just now and there was nothing sent yet so she may be submitting it.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Do we know if we have

any hands raised. MS. WAGNER: Deborah, is that okay to

reveal the name of that person? We will have to see.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: She has the name in

the chat. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes, she has

her name in the chat. MS. WAGNER: It's the neighbor. There

was an address in here. MS. ALGIOS: 181 Sussex. MS. WAGNER: 181 Sussex Drive. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay.

26 MR. MIGATZ: I don't think there is a 181 Sussex. There is a 180 Sussex Drive.

MS. WAGNER: She said 181. She said

she is not here to object, I am here to see what is going on.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WAGNER: So, she may submit

something or she may not. We will certainly let you know if anything comes in.

MR. MIGATZ: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. At this

point, we will continue the Hearing until -- Deborah, I'm sorry, I forgot what date you stated.

MS. ALGIOS: July 24th. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: July 24th. Thank

you. MR. MIGATZ: Thank you very much. MS. ALGIOS: Thank you so much. MRS. FRANZESE: Have a good day. MR. MIGATZ: Thanks, you too. MS. WAGNER: Deborah, did you want to

clarify? We had had some questions in the past. We are continuing the Hearing for comment, but we may keep it open if there are any issues that arise from those comments.

MS. ALGIOS: That's correct, if there

are any issues. So, any comment that comes in, of course, the Applicant will have the opportunity to respond and then that may entail keeping the record open longer.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, that's been my

understanding. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, are you ready

for the next Appeal?

27 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, Ginny. Thank

you. MS. WAGNER: Dan, if you could make Jing

Wang a panelist, please. Appeal #20923 - Jing Wang; 7 Rowe Place,

New Hyde Park; Section 8, Block 126, Lot 127; Zoned: Residence-C. Variances from §§70-100.2 and 70-101.B to legalize an A/C unit that is too close to the side property line and an open porch that is too close to the street.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You've heard Appeal

#20923 - Jing Wang; 7 Rowe Place, New Hyde Park. Is there anyone in the room interested in the application other than the Applicant? I don't know if we are seeing anyone or not.

MS. WAGNER: I do not see any hands.

Oh, no, I did see one hand. Yes, I see one hand. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And if there is

anyone out there also who would like to get their hand up and didn't realize, again, if you are on a phone, you have to press *9 and if you are on a computer, then you have to click on the little hand symbol so that we know that your hand is raised. Again, even though it might start to sound more than obvious raising your hand up, we can't see you even though you can see us.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Ginny, can you

just check to see if CX Consulting is here on behalf of.

MS. WAGNER: That's what I was just

going to see. They may be here on behalf representing the Applicant. So, if Jing Wang can unmute yourself to let us know whether CX Consultants is here representing you or, Dan, could we maybe make CX Consultants a panelist and we could ask them.

MS. WANG: Good morning, ladies and

gentlemen.

28 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Good morning. MS. WANG: This is Jane from CX

Consultants. I'm the project rep for the project.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: When you say the

project rep, what is your capacity? MS. WANG: Project manager. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, are you an

architect representing this? Are you an expediter? Are you a friend of the family?

MS. WANG: My firm is an engineering

firm so I'm working on the project. So, I am the project manager for the project.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But you are not

licensed? MS. WANG: I am not a licensed

architect. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. And you

don't need to be, that's okay. We just like it to be clear on the record.

MS. WANG: Sure. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Please proceed. MS. WANG: The current residence is a

one and a half story residence. It was built in 1942. My clients purchased the house back on July 16, 2018 where she had no awareness of the HVAC, which was violating the code 70-100.2, and also for the front porch violating the code 70-101.B. So, for the HVAC system, it is an existing unit located on the site of the property. Between my client's property and her neighbors, there is 4 feet high evergreen. The HVAC unit, it is located with only 2 feet away from the side yard set back. Then instead of relocating it, we were willing to propose to provide more evergreen in front.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: When you say 2 feet

away from the side yard set back. If the side

29 yard set back is 5 feet, is it 7 feet away? MS. WANG: I apologize. It's 2 feet

away from the property line, means it's 1 feet over the code requirement.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WANG: So, we are willing to plant

evergreens in front to block a little bit of the view and hoping to keep the HVAC unit as it is because the HVAC unit was installed by the previous owner prior to 2018.

For the front porch, the open porch, we

are also willing to install more evergreens in the front planters to block the view of the front porch. So, we are looking to get a granting on that item, as well. So, my site plan shows that two items.

In addition the exhibits that were

submitted, I have Exhibit B that is showing the record of the property.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Ginny, do we

have those exhibits? MEMBER DONATELLI: That would be the

Zillow page that was sent to us. MS. WANG: Yes. MS. WAGNER: I'm going to bring the

exhibits up. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: In the survey, is

the air-conditioning shown? Is that a chimney that says 2.1 or is that the air-conditioning?

MS. WANG: That was the previous survey

that before my client get her newer update. So, the previous survey, basically, I showed that there was a front porch where it was originally built. However, the previous owner demolished that existing porch and then built a new one. And the new one becomes the problem for my client, that it's over the front set back by 0.7 feet.

30 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But where is the air-conditioning on this?

MS. WANG: If you don't mind, I sent

over our drawings. It's the site plan. So, if you go to my drawings, I believe it's A101. Thank you. So, right next to the chimney, you see the HVAC unit.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Ginny, do you know

off-hand? I know that the Town Board, a couple years back, recognized the fact that HVAC units get put into side yards. And if my memory serves me correctly, they did give some leeway on that. Do you know in the Residence-C, because it's 5 feet, if that is permitted any encroachment?

MS. WAGNER: So, I believe that's this

part of the code. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. In the

alternative, an essential air-conditioning unit may be located in a front yard provided it complies. So, it's not applicable.

MS. WAGNER: Or side yard when the unit

is not less than 3 feet. So, they need a 3 foot set back.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And they have 2.1. MS. WAGNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think that's what

it said. MS. WANG: Correct. However, the HVAC

unit itself is over the 2 feet. By leaving the clearance of 6 inches to the house, this is the closest we can get.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. They are

usually 30 inches by 30 inches. MS. WANG: Right. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Because if you let

it breathe 6 inches by the side, you are pretty much there.

31 MEMBER DONATELLI: Do we know how long

this unit has been there? MS. WANG: We don't have an exact date,

but the unit, from the spec, is from the early 2000s. So, it has been there for more than a couple of years. That's the best answer I can share. Because the previous owner did a lot of things by himself. We are under a lot of maintaining permits and these are two of the items that we find out later when the plans examiner discovered that they are not complying.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Ginny, I'm sorry,

would you mind going back to that old survey. I believe the Chairman had asked a question about the side yard and it was showing a protrusion from the house. The Chairman had asked if that was the HVAC unit or if that was a chimney. Do you recall that old survey?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, that was the

first one that was brought down. That's the old survey that the young lady had referred to.

MEMBER DONATELLI: If we can take a look

at that again. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: There you go. MEMBER DONATELLI: Do we have a date on

that survey? MS. WANG: Yes, it's December the 4th of

1982. MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Now, what

exactly is that protrusion into the side yard? MS. WANG: That has nothing to do with

the side yard. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We understand that.

We are helping you by asking you that question. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right.

32 MS. WANG: Oh, sorry. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. It seems to

me in comparing the old survey with the new survey, that that protrusion is just a chimney.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I would agree. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And the

air-conditioning unit is in back of the chimney, I'm saying if you are looking at it from the street. So, it would protrude out about 10 inches beyond the chimney if we look at the second survey.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The one where the

air-conditioner is on. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right, the one with

the air-conditioner. You are getting good at this, Ginny. There could be another career for you.

MS. WAGNER: Let me see. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's going to be

the one. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's in front of the

air-conditioner, apparently, right? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, that's 2.9 feet.

Based on what is shown, 2.1 to 2.9. So, we are .8 feet further. So, we are about 10 inches.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Just for the record,

the A/C unit is in front of the chimney as you are facing it from the street.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, if additional

evergreen landscaping were planted perpendicular to the sidewall of the house, essentially, connecting the hedges, you know, that are parallel to the house, then it would be screened completely from the street.

33 MS. WANGER: That's our plan. Thank

you. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That would not be

the first time that we've granted something like that in the Residence-C District recognizing that with the 5 foot side yard, its air-conditioning equipment just is not 2 feet deep. And even if it were, you couldn't put it completely against the house, it has to be able to breathe.

MS. WAGNER: Chairman, I think the site

plan that was submitted shows, which I have on the screen now, shows that they intend to plant hedges in front of the air-conditioning unit as you are describing.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MS. WAGNER: Right there. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. You may want

to consider pulling those away a little bit from the air-conditioning unit.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Right. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Just so that you can

get around it and service it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Maintenance work on

it. MS. WANG: They can actually access

from the backyard. There is doors connected to the side, but thank you for the good suggestion.

MEMBER DONATELLI: For the record, the

two items that are before us today, are these alterations to the existing premises or are these already in existence?

MS. WANG: These two items are already

in existence. We are trying to complete a maintain permit.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. Thank you.

34 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WAGNER: So, does the Applicant

want to discuss the other aspect of the variance being requested, the open porch.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The open porch, you

had touched on it a little bit, but maybe now that we have the two surveys up there, if you want to just do that one more time for us. So, the existing open porch shown in 1982 projected out 5.08 feet. Ginny, could we switch to the new survey?

MS. WAGNER: Let me just look. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Or the site plan. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Or the site plan.

That's the survey. MS. WAGNER: This is the survey. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, now it's 6 feet

instead of 5.08, so it's, approximately, 11 inches further.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The other one, I

believe, had the stairs pointed forward, correct?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Pointed forward, so

those don't intrude as much. Also, the other one wrapped around the side yard of the house, that additional 4 feet. So, theoretically, this is a little bit less, you know, in its width. And certainly, again, in a neighborhood like this and in a Residence-C, this is not an unusual kind of -- it's really, it's a platform as much as it's an open porch. I mean, you are not setting up a bunch of rocking chairs on that or you are going to get hit by the door. So, it's really just a way in and out of the house.

MS. WANG: That's correct.

35 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, is there anyone else from the public that we have who wishes to speak? Because if there is no one, we will continue this to the 24th because we are not making any decisions during these virtual Hearings.

MS. WAGNER: Chairman, I did not see

anything and nothing has been e-mailed. Deborah can confirm, but I did not see any hands raised or anything in the chats during this application.

MS. ALGIOS: No, I don't see anything,

either. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. Then we will

continue this until the 24th, which would be the soonest that we could make a decision. And I would just request from the Applicant that if you want to check in with the Zoning Board at some point to see if anything has been submitted, that you do that. This way you are aware if there was something and you have the opportunity to answer it so that we don't delay the process longer for you.

MS. WANG: We will, absolutely. MEMBER LEVINE: When is the next

meeting over this? MS. WAGNER: The next meeting is August

12th. MEMBER LEVINE: So, we are not doing

anything before August 12th? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, I don't think

so. MEMBER LEVINE: I mean, I wouldn't tell

her to call in two weeks because she is not going to have an answer.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's only if someone

submitted something. MEMBER LEVINE: Right, but we are not

going to be making any decisions until August

36 12th. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MS. WAGNER: We can always reach out to

the Applicant if we receive something, anyway. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WANG: We are available any time and

we will check in once a week to make sure that there is no additional questions or anything that we could answer.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. Fine. Then

we will continue this then. MS. WANG: Thank you very much, ladies

and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You did a good job. MS. WANG: Thank you. My pleasure. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You are welcome. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, are you ready?

Do we need to take a break or are we good? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm okay if

everybody is okay. MS. ALGIOS: I could, actually. If we

could take like a five-minute break? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Go for it. MS. WAGNER: Okay. Five minutes and we

will resume. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this

time.) MS. WAGNER: Dan, if you could make

Mr. Riccardo Cervini a panelist, please. MR. CERVINI: Hi, everybody. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Hello, Mr. Cervini.

37 MS. WAGNER: Deborah, I will read the Appeal and then we will welcome them in. Chairman, are you ready?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, I am. MS. WAGNER: Next Appeal, Appeal #20924

– Kirk Degroot; 223 Dow Avenue, Carle Place; Section 9, Block 473, Lot 49; Zoned: Residence-C. Conditional Use from §70-231 to allow a Mother Daughter residence and Variances from §§7050.C, 70-51.A, & 70-231 to construct a one-story addition too close to a front property line and with smaller than required total side yards, and the mother daughter residence not in compliance with requirements.

Mr Cervini? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm just going to

call the case. MS. WAGNER: And he just disappeared,

so we will have to look for him. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, there was a

lot of feedback so he might have a second device on.

MR. CERVINI: Can you hear me? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Just give us

one moment. MR. CERVINI: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Mr. Cervini, do you

have background noise on? Thank you, that's great. You've heard Appeal #20924 – Kirk Degroot. Who is Kirk Degroot then?

MR. CERVINI: He is the owner. He is

watching the meeting, he can jump in. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, you are

representing him? MR. CERVINI: Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: And what is your

relationship to him?

38 MR. CERVINI: We are the expediting and

consulting firm for the owner. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. So, Kirk

Degroot; 233 Dow Avenue, Carle Place. Please gave your name and address.

MR. CERVINI: My name is Riccardo

Cervini; 77 Gazza Boulevard, Farmingdale, New York 11735.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, I think you said

233. I think it's 223. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's 223, yes. MR. CERVINI: May I proceed? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Please. MR. CERVINI: So, basically, I

represent the owner. They have been living there for about eight years. The main purpose of this is to allow the mother-in-law and father-in-law to live there together. Ultimately, that's really the main purpose for the renovations. It's a couple of points here, a couple of aspects that they are doing. In the front part of the house, they are adding a one story, which they are expanding the kitchen and the entryway, which is about 40 square feet. The other part is the garage. I don't know, can you bring up the plans so we can just walk through it?

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Please. MS. WAGNER: Yes, I will. MR. CERVINI: So, the other part is the

garage that needs to be removed. And in place of the garage, they are going to be putting another one story where that's where the parent/child use will be at. That's the majority of that floor area. The front part will be storage, which is about 122 square feet. On the elevation, as you can see --

39 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Let's give Ginny a

second to bring those drawings up. MR. CERVINI: Sure. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So that we are all

looking at those simultaneously. MR. CERVINI: Sure. No problem.

Stop right there. It's in the site plan. So, you have in the front, like I said, there is the expansion on the kitchen and entry, which is about 40 square feet. Then the garage, which is on the west side, which is going to be removed, and a new one-story structure will be built for the parent/child use. The apartment size, it's going to be about 364 square feet. Then you have the front portion, which is going to be considered storage, about 122 square feet. So, it's actually the set backs, it's going to be -- the existing structure is closer to the property line. The new one is going to be more, it's about 8 feet away from the property line, which it's the side yard aggregate, more in compliance, which comes out to be about 14.7 feet.

I do like to point out that, you know,

in the front portion of the property, if you see the set back, it shows 6.7 on the east side there. When you go down lower, it's at 7.10. I mean, that's a minor variance that we are requesting. But the back portion of the property is more in compliance. I guess, when they built it, it's off a little bit. Do you see that?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Excuse me. What

you are proposing is to a portion of the overhang closest to the existing garage, that area is going to be enclosed and added to the kitchen to make the kitchen bigger?

MR. CERVINI: Yes, correct. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And the other side

will stay as is?

40 MR. CERVINI: Yeah. So, where they

are bumping out the front, it's going come out to 20.55 feet, which they are not going to increase any further noncompliance. So, they are going to remain in line with that overhang.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. So, they

will use the corner in that kitchen in that space.

MR. CERVINI: Yes. Because they need

a little bit more room in the kitchen. It's a little bit tight right now. Well, the existing home is at 25.70 feet. So, the new one-story structure on the west side will be in line with the existing home, so that will not increase. These are all established set backs.

Then the other part of the project is on

the second floor, which we are just adding some additional square footage for a walk-in closet, which is about 79 square feet. There is no variance for that, I'm just making it a point that that is what they are looking to do here. The parent/child use or mother/daughter use, there is a couple different uses here I would like to go over. The square footage is in compliance. It's about less -- it's much less than the 700 square feet that's permitted. They are at 364 square feet. The cooking facilities, which require 60 square feet, they are at 64. It's very minimal and are only over 4 square feet.

The other portion is the rear door of the

unit. And the reason for this, they want -- I spoke to the owner about this. Because they are elderly, and God forbid there was a fire, they could use that as an egress, make it easier for them to exit the space and also for recreational use, as well, you know, so they could access the rear yard without going through the entire house. We understand that this could be made as a condition. If the property is sold, then they could remove those doors and put windows in its place, you know.

