Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/17/1986APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR. SERGE DOYEN. JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals HAIN RrlAD- STATE RnAD 25 SI3LITHrlLD, L.h, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JUL[ t7, 1986 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on ThudS. day, J~uly 1Z, 1986 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, South6Td, New York 11971. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr., Serge Doyen, Robert J. Douglass and Joseph H. Sawicki, constituting all five members of the Board of Appeals. Also present were: Victor Lessard, Building-Department Adminis- trator, Linda Kowalski, Clerk to Z.B.A., and approximately 35 persons at the beginning of the meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and proceeded with the first matter on the agenda, as follows: 7:35 p.m. Appeal No. 3478 - Informal Request by Michael J. Hall, Esq. concerning the pending 280-a Application of BECKY JO_HNSTON. Mr. Hall asked whether the Board of Appeals would consideF authorizing the Building Department to issue a building permit concerning construction of a recent date at premises of Becky Johnston. The dwelling under construction has not been roofed and is in danger of weather damage. The Chairman indicated that the Board would arrange to have a hearing at the next meeting to consider this matter if that was acceptable, but that he did not feel the Z.B.A. had the authority to direct the Building Inspector to issue a building permit without compliance wit.h New York Town Law, Section 280-a, or wi. thout a public hearing on the subject.. The Che~rman asked Mr. Hall to consult further with Town Attorney Robert J. Tasker concerning his request. Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3529 - PAUL KESLCH. The Board asked Mr~ Kelsch to telephone our office as soon as possible with the exact variance setback requested (there were two figures given by the surveyor on the map under considera- tion). [See verbatim transcript under separate cover.] 7:52 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3526 - BRUCE AND SHIRLEY SIEVERMAN. Verbatim transcript of hearing has been prepared under separate cover 6nd]~filed with the Town Clerk's Office. 7:58 p.m. ~ublic Hearing was held 6n~i~oncluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3529 -'RICHARD AND ALICE McMANUS. Verbatim transcript of hearing has~'Prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office~ 8~00 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3531 ~.'ALBERT J~ BRENEISEN. Verbatim transcript of heari~g~-a-~--~-~-en prepared under separate cover and filed wi_th the Town Clerk's Office. 8:13 p~m. Public Hearing was'held and"concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3521 ANDREW AND WILLIAM GOODALE. Verbatim transcript of hea~ing has been prepared under.~separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office. 8:28 p.m. Publi'c Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3523 - STEVE KALAIJIAN. Applicant's agent agreed to. place flags on property markers at end of Lot #2 for reinspection. Vebbatim transcript of hearing has been prepared under separate cover and f~led with the Town Clerk's Office. 8:35 p.m. Public Hearing was 'held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3517 - ROSALIE GOWEN. Verbatim transcript of hearing has been prepared unde~ separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office. 8:40 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3522 NORTH FORK BANCORP. Applicant's attorney agreed t,o stake sign locations for reinspection. Verbatim transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office for reference. Southold Town Board of Appeals (Public Hearings~ continued:) -3- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting 8.:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter ~.~ Appeal No. 3527 ROBERT AND CHARLOTTE WISSMAN. Attorge~_William Moore Oofild furnish the neighbors' §etbac~ ak requested duri~g_%'he h~ari'ngo Verbatim transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office. 9:07 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of App~I .No. 3428 ~ BERTHA KURCZEWSKI~ Verbatim trans- crip.~ prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office. 9:27 p.m~ Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN'SHILDWITZ and recessed until August 14, 1986 in order to permit presentation by both sides as requested, limited to ten ~.nutes each. The Eha~rman asked for a_survey more up-to-date than 7-11-82. Verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover. 10:30 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3510 - RICHARD AND RUTH ZEIDLER. The board asked Mr. Ziedler to furfiish a determination as to the total lot coverage of all structures deemed by the building inspector, including above-ground decks, etc. Verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover. 10:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held and concluded in the Matter of Appeal No. 3489 - PAUL LEARY concerfii~g property of ~R~K]iA~DTMARY BROP-~.~rbatim transcript -'of hearing has been prepared under separate cover and filed with the Town Clerk's Office. Except where noted above, r6~o]utff6ns were adopted concluding the hearings. The hearings were concluded at 11:45 o'clock p.m. and the board members proceeded with deliberations and decision in the Matter of Appeal No. 3516 ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN (continued on. page 4). Southold Town Board of Appeals July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3516: Application of ALB'ERT~J]'~BODENSTEIN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section ~31 for permission to construct addition with an insufficient setback from the closest northerly property line as shown by sketched survey dated_.April 22, 1986. Loca- tion of Proper'ty: 6135 Indian Neck Road, Peconic~ NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-86-6--1'9. Foll-~win§ deli-be~t~ns, the board to.ok the following action: WHEREAS, a public hea~ing was held and concluded O~ June 19, 1986 in the Matter of the Application of'ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN under Appeal No. 351'6; and ..... - WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with'the premises in question~_i.ts pre~ent 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 concerni~ this application~and WHEREAS, the board made the following ~i-ndings of fact: 1. The premises in question is'~ocate~ in the "A" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District, alogg the north side of Indian Neck Road~ Peconic, 'contains a total ~rea of .868 of an acre, and is more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District IOOD, Sect_~on 86, Block 6, Lot 19. 2. The subject premise~ is imp~ove~ with two single-family, one-story frame houses, and accesso?y garage which is located in the front yard area, as shown by survey mapped April 2~, '1986 ~y Roderick V~nT'uyl, P.C. 3. By th~-~ application, appellant requests permission to construct a 14' b~_ 1_~' wide deck addition at the rear of the most s'outherly ex~isting dwelling with a ~educed s~tback from the Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- July 17~ 1986 Regular Meetin§ (Appeal No. 3516 BODENSTEIN, decision, continued:) nearest northerly property line at l0 feet, and having a setback from the westerly property line of not less than 21½ feet. 4. It is the opinion of the board that the unusual configura- tion of the land lends to the difficulties in adhering to the setback requirement, particularly the narrowness of the lot from a width of 100± feet to 51± fe~ In considering this appeal, the board also finds and deter- mines: (a) that sufficient practical difficulties have been shown; (b) that the circumstances of the premises are unique; (c) that there will be no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to adjoini, ng properties; (d) that the relief requested is not substantial; (e) that the difficulty c~nn~t be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) ~that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect of increased population density or be adverse to the safety~_, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the town~ _(g) that in view of the manner in which the difficul.~ty arose and in consideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance~ as co. nd~tionally noted below. Accordingly~ on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis~ it was RESOLVED, that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3516 in the Matter of the Appli.~a~ion.of ALBERT J. BODENSTEIN for permission to construct, deck addition with a reduction ~o 10 feet from the nearest northerly proper~y ii'ne, BE A.ND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO'THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That the setback not be closer than l0 feet, as requested. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Grigonis, Doyen and Douglass (Member Sawicki was absent.) This resolu- tion was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -6- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting PENDING DECISION: Appeal No. 3505: Application of RALPH AND 'LUC'ILLE STOCKER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,~ Section 100-31 for permission to locate proposed new dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 1080 Maple Lane (a/k/a 55 Snug Harbor Road), Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section 3, Map No. 4650, Lot 59; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~35-5-28. action: Following deliber'ations~'the board took the following WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on June 19, 1986 in the Matter of the Appli_Fation of RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER under Appeal'No. j~Q5; and - - WHEREAS, the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its p~sent 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 WHEREAS, the board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located along the west side of Maple Lane and the north side of Snug Harbor Road, Greenport, and is identified on the Suffolk C~unty Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 35, Block 5, Lot 28, and is known and referred to as Subdivision Lot #59, Map of Cleaves Point, Section Three filed June 14, 1966 as File No. 4650. 2. The subject premises consists of a total area of approximately .35 of an acre with frontage along Maple Lane of 50 feet, along Snug Harbor Road of 103.40 feet, and along Dawn Lagoon 64.45 feet~ The premises is a corner lot as 'defined by Section lO0~13 of the Zoning Code and is vacant. 3. By this application, appellant request permission to S6uthold Town Board of Appeals -7- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3505 STOCKER, decision, continued:) locate a new single-family, 1½-story frame dwelling with attached garage and open deck area with setbacks of: (a) 25 feet at the nearest point [southeast corner of'the house] 'from the front property line along Snug Harbor Road, (b) 33± feet from the furthest point along Snug Harbor Road, (c) 35 feet from its front prQperty line along Maple Lane, (d) 50 feet at its ~losest point ~rom the bulkhead along Dawn LagQ~n, (e) 25 feet from the property line along premises now or formerly of Wallin, (f) 10 feet frQm the north.erly line along'~p~operty of_Idler. total lot coverage proposed is 21%~ 4. For the record it is noted that by action of this board rendered April 16, 1986, under Appeal No. 3457, a variance was conditionally granted for certain c.onstruction, with limitations of lot coverage at 25% for all structures, no construction within 50 feet of the existing bulkhead, and sideyards of not less than 10 and 15 feet from the north and south pr~operty lines, respec- tively~.~ 5. Article III, Section lO0~31, Column "A~' of the Bulk Schedule permits a minimum frontyard setback of"35 feet for princip.al buildings. Applicant_is requesting a vari'ance to permit sections contai~i~§ an area of approximatel~ 120 sq. ft. as more particularly shown on site plan ~repared_i~y Garrett A. Strang dated A~?il _~8~ 1986. 6. It is the o~nion of the board that the configuration of the lot lends to th9 practical difficulties in adhering to the setback requirement. In considering this appeal, the board also finds and deter- mines: (a) that sufficient_ p~ctical difficulties have been shown; (b) that the circumstances of the premises are unique; (c) that there will be no ~ubstantial change-in the character of the neighborhood or detrimen~ to adjoining properties; (d) that the relief requested is not substantial~ (e) that the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f)' that the variance will not in turn cause a substantial effect of ~ncreased population density or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort~ convenience and order of the town; (g) that in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and in con~'sideration of all the above factors, the interests of justice will best be served by allowing the variance, as co.nditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehri~ger~ seconded by 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -8- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting (Appeal No. 3505 -' STOCKER, decision, continued:) Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED~ that the relief requested under Appeal No. 3505 in the Matter of the Application of RALPH AND LUCILLE STOCKER for reduction of frontyard setback as shown on site plan dated April 28, 1986, prepared by Garrett A. Strang, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED AS APPLIED~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki~ (Member Doyen was absent.) This resolu- tion was du'ly adopted. The board be~i6~ed and ~ade~the~if61t~owing comments on each of the following matters, which a~.e 99ndi~ deliberations and decisions: (a) Appeal No. 3515 - Howard Reinhart. Board to reinspect. Outside storage of buildi_ngs under consideration. (b) A~pe~i No. 3524 and 3525 - Port of Egypt. Board to reinspect an~_tak9 measurements from wetland _~re~_vs.