HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/14/1986 APPEALS BOARD
MEMBERS
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN
CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.
SERGE DOYEN..IR.
ROBERT J. DOUGLASS
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI
Southold Town Board o£Appeals
HAIN RrlAD- STATE RI3AD 25 5nUthl3lD, L.I., N.Y. 11971
TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, 'AUGUST '1'6-~_~ 1 986
A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals
was held on THURSDAY,_.. AUGUST 14, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at
the Southold Town Hall,-Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were: G~rard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Serge
Doyen, Jr.~ Robert J~ Douglass; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and
Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting the five members of the Board.
Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and
approximately 35 persons in the audience at the beginning
of the meeting at 7:30~ The attendance increased to about
60 persons towards the latter part of the hearings.
Chairman Goehringer opened the meeting and proceeded
with the first matter on the agenda, as follows. (The
verbatim transcri~pts for all of the hearings have been
prepared'Under separate cover, the originals of which are
simultane~ herewith fil~d with the office of the Town
Clerk for reference.)
7:35 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the
Matter of GEORGE AND PAT BROWN. Deck addition to dwelling
~ith insufficient and ~rther reduction of existing sideyard.
150 Briarwood Lane, C~tchogue. R. Kunst appeared as agent.
(No objections were submitted during the hearing.) Following
the hearing, an unanimous vote was received to concluded the
hearing, pending deliberations and decision at a later time.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Public Hearings, continued:)
-2-
August 14~ 1986 Regular Meeting
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3477. Public Hearing was held in the
Matter of WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS. Anthony Tohill, Esq.
spoke in behalf of the applicants, who were also present. (No
opposition was received. See verbatim transcript). Following
receipt of verbal testimony, motion was made by Chairman Goeh-
ringer, seconded by Member Sawicki, to recess.Appeal No. 3477
until the Chairman has had an opportunity to meet with the
Planning Board concerning the g~eral layout (coordination
was not completed and no input has been received ~rom the
Planning Board). This resolution was duly adopted~by unanimous
vote. (See resolution on ~ scheduling this matter for
public hearing for September ll, 1986, subject to Chairman's
meeting with Planning Board before advertising deadline.)
7:52 p.m. Appeal No. 3520 THOMAS SHALVEY. Public Hear-
ing was held and concluded.~ (Nb.o~alLobjections were submitted
during the hearing). Variance for approval of insufficient
area, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed set-off
division. S/s Case Road, Cutchogue. Henry Raynor appeared in
behalf of the applicant. The Chairman asked Mr. Raynor to
submit a list of other parcels which have become merged ~ithin
this block. (See verbatim transcript for statements.)
7:58 p.m. Appeal No. 3532 - ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS.
Tennis Court in front yard. 3525 Private Road #13, Mattituck.
Anthony Tohill, Esq. appeared in behalf off,he applicants.
No objection~s were submitted during the hearing. ?he public
hearing was held-and concluded. (See verbatim transcript for
statements.)
8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3433 GAIL DESSIMOZ AND MICHAEL RACT.
The public hearing was held and concluded. (See verbatim
transcript for statements.) The Chairman asked the applicants
to give sketch of trees and shrubs in the area of Charles
Simmons right-of-way. Abigail Wickham, Esq. spoke in behalf
of an adjoining property owner, Charles Simmons. Following
testimony, motion was made to concluded the hearing by Chaimman
G.~ehringer, seconded by Member Douglass, and duly carried.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -3-
(Public Hearings, continued:)
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3530 - RAYMOND T. GOODWIN. Public Hearing
was held and concluded. (See verbatim transcript for statements.)
~b~gai.1 Wickham, Esq. appeared and spoke in behalf of the ·applicant.
The Board asked that the kitchen and deck additlions be staked for
another inspection. No objections were vo~c6d~]during the hearing.
Following testimony, the Chairman moved to conclude the hearing,
pending re-inspection, deliberations and decision at a later date.
The Chairman's motion was seconded by Member Grigonis, and unani-
mously carried.
8:28 p.m. Appeal No~'3533 -'JOHN'AND'JEANNE BRE.DEMEYER. Public
Hearing wa.~ held ..... Abigail Wickham_~-~-~. appeared in~be'h'a~lf of the
applicants. (See verbatim transcript prepa?ed under separate cover
and filed with the Town Clerk's Office~ fQ.r reference.) Motion was
made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded 'by Mr. Dougl.ass,.and.unanimously
carried, to .recess the public heari'ng unti'l''September 1'1~'.]~86~...
This resolution was duly adopted. ~ .
8:40 p.m. Appeal No.'3539 MICHAEL HERBERT. Public Hearing
was held and conclude~. Patricia Moore _.appeared'in _~ehalf of the
applicant. No objections.were Voiced durigg the hearing Follow-
ing testimony, mo~tion was made by Mr, Goehringer, seconded ~by
Mr. Grigonis., and d~ly c~rried, to conclude the hearing, ·pending
deliberations and d~..~ision at a later time. This resolution was
duly adopted.
8:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3442 - JOHN J. NEWMAN. Public Hearing
was held and concluded. (See verbatim transcript.) No objections
were voiced during the hearing. Abigail Wickham, Esq. appeared
in behalf of the applicant together with Tony Litsch, Builder.
Following testimony, ~tion was made by Mr. Geehringer, seconded
by Mr. Sawicki, and dely carried, to conclude the hearing pending
deliberations and deci~sion at a later time. This resolution was
duly adopted.
So~uthold Town Board of Appeals
(Public Hearings, continued:)
-4-
August ~4, 1986 Regular Meeting
9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3535 - NORTH FORK FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL.
Public Hearing was~held and concluded. No objections were voiced
during the hearing. Mr. William Mcgunnigle appeared 6nd spoke in
behalf of the application. Following testimony, motion was made 'by
Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, to conclude the hearing,
pending deliberations and decision later. This resolution was duly
adopted by unanimous vote.
Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, at
this point in time, to recess for three minute~_~ This resolution
was unanimously adopted.
9:18 p.m. Motion was made by Mr. Sawicki, seconded by Mr.
Goehringer, and duly carried, to RECO.NVENE. This resolution was
duly adopted.
9:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3478. BECKY JOHNSTON. PUblic Hearing
was held and concluded. Michael Ha~ll.,__~sq. appeare~ in behalf of
the applicants. .Philip Cardinale, _E~q. a~pea~ed in behalf of
the Bokina Family., Mr. Hall indicated th~at t.~is was a request
only for tempor.ary 280-a i..n_order to weatherize the structure
for protection against bad weather condition's, and not for
occupancy or further construction. (See other statements
prepared in the verbatim transcript.) Following testimony,
motion was made by Mr. Goehrin§en, seconded by .Mr. Douglas_s,
to conclude the hearing. This resolution was unanimously adopted.
9:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3513 STEPHEN SH~LOWITZ. PQb1~
Hearing was reconvgn~d (~rom .~uly 17,~.._1986~--a.s agreed. Charles
Cuddy, Esq. of Esseks, H~fter.~ Cuddy & Ang.el, appeared in behalf
of the applicant. Lawrence Storm, Esq. of Twom~y, Latham, Shea
& Kelley, appeared in behalf of P~pes~Co~ Assoc~iation Residents.
Following lengthy testimony, motion was made by Mr. Goehringer,
seconded by Mr. Douglass, to recess the public he,ring ~ntil
September 11; 19~6, in O~d~r to allow time_for ~~~
and hi~ attg~n~-~-o ~ons'ide~ ~ddre~i.~_g '~e~..el'imin~i'on of
one unit for~'r~duction in the amount of relief bein~ requested.
This resolution was unanimously adopted. Ti..
10:.35 p.m. The board proceeded with deliberations and.
decision in the Matter of Appeal No. 3535 - NOR~H~FORK F~IENDS
OF KENYON TUTHIL[ for a special fundraising event in cQnj~on
with fireworks d~spl~ay at 895 N. Bayview Road, Southold.
(continued on next Page)
~ So~thold Town Board of Appeals -5- August 14~ 1986 Regular Meetin~
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3535:
Application of NORT~ FORK FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL for a Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 for permission to
use premises for a special fund-raising event in conjunction with fire-
works display, at premises of .W.F. and T.A. LaMorte, 895 North Bayview
Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcels No. 1000-70-13-20 (20.1 to
20.21, inclusive).
Following deliberations, the board took the following action:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on August 14, 1986
in the Matter of the Application of N.F. FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL under
Appeal No. 3535; and
WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and
the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard
were heard, and their testimony was recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WNEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
By this application, appellant requests a Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance under the ~novisions of Article III, Section 100-30
for permission to hold a private "one-day special fund-raising
event" to be held on private prop~r'ty known and referred to as
895 N~rth Bayview Road, Hamlet of Southold, with a maximum attend-
ance of 400 persons. The event is conducted by volunt66rs~
and will be supervised by 50 volunteer police officers as well
as other local supervlsi_on. There will be no minors under the
age of twenty-one years of age. Access and egress to the event
will be via a paved, two-way driveway off the east side of North
Bayview Road. On-site parking is to be directed and supervised
for 200 cars adjacent to an open field, for a total area of
43,200 sq. ft. A tent will be erected near the ~arkiDg area
of a size approximately 100' by 75'. A minimum of six portable
toilet facilities will be provided. A certificate of insurance
#172 was issued July 15, 1986 by the Lexington Insurance Company
for August 29, i986, or rain date of August 30, 1986.
Sou~thotd Town Board of Appeals -6- August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3535 - N.F.F. OF KENYON TUTHILL, decision, continued:)
By action taken by the Southold Town Board on July
1986, a Public Display of Fireworks Permit was issued by the
Town Clerk dated Jul~ 18, .1986, to be held as conditionally
noted therein.
It is al.so noted for the record that presently u~der
review and consideration by the Town of Southold is a local
law for public assemblies, and a'public hearing and final
action is expected in the near futu~.
In considering this appeal, the board finds and determines:
(a) that the use proposed is not inconsistent with the general
purposes of the intent of zoning; (b) the circumstances are
unique; (c) the temporary use applied for will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood; (d) the use will not
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or
adjacent use districts; (e) the safety~, health~ welfare,
comfort, convenience and order of the town will not be adversely
affected by this temporary use; (f) the interests of justice
will best be served by allowing the variance~ for the date
requested.
Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Gr~gonis, seconded by
Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, that a Variance for permission to hold private
fund-raising event for August 29, 1.986, or rain date of August 30,
1986, in the Matter of the Application of NORTH'FORK FRIENDS OF
KENYON TUTHILL be and hereby iS'APPROVED AS'APPL~ED.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen~ Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly.~adopted.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -7-
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
PENDING: Appeal No. 3458 - NORTH ROAD ASSOCIATES. Pending
Variance for approval of insufficient area in this proposed
minor subdivision al~ong ROW off the north side of the Main Road,
Orient. This application was filed on January 21, 1986 with
the Board of Appeals, and subsequently, a report_was submitted
as requested ~y the Z.B.A. from~the.Suffolk County Soil and
Water Conservation District~ Inpu~iwas received from the
Planning Board, 'and the following action was taken bY them
on May 5, 1986: '"
(1) Recommend this proposal be clustered the alleviate
the need for a variance. _.[See. Town Attorney letter dated
April 21,.1986 outlining Section 100-136E Q~ the Zon'ing Code
as to r.equ.~rements for a Cluster Development.]
(2) Parcel sold to N~rth Road Associate's from Droskoski'
seems to have been merged to other contiguous property owned
by Droskoski, which should be clarified before proceeding.
The proposal submitted for consider'ation by the' Z.B.A. i"'ndicates
a homeo~6er~'rs a§~ociation is not being prQposed, as required by
Section 100-136E, which prompted this variance request 6rider
Section 100~31.
A public hearing was held by the Z.B.A. on May 22, 1986,
at which time a recess was [~que~sted by the applicant's agent,
John DeReeder. On June 25, 1986, a written reqgest~was received
from~John DeReeder requesting the Z.B.A. withdraw the application
pending in order to pursue a different route.
NOW, THEREFORE~ on motion ~by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by
Mr. Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, that the application in the Matter of-'NORTH
ROAD ASSOCIATES under Appeal No. 3458, BE'AND HEREBY IS WITH-
DRAWN WITH~U-~P~REJUDICE as requested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki.
Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
This resolution was duly adopted.
PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3523 STEVE KALAIJIAN.
· WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 17,
1986 in the Matter of the Application of'STEVE KA[AIJIAN under No. 3523; and
WHERE/~S~'~tbei~board members have personally vi-ewed and are familiar with
the premises in question, its present zoning and the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard,
and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the board has carefully considered all testimony and documenta-
~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -8- August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Appeal No. 3523 - KALAIJIAN, decision, continued:)
tion submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing an
acreage of 3.9486 and average lot width of 170 feet, and is more particularly
described on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 112, Block
01, Lot 018.
2. The subject premises is unimproved and is at the present time subject
to a pending conditional 280-a decision rendered by this Board concerning this
private right-of-way under Appeal No. 3218 dated November 15, 1984 (J. Wanat).
3. By this application, appellant requests approval of the proposed
insufficient area of Parcel #2 in this two-lot division/set-off of land
of 62,070 sq. ft. Proposed Parcel ~1 would be 109,932.92 sq. ft. The
depth of both proposed lots are 396~72 and 658.28 feet, respectively.
4. The topographical contours of the premises varies as shown on plat
prepared by Bernhard H. Henn January 24, 1986 from 210 feet along the right-of-way
to 255 and 260 feet within the building areas to the top of bluff. The area
of unbuildable land below the bluff area has not been furnished, although when
sealed on the January 24, 1986 plat, it appears to be an area of approximately
54,000 sq. ft.
5. It is the opinion of the board that the variance requested is 23,850±
sq. ft., or 30% of a variance from the requirements, which is not the minimal
which can be obtained under the circumstances.
In considering this appeal, the board also finds and determines: (a)
that the practical difficulties claimed are not sufficient to warrant a grant-
ing of the relief, as~requested; (b) the circumstances are not unique;
(c) the relief requested is not the minimal necessary; (d) there is another
method for appellant to pursue; (e) that in view of the manner in which the
difficulty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests
of justice will best be served by denying the variance, without prejudice.
Accordingly, on motion by Member Douglass, seconded by Member Grigonis,
it was
RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3523 in the Matter
of the Application of STEVE KALAIJIAN BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
AS APPLIED.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Douglass
and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -9-
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
APPEAL NO. 3511 KAPELL REAL ESTATE INC. and LIMPET CORP.
Correspondence was received August ll, 1986 from David E. Kapell
requesting the Zoning Board proceed with a public hearing simul-
taneously with the pending application under Article VI with the
Suffolk County Health Department. The Board of Appeals
Mr. Kapell in May 1986 advising him that our file is i~ncomplete
without Article PI approval/waiver~ Mr. Kapell submitted a
copy of an August 5, 1986 letter from'James I. Monsell, Super-
intendent of Public Utilities of the Village Of Greenport,
indicating that ~the ". 'request of Fanny Rodriquez for water
and sewer service on"a lot on B~own Street by Way of an easement
from Linnett Street was._studied 'by "the "Utili]%y Committee on
May 28, 1986 and recommended a favorable actign.-..."
It was the cons6nsus of th~ Board after revieWfng Mr. Kapell's
August 8, 1986 letter not to proceed with a public hearing until
such time .~s action is tak~'~ ]by the Suffolk County Health Depart-
ment under Article VI in accor.dance with the policy and rules,
without exception.
The Boamd]Secretary was authorized and directed to send a
letter to Mr. Kapell advising him of th6 board's, unchanged
position.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
by Mr. Sawi~,~ it was
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded
RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the J~U..l:y. ~7~ 1'986
Regular Me6ting.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs~ Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was d~ly adopted~
INFDRMAL ~NTERDEPARTMENTAL~CONFERENCE: A date of
August 27,~19~6 at l:O0 p~m. ~_as confirmed for the Chairman
and any other ZBA members to meet with one or more members
of the Town Board and Planning Board concerning several
pend~6g~applications.