And the other thing with all of these

changes to the property, we feel that it's not

41 going to have a negative impact to the community or to the surrounding neighborhood. That's pretty much it. It's pretty straightforward with what they are looking to do. Does the Board have any questions?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Do we have an

elevation that you could show us? MR. CERVINI: Yes. It should be on

A104. So, the front portion where you see the two carriage doors, that's for the storage. It's about 122 square feet so they could put their bicycles.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I'm having a

problem visualizing this. As we look at that elevation, to the right of the door is supposed to be the kitchen.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, where the two

windows are. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: The two smaller

windows. MR. CERVINI: On the left side, those

are recessed. It's a little difficult to see. Then you have the front, which is being bumped out, which will be in line with the roof-over. Then to the right, then it's recessed back, you have the two carriage doors.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. And the

carriage doors will give access, presumably, to the storage area.

MR. CERVINI: Correct. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I'm having a

little bit of difficulty touching on that same subject with the expanding kitchen. I'm looking at the first floor plan as part of the application. I would like you to describe a little bit about that first floor plan and how the kitchen will be expanded and whether or not if there is any other way to expand the kitchen to achieve the same result without bumping out the front of the house.

42 MR. CERVINI: Well, if you take a look

at the floor plan, you have the stairs. I mean, it's a very tight space. If you just maintain -- if they don't do anything with the wall in the front, you can see it's a very tight area.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You have minimal

counter space if you leave that wall back there. MR. CERVINI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: These are Levitt

slab on grade. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yeah. I've seen a

hundred of these. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm very familiar. MEMBER LEVINE: I've lived in one. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You know the realty

is that when you walk in the front door, you are almost hitting the stairs with the door.

MR. CERVINI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I mean, look, I

could argue that they could take 2 feet off that and move it in a little bit more, but right now where the stove is shown in there is typically the door to the side yard. So, they are filling in that proposed storage area in there. They are very tight.

MEMBER DONATELLI: What is the

rectangle or -- I'm sorry, the square that is portrayed on the first floor plan in where it says kitchen entry extension, what is that square?

MR. CERVINI: Good question. I don't

have an answer to that. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Which square? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The strange looking

table.

43 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, it's a very

strange looking table. MEMBER DONATELLI: That's a table? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's why I said it

certainly makes the whole thing look like you can push up a couple of feet. You know, my feeling is that that is going to end up being a rectangular table turned parallel to the front of the house where you can get six chairs around it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You also see almost

half the counter on the right side. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, for whatever

reason, which is very odd. MR. CERVINI: I just got information

from the owner. It's an island with storage underneath.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Then why can't they

move it in? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. It certainly

seems that if you made that into a true L rather than a floating island.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, it would be

much better. What do you do in that dead-end where it says 2 foot 8 joist 16 inches.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And not only that,

you have a 12-inch top from the stove down instead of a 24-inch top. So, all you can put there is a toaster.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. It's very

difficult to do anything with that. You are right, Jay.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: If it was a

peninsular rather than an island. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. You are

going to be walking -- I'm just talking kitchen design -- you are going to be walking 10 feet,

44 you know, from the edge of the kitchen counter to that floating square.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I also don't see

where they are going to put the refrigerator. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The refrigerator is

shown there on the left. MR. CERVINI: Yes, it's there. The

refrigerator is there. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's on the left. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's up against the

wall. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, next to where

it says boiler. Because the boiler is under the stairs in those houses.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. There is no

basement. It's just a crawl space for the boiler.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MR. CERVINI: The owner wants to speak.

Can we put him on? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Sure. Is he on a

phone or a computer? MR. CERVINI: I think he is on a

computer. MS. WAGNER: Under Vanessa Degroot? MR. CERVINI: Yes, that's the wife.

They are both on. I do want to point out that if one of the Board Members drove down the road to 211 Dow Avenue. If you look at this, they have the roof-over porch and then the garage, which comes underneath in line with the porch. So, I mean, if the Board were to approve this, it's in character with the neighborhood. I don't know if you noticed that particular house, it looks fairly new. Has anyone driven down the road?

45 MEMBER DONATELLI: We try to drive

through the neighborhoods to see all of the applications that we hear, but, of course, the front yard set backs are what they are. They are set by the town. In certain limited circumstances, we can make allowances, but also part of what we do is try to determine whether or not there is some way to mitigate the variances that are sought by the Applicant. Hence the nature of my question, why is the kitchen being brought to that point as opposed to some other point where you will still achieve an expanded kitchen, but, perhaps, not violate the front yard set back for the extent of the yard?

MR. CERVINI: I mean, they can't go to

the left, they have stairs there. So, they can't expand the kitchen to the left. Then you have the one-story addition that is going to the right. So, the only other option is to come out through the front.

MEMBER DONATELLI: No, I understand

that, but you’re proposing to expand the kitchen to the entire width of the existing entryway.

MR. CERVINI: Yeah, but it's only 5

feet. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But the 5 feet. The

average set back is 28.5. MR. CERVINI: Well, if you look at the

actual numbers on A002, there is a breakdown of the set backs, the average front yard set back.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The denial says 28

and a half. MR. CERVINI: I understand. Yeah,

that's the calculation. When the architect sought the set back requirements. If you bring up A002, up at the top, it shows you the set back diagram.

46 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We understand. But understand, Mr. Cervini, we don't make the Zoning. We look at it in terms of varying it. It's the Town Board that established that average front yard set back, that's what we are supposed to be looking at. Now, we've had instances where there is a church that is mid-block and it's set back 40 feet from the street and that just makes the whole thing crazy. So, in this case, it's basically all a residential neighborhood. And based on what the Town Board has put together, they are deeming that the average set back is 28 and a half. That doesn't mean that there is not another one that is set back like yours. If I'm going to put on my Town Board hat, which I don't have one, but, you know, I've been taught to incorporate what that means. They have decided that. If you look at that diagram that was just up a second ago, if you look at that, all of those houses are consistently back further. When we looked to the left, I mean, there are one, two, three, four of them that are pushed back.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Let me just also add

that, again, if this is tract housing or if there are other houses that are similarly situated, if we were to grant relief for one house, then we would, really, have to grant relief for every such house. Again, there is a real difference between having an open patio and having an enclosed kitchen occupying the same space. That would really change the look and the feel of the neighborhood in a very substantial way. So, again, my question is is there some way that we can achieve this and yet not bump-out the front quite as much?

MR. CERVINI: So, it sounds like you

would consider a smaller bump-out than what is being proposed.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You are supposed to

show us what is the minimum amount that you need. In other words, we are not here to hurt you, we are here to help you.

MR. CERVINI: Of course.

47 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But, you know, it should be that you attempted to really create what is the least amount of variance that you need.

MR. CERVINI: Is there a way to put the

owners on if they want to comment on this? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Certainly. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Of course. MR. DEGROOT: Hi, how is it going?

It's Kirk Degroot. I just want to say there is in the neighborhood right here, three dead-ends over, two dead-ends over on every block. The reason we are not that far is that on every block, someone has done that. I can walk now and take pictures and put pictures right on this meeting right now and show.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But that's what we

are used to seeing. In other words, if you are going to present your position, you have to show us why the Zoning may not be exactly applicable to your neighborhood and that those four houses are the anomaly.

MR. DEGROOT: If you look right now. I

have my wife, you can bring up the plans. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But I can't do that.

I don't have the ability to walk down there now. MR. DEGROOT: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You have two weeks

to submit. So, you can still do that. And you can put together, this is this house, this is this house. What we've had people do is they will get those tax maps, which are readily available and they will go through the neighborhood with photographs and say, you know, here is 528 Dow Avenue. I live in Carle Place so I know those are the names of the streets. You know, show us that those four houses are the ones of the exception, but that then they force your average set back and that 75 percent of the houses of where you are -- I'm making the 75 percent up -- and there is one here

48 and one here and there is two there, but there is 50 here that match what we have, and then that helps us.

MR. DEGROOT: The kitchen coming in

right now, we came out that far because to get underneath the stairs and work any time on the boiler, I put a false wall on that stair where the fridge is. So, in order for the plumber to come in and work on my boiler, I have to pull my fridge out and take down that panel wall, otherwise you are not getting any plumber in there.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm familiar with

it. MR. DEGROOT: So, that will still be

there. It just makes room. If I open my door all the way and I leave my hand on my door, I could lose my fingertips on my stair rail.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, I said that.

I made your point for you. MR. DEGROOT: So, when we come out that

5 feet, the whole front door over by the kitchen will come out and now our kitchen will become an eating kitchen with the two kids where when they are there, they can eat right there and have their breakfast and get out and get on the school bus. It turns the kitchen into an eating kitchen with that island.

Now, the entryway is now far enough back

where if I had to bring things in, bring things out, I actually have mobility to do stuff. Like, right now, if I move furniture upstairs, I have to piece it upstairs because you can't come in the front door and even make the turn up the stairs because you have no room to do anything. So, that little space gives us that maneuverability to get in the door and move things around. Really, to be honest, that's why we pushed it out that far. And it was the header on the front, it was already in compliance; I know we did that.

We have been here 15 years, me and my

49 wife. And this is my grandfather's house, that's who we bought it from. The man that is actually moving back into the house that we are trying to make a home for is my father. He actually fell down the stairs two years ago and retired and got a TDI. So, basically, that was their gift to us, to bump the kitchen out to give us a bigger kitchen; they just threw that in there. Otherwise, I would have just done their apartment to get them a place to live, but that was their gift to us and it does make it way better when they are over and everybody is in here to enjoy the space a lot better, to be honest.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MEMBER LEVINE: I understand. MR. DEGROOT: The right porch is

staying exactly the way it is. I know it looks weird in the drawing but, basically, it's the front door coming out. The right porch is staying under the overhang. And, I think, the architect drew it right to that header because now they can use that existing header that's there and now just bring a wall down and close the 5 feet in.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Make sure you have a

footing underneath that. MR. DEGROOT: They are building a

footing. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I understand the

whole thing. I've changed the hot water heater.

MR. DEGROOT: Yes, and it's a

nightmare. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's a nightmare.

If you get a stereotypical plumber who likes his donuts.

MR. DEGROOT: They argue with me all the

50 time. And they thank me for putting in the false wall because then they can come in from the side.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Everything you said

makes perfect sense. Just one downside to bringing your front door, the very, very front. Of course, it gives you the space inside, but it also means that you will be getting wet when you try to open your door or getting snowed on.

MR. DEGROOT: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And you are so far

forward that if you were to prevent this, you cannot come back to us and ask us to allow to put --

MR. DEGROOT: A portico on top, I know.

I already discussed that with my wife. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You are aware of

that. MR. DEGROOT: Yes, I definitely know

that. That, we definitely know that. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You can come in that

door from the side, too, and then that way you will be covered.

MR. DEGROOT: But where it ends now when

it comes out, it would be 7 feet, but there is nowhere to put anything in the cabinets. I have no cabinet space. Like, the pantry that is there now is floor to ceiling pantry.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think you are

missing what I'm saying. Let me bring the plan up here for a minute.

MR. DEGROOT: I know what you are

saying, come in through the side through the kitchen.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, no. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, I will bring it

up on the screen.

51 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: From the porch.

So, you walk in from the side, then you are still covered by the porch.

MR. DEGROOT: Then you lose the nice

front door. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, if you like

the front door, then you will get wet and that's okay. That's all right. That's fine.

MR. DEGROOT: And the reason for it, I

wanted to explain the sliding glass door, the two glass doors in the back for my parents.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We will come to

those. MR. DEGROOT: Okay. The front,

really, I'm pretty sure that's why they came out to that foot, to be at that header and they are building a whole new foundation underneath that; I do know that. That should be in the drawings, that there was a new foundation going underneath the front. Because the footings are there for the columns, but I think in the plan it showed that they do know that they have to do a slab underneath there.

MR. CERVINI: I guess, the other

alternative is, instead, doing a partial. Obviously, you are going to have to discuss it, but as a condition, if the Board would allow maybe a partial. I don't want to have the application denied outright, but maybe bring it back 2 feet with the overhang possibly, but also satisfy the Board, as well. I understand your concern, you don't want to set a precedent, too. It's just something to throw out.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I just want to ask

because I'm trying to do the math here and I'm not sure that I'm doing the math correctly. What would be the dimensions of the existing kitchen after the project is completed? Do we know that?

MR. CERVINI: It's the expansion of the

kitchen and entryway, so that would be --

52 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Basically, you are

adding 5 feet. MR. CERVINI: Then the area by the two

front windows, that's part of the kitchen, as well.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. So, I'm

trying to figure out what the dimensions would be if you expanded the kitchen.

MR. CERVINI: Let me do it. MS. WAGNER: Looks like it's about 10,

right? MR. CERVINI: Well, the width of the

kitchen is 14 because it shows a number. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The architect just

chatted saying that it's 14 by 7. MR. CERVINI: Oh, he just typed it in. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: 14 by 7. And what

is the new depth, the proposed? MS. WAGNER: Well, the dimensions that

they are showing in the plan here shows 10 feet 2 and 3 quarters as the width of that counter in the back.

MR. DEGROOT: That's what it is and

that's not changing. MS. WAGNER: But it widens out when you

get to where the new addition is. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Can you let Nick

Feihel speak, please? MEMBER DONATELLI: Oh, I see. The 17

one and three quarters, I see that dimension. MS. WAGNER: Right. That's the width

of the new. Like, if you go passed where the stairs are.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Right.

53 MR. CERVINI: Can we let in the

architect? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes, let's let him

speak. MS. WAGNER: Dan, are you able to let

that person speak? What is the architect's name?

MR. CERVINI: Nick Feihel. MR. FEIHEL: Hi. MEMBER DONATELLI: Please give your

name and address. MR. FEIHEL: Sure. Nicholas Feihel;

2648 Rosebud Avenue, Merrick, New York 11566. MEMBER DONATELLI: And you are the

architect on this project? MR. FEIHEL: Correct. So, I would

like to just address a few different points that were made. The layout of the kitchen itself. Well, the overall dimension of the kitchen excluding the entry would be, approximately, just over 10 feet by about 14 and a half feet. The existing kitchen itself is not being renovated. The budget doesn't allow that right now. So, the addition would be matching the existing pantry cabinet that is at the front of the existing kitchen and extending the right side of the kitchen forward the pantry cabinets. And then creating a peninsula island with storage on both sides that could act as a breakfast area. The entry itself is, approximately, 5 feet by 6 and a half.

As the homeowner stated, he was accurate

in saying that we brought that front wall to align with the existing header and not have to rebuild or re-support the existing roof. The header would be replaced with the wall with footing, but the roof itself would not be touched. Again, keeping budget.

MEMBER DONATELLI: That's exactly what

54 I'm trying to get at. So, you are talking about keeping the existing roof line and the existing roof header.

MR. FEIHEL: Correct. MEMBER DONATELLI: Thank you for that

clarification. MR. FEIHEL: Absolutely. MEMBER DONATELLI: Perhaps, we can have

the Applicant discuss the mother/daughter portion of his application, specifically the request that the mother/daughter apartment have its own access to the Board.

MR. DEGROOT: Okay. The reason I would

like the sliding glass door is my parents are elderly, but they are still mobile. My father is having trouble speaking so if I'm not home, for them to come through -- where we are putting the door is right outside my bedroom. So, if they want to have a cup of coffee and step out back, they are, basically, only here in the summer months. So, they are going to want to use the outside until they are no longer able to just live in Florida. They will never be full time in Florida. If anything happened to my mom right now, there is absolutely no way my father could survive without constant care. Like, he is mobile and he speaks, but he can't be on his own. So, when they are here, I want her to be able to step out her door and be able to enjoy a cup of coffee out in the backyard in a chair, instead of walking in through that door, coming through my bathroom, and back out through my sliding glass door that's right outside my bedroom.

The second thing I was concerned of is

their kitchen is in the front. Right next to their access to my house is where their kitchen will be. And me, being a firefighter I know that probably if something did go on, it would probably start there. So, I don't want them to have to head that way to get out of the house. They can just go out the back door and egress. It makes more sense. I know we could put an

55 egress window. Like I said, I'm up to code on all that with, obviously, being a firefighter. My mom just turned 71. My father is getting closer to 70. As years go by, we are taking them in, we are the only siblings that are going to take my parents in. So, this is their best option to have for long-term care. It does give me access to them through my house and then them to go out and enjoy the outside for as long as they possibly can. And the egress is big. I know the egress windows are big, but I don't see a 70-year-old man that is not very competent opening a window and climbing out. He sees a door, he is going to walk right out. It just makes a safety issue for me and, of course, enjoying it in the summer months. They are snowbirds. They have a house in Naples, Florida and then I'm going to be their house up here.

That's why I know Rick said to me about

if we sell on a condition being made that that would have to be changed to two windows, I'm okay with that. We are not planning on going anywhere. We have two young kids. My daughter is in 6th grade and my son is in 4th grade. I don't plan on going anywhere. I still plan on doing 12 more years in the fire department so I don't plan on going anywhere. We did submit plans to you guys that shows you what it will become when my parents -- God willing not any time soon, not going anywhere fast. That, will become our bedroom. Where our bedroom is in those plans will become one big family room off the back of the house. So, their apartment would become our bedroom.

Again, why I would want the double

doors, too, so when it becomes my bedroom, I can use the access to the outside to enjoy the backyard. Down the road, it just makes sense in the long term to have it setup that way. I didn't want to do anything illegal and not have it on the plans. Also, not know that it's not allowed and put two windows and just worry about them climbing out a window. Does that make sense?