~ d~ive, etc. NEW REVIEWS: 1. Appeal No. 3534 ROBERT WADDINGTON. Addition in business zone with reduction of sideyard and rearyard. N/s Main Road, Mattituck. Filed July 16, 1986. Motion was made by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, to temporarily hold this matter in abeyance pending receipt of referral comments from the Planning Board on the site plan, also filed 7-16~86. The board did not authorize advertising of this matter for a public hearing at this time, but will when receipt is acknowledged. 2. Appeal No. 3432 - JOHN AND JOYCE HOLZAPFEL. Written request was received requesting final inspection _fo~-acceptance of right-of-way improvements, E/s South Harbor Road, Southold. Chairman Goehringer indicated that he inspected the right-of-way today and recommends acceptance, subject to constant main.te.nace. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was Southold Town Board of Appeals (Reviews/Resolutions, co~%inued:) -9- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting RESOLVED, that the improvements as inspected by the Chairman July 17, 1986, be and hereby are accepted, subject to the follow- ing requirements: 1. That the improvements are to be within the legal perimeter of the ri~t-of-way; 2. That the right-of-way be continuously maintained good condition at all times. Vote of the ~oard- Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, G~igonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was ~bsent.)~ This resolu- tion was duly adopted. OTHER REVIEW: Appeal No. 3513 - STEPHEN SHILOWITZ. The board members re-viewed the map p~p6~ed~!~nd submitted by Mr. Shilowitz during the hearing this even~n§, and authorized and directed the Chairman to request the following as early as possible: (a) three original survey maps of most recent date, if available [or survey ~ap~ed by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. of October 27, 1981];_ _ (b) copy of current deed[s]; (c) written confirmation that the premises will be serviced by city water and/or city sewer utilities and a copy of the written Village agreement or contract.; (d) staking of all corners along the bulkhead areas of the proposed buildings [~ncluding decks] and the 50-foot rear- yard setback line. Southold Town Board of Appeals July 17~ 1986 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR AUGUST 14, 1986: lass, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was On motion by Mr. Doug- RESOLVED, to authorize and direct the Secretary to advertise notice of the following matters for public hearings to be held at the next Regular Meeting, to wit: THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1986, in the local and official newspapers of the town, the Suffolk Times and L.I~ Trav61er-Watchman; (a) A~peal No~ 3530 ROBERT~ ~' GOODWIN~ Additi6~i..wi.thin 75~ fo wetlan.~. _ S/s Pecon~.¢ BAY.' ~O.~_lgv~.d]~_Laurel~ (b) Appeal No. 3433 ~ DESSIMO~ AND RACZ. 280~a. ROW off N/~ Sound Avenue known as "Hallock Lane," Mattituck. Road~repQrt was received 7/15 and transmitted to aR.plicant and ~is]agent._. (c) Appeal No. 3520 - THOMAS SH~LVEY. Area, width and depth variances. Corner of Bay and ~ Ro~ds, just west of Meadow Lane, Cutchogue. Subject to receiving Planning Board referral comments by advertising deadline~ (d) Appeal No. 3533 - JOHN BREDEMEYER. Frank, rear and insufficient setback from bulk~ad and -~-~hwater. W/s Bay Avenue, Orient. " ~ - (e) Appeal No. 3442 - JOHN J. NEWMAN. Additions with insufficient setback from highwater mark. 430 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck. [DEC recei%ed] (f) Appeal No. 3535 - NORTH FORK FRIENDS OF KENYON TUTHILL. Fun~raising ~yent on premises zoned_~!A~80" Of'William LaMorte, E/s North ~ayview Roag, S/S Pine Neck Road, Southold. (g) Appeal No. 3532 ARTHUR BURNS. Accessory tennis court in front yard. 3525 Private Road #13. ROW off N/s Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. (h) Appeal No. 3536 GEORGE BROWN. Addition with reduc- tion of side yard to two feet. 150 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue. (i) Appeal No. 3477 - WILLIAM AND KATHERINE HEINS. Continued hearing concerning insufficient area, width and depth of two parcels. N/s Main Road, Orient. [Subject to receiving surveys by advertising deadline]. Southold Town Board of Appeals -Il- (Public Hearings - 8/14/86~ continued:) July 17~ 1986 Regular Meeting (j) Appeal No. 3478 - BECKY JOHN.STON~ 280-a~ ROW N/s Oregon R~ad, C. utc_hog~e. M~ .Hal~_~ E~ (k) Appeal No~ 3513 - ~EPHEN SHILOWITZ. Continued hearing conceri~g insufficient setback from bulkhead~high water mark for new condominium construction. ~/~ Sixth Stree~ Greenport. (1) Appeal No. -- MICHAEL HERBERT. Specia~ Exception for Bed and Breakfast in. R~sidential Zone. N/s Pike Street, Mattituck. Subject to receiving application within next four days, together with plan/layout of change of existing house. (m) Appeal No. 3389 T. PETIKAS. Subject to receiving confirmation from applicant's attorney to proceed. Variance to extend business use]~nto residential .~one. W/s Sound Road, N/s S.R. 25, Greenport~ Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. (Member Doyen was absent~) This resolu- tion was duly adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL 'DECLARATI~ONS- seconded by Mr. Goebringer, it was On motion by Mr. Douglass, RESOLVED, to declare the following Negative Environmental Declarations on the each of the fQllowinq matters determining each p~oject not to have an adv~?s~__effq]~t upon the environmen~ for the reasons indicated below ahd in accordance with the N.Y.S Environmental Quality Review.~Act (SEQ~A), section 617, 6 ~CRR, and Chapter 44 o~ t~ Code of the Town of Southold: Appeal No. 3531 Albert J. Breneisen~ Appeal No. 3521 Andrew ~nd William Goodale; Appeal No'. 3517 - Rosalie Gowen;_ Appeal No~ 3523 ~ Steve Kalaijian; - Ap.peaT No 3529 - Paul Kelsch; Appeal No Appeal No Appeal No Appea'l No Appeal No (continued on p~. 12-22) 3428 Bertha Kurczewski; 3529 - Richard'and Alice McManus~ 3522 - North Fork. Banco~pi~ 3525 Bruce_~nd Shirley Sieverman; 3527 Robert and Charlotte Wissman Southo'ld Town Board of Appeals -]2- (Envirome'nt~al~'D'ec'la'r~a't'i'on.s~,~.continued:) July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificancn APPEAL NO..: 3531 PROJECT NAME:~L'BE~T..~,~RENEiSEN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the' ~easons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil~ project. TYPE~OF ACTION: [~.] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Accessor~ pool, deck 'and 'fence enclOsure within 75' of mean high water LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 715 Dawn Drive, East Marion, NY 1000-35-5-.16 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) T_~e rel~e~ requested is a setback variance regulate~ as provided in Sectlon~617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review ' Ac%, 6 NYCRR Sou%ho'id Town Board of Appeals -]3- (Envirom~en't'al"D'e'Cl'~ra't~i'o'n~s', continued:) July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO..: 3521 PROJECT NAME: ANDREW & WILLIAM GOODALE 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- canu 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 similAz project. TYPE-OF ACTION: [' ] Type II ~] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Reduce l~ving area in this preexisting, non- conforming dwelling unit to less than 850 sq. ft. "B-l" Sone. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: 7655 Main. Road, Laurel, NYu 1000-122-6-30.1 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.property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area South~ld Town. Board of Appeals -]4- (Envi'rome'n~al"D'e'c~l'~ra't~i.o~s.,.continued:) July 1'7, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO..: 3517 PROJECT NAME: RO'SAL1E 'GOWEN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the"~easons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE-OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: (1) Insufficient lot.area, (2) lot depth (3) insufficient lot width, of two pareels. [ ] insufficient REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (i). 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 Suffolk County Health Dept. has approved or issued its letter waiving additioha~ ~ev~eW'by their agency .......... · .... (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction, being a l~t line or area variance. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of.Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Corner of. Zena ~d'~, Cpt. Kidd Drive and Central Drive~', Mattituck 1000-106-02-32 and 43 South~ld Town Board of Appeals -]5- (Envirome'nt~al' De~cTara'~to'~s,, continued:) July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting .S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO.: 3523 PROJECT NAME: ST'~VE ~AL~I'JIAN 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--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: [~] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insuffic'ient lot area of proposed Parcel No. 2 in this lwo-lot division/set-off LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: N/s Private ROW e~tending o~f. the N/s Bergen Ave., Mattituck, NY '1000-112-01-18 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) Therelief requested is not directly ~el~%ed to ne~ Construction, being a~lotl~ne or area. variance Sou~hoTd Town. Board of Appeals -]6- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting (Envirome'ntal~D'ecl'a'ra'~±'o~s~,~ continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO..: 3529 PROJECT NAME: PAUL ~KEL'SCH This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the NoY.S. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law 944-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE~OF ACTION: ['~ Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Deck Addition with insufficient rear- yard setback. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: 405 Wendy. Drive, Laurel, NY 1000-127-08-19 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).. T~e relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the ~tate Enviro~n~Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR ld'Town'Board of Appeals -]7- July t7, 1986 Regular Meeting (Envirome'nt'al~'D'ecT~ra'~i'on's~, continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL N0.~: 3428 PROJECT NAME: ~B'E~TH~'KU~CZEWSK1 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review .Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law ~44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simil&r~' project. TYPE. OF ACTION: [X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Insufficient lot area and frontage~of two parcels. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly known as: Depot Lane, Cutchogue, NY 1000-102-02'003 and 025 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 Suffolk County Health Dept. has approved or issued its letter ~aiving additional review by their agency .................... (3) The relief requested is not directly related to new construction, being a lot line or area variance South61d Town-Board of Appeals -]8- (Envirome'nt'al'iD'eCl'a'r~a't~i'on's~,, continued:) July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL NO..: ~/ PROJECT NAME~°Z~I'C~H~RD''&''A/~I'CE' M~cM3tNUS 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--~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or simi!~r project. TYPE. OF ACTION: [~X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Construction of an open porch in.excess of 30 sq. ft. in area, having an insufficient setback from front prope~t_~. ~OUaT±ON OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly k~pwn as: 710 Cedar Lane, EaDt. Marion~ NY 1000-31-6-~$.1 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessment in the short form has been submitted which indicates that no significant adverse effects to the environment are likely to occur should this project be imple- mented as planned; (2) The ~rg~erty in question is not lo~ated within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or othe~c~itic-~ ~nvironmental area. ~ .................. (3) The relief requested is a setback variance regulated as provided in Section 617.13 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Southdld Town-Board of Appeals -]9- July 1'7, 1986 Regular Meeting (Envirome'n~aT'D'ecl'~ra'~ion's', continued:) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significanc~ APPEAL N0..:3522 ................. PROJECT NAME: NO~T:~ F~R:K ~NC'O~P. 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--~-~asons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similAm project. TYPE. OF ACTION: [ ] Type II ~ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:(jl] One. large on-premises ID sign in excess of the maximum ~e~gkt and widtk requ±rements, and C2~ second on-premises Df, d~rector~ szqn. ~ LOCATiON OP PROJ.ECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as. 9025 Main Road, ~Matt~tuck, ~TY · 1000-122-6-020 Zoning District: "B-Light-Business% REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETER}4INATION: (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; (~ ..T_he property in question is not located within 300 feet of tidal wetlands or other critical environmental area South61d Town Board of Appeals -20- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting (Enviromenta'~'D'ecl'a'ra~i'o'~s', continued:) S.E.Q.RoA. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Siqnificanc~ APPEAL NO..: 3526 ........ PROJECT NAME: ~UCE''& 'S~IRL'EY:~STEVE:R~AN 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 Southoid. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE OF ACTION: ['X] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:Deck addition to existing dwelling, attaching an-existing pool, leaving an insufficient setback from the southerly. property line LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: Co~ner of Aquaview. Ave. and..Ro~ky Point Rd., East Marion, NY 1000=21-3-1 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 a setback~var~an~e regulat~ as provi~~c~ion 613.13 of the State Environmental Quati~.y ~evi.e~' Act, 6 NYCRR SOuth~ld Town'Board of Appeals -2] - July 1'7, 1986 Regular Meeting (Enviromenta'l' i D'eCl'a'r'a'ttO~s~,. continued: ) S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance APPEAL N0..:3527 PROJECT NAME: ~O~B~FL~T' AND' CPL~RL'OTTE' W1SSFLAN This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the N.YoS. Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law and Local Law #44-4 of the Town of Southold. This board determines the within project not to have a signifi- cant adverse effect on the environment for the reasons indicated below. Please take further notice that this declaration should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. TYPE. OF ACTION: IX] Type II [ ] Unlisted [ ] DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Locate new dwelling.with reduced: (1) side- yards, (2) frontyard, (3) rearyard, (4) setback from highwater. LOCATION OF PROJECT: Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, more particularly kngwn as: 715 Gull Pond Lane~ Greenp~rt, NY 1000-35-04-007.6 REASON(S) SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: (1) An Environmental Assessmen~ 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) Tke ~i~_~ ~eq~este~ is~asetback variance regulated as provided in Section.617.13 of the State Environmental Quality R~view ACt, 6 NYCRR. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting (EnvirOnmental Declarations, continued:) Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Doyens Douglass and Sawicki. This resolution was duly_ ad.opted. OTHERZMATTERS pending public hearing; awaiting additional information, as noted below: (a) Appeal No.. ~11 - ~APELL~REAL ESTATE/LIMPET. Area, with a~d dgpth va~_~nces._ _~rown St~, Green. port~ AWait Co. Health.gpproval/waiver before advertising deadline~ (b) Appeal No. 3514 - GEORGE P. SCHADE. Area, wi"dth and depth ~ariances. Awa]it C~._..'Hea!th Dep~. waiver before advertising deadline. __ _ (c) Appeal No. 3487 - CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR. Await additional input as'requested R~: Special Exception on portion of p[emises pending Subdivision approval by the Planning Board. W/s B_~yview Ro'ad, Southold. (d) Appeal' No. 3519 = SANDERS AND SCHWARTZ~ Area~ width and ~etb6ck v6r~ances T~i~thi~ proposed set=off of undersized parcels~ Await Article VI approv~l/w.aiver and D.E.C. Shor~s Acres, Mattituck. (e) Appeal No. 3503 - GEORGE D~ DAMIE'N. Area, width and de~th variances. 5th and Main Stneets, New Suffolk. Await Co. Health app. r~al~/wa~r an~d P.B'~ reviews. (f) Appeal No~ 3495 ~ JOHN AND GL. ORIA SHIRVELL~ Area, width and ~epth variances' N/s Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Await Co. Health Art. VI approval/waiver. ~g) Appeal No. 3496 - FREDERICK KOEHLER, JR~ Cabana/ beach house structure within 75~ of water 9long Cutchogue Harbor. N/s Old Har~r Road. Await Co~ Health approval. (h) Appeal No. 3484 - PHILIP AND ELLEN'BELLOMO~ ~ddition to dwelling with insuffiCient setback from fresh water~ Private Road off N/s S_gundview'Avenue, Southold. Await D.E.C. (i) Appeal No. 3464 ~ TED DOWD. Variance to construct 'Southold Town Board of Appeals -23- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters pending public hearings; awaiting additional informa- tion as noted below (continued).: Dowd, continued: new dwelling with: (1) eccessive lot coverage, (2) insuffi- cient front yard, (3) insufficient side yard, (4) insuffi- cient setback from wetlands. 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Await Trustees reviewslaction. (.k) (P) (q) Appeal No. 3439 - ARNOLD AND KAREN BLAIR. Variance for re-division into two lots with insufficient area, and width at Cedar Lane and Beach Court, East Marion. Gardiners Bay Estates Lots 151 thru 172 incl. adjoining roads. **Await LPB, Health Dept. Art. VI approvals/input. [Possible Town Trustees jurisdi'ction-upland contains wetland grasses], [Building envelopes of buildable areas no: shown.] Appeal No. 3445 - JULIUS ZEBROSKI~ Variance for approval of two lots having insufficient area. E/s Waterview Drive and N/s Bayview Road, Southold. **Await Article VI approval and copy of C.O. for existing land]andP buildings [previous lot-line changes and conveyances? . B comments received. Appeal No. 3461 - HELMUT HASS. Variance for approval of two business 10ts as proposed with insufficient area and width. S/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await Co. Health Art. VI. Planning Board comments received. Appeal No. 3462 -HERBERT MANDEL. Variance for approval of three parcels having insufficient area. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and copy of C.O. Appeal No. 3449 - FRANK AND ETHEL BEGORA,' Variance for approval oH:th~eeparcels having insufficient area, depth and wid%h. N/s Main Road, East Marion. **Await County Health Art. VI, corrected maps and P.B. reviews after submission Of maps. Appeal No. 3403 - ANNA, LORIA. Variance for approval of two parcels having insufficient area, width and depth. W/s First St. and N/s King St, New Suffolk. **Await Co. Health Art. VI app,. and approval/waiver. Appeal No. 3426 GERALD DOROSKI. Variance for approval of access (280-a).~ N/s C.R. 48, Peconic. **Await additional information to clarify ROW and P.B. input. Appeal NO. 3411. ANDREW FOHRKOLB. Variance to restore existing building for habitable use (additional dwelling unit). W/s LiPco Road, Mattituck. **Await scaled floor plans and C.O. or PreCO. '~ ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -24 - July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting Other Matters....Pendin~ Public Hearings (**awaiting additional information aS'"noted), continued: (r) Appeal No. 3299 - DOUGLAS MILLER. Variance to.include wetlands in subdivision which would not result in i.. insufficient area. Kirkup Lane, Laurel. **Await DEC apdrCo,'~Health Department approvals of pending subdivision° Appeal No. 3412 - THOMAS CRAMER. Variance to construct within 75' of wetlands. E/s Meadow Lane, Mattituck. **Await Trustees action/approval. (Health Dept. approval a~d.-DECiwaiverireCeived.) Appeal No. 3355 - PAUL & MARIETTA CANALIZO. Variance to construct with insufficient setback in frontyard and from wetlands. **Await DEC and wetland setbacks map.~. Trustees reviews pending. Appeal No. 3214 HANAUER & BAGLEY. Variance for approval of two lo~s having insufficient upland, build- able area. DEC waiver and Planning Board received. **Await Co, Health and. Trustees. Lighthouse Road and S/s Soundview Avenue, Southold. (v) Application for LOIS AND FRANK THORP. E/s West Lane and S/s North Lane ~private), off the E/s Orchard Lane East Marion. Variance for approval of lots having insufficient area, width~ depth, etc. **Await Notice of Disapproval after application to Building Department reissuance of filing fee, postmarked certified-mail receipts, etc. ~ Appeal No. 3293 - HAROLD AND JOSEPHINE DENEEN. Variance for approval of three p'ar~ls having insUff'~ient area, width and depth. W/s ROW off the S/s Bayview Road (west of WatervSew Drive), Southold. 280-a'not requested. **Await Co. Health Art. VI and.DEC approVals/action. (x). (Y~) Appeal No. 3252 - JOHN CHARLES & M. SLEDJESKI. ~ariance appealtngdecision of Planning Board-6-f 4/2/84 that buildable area in proposed division is less than 80,000 sq. ft. (excludes wetland grass areas) for a one-family dwelling, and less than 160,000 sq. ft, (excludes wetland grass areas) for an existing two--dwelling usage. £/s Narrow River Road and S/s Main Road, Orient. *WAwait Co. Health Art, VI and SEQRA. Appeal No. 2367 - LOIS AND PATRICIA LESNIKOWS~I. variance for approval of tw~'--~arcels having insufficient area and width, S/s..North Qrive, Mattituck. **Await DEC. Build- Ing envelopes and s~tbacks not shown since enactment of Local Law - Wetland~ Setbacks. So~thold Town Board of Appeals -25- July 17, 1986 Regular Meeting Public Hearings (**awaiting additional Other Matters Pendin~ information as no:ed), continued: (~,) Appeal No. 3371 - FLORENCE RO:LLE Variance for approval of two parcels having in~~, width and depth. E/s Ole ~ule Lane and N/s Kraus Road, Nattituck. **Await Article VI application/approval by Co. Health and poss. DEC. (aa) Appeal 'No. 3342 - PHILIP'R. REINHARDT. Variance for approval of two parcels ~f~ient area and width. **Reces. sed from 5/25/83 as requested by attorney for County Health Department Art. VI approval/clearance(and DEC)~ (bb) Appeal No. 3216 -'EUGENE DAVISON. Variance to establish living quarters over sta~-1-~.-'~ **Applicant has requested postponement until ~urther notice and Planning Board reviews. ~/S Sound Avenue,_Mattituck. (~c) Appeal No. 3191 HERBERT MANDEL. Variance to change lot line and construct garage in front/~ide yard areas. E/s Ihlet Lane Extension, Greenport. Premises of R.E. Clempner-and Herbert Mandel are contiguous. **Await DEC & PB. (~) Appeal No, 3249 DONALD P. BRICKLEY. Variance for approval., o(. lots having i--~-~fficient area.and width. S/s Bay Avenue and E/s Broadwater Drive, Cutchogue. **Await DEC, Art. VI by County Health, and contour maps° (~) Appeal No. 3263 - ROGER MUNZ. Variance for Re.lief of. Condition No. 7 and the ~83 decisions rendered in A~peals No. 3100 and 3lO1. **Recessed from 9/13/84 as requested by applicant. Requests for status have been made,:(witbout responseS. Premises have been sold. ~%) Appeal No. '3268 ~ J. KATHERINE TUTHILL. Variance for approva!,:of parcels havi~cient area, width and depth in this "C" zone. h*Awbit DEC and Co. Health Art. VI application/actions. Planning Boar. d. recommended denial 9/84. There. being no other business properly come before the board'at this time, the: Chairman dec),6red. Thursday,.~. July 31, 1986 as the date of our next Special_~_Meeting, and_. the _meeting.. adjourned at 12:15 a.m. _ / ~ ~: Sour'hal d. Town ~B~&~a~ ~pea~-s ~ ~9 July 3-'i, ~98~~ '' ~ __ _ u:s 86 ~ - SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS MATTER OF STEPHEN SHILOWITZ-APPEAL NO. 3513 THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 9:27 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, Greenport, "M-Light Multiple Residence" Zoning District. Immediately prior to ~econvening the hearing, the Chairman gave Mr. Aggel, Attorney for the applicant, a copy of the July 15, 1986 letter received July t7, 1986 at 11:00 a.m. by the Board of Appeals Secretary, from Lawrence Storm, Esq. requesting an adjournment of the hearing. Mr. Angel was notified by telephone this morning of this request and the letter was read to him at that time. CHAIRlV~AN GOEHRINGER: I assume start the first part of this hearing with Mr. Angel~ if you-nave anything to say~ Sir. STEPHEN ANGEL~ ESQ.: What I would like to do is address this application- this letter that you just deliV'ered to me~ iV~r. Chairman. Do you want to identify it or do you want me to identify it? CHAIRi~4AN: You can identify it. lVlR. ANGEL: I was just given for the first time--I haven't seen this before-- a letter dated July 15~ 1986 directed to you Mr. Chairman from the Law Firm of Twomey~ Latham~ Shea and Kelley. It's regarding the application of Stephen Shilowitz~ and it says: "...Dear Sir: Our firm has just been asked by the iVlembers of the Cove 'Ci~ ~'c~ Association to review the above application for the purpose of appearing on their behalf before the Z.B.A. We have not yet been able to review any materials~ and will be unable to do so before your scheduled July 17~ lr986 meeting. Due to prior commitments~ we will be unable to attend this meeting. In light of the above~ we respectfully request that this matter be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting to permit adequate review and if necessary Page 2 - July l?, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals FiR. ANGEL (continued): presentation. Thank you for your :courtesy .... It' s signed Lawrence Storm. Flay I be heard in connection with this application? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ANGEL: The first thing I want to say about it relates to me being a lawyer and nOt hTavin9 heard about it except from the Board today~ which upsets me I thihk as a bit of a discourtesy. It puts me in a very difficult position not having read this letter, iViy name appears on all the papers involved in this proceeding. I' m the one who sent out the notices. Certainly someone could have had the courtesy to tell me in advance that_ancaPtSti~ation would be made for an adjournment. Secondly~ the letter is carefullyddrawn--I didn't notice until just now--to not to indicate that this law firm is definitely going to be appearing for this Association. It says they have been asked by members to review the application. It doesn't say we represent. Second~ as you recall, I was here last time. At that time we had a public hearing and an application was made by somebody in the public to adjourn this one month~ the next scheduled meeting tonight, in order to try.