Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/03/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONiS..IR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H, SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2S SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 MINUTES THURSDAY , APRIL 3, 1986 SOUTHOLD TOW2q BOARD OF APPEALS A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1986~ at 7:30 o' clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall~ Main Roads Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer~ Chairman; Charles Grigonis~ Jr. ~ Serge Doyen~ Jr., Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki~ con- stituting the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Linda Kowalski~ Board Clerk and Secretary~ and approximately 30 persons in the audience at the commencement of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and proceeded with the first public hearing on the agenda~ as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3396 - GARY DOROSKI. Proposed pool w-ith decks and fence enclosure within 75' of wetlands. 425 Monsell Lane~ Norwald Subdivision at Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. Mr. Doroski was present. (See verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover and filed simultaneously herewith at the Town Clerk' s Office. ) The hearing was held and recessed pending receipt of an engineer' s report and exact height and location of the proposed wall along the pool location. Southold Town Board of Appeals (Public Hearings ~ continued: ) -2- April 3:1986 Regular Meeting 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3482 - JERRY SHULMAN. Public hearing was held and concluded,~ pendin9 deliberations and decision at a future date. 7:56 p.m. Appeal No. 3473- JOSEPHA. CASSIDY, YR. Public hearing was held and concluded~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date.' 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3451 - BEDELL WINERY. Public hearing was reconvened (from 3/13/86) and concluded tonight~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date. 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3476 - ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Public hear- ing was held and concluded~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date. 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3481 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. Public hearing was held and concluded~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date. 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3472 - MICHAEL HERBERT. Public hearing was held and concluded~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date. 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3418 - GRETCHEN HEIGL: Public hearing was held and recessed until May 22~1986. Charles Cuddy~ Esq. appeared in behalf of the Fultzes~ property owners along the east side; Michael Ha[l~ Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicants. 9:35, p~. Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM KATHERINE HEINS. Public hearin9 was rre[manmrecessed until May 22~ 1986 as requested by Anthony Tohill~ Esq. attorney for the applicants. 9:38 p.m. Appeal No. 3488 - ~LLIAM KREITSEK. Public hearin9 was held and concluded~ pending deliberations and decision at a future date. 9:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3471 - NICHOLAS TSIRKAS. Public hearing was held and recessed until May 1~ 1986 pending receipt of engineer's report from Howard Pachman~ Esq. ~ attorney for the applicant. 10:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3469 - WARREN AND 1vI'ARY BRADY. Public hearing was held and concluded: pending deliberations and decision at a future date. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- 1986 Re§ular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS for May l, 1986 Regular Meeting. On motion by Member Douglass, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to authorize and direct the ZBA Clerk, Linda Kowalski, to publish notice of the following matters in the L.I. Traveler-Watchman and the Suffolk Times for public hearings to be held THURSDAY, MAY 1~ [986: 7:35 p.m. Appeal 7:40 p.m. Appeal 7:45 p.m. Appeal 7:50 p.m. Appeal 7:55 p.m. Appeal 8:00 p.m. Appeal 8:05 p.m. Appeal 8:10 p.m. Appeal 8:15 p.m. Appeal 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3399 - C. BRUCE AND ANNE STAIGER. No. 3396 - GARY DOROSKI. No. 3479 - JOHN P. SGOUROS. *see below. No. 3480 - VINCENT AND JOANN CASA. No. 3486 - ROBERT JOHNSEN. (If PB by advertising deadline) No. 3490 - HARRY AND SANDRA HURLBURT. No. 3494 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. No. 3468 - ROBERT J. LONG. (If PB by advertising deadline) No. 347l - NICHOLAS TSIRKAS (recessed from 4/3/86) No. 3489 - PAUL LEARY/FRANK AND MARY BROPHY. *Appeal No. 3479 - JOHN P. SGOUROS. In reviewin9 the file, it was noted that the premises in question received Planning Board approval 9/61 in the Major Sub- division of Stars Manor. The board members unanimously felt that it should not be necessary for the lot owners in this subdivision tol return for town approvals~ particularly in light of the intent of Local Law #10-1983 which exempted lots on maps approved by the Planning Board prior to May 1983. The secretary/board clerk was asked to write the Town Attorney for his opimon in this regard prior to a~vertisin9 notice of this public hearing. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- ~F{~ ~, 1986 Regular Meeting BUILDING INSPECTOR' S REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION: HEDGES. After discussing the March 18, 1986 written request from V. Lessard~ Executive Administrator of the Building Department~ concerning clarification of Section [00-ll9.1 of the Zoning Code~ "Fences, Wails and Hed§es~" it was the unanimous consensus of the board members that all hedges and live plantings once planted must be maintained at all times at the proper maximum height restrictions in Subsections A, 8, and C, Article XI~ 100-119.1. The Chairman was authorized to reply advising Mr. Lessard of the above. TENTATIVE HEARINGS FOR IvIAY 22~ 1986: The following new files were reviewed and tentatively scheduled for public hearings to be held on May 22, 1986, except as noted below: Appeal No. 3493 - WELLS PONTIAC. Appeal No. 349l - DONALD J. GRIIVl, subjecI to receiving Plannin9 Board input by the advertising deadline. (Expected by 5/5) Appeal No. 3492 - JOYCE TESE. Appeal No. 3505 - RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER. Appeal No. 3065 - JOHN M. KERBS, subject to receiving Planning Board input by advertising deadline (expected by 5/5) Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS. (Recessed from 4/3 as requested ) Appeal No. 3418 - GRETCHEN HEIGL. (R~cessed from 4/3) Appeal No. 3497 - MARJORIE D. PETRAS. Appeal No. 3500 - NORMAN REICH. Appeal No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER~ subject to receiving approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for water and sewer hook-ups~ before advertising deadline. Appeal No. 3498 - GREENPORT NY CONGREGATION JEHOVAH WITNESSES, sub- ject to ~eceiving Planning Board input by advertising deadline (expected by 5/5). Appeal No. 3504 - GREENPORT HOUSING ALLIANCE. Appeal No. '3501 - NORTH FORK WELDING/SCHOENSTEIN~ subject to receivin9 Plannin9 Board input by advertising deadline (expected by 5/5). Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (May 22, 1986 Public Hearings, continued: ) Appeal No. 3483 - PHILIP AND ELLEN BELLOMO. Accessory garage in frontyard. Appeal No. - DAVID MOORE, subject to receiving complete application and filing fee within 48 hours and accurate sketch. Appeal No. - NICK THEOPHILOS. Subject to receiving accurate sketch and up-to-date survey. Appeal No. 3506 - ARMANDO CAPPA/PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES. Appeal No. 3424 - ELEANOR LEONARD. Subject to receiving DEC and Co. Health by advertising deadline. OTHER MATTERS TENTATIVELY FOR JUNE PUBLIC HEARINGS, except as noted: Appeal No. 3503 - GEORGE D. DAMIEN. Appeal No. 3428 - BERTHA KURCZEWSKI, subject to receiving Health Department Article VI approval or waiver by advertisin9 deadline. Appeal No. ~5¢2- GREGORIO FOLLARI. Appeal No. 3499 - DANIEL AND LISA JEROME. OTHER MATTERS HELD IN ABEYANCE pending additional information as noted: Appeal No. 348? - CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Await formal application for site plan review by Planning Board and finalization of subdivision which is pending at the present time. Chairman was authorized and directed to send correspondence to Paul Caminiti, Esq. advising him of the status of this matter. Appeal No. 3495 - JOHN AND GLORIA SHIRVELL. Await County Health Article VI approval to be applied for by applicant. Lots proposed are more than 50% of a variance from. the two-acre (80,000 sq. ft.) zoning requirement. Appeal No. 3378 - BECKY JOHNSTON. Letter from Michael Hall, Esq., attorney for the applicant requesting the board to approve use of right-of-way. Chairman Goehringer was authorized and directed to reply to Mr. Hall advising him that this board does not have authority to grant use of a right-of-way but rather has authority to require such improvements of a right-of-way pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a that the applicant claims he has a legal right to use. It was the opinion of the board~that this matter be held in abeyance pending further information as to the position of the right-of-way in order that a proper~ thorough inspection with recommendations could be made. The northerly portion' s location is questionable by applicant at this time. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting OTHER MATTERS held in abeyance (continued): Appeal No. 3464 - TED DOWD. Await Town ~rustees' action after DEIS, etc. prior to scheduling for ZBA public hearinG. Appeal No. 3458 - NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES. Await further instructions from applicant and input from Planning Board upon receivin9 Town Attorney' s opinion. Appeal No. 3485 - MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH G. PACELLI. Await County Health Department approval or waiver and Planning Board input (expected by 5/5 advertising deadline for 5/22 public hearth9) . ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Fir. Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations indicatin9 the following projects not to have an adverse affect upon the environment~ in accordance with Part 61?of the implementing regulations of the N.Y.S. Envi- ronmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Code 44-4 of the Town of Southold: Appeal No. 3469 - WARREN AND MARY BRADY. (continued on page 7) Southold Town Board of Appeals -?- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIIrE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPF~L NO.: 3469 PROJECT Nk~LE: WARREN AND MARY BRADY 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. Pleas~ 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 permission to locate accessory barn structure in the fr0ntyard area. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold. Countv ~t%olk, particularly known as: 3500 Private Road #]3 (Wes~t~ff more Road, Sunset Knolls Subdivision)', MattitUck, NY; ~000-105~01-005. P~ASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~MINATION: (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 accesso_~_h~r.n__%t~ruc-ture is la-ndward of existing dwelling and other structure(s); (3) Location of proposed accessory barn structure is at elevations.lO or more feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRON~IENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3473 PROJECT N~2~E: JOSEPH CASSIDY, JR. 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 58,484 sq. ft. parcel set off from north parcel of 55,83] sq. ft. ]2/29/83. LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: ]000-79-05-23.] and 22.]. Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more West Side of Reydgn Drive, S0uth01d; 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 ~ple- mented as planned; ('2) Ihe premises in question is'-to~ed-.more 'than 300 f~et from tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area, and is at an elevation of 10 or more feet above mean sea level. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction at this time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9~ April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAR3kTION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3396 PROJECT NAME: GARY DOROSKI 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 siqnifi- 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 to locate proposed po01 with decks and fence enc]0sure within 75' of wetlands. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 425 M0nsell Lane, Cutc~0gue; N0rwald~] Subdivision Map ]275, Lots 3]-35 incl.; ]000-97-08-27. P~EASON(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; ~) Location of new construction-i~-qandward of lO' elevation contour; no disturbance of land will occur seaward of the 10' contour; (3) N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation has waived their jurisdiction by letter dated February 13, 1986. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIV~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3472 PROJECT NA~: MICHAEL HERBERT 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 [9 Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to establish "Bed and Breakfast" use (owner-occupied building other than a hotel where l~d'gin~ and breakfast is provided for not more than nine ~ersons). LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: North Side of Pike Street~ Mattituck; ]000-]40-2-23. 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 relief requested is not'-~l'~t~d'to new construction and is a use variance. (3) The property is located more than 300 feet from tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATI~rE ENVIRON~ENTAL DECLAP~ATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3488 PROJECT NAME: MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM KREITSEK 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 [×] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to place tennis court and gazebo 0n vacant lot adjacent and accessory to residence ]0t. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: South Side of Soundview Avenue, S0utho]d; ]000-59-7-27.] (acces'sory to Lot 27.2). P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~INATION: (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 structure~-%~-at.an Elevation bf 10 or more feet above mean sea level. Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3481 PROJECT NABS: PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. 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 Tow~ 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&r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [. ] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to install/relocate marine fuel storage tanks in this "C-Light" Industrial Zone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: To~n/ of Southold, Co,nty ofthO|d'N;Sllf-f°lk'ym°re particularly known as: South Side of Main Road, Sou · ]000-56-6-3.2, 3.3, 4, 6, 6.]. 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 tank structures-i-~-~5j~ct to approvals by the Suffolk County Health Department and N.Y.S. Department of Envir0nmenta] Conservation, for which this declaration is condi- tioned upon. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3482 PROJECT NA~: JERRY SHULMAN 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: [iLl Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special- Excepti0n to change use of a por- tion of existing building to building-material storages in conjunction with existing agricultural storage and agricultural office. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, ~u~0%ye of Suffolk more particularly known as: '~C-Light" Industri ; ' South Side of Sound Avenue (#1195~) Matti~u~k, NY;-lO00-141-03'-41. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the shor~ 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; ('~i The relief requested is not"-~%-l~d'~o new construction but rather a modification of present uses. (3) The property is located more than 300 feet from tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) NEGATI~rE ENVIRON~NTAL DECLAP~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3476 PROJECT N~: ROBERT AND CHARLDTTE WISSMAN 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 IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance. to seek relief from conditions placed by Appeal #2006 dated 2/27/75 to allow sing]e-family dwelling on lot of insufficient area, width and depth. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. more particularly known as: 7]5 Gull Pond Lane~ Greenport; Map of Clair9 Brody and Others, grandfathered 9/13/80, 'Ap'peals fl 954, 2005-2007--inc]., located along F0rdham Canal sh0re]ine. P~EASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the envirorunent are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (~ January 6, ]984 Health Depa'~I~-~pp'roval was received under Permit #14-SO-O1 for necessary sanitary and:water-w~Jl systems. (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction at this time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Me.ssrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. -This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3432: Application of JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL for a Variance from the Conditions r~ndered under App'eal No. 2784 dated 10/15/81 (and 688 dated 7/9/64) and/or to waive the improvements required under Appeal No. 2784 concerning Private Road #10 known as "Old Woods Road located at the east side of South Harbor Road, Southold, NY; iden- tified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block l, Lot 23.1, and approving access pursuant to New York Town Law, Section 280-a, from the east side of South Harbor Road to the premises in question, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block l, Lot 23.8. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, public hearings were held on January 9, 1986, February 6, 1986 and March 13, 1986, at which time the hearing was concluded, in the Matter of the Application of JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL under Appeal No. 3432; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there has been submitted for the record a petition in support of the application by seven property owners in the immediate area; and that there has been no public opposition entered into the record concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: l. The property to which appellant is requesting approval of access to is located in an "A-80" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District known and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 87, Block l, Lot 23.8, containing a total area of 2.709 acr~es, and located along the north side of the private right-of-way in question, known and referred to as "Old Woods Road," or Private Road #10. 2. The right-of-way in question extends from the east side of South Harbor Road, Southold, in an easterly/southeasterly direc- tion a distance of 600± feet to the premises of the applicants. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals 16- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL decision, continued:) The width of the traveled portions of the right-of-way is eight feet for the first 170 feet; the southerly side is heavily wooded with trees close to the southerly edge, allowing an upper clear- ance of 11 feet; and along the northerly side are old logs used as a curb to protect the existing fence (along property presently of Olenick, 1000-87-01-001). The remaining width widens out to a minimum of 12 feet and is compacted dirt. 3. Although the traveled portion of the right-of-way is in better condition than as existed in 1981, when a conditional variance was granted on October 15, 1981 under Appeal No. 2784 (Robert T. Bayley), it is the opinion of this board that some improvements are necessary to provide suitable access required by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for emergency and other vehicles (as noted below). 4. For the record, it is also noted that there is a prior variance of record under Appeal No. 688 granted July 9, 1964. 5. It is also noted for the record that this 280-a variance with conditions is not to be recognized as approval of access for any other lots which may subject to 280-a updated approval in the future, or any future set-off divisions or subdivisions, unless so recommended in writing by the Building Inspector and filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals. In considering this appeal, the board determines: (a) the relief requested is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (c) the relief as conditionally granted will not cause a substantial effect or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, and the new circumstances, justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that relief be and hereby is granted in the Matter of the Application of JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL for approval of access as required by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That there be a minimum open and unobstructed access Southold Town Board of Appeals -l?- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL decision, continued:) width of l0 feet to be paved with two inches [2"] of compacted stone blend, and potholes filled, for the first 170± feet; and 2. That there be a minimum open and unobstructed access width of 12 feet to be paved with two inches [2"] of compacted stone blend, and potholes filled, for the remaining length, to the premises of the applicants herein. 3. That a written request to the Office of the Board of Appeals be furnished upon completion of the above conditions as to acceptance of the improvements in accordance herewith. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass, Doyen, Grigonis and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3470: APplication of ATHANAS AND RUTH ZAMPHIROFF for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinances Article-~I, Section 100-31, ~ulk Schedule for permission to construct addition of 190± sq. ft. in area which will exceed the maximum-permitted lot coverage requirement of 20%. Location of Property: 17195 Main Street (a/k/a 720 Second Street), New Suffolk, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-117-08-13. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 13, 1986, in the Matter of the Application of ATHANAS AND RUTH ZAMPHIROFF under Appeal No. 3470; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 117, Block 08, Lot 13, consisting of a total area of 12,300 sq. ft., more or less with 128.40 feet along the north side of Main Street and 95.80 feet along the east side of Second Street~ New Suffolk, New York. 2. By this application appellants request a Variance from Southold Town Board of Appeals-18-April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3470 - ZAMPHIROFF decision, continued:) the provisions of Article III, Section lO0-31, Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct an additional 190 feet (maximum) for a staircase to a proposed second-story bedroom and deck along the south side of an existing one-story, single-family bungalow, to be set back no closer than 12'8" from its front property line along Main Street, and as shown by sketch submitted with this application and Notice of Disapproval dated February 6, 1986. 3. The Notice of Disapproval dated February 6, 1986 indicates that the proposed addition "...increases lot coverage to 2835.66 sq. ft. Present lot coverage is 2649 sq. ft... 20% lot coverage allows 2467.82 sq. ft .... " 4. The subject premises is presently improved with four existing single-family, one-story frame bungalows with porch areas as shown by copy of survey dated December 10, 1965. 5. It is noted for the record that a building permit and certificate of occupancy #9018 was issued on May 17, 1978, and a prior approval by the Board of Appeals under Appeal #2345 rendered October 31, 1977 for the existing porch addition of the bungalow in question. 6. It is also noted for the record that there i~s a prior approval of record under Appeal No. 540 rendered January 31, 1963 (Walty) for addition and insufficient setback as noted therein. In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines: (a) that the relief as granted is not substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) that the circumstances are unique; (c) that the public health, welfare, safety, order and convenience of the town will best be served by allowing the variance as amended by this board; (d) that by allowing the relief requested, a substantial change would not be created in the character of this neighborhood; (e) that the spirit of the zoning ordinance and interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance as applied. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to approve the relief requested for an additional 190 sq. ft. maximum for a staircase to proposed second-story Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3470 ZAMPHIROFF decision, continued): bedroom and deck area as applied under Appeal No. 3470 in the Matter of the Application of ATHANAS AND RUTH ZAMPHIROFF, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the addition not exceed 190 sq. ft. in area, and 2. That the second-story balcony/deck area not exceed 10' by 15' as proposed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3459: Application of 125-127 MAIN ST. CORP. (MILLS & CO.) for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section IO0-80(B) for permission to utilize premises and construct addition for the manu- facture of sails, canvas products and related items, and office and storage area incidental thereto, in this "C-Light" Industrial Zoning District. Location of Property: 74100 Main Road, Greenport~ NY, County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-45-06-006. Following deliberations~ the board took the following action: WHEREAS~ a public hearing was held and concluded on March 13~ 1986, in the Matter of the Application of 125-127 MAIN ST. CORP. (MILLS & CO.) under Appeal No. 3459; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS~ the board has considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 45~ Block 6, Lot 006, consists of an area of 1.966 acres with 140' frontage along the south side of the Main Road, Greenport, and is zoned "C-Light" Industrial. 2. By this application~ applicant requests a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article VIIt, Section IO0-80(B) for permis- sion to establish use of premises for the following various uses as noted by applicant's letter of March 12, 1986: (a) manufacture of · ~S'e'uthold Town Board of Appeals -20- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 34'59- .MIL~L~SL&'-CO_ decision, continued:) sails and canvas products, 16,400± sq. ft. in area; (b) office space, 2,500 sq. ft., more or less, (c) trade display area, 450 sq. ft., (d) restrooms, utilities and storage areas, 1,100± sq. ft., all as more particularly shown by floor and site plans submitted under this application. 3. The subject premises is presently improved with the follow- ing structures: (a) 50' by 40±' one-story building set back 39 feet from its front property line along the Main Road and nine feet at its closest point from the easterly property line; (b) 100' by 70±' one-story building set back 115± feet from its front property line and lO' at its closest point from the easterly side property line. 4. New construction is proposed as follows: (a) 50±' by 50' one=story addition connecting the two existing buildings and maintaining the established 10' sideyard setback, and (b) 85' by 100' one-story addition at the rear of the most southerly building also maintaining the established minimum setback at 10', (see site plan of January 23, 1986 pr'epared by Alfred K. Barteld~ R.A.) 5. For the record, it is noted that there is a Certificate of Occupancy dated August ll, 1966, No. Z2505 issued to Andrew J. Campbell for occupancy as a ~business building - public garage." 6. To the best of this board's knowledge, this property has been used for many years as a new and used car sales dealership with office use incidental thereto. 7. By letter dated February ll, 1986, the Southold Town Planning Board has not commented on the site plan layout, parking, etc.~ however, does agree with the use of manufacture of canvas products.* In considering this application, the board has determined: (1) the uses proposed will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use dis- tricts, (2) that the uses will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in this district, or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (3) that the safety, health', welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location, (4) that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The beard also has considered items (a) through (1) of Article XII, Section 100-121[C](2) of the zoning code. Southold Town Board Of Appeals -21- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3459 - MILLS & CO. decision, continued:) Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Messrs. Grigonis and Sawicki, it was RESOLVED, the the Application in the Matter of 125-127 Main St. Corp./Mills & Co. for a Special Exception as applied under No. 3459, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED for the uses as noted, supra, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: *1. Any alteration of the plans under consideration herein or requested uses will require reapplication to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board for the necessary Special Exception and site plan amendments, etc. 2. There be no backing out onto the Main Road at any time. 3. Final site and parking approval by the Southold Town Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted. APPEAL NO. 3467 - BARBARA D. SCHRIEVER. Request to rehear prior Appeal No. was plac~d on the agenda for consideration. The board members advised the Secretary/Board Clerk that since no one wished to offer a motion to rehear same under the circumstances, that the'request of~,~4ue attorneys (Charles Cuddy and Abigail ~ ckham) for a rehearing is [n effect denied. ZONING BOARD MEMBER REAPPOINTMENT: Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis~ seconded by Members Doyen and Sawicki~ to recommend and fully support the reappointment of Member Douglass ~ and that the Boar~a Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to submit same in writing to the Town Board at this time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer~ Grigonis~ Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass abstained. ) This resolution was duly adopted. II: 05 p.m. Member Sawicki left. 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No~ 3475: Application of JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JR. for a Variance for approval of access over a private right-of-way "l-6-~ated off the South Side of Old North Road, Southold, NY; premises presently of Schaefer and iden- tified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 55, Block 2, Lot 4. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on March 13, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JR. under Appeal No. 3475; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and it is noted for the record that there has been no public opposition; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: l. The property to which appellant is requesting approval of access to is located in an "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is a part of premises presently of Helen R. Schaefer as described by deed at Liber 8307 cp 456 dated September 7, 1977 of 1.750 acres, known and identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 55, Block 2, Lot 4. 2. The right-of-way in question is situate along the south side of Old North Road, Southold, and extends in a southerly direc- tion of 330 feet, more or less (175' and 155' lengths) to the premises under contract with the applicant having a width of 128.02 feet and area of 40,000 sq. ft. as shown on survey dated January 21, 1986 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. and the subject of a prior variance under Appeal No. 2359 dated November 3, 1977. 3. The first 40 feet is part of the driveway to the house on the first lot (presently of John Schaefer), 10 feet, more or less in width, and in good condition. The next 157 feet is a continuation of access to the house and garage on the second lot (presently of Helen Schaefer) eight feet in width and consisting of 1-inch, more or less, of asphalt mix with stone chips on a stable base. The top 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3475 - SAWICKI, decision, continued:) section is in fair condition. 4. After inspection and reinspection, it is the opinion of the board members that improvements are necessary to provide suit- able access as required by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for emergency and other vehicles (as noted below). In considering this appeal, the board agrees with the reasoning of appellant since: (a) the relief requested is not substantial; (b) there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (c) the relief as conditionally granted will not cause a substantial effect or detriment to adjoining properties; (d) the circumstances of this appeal are unique and there is no other method feasible for appellants to pursue other than a variance; (e) in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose, justice will be served by allowing the variance, conditionally as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3475 in the Matter of the Application of JOSEPH H. SAWICKI, JR. for approval of access as required by New York Town Law, Section 280-a, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There shall be a minimum open and unobstructed access with within the legal right-of-way of 12 feet; and 2. The right-of-way shall have an improved width of l0 feet and commencing at a point approximately 175 feet in length (extend- ing from the south side of the Old North Road) shall be improved as follows: (a) Excavate eight inches [8"] deep; (b) Replace with eight inches [8"] bank run (with 20% stone blend content); (c) Place a top course of two inches [2"] compacted stone blend. 3. This 280-a variance with conditions may be recognized as approval of access under the requirements of New York Town Law for the northerly lot (presently of Helen Schaefer), but is not to be recognized as approval of access for any other lots which may be established in any future set-off divisions or subdivisions, unless so recommended in writing by the Building Inspector and filed with the Office of the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Douglass and Grigonis. (Member Sawicki was absent during this action.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- April 3, 1986 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Grigonis, it was On motion by Mr. Goehringer~ seconded by RESOLVED, to approve the following Minutes of Meetings of this Board: MARCH 10, 1986 Special Meeting; FEBRUARY 14, 1986 Special Meeting; JANUARY 2l, [986 Special Meetin9; JANUARY 9, 1986 Regular Meetin9. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. 'C~ehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent. ) This resolution was duly adopted. The meeting was adjourned at [1:30 o' clock p.m. /Approved- ~-/28/4~6 // Gerard P. Coehringer~tChairman Respectfully submitted, ' in'daF! Kow~, Secretary/Board Cl'erk Southold Town Board of Appeals VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 3, 1986 ~resent were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; !erge Doyen, Jr., ~ember; Charles Grigonis~ Jr., Member; Robert J. Douglass, Member; Joseph H. Sawicki,]Member; Linda F. Kowalski$ Secretary- Board Clerk. Also present were approximately 35 persons in the audience at the beginning of the first hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3396. 7:37 p.m. GARY DOROSKI. Proposed pool with decks and fence enclosure within 75' of wetlands. 425 Monsell Lane (Norwald Subdivision), Cutchogue. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated January 14, 1986 indicating a lot of 37,703 sq. ft. which contains at present or consists of a one-family dwelling and a proposed shed on the northerly side, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a letter from the Town Trustees and I have what appears to be a permit from the D.E.C. Is Mr. Doroski present? (Yes) Could I ask you some questions, sir, or would you like to start out? Could you use he mike please. Is there anything you would like to say. GARY DOROSKI: Not really. answer your questions. If there are any questions, I'll ~CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there any specific reason why you didn't place the pool closer to the right-of-way--why did you chose to place it in the rear of the dwelling, sort of speak? MR. DOROSKI: The elevation--on which right-of-way. The street. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3396 - DOROSKI, hearing., continued:) MR. DOROSKI: The elevation is very steep on that side of the house. It drops off very fast, and then it levels out in the area where I want to put the pool, and then it drops down again, once you get past the 10' area towards the water, it dips down again. If I put it on the side of the house closer to the road, it would take a lot of excavating to do it. I don't kow if you could even do it because it's just a steep grade to do it there. Where I'm putting it, proposing to put it, the land levels off at that point. CHAIRMAN: Ok. The figure I have pencilled in here is 50 feet from the end of the property line. Is that correct? MR. DOROSKI: The pool to the water? CHAIRMAN: The pool to the end of the property line is 50 feet, is that correct, at its nearest point? MR. DOROSKI: I think so, yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok. high-marsh grass. And I have a sketch of the survey 24 feet to MR. DOROSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: No, how big is the pool without the deck? MR. DOROSKI: 20' by 40. CHAIRMAN: And She deck is how large pretty much going around? MR. DOROSKI: Six feet, CHAIRMAN: Variable six feet around. MR. DOROSKI: And then on the one side it's 10 feet. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea how large a retaining wall would be along the high marsh grass area? MR. DOROSKI: How high? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. DOROSKI: I would say maybe four feet, maybe six feet at the most. But I think it's going to be around 4-5 feet. ~ 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3396 - GARY DOROSKI hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: And wh~t kind of pool will it be-- a liner pool? MR. DOROSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok. What kind of reinforcement to you intend to use in the retaining of that wall to retain the cool water? MR. DOROSKI: I talked to one pool company, and he suggested using a --i~Southold Swimmingpools -- using some kind of cement- block wall, that he would put some kind of coating on or something that makes a very strong wall. He said he can go with a steel structure, but he suggested we go with a cement-block wall, and I thought that was a good idea. And between that wall and six feet out, where my deck would be--that's the retaining wall area. CHAIRMAN: Six foot, I guess that's southeast, isn't it? MR. DOROSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Pretty much east. The board is concerned with the construction of the wall if it decides to grant the application as you have shown it to us or given it to us in this particular appeal, because we feel on possible freezing in the wintertime and then thawing in the Spring, that there are times when this wall might or could cave in, thereby placing some 27,000 gallons of water, which is treated into the creek, and having an effect on the shellfish in the water and so on and so forth. I would like you to investigate within the next couple of weeks the possibility of speaking to an engineer or discussing it with someone who is of that particular stature and indicating to us by way of letter the type of construc- tion that you intend to deal with on that side because there is definitely a feeling that there could be a problem with this. I see the reason why you're placing it in that specific area, but a couple of the board members feel, one in question, including myself, that there could be a problem with the side of the pool falling in. Is that something that you can do for us? MR. DOROSKI: Yes. I'll look into it. I'll talk to the contractor., ilf he's available or if he's around here or not--I haven't seen him since the Spring. I follow you to a certain degree. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Now remember when-- If you have any questions of me, ask them now. MR. DOROSKI: If the pool is below grade, and this retaining wall--I can't see how it could ever crack but I guess things do ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- April 3~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3396- ~DOROSKI hearing, continued:) MR. DOROSKI (continued): happen, and say it did crack, and the water-=where is the water going to go if it's below grade? CHAIRMAN: Into the creek. MR. DOROSKI: Wouldn't it just be absorbed into the sand? CHAIRMAN: Well you said the wall would be four foot out of the ground--so very simply there's a possibili~ty of the four foot of the pool, which is a variable, what, 3 to 8--you could lose as much as 10,000 to 13,000 gallons. It's a 20 by 40 pool. It's a big pool. That's the feeling that we have at this particular time. MR. DOROSKI: Ok. CHAIRMAN: imperveous. That the type of construction be that it become MR. DOROSKI: So part of it is how much is it going to be above grade from that side-- CHAIRMAN: No, no. What kind of construction you are going to certify to this board that you are going to place in that wall so it will not crack. It will be imperveous to water and therefore will contain the water even if the liner breaks. That's why I'm saying possibly your best suggestion would be to go to an engineer and ask him. Based upon the pressure per square inch that the pool is going to illicit at certain times of the year--particularly upon freezing. MR. DOROSKI: All right. And your that is going to be in the back? concern is also how high CHAIRMAN: Yes. It would be nice to know how high it is, but as long as an engineer is going to certify that that wall is going to be strong enough, then that's a point that's not as important as the certification of how substantial the wall is going to be. MR. DOROSKI: You need certification saying that the wall would stand up to the winter freezing. CHAIRMAN: Yes. And will not -- well two basic issues: ones that the wall will not crack and fall apart upon the breaking of the liner--for some reason a tree falls in it, it freezes~ whatever ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3396 - DOROSKI hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): happens. All right. And number twos which is in conjunction with that one basically, and that is that the water will diffuse through the soil and not out through the wall. MR. DOROSKI: Ok. I'll see what I can come up with. CHAIRMAN: Now remember, once I close this hearing, the only thing I can get from you is this letter, all right, so there's no further correspondence that I can have with you. MR. DOROSKI: All right. exactly what we need? Will I get anything from you saying CHAIRMAN: No, I'm giving it to you now. SECRETARY: We could give a letter on Monday. CHAIRMAN: Then we shouldn't close the hearing. SECRETARY: I agree. CHAIRMAN: If we close the hearing, we can't take any other information except for the information we're asking from you. So my suggestion is that we recess the hearing with a date, probably the next Regular Meeting, and hopefully you will be able to give us that information by then. MR. DOROSKI: Yeah, I haven't talked to this guy since the Spring, so I don't know if he's available. I hope he is. CHAIRMAN: Now remember, if he's not a certified engineer, or if he doesn't have a certified engineer on the premises, he's going to have to find one or you may have to find one. Ok? This is really not a big production. We ask for this occasionally, ok. MR. DOROSKI: It's new to me. So I have to go to this contractor and get the information from him and then find an engineer. CHAIRMAN: He possibly has an on-site engineer that he uses, particularly if he builds on the water. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3396 - DOROSKI hearing, continued:) MR. DOROSKI: Ok. Am I limited to a certain amount of time to do this? Like say I don't get it done in this two week period? CHAIRMAN: May 1st. time. We can recess it again at that particular MR. DOROSKI: Ok. CHAIRMAN: But you understand that if we close the hearing, I can't have any correspondence with you at that particular time, so if you want a letter from us on Monday, ask us and we'll attempt to draft a letter for you. SECRETARY: I can call him when it's done. MR. DOROSKI: So that I have something to show him. CHAIRMAN: Right. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until May 1st. Thank you, Mr. Doroski. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried, to recess the Hearing until May 1, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3482 JERRY SHULMAN Special Exception to change use of a portion of existing building for storage of building materials, in conjunction with existing agricultural storage and office. 11950 Sound Avenue, Mattituck. the Chairman read the application and notice of this hearing in its entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey with. a most recent date of May 23, 1964, indicating the buildings in question on the premises which utilize most if not all of the property except for the railroad side. At least 90% of the property on an estimate. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Shulman, would you like to be heard? ~_Southold Town Board of Appeals -_.?.T April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3482 - SHULMAN hearing, continued:) JERRY SHULMAN: not. I would like to know whether it's approved or CHAIRMAN: All right, in the area that you've indicated on this survey, the -- maybe you should take a look at it so we all understand the situation. MR. SHULMAN: That one side. CHAIRMAN: This entire side is what you're referring to? MR. SHULMAN: Yes. That's the building that's in question. the fellow wants to use this front part here as an office. And CHAIRMAN: So it's the entire side here, which is basically the west side of the property. MR. SHULMAN: That's right. CHAIRMAN: All right, I thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody wishing to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Douglass, and duly carried, to conclude the hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:56 p.m. Appeal No. 3473 - JOSEPH A. CASSIDY, JR. Variance for approval of 58,484 sq. ft. parcel with 135' frontage along the West Side of Reydon Drive, Southold. The Chairman read the application and notice of this hearing in its entirety for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. with an amended date of January 21, 1986 indicating this lot of 58,484 square feet, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map i~dicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in the Cassidy file? Sir? Would you use the mike and state your name please? Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3473 CASSIDY hearing, continued:) JOSEPH A. CASSIDY, JR.: I am Cassidy, but I think I've said it all in the application. Is there anything further? CHAIRMAN: You referred to a prior appeal eluding to at that point? What were you MR. CASSIDY: No, I didn't make.a prior appeal CHAIRMAN: I did not mean prior appeal on thiS~ but there was a division of this property from the original Rich property, is that the situation? MR. CASSIDY: The actual history is that it was one parcel owned by the Acksins, entire 2.6 acres~ and they sold approximately one half of it to Mr. Rich, but they did not subdivide the property at the time. They deeded half of the property to Mr. Rich, and he put up a home on it. Then I came along and bought the other half of the property from Mrs. Acksin, and at the time I thought I was being very careful. Before I contracted I asked that the buyer furnish me with a vacant land C.O. from the town, and I received one issued in the Acksin's name, and I got the C.O. from them at the contract. So I went ahead and purchased it. Then I asked for a vacant land C.O. in my name after I became the owner, I was told that the situation had changed and that it was not possible. I did not have a prior appeal. Appeal--building department's turning down my application. CHAIRMAN: I thank you for clearing that up for us. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision. Motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Douglass, and duly carried~ to conClude the hearing at this time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3451 - BEDELL WINERY. (Recessed from March 13, 1986) Special Exception to establish winery use from grapes grown on the premises. 36225 Main Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bedells? Sir? Is Mr. Wiggin present representing the MERLON WIGGIN: My name is Merlon Wiggin, representing Bedell Wineries. This is an appeal for the Special Exception to convert a 7,000 sq. ft. potato barn into a winery to include on-site sale of the wine produced on the vineyard. And the reason that this is asked for is that this is one of the areas that we'~e using to preserve the farmland area, and on-site sale, an economic plus in order to make the wine and pay for itself in this area. CHAIRMAN: The reason why we asked somebody to come in, Mr. Wiggin, was that we specifically notice on the site plan that the building in question, which is the 7,172 sq. ft. building, is the one in question that the proposed winery is going to be housed. Now, the question we usually ask in these Special Exceptions is, the grape or the wine itself is going to be produced within the barn and sold within that particular barn only, is that correct? MR. WIGGIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: So the Special Exception which this board has the power to grant will only .be granting it for that particular barn. If there is an addition--if there are additional facilities required, then it would necessitate the owners of this particular winery, sort of speak, assuming you~wi, ll want to come back for an additional Special Exception. MR. WIGGIN: The owner understands that and it has been discussed with him. He thinks maybe in the future he might want to enlarge the sales room, but at this time he doesn't expect that to happen within five yea~s. CHAIRMAN: All right. I thank you very much for speaking. MEMBER SAWICKI: Mr. Chairman? How about the ABC License? For the selling of the wine on the premises. Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3451 - BEDELL WINERY hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: They'll have to petition the State 'to give them a retail license. Mr. Sawicki is asking. MR. WIGGIN: The owners have petitioned the State to do this, but that's through a different state organization. I do not know if they have received that yet or not. Because he can't sell wine until he has received that. CHAIRMAN: All we're basically doing is allowing him to produce the wine in that particular building. The retail sales part of it ok is something that I assume he has or is allowed to do in a Residential District. Only the sale of wine, and no other implements .concerning the wine as a matter of right, to my knowledge, MR. WIGGIN: I think that's correct. it was worded in town'zoning ordinance. I think that's the way CHAIRMAN: Right. answer your question? That's correct. Thank you, sir. Does that MEMBER SAWICKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against this application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further ques- tions I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. This resolution was duly carried to conclude the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3476. ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Variance for relief from conditions placed by Appeal No. 2006 in the Name of Claire Brody dated 2/27/75 to allow the construction of a single-family residence. 