MEMBER LEVINE: I think so.

56 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, it makes sense,

but we don't ever do that. So, I don't know. MR. DEGROOT: But if that was part of my

house and I extended the house the way a lot of the houses did here. Because a lot of the houses here are also --

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You are missing the

point. The point is that the town is concerned about these becoming illegal two-family houses. That it is considered by the Town Board a privilege to be able to do exactly what you are doing. And please take it the way that I mean it. I'm completely sympathize and I get it, but our job is not to write the law, it's not to interpret the law. It's to look and say, okay, what do we have to do to be consistent here. Because as Mr. Donatelli just said before in terms of the set back, the same thing is true regarding the doors from the outside. I would say in at least 50 percent of the applications, people want doors from the outside.

MR. DEGROOT: But it's not an entryway,

it's a sliding glass door. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But it becomes an

entryway, that's the thing. Unfortunately, the good pay for the bad.

MEMBER DONATELLI: So, the town has

given us this mother/daughter provision and they've put these conditions on it specifically to try and discourage what the Chairman just said, which is somebody using it illegally as an illegal apartment. So, as long as I have been on the Board, we have been, to my knowledge, very strict in the interpretation of that because, of course, it's a real quality of life issue. If people were to have an illegal apartment in single-family homes, it would be a real quality of life issue for everyone. So, we are very careful about that.

MR. DEGROOT: I understand completely.

That, I understand.

57 MEMBER LEVINE: Yeah, but the sliding door wouldn't -- you can only lock it from the inside, right?

MR. DEGROOT: That's what I'm saying.

The sliding glass door doesn't have a key entry or anything.

MEMBER LEVINE: Because my sliding

glass doors, you can only lock it from the inside.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But you can get them

with a key entry, they are available. MEMBER LEVINE: I mean. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I have a key entry on

mine. Mine has a key entry. MEMBER LEVINE: But my Andersens aren't

built that way. I couldn't if I wanted to. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But you can buy that

set so that it has a key in it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Ginny, could you

please put up the plan for me one more time for me to see it.

MEMBER LEVINE: You could do that. I'm

not saying you would. MR. DEGROOT: Just so the Board knows,

it's also, too, my parents are going -- MS. WAGNER: Jay, what did you ask for? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I would like to see

the plans one more time. MS. WAGNER: Okay. MR. DEGROOT: It's also quality of life

for my parents, too. They are getting a very small apartment. I want them to be able to enjoy life, too, instead of just feeling like they are in a little studio. To go out the back

58 door and enjoy the summer. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Understood, and I

hate to put it this way, but then you have to go to a Town Board meeting and lay that out there. You would request it of the Town Board to change the limitations of a mother/daughter. I will go as far as saying, and I don't necessarily agree with him, but we had a Board Member who was on the Board for 11 years, and his take on this was that legally, we were not permitted to vary that because this was all one package, that we couldn't vary anything regarding a mother/daughter. But, you know, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. His opinion was not considered to be a prevalent one.

MR. CERVINI: So, I would just like to

speak to this application and just reiterate what I said. Can we just have it as a condition that if they sell the property, the doors are removed?

MEMBER LEVINE: If they sell the

property, you have to eliminate all of the mother/daughter stuff regardless.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: If you move out, you

have to take everything out. MR. CERVINI: Okay. MEMBER LEVINE: The law says that you

have to restore it back to a single-family home if you sell it. It's not even a condition, that's just what the law says.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman,

forgive me, but I'm not sure if I have this right, but my understanding is that technically in a mother/daughter, there is supposed to be no wall that can be closed off separating the two units. Technically, this is a one-bedroom suite.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: With a door and with

an added kitchen.

59 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Correct. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, that door also,

technically, becomes a problem because it can separate the two living areas.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, that's

correct. MR. DEGROOT: You are talking about the

entrance door from the middle of the house? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. That hallway

that you have right there in the middle. Technically, a mother/daughter is not supposed to have a door that separates.

MR. DEGROOT: Well, I can leave the door

out. Like I said, that's the way they are going in and out of the house. They are coming through the front door and going in that way. If we have to not put a door there and leave it open, that's not a problem. Because like I said, my bedroom is right there to the right. You see the existing bedroom, that's my bedroom. So, where that wall was there, I would just close that so my parents weren't walking into my bedroom.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: All right. I think

that we hear you and that doesn't mean that the answer is no. Let us kick this around. I mean, we sincerely try our best, especially with homeowners, not that commercial people don't get the same treatment, but we are particularly sympathetic to homeowners. We all understand and we all have elderly parents. I'm becoming an elderly parent. We get it. So, we try our best to try to find what the solution is so that we can attempt as much as to get you what you need.

What I would say, if you could, without

making yourself crazy, go take some photos of those other houses through the neighborhood and put a little something together, okay. We know you are not professionals at it and that's all okay.

MR. DEGROOT: I just have a quick

60 question, though. You said you live in Carle Place?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MR. DEGROOT: Isn't that one of the

original Levitt layouts? That kitchen being all the way out and the door entering from the side, that's all over here, too.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No. I live right by

Rushmore. I know several people that live in those Levitt houses. Also, when I looked at a house 40 years ago, we looked at a lot of Levitts. No, none of them came in directly from the side, but that doesn't mean that you are not going to see some.

MR. DEGROOT: I mean, with the front

door sideways. Like, all the bump-out and the front door sideways, that's a very common home here.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But they may be set

back further. Also, this average front yard set back has not been in the Zoning forever. I don't remember its date, but it's a relatively new one. When I say a relatively new one, it could be in the last 10 years. I've been here for 28 years now. And I know that 28 years ago, it didn't exist, and probably 20 years ago it didn't exist within the Zoning. And the Town Board responds to civic associations and they respond to community groups. That's the way that all of this Zoning evolves, but we are here to do that balancing test. So, that doesn't mean that the answer is no. We need to get everything on the record so that we can establish this. Let's say we grant you everything, we need to, as Mr. Donatelli said, we need to be able to take the next person and say why theirs is different. If we say no to them or if we ask them to modify, you know, how is yours any different from theirs. Because each case is unique and, again, we do our best to try to accommodate, that's our goal.

MR. DEGROOT: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, we are

61 continuing all of the Hearings. So, put that together and get that over to Ginny and she will circulate that to us. Again, we will try our best. We understand fully what you are saying.

MR. DEGROOT: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: All right. Don't

lose sleep. MS. WAGNER: Deborah, I still see hands

raised. MR. DEGROOT: I think that might have

been mine. MS. ALGIOS: Yes, those are the two

people that spoke. MS. WAGNER: Then nothing came in

through e-mail. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Then I would say

thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Degroot, and thank you, Mr. Cervini. We appreciate it.

MS. WAGNER: So, this will be continued

until -- what did we say, the 24th, Deborah? MS. ALGIOS: Yes, the 24th. MS. WAGNER: All right. MR. DEGROOT: Well, that means that on

the 24th, we get a decision or on the 24th, that's when the Hearing is over?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's right. So,

you don't have to run out this minute and take care of this. You have a couple of weeks to go out and take some pictures and things to send those on over to us.

MR. DEGROOT: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you. MS. WAGNER: Mr. Degroot, do you have

62 our contact information to send that? MR. DEGROOT: I'm pretty sure Rick

does. MR. CERVINI: We have it. MS. WAGNER: You could e-mail us or you

could call us. Do you have our e-mail addresses?

MR. DEGROOT: Yes. MS. WAGNER: So, reach out to us and

give us that information. Thank you. MR. DEGROOT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thanks, all. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, are you ready

for the next Appeal? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, I am. MS. WAGNER: Appeal #20852 - Jie Zhu,

variances 70-49.B and 70-100.1.B to maintain a sunroom extension exceeding the permitted floor area and a shed within a required side yard setback; N/side 33 First St., 200’ W/of Central Ave., Garden City Park, Sec. 9, Blk. 243, Lot 457, R-C District.

If you could please make Mr. Howard

Avrutine a panelist. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, I will call it.

You heard Appeal #20852, Jie Zhu. Is there anyone with their hand up there just so we know? And we know Mr. Avrutine is going to be representing them.

MR. AVRUTINE: Good morning. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.)

63 MR. AVRUTINE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. It's good to see all of you. I'm appearing for the Applicant, Howard Avrutine; 575 Underhill Boulevard, Syosset. This is the application for Jie Zhu for variances required in order to maintain a sunroom extension and a shed.

The premises on the application is

located on the northerly side of First Street, 200 feet west of Central Avenue in Garden City Park. It has a street address of 33 First Street and is also known as Section 9, Block 243, Lot 457 on the Nassau County Land and Tax Map. The premises is developed with a two-story single-family dwelling and two accessory sheds.

By this application, the Applicant

seeks variances required in order to maintain the existing sunroom as well as one of the sheds, which encroaches upon the side yard. The sunroom requires a variance in connection with maximum gross floor area. 2,500 square feet is the maximum and 2,704.92 square feet is the existing, that is an 8 percent deviation. The framed shed requires a variance for the side yard set back. 3 feet is required, 1.5 feet is existing. The original approved plans for this home depict a first-floor deck in the rear of the dwelling. If Ms. Wagner is able to pull them up, Exhibit 9 depicts the shed as well as Exhibit 11, which I had forwarded over, which are photographs of various portions of the original approved plan.

Essentially, what happened here was the

first-floor deck, which was part of the original construction, does not count toward floor area, but upon enclosing it, it did. And that's precisely what they did, they enclosed the rear deck to create a sunroom and that was done in, approximately, 2016. So, the conversion to living space created that addition to the floor area. So, the variance required is for an overage of 204.92 square feet. The sunroom provides additional living space and is used extensively by the property owner's mother who has difficulty ambulating. She has had knee replacements and arthritic

64 conditions so it's a place where she spends a lot of her time since she cannot get around easily.

My inspection of the premises reveals

that the sunroom is not at all visible from the street. I've submitted to Ms. Wagner several exhibits, which are photographs. The photographs are Exhibits 1 through 8 and there is a progression of photos. I don't know if you are able to access them readily, but it shows that. You can see Exhibits 1 and 2 demonstrate that there is no visibility of the -- well, go back. That's Exhibit Number 9 and you can see from that floor plan on the top there, there is that deck that I was referring to, which was part of the original approval and that's what's been enclosed to create that sunroom.

MS. WAGNER: Mr. Avrutine? MR. AVRUTINE: Yes. MS. WAGNER: So, if you could just go

down a little bit and then tell me which one you want me to bring up.

MR. AVRUTINE: Got you. My apologies. MS. WAGNER: It's okay. MR. AVRUTINE: So, this is it. Unless,

the Board has any questions about Exhibit Number 9, I would ask that you put up Exhibit Number 11, if you could.

MS. WAGNER: Unfortunately, when I go

to share it, it doesn't tell me. What is it a picture of?

MR. AVRUTINE: It's the survey for when

the home was built. MS. WAGNER: Is that the one that you

sent me last night? MR. AVRUTINE: It is. MS. WAGNER: Because I don't know if I

got them. I can do it, but you have to give me

65 a minute to save that. MEMBER DONATELLI: Is that the survey

of October 17, 2018? MR. AVRUTINE: No, it's not. It's an

older survey from when the house was constructed. It was the as-built survey after completion. It also just corroborates the fact that there was a deck to the rear of the dwelling; that was the soul purpose of it.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Mr. Avrutine, when

was that house built? MR. AVRUTINE: To my understanding, the

house was built sometime in the 90s. MS. WAGNER: Is this it? MR. AVRUTINE: That's it. Again, the

purpose of including that was just to show the Board that the home did have the deck in the rear. If you could, Ms. Wagner, start with Exhibit Number 1, which is a series of photos and then I can take the Board through the various photos of the premises.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. Let me see if this

is the right one. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: While she is looking

for those, if I can just ask a question. MR. AVRUTINE: Certainly. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The house is over by

204 square feet. However, the enclosed sunroom is 120. Does that mean that the original 76 feet, that the house was over the max by 76 feet?

MR. AVRUTINE: It may very well be. I

don't know what the requirements were when the house was originally built, but that could very well be the case, that it did exceed.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because the only

66 thing they enclosed was 120 square feet, correct, there is no other part of the house that they enclosed?

MR. AVRUTINE: That is correct. But

the calculation appears to be -- according to the submission by the engineer, it shows a deviation. It shows a maximum permitted of 2,500 and the proposed of 2,704.92. So, that's a very astute point. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether the requirements were different when the house was originally built.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Or how his

calculator changed. MEMBER DONATELLI: Good pick up, Jay. MR. AVRUTINE: Yes, in deed. That's a

photo depicting the shed that's on the screen now. The entire property on its -- and all of these photos show that. Let's see. The east, west, and northerly sides have these Arborvitae evergreens, which screen view of the rear yard from the adjoining properties. So, I would respectfully submit no impact to any surrounding property by either the shed, which is there, or the sunroom because it is screened very well with the trees that you see. The photos, I submitted a series of eight. At Ms. Wagner's convenience, we can go through each of them so that the Board can see the various photos. That's just the shed close up that we are seeking a variance for. Relocating it would result in a significant expense of, approximately, $4,000 according to the property owner. And I would respectfully submit that they moving it a foot and a half away is not going to make it any less intrusive, if you will, than currently where it is, especially with the screening. On balance, we would submit that allowing it to remain where it is outweighs the expense.

That is a photo of the sunroom,

essentially, the enclosed deck that we have been speaking about. You can see a little bit on the right side there what I'm talking about in terms of the tall evergreens that block view from the neighbor's property. And similarly,

67 because it does not extend beyond the end of the home, it is not visible from the street. There are photos that depict that, as well. I did take a couple of shots from the front of the house that show the appearance there.

So, essentially, going through the

balancing test, the benefit to the Applicant as compared to any potential detriment to the surrounding area, will there be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, I would respectfully submit no. There was a deck in the rear. It's a simple enclosure with really no negative impact that can be attributed to this, especially with the screening.

Whether the benefit sought by the

Applicant can be achieved by some other method. Well, to have the sunroom, you need the variance. It would be impossible to have that benefit, meaning the continued use of the sunroom without the relief that we are seeking. Otherwise, it would have to be converted to simply an outdoor deck, which would have limited use. And as I explained, the owner's mother does use it extensively and can use it all year round as a place of refuge in the home.

Next, whether the requested area

variance is substantial. I would respectfully submit that under these circumstances it is not substantial. It is an 8 percent deviation over the maximum and it really creates a lovely amenity. And under the substantial analysis, we would submit that the relief should be requested.

The next factor, whether the proposed

variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I would say the answer is clearly no. There would be no negative impacts that would result from granting the result sought here.

Lastly, whether the alleged difficulty

was self-created. Admittedly, it was self-created here. These items were installed by the Applicant without the benefit of a

68 permit, but I would also submit that that should not preclude the issuance of the requested relief under these circumstances for the reasons I've already set forth.

I would also like to note that with

respect to the shed, my inspection of the premises revealed that in addition to the Arborvitaes that existed along the easterly property line, the neighbor on that side at, I believe, the address is 35, has a children's play gym set, which is right in that same area, which clearly would also block any view of the rear of the shed of which is located on the subject premises. So, for all of those reasons, we would respectfully request that the application be approved as submitted.

MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I have a few

questions. I guess, I would like to start first with an observation of page A100 of the Applicant's submission. This includes how the square footage of the house was obtained and they have a listing of 99.92 square feet for cathedral ceilings. So, that probably accounts for the discrepancy, Jay, which you just noticed. Getting back to the issue of the sunroom. Is there heat in this sunroom?

MR. AVRUTINE: I believe there is, yes. MEMBER DONATELLI: Do you know if the

walls are insulted? MR. AVRUTINE: I don't know whether the

walls are insulted, but I can get that information for you.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I would want to know

whether or not the walls are insulted. Also, I mean, I guess my question is because this was done without the benefit of permits, and, perhaps, David, as an architect, you can answer this question better than I. It seems to me that to the load requirements for footings would be very different for a deck than they might be for a structure with walls and a roof and windows. From an architectural point of

69 view, unless this deck was built with this in mind, it seems to me that there may be some discrepancy in the way you might build a deck and the way you might build an enclosure such as this.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I mean, I have seen

decks like that that don't even have a real footing. I mean, they bury a concrete block and they sit the wood on top of it. I see Jay nodding.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Or pour a bucket of

concrete into the ground. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right, or pour a

bucket of concrete into the ground. I would say that if it has, let's say, you know, a 12-inch round, what we call, Sonotube footing, that if it's a proper footing, you know, it probably could handle that additional load without any real problem, but I think it's something that should or could be verified. I can't really see it up close in there. My feeling is that if it's been there for any amount of time and gone through a few winters, that if there was any lack of a footing, there would probably be some separation of that extension from the house because the deck would move up and down, even though it's ever so slightly, with a frost as it comes and goes and the ground freezes.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Do we know when this

was done? MR. AVRUTINE: It was installed in,

approximately, 2016. In addressing those concerns, if I may. These drawings were prepared by a professional engineer, I would have him certify. In the event that the Board approves the application, I will certainly have to certify for the building department that the footings and the structural for the sunroom meets applicable codes. And being an engineer submitting these drawings, certainly, that's something that should be required and will be provided.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, I think it's

70 something, Mr. Avrutine, that might be in the best interest of your client to have that engineer do ahead of time so that if it weren't and we were to approve it, he would know that he's got it correct.