~to~c get counsel. I reluctantly did not oppose that. I think I stated that I understand the people who want to consult with lawyers before they take a position before this board. I want to point out to you, however, that we sent registered mail or certified mail notice to the adjacent property owners who appear as adjacent property owners in the Assessors Office of this Town~ Suffolk County Tax Map Agency, and also in Greenport Village. There are four of them. They received a notice, and here is our adjacent property owners, an affidavit of mailing~ and the signed receipts. I would like that marked as an exhibit. These went out on Flay 15, 1986, more than 30 days prior to the last hearing. CHAIRFiAN: Are these originals? FiR. ANGEL: Those are original receipts. I have copies of the receipts. an original affidavit and a copy of the notice. (Fir. Angel submitted copy of neighbor notice form~ completed, original Affidavit of lViailing: and certified-mail receipts. ) That' s Page 3 - July t7~ 1986 Public Hearing Flatter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals FiR. ANGEL (continued): Next~ we appeared at the hearing on June 19th~ and of course we discussed this~ as I eluded to before. One of the comments made at that June 19th meeting was that there was a possibility that we had not served all the people in accordance with your requirement that certified mail notice has to be given to all adjoinirJg property owners. Well~ we checked again in. the Assessors Office as your rules required~ and those are the four proper people. Nevertheless I sent somebody out to the Board' s Office to pick up a copy of a report that was submitted by a gentleman that night allegedly showing the names of interested people. That report sets forth a list of names and deeds. It -- deeds~ libers and pages. It doesn't say anything about addresses. I~ nevertheless~ sent somebody over to the County Center. We pulled all those deeds. I looked at the addresses on those deeds~ andi,I personaHy' compared those addresses with the addresses of these people in the phonebook and whatever source I could find with names and addresses, I prepared a letter on July 3~ 1986 directed to "whom it may concern regarding this application~" and statin9~ "We have been advised that you have an:i: interest in certain:property designated on the Suffolk County Tax Flap..." and I put in the number of Fir. Shilowitz-- the number of the Cove Circle property that that report indicated. "This property adjoins land owned by Fir. Shi[owitz for which he is making an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Enclosed please find a copy of the notice which had previously been given to Cove Circle Associates~ as the ownerrof said property .... " That' s the notice that you just see. "...Please be advised that the hearing has been adjourned until July 17~ 1986~ and will be held at the Town Hall during the evenin9 of that day. As of now~ the actual time of the adjourned hearing is unknown. The actual time may be confirmed by contacting the Southold Town Board of Appeals .... " And I signed it with our firm name~ and it was on our firm stationary~ and I'd like to offer this as another Exhibit. To it is attached the list of the people who we sent notices to~ and an affidavit of mailing by one of our secretaries that the notice was sent. I have in my possession receipts signed by approximately 75%. A few were returned because ths:s~e addresses on the deeds and in the phone books were stale. Now~ at the last hearin9~ we indicated that we were under some pressure to move on this particular application notwithstanding the application of the adjournment until tonight. I believe even a Trustee from the Village of Green-- port indicated Greenport's interest in moving the application along. I think Page 4 - Jury 17, 1986 Public Hearing Flatter of Stephen Shilowitz - Appear No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals lVlR. ANGEL (continued): that everybody who may have had an interest in it who was there that night understood us to make those comments. Now, I also want to point out in connection with the delay that we have here and the nature of the objections that this project has been 9oin9 on for a,'long period of time. It started in 1981. I believe we told you before --lVjr. Shilowitz was here and he' s here tonight-- that Mr. Shilowitz made application to these numerous boards includin§ the Town of Southold' s Town Board~ and the Town of Southold' s Planning Board before he actually purchased this property, with the clear understanding stated to those boards that if nobody was interested in. the project as he submitted it~ he wouldn't do the project. Now it's interesting to note that at that time in the various public hearings regarding the rezoning there were no objections. I went and 9ot copies of the public hearing--there were two public hearings held by the Town of Southold on the rezoning of this property from its prior industrial use to M-Light Multiple Residence~ which it is today. One of those public hearings was held on January 5~ 1982~ the last thing stated in the minutes of that public hearing was Supervisor Pell saying ~ "...does anybody else wish to be heard in favor of' the applicaffon for a change of zone in behalf of Stephen Shilowitz..., No response. "Anybody wish to be heard in opposition to it? No response .... " I would like that offered in evidence. Now, in addition, for some reason there was a second public hearing held on exactly the same issue--the last thin§ said at that public hearing was also by then Supervisor Pell. What it was he said in part was~ "Does anybody wish to be heard in opposition to the application?" No response. A§ain, that is the hearing of July 7, 1982 in connection with the rezonin9. CHAIRNIAN: That' s the plamthat is before us-:now? lViR. ANGEL: Well, that was on the rezonin9. I think the plan predates the rezoning and it was subject to public inspection. Also there was a model that was shown prior to that. Now~ I have also caused to be examined the files of the Plannin9 Board that granted site plan approval, and we found no indication iH the Plannin9 Board files that there was any opposition of this site plan that is Page 5 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): currently before the board. Now: at the time these applications were made~ that property had a building on it--a factory on it. I understand it was an oyster factory. Some people have told me, "I'm not personally familiar with it." Some people have told me it was used to coat pipe~ to put coating on pipe. It was a factory. Mr. Shilowitz, after he closed on the property, knocked that down at some cost to himself. Now it ' s not difficult to infer why there wasn't opposition then, and there is opposition now. Now finally I wasn't even able, because of the letter ~ whether it' s inadvertent or planned~ the discoutesy of not advising me a couple of days before that this would happen~ I wasn't even able to tell Mr. Shilowitz until two minutes ago or five minutes ago that this application was going to be made for an adjournment. He spent his whole day in a hospital wallin9 for somebody who is very close to him to come out of a very ,serious operation~ hopped in his car,~t-a~'com:e ou:t--her-evand is going right back to continue his vigil. It' s just not fair to put us in the position the last minute to seek an adjournment under these circumstances. I request that you ruIe on that adjournment. CHAIRMAN: Before we have the hearing? MR. ANGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say one thing~ Mr. Angel~ that you are aware of the fact that our office did call you today after receiving this mailgram? NiR. ANGEL: That's correct. I was notified by your office I think between ll and 12:00. I was out and I found out about it about 12 noon. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we're particularly ready to render a decision on that at this particular time. I would rather wait until toward the end of the hearing~ and possibly a short caucus, and then come back with a determination. MR. ANGEL: Ok. Then let me proceed with a couple of more items. I have-.- Mr. Lessard last time asked us about the short distance to the bulkhead vis-a-vis emergency vehicles, specifically.!£'ire vehicles. Now as you probably are all aware, more so than I am, knowin9 the area betmrc~ this site is serviced by the Page 6 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): Greenport Fire Departmen. t: not by the Southold Fire Department. We have here an original letter from the Chief of the Greenport Fire Department. I would like to leave the original: with your permission lVir. Lessard~ to the Chairman~ even though it' s directed to you because I would like to offer it in evidence. I have copies for you and the other members of the Board~ and I' d like to read you the letter though the conclusion is that the Greenport Fire Department does not find any difficulty with the proposed site plan. Should I read the letter so everybody hears it~ Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ANGEL: It's Greenport Fire Department~ Greenport, New York stationary~ and it's a letter to Mr. Victor Lessard, Chief Building Inspector~ Southold: "...Dear Mr. Lessard, I, as authorized representative of the Fire Depart- ment, Village of Greenport, have reviewed the site plan and architectural scale model of the 9-unit residential condominium project (Pipes Cove Condo- minium) that Stephen Shilowitz proposes to construct upon his site at the foot of Sixth Street, Greenport. I have determined as a result of my review that the design presently indicated by his plan indluding setbacks from bulkheads as shown thereon (site Plan dated July 1, 1982'Drawing Nc). A-l) satisfies our department's criteria for proper fire-fighting, including deployment of our pumper and aerial-ladder apparatus during any fire emer- gency at that site. As you know, our department has the responsibility for fire protection not only upon that portion of Mr. Shilowitz' site that lies within the Village of Greenport but also upon that portion of his site that lies within the Town of Southold. Furthermore, Mr. Shilowitz has agreed to provide at least two new hydrants upon his site at locations which we will determine as proper. He will also eliminate a traffic circle presently indicated upon the afforesaid site plan to facilitate the maneuvering of our equipment. The area between Building #2 and #3 will be paved so a pumper can reach the water and pump from the bay or cove. This was agreed upon by both parties during our telephone conversation on July 7, 1986 .... " And it's signed~ "Very truly yours, Paul Quarty~ Chief~ Greenport Fire Department .... " Page 7 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals ANGEL (continued): Now~ at this point~ since we' re involved in the merits--shall I proceed with what I was going to do tonight~ Fir. Chairman? CHAIRMAN: I would say yes because we are basically--we have asked you the questions, and anybody that would like to rebut that will have time to do so. FIR. ANGEL: I want to just quickly recap. This is an unusual situation. A unique situation. I should point out in my opinion not a precedent settin9 situation. We' re asking you to vary the 75-foot setback line from all tidal waters for' this particular site. What' s unique about it is ~ we' ve 9or a slew of approvals that predate that particular law by numerous 9overnmental agencies. So I went into them in some detail last time~ I want to mention them again. We' ve 9or it rezoned by the Town Board and the Village Board of Trustees in the Village of Greenport. As you remembers the rezoninDs are conflicted. In Southold it's Fi-Light Mu'lt.ilSt~ Residence which allows all sorts of residences. In Greenport it's WC Waterfront Commercial which doesn't allow any residences except multiple residence. So it' s hard to build one particular use other than the one that we have before you right now. Now~ we -. got Site Plan Approval from the Southold Planning Board. We: ~'.:c got U.S. Corps of Engineers approval on the site plan. We got a conditional use permit from the Village of Greenport Planning Board. We got a DEC approval for this particular site plan. We got a building permit from the Village of Greenport to do excavation work and bulkhead work. We got new wetlands permit from the Southold Board of Trustees among other things. As I said~ I don't think there' s a fear of a precedent-making case. It's not like we' re asking you~ we' re coming in with a new piece of property and we' re saying~ "Listen~ give us relief from that 75-foot setback. I want to put my pool next to the water." This started in 1981 with a series of meetings and extended through today. It ' s been through the mill. It' s been through many mills. This is a quirk that just happened by mis- take. It's specifically a situation where uniqueness brings it to you for your Board to do some justice. Page 8 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): Now~ I also got a copy --I didn'.t take out my other documents here--I just took out my anti-adjournment documents when I came up here. I got a copy of public hearing minutes that were made by the Southold Town Board at the time of consideration of the ?S-foot setback law that we have before you. Now to be honest with you~ those minutes are not extremely elucidating. But they do have a ~_¢o:][:].oqi~f,?~ in them between a resident~ George Schroeder~ Supervisor lVlurphy and Town Attorney Tasker regarding how this Board in a proper unique case has the authority to vary those setback restrictions by variance~ and that the unique case should come before your Board for such a variance. And I'd like to offer that in the minutes as an additional exhibit. And refer you to page 4 where there' s a qeO] ]'o~uy ' between Councilman Schondebare and Town Attorney Tasker and Supervisor Murphy concerning the appropriateness for the possibility of a variance in a proper unique situation. I've got some extra copies to give. SECRETARY: What's the date of the meeting minutes? CHAIRMAN: lViarch 12~ 1985. MR. ANGEL: The other thing I wanted to point out is ~ as I think I mentioned in both the Affidavit and last time's hearing~ the environmental concerns are extremely mitigated in a site like this where ,'.he site is going to be served by Greenport public water and Greenport sewer. ¥te' re not dealing with a situation where effluent is going to be dropped into tidal waters. Reflective of that'pparticular concern is the fact'~that the D.E.C. granted a permit to construct as shown on that site plan. As you know: the D.E.C.' s regulations concerning site:a.devel°pment of this nature are fairly~ rigorous in this case. There was no difficulty--I'm not going to say that~ I wasn't there. In this case the D.E.C. issued that permit for the site plan as it is presently before you. At this point~ I believe we made a presentation last time and ask you to refresh your memories regarding that application~ and tV~r. Shilowitz is here tonight. He just came in late. He sure heard my application. Both he and I are available to answer any questions. Page 9 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing 1Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: There are a couple of things that we had had trouble with, concern~ ing this survey~ site plan of July 1~ 1982. Do you have anything better to offer us? Do you have a more current survey~ anything that we can go down and measure possibly with more measurements on. When we look at this particular piece of property. Has there been a more current survey done~ possibly somethin9 that you are going to be usin9 for actual construction? There is? MR. SHILOWITZ: I may have it in my folder tonight. CHAIRMAN: You don't have to give it to?m'elitonight. You can supply Us with it Also~ we would like'ito have a copy of the bulkheading Plan that I believe Mr. D0uglass -- MEMBER DOUGLASS: I got it. CHAIRMAN: You haveit~ Bob? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Thirdly~ I just wanted to ask the question-- the units themselves with be constructed on a monolithic poured foundation or will they be constructed on piling ? MR. SHI LOWITZ: Both. Wood piling ~ concrete pile caps ~ concrete -reinforced concrete grade beams. Which makes a monolithic -- CHAIRMAN: You are an architect~ is that correct? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yes~ I am. CHAIRMAN: Are you certifying that the tiebacks that 'wiHz, be placed underneath the building~ ok ~ would be substantial enough to withstand the normal pressure of this type of foundation? MR. SHILOWITZ: Without question ~ and-- Page 10 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Will you put that in an affidavit? lVlR. SHILOWITZ: I certainly will, and I can state now that they are totally independent. CHAIRMAN: If you can compose that in a letter for us and give it to ~us,~. we would appreciate that because there was a question on that. lViR. SHILOWITZ: I wanted to just comment that my site plan that you have, and i certainly will supply the one that you just mentioned, I had the firm of VanTuyl lay out, just to be certain, and prior to the earlier hearing the last time exactly what happens in the field, and that drawing is at 20th scale-- it' s a standard engineering~-~scale. It came out so closely within fractions of a foot, I' ll commend myself in public for being a veryccarefukidraftsman. CHAIRMAN: Ok, so you'll Send us that and-- MR. SHILOWITZ: If I have it in my folder tonight, may I leave it with you? CHAIRIVfAN: Surely. No problem. All right. Let's see what continues during the hearing~ and we' 11 render~,~.a decision concerning the possibility of a short recess or whatever. _All right~ goin9 over to the other~side~-^I would just like to ask all the people that are in the audience tonight that if there are spokes- persons available as I had a discussion with, I believe it was Mr. Stroh9 yes- terday, I would appreciate that; and I also appreciate--and this is something I have not asked during this hearing--if you would kindly --the ccogD'a~t~e~ level of the questioning specifically be addressed to this particular site, not speci- fically to the no%i-cing ~ ~hi~,R'iI think we' ve taken care of at this particular time-- if you'll abide by-,~what I'm saying~ Mr. Strong? Ok? You' re welcome to speak. ROBERT STRONG: I-- CHAIRlViAN: He's just going to Dive me a drawing, I'm sorry. (lVlr. Shilowitz gave a copy of his plan. dated for the record. ) iViR. SHILOWITZ: I: m going to leave this with you--it' s got some of my own personal notes on it~ and incidentally I have a letter from VanTuyl certifyin9 Page Il-July 17, 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SHILOhrlTZ (continued): that particular point. I' ll submit that too. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I' m sorry. Sir? MR. STRONG: I' d like to speak in opposition, to the application for the variance. I' d also like to address as you just indicated the adjournment. I' d like to come forward to give you copies of a letter of which I would like to read. CHAIRlViAN: Surely. lViR. STRONG: There are two pages. MR. STRONG: We would like to explain our request to obtain, counsel, and I' d like to read the letter. It sets it out: precisely. "...I' m one of the adjacent property owners~ also known as the Cove Circle Association. I appeared at the June 19, 1986 hearing. Among other things considered then, I asked for and was granted an adjournment to determine if I, and the other owners, who are present here tonight--" I' d like to interrupt for a moment if I may~ and indicate the second~ third and fourth rows are taken up by the owners ~ so there are definitely more than four. There are also indications by that specifically addressing and question the Short Environmental Form~ that there is a public controversy about this. And rebutti~n~g- -: earlier information submitted by counsel. "I asked for and was granted an adjournment if I and the other owners needed counsel to protect our property:interests as the result of this application for a variance. One of the other reasons:for requesting such an adjournment was to notify other owners. Immediately upon leaving the June 19th hearing, assiduous efforts were be§un to locate~ inform and meet with all ll of the owners in the undivided interests in the adjacent property, known as the Community Beach." I also would like to digress from the letter for a moment to indicate that this appears on a map as if it were one parcel: perhaps owned by one person. But there are varied interests in it. Page 12-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearin9 lV~atter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG (continued): Immediately upon leavin9 that hearing, v~ made efforts to meet with all 11 owners. But July 6th~ eight of those Il decided to seek counsel and appointed a committee of three to do so. By July 14th, and I also agreed~ an intent ll owners 9ave their proxy~.:to another, During the period from July 6th ~ihrough July 15th~ the counsel-search-committee accomplished the following: (a) we contacted and met with the attorney who represented these owners in another similar matter. However he had retired. We retrieved our file. (b) We contacted and met with a possible expert witness subject to approval of counsel we would hire. (c) We contacted and met with an attorney that closed the purchase of one of the other owners~ however~ as a result of subsequent developments~ he now has a conflict of interest and couldn't take the case. (d) We contacted and met with an attorney observed here handlin9 unrelated matters before thisbboard; however, he wished to limit the scope oFhis engagement to non-litigable matters. (e) We contacted and met with yet another attorneyii~known to be experienced in'~these matters~ however~ he was formerly associated with opposin9 counsel and obviously a conflict. (f) Lastly we contacted another attorney known to be experienced in these matters. We are in the process of executing a Retainer Agreement, that I just received by express mail. It could be interpreted that the letter was carefully drawn to avoid the question of whether counsel was being hired. There is'no question that counsel is bein9 hired. The meeting with the owners was to determine how to '.divide up the feel and we have agreed upon how to do so. Some of the checks have already been drawn; however the Retainer Agreement has not been completely signed. Therefore~ we believe our request for the adjournment to obtain counsel should be continued and that such a:"request is reasonable in viewcof our diligent efforts. On that question~ that's all we have~to~say. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to continue a rebuttal of the case, or 'what would you like to do at this point? Do you want to have each individual speak concern- ing this ? MR. STRONG: What I would like to do is as follows: Can we find out if there is going to be an adjournment or do you want to go on the merits and continue? Page 13-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing lViatter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: I find this a very difficult question~ and I' ll tell you the reason why. We' ye had many cases like this before. What I would like to see toni§hr and the ,board and I have discussed it~ is the possibility oF; hearing your side.~ your groups and so on,. I think after hearing that~ we' 11 make a determination unless of course lVir. Angel has something else to say~ then we' 11 make a determination at that particular point. But I think it's still a little too early to come up with what we intend to do. We may have to~ discuss it in a three- minute discussion, before we come up with it. lVlR. STRONG: Under those circumstances I would like to do the following. Mr. Scott has some substantial questions to asks and I would likes while-he is doing so~ quietly canvas one or two others to see if they do~ and either they or I will speak after Mr. Scott. CHAIR~/IAN: Ok. Sir. AL SCOTT: My name is A1 Scott. I' m on the east property next to Mr. Shilowitz. There are several-t;hings I'm concerned about. One of these~ I don't know how to fix this application of his. Evidently the property has been sold~to a realty corporation on June 3rd of this year. It' s no longer in ~Vir. Shilowitz' s name.. How that affects this hearing--I really don't know not being an attorney- or knowledgeable about this s but I put it before you. This has been published in the Suffolk Times on July 3rd of this hearin9. CHAIRMAN: Well: we will ask him at the end of the hearin9 if he will address that particular situation. I don't know,that he mandatorily has to. IVlR. SCOTT: One of the other things I' m a little concerned about is he has a bulkhead permit~:that allows~ him 18" from the existing bulkhead: and I have some pictures here-- CHAIRIvlAN: Eighteen inches.in or. outward? lVlR. SCOTT: Outward. It appears to m.e that he' s already encroached on our beach property--'not by much~ but enough to give me a little bit of concern. Page 14 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing tVlatter of Stepl~en Shilowitz~Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals lViR. SCOTT (continued): I' d like to leave these photos~ri,th you. Plus before I Dive them to you~ I would like you to note that this property sticks out into Pipes Cove probably 150 feet at high water--probably a little more than that. But when you' re considering Wetlands~ I don't think it just says the front of the property as part of the wetlands.. I think the westerly part of this property is also part of the wetlands and shouldbbe taken into consideration ~ particularly when his building is withinffive feet of the westerly boundary: of':the Bay. It seems very very close to me. But I' d like to give you these pictures anyway. CHAIRMAN: Can you leave these as a part of the record? MR. SCOTT: Yes. We have taken some measurements. We think they' re fairly clear. CHAIRMAN: Just so I can mark them. What's your name again~ Sir? AL SCOTT: Al7 Scott. IviR. ANGEL: I just want to know if there is any writin9 on them. IVlR. SCOTT: No. It' s just the way they came out.I It' s not my intent to give Fir. Shilowitz a hard time about the use of his property. Obviously the man has to be able to use his property. I have no objections as far as the condo format goes. What I do object to is trying to~~is in trying to circumvent the ?5-foot setback. That really makes the whole project~ as far as I'm concerned-- a bad ball of wax. The reason~ as IVtr. Angel said~ there was no objections on the original application. The original application called for a 75-foot setback. It' s only at this point in time that he - now has 9one down' to 20 feet. It' s not a matter of five~or ten feet off the 75~ but 20 feet. Now that's more than 50% reduction in the setback. And just the presence of all the other o~-n:e~rs here is evidence that originally there was not that much concern. But now there' s a definite concern that he's going against the Southold zoning laws. Theyrmentioned that there was a factory operating there. At one time a gentleman tried to 9et Page 15-July ITs 1986 Public Hearing IV~atter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. SCOTT (continued): a resin factory in there~ but his requests were all turned down--both by the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. So that never materialized. There was no resin factory on that location. There was an oyster houses and that was there when the Ellsworth~had the property. The other thing I would like you to look at is whether the Fire Department in Greenport was shown. the new plan or the original 75' setbacks because it does make an~awful lot of difference between the 20-foot setback and"the 75. Alsos that five-foot setback on the westerly :J, boundary--even a single-family house today~ you can' t 9et within five feet of your neighbor' s sideyard. My God the Building Department would jump up and down like a wounded eagle. So I don't see where a project of this size should get within five foot of the property line. I guess that's it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very muchs Sir. Is that your only copy (of Suffolk Times excerpt). FiR. SCOTT: Yeah, but that' s ok. (Mr. Scott gave the clipping from the Suffolk Times regmding transfer of title for the record. ) CHAIRMAN: Sir. Kindly state your name? ARTHUR RIEGEL: Fly name is Arthur Riegel. I' m also one of the owners in Cove Circle. I believe at the last hearing a question was raised: and I did n.o~ hear Fir. Angel respond to itI and I don't know if a response has been offered to the board relative to the plans for elevations s because the:~site plan which we had seen has no:.indicationcof thats and I' m wondering if there isuany further information on that before I comment further about it. CHAIRMAN: Has there been anything received in reference to,,~elevation? lVlR. ANGEL: With all due respect~ we' re not here to have you review a site plan and a building plan application. We' re talking about a setback. I didn't think that it's necessary for you to review that. There's no question Page 16 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL (continued): we' 11 make a representation on the record that the elevations of these units will comply with the Buildin9 Code and the Flood Plain elevation requirements of the Town of Southold and the Federal Emergency Management Agencies Floodplain Regulations. C HA IRMA N: MR. ANGEL: CHAIRMAN: FiR. A.i~JG~I~: It's in the A zone. is. wouLcl you know? Ok. Can you just tell me what zone it's in. It's in the M-Light Multiple-- No: no. What flOodplain zone it's in. It's not in a V. I don't know what number it VICTOR LESSARD~ BUILDING DEPT. ADM.: Probably an A-4 elevation eight: something like that as a wild guess. CHAIRMAN: Eight-foot elevation? iVtR. SHILOWITZ: I' ve lived with this. MR. ANGEL: It's current elevation eight? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN: It's an 8' elevation. FiR. LESSARD: You' re asking me without the map or anythin9. MR. RIEGEL: I would just like to develop that a little bit further which is in keeping with essentially the content or the proposed content of this hearing. If one looks at the plan~ one sees that there is a proposed 35-foot high structure being put on an 8-foot elevation for a' total of 43 feet. This 43-foot structure is now 9oing to be within five feet of the building line on the westerly side. 'In the Short Form Environmental Statement which Mr. Shilowitz submitted Page l?-July 17, 1986 Public Hearin9 l~atter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. RIEGEL: (continued) there was an indication, in there that this would have no effect on the character of the area. Now from the knowledge and information of the Board, the westerly sideoo£~the property in question is the side which[:faces~aprivate beach which is commonly held by the owners in Cove Circle. We are now lookin9 at the prospect of a 43-,foot structure facin9 what is now recreational area. There has to be considered a significant change in the character of the area. Furthermore, looking at the~plans which lVir. Shilowitz has drawn., it seems rather clear that he doesn't have to, and I'm not an architect and I wouldn't even suggest that I have expertiseiin the area. However, just looking at his drawings, he has the ability, instead of having his units singly developed in the sequence movin9 from the front endc of this property and 9oin9 out toward the Bay, to double them up~ and in so doing, move further back~ probably I have no way of knowing whether he~ would be able to then meet the standard of;the 75-foot setback and at-~thersame time, not impact negatively upon the recreational area which is commonlyLheld by the Cove Circle owners. CHAIRM AN: Thank yo'u. MR. STRONG: I don't believe there are any other owners who wanted to speak, except myself. I just want to reiterate and possibly embel]iiSh?~ both the precedin9 speakers made. It can always be said a glass is half empty or half full~ it depends upon the perspective or, the viewer. Therefore~ I ask that Board to consider that the question is notoonly how close can Mr. Shilowitz come to the inside of his property line~ but shouldn't he observe the law which says he should stay:a~.c~mCain amount away from mine. SECRETARY asked the Chairman for a sheet containg the names of all the persons present in opposition for the record. CHAIRIVlAN: B4r. Angel, before you say anything could I ask, could possibly a roster be placed around the room and give us the names of everybody present here in the rebuttal. Opposing. Page 18-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals FiR. ANGEL: While they pass that around~ and I~ll even give them a piece of paper if they want~ can I speak- CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. NfR. ANGEL: I think the first thing I want to say is one of the last things-- is a comment of the last things that were said about the property line. Right~ can we see his' own drawing there. I think that we' re talking about a setback from a bulkhead line, not a property line. Nobody is seekin9 to go five feet or 7.3 feet~ from a property line. We' re talking about 50 feet from a propeerty line; 7 point something feet from a bulkhead line. CHAIRMAN: Seven point five or six feet~ whatever. FIR. ANGEL: Right, you see the property line extends'through some beach area into the open water and the bulkhead~2goes around it. That' s not the property line. It's the bulkhead line that we' re talking:tabout? CHAIRMAN: Do you have: riparian rights? IViR. ANGEL: No~ I think they have actual ownership,not riparian rights. I mean I think it is fee ownership by virtue of.:conveyances i~nTdhain of title and grants from the State of New York. He has fee grants from the State of New York. MR. SHILOWITZ: I would also like to say that Mr. Hindermann of the Building Department specifically asked me to make sure that I had a 50-foot setback from that property line~ and accepted that and wrote that in his report~ and on the basis the Planning Board granted its approval. I mean in part. So it's not five feet-- CHAIRMAN: Would we say 7.7 feet from the water then or ?.-- IViR. ANGEL: From the bulkhead. B/iR. CHAIRMAN: From the bulkhead. And we assume that there's water on the~. other side of the bulkhead or there' s sand? MR. ANGEL: Right. That' s right. But not a property line. I want to make it Page 19-July 17, 1986 Public Hearing lViatter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals FiR. ANGEL (continued): clear that the property line is as shown on the map. I mean I don't think we would have gotten an approval if we were seven feet from the property. The property line setbacks are 15 feet in this particular area. CHAIRMAN: Could you just write,your question down (to Mr. Stroh9) so that you don't forget it. FiR. ANGEL: Now, another couple of things that I feel are necessary to respond to. I almost want to beg your indulgence initially because of the way I am. going to say it. I want to challenge in a sense Fir. Scott to produce that different plan. I mean it's my impression that the site plan that you have before you is dated in July of 1982, and I don't think that the setbacks changed one iota from Day ,One to today. FIR. SHILOWITZ: The plan has never been changed. MR. ANGEL: The plan that was subject to public-- not public, to public comment before your Planning Board~ the plan that resulted in site plan approval is the one you see today, l~.?%re_.~r~t changin9 the plan_ in any way. The plan- rwas drafted. The last revision I believe was July 1, 1982. It has been around a long time. I do not want the board to leave with an impression that we' re talking about a change today. We' re talking about asking you to confirm what has been in the past -- at least been administratively. Hasn't faulted the property. But administratively that plan is the same. The plan has been the same even for,aelevations. There's also another factualeerror in one of the comments. I believe lV~r. Shilowitz would state ti.at the top elevation, the 'h-eight of the buildings is not going to be 35 feet at that area, it is going to be what? lVlR. SHILO~ffITZ: There are nine units proposed on that site. One of them is mine--it's the furthest from them. That is 35 feet~ and it's total 'is within. Greenport. l~e went over it at nausium in Greenport~ and it was approved. The buildings that are closest to them again, in the order 'of 26 feet above the datum; not 35. Page 20 - July 17, 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Do you have a set of plans that you could furnish us -- B/iR. SHILOI~ITZ: As a matter< of fact, my record~ set--although this hearing is so, important I would like to leave it--but I left a complete set with Mr. Him- dermann. CHAIRB/IAN: Do you have it? MR. LESSARD: It's in my office, yes. CHAIRMAN: Well, we?re going to need a duplicate of that set for this hearing~ so you don!-~t have to leave it tonight, because I' m going to ask you-- MR. SHILOIJITZ: I do have the tracing. In an effort to speed this along, you can have my record set. Shall Il before I forget-- MR. LESSARD: I can transfer mine over to you, and when he applies for a permit, if he would submit it. CHAIRMAN: Can we 'ko,rrowatl~ose? B/IR. SHILOWITZ: You can have them. I~4R. ANGEL: Don't be so cavatq:er-~- we might want to ask for them back some time. Especially the offers. CHAIRtVlAN: We never give anything back, Mr. Angel. B/iR. ANGEL: I stand corrected. There was also a comment about the Environ- mental Assessment Form that was prepared by me. I prepared the Environmental Assessment Form. Again this relates--and I think the reason for my conclusion that it wasn't necessary to go into a significant--it' s the wrong word-- a deter- mination of significance under the State Environmental Quality Review Act is this project was subject to~'environmental review. Vrasn't a Draft Environmental-- B/IR. SHILOBIITZ: Yes there was. Page 21-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing B4atter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals lVlR. ANGEL: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this site. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement--I believe Greenport was the lead agen cy--the Plannin9 Board of the Village of Greenport wa, s the lead agency, it was prepared--it was disseminated to the Southold Town agencies. It described the site. It met all the criteria of the State involved Environme-n.tal Quality Review Act. It discussed alternatives. It discussed the environmental settin9. It was a lon9 document. You people have seen'those documents. Again we are relitigatin9 something.that was litigated before the various agencies without the public' s o'utcry. The Environmental Impact State_ment was prepared at great expense. It was disseminated. It was discussed. The plans were disseminated. They were discussed. The elevations were discussed. The setbacks were discussed. All of that stuff was done. It was discussed by all of those agencies, including the agency sitting right here. That is the reason we' re not going through another SEQRA review. Why do it twice? It' s exactly the same application. I feel like I' m beating a dead horse. I have no more comments on this. CHAIR1ViAN : Thank you, Sir. Mr. Strong? MR. STRONG: May we respond to the rebuttal? CHAIRMAN: Yes. I was just discussing something here about a prior application on this--I don't recollect one. lViR. STRONG: It' s understandable that there are some questions about the plans and'cthe surveys. There are at least a dozen. And we could produce them. They are presently in the file that is ~'~eing organized for the attorney to be delivered some time between Tuesday and Thursday orr,next-, 'week. I would like to take--that would be the first statement. The second statememt is, I would like to take exception to the fact, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, that the property line in question relevant to this 75-foot setback hearing, is determined beyond a --is determined, period. There are questions that haven' t been developed here, as a matter of fact~ whether or not certain property lines are within 75 feet of our property line. As a matter of law in one example that I can think of, is unclear whether the property line on the beach is determined, and both those questions on that property line are relevant to this hearing on the 75-foot setback, because it seems to me, 75 feet from a shared property line is a relevant question. If we don't agree on the other end of that property line where it:is~ then the property line is in question if we are the owners on the, othersside. I also would like to re-emphasize that it may not be Page 22-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG (continued): the fault of any of the parties here that the notification system is the way it is.. Namely~ what appears on the tax rolls of the Cove Cir;~le Association~ and there are in most instances no post addresses to those living inside the Circle~ and therefore it' s unfortunate but it remains a fact that although there were prior hearings~ I was never notified I can say~ and many of these people can say they were never notified. They are the ones who had the most immediate and adjacent concerns. The next?point I would like to respond to in rebuttal is that there are inconsistencies. We intend to let our lawyers deal with;~them between the various forms:~,submitted. For example~ there is an inconsistency if I may abbret~i~iteeit and call it the Long Form Environmental Statement about whether the development changes the character of the area. In the Long,'Form of your own Enconsultants statement: it specifically notestthat there is a such change: a demographic change. Those are two questions also on the Short Form. The Short Form~ however~ answers those questions in the affirmative. It is not that this is not relevant~ it is also not that it was covered before--it is the question of~ as you mentioned before~ the process started in 198l. ~hings have changed'~ since 1981. If those--for example~ if that Short Environmental Form dated tViay 1986 that was submitted by counsel was answered rather than referring it back to the previous form~ it would have had to be answered in a different way--given the circumstances at that time. CHAIRMAN: Thank you"for your courtesy. I thank everybody for their courtesies. Is there anything you would like to say~ Sir? The only 'question that wasn't answered is concerning the title transfer--do you want to address that? MR. ANGEL: Oh~ yeah. We will now make' a representation on the record that whatever that name is entitled is in fact this person right here. MR. SHILOWITZ: Yumi is my daughter' s,name. Page' 23 - July 17~ 1986 Public Hearing Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-APpeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. ANGEL: What' s the name of the record owner? MR. SHILOWITZ: Yumi Realty. MR. ANGEL: And who is YumiRealty? MR. SHILOWITZ: Me. B/iR. ANGEL: 100%? MR. SHILOWITZ: 100%. I'm. the sole president~ officer, owner, chief cook, and bottle washer~ and Yumi is my daughter's name. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I think we' re about ready to discuss the possibility of having an adjournment or not having an adjournment. The one thing I just wanted to say, I want to thank everybody for their courtesy; it was very, very informative, and we' 11 talk briefly amongst ourselves for a couple of moments~ and possibly hammer out some sort of decision. MEMBER SAWICKI: L~Tou recess? ~-~Nbw? CHAIRMAN: We can recess: but we really can't go into executive session We have to decide in the public. (lVir. Strong gave the Chairman the roster of names of those opposing present tonight. ) CHAIRMAN: I thank you. Before we close this hearing, I want to make sure that everybody has had an appropriate amount of time to speak, and if there is anybody whs~sfelt that we have slighted them in any way, please stand up before we close the hearing~ or before we recess the hearing~ because there may be restrictions on the hearing if we intend to so continue with it, which would preclude you from. speaking. So we will discuss it right now. (After a few moments, Chairman continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN: All right, what we're going to do here is this. We feeI that to a certain degree these people that have come tonight have the::right to counsel~ and weea:.r.:.r~.