Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/09/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS..IR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11c:J71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I' N UT E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 9, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr., Member, Robert J. Douglass, Member, constituting a quorum of the board members. Absent were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Joseph H. Sawicki, Members. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Administrator, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary and Board Clerk, Councilman George Penny, and.:approximately 35 persons in the audience at the beginning of t~e meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with Items I (a) through (g) of the agenda, as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations indicating a negative adverse effect to the environment for each project listed below add in accordance with Part 617 of the imple- menting regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environ- mental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, and~Local Law adopted July 25, 1978, Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold: (a) Appeal No. 3406 - RICHARD L. DUCHANO/WEST DUBLIN CO. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnifican~e APPF~L NO.: 3406 PROJECT NAME: RICHARD L. DUCHAN0/WEST DUBLIN REALTY LTD. 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 To~rn 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: Lot-line variance resulting in insufficient area, width and depth of parcel(s) in this pending set-off division of land. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Champlin Place and N/s Bridge Street, Greenp0rt, NY; 1000-34-3-53, 37 (53.]). REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Envirornnental 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 premises in question is to be serviced by the ~il]age of Greenport for public water and sewer utilities. (3) The rel'ief requested is not directly related-'to new construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3-' January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E___-~.R.A. NEGATI~ ENVIRON~NTAL DECLA~TION Notice of Determination of Non-Si~ificance APPEAL NO~:. 3437 PROJECT NAME: FRANK E. and MARY BROPHY 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 therreasons 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 simit&r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: For rescission of previous]y-issued variance and removing deck, granted thereunder (Appeal No. 2922 of 12/17/81) to reestablish conformity as to its frontyard setback as existed. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY~ 1000-117-]0-20.7. 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; (2) The relief requested is not directly related to new'con- struction but rather the permanent removal of a deck constructed pursuant to Appeal No. 2922 of 12/17/81. (3) The project in question is landward of existing structures from Great Peconic Bay. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATI~-E ENVIRON~iENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPF~L NO.: 3429 PROJECT NAME: McCULLOUGH and BERKOSKI 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 Enviroru~ental 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--~asons 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 simii&r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to permit insufficient depth of 223 feet of parcel(s) in this pending three-lot minor subdivision. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolkr more particularly known as: East Side of Cox Lane, at intersection with S/s Oregon Road, Cutchogue; ]000-83-03-003. 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 directly related to new construction. (3) The premises in question is not located near wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3435 (SE) PROJECT NAME: NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.So Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the To~rn of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the' ~easons 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 IX] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Special Exception to reestablish amd rebuild country club (including restaurant, bar, pro shop, sa]es and various support rooms, ]0cker rooms, lounges, etc.) LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: E/s.M00re's Lane and S/s Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; ]000-]09-4-], 3, 4, and 7. 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 uses under consideration are not directly ~elated to elements of new construction and will required approvals by the Suffolk County Health Department for changes or increase in septic systems and wells. Southold Town Board of Appeals .-6- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3434 (V) PROJECT NAME: NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB 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 Envirornnental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r project. TYPE OF ACTION: [×] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to: (a) Art. III, ]00-30B(6)[a] to establish and continue existing & new parking areas within lO0' of street line; (b) Art. XI, lO0-112(A) to vary number of parking spaces. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: S/s Main Road and E/s Moore's Lane, Cutch0gue, NY; ]000-109-4-'],3,4,7. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEtAMINATION: (1) An Envirornnental 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) Relief requested is a setback variance and parking variance not directly ~elated to new building construction. (3) Areas under consideration are not within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) S.E.Q~.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3436 PROJECT NAME: CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD 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 ~nsufficient setback from northwesterly property line for propose addition of 9' by 6~8''. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 250 Lake Court, S0uth0ld, _NY; ]000-50-05-006. 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) Proposed addition is landward of existing structure/dwelling. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 9, t986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and Doyen. (Members Sawicki and Grigonis were absent. This resolu- tion was duly adopted. Commencing at 7:47, the following public hearings were held: 7:47 p.m. Appeal No. 3406 RICHARD L. DUCHANO/WEST DUBLIN REALTY LTD. (See pp. 1-5 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk herewith.) 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3437 FRANK AND MARY BROPHY (See pp. 6- 16 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk herewith.) 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL pp. 17-19 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk.) (See 8:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3429 - H. NORMAN McCULLOUGH III and ANTONE BERKOSKI (See pp. 19-20 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk.) 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3434 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB and Appeal No. 3435 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB, jointly. (See pp. 20-22 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk.) 9:03 p.m. Appeal No. 3382 MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES and BAY VIEW VENTURES (See pp. 23-25 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, si!multaneously filed with the Town Clerk.) 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3436 --CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD. (See pp. 25-26 Ye~batimlt~anscript~prepared under separate cover, simultaneously filed with the Town Clerk.) 9:24 p.m. Appeal No. 3354 - LONG ISLAND SHORES. (See p. 27 verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover, simultane- ously filed with the Town Clerk.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3423: Application of EDWARD AND NORMA'BURTON, 12960 Main Road, East Marion, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32, for permission to locate accessory storage shed in an area other than the required rearyard at premises known as 12960 Main Road, East Marion, NY~ County Tax Map District 1000, Section 21, Block 14, Lot 10. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December 12, 1985, concerning the Matter of the Application of EDWARD AND NORMA BURTON under Appeal No. 3423; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application~ and it is noted that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is located along the south side of Main Road (S.R. 25), Hamlet of Orient, in an "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, contains an area of approximately 7500 sq. ft. with 36' frontage along the Main Road and average lot width at the building setback line at 55 feet, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 31, Block 14, Lot 10. 2. Existing upon the subject premises is a single-family two-story dwelling structure having a livable area of 777 sq. ft. 3. By this application, appellants request permission to locate a private 8~ by 12' accessory wooden storage building in the front and/or side yard area to be situated not closer than 100 feet from the front property line and not closer than five feet to the westerly side property line. 4. It is the opinion of the board that the nonconforming narrowness of this parcel lends to the difficulties in locating the accessory building in the rearyard, as well as the necessity of a variance under the requirements of Article XI, Section 100-119.2 Southold Town Board of Appeals -lO- January 9~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3423 - EDWARD AND NORMA BURTON, decision, continued:) concerning setbacks from wetlands or waterways. In considering this appeal, the board agrees with the reason- ing 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, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3423 in the Matter of the Application of EDWARD AND NORMA BURTON for permission to locate a private 8' by 12' accessory storage building in the front/side yard area, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. This accessory building shall not be used for habitable or sleeping purposes at any time (storage only)~ 2. This accessory building shall be placed lengthwise (12' deeps 8' wide); 3. This accessory building shall be no closer than 100 feet to the road (front property line)~ 4. This accessory building shall be no closer than five feet to the west side property line. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Douglass. (Members Grigonis and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll-January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3425: Application of HOWARD AND BARBARA DILLINGHAM, P.O. Box 488, Southold, NY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of the construction of greenhouse addition with an insufficient setback from the south (easterly) side line at not less than 16 feet, and with insufficient total sideyards at not less than 30.5 feet, at premises known as 1900 Aldrich Lane, Laurel, NY; Laurel Estates East, Filed Subdivision Map 7880, Lot 9; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 125, Block 1, Lot 2.018. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December 12, 1985, concerning the Matter of the Application of HOWARD AND BARBARA DILLINGHAM under Appeal No. 3425; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application; and it is noted that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is situated along the east side of Aldrich Lane, Laurel, is known and referred to as Lot #9 of Laurel Estates East Subdivision Map No. 7870, is located in the "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 125, Block 1, Lot 2.018. 2. Existing upon the premises in question is a new single-family dwelling with garage (to be attached to principal structure with a deck), and the subject greenhouse foundation, all presently under con- struc~ion by Building Permit No. 14080Z issued July 5, 1985~ and set back at its nearest point 69.3 feet from the front property line, 13.9 feet from the northerly side line, and 16.6 feet from the southerly side line. 3. By this application, appellants request variances for the Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3425 HOWARD AND BARB~RA DILLINGHAM, decision, continued:) recent construction of an 8.1' by 13.4' greenhouse foundation which has left: (a) an insufficient southerly sideyard setback at 16.6 feet (or 16'7")~ and (b) insufficient total sideyards at 30.5 feet (or 30'6"). 4. Article XIII, Section 100-136(A)[2] permits the red~ction of sideyards to not less than 30% of the minimum requirements of the bulk schedule, which are: (a) minimum side yard 20' less 30% or 14 feet, and 25' less 30% or 17.5 feet; (b) total sideyards 45' less 30% or 31.5 feet. 5. The variances requested are: (a) southerly side yard from 17.5 feet to 16.6 feet, a variance of 10.8"; (b) total sideyards from 31.5 feet to 30.5 feet, a variance of 12' 6. It is the opinion of this board that in considering the circumstances leading up to this appeal, the character of this parcel and immediate surrounding areas, the relief requested is unique and minimal~ being approximately four percent (4%) of the zoning requirements. In considering this appeal, the board agrees with the reason- ing 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, as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested under Appeal No. 3425 in the Matter of the Application of HOWARD AND BARBARA DILLINGHAM for a variance of one foot in total sideyards (31.50 feet to 30.50 feet) and a variance of 10.8" in the southerly side yard setback (from 17.50 feet to 16.60 feet), WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER SIDEYARD REDUCTIONS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Douglass. (Members Grigonis and Sawicki were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3400: Application of JAMES AND MARY TYLER, 625 Marratooka Road, Mattituck, NY for a Special Exception to '%he Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70(B)[4] for permission to establish and build public gara§e at premises known as 6795 Main Road, Laurel, NY; Mattituck Holding Co. Minor Subdivision Lot #3; County Tax Map District lO00, Section 125, Block 1, Lot 19.6. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on December 12, 1985, concerning the Matter of the Application of JAMES AND MARY TYLER under Application No. 3400; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application~ and it is noted that no public opposition has been received; and WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question as well as its surrounding area; and WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question is situated along the north side of the Main Road (State Route 25), Laurel; is known as referred to as Lot #3, Mattituck Holding Co. Minor Subdivision #274, is located in the "B-I" General Business Zoning District, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 125, Block 1, Lot 19.6. 2. The premises is presently unimproved a'nd consists of an area of 52,530 sq. ft. with 133' frontage (lot width) along the Main Road. 3. By this application, appellants request a Special Exception pursuant to the requirements of Article VII, Section 100-70(B)[4] to construct and operate a public garage for repair of motor vehicles. 4. Submitted for consideration is a site plan as amended September 10, 1985, prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. showing a proposed 75' by 48' garage structure set back: (a) 185' from the front property lines (b) a minimum of 25 feet from the westerly side property line, (c) 35' from the east side property line, (d) approximately 130 feet from the rear property line. 5. For the record it is noted that site plan review has. of Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3400 - JAMES AND MARY TYLER, continued:) this date not been finalized with the Planning Board in accordance with the requirements of Article XII~, although the ~lanning Board has recommended its approval. 6. It is further noted for the record that a Waiver under the provisions of Local Law #14-1985 (Article XVI, Section 100-160) was granted by the Southold Town Board at a Regular Meeting held November 7, 1985, deeming this proposed use to be consistent with the uses in the "B-I District as proposed under the pending Master Plan Update Zonin§ Code revisions. In considering this application, the board has: (a) considered items [a] through [1] of the zoning code; (b) determined the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (c) determined the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) determined that the use is in harmony with and will promote'the general purposes and intent of zoning since this is a use permitted by legislative action and will meet the requirements of the zoning regulations, subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception for permission to establish a public garage for repair of motor vehicles as applied in the Matter of the Application of JAMES AND MARY TYLER under Appeal No. 3400, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No major repair work to be done out in the open~ 2. No automobiles, automobile parts, dismantled or damaged vehicles, and similar articles, shall be stored out in the open. All vehicles to be serviced must be stored in the rearyard area or within the building, and the rearyard area to be used for such temporary storage must be properly screened with a six-foot stockade fenced; 3. The parking areas shall be as designated by the Planning Board and shall be laid out as to avoid the necessity of any vehicle backing out onto the street and shall be located not less than 10 feet from any property line. 4. No sales of gasoline, fuel, or flammable oils are permitted, 5. No motor vehicle sales are permitted, ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -15- January 9~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3400 JAMES AND MARY TYLER, decision, continued:) 6. Vehicle lifts or pits~ dismantled vehicles, other than such minor servicing such as changing tires, shall be conducted within the building; 7. Vehicle entrance/exit doors shall be located at the rear of the building. 8. In the event it is found that the subject premises are being used in a manner other.than that permitted by this approval or the zoning ordinance, or are in violation of these conditions or the zoning ordinance, the Board of Appeals may automatically terminate the relief granted hereunder; 9. This matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 1323, et seq. of the Suffolk County Charter; 10. Site plan approval (including parking) by the Southold Town Planning Board, and any and all applicable rules and regulations and agency approvals pertaining to this project. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Douglass. (Members Sawicki and Grigonis were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. DISCUSSION - Road Inspector. The board members had several applications pending inspections for which an engineer's report with recommendations ape required, and the following action was taken~ after motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman meet ~{h]th~??~mh-~oard to request an alternative road inspector as a temporary fill-in while Mr. Davis was recouperating from his recent operation. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and Doyen. (Members Sawicki and Grigonis were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES: by Mr. Doyen, it was On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the following Meetings as submitted: November 14, 1985 Regular Meeting; December 12, 1985 Regular Meeting. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Douglass. (Members Sawicki and Grigonis were absent ) This resolution was duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS for February 6, 1986: On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doug'lass~ it was RESOLVED, that the following matters be and hereby are scheduled for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meetinglof~th~s~board~ to wit: Thursday, F6bruary 6, 1986 commencing at 7:30 p.m.s and be it further RESOLVED, that the Secretary, Linda Kowalski, is hereby authorized and directed to p~epare the-Legal Notice for same and~:forwa~d same to the local and official newspapers of the Town, to wit, Long Island Traveler and Suffolk Times~ for publ~ication at least five days before said hearing date: 7:35 p.m. Recessed Hearing of JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL; 7:40 p.m. MARGERY D. BURNS, Appeal No. 3446; 7:45 p.m. V}RGINIA HAIRSTON, Appeal No. 3196; 7:50 p.m. ALICE D. CURRIEs Appeal No. 3454~ 7:55 p.m. FREDERICK W. KOEHLER, JR., Appeal No. 3443; 8:00 p.m. JOSEPH AND FRANCES GRASSO, Appeal No. 3444~ 8:05 p.m. RIVERSIDE HOMES, INC., Appeal No. 3448; 8:10 p.m. ANNA PACIFICD, Appeal No. 3383; 8:20 p.m. ESTATE OF JOSEPH ZIELONKA, Appeal No. 3421; 8:25 p.m. GAIL DESSIMOZ and MICHAEL RACZ, Appeal No. 3431. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Douglass and Doyen. (Members Sawicki and Grigonis were absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. ~S'outhold Town Board of Appeals -l~- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting OTHER FILE REVIEWS: The board reviewed the following files and held each in abeyance for the reasons noted below, and instructed the Secretary and Chairman to request the additional information to be furnished as early as possible: (a) Appeal No. 3411 floor plans and pre C.O. ANDREW FORKLAUB. (Awai. t requested (b) Appeal No. 3430 - CECIL YOUNG (Await maps showing amount of square footage for which variance is requested.) (c) Appeal No. 3445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI. Await Pre C.O. and P.B. (d) Appeal No. 3449 - E. BEGORA. Await County Health waiver and P.B. (e) Appeal No. 3451 Bedell Winery. Await P.B. (f) Appeal No. 3450 Gowen and LaPaugh. Re-division. Await PB and lot coverage determination info. (g) Appeal No. 3412 action. Cramer and Herzweig. Await Trustees (h) Appeal No. Paul Canalize. Await Trustees action. (i) Appeal No. 3428 Article Vt. Bertha Kurzcewski. Await Co. Health [It was brought to the board's attention that 28 other files were pending receipt of other agency or other information at this time, previously reviewed by the board.] There being no other business properly coming before the board at this time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 o'clock p.m. /Approved - ~z//_~/86~~' Respectfully submitted, Lfnda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals . CEIVED AND FILED BY ~I~ $OUTHOLD TOV~N CLERK / t, Town o~ Soutl~old VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 9, 1986 Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman~ Serge Doyen, Jr.~ Member, Robert J. Douglass~ Member, Linda F. Kowalski, ~Secre- tary and Board Clerk, and VictOr Lessard, Building-Dep.artment Administrator. Absent were: Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Joseph H. Sawicki, Members. Also present were Councilman George Penny, and approximately 35 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 3406 - 7:47 p.m~ WEST DUBLIN REALTY and RICHARD DUCHANO. Variance to reseparate lots with insufficient area, width and depth. Bridge Street and Champlin Place, Greenport. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map dated October 17~ 1985 indicating the Bridge Street lot which has a two-story f~amed house on it, and has 11,250 sq~ ft~ and. Lot #1 which I believe is on Champlin Place with 11,250 sq~ ft. Both are indicated as plus or minus figures. The surveyor was Roderick VanTuyl, P~C. and t have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicatin.g this and surrounding properties in the area~ Mr. Kapell? DAVID KAPELL: Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Board, Mrs. Kowalski. Mr. Lessard~ The application is pretty much self-explana- tory. I woul'd like to make a couple of points. Number One, I had received a letter today from your board requesting certain informa- tion and documents regarding the extension of water and sewer facilities to both of the proposed parcels. I'd like to advise you that water and sewer service currently exist in the house on Bridge Street. I have here a certified copy of the resolution of the Village Board documenting the fact that sewer service is awarded, granted to the property. (Letters given to Chairman.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3406 WEST DUBLIN/DUCHANO hearing, continued:) MR. KAPELL: In addition, water service inasmuch as this is a single-family home adjacent to an existing Village water system main, is automatically available upon the payment ~f the hook=up fee that the Village requires. If you like, I can get a letter from the Village stating this policy, but this is an established Village policy with regards to one-family homes. CHAIRMAN: In other words, what you're saying is, that there is water on Champlin Place? MR. KAPELL: There's a water main in Champlin Place, and any house--any single-family property adjacent to an existing main, is automatically entitled to hook-up upon payment of the fee. CHAIRMAN: Do you know if the main is on the north side of the street or the south side of the street? MR. KAPELL: I don't~ CHAIRMAN: But the houses that are. on Champlin Place are hooked up to that particular main. MR. KAPELL: I don't know if they're all hooked-up, but there are houses hooked up, and the w.ater is available in Champlin Place. The reason it was excluded from this resolution is that it is not necessary to bring water by easement from Bridge Street. Ok? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. KAPELL: Does the board require any further documentation of the availability of water along the Champlin Place lot? MEMBER DOUGLASS: record. It would be nice if we had a letter for the MR. KAPELL: Ok. I would appreciate it if you would close this hearing tonight, pending receipt of that letter. CHAIRMAN- Surelyb MR. KAPELL: Ok~ Essentially, the application explains what we are asking for. We have two lots which merged after being in like ownership for some 30 or 40 years. Both lots front on separate streets~ They run from street through to street, and as such are Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3406 - WEST DUBLIN/DUCHANO hearing, continued:) MR. KAPELL (continued): able to operate separately with road frontage. Each lot will be a little more than a quarter of an acre, and will be similar in size or greater in size than most lots in the neighborhood_ As part of the application that I filed with this board, I conducted a small study, which essentially involved an analysis of the tax maps for the blocks surrounding the block on which this property is situate. What I did was to count the total number of lots--this I confirm by analysis of the tax map by driving the neighborhood to make sure that there hadn't been any mergers, or that I was missing something that didnJt show on the map. And I came up with a total number of 53 lots in the study area, which is marked in red in the application that I submitted, with a gross area of approximately 393,360 feet. By dividing that figure by the 53 lots, you derive an average lot size for this approximately five-block area of 7,420 sq. ft~ So that is the established average lot size in the neighborhood that we propose to recreate these two lots. As I say, our lots are 11,250 sq~ ftc, so they exceed substantially the average lot size in the immediate vicinity~ In addition as in the side, the existing merged lot is the largest lot in this area. In other words, there's no one lot that exists within this study area that is as large as the merged lots that we have now~ Also, if you look at the tax map you'll see that by enlarging the study area, going into other blocks, it will not significantly alter the results. In other wo~ds, the adjacent blocks, blocks surrounding the study area, even larger by another five or so blocks, you'll find the same conditions prevail~ So the point is that this demonstrates that recreation of these two separate lots will not alter the character of the neighborhood, and we do not feel that there will be any negative impact on the character of the neighbor- hood as a result of this approval. I've explained that both lots will be senved by water and sewer, so that there will be no negative environmental impact as a result of the project. There are two primary benefits which I would like to put before the board. Number one is that by approving this project, the board will make available in'~the market place a small lot of approximately a quarter of an acre, that will be available at a price that would be obviously substantially below what a two-acre lot, which is the current requirement in the zoning ordinance, or a one-acre lot, which is a proposed requirement in some areas of the town. These Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3406 WEST DUBLIN/DUCHANO hearing, continued:) MR. KAPELL (continued): lots-these larger lots would go on the market at much higher prices than this lot will be able to commends and thus you will be provid- ing inventory into the real~ estate market locally,that will be affordable to a group of people that cannot afford one and two- acre lots. I'd to clarify, because there might have been~some misunder= standing with the Planning Boardl-we're not claiming that this lot is going to be made available for low-income housing. That's not the statement we're making. But what we are saying is that this lot wills by sheer virtue of its size, be offered at a lower cost, and as a result be available to more people and hopefully to a local person on which to build. The second main benefit is that the house that exists on the Bridge Street parcel is an eyesore and a derelict building and has been a problem for that neighborhood for many years. I'm happy to say that we have a contract conditioned upon this board's approval-- Miss Rosemary Guttwilligs who intends to restore that house. I've basically said what I have to say tonight, I would like to introduce her so that she can state for the record what she intends to do with the house if the board approves the project. Thank you very much. I'm available if there are any questions. RUTH GUTTWILLIG: Hello~ I'm a new resident in Greenports and I bought the Robert Mitchell property on Bay Avenue, which I spent a year restoring, and I think most people feel it's kind of a credit to the street~ And I l~ke the idea of restorat!