MR. AVRUTINE: Of course. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That would just be

my feeling. MR. AVRUTINE: Understood. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's simple enough.

It's nice, warm weather. Get a shovel, dig a little bit, and you will find out.

MR. AVRUTINE: Well, it seems to me, as

you pointed out, that's something that would have to be verified under any circumstances. Even if it didn't need a variance, I would imagine the building department would require some sort of detail on the drawings.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. And that way

it could be put on the drawing already if we are inclined to approve it and it would save them one step in moving through the process.

MR. AVRUTINE: I appreciate that. MEMBER DONATELLI: I am seeing on page

A100 just above on the bottom where it says the words "longitudinal section AA" appear. I am seeing footings shown on the rear deck, but, again, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the concept that we have an open deck and all of a sudden it's supporting walls and it's supporting a ceiling. So, while I see that, I just don't understand why a deck would have been built in that way as an open deck.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, what I would

say supporting what you are saying, Mr. Donatelli, is that the couple of times much earlier in my career, you know, when a dollar was a dollar, I was trying to support my family. If something like this came along, I would tell the owner that they had to excavate in order to see the footing. And if they said no, we don't

71 want to do that, I would show no footing and put a note on the drawing that says the footing has not been excavated or investigated as part of this legalization. So, this way, I didn't put myself at risk and I made it very clear on the drawing. Nine times out of ten, they ended up picking it up. I also see from the license number of the engineer that did this that he is probably a very young man. So, you know, maybe that he finds himself in a position where he doesn't know any better than to just show a footing, so he just shows a footing.

MR. AVRUTINE: We will make sure that

that's corrected. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, I think that

that's the easiest. MEMBER DONATELLI: And my other

question, Mr. Avrutine, is have you gone to the neighbor who is most affected by the shed? I know you said that there is a child's play area there, but have you gone to the neighbor and asked for his consent?

MR. AVRUTINE: Well, my client spoke to

the neighbor and he indicated that verbally he said he had no problem with either the shed or the sunroom. Besides being what they are, we don't have anything in writing, but if that is something that you felt was necessary, we could arrange to get that.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, times being

what they are, I would hate to subject anyone to doing anything that would require somebody to personally approach your neighbor. On the other hand, it might be helpful if the rear yard neighbor or the neighbor most affected by this would just send an e-mail to our office indicating that he or she has no objection.

MR. AVRUTINE: I will attempt to

procure that. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Terrific. MEMBER DONATELLI: I have nothing

further.

72 MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. Anyone,

anything else? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Just what baffles me

is that a foot and a half from the property line, but yet Arborvitaes grow back there. So, my assumption is that the Arborvitaes must be right on the property line.

MR. AVRUTINE: It's tough to tell, but

they are there. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because there is no

way. How they are growing with the footing? MR. AVRUTINE: Yes, understood.

Unfortunately, trees do not respect property lines.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Exactly, that's

correct. MS. WAGNER: Jay, could you just

clarify what you had said earlier, something that you pointed out. I kind of missed it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The square footage. MS. WAGNER: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, they,

apparently, enclosed 120 square feet which is the deck that they enclosed, but they are being sited for being 204 square feet over. So, really, the difference between 120 and 204 had to either be a preexisting condition or, as Dan pointed out, it could have been the way they calculated the area and therefore it's considered more area because of that height and a half.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. So, we will look

into that and see if we can figure out what that difference is.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: If we were inclined

to approve it, it should be at 204 since that's really where they are technically right now, but I just wanted to point out that they did not

73 increase it by 204. They increased it by 120. MS. WAGNER: Okay. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's increased by

120. MS. WAGNER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you,

Mr. Avrutine. MR. AVRUTINE: Just so we are

clarifying for the record, I will get an answer to the question of whether the walls in the sunroom are insulted. I will get details regarding the footings for the sunroom and also attempt to obtain an e-mail or some form of communication from the neighbor who would be most impacted by the shed indicating that he has no issue.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Terrific. Thank

you. MEMBER DONATELLI: Thank you. MR. AVRUTINE: Thank you, all. MS. WAGNER: So, this is being

continued also until the 24th. MR. AVRUTINE: That's the 24th of July? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: July, yes. MS. WAGNER: Yes. At a minimum, it

will be continued till then. Because, especially, since you are submitting additional information, we are continuing in order to allow public comment up until that point, but if, for some reason, we need to leave the record open further, then that could be done, as well.

MR. AVRUTINE: So, should I plan on

appearing via Zoom on that date, as well? MS. WAGNER: No. We won't be holding a

Hearing, that's just to hold the record open.

74 MR. AVRUTINE: Understood. MS. WAGNER: The next Hearing is not

until August 12th, so a decision will not be made until that date.

MS. AVRUTINE: Understood. MS. WAGNER: Okay. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. Good to see

you virtually. MR. AVRUTINE: Yes, same here,

everyone, and stay well. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Thank you. MS. WAGNER: So, before I read the next

Appeal, Dan, could you please make Mr. Edwards a panelist. I believe he is on there as Wayne.

MR. EDWARDS: Good afternoon, Chairman

and Members of the Board. I guess, I will wait for the calling of the Hearing. If you could have Mr. Eschbacher also be made part of the Hearing.

MS. WAGNER: Dan can do that while I'm

reading the Appeal. The next Appeal is Appeal #20926 - New

Lake Hill, LLC (Orange Theory Fitness); 1706 Lakeville Road, New Hyde Park; Section 8, Block B2, Lot 107H; Zoned: Business-A. Variance from 70-103.A(1) to construct interior alterations to convert a retail space to a gym with not enough parking on site.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You heard Appeal

#20926 - New Lake Hill, LLC (Orange Theory Fitness). Is there anyone interested in the application other than the Applicant?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: If you are, raise

your hand. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, if you are,

raise your hand, please.

75 MEMBER DONATELLI: Virtually. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Virtually, right.

Virtual means don't go like this if you are at home or in your office. You have to tag that on the computer or if you are on a phone, you press *9 and your hand will then go up and you will be called upon.

MS. WAGNER: We really only have three

attendees. One of them, I don't recognize the name, and the other ones are one person from our office and the stenographer. So, there is only one other person on the Zoom Hearing that is unidentified.

MR. EDWARDS: That might be my client. MS. WAGNER: Yes, that's who it is. MR. EDWARDS: I forgot to tell you. MS. WAGNER: So, there is nobody else

from the public on the Zoom call, anyway. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Mr. Edwards, give

your name and address, please. MR. EDWARDS: Wayne Edwards; 333 Earle

Ovington Boulevard, Uniondale, New York. I am the attorney for the owner as well as the tenant, BMB Corp., LLC.

The tenant is going to be operating an

Orangetheory Fitness at a store in the North Shore Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of Lakeville Road and Hillside Avenue in New Hyde Park. The shopping center has a curb cut on both Hillside Avenue and Lakeville Road. The corner property, which is a service station, is not part of the shopping center; the shopping center wraps around that.

The shopping center's property area is

82,500 square feet. The total amount of the building comprising the shopping center is 27,539 square feet. Pursuant to the Notice of

76 Disapproval dated January 18, 2020, the Applicant requires a parking variance to operate the Orangetheory; 140 spaces are required, 93 spaces are provided. This shopping center was before the Board, it was decision number 2079 to issue a variance of 45 parking spaces. In that decision, 138 parking spaces were required and the same 93 were provided. That was with a conversion of a Dressbarn tenant, which is retail to Douglas Elliman, which is office.

The space for the Orangetheory is 4,396

square feet. We are, basically, replacing another retail tenant, which was Avenue, which was a women's retail shop for plus-size women.

The calculations the building

department indicated were that 12 spaces were required for the Orangetheory. As I indicated, the other uses are Douglas Elliman, which is an office use; Brookhaven Heart, which is, basically, a cardiology office; Five & Dime store, which is a big 99-cent store, which is retail; and Peak Performance Physical Therapy. The only two stores that front Hillside are the Five & Dime store as well as the Papa John's, which is a takeout place. I'm sure you are familiar with Orangetheory Fitness. I see the Chairman doesn't really feel he can afford $60 a month.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, I cannot. MR. EDWARDS: But a lot of people do. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I wish I could, I

would be there. Especially, I would want to be there five days a week, so it's even more than that.

MR. EDWARDS: It's a little different

than other gyms. Orangetheory is a one-hour, full-body workout. It focuses on heart-rate based training with an emphasis on endurance, strength and power. The participants are tracked by technology. There is a board that that, basically, shows what their numbers are.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, you compete.

77 So, everything about me is competition. MR. EDWARDS: Well, you would love

that. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I want to win. MR. EDWARDS: It's led by a certified

coach also to make sure that they don't overtrain. So, basically, it's personal training in a more affordable manner because it's done in a group session. It's based on a reservation model. Classes start as early as 5:00 a.m. and then as late at 9:30 p.m. The studio is open 7 days a week throughout the year. A typical class size is 30 participants. This facility can support a class of 36. The peak-times of the studio are expected -- and this is from having other studios -- from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., with off-peak hours, basically, from 10:30 to 5:00 p.m.

The demographics of a typical

Orangetheory participant is 25 to 40 years old. The gender is geared more towards women with a split of 70 percent women and 30 percent men. This is a franchise operation. The franchisees are Marian and Baldur Dujmovits.

You mentioned before that you have

another case. This is the same franchisee. They have two other Orangetheory locations, both located in the Town of West Hempstead. They have a Carle Place studio, which, I call it the Hale and Hearty shopping center, on Glen Cove Road. They did that around four and a half years ago. Then they have another one in Garden City Park, which opened in 2018.

As background, both of the owners grew

up in New Hyde Park. Mr. Dujmovits delivered pennysavers in the blocks that surround the North Shore Commons. He was also employed by the Town of North Hempstead Parks Department and was a lifeguard and a facility supervisor at the Clinton G. Martin Pool and at Manorhaven Beach Park & Pool. So, they, basically, know the area very well and it's near and dear to

78 their hearts. In terms of the traffic expert, I have

with me Mr. Robert Eschbacher, who has testified before this Board. He did a traffic study. It was done pre-COVID, so the numbers are pretty good. He had submitted the report when we made the application. I would like to call Mr. Eschbacher now to deliver the results to the Board and answer any questions the Board might have.

MR. ESCHBACHER. Good afternoon,

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. For the record, my name is Robert Eschbacher with VHB Engineering located at 100 Motor Parkway in Hauppauge.

As Mr. Edwards indicated, I was retained

to evaluate the adequacy of parking on this site to accommodate the proposed Orangetheory Fitness. I have done previous work on that site, most recently for the Douglas Elliman application and other things in the past, as well. So, I'm very familiar with it and I'm familiar with what the peak-hours of operation are.

Mr. Edwards indicated that the busiest

times for Orangetheory are going to be more in the early morning, late afternoon, and evening. However, at those times, that's not when the overall center is at its busiest. In fact, one of the major parking demand generators on the site is Brookhaven Heart. However, they don't open most days until after 8:30 and they are closed by 4:30 on most days. On Saturday and Sunday, they are completely closed. So, during the busiest times for Orangetheory, we have less parking demand being generated by these other uses.

We did a parking study on a Tuesday

pre-COVID and we concentrated on the 10:00 to 6:00 time period when the other tenants in the center are generating parking activity. The results that are shown in the table of my report indicate that at all times, there is very adequate parking to accommodate the needs of the Orangetheory. It's also important to

79 recognize that the parking here is self-regulated. There is no on-street parking. So, if the members of the Orangetheory or other places are not able to find parking on the site, they would have to choose to come back at a different time or go elsewhere.

So, in conclusion, it's my professional

opinion there will be adequate parking to accommodate not only the proposed Orangetheory, but the continued operation of the other tenants. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Just in looking at

the site plan, and I'm sure I know the answer, but I will ask it, anyway. Lakeville Road and Hillside Avenue, the X through the property there, that's an outparcel, correct?

MR. ESCHBACHER: That's the gas

station. MR. EDWARDS: Correct. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's the gas

station? MR. ESCHBACHER. Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. Any

questions from anyone? We are probably all well-familiar with this corner.

MEMBER DONATELLI: We've had

applications from this corner before. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. All right.

Then I think you got it then. Okay. MS. WAGNER: So, Deborah, I don't see

anybody. MS. ALGIOS: No, there is nobody in the

chat. MS. WAGNER: There is nothing.

Nothing was e-mailed.

80 MS. ALGIOS: For the record, I'm sorry, but I just want to clarify one thing, Chairman, when you said got it, you didn't mean you got the variance?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, I just mean we

are done. MS. ALGIOS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Look, if they need

someone who is probably a better trainer than anybody that they have there, I'm available on a part-time basis. I'm not being boastful in any way.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

and Members of the Board. That, basically, concludes our application.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Then thank you. We

appreciate it. MS. WAGNER: So, this will be continued

to July 24th, as well. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Correct. MS. WAGNER: To accept comments from

the public, Mr. Edwards. MR. EDWARDS: Okay. MS. WAGNER: And if nothing is

received, then a decision could potentially be made at the next Hearing, which is the 12th of August.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, everybody.

Stay safe and we appreciate it. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. Thank you,

both. Good to see you. MS. WAGNER: That concludes the Hearing

portion of our meeting. Do you want to take, like, a break in between?

81 MEMBER LEVINE: Is there anything else

we need to do on the record or no? MS. WAGNER: Everything is on the

record. We have to do the SEQRA. We have to adopt SEQRA. We can do that now and if you want to take a break before the reserved calendar.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: Why don't we adopt SEQRA

and then maybe we could just grab something. Somebody want to move it?

MEMBER LEVINE: I move to adopt it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We have a motion

from Mr. Levine and a second from Mr. Hernandez.

MS. WAGNER: All in favor? (Whereupon all Members of the Board

voted unanimously.) (Whereupon, a recess was taken at this

time.)

82 RESERVED CALENDAR MS. WAGNER: We are still being

live-streamed and we are still on the Zoom call, so everything will be on the record. What I discussed with Deborah before is if we can maybe try to go through quickly some of the Appeals that you have had a decision in your mind, but we couldn't decide because we had to wait until the next Hearing, but you actually would have made the decision at the time. So, we can get those ones decided.

MEMBER LEVINE: I have my notes from the

last two. MS. WAGNER: Well, if you feel that

there is something, go through the reserved calendar and just tell us what those are and we can just go through those first, David.

MS. ALGIOS: I just want to say one

thing. Case #20906, Iraj Noorolah, 87 Barnyard Lane, the attorney had requested that the record stay open on that one until the 17th, so we are not going to discuss that one today.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Ginny, since we

are still live, can you bring up the reserved calendar on the screen.

MS. WAGNER: Sure. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's a beautiful day

out today, Les, it really is. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.)

83 MS. WAGNER: I'm going to e-mail that to

you. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Just send it to me,

too. I have it, but that way I don't have to hunt for it.

MS. WAGNER: Is that okay? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes, that's

good. MS. WAGNER: I'm going to e-mail you the

summary sheet. Do you need the actual reserved packet?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, I got it. MS. WAGNER: I will send it to

everybody. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: David Levine, if you

already had some Appeals in mind. MEMBER LEVINE: I'm looking at the June

17, 2020 calendar. Do you want to start at the top of that one or how do you want to start?

MS. WAGNER: That's fine. And

Deborah, if you feel that there needs to be any type of findings, if you want to interject as he is reading them.

MS. ALGIOS: Sure. MEMBER DONATELLI: What is the case

number? MS. WAGNER: So, tell us the first one. MEMBER LEVINE: 20910.

84 MS. WAGNER: Okay. MEMBER LEVINE: This is the one where we

granted a variance and then I think because the building department decided that they took a little bit too much off the top, they had to come back. Correct me if I'm wrong.

MS. WAGNER: Right. So, I guess, if

you are going to make a decision, I should read the Appeal onto the record.

MS. ALGIOS: Yes. MEMBER LEVINE: Well, we can talk about

it first. I mean, I'm okay with it, I don't know about the rest of the crew.

MS. ALGIOS: I think, Ginny, you should

read it in. MS. WAGNER: Okay. That's Appeal

#20910 - 96 Hillside Avenue Realty, LLC; 96 Hillside Avenue, Manhasset; Section 3, Block 47, Lot 14, Zoned: Residence-C. Variance from §70-229 to construct a new dwelling not in compliance with prior BZA Appeal #20737.

MEMBER LEVINE: I will certainly defer

to my learned colleague from Manhasset, but I'm okay with it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: This is the one that

we already approved. MS. WAGNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: They are,

basically, moving the house a little bit from one side to the other.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I certainly have no

problem with it, so I move it.