$~'y;- do believe that they tried to get counsel~ or 'we would have asked Mr. Strong to be sworn in. We' ll recess this until the last hearing of the next meeting, and the restriction will be--there will be a timited time restriction and only the attorneys will be speaking, and we' re going to limit it to the two attorneys~ Mr. Angel and I assume Mr. Latham-- Page 24-July 17~ 1986 Public Hearin9 Matter of Stephen Shilowitz-Appeal No. 3513 Southold Town Board of Appeals MR. STRONG: 1Mr. Latham and/or Mr. Storm. CHAIRlVlAN: Whomever. But I would ask you to brief him before so we don't have a continual context 9oin9 back and forth. lViR. STRONG: That has been done. CHAIRMAN: Ok, but there will be a~limited time periodbbecause we-- it will not be an hour. We have to get 9oing on this hearin9. MR. STRONG: I will be happy and relieved to deal with it. CHAIRMAN: I thank you again~ the meetin9 will be on~the]14th; it will be the last hearing and hopefully we can wrap it up at that particular time. I' m sure you have objection to that. MR. ANGEL: Wel[~ I object to it but there' s nothing I can do about it. What I ask you to. do is if possible to keep your rain_ds open~ and if it' s possible at the end of that evening after you' ve listened to our final arguments to be prepared to maybe give us another sort of determination. I would appreciae it. I mean, you do your own business. I'm just making a request. CHAIRlVlAN: Right. Hearing no further oomment~ I 11 make a motion recessing this hearing until the last hearing of the next regularly scheduled meeting (August 14th). lVlember Sawicki seconded the motion~ and the resolution was unanimously carried. Pp. 1-24 (Shilowitz Hearing) RECEIVED AND FILED BY OWN Respectfully submitted Linda F. Kowalski~ Secretary SfD:uthold Town Board of Appeals TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING MATTER OF RICHARD AND RUTH ZIEDLER - APPEAL #3510 Z.'B.A. JULY 17, 1986 .... lO:3-O.p.m.. Public Hearing was reconvened in the Matter of RICHARD AN'D'RUT.H'Z.ZED~ 'Appeal ~,35.~1.0 (recessed from our' June 1 9 The ~hairman opened the recessed hearing at 10:30 p.m~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll open this hearing and ask Mr. Ziedler if he could furnish us with the survey that we asked for. (Survey given to Chairman). Thank you very much. RICHARD ZIEDLER: Should I try to explain the different colors and what it's all about? CHAIRMAN: Ok, but before you do that let me give the Walkers a copy of this. MR. ZIEDLER: I'll give them a copy. the Walkers a print of the survey.) (Mr. Ziedler gave CHAIRMAN: Ok, thank you. MR. ZIEDLER: The red are brick patios, brick fireplace, and a walk in front of our house. The gray is a wood deck and a walk to the side of the house to the east of the octagon- shaped patio, and on that patio is the gazebo. The green indicates the trees and the shrubs. The blue, I'd hope, is the water in the pool. The gray is the wood patio to be built around the pool. You have asked last time that you would feel happier if I moved the pool further to the south, which we have done--we've moved it as far as we can to the south. If you'll notice, you'll see the old drawing of the pool that we went over. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. 'ZIEDLER: The ]ool holds about 12,000 gallons of water Page 2 , Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER (continued:) and the water will be tanked in by tanker-truck. In other words, a liner pool must have the water immediately, and they bring the water in and they pay for it. The pool evaporates approximately six to eight gallons a day. Are there any questions? (None) And the pool is between 80 and 90 feet from the Walkers' house. CHAIRMAN: When you say that's as far as you can go with it, how did you arrive at that determination? MR. ZIEDLER: Well, if you'll notice, it's going to be south of the pool--there is a tremendously big tree and I remember I said that I would not like to destroy it, There's a picture -- and here's anot.her picture of a tree-- CHAIRMAN: cedar tree. MR. ZIEDLER: Cedar tree, yes. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. MR. ZIEDLER: There's a picture of the gazebo These are the things that the Walkers talked about last time. That's why I took pictures of them. There's a picture of my flagpole, and I'd like whoever stole my flag last year after they had a beach party, I would appreciate it, because I guess the police would I notify them. And this is the garden where the pool will end up. In other words, it will totally be enclosed pretty near the shrubbery. The only thing I couldn't bring you--I don't have a flash for my camera--or I would have brought you a picture of my spa that is inside of my house, which I had a permit for. CHAIRMAN: Is that adjacent to the pool at all or-- MR. Z!EDLER: No, it's right inside the house itself. If you look at the brick patio, right inside there there is a room that's about 10 by 10, 12 by 12, there is a jaccuzi room in there. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I thank you very much for these, Mr. Ziedler. Mrs. Walker, would you like to address this? MRS. MARGERY WALKER: Yes. I would like to cover a couple of things that certainly ( ) than before on the side, however, we still contend that in the backyard, it would be better where it can conform. There still has been-no reason given why these cannot conform. And be in the back yard. Now in the zoning book, it says Page 3 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MRS. WALKER (continued): a variance can only be applied for, if--and I have it here to code-- CHAIRMAN: Take your time. MRS. WALKER: I'm reading from a copy of the Zoning Book. Variances - where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of these regulations, the Board shall have the power to wary or modify as long as it-goes on and on--that there shall be observed the public safety, welfare, and substantial justice be done. I mean, as faF' as I can see, it has not yet been indicated why it cannot adhere to the Code and be in the back yard, and if I read this correctly, he can't apply for a variance unless you can prove that you can't conform. I mean, the question--moving it back is certainly better than it was but it still doesn't show the fencing, and it still is in line with the prevailing breeze, where it will be right as if we were sitting around the edge of the pool. I have a letter from the Doctor if you need it stating what my husband's condition is, and I can give it to you if you so choose. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Walker's health.) (Received copy of Doctor's letter concerning MRS. WALKER: That is our only concern. Certainly Mrs. Ziedler should have a pool if she wishes and if it will help her~, and I understand that it certainly is help for a bad back, and we do not begrudge the pool. It is again, as we said last month, the placement of the pool because it's our concern--let her be comfortable certainly, but my major concern is my husband's health and our enjoyment of the deck which is right there. CHAIRMAN: I tried to address the issue--I don't know how well I did the last time concerning my particular feeling and not the particular feeling of the Board. MR. ZIEDLER: something. Can I interrupt one moment. I might be able to shed CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. ZIEDLER.: Because I said I would bring an area photo. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER: I only have one, so you can pass it around. house is here. My CHAIRMAN: What don't you come up here so you can see where he is pointing. MR. ZIEDLER: Here's where the pool would be right in here. There's the Walker house here. I measured it--it's about 80 feet from where the pool would be. Over here unfortunately with this house it's built right on the propert~...line, put a pool in the fnont.~here, I'd be a 1. ot..~lose~.to the~e ' people here than I.will the Walkers. !.can fence this--and incidentally, that shows the fence around the pool, and it also shows that I'm behind the easement view that,~You have, by putting it in here. This is where it will go. And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but. CHAIRMAN: I thank you. MRS. WALKER: Why do you still have that there? If you envision a pool just off that decking, you can see where he's got ever~so much more room in the front than in the side. Now the people next door have only been there twice so far this summer. We are there all the time, and it still is the fact that that's the backyard and that's Where the Code says the pool should go. And it is adjacent to all the inner facilities of the house that would accommodate a pool better than the side. MR. ZIEDLER: Well, this is my garden, and I'm going to give up my garden if this Board will allow me to put a pool here. My feelings are if I'm 18 or 20 feet from this person's home, and I'm 80 feet away from your home, I don't think I've ever bothered you in anything that I have done-- MRS. WALKER: It has nothing to do with you. It is the breeze. While. I'm here, let me just point out that if the pool were indeed, in here, you have a full lot which is 50 feet, plus whatever is there--granted there are only eight feet from that house. There isn't that much. But there is a full lot plus the rest of the space, is about--I don't know--I drew a pool, and you asked me to do that, and I sketched one in and gave measurements. If you went that way, you'd have 90 feet from the proposed sides of the pool. If you do it the other way, you have 70 some odd feet. You have more from the side this way than that way. And you have an adequate amount there. Page 5 Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Zieuler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MRS. WALKER (continued): And again they may be closer, the breeze goes this way, the noise goes this way. It does not go that way. And we live there all year. CHAIRMAN: The prevailing winds are on shore? MRS. WALKER: Right. CHAIRMAN: Ok. I just wanted to address this one question that Mrs. Walker had and say what I was attempting to say to you-- MR. ZIEDLER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN: ...in the last hearing was that we can, and I had to organize my thoughts--in fact I did them on the way home, and between 12 and 12:30 after that last hearing. What I was trying to say to you was, we can't tell them where to put the pool. They chose to put it in a specific spot. All we can do is deny the application, and if they so choose to come back with another application in another area, then we will have to address that application. And I did that by saying to you in my opinion I would rather see it in this side yard, ok, and what I was in effect trying to say is just what I said, all right. We can't tell them to put it in the rear of their house. MRS. WALKER: But if it says in the book that you must prove that you cannot put it where you should put it, don~t they have to do that before they apply to do other work. And with this full view, you are way in excess of 20% use of the property, and doesn't that require another variance? CHAIRMAN: Well that's one area that I am not sure that you are ready to address tonight was the 20% lot coverage was it Mr Ziedler? ' ' ' MR. ZIEDLER: I don't even know what she's talking about. CHAIRMAN: And I'll explain that in one second. MRS. WALKER: And I'm sorry, but I do not see a fence around this. I see the decking. MR. ZIEDLER: Do you see the water? The line around the outside Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER (continued): of that decking is a fence. It shows that it's 6' on this side and shows it's lO ft. on this side and l0 ft. on this side. MRS. WALKER: That's the decking. MR. ZIEDLER: Yes. MRS. WALKER: But there's no fence on there. MR. ZIEDLER: Well, I do know that you've got to have a fence to put a pool, and I certainly will put a fence and when you dis- cussed it last time, I said that I would put up a 4 ft. chainlink fence and the fence would not be in your easement view. I have tried to respect your easement view, but I have tried to respect everything you folks have wanted. I have to live with it the same way you do. But I don't think it's going to harm anybody-- two old people splashing around in the pool. MRS. WALKER: But you still haven't stated why you cannot conform to the Code and Put it in.~he backyard with so much more space-- CHAIRMAN: Let me answer that question, ok? Before we went back and discussed that this was an accessory structure or if this was attached to the building. Did we not say that the walkway will be adjacent to the house even though it's not specifically attached to the building. It will be for all intensive pur- poses, the building, meaning the house, the deck and the pool. So in effect it's not an accessory structure. It's an attachment to the house, so therefore it does not necessarily mean that it has to go into the rearyard area. What he in effect is doing is adding an extension onto his house. MRS. WALKER: But a hosue is four walls and a roof and living area. CHAIRMAN: The lot coverage situation is something that still has to be addressed, but tonight you have seen--if you were here early enough, the second hearing we had--I believe the name was Sieverman-- that's exactly the situation that was addressed here. I can show you the pictures of it. MRS. WALKER: Did they have room to put it in the back? Page 7 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 CHAIRMAN: I don't know that situation. They had two sideyards. It was a corner lot. But what I am saying to you, it was not an accessory structure. We are not dealing with an accessory structure. We're dealing with an addition basically to the house. And the reason why these people were turned down Mrs. Walker because you could step from one deck to the other just as he could if we gave him permission to build, step from their house to the deck to the pool. Even though it may not be attached with bolts or may not be cemented together, it was as though it was an addition to the house. MRS. WALKER: That's not what it says in the zoning book. MR. ZIEDLER: I can add one more thing to about where it is suppos-- about where I would like to have it. Three years ago we had a bad storm. Then two years you'll remember I brought a backhoe in and I took the sand that was.blowing out of the front of that 'bulkhead and I took it out of the creek and put it back. there ~If you.