HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/19/1986J
APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS .IR.
SERGE DOYEN. JR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board of Appeals
HAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
T_HURSD~AY, JUNE 19, 1'986
REGULAR MEETING
A Regular_Meeting of.the.Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held on Thursday, .June 19~ 1'986, at 7:30 o'clock p..~. at
the Southold Town Hall.., Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: Gerard P~ Goehringer, Chairman; Charles
Grigon.~s, Jr.~ Robert J. Doug.lass (ar~. 8:15), Serge Doyen and
Joseph H. Sawicki, Also present were: Victor Lessard~
Building-Department Administrator, Linda Kowalski, Clerk to
the Z.BoA~, 'and approximately 55 persons at the-beginning of
the meeting.
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded
with the first hearing on the agenda, as follq~_s:
7:30 p.m~ Appeal No. 3489 - Public Hearing in the Matter
q.f_PAUL LEARY co~cerniq.g property of FRANK AND MARY
BROPHY. Following the hearing, resolution was made
by~h~irman Goehr.inger, seconded by ~embers Grigonis
and Sawicki, and duly carried, to recess the hearing
until July. 17, 1986 [see verbatim transcript of hearing
prepared under separate cover by Barbara Strang and
filed s~multaneously herewith at the Town Clerk's Office
for reference].
8:03 p.m. Appeal No. 3499 - DANIEL AND LISA JEROME Public
Hearing was held. Following the hearing, res~ution
was made by?Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member
Sawicki, and duly carried, to conclude the hearing
pending deliberations~ [See verbatim transcript
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Public Hearings, continued~-)
June 19, 1986 Regular Meeting
8:10 p.m. Appeal Not 3502 -*Public Hea~ing was held and
conclude~ in the Matte~ of'GREGORY'FOLLARI (pending
deliberations)~
8:22 p.m. Appeal No. 3508 - *Public.Hea~1n§ was held and
concluded in the Matter of DAVID MOORE]{pending deliberations).
8:37 p.m~ Appeal No. 3515 - *Public Hearing was held and
concluded in the Matter of_HOWARD REINHART/CHAR~ES'HYDELL
(pending deliberations)~
8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3516 - *Public.Hearing was held and
conclOded ~n.the Matter of'ALBERT~'J. BO.DENSTEIN (pending
deli.~e~a~ions).
8:47 p~m. Appeal No. 3424 - *Public. Hearing was held and
concluded in the Matter o~'EL_EANOR LEONARD (pe~ing
deliberations).
9:D8 p.m~ Appeal No. 3518 ~ ~Public Hearing was held and
conclude4_ iQ. the Matter O~.MA.RJORIE'D. PETRAS (pending
deliberations), --
9:20 p~mo Appeal No. 3505 - *Public Hearing was held and
concluded in the Matter of'RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER,
(pendTng deliberations)'
9:38 p.m. "~pp~al No.-3513-~Public Hearing was held in
the Matter of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. Following testimony,
motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr.
Grigonis, an~ duly carried:, to reces~ the hearing until
July 17, 1986~ [~ee verbatim transcript prepared under
separ_~te cover, simultaneously filed with the Town
Clerk's Office for reference.] ....
10:25 p~m. Appeal No. 3510 -*Public Hearing was held in
the Matter of R. ICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER~ Following testi-
mony, motion was made by Mr. Goehrin~er, seconded by
Mr. Grigonis, and duly carried, to recess the hearing
until July 17~ 1986. [See verbatim "transcript prepared
under separate..cover, si. multaneously filed with the
ToWn Clerk's Office for re.ference~]..
10:58 p.m. Appeals No.-3524 ~nd 3525 Public Hearings*were
held simultaneously in the Matters of 'he PORT OF EGYPT
ENTERPRISES. Following the hearings, motion was made
by Mr, Goehrin§er,' seconded by Mr~.Gri~onis, and' duly
carried, to co~cl'ude the hearings (?ebbing deliberations).
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Public Hearings, continued:)
-3- June 19, 1986 Regular Meeting
11:20 p.m. Appeal No~ 3512 -*Public. Hearing was held and
concluded in the Matter o[~A~UEL BAIL._(pending~ delibera-
tions)~
[*See verbatim transcript of hearings prepared under separate cover
and filed with the Town Clerk's Office f~r reference.]
APPROVAL OF 'MINUTES.
Mr. Goehringer~ it was-
On motion ~by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
RESOLVED~ to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings
of the Southold Town Board of Appeals:
May l~ 1986 Regular Meeting,
May 22,..1986 R_eg.~ular Meeti~n§,
May 28, '1986 Special Meeting,
April 16, 1986 Regular Meeting~
Vote of the Board: Ayes: M~ssrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolu~_tion was duly a_dopted.
DATE OF NEXT'REGULAR MEETING: On motion by Mr. Grigonis,
seconded by Mr~..Goeh~j~ger~_and.duly.car~ed~ ~6solu,tion was
adopted s~hedulipg THURSDAY, JU'LY'I~'1986 as the date of the
next Regular Meeting of the Bo~rd of Appeals, to be held at the
Southotd Town Hall,.Assembly Room~ Mai~.RQ~d, Southold, New York
commen~ing at 7:30 o'clock ~p.m~
DATE OF NEXT SPECIAL MEETING: Inasmuch as there are numerous
items on tonight's ~enda and bei._og as late as it is, Chairman'
Goehringer made a motion scheduling~OUNE 25, 1'986 as the date of
a Special Meeting of this boar~ 'to ~r6ns-act tho--~e matters pending
(f~om.~the 6/1'9/86 a§enda)~ Motion was seconded by Mr. Grigonis,
and duly carried~
Southold Town Board of Appeals -4-
June 19, 1986 Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION PENDING: Appeal No. 3520. THOMAS SHALVEY.
The Secretary was instructed to send a letter to t~ appl~s
agent reques.ting Planning Board referral to the Z.B.A. and
approval from the Suffolk County H~alth_ Department (Article VI,
Realty Development approval) prior to advertising this matter
for a public hearing. The board agreed that if the requested
information was received prior to the August ~66~in~!~'advertising
deadline (on or about July 30th), this matter could be held for a
public hearing.
'NEW A'PPLICATION PENDING: Appeal No. 3523 ~'ST.E~VE KALAIJIAN.
The Secret~.was'instructed to ~nd a letter to the a~.pli~can.~'s
agent ~dicating that this matter would be help ~emporg~ily in
abeyance pending receipt of referral of commen~s from the Planning
Board as to their jurisdiction on the l'ayout~ If the n~que.~ted
information is received.before the next advertising deadline,
the Board authorized advertisement of this matter for a public
hearing for our next Regular Meeting (July 17th).
NEW"APPLICATIO~ PENDING: Appeal No. 3521 ANDREW GODDALE,
ESQ, and'WILLIAM GOODALE~ The Se~et~ary was instructed to send a
letter to the applicant's agent indicating that pending receipt
of referral comments from the Planning Board as to their juris-
dction and concerns, this matter would be temporarily hell.lin
abeyance. If the information is received before the next adver-
tising deadline, the Secretary was authorized to advertise same
for a public hearing for our next Regular Meeting (July 17th).
CODE COMMITTEE'MEETING: The board members were advised
of the June 27, 1986 Code Committee Meeting at 5:00 p.m. at the
Southold Town Hall.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-5-
June 19, 1986 Regular Meeting
BED AND BREAKFAST REVIEW-PROPOSED LOCAL LAW. The Chairman
indica~d-~t~at'he attended 'the June ~~ Board hearing
on this proposed local law and mentigqed the following concerns
of the ~BA:
o
Advertising Sign ~s not listed as a permitted item in
any of the ~'A" zones, except for real estate sign,
agricultural sign or nameplate, home_.occupation_ ID sign,
or such other signs by Special Exception (i.e., off-
premises directipnal sig~s),
Minimum Lot Size Recommendation of 20~000 sq~ ft.
Exclusion of Major Subdivisions ~ost of which- have
covenants and restrictions prohibiting ~uch use).
Limitation to one Special Exception ~sid'ential use
(either Accessory Apartment or B & B/tOurist home use,
not both)~
Fire Code "B'~2 Regulation" concerning occupancy by more
than four ~erson% (two exits)~
At this point ~n time, ~ot%on was made 'by Member Sawicki,
seconded by ~airman Goehringer, and duly carried, to adjourn
and to reconvene at the Special Meeting _to be held June 25, 1986
at 7:00 p~m~
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Ap~.r~ov~e~d .~ Ju ly'..31, 1
Gerard P. Qoehringer, Chairman
Respectfully submitted~
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
.~Sout~o!d Town Board of Appe__als
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE $OUTHOLD TOWN C~K
T~n Clerk, Tov~ o{ Sou~hold
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting
June 19, 1986
7:30 p.m.
~3489 - In the Matter of PAUL LEARY. Recessed from 5/1/86
MR. REUSS: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. You have
before you the same vQtume of material I placed before you in
the past. I do have to say some more things to you. I will say
this as quickly as I can. At our last appearance here, it seemed
that Mr. Pachman was objecting to your jurisdiction with reference
to the matters we placed before you. The Southold Town Code,
Section 100.121, sets forth your powers and duties. It extends
beyond variances and licenses and special exceptions (Reading
Subsection 8).
You have before you your decision and an appeal #3437, which you
rendered on February 6th 1986 and I point out to you that in Section
8 of that paragraph, ~8, you listed things, but not by way of
completely covering the grounds, and I will restrict it to the
maximum 20% lot coverage and by allowing this recision that you
did allow, you did not give permission, but as a matter of fact
you made it plain that the relief requested but if there was any
coverage of the land that was more than 20%, the Brophy's would
have to return to you. You also samd that the relief requested was
not substantial being in relation to the zoning requirements, since
the dwelling's frontyard setback would be established at 14.5 feet.
In a moment, I am going to attempt to show you that not only is
there more than 20% land coverage, but that the setback is less
than 14.5 feet.
As a first matter, I want to place in front of you, certified by
Judith Terry, your town clerk, is a copy of the flood insurance
rate map, panel 94-120, covering the areas involved here and what
I will ask you to note. By the way, the original is certified
and there are uncertified copies of thas. Mr Pachman has taken
the position that the property is not in Zone A or in any of
the Zone "A"'s in the area. The property is indicated on this
map by the black box and I did not place that black box there.
That was placed there by Mr.. Pachman and was submitted by Mr.
Pachman as an exhibit in a concurrent action in the Supreme Court.
The black box indicates that part of the property is in Zone A.
I have no way of telling you as to how much of it or give you
any square foot measurements, but all is not in Zone B. Part of
it is in Zone A and consequently, subject to the regulations of
properties which are in the flood Area A.
I also want to place in front of you, a documen5 which is dated
January 9, 1986, and this constitutes a finding, I am sorry...
by your Board of Appeals, in connection with the last bout which
was before you on a recision of the variance, to the affect that
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 2.
PAUL LEARY HEARING -. C~?~ntinued
MR. REUSS - continued: there was a non-significant determination
environmentally (SEQRA) and you describe that action as a request
on the part of the Brophy's to rescind the prior additional vari-
ance in order to reduce the lot coverage to less than 20% for the
future proposal of a bedroom addition. So you were not considering
that proposal.. It was to be a future proposal.
Further on, you said that the relief requested was not directly
related to new construction and that is why you gave your approval.
The Brophy's have made their application for that relief in terms
of the recision of t'he variance by an application which was dated
November 26, 1985, a~copy of which is attached to this and under
Paragraph ~8, in answer to the question"will the project have
major visual effect on the character of the community or scenic
vistas or views known to be important to the communityT"they said
"no", and under ~15 "...is there a public controversy ~egarding
the project?", they said no. The point I mean to bring to your
attention specifically in that document is to say that this docu-
ment was not sUbmitted in connection with the application as far as
I know. If I am mistaken in that regard, its submission 'to the
extent that it says there would be no interference with tlne vistas
and there is no public controversy regarding the project, is ab-
solutely incorrect. The controversy is here and it is with you.
And there is a feeling to the affect the vistas are affected.
Now, a document if I may. This is new to me. I did not have it
the last time, although apparently it was in existence. It would
seem that on March 11, 1986, now you may recall that the Brophy's
have their permit, to demolish and their permit to make an ad-
dition to alter not to demolish, and I came here complaining of
that the last time. It seems rather concurrently or close to the
announcement of opposition, the Brophy's by their agent, son~<
Peter Brophy, appeared at the Town Hall, and submitted this
document, which is an application for a building permit and saying
approval from others before permit is issued. Annexed to
PlanningBoard are the letters ZBA. Now in the filing of this,
the Brophy's recognized the necessity for asubmission of their
permit application to yourselves and yet they never applied to you
for any permission for any variance for any intervention, for any
relief from the order of 1972. I bring this to your attention,
long after they began the work, submitted an application for a
permit. They admitted over the signature of their agent that they
required a permit from the ZBA, and that is you. I advise you
to search your files and see whether or not they ever sought that
permit, which they said that they had to have over the signature
of Peter Brophy. On the same day, in spite of the fact that they
said that they needed a permit from the ZBA; in spite of the fact
that this controversy was twirling; in spite of the fact that the
demolitbn permit had been issued for partial demolition.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 3.
PAUL LEARY HEARING - Continued
MR. REUSS - Continued: The addition permit had been issued
and on the same day that they applied for it. Without getting
ZBA approval, they said they needed, they were issued a document
by the building inspector, which is denominated as a development
permit for a new development. And this, on the basis of the
plans that were filed for demolition and an addition to a home.
This was issued in spite of the fact that it had not been placed
before you, in response to an application which states that a
permit from the ZBA is required. In 1972 said that no improve-
ment could be ~made without approval of the Board of Appeals
by the prOviskns of the ordinance relating to lot coverage.
I got into trouble the last time when I did not use the lot
coverage words. I want to include them now, because I want you
to know that you have received from Mr. Pachman, a survey pre-
pared by Roderick Van Tuyl and he submitted this to you by mail,
since our last hearing and in support of his application.
Note that this is originally a survey prepared in 1978, so that
the house, the main house, is as it was in 1978. It was amended
August 11, 1980; April 14, 19.86 and May 21, 1986. It was amended
to show the additions to the main house and to show also the
areas in relationship to the lot. And it shows the house at 1136
ft, which were the original dimensions when built back in 1978
and that was what was on the original plan. And then it shows the
addition of 192 ft. and then it shows the deck which is in the front,
facing Second Street at 80 ft. and comes up with a total of 1408
feet for' 19.5% lot coverage. Well, I did not think it was not
enough, because having visited the property and having seen the
whole house come down, and having seen myself, the foundation being
added to, I have the concept in my mind that the house that went
up was larger in the main house. You will recall that it came
down to the foundation and there were places where the floorboards
themselves had to be replaced or the new floorboards put in. We
gave you~pictures to indicate that. I asked Mr. Leary if he would
no~ go out and obtain for me a further survey for me, with reference
to the property as it exists. I present that to you. This is
a survey made by Sealand Surveyors PC by a licensed land surveyor,
Mr. Raymond W. Donack, with signature and seal. Mr. Donack has
looked at the dimensions of the house as it now stands, as built,
because when I was last here, I was willing to think that the new
house was put neatly into the footprint of the old. But when I
put the two surveys side by side, I said, it does not fit indeed.
These are inches, to be sure, 40'-3" on the one side and 40' al-
together on the prior survey. In the rear, the house dimensions
are different. The house has grown. If this is a footprint, it
is a swollen footprint of the sort
ZB~
6/19/86
Page 4..
