Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/1986Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOLITHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11~71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MAY'I:, 1986 A Regular Meeting.of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAYs MAY l~ 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Ro~d~ Southold, New' York. Present were' Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge D'oyen;..Robert J. Douglass; and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the'Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Execu- tive Administrator, Linda Kowalski~ Z.B~A. Clerk and Secretary, and approximately 25 persons fn the audience at the commencement of the meeting.. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 pom. The first publiC hearing on the agenda was the first matter of business, as follows: .... 7:35 p.m. Public.Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3399 - C~' BRUCE_AND ANNE STAIGER. 7:40 p.m.. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3396 -GARY DOROSKI (as reconvened from 4/3~86). 7:55 p.m. .Public Hearing was held-in the Matter of Appeal No. 3479 ~ JOHN ~. SGOUROS. After receiving testimony and public comm~nts,_the Cba~ma~ made a motio~ seconded by Member Douglass, to recess the hearing until the next Regular Meeting - May 22, 1986. This resolution was duly adopted. 8:06 p.m. P~blic Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) No 3480 - VINCENT AND JOANN CASA. 8:14 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No 3486 ROBERT JOHNSEN. 8:18 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No 3490 HARRY AND SANDRA HURLBURT. No No 8:22 p.m.- Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal 3494 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. 8:28 p.m~ Publ'~c Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal 3468 -'ROBERT'J. LONG. 8:33 p.m. Public.Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No 3471 -'NICHOLAS TSIRKAS (as reconvened from 4/3/86). After receiving a'dditipnal testimony and public comments~ the Chairman made a motion, 'seconded by Member ~awi_~ki, to recess the hearing as a matter of formality (tO allow additional time to review the engineer report received tQn~ght and possibly questions at a later date). The pu~'lic hearin§ is to be re~P.nvened May 22, 1986. This resolution was duly adopted. 8:40 - 8:500p.m. Temporary recess/break. Motion was made by Member Sawicki~ seconded by Chairman Goehringer, to recess for approximately ten minuteE, at which time the meeting would be reconvened and public hear~Dgs continued. 8:50 p.m. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, to reconvene. 'This resolution was duly adopted. 8:50 p.m~..Public ~ea~ing.was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3489 - PAUL'~EARY/FRANK'Ei. AND MARY'BROPHY. After receivi..ng testimony and public comments, the Cha_irman ~de a motion, seconded by Member Sawicki~ to recess the public hearing in this matter without a date pending fo~h6~meview by ~he board of the record. This resolution was duly adopted. (See resolution adopted 5/28 to reconvene hearing q~.~6/t9~86). The hearing was recessed at approximately 10:30 p~m~ Each hearing was concluded, except as noted above. The verbatim transcript of each hearing has been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office for reference. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3473: Application of JOSEPH A. CASSIDY, JR. for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of 58,484 sq. ft. parcel with 135' frontage (lot width). Property identi- fication: County Tax Map Parcel Nos. 1000-79-05-23.1 and 22.1, located along the west side of Reydon Drive, Southold, NY. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 3, 1986, in the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH A. CASSIDY~ JR. under Appeal No. 3473; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as the surrounding area in this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact~ 1. The property in question has a frontage (lot width) of 135 feet along the west side of Reydon Drive, Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 79, Block 05, Lot 23.1. 2. The premi~ses to which this parcel is contiguous to and is requested to be set-off from is situate to the north, also with a frontage (lot width) of 135 feet along the west side of Reydon Drive, with an area of 55,831 sq. ft. (1.27 acres), and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 79, Block 05, Lot 22.1. 3. The subject parcel is vacant and contains an area of 58,484 sq. ft.; the northerly parcel is improved with a single-family dwelling built pursuant to Building Permit ~11485Z issued 12/7/81. For the record, the subject parcel was conveyed from Akscin to Cassidy 12/29/83, and the Cassidys' obtained Suffolk County Health Department approval of construction under Permit #11-S0-124 on 11/16/81. The northerly parcel was conveyed from Akscin to Rich 9/8/81. 4. It is the opinion of the boar~ that a majority of the lots in the immediate area are of a size 40,000 sq. ft. or more, similar to the parcel in question; and that denial of the variance would impose significant economic injury since there is no other method ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3473 - CASSIDY, decision, continued:) feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance. In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a) that the relief requested is the minimum necessary~ (b) that the character of this residential neighborhood would not be adversely affected by the granting of this variance; (c) that the property owner will suffer significant economic injury since there is no other method for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (d) that the public health, welfare, safety, comforts convenience and order of the town will be served by allowing the variance under the circumstances~ (e) the circumstances are unique; (f) by the granting of this variances the spirit of the zoning ordinance and the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the variance for approval of insufficient area of 58,484 sq. ft. and 135' lot width of this parcel as applied under Appeal No. 3473, JOSEPH A. CASSIDY, JR., BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Bulk Schedule "A-40" setback regulations shall apply to this parcel~ 2. No reduction of front or side yards shall be permitted for new dwelling to less than that provided by "A-40." 3. Proposed future accessory buildings must be located in the rearyard area as provided by Section 100-32. 4. No further lot area reductions shall be permitted for this parcel. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of all the members. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. '3488~ App-licati~n of'WILLIAM~REI~'SEK for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article Iii,' Section 1~32 land/or Section 100 30A) for permiss~6n to locate =~ivate~ fe~'c~dz~n tennis court together 32' bY 12~ gazebo on st%lts o~_~acan% premises adjacent~ to residence of the.appl..icant and re~erred to as 9030 Soundvi~ Avenue~ Southeld, NY; George_Penny IV Filed Subd%~t'sion dated Apr~il ll~ 1974;~County T..ax_.Map Parcel No. 1~0~59,~0~27~2 and 27~.1~' ....... " Following deli~erations~ 'the boar'd ~took the following action: WH~R'~S, ~-pu~]~c hearing was held and concluded ~n April 1986 in the Matte~ Q~ the Appl_~cati;on 9f WILLIAM]~REITSEK under .Appeal No. 3488; and ....... i~_~~ ' WHEREAS~ the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that no public opposition ha9 been received; and WHEREAS~ the board membe~ have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question~ as well as the surrounding area in this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; and WHER~AS~ the board ma-~e the ~ollowing findings of fact: 1. The property in question ~-situated along th-e south side of Soundview Avenue, a town road, in the Hamlet of Southold, New York, with a frontage of 389.77 feet~ average lot width of 152.37 feet~ average depth of 346 feet, and lot area of ]~05 acres. 2. The subject premises is presently vacant. 3. By this application, appellant requests approval of the placement of 60~ by~]20~ tennis court with 8' black vinyl chainlink fence (three sides~) and 12' by 12~ octagonal gazebo as show~ by January 30, 1986 plan prepared by Briarcliff Landscape~ Inc. The setback of the two structures in question will not be closer than 72 feet from Soundview Avenue, and the gazebo w~_]l be 6~ feet from the easterly property line; tennis court. 80 feet from the easterly property .line. The westerly sideyard setbacks will be 15 feet for the tennis court and 83 feet for the gazebo. 4. Appellant also owns the adjacent lot, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,. Section 59~Block 7, Lot 27.2, and assures that the structures in question will be use~ accessory to his residence and will be screened wi~.~_pines ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3488 - KREITSEK, decision, continued:) a minimum height of six feet. 5. For the record, it is noted that a private right-of-way exists along the easterly property line which was the subject of a prior application of the Board of Appeals under Appeal No. 1887, conditionally granted on April 11, 1974 (George L. Penny IV). 6. It is the opinion of the board that although the practical difficulties are not sufficient and there is at least one other method for appellant to pursue, other than a variance, that the variance could only be granted with the understanding that the tennis court and gazebo shall not be operated for gain and shall be used incidentally and accessory only to the adjacent residence of the applicant, and that in the event this use is no longer "accessory," than this variance shall become null and void, and reapplication to this board or compliance with the zoning code as to the requirements for principal uses and structures will be necessary. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, to grant the relief requested under Appeal No. 3488 in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM KREITSEK to construct a 60' by 120~ tennis court and 12' by 12' octagonal gazebo, both accessory to the adjoining main res.idence of the applicant, as shown on the Janua?y 30, 1986 plan prepared by Briarcliff Landscape, Inc., and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: 1. Any newly proposed dwellin§ structure shall be located in accordance with the requirements of the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code without reduction of front or side yards~ 2. Gazebo and tennis court shall not be operated for gain and shall be used accessory and incidental to adjacent residence as applied; 3. Neither this parcel or the adjacent premises (Parcels 1000-59-7-27.1 and 27.2) shall be conveyed unless: (a) the vacant parcel in question is improved with a single-family dwelling, or (b) reapplication is made to the Board of Appeals for reconsideration of this relief and/or principal use if other than for single-family residential use; Lights shall not exceed 28' in heights shall be shielded to ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3488 - KREITSEK, decision, continued:) the property, and shall be screened as indicated in the application. 5. No accessory-~leeping quarters shall be permitted. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrso Goehringer~ Gri§onis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly ad~pted by unanimous vote of all the members~ PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3447: App-lication of PUDGE CORP. for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII~ Section lO0-80(B) for permission to establish one or more of the ~llowing uses within the buildings proposed to be constricted as shown by site plan revised 7-9-85: professional offices, electrical contractor shop; plumbing shop; furniture repair shop, carpenter shop; cabinet shop; printing establishment; food processing; packaging of machine parts to be shipped; such uses as allowed in a C-1 Heavy Industrial Zoning District. Location of PrOpe~.~y: East Side of Horton's Lane, Southold, NY; County Tax MaR Parcel No. 1000- 63-01-10. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, application under Appeal No. 3447, a request for a Special Exception to establish one or more C-1 Heavy Industrial Zoning uses, has been du'ly filed on December 20, 1985; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, as well as the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS~ after due noticed a public hearing was held by the Board of Appeals on March 13, 1986 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded~ and WHEREAS, all testimony and written documentation have been carefully considered; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the ~'C-Light" Industrial Zoning District along the east side of Ho~t~ Lane, Southold, with a total area of 6.89 acres (or 300,128 sq.~. ft.), and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 63, Block 1~ Lot 10. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3447 PUDGE CORP. decision, continued:) 2. The subject 6.89-acre parcel is presently unimproved. 3. As shown on site plan revised July 9, 1985 by John A. Grammas and Associates, applicant proposes to construct two buildings of a size 80' by 60', each with two 2400 sq. ft. units for storage and office use (also shown on floor plan A-l) set back 70 feet from the front property line along Horton Lane and with minimum sideyards at 30 feet. Proposed are 32 parking spaces which have been approved by the Planning Board January 27, 1986. 4. Applicant has indicated that occupancy of the units at this time is proposed for a surveyor and watch importer. It is noted, however, that although the applicant has asked for carte blanche approval for any use as permitted in the C-Light or C-I Zoning Districts, this board deems it appropriate that only those uses specifically proposed for occupan~..can be considered in a thorough and p~per fashion. In considering this application, the board finds and determines that the uses granted herein: (1) will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (2) will not adversely effect the safety, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town; (3) is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning. The board has also considered subsections [a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception to establish surveyor's office(s) and/or watch repairs and sales (and related items), BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: l~ This special exception shall permit and is limited to the occupancy of the southerly building for the following two uses: (a) sales and repair of watches and similar items; (b) surveyor's office and work area. 2. Any other use(s) require additional Special Exception application(s) to the Board of Appeals pursuant to Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B); 3. No overhead lighting which would be adverse to other properties; 4. Northerly building may not be occupied without prior Zoning Board of Appeals approval (Special Exception, etc.). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Doug- lass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted by unanimous vote. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- .May l, 1986 Regular Meeting At this point in t~me, the Chairman left the room. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3453: Application of'SAMUEL'K.