Southold Town Board of AppealS -10-
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK AND BLAISE STIG-
LIANI. Fil. ed August 6, 1986. Variance for approval of insufficient
area of two proposed parcels in this pending set-off division of
land located along the north side of Bayview Road, Southold~
1000-78-7-43. Total lot area: one acre. Proposed: 2l~288 sq.
ft. and 22,616 sq. ft., improved and vacant, respectively.
Attorney for the Applicants: Alfred J. Skidmore, Esq.
On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it
was
RESOLVED, that the following matter be held in abeyance
pending~receipt of action~_by the Suffolk County Health Depart-
ment in accordance w~th the poli'cy and rules of Article 6; and
input by the Plan'hing Board_un. de[~t~e Subdivis~'~on Regulations:
Appeal No. 3545 - PATRICK AND'BLAISE' STIGLIANI.
Vote 6~ t'he Board: Ayes: Mess'rs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki., T~'resolution was duly adopted.
UPDATE: Appeal No. 3462 HERBERT MANDEL by Abigail Wickham,
Esq. Variances· ~a)~lot~'~a~in~ ~nsuffic~e'n-t lot area; (b) lots
having insufficient lot depth, (c) Lot having insufficient lot
width, (d) Lot 3 as proposed with structure having an insufficient
frontyard setback~ (e) Lots 2 and 3 as proposed each will contain
structures that do not meet principal-use requirement for a single-
family dwelling, (f) existing barns on Lots 2 and 3 as proposed,
wilt. have i~nsufficient setbacks from proposed front property line
(and boundary line, dividing Lots 2 and 3 run6ing north and south).
9355 Main Road.., East Marion; 1000-31-3-11.25. Containing 2.918
acres.
Correspondence ~ece~ved August 14, 1986 and July 23, 1986,
were reviewed by the Board members as to the status with the
County Health Department and preparation of final maps.
It was the consensus of the Board %bat the file is incomplete
without action by the Suffolk County Department Health as required
by the rules and policy established under Article 6, without
exception. The Boa?d Secretary was authorized and directed to
send the above response to the_ applicant's attorney.
Southold Town Board of Appeals
-ll-
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
NEW APPLICATION: Appeal No. 3546 - GREGORY FOLLARI Variance
from Condition No. 2 of Z.B.A. Decision rendered July 31, 1986
under Appeal No~ 3502 in order to be permitted to remove mound of
dirt along bluff of Long Island Sound forlbetter waterview.
The Board Secretary advised the~Board that she spoke with
Dennis Cole, Analyst for the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation, who indicated that alteration of bluff areas are
definitely within their jurisdiction, and will require a formal
application to them.
It was the consensus of the board to hold this matter
temporarily in abeyance pen~ing formal application by Mr. Follari
to the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and submission of D..E.C. action to this
board before scheduling this variance application for a public
hearing.
~ARTTIME OFFICE ASSZSTANCE: The Chairman suggested that
MaryAn--~-~-Cybe'¥s~ be' permi"~o increase her hours in the
office from 17½ to 25 hours during the Week of August 25th
(while the Board Secretary is using vacation time). The
board members were in ag~eement~
CALENDAR OF HEARINGS: On motion by Mr~ Douglass~ secondeO
by Mr. Goehrin~er~ it was
RESOLVED, that the Board Secretary is hereby authorized
and directed to advertise the following matters for public
hearings to be held at the nex~._~gular Meeting of this
Board, to wit: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBE~]]I~ 1986:
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. ~40 - MA~K AND LORRAINE LaROSA.
Variance to construct deck addition at rear of dwell.~ng
within 75 'feet of ordinary highwater mark along "Horton Creek."
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 35~i- RIAL REALTY CORP. Variances
for approval of in.sufficient lot width of three proposed par-
cels in this pending minor subdivision, _N/s-~regon ~oad,
Cutchogue.
7:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 - JOHN BREDEMEYER~ (Recessed
from tonight). New dwelling with ~-~fficient setback from
ordinary highwater mark along Orient H~rbor.
7:55 p.m. Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM'AND'KATHERINE HEINS.
(Recessed from tonight). Insufficient area, width "~n~' depth
of two proposed parcels. N/s Main Road, Orient.
8:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3544 JAMES F. WARWICK. Variance
to lift condition of prior ZBA Appeal No. 1729 rendered on
Southold Town Board of Appeals -12-
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
(calendar for 9/11/86, continued:)
March 8, 1973 in order to allow new dwelling.
Avenue, Peconic.
South Side of Fasbender
8:10 p.m. Appeal No 3534 ROBERT WADDINGTON. Addition with
insufficient rear and side yards. 13175 Main Road, Mattituck B-1
Zone District.
8~20 p.m. Appeal No~ 3550~'JOSEPH'AND LINDA SCHOENSTEIN.
Variances to Articles:' (a)Vis 100~60 to expand nonconforming use
of welding'~busine~, .... (b) XI,'lOO-~ll'9~'~(B)t6 construct new
build.~ng.~nd expand nonconfQrming _~elding business use ~ithin
75 feet from wetlands are~? S/s. Mai.~ Ro~ad, Greenport.
8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3538 ''jEFFREY~BETTANCOURT. Variance
for pool with fence enclosure and gazebo within 100 feet from
top of.bluff along L.I._.Sound. 24~0 Grandview A~enue, Orient.
8:4~ p.m. Appeal No.'3513 '~TEPHEN'SHILOWITZ (Recessed
from tonight). Condo. minium construction within~75 feet of
bulkhead and tidal water. W/s Sixth Street, Greenport.
Vote of the Boar~d: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
UPDATE: Appeal No. 3478~ CHURCH OF THE OPEN DDOR/CATAPANO.
Project ~lohg SZs Main Road,~.W/s B~yview Road, E/s South Harbor
Road. Lot #3, pending Minor Subdivision of Salvatore Catapano.
The board awaits Planning Board input concerning the site plan
elements under review 'by them at this time.
E~VIRONMENTAL DECLARATIONS: On motion 'by Mr~ Douglass,
seconded by ~.'Goehrfnger~ 'it was
RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental
Declarations on each of the following matters determining each
project not to have an adverse effect upon the environment for
the reasons indicated below and ~..~ accordance with the N','Y.S.
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)~Sec.tion 617, 6 NYCRR,
and Chapter 44~.of~.the Code of the Town of Southold:
S~uthold Town Board of Appeals -13- August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATI~ ENVIRONMENTAL DECLAPJkTION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3535
PROJECT NAFLE: NORTH FORK'FRIENDS'OF KENYON TUTHILL
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 tha~ 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 use premises for special
fundraising event in conjunction with fireworks display as permitted
by the Southo]d Town Board.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of SOuthold, County"°f Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 895 North Bayview Road, S0uth0]d.
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETEt{MINATION:
(1) ~ Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted %~hich indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the envirorument are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) This is an application concerning use of premises and is
not direCtly related..~o new construction, Fireworks display
permit is hot under the authority of this bgard~
S,outhold Town Board of Appeals -14-
environmental Declarations, Co'ntinu~ed;)
August 14, 1986 Regular M~ting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Si~nificancm
APPEAL NO.: 3536
PROJECT NAME: GEORGE AND PAT BROWN
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: k ] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construct deck addition to dwelling with
reduction 6f existing nonconformihg sideyard
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 150 Briarwood Lane, Cutchggue, NY 136-1-3
REASONIS) SUPPORTING TtIIS DETERMINATION:
(1) ~n 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 a setback variance regulated as pro-
vided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
6 NYCRR.
~outh0ld Town Board of'Appeals -15-
~nvironmental Declarations, 'Co'ntinued;)
August 14, 1986 Regular M~eting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3532
PROJECT NAME: ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE 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 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 advers~ 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: Cons~tru~t accessory ~ennis court in the
front yard.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 3525 Private Road %13, Mat~ituck, NY
1000-105-1-4
REASON(S) SUPPORTING TIIIS DETERMINATION:
(1) A'n Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submit%ed which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) Construction proposed is landward of existing structures.
'S0uth0ld Town Board of Appeals -16-
~nvironmental Declarations, 'Co'ntinued;)
August 14, 1986 Regular. Mede.ting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3433 ~
PROJECT NAI~E: GAIL DESSIMOZ AND MICHAEL RACZ
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 advers~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 [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Variance'for necessary improvements over
private R-O-W known as Hallock La~e
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Private Road ~10 N/s of Sound Ave., Mattituck,NY
1000-112-1-7 & 8 and to Parcel No. 1000-112-1-4
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new build-
ing construction
'S0uth01d Town Board of Appeals -17-
0~nvironmental Decla'ratlo'ns, C'o'ntinued; )
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 353.0
PROJECT NAME: RAYMOND 'T. GOODWIN
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 advers~ effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Construct kitchen addition with insufficient
W/s setback and total sidey~rds; ~2) construct kitchen and deck additions
with insufficient setbacks from highwater mark
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of $outhold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 4450 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laqrel, NY 126-4-22.2
REASON(S) SUPPORTING TIIIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted'which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated
as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, 6 NYCRR.
~0uth01d Town Board of'Appeals -18-
~nvironmental De'clara'tions, Continued;)
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 35_39L "'~
PROJECT NAME: .. M~kE%~ _}~E;R~ERT
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 advers~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: ~Sta~zskb ,~, '~ ~'Bed and B~eakfast" use, renting
not more than three rooms, and provided for not more than six casual,
transien
t ~oome~s
LOCATIONOFPROJEOT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 795 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY
1000-140-2-23
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted'which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur ~hould this project be ~mple-
' mented as planned;
(2) Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other
critical environmental area.
[31 This -is an application concerning use of the premises and
is not directly related to new construction. ..
'S0uth0ld Town Board of Appeals -19-
~nvironmental Decla'rations, Co'ntinued;)
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Not~ce of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3478
PROJECT NAME: BECKY 'JOHNSTON
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 [X] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 01l Allow'Building Iuspector to issue permit'to
weathr±ze existing structure before'ifinal 280-a access approval and (20
--J approval of access over private right-of-way
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Bridge Lane Extension and Oregon Rd.
Cutch@gue, NY 1000-73-2-1 ' ' '
REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly ~ela'ted to new building
construction.
(3) Is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other
environmental areas.
'S0uth01d Town Board of Appeals -20-
~nvironmental Declarations, Continued; )
August 14, 1986 Regular'Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3442
PROJECT NAME: JO:HN JYNE~CA'N ....
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 advers~ 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:Construct additions Within 75" of h~gh-
water/bulkhead
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: 430 Sailors Needle Rd., Mattituck NY
1000-144-5-29.1 and 30 ' '
REASON(S) SUPPORTING TIIIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitb~d'which indicates that no siqnificant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur ~hould this project be imple-
' mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as
provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act, 6 NYCRR.
(3) The relief requested is an-area lot line'vari~nce'~hich does
not require further processing under "TypeII" Actions of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
~0uth01d Town Board of Appeals -21-
~nvironmental De'clarations, 'C'ontinued;)
August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
S.E.Q.R.A.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
Notice of Determination of Non-Significance
APPEAL NO.: 3520
PROJECT NAME:
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 advers~ effect on the environment for the reasons indicated
below.
Please take further notice that this declaration should not be
considered a determination made for any other department or agency
which may also have an application pending for the same or similar
project.
TYPE OF ACTION: ~X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ]
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insuffi6ient area, width and depth'of two'
parcels in this propsed set-off division.
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of, Suffolk, more
particularly known as: Case Rd., Cutchogue, NY 116r2-15 and 16
REASON(S) SUPPORTING TIIIS DETERMINATION:
(1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been
submitted ~ich indicates that no significant adverse effects to
the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple-
mented as planned;
(2) The relief requested is not directly related to new building
construction.
(3) The relief requested is an area lot line variance which does
not require further processing under "Type II" Actions of the SEQRA.
Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- August 14, 1986 Regular Meeting
(Environmental Declarations, continued:)
Vote of the Board: Ayes:
Doyen, Douglass and Sawicki.
Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis,
This resolution was d~!y adopted.
UPDATE: Appeal No. 3543 ' PETER AND BARBARA HERZ. St
was th~'c'°~sensus of the board kO hold this matter in abeyance
pending receipt of ~ction after review by the Town Trustees~
UPDATE: Appeal No.'3538 ''JEFFREY'BETTA~N~COURT~ N/s Grand-
View Aven~e, Or.~ent~ '~Z~r~itte~_re~o~.~e~s~expected before
the n6x% advertisi'ng deadline.
UPDATE: Appeal No.~3537 - ROBERT AND SUSAN D"URSO~
Breezy Path, Southold. ~.~was the consensus of the board
to hold this matter .~n abeyance pending receip~ of N·.Y.S~
Department of Environmental Conservation a~diTownnTrustees
action (after formal ap~pli_~ation by the applicants).
MASTER PLAN PROPOSALS: Copies of the Master Plan proposals
were distributed ~to each board member.
There being no other business properly coming before the
board at this t.~me, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowalski~ Secretary
Approved - Gerard ~6e._ 'ringer, ~Chairman
$OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF GEORGE AND PAT BROWN
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3536 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of GEORGE AND PAT BROWN. Variance to the Zoning Ordi-
nance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for per-
mission to construct deck addition to dwelling with Zeduction
of existing nonconforming sideYard. 150 Briarwood Lane,
Cutchogue.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a portion of map of
survey indicating the proposed addition and the proposed deck
which I will talk about in a second. The lot area is approxi-
mately 14 thousand 609 square feet. It should be noted for
the record that the house faces a right-of-way and is off of
Harbor Lane in CutChogue. However, there is so much to the
rear of the property. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the
area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? You
are Mr. Kunst?~
MR. KUNST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you use the mike?
you a couple of questions. How big
is the deck?
I have to ask
MR. KUNST: It's 9 by 12.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 9 by 12. Ok. The patio~, upon visual in-
spection when I was down there, is a ground level patio?
MR. KUNST: Yes sir.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And this is an elevated deck to be
built adjacent to the ground level patio. We very rarely (and
let me be honest with you) grant applications to a reduction of
two feet. Is there some specific reason other that the appli-
cation which of course does address the issue, that you would
like to say?
MR. KUNST: Well, originally the original plans had a patio; a
swing patio just continuing out. After the building permit...
After I put in for the building permit they requested that we
try for this variance just for the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Brown,
w0u]d like to have it one level out of the dining area. That's
basically the only reason they want it raised like that.
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing of George and Pat Brown
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So in effect, what you're saying to me is
it's 11 feet to the property line. It's 9 feet wide and 12 feet
long. Alright. We'll see what develops through the hearin~ and
we'll definitely discuss it before we make a decision. We'll take
everything into consideration. Ok?
MR. KUNST: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak on behalf of the application? Anybody like to speak
against the application? Any questions from Board members? If
there are no further questions, I make a motion~to close the zoning
hearing reserving the decision until later.
Ail in favor - aye.
Transcribed from
(by Linda Kowa]ski).
recorded
cassette tapes
Nad~ia Mo. ore
~t the hearing
~_OUTHOLD TO~N. BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
7:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3477 - Public Hearing Commenced in the
Matter of WILLIAM AND KATHERING HEINS. Variance for approv-
al for insu-ficient area, width and depth of two parcels in
this proposed set-off division. (Recessed from May 22, 1986).
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The next hearing is a recessed hearing.
We have William and Katherine Heins. It has been recessed
from May 22, 1986 and we'll ask Mr. Tohill if he'd like to ad-
dress this Board.
MR. TOHILL. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board.