PAUL LEAR~ ~EARING - Continued
MR. REUSS - Continued. The same shoe will not fit it, because
as a matter of fact, the prior survey, the one that was submitted
to you by mail for the Brophy's, shows the way things were, plus
the additions. The survey that you now have in front of you,
shows the measurements of the place as it exists now. Now, if
you were to take, and these are the calculations according to
the measurements, made on the spot today, with reference to the
situation, and by the way, at the back, in the southwest corner
of the house, which is brick border on top of concrete block
foundation and the word "dirt". This is a constantly changing
situation. I was there today and have pictures also. That is
not dirt any longer. That is now cement and concrete and is
denominated as "a patio" on the Van Tuyl survey. The Sealand
survey have the measurements as of today. It shows a house of
1357 sq. ft., not the 1136 sq. ft. shown on the Van Tuyl survey
because as a matter of fact, this is not the same house. And those
inches or that foot, change in measurement, show that the house
itself, the main portion of it is now 1357 sq. ft.
They show that the overhang and that has been counted in the
Van Tuyl survey, too, where it is called a deck in the southeast
corner of the house in the front, we have it as 79 sq. ft. Van
Tuyl shows it as 80, so we are giving him a square foot. In the
rear, what's fnd., meaning foundation, at the time this was made
it was a foundatzon with dirt in it and now it contains cement,
and now it is a true patio; and now it is totally attached[ to the
house at 145 sq. ft and if you don't include the right of way,
I think you should, but don't and if you don't want to include
the reserve driveway, and I think that you should, but don't,
the building itself, and that is just the house and the overhang,
which is the front deck, together with the patio in the rear, the
fnd. on this survey, total 1,581 sq. ft, which means~that the
Brophy's are occupying on the 7231 sq. ft. lot area, a total of
21.9% of land. They have placed themselves fully within your
jurisdiction. You told them in 1972 that if there were any
deviations with respect to lot coverage, they had to come back
to you. And they have not done it. They have not stuck to the
20%. They have patched together and old survey, the Van Tuyl one,
added on what they have done now, came up with 19.5.% and are
happy with it. They should be unhappy with the true facts, because
the true facts are that the new house is not built in a footprint
of the old and covers 21.5% of the lot. It ms illegal; it is
wrong; it is out of the question and it has to, under law, go.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 5.
PAUL LEARY HEARING - Continued
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Reuss, do you know the elevation of
the deck or the patio that you are referring to?
MR. REUSS: Did I give you an elevation? I cannot, but what I
can do is say that it is almost at ground level. I will pass
you a picture of it at an earlier stage of construction. That
shows the cement and the elevation as I saw it this evening.
Your code says in 100.31 that a building must meet area re-
quirements, but you define building at 100-13 of the code,
subdivision B, which says building. Building is any combination
of materials forming any construction, except for entirely under-
ground. So it is any combination of material. It is the brick
and the cement which form any construction and. surely that is a
construction by any definition and the term building shall include
the term structure, as well as the following, and then it goes on
to say that includes porches, outdoor bins and similar structures.
Call it porch; call it deck; call it patio, call it whatever you
will, the structure is covered in the rear. The structure is
covered in the front. The structure is covered in the center.
The house, the front porch deck; the rear patio are all one. They
are all building. They are all connected. They are all constructed
out of a conglomeration of materials; and it is too large and is
in violation of your laws and of your 1972 decision and it is in
violation, even, of Peter Brophy's admission, on his application
for a permit, to the effect that a permit to the ZBA was required
before that permit could have been issued.
That permit and all the permits issued here are improperly issued
and you have it as your duty under the circumstances, and I have
seen you do it with reference to your 8½' case that I read about
in the newspapers and I have followed your activities through
the years with reference to the kinds of things that you do and
I think that this is one tough duty that you have to do. You have
to say the building inspector was wrong; that the permits Should
not have been issued; that they are improperly issued; that their
issuance is in violation of the codes of the town of Southold;
and of the various other laws which we cited and gave to you in
the volume of papers. And you have to say Mr. Brophy you built
without a permit. Now, remove it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. Mr. Pachman.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 6.
PAUL LEARY HEARING - Continued
MR. PACHMAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just make a statement. This is not
any reflection upon the case in general. We really alloted some
10 or 15 minutes to wrap this up tonight and I certainly will give
you the same amount of time that Mr. Reuss has spent, or what-
ever time that you feel that you need up to 20 minutes or
so. After that, we are then going to recess this case again and
we will deal with it at the next meeting, because we have the entire
public here for other cases and some of them have things that they
have to do also.
MR. PACHMAN: No matter what I say, you are going to recess this
case? Okay, then I would ~efer to come back at~the recessed time
and make my application at that time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, is there anything that you would
like to say at this time?
MR. PACHMAN: No.
MR. REUSS: Mr. Chairman, one more point for the record, so that
Mr. Pachman... I would bring it up the next time, so I might as
well give him the chance to mull it over. With reference to the
plan that we submitted to you, the Sea]and plan, you will note that
the setback from the front of the house is indicated at13.5 and
14.5 on Van Tuyls. So, we have a difference also in violation of
your code requirements.
MR. PACHMAN: I guess the only thing I would like to say at this
time that I am glad to see that Mr. Reuss has determined that the
only right he has to come before this Board is if we exceeded the
20% lot coverage and I am glad that he has conceded this. We
will address this as the time comes.
MR. REUSS: I reserve all the other points raised the last time
I was here, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration also.
MR. PACHMAN: I waive nothing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pachman, can I ask you again, do you
have any objection to the Board walking on the property again?
MR. PACHMAN: I do object to their surveyor, but. I don't object
to you. I object to Mr. Leary having walked on the property.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I somehow was surprised tonight, gentlemen,
and members of the group involved here. I thought you were going
to tell me that there was an agreement struck between the two of
you anf unfortunately that is not the case.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 7.
PAUL LEkRY NEARING - Continued
MR. PACHMAN:
vacation.
I would like to know the-date.
I might be on
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Around the 17th of July. Probably the
17th, which is a Thursday. Why don't you let us know by mail
when you can make it, Mr. Reuss.
MR. PACHMAN: I can make it on the 17th.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I make a motion reqessing this hearing
until the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is the 17th,
barring any acts of God. Thank you gentlemen, very much.
ZBA
611 9186
Page 8
~3499 - At 8:03 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
DANIEL and LISA JEROME for a special exception for approval of
accessory apa~-~ existing dwelling, 45125 Main Road, Southold,
New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for
the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard?
Anyone for the Jerome application? Stand up so I can ask you
a few questions. The plans that you have given us primarily in-
volve the second floor of this house?
DANIEL JEROME:
Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware that if this application was so
granted that there are certain requirements that the Building In-
spector will inflict upon you, such as outside stairways, etc. for
emergency exits. Do you intend to use any internal access for this
second floor or will it be from the outside.
MR~ JEROME:
There is one existing staircase which we
will-use.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
approximately?
How large is the upstairs of the house,
MR. JEROME: I dont know it off the top of my head.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That;s no problem, just give us a call, so
that we have it for the record.
MR~ JEROME:
I thin. k the guy who did the survey did do it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have figures and window changes and dimensions,
so just give us a call with a rough idea. I do have it here, you
are right. First floor is 1, 229 sq. ft. and second floor is
771 sq. ft.
MR, JEROME~
That sounds right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For a total of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
Do you have anybody in mind who will be renting it. Will it be ?
MR. JEROME~ Yes, Mary Steltzer, she just had a heart attack
She is still ~ving there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
house?
You will be inhabitating the lower half of the
MR. JEROME:
has the tower half.
No, the upper half, not the lower half, she
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I notice that you have 3 parking spaces
in the rear of the dwelling. Is that enough to take care of the
vehicles?
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 9.
DANIEL and LISA ~EROM~ H.. ._~ ~ARING - Continued
MR. JEROME: Yes, it is a long driveway, about 4,000 sq. ft.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; What are you doing, are you buying the house
from her?
MR, JEROME:
I own the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You own the house, okay.
from you at this point?
She has been renting
MR. JEROME: Right. She lives rent-free downstairs and
I bought~ the house' off her because they don't have any money to pay
the rent, so they will live there for the rest of their lives.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
kitchen upstairs?
I see.
Now is there presently an existing
MR. JEROME:
Partially.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I thank you very much. I would like
to congratulate you to a certain degree because this is the first
application under the new law, so we will see how it progresses.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor
of this app"lication? Against the application? Questions from
Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion
closing the hearing reserving decision until later.
~3502 - At 8:10 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
GREGORY FOLLARI for a variance to construct a new dwelling with
insufficient setback from bluff. Northside Sound ~rive, G~eenpo~t.
Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard?
MR. POWELL: I am here to represent Mr. Follari. I have built numerous
houses along that same strip. Most of them have a setback toward
the Sound bluff of 60 to 70' Mr. Follari would like to propose
a dwelling there in compliance with the neighborhood, so that he
does not set back the required 100' that Southold Town Planning
Board wants and I think it would be beneficial to the entire
community if he set back in compliance with the general neighborhood.
The house to the east sets back 60'; west sets back about 75'.
He would like to set back between 60 and 75' so he does not obstruct
too much of the view to the easterly nor on his west.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing you have to understand, Mr.
Powell, is that we have to have a little more of a definitive figure
of how far back, within one to two feet.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page ~ 0
GREGROY FOLLARI HEARING - Continued
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, if your house is back 60' If the next
hosue is back 75', can he not set back 75', or some intermediate
distance in between?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely, if we so desire to grant you that.
But you have to give me an idea Of exactly within one or two feet
where you want to place the house. In other words, you can't say
60' to 75'. You ~have tell me if it is 65' or 67', etc.
You don't have to do that tonight, by the way, you can call us
and let us know.
(At this point, 8~15 p,m,, Member Douglass arrived.)
MR. POWELL: Currently, this piece of parcel is strewn with
brush; and you gentlemen must have been down ~ere, there is
quite a knoll up on the head of the property. The piece of property
to the west of him and the piece of property to the east, I have
built both of them. I have built those two pieces of property and
at. their elevation when the fellow in the middle, Mr. Follari,
should build so his terrain will he. the same as the rest of them.
It is hard right now for Mr. Follari to come out here. He is in
New Jersey, until he gets the lot cleared, so that he can get a
prospective as to where his ho~se might lie. If the property to
the east of him is 60', why can't he go 60'? Or if he chooses
to go back 70' or 75', why can't he not go back that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, to answer your question, I did not
propose ~is law. This law that they have established of being
100' is something that has become a very popular law, because
people have found out that without that type of variance, it vir-
tually places their property in jeopardy and they have been unable
to construct on it. We are about to make a decision on one of these
applications in a similar sense, and we have gathered all the infor-
mation and we would make a decision if this meeting did not go
lengthy tonight. But all I can say to you is that we have to take
all the information that we receive, particularly from areas of
personal view, setbacks which you have just given us and water/soil
conservation, which evaluates the bluff and draw a conclusion based
upon all that information collected in the file. So, it is not
really a clear cut situation until we look at the whole scene
and then draw a pattern and establish a setback. In this particular
case, I am happy to see that your house to the east is set back at
least 60'. I am happy to see that the house to the west is set back
70', which means that we don't have to encroach on a 50% variance,
which is basically half of the 100' that you plotted back. That is
all I can tell you at this particular point and I hope that answers
your questions. If it does not I apologize. All I can tell you is
that we will take these things into consideration, but you will
receive a decision
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 11 .
GREGORY FOLLARI HEARING - Con__ ~inued
MR. POWELL: I will not build any closer than 60'
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what you are saying, you will not
build any closer than 60.'?
MR. POWELL: My thought~ is for you gentlemen to give me the variance
to build between 60' and 65', so that when the lot is cleared, the
owner can designate where he wants his house, but definitely not
within 60'
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fair enough.
MR. POWELL: Now, where do I stand currently?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we will see who else would like to
speak concerning this hearing, all right? Is there anyone else
who would like to speak in behalf of this application? Against
the application? Questions from Board Members? I guess there is
no one else to speak, Mr. Powell, so we will close the hearing
and we cannot make a decision for a min~imum of 15 days and we
have 60 days to make it, so we will try to make it as quickly
as possible, but it probably won't be until the next meeting.
Thank you for coming in, sir. Hearing no further comment, I make
a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
~3508 - At 8:22 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
DAVID MOORE for a variance to construct a pool, deck and fence
with insufficient setback from Long Island Sound bluff, northside
Soundview Avenue, Southold. Chairman read legal, notice and appeal
application for the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard?
D. MOORE: I filed the appeal. One thing I would like to say for
the record is the fact that the geography of the area is very im-
portant to me personally. The last thing I would want to do is
undermine the bluff. What I tried to do is find a place that I
could build a pool that would still allow me to have a frontyard
for my children to play in, mine as well as my tenants, and also
an area that would not require me to cut down quite a few trees,
which have been in the area for, I would estimate, 30 or 40 years.
We decided, before we realized that we had to apply to this board,
was that we would have to build a pool above ground and, I think
that it is important for me to respond to a letter that was sent
by Mr.Conell to Mr. Stanley Pauser. He had stated that he thought
the bottom seemed to be bowing outward from the weight of the
saturated soil material. We had to have an engineer check the
bulkhead. The bulkhead does run all the way along the beach,
past my neighbor's house on either side, and he feels that the
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 12.
DAVID MOORE HEARING - Continued
DAVID MOORE - continued .... bluff is secure at this point. We are
also going to build, as you can see by the plans, a deck 20' from
the bluff and he has stated that it will be only 11', but it will
be 20'. We also intend to remove the cesspools, which you have
to do because that is where the pool is going to be, but we are
not going to dig there. We are actually going to fill the cesspools
in and move them to another area, so that we hope that this will
further reinforce the land and the bluff in that particular area.
We don't intend to take any cuts out of the land itself. The
deepest we would go is about 1' at the beginning of the house
and after about 4' we have to bring in fill. There is going to
be a complete retaining wall around the pool. It will be built
above ground leval. The pool does start at the end of the house
and, God forbid that there is a problem with erosion on the bluff,
my house would go before the pool. So, all things stated, we would
be in more danger to lose the house than we would the pool. My
neighbors do not have any problem with the pool. I would not build
the p0ol in any other place. I would not put it in the front yard,
because that would eliminate any property that is left for a volley
ball or softball game and my neighbors would also, if I was not able
to build the pool, my neighbors would not have the benefit of getting
invited over for a swim or if there was a fire, there would not be
any adequate water within the area to douse it quickly. So, I
request permission to build it as per the plans.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any particular reason, why you are
coming out so far with the deck?
DAVID MOORE: We tried to set it even with the porch. As you can
see, the porch comes out and if you draw a line parallel with the
house, it would complement how far the back porch sets. That is
the reason, esthetically.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Also, from a construction point of view,
we have just recently asked in some cases, the builder to come in,
to discuss the possibility of retainsng walls. In this particular
case it is the retaining walls on the west and south sides. My
question is what would happen with the expansion of the sand in
the wintertime toward the house? Is there a basement in the house?
DAVID MOORE: The basement is above ground. I do have my builder
for the pool here and it seems to be appropriate at this time,
if you have more specific questions that he could answer.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page I 3.
DAVID MOORE HEARING - Continued
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you could just use the mike for one
second. Just state your name.
NEIL FARRELL: I am with Southold Pools.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you think there will be any problem with
freezing in the wintertime that could damage the foundation of the
house?
NEIL FARRELL: No, but there is a section under the house on the
southwest corner. I am not sure if there is any piering under there
now because of the fact that it is above ground, it is not necessary,
naturally, it wouldn't hurt to check to see if the block walls are
filled with cement, but if not, it certainly would not hurt to brace
them with piers inside. We will have approximately 3' of fine
screen sand to build this retaining wall with. It is only critical
down at this south end. Up here ~are approximately one foot of
the shallow end into the grade of the terrain.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which side will the deep end be on?
NEIL FARRELL: At the south end of the pool.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much. What is the approximate
construction of the deck? Is it going to be CCA or cement or what?