85 MEMBER DONATELLI: I will second. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, do you want me to

poll the Board? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, please poll the

Board. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. The

application is granted. MS. WAGNER: So, I guess, keeping with

that, the next Appeal would be Appeal #20911 – Donna Stanza; 66 Rocky Wood Road, Manhasset; Section, 3 Block 179, Lots 16 & 224; Zoned: Residence-B. Variance from §70-41A to build additions to a home that would have smaller than required total side yards.

That's the one that I sent you the

additional information that the Applicant provided. I believe Mr. Donatelli requested that at the Hearing.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes, I had requested

a copy of the deed to the property and that was supplied to us.

MS. ALGIOS: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Which one is this?

86 MS. WAGNER: This is one where there was

the abandoned -- CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Oh, yes, right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm just looking at

the file itself. MEMBER DONATELLI: I was a little bit

skeptical about this. This was where the Applicant really wanted to park both cars in the garage. And by doing so, we reduced the side yard aggregate, I think, from 27 feet that's required to 20.28 feet. Speaking as one Board Member, I was just very skeptical of this.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, could you

repeat that? I lost you there a minute. MEMBER DONATELLI: I'm a little bit

skeptical about this. You know, the code requires that two cars be allowed on site, that there be parking for two cars, but there is no requirement that they be in-garage parking spots.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I'm sorry, I

must have the wrong case in my mind. MS. ALGIOS: Does everybody have the

transcript from the Hearing on this one? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes. MS. WAGNER: I sent you guys the

transcript. I can send it over again. MEMBER DONATELLI: I think I have it. MS. WAGNER: Actually, what I can do is

I can bring the transcript up on the screen. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's even better

because I have so many e-mails there. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes.

87 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.)

MS. WAGNER: Tell me when I should

scroll. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Scroll. MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. There is the

request for the deed. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I'm having a

problem remembering. Why did you ask for the deed?

MEMBER DONATELLI: At this moment, it

doesn't come to mind. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because now you are

bringing up parking on the other side. They are on opposite sides of the house.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Because we had an

abandoned road, that was it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. On the

other side of the house, not on the garage side. MS. WAGNER: So, basically, though,

Dan, the fact that the building department acknowledges the survey, which shows that road being included as part of the property, I think that's pretty clear.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I agree. That

concern of mine was answered. MS. WAGNER: So, is everybody okay with

this now? I'm going to stop sharing this transcript, unless anybody else wants to see.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: That's fine. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: She wants to convert

the garage on the west side of the home to habitable space and construct a new one to have a two-car garage. Okay. She wants to build the garage.

88 MS. WAGNER: I'm going to bring the plans up so that would help, I think.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That's what it is.

That's why you asked for it. They, basically, are putting a new garage on the opposite side because they are converting the existing garage to the bedroom.

MEMBER DONATELLI: That's right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And the new garage

will be too close. If Thayer was there, it would be on top of Thayer.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. MS. WAGNER: But I think if you look at

this -- MEMBER DONATELLI: Even so, we still

need to grant or deny the variance for the aggregate side yard even with Thayer now being owned by her.

MS. WAGNER: So, this is the site plan

of what they are doing. They took down the garage on -- this is actually backwards, I think.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: They are converting

the garage. If you look at the house, facing the house, the garage is on the right side of the house. They want to convert the garage to a master bedroom and then they want to build a garage on the left side of the house, but to do that, they are going to be on top of what Thayer would be.

MS. ALGIOS: Yes. MS. WAGNER: So, I believe they meet the

side yard set backs.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The aggregate, 30

percent is 27 feet. MS. WAGNER: They are not changing the

89 set back necessarily on the west side because they are converting what is already there into a habitable space.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Correct. MS. WAGNER: And they are adding that

one-story addition over on the east side. So, that's really the new construction. It's that side of the property that's being most impacted by it.

MEMBER DONATELLI: And my concern comes

from the fact that she is asking for a two-car garage, which will further impact the aggregate side yard because that's the variance that's being asked for.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because a one-car

garage would require no variance. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. MEMBER LEVINE: I would rather give her

the side yard variance than give her a one-car garage so the other car is in the street.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Especially, in this

neighborhood where this house is -- MEMBER LEVINE: We have a real problem

with people parking in the street where they shouldn't be, anyway. I think I would much rather encourage people to park on their own property. There are certain neighborhoods where you can't even drive down the street anymore.

MS. WAGNER: Can you see this

elevation? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: We are not seeing

anything. MEMBER DONATELLI: No. MS. WAGNER: Hold on. Sorry. Let me

share the elevation. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: The two-car

90 garage is probably the norm in this neighborhood, anyway.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I wouldn't have

a problem with it. MEMBER LEVINE: It should be the norm

everywhere in North Hempstead. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I agree. MS. WAGNER: So, now you see the

elevation. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: She wants to add the

section on the left. MS. WAGNER: Right. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's just a big wide

house. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: What is interesting

is that she is going from a one-car garage to a two-car garage.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. It's more

than half the width of the house. MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. I do see it as

massive. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Again, especially,

the roof forms, they are all gable ends. And I understand why architecturally, but they are all gable ends facing the street.

MEMBER LEVINE: Now, when you say gable

ends, does that mean somebody is going to say I don't give a damn.

MS. WAGNER: What is on the other side

of her on that side? Is the other property that close, the other house?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No. The other

91 house is not on top it because, again, they have Thayer Road and then they have their property on the other side.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: What are the

dimensions of this property? I can't really read it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, it's 25 feet

from the property line. The Thayer Road section is 25 feet.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Does the deed say

that they own Thayer Road. Was that part of the question? I think it was.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes, that was the

question. Hold on because I have the deed here.

MS. WAGNER: Well, I think the survey,

that shows it being included. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It absolutely does,

but then there is that filed map lot line and I don't know what that means. I've never seen that before. Jay, I don't know if you have.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You see at the

bottom, it says "filed map"? MS. WAGNER: Those are like old

subdivisions and old tax lots, I think, from like many, many years ago.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Maybe. MS. WAGNER: What I'm saying is that, I

think, the fact that it's included as part of the survey and also that the building department has acknowledged that it's included, because the new construction actually goes into that area, so they have to own it, technically.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: They couldn't even

92 build a one-car garage without going into Thayer Road.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. Well, they

have an existing garage. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I'm saying to

build the one on the right, they couldn't. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, they couldn't. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And this appears to

be the westerly half of Thayer Road abandoned. So, they only have about 25 feet, which is half, and, I guess, presumably, the other neighbor has the other 25 feet on the other side.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, I know in New

York City it's that way and you pay for it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, you pay. MEMBER DONATELLI: I think that's

exactly what it says on the right side of that survey.

MS. ALGIOS: Yes, easterly half. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, it says it

right there. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I'm fine with

it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm inclined, too.

This is a big two-car garage being added. It is consistent with what most of us have in this community.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: It's a fairly

decent size property. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's a good size, I

agree with you. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: If this was in

New Hyde Park or Garden City Park or somewhere

93 else, it might be glaring, but I don't think it is at all.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I will move it to

grant. It's 27 and they have 20.28, so they are only short about 7 feet the overall width.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Right. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Also, you have the

guy next door who has the other half of the road. So, visually, there is plenty of space.

MS. WAGNER: Do you want to vote? MEMBER LEVINE: Absolutely. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I move it. MS. WAGNER: Who moved it? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I did. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: And I will

second it. MS. WAGNER: Chairman, would you like

me to take a vote? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Please. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Regrettably, I vote

nay. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye.

94 MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. The

application is approved four-to-one. MS. WAGNER: Four-one grant. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: The next one would be in

Port Washington. It's Appeal #20912 - 8 Rockwood, LLC; 8 Rockwood Avenue, Port Washington; Section 4, Block 18, Lot 26; Zoned: Residence-B. Variance from §70-40.B to construct a new dwelling that is too close to the street.

MEMBER DONATELLI: If I recall this

case correctly, this was where it was a first thought that the Applicants plans were just an addition, but then it became clear after they started the process that they were changing more than 50 percent so that new set backs apply, is that correct?

MS. WAGNER: That's correct. And at

the Hearing I believe, one of the neighbors spoke, but not necessarily in opposition. He was trying to get some additional information, which the Applicant provided. If you want to look at the transcript for that, I can bring that up.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I don't know if the

others do. I have a fairly good recollection of this, but I don't know if the others want to take a look at the transcript.

MEMBER LEVINE: I'm okay. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I guess, I can

discuss it. I can start the discussion. At first, I was troubled by this, but as I came to think about it more and more, it is on a corner lot. It is across the street from a large schoolyard and there is lots of open space around it. I think the Applicants reasoning, at least, struck a chord with me because he is looking to use the existing foundation walls

95 and that is where the house is currently sited. So, actually, I've become less skeptical about this.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MEMBER LEVINE: I was okay with it. MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. MS. WAGNER: So, did you want to make a

motion, Dan? MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. If no one else

has any comment, I will make a motion that we grant the application.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. We have a

motion. Do we have a second? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Wait. Before we

move it, I just want to ask a question again because of precedents. What we are, basically, saying is that someone could take a house down to the foundation and build a new house on top of it. It's not what the code now says. The code now says that you are going to have to do less than 50 percent renovation.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's our

discretion, we have done that before. You are a hundred percent right and it's really been the code forever, but it's our discretion if we are going to require him. We had, just a couple of times, where a house is burned and the people just want their house back and we have given them their house back. Then we've had other instances where magically somebody says we saw a termite, we better take the whole house down. And then you say no, I don't buy that one. So, I think if we put this in that first category where we are just giving them back the house that they had. Because normally when they saw the termite, it's because they want to build something.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's an excuse to

take the house down. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. They wanted

96 any excuse to take the house down. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I just want to

clarify. I mean, I have no problem with it, but I just want to make sure that we are not setting any kind of a precedent here. Because I recall years back, we had a situation here where a guy had a similar thing where the garage encroached on the front set back substantially, the existing garage. And he started taking walls down and kept on taking walls down and then it became a new construction versus a remodel and we rejected his new garage. So, I just want to make sure that we don't have a problem.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes, I understand.

I think the record really showed here that this was more incrementalism than anything else. Because everyone, I think, was operating under the assumption that less than 50 percent was being done. Then I think just as they got to the final review --

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It became more than

that in the final review. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Very well.

I didn't mean to stop the vote. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's fine. You

make a good point. MEMBER LEVINE: I had seconded it. MS. WAGNER: So, Dan is moving it and

David Levine is seconding. MEMBER LEVINE: Yes. MS. WAGNER: Would you like me to poll

the Board? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Please. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye.

97 MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. Application

is granted. MS. WAGNER: Next Appeal #20913 - Manna

Management, LLC, 7 Franklin Avenue, Port Washington; Section 5, Block 82, Lot 39; Zoned: Residence-C. Variances from §§70-49.B, 70-50.B, and 70-100.2.A(2) to maintain additions and a porch conversion that exceed the size permitted by code and are too close to the street, and fencing in a front yard.

This is the one that had that fence that

was actually supposedly owned by the bus company next door, but it's on the Applicant's property and she wants to keep it. Then there was something to do with additions and a porch conversion.

MEMBER DONATELLI: If my notes are

correct, the front yard set back required is 25 and proposed 17.75. The secondary front yard set back required is 20 feet and proposed is 12.3. So, there was some substantial variances that were required here and, I think, that really came about as a result in-part from the enclosed wrap-around porch. I think that was done without the benefit of a permit.

98 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER DONATELLI: And we also have a

gross floor variance, an overage of 254.6 feet. This, to me, is really illustrative of the dangers of having work done without the benefit of a permit.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Sure. MS. WAGNER: The Applicant also says

what is putting the property over the gross floor area is the detached garage, which has a floor area of 744 square feet, so that's a rather large garage that is significantly adding to the GFA.

MEMBER DONATELLI: And I remember that

there was some question that I raised about the size of the garage because it's huge. It appeared to have a second-story loft, if I recall correctly.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, it was like a

house. We had a couple little cottages on other applications that were garages that had been there forever and ever and ever and we have granted them, but in this case, no.

MEMBER DONATELLI: You know, this is an

old part of Port Washington. I tend to find, really, a lot of problems with granting variances for gross floor area, granting front yard set back variances particularly in an area such as this that is already overburdened. I mean, I know that part of what we look at is the neighborhood, but it just seems, to me, like this is a step too far.

As to the fence, if the fence is on his

property, regardless of who put up the fence, I think that the homeowner is responsible for having the fence comply with the Zoning Code.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: It's on your

property, it's your fence. MEMBER DONATELLI: I think where I'm

coming down is on a denial of this.

99 MS. WAGNER: Just to let you know, there

was one consent submitted on the record.

MEMBER DONATELLI: The garage would

only go if the garage were somehow modified, that would only go to the gross floor area, but it doesn't really address the front yard set back and the secondary front yard set back. We are about 7 feet short on the secondary front yard set back and about 8 feet or 7 feet short on the front yard set back.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's a lot. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: If you do an aerial.

I mean, I missed most of this, that was the day that I had an emergency and I had to leave, so I'm not going to officially vote on this. But, if you look at the aerial, the house is not any more offensive than most of its neighbors as far as the encroachment to the front property line.

The garage, although it's way, way

oversized, is wrapped on two sides by a bunch of buses in a parking lot. So, it's not like it's prime real estate for a bachelor pad. Only if you were inclined to grant it, that would be the only reason why I could see granting it, only because of the location of it.

MEMBER DONATELLI: My concern

was -- and not to say that the Applicant is doing this, but my concern was that the garage was of such a size and with a second floor, we really don't know whether this Applicant or a future Applicant might use that for some purpose other than its intended purpose.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Than storage, I

agree. I could very easily see somebody living up there, no doubt about it.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: And this also

came about because she applied for a rent registration.

MS. WAGNER: Yes.

100 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Was that the intent? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: So, I think

Dan's point is well-taken. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Again, just to

understand, are you denying the whole thing including you asking him to open up an enclosed porch or are you agreeing to the enclosed porch, but not the GFA? So, you have to reduce the garage or reduce something.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, you know, if

the gross floor area is over, it would be up to the Applicant to determine how they would want to bring the gross floor area back into compliance.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MEMBER DONATELLI: Whether it is by

opening up the enclosed porch or opening up the rear yard addition, I mean, I would leave that up to the Applicant. For my part, I'm proposing to deny the variance and then let them come back with something.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But, again, just so

that I understand for my own education. There are two types of variances, one is gross floor area, which they can alleviate by removing the garage or part of the garage, but the encroachment, they can't eliminate.

MEMBER DONATELLI: But there is a

difference between an enclosed porch and an open-air porch. So, that would deal, for example, with respect to the front yard set back as well as to the addition for the secondary front yard set back. So, there are different ways to deal with the same problem. That's why I am not comfortable saying, well, do this and then we will grant the variance or distinguishing between which of those we should grant and which of those we should not. I think that they are all interrelated.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay.

101 MS. ALGIOS: Are you saying the variance, then, it's substantial, if we go through the factors?

MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. They are

substantial and I think that they do have a negative impact on the community.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I mean, if there

are no other comments. Are there other comments?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No. Make a motion. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I make a motion

that we deny the application. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We have a motion to

deny. Do we have a second? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Seconded by

Mr. Francis. Please poll the Board. MS. WAGNER: Jay, you are not

participating? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. Application

is denied. MS. WAGNER: Four-to-zero deny.

102 Deborah, some short findings as we discussed? MS. ALGIOS: Yes. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.)

MS. WAGNER: The next Appeal is Appeal #20914 – Adam & Jamie Lenter; 55 Bar Beach Road Port Washington; Section 6, Block 11, Lot 195; Zoned Residence-C. Variance from §70-50.A to build a portico too close to the street.

MEMBER DONATELLI: This property is

actually directly behind my house, so I walk by there often with my dog and I'm pretty familiar with it. This Applicant was just merely looking to move over an existing portico 2 feet over, but I think in the same dimensions and the same front yard set back as they already had. So, I have no problem with it.

MEMBER LEVINE: Works for me. MS. WAGNER: You want to move it, Dan? MEMBER DONATELLI: Anyone else? MEMBER LEVINE: I will get the next one. MEMBER DONATELLI: I make a motion that

we grant. MEMBER LEVINE: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Please poll the

Board. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I missed it. No

vote. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine.

103 MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. Application

is approved. MS. WAGNER: Grant with no Jay

Hernandez. Deborah, do you want to discuss

20915 - R. Naghavi; 18 Knoll Lane in Roslyn Heights? Do you want to wait on that one and go to the next one and come back to it?

MS. ALGIOS: Let come back to that one. MS. WAGNER: Okay. Next Appeal is

Appeal #20917 - Marlene Brandsetter, 1 Garden Avenue, Carle Place; Section 10, Block S3, Lot 21; Zoned: Residence-C. Variances from §§70-100.A(2) and 70-100.A(4) to maintain fencing in the front yard and fencing that is too high.