At this time you should have the supplementary survey of their
entire plot showing the different division line 20 feet further
west from the earlier proposed division lines and also showing
the same cottage and the setbacks; side yard setback and rear
yard setback for the pre-existing same cottage. It also shows,
as you requested, the location of the various fruit trees that
are there on the property and I think that's all you asked for
in supplement of the original record that was established in May.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Could I just ask you a couple of ques-
tions on the survey? Maybe you could come up here so I don't
have to yell. The existing dot which is a dotted line on the sur-
vey is 18 thousand 984 square feet. Is that correct? That's what
we...
MR. TOHILL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Now you've widened it out in more of
a pie. I'm referring to a pie as the dotted line, so it looks
like a pie. 21 thousand 09~. Now, have you gone any farther
than that?
MR. TOHILL: You mean to widen it bigger?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Any farther than that phase?
MR. TOHILL: No. I think that that set, the side yard setback
to the cottage in the back is going to be the tail that wags
the dog on that. That's going to become a problem.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now is that cottage that we're talking
about presently used? Is it inhabited? It's rented.
MR. TOHILL: Right. It's used on a seasonal basis.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is heated?
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing of William and Katherine Heins
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. TOHILL~ It's not heated at all.
been. It's a one-room cottage.
No,
Not now or ever has
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. You see, I had assumed that when I
had seen that 27 thousand 742 square feet. I had assumed that
you had gone farther with the line to bring it over closer to
make the suggestion that the Planning Board had that the lot is
somewhat more evenly distributed.
MR. TOHILL: I don't know that you're going to be able to do
more than what you've got there. The frontage is now 133 on
one and 106 on the other. It's possible to draw the line com-
ing down past the cottage and then angle it to the west. Again,
I'm not sure what anybody is achieving. To be hones% with you,
my intention as an attorney, if I were ever to convey either of
those two parcels, is that I would tie up both sides of whatever
li~e it is probably 20 feet in either direction with effectively
scenic easement prohibiting the property owner who buys from
Heins (if that should ever occur) touching a single tree other
than to replace it or to install another. Because otherwise~
the level of privacy there is going to suffer. I think on a
private negative easement basis by a covenant that runs with
the deed and can even be part of the deed, I think that they're
going to solve the problem of keeping that space exactly the
way it is on their own. Changing the boundary line is another
way of doing it. But if that happens, then it will simply widen
the scenic easement or negative easement area probably from 20
feet on either side of the line to 40 feet on one side to 20
feet on the other. The intention is to leave it exactly as it
is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Let me tell you what my problem is.
The problem is that we are having a joint meeting with the Plan-
ning Board and you know that they have asked for that particular
condition.
MR. TOHILL: True.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I'm going to try and have a joint
meeting with ~e Planning Board around the 27th of the month.
If I close the hearing, then I can't make any further recom-
mendations concerning this. So I don't know that I should
deny this. I think possibly what we should do is recess this
until the next regular scheduled meeting just as a formality.
MR. TOHILL: Do what you were going to say. You're gun shy.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No I'm not gun shy. My point and ques-
tion is; what good does it do you if the Planning Board does
not go along?
Page 3 - August 14, 1986
~ubliC Hearing of William Kathering Heins
Southold To~n Board of Appeals
MR. TOHILL: I agree on that point. What I was going to say
is I can waive at the application the time limitation on mak-
ing a decision. And candidly, there would be times when I
think you would extort that from me in order to give you el-
bow room to permit you to make intelligent decisions on other
than a vacuum of fact and this is one of those situations. So
if you want the waiver, it's there. It's on the record now and
I have no problems with that~ If they want the line furtheri~to
the west, it can be moved further to the west.
where it starts to become . If that area of the
property literally, 20 feet to the east of the solid line over
to the broken line and then 20 feet to the west to an imaginary
line is not there of the solid line, it's never going to be dis-
turbed unless you work within it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand.
MR. TOHILL: I can do and I will do...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
at all?
Did you explain that to the Planning Board
MR. TOHILL: Could I explain that?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you.
MR. TOHILL: No. We were never candidly, we were given an op-
portunity to know that they were going to go out and inspect it
and they gave us a decision and they gave the right decision.
They can't approve this because it's not consistent with the
ordinance. But they did give an interesting concluding line.
And that is; if you think there's a problem in terms of prac-
tical difficulty or hardship here and think that there is, then
even up the lines. But I don't know that they meant that literal-
ly. I really don't know. It would be six of one and a half a
dozen of the other. To even up the lines one one hand or im-
pose a scenic easement restriction on the other.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I've seen the easements written and
I can understand and appreciate what you're saying. My ques-
tion is that I'm just afraid that I'm making the entire thing
steadfast by closing the hearing at this particular point.
MR. TOHILL: I would prefer, and I think you would prefer, not
to close it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct.
MR. TOHILL: That's ok with me.
Page 4 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing of William and Katherine Heins
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok.
MR. TOHILL: I'd rather you did it where you did it where you
didn't~ have to write it into additional Calenders on a formal
basis because that's a lot of extra work for you and the young
lady to your immediate right. If you do it where I waive any
obligation to make a decision within the statuary period, then
you're not mandated to place it on a formal calendar. Decision
would simply follow the course of time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No that's true. The only problem with
that is though, it does preclude any input from anybody else
that may want to place, a surrounding property owner or what-
ever the case may be. And that's the Town Attorney's opinion
on the~issue. And that's where we run into a problem.
MR. TOHILL: And as for them, candidly, this is the second time
it's on. They should be prudent to further comment. And there-
fore the record will be closed except at the option or the in-
stance of the Board who than can supplement the record as they
wish. So that the Board controls the whole thing. And if I
consent to'that, that's completely legitimate. It's done all
the time. You'do it when I'm on that side of the table.
CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: I think what we're going to do is just
recess the hearing on an indefinite...
MS. KOWALSKI: It's not really necessary.
CHAIRMAIN GOEHRINGER: I know it's not really necessary but I
don't want to get yelled out. So on an indefinite~basis.
I will say is this; that we will... I know that the H~ins want
to build on this property,.assuming that we can arrive at some
rather quick decision. As a matter of formality, we will of
course let you know. There's a copy of the agenda that we are
going to have in the formality part of the hearing concluded
at a certain specific date.
MR.' TOHILL: You wanted to see the text of ~he negative ease-
ment or the scenic easement in conjunction with the Planning
Board. Let me know to who, and I will be happy to send it out.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I had seen them from relatives
and where they preclude the property owner from taking down
any trees unless of course they, by their own dispose really.
They die. That's the only reason why.
MR. TOHILL: Removing dead trees could be the only way to re-
move, the only other activity that could occur on the land
without a supplement.
Page 5 -August 14, 1986
Public Hearing of William and Katherine Heins
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that requires another tree to be placed
in its specific spot, Alright. And the reason why I say that is
because of the possiblity that they may not give us an opinion
that night. They may spend a couple of days thinking about it and
there may be a little time in between. I am aware of the fact they
want to construct this house. I know that the builders are sitting
in the back of the room and I have not avoided his telephone calls.
I assure you. It's just that I have not been around that much at
night. I have had some special tasks that my family is requiring
me to do and I don't get home until 9:30/10:90 at night and it's
no'i time to call anybody back, But I am aware of the fact that
they want to construct and they want to do it as quickly as pos-
sible. I know that Fall is starting to roll around, before you
know it it will be Thanksgiving. And so we will do the best we
can to take care of this.
MR. TOHILL: Thank you.
CHAI~4AN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to
speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against
the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no fur-
ther questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to an
indefinite date subject to a meeting with the Planning Board.
Ail in favor - aye.
IF~n$cribed from tapes recorded electronically (by Linda
Kowalski, Board Clerk),
Na, di a- MQore_ _~
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER~OF THOMAS SHALVEY
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
7:52 p.m. Appeal No. 3520 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of THOMAS SHALVEY. Variance for approval of insuffi-
cient area, width and depth of two parcels in this proposed
set-off division. S/s Case Road, Cutchogue.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER. I have a copy of a portion of map of
survey dated May[127~ 1986 indicating the house parcel of 18
thousand 750 square feet and parcel number two of 15 thousand
square feet. And I'm going to add to the record that it is
an area where the parcels are in an area of approximately of
third to one half acre. 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? Mr. Raynor. How
are you.
MR. RAYNOR: Good evening Mr. Chairman of the Board. My name
is Henry Raynor. I am agent for Mr. and Mrs. Shalvey. On the
proposal before you the lots in question were purchased single
and separately over a period of greater than one year. I'm
sure in your correspondence replies to the Planning Board,
recognizes this correspondence letter of June 23rd. The Suf-
folk County Department of Health Services also recognizes
these as two separate and distinct parcels. The variance re-
quest said that the approximate size and configurations of the
existing parcels in the neighborhood and conform to that par-
ticular area. I would like to submit additional copies with
all the information backing up the statement tonight.and with
respect to the request approval upon this variance° I can an-
swer any questions of the Board.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. RAYNOR: I've also got a stamped approval permission of
the article 6 from the health services. I'll give you the
original.
MS. KOWALSKI: I'll take a copy and give you that back.
MR. RAYNOR: Ok. Fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynor, we have been asking people in
this area to kind of sypnopsize the area without a tremendous
amount of work. Although one gentleman did spend about 3 hours
in the Assessors's Office, we're not specifically asking for
that. How many of the lots in the area are in ,single and sepa-
rate ~ownership? In other words, the original subdivision lots.
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing of Thomas Shalvey
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER (Continued)
I'm not asking that question tonight but (you know) maybe in
the next couple of days or a week or so you could supply us
with some sort of information.
MR. RAYNOR: I believe that you will find that upon the origi-
nal transfer from the Case family that by the far, the vast
majority of those lots that have been conveyed single and sepa-
rately, have gone out of what is now the estate and have gone
into single and separate ownership.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:
scribed situation?
Was this a subdivision or was it a de-
MR. RAYNOR: It was a described situation. I'm not particularly
sure how.° I presume it was left over from the estate of Frank H.
Case. Most of these were transferred during the late 50's ahd~he
early 60's.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You think you could give us a count just by
physically looking at it~sometime in the near future2 As I say,
we have no intentions of making a decision within the next week
or two.
MR. RAYNOR: If I'm to understand you, you would request a list-
ing in the surrounding neighborhood of all these held single and
separately ?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MR. RAYNOR: Sure. I would be happy to oblige you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we do then is we compare it to what
we have and we can then make an appropriate decision.
MR. RAYNOR:
Tax Map.
The only source I would have would be the County
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. That's fine. As I said, one person
speCifically did not understand one night and he spent an exten-
sive amount in the Assessor's Office. And we of course appre-
ciated it because it helped us understand the whole situation
a little bit better.
MR. RAYNOR: I'd be more than happy to oblige for them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else
who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody
against this application? Questions from Board. lmembers. Hearing
no further questions. I'll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
(Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically by
L inda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.) ~~oor_~_~.~~
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF ARTHUR AND BERNADETTE BURNS
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
7:58 p.m. Appeal No. 3532 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of ARTHUR an~ BERNADETTE BURNS. Variance to construct
accessory tennis court in the front yard. 3525 Private Road,
~13, Mattituck~
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: lhere is a mad dated May 23, 1986,
showing a one-family dwelling not_indicating a bluff line to
the rear of that which is considered front yard area a brick
patio around an in the ground swimming pool and farther down
the, into the front yard area, a proposed tennis court of 60
by 120, approximately 30 feet from~.the west propertyiline.
And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
the surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody
that would like to be heard?
MR. TOHILL: I've had a lot of trouble with this application.
Normally .i~d prepare at least a half an hour presentation
presented a mile a minute at you and leave you all confused
and puzzled and basically unable to respond. On this one I
am absolutely unable to say anything because in my opinion,
but for the ordinance, this would be a permitted use. The
parcel is 5% acres (as~ you can see) which is three times the
2 acre requirement here in this town. The tennis court is a
regulation size tennis court. It's on the north side not an
east west access. So it's where it's supposed to be. The 30
foot side yard setback is 150% of the largest requirement of
any other municipality in the five eastern towns and all the
villages in the five eastern towns. The Sound front topography
prohibits the location anywhere else on the property. The
tennis court is located where it is proposed to be between a
horse ranch which would be its immediate western neighbor and
a storage building that you approved here some recent months
ago (for Spencer Fischer) as the immediate eastern neighbor.
A large abuttment type of storage building. That's the two
neighbors on either side of the tennis court. I~'s located
(obviously) therefore, to be away from every residence. It
is away from every residence. It's also located so as to
avoid any unnecessary clearance of trees. There wouldn't be
any clearance of trees in that particular location that there
would be anywhere else on the parcel. That is basically the
presentation. I assume that maybe you have questions but I'm
not accustomed to this one. I don't understand why the town
doesn't just go ahead and take a leap into the dark and ap-
prove these things as part of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know that either sir. But I
have to somewhat agree with you except that I find the sur-
vey as incomplete.
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-Arthur and Bernadette Burns
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. TOHILL: The survey?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. And it's incomplete because it does
not tell us how far this proposed tennis court is from the south
property line. So even if we wanted to grant it, we could not
tell you because... Assuming the shed leaves us in some hurri-
cane in the near future and you didn't build a tennis court, then
we would have no idea where this proposed accessory use would be
placed.
MR. TOHILL: Yes. Where the baptism should be etched in the con-
crete. Ok. I will supplement the record by scolding Howie Young
tomorrow morning~and I'll have a letter to Linda in the mail. His
field records would have to show, the field notes included, would
have to show that dimension.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now have you applied for a fence also?
MR. TOHILL: For the pool?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the tennis court?
MR. TOHILL: On the occasion of applying for a building permit,
that would happen for the pool, there has been in the c.o. is
in the process.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Unfortunately it precipitates another
application because most tennis courts require more than a six
foot fence.
MR. TOHILLo We have this candidaly, this is, a tennis ball would
not get far on this property~ The horses would probably retrieve
it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well then let me say it this way. The build-
ing inspector (in his wisdom) considers this to be a front yard area.
Then quite believably, you're only allowed a four foot fence.
MR. TOHILL: I think we may get away with it~or even less.
don't want a lot of fencing.
They
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok.
What type of lighting?
Let's go into the lighting area then.
MR. TOHILL: Is there any? None at all.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because the most recent one we had was~ the
gentleman wanted 35 foot towering lights.
MR. TOHILL: Without the shoe box lights.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So this is a very simple countrified tennis
court.
Page 3 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-Arthur and Bernadette Burns
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. TOHILL: For the family.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the family, right. Ok. We thank you
very much and as long as you give us that information, I'll close
the hearing pending the acceptance of that sir. Would anybody
else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anybody
like to speak against the application? Questions from Board mem-
bers? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision until latero Thank you for
coming in.
Ail in favor - aye.
(Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically by
Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk, during the meeting.)
Nadia ,~MoQne .....
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF GAIL DESSIMOZ AND MICHAEL RACZ
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
8:05 p.m. Appeal No. 3433 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of GAIL DESSIMOZ AND MICHAEL RACZ. Variance for neces-
sary improvements over private R-O-W known as Hallock Lane.
(Private Road #10), Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating
the property dated July 7, 1966 and produced by Roderick Van
Towl, P.C. indicating this long right-of-way which leads from
Sound Avenue to the parcel~which is presently on the Long Island
Sound. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicat-
ing this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there some-
body who would like to be heard? Just state your name for the
record%
MR. RACZ: I'm Michael Racz. Even though you stated this so
quickly, I think I understood most of it. That basically is
our position.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What confused me was that I've seen this
application before. Of course we had only addressed the one is-
sue on this,application which I believe the last time was the
elongation of the building. So I thought I might have been read-
ing the old application~for ai.~moment and that's the reason why I
was somewhat confused and there was some shuffling.