NEIL FARRELL: I don't know if I am familiar with CCA...no, it is
all pressure treated from the ground up.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will it be sitting on cement or pilings?
NEIL FARRELL: 4 x 4 poles sitting on cement blocks, and the joists
are all indicated on the deck plan. The deck would stand separately
from the pool. We would not use the wall of the pool for any support.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This will approximately, and I know you said
this before, carry the same height as the house will. Will the
pool be higher than the first floor of the house?
NEIL FARRELL: It will be at the finish floor level of the house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Is there anything else concerning
the evaluation of the water/soil conservation that you would like
to say, Mr. Moore?
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 14.
DAVID MOORE HEARING - Continued
DAVID MOORE: No, other than the fact that I think we are making
provisions to deal with any issues that are to be raised.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any objections to putting any
piers on the west side of that foundation?
DAVID MOORE: Aside from the retaining wall that we are building here,
let me show you a plan of the pool. I have a bracing system.
Around the entire perimeter of the pool, I put seven yards of cement
to prevent any lateral movement. At each pier indicated here, I
would dig holes and set cement here, where the ~oot is free-standing.
There will be 10 holding the pool.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the outside, there<.will be a cement wall?
DAVID MOORE: Yes, approxima~y 212 x 18. The footing 12" wide.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mow high will that wall be?
DAVID MOORE: There is a 42" steel wall. I will overlook the con-
struction of the retaining wall because it is holding up my pool.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The retaining wall will run for 60' in dis-
tance? Do you have any objection to our requiring you to put in
piers in on that side?
DAVID MOORE: Whatever you require ms fine with me.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask is that and we don't need to
be sgphisticated in this area, because this is the area that the
Building Department has their forte in, and we are talking about
a fragile area here. In a similar case, we required cement block
pilings every 6 feet on that wall. In this particular case, we
are not holding up water, but we will consult the building depart-
ment and they may ask for it every 12 or 15'.
D~VID MOORE: If there is something that we see that will make
it more secnre, we will definitely put it in.
NEIL FARRELL: The c~itical end is right here.
CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: We a~e ~xtremely aware of what happens if
this pool penetrates, it goes in the neighbor's yard and then the
Town is open for liability and that is what we are trying to avoid.
I thank you very much gentlemen. The bulkhead is about four feet
from the sand? Is there anyone else in favor of this application?
Against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing
no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 15.
#3515 - At 8:37 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
HOWARD REINHART and CHARLES HYDELL for a variance ko use existing
building for'~oodworking sh~p and sales of wood items on non-
conforming business property presently zoned RA. 43305 Main Road,
Peconic. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for
the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard?
You are building these small utility buildings?
CHARLES HYDELL:
HOWARD REINHARt: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you be displaying them in any other
area but the rear of the building?
APPLICANTS: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are presently leasing this property?
MR. RE IN HART? Right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long is your lease?
~R. REINHART: One year.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you planning on any signs or anything?
Adverse to our zoning requirements?
MR. REINHART: No, I will put up whatever size I can. I have the sign
out there now because I can't put my truck out there, I have to do
something.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's see What develops. I thank you.
Anyone else in favor of this application? Against the application?
Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, where
do you intend to place all the other buildings? Are you going to stoz
them all around like you have now or designate a specific area
they will be stored?
MR. REINHART: We build them and then deliver them~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The ones that are for sale, are they going
to be placed where they are now 'or will they be stored ?
MR. REINHART:
them.
We build them right out in front and then we deliver
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you. Anyone else. Hearing no further
questions, I make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision
until later.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 16.
~516 - At 8:40 P.M. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN for a variance to construct addition with
insufficient setback from closest northerly frontyard. 6135
Indian Neck Road, Peconic. Chairman read legal notice and appeal
application for the record.
MR. BODENSTEIN:
MRS. BODENSTEIN:. Both of us are here tonight.
A double dose.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now, what are you actually adding on here?
APPLICANTS: We want to add on ~ These lines here are a temporary
fence where we had the dogs. We want to add, this is the cellar
entrance now. We want to come out here and over to this side.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is an area 14 feet extending out and 17
feet across, is that correct?
MRS BODENSTEIN: The house itself now is 27.5 feet from the ROW,
and then it would be 10'.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you own both houses? And the access to
the house on the creek is through this driveway and there is no
access through here?
MRS. BODENSTEIN: Well, it could be through the right of way.
We have it on our deed that it stops right in the middle of the
100 feet
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't know if you have a right of way
over that right of way.
MRS. BODENSTEIN: We do, it is in the deed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, at the very worst, you would have a right
of way within ten feet of your additbn ? Well, I thank you very
much for coming mn and explaining this to us. I was down last
night and in fact, I rode in as far as I could go and then I turned
in and pulled in your driveway, but I got a very good view of the
back of the house. Thank you very much. Anyone else in favor of
this application? Against the application? Questions from
Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing
the hearing reserving decision until later.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 17.
~3424 - At 8:49 pom. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
ELEANOR LEONARD for approval of two contiguous parcels, having
insufficient area, width and depth. ROW off east side Bay Home
Road, at end of Willow Point Road, Southold. Chairman read legal
notice and appeal application for the record.
MR. OLSEN: In this situation, the property owner took title to
two separate parcels in the same name, not realizing the affects of
zoning codes, etc. I have a series of exhibits that I would like
to submit to the Board as part of my presentation. Eleanor Leonard
took title to the house parcel under Liber 6445, Page 60 from
Elsie Perkinson, September 24, 196~. On April 1, 1971, she bought
the easterly parcel, which she thought was a valid building parcel
from a Grace Emphisner and the two parcels have always separate
tax bills and separate tax numbers and that deed was Liber 6910,
Page 222. I would like to submit copies of both of these for the
Board as exhibits. Mr. Leonard~has always received two separate
tax bills and I would like to submit a copy of the 1985 tax bills
for the house parcels ~6016 and the vacant parcel ~6017.
I have made a photo~y of the tax map and I have outlined the two
subject properties. The house is tax #39 and the vacant parcel is
#40. I think if you look at the map, you can see that the by
splitting the lots, you are not doing anything that will adversely
affect the character of the neighborhood. The parcel would be in
keeping with the size and shape of all the parcels in the neighborhood
To not grant the variance would create a severa.economic and practical
difficulty for Mrs. Leonard in that it would create an oversized
piece and the largest piece in the area. What I have done is make
a list of all the property owners from Lot ~3 to ~40, which is our
vacant parcel and you can see by reading the names that the only
parcel that I could find in looking at the tax records are owned
by the same person. I have also listed the lot size of each of
the pieces. You can see that the parcels are equal to the general
size and shape of the area.
The other thing I have done is listed the land assessment value
of all the parcels in that section on the tax map and the reason
that I did that is that the land assessment for the house piece
if $3,500, which is one of the higher in the area,but that is
because it is a bayfront parcel and Lot #40, which is the vacant
parcel to the east, the land assessment if $3,300 and Mrs. Leonard
has been paying taxes over $1,000 a year on the vacant parcel
and to deny the variance would create a financial hardship in that
the taxes would be much larger than the other parcels in the area
if the two pieces were combined as only one parcel. I would like
to submit this as Exhibit ~3.
ZBA
6./1 9/86
Page 1 8.
ELEANOR LE~~H_E~R~.~.__~
MR. OLSEN - continued: As Exhibit ~4, Mrs. Leonard is
under contract to sell both pieces and part of the contract is
contingent upon our getting the variance. An application was
made for the vacant parcel in SCHD ~86-SO-82 and on May 28, 1986,
the Health Department did approve this particular piece.
As I indicated in the application, there is public water available
to both pieces. The house is serviced by public water and public
water is available to the lot. I have a letter from the Village of
Greenport from James L. Monsell, Superintendent of Public Utilities,
on December 18, 1985 indicating that water from the Village of
Greenport would be available to the parcel of land and I would like
to submit a copy of this letter for your file.
I also have a letter dated February 13, 1986, from Roy Haje, who
is President of En-Consultants in Southampton indicating that the
proposed house location is outside the jurisdiction of the Board of
Trustees and I would like to submit this as Exhibit ~6.
We also have a. permit NYS DEC on the vacant parcel ~10-86-0171 and
I would like to submit that as Exhibit ~7.
A c/o was granted on the house parcel on February 2, 1965 and it
says the occupancy for wh~h a certificate is issued is a one family
dwelling and it refers to a building permit ~2277E and when I looked
up that file that was to put a little shed on the west side of the
property and therefore they went back and apPlied for a pre-existing
c/o on the entire house and on October 9, 1985, the building inspector
under ~Z13914, issued a c/o for non-conforming premises for the house
parcel. I would like to submit a copy of that as Exhibit ~8.
An application was made to Building Department last June for a
c/o on Lot ~40, which is the vacant parcel on June 12, 1985, the
building department issued a vacant land c/o #Z13517 and I 'would
like to submit a copy of my application and correspondence as
Exhibit ~9.
Relying on the fact that we though we had a valid building lot,
Mrs. Leonard put the house on the market on October 4, 1985,
there was a purchaser obtained through A. W. Albertson Realty
and I would like to submit a copy of memorandum of sale, dated
October 4, 1985 as Exhibit
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 19
MR. OLSEN - continued: ...The same day that the prospectiwe buyer
and Mrs. Leonard came to terms on October 4, 1985, I prepared
a contract of sale and I have a covering letter here to Albertson
Realty, with a copy to Rudolph A. Bruer, who represents the buyer
and a copy to Mrs. Leonard, forwarding the contracts on to 'the
broker. I submit that as Exhibit ~11.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
Mr. Olsen.
You are not leaving me any questions to ask,
MR. OLSEN: After the contract were out, we thought we had ourselves
a deal, a letter was issued by the Building Department on October 11,
1985, indicating in essence that they realized that the lots had
merged and that it was an error to ever issued the c/o on the vacant
parcel, thus necessitating our going through all this rig-a-maroll
to get the pieces separated. I would like to submit the letter as
Exhibit t2. It is a letter dated October 11, 1985 from Victor
Lessard. The last sentence of the letter, says that when the mis-
take was brought to light the parties involved were made aware before
any injury to the parties occurred. I take issue to this. I submit
that there has been an injury to Mrs. Leonard and we went on the
assumption that we could rely on the c/o and after the deal was
struck, we found that we had to go through the variance procedure
and I also have an application for Planning Board pending, if hope-
fully we get favorable action from th~ ZBA.
I would also like to submit as Exhibit #13 a letter from Richard
Winters, who is a licensed real estate appraiser. I have a letter
dated June 18, 1986 and I would like to read the letter into the
record ..... "(Letter from Richard Winters)".
Also attached to his letter is a schedule of comparable sales and
also his qualifications as an appraiser. I would like to submit
that as Exhibit ~13.
Hopefully, in looking at the tax map, common sense would prevail.
I think I demonstrated without question, the economic loss, if this
variance is not granted, both from Mr. Winter's appraisal and the
list of assessments; the land assessments that I submitted and if
you look at Section 100-121 of the Zoning Code, which I know you are
very familiar with, there is a list of criteria to follow in deciding
whether a variance should be granted. Not to belabor, but just to
push things along (Reading from Section 100-121)
ZBA
6/19/86
Pago 20.
MR. OLSEN: - continued - This is zoned residential and we are
just asking that the vacant lot be considered a good and valuable
building lot for construction of a house.
Mrs. Leonard just told me this evening before the hearing that there
was, years ago, a house on the vacant parcel, a small cottage, which
has since been taken down.
These lots were created long before zoning. The purpose of the Board
of Appeals is to give people in this situation relief, so long as it
is reasonable. I respectfully request your affirmative approval of
this action. The other thing is, that I would like to ask the Board
to grant a prompt approval, because I would like to get to the Planning
Board; Mrs. Leonard has her house packed up and is ready to move out
and we have been waiting since October, when all this came up and
we have to get the contract closed as quickly as possible. We are
asking your indulgence on that, too.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Olsen, very nice presentation.
Anyone else in favor of this application? Against the application?
Questions from Board Members? I think you answered all of my ques-
tions and I thank you very much, again. I make a motion closing the
hearing reserving decision until later.
Recessed from May 22, 1986
~3518 - At 9:08 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
MARJORIE D. PETRAS for approval of insufficient setback of proposed
additions from bulkhead along Corey Creek. 700 Koke Drive, Southold.
Chairman read legal notice and appeal application for the record.
WM~ MOORE: I am with Edson and Bruer. We were here on May 22
for a variance for 20% lot coverage, Which has been recalculated.
I think at that time, we went through the litany for that variance
and were adivsed that a variance would be required for the rear
yard that was not made known to us. I would ask that all the
exhibits that I submitted at the May 22 hearing be resubmitted here
tonight. I am here tonight to obtain a variance for 75' from the
wetlands. It zs an area variance. When you consider an area
variance, the first thing you might want to consider is how sub-
stantial the variance is. In this case, we have a 35' requirement,
but when you look at the piece of property in question, the existing
hosue house which has been there since approximately 1940 is now
27.6 feet we are not asking to build any closer than that, we are
just extending the line directly across from that. I would point
out that the property is bulkheaded.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 21 .
MR. MOORE - Continued: Back in t972 a proper permit was obtained
from the Town Trustees to erect these bulkheads which does run the
length of the property, I believe.
Also, on May 29, a week after our last appearance here, The Town
Trustees got together and had a meeting, at which time they
resolved that the permit requirement was waived and there would be
no adverse affect on the wetlands and the proposed pro]ect would
not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the people
of the Town. I don't have a copy of that.
The next thing you might want to consider in an area variance zs
the affect, if the variance is allowed, of increased population
density. There zs no impact in this area. We are taking a summer
cottage and making it' into a year-round house. These people are
about to retire and their mother will be joining them to live there,
so there will be an increase of one, which is not substantial.
The next thing we should consider is whether the proposed change
is detrimental to the neighborhood or a change in the character of
the neighborhood. At'the last hearing we presented photographs,
to show what was .happening in this area. There is similar re-
construction going on at this time. At the last hearing, I also
submitted a series of letters from people in the area indicating
their support for the proposed construction.
As I mentioned earlier, the 75' requirement imposed here would pre-
vent the proposed construction in any way, the property is only
deep. I can think of no other way, other than a variance from that
requirement to permit this construction to occur. I point out that
it is fully bulkheaded. The Trustees have waived off on it. I
feel that this is a just and fair application for a variance and
if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The last time we discussed the ROW, have you
given us evidence to' the fact that the ROW does extend into the
middle of the existing road now? Or that they do have title to the
existing ROW?
MR. MOORE: I believe at the last hearing, we submitted a copy of
the Petras' deed, which indicates ownership to the midpoint of the
road and a letter from Allen Greco, over at Abstract Company,
indicating that in his opinion that ownership was the midpoint of
the road. We had a survey from Young and Young, which only showed
a 30' right of way. We went back to Mr. Van Tuyl, Mr. Diefenbach
was kind enough to show us that Mr. Young did not use the proper
subdivision map.
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 22.
MARJORIE D. PETRAS ~EARING - Continued
MR. MOORE - continued: That additional 20' into the right of
way gives us the additional footage that we are speaking of.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you saying that the 1/2 of one percent
has nothing to do with the 75' setback is then correct?
MR. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the issue of the 75' at this particular
point, the 27.6, you are aware that if the Board were so to grant
this application, uniquely in this situation, there would be a
restriction on %he one side, which is the side that bears the 16'6"
that there be no further construction, movement or manipulation,
placing of storage buildings, etc. at that point. What did you say
you were going to do with the existing sto~age building that is on
the north?
MR. MOORE. we ask only that you allow us to keep it during the
course of construction, but that prior to issuance of c/o, we would
have that removed.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much, Mr. Moore. Anyone else
in favor of this application? Against the application? Questions
from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion
closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
#3505 - At 9:20 p.m. a Public Hearing was held in the matter of
RALPH and LUCILLE STOCKER for approval to locate new dwelling with
insufficient frontyard setback, 1080 Maple Lane, Greenport. Chairman
read legal notice and appeal application for the record.