~C, and ELIZA PLIMPTON KOPPER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, ~-~-~'icle I~iI~ S6'E~-iiO~ 1~'~3"1, Bulk Schedule, for approval of proposed three lots having insuffi'cient area and width lo- cated along the west side of Indian Neck Road, Peconic, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-4-1.2, consisting of a t. otal acreage of 5.00. Followin'g delibera'tions~ the board took the' following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on April 16, 1986, in the Matter of the Application of SAMUEL K.C. and ELIZA P. KOPPER under Appeal No. 3453; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application, including testi- mony both in support of and in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question~ as well as the surrounding area in this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is situated along the west side of Indian Neck Lane, Peconic~ New York, containing a total area of 5 acres, frontage along Indian Neck Road of 84.30 feet (inclusive of 25' right- of-way) and depth of 225.48 feet (southerly end), and is identified on Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000,. Section 86, Block 4, Lot 1.2. The premises is presently unimproved. 2. In researching the history of this property, it was found and is noted for the record that this 5.0-acre was part of a 12.73-acre parcel. The 12.73-acre parcel was divided by a predecessor in title (Zaino and Sardelli) November 8, 1982 into seven lots as follows: (a) Lot #1 of 43,607 sq. ft.~ (b) Lot #2 of 40,599 sq. ft., (c) Lot #3 of 48,386 sq. ft., (d) Lot #4 of 51,150 sq. ft.~ (e) Lot #5 of 51,150 sq. ft., (f) Lot #6 of 76,740 sq. ft., and (f) the subject parcel of 5.0 acres. 3. By this application~ appellants request approval of three lots with insufficient lot area and width as follows: .(a) Lot #1 of 72,600 sq. ft. with frontage along Indian Neck Road of 64.0 feet exclusive of 25' ri§ht-of-way]'and width at the proposed principal building setback line at 185.33 feet; (b) Lot #2 of 72,600 sq. ft., and (c) Lot #3 of 72,600 sq. ft., all as shown on survey dated April 4, 1985 prepared by Sealand Surveying and Engineering, P.C. 4. It is the opinion of this board that a variance is not warranted under the circums.tances and in light of the history Southold Town Board of Appeals ~]0-~ May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (APpeal No. 3453 - SAMUEL AND ELIZA KOPPER, decision, continued:) of this parcel. It is apparent that a further division was not planned in 1982 when this property was set-off from the northerly portion, and that in view of these circumstances, the interest of justice would not be served by allowing the variance. Also, in considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a) that the lots as proposed are not within the character of the neighborhood; (b) that the circumstances are not unique;(c) that the practical difficulties are not sufficient (d) allowing the relief requested will not be within the spirit of th~_zoning ordinance; (e) strict _.comptiance with the zoning ordinance has not caused economic injury~ (f) that in view of the manner in which the difficulties arose, the interests of justice would be served by _~enying the variance and recommending two lots of 2½ acres ~n area, more or less. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to DENY'the:relief requested under Appeal No. 3453 in the Matter of the Appli~Qn of SAMUEL K.C. and ELIZA PLIMPTON KOPPER, for three lots of ~nsufff~-ient area an--~-a~width. Vote of the Board: 'Ayes: Messrs~ Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawickio (Chairman Goehringer was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted~ The Chairman returned to the meeting at this time. NEW REVIEWS: In reviewing the following matters recently filed, the board indicated that these .matters should not be advertised for public hearings until the following information is received: Appeal No. 3495 - JOHN'E. SHIRVELL, Area, Width and depth variance. N/s Pine Tree R~ad and E~..~illard Road, Cutchogu. e~ Await Article VI approval.]'t~Planning BO~d comments ~ere received on April 16, 19~6~ Appeal No~ 3487 - CHURCH~OF THE OP.EN DOOR. On motion by Mr. Goehri~pger, seconded by Messrs~ Sa~icki and Grigonis, it was ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Reviews, continued:) RESOLVED, that the Special Exception Application of the CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR under Appeal No. 3487, BE AND HEREBY IS TEMPORARILY HELD IN ABEYANCE, pending the following: 1. Application for Site Plan approval by the Planning Board in accordance with Articles XI and Iii, Section IO0-31(B) of the Zoning Code, and 2. Written comments, after receipt and review of the site plan application, from the Planning Board as to necessary changes or additions required in accordance w~th the Planning. Board's regulations and policy, '~ticle XI~ T~e boa~rd indicated~ t~a~' they would recommend that the applicant apply to the Planning Board as soon as possible concerning ~ite plan a~proval since there are several steps involved that may be time-c~.Dsuming. The board members also indicated that they did not feel tba%~'.~ow was an appropriate time to make a decision on a site plan that has not been reviewed yet by the Planning Board~_.~since a majority of the site plan applications before the Planning Board normal.ly require changes or additions before it is c~rt~fi~d. Once the.~onin~g Board holds a public hearing and concludes .same~ the site pl.an and application cannot be amended witho~t ~urther application, hearings, etc~ Vote of the Board: Ayes~ Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, Saw~cki and Doye~n~ This resolution was ~duly adopted. CONDITIONS'PENDING'ACCEPTANCE/COMPLIANCE. Appeal No. 3174. MR. AND MRS. DANIEL STEGNERo Pursuant_ to~he rec99t _~equest of Mr~ and Mrs. Stggner concerning improvements to the right-of-way as required'by the Z.B'.A. decision rendered under Appeal No. 3174,~ the Chairman inspect6d]~the right-of-way today and recommended that the boaro approve same~ Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr~ Doyen, Ct was RESOLVED~ tha~t the improvements as' inspected by the Chairman May l, 1986, be and hereby~are accepted~ s~bject to the following requirements: 1. That the improvements are to be within the legal perimeter of the subject right=of-way at all ~imes; Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- May l~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3174 - DANIEL AND PATRICIA STEGNER, continued:) 2. That the right-of-way be continuously maintained at all times in good condition. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen. ~Abs~nt at %his time from vote were: Members Sawicki and Grigonis.) APPLICATION WITHDRAWN: Appeal No. 3441 = JOHN J. NEWMAN Garage Conversion. Pursuant to the written, requested from the applicant, the board took the following action: On motion by Mr~ Goehrin§er, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that th~ application of JOHN J. NEWMAN under Appeal No. 3441 for a Variance to convert and l~-~crease size of accessory garage-structure for sleepi'ng/livable'-floor are~, BE AND HEREBY IS WITHDRAWN, as requested~ Vote of the Board~ 'Ayes- Messrs~ Goehringer~ Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass a~d Saw%ck~. This resolution ~.as duly adop~%edo PENDING.HEARING, INSPECTION, ROAD REPORT: Appeal No. 3~78: BECKYJOHNSTDN. Board aw~.~%s further.information .yrom attorney or applicant as to the position of the right-of-way (staked) in order that a proper, thorough inspection with recommendations could be made by the road inspector, when authorized by this board. The northerly portion's location is questionable by applicant and property owners at this time. Secretary was directed to send a response to Michael J. Hall, Esq. advising him that this board does not have authority to grant use of a right-of-way as mentioned in his April 25, 1986 letter, but rather has authority to require such improvements of a ~right-of-way pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a for emergency vehicles. The board would not authorize advertising at this time. PUBLIC HEARING SET-UPS FOR MAY 22, 1986: On motion by Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- May l~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings for May 22, 1986:) Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the Z.B.A. Clerk, Linda Kowalski~ BE AND HEREBY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to advertise Notice of the following matters for Public Hearings to be held by this Board at %.he next Regular Meeting of May 22, 1986, commencing at 7:30 p~m. and as follows: 7:35 p.m. 7:40 p.m. 7:45 p.m. 7:50 p.m~ 7:55 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:05 p.m. 8:10 8.'t 5 p 8:-20 p.m. 8:25 8:30 p om. 8.:45 8:50 8'~50 8~55.] 9:05 9:10 9:15 -p.m. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki~ Appeal No. 3399 - JOSEPH AND'ANN'PACELLI; Appea-~ No. 3492 '~'OYO-E'TESEi Appeal No..3498.~-GRE:ENP.ORT N;Y. CONGREGATION OF JEHO~_AH WITNESSES~. ']_ Appeal No~ 3504 - GREENPORT HO'USING'ALLIANCE; Appeal No. 3500 ~'.-NORMAN'RE.~CH; Appeal No. 3483.~ PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO; Appeal No. 3065 ~ JOHN Ap-peal No. 3506 m:ARMANDO'J.:'CAPPA$. Appeal No. 3418 - GRETCHE~'HEIGLm ~ppeal No. 3493 -'WELLS'PONTIAC~CADILLAC, Appeaq No. 3491 - DOtN~LD-'J.' GRI-M~ Appeal No. 3472 - KATHERINE =AND WZLLI'AM HEINS; Appeal No. 3501--- NO.R~H FORK WELDtNG/SCHOENSTEIN; Appeal No. 34~1 - NICHOLAS'TSIRKAS; Appeal No. 3509 ~ HOWARi~'AND :JANET MALONE; ^ppeal No. 349~ - MAR.JORIE D. PETRAS;- Appeal No~ 3507 --N~OK THEO~H~-LOS~ Ap-peat No-. 3458 NORTH ROAD:ASSOCIATES$ Appeal No-. 3469-- JOHN-P.: SGOUROS. Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, This resol.gtion was duly adopted. OTHER MATTERS PENDING ADDITIONAL INFO: The following matters were noted as pending addition'a-~[ inf'orm'ation, previously requested by the board: Southold Tow~ Board of Appeals -14-May l, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted), continued: Appeal No. 3299 - DOUGLAS MILLER. Variance to include wetlands in subdivision which would not result irm insufficient area. Kirkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC and.'Co.:.Health D~p~rtm~nt approvals of pending subdivision~ Appeal No. 3412 - THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct within 75' of wetla-'~-~. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval. (Health Dept. approval a~d.-DEClwaiver'received.) ~ Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL & MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance :'o construct with lns~ff~-~-{-~nt setback in frontyard and from wetlands. **Await DEC and wetland setbacks map... Trustees reviews pending. Appeal No. 3214 - HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for approval of two lo~~icient upland, build- able area. DEC waiver and Planning Board received. **Await Co. Health and Trustees. Lighthouse Road and S/s Soundview Avenue, Southold. Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E,/s West Lane and S/s North La~e~private), off the E/'s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area~ width, depth, etc. **Await Notice of Disapproval after application to Building Department reissuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc, Appeal No. 3292 - HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variance for approval of three parce~s---h-~-g-Tn---~-~-~i~)-~ient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (west of Waterview Drive), Southold. 280-a not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and DEC approgals/action. Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. Variance appealing dectsion~of Planning Board ~/8'4 that buildable area in proposed division is less than 80,000 sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft. (excludes wet)and grass areas) for an existing two-dwelling usage. ~E/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient. ~ii~e*Awatt Co, Health Art. VI and'SEQRA. ~Appeal No. 3367 , LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWSKI. Variance f.or approval of tw~ parcels having ~f~nt area and width. S/s North ~,rive, Mattituck. **Await DEC. Build- ing envelopes and Setbacks not shown since enactment of Local Law - ~etland~s Setbacks. Southold~ Town~Board of Appeals -15- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted): [continued] Appeal No. 2478 - BECKY JOHNSTON. Variance for approval of access by emergency vehicles pursuant to NY Town Law Section~'280-a. ROW off N/s Bridge Lane Extension and Oregon Road, Cutchogue. **Await clarification of location/base of rights-of-way for evaluations. Appeal No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variance for re-division into two lots with ~nsufficient area, and width at Cedar lane and Beach C~urt, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 thru 172 incl. adjoining roads. **Await ~PB, Health Dept. Art. VI approvals/input. [Possible Town Trustees jurisdiction-upland contains wetland grasses]. [Building envelopes of buildable areas not shown.] Appeal No. 3445 JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Variance for approval of two lots having--i'nsufficient~rea. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southoldo **Await Article VI approval and copy of C.O. for existing land and buildings [previous lot-line changes and conv~yances?]. PB comments received. Appeal No. 2461 - NELNUT HASS. Variance for approval of two business lots as proposed with insufficient area and width. S/s C..R~ 48, Peconico **Await Co. Health Art. VI. Planning Board comments received. Appeal No. 3462 - HERBER~ MANDEL. Variance for approva'I of three parcels h~vin~-'"~nsufficient area. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await Co~ Health Art. VI and copy of C.O. Appeal No. 2449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA.~' Variance for approval o~"th~eeparcels having insufficient area, depth and width. N/s Main Road, East Marion **Await County Health Art. VI, corrected, maps and P.B. reviews after submission of maps, Appeal No. 3403 -ANNA, LORIA. Variance for approval oF two parcels having--T-n-~-~-~icfent area, width and depth. W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await Co. Health Art. VI app,1, and approval/waiver. Appeal No. 2426 -GERALD DOROSKI. Var'lance for approval of access (280-a). N/s ~R. 48, Peconic. **Await additional information to clarify ROW and PoB. input. Appeal NO. 3411, A~DREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore eX~sttng building '{'~'~--~-~'~-~-t-~-6-ie use (additional dwelling u~i%). W/s Lipco Road, Mattituck. **AWait scaled floor Plans and C,O. or PreCO. Southold Towo Board of Appeals -16- May l, 1§86 Regular Meeting Other Matters Pending Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information as noted), continued: Appeal NO. 3371 - FLORENCE ROLLE. Variance for approval of two parcels having in~-~-f~t area, width and depth. E/s Ole Jule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Mattituck. **Await Article VI application/approval by Co. Health and poss. DEC. Appeal No. 3342 - PHILIP R. REINHARDT. Variance for approval of two parcels ~-~-~ing insufficient area and width. ~*Reca~sed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Department Art. VI approval/clearance(and DEC)~ Appeal No, 3216 - EUGENE DAVISON. V, ariance to establish living quarters over stable. '**Applicant~has requested postponement until further notice and Planning Board reviews. ~/S Sound Avenue,.Mattituck. Appeal No. 3191 - HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot'ltne and construct garage i-ff-~-6-~/aide yard areas. E/s Inlet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of Clempner and Herbert Mardel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB, Appeal No. 3249 -DONALD P. BRICKLEY~ Variance for apprOVal_ 0~. lots having l'~'~'suf----~'i'cient area and width. S/S Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwa~er Drive, C'utchogue. *~Awalt DEC, Art. Vi by County Health, and con~our maps. Appeal No, 3263'~ROGER MUNZ, Variance for Relief of Condition No. 7 and the May-~~-1-~83 decisions rendered in Appeals No. 3100 and 3101. **Recessed from 9/13/8~ as requested by applicant. Requests for status have been made,.