The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-02/06/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD-STATE ROAD 25 .~OUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765~1809 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 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; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr.; and Joseph H. Sawicki. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass (due to illness). Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Adminis- trator, Linda Kowalski, Clerk to the Z,B.A., and 35 persons in the audience at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with the first items on the agenda, as follow: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: After having reviewed each of the following matters, '~he'Board took the following action: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to declare the following Environmental Declarations in accordance with the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Section 617, 6 NYCRR, and Chapter 44 of the Coe of the Town of Southold: (a) Appeal No. 3446 MARGERY D. BURNS; (b) A~peal No. 3196 - VIRGINIA HAIRSTON; (c) Appeal No. 3454 - ALI. CE D. CURRIE; (d) Appeal No. 3444 - JOSEPN AND FRANCES GRASSO; (e) Appeal No. 3448 - RIVERSIDE HOMES, INC.; (f) Appeal No. 3383 ANNA PACIFICO; (g) Appeal No. 3421 ESTATE OF JOSEPH ZIELONKA; Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (a) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3446 PROJECT NAME: MARGERY ~D.' BURNS 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 Env!ronmental 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 pro3ect. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ] Type II [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Access0'ry ingr0und swi.mmli'n§po0] s%ruCture in this "B-I" Business ~oning District. ~ LOCATION OF PROJECT: particularly known as: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more 53245 Main Road, S0uth0ld, NY. REASON{S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: {1) ~] Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted %ahich indiCates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The property in question is not ]0cared within 300 feet of tidal wetlands areas. .(3) The relief requested is concerning use and is not directly related to setbacks or actual construction. Southold Town Board of Appeals ~3~ February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarat.ions, continued:) (b) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of DeterminatiOn of Non-~i~nificance APPEAL NO.: 3196 PROJECT NAME: VIRGINIA HAIRSTON 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 Southotd. 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 othe.r departmont or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance as to'insufficient ]0t area, width and depth (pertaining to placement of a ]o% line) in this pending set-off division of land with existing dwellings. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County'.of Suffolk, more particularly known as: West Side of Carr0]] Avenue, Pec0nic. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) A~ EnVironmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse-effects to the environment are likely to occur ~ho~thi~.oject be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is a lot-line variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR. No construction has been requested under this application. Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (c) S~E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3454 PROJECT NAME: ALICE D. CURRIE 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 slmilhr project. TYPE OF ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: proposed addition. [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] Insufficient rearyard setback of LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 1815 S0undview Avenue, S0uth0]d, REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) A~ 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) Information has been submitted by applicants indicatin§ that ~his project will not involve the disturbance of wetland areas. .(3) The relief requested is a setback variance as regulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (dp S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-S~gnificance APPEAL NO.: 3444 PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH AND FRANCES GRASS0 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 ~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 ~'Se same or similar ;3roject. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Proposed accessory building in ~ide= yard area and with insufficient setback from wet]ands. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County' of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 7]45 S0undview Avenue, Sou.tho]d, NY. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEP~4~ATION: - (1) ~ El%vironmental Assessment ~n the short form has been submitted w~hich lndlcates that no slgn.~f~cant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur sh6uld this pr0~ject be imple- mented as planned; (2) This is a setback variance as regulated by Section 6]7.]3, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (e) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-~ignificance APPEAL NO.: PROJECT NAME: 3448 RIVERSIDE HOMES, 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 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 ]3roject. TYPE OF ACTION: [ ~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to locate proposed dwelling with insufficient front and rear yard setbacks. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Private right-of-way extending off the south, side 0f. Soundview Avenue~ Peconic. REASON(S) SUPP~RTING~S DETERMINATION: (1) ~ Environmental Assessment in the shor~ form has be~n submitted %ahich indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this pro~ect be imple- mented as planned; (~) The relief requested is a setback variance as re§ulated by Section 617.13, 6 NYCRR, SEQRA. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating that this project will not involve the disturbance of wetland areas or any any violation of the Code of the Town of Southold. Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (f) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 3383 PROJECT NAMe: ANNA PACIFIC0 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 for ~appr0val of structures which violate: (a) sideyard setback[s], (b~) lot-coverage require- ment, (c) setback from wetlands. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of SOuthold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: ]250 Mar]in Drive, S0utho]d Shores, S0uth01d. REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) ~ 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 landward of an existing bulkhead. (3) Information has been submitted by applicant or his agent indicating this this project wi]] not involve the disturbance of wetland grasses or areas subject to f]00ding which may now be considered wetland area. Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Environmental Declarations, continued:) (g) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONbLENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL NO.: 342l PROJECT NAME: JOSEPH ZIELONKA ESTAIE 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 #4'4-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reason:; indicated be 1 ow, 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 [X] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance to utilize premises in this "A" Zone for business/residential uses as applied herein. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 27475 Main Road, Cutch0gue,. NY; ]000-102-1-]3. 'REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) A~ 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) Uses applied for are proposed within existing structure and project is not directly related to consideration for new con- struction at this time. (3) The premises is not located within 500 feet of wetlands areas. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting TRANSCRIPTS of the following Public Hearings, pages I through 37, have been prepared under separate cover by Linda Kowalski, Board Clerk, and attached hereto for reference: 7:40 p.m. - Appeal No. 3446 - MARGERY D. BURNS. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) 7:45 p.m. - Appeal No. 3196 - VIRGINIA HAIRSTON. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 7:48 p.m. - Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL. Hearing reconvened from last Regular Meeting of January 9, 1986. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded b~ Member Sawicki, to RECESS the h'earqng 'until ou~ March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting, for staking(as discussed). Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3454 - ALICE D. CURRIE. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goebringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3443 - FREDERICK W. KOEHLER, JR. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconde~d by Member Grigonis, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3444 - JOSEPH AND FRANCES GRASSO. Following the hearing,.motion was made by Chairman Goehrin§er, Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings, continued:) (Appeal No. 3444 - GRASSO hearing resolution, continued:) seconded by Member Gri§onis, to conclude the hearing, pendin9 deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 8:48 p.m. Appeal No. 3383 - RIVERSIDE HOMES INC. Follow- ing the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopte.d. 8:52 p.m. TEMPORARY RECESS. On motion by Chairman Goeh- ringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, and duly carried, a temporary break was taken at this time. 9:00 p.m. - MEETING RECONVENED. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried, to reconvene at this time. 9:02 p.m. Appeal No. 3383 - Public Hearing - ANNA PACIFICO. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehrin§er, seconded by Member Grigonis, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 9:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3421 Public Hearing - ESTATE OF JOSEPH ZIELONKA. Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Grigonis, to recess this hearing until our next Regular Meeting, March 13, 1986. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. 9:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3431 Public Hearing reconvened - GAIL DESSIMOZ AND MICNAEL RACZ. [See verbatim transcript] Following the hearing, motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to conclude the hearing, pending deliberations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass Southold Town Board of Appeals -ll- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Public Hearings resolutions~ continued:) and Sawicki. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3463. EDMUND AND JOAN PRESSLER. Mr. Pressler appeared as to a possible hearing date. The Chairman advised that the calendar has not yet been confirmed since the reviews of the new files are still being conducted, and that no unnecessary delays would occur the hearing date was agreed for March 13, 1986. MATTER OF APPEAL NO, 346~ HELMDT HAAS~ 'Variance for approval of two business lots as propo~e¢ wi.th~insu~f~c~ent area and width. S/s C.R. 48, Peconico The Board awaits Co~. Health Art. VI approval. Planning Board input has been reviewed. NEW FtLE'REVIEW: Appeal No. 3456 RICHARD AND ANITA WILTON. Varianc~ for approval of._proposed lots having insufficient area~ width and/or depth in this pendin§ division of land~ E/s Queen Street, Greenport~ 1000~40-3~6. The Board requested coordination with the Planning B~ard co~cernin§ the subdivision elements under their jur~$dicti~n~for this project as laid out. PENDINGMATTER: Appeal No. 3399 C. BRUCE STAIGER. Variance to reseparate 10ts, S/s Wells Road, Pe~on~c. The Board awaits clearance from app]ication~ who are away beYore advertising. NEW MATTER: Appl. No. 3451 - BEDELL WINERY/VINEYARDS. 36225 Main Road.~ C~tchogue (1000-85-2-10). Special Exception application is in complete form. (Public Hearing to be held March 13, 1986 was confirmed by the Board Members.) Southold Town Board of Appeals =12- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3382: Application of MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES and BAY VIEW VENTURES (a/k/a HARBOR VIEW), for a Variance to t~e Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient upland area of four lots in this pending major subdivision located at the South Side of New Suffolk Avenue, (llO±l.f. east of Deep Hole Drive), Mattituck, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, Lot 17. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: This is an Appeal wherein the Appellant requests a Variance from the provisions of the Zoning Code as it relates to the deter- mination of the area of a lot. Appellant is the owner of a parcel of land on the south side of New Suffolk Avenue at Mattituck, New York, lying east of Deep Hole Drive. The parcel contains a total of 49.140 acres, more or less, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 115, Block 17, Lot 17. Appellant has filed an applicatio~ with the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for the approval of a subdivisio~ of the premises. All of the lots shown on the proposed subdivision map exceed 40,000 sq. ft. in area which is the minimum required lot size with respect to this subdivision. However, a portion of four of the lots (13, 22, 31 and 32) consists of wetlands. The Planning Board has required that the portion of each of said lots comprising of wetlands be excluded in the determination of lot area as a result of which the four lots in question would have an area of less than 40,000 square feet. The Appellant, in addition to his formal appeal, has submitted a Brief in which two recent New York cases have been cited, to wit: Bloom v. Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay~ 32 NY2d 930, 347 NYS2d 197 (1973) and Ashman v. Edwards, et al. AD 2d 923 (1982) as authority for the proposition that a Planning Board has no authority to exclude wetlands and other nonbuildable area in the determination of the lot areas. This Board has reviewed this matter with the Town Attorney, who has advised this Board that under the authority of the above Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3382 MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES decisions continued:) cited cases, the wetlands mu~ be included in determining the lot area of each lot. This Board is in accord with the Town Attorney's opinion, and accordingly, determines that in considering the lot area of the four lots in question, the wetlands much be included in the determination of such area. Now, therefore, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED~ the the wetlands area be included in the determination of the lot area of the four lots in question as applied under Appeal No. 3382 in the-Matter of MATTITUCK HARBOR ASSOCIATES. Vote of the Board: and Sawicki. (Absent was: was duly adopted. Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen Robert J. Do~glass). This resolution INSTRUCTIONS FOR ACCESSORY-APARTMENT APPLICATIONS under Article II~, Section lO0-30(B~. The Board reviewed th~ drafted instruction sheet and form application, and agreed to its contents. The Secretary was authorized to order printing and release to the public when requested. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/REHEARING: Appeal No. 3400. dAMES AND MARY TYLER. The Board reviewed the request of Mr. Tyler received February '6, 1986 (dated January 29, 1986) r6questing reconsideration of Condition No. 7 of the Board's decision for the following reasons: "...The very nature of my repair work constitutes the handling of large trucks for repair. The alignment necessary to maneuver these trucks necessitates an approach for servicing through the front entrance as well as the rear of the building. I have purposely placed the building back in excess of 185 feet so that the aesthetics of my. neighbors are protected and the character of the area is preserved. I have enclosed information for your board to see the results of the design proposed. I would be available to meet with you or your board to discuss the matter more fully .... Signed: James R. Tyler Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 6~ 1986 Regular Meeting (J. Tyler Request for Reconsideration, continued:) It is the position of the Board Members that they are without authority to amend, chan§e~ modify or otherwise act upon any decision previously rendered without a formal applications notice to neigh- bors, filing fee, re-hearing, etc. and a~ter unanimous vote of the board. All the Board Members were in a§reement with this position and the Chairman was authorized to respond accordingly to Mr. and Mrs. ~ames Tyler. MATTER OF APPEAL NO. 3463: EDMUND PRESSLER: Application filed today. The B~ard authorized and d~rected that a letter be referred t~ the Planning Board requestin§ their input on the off-street parking and egress/ingress areas anticipated for the four proposed uses. The Board agreed to advertise this matter for a public hearing on the variance for March 13, 1986, and a response will be needed for that hearing. OTHER MATTERS FOR HEARINGS MARCH 13~ 1987 CONFIRMED~ The Board Members agree to advertise the fo]low.~ng matters for the March 13, 1987 Begular Meeting for public hearings at this time- (a) Appeal No. 3447 - PUDGE CORP.~ (b) Appeal No. 3457 - RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER; (c) Appea~ No~ 3463 - EDMUND PRESSLER; ...... (~) ....A~pe~a~NQ~ 245.~_~ KA~HLEE~ VARANO (pendin~ legal conferences with the Town Attorney); (e) S.E. #3459 - 125-127 MAIN ST. CORP./MILLS. (P.B. comments to be received before advertising). (f) Appeal N6. 3~60 - MICHAEL J. PERLMUTTER, M.D. (if parking_sketch received before advertising). APPEAL NO. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL: The Board members acknowledged receipt of Report dated February 2, 1986 from Lawrence M. Tuthill, P.E. concerning additional recommendations to the right-of-way. (This hearing was recessed until the next meeting, and t~e Board previously asked that two or three stakes be placed for inspections depicting the legal width of the right-of-way.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3437: Application of FRANK AND MARY BRDPHY - Request to rescind a previous conditional variance granted under' ~No. 2922 for the construction of a deck at premises known as 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, NY, Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on January 9, 1986, in the Matter of'FRANK E~ AND MARY L. BROPHY under Appeal No. 3437; and WHEREAS, the board has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this application, including numerous letters in opposition and three in favor of this application; 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 known and referred to as 75 Second Street, New Suffolks Town of Southold, and is identified o~ the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 117, Block 10, Lot 20.7. 2. By letter dated November 26, 1985, a request is made for a rescission of a previously issued variance under Appeal No. 2922 (rendered De~ember 17, 1981). 3~ The relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 was for the construc- tion of a lO' by 12~ deck addition with a setback of not less than 6'6" from the front property line and approximately 10'6" setback from the'southerly side pro~ert~ l~ne. 4. The zoning code requirements during 1981 for the frontyard setback of the addition was 14½ feet, which was the existing structure's setback at that t~me, and the sideyard setback requirement was 11'6" 5. For the record it is noted that the zoning code was amended by Local Law #9-1983~ adopted August 9, 1983, permitting a minimum sideyard setback at l0 feet. (The restriction as to the minimum front yard has not changed since the 1981 variance°) 6. Also noted for the record are the prior decisions of this board rendered: (a) under Appeal No. 2693 on May 22, 1980; (b) under Appeal No. 2725 on August 28, 1980; (c) under Appeal Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- February 6~ 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3437 - BROPHY, decision, continued:) No. 2788 on April 23, 1981, all as described in each record. 7. It is the opinion of the board that appellants' request to rescind the action which approved the construction of a 10' by 12' deck addition will reestablish the property's conformity as to its front yard setback as existed previously at 14~2 feet. 8. It should be noted that future construction, including bedroom additions, decks, roofed patios, accessory buildings, etc. are restricted to the maximum-permitted 20% lot coverage requirements as well as all other setback and zoning requirements of the code; and that by allowing this variance for the permanent removal of the deck and rescission of Action taken under Appeal No. 2922~ the deck will not be reconstructed. In considering this application, the board has determined: (a) the relief requested _!s unique; (b) the relief requested is not substantial~ being in relation to the zoning requirements since the dwelling's frontyard setback will be reestablished at 14½ feet; .(c) by removing the deck, there will be no substantial change in the character of this district; (d) the public health, welfare and safety of the town will be served by upholding this application~ (e) there is no other method available for the appellants to pursue other than a variance; (f) the spirit of the zoning ordinance will best be served by allowing the variance, as noted below. Accordingly~ on motion 'by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was RESOLVED~ that the relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 by resolution.of this board rendered December 17, 1981, BE AND HEREBY IS RESCINDED~ and the deck construction be ~REMOVED PERMANENTLY~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Gri§onis and Sawicki~ (Absent was: Member Douglass.) This resolution was adopted by unan%mous ~ote of'the four members present. Southold Town Board of Appeals Feb~uary]~, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3406: Application of RICHARD L. DUCHANO - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 0-3~ ~ ~ and 100~31) for permission to resepa- rate lots which have insufficient lot area, width and depth. Premises known as 715 Champlin Place and premises known as 224 B~idge Street, Greenport, NY, Suffolk Coun'ty Tax Map District 1000, Section 34, Block 3, Lots 37 and 53 (55.1). Following deliberations, the board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 9~ 1986, in the Matter of the Application of RICHARD DUCHANO and WEST DUBLIN REALTY under Appeal No. 3406; 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. By this application, appellant requests variances for insufficient area, width and depth of: (a) proposed Parcel #1, referred to as Lots #13 and #14, "Map of Champlin Estates," filed October 23, 1873 as Map #337, and part of a described parcel to the south, consisting of an area of 11~250± sq. ft., road frontage along the south side of Champlin Place of 80~76 feet, and depth of 118.98~ feet~ (b) proposed Parcel #2, a described parcel located along the north side of Bridge Street containing an area of 11,250± sq. ft., frontage along Bridge Street of 119.67 feet, and depth of 96± feet, all as shown on map prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. for Richard Duchano October 17~ 1985. 2. Proposed Parcel #1 along the south side of Champlin Place is vacant; proposed Parcel #2 along the north side of Bridge Street is improved with three structures: (1) a two-story, s~ngle-family frame house with front porch set back 2± feet from its front property line; (2) accessory storage garage structure located 2± feet from its nearest point from the east side property line; (3) accessory storage shed structure located approximately eight feet from the east side property line. 3. In viewing the area, the board agrees that a majority of Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- February 6, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3406 - RICH~RD L. DUCHANO (WEST DUBLIN REALTY, decision, cont'd:) the lots in the area are of a size similar or smaller to that proposed by this application. 4. Submitted for the record are letters of commitment from the Village of Greenport dated January 9, 1986 and January 10, 1986 for public water to be served from the 6" water main on Champlin Place and public sewer and electric through an easement from Bridge Street to Parcel #1~ and public water, sewer and electric from Bridge Street for Parcel #2. In considering this application~ the board has determined~ (a) the relief requested w~]l not produce a substantial change in the character of the ne~g.hborhood since a majority of the lots are similiar in size; (b) the circumstances of this appeal are unique since these properties are on subdivision maps filed with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office and will be served by .public sewer and water; (c) a detriment would not be caused to adjoin- ing properties; (d) the premises front on two municipal streets; (e) the public health, welfare and safety of the town will be served by upholding this application;. (f) that it is within the best interests of the town to approve the application, as noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr4 Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, i.t was RESOLVED, that_the relief as.applied under Appeal No. 3406 in the Matter of RICHARD'DUCHAND/WE~ DUBLIN REALTY, to re-separate parcels having insufficient area of t1~5~0 sq. ~.t.., insufficient width and %nsuff~cient lot depth, ]~as shown on Map prepared by Rode~ick~VanTuyl~ P.~, October 17, 198~, BE'AND HEREBY IS APPRDVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No furthe~ lo~ area reductions; 2. All structures must conform with Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule setback requirements; 3. This property must be s~rved by public sewer a'nd public water by the ~.ill. age of Greenport. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen and Sawick%. (Member Douglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was declared duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -19~~. February 6~ I986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3436: Application of CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III~ Sections 100-30 and 100-31, Bulk Schedule "A" for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient sideyard setbacks premises known as 250 Lake Court, Southold, NY; Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 59, Block 5, Lot 6. Following deliberations, the board took the following action: ..WHEREAS,.a.public hearing was held on January 9, 1986, in the Matter of CHARLES'AND"SYLVIA WILD, under Appeal No. 3436~ and WHEREAS, th'e'-boa~d-has considered all testimony and documentation entered into the record concerning this _~pplication~ 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 tn question as well_as its surrounding areal and WHE~R'EAS, the board made the following findings of fact: l. The property tn question i~ situated at the north side of Lake Court, along Great Pond'("Lake Leeton"), Southold, and is iden- tified on the..Suf~gi~ C~unty T2x Ma~.s as D~strict 1000, Section 59, Block 5, 'Lot 6. 2. The subject premises contains an area of approximately .25 acre~ with 151~ frontage alo'ng Lake Court and 86.46~ (along a tie l~ne.) along Great Pond (easte?l~y property line), and is improved with a single=family, one-sto'~y frame house as shown on survey dated November 29~ '1971 .prepared by Roderick VanTuyl~ P.C. for the applicants. 