GARRETT STRANG: Hopefully you are all familiar with the site.
As per the outcome of our prior appeal in which you granted us a
variance from the 75' requirement from the bulkhead, and allowed
us a 50' setback, it necessitated that we then move the house, as
outlined in the application, in an easterly direction. By doing so,
it makes two corners of.the house project into the required 35'
frontyard from Snug Harbor Road. The worst condition being 25'
and this is the relief that we are seeking. This is a corner piece of
property and has the requirements for two frontyards and the fact that
we need a 50' rearyard and it makes this lot a difficult one to set
a house on. On the tabulation on the side of the site plan, you
will take note that we are really not proposing an extraordinarily
large house for the site. We are looking at 1350 sq. ft. of resi-
dential area on the first level. Of course, there is an attached
garage to this. Taking into consideration the fact that the area ms
ZBA
6/19/86
Page 23.
RALPH and LUCILLE STOCKER HEARING - Continued
GARRETT STRANG continued: in. a flood plain, it will preclude us
from having a basement~ For the most part, in that t350
and that two car~.garage~ we have to fit areas of storage and mechanical
equipment and the like. We can't make this house much sma~l~z and
make i't livable. I think we have tried to address the concerns that
the Board had and in the same fashion attempt to be able to place a
house on the site~ that will be comparable in value and in keeping
with the area~ if there are any questions~ I will be happy to
answer them~
CHAIRMA~,,I GOEHRINGER: I have no basic objections to this plan. in
fact, 7 think it is a tmttze more workable than the other~ to be
honest with you. Where is the garage on 'this?
GARRETT S~RANG: The garage is supposed to be on the northeasterly
corner of that. leg of the projection~ There should be an indication
that there is a driveway coming in from Snug Harbor Road~
c .... If need be, and the.Board were not willing to
~HA~.R.MAN GOEHRINGER:
grant you the 25', is there any way of clipping that corner at all?
GARRETT STRANG: Wel!, at this point in time, the design of the house
has not exactly been worked out. There is a certain amount of flexi-
bility there~ but I would like the Board to bear in mind-the fact
that we are looking at ~ width of 45', which is relatively small
so if at all possibie, we would like to maintain the whole 45'
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 'Thank you very much. Anyone else in favor?
Against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing
no further questions,! make a motion closing the hearing reserving
decision until later.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara A. S't~~
Pp. 1-23
(This transcript was transcribed' from tapes recorded during
the meeting by Linda Kowalski.)
RECEiVED AND~, FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD ?OWN_ .
,:,.~,~m. of Southold
BOARD OF APPEALS
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ APPEAL NU. 3513
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1986
A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board of
Appeals at the Town Hal , Main Road, Southold, New York, at
9:38 o~clock p.m. on the 19th day of June, 1986 in the Matter
of the Application of Stephen Shilowitz, Appeal No. 3513.
Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge
Doyen; Charles Grigonis; Robert J. Douglass; and Joseph H.
Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board of
Appeals. Also present were: Stephen R. Angel, Esq., Attorney
for Mr~ Shilowitz, Victor Lessard, Building-Department-Adminis-
trator, Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk, and approximately 35 persons
in the audience.
Chairman Goehringer opened the hearing at 9:38 p.m. and
read the notice of this hearing as published in the Suffolk
Times and L.I. Traveler, and read the appeal application for
the record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map, site plan
indicating Units A through H, including a boathouse or work
shop, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area. Yhe drawing of the
site plan is dated July 1, 1982. Mr. Angel, would you like to
be heard?
STEPHEN ANGEL, ESQ.: Yes. My name is Stephen Angel, and
I represent the applicant, Stephen Shilowitz. Can you all
hear me? I prefer standing here rather than speaking into
the microphone. But I will yell into the microphone if you
have trouble hearing me.
CHAIRMAN: If we don't hear you, we'll just ask you to
Page 2 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
CHAIRMAN (continued):
bring a court reporter the next time~(jokingly).
MR. ANGEL: I do that only when I intimidate.
MR. ANGEL: As the application indicates, we're seeking a
variance from a newly adopted provision in your zoning code-
Section 100-119.2(B) which now has a townwide 75' setback in
building along, I guess, non-soundfront water. What we have
here is a project that was designed quite a few years ago to
locate nine units on a parcel of propertY located in both the
Town and the Village. You all have the site plan. This is
not the normal, usual case. We come to you at the tail end of
the application process. And I want to take a couple of minutes
to indicate the history, which Mr. Goehringer glossed over when
he read the application.
I say we're at 'the tail end of the application process
because this site plan=-the site plan that you see, that comes
by the way as close as 7.7 feet to_existing bu'lkheaded waterfront
has been approved by a myriad of agencies. You are one of the
only agencies on the East End of Long Island that hasn't had a
whack at this application as yete It started out in 1981, in
August of 1981, when Mr. Shilowitz entered into a contract to
purchase this property. That contract was specifically contin-
gent on getting all the necessary approvals to build the project
as shown on the site plan--the site plan that's before you~ In
fact, a drawing of that same plan was attached to the contract,
and if Mr. Shilowitz did not obtain the approvals to build in
accordance with that site plan, he didn't have to buy the property.
They gave him in the contract a long period of time to go out and
try to obtain all those approvals.
He started on his quest, and as you can see from the applica-
tion before you, he has site plan from the town-this Town's Planning
Board, and he got that in June of 1982~ This Town's Town Board
changed the zone from light-industrial, I believe --sOme industrial
use--to M--Light Multiple Residence, to accommodate this particular
site plan. He went to the D.E.C. The D.E.C. gave him a permit to
construct all nine condominium units in accordance with this
particular site plan. He went to the Army Corps of Engineers, and
they him approval to construct the condominiums in accordance again
with this particular site plan. The Village of Greenport changed
the zone from a residential use to WC Waterfront Commercial, which
Page 3 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. ANGEL (continued):
is a zone that allows waterfront condominiums. Very similar to
your M-Light Multiple Residence. Although there's an important
difference between the two zones that will come up later in my
presentation.
They changed the zone in August of 1982--no. Pardon me. They
changed the zone in February of 1982. This site plan was taken to
the Village of Greenport Planning Board just as it went before
your Town's Planning Board and resulted in a conditional use
approval in August of 1982. The Village of Greenport has granted
wetland permits for the property. They've granted a building
permit for the property, and in fact, some of the site construction,
noncondominium-unit construction--bulkhead and grading is being
done right now in conformance with the Village of Greenport.
The Southold Town Trustees also granted a wetland permit and
as recently as May 29th, waived the necessity for coming for
further wetland permits.
Now, you all have before you a copy of the site plan, but
what's not on that site plan is what would happen--the absurd
result that would happen if the 75' setback were imposed upon
this parcel at this late date in the application process--
Mr. Shilowitz who is sitting here, by the way--I should have
introduced him already, sitting next to Tom Samuels, and I met
in my office this afternoon, and Mr. Shilowitz sketched an
approximation of that 75' setback, and I'd like to introduce
the symmetrics. You will note that 75 feet would leave a
building envelope--and I am going to show it to you by hand--
between this side of the property. I don't see North/South.
Here it is. From the North Side of the property going back
a fairly small area. This is the 75-foot setback from this
particular place where the water meets the upland. You'll
see this Park over here. This is 75-foot setback from, I
guess, the northwesterly side; and these two lines reflect
75' setbacks from the southerly line of the property, depending
on where you measure. From this--the boat area here, is not
in effect right now. It has to be dredged. The existing
shoreline is water-ward of that, and these two 75' setback
lines reflect what either one of those circumstances would be.
Leaving a very small building envelope.
The dilemma created by this is even more absurd. You will
Page 4 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. ANGEL (continued):
see that small building envelope. And I guess somebody could say
that, "Well, with a small building envelope you could at least
build a house in there." But what's interesting about it is
that the zoning history, the fact that these two different muni-
cipalities wanted to approve this particular project., has lead
to a real paradox or dilemma. Because the two zoning ordinances
in. which the property was placed--M-Light Multiple Residence--
isn't that what it's called--Light Multiple Residence, in Southold,
permits all sorts of residential uses. I guess you can start--
it's a cumulative ordinance. You can start with a house and work
up to multiple residence. Is that correct? I believe that's the
case in your ordinance.
CHAIRMAN: It depends.
MR. ANGEL: And then in Greenport, however, the WC Waterfront
Commercial District, which allows waterfront condominiums, only
allows that--that is the only residential use, so if we couldn't
build this particular project--Greenport would say, "!Build a
commercial building there." Southold would say, "Build a residen-
tial building there," and we'd have to somehow squeeze that in
the middle of the line. It just doesn't work. And the problem
is created is part because all these boards have particularly
dovetailed the zoning to this particular project. Now, it just
so happened that in 1985 the Town Board adopted this general
75-foot limitation, we assume, inadvertently because we'd had
no indication that there's any dislike to the project, and we
now have to seek relief from you people. Because of the 75'
limitation. It just does not work.
Now, the result of this obviously is a very substantial
economic loss, and we've prepared an affidavit that Mr. Shilo-
witz has signed setting forth in dollars and cents what his
economic loss would be. He estimates, in fact, marginal profit
at best if it's built with the full nine units--if there's any
loss of units the project becomes unprofitable. And in addi-
tion, there's been a very substantial investment in consultants,
architects--Mr. Shilowitz happens to be an architect~-he did
seek outside assistance'in preparing the plans. Engineers,
consulting engineers, environmental consultants and attorneys
who have been involved in all of these applications since 1981
to the present. Obviously, if there had to be some change to
the plans that have been so carefully reviewed by so many boards,
Page 5 June 19, 1986
Transcript of Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shjlowttz
MR. ANGEL (continued):
that expense and the time involved would have to be duplicated.
Now here's the original affidavit. And I've prepared a
whole bunch of copies which I would like to give the board
members. (Mr. Angel distributed copies to each board member.)
Now, as I said, Mr. Shilowitz is here tonight in case you
have any questions. I'd like to at this point introduce Bill
Lieblein, one of the Trustees of the Village of Greenport, who
has consented to come here tonight and indicate Greenport's
position in connection with this project. I think it might be
beneficial to your board to know how the Village of Greenport
feels about it, and I'd like to introduce Mr. Lieblein.
BILL LIEBLEIN: Bill Lieblein, Trustee, Village of Greenport.
As Steve has pointed' out, the Village has worked and dovetailed
with all the boards in Southold in order to get Mr. Shilowitz's
project on line. And the officials in the Village of Greenport
continue to support this project. Something that wasn't brought
out as I believe that the density could have been much higher
than what he has planned. He's kept his density much lower than
some of the other projects, with the idea of a high quality facility.
So Members of the Viii--speaking for the Village officials, we would
urge you to give this a favorable response so that Mr. Shilowitz
can continue his project and put it on line.
CHAIRMAN: I want to thank you personally for coming here
tonight, Mr. Lieblein. It was very nice of you to do so--I just
want to ask you one quick question, if you don't mind?
MR. ANGEL: To Mr. Lieblein? Sure.
MR. LIEBLEIN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN: Has the Village of Greenport dealt specifically
with a complex of this nature as close to the water as--we're
having trouble dealing with a 20-foot setback to be perfectly
honest with you~ And as little as a five-foot setback in one
corner. Ok? What in effect I'm asking you, and it's a fishing
type of a question--I know that there are condos going up two
streets away--actually almost seen from this site. Are they as
little as 20 feet from the water?
Page 6 June 19, 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. LIEBLEIN: The site at the end of Fifth Street I believe
is set back quite a bit. more than this, but it also fronts on the
open bay. The site at the end of my street, Central Avenue, in
Greenport, which is Sterling Cove Condominiums, on the waterfront,
I believe--on the open bay, probably from the bulkhead itself, my
guess is about 30 or 40 feet; but I believe on the basin side, it's
quite a bit closer than that. And I've walked in there because
it's only about 200 feet from my door, but I can't tell you exactly
what it is. I think the difference is that, when you're on the
inner basin there, you're on a bulkhead as opposed to the open
beach, and again haven't looked at his plan recently--I don't know
how close his buildings are to the beach facing the Cove on the
open water. Is the closeness mostly the bulkheaded area of the
inner basin?
MR. ANGEL: I think the closeness is at the bulkhead as the
bulkhead meets the beach, That's the closest point, is that
correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR~ LIEBLEIN: 'To answer your question, the closest would
be at the Sterling Cove Condominium project, which is up--which
any of us I guess could go down and take a look
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much~
MR..ANGEL: Jerry? I can add a little bit to that and so
can Tom Samuels wh6 is in the audience. I was the attorney for
the Sterling Cove project, and went through six years of a.pplica-
tions and litigation on it. I believe that at some points=were
about 15 feet from the water~
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is though, is it the inner basin
or is it the open water?
MR. ANGEL: Well, I don~t think there's any place where any
of the units are less than 30 feet from the waten, even in the
open water side over there. That's my understanding, my recollec-
tion of it. In fact, the applications in Greenport allowed us to
be closer. The-D.E~C~ in that sit~tiOh asked us to come back.
Now in this situation, the D.E.C., I was not involved in the D.E.C.
applications on Pipes Cove, the Shilowitz project, but the D.,E~C.
approved the location as close as approximately -- I guess the
plans show approximately five feet--but Mr~ VanTuyl went out there
and measured it just because we figured that issue would come up
Page 7 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shi l owi tz
MR. ANGEL (continued):
tonight and said that the closest point would be 7.7 feet. Rambo,
Mr. Samuels' Company, is doing the site work at the Oyster Point
project on Fifth Street, and he will probably have some idea how
close the buildings are to the bulkhead.
TOM SAMUELS: It's not quite accurate that I'm doing the
site work. We drove the pil~s and the piling foundations to the
buildings. At one point, one of the buildings is within four feet
of the basin bulkhead~ But I think that the difference between
that project and this project is that essentially from an easterly
direction there aren't any bulkheads at all on the condo set-up
at the end of Fifth Street, the old Oyster Factory.
CHAIRMAN: No, I know=-it's beach area.
MR. SAMUELS: It's beach.
CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR- SAMUELS: So that you don't have protection against
flooding that you would have hopefully wi th a bulkhead. The one
at Sterling Cove, some of the units are very close to the inner basin
bulkheads, but there is about 25 or 30 feet on the bayfront section.
The swimmingpool complex on the other hand is directly on a pennisula
built out into the park, so there are a couple of things~ They're
different in some ways, but similar in others~
CHAIRMAN: In no way was I comparing the two of them; I
think that if one was to at least even draw some sort of comparison,
I think you have to deal with Sterling Cove and this particular
project before you can deal with the one on Fifth Street~ But it
was merely a question really directed to Mr. Lieblein mainly in an
area of_philosophy of what'you've been dealing with With these
particular complexes, because they are unique to their own piece
of property. There's no question about it. The only other .ques-
tion that I had, Mr, Samuels, if you could answer it for us, Mr.
Samuels, it's our understanding that this particular bulkhead that
you're constructing has no staves in it? There are no deadmen?
No pipes running back to deadmen?
MR. SAMUELS: No, it's a conventional navy wall construction
with tie rods and anchor piles and lay rods--ver.y heavy construction
that's designed by a New Yo~k City structural engineer, Wiedenger
Associates~ I would be very happy to submit a set of plans to you
on the bulkhead construction, but it's very heavy.
CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Douglass would like to see those if
you wouldn"t mind.
Page 8 June 19, 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. SAMUELS: Sure.
MEMBER DOUGLASS': And they've got to run far enough that
they're going to be back under this building.