MR. RACZ: We modified the plans to strictly renovate the property
based on that. So now their"question is what do they need to do
that.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We have to address the conditions that
the Town Engineer has placed on the specific enhancement of this
right-of-way. Is there anything that you would like to address
concerning those? Have you received a copy of his?
MR. RACZ: Yes I did. Mr. Harmon, our neihgbor, has made a modi-
fication to the road where he has cut a channel which would pre-
vent~ a lot of those puddles which were there at the time of the
inspection. So the road has already been substantially improved~
as far as that's concerned. In addition I don't know if you had
mentioned that it hadn't posed any type of hazard. The fire de-
partment and the police department have both been able to trans-
verse the road without any difficulty and we are the only people
that would be doing anything at that time. It's a competitive
situation as far as the road is concerned., There's no way that
he can change his watering routine because he has to have his
irrigation come to the edge of the road. So it's going to water
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing - Gail Dessimoz and Michael Racz
Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals
MR. RACZ (continued):
his side of the potato field and it's also going to water the
road. So that's going to be a reoccuring situation. We can
live with it. It doesn't bother us but it's quite a bit bet-
ter.
cHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you remember when I had met you up
there last (couple of years, I guess it was) January; at the
time. I had observed you were in a 4-whell drive vehicle. Is
that correct?
MR. RACZ: Possibly.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because I was in my 4-wheel drive vehicle
at that time and of course the road .... It was passable with a
4-whell drive vehicle at that particular time. That's what we
are specifically concerned with; that 12 months of the year vehi-
cles can get up.
MR. RACZ: Well our neighbor on the right hand side has a standard
1-wheel drive no posy traction Volvo station wagon and he's never
gotten stuck and the people on the left have standard vehicles. I
just... That was a good excuse to get a 4-wheel drive vehicle.
It hasn't really been necessary.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. And there isn't anything in the engi-
neers report that you would like to address as being somewhat pro-
hibiting in your opinion? Something that we might have to address?
MR. RACZ: The prohibited aspect of it is that the cost of construc-
tion of the specification made would exceed the value of what we
plan to do by a factor of maybe 5 not even 3 as
I had mentioned. We just basically want to make that shack safe and
fix holes in the roof and make it look decent because we have to look
at it all the time. It's right in our front yard so to speak and
what he is basically asking us to do is make this basically just a
thoroughfare as far as an accessible
So that's a hardship. I did say that we were unable to use this
house (our c.o. which the shed does have) because of it's condi-
tion. So in a sense, what we had planned on using when we pur-
chased the place, we're not able to fulfill because we haven't
been able to use that for any, not even storage because water
gets. in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you, and I somewhat have mixed emotions
about asking you this question. But have you approached your other
property owners and indicated to them that they prObably have no
right to enter into a building permit with the Town of Southold
without having this particular approval also and maybe they would
consider sharing in some of the cost.
MR. RACZ: Of repairing the road?
Page 3 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing - Gaii Dessimoz and Michael Racz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right.
MR. RACZ: Well I hadn't thought of that because I don't know of
anybody doing any construction. I had spoken to the farmer and
the neighbor next door and they said they were willing to put in
some effort into the road but I doubt they're ever going to bring
it up to this particular standards of resurfacing and making it
entirely a different type of road. Because of the fact that the
farmer's irrigation is just going to make the same condition oc-
cur over and over again. And we don't have any objection to his
doing this. It doesn't make any difference to us - if there's water
there we just go through puddles.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are aware of the conditions that we re-
quire the gentleman just to your east to construct a road. I'm
talking about the conditions that we imposed upon him and then
he had to construct a road based on those particular... I believe
the road is the next one,~to the east of you. My mind escapes me
as to who the... Pardon me.
MR. RACZ: The Lenz property? On the Lenz?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: I believe that was the...
about an extensive renovation here.
So we're talking
MR. RACZ: Exactly. That's my point. That road was in reasonable
condition. But yes it's an extensive renovation but they're talk-
ing about building an entire house not just renovating a shack.
There's a major difference.
CHAIk~AN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We'll definitely look at the area of
the conditions and see what we can do in any case, to help you
out but it is a very lengthy right-of-way. There's no question
about it.
MR. RACZ: It certainly is. I really feel that it is safe and
it is transversib!e. We have had police come where there was a
blackout in the town and they got up and down the road within
five minutes. They resoonded to a false alarm but they did re-
spond and the fire department came and medical enforcements when
there was a chain fire, just a brush fire. It wasn't an active
fire and they got there. We haven't had any problems getting up
and down the road all the time we've been there. Even in the
snow storms.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Thank you very much for coming
in. Nice speaking to you. Is there anybody else who would like
to speak in favor of this application~ Anybody like to speak
against the application? Yes.
Page 4 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing - Gail Dessimoz and Michael Racz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM: My name is Abigail Wickham. I'm not really speak-
ing against the application. I'd just like to make a comment.
I represent Charles Simmons who owns the neighboring farm to the
east and on whose property a portion of this right-of-way, the
easterly portion, is located. He would just like to ask that
during any widening of the roadway if you require that, that the
line of 'shrubbery and trees to the west of his house which has
been there for many years, be avoided as much as possible and
that any widening along that area extend to the west as much as
possible along the phone poles. I didn't get a chance to speak
to the gentleman about it before the meeting but I would hope
that he wouldn't have any objection.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just .....
(TAPE ENDED)
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: .... extremely helpful to have the specific
area. I believe concerning a sign, staked. Possibly Mr. Simmons
can flag those particular areas of concern.
MS. WICKHAM:
so.
I have a survey that shows the trees and bushes al-
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do. You'll give us a copy.
indicate those to us~in coloration or whatever?
Would you
MS. WICKHAM: We have a blow up of that area done specifically for
a Planning Board matter and I think that's what you're looking for.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are they actually sitting within the right-of
way or are they, to your knowledge?
MS. WICKHAM: These are right on the, I would say within 2 feet of
the edge of the right-of-way. SO it is possible if you went over
to the eastern edge of the right-of-way you could wipe them out and
they have been there a long time and they do provide shelter for the
house in terms of wind protection and shade. But the road way, I be-
lieve could be improved to a width of 15 feet without taking them
down.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you very much. Is there any-
thing else you would like to say concerning what Ms. Wickham said?
Wait. You're going to have to use the microphone. We're taking
this down. I'm sorry.
MR. RACZ: I just saying we're hoping we don't have to touch the
bushes at all. But certainly if anybody that is required to do
it, we don't have any objection. But if Mr. Harmon would move
them a few feet to the left. Not at all.
Page 5 - August 14, 1986
PUblic Hearing - Gail Dessimoz and Michael Racz
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. I thank you. Alright. Hearing no
further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and
reserving decision until later.
Ail in favor - aye
(Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronical'ly 'by
Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk, du~ing the meeting~)
Nadia ~Moqre
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTEROFRAYMOND' T.~:GOODWIN
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
8:20 p.m. Appeal No. 3530 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of RAYMOND T. GOODWIN. Variances: (1) to construct
kitchen addition with insufficient W/s setback and insuffi-
cient total sideyards; (2) to construCt kitchen and deck ad-
ditions with insufficient setbacks from highwater mark. 4450
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On behalf of Raymond Goodwin we have a
parcel of property in question which is approximately 28,124
square feet with a proposed addition of, on the westerly side
of approximately 14 by 24 and a concrete patio which is some-
what irregular in size. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area.
The most recent date on the map is May 16, 1986 by Young and
Young. Is there someone that would like to be heard on this
application?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes. I'm Gail Wickham. I represent the appli-
cant. As to the deck, it's merely an attempt to improve over
an existing patio and there is a structure in that location~
now that will be razed by the means of a wooden deck, As to
the addition, uhfortunately in that neighborhood, the~ are
not much in the way of side yards now in most places. This
probably will produce a side yard greater than many of the
houses have now including the neighbors. The purpose of the
addition is to create a kitchen with a small area in the back
for a stairway to the basement that will give them enough' room
to go through the existing door to the side. If you have any
questions, the Goodwin~ are here and either I or they can an-
swer them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When I was down there I did knock on their
door and there was no one home and I observed somebody out in the
boat so I did not actually go around the front of the house which
I really didn't have to do anyway because I could view the exist-
ing patio from the west side. I had trouble understanding without
having the specific addition staked. The west~[rly, property.tine~'ap-
pears to be on quite an angle and I had trouble visualizing 12.7
feet. I would ask you if it not be a problem that they possibly
stake the addition so that we can understand exactly where the
addition is going to be on that side of the house.
~age 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-Raymond T. Goodwin
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM: I can do that. There is a, if you noticed, a wire
fence that does run along the property~and I think there's a
hedge there too.
CHAiR~N GOEHRINGER: Yes, built into the fence.
MS. WICKHAM: So that would give you a good idea of the line and
it's that corner that would be in the closest proximity.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason I ask you that question is; as
you know, we have to allow access (in this particular case) to
the rear yard area. Ok? And we usually determine the access to
be the width of a machine that might be required to get in there
to work on the bulkhead or whatever the case might be. And at
the time I went down there, I did not bring a tape with me and I
was not really confident of the fact that they knew that I was
there. That's why I did not want to start bringing tapes out and
so on and so forth. I believe I did have one in the truck but I
found it a little difficult to see the 12.7 feet. So if they
would just stake it and let us go back there. We can still close
the hearing. There's not a problem there. But I just want to be
able to see that if you wouldn't mind.
MS. WICKHAM: That's not a problem. I think probably from the looks
of the survey, there would be at least a 12 foot clearance. And my
my recollection is that it's fairly level there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. It's not bad.
MS. WICKHAM: At least around the house. Ok. We can do that.
CHAI~{AN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Would you put ....
MS. WICKHAM: Just the addition? You don't want the deck?
CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: Yes. Well the deck is there. Could you
just give us a call either to go in through yourself to tell us
that you've staked it and then several of us will be down. We
may not all be down at one time but we'll be down intermittan~y
and we will definitely try and knock on the door and tell you
that we are there. We thank you very much. Thank you. Is
there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this ap-
plication. Anyone like to speak against the application. Ques-
tions from Board members? I just want to ask you this. This is
a one-story structure; this addition?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Hearing no further questions, I
make a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision un-
til later.
Ail in favor - aye.
(Transcribed from tapes recorded electronically at the meeting
by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.) N~[~(~'~~d~Y'~r~kN~k~q'~%--~
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF JOHN AND JEANNE BREDEMEYER
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
8:28 p.m. Appeal No. 3533 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of JOHN AND JEANNE BREDEMEYER. Variance to locate new
dwelling within 75' of ordinary highwater mark. W/s Bay Ave-
Nue, Orient.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On behalf of John and Jeanne Bredemeyer
I have a copy of survey indicating a parcel dated most recent-
ly May 12, 1986, of somewhat rectangular size. It appears it
is approximately 74 feet to the ordinary high water mark on the
north side 102.44 feet on Bay Avenue, 52 feet on the south side
and 110 feet along the bulkhead which faces somewhat due west.
And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that
would like to be heard?
MS. WICKHA~4: My name is Gail Wickham and I represent the
Bredemeyers. They have owned this property for many years. This
is the first opportunity they've had to build on it. And unfor-
tunately there have been probably every:~3regula~o~yckh~get~hat
could have been made has been made in the interim that they have
owned the property. The lot is just very small but it appears to
be the last buildabte in the area. My client did sketch out and
I'd like to give you a copy of a rough diagram that he's made of
the surrounding properties along the waterfront showing that most
of the houses are located in this type of a position relative to
the Bay. In fact, the Health Department was, in making their ap-
proval, did note that the wells and cesspool for this property
were further from the Bay than any other property with the possi-
ble exception of this farm's next door. Their weltl is also right
on the front edge of the property. If you have any questions, I'll
try to answer them for you.
CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: What is the width of the proposed dwelling?
MS. WICKHAM: The depth is...
CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: I'm sorry.
I know that it really is depth.
I keep referring to it as width.
MS. WICKHAM: The depth is 22 feet.
CHAIRMAN GEOHRINGER: Ok. And the length.
MS. WICKHAM: 57. That includes the garage.
page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-John and Jeanne Bredemeyer
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That includes the garage.
MS. WICKHAM: Right. Which is approximately 22 by 22~and that is
a building of 1254 square feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. And that's a two-story structure?
MS. WICKHAM: A salt box.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A salt box.
MS..~ WICKHAM: Yes. It's a modest size lot. They've designed it
because the lot is. small and they didn't want it to stick up like
a sore thumb. I've seen a rendition of it in this... It's a New
England salt box. I think it will look very nice in the neighbor-
hood.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a problem with closing this hearing
Ms. Wickham. And I have it because we don't ordinarily deal with
applications in this particular manner; this size configuration.
And we have only recently granted (within the last year and a
half) a building (I won't even call it a dwelling) on a piece of
property similar to this. And it took us a tremendous amount of
time looking at the specific piece of property and understanding
the bulkheading situation, the elevation situation and the over-
all way that a house can and most feasibly will be constructed on
a piece of property-of this nature. With your client's indulgence,
I'm going to ask the Board tonight not to close this hearing. We
want to look at the one that we did grant and we want to go back
at the same time and look at this specific piece and possibly have
the continuation of the hearing at the next regular scheduled meet-
ing.
MS. WICKHAM: Was that other parcel on the water?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MS. WICKHAM: Unfortunately they just don't have anywhere to go
as far as the back yard. I can tell you (and you may remember
from your inspection) that that is an old concrete bulkhead. It
has been there for many many years. Mr. Bredemeyer tells me that
when we had these most recent terrential rains, there was no prob-
lem on that lot. There were on in fact, his property which is to
the east of that on the other side of Bay Avenue and many of the
other areas. It's probably actually higher than some of the Orient
property. I have house plans if that would help you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, definitely.
MS. WICKHAM: What they are planning to do around the cesspool area
is to put up shallow, not shallow but low retaining walls to help
bring them up a little bit and retain their fill. 'And also around
Page 3 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-John and Jeanne Bredemeyer
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM (continued):
the the foundation area (as we told the trustees who granted a
permit) the slopes would not exceed one foot and three feet.
So that the runoff (any runoff) would not take soil with it.
If there is anything else you want to see, we can certainly help
you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take a copy (definitely) of the plans
with us and within the next couple of weeks we'll go over there
and take a look at this-again, together.
MS. WiCKHAM: The trustees did not suggest or not suggest, they --~
required that the driveway and parking area be porous construction
so that there would not be a runoff problem and that we take such
matters to prevent runoff.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There are no open decks extending out toward
the water or toward the road on this second story?
MS. WICKHAM: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. We thank you and if you'll supply us
with plans, we'll recess this until...
MS. WICKHAM: We haven't done a grading elevation yet i can see.
Take a look at that. And after your next inspection, Mr. Brede-
meyer is generally down there and maybe he can go over these a
little bit better.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to
speak against the application? Questions from the Board members?
Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing this
hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Ail in favor - aye.
(Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the
meeting by Linda Kowalski~ ZBA Clerk.)
Nadia. Moore
~SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF MICHAEL HERBERT
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
8:40 p.m. Appeal No. 3539 - Public Hearing cormmenced in the
Matter of MICHAEL HERBERT. Special Exception to establish
"Bed and Breakfast" use, renting of not more than three rooms,
and provided for not more than six casual, transient roomers.
796 Pike Street, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: App]Jcat~0R for Special Exception Use,
the application reads as .f~ollowm: Special Exception to es-
tablish "Bed and BreakfaSt'' use, renting of not more than 3
rooms, and provided for not more than six casual, transient
roomers. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I
have a sketch of the survey which was done by Briarcliff land-
scaping on 7/30/86 indicating the house and the property and
a~ floor plan of the house. Would somebody like to be heard?
Can I ask someone to close those back doors if you wouldn't
mind? Thank you.