715 Gull Pond Lane (along Fordham Canal), Greenport. The Chairman read the letter application and notice of this hearing for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map--it appears to be a survey sketch undated, and I have December 30, 1985 -- indicating a proposed one-family dwelling. And a copy of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3476 - ~ISSMAN hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? PAT MOORE: My name is Pat Moore; I'm with Mr. Bruer. come up, it would make it easier? Could I CHAIRMAN: Surely. MRS. MOORE: I have a presentation, but we just got new maps-- ~these are the site plans that will be submitted to the Planning Board, and it's more current. It really has the same thing that you have there, only more detailed. So I'll submit copies of these when I have them--if it's all right. CHAIRMAN: That's all right. here. As long as we have the one copy MRS. MOORE: Yes. It should be the same. I'd like to make my presentation now, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MRS. MOORE: As we mentioned, we seek relief from the conditions placed on this property-to Mr. and Mrs. Wissman's property. The lot there were four lots that were subdivided and these conditions were created at this time in 1975. As you see in the conditions, they were to be recorded and jest for the record I'd like to state that when they went and purchased this property, they got the deeds which did not have these conditions placed on it--on the deed- and they also got a title report, which did not have the conditions also stated on it. So just for the record, I'd like to question w!hether these conditions are even valid when you have good faith purchasers that did not have notice of these conditions when the property was purchased. CHAIRMAN: Do you want me to answer that question? MRS. MOORE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN: More than valid. More than valid because as one of our senior members over there from Fishers Island has so nicely stated, his feelings are that they supersede any covenants and restrictions. ~Southold Town. Board of Appeals -12- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3476 - WISSMAN hearing, continued:) MRS. MOORE: What do you mean by that? CHAIRMAN: The granting of the application or the application with the restrictions placed on it from 1975 actually supersede any covenants and restrictions that might be placed on the property. In other words, the deed should have been indelibly stamped at that particular time. MRS. MOORE: That's right. Ok. Well, that was the failure of the property owners to do that. But in any case, we're here, and we're trying to seek the relief through the normal channels. They're written in such a way that they provide relief through this board, so that's why we're here. The property, as stated, was bulkheaded by the D.E.C. and-through approval of the D.E.C. and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers made a determination that including but not limited to historic values, fish, wildlife values, flood damage prevention, land use,navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, engineer, energy needs, safety food production and in general the needs and welfare of the people, they found in favor of the Wissmans to place septic system--excuse me, the bulkheading, and so that was a determination by them that this property can sustain residential use as well. The adjacent lot which is owned by Mr. Spitzenburger, in the last year has been built, and with a very beautiful home, .and the lot was created at the same time that this one was created, with the same conditions, so we have now an adjacent property owner that has a house there and we have our property owners that are seeking approval for their house through your Board. This lot is consistent with the surrounding lots in the area. I have this board that just shows the tax map number --excuse me, the tax map, and there are about 15 lots in the northern portion of the Canal when it was created, and on around the lots there were only three lots that have not been developed. And they were all pretty much created about the same time. We just believe that appellants will suffer substantial hard- ship if these conditions are not extinguished or considered-- considering the change in the circumstances and they really are no longer a benefit to anyone, so, if you have any questions at this point, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN: Could you supply us with a copy of the deed if t don't have it in the .file You don't have to do it tonight. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3476 - WISSMAN hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: You did mention that this particular did exist and they were unaware of the fact that this was virtually an unbuildable lot, except for a storage building. MRS. MOORE: However, the language on the conditions makes it possible for a building on this lot subject to new circumstances, which in this case we have the septic system and everything else. CHAIRMAN: But the board would like to see the deed. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll make a copy of it. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Why don't you continue. MRS. MOORE: For the record, I have some letters here from the neighbors who are in full force and are very happy to support this construction, and these are three, and I have another gentleman who would be happy to stand up. There he is--if you'd like him to come up. (Three letters were given to-i~the Chairman for the record in support of this application.) MRS. MOORE: We also have a booklet, a documentation of photographs taken of surrounding properties which have been built on, and of this property, and the Wissmans, as long as they get it back we would be happy to submit it. It's really a photo album of the lots in the area and how they've been developed, so I'll submit that as long as I get your promise I get it back. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to ask Mrs. Kowalski that question. MRS. MOORE: I'm sure she-- she's great. So I have no problem. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. MOORE: And if you want him to speak, if not-- for the record, we have one more person. CHAIRMAN: Surely. please. Use the mike and kindly state your name SAL PRATO: My name is Sal Prato. I live across the Canal from the Wissman property. In the past where the two other lots wouth of the Wissman property were denied homes, you did grant them boat houses. One boathouse has two apartments, two toilets, two kitchens, and two cesspools. The other one is a work shed with an upper loft ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3476 - WISSMAN hearing, continued:) MR. PRATO (continued): to sleep, a full shower, and a bathroom. We have a shanty city created there. I think what these people are doing, number one, pays the tax roll, and number two, gives us a little relief on the other side where we're looking at a full residence. I'm in favor of it. I'd like to see the house built. And no more shacks. CHAIRMAN: While you're up there, we're not aware of the fact that there was any sleeping quarters in any of these storage build- ings or anything of that nature. Secondly, I don't know if there are any CO's. We're not at this particular time--in our presence I should say--we don't have at this particular time the Building Inspector or the Senior Building Inspector, who we normally have here. And you know, we would ask him that question or ask him to research that for us which we can do very, very nicely by just asking tomorrow. Can you shed any light on this particular appli- cation for us how this thing came into being? How these four lots to your knowledge came into being? MR. PRATO: Only hearsay. Originally, I believe it was one parcel. Somewhere down the line, they allowed the people who owned it to profiteer and break it into lots. That's where it should have stopped, right there. Now the damage is done. We do have four lots where they should not,. maybe at the time have been four lots~ It's what we're creating, whether it be legal or illegal, whether the town has the strength to go after it or the desire to, unless it is an environmental impact. Of course, no- body out here wants to see anything like that. I'm in favor of seeing--there was already a precedent. The Spitzenburger house went up. It's a beautiful home. They're right next to it. I'd like to see this thing reverse and have all beautiful homes there rather than--they look like yards. CHAIRMAN: As you know, this Board did not grant any relief to the Spitzenburgers or to my knowledges there's another family that's building down there also on one of the other lots. Those building permits were issued by another department within this Town Hall, and we have again--we don't have the Building Inspector here to ask him how that situation occurred. And I have no idea how the situation came to be. And I thank you for your opinion, sir. ts there anything else you would like to say? MRS. MOORE: Nothing more, I believe. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Let's see what develops during the hearing. ~outhold Town Board of.Appeals -15- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3476 - WISSMAN hearing~ continued:) MRS. MOORE: Ok, thank you. And thank you very much. SECRETARY: You're very welcome. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to speak in favor of the application? Anybody wish to speak against the application? Ques- tions from board members? (None) Ok. I'll make a motion closing the hearing and pending the receipt of any building permits from the Building Department concerning the nature of the activity on this lot or any lot in the area concerning storage building and sleeping quarters. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. Resolution was duly carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3481. PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES, INC. Special Exception to install/relocate marine fuel storage tanks in this "C-Light" Zone. 6230 Main Road, Southold. The Chairman read the application and notice of this hearing in its entirety for the reco'rd. CHAIRMAN: I have a map of the entire area dated April 19, 1985 indicating in deep blue or pencilled in deep blue the area in ques- tion, which is the approximate location of t~ese storage tanks. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to.be heard again, sir? MERLON WIGGIN: Thank you. I'm Merlon Wiggin, representing the Port of Egypt Enterprises. Article XII of the Suffolk County Health Code requires that all fuel tanks be diked, have wall separators, and have special piping,~.alarms,and for protection. These are existing tanks, 2-2,000 gallon gasoline tanks; and one 1,000 diesel tank. They've been in existence for a long time. They are not presently in compliance with the Suffolk County Health Code. This installation will put them in compliance with the Suffolk County Health Codes, and in the process relocated and diked, and all of the things required to be installed. The tanks have been inspected and approved by the Suffolk County Health DePartment. The construction has been approved by the Suffolk County Health Department. The Planning Board has approved the relocation subject to Board of Appeals. The D.E.C. has approved permits--I think, Linda, you ~Southold Town Board of~Appeals -16- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES hearing, continued:) MR. WIGGIN (continued): may not have a copy of this. (Mr. Wiggin gave Secretary copy of D.E.C. permit for the record.) SECRETARY: Thank you. MR. WIGGIN: And this has been a fairly long, involved process, and the owner is anxious to get going for two reasons. One he wants to be sure the tanks are installed correctly, and of course this is part of his livelihood as far as the marina is concerned, and we'd all feel bad if he had a spill while waiting fOr the construction. He indicated that he going to proceed immediately upon the receipt of the Building Permit. CHAIRMAN: Where are the tanks presently, sir? MR. WIGGIN: They are now presently to the east of the --what used to be the Port of Egypt Fishing Station where they kept the small boats, right next to that shack there~ near the Fishing Station, and now being located on higher ground, which is one of the Health Department recommendations on the west side of that same entrance. CHAIRMAN: Are these tanks fiberglass in nature? MR. WIGGIN: No. They are steel. CHAIRMAN: They're steel. Is there any specific reason why I'll refer to you as the applicant because you signed the applica- tion, why you chose to put them so close to the tidal water? MR. WIGGIN: Actually, they have to be within a reasonable distance in order to get the hoses to the boats. There's a dock there where you pull up --the fuel dock to put the fuel in. Also, it's on that pennisula of land--you notice there's water on .both sides. We want to locate it approximately in the center of that. CHAIRMAN: that correct? There are pumps associated with these tanks, is MR. WIGGIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: How far can those pumps pump? Couldn't they pump to a central pumping field rather than--I mean, how far back could we actually place these so that we wouldn't construe them within ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): the danger of the environment? MR. WIGGIN: The pump could take suction from the tanks them- selves. Just like an in-ring, they have their fuel pumps. Attached to those are approximately 100' of fill-line hose that goes to the fuel dock. There would be a limited distance you could take as far as the suction of the pump as far as the elevation is concerned. You probably could go further away, but it wouldn't I think help that much. The main protection is the concrete dike of the tanks themselves. This is a primary,!requirement of the Health Depart- ment, no matter where it's located, whether it's next to the water, or whether it's 100' away. And the dike is sized to contain 110% of the largest tanks. And the construction, reinforced concrete, has all coating on the inside and the two construction draw- ings have separators to make sure any movement of the concrete doesn't allow a leak to take place. That's all part of the Health Department requirements. CHAIRMAN: You don't have any idea how far they could actually be placed back then and still then be functional? MR. WIGGIN: No, you could go probably another 50 to 75 feet. CHAIRMAN: And presently they're how close to the water--it doesn't specifically indicate. MR. WIGGIN: CHAIRMAN: They're.approximately I would say 30 to 40 feet. I think it's a little less than that. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Ten feet. CHAIRMAN: The picture that we have indicates it at approximately 10 feet, and that's the reason why I asked you the question. MR. WIGGIN: I think that l0 feet is to the top of the bank where it slopes away. The bank is four or five to one--if you go down to the water itself, it's about another 15-25 feet. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else you would like to say for this hearing? We asked you in a two-party conversation the other day if you would certify that these walls were, and you just mentioned, that they will withstand or will hold--will they withstand the pressure of the tanks bursting? MR. WIGGIN: That's correct. They're llO% and of course they 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 PORT OF EGYPT ENTERPRISES hearing, continued:) MR. WIGGIN (continued): are designed to take the weight of the tank, and also the tie downs are designed to take care of the buoyancy in case of a hurricane which would totally flood the area. Also part of the requirements of D.E.C. and the Health Department is hydrogen next to it so they are always filled with water in the case of emergency. That's why that hydrogen is there. CHAIRMAN: What happens if one of the tanks do burst, then you come in and you take that fluid out of the confined area, is that correct? MR. WIGGIN: That's correct. What the D.E.C. and Health Department have, lists of licenses, people contractors that they're required to use in case they have to remove a mixture of the water and the fuel. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much, Mr. Wiggin, you've been very helpful. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against hte application? Questions from Board Members? (None) Ok. We are going to illicit an evaluation of this proposed from the Southold Fire Department, and that would be the only letter that we would be receiving once I close this hearing, so I am going to close the hearing subject to the receipt of that particular document and see what there comments are concerning it. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of that document. MR. WIGGIN nodded affirmatively. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. This resOlution was duly carried to conclude the hearing following receipt of that Fire Department documentation. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~19~ April 3, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3472. 8:30 p.m. MICHAEL HERBERT. Variance to establish "Bed and Breakfast" type use (owner-occupied building where loding and breakfast is provided for not more than nine persons). 795 Pike Street, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice of this hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated Octo- ber 9, 1985--it's a copy from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating an area of 20,129 sq. ft. of which a two-story frame house is positioned toward the front of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? PAT MOORE: If I may come up again. As we mentioned, Michael Herbert would suffer unnecessary hardship if the variance is not granted. The property was purchased for a substantial sum of money; and you have the letter in the file from John Moore Silkworth Agency, who points out that the property is really not marketable due to the location. There are several factors which are considered in his opinion. It's across from the Fire House; the Long Island Railroad tracks are contiguous to the rear line of the property. It's a very large house, which can easily accommodate several guests but is too large for one family. He invested $20,000 just in renovating the structure, so you can imagine what condition it was in to start with. So it really can't yield a reasonable return without seeking this variance. The hardship is unique. The area of Pike Street has become a commercial area and really not conducive to residential use. His property is located diagonally across from the Mattituck Parking Lot, and the west side of the property to the west of Love Lane and to the east of Wickham Avenue, both streets are heavily traveled business areas~ As I mentioned, two-thirds of the street is busi- ness zoned, and I put it--just to make it easier to look at--this is the area here. Here is Pike Street, Wickham Avenue, and Love Lane. The yellow portion is the business zone. And the blue is Mr. Herbert's piece. Really, there's not much residential left. And there's a reason for it. Just the location doesn't suit itself to residential use. The property is just about to be changed to Hamlet Business when the Master Plan is adopted, but we all wait for that but we don't know when it's coming. It will be Hamlet Business, and under that use it will--would be a use exception, so one way or another, we would have to come before this Board or the Planning Board, Southold Town Board of Appeals =20- April 3~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - MICHAEL HERBERT hearing, continued:) PAT MOORE (continued): depending on who they make the body that we go before. On March 7th the Zoning Code Committee of the Town Board and Planning Board considered bed and breakfast establishments, and in the documentation, the Boards were considering,'bed and breakfast establishments were found to be noncommercial use and recommended as a positive factor in local tourism development. There is a reason for that. The particular characteristics of the bed and breakfast are kind of mom and pop places--they tend to merge rather than stick out in a community, so, and this is what Mr. Herbert intends to do with this place. We pointed out, and I believe you have the parking diagram that although it may not be required at this point, there will