SAMUELS: On the-- on the--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Tie rods.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes~ On the southwesterly most building the
tie rods actually will be under, and the ancho? piles will be
under the build.i~.ng. Ira's all heavy treatment stuff. I dare say
the anchors and tie rods will outlast the bulkhead itself.
Probably~. 'it's been our ex~e?ience that you might get--if the
anchor system is properly built, you can re-tie into it--as you
know. You could re-tie...into it for several bulkheads. It's very
heavily and well designed and we intend to built it well. Any
buildings built close to the water have that potential for your
having to do some maintenance on the bulkhead and having problems
in doing it. I think that's why Wiedenger's gone so heavy with
the tie rods and anchors, but we will definitely have a set of
plans to you if Steve doesn't have a set with them tonight. We'll
ggt you a set of plans:
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. SAMUELS: It'--ll pro~'ably be as heavy a commercial
bulkhead as you':ll see in_ any part of S6uthold Town in our
experience. It's a sock=o bulkhead.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Let me ask you a simple question. You're
talking about the strength of the bulkhead, which I agree -- it no
doubt it's going to be and will have to be strong to maintain any
of' this structure within that distance, but when you come to
changing stuff~ how are you going to change it--are the bbildings
going to be constructed to last 20 years and the bulkhead 30, or
the bulkhead 30 and the bui_ldings 50?
(Secretary~changed to Tapec#3.)~
(cont-inue-d on page 9)
Page 9 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
b/ia~tter of Stephen Shilowitz
I would say that we could probably get three bulkheads in~ so we' re looking with
one-lb CCA treatment I think we can count on 35-year life on the face of the structure.
In giving it three bulkheads, I think you can hook to those anchors. We' ve certainly
done it on some old County projects--old County bulkheads that we hooked into. So
'you' re looking at as much as 100 years of life of the anchor system of the bulkhead
and possibly three bulkheads for the condos. The buildings themselves are on piling
foundations. Again one-bi. CCA piling foundations, 20-ton capacity, super grade
beams that :i~denger has again designed. I think that the life of the structures is--
well--it' s as good as any structure, any buildings that are being built. In time,
they' ll have to be maintenanced, the bulkheads' and probably the anchor system.
I don't know. With the onset of doom. that the EPA is talking about rising sea level~
you know, we' re not even talking about the East End of Long Island in 35 or 40 years,
so who knows. But this particular project is going to be very well built and very
expensively built.
CHAIRb4AN: Thank you. I'm sorry, it probably wasn't the proper time to ask those
questions, but since we were dealing with it.
MR. ANGEL: I have a couple of more things if you don't have any more questions.
Can I just ask your indulgence so I ask -- I must assume that one of the concerns
tn this particular provision of the ordinance of the code that we' re talking about~
primary concern is environmental; and one of the things that's unusual about this
project is it' s proximity to Greenport. And because of that, it' s going to be
served by public water and public sewer, which you don't get and a whole bunch of
other applications along the water. You do have the unusual situation again of
having the D.E.C., which diligently prosecutes the Tidal Wetlands Act~ allowing
this to go in as presented to you. You have the detailed permit there. And I
would guess one of your concerns '~x~ould be the precedential value of the decision
in this case in our favor: and what' s unique about it is the fact is that we already
have this m..yriad of approvals on this particular site plan. There' s so much water
under the bridge, that we' re a very unique application. A lot of these concerns and
some o£ the~ fact6rs ~ L_touched on by Bill Lieblein are contained in the Affidavit of
b/ir. Shilowitz that I submitted a little while ago, including the economic values and
I refer you to it. And ask you to read it before you draw any judgment. Thank 'you.
CHAIRb/iAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to,speak in favor of
the application? Anybody against the application? Sir~ maybe you could come up a
little bit to state your name. The microphone is right here.
Page ]0- June 19~ 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearin9
Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
AL SCOTT: My name is A1 Scott~ and I bought a piece of property adjacent to
lVir. Shilowitz. I don' t have objections or approval of this thing either way. I~ d
like to as some questions for the board to consider. On the westerly side of this
project~ there is one corner of one of these condos comes within approximately
five to six feet of the bulkhead. Now this piece of property~ and I don't know if
you' re familiar with it or not, was the Ellsworth property. It doesn't follow the
normal contour of what was originally the contour of Pipes Cove. This was built
out by the Ellswortbs. Consequently~ we have "x" number of feet Doing out into
the Bay. When he goes out 20 feet~ within 20 feet~ we know have a situation where
the law calls for 75 feet~ heis back far enough that~he is not actually at the shore
line with the corner of that building. ~en you go out 25 feet~ that building now is
in the Bay. So when we need 75 feet from the front of the Bay~ why don't we need
it from the side. You ,know what I' m saying? The westerly side. In other words~ it
is still in wetlands. That leg that sticks out.
CHAIRlVlAN: I don' t. know that it' s wetlands.
MR. SCOTT: Well, it' s water. It' s the Bay. It' s Pipe Cove.
CHAIRMAN: It's within the areaI Sir~ that's to my knowledge that is bulkheaded~
however~ so there is different jurisdiction at that point.
lvlR. SCOTT: The front is bulkheaded.
C HA IRMA N:
MR. SCOTT:
CHAIRMAN:
I know. Actually all the sides are bulkheaded.
I mean it's still sticking into the Bay.
Oh sure. It's a pennisula.
B/iR. SCOTT: Right. Well it has wetland--the setbacks has no bearing there? That
five-point or 7.7~ I believe?
CHAIR~,AN: That was certainly one of the areas that we have a tremendous concern.
MR. SCOTT: I just want to make the board aware that it is very close to that.
CHAIRlVIAN: Certainly. Definitely.
Page ] ]- June 19~ 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
Flatter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. SCOTT: Now~ the other thing. Mr. Lieblein said that the Village would allow
more density. The Village only has one part of that. The density in Greenport has
nothin9 to do with the density in Southold. Two different ball 9ames.
CHAIRlVtAN: That' s correct.
iVlR. SCOTT: The other point I would like to mention--how it effects the buffer zones
between the community beach that I have a right if he moves further out compared to
the 75. I just want the Board to take that into consideration.
CHAIRlViAN: Is this the beach on the westerly side that you' re--
iVlR. SCOTT: The westerly side~ within seven feet of that one corner of that one unit.
If that unit was even eliminated, he would ,have much more of a side setback. Thank
you ·
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would you like to say something, Sir?
ROBERT STRONG: Yes. I would. My name is Robert Strong; I' m one of the other
owners with undivided interest in that beach. That is the parcel within the five or
seven~ depending on their point of view~ foot setback; And I think listenin9 to all
the agencies that approved this and all the statements that were made~ without being
whimsical~ I think I know how the snail ( ) felt. I feel a little alone here and
rather small~ but in the meantime~ all I know this is an opposing array and it seems
to me from a layman' s point of view~ many potential buildings in a small place- I
believe that is the heart of the problem.. I believe that is the problem that causes
the conflict of the law. Furthermore~ I believe there is an adverse impact to me in
the quiet enjoyment of what used to be in part my beach that' ~ didn't share with an
imposingly tall structure. And I don't know fully what that impact would be. I
haven' t been given all the information becaase in part I don't think all of the owners
of this beach parcel were properly notified on the occasion of this request for a
variance~ and I believe the parties who wish the variance are aware that there was
a different notification here--namely the the Cove Circle Association was notified.
A s distinguished from, the individuals-owners of the undivided interest in the beach.
And that Association in a previous matter for which Fir. Shilowitz was a party~ was
held to be a void organization~ a nullity~ and therefore not capable of being notified.
And therefore I also wish to ask in the event~ or perhaps before a decision is made~
the question of proper notification be considered as well as the impact on people
like me. If this were not going to continue--I gather it will--I would have asked for
Page ]2_ June 19~ 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
1Matter of Stephen Shilowitz
MR. STRONG (continued):
time to see if I needed counsel to protect my rights. If it is anticipated that it will
continue for a period of time as long as 60 days, which seems almost comical
given the situation and its past history~ then I wouldn't ask for that. If it may be
determined before that period of time, then I would ask for an adjournment so I
can arrange to see if I need counsel to protect my interests.
CHAIRlViAN: Sir~ let me just say this to you. We have never not listened:to a
property owner~ an adjacent property owner in the area. If you feel--I can't answer
the question when the Board would make a decision if we closed the hearing tonight-
we have 60 days to do so~ ok. To be perfectly honest with you~ if you feel that you
seek counsel~ then it might be to your best suggestion that you ask us before I close
this hearing that we reconvene this at some other time. As for the proper notifica-
tion issue~ I can't answer that question sitting here with all of this stuff in front of
me to tell you if everybody has been properly notified. I know that we advertise in
the proper over and' above the proper notification that' s usually done when the
application--that is always done when the application is filed~ and if you' re tellin9
us that you can notify other people~ and that you do want to seek counsel~ I myself
certainly would make a recommendation to the Board to recess the hearin9. And why
don't you ponder that over for a little while while we continue with the hearin9 and
let me know which way you would rather 9o?
MR. STRONG: I have been pondering this.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Good.
MR. STRONG: And we have been here for a while and had an opportunity to listen.
I believe if I heard correctly you have another meeting scheduled for July 17th?
CHAIRlViAN: That' s correct.
FIR. STRONG: I would like to have until that time to bring counsel or indicate or find
that I don't neediit.
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
IvlR. STRONG: I also have a memorandum to support my contention about the
Association not bein9 the proper party to be notified--a Court decision of another
m a tter.
Page ]3- June 19, 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearin9
lVtatter of Stephen Shilowitz
(Secretary and Chairman briefly discussed whether or not names and addresses are
available from Fir. Strong as to the parties who should have been notified. )
CHAIRlV~AN: Can you supply us with a copy of the names and--
lViR. STRONG: Yes I can. I have other papers which when an application for use of
land underwater was made from the Office of General Services. I have the manner
and form of notification with--
CHAIRtViAN: Can I haveyyour name again?
MR. STRONG: Robert Strong, S-t-r-o-n-g.
CHAIRlViAN: Ok. And you'll give us that tonight or will you give it to us--
B/iR. STRONG: Yes. These are the only copies I have~ but I'll give them to you in
the rreantime~ perhaps you can get some extra ones made and mail them back to me.
I do have the copies with me~ yes.
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
lViR. STRONG: I have some papers to fish through~ can I give them to you at the end
of the evening?
CHAIRMAN: No problem~ certainly.
CHAIRlVlAN: Ok~ !~4r. Angel--excuse me.
lVlR. ANGEL: I just have a couple of things to add.
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
lVlR. ANGEL: Somebody raised the issue of density. At the time that all of these
applications were made, I believe the Village of Greenport is still the same. I
think the Village of Greenport allows eleven units per acre in the WC Waterfront
Commercial District. And at the time the application was made~ Southold, I
believe allowed one unit per 6~500 sq. ft. of surface area in the lYf-Light Residence
lViultiple~ Wi-Light Multiple Residence District~ which this is in; and Mr. Shilowitz
Page ]4_ June 19, 1986
Transeript of ZBA Hearin9
Matter of Stephen. Shilowitz
lViR. ANGEL (continued):
had computed that at the time we made the application, if he wanted the maximized
density, he would have been able to locate [9, not nine units, on the property. As
far as the notification, that's a function that my office took upon itself, and I caused
both checking the tax maps for adjoining parcels, and I also sent somebody out to
your tax records to verify the ownership and whoever gets notification of those tax
records, and that's where we sent them. I' m not privy to memoranda.~ unpublished
things. I' m only capable of checking public records, & thatts.what wetdid. %fie eheoked
both records in this case, including updated tax maps. And I said the tax receivor' s
records.
CHAIRlViAN: Coutd you supply us, Fir. Agent, and I don't mean to cut you off, with
an approximate area per square foot or per acre, based upon 40,000--on how much
of this property is actually lying in the Town of Southold.
MR.ANGEL: I think 55,000 sq. ft. I think we have that. I would ask also--I don't
like being in the position of arguing to cut off somebody' s rights, so I' m not going
to object to an adjournment. I would like you, however, if you would, lVir. Chairman,
give me a copy of whatever is submitted or make it avaiIable to me.
CHAIRMAN: Surely.
lViR. SHILOWITZ: Fifty-six thousand nine-hundred ninety-seven (56,997) sq. ft.
in Southold. Forty-one thousand four-hundred ninety-seven (41,497) sq. ft. in
G reenport.
(The Chairman was asked a question by Mr. Lessard concerning maneuverability
of fire vehicles around the buildings. )
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question Mr. Lessard has is how are we going to get emergency
vehicles around the buildings, and that's an issue you can address in the next hearing
if you so desire.
MiR. ANGEL: We' 11 address it by all means. We have a logical difficulty here, and
I don't mean to say it disrespectfully. We have been through site plan approved
before your Planning Board. I have not been involved in any of that process, but
certainly I '11 ask lVir. Shilowitz to address the question, and I' ll also review your
record before your Planning Board to see how it was dealt with at that time.
Page ]5- June 19~ 1986
Transcript of ZBA Hearing
lViatter of Stephen Shilowitz
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you.
lVlR. SHILOWITZ: I can answer the question about emergency.
MR. ANGEL: l~fhy don't we submit a--
lVJR. LESSARD: I' ve seen that you' ve designed to overcome the flood problem ~ which
is very good. But this bothers me a little bit on how to get a fire truck on the back
side of this stuff~ and I thought possibly you could re-design it and move it back and
it will open this without getting too involved.
lViR. SHILOWITZ: Well~ it can't be moved back. But again that will be addressed in
a lengthly paper. But I did want to say that I' ve discussed the firefighting design of
this project with Jim Monsell (Superintendent of Utilities~ Greenport Viltage) ~ very
closely~ and he assured me that in addition to my putting extra hydrants on the site~
that I was within the S00 ft. requirement of an existing hydrant--but I' m putting two
hydrants on the site itself~ and that puts everything within 100 feet.
MR. LESSARD: The hydrant~ Sir~ I'm not--
lViR. SHILOWITZ: That' s all I can in my behalf.
MR. LESSARD: But~ Sir~ you understand~ the hydrant part doesn't bother me at all.
It' s to physically get the fire equipment itself on the water side of your establishment.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. 1Vir. Strong?
IVlR. STRONG: I have the previous notification letter.
(IV~r. Strong gave copies of memorandum and list of names for the record. )
CHA~lV~AN: Thank you. Ok. Hearing no further questions or comments~ I'll make
a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting and it will
be some time toward the end of the meeting.
When is that going to be?
}/iR. ANGEL:
CHAIRMAN: 17th.
lVIEMBER GRIGONIS:
Seconded.
The board members all voted to recess this hearing until July 17: 1986.
Page ]6_ June 19, 1986
lVlatter of Stephen Shilowitz
Following the resolution to recess the Shilowitz hearin9~ several different conversa-
tions were taking place - Fir. Strong give his name~ address and telephone number
to the Chairman for the record, and Member Douglass reviewing a construction plan
with l~r. Shilowitz. The Secretary also asked Mr. Strong if addresses were avail-
able of the persons on the list given by him in the event they were not on the tax rolls~
and Yir. Strong said he would try and get it to us within a week. iVir. Strong said one
party was on their way to Italy~ and another was in Massachusetts and was asking
for this for them as well as himself.
Respectfully submitted,
Pp, 1-16 Shilowitz transcript
transcribed from cassette tapes
recorded during the hearing,.
Southold Town Board of A~ppeals
Other hearings following this matter are prepared under separate
cover, the~original of which is also simultaneously being filed
with the Office of the Town Clerk for reference,
DATE 7 ~ HOUR/~ '~/C, ~
Town Clerk. Town of Southo~d
Page ]-June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Richard and Ruth Ziedler
PUBLIC HEARING: i¥latter of RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER.
The Chairman opened the hearing at ]0:25 p.m. and read the notice of hearing
and appeal application for the record.