MEMBER LEVINE: I thought she

established the fencing preceded the code. MEMBER DONATELLI: I recall that, as

well. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I believe so, too. MS. WAGNER: So, are we giving her the

variance or are we saying that we make a determination that the fencing preceded the fence ordinance?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think I would

rather the second. MS. WAGNER: But I think she also -- I'm

not sure that it allowed the 6-foot fence. I mean, I think the ordinance was changed to not permit fences in the front yard, but I don't

104 think it allowed a 6-foot fence. MEMBER LEVINE: Was there a fence

ordinance at all before 1996? MS. WAGNER: Yes, there was, but it was

changed, I think, to not allow fences in the front yard.

MEMBER LEVINE: I was all right with

this one for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The 4 foot was still

permitted and then it was not beyond the front line of the house.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Not 6 feet,

though. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, not 6 feet. MS. WAGNER: Let me bring up that survey

and we will see what she is looking for. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm trying to

remember this and I just looked up on the Google Maps and it doesn't show a fence.

MS. WAGNER: Really? MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, it's shown on

the survey. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I don't remember

the house, that's why I'm going back to the map to look at it.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: What is the

date on the Google Map? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Unless the Google

Map is going to the wrong house, but I don't see anybody with a fence here.

MS. WAGNER: This is 1 Garden Avenue in

Carle Place.

105 MEMBER LEVINE: Google Maps is notoriously inaccurate.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Let me see what the

survey map looks like. I just want to see what it looks like.

MS. WAGNER: It's a corner house, a

corner lot. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, at the corner

of Roosevelt and Garden. MS. WAGNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I don't see a wood

patio, though. This is a big sweep, though. That shows a fairly 90-degree angle. I know that road in there that sweeps around like that.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Here is the house.

I got it. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, you found it? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes, I found it.

Yes, there could be a fence there. Yes, there could be. Oh, I saw this house. Yes, I remember now. It has a wrap-around fence in the house.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, I see it now,

too. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. It came up in

the wrong place. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Because some of this

is still what I consider the old part of Carle Place. Some of it is Levitt Housing, but this is right at the railroad tracks, immediately north and south of the railroad tracks.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That was an old

cyclone fence that was there. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MS. WAGNER: Jay, when I bring it up, it

brings me to a different property, as well.

106 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You have to move

south of there. You have to move the map. MS. WAGNER: Yes, it's very far south.

I don't know why it does that. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But it's the

intersection of Roosevelt and Garden. I remember the house now. I wanted to see it because I couldn't remember it. I was looking for a picture of it, but I didn't photograph that one. It was definitely an old cyclone fence.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: There are a few

illegal fences as we continue down the street, so I think we should send code enforcement out to get them.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. It's a

cyclone fence and it goes around the whole property.

MS. WAGNER: Do you want to take another

look and wait on this until the next meeting? MEMBER LEVINE: No. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I would just get rid

of it. MEMBER LEVINE: It's a fence and she did

what she had to do. Enough. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Let's just say it

predates the Zoning, that's all. MEMBER LEVINE: Not everything is the

Watergate Hearing. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I will just say it

predates the Zoning, that way we are not granting a variance. Let somebody else prove that it doesn't.

MEMBER LEVINE: Who is going to do that?

107 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No one. MEMBER LEVINE: Exactly. MS. WAGNER: I mean, do you want to put

something in there that it can't be -- CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Put something in

that the existing fence may be maintained, but not replaced.

MEMBER LEVINE: Maintained means you

just do it in sections at a time. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right, that's all. MEMBER LEVINE: Who is going to check to

see how many sections she puts in? MS. WAGNER: So, that's a condition.

Who wants to move it? MEMBER LEVINE: I will move it. MS. WAGNER: Second? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think it's better

if Les doesn't second because in New Cassel, we get a lot of fences. So, first is Dave Levine and second is Jay.

MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye.

108 MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. The

application is granted. MS. WAGNER: Granted that it predates

the code. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: Deborah, what do you want

to do about the other one, you want to wait on that one?

MS. ALGIOS: Yes, let's wait on that

one. MS. WAGNER: We are going to one that

was heard a long time ago, almost a year. The Applicant was going to provide additional information and then they, for a long time, hadn't and then they sent a letter that they would like the Board to just make a decision. So, that next Appeal is 20780, Alice Bruno. Variances from 70-100.2.A(2), 70-102.A(5) 70-229A to maintain fencing forwarded of a front building line, pool fencing not in the rear yard and noncompliance with a prior BZA decision; southeast corner of 28 South Drive and Whitney Place in Manhasset, Section 3, Block 92, Lot 1 in the Residence-B Zoning District.

MS. ALGIOS: So, because of the age of

this one and since you guys heard this one quite some time ago, I want to make sure you all read through the transcript and you refreshed your memory on it.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes,

absolutely. MEMBER LEVINE: Yeah. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: My apologies, I did

109 not. MS. ALGIOS: Jay, do you want to take a

few minutes? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I will go read it

right now, sure. MS. WAGNER: I can just bring it up

online. I will send it to you again right now. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Thank you. MS. WAGNER: I think this was from

August of last year. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I just looked at the

aerial and I do not recall this at all. MS. WAGNER: This is almost a year ago

so. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MEMBER DONATELLI: Just send it to me,

as well, please. MS. WAGNER: I sent it to the whole

Board. It's the transcript for 8/14. When you do get it, it's on page 41.

The fence that is shown, it showed where

the 6-foot high fence was when it was approved, I guess. Then somewhere along the line it got moved out towards this Whitney Place. It, basically, extends their side yard so it's passed the rear building line for the pool enclosure.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, they moved it

forward so that's contrary to what the zoning says.

MS. WAGNER: Then she claimed that

there was like a cesspool or something in that location. Then the Board had asked to provide additional information about what was there and also I think there was a concern about the topography.

110 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I don't see any

retaining wall shown on the site. MS. WAGNER: This is the survey. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm looking at the

grades on the site where it says brick patio. It says that the grade is 14.53, something like that, where the edge of the gate is 13.76. I don't know, that's a foot and a couple of inches.

MS. WAGNER: The grade over here that

goes down towards Whitney Place, I think that's what she is saying. That she needed a fence there, but then -- well, first of all, she couldn't have a fence there, anyway, because it's in the front yard. The question here is more about the pool enclosure can't be forward of the rear building lines regardless of any other fence that she put there.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Can you move the map

down so we can see the street? MS. WAGNER: This is the survey. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Here is Whitney to

this side. MS. WAGNER: Whitney Place is over to

the left. MEMBER DONATELLI: It's a corner lot,

right? MS. WAGNER: Then South Drive is at the

top. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. So, it's a

corner lot. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, the fence that

is the problem is which one? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The one at the other

side, the south side.

111 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because the swimming pool is not on the Whitney Place side, it's on the other side. So, presumably, there is a neighbor on the other side of it.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, I'm reading the

transcript on page 42. The Applicant says: "The only thing I want to say is I

understand the regulation of not having fences beyond the building line. However, in this circumstance, that fence that extends out is actually covering an area that has like a drop. So, in fact, if you do not put a fence there, then you have an open area that has about a 4 to 5 foot drop that potentially, in my neighbor's opinion and even in my opinion, that if a child were to go up there, they could fall into the neighbor's property because it's -- there is a retaining wall there. And if you took off a fence there, there would be nothing there to potentially prevent something like that from happening."

That's on page 42 and 43 of the

transcript. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I saw that. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But what fence are

they talking about? That's the fence that I don't see on the schematic.

MS. WAGNER: On the bottom of the

survey, it shows a retaining wall on the neighbor's property.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That's a vinyl fence

there. MS. WAGNER: That's along the property

line. Then inside the property line of this property is the vinyl fence.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Right.

112 MS. WAGNER: The vinyl fence actually should --

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But that's in the

back of the house, that shouldn't be an issue. MS. WAGNER: No, not in the back of the

house. Let me see if I can annotate this. This fence along here?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That fence should be

fence -- MS. WAGNER: This is the building line

here. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Got it. MS. WAGNER: That's where the fence

should stop and that's where, I think, it was shown when they originally put the pool in; it was shown. I don't know if it was ever constructed there.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Now I remember this.

Didn't they have this sort of funny shaped rectangle down there, which they continued to fence in going all the way to the garage?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But it pops out. It

pops to the south. The bottom of the street is south.

MEMBER DONATELLI: But what is the

retaining wall that she is talking about that would cause children to fall?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm assuming it's

down in the lower left-hand corner. MS. WAGNER: This and then along here it

says 6-foot wood retaining wall. I think in the front there, there may be a drop, if I remember the pictures.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes, there is. MS. WAGNER: I think there is. Like,

113 this is on a hill a little bit. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, but if the

fence was where it's supposed to be in the rear of the house coming straight down, then the kids in the pool would be contained by that fence. Then that other side of the yard, if it was being used, it was being used outside of the fencing.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: She could also then

have a 4-foot fence that lines up at the front of the house all the way to that south property line.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: With the front of

the house, correct. And that little piece that's sticking out in the front is a front yard, which is not supposed to be fenced. So, the 6-foot fence has to be along the back where it says wood deck in the middle straight down, that has to be where the 6-foot fence ends. And if she wants a 4-foot fence to the front of the house, she can, from the front of the building of the house going straight down again.

MS. WAGNER: Yes, she could put a fence

across the front. She could not put it out. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Not to the street.

Now I remember the house. Okay. MS. WAGNER: You know, I think, there

are some separation issues going on. The separation issues having a fence --

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, she wants to

have a yard for her kids to play around and have a grassy area and also have a swimming pool. And the problem is that if you bring that fence straight down, she has minimal grass because it's mostly a brick patio with a pool and there is no place for her kids to run around and play or his kids to run around and play.

MEMBER DONATELLI: One other thing just

to remind everyone is I'm continuing through the transcript, she talks about having communicated with a prior owner as to a septic tank and that they believe that the septic tank was in the area where the fence should have

114 been.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Correct. MS. WAGNER: Yes. MEMBER DONATELLI: And she is saying

that on page 45. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, but that

could be simply resolved by putting a gate over where the cesspool clean out is. Then you open the gate to clean out the cesspool, whenever you have to clean out the cesspool.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That cesspool has to

be 3 feet below the ground. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But she is saying

that you can't do a clean-out if the fence is over it, but if that's the case, you put a gate there and whenever you need to open it, you can open it. You should not be cleaning out your cesspool every year, anyway. If you do, you have a problem and you need to replace it. So, it's not a big deal, that's not an excuse for putting a fence.

MS. WAGNER: She was asked to provide

the location of the cesspool because let's just say that there was a problem and it was right smack in the middle of that line, then maybe the Board would allow her to go a couple feet forward or a couple of feet back.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: In this community,

there are plenty of cesspools that are underneath the driveway.

MS. WAGNER: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because you have no

place else to put it because you've had to move your old one and you ran out of space so you put it underneath your driveway. And if you have a problem, you dig up your driveway and you fix your cesspool.

MS. WAGNER: So, she was given the

option of getting that information. She got to

115 the point where I spoke to her and she said she thinks she knows where it is, but she didn't want to have it located by a surveyor and it was just going to be too much work.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: My feeling is she

puts the fence in the back and she can put planting where else she would like to in that front area.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Agreed. MEMBER DONATELLI: I would agree. MS. WAGNER: Basically, then are you

looking to deny it? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Denial. MS. WAGNER: So, this is in Manhasset.

Jay, do you want to? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I will move to deny. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We have a motion.

Do we have a second? MEMBER DONATELLI: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Seconded by

Mr. Donatelli. Please poll the Board. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina.

116 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. Application is denied.

MS. WAGNER: 5-to-0 deny. Do you want

to go to Appeal #20874 - Wenjing Wu? This is the one we were talking about where there was a question about the gross floor area compared to the addition that they were putting on.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Let me just look at

it for a minute. I'm going to look at the aerial and if I recognize the house, I will remember it.

MS. WAGNER: I will read it into the

record. I will read it in if you are ready to make a decision. Is everyone ready to make a decision or do you think you need more time?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: This is the house

where the neighbor, he was represented by the neighbor.

MS. WAGNER: Yes, the neighbor was an

architect. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And the woman behind

it was complaining because she didn't like the fact that they built the house next to this house.

MS. WAGNER: Well, because this was

part of a subdivision. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes, I remember it

now. Yes, I had asked the last time to hold off because I wanted to go back and look at it.

MS. WAGNER: So, they, basically, want

to construct a portico and then they also want an addition on the side.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right where the

entrance is, they want to put in a walk-out bay window type. And in the front of the house, they want to put a portico next to the garage.

MS. WAGNER: And they had revised the

plans at one point because of the Board's concerns and I submitted those to the Board.

117 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: If you are ready to vote on

it, then I will read it into the record. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes.

MS. WAGNER: Appeal #20874 - Wenjing

Wu, variances 70-39.B and 70-40.A to construct a portico which is too close to the front lot line and to construct an enclosed porch which is too large; N/side 121 Park Ave., 190’ E/of Onderdonk St., Manhasset, Sec. 3, Blk. 76, Lot 299, R-B District.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Chairman, do you

want to call it? MS. WAGNER: You have to move it, Jay. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: All right. I will

move it. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We have a motion.

Do we have a second? MEMBER LEVINE: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Seconded by

Mr. Levine. Please poll the Board. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye.

118 MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. Application

is approved. MS. WAGNER: Anything we need to say

about it, Deborah? MS. ALGIOS: No, I'm okay with it. We

had, what, the one neighbor who had opposed? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The neighbor

behind, yes, she had originally opposed to the subdivision. So, now she was opposed to any other changes they wanted to make. So, everything that she brought up was the fact that it should have never been subdivided.

MS. WAGNER: I think there were a couple

of neighbors that were concerned about it. MS. ALGIOS: Maybe we want to do some

type of findings on this one then. MS. WAGNER: So, Jay would you like to

say why you distinguish this? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, the front

porch is consistent with many other houses in the community. It's not that it's out of the ordinary. And the extension that they are adding to the house, an existing covered porch there, which they, basically, want to enclose and add it to the kitchen.

MS. WAGNER: So, you don't think it's

substantial then? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I don't think it's

substantial. MS. WAGNER: And it's consistent with

the neighborhood? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Correct. MS. WAGNER: Deborah, is that good for

you? MS. ALGIOS: That's fine.

119 MS. WAGNER: So, that was a 5-to-0

grant. Appeal #20769, I had sent the Board the

third letter explaining the revisions to these plans for 86 Madison Avenue in New Hyde Park. So, basically, they had originally come in to propose an expansion exceeding gross floor area. He reduced the gross floor area; I'm speaking of the architect. He got rid of some variances by, I think, moving like an egress entrance from the side of the property. They changed a two-story portico into a one-story portico. So, the filed gross floor area was a lot less than what they originally had proposed. So, I guess, I don't know. David, is this your neighborhood? Who usually covers New Hyde Park?

MEMBER LEVINE: Whoever wants to. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You said exceeds the

gross floor area, but what is it up to now? MS. WAGNER: Let me look. Did you get

the latest letter I sent probably yesterday? MEMBER DONATELLI: Do you remember the

name of the architect?

MS. WAGNER: The architect is Kevin McCray, I believe. I know I scanned it in so maybe I can find the scan.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay. I found what

you sent us. MS. WAGNER: What is the date on that

letter, Dan? MEMBER DONATELLI: He sent it on June

3rd and you sent it to us on 6/25. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But there is a

letter dated July 2nd. MS. WAGNER: But there is a later one

than that. Because what happened was I looked at his gross floor area and calculations and

120 they didn't seem correct. So, I had a conversation with him, we went through them and he revised his letter based on the numbers that we came up with.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yesterday you sent

us? MS. WAGNER: Right, yesterday. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: That letter that you

sent us from yesterday is the one dated July 2nd.

MS. WAGNER: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. Fine. MS. WAGNER: And I believe those

numbers are the latest numbers. So, I think what happened was he was including the roof of a portico in his gross floor area calculations and I don't think a roof of a portico is something that would be included in gross floor area.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Not unless it's

enclosed on three sides. MS. WAGNER: Yes, that would be the

portico itself. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MS. WAGNER: A vestibule would be. So,

there was some tweaks in his numbers, but that letter that Jay is referring to is, I believe, the latest. Jay, could you actually just send that back to me because I'm looking for it and I can't find it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No problem. MS. WAGNER: Just send it back to me. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off

the record.)

121 MEMBER DONATELLI: Here he is saying that he reduced it to 2151 square feet.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Right. MEMBER DONATELLI: From 2417. MS. WAGNER: Thank you, Jay. So, he

had a walk-out bay window and an outside cellar stair, but those have been removed so he doesn't feel he needs the side yard set back. Because the Board had asked him for some revisions and one of the things they were unhappy with was the -- they, meaning you -- was the two-story portico.

MEMBER LEVINE: I don't see the purpose

of it. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. If it's

within the required front yard set back, the answer will be no.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, the FAR is now

2151, before it was 2417. So, isn't the FAR 2500 in a C?