3. By this applications appellants request a Variance to Article III, Section 100~30, a~_~.ulk Schedule for permission to construct an 6~8'~ by 9~ bathroom addition leaving an insufficient setback from the"west (side) property line at 5.5 or more feet. The present setback Es 1'4 feet~ .. .4. It is noted that the dwelling faces Great Pond and is like so many other waterfront lots wit.h~ the street side of the house the "s~de'[ except under the town's zoning regulat~ions defining it as the "fron.t~' and the back side of the house the "side yard" technically. in considering this application, the board has determined: (a) the relief requested is unique; (b) there will be no substan- tial change in the character of this district; (c) the relief as Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- February 6, 1986 Regular Me,ting (Appeal No. 3436 CHARLES AND SYLVIA WILD, continued:) requested is not substantial; (d) the public health, welfare, and safety of the town will be served by upholding this application; (e) it is within the best interests of the town to grant the application, as noted below. Accordingly, oh motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goeh- ringer, it was RESOLVED, that permission BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED as applied under Appeal No, 3436 for permission to construct 6'8" by 9' bathroom addition~ 'SUBJECT TO THE~FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the setback from the easterly (side) property line be not less than 5~5'' at any time ~n the future. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Gri§onis, Doyen and Saw~cki. (Member Doqglass was absent due to illness.) This resolution was declared duly adopted. The Board agreed to meet at a Special Meeting for February 14, 1986 to continue with tonight's agenda and new file reviews. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~inda~L~' ?~~ary ~/~, ~~~~_ South old Town Board of Appeals__ Ap roved - Gerard P. Goe inger, Chairman ,yi ~/~inger, C RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN Town Clerk Town of Sou~o!d VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS SOUTNOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 6~''t986 Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge Doyen, Jr., Member; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Joseph H. Sawicki, Member~ Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary and ZBA Clerk. Absent was: Robert J. Douglass, Member (due to illness). Present were approximately 25 persons in the audience at the beginning of the first hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3446 - MARGERY BURNS. Variance to construct accessory inground swimmingpool upon premises known and referred to as 53245 Main Road, Southold, NY~ zoned "B-l" General Business. The Chairman read'the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map with the surveyor's name not presently on it, indicating the swimming pool .... to be constructed in the rear of the present dwelling, and a copy-- a 16' by 32' swimmingpool, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indiating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Burns, would you like to be heard concerning your application?. Could I ask you to use the mike MARGERY D. BURNS: Yes. I don't exactly know what to say except that I'd like to have the swimmingpool, and I believe it ~ would be a conforming use. CHAIRMAN: You didn't indicate on the original survey how far from the'west property line, or First Towne Realty property ! line that the pool would be constructed. MRS. BURNS: you people wanted. i!;;~ guided. Well, according to law, I would do whatever CHAIRMAN: You showed us the plan but you didn't quite indicate it on there~ Do you have any idea what you're proposing? MRS. BURNS: What am I supposed to do, because I have to be Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3446 - MARGERY D. BURNS hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Just let me see if you have anything on the building permit here. I'll check it in one second. It's a four-foot deck all around. No it doesn't indicate anything. In constructing the pool though, did the contractor indicate how far he was planning on building it? MRS. BURNS: Well I gave a plan to, I think, Mrs. Kowalski, and if it isn't sufficient, I'll-- CHAIRMAN: Let me show you what we have here. There's nothing wrong with the plan--all I~m asking for is how far this is from here? MRS. BURNS: Whatever you people want I'll do. what the actual law is~ I don't know CHAIRMAN: It would be a minimum of three feet, but you're having a four-foot deck around it. MRS. BURNS: I~ll cut the deck back or I'll do whatever -- I would like to have the pool. CHAIRMAN: I understand that~ That's not as much of a problem as long as we understand exactly where you're going to position it. MRS. BURNS: You tell me~ I will do it. CHAIRMAN' why don'~t you ask the contractor and have him get to you so you can get back to us and see what he would feel would be the area that he would feel most comfortable in erecting it. It's closeness to that proper.lty line. ~G~aifm~H-Trepeated at request of Mrs. Burns.) CHAIRMAN- How close would you be placing the pool to the sideyard exclusive of the deck. And then-- we can't make a decision tonight anyway because the Envi.ronmental Declaration has to be posted for 15 days on the Bulletin Board outside. The negative declaration, which we ifirst made at the beginning of the meeting. So, it's not a timely situation, within the next two weeks just get back to us with that information. While you're standing up there, you don~t have any intentions of enclosing this in any way--? MRS~ BURNS: Yes.~ It has to have the fence. CHAIRMAN: No, no--I meant a roof or enclosing it and making it a part of'the house or anything of that nature. MRS. BURNS: No. Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3446 - M. BURNS hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? (None) Questions from board members? (None) We are all very familiar with the property. Thank you for coming in. Just get back to us with that information and we'll make an expedi- tious decision for you. MRS. BURNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until another date. MEMBER SAWICKI: Seconded. (All Ayes. Member Douglass absent.) PUBLIC HEARING: 7:45 p.m. Appeal No. 3196. VIRGINIA HAIRSTON. Variance for approval of two proposed parcels, each with existing dwelling, having insufficient lot area, width and depth. W/s Carroll Avenue, Peconic, NY. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map amended on September 6, 1985 indiCating a hand-drawn lot line to be set off of Lot #1, which is 20,424+ an.additional piece, and Lot #2 of 45,003 sq. ft. and that also contains a one-family dwelling. They both have one-family dwellings on them, on the parcels themselves. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Hairston, would you like to be heard? ~fIRGINIA HAIRSTON'was present. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that the Planning Board asked you to move this lot line over a little bit. MRS. HAIRSTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN: To include the- MRS. HAIRSTON: It'll come right up to my driveway. CHAIRMAN: What is this--a storage building? So you're going to move it over this far. So the figures are a little bit off. This ...... is a little bit less than this figure by moving this line over, and Southold Town Board of Appeals -4- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (appeal No. 3196 - HAIRSTON hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): this one is a little~ bit more, I would assume. MRS. HAIRSTON: So then I will have less for my home. CHAIRMAN: A little less square footage. Yes. MRS. HAIRSTON: Then how about this piece in there? have enough? For the lot. I won't CHAIRMAN: For another lot? No. Not to my knowledge. Health Department would not allow that today anyway probably. The MRS. HAIRSTON: house? Will they allow me t'o build onto my large CHAIRMAN: Sure. MRS. HAIRSTON: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to be heard in favor of this application? Anybody against this application? (None) Comments from board members? (None) Ok. Thank you very much for coming in. We'll make a decision within the next 30 days or so and you'll hear from us by mail. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the .hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second~ (All Ayes~ Member Douglass was absent.) PUBLIC HEARING: 7:48 p.m. Appeal No~ 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL. Variance for relief/waiver from conditions of Appeal No. 2784 rendered 10/15/81 concerning improvements to rightiof-way known as "Old Woods Road," Southold, to their premises identified as 1000-87-1-23.8. (ROW east of S/s Harbor Road). Recessed from last Reg. ular Meeting of J~..nu~y 9, 1986. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a recessed hearing from the last (Regular) Meeting. It is not necessary to re-read the legal notice. We'll ask the Holzapfels if they have anything to say. Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) JOHN HOLZAPFEL: Yes~ We have a few things. Here's just a couple of surveys that I'll talk about. And then there are copies here for everybody else~ I think. CHAIRMAN: Oh good, thank you. MR. HOLZAPFEL: First I~d just like to say that my wife and I are both teachers, and we recently moved into the area few years. When we bought the property~ we had to come to find out there was a 280-a requirement on the piece of property, after we had bought it as a matter of fact~ We went to the Building Department to find out what it was all about, and they explained to us what it was. It was at that poi.ut, we then came to the Zoning Board and asked them what had to be done in case we had to go--if we wanted to build on the property. So with that in mind, we got a decision, and we started to build.on the property~ To'the people who aren't familiar, I'd just say it's a dirt road o.~ff South Harbor Road. It goes off to the East on South Harbor Road. There are very few houses back there. And we are looking for a variance on that particular 280-a. I did prepare a few things to explain and in greater detail go through each of the problems we've come up to as we've gone along. All right~ So I'm going to read a little bit here and ask for your attention. We come before you this evening seeking a decision from the Z.B.A. for a variance on the 280-a action. The community road in question, known as "Old Woods Path," has been established and used for over 40 years. The road is. traveled by only five yearround families and used on weekends or summers by another seven families. The area in question is not heavily developed. Our property consists of three acres and are surrounded by similar parcels, and the nearest other structure is approximately 600' away. Each year property owners hire a local road contractor to upgrade the condi- tion of the road by grading, leveling it, and filling in any depressions. I believe in the folder that I gave to the Chairman there is a copy of all the bills for the last few years. Mr. Ed Brush, a local road contractor, inspected the road and commented to me on the fact that the road had a good base. This good base of a road is also documented in a letter of action of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 26, 1984, in which it is stated that the road has a good base.. After the completion of the construction of our home, we personally contracted a local landscaper, Pinewood of Cutchogue, to re-grade and level any depressions along the total distance of Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued): the road. These road improvements were completed in the early Fall of 1985 at a cost of over $300.00 to us~ At this point, we contacted the Southold Town Board of Appeals and requested that the road be inspected so that we could receive our Certificate of Occupancy. Reference to the quality of the road at that time may be noted in the comments of Chairman Gerard Goehringer at last month's Z.B.A. meeting. Paraphrasing his comments, he noted that from his observations the road had a good base, and that it was in much better condition than it was in 1981. I would like the Board to be aware that there has been some heavy construction equipment--large cement trucks, bulldozers, lumber trucks, and other construction vehicles using the road toward the end of 1985. This use is extraordinary. It was ~n connection with the construction project of another property owner in the area. These large vehicles did not seem to have any problems in accessing the area, although they may have been a little hard on the road. It might also be noted that a large garbage trucks using the road on a weekly basis. We have contacted Chief Donald Sayre of the Southold Fire Depart- ment~ and he expressed his o~inion that all of his emergency vehicles except for the new large tanker could pass down the road. Chief Sayre simply said that he would not bring that particular vehicle down the road. The same information is also noted in the road report by Lawrence Tuthill dated February 2~ 1986 to the Southold Town Board of Appeals~ I might also point out that the residents on the road including ourselves have contracted for snow removal during the winter months. A second point that we would like to make is that this is not the first time that this matter has come before the Board. In January of 1984~ we wrote to the Board and asked what we had to do in order to fulfill the Town Board of Appeals requirement for a 280-a variance. A .janu.