CHAIR1MAN: I have a map dated April 17,1979 indicating a one-story frame house and
garage, and indicating as penned-in, a proposed swimmingpool on the west side of
the house approximately 30 feet to its nearest point to the bulkhead, which is on the
south side, and 40 feet to the opposite side. And it appears that there's a six-foot
deck around the pool. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties, lVlr. Ziedler, would you like to be heard?
RICHARD ZIEDLER: Iwould like to give you a copy of a Doctor' s letter, and I also have
an approved from your Town Trustees. And apparently because the bulkhead was here
in 1977, the D.E.C. has indicated that they have no jurisdiction.
CHAIRIMAN: You don't have anything for us--that's just a statement you're making, ok.
lVlR. ZIEDLER: Yes. When we left here last year~ my wi, re was taken out of the bedroom
through a window, in an ambulance to a hospital-she was there for nine days. And I
went to Florida where I built apool, ahd when I came back, I had an application for a
pool. I started with the Building Department. He turned it down and told us how to go
about it, and we' ve been doing it ever since. Well, anything you can do to let us
build a pool~ we' Il appreciate it.
CHAIRlViAN: When I was down to inspect the property, just quickly, you told me you
were going to make the depth of the pool how deep?
FiR. ZIEDLER: Six and one-half feet.
CHAIRlVIAN: Six and a half. Do you have any specific objection to the normal condi-
tions that we place on things of this nature, and that is no overhead lighting to be
obstrusive to the neighbors?
Page 2_ June 19~ 1986
Public Hearing - Richard and Ruth Ziedler
lViR. ZIEDLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: That the pool not bevroofed or enclosed.
MR. ZEIDLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN: And that the fencing be the normal --what type of fence~ a four-foot ·
chainlike?
MR. ZIEDLER: Yes.
CHAIR1ViAN: All right. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody like to speak against? Yes~ Sir. Mr. Walker:
BERT WALKER: The' name is Bert Walker~ and I would like"to voice objections not to
the pool, but to its placement. But first we want to go on record as not having received
notification of the application for~a variance. And according to the code book of the
Town of Southold~ adjacent owners must be notified by mail of the intent to appeal.
And we are adjacent owners. And we were notified when Mr. Ziedler applied for a
variance in 1981 and we were wondering why we weren't this time. It's awkward to
oppose a neighbor, right or wrong~ you come out looking like~a bad guy. There is
nothing personal here. All our points are valid~ and there are a few issues on the
proposed pool we would like to point out. And I would like my wife to read them to you
CHAIRMAN: Can I just mention a question to you? In reference to your notification:
you are on the other side of the street~ although it is a private road?
lVlR. WALKER: Yes.
CHAIRlViAN: That may be the reason why you were not notified~ ok. Normally the
notification is within that particular block~ not particularly separating it by a street.
I believe he would only be required to notify everybody contiguous to~ and he's not
specifically contiguous because of that street. Let me just check the tax map here.
lVlR. WALKER: It's a 15' private road.
CHAIRMAN: I think that's the reason why~ just to answer your question there.
MElViBER GRIGONIS: It has to be adjacent to.
CHAIRMAN: The street runs all the way down to thecreel~ even though it' s not~ you
know~ paved all the way down to the creek. I think that was the reason why.
tVlR. WALKER: That was what I was wondering. Because we did get notification last
time and not this time.
CHAIRMAN: Right. That's the only reason I can give you.
Page 3- June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Ziedler
MR.W JLKER: I' d like my wife- she's got a few thingst Marg?
MARGERY WALKER: I' d like to go down the application if you would--
CHAIRMAN: Just turn that (mike) a little).
lVlRS. WALKER: You have an application in front of yon (inaudible).
SECRETARY: You' 11 have to speak a little closer into the mike, please. We' re
not picking you up.
ivlRS. WALKER: Now?
SECRETARY: That's better. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: No, we only have one application. The board- .members have read. itt
and I have all three copies of the application of Fir. Ziedler.
FIRS. WALKER: Well you will know what I am referring to. One thing we wanted to
mention is that the application is incomplete. The survey submitted does not show
?0 feet of decking or a 16' octagonal gazebo in the rear of the house. It also doesn't
list the coverage of the lot which I understand is required and which appears to
exceed the 20% allowed by the town code. And it' s my understanding that you require
a current survey showing everything on the property when you apply for a permit or
an appeal~ and the one that cam e with this certainly does not show what is currently
on the property. Now on Page l~ ~2, seeks relief from Article XI~ Section ~--that
applies to setbacks from water bodies and wetlands. There' s no request to place
the pool with the side and front quite large (partly inaudible). Now isn't that
necessary because after all your code requires that the pool be put in .the rear yard,
so if you can't do it or won't do it, you should have relief than have a._file~ no?
CHAIRMAN: Let me answer them as you go down the line. We never really get
involved in determining what the rear or side yard is . In this particular caset
since you have that unnamed street that runs down~ they really have -- oh~ I see
what you' re saying, ok. Is it running down to one side..
MRS. WALKER: Yes. It's the front. Mr. and Mrs. Ziedler front on that road.
CHAIRMAN: He was not turned down for that, or they were not turned down for
that ~ ok.
FIRS. WALKER: Shouldn't they have been? After allt that was--irregularity.
CHAIRMAN: The building inspector is going to have to answer that.
VICTOR LESSARD, BUILDING DEPT. ADMINISTRATOR: It's considered an attachment
to the main building.
Page 4_ June 19, 1986
Public Hearin9 - ZiedIer
CHAIRlViAN: Ok. So it' s an attachment to the main building so therefore it' s not
within the sideyard area.
lViR. LESSARD: No.
lviRS. WALKER: Then how can they do that when there' s a distance between the
walls and the pool. It is not attached. There' s a walkway between the house and--
but, be that as it may. On Page l, ti4, the reason for the appeal requests a 16'
by 3 ' pool, deck and fence. The survey shows a t6' by 35' pool and deck .drawn
to scale. Not 32'. Which is it? And there' s no fence shown on that survey submitted.
By the time you add a fence to the perimeter already described, you could--they could
well infringe upon our deeded eyeview easement, which does not permit fencing or
anything else which obscures our view in that prescribed area. On Page 2, II1, it asks
what hardship prevents adherences to the ordinance. And there are no hardships
listed. It does say, "wife needs pool for therapy and D.E.C. recommended it and
it' s more suitable being right by the house." Well, we certainly sympathize with
lVlrs. Ziedler' s bad back problem and a pool would p~obably be .helpful; however~
we would like to see the D.E.C. letter' s of recommendation. We don't think it's
within their purview to recommend where a pool is placed but to act upon a request.
Do you have a letter from the D.E.C. suggesting that the pool be put there?
CHAIRlViAN: When I went down to inspect the property, lV[r. Ziedler informed me
that he was waiting for the letter at this particular time. To be perfectly honest
with you, tVlrs. Walker~ if the bulkhead is within that specific area .... or, excuse nTe,
if the age of the bulkhead is what it is, and we know that the D.E.C. is going to
waive jurisdiction on the project, to be perfectly honest with you, we would rather
see the pool in this particular area which you will refer to as the side yard, rather
than in the front of the house. It enters into more serious problems with breakaway
walls, with high tides and so on and so forth. Basically, that is the situation, so I
have no idea. He'll have to answer that question.
I~4RS. WALKER: It would seem to be more suitablyl placed in the back yard where
there is considerably more room where it could conform to the town code and would
be adjacent to the spa already installed in the house to help lVlrs . Ziedler' s back.
It has a sunken whirlpool, tile floor, shower, dressing room, bath, and sliding glass
doors opening to the ?0' deck already installed. A pool could be built adjacent to
these facilities, can be much more convenient than placed on the side and actually
partially in the front of their home.
CHAIRMAN: I just want to say in no way would we ever allow anything to infringe
upon this view easement of yours, so don't worry about that. I have no idea how
the board feels about this application, and I just want you to be aware of it.
iv~RS. WALKER: There is more to it than our view easement.
Page 5- June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Ziedler
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MRS. WALKER: On Page 2, ~2, we want the pool on Brushes Creek side so as
not to annoy our neighbor and it is the more logical place. By his own'.-words,
1Vir. Ziedler states that the pool would be an annoyance to his neighbor, and we
are his~ neighbor. Our house is less than 14 feet from the drive between us--
our deck and.~all but one of our rooms fronts on this roadway between us. With
the prevailing breeze coming from the south, all summer, and with the creek
conducting every sound with it, it would be like having that pool in our living
room. rather than in front of our house. Mrs. Ziedler has a ~back problem that
needs therapy, but my husband has a heart condition that needs peace and rest.
We built the deck in the front of our house and hope to create a secluded a quiet
spot from which to enjoy the tranquility of the bay, and there~ s no way we' ll have
this peace with the pool in the front of us. The Ziedlers do a.[tot of entertaining,
they frequently have large groups of people in their yard. We all know how -
Doiste~rous-15eopl'e~. are around' a~p0ol~r~Thi~s is:obViously why the Town Code
dictates that they be put in one' s back yard and ha.ye a.., bhf£er for the neighbors.
As for'.the logical placement, I've already stated why the rear of the house next
to the existing spa is more suitable but it's also more logical. On Page 2, #3
it's quoting~ "it does~ not adjoin anythin9 but Brushes Creek." But since we
share a common road, it adjoins our property and has a great effect, a detri-
mental one~ on the enjoyment and the value of our home. Mr. Ziedler likes
and has a lot of outdoor lighting, a lighting he would obviously have around a
pool in front of our house would be very disconcerting, particularly where our
upstairs bedroom looks right down upon the proposed pool site. He already has
considerable lighting out on the deckin9 in the rear of the yard that coUld
accommodate this pool very nicely. Their backyard is perfectly set up for
a pool and there' s no logical reason for it not being there. Have you any
reasons submitted why it should not be in the rear of the yard as the Code
dictates ?
CHAIRlVlAN: I'll ask the gentleman the question, but in my opinion there isaa
substantial amount of decking that would have to be.torn up, ground cover, trees
and so on and so forth.
MRS, WALKER: He didn't have to tear up decking to get a machine
down there to hoist a huge light pole, so certainly he could get
down and they could get down to it from across the neighbor's
yard the way the bulldozer did last year~ They could get up and
over.
CHAIRMAN: I--
Page 6 - June 19, 1986
Public Hearing Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. WALKER:
going?
look what has to be ~orn down to put a pool where it's
CHAIRMAN: It's only a flower bed to my knowledge~
becoming--
I think this is
MRS. WALKER (interrupting) This is protruding beyond the front of
the house. It is a pool being asked to be put in the front as well
as the sid'eyard~
CHAIRMAN: I think this is becoming counterproductive, Mrs. Walker.
I think what we will do at this particular point, since I don't
have a copy--I will allow you to continue, but I think I will ask
the Ziedlers to come back with a survey indicating all the decking
area that is existing, whi'ch they will do between I hope, be-tween
now and the next meeting, and they will show us all t-he decking area,
and then I will ask you to point to ~e area where you think the
pool should be placed.
MRS. WALKER: I feel it should be in_the backyard~
CHAIRMAN: Ok. But then you can show us where. Because in this
particular place, 'pointin.g out into a white area doesn't give us
indication exactly where you feel it should be pl. aced.
MRS. WALKER: I could not presume to place a pool. That's for
other people to do as long as it's conforming to the code and
placed in the rearyard~ 'as long as th'ere is room for it. That's
what the code dictates. Now another thing is we have noticed that
they've alrea'dy received clearance from the Board of Trustees,
which is surprising~ First of all, most people have to wait a
long time for that~ Secondl~.~ since the criteria for permitting
a building within 75 feet of the waterway is with bulkheading,
the bulkheading in this particular area is terrible. It's com-
pletely standing free and clear. All the fill is gone from
behind it~ I have a picture~ Whereas the bulkheading supporting
the backyard is new and substantial, and can certainl.y support
the pressure who ~ould assert~ No~ only that it's placin.g it
somewhere in their b_ackyard, would probably not even require a
permit because they have more than adequate footage--all directions.
We've never deprive Mrs~ Ziedler a pool~ as long.as it conforms to
the Town Code,. did not interfere with my hus'band's health, and the
peaceful enjoyment of our home and the.good of the neighborhood.
When y~u take 20,000 gallons to fill this po~l, or more, if it's
35 feet instead of 32, .from a common water su. pply that we have out
Page 7 - June 19, 1986
Public Hearing- Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. WALKER (continued):
on Peconic Bay Boulevard, will that present a problem. On August 2nd
of 1982, you received a letter, Mr. Goehringer, from Mr. Gerald Newman
from Suffolk County mentioning the water supply limitations of our
particular locale. Do you feel they're better now than they were
then?
CHAIRMAN: I can't assess them. I wouldn't know what they are now.
MRS. WALKER: Would you feel that drawing 20,000 gallons would create
the threat of sa!~-water intrusion and pgssibly jeopardize our community
water supply? We have all ten points out there,_ ve?y close to precious
point on Peconic Bay Boulgvard~ As there is nothin§~personal in this--
if they would like a poo]~ I think thatJs their perog~ative. However,
if the convenience and the inconvenience go along, if there"s room in
that backyard, that's where it should be, and it shouldn't be that
they can enjoy the pleasure and we have the inconveniences of it.
You are duly 9ppointed arm of the government, and you have been
vested wit.h the obligation to protect the citizens, from undue license
with the building codes, and use of a resident~s flights, and 6s
property owners,_'taxpayers, and fulltime residents, we look to you
for the same protect~9.
CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, can I just ask a question of Mr. Lessard.
I know you haye more to say, We are s~ecifically stating that this is
not the sid'eyard now where this pool is being .placed?
VICTOR LESSARD:
the house.
It doesn't make any difference.
It's attached to
CHAIRMAN: It's a part of the dwelling.
MR. LESSARD: If it's not attache~tO the house, then it's in the
side yard. If it's attached as I was lead to believe by Mr. Ziedler,
that's it is attached to the house~ it"s all considered part of the
house and must meet the setback requiremen~_$ allowed in the Code.
CHAIRMAN: All right~
Continue please.
Excuse me~
had to get this in mind correctly.
MRS~ WALKER: No, no. I don"t understand that either. If they come
out onto a wooden walkway, and the pool is going to be beyond that,
attached or not, that's not attached to the house. That's attached
to the walkway.
Page 8 June 19, 1986
Public Hearing Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. WALKER: I mean, it's my understanding that you come before
the Town Board and ask for a variance if you cannot conform. You're
supposed to prove that you cannot conform.
CHAIRMAN: Ri ght.
MRS, WALKER: Now there's more than enough space. There's no reason
why they cannot conform and enjoy the pool. But have it where
everyone else isn't being--
CHAIRMAN: You're referring to the rearyard now?
MRS. WALKER: The rear yard. I understand that it is not even
legitimate to come before you if you can conform. You come in
when there is nothing else that you can possibly do.
CHAIRMAN: Well, they would probably sti'~l nee'~ a 75~ even on that
side because they wouldn't be 75 feet.
MRS. WALKER: Well, I really think they could get~ But it wouldn't
matter, if they've already_ gotten a clearance from the Board of
Trustees~ If they chose to put it in the yard. where the bulkhead-
ing is stronger., certainly the Trustees would be happy with that
than where it was~ But I think that we deserve some consideration.
If there are no other places to put that pool, certainly he would
object to it.~ If there is another place to put it, then that's
where it should_~go~ ..
CHAIRMAN: As I said to you~ we are not specifically happy with
placing these pools as close to the Bay as we are in a S.~..tuation
like this. And I'm not propogating this application. I
have no idea how these g~ntlemen feel abou~ .~t~ I don't know
if you were hear duringthe conversations that we had tonight
with the gentleman on the Sound~ There are certain conditions
that we ask when pools are built anywhere on the water, and we're
talking about retaining walls .~nd so on and so forth being placed
in proper areas so as not._to leech this 'type of~_water into the Bay.