MEMBER DONATELLI: No, it's 2000. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, it's still 151

square feet over, but, at least, that's a small number now.

MS. WAGNER: I don't know if you want to

read the transcript from that Hearing, which you can do because I sent that one to you when I was trying to send you the other one. That was the 9/4 Hearing.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: What it comes down

to is that now they need a 151 square foot variance.

MS. WAGNER: Right, but they also need

the front yard set back. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But the 1494 feet

front yard set back was unchanged and what is the normal set back for a C.

122 MS. WAGNER: Well, it says that the required is 25 feet. Originally, it was a front two-story addition with a proposed 1493 foot set back to the front property line because, I think, the addition and the portico needed a front yard set back.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, it's a

two-story portico that needs a front yard set back, we routinely disapprove it.

MS. WAGNER: It's not two-story

anymore, it's a one-story. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: He lowered that to

one. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: All right. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And the roof is

free-standing and sticks even further into the set back so it's not 1494. The vestibule is at 1494, but then there is an overhang in front of the vestibule so it's actually 1143 and it's really bringing it close. Look at item Number 2, that's what I was telling that guy today, that if he moved that kitchen and door to the front of the overhang, he couldn't get another one on top of it. This guy wants to do that. He wants to enclose the portico and then put an overhang. I don't know, I still think that's too close.

MEMBER DONATELLI: As I look at the

street on Google Earth, it appears that a lot of these houses are one and a half stories, many of them have, what looks like, proper set backs. This one and one other directly across the street really have minimal set backs, but everything else really does appear to have a better set back or more of a set back. So, it would be out of context, I would think.

123 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And he is adding a vestibule where there used to be a portico and now he wants to put a free-standing roof portico without columns in front of the vestibule, so it's really an 8-foot encroachment. 5 feet from the vestibule and a 3-foot plus of the overhang.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's correct. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I think that's a

little much and we told him that before. MS. WAGNER: Are you looking at the

latest plans, Jay? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm looking at the

letter. That's what he says in the letter he is doing. He reduced it from a two story to a one-story vestibule, but then he is putting up a 3 and a half foot overhang in front of the vestibule without columns, which you are, basically, going to have an eyelash hanging there with 3 and a half feet. That 1143 set back is really very close.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I would tend to

agree with you, Jay. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Even in a C. And

the fact that it's in the air, which it's even more visible than on the ground. I would say some of us are uncomfortable with it being an 1143 set back in front of the house.

MS. WAGNER: I'm sharing the revised

elevation. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And there if you

look at the side views right there, he is enclosing that and that was not enclosed before and then he is adding an island over it.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: If he has that on the

two sides, that's floor area. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No, it's hanging.

124 The vestibule is enclosed so that's floor area. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, the vestibule is

right up to the front of that, it's not set back recessed in within it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, the

vestibule is there. That's the one that he has it down to 12 feet 9 inches high. Then in front of that, he has a 3 and a half foot overhang.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Gravity defying all

of that. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, it's a

cantilever, he can build it. If that was 25 feet back, I wouldn't care.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No, I agree. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But at 11 feet from

the property line. I mean, you could almost touch it when you are walking by on the sidewalk.

MS. WAGNER: If it's just the roof of

that that you are concerned about, then -- MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Again, he is saying

14.94, yes, the vestibule. We will call it 15. We will give him 15 feet. The vestibule is at 15 feet, but now he has this 3 and a half foot overhang on the vestibule that is bringing it to 11 and a half feet. So, he is really encroaching on the front of the house. Now he wants the benefit of having a vestibule, but he doesn't want to give up the cover of the roof.

MS. WAGNER: Right. You are right, but

the only thing that I'm concerned with is depending on how you go, the house itself also requires a variance.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The building

itself. MS. WAGNER: The building itself. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Not even the

vestibule.

125 MS. WAGNER: So, I think we need to

distinguish whether you have an issue with the house not meeting the set back, as well. Because if it's denied, then I don't think they are able to come back. They wouldn't be able to revise the plans and come back. I mean, I guess, they could. I mean, maybe if it was significantly different, they could.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The building

department would have to judge. You already told them that they have an opportunity to come back with something else and we can tell them that they have an opportunity to come back again if we want to, but maybe it's being silly.

MS. WAGNER: I think there is only so

many times. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm with you. MS. WAGNER: Because the problem is

that if you are still not happy. MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, the lot is

undersized as it is, if I recall correctly. So, they would have to come back for any change that they wanted to make. As I look at the house, it strikes me that this is massive. It's huge compared -- the proposed house is much larger than the existing house, number one. But the existing house is also larger than many of the other houses on the street. So, I think we are just compounding the fact that this existing house would stick out.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, the existing

house may not be larger, but it's certainly more forward than the other houses.

MEMBER DONATELLI: It is, but it's also

very, very large. If you take a look, and admittedly it's from behind, but if you take a look from the side elevation. Take a look at the house from the side, you will see it's a very large house and, I think, it's larger than a lot of the other houses on the street.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes.

126 MS. WAGNER: So, your feeling is that it

would have an impact. You think that it would impact the neighborhood somehow?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It would stand out. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It certainly would

stand out, that's to the least you could say about it.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Will we allow

every other neighbor to build a house that big in that area, no.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. They would

be on top of each other. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes, the house

is too big for the neighborhood. As David likes to say, maybe it's time for him to move.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MEMBER LEVINE: It's not even the house.

It's the number of bedrooms equals the number of cars, that's the bigger problem.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. MEMBER LEVINE: It's just that every

bedroom seems to bring a car. So, if you have five bedrooms, where do you put them all?

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yup. MS. WAGNER: All right. Well, are you

ready to vote on it? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I am. MS. ALGIOS: I just want to ask a question.

I wasn't around for the original Hearing, obviously. At that Hearing, the Board had asked them to revise the plans and they did. Are you saying that in the new plans, they didn't address the concerns that were raised at the Hearing?

127 MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, I think they did. They did make an effort to downsize the gross floor area variance and also the portico. So, I think they did, but I think what the Board is saying is not to the extent that the Board is satisfied.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Not sufficiently. MS. ALGIOS: Okay. So, the Board is

saying that the revised plans are still substantial. The variance they are requesting would still be substantial and the effect on the neighborhood would be negative because of the size of the home, is that correct?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I think so. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: As you compare it to

the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. MS. ALGIOS: Okay. MEMBER DONATELLI: So, are we in

agreement? So, I make the motion that we deny the application.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We have a motion. Do

we have a second? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Second. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Seconded by

Mr. Hernandez. Please poll the Board. MS. WAGNER: Member Donatelli. MEMBER DONATELLI: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Hernandez. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Member Levine. MEMBER LEVINE: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Vice Chairman Francis.

128 VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Aye. MS. WAGNER: Chairman Mammina. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Aye. The

application is denied. MS. WAGNER: With those small findings. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, small

findings. MS. WAGNER: Deborah, did we take a vote

on Alice Bruno? MS. ALGIOS: Yes. MS. WAGNER: I don't know why I don't

have it recorded. MS. ALGIOS: Jay had moved it, Dan

seconded it, and it was a 5-to-0 vote to deny. MS. WAGNER: Next is 4 B's Realty. Can

we take a short break before we go into the next one? We will take a couple minutes.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this

time.) MS. WAGNER: This is the one over on

Harbor Park Drive. There were two Appeals for determination about whether or not the fence was a use variance and whether or not site plan approval was required. And I sent the Board the transcript for this, as well, but I would like to maybe bring that up. Because, you know, this one will set a little bit of precedent, I think, because the fact that the building department said that because fences are not even discussed in the Industrial Park regulations, the fact that they want to put a fence up is a use variance. And the Applicants are saying, no, it's not a use variance, it's an area variance.

MEMBER LEVINE: How could a fence be a

use variance? How is a fence a use? MS. WAGNER: So, I think that's what

129 they are saying. John Farrell did this application.

MEMBER LEVINE: I don't see how a fence

would be a use, unless they are climbing fences. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes, I didn't

understand this. MEMBER LEVINE: It's too late in the

day. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I didn't see how

that's not a precedent decision. MS. WAGNER: I guess, if somebody else

comes in there and wants to put up a fence, then whatever the Board is saying in this situation would apply there.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I think the larger

question is, does it have to go back to the Town Board.

MS. WAGNER: The site plan approval, yes. MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. MS. WAGNER: The site plan approval took

a look at it and their opinion is that, yes, the changes from the last approval were substantial enough to warrant some type of site plan review, whether it's a full site plan review or whether it's minor modifications, but it should go back before them.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Again, if I recall

correctly, this was the one where the uphill neighbor had issues with the noise and the dust on the weekends and the leaf blowing.

MEMBER LEVINE: But they got together and

they sorted all of that out. MEMBER DONATELLI: They sorted all of that

out.

130 MEMBER LEVINE: Yes, they got together and they held hands, they lit candles, it's all good.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I thought they did. MS. WAGNER: Yes, they did. MEMBER LEVINE: They sent a letter saying

they did. MS. WAGNER: Yes. That was all sent to

the Board that they came to an agreement. So, the Board would have to -- we can make that a condition of the approval. Steve, are you there?

MR. PERROTTA: I'm here. MS. WAGNER: Do you think you could dig up

that letter that we sent, the John Farrell letter. It was a letter from John Farrell agreeing to the neighbor.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I remember that. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MEMBER DONATELLI: That's okay, I don't

need to see it. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: We all read it. We saw

that letter. MS. WAGNER: Yes, but I want it to be

specific that if it's going to be a condition, that it's pursuant to the concern that was raised. So, I just want to clarify what that is. I think it had something to do with not using the leaf-blowers on the weekend.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You can just

incorporate that or incorporate the letter. I don't know if that's going too far. I don't remember what it says. Conditions of sorts, if that's what they agreed to, if it memorializes it.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, I don't think

that I had an issue with the substantive issues that were presented. I think from a procedural point of view, I think we have to go back to the

131 Town Board or site plan approval. And the Town Board would only get that if the BZA were to grant the application, right?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, you go to the BZA

first. MR. PERROTTA: I think to get this, they

might have to need your approval, but if they want to make a change that's code-compliant, I don't think they need to go to you to get site plan review.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Right, that's my

understanding, but if we grant the variance, then they would.

MS. WAGNER: What did you say, Steve? MR. PERROTTA: In this proposal, they have

to get an approval from the Board of Appeals before they go get a site plan. But, if the Board wasn't to approve them and they wanted to change something on the property, as long as it's code-compliant, they can do that, and then go to the Town Board as long as it's code-compliant.

MS. WAGNER: Yes, if it's code-compliant,

then they don't need to come to us. MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, from my notes,

the issues that were presented were the number of spaces. They were looking for a variance on the number of spaces and on the size of the spaces. That some of the parking area would be used for the storage of the dumpster and, I think, they were also looking for the storage of a container.

MS. WAGNER: Well, let me read it into the

record and then maybe it will be clearer. MEMBER DONATELLI: Okay.

MS. WAGNER: Appeal #20840 – 4 B’s Realty

132 Harbor Park Drive, appeal for determination, or in the alternative, variance 70-150, and special exception to 70-219(A)(1)(e) and variances 70-103(A), 70-103(B), 70-103(O), 70-103(G), 70-150, 70-161(B), 70-212(A), 70-219(G), and 70-229.A to maintain site alterations having insufficient off-street parking, parking spaces with insufficient dimension, access aisles of insufficient width, dumpsters interfering with parking spaces and access aisles, exterior storage and fencing (not a permitted use), parking with a required front yard setback, exterior storage, failure to comply with an Town Board-approved site plan, and failure to comply with a prior BZA decision; and an appeal for determination 70-219(A)(1)(e) that site plan review is not required; W/side #12 Harbor Park Dr., 1421.51’ W/of Roslyn West Shore Rd., Port Washington, Sec.6, Blk. 58, Lots 103 & 104, PIP District.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, for me, the easy

one is the request for determination, I think, should be denied because the fact that I think it does have to go before the town for the site plan approval.

MS. WAGNER: I think there were two

Appeals for determination, correct, Steve? One was the one that Dan is referring to and the other one is whether or not a use variance was required.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: For the fence. MS. WAGNER: For the fence. Steve, do you

confirm that? Are you there?

MR. PERROTTA: I got a call on the desk line that was forwarded to my cell phone, so I have to take this.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. So, I think that's

kind of the question, is whether the fences should be considered for a use variance or an area variance.

MEMBER LEVINE: Certainly not a use

variance. MS. WAGNER: I'm going to bring up the

133 disapproval letter so we can see exactly what was disapproved and why. 103(A) is off-street parking it required 376 spaces and they were providing 367.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No big deal. You

can't park on the street. They actively ticket like crazy there.

MEMBER LEVINE: There is no parking

problem here. MS. WAGNER: There is the dimensional

requirements. MEMBER LEVINE: That's their problem, the

dimensional requirements. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right. Who cares. MEMBER LEVINE: I think we are the only

town that cares about that now. Does Hempstead care about that now?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No. Hempstead will

even let you go to 8 and a half. MEMBER LEVINE: I don't like those spaces,

personally, but it's not my business. MS. WAGNER: So, the size of the spaces.

The size of the access aisle was a little short of 20 feet. The dumpster enclosure is interfering with the required parking and access aisles. There is fencing. The dumpster enclosure and the storage container.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, they are picking up

the fact that they have enclosed some places like the dumpster with a chain-link fence. I would imagine that would be beneficial rather than having someone have access to the dumpster.

MS. WAGNER: Well, apparently, you are not

allowed to have dumpsters in the Industrial Park. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Then that's what

should be there, the fact that you should not have a dumpster.

134 MS. WAGNER: Well, it further says, the dumpster enclosure and the storage container. Well, there is a storage container there, which is not a dumpster. I'm not sure what that is.

MEMBER DONATELLI: The storage container,

I think, we heard testimony saying that that was lawn-cutting equipment.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, that was the

maintenance equipment. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Is the dumpster

supposed to be inside the building? MS. WAGNER: I guess, I don't know where

else you put the dumpster. MR. PERROTTA: I'm sorry about that. I

have my desk line being forwarded to my cell phone. So, I was on the phone with an Applicant. Did you answer the question you had for me?

MS. WAGNER: I was saying that I think this

one involved two Appeals for determination. One was whether site plan approval was required and the other one was whether this fencing -- because if you look at the disapproval, which I'm sharing on the screen now, 70-150, permitted uses. Then it says provided, approximately, 95 linear feet of 8-foot high chain-link fencing, 866 linear feet of 4-foot high chain-link fencing. Then it talks about the dumpster enclosure, which is considered exterior storage and an 8 by 40 storage container, which is considered exterior storage. I believe that what John Farrell was questioning was whether the fencing should require a use variance. That it's saying here it's not a permitted use.

MR. PERROTTA: I think everyone I have

spoken to outside of a building department says that a fence is not a use.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's not a use. MEMBER LEVINE: It's not. MS. WAGNER: I understand that. What I'm

saying is that was included in his Appeal for

135 Determination, is that correct? Was he appealing the determination that it should not be a use. I believe that was included.

MR. PERROTTA: Yes, I hope so. Yes, I

believe it was, as well. This was a long, long time ago.

MS. WAGNER: I know. We say that in the

beginning: "Appeal for Determination, or in the

alternative, variance 70-150". And I believe that Appeal was whether or

not the fence should be considered a permitted use.

MR. PERROTTA: His application says it

specifically. At Number 5 of the notice, it seems to indicate that installation of the proposed fencing, dumpster enclosure, and storage container at the premises would all require use variances from the Board. We respectfully disagree with the building department's interpretation and that these items should -- well, he made a mistake. He said these items should not be treated as area variances, but he wants them treated as area variances. And I agree with him on all three counts.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The only rationale

that I could see from the building department's perspective is that if you are not permitted to have dumpsters and you want to have a dumpster. I mean, it's a stretch, but that's the only thing that I can think of.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Did Farrell say

that he wanted to put the dumpster inside the building? Because there is no room in the building.

MS. WAGNER: I'm going to bring that up on

the screen. I'm going to share that, as well. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: If the dumpster is

being used as a general place to dump material by multiple tenants, then it wouldn't be appropriate to have it in the building. Because then all the

136 tenants cannot be able to get to it where it's located, so it needs to be outside

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: Here is the transcript. I'm

trying to look for the conversation. Well, here, Mr. Farrell is talking about it. He says:

"I don't know how a dumpster enclosure is

not permitted in a commercial district. There is nothing in the code that precludes you from having a dumpster."

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WAGNER: But from my conversations

with the building department, they say it's not allowed in the Industrial Park.

(Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: What do you decide? Are we

proceeding with a decision on this? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Personally, I think we

should approve it, unless there is strong feelings not to.

MEMBER LEVINE: I say we approve it. MS. WAGNER: What about the Appeal for

Determination regarding site plan approval? MEMBER LEVINE: Can we do that? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Is that our business,

exactly. MS. WAGNER: Planning department says

they feel site plan approval should be required. You had asked their opinion and that's what they opined.