MS. MOORE: As the application states, Mr. Herbert comes be-
fore you for a special exception bed and breakfast use which
is now permitted by Local Law ~5 just adopted this year. The
special exception requires the Board to act on some reasonable
basis in adopting the general purposes of the resolution. That
is the standard that you have in here. As we requested in our
application, Mr. Herbert seeks your approval to rent 3 rooms on
the second floor of his residence. He will accomodate no more
than 6 guests and that's what we have applied for. We hope that
this will be considered a model bed and breakfast application and
set guidelines for further bed and breakfast applications. We'd
like you to consider certain things. First, is the location. We
are in the heart of the residential, we are not in the heart of
the residential neighborhood. We're on the fringe of commercial
center. Adjacent zones to the east/west and .to the south are B1
and sea light and industrial is on the north. We are within in
walking distance of the Mattituck business area and we're con-
veniently located for both shopping and for bus and railroad
transportation. Pike Street, as the application states, is con-
venient and travel through streets from Love Lane on the west and
Wickham Avenue on the east. Also we hope that you will consider
the support of the community. Neighbors were/invit~d~i~du~ing:~the
early Spring and they were impressed by the care which was taken
by Mr. Herbert to restore this old home. Mr. Herbert has been
open with the neighbors as to his intentions and has encouraged
them to interact and show their interest. I have here 6 letters
from both adjacent property owners, f~om'ithe property owners
across the street and to the property owners adjacent to the ad-
jacent property owners. So in all, we have 6 letters which state
~age 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-Michael Herbert
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM (continued):
that they are in favor of this application and there was no arm
twisting there. They were favoring it all along.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MS. WICKHAM: The neighbors, recognize that he has improved the
quality of the neighborhood by restoring this home. And since
the bed and breakfast enterprise depends on the quality of the
accomodations, there are nO threats that the house will deterio,
ate once we hope that you will give us the approval that we re-
quest. We hope you will consider the design of the interior of
the home.when you have bed and breakfast applications before you.
We ask that or invite you that if you would like to inspect the
inside of Mr. Herbert's home as well as the outside to see that
it is the proper layout and design for bed and breakfast estab-
lishment. He's very proud of the care he took to make this a
comfortable and safe accomodation for his guests. We ask that
you'note that on the diagram that was presented to you the layout
of the house. There are two stairs which provide safe exits in
case of an emergency. One in the front of the house and one in
the rear. So there is adequate exits. The living quarters are
very large and spacious and there's an abundance of parking,~ As
you note on the diagram, there are five spaces which are 10 by 20
in the back of the house, a garage which provides another parking
space. And diagonally across from the home is the Mattituck munici-
pal parking lot~ if there were any reason to have any more than
those spaces. We recognize that the bed a~d breakfast use is a
new use and will require careful consideration by this Board but
we would request that and ask .that you make a prompt decision be-
cause the bed and breakfast establishment is a seasonal enterprise
and he's anxious to begin. Any questions you have?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As YOu know, we did turn down an application
prior to this and I personally said at a public hearing before the
Town Board that I was not opposed to this particular application
but did not have a vehicle to grant it at that particular time.
Mr. Herbert might find several of us knocking at his door in the
next few weeks. Myself will be one of them and we may tour the
house and we may just tour the grounds°but I will definitely be
over~,and we will make every attempt to give you an expeditous.
decision.
MS. WICKHAM: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody lik~ to speak
against this application? Questions from Board members? Hearing
no further questions, I'll make a motion to close this hearing
reserving decision until later~
(Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the
meeting by Linda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk.)
Nadia Moo~e
SOUTHOLD'TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF JOHN J. NEWMAN
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
8:50 p.m. Appeal No. 3442 - Public Hearing commenced in the'
Matter of JOHN J. NEWMAN. Variance to construct additions
within 75' of highwater/bulkhead at James Creek. 430 Sailors
Needle Road, Mattituck.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the
record.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Upon application of the applicant for
a variance to construct additions within 75' of highwater/bulk-
head at James Creek. I have a copy of survey produced by Roderick
Van Towl, P.C. last date; May (excuse me) August 5, 1986 was the
latest date~which indicates the house, pool, cabana, garage, light-
house, etc. And a shaded in area of the proposed addition on what
t would consider to be the east and west sides of the house. And
I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrOunding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would
like to be heard?
MS. WICKHAM: Gentlemen, my name is Gail Wickham and I represent
Mr. Newman who is proposing actually what is a very small addition
in relation to the extent of the buildings now on the property. I
have for you tonight because it might help you, some photographs ~
that were taken of the property that show the extent of the pro-
posed addition on the one side and the covered deck on the other
side of the existing patio. The photographs are numbered and I'm
not giving you a sequential numbers because he took a lot of photo-
graphs and I don't think you'll need them all. Number one; is taken
from the south and it shows the exisitng fence and patio and the metal
frame of what is a covered canapy that they put over the patio as
well as the stakes which you can see which will mark the end of the
covered deck and those stakes are within the bounds of the fence
that's been there. So that's not really going to intrude any more
than the existing, what's there existin~ now. I also have some in
photograph number three; the same view but a little bit further away
which will show that the impact overall is going to be insignificant
in terms of the rest of the yards surrounding it. And I also have a
photograph showing the line along.the concrete bulkhead on the east
side which indicates prettY good vegetation has been built up there
and there's also a lot of lawn in the interim. Also what's Shown
in this photograph number 8 is taken on the west side. That shOws
the butkheading, the plantings and the stakes marking the line of
the proposed addition. As you may be aware, there are covenants in
Salt Lake Village that prohibit any two-story buildings. So the
structure will be no more than a story and a half high° So it will
not be a towering type of manifest. The hardship is that this proper-
ty is on a peninsula and there is virtually no way to go that's not
~Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing- John J. Newman
Southold aTDwn Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM (continued):
within 75' feet of the boundary line but they are fully bu!kheaded
and we don't anticipate, according to the waiver by the trustees
and the D.E.C. permit that there is going to be any kind of environ-
mental detriment to this property. If you have any questions, I'll
see if I can answer them for you~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Were you required to go to the town trustees
with this application?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes. We stated that on the waiver. On two occasions,
there are two plans. We got a waiver on the first plan. Mr. Newman
did that directly and then a second waiver with respect to the deck.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was a question as to lot coverage. The
question that was. There was basically two questions but I under-
stand one has been taken care of concerning the addition of the pool
decking area to the-house. That specific situation I understand has
been taken care of. However, it has been brought to our attention
that the pool and the decking area around the pool had not been cal-
culated within the lot coverage figure that we have before us.
MS. WICKHAM: What is the last date of your map that you have there?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have .... This is the most...
MS. WICKHAM: We've been through this with the Building Department
so many times in the interim. I believe it has been taken care of.
CHAiRMA~ GOEHRINGER: Ok. I didn't even look at the last map.
apologize because we just got this one.
I
MS. WICKHAM:
problem.
Four feet I think off the building to eliminate the
CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: So we are exceeding the lot coverage by 2.4
percent. Ok. So that takes care of whatever the question was con-
cerning one of the neighbors that was questioning the excessive lot
coverage. Ok. And they are welcome to come in and look at this
specific new map so that they can understand where the excesses are.
Ok. We've taken care of that.
MS. WICKHAM: On-that issue I do want to point out that the Build-
ing Department informed us that the deck around the pool, because
of the elevation and the length of the grade, need not necessarily
be taken into account initially. We went through that with Mr.
H~nde~ma~ quite extensively. So a great portion of that lot cover-
age is in that deck which is very low to the ground and does not
stick up in an obtrusive fashion.
Page 3 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-John J. Newman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are~there any tie backs from the existing
bulkhead that would be penetrated by the proposed construction.
MR. LYNCH: No.
MS. WICKHAM: This is the builder, Mr. Lynch and he's been on .
this project from the very beginning.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know. I've ridden by the house many
times by boat and I have seen all of the permit numbers on the
one side of the house. In fact, I have never seen so many per-
mits on one job in my life. i
MR. LYNCH: You're right.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What type of overall (unfinished statement)--
MS. WICKHAM: Mr. Lynch said the deadmen wi]] not be a pr0b]em~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What type of penetration would exist con-
cerning the new construction or the new proposed construction
to the overall ground cover? Will it cause any leeching into the
water at all? Are you going to do it with a crane? Are you going
to do it with a backhoe? What are you going to do when you go and
place the cement?
MS. WICKHAM: ¥0u'retalking about footings and...
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Footings and so on and so forth.
MR. LYNCH: Well at the moment, pilings are contemplated supporting it because
~he present structure has settled in the ground and we've
pilings that was c0ntemp~.ated so it won't be a straing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you intend to use pilings instead of
a regular cement foundation.
MS. WICKHAM: Yes. That's been reviewed with the D.E.C. als0.
MR. LYNCH: The original addition that we're going to knock down
was put on approximately 20 years ago. So before the new work,
we don't want that happening again. So it's proposed to put it
on pilings.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was one other question I had but it's
escaped me at this particular time. We'll continue with the hear-
ing to see if there's anything else.
Page 4 - August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-John J. Newman
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MS. WICKHAM: He just wanted to indicate that they have permis-
sion to do that.
MR. LYNCH: We've already driven pilings on the job already.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that. We're just... You have
to realize that I'm verbalizing concerns that people have expressed
to me-concerning this particular job. We do have a letter in the
file from people within the area that have specific concerns about
this job. So what I'm doing is very simply asking questions that
after reading the letters, they have concerns about and that I have
concerns about after reading their letters. Therefore, I am in uni-
son with them to a certain degree and we're very simply asking spe-
cific questions to try to get an answer~ to those particular areas.
I'm extremely familiar with the property. I knew the Griffiths for
many years. I've boated in James Creek for many years and hopefully
we'll be able to for many years to come. Let me continue with the
hearing and see what else develops and I'll see if I can remember
that other question that I had. I thank you very much for coming
in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any
questions from Board members. Bob, do you have any concerns con-
cerning this particular job?
MR. DOUGkA$$: No. I've been up there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You've been up there.
MR. DOUG[A$S:That's because I work right next to them.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Alright. I guess that about wraps it
up. We thank you for coming in and I'll close the hearing.
MR. LYNCH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing reserving the decision until later.
Ail in favor - aye.
Transcribed from cassette tapes recorded electronically at the
meeting by Linda Kowalski, Z~A Clerk.
Nadia MQore
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF N.F. FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING
9:00 p.m. Appeal No. 3535 - Public Hearing commenced in the
Matter of N.F. FR'IENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL. Variance to use
premises for a special fundraising event in conjunction with
ireworks displ'aly~ 895 N~ Bayview Roads SouthQldo
~The Chairman -re~d the legal notice and application for the
record. ~
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a portion of map of
a greaten portion of the LaMorte Property indicating in
yellow the existing driveway areas and the areas of parking,
and the fireworks staging area for the event. And I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that
would like to be heard?
BILL McGUNNIGLE- Good evening. My name is Bill McGunnigle
and I represent the North Fork Friends of Ken Tuthill. I
have you a~cover 16tter co~vering the event as you clearly
explained. All we're doing is we are having a party, a
fireworks display, a dance, to raise money for Ken and his
Family. I brought my cover letter with me and I'd just like
to know if there are any questions-maybe I could answer them
for you.
CHAIRMAN: Would you like to read the cover letter maybe into
the record?
MR. McGUNNIGLE: Yes, please. Southold Town Zoning Board of
Appeals. Attention Mrs. Kowalski. The North Fork Friends
of Kenyon Tuthill have submitted a variance permit to hold
a fundraising event on August 29, 1986 from 7 to 11 p.m.
Grucci Fireworks will be displayed at the event and proper
procedures for holding the fireworks display according to
law shall be strictly upheld. The event will be held on the
property of William LaMorte, North Bayview Road and Pine Neck
Road, S6uthold~ New York. We have heretofore delivered a
survey of said premises to your office. We're going to have
400 people attend this event w~h will also consist of
dancing, music, alcoholic beverages~ hors d'oeuvres. The
Tolendal Inn and Half Shell Republic, formerly known as the
Coach Stoppe, will cater this event with professional bartenders
Page 2 August 14, 1986
Public Hearing-N.F. Friends Ken Tuthill
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. McGUNNIGLE (continued):
in attendance. Parking will be provided for 200 cars, in-a
270 by 180 ft. plot adjacent to an open field, for a total of
43,200 sq. ft., which will provide parking for 200 vehicles,
10 by 20 per car--see survey supplied for diagram of parking
area. Parking will be directed by volunteers. A tent will
be erected near the parking area. The size of the same will
be approximately 100 by 75 feet and a dance floor will be
placed beneath the same. Portable toilet facilities will
be provided for a total of six. Access and egress to the
event will be via paved two-way driveway located on Pine Neck
Road, as well as an asphalt two-way driveway on North Bayview
Road--see attached surves? The event will _be supervised by
50 volunteer police officers and by on-du, ty police officers
as well. There will be no minor under 21 yea~s of age in
attendance. Appropriate insurance for the fireworks display
insuring Southold Town, the property owner, as well as the
Grucci Family has been arranged. I have my copies of the
insurance, and I also have the fireworks permit.
CHAIRMAN: Do you have ~opies for us?
MR. McGUNNIGLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN: Wonderful. Can we have them. (Mr. McGunnigle
gave copies of the insurance policy and showed the fireworks
permit,, which the Secretary said is on file withlthe office.)
Thank you very much, Sir. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak in favor of the event? Against the event?
(None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision until later.
Thank you very much for coming in.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Kowals~ki, Secretary
Southold Town Board of Appeals
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF BECKY JOHNSTON-APPEAL NO. 3478
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986
9:20 p.m. Public Hearing commenced in the Matter of Becky Johnston.
Variances for: (1) Building Inspector to issue building permit
allowing existing structure to be weatherized only, prior to final
280-a approval, and (2) necessary improvements over private right-
of-way extending from the north end of Bridge Lane Extension, and
Oregon Road, Cutchogue, New York.
The Chairman read the legal notice and application for the record.
Present in behalf of the application were the applicant, Becky
Johnston, and her attorney, Michael J. Hall, Esq.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated December 26,
1984 by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating this particular property
and the access to it; and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax
map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. For
the record and for the public, we upheld this particular application
in abeyance pending court action. We have at the request of the
attorney for the applicant held this hearing in order to work out
some sort of an agreement to allow her to winterize her house for
the purposes of winterizing it. And that is the reason for the
timeliness of the actual receipt of the application. Mr. Hall
would you like to be heard? '
MICHAEL J. HALL, ESQ.: Thank you, yes. Before I start my presenta-
tion, which I have to make, I just want to qualify it a little bit.
If I'm a little harsh tonight, it's because Becky Johnston's
situation over the past six months has gone from bad to worse to
ridiculous. At this present time, the courts have taken a step
to resolve it. It's not finally resolved, but I need immediate
action from the board so it doesn't get still worse. Ok.
As the board may or may not be aware, my client, Becky JohnsTon,
purchased the house which is the subject of tonight's application
from Fay Parr in February of 1985. A year and a half ago, for the
sm of $195,000. Since that time, my client has been paying mortgage
payments of $1,941.00 and has of course paid the taxes on the house
which were approximately $1,500.0'0 a year. When she purchased the
house, she received a Certificate of Occupancy #Z13247 dated
March 6, 1985, for nonconforming premises containing quote "seasonal
one-story wood-framed dwelling with platform and steps to beach"
end quote. I state this because it's important tonight that the
board recognizes we are dealing.with a preexisting dwelling and not
with the erection of a building, Which is the only relevant language
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing-Appeal Ne. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. HALL (continued):
in Section 280-a of the Town Law. I say that because my research
very recently leads me to believe that the board might not even
have jurisdiction, and that's the bi-g wrench in the works.