~ary 25, 1984 letter stated the following specifications be added to allow, 'I~m quoting now_if I may~ to allow substitution in the means of improving the right~of-way from those originally required by the Board's October 15:t981 decision: First~ that the first 450 feet of the subject right-of-way shall be re-graded to eliminate potholes and have a minimum width of 10 feet with 2" of packed stone blend. Second~ that the access road shall be regraded to eliminate Southold Town Board of Appeals -7- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued): potholes and be improved to a width of 15' commencing at a point approximately 451' from South Harbor Road within the legal right-of-way and extend to the premises in question. Third, that a clearance of a full 12' in width including the clearing of all branches and limbs for suitable access by emergency vehicles shall be maintained at all times. I have provided each of you, I think you have, a copy of that decision. On this basis, in other words., that decision I just read from, we decided to construct ou~ home. We asKed to complete the road requirements when our house was finished in order to avoid having to regrade the road due to our own construction vehicles. In the early Fall of 1985, we did grade the road, fill in the potholes, as well as removing l~mbs from many of the surrounding trees. However, the community residents did not want us to add gravel to the road due to the possible character change of the neighborhood that could bring about increased traffic and speeding~ Some homes with children and grandchildren are close to the right-of-way and the neighbors felt that the road could become dangerous to these children. It was at this time, the neighbors asked to sign a petition to the Z.B.A~ requesting that no gravel is necessary or wanted by the neighborhood. This petition is...included with our variance request, and I think you got that last month~ CHAIRMAN~ Yes. MR. HOLZAPFEL: After the road was improved, my wife and I asked the Z~B~'A~ to inspect the road improvements we have made and expect it to receive our Certificate of Occupancy. Instead we were told that the earlier Z~B~'A~s action of January 1984 was not applicable and that we must now reappear for a new variance. This was made known ~o us ~n the letter from the Southold Z.B.A. dated November 6~ 1985~ Now~ having invested much of our life savings in a homed we are faced with the possibility of losing of that home or having to build a road that we can't afford on land that we don't own~ This would be a severe hardship. If we had known this, we could have built--we would have built our house in the first place. We came to you in good faith to have you inspect the changes we had made in the road, and at the same time. we were trying to satisfy our neighbors~ requests about putting gravel on the road. We relied on the decision of this Board, and now we are told that the decision doesn't count. This creates a real hardship for us, and it just doesn't seem fair. We are asking you to grant the relief Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued): that is fair and appropriate under the circumstances. The third point that we woul dlike to make is that a number of other people have applied for and been granted Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy for one-family homes along the same access road. The list, and again I refer to the list that I handed to all of you, there is a list of 10 or 12 different homeowners who have gotten the Building Permits and also Certificates of Occupancy. The list that you have before you is a collection of Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy that have been issued over the past 10 years to properties that have access only over the right-of-way in question. As can be seen, there were no 280-a problems with those applications. Our building permit was the only one in which the adequacy of the right-of-way was a question. We would also like you to most importantly note that three building permits were issued after our Certificate of Occupancy was denied; and that none of these three permits required a variance under 280-a. We would like you to note that this house is our permanent and only residence. We have taken an active interest in local government and the quality of life in the Town of Southold. I personally am a member of the Southold's Conservation Advisory Council. The fourth point I would like to make, is concerning the road report. We would also like to point out that the road report by Lawrence Tuthill has some inaccuracies and some questionable assumptions. First, Mr. Tuthill states, if I may quote, "...it is recommended that a 15-ft. wide road be built in this area...", he's refering to the first 170 feet. In accordance with the previous specifications noted for this road as noted in Appeal 2784, Robert T~ Bayley, the Appeal actually states that the access road shall be improved and unobstructed for a minimum width of 10' from a point at the easterly end of South Harbor Road and extending easterly for approximately 400' I think he had misquoted the paragraphs~ he went two paragraphs down below. Mr. Tuthill also assumes that there is an 18' right-of-way at the begining section of the road. We have no such right-of-way as evidenced by the surveys prepared for Senator Ford in 1964 and the Olenicks of 1978. Survey for Senator Ford shows the right-of-way to be somewhat less than 10' There is a much greater detailed survey for the Olenicks property which lies adjacent to the beginning part of the right-of-way which borders the first 170' In other words, his survey is the one that is the very narrow part of the road at the very beginning. That survey is quite clear that the right-of-way Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued): is less than 10' It states on it 9½ feet. In conclusion, we hope that we have established certain concepts. First, that the road is a good base, has successfully served the residents for a number of years, has been maintained by the residents, and can accommodate all emergency vehicles except the recently pur- chased larger tankerw Secondly, our house was only built after we received your decision of January 24~ 1984. Our building permit was issued on February 7, 1984. The building of this house was dependent upon your decision. Three, the building department has singled us out f~om all the other applicants along this right-of-way. We are the only ones to have to address the question of 280-a access over the past ten years. Fourth, from the previous decisions, the right-of-way has been accepted in more or less its present condition. Fifth, the characteristics of the neighborhood would be substantially changed if the road had to be widened and graveled. And this would also be an extreme financial burden on only one user of this road~ We are appearing before you based on the action of the building department to ask a variance so that we may obtain our Certificate of Occupancy~ Based upon all the information that has been presented, we are asking for a reasonable decision on your part. We have been working several weeks, and I might just say that personally my wife and I~ Linda has become a little desk on a part of her office., we~ve been down there just about every day trying to work this through and finding out information; and I'd like to say in collecting and gathering and organization of all this information, we'd like to mention that we have been treated with the utmost kindness and professionalism from all the Southold employees--particularly those of the Building Department, Assessors Office and the Planning Board. We cannot say enough for the professional expertise of Linda Kowalski who represents the Board of Appeals to the public in a most exemplary manner CHAIRMAN: We all concur. SECRETARY: Th'~nk you. CHAIRMAN: There are only two areas that I am at odds with in what you had'said., and the one I'll hold and talk about it in a second; i.n the second instance~ or secondly. First of all, after my discussion today with Chief Donald Sayre of the Southold Fire Department, it was my understanding that the present width of this road would prevent several of the vehicles going down there. I would appreciate it if-- and Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- February 6~. 1986 Pu~blic Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 = HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): it m~ght have been my opinion, in my discussion with him--maybe you could secure a letter from h~m indicating that that's, what the situation is, that all the vehicles could get down the road except for the tanker that you're referring to~ It was still my opin~ion because I had spoken to him~about fire department matters today concerning the ingress and egress of this road, and we had talked about friction loss. Friction loss is the loss of pumping water without having a truck piggy-backed in the middle of it. Ok? In other words, the farther you pump water, the less water you get at the other end by thrusting this water through a hose, and we had talked about friction loss today, and I said that if they could not bring one of the ~trucks down there to use as a piggy-back situation pumping it from one truck to another truck then to the fire if it's your house or anybody else~s property down there, this would cause a hazard, 'and that's what we're worried about. And the concurrence and this is a secondhand conversation, basically, that he did concur with that feeling~ And we are all firemen up here. .... So that's basically one area that I don~t understand after your reading. So maybe you could kind of clear that up by having either a. letter from the Southold Fire Depart- ment or letter from the Association..indicating that, and then we would understand that a little bit better. He also indicated to me that he felt that the height-.-there was a height restriction there with reference to the way the trees were growing over, he asked me what was my opinion for height and I told him my opinion~ We have a similar problem..in Mattituck~ 'and I told him 12' wide and 12' high. And he concurred with that also~ So that's the first issue. MR. HOLZAPFEL: May' I speak to that for a second. CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. HOLZAPFEL: About the trees. We did cut back all the trees up to that point, and that was the point where I felt that we don't have-=we don't own that property and we don't have the right-of-way over the person whose trees are coming over, and I just didn't-- I went to all the other people, and during the time we cut back that road so it is much more open all the way down in front of Borgoessons and MacGuires and alt the way down that way. And we opened--it was just that point we were slightly hesitant to do anything about, simply because it wasn't our land and we didn't have a right-of-way over that land. So that's where that hesitation was~ CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR~ HOLZAPFEL: I'm not arguing the point about what the Chief said to'you either, but that is what he gave the impression I had from Southold Town Board of Appeals -11- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued): him, and also that is the impression I think that the road inspector got from his report. Because in that he comments that same thing was also true. And that's why again mentioned-- CHAIRMAN: I was with the impression there was only one truck that could make it up that right-of-way, and that was a brush trucks and that's used for fighting brush fires, an.d that was the only one-- and I donrt know ~f that has a sufficient pump to take care of the friction loss that we were referr~ng to in my discussion on the phone today with him~ So ifLyou can clear u.p that issue, it would be very helpful. The second one was, when we had originally redrafted and lessened the impact of the original 1981 decision in 1984, prior to your constructing your homed it was our understanding that--and we still do concur, or t do and I would assume the board members would when they go over the four individual elements of this redraftI ing which we agreed to at that time--that the 2" of packed stone blend was agreeable to everyone at that point. You're in effect now asking no stone blend, is that correct? MR. HOLZAPFEL: Right. MR. HOLZAPF~EL: Basically, on more so in terms of the neighbors. We went to them, and we asked everybody about it,. and there was unanimous decision on their part that they felt that that would dramatically change what the road is about and what's happening there, and that some people would take advantage of that. and speed down that road~ And that has been a problem with some of the neighbors and little children. CHAIRMAN: Well, I understand that situation to be a problem, but I will tell you, having a background in certain--in the operation of park districts and such where there are large parking fields and a long egress and ingress roads going in, that the best situation of doing that area is to put in a couple of silent deadmen, and they can be put in within the bluestone area with macadam, and they are very inexpensive to put in--and they can slow down the traffic. But it will not cause the deafening effect that existed prior to your buying the property. And that is the condition of the road was horrid in the beginning, particularly in and amongst those houses-- probably after the second or the third house it was just terrible. There were large caverns in the road, and that's what I was referring Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- February 6, 1986 Public HearingsaS (Appeal No. 3432 HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): to in the last meeting on how much better the road looked at this particular time or the last time that I was down to look at it. only other thing that I wanted to ask you isa we've had numerous secondhand discussions within the past two weeks on the phone-- probably through our assistance here--is there anything you would like to read into the record that we had discussed--I think there was a point at one discussion where I reiterated to you that we're really not at odds with you on this particular application, and I further reinforced that jQ~ now. by just mentioning the fact that we would stand by the terms and conditions of the redrafting, or the lightening of the spec~fi~cations that were done in 1984. I really see we are ati~the last point here, and I have an either-or situation to recommend to this board~ And that is, either we close the hearing and we ask you if you would to give us two survey stakes which we had discussed on the phone somewhere down the end of the right-of-way, possibly within 20' of the road-- The MR. HOLZAPFEL: I haven't heard any of this before. CHAIRMAN: of this. Oh, you haven I had thought you were aware SECRETARY: No. I a~m-~ either. CHAIRMAN: Or we can--let me just say this--I can ask you to give us a width of what the surveyor feels, based upon the surveys that he has assembled for the ingress and egress of this particular right-of-way at the end of the road to give us an approximate width of where the right-of-way is to see if the right-of-way is within the traveled road, or the traveled road is within the right-of-way. In other words, we're not sure that the right-of-way that exists or the traveled road that you are using now ts the actual right-of-way--the beginning. MR. HOLZAPFEL: I think the survey for the Olenicks has on it the right-of-way and it also has the traveled right-of-way, superimposed on top of it. CHAIRMAN: Ok. But when I get down there, I don't know if that's where it is. That's what I'm saying. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Ok. Again, just as an amateur I'm saying is that on that survey all the fence poles are clearly marked, and then the distance from them is available on the survey also. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: Ok. I understand that. But how do I know that that's actually there property line is what I am saying. MR. HOLZAPFEL: It's on the survey. CHAIRMAN: Ok, but there are no cement markers, there are no stakes to indicate that is the end of their property. Remember we are only dealing with that first individual piece~ In effects we have talked 450 feet in the decision here, but we are really only talking about 151~27 feet, which is the corner lot and you're referring to them as Olenicks~ And thatJs basically where the problem is~ I can ask you to empower the surveyor, who is presently Mr~ VanTuyl and I won't tell you which surveyor to gets but it appears he has done most of the sur~eys down there and is familiar with the road, the right-of-way, and ask you with his best recollection, to show his where the right-of-way actually is, so that if we know from a widening point of view i.f you can go into the Olenick bank or if you have to go the opposite way, or whatever the case might be. If we close the hearing, I cannot take any additional information. That's it. We're finished and have to make a decision based on the information we have~ If we recess this particular hearing and continue it so that you might get the letter from the Chief of the Southold Fire Department, secondly, that you might avail Mr. VanTuyl of his services and put those two survey stakes in there so that we know exactly what the width of it is at that particular point, then I think we would be in a better position to make a decision--one that might not preclude you from getting your 280-a, which we would very very happily give you at this particular point. I would make the motion right now if we knew we had enough width to accommodate most of the fire vehicles in this town. And I think that it would be a disservice to you and to the people on that right-of-way if we found out that a lot of those trucks could not make it down there. Mrs~ Holzapfel, do you have a question? MRS~ HOLZAPFEL: No. I'm just listening. CHAIRMAN: You're just listening. Ok. But, so it's up to yOU , MRS. HOLZAPFEL: that will see-- It is your comment by having the stakes CHAIRMAN: If the right-of-way can De widened in any way. MRS. HOLZAPFEL: I have a problem with that. The road we went at great lengths to try and get the surveys for these roads for the road width-- Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued') CHAIRMAN: I know you did~ MRS. HOLZAPFEL: But now you want monuments there? CHAIRMAN: No~ I donLt want monuments. I just want two stakes to indicate what the width is. When they're put in, you go up and down the road every day, you can call us and we'll come down and measure it. The reason why I say that is, the survey that we had in the file said 18 feet. The title policy said 25 feet. MRS~ HOLZAPFEL: Noo That's a mistake. The 25-foot is the right-of-way on our road~ The 25~foot has nothing to do with the other road~ LaVinia I think. CHAIRMAN: The survey I have here for Senator Ford has no width, and the one that I have for Olenick is 9.5~' MR. HOLZAPFEL: Right~ And if you look at Senator Ford's and take a ruler~ I think it comes out to just about the same thing. You know that the right-of-way is the same. And that's why we went to get both of those for you tonight. CHAIRMAN: It's up to you. I'll do whatever you feel is reasonable in this particular case. So you can talk about it for a while. We don~t have to close the hearing right at this moment. We can recess it~ You can talk to you wife~ you can call your attorney, whatever you feel you want to do, and we'll come back in 20 minutes or a half hour and e.ither close the hearing or recess it. until the next Regular Meeting. We would like to dispose of this application as quickly as you would, and I'm sure you would like to get your CO and we would like to give you the 280-a and the right of benefit as I told you clearly stated through our assistance here, and we~ve been. trying to. give you for the past two years basically~ Let me just say this~ in 1981, the fire trucks were not 10½, tl or 12 feet~ Ok. They were starting to get that size. And now the.y~re abou't 10½ feet wide~ That's minimum, and it's my understanding that they're even wider than that. From talking to-.- and I measured one, and I think the one I measured was 10=9'' in actual width. Remember, we're not talk- ing--this is where Chief Sayre was specifically trying to state to me~ we're not talking specifically the width of the truck but the diamond plate of both.~ides of the truck, and that's what he is primarily interested in and so on and so forth. MR~ HOLZAPFEL: What I just wanted to say, the part that ~ find most difficult about the whole thing is that other people have gotten CO~s after us~ and that those people have been accepted Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432- HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL (continued)- and that road has been accepted on the part of the town (building department), and if their house builds down, the town is responsible for that. I mean, they can come back and say, you know, "We didn't have access and the town gave us a building." I do~St understand that position at all~ And that's what-- and I understand though that the other side of it is that we have a house, and you want to get to our house. I do understand that. But do you understand the picture of~ you know~ the responsibility is put on our shoulders and it's all on our shou'lders~ The persons who built after us is going to walk in the ne×t day and you're going to hand them a CO and it won't cost him a penny. And the person who built after us you know and got their COs are no responsibility. CHAIRMAN: That's why~ through our assistance again, I didn't specifically speak to you this week or last week, but I did mention to you that in no way are we trying to single you out. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Oh~ I understand~that. But we have been. CHAIRMAN: I know you have. And that's a continuing problem, and I agree with you. I concur with your feeling. Mr. Lessard, is there anything you would like to say concerning this? I'm not trying to put you on the -- VICTOR LESSARD: No, I walked into this "cold turkey' because I've been away to school, but as far as ~- and it's not going to help you any--as far as people getting away with this for ten years, it's the same old story when you get a new broom, it's going to sweep a lot cleaner. It's been a hell of a lot of assumption on a good many things in this town that are done by the boards, and what I'm catching up with, and unfortunately, people like yourself are the people that are getting caught in the net, if you will. If there have been COs issued after yours, ok, I'm not aware of it, but I sure would like to be aware of it. And possibly I can do something about that. Ok? It just comes to me as a surprise tonight to me--if there are other people down there that got COs, they were issued erroneously, and as such I will revoke them. I'll tell you that right up front. And I will put them in the same boat that you're in. MR. HOLZAPFEL: That's not why we're here. We're trying to avoid the whole thing. Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. LESSARD: Then you can all paddle instead of you doing it alone. You see. I believe When we first discussed this two years ago, I suggested you speak to your neighbors and see if they would prorate the expense on this~ But it's not the forceable thing to do. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Right~ MR. LESSARD: So again I can't take a club and brow-beat your neighbors, all I can do is wait for them to improve something and say, "Aha., I got you,TM and that's not the way to do it, really. But again, if there have been COs issued after yours, I would be more than-- MR. HOLZAPFEL: I'm not asking for that at all, please. just pointing out the situation. I'm MRo LESSARD: True, that whole area that you're involved in--. that right-of-way, and I did talk to this board about it--has been flipped around and moved about like four times that I'm aware of. So again, I can see why the Chairman is a little bit nervous to find out where the right right-of-way is at the moment. That's probably why he wants it staked out~ Because there's a dirt road through there doesn't mean a thing unless it's in its proper place. CHAIRMAN: Let me just tell you what we've gone through in staking rights-of-way before. We have sent~ asked people such as yourself to stake a right-of-way either done professionally or having the individual do it, and if the stakes ends up and one property owner is not happy with it, that stake may be taken out the minute it is placed on that particular line wherever it's placed on the right-of-way. In doing this, you almost have to be there when it's being done to take the necessary pictures of where the specific stakes should be placed. I will admit to you that the recent surveys that you furnished us with tonight are certainly more helpful than the original surveys that we were dealing with in the file. You don't have to do that if you don't want to. It just makes it easier for us to make a decision~ MR. HOLZAPFEL: May I just ask another question? Once a road is accepted, than anybody else can come in and there's no problem. CHAIRMAN: It will only be accepted to the edge of your property, no farther. Ok? At the most closest point that right- of-way touches your -=the tangent of your property -- is where it is approved to. Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) SECRETARY: Or the driveway. CHAIRMAN: Or the driveway. Enough for you to get your car into your property, ingress and egress to your property and your property only. MR. HOLZAPFEL: of years? And then does it keep coming up every couple CHAIRMAN: If it's extended farther down the road, yes. MR. HOLZAPFEL: The reason I ask this is that, you know, just coming in today, looking at the original variance on this right-of-way and in there it was accepted by the Z~B~A., and that 15 or 20 years ago, but it wasn't an~accePted right-of-way. Now if it's an accepted right-of-way~ and that it was right up to the edge of our property- CHAIRMAN: But the building inspector has at any time to revoke that acceptance by saying %hat the right-of-way does not meet the current specifications~ MR. HOLZAPFEL: And is that what happened then? MR. LESSARD: Apparently. CHAIRMAN: He owuld have to look at the file to actually bring himself up-to-date with it. There are many files that we all go through on a daily basis~ and I understand this is very important to you too-- MR. HOLZAPFEL: Now I had spent a half hour or an hour with Victor on two different occasions and that was one of my questions, is how did it come to be just us? What brought that up? And I didn't find out exactly how it happened. MR. LESSARD: It happened, sir, in this way. When I got your application for a new house, and I think I wrote you the permit firstly, I go through the process of first finding out have we got legal access to what we're looking at, and I couldn't find any. MR. HOLZAPFEL: In response to that, the earlier decision on the right.-of-way accepts this right-of-way. In other words, if you went to the record, you will see that that's accepted. That why I don't understand. MR. LESSARD: I have never found that, sir. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL: It's been the public record. If you want, you can read it~ if the Chairman wouldn't mind, just to enlighten us all. It's on the back page of the decision~ MR. LESSARD: You got me at a disadvantage because -- MR. HOLZAPFEL: This is very important to me. MR. LESSARD: I realize that. MR. HOLZAPFEL: And it's my life. You deal with 100 of these and I deal with one. MR. LESSARD: I knOw. When it's at home, of course. CHAIRMAN: I have it here where it says, ZBA decision rendered July 9, 1964'in Appeal 688 accepted the width of this right-of-way. What we are saying to you is that the Building Inspector at any time has the right to not accept the right-of-way-- MR. HOLZAPFEL: And what I am trying to find out is, when did-- Victor just said he Wasn't able to find that-- MR. LESSARD: I didn't find that, no. Even then, ok, what most people don't realize, regardless when this 280-a was accepted, it was accepted as a condition of that road at that particular time. But the road when you got it looked like some back street in France in the second war. MR. HOLZAPFEL: You were down before-- MR. LESSARD: That area, yeah-- MR. HOLZAPFEL: I don't want to get personal, but I mean, in reality you went down to inspect that road before you issued our -- PMR. LESSARD: Before I even knew who you were, sir. Before you people graced us by moving out here, ok, because, yes, there's activity in there. Yes, I go around to a lot of those places. MR. HOLZAPFEL: Well, I have to accept that, but, you know-- MR. LESSARD: But if the place is loaded with fox holes and Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. LESSARD (continued): people put in a right-of-way, and say, "Has I got it" and then walk away. It doesn't happen that way. It has to be kept at that standard it was accepted by. Ok? And the reason for that is again, emergency vehicless be it police, ambulances fire trucks. MR. HOLZAPFEL: We understand. That's why all the neighbors get together and grade it every Spring. MR. LESSARD: When this is finally accepted, it must be kept at th~at standard it was accepted.by~ The minute it goes down below that~ you won't be alone that any more. Every body on that street is going to hear from us~ MR. HOLZAPFEL: I hate to open this up, and it just - I happened to go down so many dirt roads in the Town of Southold in which new houses are being built and have been built in the past five years., and they are absolutely horrendous and nothing is done. So I mean you can't tell me t. he Town goes around and checks that. I'm getting personal, but working on the Conservation Advisory Council, we see a lot of waterfront property, and a lot of waterfront property is hard access to. And I drive down every month to a whole series of place that want to build near the water, and we go down the worst dirt roads that I have ever seen~ and I know that they're brand new houses. So that's another side of what I'm trying to express--that unfairness~ MR. LESSARD: What do you want me to tell you. I need 20 more people in that Building DePartment. That s what you're saying in essence. MR. HOLZAPFEL- I=m just saying 'that things should be done fairly. I think that's all I can expectl, and I think that's all any citizen can expect of the Town Government to do things fairly. And I don't think that was done is our case. MR~ LESSARD: I understand that, sir, but I can't justify two wrongs to make a right. MR. HOLZAPFEL- We're not asking you to justify anything. MR. LEsSARD: I can understand~ t appreciate where you're coming from~ yes. You got caught into one, and tomorrow somebody else will~ But you have something like 1500 rights-of-way in Southold Town. I can hire four people and run them around the clock for another year and not cover them all. I need help from Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. LESSARD (continued): fire departments to do this. And they respond back to me. That's what happens on most of these, unless I physically go down for a complaint or something else and see it myself~ Unfortunately, yes, you got caught in it. No those people shouldn't have gotten away with it in the 1970~s when they built in there-- MR. HOLZAPFEL: A~d the 1980~s. MR. LESSARD: That was before I got here. MR. HOLZAPFEL: MR. LESSARD:~ 1983, 1982. And the 1980's when you were here. I dic~n~t get here unl~'i'l the middle of 1980's, MR. HOLZAPFEL: Well, maybe I think my wife and I would probably like tQ t~alk about it. I did want you to know that there is a complete unjustice and unfairness as far as I am concerned~ I think there is something wrong with the whole process. MRS., HOLZAPEEL: This is very upsetting.for the past two years. Every time we unveil something further, it still looks like a selective type of th~ng. We ~ry and Please th~.peo'pl within the community--we try and please So~%hold Town. We are just torn from end to end. It's constantly. We go to research these things. We spent three weeks researchi].ng everything we could find. We try and get our survey for you to identify this.particular road. We've been down and visited with you peQple in the office, and you have been very kind to us. But it's, you. know~ at a.point, What's going on? And we're trying to --well since we moved out here, you know. I don't know. The whole thing--we really feel we want to make amends, we want to make things suitable ~or evenyone, but it just seems with any identification of any results that we do present, it seems like it gets mushroomed, bigger and bigger, into something. We want to try and deal with the road itself--go t~ put gravel down, the people don't want it. We go to get a petition to reevaluate it. The whole thing. CHAIRMAN: I can attest to what you're saying, and all I can tell you is that you're not the first, and I know that you know that and this has become an albatross for you, and it really shouldn't have been. And there's really nothing I can say to you other than I would rather not close this hearing without knowing those two bits of information. And I know this is going to cost you more money. But in time and effort- MRS. HOLZAPFEL: Stress. CHAIRMAN: Right, and stress, and so on and so forth; and I don't know what to tell you other than that. To be perfectly honest with you, as I've told you before, we're on your side--it may not sound like it, but we really are. And I just--I don't think this board is prepared to vote on this without knowing those two things. Southold Town Board of Appeals -21 - February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3432 - HOLZAPFEL hearing, continued:) MR. HOLZAPFEL: Then it seems--I guess it's reasonable then. You know, we would rather do those two things than find out-- CHAIRMAN: Exactly where we stand. MR. HOLZAPFEL: And then I should call you? CHAIRMAN: Call the office and anybody that's available that day. We'll go down .and measure it, before it somehow m~steriously leaves. MR. HOLZAPFEL: And you want two stakes at the beginning. Two stakes at t_he end? CHAIRMAN: i~d like two stakes, one approximately 25 or 30 feet off the actual town road of South Harbor Road, both south and north, 'and possibly one at ~he end of the Olenick property, north and south, so that particular right-of-way is exactly--the traveled road is exactly within what we consider to be the right-of-way, and if there is any change, any width that we can gain by going either way. In other words, has anybody encroached on the right-of-way? Has the bank fallen down to such a point that's ~t has encroached on the right-of-way? Or has the fence~, What you say the fences are clearly stated within that survey that you furnished us tonight. I looked at it, but I did not take a tremendous amount of time studying it, ok. In all fairness to you, I will do that. But again.sometimes fences are picked up in rights-of,way just in a normal meandering going right down the line~ What in effect I'm saying is, has there been any encroachment on eithe-r side? Can we get a little more width somewhere? All right. That's basically the issue, so it will not prevent a serious hazard to the PeOple in that particular neighborhood. Now let me give you an example, and we've mentioned this to _you over the phone before. And this I know we did mention. Assuming there were press here tonight and they published this entire hearing in the paper. Wouldn't you think that an insurance man would look into and say, "I happen to insure five people on that right-of-way. And here the Chief of the Southold Fire Department says, he can't get his trucks down there. I could have my license pulled. I could have this company pull their franchise from me~" And so on and so forth. And that's what we're trying to alleviate quite basically. Thank you very much for your-- and I apologize. Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Regular Meetin.g. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. (This resolution was unanimously adopted.) Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings PUBLIC HEARING: 8:30 p.m. Appeal No. 3454 - ALICE'D. CURRIE. Variance to construct additign with insufficient rearyard, t815 Soundview Avenue, Southold~ NY. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the building permit application and a sketch indicating a proposed deck with~ a variable width of 13 feet running along the rear part of the house. It appears that it's approximately 12½ feet from the property line, and a COPY of the Suffolk County ~.ax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would Mrs~ Currie like to be heard? MRo CURRIE- If I could speak for my wife, ok? CHAIRMAN: Surely. How are you, Mr. Currie. MR. CURRIE: t don't have anything to say except that I believe this deck is appropriate for the house. It's not an oversized deck or anything like that., except for the fact it's close to my son's property line~ I don't see any other problem. I have a picture of the house where the deck will be constructed if you would like to see it~ (Mr. Currie gave two pictures for the record.) CHAIRMAN: Oh~, those are terrific. Thank you very much. MR. CURRIE: This ~s the side distance. CHAIRMAN: Great~ The deck is going to be approximately 12½ feet on the west side, 6½ feet on the east side and about 17'9" along in front of the bu~lding~ MR~ CURRIE: Well, I -'thiHk it's more like 20 feet on the-- full ~idth of the building~ Ok. CHAIRMAN: Full width of the building. It's on a diagonal. And the deck will remain open at all times. MR. CURRtE: It ~ill remain open, yes~ CHAIRMAN- All right. I thank you very much. of wood constructi~.on or something similar? This will be MR. CURRIE: C.C.A~ Cedar. extension at all here? You're not talking about this CHAIRMAN: No. The proposed--the one you want to build later? MR. CURRIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN: No, I was only talking about the deck itself. all we advertised for was the deck~ That ' s ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3454 - CURRIE, hearing, continued:) MR. CURRIE: There would be no problem. I'd just have to get a building permit later if I wanted to build that, right? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. CURRIE: And one other thing, Linda. The address on the order is wrong--it's 8515, not 1815. I don't know if that matters or not. CHAIRMAN: No~ Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else 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 reserving decision (concluding the hearing) until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second. (This resolution was unanimously adopted.) PUBLIC HEARING: 8:35 p~m. Appeal No. 3443. FREDERICK W. KOEHLER, 'JR~ Variance to locate tennis court in an area other than the ~equired rear yard. 575 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, New York. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record~ CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey dated July 15, 1985, indicating this approximate 2-acre parcel with a proposed deck-- proposed tennis court~ approximately 10' from the south property line, and I will ask the contractor _approximately how far it is from Old Harbor Road~ I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr~ Gray, would you like to be hea?.d? JAMES GRAY, JR.: My name is Jim Gray, and I represent Mr. Koehler, who is on his honeymoon. All I can tell you is-- you want $o know what his distance is goi.ng to be from South of Harbor Road? CHAIRMAN: Yes. You can always call us. You don't have to give it to us tonigh$~ You can always call us up. MR~ GRAY: It'll be abo-ut 200 feet. CHAIRMAn: Ok. All right~ in the area of these tennis courts, we usually deal with the following restrictions --in this particular one, I dpn't th_ink you brought an application before us for a fence. And you know the tence usually exceeds the maximum, in this particu- lar case of frontyar~ area, ~t could not excee~ 4' in height~ So y.ou might have to come back with another application for a fence-- ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3443 - FREDERICK KOEHLER hearing, continued:) MR. GRAY: Around the tennis court? CHAIRMAN: Right. Secondly, we usually do place restrictions-- the fence we'll deal with when we get to that point. But the next thing we usually do is we ask the applicant, and maybe you can get this from Mr. Koehler when he comes back, that does he intend to light the tennis court at night, because it really is in a couple of the frontyard areas of the surrounding properties--and if he does so, that the lights not be obstrusive to the property owners. You might ask him that question also. And screening, as Mr. Lessard just mentioned--that there be appropriate screening that the tenni~ court does not stand out once, the one side--the side toward the road. Black pines, some sort of shrubbery or whatever the case might be~ MR~ GRAY: Three things~ CHAIRMAN: Yes. Three things basically. And the main question is, when he~ddes come ~back, or if he does come back with another application for the excessive height of the fence, is how high of a fence does he really want. And what type or whatever the case is. Thank you very m~.~h for coming in. GRAY: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else in favor of the application? Anyone against the application? Questions from board members? (None). ILll make a motion closing lconcluding) this hearing and reserving decision. MEMBER GRIGON~S: Second~ (This resolution was unanimously adopted.) . _ PUBLIC_HEARING: 8:40 p~m~ Appeal No. 3444 - JOSEPH AND FRANCES GRASSO~ Variance to~ locate ~ccessory Storag~ building in sideyard a~ea and wi~h an insufficient setback from wetlands, 7145 Soundview Avenue~Southold,.'NY. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing for the record and appeal application~ CHAIRMANz ~ have a copy of a sketch of a plan indicating the proposed tool shed~ adjacent or ~ast of the house-~the present one-family dwelling~ I have copies of the proper documents that Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No o 3444 - GRASSO hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): were indicated in the application~ and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the ~ area. Mr. Grasso, would.you like to be heard? JOSEPH GRASSO: Yes~ The house in question is now under constructions and we do have a need for somewhere to store our outdoor equipments and it would be a hardship for us if we didn't have this particular facility. We would have nothing to store in. These items are so instrumental in keeping the property up. I would like to mention that th~ construction of this particular unit would definitely not be an eyesore. It will be a very well- constructed unit. and it would be--the material would be similar to the one we ar~ going to us for the house itself. And by no means will it be an eyesore. However, what we will do as a precautionary measure here in case--I think it won't be offensive to anybody. We will plant shrubs and plants between the shed and the road~ And I f~l that it would not be a detriment to anything, the area or anybody. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask you the size of the shed? doesn't indicate it-- It MR. GRASSO: Twelve by 20. I think that's just about the minimum that we could..get away with. I'd like to go a little bigger. We were grante~ by the Department of Environmental for a 12~ by 20' tool shed~ CHAIRMAN: I assume it's not going to be--I was going to ask you how far from the actual edge of the pond, ut I'd rather ask you is it going to be any farther forward of the house than the house construction? MR. GRASSO: Yes~ the house is being constructed and it will be constructed in accordance with the plans we submitted, sir. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MRS. GRASSO: the house. It won't be constructed further in front of CHAIRMAN: Ok. permit? Do they clearly state that in the D.E.C. MR. GRASSO: Yes, it does~ if you'd like, sir. I'd be glad to show you a copy CHAIRMAN: I have a copy here, I just don't recollect it at the top of my head. MR. GRASSO: Mr. Chairman (showed copy of amendment to permit). CHAIRMAN: Yes. I have that too. Do you want to give me an Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3444 - GRASSO hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): indication some time next week, maybe you want to go over there and measure it. JlUSt give me an indication of the postage stamp area that you're going to place it~ The distance from here to here, and from here to here. Just take a tape out and measure it and give me an approximate so we can put it in the decision. MR. GRASSO: The way they have that thing turned upside down now, I would have drowned in one today. CHAIRMAN: I know you're going to need hip boots. I was wearing topsiders when I went over..to your house, and I stood on top of the foundation to take the picture~ As a matter of fact, here's the ~icture~ That's the bess I could get. But just give me an idea if you could~ MR, GRASSO: We can't indicate from this particular drawing what the size would be2 CHAIRMAN: You could have the person who had done the drawing or the rendering do it with a scale, but I woul rather not do it but he does not indicate the scale on it~ Just give him a call- MR. GRASSO: I can call the architect, and give you--you're looking for an approximation? CHAIRMAN: An approximation from both sides so that we can put it in the decision. MR. GRASSO: I don't think that's going to be a problem, Mro Chairman, at all. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you for coming in. Do you have a little better survey than this, maybe one that you submitted to the Building Department indicating the grasses and everything on the property? MR. GRASSO: All I have basically is what you have there which is what was approved by the building department. CHAIRMAN: So you just took a copy of that? MR. GRASSO: Exactly, sir. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. GRASSO: Gee, unfortunately, when we submitted our other plans it was denied, and we had to come back with a different size of a house. And then they didn't include this, you see; however, I~m sure that when we got the variance for the house, we would have gotten it at the same time. It's an unfortunate thing, but nevertheless, we will give you the information that you...~want, and by mail. Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3444 - GRASSO hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: All right, good~ See if you can give us some indica- tion on how far it is from the actual area that becomes wet within the front of that so that we know exactly how far we can couch that into the decision~ MR. GRASSO: I'll do my very best. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody el'se that would like to speak in favor also of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further quest%ons~ I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving dec~sion until later~ MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. (This resolution was duly adopted.) PUBLIC HEARING: 8:48 p~m. Appeal No. 3383 - RIVERSIDE HOMES, INC. Variance to locate new dwelling ~ith insufficient front and rear yards~ ROW off S/s Soundview Avenue, Peconic. The Chairman opened the hearing and read the legal notice of hearing as published in the local and official newspapers, and the appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey indicating a proposed dwelling dated December 27, 1974 with a penned-in area of approxi- mately 30 feet from the private road, approximately 28' from the rear .yard, approximately 53~ from the south property line, and approximately --I'm sorcy, that's 53' from the north property line, and 52' from the south property line~ And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard in behalf of this application? Riverside Homes° TOM OMARA: My name is Tom Omara and I'm representing Riverside Homes. We would really like to have it stand as iso CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Anybody else to speak in favor? Against? Questions from board members?(None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. SECONDED by Mr. Sawicki, and duly carried. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings 8:52-9:00 p.m. Temporary recess. Motion was made by Member Sawicki, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to recess for approximately seven minutes. 9:00 p.m. RegUlar Meeting was reconvened, after motion by Member Sawicki, seconded by Member Grigonis, and duly carried. 9:02 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING- Appeal No. 3383. ANNA PACIFICO. Variances for approval or,addition: (a) with insufficient side- yard setback, ~(b) with excessive lot coverage, (c) with an insufficient setback from wetlands. 1250 Marlin Drive, Southold Shores, Southold. The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey dated August 26, 1985 indicating a one-story frame house and garage, a wood deck, and a pool, indicating a pool approximately 52± feet from the--I assume that's the bulkhead, and a wood-frame gazebo which appears to be over the line. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Caminiti, would you like to be heard? PAUL CAMIN]ITI~,ESQ.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. The application reads Anna Pacifico, but the real party of interest, Mr. Chairman, is the son, Mario Malerba. If you'll bear with me for just a second, I'll give you a little background on Mario. He's an attorney in New York, a member of a firm. His partner was elevated to the judiciary, and his firm enjoys a good reputation and it's a prestigous firm in the City, and with that background in mind, t just want to assure the Board that whatever took place, his intentions were certainly not willful, didn't mean to violate any of the zoning regulations. I think basically it was bad advice that he had from contractors. He built a beautiful home. I've seen it and there weren't any problems in conforming to the setback provisions, sideyard setback, and his problems started when he decided to build the pool. And the contractor, pool contractor, indicated to him that the only requirement necessary was the D.E.C. approval, and D.E.C. gave him a permit to construct a pool 65' from the highwater mark, and the survey we have shows 52'--but that's from the bulkhead. I think the previous survey that we submitted is 65' from the highwater mark. So once he has an approval, the pool was constructed 18' by 36' Consequently, by constructing the pool 65' from the highwater mark, it left him only 15' from the house, and they constructed a deck which consisted of the gazabo, the walkaround deck, and all the accessory parts. I think Mr. Hindermann's denial shows that it exceeds the 20% coverage by only four percent (4%). The gazebo concei'tedly is Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3383 - ANNA PACIFICO hear~ing, continued:) MR. CAMINITI (continued): on the property line. I have no explanation for that. Why it's on the property line, and I have the survey. I have no explanation for that. But Mario is in from the City~ it was built by his contractor, and there was absolutely no intention at all tO violate the zoning ordinances at all. And I might say that since I've been representating him, there's been a good spirit of cooperation with him. We've had the pool fenced in. We've been going to Court. He's been fined $750 for these infractions.. At this point, the pool is in. I don't know what else can be done. He's complied with everything. We sincerely need your help on this one. Ive looked at the property. The deck is tastely done. The bay is on one side. No one can build from the bay side. On the other si~-i~he'l~unchingramp and then the Marina for Southold Shores. On his west side is Murray Weitman's house and on the north is Blue Marlin Drive. So basically from the street, the pool cannot be seen. The gazebo can be seen. But I have photographs. I would like to show them, that I took for my own use. But whatever mistakes have been made~ there doesn't appear to be any hardship or any prejudice that anybody is going to encounter. We asked the board to look favorably on this application, grant the variances that are being requested for the setback and for the lot coverage. Have you photog~aphs?~T-~.-~-~? (Mr. Caminiti showed the Chairman and board members the photographs he had.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Believe it or not it was a hazy day when I took this. It was a foggy day. I have not been known to take the greatest photographs any way. They're appropriate for the file but they're not the greatest. MR. CAMINITI: This is the view in the front of the house. The gazebo is here, and you see it on the property line. This is the launching ramp. The bulkhead is back from the highwater mark° There's still another 13 feets plus the 52'~ adds to 65. From the bulkhead, this shows the pool and the gazebo. This is the ground level deck that he put completely around the pool with the gazebo. The appli- cation considered the gazebos the deck~ everything as one addition, so we combined that in our application as a lump application. But that basically--I don't know what else we could do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give us an appropriate square footage size of the gazebo within the next couple of weeks? MR. CAMINITI: Of the gazebo. Sure. Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- February 62 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3383 PACIFICO hearing, continued:) MR. CHAIRMAN: So that we could be aware of what the actual square footage is. I know it's a six-sided figure. Thank you, Mr. Caminiti. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of the application? (None) Anybody against the application, sir? HOWARD MALONE: My name is Howard Malone~ and I'm President of the Southold Shores Association. And what Mro Caminiti said about Mario is pretty much true~ We happen to own--the association owns the roads in the area~ and also the lot east of Mr. Malerba's area. The gazebo has been a problem for some of the neighbors, But I couldn't refuse to come down amongst my s.upporters=-not supporters but being President, I have to represent the objectionable people in the group, or people that are objecting -- but anyway, I had to come down and express the objection based upon the gazebo being over the line~ and some lamp posts which are out in the road and reserve our ownership rights~ It's true, Mr. Weitman, Murray Weit- man has not complained and I don't think anybody that's been angry over the thing have been strong enough to do anything. Everybody seems to get along down there. CHAIRMAN: That s good. Thank you very much, sir. MR~ CAMINITI: Perhaps~ are you indicating ~hat you want arrangements made to relocate the gazebo, is that it? MR~ MALONE: Well~ we have about 26, maybe 30 members of the Association, and we had a General Meeting a while back, and associations can get to be grumbling meetings. And that was the topic. Some people want it taken away. Some people want it moved. I don't have a solution for it. There are also a few lawyers in the group, and they like to put their advice in on the table but they're not here toni~ght~ MR. CAMINITI: You can see the line, you can see the encroachment. About a foot, foot and a half-- MR. MALONE: We also have a land surveyor in the group that objects to it terribly~ MR: CAMINITI: But when you're out there, you don't see that imaginery line. All you see is the gazebo and open space. It doesn't appear as if it interfers with anything, but conceitedly it is over the line, perhaps-~I don't know what's involved in the meeting in moving its but has that been discussed with you at all? Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- February 6~ 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3383 - PACIFICO hearing, continued:) MR. MALONE: He didn't show up at the meeting, and it was only recently that 'ii~t Was in Mrs~ Pacif.ico's name~ I didn't, know that. MR. CAMINITI- I think that's one of the problems. owns the house. Mario is really the pa~ty in interest. The mother MR. MALONE: And ii~.n'that he's jus~ being a peacemaker, it's possible-- are you looking for a decision tonight-- MR. CAMINITI: No, no. MR. MALONE: Or a continuance of something,'~but could probably work something out. MR. CAMINITI: I'm basically here asking for variances from the graces of the board~ We know that there's a technical viola- tion of the code. I just wanted to insure the board that it's not intentional. It certainly at times appeared that way--I know it had. It's certainly not the intent of Marioo Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. When exactly, Mr. Caminiti, was all this work done? I know there's a building permit August 198- MR. CAMINITI: 1983, I think it was. MR. CHAIRMAN: So it's been around a little while. MR. CAMINITI: It was also before the wetlands ordinance-=I submitted a letter from the Board of Trustees on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again. Is there anybody else to speak for the application? Questions from board members? (None) MR. MALONE: I would just like to ask a question. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the ins and outs of this. If things go with your board where you get the judgment in your favor on this, what does that do to the Association rights as far as the encroach- ment goes on the line~ MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the right to bring an Article 78 before this--in opposition to this board's decision. I will assure you, however, sir, that this board has never granted anyth.ing on anybody else's property. We have enough trouble with it on the property. MR. CAMINITI: Are you in a position to indicate whether or not Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No~ 3383 - PACIFICO hearing, continued:) MR. CAMINITI (continued): the Association will give Mr. Malerba an easement? MR~ MALONE: I"m not sure~ -'It's very difficult to get people to even pay road dues. MR. LESSARD' Maybe you could sell them about half of that land-- MR. MALONE: We could possibly get together~ CHAIRMAN: If something exists in that particular case, then you would inform us of that please prior to our decision, which would be_ addressed probably aS some time during the next meeting, which will be on or about the latter part of February. Thank you. Thank you, sir~ Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. This resolution was duly carried~ 9~20 p~m. PUBLIC HEARING- Appeal No. 3421. ESTATE OF JOSEPH ZIELONKA. Variance to utilize, premises in the Residential/Agricul- tural Zoning District for: (a) two B-Light Business Uses, (b) two dwellings uses [existing or previously existing]. 27475 Main Road, Cutchogue~ The Chairman read the legal notice of hearing and appeal application for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey dated July 15, 1981 indicating a lot of 50' by 100' with a one-story frame building, it doesn't specifically indicate the sized and a much smaller one-story frame building adjacent to it. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area, along with a Certificate of Occupancy dated August 18, 1981--it says, "The occupancy for which ts certified is nonconforming store use with habitable space and aaccessory building_.~ MrL Wickham, would you like to be heard, sir? JOHN WICKHAM: Thank you. I think this is a simpler case than the one you just had. As a matter of fact, Mr. Zielonka Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3421 - ZIELONKA hearing, continued:) JOHN WICKHAM (continued): worked for me for about 30 years, and I personally obtained the Certificate of Occupancy for the residential in about 1981, '82. So in about three years, and he died last May. We have seven or eight people interested in this for Light Business, and it would appear to me from the point of view of the town that the town would be better served to have a Light Business here than to have two small residences, which we have now. And in talking with some of the prospective buyers, they see no problem about removing 'the smaller of the buildings, and there is some limited parking in the back. But on the 50' by 150' lot, we don't have very much. A couple of the people who are interested feel that they would have--there would be no problem because they don't expect--one of them frankly might not fit. This chap repairs generators, and he does it all on premises and he doesn't have customers in the usual sense. He makes the trips around. It's mostly genera- tors on outboard motorboats. He picks them up and delivers them. Another person is interested in the antique shop, which would only be open summers and probably only Saturdays and Sundays. Can I just give you this for an instance. Actually, this property was a nonconforming use for almost 50 years. You have some people on the board who are familiar with it, and I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us some indication, Mr. Wickham, when the actual use stopped? MR. WICKHAM: It was more than three years ago~ CHAIRMAN: And what was the use at that time? MR. WICKHAM: Dry goods storea CHAIRMAN: In the main building? MR. WICKHAM: Yes. And the other was used for storage and is still half full of clothing, new clothing. CHAIRMAN: This is somewhat of a Catch-22 application in the respect that as you know we're sitting in the middle of a moratorium and at present~ it's a nonconforming "A" zone~ If it were a noncon- forming any kind of zone in the business sense, it would have to go to the Town Board for a waiver. We chose not to go to the Town Board with this particular application because of it's A-Zone status. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3421 - ZIELONKA hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN (continued): I would however like to mention it to the Town Board that this is what you are at least dealing with, so that we don't get in someway-- I would say -- at odds on these. They are expeditiously taking care of them, and very,very expeditiously in fact, and I do want to mention it to them. I did not mention this to the boards and they are unaware of this. I don't know if I want to close the hearing tonight, or if I want to recess it, but I'll make some decision here in the very near future in the next couple of moments. Is there anything else you wanted to say about the property? MR. WICKHAM: I can't think of anything else. My contention is that we want to reestablish the nonconforming use because it is a nonconforming use in an "A" District-- MR. CHAIRMAN: For a retail store or something of that nature? As it presently--as you know it presently existed for some 50 years. MR. WICKHAM: Yes. And the returns are there, the shelves are there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any possibility, and I know I should have asked you this before this, but I'll be honest with you, I recently had an operation a few weeks ago Saturday, but could we meet you down there some Saturday or some morning that you would be-- I don't know if you have the store open still or whatever--maybe next Satur- day, could we meet you down there? MR. WICKHAM: Sure. Any time at your convenience. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok~ Why don't I make an appointment with you right now for next Saturday morning about ll:O0 o'clock. A week from this Saturday. Is that all right? MR. WICKHAM: That's fine~ MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I'l.'l be there, and any of the board members that would like to go through. And I think based upon that, if you don't mind, we'll recess this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting, and I will discuss it with the Town Board so that they're aware of the requests that you have here--if that's all right with you. MEMBER GRIGONIS: May I make a statement? CHAIRMAN: Surely, sir. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No~ 3421 - JOSEPH ZIELONKA hearing, continued:) MEMBER GRIGONIS: I'd like to say just for the record--like Mr. Wickham says, it goes back 50 years. Well, I remember buying dungarees and work shoes 10 or 12 years before zoning went in, in that little store down there~ It's the best place to buy clothes=- work clothes--in those days~ MR. WICKHAM: It was the only place you could get work caps big enough to fit me. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Shoes for me. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr~ Wickham, for coming in. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody against the application? Questions from board members? (None). Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this hearing until the next Regular Meeting. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. This resolution was duly adopted. PUBLIC HEARING: 9:30 p~m~ Appeal No~ 3431 GA!L DESSIMOZ and MICHAEL RACZ~ Variances for permission to renovate and expa~ existing nonconforming ca.bin.[gue~{'~cottage without kitchen/cooking facilities] (.a) exceeding 50% of value and square footage of same as exists, (b) within 100 feet of Long Island Sound bluff~ 4255 Private Road #10 (Hallock Lane)~ Mattituck. This matter is a recessed hearing from December 12, 1985, which has been re-advertised in the'Suffolk Times and Long Island Traveler Watchman with a publication date of January 30~ 1986, The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who w~shed to be heard in behalf of this application. DOUGLAS PEIX: My name is Doug Peix. I am the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Racz. Essentially I guess I would like to let the application stand as it reads. I~!] just explain it a little bit. My clients bought thisi~property, e~hich is about a two-acre parcel along the Sound~ They bought it--a main house, a guest cabin and a separate detached garage, last year they renovated the main house in a significant way, I feel, upgrading it and upgrading the entire area, and now they would like to take the existing cabin and improve it a!so~ It's p~resently~ a one room cabin~ They would like to turn it into a two-room structure so that they could accom- modate more guests on weekends. And to comment on its relationship to the Sound--I've measured from the waterside of the existing cottage to the edge of the Sound, and I came up with 100 feet. There's no~ doubt~that the configuration of the shoreline at their property is not regular. So whether or whether or not it really is closer than 100 feet, t would raise a little bit of question: But it may be really something that you need to look at to under- Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3431 DESSIMOZ AND RACZ hearing, continued:) MR. PEIX continued: stand. I don't know if there are any questions you have to me that I could answer. CHAIRMAN: Is there presently any electricity? MR. PEIX: Yes. It presently has a full bathroom and electricity and a couple--a bunk bed built in. CHAIRMAN: And the water is fed from the main house? MR. PEIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Is it heated in any way? MR. PEIX: It has electric heat. The main house has hot water. MEMBER SAWICKI: ts it used in the winter time? MR. PEIX: No. CHAIRMAN: And it's presently on what type of foundation? MR. PEIXL. It's on blocks. MEMBER SAWICKI. It has a bathroom, and a septic tank system? MR. PEIX: A full bath. I think--I don't know if it's a separate system or if it's in the same tank. CHAIRMAN: Is this permanent walled electric heat, or just electric heater that would be plugged in? MR. PEIX: I'm pretty sure it's permanent wall. They haven't been using it because it's run down. They put their first renova- tion in the main house, so I'm not sure about the heating, frankly. CHAIRMAN: And you're aware upon discussions with our Assistant here, that this is a preliminary application that there is a 280-a required? MR. PEIX: Yes, I understand that. Soutnold Town Board of Appeals -36- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3431 DESSIMOZ AND RACZ hearing, continued:) CHAIRMAN: It appears that the renderings that I have before me are quite substantial inr eference to the existing--I don't know what we'll call it--framed structure? MR. PEIX: Cabin. CHAIRMAN: Cabin, ok. Is there any particular reason why they're built to these specifications, and I~m not reflecting the way they are, actual architectural drawings or anything of that nature, but to the size and open air effect that exists? MR. PEIX: You mean, why is it as big as what we're asking for? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. PEIX: Essentially, because my clients have some furniture that Mrs~ Racz has inherited, and she wants to accommodate in this cabin. CHAIRMAN: Ok. MR. PEIX: In renovating the main house, they really opened it up a lot and ended up and ended up with only two bedrooms, so they really want to find a place for their relatives and guests could stay and not be crowded in the main house. CHAIRMAN: Ok. develops. I thank you very much. Let's see what else MEMBER DOYEN: When was the last time it was used? CHAIRMAN: idea, sir? When was the last time it was used, do you have any MR. PEIX: It was used a couple of times this past summer, but not for a great deal. I don't know how often it was used ~ the previous owner. CHAIRMAN: To answer your question, Serge, it has been used and it is usab]e~ It's not deteriorated to that point. MEMBER DOYEN: it was used. just .was curious when was the last time CHAIRMAN: Ok. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- February 6, 1986 Public Hearings (Appeal No. 3431 - DESSIMOZ AND RACZ hearing, continued:) MEMBER SAWICKI: Kitchen facilities? CHAIRMAN: No. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of the application? Anybody to speak against the application? (No Questions from board members? (None) Hearing no further questions~ I'll make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER SAWICKI: Second Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr~ Sawicki, and duly carried, to conclude the hearing and reserve decision~until a later date. pp. 1-37 Respectfully submitted, r l~Snda F. Kowalski, Secre;a Y Southold Town Board of ^ppeals Town f21m:k, Town of Soul. hold