MEMBER LEVINE: So, we will give them the

137 grant and then they have to go back to the Town board for the rest.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. If the building

department requires them to have a site plan, who are we to say they don't need it.

MS. ALGIOS: It doesn't seem that that

would be in your purview to do. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Exactly. MS. WAGNER: Well, I think it can be in the

purview, but it may not be in the best interest so it's probably not something that we would want to.

MS. ALGIOS: Have you ever done that

before? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Never. MS. WAGNER: Not since I've been here. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: No. We never, never,

never. I'm positive. MEMBER DONATELLI: I mean, there are some

issues that I think I would really like to consider. For example, the storage of the container. I do kind of see that as problematic for the lawn-maintenance equipment or whatever that they store there. So, I don't know that I would be in favor of granting everything and then sending it to the town for site plan approval. But, on the whole, I don't think that a lot of these things are unreasonable, but I would like to go through them one by one.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. Do you want to do that

now or do you need more time to do that? MEMBER DONATELLI: I actually think I can

do it now. Again, speaking just for myself, my major concern is with the container and with the -- I'm sorry, it's late -- the dumpster because I don't see any other dumpsters, nor do I see any other containers when I go through the Industrial Park. So, I think that those are two very substantial variances, but as to the others, I'm

138 okay with them. I don't see a reason why they couldn't store their lawn-maintenance equipment inside the premises and not take away those parking spots.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, I think I tend to

agree with you there. I mean, how much space does lawn equipment take up? I mean, landscapers carry it in the back of a small trailer, smaller than a horse trailer.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Right. You know, the

fact -- MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I think you could argue

that all they are really taking up, really, is a few parking spaces so it's not really important. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's true, too. MEMBER DONATELLI: But if I recall

correctly on the site plan, it showed that it was kind of blocking off one of the turnarounds or something, one of the lanes that would then kind of dead-end rather than allow for a turnaround. This wasn't just a container that took one spot.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: The only thing that I

would say to a comment like that is that these guys clearly are putting these things where it does the least amount of harm to move things around. They are not going to put it in a place where one of their own trucks is not going to be able to make a turn. So, maybe to me as a layman, I look at it and say it doesn't look like it's in the right place, but logically for them, it makes sense to put it in the best possible place. It's not a stranger driving through there, it's their own trucks, it's their own buses or whatever they keep there.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I'm talking

specifically about the container for the lawn maintenance or whatever they store in that one container. It was the size, if I recall correctly, of an 18-wheel kind of a rig, it was that kind of size.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It could be if it's for

139 a yard container. It could begin to approach that side.

MEMBER DONATELLI: And it didn't just take

one spot. If I recall, it took several spots. MS. ALGIOS: I'm looking at the transcript

now and it looks like page 57 they discuss that. MEMBER DONATELLI: Is that readily

available?

MS. WAGNER: Can you guys see this. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Yes. MS. WAGNER: I'm going to pull up the site

plan. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And I'm looking at the

aerial that goes with that. MS. WAGNER: Let me make sure I get the

right plan.

MS. ALGIOS: So, Mr. Farrell had said: "I believe they are referring to a trailer

container that is located along that south property line. It kind of sticks out it's halfway between the dumpster. I believe that's what they are referring to. It's not in a parking space but the other point is accurate."

"MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, it's blocking the

access to what is in front of it." "MR. FARRELL: Yes. It's a little wider

than a typical parking space." CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, you would be losing

two parking spaces. MS. ALGIOS: Dan, you did ask why, if there

was any reason, why the shipping container was in that spot.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I think I saw it. Go

down, Ginny. MS. WAGNER: Yes. I'm trying to zoom-in.

140 I think it's right here. MS. ALGIOS: And Mr. Farrell says he would

be lying if he said he did. He didn't know. MS. WAGNER: Did what? MS. ALGIOS: If he knew why it was in that

location. MS. WAGNER: Is that it right there? MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No, I don't think so.

I think it was up in the middle. MS. WAGNER: Okay. Hold on. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I'm looking at the

aerial to see it and it appears to be something like a container where you pointed out, Ginny. There also seems to be a lot of like old beat up trucks, almost like being used for landscaping type stuff in the aerial, exactly where you had picked out on the bottom.

MS. WAGNER: But there also is an area

that's enclosed MEMBER. DONATELLI: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: By the shrubbery, yes.

That L-shape there is enclosed by greenery and that appears to be old buses or trucks or something.

MS. WAGNER: It's trucks used for, I

think, it's Cintas is the name. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay. MS. WAGNER: I think that's the business. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Because I think that's

one of the businesses here. So, logically, they have to leave their trucks somewhere where they are not on the road.

141 MS. WAGNER: Apparently, this is what I got from the building permit, that that outdoor storage of vehicles was already approved because it was apart of this application.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: So, that's okay,

that's not a problem. MS. WAGNER: According to the building

department, I asked them about it and it wasn't sited here, that outdoor. But are you sure it's not this here, Jay?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: No. If you go to the

right a little more. Just go a little more to the right.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. Hold on. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I think it's that

longer thing that you see there. MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. That's where

it's showing on Google Earth. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It looks like it's that

thing there. MEMBER DONATELLI: Right, but it seems to

stretch not only throughout the parking space and, perhaps, two parking spots, but it goes into the access aisle. It goes through to the aisles.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It cuts through the

drive-aisle and it touches the other line in the aerial that I'm looking at.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: So, essentially, it

splits it into two. It would almost be better if they used two different containers.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Again, next to it in

those parking spaces, there appears to be some trucks that look almost like dump trucks because they have empty backs. Now, if you remember, what they also commented was that the other place that they could have included parking, which they elected not to, is the front of the building.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Right, because you are

142 not permitted to park in the front of the building in the Industrial Park even though we have given variances for that.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right. MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, are we prepared

to allow containers in other parcels of the Industrial Park?

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, I guess, to me,

then the sailing question is is there language that says you are not permitted to have dumpsters? I don't believe we know the answer to that. Because then if we tell them yes, then we are telling everybody yes.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I'm talking about the

storage container, not the dumpster. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think no. I think

that's a bad precedent to set. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Right, because you are

basically expanding the footprint. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Of the building. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Of the building. You

begin to add storage outside of the building. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I think no to

both, the storage container and the dumpster. It's not individual tenants going out, you know, at 5:00 dumping stuff in the dumpster. I just can't imagine that that's what is going on. There has to be a maintenance crew in this building that takes care of interior maintenance and they are probably the ones that keep using the dumpster. And if that's true, why can't they let the dumpster be inside the building.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Most of the times

dumpsters are outside only to be able to lift the dumpster, you have to have clear height for the garbage truck to get in and lift it over the top.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I get that, but I

don't know.

143 MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You need a loading dock that you need to have.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: You can do it in a

loading dock. If it's prohibited, then, no, I agree. We are not going to open the door and say they can start doing that. Storage containers, it's probably silent regarding storage containers. You know, if we had Bruce Migatz present, he would say, well, when the ordinary is silent, the tie goes to the runner, but that's not the case here. But, if we say that they are not permitted, then I think, basically, we established that you can't have storage containers.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: We had another

application and I don't remember where it was, but there was a storage container issue and we told them to get rid of it.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, that was in a

masonry yard in New Cassel and they had a bunch of them, I am almost certain. If I remember correctly, because they were Asian and I thought that everyone who sold stone was Italian.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Not anymore. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I mean, was the

rationale the same as it would be here? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Well, they were using

it for overflow from their warehouse. That was what they were doing, they were storing stone in it.

MS. WAGNER: Deborah, do you want to wait?

I mean, we continued this, right? So, this has still been continued. Do you want to get an opinion from Glenn or someone about the dumpster?

MS. ALGIOS: I was just looking now. MS. WAGNER: I was told by the building

department they do not allow dumpsters in the Industrial Park.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes.

144 CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: But I don't want Glenn to make it up, okay. If he uses the word "dumpster" as being prohibited, then dumpsters are prohibited. I would be interested in what his interpretation is if it doesn't say the word "dumpster". But I almost can't see, especially if this was an Industrial Park, where manufacturing was supposed to be happening. How do you not have dumpsters?

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: You have to have

dumpsters. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: You have to have

them somewhere. MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, I think you

probably need dumpsters anywhere. But, again, if the Town Board approves the site plan initially and then somebody comes to us, it seems to me like our first priority should be trying to enforce the site plan that was approved by the Town Board. Now, if we were to allow dumpsters willy-nilly, then what would be to stop somebody from putting a dumpster right on the curb so that a garbage hauler could immediately come without even having to back up into a driveway and get it.

So, as I go through the Industrial Park,

I don't see dumpsters, which leads me to believe that for the most part, they are inside the buildings and that the garbage typically is handled in a very neat and orderly fashion. And if we start saying that dumpsters are allowed without any regulations as to where the dumpsters are, then that creates a whole other problem.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Sure. But, I think

that the fact that they are coming here asking for the dumpster, you know, and where it's located, then that could separate it, you know, from the willy-nilly.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Well, we can certainly

ask the building department for its opinion as to that, I think that that's reasonable.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, and I think it's

important. We should get that.

145 MEMBER DONATELLI: Yes. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: I just don't see the

dumpster anywhere on this site. I'm looking at the aerial and I found that container, whatever that container is, but that's definitely not a dumpster because it's closed. A dumpster would be, by definition, open.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: It's enough to drive by

there and to drive through a few other properties in the Industrial Park and just see.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: But I don't see it in

the aerial and what are the odds it wouldn't be there when Google took this picture.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes. MS. ALGIOS: I guess, we have some

questions that you guys raised so maybe we put this one off until August 12th. During that time, I will address some of these issues.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And I'm close enough to

this thing. I'm going to drive by it again and I am going to look specifically for the dumpster. I'm close enough to it.

MS. WAGNER: I was just trying to look

through the PIP District regulations and I don't see anything specific, but, you know, I'm just perusing through so there may be something here about this.

MEMBER DONATELLI: Can we go back? I'm

sorry, I think we have been on this one for a long time, but can we go back to the site plan for just a moment?

MS. WAGNER: Sure. MEMBER DONATELLI: If you can zoom-in just

a little bit. I remember seeing something with the location of the dumpster. It's very hard for me to make out because the resolution is so small.

MS. WAGNER: I know. If I had the actual

plan, it would be easier.

146 MS. ALGIOS: I'm just looking at 152, which is accessory uses in this area.

"152(B), uses clearly accessory and

incidental to the principal uses permitted in the Planned Industrial Park District, except that accessory buildings or outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall not be permitted."

MS. WAGNER: Right. We pretty much don't

allow outdoor storage in a lot of districts, but that doesn't usually cover dumpsters. I think that's kind of a unique thing here.

MEMBER DONATELLI: I think as the Chairman

said, let's try and get the building department to weigh in on this and I will also try and drive by because I'm pretty sure that I saw it on one of the plans that was submitted, but I can't find it now.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: And Dan, as I said, I

am looking at the aerial and I don't see a dumpster. I see that other storage area, the storage unit.

MEMBER DONATELLI: But there is a lot of

possibilities there. It's hard. It's a large site and it's hard to spot it.

MEMBER HERNANDEZ: It is very large. MEMBER DONATELLI: And Google Earth would

show it only on the street, not in the parking lot, but I don't see any other dumpsters anywhere in the Industrial Park.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The reason that it

could be is that the Industrial Park has, basically, become an office park. I guess, unfortunately, it was unsuccessful people are really not going to come and do manufacturing in Port Washington.

MS. ALGIOS: The only place dumpsters are

actually referenced in the code is in the construction site maintenance area. They refer to dumpster containers.

MS. WAGNER: In where, Deborah?

147 MS. ALGIOS: 2056, construction site

maintenances. MS. WAGNER: I mean, in the beginning of

permitted uses, it just says a building may be erected, altered or used and a lot or premises may be used for any of the purposes set forth in this article for no other. All the following operations and activities shall be carried on within fully enclosed structures and there should be no outdoor storage of material or equipment, except when specifically authorized. Then further in the code it does allow under special uses, it allows for, you know, certain uses and one of them is accessory outdoor storage of new vehicles, machinery or supplies in areas specifically designed and screened so that no such vehicles, machinery or supplies are visible and no part of the accessory storage area shall be located closer than 120 feet to the front property line. That what may be allowed them the storage of the trucks, but, you know, it doesn't address the dumpster issue. So, we are going to get input from the building department.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, good idea. MS. WAGNER: Then we can move on. So,

what else? I think everything pretty much from our old, old calendar has been addressed. The only remaining Appeals we have to discuss -- well, Deborah, I didn't know if you wanted to talk about 20885, 4 Shore Cliff Place in Great Neck.

MS. ALGIOS: I mean, I'm open to

discussing that. I mean, that one may take some time. If the Board Members want to do that, that's fine with me.

MEMBER LEVINE: Why don't we schedule a

work session sometime in the next two weeks after the 24th, maybe before the next meeting. Would anybody be opposed to that as it's after 4:00?

MS. WAGNER: Discussing these three? MEMBER LEVINE: Yes, after the 24th when

the time for the submission is over on today's

148 calendar. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: That's fine with me. MS. WAGNER: Does anybody have a

preference? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Quite honestly from my

perspective, the 24th is more than a month away. I don't know how much we have left here if we wanted to just get together for a two-hour limit on going through some reserved calendar at some point. I mean, that could be constructive and easy.

MEMBER LEVINE: Towards the end of this

month, I meant. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Yes, a couple of hours. MS. WAGNER: If we did a work session, too,

we don't have to do it on a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: We can do it whenever

we want, exactly. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Is a work session

not considered a meeting for purposes of noticing and all of that?

MS. WAGNER: No, we have to notice a work

session and we can make decisions at a work session, but we also have to have it transcribed, but the noticing requirements are not -- we don't have to give as much advanced notice. So, it's a little bit easier in terms of when we have to notice. I mean, if we do a work session, it probably should be after the 24th so that we could actually make decisions about some of the Appeals that were heard today.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Okay. MS. WAGNER: What do you think about that,

Deborah? MS. ALGIOS: I would agree with that.

149 MS. WAGNER: Because if we are going to do

it, we might as well make it count. MS. ALGIOS: I mean, what we have left here

are probably items that are going to require some time.

MS. WAGNER: But the thing is if we are

going to do them, some of them require findings and things like that. We do have to get some input from the Board so we can decide those.

MS. ALGIOS: Yes, the three that are on

here are all substantial. So, we can definitely tackle these three and then if everybody still has some gas in their engine, we will address some of the other items.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: What about the

Lupivich (phonetic) Roslyn case?

MS. WAGNER: I have to talk to Deborah about that because we do have to decide that eventually. Maybe that's something that could go on there because that's something that has to be brought to conclusion, as well.

VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: I'm just sick of

looking at it. MEMBER DONATELLI: I'm okay with a work

session. I will be away from August 1st through August 10th or so.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. MEMBER LEVINE: No WiFi on the boat? MEMBER DONATELLI: That's why I'm on

the boat. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. ALGIOS: July 29th? MS. WAGNER: What day of the week is that?

150 MS. ALGIOS: That's a Wednesday. MEMBER DONATELLI: That's okay with me. MS. WAGNER: I would prefer to do it on a

Monday. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Monday won't work for

me. MS. WAGNER: Les, don't you have classes

on Wednesdays? VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: Yes, but I don't

go back to school until the 27th of August. MEMBER LEVINE: The 27th I can't do

because of my physical. (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the

record.) MS. WAGNER: Well, I have to see if we can

do the noticing in time also and also we need a stenographer.

MEMBER LEVINE: Any other day of that week

works for me except for Monday. MEMBER HERNANDEZ: Same thing for me, any

day, but Monday. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I'm okay on the 29th. MEMBER DONATELLI: I'm free any day that

week. VICE CHAIRMAN FRANCIS: So am I. MS. WAGNER: Can you do the 28th? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: The 28th I have a 10:00

conference call. MEMBER LEVINE: Like I said, I can do any

day, but Monday. CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I mean, we can do it

151 after that. MS. WAGNER: How long will that conference

call be? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Probably an hour. MS. WAGNER: We will kick it around and try

to schedule something and I will let everybody know.

CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: Wednesday is fine. I

have some webinars on Thursday, but I can skip those.

MS. WAGNER: Okay. MS. ALGIOS: Are we done? CHAIRMAN MAMMINA: I think so. MS. WAGNER: Thank you, guys. MEMBER DONATELLI: Stay well.

TIME NOTED: 5:15 P.M.

152 C E R T I F I C A T E I, AMY BOGUSZEWSKI, a shorthand reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: That the witness(es) whose testimony is hereinbefore set forth was duly sworn by me, and the foregoing transcript is a true record of the testimony given by such witness(es). I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. AMY BOGUSZEWSKI

153 * E R R A T A * CASE NAME: DATE OF DEPOSITION: NAME OF WITNESS: PAGE LINE ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:--------------------------- REASON:--------------------------- ---- ---- CHANGE:---------------------------- -------------------- WITNESS SIGNATURE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS___DAY OF ________, 20__ ------------------------ NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES_______