It's also important that the board recognizes that there has
been uninterrupted access to this property and to the house
thereon since at least 1944. Ail right. We think it goes back
to the 20's but we don't know.
CHAIRMAN: You would have to give us sworn testimony.
MR. HALL:
need be.
I have an affidavit in my file from Becky Johnston if
In about December of 1985, my client applied for a building
permit to do substantial renovations to the house that was there,
and that although the building plans were approved, the building
permit was denied solely on the basis of 280~a approval of ingress
and egress. Admittedly my client commenced work based on my
opinion that 280-a approval was' pro forma and would be simple
to obtain, and that Becky Johnston would just need 280-a approval
for a C.O. for the renovation. In February 1986, I submitted the
280-a application to this board.
The plot thickened when in March of 1986 the Bokina family,
who owns the right-of-way over which we need access to get to the
house, when the Bokina family erected fences at two points along
the access road to the property. It' was' also at this time that
the building department asked of my client to stop work on the
house. Work immediately stopped, and the house has not been
worked on for six months since that date.
At this time, at the time the work was stopped, the roof
was merely covered with plywood and were the sides of the house,
and there was also scaffolding erected and there's many openings
where there should be windows and doors. I have pictures here
which I am going to present to the board which were taken three
weeks ago, which is the presemt state of the house, which is
exactly the same state the house was in back in March of this year.
It's important that the board sees that there is not only
open windows all over the house, but there is also completely
open walls that .are exposed to the.'weather. The reason here we
are asking for quick action is because every time when these
Pag~ 3 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing-Appeal No. 3478
SouthoId Town Board of Appeals
MR. HALL (continued):
thunderstorms happen, the place is taking five steps backwards.
It's really getting bad.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. HALL: Correction. Those photogr'aphs were taken by Becky
Johnston early April. They do reflect the present state of the
house. Nothing has been changed. None of the scaffolding has
been taken down. Nobody has been up there except Becky Johnston
to take those photographs. I wanted the board to know that for
two reasons. It's a serious deterioration problem. There's also
a hazard for children.
On June 25, 1986, Supreme Court Judge Thomas N. Stark issued
a temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining Jenny
Bokina for agents, servants and employees from blocking ingress
and egress from my client's property. However, the property is
still in the same dangerous and vulnerable state it was left in
in March, pending the issuance of a building permit, and continues
not only to deteriorate from the weat'her, but' also to be an
attractive and hazardous site for vandals, and ~t also cost my
client in excess of $2,000.00 a mont'h. It's costing that much
just to sit there.
The purpose of tonight's application is to ask this board to
grant relief from 280-a of the Town L~w so that the Building
Inspector can issue a permit to at least weatherize this structure.
As I stated earlier, I have my own doubts given the fact that we're
dealing here with a 40~year old house and not with new construction
on vacant land, as to whether 280,a applies. The law clearly
states as follows and I'm quoting from Section 280-a. I know
you're probably very familiar with it.
"No building permit for the erection of any building
shall be issued ....
The law does not apply to existing structures and does not state
for example, that no form~- applies to improvements or renovations
or extensions. It appli'es to construction on land. I went through
all the Supreme Court cases that follow Section 280-a, and in no
case do they apply it to anything but new construction. I think
it's relevant because there are vacant lots on a similar right-of-way
That may very well have to come before you guys from scratch because
they're starting with a vacant parcel. Here we have an old house
Pag6 4 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. HALL (continued):
that's been access for many, many years. If the board determines
tonight that it does have jurisdiction, then it also has juris-
diction and I also quote from 280'a,
"make any-reasonable exception and issue the permit subject
to conditions that will protect any future street or
highway layout .... "
I'f the board is hesitant to.act based on the ongoing court case,
regarding the location or even the 'existence of the right-of-way,
I can only state that for the present the Supreme Court has given
my client unobstructed access, and that even if at a future date
the Supreme Court determines that there is no access, then the
issuance of a permit is irrelevant any way rand construction would
stop in spite of any action by this board or the building depart-
ment. In other words, if you issue a permit, and she goes in
there and puts a roof on and siding, based on the temporary
restraining order~ and if the Supreme Court and in its infinite
wisdom a year from now or five years from now says, "Sorry we
don't think there's a right-of-way," you guys haven't done any-
thing wrong. You had the provisional relief from 280-a based
on the present court order.
Finally, I ask t'he board to come to an immediate decision
on this question either by not taking jurisdiction and therefore
giving the building department authority to issue a building
permit, or by granting conditional exception from Section 280-a,
pending both the final resolution of the right-of-way issued and
completion of the right-of-way in accordance with the report by
Engineer Davis dated AUgust 7., 1986. My client has a real,
serious hardship here and I therefore request immediate action.
CHAIRMAN: Before you sit down, I think we addressed this issue
when you came before us requesting this hearing. We are not
granting any special permit.
MR. HALL: I know that.
CHAIRMAN: What we in effect have in our file is a Notice of
Disapproval from the Building Inspector indicating that your
client needs 280-a. All we would very simply do, possibly, is
grant conditional improvements to what we purport to have in
front of us, which is a traveled road--a portion of it--
Page 5 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston-Appeal No. 3478
SouthoId Town Board of Appeals
MR. HALL: That's all I'm asking.
CHAIRMAN: --Of which a portion of which is not traveled, ok? We're
not indicating that there is a right-of-way--
MR. HALL: I know that.
CHAIRMAN: We're not indicating that a right-of-way exists. We're
not even saying that the right-of-way when the doors are open on
the barn can be gotten~rough, Ok?
MR. HALL: I understand that too.
CHAIRMAN: So please remember. We're not granting a special permit
MR. HALL: I understand that. But you do have the power to say,
"Mr. Building Inspector, Mr. Lessard or whoever~, you may issue a
building permit and you can issue a conditional, to weatherize,
maybe roofing, siding and windows, as you can see it needs a lot
of work, or you can issue an unconditional permit with conditions
suppose, such as, building-no occupancy-until the final right-
of-way issue is resolved, and the 280-a is brought up to the
inspector's and to the board's approval. I understand that.
Thank you. My client, Becky Johnston, would like to make a
brief statement.
CHAIRMAN: Sure.
BECKY JOHNSTON: Because of the distressing nature of this whole
issue to me, I've written a brief statement which I would like
to read to the board. I'm here tonight to ask your help in
getting my house completed. Because of the right-of-way
dispute, the building on the house stopped on March 17th. Since
that time, the house has remained in serious disrepair. As you
can see from the pictures, the house has no front door or a
garage or outside siding or shingles on the roof. This is
meant the house has been opened to the elements as well as
vandalism. My builder has not been back to the house since
March 17th. So I don't as yet have an estimate from him as
to the water and wind damage to the house, but' I suspect
because of the several very bad'storms that we.'ve had that
the damage has been considerable. FUrther costs which are
substantial to me are due to the fact that as the house
presently exists, I cannot use it myself, rent it, or refinance
it. In summary, the and monetary costs are rapidly.
Page 6 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
BECKY JOHNSTON (continued):
escalating as the house remains in its present condition. Emo-
tionally, I am exhausted and'.drained by this on-going nightmare.
While the right-of-way issue is being resolved in the courts, I
hope you will grant me a building permit so that construction
can be resumed and the house protected. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, can I say one more thing for the record?
YoU said you would need some testimony as to the age of the house.
At the very least, the preexisting C.O. tells you as a matter of
record that the house was existing since before 1957.
CHAIRMAN: I knew the house was there, ok, but I don't think you
can 3ust make a statement like that without being backed up with
some sort of-- I wasn't criticizing your statement. Ail right,
hearing the side in favor of this application, we'll anybody else
in the audience if they would like to speak in favor of it? (No one)
AnYone to speak against it? Mr. 'Cardinale.
PHIL CARDINALE, ESQ.: My name is Phil Cardinale, and I represent
the Bokinas in regard to this matter. I think you have in front
of you the VanTuyl survey?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do.
MR. CARDINALE: Ok. To begin with--Mi.chael's arguments. We have
great sympathy with Becky Johnston's plight and her plight is
basically a result of disingenuousness on the part of the seller
to her--the Parrs. She bought the property as indicated in the
VanTuyl map. There existed a mapped record right-of-way 16 feet
going north, and then changing to 20 feet that ends unfortunately--
you'll see it at the middle of that 20" right-of-way there--ends
unfortunately at a corner two or three hundred feet from her lot.
The Parrs apparently--there's no dispute about this--they did in
fact travel obviously since they had a house, from the 16' area
into their own lot. They did so on oral permission from the
Bokina family, presumably because they didn't want to clear the
2.0' right-of-way to the north, Which is incidentally covered
as per your inspector's report, trees, and pretty well grown-up
trees too. So, in fact as is evidenced in affidavits of the
Bokinas in the Supreme Court action--in fact they have requested
the Parrs at various times a formal e~sement over the southerly
Pag~ 7 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CARDINALE (continued):
portion of the Bokina property, south of the 20' right-of-way and
the Bokinas have declined it. Incidentally as recently as 1979
I think your board had it before them as a matter of fact. The
raeburn-Murphy property directly to the west of this property,
the Parr, now Johnston, property, had sought through their
attorney, Mr. Stankevich, to have the Bokinas deed over an
easement continuing the 20' right-of-way, which was unused to
the Murphy and Raeburn's to get them To the end of their
properties. They declined again to sign anything, noting that
an oral permission was sufficient for many years, and that's
all they are willing to give. The result of that was that this
20' right-of-way on the map here was created for access to the
Murphy-Raeburn property.
Now, we have no problem with whatever improvements the
board dee ms appropriate to the 16' right-of-way and the 20'
right-of-way. Until it reaches that point where it ends.
Which is in the case of Mrs. Johnston at the point where it
takes that hard left into the newly created 20' right-of-way
for access to the Raeburn-Murphy piece. Whatever happens
there--
CHAIRMAN: Will you show me where?
MR. CARDINALE came up to the dias~ That;s where the Johnston
right-of-way ends. That's where everybody's right-o~cwa.y
ends. It's where the record r~ght-of-wa~ ends~-eve~ybo'dy
agrees to that. The 20~ right-of,way was crea~ed b~_ Raeburn
and Murphy because they knew they didn't have access to the
end Of their properties. If they were going to split the
lot, they had to have access to the second lot. At that
time, they asked him and were refused a formal easement.
I have some papers in my file prepared by Stankevich presented
on behalf of Raeburn and Murphy to the Bokina family, and
which they declined to sign. They have had similar discussion
with the Parr family and had declined to sign a formal easement.
What I'm saying is, up to this point, where either the Johnston
right-of-way or the Murphy-Raeburn right-of-way ends, the
Bokinas and I have no problem with whatever the board deter-
mines as necessary to insure th6.~safe~y of the public as far
as improvement. They have no problem with that at all~ What
Page 8 August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CARDINALE (continued):
we do have a problem is the board approving access from the point
where the right~6f-way ends to the home. Because to do that, the
board would have to approve access and would have to dictate
conditions as to improvement of property, which is not the property
of the applicant. It's the p~gperty of the Boki. nas~ and it ~s
unencumbered by any record r_~.ght.-o~r..w'ay.. The j%st of the Supreme
Court action is that everybody agrees to what I"m sayings and
everybody agrees that the Non%h end of the right~.of-.Way sho~d be
cleared whebe that 20~ is covered 'by ..foliage and it should be
brought down to that point. The problem is w"hen you get to the
point that I just pointed out-to .you~ the only w6y that-'Becky
Johnston is going to get to her ~.roper'ty is to establish a
prescriptive easement, that is open, adverse and hostile use
of that right-of-way for a statutory period, or to establish
that ~he has a right over the Raeburn~Murphy property by the
continuation of their 20' right-of-way
The Order that was elud'ed to by Mike is not the (so OCl~ude)
of anyth~.ng. It is a temporary restraining order which is what
is called an ex parte order. It's an order that is issued
without both sides being there. It was simply that Judge Stark
was handed a request to issue a temporary restraining order
based upon the problem that exists pending a preliminary injunc-
tion here. We are in the process now, in fact we expect a
decision hopefully in the next week or so to the issue of
whether a preliminary injunction would be issued pending the
open resolution of the matter~ The-fact is that we have
~ndicated in our return papers that~we are anxious to resolve
the matter now, that we do not want to run around and argue
about preliminary injunctions and temporary re~%raining orders,
and we're ready to t'ry the issue~ If they can establish a
prescriptive easement over the last 300 feet which they're
asking you, now, to tell them h6w to do to keep you happy,
as long as you end it at the point the right-of,way ends.
If you give them perml-s~sion to improve the rest of it, you're
giving them permission to improve Bokina property., which they
hope to use for a farm.
CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something?
MR. CARDINALE: Yes.
Pag~ 9 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know this is difficult to understand, and I'm
going to try to explain. We in no way would ever ask anybody
to place a right-of,way or an improvement, set of improvements
over anything that didn't~ that we didn't think they had legally
the right to do. The point in question is here, all we are doing
is setting conditions based upon an engineering rep~ort, ok. And
that engineering report we can either take verbatim, we can modify,
we can critique~ we can caveat~ re'can cut out, we can eHjoin~.~we
can doing anything we want with it, all right2 Assuming we can
Ii. ye with the way_we change itc_ And that's what we have to deal
with. Based upQ~ those condi, tions, i-'f~ th'ese people choose to do
that, ok~ we have no control over it~. All they b?ought before uss
is an application to say to us~ grant us a 2807a, based upgn
certain conditions~ Wh~t W~.I] Zgu consider the minimum condi-
tions for a temporary 280~a~__or a specific amount of time, all
right. Now that time may be a 100 years. They may not go any
farther with this house~._ok. But we are not suggesting %hat
they even do these conditions. All we're doing is addressing
what the conditions may be if they want to do the conditions~
MR. CARDINALE: Yes. '~ have no-- if you look at the Davis report,
I ~on't~ have..~ahy._ problem with the repprt~. The right-of-way'ends
though, what are we going to do at the point that it ends? It's
not going to do any good to tell Miss Johnston that she can improve
the right-of-way to the point that it ends. Because, I guess, the
board could actually do that, and I don't think we'd have any big
problems. I could encourage you because we would like to get the
right-of:way in its right place and stabilized. The problem is,
even if you give them 280~a access to that point, she's not going
to get to her house. She cannot get to her house. I suppose the
board could give--approve the 280-a access up to the point the
record right-of=way exists on your maps~ As improved by' Davis~
And then her only other access would be by way of whatever the
Supreme Court does. Our only concern is that whatever the board
does, it not take any action in regard to the property beyond
the point that I circled on there because that propenty we
anticipate will eventually be Bokina property unencumbered by
the right~of-way~
CHAIRMAN: So you don't want us to address any improvements after
that area that you construe to be, or that you actually know to
a certain degree is the Bokina property?
MR. CARDINALE: That's correct.
Page 10-August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston-Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well how about if we delineated that in a decisions
and said specifically that we feel the improvements are Xs Y and Z
to that point, and then from that point they would be As B and C
if the applicant so chooses to deal with that? Would you have any
objection to that?
MR, CARDINALE: If the applicant established a right over that area.