be sufficient off-street parking. There is also plenty of parking from the Mattituck Municipal Parking Lot, which is diagonally across from the property and is not full at all times. So there will be plenty of parking. I have the diagram--I believe it's in your file, but if you want to see it again, which is the layout of the house and how many rooms it has, and how it will be designed--but if you have any other questions, that's all I have for you. CHAIRMAN: I noticed the. Building Inspector only turned you down for a Special Exception; and in situations like this, we have seen--excuse me, I was looking at the plan--both the necessity of having not only the Special Exception but a use variance appli- cation, and I assume be~(the building inspector) did not deal with the use variance application because it is not a prescribed use within the code, but I'll ask him about that. ~jAgain We don't have Mr. Lessard here tonight to ask him that specific question. MRS. MOORE: We had that question, and I went to him several times, and I think he referred to Mr. Tasker on this, and we were suggested to come before you for a use variance. I think the whole purpose really was to keep a controlled atmosphere, and you have really some--there's more interplay with a use variance than others. CHAIRMAN: The nature of bed and breakfast as it exists--does that necessarily mean that that's the only meal that you serve is breakfast? MRS. MOORE: Yes, typically. You're not--the kitchen is not really suited for anything else. The type of breakfast they talk Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - HERBERT hearing, continued:) MRS. MOORE (continued): about is a continental breakfast, which is muffins, danish and coffee, tea--that type of thing. Not catering to lunches, dinners. So it really will provide some, to the local merchants as well, some good business in the area, because it really is just for breakfast and for sleeping purposes; and the type of people that come to a bed and breakfast tend to be quiet. They really aren't looking for a motel atmosphere. It's really trying to see what the area is like and living in the community for a short period of time. Usually weekends. CHAIRMAN: Pat, for some reason I don't have a copy of this-- the plan of the house. Maybe it's not-- MRS. MOORE: It may not be there. impression that I had given it to you. I was just under the CHAIRMAN: The actual floor plan of the house. Some day we're going to have to reconstruct the east part of the Town Hall just to accommodate the Building Department and the Zoning Board. Now, why did you address the issue of nine persons? That would be the maximum the house could utilize? MRS. MOORE: Yes, the absolute maximum. And that is including one room which Mr. Herbert hasn't really decided if he's going to use it as a bedroom or kind of an accessory use--either a changing room, or child's quarters together with their parents. So~ the room is very small. I have Mr. Herbert here if you'd like to ask him any specific questions. CHAIRMAN: In the nature of monetary amounts--does he has any specific idea on what these rooms would rent for, including the continental meal? MRS. MOORE to MR. HERBERT: Have you got an idea of the costs? We're trying to calculate what other bed and breakfast locations~ correct me if I'm wrong--S75, the most expensive room, the top of the line room,'lto-- MR. HERBERT: Between $45 and $65 I heard. MRS. MOORE: So his are lower than the top room in other places--it's really proportionate--you really don't get motels and hotels out here for that. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - HERBERT hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Southold Town? You've never been in a bed and breakfast in MRS~ MOORE: No, Greenport. CHAIRMAN: Greenport. MRS. MOORE: Although some have popped up, and that's why we're here because we're trying to avoid that. We don't want-- we're coming through legitimate means. I know that other bed and breakfast places have popped up, and it's been just a problem that the code wasn't equipped to handle it. That's why the new code will provide for bed and breakfast because you have these types of places that are all over New England, and all over the Country, and then in a place like Southold which could use that type of place. CHAIRMAN: Not having been actually in one, let me ask-- possibly the last question. Are there designated rules and regula- tions as they have these regulations in the nature of an innkeeper, you know, are there specific lights-out times or are there specific rules that would be placed on the use of that room as one use of occupancy, with reference to noise levels and so on and so forth. MRS, MOORE: That I don t think comes up that often in.a bed and breakfast location because you have people-- I mean if you have people that are real obnoxious and you don't like them there, they're paying for the room for a night, so you always as the innkeeper have the choice of saying, listen, you're bothering the other guests--this is not the type of place you want, maybe I can direct you to a motel, or a hotel nearby that might be able to accommodate you better. I don't know. It's not like a shower facility where you have "Don't throw the towels. Don't do this. Don't do that." I think it's more of agreements made. It's also the atmosphere. The atmosphere is very quaint, so you walk in there with all this beautiful wallpaper, antiques and everything. You don't go in going to trash~the place, so. CHAIRMAN: The reason I asked that question is because basically the houses on both sides are residential houses, ok. We'll see what develops. Thank you~ MEMBER SAWICKI: How many parking spaces on the premises? MRS. MOORE: would be nine. We have one per bedroom on the premises, so that Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - HERB_______~ER~T hearing, continued:) MEMBER SAWICKI: Behind the house? MRS. MOORE: stoned. Behind the house. Yes. And that'll be blue- CHAIRMAN: We have the plan right here. It's not--we didn't put it in the file so that 'we could take it out quickly, so. Would you pass this down? Anything you would like to add, Mr~ Herbert, before we open it up to the audience? MR. HERBERT: areas. I think Patricia Moore pretty well covered the CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else whe would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Sir? Would you kindly state your name and use the mike? ARTHUR MELOSCH: My name is Arthur Melosch. I'm President of the Saltaire Estates in Mattituck. And a bed and breakfast, they really have their place. I spent quite a few nights out in California and from here to Florida, but I do not think that they belong in a residential area. I, every Sunday, come down Pike Street on my way to Church. I think it's a nice street. I like it. There were some nice decorations there at Christmastime. And I've been in bed and breakfast places as I said before where some places are beautiful. They take great pride in their places; however, they are not constructed as a motel or a hotel, and you can here everything that goes on and sometimes it's not desirable. That's one of the objections~ Cars were going in and out, but you cannot ascertain this before you go in. Also, you mentioned nine people. How many bedrooms would there be? CHAIRMAN: I have the floor plan right here. welcome to review it. You are MR, MELOSCH: I just asked, how many bedrooms would there be? At least, four., five, perhaps more? There's no guarantee they are only going to have nine people. Another thing, who is going to- I'm a retired retaurant operator for the last 50 years. And you mentioned a commercial enterprises, a hardship. It's a profitable enterprise, or else you wouldn't be in that type of a business. So therefore it's commercial, and a commercial place does not Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 HERBERT hearing, continued:) MR. MELOSCH'(continued): belong in a residential area. Because if you allow it in one residential area, you're opening up a can of worms throughout the Town of Southold in my opinion. And the Association of Homeowners that I represent, number about forty-five. And we bought that property. We built the homes that are--I've been living there 11 years. Never expecting that there could be a hotel, which I call a bed and breakfast across the street from me, creating a nuisance for cars and so forth. Also, if you allow it in this particular area, what happens if somebody has a nice house down near the beach. We have beachfront property. As homeowners, we pay a yearly fee to maintain a walk, stairs, 125 steps--I counted them--down to the Village. What about the liability insurance? Could we be straddled if we have one of those units in our amidst? It wouldn't be fair to homeowners who bought in a residential area to find out next month or next year that it's possible to have a bed and breakfast. They have their place. And I'm all in favor of it--in a commercial zone. Route 25, Main Road, the North Road, fine. There are beautiful homes. If somebody wanted to buy a piece of property--I'm sure when the young man bought that piece of property had a bed and breakfast in mind. He should have thought better. I'm sure he doesn't have the experience to know that if you want to go into a commercial zoning area to put up a commercial building, you've got to go into a commercial building. You cannot go into a residential--regardless of the real estate person may tell you-- and then come up here before you people and ask for a variance. That's not fair. You gain this through experience. And in summation, this is what you call spot zoning; and it's really not fair to the people 'who bought in a residential zoned area and find themselves straddled with this type of operation. Also, the Board of Health comes into play. You have to have fire safety devices. And if it's upstairs, you have to have a fire escape. Who's going to check on it. The Board of Health used to come around our place and used to say they were overworked and underpaid. And I agree with them, because there are too many places that they have to inspect. The same thing holds true for this. You do not have the personnel in this Town to check on all these places. If you give it to one, it's going to multiply. But the basic objection is that if a person wants to put a bed and breakfast here in the Town of Southold, please think it over carefully., It should go into a commercial zone-- not into a residential. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - HERBERT hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): like to speak'against the application? Mrs. Moore, do you have anything you would like to add in rebuttal? MRS. MOORE: Yeah. I just would like to respond--it is a very good argument. The problem is that this street is three- quarters business zone. The proposed Master Plan which has taken all the development and the characters of the neighborhoods in mind has decided to change the zone of this street. So in that respect this will be conforming to the area of the neighborhood, it's just because of timing, we have to deal with the situation as it exists today. The -- as far as the construction of the house, and how you hear neighbors and so on, it's a very wel,1 constructed house. It's very old At one time, this house~ without permission was used as a nursing home for some localis, and that was before Mr. Herbert bought it and so on. So thiis house has withstand years of use and abuse, I'm sure. He planning to do something ery special with this property. He 'se has opened it up to the neighbors as far as his having a hou warming--to which he has invited all the neighbors to come alnd see what he has done. He is very proud of what he has done, and we're here because the Town has problems with this type of uise, and we are going to through really the only process availablE to him, which is going through this Board. So, to be denied! this opportUnity would be a real shame for the community. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again. Anything you would like tm say, sir? MR. MELOSCH: From my knowledge, I just got back from I Florida, and this came as a rather unexpected situation to But I from what I've been led to believe, the Master Plan has not been approved as yet. And if it has, this change in it-~ then I think the applicant should wait, and I don't think th~ Board should grant something that has not been incorporated into the Master Plan, because there's no guarantee that it w 11 be incorporated into the Master Plan. And again I say, it could be opening up a can of worms. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything else, Mrs. Moore? (None) ~ , Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3472 - HERBERT hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Questions from any board members concerning this application? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. This resolution was duly carried and the hearing was concluded. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3418. GRETCHEN HEIGL. Variance for: (a) approval of insufficient lot area and width in this pending (set-off) division of property, and (b) approval of access to proposed Lot #1. North Side of Soundview Avenue, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice of this hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced from Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated July 25, 1985 amended November 5, 1985 indicating Parcel #1 of 65,000+ sq. ft. with a right-of-way to the east, and Parcel #2 of 76,000± sq. ft. with a right-of-way to the east, and building envelope encompassing approximately 90% of the area, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hall, would you like to be heard? MICHAEL HALL, ESQ.: Hi. This is an application by Mrs. Gretchen Heigl to see-off that 76,000 sq. ft. parcel from her land on Soundview Avenue. What I would like to do is just give the Board just a little historical prospective on this land because it does relate directly to the hardship here--the practical difficulties. Mrs. Heigl's father who is William Keener bought this lot from George Tisdale in September of 1950--36 years ago. At that time, the parcel was over four acres in size, and in that from Soundview Avenue to the highwater mark from somewhere between 1,500 and 1,600 feet. Erosion has taken care of some of that over the years. In that 1950 deed, Tisdale: granted a 30-foot right-of-way along the easterly side for ingress and egress. The right-of-way is now in the lands of Mr. and Mrs. Fultz, who are here tonight, who purchased their property from one of Tisdale successors. It went from Tisdale through two other people to Fultz. Because of this right-of-way, although the Heigls don't own it, it tempers some of the small width that we're dealing with tonight. Mrs. Heigl's father and herself have summered at Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - GRETCHEN HEIGL hearing, continued:) MICHAEL HALL (continued): this house for over 30 years, and they've always planned, Mrs. Heigl and her husband have always planned to build their retire- ment home on the parcel that's sought to be set-off tonight on the southern half of the parcel. Like so many other people, Mrs. Heigl did not rush to subdivide before the two-acre zoning came in because as far as her deeds showed, there were four acres there. The new survey which was done for the purpose of this application shows that we're dealing here with about 140,000 instead of 180~000. For what it's worth, Mrs. Heigl's father's did in 1974 draw up plans to build a house where the Heigl's would like to build now. He just never followed through with that. As I said earlier~ apparently erosion of the Long Island Sound has shrunk this parcel from about 176,000 down to its present 141,000 square feet. I have informed the Heigls that at the present rate, their present house would be gone in about 120 years. Mr. Heigl retired from his job this year, and they've informed me that it has been their lifelong plan to build on the new parcel--on the parcel sought to be created. For the record I would like to state that the Heigls are willing, I think it goes without saying--but they're willing to covenant that the property would not be further subdivided. I know that's one of the Fultz's concerns. And I'd also like to state for the record I believe the board has in its file a copy of the D.E.C. declaration of no jurisdiction. The present house is over 400 feet back from the highwater mark of Long Island Sound. The new house would be about 700 feet back or 650 feet back from the Sound. So there's plenty of room there. I have submitted Section 68 of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing parcels for the Board. I think I stated in the letter a few months ago that there are 28 parcels in Section 68 that are smaller than either of the parcels sought to be created tonight. At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Richard Winters, who is a real estate appraiser here in Southold. I'd like to ask the Board if they will acknowledge him as an expert or if they would like me to qualify him. I'm prepared to qualify him if you would like. CHAIRMAN: That's not necessary. If we thought there was any question, we would very simply swear him in. There's no reason for that. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - H~EIG___L_L hearing, continued:) MR. HALL: Ok. Mr.'Winters? RICHARD WINTERS: I was asked by Mr. Hall to prepare an appraisal report --you have the original. I have a copy in front of me. I inspected the property and did the report as of this March. I think March 26th is the date of the report. I sought out comparable sales of Long Island Sound waterfront view properties to try to use that as a basis of the appraisal, and as a result of my investigations, which were included in the report for you, included that the value of the property as is, I assigned a value of $225,000 to the land as it now exists, and the value on the depreciated improvement approximately $80,000, for a total value of $305,000. With the proposed set-off, I have established land value on Lot #1, which is where the improvement currently is, of $150,000, still having the improvement of $80,000, and land value on Lot #2, which is currently unimproved for $200,000. The reason, and I think the most significant aspect of the report between the two lots, where Lot #1, I've assigned the value of $150,000, that's a waterfront piece of property. But it's much lower than is Lot #2. Lot #2 is wooded, it's set back from the water--the elevation is significantly higher--I don't have the exact elevation because I was not provided with that--well, I guess I was provided with a topographical. I didn't note it in my report, however. However, my opinion Lot #2 would have a view of Long Island Sound--it would also have beach access to the distant right-of-way and therefore enjoy the same benefits as would the actual waterfront property, which indeed does not have a view of the water in any event. The house is now level because of the lot. Based on those concl~usions, I came~]up wi~h an indicated economic loss of the property of $145,000 if this application is not granted. CHAIRMAN: This is probably an unfair question, Mr. Winters, but I'll ask you--maybe you can't give me an answer right off the top. of your head. What do you think the value would increase assuming that a right-of-way was given to the water for Parcel #2? MR. WINTERS: I assumed that that right-of-way to the water would exist, because on the survey I believe that it showed Parcel #1 as the set-off piece, and therefore I assumed that the right-of-way would remain for Parcel #2. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you very much. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- April 3~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing, continued:) MR. HALL: As you have heard many, many times before, in order for the Zoning Board to grant an area variance such as lot size and width, like I'm looking for tonight, the applicant has to show practical difficulties, which is a somewhat lesser standard than the unnecessary hardship needed for a use variance. The Board has just heard the expert testimony of Mr. Winters, and his written report which shows the economic difficulty involved with the lack of set-off. And I've mentioned to the Board that the practical difficulties of the relatively slight insufficient square footage here, I realize the older lot--the one with the house on it--would be 65,000 square feet, and the newly created tot would be 60,000 sq. ft.--but the practical difficulties of the slight insufficient square footage actually developed over the 40 years or 36 years that the property has been in the Keener and Heigl Family, which is something no one could ever account for, obviously, erosion of the sound. The same situation goes for the insufficient width~ The lot was deeded in 1950, I guess at that time it would 117 feet wide on Soundview and 109 feet wide on the Sound. But that's something again that's a hardship because it's beyond the control of Mrs. Heigl or her father, who bought the property 36 years ago. And as I already said, the narrowness and even the square footage is somewhat off-set by the fact that the right-of-way is addition to the property, so they won't have to encroach with a driveway or anything like that. I hope the Fultz' agree. I further hope the Board agrees that the granting of the variance tonight will not have an adverse affect on the health, welfare, safety, or environment of the town, in that the new parcel will be just 4,000 square foot shQrt of the 80,000 sq. ft. requirement. Finally, I would like to mention or counter the Planning Board's letter, in their denial--they recommended, of course, denial of the subdivision and one of their reasons was they were afraid of creating a precedent of long narrow lots in the area. I don't think there is any danger of precedent. This lot was created in 1950B If you look at Section 68, there are very few, if any, lots that narrow and if the Board grants the variance tonight, it will be in the context of a 40-year-old lot. If Mr. Smith comes tomorrow and wants to chop up his lot in 110' widths, the Board would be in a position to say "No," and a precedent would not have been created. And that's all I have to say. I just respectfully request the variance tonight. c~AIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? (No one) Anybody Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- April 3~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): like to speak against the application? Mr. Cuddy? CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: My name is Charles Cuddy. I'm from the Firm of Esseks, Hefter, Cuddy and Angel in Riverhead. We represent Mr. and Mrs. Fultz, who are the owners of the 12.5, 13-acre parcel immediately to the east of the Heigl parcel. The problem we have with the Heigl application isn't so much that they want to divide it, it's that they'd want to use a right-of-way which is on the Fultz' land, and that has considerable bother to us for two reasons. One, I'm not sure that in fact that the right-of-way that they refer to is a right-of-way that was in existence in the Fultzs' deeds. I recognize that the Heigls' apparently believe that they have it as a result of the Tisdale deed, but I would offer up to you the deed in for Mr. Fultz-- not from a common grantor but from the grantor to Mr. Fultz in 1970. There's no reference to the right-of-way in that deed. I'd also offer up the tax map just to show where the lots are. Tax maps sometimes have rights-of-way, some times it doesn't. It this cased it doesn't show the right-of-way, which I think is indicative of the fact that it's not in the deed. I would just like to make that part of the record if I could. This is the tax map and the deed also to Mr. Fultz. (Mr. Cuddy gave copies of the deed at Li'ber 6294 cp 288 dated 1/19/68 from Weidman to Fultz, and a section of the County Tax Map for the record.) Our problem, although we may have some disagreement~ I point out to the Board that it's good to talk about a 76,000 square foot lot, but in fact, the other lot is 65,000 so they miss by 19,000. Regardless of the size of the lot, certainly they can, if the Board is agreeable, and I assume, and I would ask this question that this will go back to the Planning Board i.f~it get~'~ approved, is that correct? CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MR. CUDDY: Will this Board ask that there be a covenant that there be no further subdivision? CHAIRMAN: We would probably, if this Board so seeks to grant this application, covenant it ourselves. MR. CUDDY: I would further point out that the problem we have is (a) that there may not be the right-of-way, but assuming arguendo that there is a right-of-way, they're going Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing~ continued:) MR. CUDDY (continued): to be using our land and improving Fultz'S land, although they have a right-of-way over it, argument's sake, and we think we should have some input as to how that improvement goes--to the mode of use, extent of use, and how it's going to be used. And we ask the Board to at least reserve decision to permit us to have some discussion with the Heigls as to exactly what tha~ would entail. I don't know what:the Board would ~equire as to improvement but before that's done, I would like to have some further input to this. CHAIRMAN: report? Certainly. Have you gotten a copy of the engineer's MR. CUDDY: No, I don't think I have a copy of that. I have other reports, but I don't think I have an engineer's report. CHAIRMAN: We are very happy that Mr. Davis is back with us, and he has done a very detailed report on this particular right- of-way. Secondly, I should point out to you, Mr. Cuddy, that as you know, this Board probably spends 25% of its time dealing with rights-of-way, or right-of-ways, particularly with the construction, manipulation and movement of traveled rights-of-way within the nature of properties in and outside of them. At no time, do we ever grant what we consider to be a right-of-way mandated, and our right-of-way is usually--the improvements or 280-a of such right-of-way which gives us the power to grant this under New York Town Law usually states as long as the applicant has a right-of-way over the property. Ok? So we are going with the premise that there is at least a right-of-way anyway. And we assume that they have the right=of-way before they start improving it. So that's all I can tell you with reference to that partiular portion of it. MR. CUDDY: But here I would point out to the board at least initially there's some doubt.that it does exist. I think there's needs to be some further research. I'm doing that but I didn't have the opportunity to do that in the last week. CHAIRMAN: hearing? So you really would like a recess on this MR~ CUDDY: I would. I'd like to get that deed and find out. If ira's there.~ that's fine. If it's. not there, it makes a big differen-ce~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing, continued:) MICHAEL HALL, ESQ.: from Tisdale to Kiernan? Charlie, are you looking for the deed MR.'CUDDY: Nos no. We're looking for the one in Fultz. have the Ti,sdale deed. I'm talking about our deed. The deed that we have doesn't show it, but there may be another deed back from a common grantor. I don't have that deed. I have over a dozen deeds, but I don't have that one. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any objection to a recess, Mr. Hall? MR. HALL: Would it be a short recess? The Heigla are very anxious-- MR. CUDDY: Fine. The very next time you can put it on, I have no problem with that~ CHAIRMAN: Well the problem that we have is a very full calendar for the next two meetings. Next ~eeting. We'll have to discuss it possibly--I'm about ready to take a recess any way. I'll let the board discuss it and we'll come back before we close the hearing. I have a copy of the engineer's report for you. (The Chairman gave Mr. Cuddy a copy of the road engineer's report and recommendations.) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Hall? MR. HALL: Well, not necessarily rebuttal--but I will work with Mr. Cuddy and the Fuitzes. First of all, the Heigls are willing to covenant that it would not be further subdivided. Also, when Charlie gets a chance to look at the engineer's report. The engineer is~ basically satisfied with the right-of-way as it exists. He wants it flattened in a few spots and widened slightly in a few spots, but he doesn't want any major work done to it. The only thing the Heigls will need to do if they build a new house is just make a little left-hand turn off the right-of-way into the new driveway. There would be no other significant changes. And just by way of rebuttal, the deed--it's my understanding and Charlie will get the deeds--that Tisdale is the common grantor of the entire Fultz and Kiernan parcel, and that in 1915 he granted to Kiernan together with a right-of-way, so that would run to successors such as the Fultzes whether it was on their deed or not. That's all. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing, continued:) FRED HEI'GL: Good evening. My name if Fred Heigl. I'm the husband of Mrs. Heigl.. I would like to address a question of the right-of-way and any possible confusion or misunderstanding that might arise from it--at least from my point of view. First of all, in the deed that we hold, which is the original deed from the grantor Tisdale, it specifically states that egress and ingress are to be accommodated by a right-of-way on this 30-foot parcel; it specifically spells out the 30-foot parcel. Obviously, there is a right-of-way because the engineers have examined it, so I don't think there is any question whether there's physicially a right- of-way or there isn't. I think also it should be pointed out in my opinion that there's a right-of-way for Long~/Island Lighting Company and the New York Telephone Company, both of which have installed poles along that right-of-way, which incidentally the installation of which were paid for by my father-in-law 36 years ago. There's also two brick pillars at the front of his drive and an iron gate across the drive, and every year in November when the summer house is closed, that gate is closed and padlocked, and no intent is made by anyone other than the .people who have resided in the house on so-called Subdivision One, which is the Estate of Kiernan and Heigl Family to use that road from Soundview Avenue down to Lot #1. It is used by Fultzes and by their guests and occasionally by some unwelcomed visitors as access to the beach. That has-obviously the Fultzes use that, and obviously we'll have it continue to exist. The unwelcomed visitors are people that park their cars on Soundivew Avenue and decide this is a public beach and try to use that right-of-way. But the point I'm trying to establish is the fact that over a period of 36 years, thot road was not used by the Fultzes, their predecessors the Widemanns, or their predecessors the Winemanns. And I don't even know if Tisdale ever used it. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question, Sir. MR. HEIGL: Sure. CHAIRMAN: To your knowledge, this a period of time that you've been using this right-of-way, and this is only conjecture on our part in my asking.the question, have you gained access to the cottage in any other means other than by the use of that right-of-way? MR. HEIGL: No, Sir. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ Thank you. Anything in rebuttal? Yes, Sir. Cuddy. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3418 - HEIGL hearing, continued:) MR. CUDDY: The board, as you say does 25% of its work in rights-of-way, so I'm not going to go into a great deal on it--but we're not talking about prescriptive rights-of-way. We're talking about deeded rights-of-way. I'm simply pointing out to you--they have, I agree with them. But our deed doesn't have it, and I think that's significant. And that's what I'm trying to find out. If I find it does, I'll report that to the board. If it doesn't, I'll certainly report that too. MR. HALL: Charlie, if it's going to be adjourned--perhaps-- I know you ve got a busy calendar coming up, but we could put it on that next calendar, because it might be something we can resolve by stipulation in the meantime and I would just submit it to the board~ Can we do that? In other words, it might not require another verbal hearing. CHAIRMAN: Ok. All right, I'll make a motion at this particular time to recess for approximately five minutes. We will not be discussingi~thils issue during our recess because we will not be together to discuss it; however, we will discuss it when we come back and come up with a specific decision in reference to the recess. Can I have a motion, gentlemen? Member Grigonis made a motion, to recess for approximately ten minutes, seconded by Chairman Goehringerly, and duly carried~ The hearing was recessed for ten minutes. 9:32 p.m. Motion was made by Member Doyen, seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried, to reconvene the Public Hearing in the Matter of Appeal No 3418 - GRETCHEN HEIGL. CHAIRMAN: We'll ask you again, Mr. Hall, you have no objection to the recess requested by Mr Cuddy? MR. HALL: Well, I'd like to say that' I would like it to be short. We're fairly close to coming to an agreement, and I'd like it just to be something that maybe Mr. Cuddy and I, and the Fultzes and Heigls could work out in the next short period. CHAIRMAN: We cannot recess it until the next meeting because we are completely booked up. But we can recess it to the meeting (hearings) after that. MR. HALL: Which is? CHAIRMAN: Sometime in May. SECRETARY: The'22nd. Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No 3418 HEIGL hearing'~ continued-) - CHAIRMAN- Twenty-second of Mayo MR~ HALL- I~m going to pass t-he buck. MRS. HEiGL: Actually, t'his is creating a bit of a hardship for us. We're in a very, very good selling period in Garden City right now, and I can't put my. house on .the. market beca.use of this hold-up. We didn't expect that it would last this long. My husband retired at the beginning of the year expecting to come down~ and put the shovel in, and now we are stuck holding the two houses; and as I say, I get telephone calls to -- CHAIRMAN: Well, the only 'thing that we can do for you tonight, is to do a negative declaration (SEQRA) on ~our.applica- tion~so that we can make a decision on the 22nd if possible.. That's the only thing we can do for you to expedite the ~thing a little bit. MR. CUDDY: I believe i'n discussing this with Mr~ Hall~ Mr. Chairman, that we woul. d probably be done by that time so that, as I understand your process, you ~probably wouldn't make a decision until the next meeting anyway. So you're not]i~talking that far apart. CHAIRMAN: weeks, basically, MRs CUDDY: No, we're talking approximately two and one-half I think we can be done. MR. HALL: Ok. CHAIRMAN: Allr ight, hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the .hearing until May 22nd~ MEMBER GRIGONIS: Secon'd. The public hearing was recessed until the May 22, 1986 Regular Meeting Resolution was unanimously adopted~ CHAIRMAN: Thank'you very much for Coming in everybody. Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings 9:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3477 KATHERINE AND WILLIAM HEINS. Variance for approval of insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels. N/s Main Road, Orient. The Chairman read the notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map showing this and surrounding properties, and I have a survey of February 4, 1986 indicating the house lot of 29,855 sq. ft., lot to be set-off, and in this case they are both substandard lots, so they are both to be set-off, of 18,984 sq. ft. We have a decision from this board which this application some time ago, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. Is there some- body that would like to be heard on the Heins application? (No one) We received a letter from Mr. Tohill (attorney for the applicants) who is not able to make it tonight, and he has asked for a recess until the next regularly scheduled meeting. We are going to recess this until the 22nd, I believe, also, is that correct~ I will recess this until the May 22nd meeting also. Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until May 22nd, unless the board members have any objection. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. The hearing was recessed until the May 22nd Regular Meeting and public hearing. This resolution was duly carried by all the members. 