~ons and I like this little houses and I would like very much to buy it. And do as well as I can with it in terms of restoration. CHAIRMAN: Can we have the spelling oS your last name? RUTH GUTTWILLIG: G-u-t-t-w-i-l-l-i-g. SECRETARY: Thank you. MISS GUTTWILLIG: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Against? (No one). The only other question I had Mr. Kapell, is the easement that Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No~ 3406 - WEST DUBLIN/DUCHANO hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): you would placing on Lot #2 would be on the west side of the house? MR. KAPELL: It will run approximately l0 feet wide, parall61 to the westerly property lines CHAIRMAN: Thank you~ members? (None) Do we have any questions from board CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until after the 15-day period. We have to post the Negative Environmental Declaration for 15 days, and we are bound by that law not to do anything until we have posted it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, to conclude the hearing. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: 8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3437. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of FRANK AND MARY BROPHY in their request to rescind a previous variance under'#2922 dated 1/19/82 for removal of a~deck in the front and side yard areas to reduce lot coverage for proposed future construction of rear bedroom addition. 75 Second Street, New SUffolk, New York. MR. CHAIRMAN (GOEHRINGER): We don't have a formal .applica- tion, but we do have a letter which I will read for the record. (The Chairman read the letter/application from Rudolph Bruer, Esq. for the record after reading the legal notice of this hearing as published in the local newspapers.) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of a survey dated July 24, 1978 indicating the size of this particular parcel which is in excess of 7,000 sq. ft. by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have one, twos three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten--approximately ten letters in opposition, three of which are from the same person at different times. And I have three letters in favor. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application, Mr. Bruer? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: I would like to speak in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Brophy, who are present in the room along with their family. And I guess get to the real issue here regarding the application here. The real issue is that Mr. and Mrs. Brophy would like to put an addition on their house, and they would like to put it on the rear of their premises. The board should be fairly familiar with this property since I think this is the 4th time it has been before the board. I believe there were two prior denials regarding the issuance of a permit to build the frontyard deck, and finally one was granted. We're here because Mr. and Mrs. Brophy are going to make this premises their permanent residence. They will be retiring in a few years and will be out here, as a matter of fact, Mr. Brophy is a registered voter out here at this point. The issue is really in my mind whether we should even really be here. In the normal course with respect to a rescission of a variance would be very proper, and say, a case of a 280-a access variance which would affect other properties that are using the same access. We have a variance for them to have constructed a deck. They had constructed it apparently or part of it prior to actually the issuance of a permit. But assuming that they had come for a variance prior to constructing the deck, and the board had granted that variance-- there's no compulsion on their part to construct it. In other words, they never had to construct that no matter what--had the board granted the variance as they did, there was no reason that they had to build that deck. I believe the issue here is that with Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. BRUER (continued): respect to a deck, I don't believe in the normal course permission is required of the Zoning Board of Appeals to remove the deck. As a matter of fact, we have here a situation where we are applying for a building permit, a building permit has been--it has not been issued from the building department--it has not issued subject to the approval of this board as a building permit that requires that the frontyard deck be removed. It needs to be removed because to construct on the rear of the premises what we would like--an 8' extension--we would exceed the 20% area requirement of the code° And to do this, i/f we remove the deck, we can meet all the requ~re- merits of the code, and at this we~point your attention to a letter from the building inspector, I think, Mr. Hindermann, dated October 29, 1985. Does the board have a copy of that in its file? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BRUER: Are you aware of its contents? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. BRUER: I believe it says that if the deck was removed as far as the building department is concerned, they would have no problem with the issuance of a permit because it would meet all the requirements--the sideyard, frontyard and rearyard require- ments of the code. As a matter of fact, I believe the permit has already been--exists, but has not left the building department subject to this board's approval. With that in mind, my --and assuming my facts are correct on this, that we would not need a-- I believe we needed a permit to remove the deck, and I believe all the other elements of our application to the Building Department are in order. I wonder really that with respect to a -- I wonder why in a sense why I'm here. 'If my facts are correct. Because it would seem to me that the last paragraph of Mr. Hindermann's letter is really the suggestion of why Mr. and Mrs. Brophy made this application. In it, he basically says that it would be nice to get rid of the deck variance that you were granted because some One in the future might think that he would be entitled to that deck variance. Well, this is not the case, in that whoever would come for it to construct or reconstruct that deck in the future would be violating that 20% rule and would again have to come before the board for a variance as to the 20% area requirement. So assuming that we were in our rights to remove the deck, and I think we are, I'm wondering really about the jurisdiction here other than to make it public and to give everybody a chance to be heard with respect to this property. What we have here is a building that Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- January 9~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 ~ FRANK AND MARY ~BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. BRUER (continued): was constructed some 60 ~ears ago. It was built as a cottage, and what my clients intend to do is to make it a substantial all yearround house that will conform to the Town's building code. Right now, it's conformi%y with the building code is a nonconforming use. I think it's to the betterment of the town that we construct a building there that will meet all the requirements of the town rather than to have the existing structure. It is going to be a two bedroom addition. I don't know if the board has seen the plans for the construction. Has anybody seen them? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we have a copy. MR. BRUER: I would like to submit a set of plans for the board. (Copy of plan dated 7/85 prepared by Southampton Lumber Corpm was submitted for the record.) It's really adding two rooms on for bedroom purposes. Again, as I said it's for my clients use and it's their intention to retire out here. Now, it's been brought to the board's attention in some of the correspondence that it is not the intention of my client to remove the entire deck. Well, that is correct. Only that part of the deck that was required by way of the variance will be removed. I think it's adequately described in Mr. Hindermann's letter of October 29th that a certain part of the deck can remain. We of course could not try to deceive anybody. It's right out there in Mr. Hindermann's letter. It's right out there in our drawings which are part of our application~ and which you've all seen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you addressing the walkway, Mr. Bruer? MR. BRUER: No. The walkway is something that possibly people are ~going= over Mr. and Mrs. Brophy's property, the existing right-of-way as shown on that, I think 1956 or '54. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. I was referring to the walkway deck across the entire front of the house. MR. BRUER: Yes. The front of the house is being removed. MR. CHAIRMAN: You're removing that also? it. MR. BRUER: Yes. You see, this particular set of plans has Let me give you mine. This is coming out. MR. CHAIRMAN: But there's a walkway in front across the front of the house as evidenced by the picture here. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 9~. 