No, because largely we're saying the same thing We're agreeing that
we want the right~of-Way~,-~the 20~ nort-her'ly ri~g~t~of~way~ Which as
you can see from th~ ma~_~]is not pre.sentl.~_.~.~n_~se~.~ We'want it
~leared~ We_.~ant it st~.bilized~We want it used. ~-'~'~nd we want it
brought to the point where the record ri~'h~-o~way ends~ Because
i.t's not in dispute that that record r.ight=of=way exists. What
the di]spute is is beyond that, So I think=-the other irony of that
is, aside from Michael~-s argument that you may not have jurisdiction
of the word erection which ! find interesting legally but ~ot
pgrticularly practically because you're supposed to be as I under-
_$tand it tQ~m..ake certain that as the building permi~ is issued~
the fire. truck has to get in there or that kind of thing is possible~
The ~roblem with the p~.oposal that we just made is that if ~.~u'do
that~ i~ you tell hen that she has to fix the ri~ht-ofSway _at
point ~$ _.per yQ~r specifications to get a building permit_~ and you
end it there,., you're gQing to have a problem bringing in a fire
truck beyond that point because it's not improved. So that, I
don't know if' you would want to do that, I don't care from my
standpoint at that point. It's a decision the board will have to
make. As long as the ~i. Oh~of~w'ay that we maintain is not a
right=of-way is not impr~oved~ M~ only other observation on that
is if yo.u do do that, if you do say .you must improve it up to
that point and no further~ and then at that point the Supreme
Court controls your access to your property,... I would be concerned
about the issuance, and I don't want to sound harsh because
Michael didn~t~ because the actually the Whole problem would not
exist on the hardship issue. You have jurisdiction; now ~ou can
address the issue~ Is there a h~rdship. Is there a practical
difficulty, 'My only final observation because it's late and
everybQdy wants to _go home anyway is' this, ~hat if there is a
hardshi~ and in all honesty and I~m sympathetic to Mrs. Johnston
because I think she_ was a victim of disingenuousness'or fraud in
the predecessor who sold it to hen~ If there is, if there is that
problem and you end that right-of-way at that point that we're
talking about, and give her a building permit,__the practical
difficulty--the unnecessary hardship is self-created is my point~
In other words, if she didn't start building without a permit,
she wouldn't be in the position she is in now.
Page ll - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing - Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I didn't want you to say. I'm not
giving this lady--I'd love to give it to her but I couldn't--
because I'm not a building inspector, we're not building
inspectors, ok. All we are doing is setting conditions down
that if they so choose to do those conditions, that possibly
the building inspector will be forced, sort of speak, or will
have to give them a building permit based upon our conditions.
MR. CARDINALE: Ok.
MR. CHAIRMAN- So I again=-~
MR. CARDINALE: And ~ctual-ly the practical difficulties ~sn't
eluded to in the statute anyway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct~
MR. CARDINALE:
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
Ok.
ThatJs all I wanted to say~
MR~ HALL: I just want to clarify it because I don't want to wait
four more months before you guy_~ say, "Ok', you can go in and
weatherize the house~~'
CHAIRMAN: You think we wait four months?
MR. HALL: WeJre asking for it tonight. I'm asking for an
excepti~on from 280~a for now to use the farm road. The Supreme
Court has said, "you can go back and forth on the farm road~"
Does the board understand that?
CHAIRMAN: In other words, what you are saying to me is, you don't
want any improvements to the existing road as it exists right now.
You just want to be able to use it do get in there.
MR~ 'HALL; That's right~ And we want to be in there tomorrow~
That's all we want~
CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question how you can ride over a farm?
These gentlemen own a farm.
MR. HALL: There's a road there.
Page 12 August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Appeal No~ 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN: That is not the right-of-way in question.
in question is 16 feet~
The right-of-way
MR. HALL: But the Supreme Court has said to Becky Johnston in the
temporary restraining order, "You have unobstructed access over that
farm road, over the existing farm road."
CHAIRMAN: But there is no road there~ sir~
MR. HALL: There is a road there~
MEMBER SAWICKI' Farm. road. Dirt road~
MR. HALL:
It's a dirt road~.
MEMBER SAWICKI: Head land is what farmers call itu
CHAIRMAN: The access from Oregon Road to the top before you make the
turn, ok, I assume is not the _part of the original Baxter right=
of-way. It is the piece to the east~ which is the t6 ft~ which is
tilled. It has vegetation on it.
MR. HALL.: When were you there (to Mrs. Johnston)?
MRS. JOHNSTON: Today.
MR. HALL: She was there today. You can drive up to her house.
CHAIRMAN: That is the Baxter right-of-way.
MR. HALL: No.
MR. CARDINALE: Yes, that's correct. Maybe I can clarify this.
I was just there too. The 16' that you drive down to get to the
point where you turn east, is in fact the Baxter right-of-way,
which, incidentally everybody has been using. A lot of people
wi th rights there.
CHAIRMAN: But that is not the right-of-way in this question, and
this is not the right-of-way to her house.
MR. CARDINALE: That's right.
~Pag~ 13 - August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston'He.arin. g -.Appeal No~ 3478
Southold Town Board Q..f Appeals
MR. CARD~NA[E: The right-of-way that she's talking about is the
One that the barn is on and part of the Bokina house and is fully
tilled. And then, once we get to the point where it turns, we get
this problem. And I would indicate that if you take a look at the
farm road as you turn east, isn't even really a road. What it is
is a little piece, it's a dirt-strip that moves every season almost
to let Mr. Bokina get his tractor turned around at the end of his
field~ So it"s really~it"~s really not a right~.of~w'ay, and I'encourage
the board to do whatever he can~p, stabilize the_actual record righ~-
of-way. I have no-di'f¥iculty'with stabilizing that farm road. I
think it's a waste of effort and it"isn't the proper thing to do
because it's not the right-of-way.
MR. HALL: There is still a misunderstanding here. We don't want
to stabilize the present farm road. 'We want to get in there
immediately, tomorrow, or next week, to put a roof on the house
and to put siding on the house so that it doesn't continue to
deteriorate. I believe the board has the authority to accept
280-a and let her dr~ive on whatever existing bad road there is
to get Charlie DeVoe in there to close up the house~ Ok. That's
the exception I'm asking for tonight~ I hope that's understood.
She doesn't want to do _.any improvements--
CHAIRMAN: It's understood fine, perfectly, except that you have
to understand that all we're doing is s~.tting conditions_, ok?
And if you choose to use somebodz~els6~s right-of-w'ay, I don't
care, ok? But you are in effect usiQg somebo'dy else's right-of-way.
MR. HALL: You're talking north-south?
CHAIRMAN: ~'North-south. Right~
right~of-~'ay. __
You are using somebody else's
MR. HALL: That's no problem though~
CHAIRMAN: Now if you can sell that to the Building Inspector,
that's fi ne wi th me. __
MR. HALL: Ok.
CHAIRMAN: All right, but I'm not rendering any decision tonight
anyway. All right?
Page 14 August 14, 1986
Becky Johnston Hearing Appeal No. 3478
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR~HALL: Ok.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anything else, Mr. Cardinale?
MR. CARDINALE: NO, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Ok~ We thank everybody for coming in on this hearing.
Let me just ask the board, are we Rrepared to close this hearing,
or is there any lega'l 'opi.nion 'that you gentlemen Want?
MEMBER SAWICKI-~ NO~P- I think we ca~ cl-'ose-~t~
MEMBER DOUGLASS: I would close it.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Hearing no further .comments, I'l.1 make a motion
closing-the hearing and res'erving 'decision until later~
MEMBER DOUGLASS: Seconded.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr~ Douglass, it was
RESOLVED, to close the heari'ng and reserve.decis~-on until later
in the Matter of the Application Of BECKY'JOHNSTON under Appeal
No. 3478~ -
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This'resolution was dul~_adopted.
MR. CARDINALE: Mr. Chairman? In regard--it's just a note to
check your engineer's report~ He talks about stabilizing 15 feet
of the 16-ft. right-of-way. From a point 200' north and then
thereafter~ But he also observes that the barn is four ft'] into
that right-of,way and the house 2½, so I would expect that if
you do accept that report, it would be stabilized in such a fashion
that you would take that into account, otherwise you're going
throu.gh the barn and house~ Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Did you ever measure the door on the barn to see if
the door was oRen to get past the--
MR. CARDINALE: Even without being open, it's four feet~
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Respectfully submitted,
~_inda F. Kowalski
Board Secretary
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ-APPEAL NO. 3513
THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986
9:55 p.m. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of Stephen
Shilowitz. Variance to construct condominiums within 75 feet of
bulkhead and tidal water. West side of Sixth Street, Greenoort.
"M-Light Multiple Residence" Zoning District. The previous
hearing on this application was held July 17, 1986.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The attorneys are here and oresent?
May I have your name, Sir, for the record?
Yes.
LAWRENCE STORM~ ESQ,: My name is Lawrence Storm from the Firm
of Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley.
CHAIRMAN: Usually we allow the applicant to start the hearing.
Or the agent for the applicant. And then we'll get to you
shortly, Sir. Mr. Angel? Mr. Cuddy rather. I apologize.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: My name is Charles Cuddy. I represent
Mr. Shilowitz from the Firm of Esseks, Hefter~ Cuddy & Angel
of Riverhead. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, it's my
understanding that tonight we appear, as I understand is for
the third time. Apparently I'm the new face in the crowd pretty
much because Mr. Shilowitz has been to this Town Hall as well as
the Village of Greenport Hall numerous times, ultimately, they
may name this '~Shilowitz corner" in this room for him. He hopes
that tonight it will be his last occasion here.
I understandw and I ask the Chairman and the Members of the
Board to correct me if I'm wrong--that the purpose of this
hearing is to allow the opponents some time, and I understood
it was ten minutes--to voice through their attorney opposition
to the application that we have presented on two occasions, and
various evidence to Mr. Angel of my firm. I have some things
that I would like to give the board with reference to requests
that I think had previously been made, and I just want to
retrorse part of the record.
I have one, an affidavit from Mr. Shilowitz with reference to
to soil bearing capacity. I think this was requested previously
atso. as to the Floodplain Elevation. I'll deliver that at the
Page 2 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY (continued):
same time as I deliver the other one. I also have a letter from
the Village of Greenport Superintendent of Utilities with refer-
ence to the availability of public water to the site.
I have, depending upon what Mr. Storm wishes to discuss, some
other matters which I reserve the right to But in evidence
because I'm not sure what his position is~ Is my understanding
correct that this is basically what we're here for? If I could
put those things in the record.
CHAIRMAN: Fine.
MR. CUDDY: This is the affidavit. (The original Affidavit
notarized August 14f 1986 and signed by Mr. Shilowitz was sub-
mitted for the record.) That's the one from Mr. Monsell.
(The original letter dated August 6, 1986 from the Superintendent
of Utilities indicating that they are ready, willing and able to
serve the public water and public sewage supply needs for this
project was submitted for the record.)
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Mr. Storm?
LAWRENCE STORM, ESQ.: Thank you. I represent the Cove Circle
Association, individual land owners, property owners, who are
member.s of that association, of all property immediately adja-
cent to the west and the north of Mr. Shilowitz' property.
We here to discuss the 75-ft. setback requirement from the
ordinary highwater mark Of the tidal waters. We oppose any
variance from the requirement as to tidal waters located to
the west and to the south of the property. I will be offer-
ing into evidence an affidavit by Mr. Laurence Penny, who is
the Director of Natural Resources and Director of Environmental
Protection for the Town of East Hampton, who sets forth clearly
and explicitly that this variance, if granted, represents a
problem and danger and have detrimental impact on the adjoining
property owners, and represents a threat to the general welfare,
health, safety of the community, especially my clients. The
project or property--total property is approximately 98,000
sq. ft. of which approximately 27,000 sq. ft. in the Town of
Southold is underwater. I just wish to bring to the board's
attention that when this application~ as it worked it's way
through the process was before the Village and the Town
Planning Boards for site plan approvals, which I believe in
the early part of 1982. Certain documents were ~resented,
certain site plans were presented which set forth the dimensions
of the property. I believe the board has before it the site
Hage 3 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STORM (continued):
plan dated, I think it's July 1, 1982. It shows on it that the
property includes an area underwater directly south and somewhat
to ~e east and west of the basin. An important fact that
property did not become Mr. Shilowitz' until March of 1983.
The significance of that in part has to do with the question of
density, which I appreciate itWs not mentioned in the inspector's
report-Building Inspector's report; however, I think it's
important to note that were:~it not for the inclusion of that
underwater land that this proposed density, which I believe in
the Town is 5-1/2 acres would not be complied with. There are
approximately 56,000 sq. ft. of this parcel in the Town of
Southold. Approximately 10,000 sq. ft., give or take, is land
underwater in this particular grant from the State which occurred
in March of 1983, so in any event he would not satisfy the
density requirements of one 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit.
CHAIRMAN: Can I just say something at this point?
MR. STORM: Sure.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Storm, as to the situation of the density, ok,
we cannot specifically address that issue in this particular
application. If you as the agent or attorney for the Cove
Association so feel that they want to question the certifica-
tion of this particular applicant, when he applies for a
building permit, as to the period of time as you just mentioned
in the purchase of this particular piece of property or the
properties that adjoin this to make it one piece, or as to any
other situation that might affect this, to the length and
period of time that the permits have been out there, you know,
and nothing has been constructed and so on and so forth, you
must address it at the time that he actually applies for the
building permit before the Building Inspector. We cannot deal
with density at this particular time. It's just out of our
role of aspect at this point.
MR. STORM: Mr. Chairman, I accept that.
CHAIRMAN: Ok.
MR. STORM: Returning to the 75-ft. setback requirement, as a
matter of law, in order for the applicant to be entitled to
such a variance, he.has to make an offer of proof. He has to
Page 4 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STORM (continued):
make an offer of proof of practical hardship. The case law in
this status was indicated in Town v. Kern. He's got to show by
dollars and cents proof that he will suffer practical hardship.
In order to do that he has to show that under no such circum-
stances whereby he would be in compliance with the zoning
reauirements, he will be unable to have/make reasonable use
of his property. Again in a dollars and cents ~oint of view.
He has introduced absolutely no evidence whatsoever on the
record indicating the present value of this property as per
the zone. None. I submit to you therefore that as a matter
of law, this board need go no further and should deny the
application in total.
Let us assume, however, that by some manner, shape or form,
and assuming for the sake of argument that he has shown
economic hardship--which I don't accept, but let us assume
that. In order for this board then to deny this application,
it has to make a finding based upon a public health, safety
and welfare. Mr. Penny's affidavit, and if I may, his oral
testimony will indicate that in fact there are, among others,
the following dangers to the public health, safety and welfare:
This project, which will increase the elevation of the property
any where from perhaps four to seven feet, depending on where
on the property you're standing and subject to what in fact
the elevations are, will represent certain flood hazard dangers
to property to the north, the east and to the west. Storm
surges coming along the deck from the south would hit this
property and because of ~he manner in which it's built uD,
will either be diverted to the right or to the left, thereby
increasing the flood hazards. I submit to this board that
that's in direct Contradiction to Chapter 46 of the Town Code
and represents a threat and danger to the public health,
welfare, and safety.
In addition to the flood hazard itself, there is the additional
potential problem from over-wash. The applicant is going to
bringing, in a large amount of fill--some of which will be
dredged~ some of which will be coming from elsewhere. It's
unclear at the present time where that will be coming from.
The elevation of this property will be higher than the
elevation of the surrounding properties. As I'm sure the
board is. aware, having done --being familiar with the site--
this is a site that~frequently floods. You get a heavy rain,
winter storms--this area is always flooded. So is the
Page 5 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STORM (continued):
community beach parcel on my client's property. There will be
over wash. Some of the material brought in will in fact be
deposited on properties not theirs. There will also be a
potential problem of runoff. If you look at the site plan
and the proposed drawings, there are steep slopes. There will
be runof.f from there into Pipes Cove and thereby into the Bay.
This is an area the water, which is served by and for the
taking of shellfish. There is a danger. There is a risk.
There is a potential harm that this runoff will adversely
affect the shellfish and the ability to maintain the state
certification in that body of water.