(without response). Premises have been sold. . , Appeal No. 3268 -'J,'KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for approval,:of parcels havi~O~E~e~, width and depth in this "C" zone. A*Await DEC and Co~ Health Art. V) application/actiOns. Planning Board recommended den'ial 9/~4. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters P~nding Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information) continued: Appeal No. 2259 - NICHOLAS ALIANO. Special Exception to establish and build four two-story motel buildings contain- ing lO motel units for transient use, and an office building of.2,500 sq. ft. in area on this 3.721-acre parcel, zoned "B-Light.'~ S/s Main Road, Greenport (along the east side of 7-11).' **Recessed hearing from 8/23/84 awaiting Village of Greenport contracts to which this plan is contingent upon before approval may be given. Appeal No. 3298 -~PORT OF'EGYPT/C & L 'RF~LTY. Variance to construct for~y, runit~ ~)~-~n~"insufficient buildable upland of 4,83 acres and having insufficient sideyards. S/s Main=~Road (prey. Southold Fishing Station/Morris), Southold,. **Await corrected site plans, topographical survey, including lowest floor elevations above mea sea level, Suffolk County Health Department approval, N.Y~So Department of Environmental Conservation approval, comments or input after review of the site plan by the Planning Board, 10~9/84~ Appeal No. 2929 SAL CAIOLA. tionable as to repre_sentati~n. N/s 'C.R. 48, 'Southold. Appeal No.'3183 - ~ARY N. CODE. R.ropo~ed reseparation of lots. Project proposed is ques- Status/~clarification awaited. Smith Drive~ North, Southold. Await DEC and Planning Board applications to be completed and filed for input. Appeal No, 3214 -'B~E~.SCHMITT~ SYVERSON, ROW off E/s Camp Mineo!a Road along Great ~econic ~-a-y-~ ~-~-{ti~uck~ **Awa~ Co. Health, DEC and].Planning Board..before public near~ng~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -1 8- 2Vla~ 13 ~ 1986 Regular Meeting APPEAL NO. 3441 - JOHN J. NEWMAN - garage conversion variance. In accordance with the applicant's recent request~ the following resolution was offered by Chairman Goehringer~ seconded by Member Douglass~ and duly carried: RESOLVED~ that the Application of JOHN J. NEWMAN under Appeal No. 3441 for a Variance to convert and increase size of accessory garage structure for sleeping/livable floor area~ BE AND HEREBY IS WITHDRAWN ~ as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer ~ Grigonis~ Doyen ~ Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was unanimously adopted. APPEAL NO. 3442 - JOHN J. NEWMAN - addition to dwelling. In reviewing the file~ it was brought to the board' s attention that the copy of the Army Corps of Engineer approval was not enclosed with the application. The board is also awaiting D.E.C. approval and al1 prior permits on the property for the existin9 structures (pool~ etc. ). APPEAL NO. 3433 - DESSIMOZ AND RACZ (280-a). The Secretary/Board Clerk was authorized and directed to request a road inspection and report from Mr. J Davis concerning the right-of-way referred to as Private Road ~10~ Halleck Lane~ Mattituck. The secretary was recently advised by the applicants' agent~ that they are in a position to proceed with the recent variance which was denied since they still require 280-a for any other buildi;~g permit application they may wish to pursue. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: Pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold~ motion was made by Chairman Goehringer ~ seconded by Member Douglass ~ to declare the following Environmental Declarations, determinin9 each project not to have an adverse affect upon the environment~ as follow: Appeal No. 3480 VINCENT AND JOANN CASA Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued: ~ay 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3480 PROJECT NAME: Vincent and Joann Casa This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance. for permission to locate ~wimmingpool with deck and fence enclosure within 100 feet og bluff along L.I. Sound LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suff~olk, ~u~ivisio2. particularly known as: 1840 The Strand, PebBle BeaCh F~rms ±nc. Map ~2, Lot ~115, East Marion, N.Y. 1000-30~2-58 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Location of proposed pool and fence enclosure is at an elevation of more than 50 feet above mean sea level. (3) Location of pool is more than 45 feet from bluff area. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 1, 1986 $.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3418 PROJECT NAME: Gretchen Heigl This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II kB Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for insufficient lot area and width and for approval for access. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North side of Soundview Ave., ~0uthold, N.Y. 1000-68,01-14 and 15.1./ REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Location of right-of-way in question is'at an elevat~0n of more than 20 feet above mean sea level. (3)Lot area and width variances are not 8i~e~ly related to new c°nst~t~HER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i~ Secretary, Southold Town Board of AppealM,.. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL N0.:~490 PROJECT NAMe: Harry and Sandra ~urlburt This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ii Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance-for permission.to locate_accessory storage shed in frontyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town' of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly k~gwn as: Private Road, Fishers Island, N~Y. 1000-3-2-10. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has-been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The location of ~he proposed accessory building is landward of ~isting structures and is at an elevation of more than 10' above mean sea level. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeal~,._Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) ~ay 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3486 PROJECT NAME: Robert Johnsen This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Variance-.for approval of~insufficient lot area of proposed Parcel 94 in this pending four-lot minor subdivision. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~Suffolk, more particularly known as: South side of Sound View Ave., Southold N.Y. 1000=68-4-2- and 3. ~ ..... ' REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (&~ This project is a lot line variance as'defined by P~rt 617.13 (d)(2)/ This project is not directly related to new construction. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linde KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. ~'- Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3468 PROJECT NAME: Robert J. LOng This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar 'project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance for approval of. parcel in_this p~p~sed set-off division of land having insufficient area and depth LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk. more particularly k~Qwn as: North side of Main Rd., East MV~ion, 'N.Y. 1000-31-4-15 containing 11.912 acres. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: [1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) This project fails within the category'0f-a lot-line variance as per Part 617.13 (d) (2) (3) This project is not directly related to new construction. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda KowalsRi, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals, Town Hall, Southold NY 11971; tel 516- 765-1809 or 1802. '~ ' ' Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- May 1, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3494 PROJECT NAME: Port of Egypt Enterprises This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Variance.for permission to locate marine fuel tank structures in "C-Light" Industrial Zoning Dist. with insufficient.set- back from landward edge of tidal wetland & ordinary highwater mark LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of~ Suffolk, more particularly known as: 6230 Main Rd., Southold, N.~. 1000-56-3.2, 3.3, 4, 6, 6.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; This is a setbaCk ~ariance regulated by Part 617~13-(d) (2) (~)?~ This project is not involving removal or destruction of vegetation or fauna, or substantially increasing erosion, flooding or drainage problems. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeals,..Town Hall, Southold~ NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) May 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 339~ PROJECT NAME: C. Bruce and Anne Staiger This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance .for approval of two parcels having insufficient lot area, width and depth LOCATION OF PROJECT: . To.w~ of ~qu~old, ~ounty of~ Suffolk more particularly known as: East stae of Wells Road, Peconic, N.Y. ' 1000-86-2-4 an~-5. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has-been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) Thus project falls within the category'0f.'a lot-linc'variance as per Part 617~13 (d) (2). (3) This project is not directly related to new construction. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowals~i, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appealed. Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- May (Environmental Declarations, continued:) l, 1986 Regular Meeting May 1, 1986 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3471 PROJECT NAME: N~ck01as Tsirkas This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II kd Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance-'for permission to construct single- family dwelling with an insufficient setback from edge of bank along L.I.- Sound. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~gwn as: North side. of Sound Ave., Greenport, N.Y. Eastern Shores Subdivision Map 4586, LAt 113, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-105-01-5. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has-been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The location of the proposed dwelling is at an elevation of more than 10 feet above mean sea level FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Linda Kowalski, Secretary, Southold Town Board of Appeal~,..Town Hall, Southold, NY 11971; tel. 516- 765-1809 or 1802. Copies of this notice sent to the applicant or his agent and posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board. Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- May l, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigoni~, Douglass, Doyen and sawickj_ This resolution was duly adopted. CODE COMMITTEE MEETING: It was brought to the board's. attention that a code committee meeting has been scheduled for Fridas~ May 2, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. Member Grigonis indicated that he would attend. There being no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 RECEIVED AND FII~D BY TIlE SOUTHOLD TOWN DATE Town Clerk, Town of 5outhold -Respectfully submitted, Appro~/ex~- 6/19/86 / / HEARINGS REGULAR MEETING OF SOUTHOLD TOWN ZBA May 1, 1986 Thursday ~3399 - At 7:35 p.m a hearing was held in the matter of C. BRUCE and ANNE STAIGER for a variance to approve 2 parcels ha~ing insufficient l~'~--~rea, width and depth. East side of Wells Avenue, Peconic, New York. Chairman read application ~nd legal notice for t~he record, in their entirety. MR. STAIGER: I know that this may be repetitive, however, I would like to read, if I may something: "...Gentlemen, I am asking for a setoff of the lots in question, which are located between Wells Road~and Richmond Creek in Peconic. I am not asking to subdivide what was originally one acre lots, but rather merely to restore to their original status, the two lots Mrs. Staiger and I purchased years ago. The lot on which our home is located was pur- chased 32 years ago. The additional lot to the north was purchased 22 years ago in 1964. We have been paying taxes on them as separate parcels for the past 22 years. The Town's action in joining them together raises a serious question of equity and creates serious problems and hardships for which we are seeking relief through the Zoning Board. First, it seems manifestly unfair that in an area that has been developed over the years, in half-acre or smaller plots, to single us out. There are many other lots of this size stretched north and south along Richmond Creek. Our two lots are among these. To have the Town say that our lots must be joined, in the midst of all these half acre lots, one of which was sold, coincidentally, after the purchase of our lot, at a time that half-acre lots were the accepted norm. The Town's actions create for us a number of personal and financial problems. We built our home on the southerly lot in 1952 and 12 years later, bought the second lot with the idea that we would build a smaller home on it, when the time came that we could no longer care for a larger house. Mrs. Staiger has had a serious heart problem for a number of years. In the past two years she has been hospitalized three times for heart failure. If we do not have the setoff requested, we cannot fulfill our hopes and plans for the adjacent lot and we will have to sell our home on Richmond Creek. Certainly we have paid taxes on the other lot all these years. The denial of our appeal will create a serious financial hardship. The value of real estate is in large measures, determined by the surrounding properties. We will have to accept a price for the full acre because the other properties on the north side of the creek are on half acres. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 2 STAIGER HEARING - Continued MR. STAIGER : - continued ..... Our house~is on the south side of the lot and if it is sold, it is not in a good spot. It should be centered on the full acre. The value of the property will be lowered if we have to sell it as a single unit. I should also like to point out that_the 2 lots in question are the 2]~largest lots in the section we are discussing. The survey mapsc which I have. filed show this. There are no environmental or health department problems which would be created by the Board granting this appeal..." I should like to close by pointing out that there is a precedent to the Board's grating our request. A similar request was granted in the same area for a smaller lot. I can only hope that my pre- sentation can convince you of the need that the Town's action has placed upon us. I would also like to ask for your decision at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Yes, sir, kindly state your name for the record. ROBERT RINGOLD: I am a neighbor. I live across the street. As his neighbor for seven years, I personally would have not objection to pUtting another house in. It would be an asset to the block. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .Anyone else in favor? &NIIA HARDEN: I live directly across the way and I would have no objection whatsoever to this plan. CHARLES SCHWARA : I have no objections to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I Will turn to the opposite side to see if there is anyone who objects. Any questions from any Board members? Mr. Staiger, how far if your house presently from the creek? Do you have any idea? MR. STAIGER: Yes, I would say at least 100 feet CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: When:we have had applications of this nature, we place a condition on that any house that any house constructed on a lot, if the Board so grants 'this setoff, that they must meet all the terms and conditions of the normal sideyard, frontyard and rear- yards that exist in the Town. In other wo~ds, we are trying to preclude any other variances that might exist. Do you have any problems with that? ZBA 5//1f/86 Page 3 STAIGER~R!NG _-_ C0nt_~,e~d MR. STAIGER: No, I do not. The lot in question is 110' and the lot the house is on is only 100'. The creek curves in there however, it is still the highest lot in t'he entire area. I think it would create no problems whatsoever, because it has more room than the lot my house is on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. Also, I justpwanted to mention to you that we have to make a possible negative declaration on this ap- plication tonight and we have to post that negative declaration for 15 days on the board outside, so there is no way to make a decision tonight. So, please do not expect a decision tonight.. Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision unt: Recessed from April 3, ~3396 - At 7:40 P.M. a GARY DOROSKI for a var~ 425 Monsell Lane, Cutc! and appeal apPlication CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Please .use the mike bec MR. CARR: This is what I think I under~-tand t! takes care of stamping file copy. It shows ti set in and then the blt CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. CARR: It has been new to constructing ac past winter, I worked building out of it. S like this for 12 years CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. CARR: There are a far as it withstanding any more problem with 1 later. Thank you all for coming in. 1986. hearing was/~ld in the matter of .ance to put a pool within 75' of wetlands. logue, New York. Chairman read legal notice in their entirety, for the record. )o you have' anything for us tonight? ~ause we are taping this, I am sorry. I normally use for block wall pools. le question before us. Mr. Tsontakis usually that. He was nice enough to let me have his ~at there is a 12 x 12 x 6 footing that is ~ck wall on 'top of that. ?hat's the new system that they are using? around for quite a while. It is fairly :ual buildings, but in Southampton, o.ver the in something where they constructed an actual ;im King in Rocky Point has been doing pools should have said ~we are not used to it. number ~f Swim King Pools out here. As cold and cracking, I don't think there is [hat than with normal foundations. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 4 DOROSKI HEARth, hued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We were worried about the side exposed to the water. About that particular part giving way and falling with the treated water going into the inlet. That's the only thing we are worried about. MR. CARR: I think as far as~the property is concerned, at that point it would be above grade on the lower side. I have built an entire swimming pool withou~ having it backfilled, because I run piers every 8' If you were concerned about the wall letting go, we could the piers in every 6' and I would have n0 problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ~Are't'hese exterior piers? MR. CARR: It is a fiberglas-concrete mix. Once the fiberglas sets up to the concrete, it get extremely hard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there sand on the bottom of this pool? Okay. I suppose that any breeching would be through the sand? If the liner broke. MR. CARR: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will copy this and give it back to you. You pick it up on Monday, okay? Thank you very much for coming in and explaining this. We appreciate it tremendously. Gary is there anything else th~ you wOuld like to add? The only other question I have to ask you, is you are not going to put in any overhead lighting that would be obstrusive to the neighbors or shine on to the road on Skunk Lane or. Bay Avenue ? MR. CARR: No. CHAIRMAN GOERHINGER: You plan'to fence the estire pool with self'closing gates, etc.? I haveYno further questions. Thank you very nuch gentlemen. We will ask again if there is anyone who has any objections or would like to speak on behalf. I make a motion closing this hearing reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 5 ~3479 - At 7:95 p.m. a hearing was held'in the matter of JOHN Pi SGOUROS for a variance to approve 2 parcels with insuffiCient area, width and depth. Chairman ~ead legal notiCe and appeal application in their entirety for the record. MR. SGOUROUS: I am the father of the applicant. John was not able to come tonight because of another commitment. We have been paying taxes on these as vacant lots and we were not aware that they had been merged until we made this application. The health department gave us approval for 2 lots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there, any lots in the general vicinity built on more than one lot; any houses, I should say? MR. SGOUROS: Not to my understanding. houses being built. I have no knowledge of any CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have had people come in here who do a short analysis of that side of the street. I was wondering if you could supply the Board with that information wihtin the next couple of weeks? In other words, go over to the assessor's office and take that side of the street within a general area of distance from north to south, and let us take a look and see which lots are in single and separate ownership and which lots are merged. We are not going to make a decision on this application, until the 22nd, possibly not until sometime in early June. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? JOHN SHOTT: I live on the westerly boundary of the parcel in question, My question is that you postpone this. I know of two parcels that have been in my family, that the lot has been incorporated and has been sold as such. I was not aware of their half-acre lots to begin with. My problem is that I am adjacent ~a to an acre lot and at the time I purchased, I was not aware that it was not a full acre lot. It is a detriment to me because I was not aware of it at the time, but for 13 years, now all of a sudden they are looking to split lots in half. I don't think it is in the bast interests of the population density with all the sewage problems we have had. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any Town water down there? JOHN SHOTT: No, sir. It is all wells and on the backside of the property is High Point, that's one subdivision and it has been that way for I don't know how long. I have lived there since 1973. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 6 J~_ HE A R~N~~~n ~. i nued JOHN SHOTT - Continued; That is all. If ~ou are going to have another hearing, I would like to have some notification. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will close this hearing. My suggestion here is not to close the'hearing until the next meeting and if you have any other comments that you would like to make at that time, you can. This particular application will not be re-advertised, but the hearing will be re-advertised. You will have to call our office to have them tell you what time it will be. Anyone else like to speak at this particular heari~g? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion recessing this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting. VINCENT CASA public hearing 8:06-8:14 see pp. 6A and 6A attached. ~3486 - At S:14p.m. a hearing was held in the matter of ROBERT JOHNSEN for a variance to approve in§ufficient lot in proposed 4 parcel lot subdivision, southside Sound Avenue, Southold, New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal applications in their entirety for the record. MR. JOHNSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The garage that's in the rear of your present house now, is that on~ lot #4 or #3? MR. JOHNSEN: Four. There were 2 parcels; 3.1 acres and the other 5 acres. They were put together. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason that I ask that question is we were going to have an accessory building on a vacant lot. That large garage in the back is on lot ~3, where the house is, that's lot ~4. There are no other structures on the other 3 lots, no horse barns or anything of that nature? I thank you very much. Anyone else like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? If there are no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 6 A #3480 - At8:06 p.m. a hearing was held in the matter of VINCENT and JOANN CASA for a variance to locate swimming pool and deck and fence within 100' of bluff. 1840 The Strand, Pebble Beach Farms, Inc., East Marion. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in their entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard? Could you state your name for the record. SUSAN JACOBS: I am the agent for the owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There has been some discussion with neighbors concerning the 2' distance to the adjacent west property line and I don't.know if we are referring to the deck or the pool at that point. Is the deck going to be 3' from the proposed.,. SUSAN JACOBS: The deck would go right up to the fence line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The pool will be approximately 3' then? We assume that the 61' to the bluff is an approximate dimension? Okay. It is an 18 x 36 pool and the deck is 3' all around? SUSAN JACOBS: I believe it is 3' all the way around. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are going to have to ask you from this point on to have this drawing by the original engineer or surveyor because we are running into problems and.we may ask for topo's and so on and so forth, okay? Not specifically this application, but from this point on. Will there be any overhead lighting that would be obstruslve to the neighbors? SUSAN JACOBS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see that there are fence posts placed on the property already? SUSAN JACOBS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Just for the record, how are you going to get the machinery in there? Is it going to be brought in on the east side? SUSAN JACOBS: It is coming in on the side, but which I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any specific reason why you chose to put the pool on a front to back basis, rather than turn it around sideways? So it runs east to west. SUSAN JACOBS: This was a request of the owner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much for coming in. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no ..... Mr. Lessard? ZBA 5/1t86 Page 6B CASA HEARING - Continued MR. LESSARD: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Itm is almost a flush deck from what I recollect when I took picture. Rm ~. LESSARD: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean unless it is attached to that deck? MR. LESSARD: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Standing in front of it on the right hand side, is approximately where the, that is not the greatest picture, be- cause I was taking it from downhill; but that part of the deck, which is to your extreme right-hand side is basically flush. The part that is in front of the glass sliding doors is elevated, so to answer your question. Hearing no fuLther questions, I make a motion closing the hearing uhtit ~ater, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/1 ./86 Page 7 ~3490 - At 8:]8 p.m. a hearing was held in the matter of ~AR~Y~.an_d S~N~R_~_A H__~RL~BUR_.~ for a variance to locate accessory shed in front yard, Fishers Island, New.York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal apPl~ication in their entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: heard? Is there anyone who would like to be MR. DOYEN: Mr. Hurlburt called me last ~ight and told me he could make it tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any knowledge, Mr. Doyen, that he is going to use this building for any other reason but for ~torage purpose~? MR. DOYEN: I understand not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, I assume that he has no objections to the normal restrictions that we place on storage buildings? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further com- ments, I make a motion ~losing the hearing reserving decision until later. ~3494 - At 8:22 p.m. a hearing was held in the matter of ~OR~. 0~._E~Y/~__~TER.~. ~E~S for a variance to locate marine fuel storage tank in "C" light district with insufficient setback from land to tidal wetland. 6230 Main Road, Southold, New York. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application in entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone who would like to be heard? Sir, could you kindly state your name. We had gone extensively over this application with Mr. Wiggin at the last meeting and Iap- preciate your coming down. We will see if there is any discussion on the floor and that's why'I asked for some representative. Let's wait and see what happens. I have no further questions. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? Sir, it is going to be an easy night on this application. Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing this hearing, reserving decision until later. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 8 ~3468 - At 8:28 p.m. a public hearing was held in the matter of ~.~-~-J.LON~ for a variance to approve parcel in setoff with insufficient area and depth. Northside Main Road, East Marion. Chairman read legal notice and appeal application ~n their entirety for the record. MRS. LONG: I have minutes of the Planning Board of March 24th, giving reasons to them to set that off. I am here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I recollect this particular application How wide do we have that right of way going in? MRS. LONG: The ROW we have proposed is 25' and I believe there was a 25' ROW that Arnold B showed on his m~p to 2 or 3 lots on the 11 acres behind the proposed setoff. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: DO you presently have a subdivision before the Planning Board on the 11 acres? MRS. LONG: No, I donSt. We did indicate to them that we would covenant and restrict the 11 acres to a minor subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And they know you are showing a 25' width? MRS. LONG: When I met with the Planning Board prior to submitting this application, they said they would require a 25' ROW for the lots back there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that would be .all the way up to the Main Road. You would be taking a portion of the property? I think that answers it. I thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? Against the application? You have to raise your hands real fast because I am liable to close it before you get a chance. Hearing no further questions~ I make a motion Closing the hearing reserving decision until later. The R. Long hearing was concluded at 8:33 p.m. ZBA 5//1//86 Page 9 Recessed from 4/3/86 93471 - At 8:33 p.m. apublic hearing was rec0nvened Matter or'NICHOLAS TSIRKAS for a variance to construct single-family dwellin~"~th i~---~u~ficien't setback from edge of bank of LI Sound. Northside Sound Avenue, Greenport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: us an engineer? Mr. Pachman, how are you? Have you brought MR. PACHMAN: Yes, we have sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How wonderful. MR. PACHMAN: I have a report from Steve G. Tsontakis, Associates with his diagram. I understand he has appeared before you and you do accept him as an expert and he is a licensed engineer. Pursuant to Mr. Douglas~ request, it is attached and shows the slope going south, as I indicated to you it was going to be. I don't want to go in to great detail as to the report, because I think it resolves most of your questions and has most of your answers. The only problem I have is that the report shows the proposed grade the load influence the distance from the hill. It makes several suggestions with reference to scoring at the. toe of the hill. The erosion doesn't change one way or another nor doeS the scoring change one way or another. I think one of the most significant aspects of the issue is he says t~att~ weight will end up being 50 lbs. per square inch, which is ±eS~ ~ne pressure which is exerted by the average male standing on a hill, the way it is built from the distance that we are. It has 3 test holes, we didn't just give an opinion by walking the lot. We took 3 test hole borings to get determination as to the weight load and the underlying soil. So we have a very good report here. My suggestion., Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, is I think we adequately answer your questions. If we close the meeting and you feel you want him to come, he is available and will come. I don't want to belabor the meeting tonight, but if you decide later onethat you want to open up for some reason, because you want detailed testi- mony, he will be available. CHAIRMAN G©EHRINGER: I think as a matter of formality, it would be unfair to you to close this hearing. I think we will keep it open until the next meeting, so if we have any specific questions that requires further scrutiny, we will discuss it at that particular time. ZBA 5t /86 Pag~e 1 0 TSIRKAS HEARING Continued MR. PACHMAN: By the way, I did meet with Mr. Connell of the USDA and I asked if I could see his notes and minutes and various things that he did and he did not have any. This was his best recollection and his only report was what he put in the letter, and I in essence asked him, would that be the same opinion, no matter what bluff you were on? And he said yes, so I think the report we have really delves into it really and really supports it from documents. I think you have the comfort you are looking for in making the decision. I think -- under single and separate, we are rightly under the wire, but, if you still have concerns about, I think engineering- wise .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, if you don't hear from us between now and the next meeting, we are just going to close the hearing auto- maritally. I think it would~ be unfair to the applicant and to your- s.elf, if we have a question, to have to reopen the hearing. MR. PACHMAN: We would like to get into the ground.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will attempt to deal with that as expeditiousl as possible after that closing of that hearing. I should say that this does not preclude him for going for Health Department approval or any- thing like that. MR. PACHMAN; We got Health Department approval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone e.lse who would like to speak concerning this application? Hearing no further questions from anyone in the audience, I make a motion recessing the hearing as a matter of formality, so that the Board can review this engineer's report at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Thank you all for coming in. Thank you again, Mr. Tsirkas for coming back. We appreciate it tremendously. Tsirkas hearing ended at 8:40 p.m. Ten-minute recess from 8:40 to 8:50 p.m. was taken. Following the hearing, the meeting was reconvened, and the board opened the hearing in the Matter of Paul Leary/Frank Brophy, which has been prepared under separate cover, the'original of which was filed with the Town' Clerk. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 11 Respectfully submitted, Ba~~~. Strang Pp. 1 through ZBA 5/1/86 **These minutes tronically~ were transcribed from tapes recorded elec- RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOV~rN CLERK Town Clerk, To'wn of $ou~thold ZONING_ BOARD~~ .~in~ o_f M~y 1~,~ 1986 8:50 p.m. %3489 - PAUL LEARY - For reversal of decision of building inspector, Property of Frank and Mary Brophy, 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York. Chairman Goehringer: Please raise your right hand and sweaz that you will tell the truth with matters pertaining to this hearing, to the best of your recollection, and say I do. MR. REUSS: I do swear to that. I am glad you are not depriving me of the opportunity to do that which an attorney likes most to do, and that is talk. I present to you the Leary case. We have given you a virtual volume, but there are some things I want to point out with reference to that which is contained in there and some facts and some facts that are, perhaps, not contained. You have to understand that we are dealing with 2 permits here. The nullification which is sought is the action of the Building Inspector, with reference to 2 permits. The first one dated and signed October 3, 1985, but was held by the Building Inspector and department while your body considered a matter with reference to the recision of the variance which was sought at the time. So, it was not issued until after the decision that you made with reference to the front deck on the premises. I am sure you have a recollection of that in great detail. The permit itself, speaks for itself. It is a permit to make alter- ations and additions to an existing dwelling. That of course, with reference to plans, an application was filed. But an application to make alterations and additzons to an existing dwelling and the understanding was, of all concerned, was the existing dwelling at that time, was to have added to the rear of it an addition, perhaps for bedrooms or a living room, whatever it might be. Here, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, is the dwelling as it existed MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt this presentation, that is not my role, I want to permit him to make whatever case he feels is appropriate. We have to have some ground rules. This is an appeal from a decision, purportedly of the Building Inspector, or official of the Town of Southold with reference to these two permits. I would like to at least have before the Board, so I could know, what appeal of the Building official they are making. I still ha~e not gotten the section which he violated, or the issues they are raising. Are they asking you for an interpretation or instruction of the Building official? ZBA 5/1/86 Page 2 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS: We will come to that most assuredly. C~AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: representing whom? Excuse me, one second. Sir;. you are MR. PACHMAN: I am representing Mr. Brophy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRZNGER: I really was not aware of that.. Secondly, in situations like this, usually, we hand the pictures over to the opposing side and we ask that there be no question that everybody agrees that the pictures do exist and they. are purportedly what we are talking about. MR.-REUSS: I am handing the pictures over to Mr. Pachman and I will let him look at them while I continue on. Howard, these are the houses, in various stages ...... I will continue on, Howard. In any event, there was the permit to make an addition and~.alter and when that permit was finally given~over, to the applicant, it was sometime a'fter your decision. When it was finally given over to the applicant, the entire house came down. There was no demolition permit. There was no permit for partial demolition. Nothing had been done with reference to demolition. But under a permit which permitted alteration and addition to existing buildings, the building was leveled. NOw, of course, part of the foundation re- mained, but as you will later see, even the flooring on the first floor was in most places, new. Some of the existing flooring apparently was used, but in most places, the flooring in place was new. In addition, in an alteration had to be an absolutely new building because the demolition was complete. I went to the Building Department or rather telegraphed them, or wrote them, or whatever. I notified them certainly of what was going on and a response to that, .Mr. Brophy apparently went down. and procured from the Building Inspector on 2/11/.86, after the demolition, a permit which would permit '~ partially demolish_ existing dwelling ..." And that is the way that permit reads. And these are the permits that we live with today. And the things are moving along with reference to today. To make an alteration and addition, and to partially demolish an existing dwelling. That partial demolition permi~ having been issued as an ex post facto ma~ter, after the demolition had taken place. We are faced with work done in the form of a total demolihion, work deemed now in the form of a totally new building, ~nder permits which permit only alterations and addition and a partial demolition. ZBA 5~1/86 Page 3 LEARY' HEARING - Continued r:.R.euss -.Continued am going no snow you the pictures now, if I may. First, if I may, Mr.Chairman, is the dwelling as it existed prior to any of the demolition; next three, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is the platform that exists on the plot now, which was covered with wood after the complete demolition. As you can see, the walls are gone. The roof is gone. The internal partitions are gone. Nothing remains except for part of the old foundation, a new foundation has been added in other places and to some limited extent, the old floor boards, but even those ..... Here are some other views of the premises after the demolition. Again you can see no walls, no roof, no interior or exterior walls and new lumber and new floors for the first floor of the house. A new basement for the crawl space. The job is absolutely new. It is mot a question of addition or alteration. Now, as a matter of history, in 1972, this property in the subdivision that is this property, was before this Board for the first time. That was when the successors to the Pugsley's; the Pugsley family having been the owner of the entire larger piece of land. When the successors came before you and asked for the right to subdivide and to create sub-standard lots. This Board granted that application in 1972, but with specific provisions in the granting of that application. This Board said" ..... it is granted provided that all successors to title, all purchasers, all buyers, all those who came along and wanted to get on board with those lots, were notified of the decis.ion of the Board and provided that no improvements were made to the pro- perty without the approval of this Board of Appeals. Now, since 1972 and for 14 years, that has existed with reference to the pro- perty. Your decision of 1972. And yet we have seen the issuance of a building permit here for alterations and for addition and partial demolition and have seen the act of total demolition, and an attempt at total reconstruction. All in the face of your 1972 decision. In 1980, the owner of the property, Mr. Brophy, came before you on 3 occasions and again, at that time, he came before you after he had constructed a deck on his house, that was in violation of the rules and of the law and of the code, after he had constructed it. On 3 occasions he came to you, 1980, and 1981, and said he would like approval for that deck that he had put on. He would like a variance with reference to it. And you allowed the creation of that deck in 1981 and you said that there was no substantial detriment to the adjoining properties by the creation of the deck in the front of the house. You said there was no problem with that whatsoever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: or two denials? Excuse me, sir, wasn't that after at leas~ one ZBA 5/ ,186 Page 4. LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS: Oh, yes, it had been denied, that's why there were three such applications. In connection with that, Mr Brophy's attorney appeared before you and said they did not want to build in the rear yard because to do so wQuld be to obstruct the waterview. And in recognition of the rights of their neighbors, that in- cludes the Leary's, they did not want to construct in the rearyard because it would obstruct the waterview. And they recognized then a right to an unobstructed waterview under the circumstances that exist there in New Suffolk. Consequently, they were permitted to build in front of the house. I want you to know that that which they are doing now under their alteration permit and of their partial demolition permit and via ~heir full demolition and their full rebuilding is to build at the rear of the house, the very point at which in t980 they said to you, the Board, and their attorney said to you they did not want to build because it would obstruct the waterviews of. their neighbors. Now in 1985, Mr..Brophy wanted his deck down and Mr. Leary wrote to you a letter setting forth the reasons whyT'that should not be permitted, because it would lead, the taking of the deck down, inevitably to a building at the rear of the premises. You, in your wisdom, said that all you were concerned with is the deck. And that is a matter of wisdom. That is what you are concerned with,'the deck. But in the back of that application,.to remove the deck lay the in- tended actions to demolish and construct a totally new dwelling. On November 7, 1985, the Board wrote, and said that any new con- struction will require an application to the Board. And you told him in November that any new construction would require an application to the Board. I take it that that arises from the fact that ~he 1972 findings of the Board was to the effect that a person should come back here in that subdivision, to seek approval. You told him that. And in your file, you said that there was no new construction, so there was no need for an environmental impact statement with reference to the application that was then made. If I recognize that there were new construction~ there would be need for an environmental impact statement. And I want you to know that there is no environmental impact statement, as far as I know, but I stand ready to be corrected by Mr. Pachman. He often times knows more about things than I. But I believe there to be no environmental impact statement here. MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the last time I was thrown a boquet of roses, I found thorns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can't answer sir, I have not sworn you in yet ZBA 511186 Page 5 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS: I say to you that there are no plans here to support the time of demolition and the new constrUction that has taken place. I submit to you that the Building Inspector was wrong in issuing the permit to begin with, without requiring that the matter come before the Board in accordance with the 1972 decision of this Board and in ac- cordance with all that was said including the letter of November 2nd.from the Chairman, from the Board to Mr. Brophy to the affect that no new construction can take place at the premises without a submission to this Board, It was a violation of that in the issuance of the permit and in the work being done under the permit there is a violation. I feel there is a violation of the Federal Emergency rules of the Flood Plain Management process. There is a violation if there ms no environmental impact statement filed. And there is an impact on the visual character of the neighborhood, and it is a detrimental one, that has to be reviewed from an environmental standpoint. There is a right to a waterview under circumstances such as this. But most of