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 FRANK AND 'MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) PETER BROPHY: That'll be removed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The entire walkway. MR. BRUER: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: And there will be a stoop placed in front of the house. (Chairman returned extra copy of plans and kept one for ZBA file.) MR. BRUER: I would like to refer, I believe it was your letter'or the board's resolution with respect to--I think last October--to Mr. and Mrs. Brophy telling them to come here. Your letter of October 28th. Your letter seemed to have five elements in it and it was resolved that the Brophies had to come before the board before any change of construction concerning the relief under the Appeal of 2922. Of course, we're asking that that be rescinded and that the deck be taken down, with the exception of the small remaining part of the deck, the property on the front will remain as it was in the past. The other part--the second part of that resolution seemed to address itself to the 20% lot coverage. And what we are trying to do is come under the 20% lot coverage under the ordinance. What we are trying to do is to take this property and conform it to the ordinance more so than it presently exists today. Three, you wanted us to address any other limitations to the zoning code and I don't think there are any other limitations to the zoning code that we're talking about today. Four, you address the question as to any conditions that would affect the prior conditions rendered by the Board of Appeals. Well there wasn't any prior conditions other than that we had to come before you. The relief granted was as granted in the 2922. And we awe of course complying with Number five, and have made the formal application to the Board of Appeals to direct the building inspector.to issue the building permit. Mr. Peter Brophy is here and he is a builder. He is going to be the general contractor of the premises. If you have any questions of me, of him, or of Mr. and Mrs. Brophy, please feel free to ask~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Just for the record again, you're removing everything in the front of the house. This includes the present deck to the south end of the house in front of what appears to be a glass-sliding door is that? And a walkway. PETER BROPHY: Yes. It'll be squared off with~the corner of that house. There will be an 8' by 10' deck and anything that pro- trudes past will be removed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else you wanted to say, Mr. Bruer? MR. BRUER: Not at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Let's. see what develops and we'll get back to you. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of the Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): application? (None) tion, Mr. Leary? Anyone wishing to speak against the applica- PAUL LEARY: I am somewhat disappointed that the letters that you have received from me and other people have not been read into the record. I hope everyone's got a copy and everyone's going to read it. The nuts and the bolts of this whole situation are right there. I don't want to take up your time reading them into the record myself, which I'm surely entitled to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. what you have just said? Do you want me to reflect on MR. LEARY: For the record, I would because there's a lot there, Mr. Goehringer. MR. CHAIRMAN: In the past this particular board had spent an extensive amount of time in reading applications. In fact these meetings went to as long as two and three o'clock in the morning. My gentleman sitting to my one side here who has been on the board some 29, 28 years will definitely substantiate that. We then over the past three to four years have decided that it would be to everyone's best interest, including the public, to research the file ourselves on an independent basis, and bearing in mind a legal opinion which says basically that we are only bound to read the legal notice and the application, we then deal with it in this particular manner. That does not mean that we have not read these letters~ sir. You may proceed. MR. LEARY: Mr. Brophy's Appeal 2922 created a 10' by 12' deck. He wants to come before the board and rescind it, yet at the same time he is saying he doesn't want to take the entire deck down. That's an additional contradiction basically in this appeal. I was not going to get up and address the board tonight because I thought the logiC of all the letters and all that is before you would speak for itself. Howevers I was impelled to get up and talk tonight because I had requested information from the building department in my letter of January the 7th. The letter that I got back from Mr. Hindermann was said, "Please file a Freedom of Information form.'~ Now, all of this here and all of this here has come from public files. No Freedom of Information form had been filed. The only letter that is not in the public files is my letter to Mr. Hindermann objecting to the building permit. It was received on October the 2nd, the day before Mr. Hindermann approved the building permit. ~'m not suggesting a Southold Town Board of Appeals -Il-January 9, t986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY hearing, continued:) MR. LEARY (continued): cover-up, although I'm suggesting that I've not exactly had the cooperation of the building department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, you are referring to the building permit that is mentioned in the letter of Mr. Bruer's that's being held in abeyance. MR. LEARY: That's correct. We're not here to hear a building permit. We're here to hear a decision for a variance. So a lot of what's up here--plans and so forth, are not really appurtenant to this hearing~ Mr. Goehringer. The Board of Appeals in Variance 1579 of 1972 set up certain restrictions in that variance. The original one covering the subdivision of those six lots. That refers to existing dwellings. The Board at that time had foresight and wisdom in realizing that those lots were undersized lots, and that any over-building on those lots would cause detriment to any other people in that subdivision. I can only summarize and say, I trust this board will have the same degree of wisdom and foresight in denying this appeal as the previous board's. Thank you. I have nothing more to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you one question before you leave? Is there anything in that original decision that you're referring to of 1972 that in this particular case is bothering you concerning this particular application? MR. LEARY: Absolutely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give them-- MR. LEARY: Restrictions in it regarding lot coverage appeals any improvements to those properties must come before the board with regards to lot coverage. Now Mr. Brophy has gone directly to the building department to get a permit with regards to extending his house into the rearyard area. He cannot do that without first coming before the Board of Appeals. That was in the original variance that subdivided those lots. A variance that was in exist- ence when he bought that house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anyone else against the application? (None) Mr. Bruer, did you have anything in rebuttal? MR. BRUE. R: I guess I would, Mr. Chairman. First of all, t believe what the gentleman was referring to was paragraph #2 under that particular variance when they said that "no improvement can be made without approval of the Board of Appeals by the provisions Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY hearing, continued:) MR. BRUER (continued): of the ordinance relating to lot coverage." Whatever that means, I'm not exactly sure. However, we are here. I believe it meant for further expansion. The other five conditions had~ ~' really no relation to this particular application here in that number one said it would be "only seasonal use cottages known as lA, 5, and 6" which we're not one of. We're #4. Two I just read to you, "perspective purchasers would be aware of these five covenants." Six, the "garage located on Third Street would be removed." And five, "it would not be multiple use on these premises." That's the conditions that were set forth at that time. I'd just like to point out, with respect to the earlier first two appeals, with respect to this property, point out to the board that it was their opinion that any construction that would or should occur on this property should be in the rearyard, and it was only after persistent appeals here that it was finally granted for the front. And I think the removal of the deck and the extension of the property to the rear making this a renovated, completely renovated house, is in conformity with the ordinance and with the community, and what the community needs. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leary? Is there anything you would like to say, MR. LEARY: There were in fact three appeals to put up the deck in the front yard. The first one was denied. The second one was denied. And during the second hearing, Mr. Price, the attorney for Mr. Brophy said, if you will bear with me for just one minute, I'll put it out of here. Some substance of what Mr. Price said, and it's in the letters there is that the adjoining neighbors have an unobstructed view through the rearyard, Mr. Brophy. If we were to build a deck in the rearyard as you suggest, that is you, the Board of Appeals, those neighbors would suffer. Now we're talking about extending a building out in the back of the yard. You don't think the same neighbors are going to suffer now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you show me, Sir, where you live with reference to the applicant's property? This is a Tax Map copy here. This is the Brophy house right here. MR. LEARY: Right here. MR. BRUER: landowners. Here's asurvey showing his house and adjoining Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 ~FRANK'AND~MARY'BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: Directly next door then. Ok~ MR. LEARY: Then following the second appeal, there was a third appeal'to keep the'deck, which was denied by the Board. The fourth appeal which Mr. Brophy came to before the board was 2922. So he has had four appeals in his front yard area to put something there and keep it. Variances just can't be wished away at the whim of an applicant-appellant. They're meant to last forever. You can't take a variance away from somebody once he gets it. You can't say, we gave you a variance two years ago, Mr. Jones, bu.t now we don't think you're entitled to it. The variance was granted. It's forever. It goes with the property. It's handed down from father to son, and any subsequent purchasers of the property. It's a fact of law. Thais i~s]wby I sort of, there's a lot of this in all of this material that has been put before you-- MR. CHAIRMAN: What I failed to mention that our secretary mentioned to us, that we did all receive copies of this. MR. LEARY: There's a copy there for every member of the board. MR. CHAIRMAN: We did receive them and did read them. MR LEARY: Ok. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Mr. Bruer? MR. BRUER: The gentleman was correct with respect to the variance running with the land and that, but you mean to tell me that say, for instance, that deck burned down, he would be forced to rebuild it? MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was burned more than 50%? MR. BRUER: That's at his option. The point is~ say you granted the variance for the deck today. Ok. Say it hadn't been built. There's no reason that he has to build that deck. And as I said, even the revoking of this particular variance, 2922, I don't think it's required. As long as we can remove the deck and put an addition on. We're not putting a deck in the back. We're talking about an addition to the house. I mean, if we had put on a deck on the house, Mr. Brophy explained to me that it would protrude some 15 feet into the rear and some 12 feet along the side. What we had in the front was a 10' by 12' situation. What Southold Town Board of Appeals =14- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. BRUER (continued): I'm basically saying is, I don't think the board has to grant the request for the withdrawal~ I think it's for the purposes of the record that if you do withdraw that variance, then it's very clear that nobody in the future can re-build that deck. And I think that's really why we're here~ I think we can remove the deck. I hope that's not a question. And I hope with the removal of the deck we can comply with the 20% area, and we can put up without a variance, an addition on the house. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Leary? MR. LEARY: I would like to get in the last word, if I may. Article 267 of the Town Law says, he who has had a variance may come to you and ask for-a rehearing. Now most people who come before you a second time are guys who have been denied a variance. So they come a second time, and say, "Look, I'd like a re-hearing." The Town Law says an applicant is allowed a rehearing. You may modify your decisions under the original variance, that is what Section 267 of the Town Law says. However, there are other considerations in considering variances. And one of them is timeliness, and basically I think this hearing is a mistake because I think you'll find that in terms of appealing a variance, the 30-day period has elapsed. It's been four years since Mr. Brophy has had both his decks. It's long beyond the 30-day period. MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this tribunal tonight, Sir, was, or hearing, was a legal opinion from the Town Attorney, and-- MR. LEARY~' He cited Section 276. I'm not an attorney but-- MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's the why we're having this hearing tonight. MR. LEARY: Yes. You're allowed to. However, there are other subsections under that same 267. There are about 18 of them. One of them is timeliness. And the time period has passed.. Thank yo~. MR. BRUER: Mr. Goehri~ger, not to prolong this thing, but with respect to that time period that has to do with a denial by the board, and the right of an applicant to appeal it to the Courts within 30 days--it's an Article 78. It's a 30-day period from the time of the denial in the file. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else to be heard in behalf Southold Town Board of Appeals -15-January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 - FRANK AND MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): of this application? For or against, Sir? State your name, if you would. Kindly use the mike. ALAN PFEIL. Alan Pfeil. I live in Cutchogue. I don't really want to get involved in the legal end. I think it's fairly obvious from what Bill Price said. And the neighbors are objecting because it's going to block their view. I think that's the sum and substance of the whole thing. The rest is legal gobbledygook, as to whether or not they can. And I think when you're taking small little tiny sections of property, and one homeowner is going to screw up the view of the rest of the people when it was all hacked up th~t-~they weren't supposed to that. And that's really what you're supposed to decide, isn't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: We are really not deciding the building permit that is being held in abeyance. I will be perfectly truthful with you. We have had several applications before this board~iand'~the most recent one was one that was well-advertised in the paper. And it was a very similar type of application. Nowhere in any of our learning experiences have we been asked by anyone in the State of New York, or anyone anywhere to allow for a waterview. We have to allow or at least render a decision that takes into consideration solar access. There is nothing stated, nor is there anything that we have learned from our meetings in the Associations of Towns, and I'm referring to that one in particular because that is the area that these particular opinions come down through precedence through the courts that we are supposed to take into that particular consideration. We do, however, attempt at many times within the decision that come out of this particular board, all the property owner opinions and we do the best we possibly can in rendering a decision. We did that most recently in a storage building down on Wells Road where the gentleman wanted the storage building in the sideyard, so that it would not block his neighbor's waterview. We concurred with a portion of his opinion, and we disallowed a portion of his opinion; and we ask that the storage building be placed half on the sideyard and half in the front yard. What's unique about this application is the situation that we have before us, and that is that if we do deny this application, that as a matter of right Mr. and Mrs. Brophy will be allowed to construct this addition to the rear of their property. All I can tell you is that the transcription of these minutes tonight will be placed in a block form, and they will be given to the other two members that are not before us tonight~ one of which is sick and the other which out of the state. And we will render a decision with a full board, and that particular decision will be to the best of our ability, and that's all I can tell you, sir. MR. PFEIL: Are there covenants on that property such as we Southold Town Board of Appeals ~.]..6-. January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3437 · FRANK AND 'MARY BROPHY, hearing, continued:) MR. PFEIL (continued): have on ( ) Lane ~in Fairway Farms? MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a restriction placed on the property, or a few restrictions placed on the property, by that--I thought it was 1974, but they've been referring to it as a 1972 decision, l believe that was the original Grathwohl decision. And Mr. Bruer did read the five conditions. Thank you very much for your comments. Would anybody else like to speak? In rapping up, I~ll ask any board members if they have anything. (No comments.) I very rarely get into this, but I'll read it into the record as a matter of opinion. We do it many, many times, have come before us, neighbors--some times at odds as in this particular case. We really don't like to see this type of situation. We would much rather have the neighbors work independently and in unison~with each other so that a favorable decision can be brought about. And we have in the past, and I think as Mrs. Oliva will substantiate, we have asked, we have recessed hearings, we have sent neighbors out into the hall and asked them to resolve the situation to the best of their ability, and then reconvene the meeting some 20 minutes or a half hour later. And some favorable decision possibly was forthcoming. It does not appear that we are going to be able to do that tonight. We'll do the best we possibly can in rendering this decision. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing, pending at some time in the near future a decision. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to close (conclude) the hearing reserving decision until a later date. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. ' Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting 8:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3432. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL. Variance for relief- waiver from conditions of Appeal No. 2784 rendered 10/15/81 concerning ~mprovements t.o right-of-way known as "Old Woods Road," Southold, to their premises identified as 1000-87-1-23.8. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal applica- tion for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey dated September 23, 1984 from Robert A. Kart, surveyors in Riverhead, indicating a 2.7096 acre parcel, and we are talking about the egress and ingress to this particular parcel. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Are the Holzapfels present? JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Yes. My wife as at the dentist today~and she's at home. The basic problem and just to explain it to you is that we built the new house, 'when we built the new house, we found about the 280-a. We went to the neighbors and what actually happened, we came to the board, and we were put under an old variance. And that old variance was supposedly not to be. We weren't allowed to use the old variance, so we're reapplying for a variance not to have to improve the road in terms of 280-a. The road as it exists has been there for at least 50 years from the neighbors who lived there° There are four fulltime residents on the road. There are four summer residents on the road. We owned absolutely none of the right-of-way. The people who do own the right-of-way are not interested in putting gravel down on the road, because they don't want people going very fast on the road. it's. a small private road, and they don't want to bring more people in, and they don't wa~t to bring people in going faster. So we had asked them about 6 months a.go. Sent letters out to everybody, and buy and large it was an unanimous decision that they didn't want to put gravel down. We offered it as a suggestion. Since then yearly what' happens is that the owners of the properties get together, and once a year they have to place-- grade it--and that has been sufficient for everybody as far as I could tell for a number of years. That's the basic. It's. used by big trucks regularly, and you can get in and out. The Huricane happened to open the sides of the road a little bit more, and the brush has been cleaned back so that it's even more opened than it .was before. MR. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question~ 'or --not to answer, but to make a statement I should say, concerning this--we are primarily concerned since we are all firemen also on this board, 'about emergency access. I will admit to you for the record that in my present view of Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL, hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN (continued): the particular road, and I just refer to the picture again because I had taken that picture about two weeks ago. The road is in much better condition than the original ap.plication of way back in 1981. The potholes had been filled. The road is fairly smooth, and the next question is will the town engineer certify the road to meet those specific qualities. In other words, will the road sustain emergency vehicles 12 months of the year. We've had a fairly dry winter so far--meaning no --why I am trying to say basically is, there have been no snow plows running up and down digging up the right-of-way. The other issue is the thaw in the Springtime area, and that's primarily the most serious time when a right-of-way is affected. We have a little bit of a problem at this particular moment that we don't have our usual town engineer, who has been ill for the winter months, and recently had an operation. So we are going to, Mr. Holzapfel, have to reschedule this hearing after an evaluation by him. i don't think there will be any timeliness involved. We'll probably recess it until the next regularly schedule meeting and hopefully in the interim he will be able to go out and tell us if he feels that this right-of-way meets the minimum specifications. As you know the right-of-way, all right-- I'll mention it again for the record--the right'-of-way was in much worse condition when the town engineer had looked at it back to the 1981 application. That might have been the reason he asked for or recommended the improvements that we therefore couched in our decision. At this particular time, I havwe also asked the chief of the Southold Fire Department to take a truck up your road and make sure that he is happy with the width, 'size and so on and so forth of the road; and he is, I assume, going to answer me by letter or by telephone call some time in the very near future. I had called him last weekend. So at this particular time, I will ask if anybody else has any comments just so you know what the situation is. It'll be about a two-week delay before we get a chance. We have an environmental period in here anyway, so we couldn't make a decision for 15 days. So we haven't shceduled the next meeting in February, but it will be some time in the early part of February or late part of this month, 'and we will attempt to get either the regular typical engineer that we have or another gentleman from Greenport to give us an evaluation on the road, and hopefully we'll have t~hat in our record at that 'time. Ok? MR. HOLZAPFEL: Will I be notified then in terms of coming to the meeting et cetera? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, either that or you can give us a call within the next couple of weeks. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- January 9, 1986 Regular Meeting Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL, HEARING, continued:) SECRETARY: We'll send a letter. MR. CHAIRMAN: We usually send a copy of the legal notice, but since it doesn't have to be republished, it'll just indicate your time. Is there anything else? MR. HOLZAPFEL: I guess we'll just wait and see what happens. I think that would be the best. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you'very much for coming down. IS there anybody else that would like to speak in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting so that we might get the town engineer's road evaluation. (Next meeting: February 6, 1986) MEMBER DOYEN: Second. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to recess Appeal No. 3432,,~public hearing in the Matter of JOHN AND'JOYCE HOLZAPFEL until the next Regular Meeting pending receipt of the town engineer's road evaluation report. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Douglass. (Absent were: Members Grigonis and Sawicki.) This resolution was duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: 8:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3429 - H. NORMAN McCULLOUGH III and ANTONE.BERKOSKI. Variance for approval of insufficient depth of parcels in this pending three-lot subdivision at Oregon Road and E/s Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey dated October 26, 1984 indicating Lot #1, looks like 85,600 sq. ft., Lot #2, 86',600 sq. ft., Lot #3, 86,600 sq. ft. APproximate depth to the north is 222.47, approximate depth to the south is 230, as mentioned in the application. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Southold Town Board of APpeals -20- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No 3429 - McCULLOUGH AND BERKOSKI hearing, continued:) NORMAN McCULLOUGH: Good eveni-ng, I'm Norman McCullough. And I'd just like to say that the only reason that we have to appl~y for this in the first place is that the lots are not 230 feet deep simply because they are located on Cox's Lane. They do conform in all other respects as far as area and width, and they in fact larger than many of the residential lots in that area. The Town Planning Board has in fact sent a letter issuing their resolution at their last regular meeting, and they see no other objections--merely a technicality of receiving the variance before they can approve our minor subdivision. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? For the record, I wish they were all this easy. MR. McCULLOUGH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Douglass, and duly carried, the hearing was declared concluded and decision was reserved until a later date. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3434 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB, and Appeal No. 3435 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB. Variance and Special Exception, respectively, to reestablish and rebuild country club building for country club, restaurant, bar, pro shop with sales, various support rooms, etc., and to establish new parking area and continue existing parking area within 100~ of street, and reduce number of parking spaces. East Side of Moore's Lane and South Side of Main Road, Cutchogue. The Chairman opened both hearings at the same time and read each application and notice of hearings for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area, and we have several renderings. AnYbody in the public want to see Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeals No. 3434 and 3435 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB hearings, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): these renderings? If you do, why I would:~be very happy to put one down on the table--we could break for a couple of moments? No? Ok. We'll continue. Is there anybody that would like to be heard from the Country Club? DONALD DENIS: My name is Donald Denis. I'm an architect~ my offices are in Aquebogue, and I represent the North Fork Country Club. If it would be anything, I think we'll talk about the Special Exception, is that the Club was formed in 1912 and has been been a consistent use since that time, except for a recent disaster in June of 1985, the fire. What we're looking to do is to reestablish this use and continue that use. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. DENIS: That's all I'll say about the first part of it. To address the second part, we've been through the Planning Board. We're improving the existing parking area. We're adding 27 addi- tional cars to the north of the existing parking area, which is screened by a preexisting hedge along the highway. I think the intent of the law as it was originally established --just say that the parking in the building should be back 100 feet from the streets. There's a reasonable request with a new proposition of country club being established, but since this is preexisting it is physically impossible for us to move the clubhouse and the parking back without destroying a good number of the golf courses-- the holes on the golf course, and once you destroy a couple of holes or are forced to relocate holes in a golf course, you physically almost destroy the entire course because the whole course has to be rearranged. So I would say that there's a physical hardship to comply with the law, and that's the reason we ask for this variance. CHAIRMAN: Can you tell me, Mr. Denis, the approximate size of the ground floor area of the club with reference to square footage? MR. DENIS: The club wilt be about ll,900 sq. ft. The existing building is probably in the neighborhood of about lO,O00--so we're increasing the size slightly. That is not a result of increasing the use of the membership--it's a matter of trying to provide a little bit more amenities in the way of public spaces within the Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeals No. 3434 and 3435 - NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB hearings, continued:) MR. DENIS (continued): building. The original building was a series of additions, and lacked certain amenities such as lobbies and lounges. These will be provided in the new plan. CHAIRMAN: Also, it mentions in the application that I have just read that an additional area for 70 cars would be allotted for along Moore's Lane. Can you just give us an idea of where that might be? You have overflow parking over. here. Is this the entire area? MR. DENIS: It extends along this aread along the lane here, and they presently use that when they have a large party; and that's about the only time--the Christmas Party seems to be the major function. CHAIRMAN: And this is the purpose of the curbs right here? MR. DENIS: Well, that's preexisting--to bring the golf carts into this building here. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. DENIS: But they do part along here. And the largest function of the club has with the greatest number of attendants is the annual Christmas Party, and they have been using that in the past. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak against the application? (No one) QuestiQns from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until a later date. Second by Member Douglass and duly carried. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: 9:03 p.m. Appeal No. 3382 - MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES and BAY VIEW VENTURES. Variance for approval of insuffi- cient upland area of four lots in this pending major subdivision. South Side of New Suffolk Avenue (llO±l.f. east of Deep Hole Drive), Mattituck, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:03 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map dated July 3, 1985 (most recent date) indicating Lot #32 of the. subdivision of 49,540 sq. ft. with an upland area of 33,540 sq. ft.; Lot #31 with 47,924 sq. ft. with an upland area of 31,924 sq. ft.; Lot #22 of the subdivision, total lot area 50,111 sq. ft., upland area 36,111 sq. ft., and Lot #13 of 45,744 sq. ft. with an upland area of 34,744 sq. ft. 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. I almost forgot you tonight, Mr. Conforti, I'm sor. ry. ANTHONY CONFORTI, ESQ.: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. Anthony Conforti--I'm the attorney for the applicant, most of the general partner in Mattituck Harbor Associates, one of the fee owners of the property, one of the applicants. I will try not to be too long winded. We purchased this property in March 1982. Thereafter in about May of that year, I submitted a sketch plan to the Planning Board. After a number of preliminary revisions at the Planning Board, a preliminary subdivision map was prepared-- after a number of hearings, and redrafting of that map, taking into consideration the matters pointed out, and requests made by the Planning Board, preliminary approval was given to that map. I should say right before preliminary approval was given--I'm sorry-- subsequent to preliminary approval, the area was upzoned to two acres. In the interim, we had a number of test holes dug on the property, and also sunk a number of test Wells pursuant to Suffolk County and State Health Department standards. We failed the nitrate test by about three parts per million. Rather than seeking a variance from the Board of Review of the Health Department, we engaged water engineers who designed for us a water-treatment facility. First we have a common well system, a treatment plant, and a water-distr~bution facility. It took us approximately two years to have these plans not only prepared but approved by the local authorities and then by the Health Department in Albany. During the same period of time, we filed an extensive appli- cation with the Department of Environmental Conservation-~because this is waterfront property, they have jurisdiction. Secondly, because the outfall from the water-treatment facility would be pumped into the tidal wetlands. A public hearing was held on that, and DEC permits were subsequently issued, and I believe they have been made part of your file. Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3382 - MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOC./BAY VIEW VENTURES, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Yes, we asked for them. MR. CONFORTI: Ok. The water-treatment facility of which I've spoken is going to cost us upwards of $325,000. Since purchasing this property during the subdivision process, we"ye spent in the area of $260,000 in interest in carrying the property as well as property taxes, which have been paid to date. We are here now because the Planning Board has requested us to come before this board. I personally believe that the Planning Board has the power, as least from my reading of the zoning ordi- nance to grant the relief we are requesting, but again they have referred us to this board, and we've come respectfully before you and ask that you grant the relief. There has been, as I said in the application, a recent instruction of the zoning code on grid subdivisions, and that is not cluster divisions, to exclude from the computation of lot size those areas which are entitled wetlands. Welhave tidal wetlands on many of the lots in the subdivision, but only four of those lots, when you exclude those wetlands, would leave us with an area of less than 40,000 sq. ft.-- thQse are the lots for which we request the variance. Again our hardship has been well documented in the tremendous cost that we are incurring in producing the water system. I might add that there are other landowners adjoining our parce~ of property, whose property is not within the subdivision, and will be permitted to hook into the water system. I should also advise members of the board that the water system, by design, takes into consideration anything that might go wrong with the water for about the next 100 years according to the wisdom of the engineers at the Department of Health, and again there's a lot of foresight that went into that design; and if it has to be updated, it certainly can at v'irtually no expense. Again~ I should say provisions have been made for it, and it will render a benefit not only to the developers heres and not only to ~the subsequent owners of lots in that subdivision, but to adjoining landowners as well. I have nothing further. Except for one thing if it's all right. Let me submit if I may to the Board, and I'm probably much happier to see this than you are, but on this date, the Health Department did finally sign off on our map--and I'd like to submit a copy with the ~tamp and seal of the County Health Department. (Copy submitted). Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3382 - MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOC./BAY VIEW VENTURES, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one)~ We did request the minutes of that DEC hearing, and the feeling of the Board was what would happen with the outflow pipe and so on and so forth~ and they fairly sufficiently answered our questions in reference to any ecological harm that might be caused, and I think that was mainly the thing that the board was most concerned with in this particular application--in creating four additional lots, assuming that all the ecological problems were taken care of, and they seem to be with this water system that you're placing in here. For the record, I have been over to this property many, many times, and although it's rather difficult to view those individual lots that we're referring to-- those four lots that we're referring to today--because a lot of the markers are not in and the roads are not cut and so on, I understand the reason why the Planning Board asked you to come before us. And I thank you for doing so. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until later. Second by Member Doyen, and duly carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 9:15 p.m. Appeal No. 3436 - CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD. Variance to construct addition with insufficient sideyard. 250 Lake Court, Southold, NY. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:15 p.m. and read the legal notice of hearing in its entirety and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated Novem- ber 29, 1971 indicating the placement of this house, which is approximately 36½ feet from Lake Court and the pencilled-in area indicating the bathroom that is being requested in this application, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and sur- rounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard? MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. and Mrs. Wild couldn't come. their behalf. My name is Mr. Schultz. I'm here in CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you would like to add to the application, sir? Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3436 - CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD hearing, continued:) MR. SCHULTZ: No. That's all. They wanted to do it in the back because it's unbuildable~lot back there. Beside, there's a window and heating unit. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason why they didn't want to put it on the other side of the house, meaning, over here? MR. SCHULTZ: That t couldn't tell you. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. SCHULTZ: ~ But the porch is in the front, I know. And the other side, there's a window and heating unit. I guess it's because it's off the bedroom there. SECRETARY: He may still need a variance, Jerry, because of the setback--rearyard setback. MR. SCHULTZ: All right? CHAIRMAN: Ok. We can't make a decision tonight. MR. SCHULTZ: You'll let him know? CHAIRMAN: Yes, definitely. MR. SCHULTZ: I can go? CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you for coming down, by the way. Is there anybody else to speak? Ruth, do you want to object or be in favor, or? RUTH OLIVA: No. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until later. Seconded by Member Douglass and duly carried. '~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- January 9, 1986 Public Hearings RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING: 9:24 p.m. Appeal No. 3354 - LONG ISLAND SHORES. Variance for insufficient area and width of parcels in this pending major subdivision. North Side of C.R. 48, Greenport; 1000-40-01-20. (This hearing was recessed from the December 12, 1985 meeting.) ~ The Chairman reconvened the hearing at 9:24 p.m. No one was present in behalf of the applicant. Mrs. Ruth Oliva reviewed the proposed map and inquired as to its exact location. The Chairman explained the location, which is west of Clark's Beach roadway, and straight up to the Sound. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak in behalf of this application? Against? (No one). Hearing no further ~ questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing. Seconded by Member Doyen, and duly carried. End of Public Hearings. Pp. 1 -27. Respectfully submitted~ Einda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals rife SOUT/ OLD ~wn of