Be it in the creek, Brushes C~eek this ca~e~ or into the Bay in
genera~ Ok? I personally think, 'and this is just an op~n~on on
~y part, nobody has influenced me to say this, I would rather--
I~m not sure if the placement on this pgrt of the house is a
proper--I think it could be brought a little bit farther to the
seuth, but I think it is the best plac~ for the POol.~ I feel
also that taking your concerns into consideration, that p.rop~r
screening~ and I"m talking about 6'- black pines, along the part
that you would have view into the pool, would be the proper way
of dealing with this particular application. .~
Page 9 - June 19, 1986
Public He~ringp.- Z~edler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. WALKER: I don't think there's room. If you look at the survey
where the pool goes up to the eyeview easement~ it doesn't appear
that there could be screening around it, and still not infringe upon
our eyeview easement.
CHAIRMAN: Just abutting it--not into it.
it shaved so it would be--
Abutting it and then keeping
MRS, WALKER:
noise level.
But the vision of it is not nearly the problem of the
You know that the breeze is from the South all Summer.
CHAIRMAN: Tha-t's why~ in my idea, would be to move it a l~i'ttle bit
farther toward the south~
MRS~ WALKER: I have pictures showing just how much space there is
between the back yard and the beach~which I will submit to you.
CHAIRMAN:
MRS. WALKER: There is certainly tremendously more space there than
there is on the side~
CHAIRMAN: What we will do is we will recess this hearing and ask
the Ziedlers, as I told you before~_%o come back with the deck areas
shown on the rear of their hou_se and the other things you were
mentioning, and we will then go back and re-measure the area and
we'll continue this hearing a~ the next reg.~la.rly scheduled meeting.
We will put you on first in line as we stack in reverse, that is,
the p.e~ple that came before you will be the last, ok, and you will
be before them. We'll address the issue at that particular point
once we have everything there. Would you please ask the surveyor
to be as detailed as he possibly could with the decking and the spas
Mrs. Walker had mentioned~ and the trees and so on and so forth, so
that we can draw a better opinion of what's going on h~re~ The
height of the ground cover and so Qn and so forth. That'l] give
us a better idea. That's what I viewed when I was down there°
Do you have anything else to say, --yo~'r~-just going to submit
pictures to us, right?
MRS~ WALKER: If you would li~
CHAIRMAN: Yes, please~
(Mrs. Walker submitted pictures for the record of Mr. Ziedler's
property.)
Page l0 - June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MRS. WALKER: The way you're referring to that survey doesn't sound
as if you have the one that I took from the town.
(Chairman and Mrs. Walker compared survey copies and they were
the same~)
MRS~ WALKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: You see, what I'm talking about is moving it down here
a little bit~ then this gets you away from the easement.
MRS~ WALKER: It would fit rilght in there. It's about 80 feet up
to the edge. It's 70 feet over.~ It'-s about 60 feet here. There's
already existing bulkhead that would accommodate it, and then it
would be conforming to the Code~ __
CHAIRMAN: It's just an opinion on my part.--I don't like to see
something as close to the open water as tha.$~
MRS~ WALKER:
here~
Well~. I mean, it~-s so much closer here than it is
CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but we can protect this over here
by a retaining wall~
MRS. WALKER: What protection does that offer?
CHAIRMAN: I'm not i. nterested in this prot'~ction here.
MRS. WALKER- That's where the pool-~
CHAIRMAN: I"m telling you that if we were to grant this here, this
gentleman would be required to put a cement block wall in here to
retain this pool with piers every six feet, that you couldn't drive
a bulldozer through~-and I~m being facticious now.
MRS. WALKER: But as I said~ it's the noise and the discomfort to
US.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that~ We'-re taking that into consideration--
MRS~ WALKER (Interrupting) This is going ~o be on the line, the
front line. This is actually askiqg to put a pool no~_in the sides
but in the front.
Page ll - June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: No I understand what you're saying. That's why I thought
maybe pushing it a little bit farther would maybe rectify the situation.
It would be away from your easement area and then put proper screening
in, so as to--in this particular case, another 16 feet away from the
corner of the house. That's my opinion. I have not voicedlthat
opinion from anybody else on the board~ Ok?
MR. LESSARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say for the record that ~.~nce
both parties are here, that I'm sure I have spoken to Mr. Ziedler
about this, ~Iif this is attached and part of the dwelling, if it
is not attached then it becomes accessory and' you would have to come
back for a variance~ And that's Why you and I discussed attaching
it. Ok. And when the Building Depa~.$ment sees the design, then we
will make that determination~ So rest assured, whatever the law
requires, that's the way '.it'-ll-go~'~If it's a side walk thing and
then the pool, it's not attached. And I'm sure Mr. Ziedler under-
stands this and I want you people to understand this. If it's
attached, it's in the proper position as far as the law is concerned.
Except that it's the Board of Appeals to do what they want from
there out. As far as the Building Department is concerned, if it's
attached, it's legal. If it=s not attached, it s accessory and
it's in the side yard and would require a further variance. So
that you both understand and I'm sure you are both aware of it.
MR~ ZIEDLER: I'm sure there's a littl~ more history to it than
what everybody is talking about, and I think the Board should khow
what we're talking about~ The roadway that you see there-- I
and another neighbor spent Over $6~000 in lawyer's fees and brought
it to the Supreme Court to get that as a roadway that belonged to
all the people that live--those nine families that origi_.nally
opposed the Walkers. I know ~hat the Walkers built a little patio
in front of their house and they have pa_rties also, just like we
do, and it's noisy, so I put up a six-foot fence. I didn't know
you couldn't put up a six-foot fence up~ I put it up on Saturday.
The Building Department was there on Monday, and I left it there
for some time and I thought, "~Now how do I take and get a little
peace and quiet in my yard~TM So I went out and I spent $2,300
and I bought a 35-foot blue spruce and I planted it in front of
where the pool is going to be, so you will not see the pool. I
will also in your .permit if I get one te.l.~ you that I will not
put any other lights other than a light .i.n the pool, %hat will
not affect anybody~ I will fence it so that it will not be in
their view easement. I don't know what more I can tell you.
Page 12 June 19, 1986
Public Hearing - Ziedler
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: Will you get us--
MR. ZIEDLER: This is a running something, and I thought it was
put to bed. Let me say this to you, I would have sent the
notification to you had I been told that I had to, except there
is a road in between and it was not necessary. But when you
went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I didn't get a copy of it
either, and I didn't do it intentionally.
CHAIRMAN: Will you get us that survey? We will recess this until
the next regularly scheduled meeting,_ indicating the details of
the ground cover that you have there. I'm talking know about the
deck in the rear yards the other things that.you have.
MR. ZIEDLER: I have an aerial surveys I'll bring an aerial
photo, which shows everything~ All right?
CHAIRMAN: Could you possibly have the survey show it, if we so
choose to move the pool a little to the south--we know hOw far
we can go if we so choose to do that. We may end up turning it
around and going the oppos%te way which would precipitate another
application of 75 feet from the opposite direction° With the
aerial photograph and.with that, '~t'~ll give us a better view of
what we can deal with. Thank you very ~much. Is there anything
else you wanted to say before we recess the hearing, Mrs. Walker,
Mr. Walker?
MRS. WALKER.ind~ated she would wait until the next hearing.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you~ Hearing no further comments, I'll
recess the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
MEMBER GRIGONIS- Second.
The ~esolution to recess the hearing until July 17, 1986, was
unanimously adopted~
(Subsequent hearings follow~)
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski~ Secretary
South~]d Town~.Board of Appeals
Page 13 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
10:58 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Appeals No. 3524 (Variance) and
3525 (Special Exception). PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. Fuel-storage
tanks location in this "C~Light Industrial Zon--~TM within 75' of
wetlands. 6230 Main Road, Southold, New York.
The Chairman read the notices of hearings for the record.
The reading of both applications was waived and authorized by
those present. The hearings were opened simultaneously at 10.:58
CHAIRMAN: I have the map in front of me which is the same
map that you gave us the last time~ which was amended May 29,
1985, and it indicates the area in question and pretty much the
entire marina, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map.
Would you like to be heard?
MERLON E~ WIGGIN, P~E. Thank yQu. I know it's getting late
so I'll be very brief. A couple of things I thought might help
clarify the application and add some additional information as to
why we felt it should be located nearer where it is. First of
all, this is a reinstallation of existing tanks~ I think pa~t
of the notice in the first time was a new installation. It's
not. The tanks are in existence the same number, and will be
reinstalled (at an alternative location) primarily because of
meeting the requieements of Article 12 of the Suffolk County
Health Code, which requires berms and retaining walls and special
distance as far as tanks and so forth.
CHAIRMAN: Where are the tanks now?
MR~ WIGGIN: The tanks now are on the east side of the
property on the other side of the basin.
CHAIRMAN. All right~
MR~ WIGGIN: And they have not been installed properly as
per the Suffolk County Health Code~ We're in a little bit of a
dilemma as far as trying to meet all the codes. This present
installation location has been approved by the D.E.C~ and ~he
maintenance section of the Suffolk County Health Department.
And this application has been kicking around with for almost
a year now, and the last ( ) that the Health Department insisted
upon was that ~O.~.buried fuel lines as part of the installation,
and therefore the dispensing pumps is adjacent to the tanks and
Page 14 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals"No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearing, continued:)
MR. WIGGIN (continued):
the fuel lines are overhead. Also, NFPA's Section 30A makes
specific reference to marine tanks and dispensing pumps, and
they like to integrate it--in fact the whole regulation is
written around integrated tanks. That means the dispensing
pumps that's next to the tanks. In fact they even recommend
that they cannot be next to the tanks, that they even consider
relocating the tanks out on the pier or bulkhead into the
water, rather than having a long distance between the dis-
pensing pump and the tanks..
CHAIRMAN:
MR. WIGGIN:
Can you give us a copy of that--that's very interesting.
Yes, I can. In fact --
BILL LIEBLEIN: I~ll give him this copy~
MR~ WIGGIN: Bill L-ieblein has a copy and I can leave that with you.
What we tried to do to --by the way.~-if we remote the dispensing
pumps from the tanks and S.eparate it z~tbere was some discussion
indicated they would like to see-~ thi~ means this would be a
vehicle roadway between the pump and the tanks, and 6h that
roadway goes forklifts, cranes~ and so forth~ The fuel line
under..the'roadway would have to be specially built, double walls
with monitor systems. Also the NFPA requires that at the junction
of the shoreline and the dispensing line,~ there be another special
valve to be installed so that you can shut off the lines from the
tanks and the dis~pensing pumps closer to the shore than the tank
would be.
What we tried to do is, we submitted more deta~'of the site plan
location, and the change we had made, we wrote to you the fuel
tank installation 90~ to the water to keep the gas tanks further
away from the boats than they were before~ and also we've showed
the actual-distances between the tank berms and the shoreline
and show where the floating docks would be. This is kind of.a
compromise between the NFPA and the requirements of the 20-foot
dispensing lines, and now requires extensive pump line of abut
25 feet~ If you go further away~ you cannot see the tanks meters,
because that is a concern as far as the ~FPA is concerned. And
if you put the dispensing pumps again, on the bulkhead on the
water itself, then you've got the hazard W'hich the D.E.C. and
the Health Department asked us not to do. So that creates a
dilemma as to which way we're going to go~ Does that help
clarify some of the concerns as to Why the tanks were located
Page 15 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT-hearings, continued:)
MR. WIGGIN (continued):
where they were. We tried to respond to everybody and say the
principal criteria that we are required to meet was the Suffolk
County Health Department. If we rel'ocate it separate, then we
have to make a new application.
CHAIRMAN: When you say 13 feet from the water, are you referring
13 feet from the, I guess you would call it cliff? What do you
want to call that?
BILL LIEBLEIN- We got a permi]t from the D.E.C~, Corps of Engineers,
the Town Trustees, to use rip-rap to fortify or eliminate the
erosion around the edge of our bulkhead. T~e rip-rap that we're
using is the Jockey Creek Bridge. And I--that was the first
section that I put this installation in, because I knew that's
where we wanted to put the fuel tank, and I~ve since started
another area where I actually got the top soil down and the
grass seed planted. We me.as.ured back from the edge of this
column-=what we're doing is we are using large blocks of stone
underneaths and capping it with a nice strai~ght line using the
pier and then coming back from that~ That's where the 13 feet
is~
MRo WIGGIN: From the top of the new bulkhead.
MR. LIEBLEIN: What we tried to do is address-- Bob and I had a
long conversation when he came down, and then I got together
with Merlon and found out that we would have to go through the
wh61e process again, Number Ones and Number Two, that they
really--they--the Board of Health would prefer to see everything
attached to the lines undergro_und, so I proposed that we turn
the faiclity ~90S to move the gas tanks back further. We also
measured exactly how far it would be from the actual boats that
might be fu"eli~ng up, and the boat was tied up, there's the .five
foot dock, and then we measured to this column and it was another
eight feet, and it's 13 feet to the edge of the tank, and then
the first fuel tank is another 10 feet, a~d if you add all that
together, it roughly comes out to 36 feet, which is essentially
ten feet more than it was before. The second tank is 20 feet
away~ Prior to coming in, ~rior to seeing Merlon, I just .kind
of put some thoughts down on a piece of p.aper~ some of which are
repetition of what Merl said~ and I would like to kind of go
through them. There might be some additional clarification~
Our original application was based on detailed..plans that were
reviewed and then revised by the County Board ~.f. Health and D.E.C.
Both from the planning view of non-pollusion and safety and so on.
Page 16 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)
MR. LIEBLEIN (continued)'
And as I just s6ild, based on your concerns and my discussions with
Bob about closeness to the boats, we came up with the rotation of
90° to get the greater distance. I just went through the dimen-
sions, we're about 36 feet back to the first fuel tank. Relocating
as suggested to 65 feet will require the underground pipes, which
Merl talked about and the resubmittal~ So s~nce the Board of
Health would prefer to see them as close as possible, and I had
referenced the NFPA~ which Merl has alrea~dy brought up and when
I'm finished, I'll give you this copy..which Merl had .given to me--
".~Tanks supply.lng marine service stations and pumps not integral
With the dispensing unit shall be on shore or on the pier of solid
fill-type, except as provided in (a) and (b) .... (a) Where a shore
location would require excessively long supply lines to dispense
the authority having jurisdiction may authorize the installation
of tanks on a pier provided that the applicable portions of NFPA,
et cetera, et cetera~ are followed. This is one of the key
things~ They're saying, "Move the tanks out next to the pumps--
don't move the tanks way back in the inner lands and run more
pipes out to it~~ I think what we propose is a compromise that
accommodates both requirements as closely as possible. For
economic reasons, we closed down our rental operation because
the cost of insurance has gone up as everybody knows and the
demand for both rentals is going down in _general and of course
the brown tide last year and again this year, if we had tried
to rent boats, it didn't help a thing. We moved our bait and
tackle operation over to our fish market so one person can
handle both rather than running two separate operations. So
what we end up with now is eve_.ry time somebod~.wants gas, we've
got to send someone over there--all of which has nothing to do
directly with this, but it's one 6f the reasons we're anxious
to get it moved. Second of all, as you know, you have on your
pending list an application for a motel, which is what we
de~i~ded would be the most logical use since we've been in the
service business there for 40 years-~motels or a service
business would seem logical to us to perhaps go to that~
We haven't done anything on it recently~ We haven't been
back to you because the Master Plan is coming down the roa~d
and we thought we might as well just wait and see what happens
there~ But that's another reason not to leave the fuel tanks
where they are, not to reinstall them where they are, because
if we want to build a motel there, and you've got gas tanks,
that's not very compatible. And another thing is where we have
the tanks prop~osed now~ th-ey're as far as possible from our
Page 17 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)
MR. LIEBLEIN (continued):
large storage building, which is where we'd like to keep it.