all, this Board has been imposed upon by the going forward of this bU'ilding, with this complete demolition on a partial demolition permit, with this complete building, new building on an addition permit. This Board has been put upon in that regard because you let the Brophy's know, by your communication of November 7th that new construction must be considered by this Board. And the record that we have given you is replete with the recognition by the Brophy's and by yourselves with reference to matters such as that. In August of 1980, appearing before you the Brophy's attorney said and we speak for our clients and when we speak for them, we represent them, and we are bound by what our attorneys say for us in most cir- cumstances. Brophy's attorney says "...as I said in the appeal it- self~ these are joined landowners. They have an unobstructed water- view down behind the property and in the event this deck were to be constructed to the rear of their property, the adjoining property owners would suffer...". In 1-980, you were told by the B'rophy's attorney that if they constructed in the rear of the property, the adjoining property owners would suffer by reason of their being deprived, of course, of a waterview. Now by the same tokens the Brophy's take a different viewpoint today. But, I believe that they are bound by what they said in 1980 in that regard, before this Board. In your communication of October 28, 1985 to Brophy, gave him your resolution, adopted October 24, 1985, the last part of which says "...Resolved that (a) change that would affect the prior conditions rendered by this Board to require a formal application for Board of Appeals consideration prior to the issuance of a building permit." ZBA 511186 Page 6 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS - ContinUed: This is the stand that you 'took by your resolution, and in spite of that, the Building Inspector had actually issued in terms of handing over, the permit, that you said would have to be reviewed by you. And you recognize what was on file over in the Building Department when on 10/29/85, you say the plans of Mr. Brophy sub- mitted include an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. Even then, that is what you are dealing with. When you said that it would have to be put before the Board, your thoughts were that it was a plan for an addition to the rear of the existing building. And not a complete demolition; and Rot a complete reconstruction. Now, I suppose that Mr. PaChman will tell you that, because that is what I would say. I would say I was tearing down something and I only wanted to tear down t'hat rear portion of it, but I saw a little rotten timber or a little evidence of termites, or something like that I would feel obliged under[~'the New York State Construction Law to go ahead and take care of the things that came to my eye, as I worked. But the very fact of the matter is that it came down an one fell swoop. It was not that kind of inspection; not that kind of careful approach at all. It came down in one fell swoop. The Board of Appeals wrote to Mr. Brophy again on 11/8/85, No, it was to Mr. Hindemann of the Building Department," .... it is requested that the building Permit be voided, pending formal application by Mr. Brophy to this Department, to this Board, for whichever relief he desires to apply for..." You told the Building Department on 1'1/8/85. In response to that, Mr. Hindemann did issue a stop work order to the Brophy's. And he said that with reference to yourselves, you are not permftted, to proceed with construction until you receive approval from the Board, and at that time, the permit will be released. I suppose that it will come in argument that we are talking apples and oranges here, and the approval here was with reference to the front porch, the deck, not with reference to the other items at all. And you know, you have decided this matter of the front deck. How was that submitted to you? It was a letter from the attorney for Mr. Brophy dated 11/26/85. I wonder if you recall the relief that Mr. Brophy was seeking for the front deck. Number 1. Allow Mr. and Mrs. Brophy to remove the front deck. Number 2. Direct the Building Department to rescind the stop work order. Number 3. Direct the Building Department to release the Building Permit held in abeyance. What did you do with reference to these items? You said he could take down the front deck, but you did not within the decision you made on that application, direct the Building Department to rescind the stop work order, and you did not direct the Building Department to release the Building Permit. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 7. LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS - Continued: You did not do those things. You merely acted with reference to the front deck. You did not act, and your minutes show that you did not act in approval of or even in consideration of the building permit. And by your not granting that relief that was sought by the Brophy's, it was not' granted to him, and it was not available to him, and he was put to the necessity of appealing here. Now, last but not least, I want to call your attention to the minutes of that meeting of January 9, 1986, and appearing for Mr. Brophy, and his attorney says "...right now, it is in con- fcrmity with the Building COde as a non-conforming use. I think it is to the betterment of the Town that we construct a building there that will meet all the requirements of the Town, rather than have the existing structure. It is going to be a two bedroom ad- dition...'' He put Leary and everyone at ease in the matter. I don't know if the Board has seen the plans for construction. Has anyone seen them? And you said, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have a copy, and Mr. Bruer passed a copy up to you and said I would like to submit a set of plans to the Board and you received those plans, which show a two bedroom addition. And he said it is really adding two rooms' on for bedroom purposes. That is what he said. But that is now what it is. And that is not what is happening down there in New Suffolk. And Mr. Brophy well knew of the existence of the 1972 decision of this Board that said improvements have to come before your Board for approval and on January 9, 1986, his attorney said and spoke with reference to your decision in 1972 and said !%e.. I am not exactly sure what it means with refereace to the decision of 1972, however, we are here. I believe it meant for expansion, 'for fUrther expansion..." Well, that is what we thought we were involved with, further' expansion. What we are involved with is demolition and total new building. I suppose it would be unfair for me not to expect you not to be moved by the fact that Mr. Brophy, although he did not have the permit and he did not come before you to ask for permission, that he had gone this far. Well, I want you to know that when he began this work, I sent him a telegram and I said that you do it at your own peril, that which you do is at your risk. He chose to take his chances. He chose to gamble. He chose to move ahead without a permit. He chose to move ahead with a permit in dispute. He chose to move ahead with not appearing before you and asking for your approval ZBA 511186 Page 8 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS - Continued: He chose to do those things. So, if I could feel sorry for him, and I should, I suppo'se, I don't, .because he got early warning from Mr. Leary that we would be here tonight or on some night, when you were sitting to talk about this very matter and he chose in vance 'to go 'ahead with it. And 257, $4 of the Town Law, provides for what I refer to as a shorthand kind of word, that you should stop doing the work you are doing once a matter is placed before the Board of Appeals. That's how I read that. And yet the work continues. The roof goes on partially. Windows begin to go in place. Move forward and forward and forward all the time. I think that you owe it to Paul Leary and to the integrity of your- selves as an institution in the Town of Southold to say to him that you have been put upon and that Mr. Leary has been put upon and that as a matter of fact, the construction should now cease be- cause the permit is i~valid!y issued for a number of reasons, as set forth in the papers that have been placed before you, but most of all, because no application was made to this Board under cir- cumstances under which the Board should have known that they should make such application. And in addition to that, the Brophy's must stop work, because they have moved ahead to completely demolish un- der a partial demolition permit, issued ex post facto, after the complete demolition and that they are engaged in a piece of absolutely and totally new construction, leaving only part of the old foundation, and a limited part of the old floor boards and joists. Mr. Leary hopes that you will see things his way and that you will provide him with the relief that he..seeks. In leaving you, you know, I have not appeared before you before, but I have read your minutes before and I note that the Chairman on the last occasion said he likes the kind of case where people can go outside in the hall and talk for 20 minutes and maybe come to a reconciliation of their grievances, one with.the other. Your's is a sad position in many case's. I think there is a heavy responsibility you have. When I see decisions made with reference to the half acre and the man living behind and with the fUll acre, I say, my gosh, those people are neighbors. And they don'~t even know each other. They share a borderline and the question is where do you live? I don't see how possibly they could talk things over. Mr. Leary is willing to talk things over. I tell you right now that he is willing to join Mr. Brophy in the making of an application for a variance that would bring Mr. Brophy"s property in line with the Leary property and the front of the house where the old deck was and to move it up into that, his addition. And in return, Mr. Leary would have preserved for him and Mr. Brophy would have the same kind of house he has now with a proper variance, because Mr. Leary would join in the application for a variance and fight for it. Perhaps retain me to make this trip out here again and to aid him in the fight for it. Have Mr. Brophy build up the front of his house ZBA 5/1/s6 Page 9 LEARY HEARING - Continued where he had his deck all along and to leave Mr. and Mrs. Leary safe and sound with the waterview that they have enjoyed through the years, which means so much to them and to the com- munity 'that they represent. Whether it is a cluster of t2 houses, the entire Town of Southold or just the house behind the Brophy's, damage is being done, and some piece of that which r~presents peace for the Leafy's, has been taken from them by the acts of the Brophy's. You have the ability to make Mr. Leary whole, and I hope that you will do that. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Before we ~go on to Mr. Pachman, is there'anything that Mr. Leary would like to say in support of counsel, sir? No. ©kay, Mr. Pachman, ~u are on. Kindly raise your right hand and solsmnly swear that what you are about to place before this fOrum is the truth. Thank you, sir. MR. PACHMAN: Aerial photo of 1980 of Nassau~ Point .... At the outset, let me set the record straight. Let's put this hearing into some kind of prospective. This Board is bound by the Code of the Town of Southold by the Zoning Code. Your jurisdiction is to interpret the COde; grant variances and special exceptions. It is the ob- ligation of the building officials and the building inspectors to enforce the Code and issue permits. I have yet to hear from the arguments that were said tonight, as to where there was a violation of any of the sections of the enforcement of this Code, where the building department violated its rules and regulations. Number 2, I think before we start we should look to 1972 and read Section 2 of the conditions~and see what it says. I think my friend Mr. Reuss misspoke, not on purpose. "...No improvements can be made without approval of the Board of Appeals..." That is what he said 'and that is where he stopPed, but it goes on to say ".o.by the rpovisions of this ordinance relating to lot coverage..." Lot coverage. The only time one has to come back to this Board is when you are discussing Lot coverage. Number 3~. This Residential'/Agr~cUltural Zone requires 20% lot coverage This house and this addition and alteration is only 18% of the lot coverage. I will hand you a survey. The existing house is1,136 feet. The addition is 192 feet for a total of 1,328 feet. 18% coverage, not 20% coverage. MR. REU$S: I wonder if I might look at that. MR. PACHMAN: You sure can ZBA 5/1/86 Page 10 LEARY HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If at any time, Mr. Reuss, you object to these please let me know ..... MR. REUSS: I have no problem with Mr. Van TUyl as a surveyor. He is very well known. MR. PACHMAN: Now, on 'that same survey, you will see an overlay of Mr. Leary's property, Which is to the north, and that is taken off Mr. Leary"s survey, so you can see the relationship of the 2 houses as they exist, the one presetnty under construction. Now if you look in 1980, you will see that the Leary house is behind the Brophy house and at that juncture, he has views of both sides of the water. He is behind'the Brophy house and is blocked by the Brophy house, so what has been changed if anything, is not been changed. I think it is important to understand that Mr. Brophy came 'before'this Board and made an application. This Board ren- dered a decision. What Mr. Reuss and Mr. Leary are trying to do is go around the failure of them to appeal that decision of this Board by an Article 78 proceeding, because the time has run. So by a very clever ruse, and that is no play on words, but a device by counsel, they are c'©ming in by the back door, to attempt to ap- peal the issuance of certain permits. They cannot do that. They are precluded by what took place at that time. Now, it is important to note that why did you come, Mr. and Mrs. Brophy, before this Board in 1985 (November). It is only required under the ~ordinance to come in if you exceed 20% of the lot and since they already had a deck for which you had granted a variance, unless that deck were taken down and they put on the addition and made the alteration, it would exceed 20%. The building inspector rightly said you want to bufld that addition and make that alteration, at the square footage that you are doing, you better take the deck do~n, because when the deck is down, the lot coverage is less than what you are 'required to have, and therefore you can build. The issue came up about the 1972 requirement. If he built the house with the deck down, it would be a possibility with conjecture, that at some future date, that he build his house at 1300 sq. ft., but he go back under the old variance and put up his deck. The building department, in their c'aution, in their understanding of what the problem was, had issued the permit and realized that maybe there is a problem here. Maybe go back before the Board. I have your plans. I issued the permit, but let's make sure that we can't build again, using that variance. Therefore, go back to the Board and get that variance nullified. When they Went before you, plans had been filed with the Building Department showing an addition and alteration and a permit was held up because the Building Inspector was waiting for you to render a decision. It is no secret. We are putting up the identical building upon which the application was filed. ZBA 5/1/s6 Page LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. PACHMAN - Continued: And which was submitted to you by Mr. Bruer when the hearing was held. It is a two bedroom extension, the exact same building that we had before. But one of the im- portant things in the approval on this permit was that all con- struction shall meet the requfrements of the New Ycrk State Con- struction and Energy Codes. Therefore, anything that was found to be substandard, not to meet the code, was required to be re- moved and unfortuna'tely, this old house, needed a lot of work and a lot of repairs. Mr. Hindemann came out and said you can't build the way you are building unless you take that down and com- ply with the code. That meant that the walls that we thought we could leave up, which we wanted to leave up to save money, could not be left. We were ordered to take them down by the building official. We followed his instructions. What is an alteration? Le~'s look at the bible. The bible is here, it is defined right in the book. ~'~_100-13 of Definitions. As applied to a building or structure, a change or a rearrangement in the structural part or in the existing facility, or an enlargement where they are extending on the side or increasing in height or moving from one location or position to another.'