9~38 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3488 - WILLIAM KREITSEK. Variance to locate private, fenced-in tennis court and 12' by 12' gazebo on stilts on vacant lot adjacent and accessory to residence of the applicant. S/s Soundview Avenue, Southoldo The Chairman read the notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a plan produced by Briarcliff Landscape dated 1/30/86 indicating a proposed tennis court and proposed gazebo on this parcel, which fronts on Soundview Avenue, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Moore? PATRICIA MOORE (R. Bruer's Office): I have the same--there should be enough copies for everyone. This is a rather common Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No, 3488 - KREITSEK hearing, continued:) MRS. MOORE: request arising when a particular use is designated as an accessory use under our code. We have, for all practical purposes an acces- sory use since the dwelling is adjacent to this lot, and really they create one 2..26,acre parcel. The house is secluded with natural shrubbery and with a very long entrance, so this really has no neighbors to be concerned with. The property is really very large, and has like a little, woods that enclose it. So the property could not really be used for anything else than for this purpose. The tennis court and improvements will all be first class We have pointed out a number of pines that are going to be used and it's going to provide a natural screening for the tennis court, for the lighting, and for the residence that's being used. We also included in our application the gazebo which I have here--it's one of the prefabricated,-so that you would be aware of alt structures that are going to be placed on the property. I believe we can get a C.O. for this if we even need one, but it's included in the site plan, so if you want to see it, I have it. Those are the dimensions~ It's prefabricated. CHAIRMAN: Before you leave the gazebo, can you give me an approximate distance, not tonight--some time--for the proposed gazebo to approximately the center of the lot to Soundview Avenue, so we can designate that if we so desire to grant this application. In other words, from the middle of the pond. MRS. MOORE: Avenue? You're talking from the gazebo to Soundview CHAIRMAN: Yes. line. MRS. MOORE: That would be here. At least to the property I don't know if Soundview Avenue-- From here- CHAIRMAN: No.~ Right across the middle of the pond. MRS. MOORE: To the north? CHAIRMAN: No. MRS. MOORE- Oh, from here-- CHAIRMAN: Like this. Yes, approximately dead center, right to that. MRS. MOORE: that in mind. Oh, fi ne. That's easy enough. Ok. I'll keep Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3488 ' KREITSE~K hearing, continued:) MRS~ MOORE~ So that's really all I have to say as far as the appliCation~ I'can explain ~what'.$ going on here. This is tlhe natural, screening that's §.Q.~ng to be placed_on the property. The property comes tn from SQund~iew Avenue--it's~ a long driveway that comes in--and therets, a'circular driveway at the. end. The tennis court will be right here--it.has the black vinyl chainlink fence~- I made a~point of mentioning that because it~s a type of fence that~tends to blend into the surrounding area rather than. stick out. So~ Go ahead-~ CHAIRMAN~ How h]ilgh are the lights goi'ng to be? MRS.. MOORE: Oki. The l~ghts are sLandard light posts--bronze and stell, 5~: by 5~' and 35~ h~gh. But they will have the --like directio~als toward the tennis court~ and between the pines and the fact that there are no neighbors in the area, the lighting should not affect anyone~ CHAIRMAN: There's no house next door. MRS~ MOORE: Well the proper'ty next door is Mr~ Kreitsek's. Right here is the other propenty. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I meant'~the other~ MR'S~. MOORE$ And well there are trees all over the place, so even if you~when you.went out to look at it today, or if you go out and _look the next couple of days, you'll see that you can barely see the house and this is when all the leaves are down. So. That's pretty much all I ha~e to say as .far as the structure goes. It's a standard tennis court~ The dimensions are all standard. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can. CHAIRMAN: There is no plan for any additional structures on this particular proper'ty such as cabana with shower, sleeping quarters, k~tchen facil_.!tiles, or anything of that nature? MRS. MOORE: No~ There=s a water feeder but that is about it. I th~nk that's the only~ CHAIRMAN: I thi]nk we could allow that. MRS. MOORE~ No~ This property is just as you see it. CHAIRMAN: Ok. There was another question, but I can't think of i't right'at the moment.~ Let's see what else develops. Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No, 3488- KREITSEK hearing, continued:) SECR.ETARY~ Fence height? CHAIRMAN} Y'~s~ How high is the fence~ Pat? MRS. MOORE: ~he fence-'is--I have that somewhere--I believe it'-s -'CHAIRMAN' It says e~.ght feet, MR'S~ MOORE~ Yes,/ it']~ on the application~ I believe. CHAI'RMAN:. Z-ao~t know if we i~c~uded the fence in the legal notice~'so we might have -- SECRETARY~ It wasn'~t turned down or applied for either. CHAIRMAN-' The height of the fence you were not specifically turned down'in the Notice of Disapproval? MRS, MOORE~ Right~ From ~he bui'lding inspector you mean? CHAIRMAN~ Yes~ MRS~ MOORE- No~ He took the whole application with fence and every.th~ng as far as I know~ SECRETARY~ CHAIRMAN~ MRS, MOORE,' CHAIRMAN~ than frontyard,. MRS~ MOORE: a struct~re'can be 35 feet h'i~gh~ raised to them~ They might not need the variance on the fence, That's the question we are asking you. I don~:t th%nk so~ Because it may be construed to be rearyard rather It's also part of the structure, and I believe That was the question that I CHAIRMAN' As being a prtnci_pa] structure~ MRS. MOORE: Righ~-~ CHAIRMAN~ All rtght~ Z thi.nk that about does it. MRS~ MOORE- ~f you have any further questions. I thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -40- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal NO.J. 3488 - KREITSEK hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against the appli- cation? Questions from board members? Yes, Sir. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Why do you require lights of 35 feet? MRS. MOORE: That's the standard height for lighting for a tennis court. That's all really I can tell you. Mr~ Kreitsek is from Suffolk Lightin~g., so I.lmagine he knows what is appro= priate for a tennis court, and that is the standard lighting used. MEMBER DOUGLASS' There are a lot of them less than that. MRS. MOORE- I wouldn"t know that i'n particular. But they are going to be directed towards the tennis court and with the trees that are aight to twelve feet high when th'ey~re planted, there won~t be any problem with the lighting. Plus it~'.ll probably on while the tenn%s court is being u~ed. I caQ.'t imagine it being left on all the ti. me~ MEMBER Dd'U-GLASS- No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN- Hearing no furthe~ questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later~ 'MEMBER SAWICKI: Second~ Resolution was duly carried to conclude the hearing. 9:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING~ Appeal No~ 3471 NICHOLAS TSIRKAS. Variance to construct single_yfami]y dwelling'W~t.h an insuffic'ient setback from eage of bank along Long Island Sound~ N/s .Soundview Avenue, Greenpo.rt~ The Chairman read the notice of hearing and appeal application for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey of this subject proper~y and it appears to be a sketch of the remaining properties, three to the west and three to the east incorporating the subject property to be Lot #113 and we go down to Lot 110, 111, 112, and we skip to 113~ We then go to 114, 115 and 116. And they are Lots 9, 10, skiP. ping the lot that we are dealing with in this application, and 12, 13 and 14 as sketched in th~s survey of Roderick Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - TSIRKAS hearings continued:) Next, as was stated in the application the survey and appli- cation to the Department of Health which was already approved by the Department of Health on May 62 1985, shows that the septic system is in front of the premises within the 35' setback, and is nowhere in relationship to the dune. I think you may have that survey in your file~ I have some other copies if you need them to help ~you look at that.~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (continued)- VanTuyl, P~C~ March 12, 1986. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Mr. Bruer? Oh, Mr. Pachman. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I'm here on behalf of, of counsel to Mr. Bruer, and for Mr. Tsirkas. Mr~ Tsirka's is to my left in the rear° Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. As you know, this application was heard once before by the board and it was turned down without prejudice~ The .properlty is located on Section IV on Map of Eastern Shores~ and SectiQ.p IV consists of 16 lots of which all but three are developed, including the one which is 113, which is ours~ The disadvanta.ge that all these lots that front on the Sound immed~ately~ confronted wi.~.h approximately 50% of the lot is north of the bluff~ So we're dealing with the ability to only build on an enve..!o~e of about half the square footage of the total lot, which conforms to the zonin_.g ordinance. All the other lots in the subdivision of the same size have the benefit of building upon the whole lot. Because of the nature of the loca~ tion of these particular lots, we immediately start out with that disadvantage~ On March 2.~th,~ of 1985, the Town Board in its wisdom decided to pass a bluff ordi. nance which said that any lots which front upon the Long._ I~]and Sound must be built within 100 feet of _~the Sound~ By .?eqgiri..ng this building to be 100 ft. back, as you see by the survey, which you haves and complying with the frontyard requirements, you find that the distance between the building including the deck is 37½ feet to the dune. Now it should be understood that the plans show, and I understand you were told that at the last time, that the building is only 40 feet in width or depth at that point~ and the deck is only ten feet, so in tr~th the distance between the building and the dune is 48 feet. So that's one point that should be taken into account~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) MR. PACHMAN (continued): Now Mr. and Mrs. Tsirkas have owned this property since 1976, and I have copy of the deed which you may not have in the record. On June 28, 1976, they to.ok title to this vacant parcel. They have held this parcel in single and separate ownership prior to the ordinance, and I have a certification here from the Peconic Abstract Company which certifies that this parcel has been held in single and separate ownership, therefore without getting into the issue of practical d~fficulties~ I am of the opinion, and I respectfully submit to this Board that we are entitled to this variance as a matter of right because of the single and separate ownership aspect and since the imposition of the area restriction causing us to bui~ld even on a lesser portion of the property than we could bui'ld originally--com~s in after the fact~ and based~ upon the concept and legal principle of single and separate ownership, this appli'catio~.~should be granted. But leavi-~g that aside, if one would even go to the mer%ts of the a~.plication, which would require us to show practical diff~culty,~_.it exists. I think it would be worthy of_%he Board-~I have t~o other copies of that survey showi'ng the adjacent portions, which I think will help the other members of the Boar~ while I speak~ (Mr. Pachman gave surveys to the board members~) Mbst of the houses that exist on Section IV, Eastern Shores, are completed. When this board rendered its decision in July of last year~ they made certain findings which I respectfully suggest to you are in~gnsistent with the record and with the facts. One of the reasons that you den~ed the application was that the proposed construction is not consis~en% with those generally existing in the neighborhbod since the existing dwellings are set back substantially further from the bluff. I~ve given you an example of f~*e houses~ directly on each sided which indicate that they ar9 not substantially di_fferent from the application we are making now~ I have sp~9~.ken with Mr~ VanTuyl, and I have looked at sur~eys of Lot 121 on that~ Lot 120~'Lot 119, Lot t18, Lot 110, Lot 107, Lot tlT; and of~ial~ ~hose~ none of them go .beyond 50 feet. The distance between the hous~ and the bluff. We"re talking aboet a 40~- difference and they're within variances of anywhere from 17 or 18 feet to 50 ~feet. And as you go further east"~ the bluff li_ne goes further out and therefore the ad¢'antage of getting, the greater distance in that is given to those people because of the configuration of the land mass. So that to say that ~t Ks inconsistent with the existing dwell- ings and the setbacks substantially farther is"not really true because depending upon the topogr~ap'hy and configuration of the bluff at any particular point~ the.. existing building of those Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ. (continued): houses are just as in violation or would be in violation if they tried to construct today. And obviously, since they were built prior to the ordinance, they are nonconforming uses--I understand that, but that's the reason why we must come in .before this board to request the variance to show that we are in conformity with and not substantially different from the existing dwellings that exist there, and that by denying us the application you would be doing us a hardship because of the practical difficulties that exist~ I submit these surveys to the board so they can have them for their benefit of rev~ew~ Section B says~-the relief requested is substantial in relation with the zoni. ng req~i~rement~ being 65% of the variance.~' B~.% that is an arbitrary number to take in saying that you require 100 feet~ We're looking for a variance of 40 feet, and that .makes the difference of 65 feet~ or 35 f~et, whatever the number is~ Firstly~ we are conforming to your frontyard requirement. If the building inspector concedes and the application stays for all other purposes~ the builkdii~ng that we are intending to erect conforms totally wi]th the ordinance and the subdivision regulation where this is bu~lt~ If frontyard was reduced by five or 1~ feet~ which we didn't ask for because we didn't want to change the front 'lot l~ne~ Most of the houses are built 'further back than that~ That wo~ld extend the difference between-the rear of the-'house and the bluff line, and that may make people more comfortable~ My clien~ d.oesn't necessarily want to consider that but if that is an alternative because a greater distance is--~esired, 'that could be done. CHAIRMAN' Could you restate that please? MR~ PACHMAN~ I~m saying that if, right now the way the application is made, we are conforming with the 35 frontyard requirement which is required ~_n ~A~' Residence Districts~ If there was a reduction rather than"in the rearyard by the number of feet we are asking for, and we reduced the frontyard by 15 feet, or 10 feet~ or some number that wo~ld still accommodate _privacy from the road~ like all the other homes have, and also sufficient number of fe~t so tha~ the septic sy-stem would nOt violate any other Hgalth Department standard, .~if you were looking to distant yourself from the bluff more than we say we are, which is in conformity .with the general nature of the neighborhood, we could get a larger or a greater distance if the frontyard is reduced, by some number~ If you were looking for a 50' setback as opposed to a 40~ setback~ or a 45~ setback. You then make a Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQo (continUed): finding that the allowing of the variance will create a substantial change in the character of the district since it would create a precedent. Well, that's not true. If you look at an aerial map of the area, and the closest I could get to one was in 1981, which shows most of the houses being in existence there, you will see that the construction of this house is in conformity with the development of that area, and not inconsistent with the area and would be the natural extension of the use of the property that it was divided for 9nd ~was purchased for~ So conclusion to whichever reason it came from, I think it's inconsistent with the actual facts of the record~ I would submit this document as part of the record to substantiate that that conclusional finding seems to be out of line with the facts. The next one is ~d~.~' That the safety of the occupants of the dwelling proposed will be endangered. It is obvious that this dwelling_will no more create a danger to this dwelling or any other dwelling that is on the place because we are only inserting one more building on an unimproved plot which could have been built under any other circumstances if the ap~plication had been made three months ear]ier~ Or a gratuitous ~fl t.hree months, when the ordinance went into effect and the plans were completed and the application was made ...... thils Ord~nance.~changed~ requiring this application to require us for a variance. To state that this addition of thi's house on this bluff would have an adverse effect on this bluff is begging the question~ and I suppose if I walked on it, mx footprints or my bo.~y weight would have some adverse affect upon it~ And' also I do believe with tongue and cheek that wind and rain wou~ld have an.affect upon it also, whether, we built on it or not: So everything has an affect on something. And whether that is of'~'such a significant impact for this board to deny it and to use it as'a basis for a denial, I respectfully suggest that it would be arbitrary and at best capricious. And then in the end.~ the catchall, "that in the interests of justice, would not be served by allgwing the variance to be a.pplied,~ I think it would be an injustice not to grant this va~iance'-and contrary to the finding that the board made. But we have another pr~blem~ because although again, I say to you that we have this as a matter of righ$ under single and se~.arate ownership~ 'and I say we have it as a right because of the practical di~ficulty, we have significant economic injury. Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 347t TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ~ (continued}: This property was purchased in 1976 and the value of the original purchase was $~B,500~ I have a closing statemeqt from the attorneys who represented by clients which verify the origi- nal purchase price~ They have .paid since their inception of bqyi_ng this Rroperty taxes in the Town of Southold~ I will not read out each one of these. I think all but for maybe two or three years shows that taxes have been paid and.~hey have incurred costs on the payment of those taxes. I would submit to you that this property..ts vacantly, and no income is derived from it. There is no mortgage on it., so there are no expenses on it. I have received from John J. Nickles, who I presume and I know has been recognized by this Board as a qualified expert. I have his credentials_here, if there is any question as to his credentials, I will submit them ~o the Board j..uS.t for the record. He has submitted a letter, which I will read, and he is available to testi'fy if you feel that the information contained in here is needed to be required underloath. It says~ "Dear Mr. Bruer: In accordance with your request, I have personally made an inspection of the above captioned property for the purpose of (1) estimating its current fair market value, (2) estimating its fair market value if not a buildable lot, (3) indicating what Mr. Tsirkas paid for the property in June 1976 .... " In response to question =~1) "...It is my opinion from the evidence gatheredlto this point that the final value estimate would be in the range of $160,000 to $175,000 as a vacant building lot. (2) If the subject property is not buildable, it is my opinion that the best use for a lot in this location is single family residence, and because it is in a residential subdivision. Without this right the property is rendered almost useless and as a consequence almost valueless. A one family dwelling on said premises would have no effect on municipal services and will add to the tax base of the Town. (3) On June 28, 1976, I was the realt'or who sold the subject property for Jan Swanson to Nicholas Tsirkas for $38,500; (4) As a one-family dwelling on these premises will have no adverse effect on the value of the other properties in the area .... I submit that letter to you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No~ 3471 TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) (Mr. Pachman handed theZ~original'of le.tter from John J. Nickles, Realtor, for the record. Photocop. ies were also given to each board memoer.) MR. PACHMAN (continued): If you looked at the survey of the larger one which shows the surrounding parcels, you will see that the parcel is 100' by 275' Iq you see the dune line, you will see it's approximately half the s~ze of the lot or app[oximately 125x If you multiply the 125 by the 100~ you get 12~500 feet of the total area of the lot of 25,250 feet~ as buildable, therefore you can't use that 100' setback as the number which you use for the denominator to determine the 65-feet reduction to 35 feet, which gave you a number of 65 feet~ In truth, weXre dealing with a setback of 125 feet and we're asking for a setback of only 37 feet to the deck and 48 feet to the house, or really a 15% reduction, a very minor reduction, in light of the configura- tion of the land and the practical difficulty; and that~ coupled with all of the other houses built in the same fashion--the one right next door, where the deck overlaps the dune where the one to the other side is also 38 feet. The one to the east is 24 feet. Another one is 18 feet~ To say that this is not in consent with the other parcels of the land leaves some misinformation that was given to the board, and we're trying to correct it. That's why we respectfully appreciate the fact that you're letting us come back and make the record and put that proof in~ I think I've answered all your questions. ~ think I~ve met all the bench marks that I should meet. But I would be pleased to answer any questiQns that you may have, and, oh-=the house that's being built. I know you asked some questions about it last time--I think Mr. Tsirkas requested that,,with the land having a value of about $160~000 he estimates depending u~on when he can get his building permits, and w.hen anything can be done~ it could cost anywhere from $80~000 to $100,000 to erect this house on top of this property, so it will add and enhance the value of the land in the area, including the tax base of the Town; and if you do not grant this variance, if you do not grant this variance, i believe that the Board is subjecting itself and the Town is subjecting itself to a constitutional deprivation of this property without due process of law and without adequate compensation being made. Because you're making this property valueless, having no real value except to stay vacant as it is now for someone who can't go across there anyway and use it ~f they wanted to-to get down to the beach. That happens to be an Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - TS_IRKA~S hearing, continued:) MR. PACHMAN (continued): area that you go down on the side to the beach. So this land would become sterile. And the sterilization of this land would be a taking, and I don't think the Board intended to do this or intends to do that, but the very action that you take by denying this application creates that situation. CHAIRMAN: Before you leave us, Mr. Pachman, there's one very important area that you have omitted, and that is the letter from the Soil and Water Conservation Service that addresses what they consider to be the quality of the bluff~ MR~ PACHMAN: I did not overlook that. I thought that by commenting on the fact that. they couldn't locate the cesspools, whether it be in front of the house or in front of the dune gives me some suspicion as to the value of their cr'itic~ism about the fact, if we build a house on top of the dune it's going to have an adverse effect. The property slopes south--the very topography of the ground would require that any water or rain that is coming down that would wash that slope--forgetting about the face of the slope, whether we built or not, which would be subject to erosion by water or air--the natural tendency of the drainage of that land, and the other houses described to it, blends away, flows away from the dune down to the road. And that's the natural consequence of the configuration of the topography of the ground, and therefore their statement--yes, literally taken, if anyone would stand on that dune--if you put a deck on that dune, or if you put any kind of structure--it would have some effect on the dune. No question about it. But that doesn't mean you can't build on it. That's their opinion. If that's the case, we can't build in a lot of places and that would be a totally an irrationale decision on their p.art. The statement is true, but in its application, it's wrong~ CHAIRMAN: So where do we go from here? MR. PACHMAN: Well, I would request that you grant us the relief we're aSking for. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that we can do that. willing to do that. Or that we're MR. PACHMAN: Well, that's something else. I think you can-- CHAIRMAN: No, no. You're misunderstanding me. I think that what we are~missing here pgssibly is an e~gi'neering report on your Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 - TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): part directing the quality of the bluff, that there is some sustenance and .that this particular bluff can sustain a house, a foundation, a deck, and so on. And I th~nk if you possibly furnished us with that, we would be willing to address the ~ssue~ I'm not sure we're willing to address it at 37 feet from the bluff line, as I had mentioned to Mr. Tsirkas in the past year, but we would certainly be willing to look at the application in toto. That I see as missing at this particular time. MR. PACHMAN: May I have a minute to talk with my clients. MR. PACHMAN: I would do anything to strengthen our case, although With this buttress beyond approach~ I have discussed this with my client and we'll be pleased to supply an engineer's report indicating in essence that the parcel that we want to build on is adequate to support the structure that we propose. Is that what you're asking for? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I'.m asking for. MR. PACHMAN: Ok. I don't want to suggest to you, because already you know it, that this section has always been exempted int he ordinance under two-acre zoning from the old ordinance as being an adequate parcel in their size and shape, and that we do conform in all respects to that situation, and we wouldn't be before this board except for that special need of the Local Law 6 or 4 of 1985. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. So you will supply us with that and you will tell us at the next hearing if _you want us to deal with the 37 feet as it presently exists ~% its nearest possible point for the rearyard. MR. PACHMAN: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're asking me if I can satisfy the board will the structural stability of the land to support the building that we're erecting, and then if you're going to tell me, would you take a 30-foot frontyard so you could add another five feet on--is that what you're suggesting to me? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I am suggesting that the possibility might be that you might shrink the structure from the 48 or 50 feet that you have in the proposed footprint to possibly-- Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No 3471 TSIRKAS hearing~ continued:) MR. PACHMA~ be exact MR. C MR. P the deck is MR. C MR. P squared off 38 feet and MR. C whole situa MR. P MR. C MR. P seven feet we move bac ~o a 35-foo Apparently, more import the front y MR. C front yard. But more im of the stab MR. P was of any MR. C MR. Pi MR. CI hearing (jo The footprint is real.ly 40 feet. Thirty-eight feet to HAIRMAN: Thirty-eights 'plus ten~ ACHMAN: Yes. '~The" actu~ plan of the footprint without 38'feet~ HAIRMAN: Plus ten fQr the deck~. ACHMAN: R-~ghto The envelope that Mr~ VanTuy] did just basically a 50~foot square as the maximum-~_I.t~s a 10~ deck~ HAIRMAN- Right~ Ok. That'~s just my opinion on the ion ~CHMAN: But aren~'t we both saying the same thing2 AIRMAN: Yes. CHMAN- Rather than re~i. si. ng the plan if five feet or r ten feet was the number you were suggesting that and then went to a 25~foot front setback as opposed setback~ Which is the tesses of the two evils2 if the_distance between the house and the dune is nt, than I think we can consider the reduction tn rd. AIRMAN: I wasn't talking about a reduction in the But we'll discuss that issue when we get to it~ ortantly in this particular board's eyes is the issue lity of the bluff, all right2 N~HM'AN: I woul~-' have appreciated that--if I knew that onsequence, I would have-~ AIRMAN' But you "didn'-t call me~ Howard~ CHMAN: AIRMAN' ingly). MR. P~kCHMAN: Ri ght~ Thank you~ My error, How many times--did you c~l]l me at the last When are we going to-- °~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -50= April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal NOo 3471 'TSIRKAS~hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to recess this until-- SECRETARY: May lst~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't we have an opening the next meeting? SECRETARY: That is the next Regular Meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. May lst. SECRETARY: Is that enough time? we'll MR. PACHMAN: If not, we'll ask for an adjournment. move. No problem. But CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. PACHMAN: I appreciate that. CHA~RMAN: opposition. Wait, I didn't check to see if anyone was in RUTH OLIVA: Could I just make a comment, neither pro or con? I'd like to remind both the board and the applicant that the ordi- nance was established not just to protect the bluff because of the house eroding the bluff, but to protect the house from erosion of the bluff in a natural circumstance. We just had Mr. Heigl who lost 30,000 sq. ft. MR. PACHMAN: I understand that. But the issue is-- MRS. OLIVA: I understand the issue perfectly. MR. PACHMAN: No. In either case, whether the house is there or not, the erosion, air or sea or water is going to exist~ I appreciate that. But I think the answer may very well be resolved with the additional factor that you re asking for. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'd like to ask you a question. Do you know the angle of the pitc~ from the top of the bluff to the face of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- April 3.. 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3471 'TSIRKAS hearing, continued:) MEMBER DOUGLASS (continued): bluff to the base of the bluff? one. MR. PACHMAN: I don't, have a topo but I think we can get you MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. PACHMAN: Ok. I'll get you that. So I think the engineer could'address that. J-to.show that there is the slope. MEMBER' DOUGLASS: angle is. Yes. But I would like to know what the MR. PACHMAN: If we give you a topo, won't you get that, Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: As' long as he has the dis'tance. MR. PACHMAN: do you? You don~t want me to give you a cross-section, MEMBER DOUGLASS: The angle of depression as it goes down. MR. PACHMAN: To me that's a topo. Topo from the top of the bluff to the Sound, Sound Avenue. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) I'll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Regular Meeting, which we assume will be May 1, 1986. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. On motion bY Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, a resolution was adopted recessing the Hearing of NICHOLAS'TSIRKAS until May 1, 1986. Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: 10:25 p.m. Appeal No. 3469. WARREN AND MARY BRADY. Variance to locate accessory barn in frontyar5 area. 3500 'Private Road #13 (west of Ruth Road, Sunset Knolls Subdivision), and off the North Side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated November 4, 1965 indicating a one-family dwelling on this approximate two-acre-plus lot, Co~hed-w~thin the application is the request for this proposed barn or storage building which is approximately 52 feet from the west property line, 100 feet from the east property line, and 100 feet from the south property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties int he area. Mr. Brady, would you like to be heard? MR. BRADY: Mr. Fisher will speak. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. SPENCER FISHER: My name is Spencer Fisher. I am an agent and builder for the Brady's. And the reason, of course, for this appeal is because if you'll take a look at the map for one minute, the house is situate on the bluff which affords no rear yard. The house is about 160 feet above sea level, and it's a beautiful view and all, and the Brady's have landscaped, and of course they now would like to have an accessory building in the front yard. This parcel by the way is about five acres in size. The barn will be built out of wood, board and barton siding~and will confirm to the area. There's also to be noted that in the other neighbor's to the west have this same situation, and the neighbors to the east have the same situation. I don't know if any of you folks have had a chance to go up into that area or not, but they are way off in privacy of a nice secluded area, and they wouldn't harm anything really. CHAIRMAN: What is your name again, Sir? MR. FISHER: Spencer Fisher. CHAIRMAN: Ok, Mr. Fisher, what is the purpose of the barn? Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3469 - BRADY hearing, continued:) MR. FISHER: The Brady's need this barn to store equipment and Mr. Brady just bought a sailboat--to put his sails and things in, and over a number of years an accummulated few things. CHAIRMAN: So they have no objection to the normal restriction that we place on accessory buildings in the Town of Southold and that is that they not be used for habitable purposes, a bunkhouse or anything of that nature? MR. FISHER: I guess not. No. CHAIRMAN: Ok. And that they are primarily designed for a nonbusiness use and that the specific nature of the barn that we understand most people with a barn of this size, do want t~ electricity in it. They don't normally contain bathrooms, of that particular nature. That's the normal things we pl~ accessory buildings. Because as you know, the nature of ti not specifically with the Brady's but from subsequent owne~ they were to sell it, could end up making a house out of i' that's the reason why we put those restrictions on it. Yo~ have any objection to those? MR. FISHER: No. CHAIRMAN: I thank you very much for coming in. MR. FISHER: Are there any other questions? CHAIRMAN: We assume it's a one-story structure? MR. FISHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Sorry to wait all the way to the end here. Sometimes the meetin. a little lengthy. MR. FISHER: Do you have any idea of-- CHAIRMAN: Time? MR. FISHER: Yes, a time when we could get a decisiol CHAIRMAN: Right after the 15-day period we will proL have a Special Meeting hopefully toward the third or fourt~ of April. And you're welcome to give us a call, around tht put plumbing ice with lis house, 's, if and don't ~e had becomes ably week fourth Southold Town Board of Appeals -54- April 3, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3469 u BRADY hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): week Of April and we will let you know what the decision is. MR. FISHER.: Ok. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Thank you very much for coming in. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, a resolution was adopted concluding (closing) the hearing pending del'iberations and a decisio.n at a later date. The Brady hearing concluded at 10:30 p.m. The board continued with the remaining items on the agenda until 11:30 p.m~ Pp. 1-54 Respectfully submitted, Linda Kowal ski Z.B.A. Secretary and Clerk