This board has also brought up in prior hearings the
question of emergency access. Looking at the site plan, in
those buildings immediately to the south and to the west,
it's impossible for an emergency vehicle to get around to
some of those units. In the event, hopefully which will never
occur, but in the event there was a problem that residents in
or occupants of those units were unable of their own mobility
to exit themselves and vehicles were prevented to get into
those buildings from a upland or landward side, we could have
a very, very serious problem. I suggest to this board that by
maintaining the 75-ft. setback~ that all of these problems
could be addressed and avoided. I would also bring to this
board's attention its own prior history.
Upon information and belief, this board has had before it
since March of 1985, six applications for a variance from this
section on the Bay-side of the Town, one of which had to do, I
believe, with a Pond, specifically on the Bay itself. I~ each
of those occasions, the board chose to limit the amount of the
variance, which as I recall, the greatest variance allowed was
within 24 ft. of the wetland, for a pool. For an accessory
structure, and only in the instance where there was a retaining
wall between the pool and the wetland. I believe in two other
instances, there were again accessory structures, again for
pools. There the;board imposed a 35-ft. setback requirement.
In the single instance where new dwellings were an issue, the
board insisted upon a 50-ft. variance.
I would suggest to the board that in this case, in this
instance, to allow a setback of --and the site plan and the
testimony is somewhat at odds--was at five feet or am seven feet,
or something inbetween, represents in the neighborhood of a 90~
Pag~ 6 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. STORM (continued):
variance. In effect, rendering this provision a nullity. In effect,
repealing it. I would suggest to the board that that represents a
complete derogation of the intent, the purpose, of this provision.
At this time~ if I may, I would like to submit to the board and
a,~copy for opposing counsel, a memorandum of law on these points.
Also the affidavit of Mr. Penny.
I would like at this time if I may introduce Mr. Larry Penny if
the board will permit, to give oral testimony{ he. has examined the
files in this regard; he has been on the site on numerous occasions;
and I think his testimony will be helpful to make a complete record
for the board.
CHAIRMAN: As long as he addresses the issue. You're going to make--
MR. CUDDY: Before you make a ruling, I would like to object to that.
I know Mr. Penny. I admire Mr. Penny. He is a fine man and does an
excellent job for the Town of East Hampton. I understood and my
client understood, and my partner understood that we were here tonight
To hear from the opposition through their attorney who was not avail-
able at the last hearing. We've put into evidence various things.
He's offering into evidence. I did not intend and I did not prepare
To present additional evidence. I prepared myself to present a
rebuttal if necessary to what was there. I think it's unfair to
the applicant who has been here three times to now introduce testimony
on a third occasion which is set forth solely for the purpose of us
presenting oral argument through attorneys. So I seriously object to
Mr. Penny testifying at this time.
CHAIRMAN: I have--I somewhat concur with what you're saying because
I did specifically place a restriction on the prior hearing that only
the attorneys would be allowed to speak. Now you do have a-- you said
you have an affi-
MR. STORM: I have an affidavit.
CHAIRMAN: Which basically includes everything that this gentleman
would have to say?
MR. STORM: Substantially yes, but I believe that his oral testimony
would include additional information 'based upon his site visit, maybe
two hours ago.
Pag~ 7 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY: I think if they have an affidavit, counsel has testified
at an enormous length about things I would suppose that he must have
personal knowledge--having taken that testimony, plus Mr. 'Penny's
affidavit, I would think there would be sufficient evidence from
opposition for the board to have. What he is doing now is calling
witnesses that you indicated wouldn't be called.
CHAIRMAN: I'm going to have to discuss this with the board. I will
do it in an open forum, but I will not do it here. If anybody
choses to be in that open forum. Only because this is not an area
that's condusive to a round-table discussion.
MR. STORM: If I may-- the purpose of the testimony is to give the
board as complete factual background as we possibly can. The record
is open. We would like the opportunity as I said to give the board
has much information as we can. This is a project with grave implica-
tions. We are all aware of the public controversy and public concern
about these kinds of developments up and down our coastline. Mr.
Penny has been studying the area. He's knowledgeable about the
situation surrounding the Bay. And Ithtnk that his oral testimony
could certainly be helpful and we're offering it to the board.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy.
MR. CUDDY: If that was accepted, then I should be able to bring
somebody in to rebut Mr. Penny. And I think that's unfortunate
because that simply would allow us zo go to another hearing. It
was my understanding that the intent of this meeting was to be the
'final meeting. I have no objec~0n to your putting in evidence some
basis of the statements hhat have been made. He has an affidavit--
that's fine. The affidavit would be in evidence. But I think
to have him testify az this time is not only late in time but I
think it's improper based upon the rules set by the board. And I'm
willing to abide by those rules. I would expect counsel also to
abide by them.
CHAIRMAN: All right, I think what we'll do is we will caucus for
about three minutes in the Building Department--if anybody chooses
to go over there, they are very welcome to, and we'll have a round
table discussion on this, which we normally do. This is open to
the public. We are not closing it. If any members of the press
or any specific group would like To sit in on it, they are very,
very welcome to. I have had discussions of this nature and situ-
ations which require decisions, one of which was I beIieve at the
last meeting, and two of the members had trouble hearing me, and
I have no intentions of doing that again this time. So, I'm going
to ask for a three minute recess to go over to the Building Department
Page 8 - August 14~ 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CHAIRMAN (continued)~
to discuss that.
MR. STORM: If I may--I would just like to address one other point.
And then subject to your ruling, I'll be finished for the evening.
I'd like to just correct the record before made in the past con-
cerning what has and has not been done in situations a~ the Village
of Greenport. I would like to bring to this board's attention
that the site plan approval by the Village Planning Board has
expired. I't has under the provisions of the code, and this is
not discretionary, if the construction had not begun within two
years of that approval, th
the board shall revoke the
back to them. I'd also Ii
that the fact, again in ke
the public officials on th
environmental issues--that
plating removing from thei
Waterfront Condominiums.
Shilowitz for any number o
act diligently upon his ap
approvals in 1982. The fa
e language of the ordinance states that
approval. The applicant has to go
ke to bring to the board's attention
eping with the increasing sensitivity
e North Fork are developing towards
the Village Board has --in now contem-
r zoning ordinance the ability to have
Now I respect the fact that Mr.
f extremely valid reasons, failed to
plication after he got the initial
ct remains that he did not apply for
a building permit until--of these units--until I believe it was
May of 1986. He didn't ap
until I believe in Septemb
--counsel has expressed so
there's some kind of--it w
permits, and then having t
to--stop him in his tracks
that we all take in life.
not allow his site plan ap
we would not be here today
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. STORM: I'm sorry. Pe
to heart the position of o
notice, lack of preparatio
demand for oral testimony.
CHAIRMAN: So in lieu of a
MR. STORM: The affidavit
ply for any permits for bulkheading
0r of 1984. He has expressed some--
ne disquiet--unease--arguing, that
ill be unjust, having gotten all those
he law changed, brought the board now
I would suggest that it's a risk
But had he acted in a diligent fashion,
,royal in the Village To lapse, that
Thank you.
rhaps we can shortcircuit i't. I take
)posing counsel about the lack of
1--I will waive the right of my
11 testimony, you will submit--
· nd my memorandum of law.
~ Pag~ 9 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, do you want time to answer this memo?
If it so addresses any issue that you feel.
MR. CUDDY: Let me just check one moment with my client.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy:
MR. CUDDY: The answer is yes, I would like to have that time
particularly since my partner, Mr. Angel, has done most of the
work for Mr. Shilowitz, and won't be back until this weekend.
So I would like a week's time certainly to take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN:
tonight?
Is there anything else that you have to submit to us
MR. CUDDY: Yes. I would like to have some rebuttal.
some things to submit to the board.
I do have
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Do you want to start with the rebuttal then and
we'll go into the submission.
MR. CUDDY: Yes. Initially I woUld like to say to get to. the
heart of the very last matter that was raised, and that's the
Greenport Village. I'm really not sure what we're doing with
Greenport Village here, but we've gotten virtually everything
that I could imagine he said--being said. We're here on a
setback variance application. But the Greenport Village Attorney
John Munzel ruled on precisely the question that Mr. Storm
raised, and said that unless affirmative steps were taken, there
was no problem with the site plan approval, and in fact, subse-
quent to that Time, a building permit was issued. So not only
is it relevant, but it's wrong. I :think a lot of the testimony,
and I call it testimony because I think what was being given,
is incorrect. A lot of it is immaterial. A lot of it has very
little to do with what's before the board tonight.
What's before the board, I thinl
has pointed it out on several occasi¢
practical hardship, 'and I disagree w
practical difficulty. There is not
you. It's a question of difficulty.
with practical difficulties. In eric
is an affidavit which goes on for pa~
the way, if that does have some bearJ
: my partner-friend, Mr. Angel,
~ns, is a question not of
~ry much on that term--it's
hardship question before
And the standards that go
ence before you I understand
les showing the hardship, by
.rig, economically, that had
been incurred by Mr.. Shilowitz. It foes into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. That's on the record here. More importantly,
Page l0 - August t4, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY (continued):
and I think that this the heart of the whole matter--Mr. 'Shilowitz
has been here, and that's why I started out saying about being in
the corner--for five years. He has been before the Army Corps.
He's been before the D.E.C. He has been before the Health Depart-
ment. He has been before the County Planning Commission. He has
been before the Village Board~ the Village Trustees, and the
Village Planning Board, in the Village of Greenport. He's been
here in 1982 before the Planning Board. He has been before the
Town Board. He got a change. As far as I'm concerned, he upzoned
his property from industrial to the M-Light Multiple Dwellings
that it is today. At no time has he been undiligent--to take a
term that was used a few minutes ago--he spent five years going
before eight different bodies. He has a building permit today
in the Village of Greenport. He would very much like to get a
building permit from the Town of Southold. ~I think there are
times when facts compel a board to grant a variance. Is it a
substantial variance? Yes, it's a substantial variance. Is it
going to happen again? No, because you?re never going to have
an application like this before this board. This is unique.
This is a man who has spent five years to get to this position.
The Town changed the law. That does happen, but there are times
when a Zoning Board is set up to do exactly the type of thing
that we're asking you to do, and that is to relieve us from
what would be to me an unconscienable situation. And that is
to spend the money that he spent to go before the boards to get
all of those approvals and then have it pulled out from under you.
And that's, I think ~s what is being suggested. I would think
that this board is the board to do the right thing, to give some
justice to Mr. Shilowitz at this point who has pursued this
matter diligently, who has gone before the boards as indicated,
to think that these are facts that mandate very much that he
gets the relief that he requested.
I have two things-that I would like to have put in evidence
before the board. One, is a memorandum which I have for counsel
also, having to do with a question of environmental law. There
were some statements made by Mr. 'Angel who backed them up by this
memorandum as to lead agency, as to the determinations that were
made. I would point out that much of the testimony given by Mr.
Storm had to do with things that are outside the cognizance of
this board. I think the environmental concern was a concern that
the board had, but I also point out, 'and I'm going to offer this
in evidence too, that the significance of this particular act,
that is the setback request, is a Class II Type of Action, which
is a nonsignificant action; and that's exactly what the code of
the State of New York says. So I'll offer into evidence two
Pag~ ll - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southotd Town Board of Appeals
MR. CUDDY (continued):
things: a copy of the General Regulations of the Code of the State
of New York and the Memorandum. And I would ask the board to grant
the relief requested.
(Mr. Cuddy submitted copy of page 260.12c, Section 617.13, Chapter
IV -General Regulations of NYS concerning Type II SEQRA actions,
and original Memorandum dated August 7, 1986 with Exhibits A - M,
inclusive, for the record.)
MR. STORM: I'd like to submit to the board Mr. Penny.'s affidavit,
also a Memorandum of Law, in addition a copy of t'he provision of
the Village Code indicating,-I quote "Site Plan Approval shall be
revoked in the event that the construction contemplated by such
plan is not completed within two years of initial site plan approval
by the Planning Board and construction must be commenced within six
months of initial site plan approval." Also, if I may, do you have
the copy of the building permit that has been issued by the Village?
CHAIRMAN: That is not particularly appropriate in this hearing, ok?
I do want to answer one thing that you were referring to, Mr. Cuddy.
And that is, this board has investigated this site an innumerable
amount of times. We find this a very, very difficult site to
understand, ok. At one point we had no bulkhead, or a decaying
bulkhead. Now we have a portion of a new bulkhead. This is not
to say in any way that Mr. Shilowitz has not yielded or given us
everything that we have asked for to date and there may be other
things. I was down there tonight, in fact some of the property
owners had seen me probably my fourth return to this particular
piece of property. I am still ultimately confused. I will put
it right on the record. It does not bother me one bit. In the
placement of the structures. The elevation factor that .might
exist or may exist or will exist, possibly in half of the property.
The stakes that were driven. The pilings that were driven. The
height of those pilings. And so on and so forth. So I look at
this particular application as a very, very significant application,
not only to the property owners themselves but to myself in the
agonization, and I don't know what my fellow board members have to
go through, to deal with in this specific granting of what I would
construe to be a substantial setback variance. I still think that
I have to modify certain things that were originally stated that I
somewhat agreed to on the beginning of this hearing, and that is
it's true that we had recessed this hearing to allow Mr. 'Storm to
speak, but at the same time after looking at the property, I think
we really have to ask you To ask Mr. Angel to address the fact of
the possibility of eliminating possibly one of these units in the
town side, whi. ch may in some avail free up some of this setback.
And for that particular reason, I .can't truthfuIly close this hearing,
all right. We spoke among ourselves tonight and I think we're all
asking the same particular issue. And I think that has to be
addressed before we can formally make a real genuine decision here.
Ail right? So I'm going to ask that this hearing be held over to
Page 12 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN (continued):
the next meeting, and I'm going to ask Mr. Angel to address that
and I'm going to ask Mr. Storm to rebut it or whatever he chooses
to do about it. But we are going to limit it again to a specific
amount of time, and we are hopefully going to be able to close
this on September llth which is really not that far away. And
I'm sorry that I have to do that for the applicant, but at the
same time we are representing the entire town in total here.
Mr. Storm, we have to ask you for a list of all the people that
you are representing.
MR. STORM: Those names appear on the memorandum of law.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Fine. Thank you very much. And you are going to
submit a rebuttal from what we have received tonight and you will
be free to give us any sort of rebuttal at that particular time
also. Mr. Cuddy.
MR. CUDDY: If it would be Of help to the 'board, 'I'm sure that my
client and any of the people that have worked with him would be
happy to arrange a meeting with the board at that site to go over
really yard by yard various elevations, and various things that
the board is concerned about. I've been to the site. I'm aware
of things at the site. I think that they can be shown if people
are there so that the board could have some education from. the
people that are involved in it. And I think Mr. Shilowitz would
be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN: I think that's what we're going to have to ask for.
We've done it before. And the only problem ~s that we can't
have any more than two board members or else it's construed to
be a meeting.
MR. CUDDY: We could arrange it on two occasions.
problem with that.
We have no
CHAIRMAN: We will be in contact with you and at the same time
we may drop a note in the mail to this gentleman, to Mr. Storm,
indicating that we"re going over there--whatever the case might
be. But we will be in contact with you.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Some time prior to the next meeting, but hopefully
after the humdrum after the next week or so--you know the
summer is rapping up and so on and so forth, because we have
~-Pag~ 13 - August 14, 1986
Matter of S. Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513
Southold Town Board of Appeals
CHAIRMAN (continued):
people going on vacation and so on and so forth.
thing you would like to say, Mr. Storm?
Is there any-
MR. STORM: No, not at this time.
CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anybody in the audience that ~reLnot here
at the last hearing that they would like to say? Anybody on the
applicant's side? No. Ok. I'll make a motion recessing the
hearing until the next Regular Meeting of September 11, 1986.
On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Sawicki, it was
RESOLVED, to recess the hearing in the Matter of Appeal No. 3513
of STEPHEN SHILOWITZ until the next Regular Meeting of this Board,
to wit: September Il, 1986.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. 'Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyen,
Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
Board Secretary