~ Anything you do at the house is an .alteration. Anything 'under that definition is an alteration. So, what they did in compliance with the building official's requirements that they take down this substandard construction was an alteration and in pursuance of the permit that you had given. Same plans are being built upon. Next, The question whether you Understood that he was building this when you made your decision, which they did not appeal.. I draw your attention to Section 8. It should be noted that future construction including bedrooms, additions, decks, roof patios, accessory buildings etc., are restricted to the maximum permitted 20% lot coverage re~ quirement, as well as all other setback and zoning requirements under the Code. By allowing this variance and the permanent removal of the deck, all recision of action taken under appeal #2922 of 1972, the deck will not be reconstructed. So, you approved the plans. You saw what the building officials had on the plan and knew that when you made that decision. There was no secret. Nothing was hidden. Everything was up front. Straight up front. You have memorandum from your building officials, which clearly outlines that this building is being built in conformity with every requirement of the building code. The Sideyards; frontyards; the rearyards~ lot coverage. We don't have to come back. It is like you have your house now; It conforms to the Code and you decide you don't like it anymore. You are a fool. The interest rates are down~ You want t build a new house. You tear it down and get a building permit and you rebuild again. Everyone has the right to do that. ZBA 5/1/86 Page I 2. LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. PACHMAN - Continued: There is no prohibition about doing that. They are creating a prohibition that does not exist.. A condition which is absolutely foreign to our understanding of what the law is. People have the right to use their property, so long as it .conforms to the rules and regulations. That's exactly what they have done. Unfortunately, they don't conform to Mr. and Mrs. Leary's desires. I think the offer that was made by Mr. Reuss was somewhat disengendered. On March 12, 1986, he made an application to the Building Department to erect an addition on his house, 15 x 10. If you look at the house behind him, he is going to have a little 'trouble with his neighbor in the back, be- cause it will affect his rear view and Sis front view and~vistas of the ocean. If you permit that. It was turned down because the square footage exceeded the lot size. Now, whether ihe has appealed that at this point, I don't know, or whether he is submitting new plans, I don't know. But he is coming in and saying he shouldn't ~be able to build on his house, but he intends to build and he filed this on March 12, 1986 and it was turned dow~ in the building department on April 2nd, because it did not conform to'the building code, not to the requirements to come back to this Board., only because it exceeded 20% of the lot coverage. Now, I think we ought to get this off the record. Question whether the vistas are being adversely affected, whether real property values are adversely affected. Whether there is going to be any depression in values, by reason of this ~nstruction. My client went to a lot of cost, but because of his sincerety and his desire to conform and to prove to this Board that they were right before, and they were right now, he hired Mr. Gorman of Gorman Associates. Mr. Gorman is here and he is ready to be sworn and testify, and it shows that the neighborhood will be greatly enhanced by the upgrading of the appearance and size of the subject property. The upgrading will also result in an increase in. the assessed valuation and subsequent increase in the real estate taxes collected by the Town of Southold. The 8' wide extension will have no adverse affect on the property values of the Leary property, due to the extensive remaining water views from this property. In closing, it is our opinion that the value of all the adjacent property will be ~enhanCed 'by upgrading of the subject property. Mr. Gorman is available if you want him to testify. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 13 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. PACHMAN - Continued: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRING'ER: Can I just ask a question of Mr. Gorman? Mr. Gorman, this appraisal~ that is before us is to the best of your opinion? MR. GORMAN:. Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Reuss. Thank you very much. Continue sir. MR.' PACHMAN: There was an issue made wheZher this is in the flood plain. If you check with your building official and look at his official map, certification of which I have, you will find that this house is located in zone B. Zone B is out of the flood plain. It does not require any DEC requirements, therefore none were required. None were asked for. I have in my hand, the rules of the ~ 617 O~ NY Rules and Procedures and I would like Mr. Reuss to tell me what portion of that code he is referring to that requfres us to comply with that. They advised us that no permit was necessary and I will refer back to Mr. Lessard and Mr. Hindemann, who are knowledgeable about that area. To get to the issue of SEQRA, that is a new one. Okay, in this town building permit, when it issues a permit, pursuant to the zoning ordinance, it does not require a SEQRA permit because under the zoning regulations, there is no reason to issue a permit for SEQRA. If you read ~E_QRA requlation~, it is 2t7__~, I can give it to you precisely as a quote, it says" ....... where the building official acts as an administerial officer, administerial acts are exempted under SEQRA and not required..." Now the issue comes about where the BOard had its appeal by Mr. Leary, by Mr. Brophy to this variance or unvariance or remove the variance, this Board usually normally requires a simple environmental application, which was made and based upon that, you made a negative declaration. Everything there is true. Nothing in there has been contested as being untrue. This is not the place to object to that negative declaration. I submit to you that this ms not new construction. We don't even need a demolition permit. Your building Official, because Mr. Leary came down and said they are taking down the bUilding and you need a demolition permit. So they looked through the book, rightly so and demolition permit is not referred to in this zoning code, except at page 1000.0070 under Section 100- 142 and it says under Demolition and/or Removal and/or Relocation of any building $100.00. You took his $100 and gave him a permit. There is no definition in this book. Where do we go? To the dictionary. Simple definition of what demolition is. Webster's Dictionary, Am~e~r.~an_Lan. ua~-q, Second Edition, 1982 Demolition: T~o demolish, tear down, d~ ~e~tr~y, to build, ¢/Z~LSZ~ZmLC~, ~_~LI~ ~o~n, ~ear dow~ ~n, sma_ sh to iep~, destro, y, ruin, bring t~o ~auqh't. ~Naught, this was not brought to naught. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 14 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. PACHMAN - Continued: He conceded that the foundation was still there and the floor joists were still there and he never brought it down to naught, and there was no requirement for a demolition permit and therefore the appeal for the demolition permit was improperly before this Board, because it was not required. The issuance of the Building Permit was exactly what was handled by this Board, for which they appropriately addressed themselves in the hearing when you rend~.~ed your decisio~ last time and not until you rendered that decision did the building department release the permit, based upon the very reason that you told them to hold it until you made your decision, is exactly what you did. And you made a finding as long as it doesnot exceed 20 % he can build, and that is exactly what he did. And now they.are complaining, because they did not complain within 30 days, they are coming ba~k to you through the back door. Under the Town Code, this Board cannot issue building permits, it is not within your jurisdiction. All you said in 1972 was if you went in excess of 20% lot coverage, that would be the same as asking for a variance and you would have to come back, and that is your ]urisdiction, todetermine whether a variance is necessary. No variance was required and the only reason, on ~a simple housekeeping rule on the part of the building department and yourselves to get rid of the old variance, so he could not use it later on to exceed the 20%, and that is the only reason we are here la~ time, other than that, we have never had to appear before this Board. It is only 18%. This whole application is thunder and lightning on behalf of a very unhappy neighbor. We regret this. These peoPle were purportedly were friends once%' Because my client decided to extend and build and remodel and alter his house, the neighbor decided he did not like it. We don't always do everything that our neighbors like and our neighbors don't always do everything that we like. But that is the way we live, in the co,fines of the order of our society, as long as we use our property in accordance with rules and regu- lations, it is our castle. We have the right to do it and gosh darnit, we should not have to worry about our neighbors coming in and telling us whether we can make changes to our house, that is legitimately being built, has all permits appropriately issued and then come in twice and fight because they did not win the first time around. I won't tell you about the Court action, because that confuse the issue, ZBA 5/ /86 Page 15 LEARY HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you continue sir, can I ask you a question? The survey which you have just given us, with a date of April 24, 1986, is the present survey of what we see if we were to go doWn to the property? MR. PACHMAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: no changes? There are no additions or substitutions, MR. PACHMAN: It is exactly the same footprint except for the 8 x 24~ addition. The identical footprint. Same setbacks. Same sideyards. Now, except for the survey in the back, which is an overlay of Mr. Leary's sur'vey, which I asked Mr. Van Tuyl to shOw the 2 houses in relationship to each other. That survey is further back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While'Mr. Pachman is looking, I just want to caution both ...... just let me clear on this issue, okay, We are a Board that has an innumerable amount of applications before us at this time. We in no way want to curtail this hearing, nor do we want to elongate it, but we feel that because of the activity before us tonight, not specifically activity that is current, but activity that we have had left over from p~ior hearings, that we can- not be so .much past 10:10p.m. It would require you to come back some time.in the near future to finish up. MR. REUSS: You asked Mr. Pachman if a survey would be reflected in a view of the property. Mr. Leary says no, you would see some- thing different if you were to go to the property, but he tells me that where it says addition of the rear of the Brophy house~ that there is the southerly portion of that a new area, a~patio or porch 10 x 14 foundation, which does not appear on the survey. And at t~a front of the house where the words"12~'appear with an arrow going on either side, that that has come down and has been rebuilt to square off the corner of the house. So that the house as it appears today and I might add, that one day after 4/30/86, is not which that appears on the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just'before you answer that, okay~ is this an elevated or flush deck? ZBA 5/1/86 Page 16 LEARY HE~RING - Continued MR. REUSS: It is an elevated deck, but they were asked to take down 29.2. You rescinded that and he put it back up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Mr. Pachman, did you want to answer that? MR. PACHMAN: Ail right, what I under stand is, and I think you will see this in the minutes, is squaring off of that southeast corner was in~ the plans the building department and are part of the square footage computations that was made by Mr. Hindemann and which is the square footage, which is still within the 2.0% coverage. MR. REUSS: That may be, Mr; Chairman, but it beclouds the issue. You have been presented with a survey .... which reads composite made April 30, 1986. Now we know it is admittedly dif- ferent than what appears on the other side on May 1, 1986, the next day. MR. PACHMAN: There is no way"to dignify that with an answer. Mr. Leary's survey of August 20, 1982, by Mr. Van Tuyl, if you com- pare the 2 you can see the over'lay and I did not hear any objection to it is the composite showing his property in relation to this property. That is the purpose of the survey.. And to show that the square footage is under 20% MR.REUSS: It is not something which you would see if you were to view the property today. This is not that, and you know now that the survey is~'different from what you would see. I think he is improper for such an exhibit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pachman, would you kindly furnish us with a survey indicating what that lit'tle area is, so that we might be able to understand that to be the deck? MR. PACHMAN: Sure. Do you want daily surveys? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. MR. PACHMAN: date. I just want to know how we have to keep them up to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just indicate what the little area is. Also if it increases the lot coverage or modifies it in any manner and have it certified by Van Tuyl. Thank you. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 1 7 LEARY HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN~GOEHRINGER: Now the reason I had asked you gentlemen or:instructed you in a~nice manner, this is not a tribunal, is that if you have someone here that would like to testify, there can- not be, we are going to jUmp one hearing on this one, if we go past the time, then I would suggest that you stop at a specific point, and you allow that person to testify and tell us their knoWledge of whatever instance you would like to present on this case. MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, you run the show and I will do anything you want. I would suppose that you .would want Mr. Hindemann or Mr. Lessard to give their Side of the story. I think it is' very cogent to the issue at hand. I don't think we should be listening to third party testimony after what took place here, but let's get it from the people who are directly involved, who know what they did; what they required; what the issues are. I am going to let the truth hang~out. MR. REUSS: I join in that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears, Mr. Pachman, that neither one of those people., except for Mr. Lessard, are hkre tonight. Now, MR. PACHMAN: Mr. Lessard is here. 