(changed tape to Tape #4)
MR. LIEBLEIN: In the event that you can review this and perhaps
act favorably on it, we would appreciate it naturally, as soon
as possible since we'were workin~g on it for six or eight months
now. We had hoped to have it done in March so it 'W~uld be ready
for the season. Obviously that isn't going to happen. We were
hoping to get in operation before the season is over. A choice
I would probably choose if I could wou'ld be just to forget the
whole thing exc.~pt that we've go% almQSt 200 boats ~n our marina.
Albertson Marine doesn'~t have a fuel facili'ty. And so a lot of
his custo~rs come to uss and the next nearest facili'ty is to go
out and to go into Goldsmith'-s and that's a tight entrance over
there. With that n~mber of boats, 'it's economically feasible to
do it, but it's not a great money maker~ In any case it's a
headache when a person comes to you and says, I~ve got water in
my fuel and it's your fault even though he may have gotten it
through his vent or whatever. Some cases, yQu're better off if
you don't sell it if you're in the marine business. I just don't
feel we can run ou~ operation without having fuel for our cus-
tomers. So, we do have to proceed on it~
We've had our present facility where it is for 40 years without
a problem, And it has'.been=-now definitel~ doesn't comply
with whatever 'the present codes are~ I mean it was done over
the years~-it was the logical place to put it because you were
going to pump the gas-~you might as well have everything right
close together. It ha~.pens that the facility where sits now
is probably about 15 feet from the back wall of the Arrow Bar
and 6Dout 15 feet from the back wall of our little fishing station.
So our feeling is we are making an improved facility, and it's
going to be a lot safer out there in the open than it is between
the two buildings where i~ is now. And I guess I don't have any
other commen~s to make at this time~ and I would be happy %o try
and answer any question that you might have~
CHAIRMAN: The only question-that we really have is the question
when ~e sent Mr~ Douglass down. How do ~ou concur with this new
plan, Bob?
Page 18 June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)
MEMBER DOUGLASS: [et me think about it for a while--especially
that underground regulation.
MR. LIEBLEIN: I would appreciate it, Bob, if you could come
down again and look at it when I'm there~
CHAIRMAN: Are there any stakes, Bill, ~here we can--I've been
down there twice and I still have trouble locating it.
MR. LIEBLEIN~ You won"t have trouble any more. Because we had
the permit from_ the D~E~C~ and we had the permit from the Trustees.
Subsequent to your first hearing, Merl was there.~and my brother-
in-law Ace was chosen to be there that night--I don't know where
I had a meeting or something else or what~ But he came and I
didn't come~ And they indicated that there didn't appear to be
any question. So I~m sitting here saying, the sooner_ we get this
thing on the line the better, so I dug the hole and backfilled it
with sand so it could start settli'ng. So that's there now.
There"s no question where it's sup~.~sed to go. If it is'n"~'
approved, an~ we don~t do it at all, then we just fill the hole
and that's the end of it, If it..i~.s approved,~ all ~I _have to do
is put the forms in and get started ~.n the cons~truction~ So
there's no question about where it is now. Except that the
hole is a rectangle which sits this way to the bulkhead, and
obviously if you approve and say, yeah, turn it 90°, we'll
just turn it and it's going to come back further the other way.
And that's what we would d6..~ We ~ould just turn it, push it
over to the west as far as ~gssible~__.and then it wo.ul~d project
back. ~And it would ~.be out of our way~ One of the ~.~her
thoughts that came to our mind, and I didn't even mention it
to Merl, I don't know whether and under your concern, main
concern is an explosion--I take it? Ok. And I don't know if
we said, ok, we have to for the Board of Health purposes, we've
got to have the wall high enough so that if one of the tanks
leaks it will contain all the fuel that's in that tank and then
you can do something about it rather than have it leak into the
Bay. I don't think the Board of Health would have any objection
to making the wall higher if you said, well, for last pro.tection
if it blows up, it can't go out, it has to go up, if we~made the
re-enforced concrete wall higher--that's s6mething that I would
consider. If Bob came down, and we looked at and sa~d, Gee, if
you made it a foot or two higher, and then you came through and
said we approve of this location, but we want you to make the
retainin§ wall higher, not to be a retainer, but more as a
protection against e~pl6~ion, that isn't going to cost us all
that much, and do you think that would be a pr6blem for the
Page 19 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT-hearings, continued:)
MR. LIEBLEIN (continued):
Board of Health if it was higher?
MR. WIGGIN: No, they have no objection to that.
MR. LIEBLEIN: As long as it's high enough to contain andlthat
it meets their requirements, 'and ilf you folks, just because we
want to make it a little safer, do this,_~ I would be happy to
talk with Bob at any time--.you know that~ Bob._ Other than a
Saturday and a Sunday. If you come down Saturday, come early.
CHAIRMAN: The last pitfall question, and that is, how far from
the bulkhead or whatever we want to call this retaining wall that
you're building now--could you do it and still pump the fu.e! and
keep the ~.ipes above the ground?
MR~ LIEBLEIN: I mean we could move back a couple of feet and it
wouldn't make all that much difference. If you loo~.~..at that
and what happens, we've got an island of boats that comes down
and we kind of drive around~-people come in with a trailer and
unload them and drive right around. We drive down with the
folklift to set/boats down for winter storage~ And there's a
lot of traffic through there. Well, if you started moving it
over and you're trying to move through with the crane and the
boat hanging in the sling crossways or a forklift with a boat
crossways, the further back you come, you're .goring to have less
boats at the other si~e~ I mean, it isn't critical. Another
two or three feet would not make that much difference. The only
ting is, then you're moving the pumps back and you're going to
have a longer hose an~ you"ve got to squint a little harder how
many--am I $30 even~ or whatever~ .It's an insurmountable problem.
And if that's what it took, then we would move it back two or
three feet.
MR. WIGGIN: The NFPA recommended 20 feet from the hose to the
dispensing pumps, and we're going somewhat beyond that because
as you can see in the document~ they say, take care of the rise
and fall of tide and ~he floating dock, ~ you add another section
of hos.~ to it to provide that, it still makes you kind of ( )
of the tanks and the pump integrated~.~.
MR. LIEBLEIN: If we put it in with the 13 feet from the front--
Where that column is now, which marks as far as I'm concerned--
that's like a bulkhead almost~ from there back it's 13 feet to
the concrete enclosure. The tanks~ the pumps would be in front
Page 20 ~une 19, 1986
Transcript._._Of P.u_bli_.c. Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)
MR. LIEBLEIN (continued):
of that and they're probably about two or three feet closer to the
water, which means it would be 10 feet from where the pump--the
hose is attached to the pump to the bulkhead, 8 feet out, and
another 5 feet, which comes out to 23 feet. Now if you've got a
hose 23 feet long, you can't pump gas. If you have a hose that's
25 feet, you got .to get that boat exactly right, so that you can
get the pump right i~n there--and if' youkve got two boats ~gassing
._up at the same time, and you've got two pumps pumping, obviously
the two pumps are next to one another unless they're both filling
in from the stern, there's no way. So you're going to'wind...up with
about 25 or 26 feet of hose alrea'dy. If you move the whole thing
back further., 'it won't happen--it'll be worse than that. Now
another possibility would be, I don_._"t know whether this requires
complete redesign by the Board of Health, but if you moved it
back and brought the tanks out above ground and moved this
enclosure back three feet but left the pumps a-little closer
and had three feet of exposed _pi.pe, whether they would say that's
ok-.-I don't know the answer to that question. I don't care if
the hoses are 6 little bit longer m~.self.
CHAIRMAN: Well, we';'il come down and l'ook at it, Bill, know that
you've got everything all done, and we'll do the best we possibly
can for you. itt'.,:wasn't_ that we didn't understand it before--it's
just we were trying to protect everybody to be honest with you.
MR~ LIEBLE~N:. And I'm sure even if I h'ad been here, the same thing
would have happened, and questions would not have come up. We want
to provide a good facility~ We want to work with the Town. We want
them to be safe. We don't want to get killed either. Nobody wants
to be killed. We want to make it as safe an operation as.possible.
I will m.e.ntion that if t take a day off~ Tuesday is my Sunday.
Other than that., I'm there unless I~'m out'bring.ing a boat into
town for something. Bob, are you saying that you can come down
this Saturday morning?
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes, I'll come down. And if Jerry can come down--
MR. LIEBLEIN- I'll definitely be there all d~ Saturday. I mean,
I'm there every day, but I'll definitely be there on Saturday or
Sunday. Occasionally I'll co. me into town and pick something_up,
you know. I would hate to have you guys come down and then we
don~t get together. If it's a situatipn where if you're coming
Page 21 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No. 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)
MR. LIEBLEIN (continued):
down, you give me a call and say, be sure and be there--I'm going
to be down at lunch time today or 11:00, I'll make myself available.
CHAIRMAN: Why don't you go down, Bob, and then I'll go down myself,
and then we can compare notes~ all right~ If you can make it down
Saturday mornings try to make it down as Bill say early.
MR. LIEBLEIN·
The only reason I say that is the--
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well'-it must get very busy after a certain hour.
MR. LIEBLEIN: After about 9:30 or lO:-O0, i~ gets a little hectic.
I'll just tell the customer I'~¥6' got to talk to you.._
MEMBER DOUGLASS:
I can get there at 9:00~
MR. LIEBLEIN: That's super.
back on right away.
I appreciate youP putting us right
MR. WIGGIN: We enter the same comments simultaneously for both
the variance and the special exception. We w6i. ted]£or the
variance assuming that that's where the primarz concern will
come.
CHAIRMAN: We opened both at the same time.
MR~ LIEBLEIN gave the board a copy of the regulation previously
discussed to Member Douglass~ .__
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Nice seeing YoU, gentlemen. Hearing no
further~ I'll make a motion closing the hearing.
MEMBER DouGLAss: Can I ask--maybe tomorrow, just out of curiousity,
give the Board of Health a call and ask them about your recent
discussion~-
MR. LIEBLEIN: Move them back a little bit and having them above
ground where we don't have to drive over it~
MEMBER DOUGLASS- Yes. I think probably the regulations will be
entirely different where you don't have to put transportation over
the top of it.
Page 22 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
S6uthold Town Board of Appeals
(Appeals No, 3524 and 3525 - PORT OF EGYPT hearings, continued:)'
MR. WIGGIN: I think I can answer that, Bob. Their concern was to
separate where there's transportation and put an underground fuel
line between the dispensing pump and the tanks~ If there was a
few feet separation be~weeh the retaining wall and the dispensing
pump, I'm certain that this would not require any reapplication.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Thank you.
MR. LIEBLEIN: I was about to say that in all things like this, I
was thinking 6bout it with this Couple ahead of me, that when you
get a lot of heads together you sometimes come up with a solution
that's better than any one individual would come up with. The
thought that just occurred t-o me is maybe we should build up
right at the top of the bulkhead with the dispensing pumps right
out where that column is now, above ground or whatever, and that
way the hose will be shorter, but the other pipe will be a --
we'll work on it~ Talk to you Saturday, Bob. Thanks.
CHAI'RMAN:
decision.
I'll make a motion closing ~the hearing and reserving
MEMBER GRIGONIS' Seconded~
This re~ol-'ution was duly carried to conclude the hearing, reserving
decision until a later date,
Respectfully submitted,
- Linda F. Kowalski~ Secretary
..So.uthold Town Board of Appeals
(See additional pages of transcript on'~ther hearing[s']~also attached.)
Page 23 - June 19, 1986
Transcript of Public Hearings
Southold Town Board of Appeals
ll:20 p.m~ PUBLIC HEARING Appeal No. 3512 - SAMUEL BAIL.
Variance to construct deck addition and roof over cellar stairs
which exceeds maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage, and roof overhang
will reduce sideyard setback to less than existing~ "1980 Sigsbee
Road, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the notice of hearing and application for
the record.
CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a map/sketch which was done
indicating the house, the pro.posed decks the existing garage, and
I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating, this and
surrounding properties in the area~ And a roof overhang. Sam,
do you want to come up here ~nd w6tll discuss thi. s a little?
SAMUEL BAIL was present.
CHAIRMAN- Gentlemen, we hav'e a situation here where this
gentleman has an existing 50~ lot with a house. He has exceeded
the lot coverage. He's ~upwards somewhere around 26 or 27%. He
is 240 sq~ ft~ over. Where the problem is, he~s got a basement
entrance here which is not roofed. And the building d~partment
is calculating this area into the lot coverage also.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Which they do, right.
CHAIRMAN: He wants to put a little roof over the top of
this, ok, 'so that the water does not run off the roof Of the
house down into the basement~ In other words, open now with a
foundation is no problem. Ok~
MR. BAIL: 'There's a foundation there now, e~isting.
CHAIRMAN: He's going up --
MR~ BAIL-
27 inches~
CHAIRMAN: Twenty-seven inches above the foundation and
putting this roof over it.
MR. BAI[- Tilted, it's about a
CHAIRMAN:
Going down.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Transcript of Hearing - Bail
-24-
June 19, 1986 Public Hearings
(Appeal No. 3512 - BAIL hearing, continued:)
C]HAIRMAN: He also wants to build a deck on the back of
the house and put some glass sliding doors in here. He doesn't=-
he's got to do this~ This is a necessity.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Just like the town did here on this building.
CHAIRMAN: He's got to do this. This is an optional type of
situation. He would like to have this (deck). So this is what
is in consideration in this application. Did I explain it
sufficiently?
MR~ BAIL: Sounds good to me~ I also have a signed letter
from the both neighbors on either side. They don't care what I do.
(Mr~ Bail gave two letters indicating no objection from two
abutting proper%y owners for the record. ) .._
MEMBER DOUGLASS: How wide is the cellar stairs?
MR~ BAIL: Forty-five inches from the house to the edge of wall.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Outside of the wall?
MRs BAIL: Yes~
CHAIRMAN: 'The only thing concerned with Mr. Bail is getting
access into'this part of the rearyard in case you have to work on
cesspools or a well or whatever the heck is back there, ok.
MR. BAIL: -~here~s space between here and here~
CHAIRMAN: We have to have about 9 feet to get a machine in there.
MR. BAIL: That's about right~
CHAIRMAN' Do you want to give us some idea of what the measure-
ment is? You can give us a call some time~
SECRETARY: Is that between the deck and the garage, Jerry?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MEMBER DOUGLASS· If it's granted, it could stipulate l0 feet
of §pace in here_~or something'to that effect. _
MR~ BAIL- Well, we had a truck i~'~ there the other day. They
had to do the pools. And he just backed up to the garage, and he
had plen'ty of hose to reach from this area over to here.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Transcript of Public Hearings
-25-
June 19, 1986
(Appeal No. 3512 - SAMUEL BAIL hearing, continued:)
CHAIRMAN: The normal questions we ask: You're not roofing the deck?
MR. BAIL: No.
CHAIRMAN: Ok, there will be no overhead lighting that will be
obstrusive to either one of the neighbors?
MR. BAIL: I might put a light on the wall.
CHAIRMAN: I meant outside lights affixed to the pole?
MR. BAIL: No, no.
CHAIRMAN: All right. And this will be elevated above the ground?
MR. BAIL- I guess it's about two blocks from the ground.
level coming off of the door.
It's
CHAIRMAN: All right,
to wait so long.
I thank you very much.
sorry you had
CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing
(concluding) the hearing and reserving deq~sion until later.
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
This resolution to conclude the hearing was duly adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary
_Southold Town Board of Appeals
(This was the last hearing of the heari-ng~ See Clerk Minutes
for actions and other business matters fo.llowing the hearings.)
EXVED AND FILED
Town Clerk, Town of Southold