'If he wants to .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you want to ask him a question, you are welcome to. It is in my opinion, Mr. Lessard is the executive administrator of this Town. It is not necessary to swear that gentleman in, because of the mere nature of his position. If you have a question of Mr. Lessard, if he d~oses to answer it, you are welcome to ask. MR. PACHMAN: Mr~ Lessard, could you explain the issue aboutthe footprint that was just discussed. MR. LESSARD: ...... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you referring to this porch as a deck? Or a deck area that comes off the sliding glass door? Is that what you are referring to as the porch? MR. REUSS: Mr. Lessard, were you present when Mr. Hindemann so informed Mr. Brophy? ZBA 5t1186 Page I 8 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. LESSAR~ ... MR. REUSS: So, you are not able to say of your own knowledge that that direction was given? MR. LESSARD: ..... MR. REUSS: Are you. aware of a letter of April 14, 1986 from Mr. Hindemann to Peter Brophy? MR. LESSARD: MR. REUSS: Is that Mr. Hindema~n's signature? I believe this document is before the Board and in the latter part of February 1986, at the request, of Martin VOelkner, the contractor making these alterations, I visited the Brophy property. Voelkner sho~ed me sections of the old building which were substandard and I gave him the approval to remove and correct any substandard construction he finds in the course of making the renovation. It does not follow from that that Mr. Hindemann~delegated the Mr. Voelkne~, the con- tractor, the responsibility for finding and replacing substandard aspects of the building. Thank you. MR. LESSARD: .... MR. PACHMAN: We have copzes of that letter for the Board and we are going to hand it up so I think there is no problem, no secret. Mr. Goehringer, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the original plan, which is on file with the building department, whick I have a copy here, it shows and it was discussed at the last hearing, that the deck that was on the front w©uld be eliminated, reduced and the re- maining deck would stay in sqUared. That's what Mr. Lessard was talking about. It also shows the concrete patio would be flush with the ground and that~ is there also. The plans have not been deviated from one iota. Walls that were taken down were substandard, non-construction that did not comply with the Code, in accordance with the notation on the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just So we understand ourselves, it does not so indicate and I think that it is somewhat of a technicality but I am not making any decision. It does not so indicate that %his is a deck, or whatever that little area is. So it might not have been included in the lot coverage and that is the reason we are asking to do an added certification. ZBA 511186 Page 1 9 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS: I would like to point out Zo you, Mr. Chairman, not only this has occurred, where am I, buZ in the rear here, it has been squared off also. My problem With this survey is again, that it is a composite made yesterday and yet-there is this. con- struction at the rear, I don't know the size of this, I suppose 4 x 12 or something along that line. Plus~that which occurred on the front. So, there is kind of a technicality up front. I think it might be a bigger thing to look at here. I hope you will look at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. PACHMAN: Okay, we talked about the environmental impact statement and the flood plain, what '72 really said. We talked about what an alteration is. We talked about what a demolition is. I think we talked about everything that substantiates and refutes by docu- mentary evidence, which you can'verify in your file and also, if you desire to have Mr. Hindemann present under oath, or not under oath, I find I have no problem w:ith that. I would be pleased to have him contribu~te and enlighten the Board in any fashion that he can. Again, I started off in the beginning and I said that the settlement was disengendered on the part'of Mr. Leafy as provided by Mr. Reuss. Putting the deck in the front, putting the extension in the front, why did not he make that offer to us the first time out? Well be- fore the construction was under way? When we were under the stop order, when we were fully could make all the adjustments he was identifying we should make.No, he doesn't wait for that. The stay that he talks about under 267 S4, clearly says that keeps you in status quo. You got the permit, you continue to use the permit. If you got a stop order, you stay under the stop order. We don't have stop order, we have a l'egitimate permit. The cases are replete and very clear under that section. The reason that he is making the offer for the variance all of a sudden is because he, in truth, is going to come to this Board for a variance, and he feels he now wants to now make peace. Too late. That has gone by the boards. If that offer was made early on, my clients would have favorably considered it. But now, it is no offer at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pachman, before you sit down, during the period of time that we recessed this hearing, do the Brophy"s have any objection, since this application is brought by the adjoining neighbor of this Board stepping on the property and viewing. MR. PACHMAN: At any time. You want someone to be there when you are there or not, it is up to you. ZBA 5/1/s6 Page 20 LEARY HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was over there last Sunday morning at about 7:00 a.m., so I was just in the frontyard. MR. PACHMAN: We have no problem with your taring a look. perfectly accessible. we are CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Reuss, before we ... Is t~here anythling you would like to say, Mr. MR. REUSS: Of course, you can't issue a building permit and Mr. Pachman defiles the issue by telling you you don't have that power. With reference to the survey itself, I think it raises another in- teresting question for you to consider. Within the confines of the Brophy property lies a 10' right of way. I think you also have to consider the question of whether or not, and this is raised in our papers, whether the right of way should not be excluded from the calculation of the lot coverage. Mr. Pachman said why did not we appeal? Deck. We were not really dissatisfied With the ~ay it turned out. You said he could take his deck down. With reference to the other two items of relief that he asked for, that's not relevant to you at this moment. So, we were not unhappy with that. This is the time to appeal. Your powers extend beyond giving variances. Well beYond that. You have a great deal of power. He speaks of your building inspector as a constant matter. Mr. Hindemann and Mr. Lessard, they are members of the official family with you, there is no doubt about it, you have an independent quasi-judicial role. And the Town Law says that part of you is offended by an action of the building inspector, has the rmght to come to you, and ask for jsutice in the matter. Ask you to sit as a quasi'court in the matter. It is not your building inspector. He is as much a party litigant as Leary and Brophy are, becaUse we are appealing to you for a de- cision made by him. You must not consider him as your building inspector or a part of your official family, but as a person whose actions are being submitted to you as a quasi-judicial body, to make a judgment with reference to it. Leafy and I both know that you are going to do it properly. As far as demolition meaning something brought to naught, you have the pictures in front of you. If your home has its roof lopped off and its attic taken away and living and kitchen and all the appliances and all the furniture contained therein, and most of the flooring of the first floor and you are left with only a partial foundation, it is brought to naught. It is not a technical defini- tion of the word. I will not be involved in a etymoligical discussion as to the meaning of the word. Demolish means bring in the bulldozers, hammers, steel balls, knock it down and take it away. ZBA 5/1/86 Page 21 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS - Continued: .... The house is demolished. They know it was and I think that you know so. I really think that is all we have to say. So far as we are concerned, there is no need for you to schedule another hearing. We have no witnesses to offer you. You have a paper record that tells the entire situation and I think we will leave it at that. As far as we are concerned, tonight can be it. I don't know that we need to press it further. I would ask that the meeting be closed and that you take the matter under consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .There are times, Mr. Reuss, in viewing these properties that this Board enters into further questions than' might be required of both you and your client and that is the purpose.. I was referring mainly to you because you were the people who pre- cipitated the action here. The application, excuse me. Mr. Pachman. Your time is waning away sir. MR. PACHMAN: Just by way of repartee, it is interesting to note that Mr. Reuss did not contradict my reading of of the 1972 resolution . MR. REUSS: There was a;,lot to contradict, but With the time as- signed to me, I thought ..... MR. PACHMAN: I think again~ we must look at the definition of your building zone ordinance, this new issue of the right of way. There is no provision in your building, ordinance that says you excluded the right of way, when you compute lot size. Your defi- nition under 100-13 "...any parcel of land not necessarily coin- cident with the lot or lots shown on the map of record (this sub- division became a map of record, because it was a minor subdivision) which is occupied or which is to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, if any, or by a group of buildings accessory thereto, if any ......... " There is nothing about exclusive of lot coverage. There is no law on that issue either because it has never been raised. An easement is merely a burden on your property to pass upon over as a right of way. It does not take it away from you. You pay taxes on it. It is your piece of property. It is only burdened by that person or group of people, who have the right to pass over it. Thank you. ZBA 511186 Page 22 LEARY HEARING - Continued MR. REUSS: Since it is your intention to adjourn, I have to point out to you that preserve this issue for a date a month's hence, is to invite Mr. Brophy to continue with the construction that is going on to bring the house he is building to fruition and I would ask that if you are to adjourn this matter, ~that you t~ake the same action that you took in connection with the application for deck removal'variance. You ordered the building department to issue a stop work order with reference to this very permit and I would ask you to do that tonight, as you did then. It mu@t be within your power if you have done it before. Pending the resolution of our issue. You did it with reference to the same permit and I ask you to do it now. If we are guilty of laches in not having appealed things that you've done before, t don't think we are, then they are guilty of laches, because they did not take the whole bunch of you to court when you first did that. All we ask is what you did before. MR. PAC,MAN: Mr. Chairman, I submit to you Anderson's NY Zoning Sec 2242 by the ZBA has jurisdiction to review decisions of the building inspector who is charged with enforcement of the building ordinance is without the power to require the building inspector of the Town to act in a certain manner. The Board cannot require a building inspector to receive and process an application for a building permit. It does not have the authority to determine the qualifications of the local building inspector. The relief he is asking for Ts without your power. Now, everything is true, but I think we now have to get to the court action. Although this proceeding was pending and I don't want to belabor this, an issue came up that an action was brought by the Leary's against the Brophy's which permanently enjoined from making and constructing this building. An application for a temporary injunctiQn~was requested and a temporary stay was put in the appl~ication. We know exactly what our problems are. We know exactly what action the law can go and we proceed knowing what the law is. I think Mr. Reuss should counsel his client and I will counsel my client. MR. REUSS: I j~st want to say it as a matter of record that he has acted at his own peril in building at this point. The matter is not decided and not abandoned. Your volume of papers is an addition to what we gave to Judge Lama. ZBA 5/~/86 Page 23 LEARY HEARING - Continued CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Changing the subject for a moment, we will address only two issues and let it be known that we are not the ones who have to deal with the owners. We have been so directed by counsel that we at no time shall be asked (inaudible)... I will admit that there are times that Mr. Lessard and I have spoken notspecif±cally on this matter but we have spoken and we will continue to speak. Our office is within fire-feet of each other. The other issue I did want to mention was that if we were to close this hearing tonight, we have 60 days as you know, to make a decision and I will tell you that this particular decision will probably go 45 and we are not ready to close it at this time. And that's why we are asking for the adjournment to recess. MR. REUSS: I have nothing further to present. I don't know why you should tack on another 30 day period. Let's move ahead for both their sakes. MR. PACHMAN: Well it's up to you how long you put it over for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a loaded calendar for the 22nd. It will be ~he first meeting in July, or June rather, pardon me. I just want to say that you posed the question tonight, Mr. MR. PACHMKN: Imam here'to serve the. Board and if they want me to be ~ack and submit additional information, I am ready, willing and able to do that. I will not preclude the Board from anything but I would respectfully request the Board if they are going to put it over, to put it over for two weeks. It would make li~e a little easier for me and my client. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You brought up a situation which we would like to investigate. The situation of the deck and Mr. Pachman has given us an exhibit tonight from a professional, that we would like to look at, possibly we might want to question this gentleman. Our Board always has questions, and that is what makes us unique. That is the reason we are asking for a short recess. Thank you very much everybody. I just wanted to mention 'before I recess this hearing that we would never swea~r in a 'person who is an employee of the Town of Southold. I just wanted the public to be aware of that situation. I make a motion recessing this hearing until further notice. 10:33 p.m. Hearing was ended and recessed until a later date. Respectfully submitted, ~rbara A. Strang iPp. 1 -23 *These minutes were transcribed from tapes recorded elec- tronically by the Z.B.A. Clerk, [inda Kowa]sk].