~re at Chism's ( ) which is right next door, you'll find that there is 2½ ft. of sand missing from behind his bulkhead that was blown away. I couldn't possibly put a pool in-the front there and never keep it clean with a sandy beach. Because the sand would blow it like no tomorrow. MRS. WALKER: You weren't there for that storm. We were there for that storm. More water came in the side than came in the front. MR. ZIEDLER: It took the sand away from the front of my yard. MRS. WALKER: It's immaterial. As far as we're concerned, we would be happier with it in the back where we didn'it have the prevailing breezes bringing it down, and where it conformed to the building code. I know nothing about it being an attached to the house. There's nothing in the zoning book that says anything other than a pool being in the back yard. CHAIRMAN: That's why we have a building inspector here. Do you want to address that issue. Was I correct on what I was saying? VICTOR LESSARD, BLDG-DEPT. ADMINISTRATOR: If it's an attachment it's a part of the house~ If it's part of the house, then it's properly drawn. Page 8 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 MR. ZIEDLER: That was discussed the last time I was here. You had told the Walkers that what we talked about was it was going to be attached to the house. MRS. WALKER: Just one more question. now is considerably smaller-- The pool that you draw MR. ZIEDLER: No, it is not. MRS. WALKER: Then the size that was on the other. MR. ZIEDLER: MRS. WALKER: It's still 16 by 32. And it's still going to be this far back? MR. ZIEDLER: Like it shows right there. CHAIRMAN: The only other thing that we had not--we stretched the rules a little bit in this particularly hearing, and that is that the addressing should be to the Board and not a discourse between the two--we're trying to keep it as downplayed~as possible here. The only thing we had not addressed was the issue of lot coverage, and that is, how much of your total lot will you or would you have covered. Ok? Now you don't have to address this issue tonight--it's quarter of 11. We have another hearing. If you just very simply sit down within the next couple of days-- just give us an approximation of what you've covered, that's all we are basically interested in. Just so we know, because the Walkers have some concern about the 20% lot coverage. MR. ZIEDLER: In other words if --only if my lot was built on-- I have three lots. I hav 12, 13 and 14. CHAIRMAN: Let me just make it easy for you. Let's assume you have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot. Twenty percent of that is 4,000 sq. ft. You can cover 20% of that legally in the Town of Southold (without a variance). 4,200 sq. ft. would be over that and it would require an additional variance. MR, LESSARD- Is this one lot or two? CHAIRMAN: Pardon me? MR. LESSARD: Have you addressed this as one lot or two lots? MEMBER GRIGONIS: Three lots. Page 9 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of Richard and Ruth Ziedler Z.B.A. July 17, 1986 CHAIRMAN:i Secondly, anything that is flush with the ground is not considered lot coverage. Ok? We are talking about some- thing that is usually elevated more than 6"--more than one cement block above the ground. MR. ZIEDLER: The only thing is my house. CHAIRMAN: Well, give us the square footage of it and we'll be happy. And the gazebo and any decks that you might haves Is there anything else you might like (to ~rs. Walker)~ ~ (Nothing). MRS. WALKER: Thankyou. MR. LES'SARD: Jerry, either he has one lot or two lots, and he should seriously consider this when he is figuring his computa- tions. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about the Exceptions List? MR. LESSARD: No. I'm talking about even though the subdivision shows three lots, he has encompassed two of them with the house. That is no longer two lots--it becomes one. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. LESSARD: Now he can address it all as one lot to give him more room in his computations or he can address it as two separate lots. If he hooks the pool onto it the way it is drawn, then they will now become one lot. Follow me? MR. Z I EDLER':' Yes. MR. LESSARD: And you should consider that when computating. MR. ZIEDLER: Ok. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. The hearing was concluded at this time. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Douglass, SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING MATTER OF PAUL LEARY THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1986 10:50 p.m. Public Hearing was held in the Matter of Paul Leary for Reversal of Building Inspector's Decision concerning Property of FRANK E. AND MARY BROPHY at 75 Second Street, New Suffolk, New York. Appeal No. 3489. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: before-- Is there anything you would like to say FREDERICK REUSS, JR., ESQ.: It was my intention to stand up and say that as much as I like to talk, and I think I've demonstrated that to you in the past, I think it would be wise for me at this point to remain silent and to leave the floor to Brother Pachman and perhaps come back later. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. PACHMAN: As you recall, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, Mr. Reuss concluded his dy~amic presentation by raising the bloody shirt of the Donack survey, which he had waived and said, gentle- men, it exceeds 20% and we all stared in awe, in few, and in contemplation of what this was all about. Unfortunately, upon reflection and a month's grace because we took too long at the last meeting, you'll find as everything else he has raised is quite a puff a smoke, which will be blown away in the fresh air of this airconditioning~ I"ll put that aside, because he raised some other issues which I think we should address at this time. The issue of the SEQRA requirement. The first time I spoke I addressed the SEQRA requirement, and indicated to you that under the SEQRA statute, Article 8 of the Environmental Conser- vation Law and Regulations, Part 617, it says that the issuance of permits by administerial offices-and the issuance of a building permit by the building official is an administerial act--does not require SEQRA aPplication or fulfillment. Page 2 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal #3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN (continued): When you come before this board, that's a different situation, but the mere issuance of a building permit is an administerial act by the building official at no time, if you check your rules and regulations would you find is there a requirement that SEQRA be complied with, and if you want, I'll give you a case ~hich'supports that position --Film Waste Communications of Syracuse verses Douglass, 484 NY 2nd 738. Then he got into t'he issue of whether When we came before this board in our original application to de-variance or unvary the application for the deck, whether that required an environ- mental SEQRA statement. One was filed. There was a Negative Declaration by this Board because the board said in its appli- cation that the type of action was, relief requested is not directly related to construction, and that was a proper interpretation because an alteration to the house is merely an alteration, it's not deemed new construction and tharefore a negative dec. was appropriate and that was your ruling. And then he raised the issue, it has no public controversy, and we marked "no.' And I don't think a public controversy exists between Mr. Leary and Mr. Brophy. I think it's a private controversy, and to claim that that's reason for a full course environmental imp. act statement I think Oives the statute no creedence. So your issuance of a Negative Declaration and the require- ment by the Building Inspector to the effect that n6 SEQRA is required is obviated, and we shouldn't address that any longer. He then raised the issue about the building ih the footprint, and we said that the house was built in the footprint of the previous house and we showed the surveys and we showed the pictures showing the original footprint. I don't want to belabor this board with a lot of testimony. I have the builder here. He can testify and will testify, it'll show the pictures showing the original locust piles that originally were there which had to be taken down upon advice of Mr~ ~indermann because of the substandard construction and the showing of the putting up of cement blocks, and they were Page 3 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN (continued): put in the footprint, and the builder will be willing to testify that he followed the footprint when he did that. MR. REUSS: I remember at our first hearing, Mr. Chairman, you said it was the practice here to show photographs of the other attorney before they were h6nded up. MR. PACHMAN: Well, I thought I would show them to the Board, but I'll-- MR. REUSS: I think Mr. Pachman caused me to stop my presentation the first heari.ng -- (Mr. Pachman showed Mr. Reuss the photo, graphs.) MR. REUSS: Thank you, Howard. Thank you very much. MR. PACHMAN: I asked the Clerk, Mrs. Kowalski~ to bring the Building Department file and your original application file to the hearing last time. If you will look at the foundation survey which is in the building plan, it shows that besides the original concrete foundation which exists and the 8' by 20' addition, that that front portion would be encased in new foundation, and it was encased in new foundation, and that is in the footprint that we originally showed, and that plan was before you when the original appeal was with the--for the first time to take down the variance and it says, "replace locust post foundation"with BCE on so and so grade, and that was done, and that was the plans that were approved. So we were required to do that, and that was the plan we submitted to you which youldid approve and which the building ihspector issued the permit on. So no additional construction was dOne on that. I don't have to give you that because it's already part of your record. As I indicated to you the first time I addressed this Board in May, the plans clearly have affixed to them the caveat that this is approved, foundation to be required, all construction shall meet the requirements of the N.Y.S. Construc- tion and Energy Codes, not responsible for design of construction errors. So we were required by the Building Department and the Page 4 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1.986 - Board of A~peals MR. PACHMAN (continued): Building Official when we filed for the building permit and were issued the building permit, to comply with and take down all substandard construction. I suggest that you look at the plan, which is again in your file and it shows that lot areas 7236 square feet, maximum lot coverage 20%-1446.4 sq. ft. shall be the building. It shows the existing deck to be in the southeast corner. It shows in the southwest corner that the concrete patio to be flush--on grade~ We'll get to that later on because that apparently~ is one of .the issues that comes to difficulty. If ~Q~u visited the site, you will see that the patio a~ea is flush with grade. The engineer who designed the plans and who filed the plans is Mr. Steve G. Tsontakis Associates. I have a letter from him dated Jul~ 14, 1986 to Mr. Brophy: ~...Renovation, Second Street, New Suffolk~ NY Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brophy, I have this date made an inspection of the on-going construction at your home at the referenced location. Although the work is incompleted, I find that the work to date is in compliance with my drawing dated July 7, 1985.~ Further, all the work complies with the latest New York State U~iform Fire Prevention and Building Code, in particular, Chapter B, which addresses single and two-family dwellings .... ' cc: Howard~ Pachman, Esq~ I submit that to the board. (Mr. Pachman submitted letter dated July 14, 1986 addressed to Mr~ and Mrs~ F. Bro~hy from Steve G. Tsontakis~ P.E. for the'record.) MR. REUSS: What was the date of that letter? MR~ PACHMAN: July 14th. Page 5 Public Hearing Mat.~er 9f PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17~ 1986 - Boa.rd of Appeals MR. PACHMAN- Next comes up the issue as to what you did when you de-varied the deck in the original application, which was never appealed by Mr. Leary, and prior to its being heard this Board had some difficulty with whether there should be a stop order because of whether the deck should be taken down after the permits were issued by the Building Department. The issue is whether the 20% was being violated and whether the earlier 2922 application of 1982 would be withdrawn. Mr. Brophy on October 8, 1985 wrote to this board and said as fol~ow~s~ ~..I request to have the variance (for deck front yard reduction setback) under Appeal 2922 dated 1/19/82 be withdrawn. The purpose of this request is to reduce lot cover- age and permit construction of an addition to the rear of the building described in said appeal. As required by the zoning regulations, lot coverage will not exceed 20%. I recently retired ... My question is whether a variance is necessary under condi_.tion #2"'of Appeal 1597 dated 6/20/72...(that's the original subdivision) when lot coverage does not exceed 20%. I feel that this condition is ambiguous and requires clarification of the board .... I have copies of that~ It's all part of your own record. On October 28, 1985, this board wrote to Mr~ Brophy and sent a copy to the Building Department, and said: ?~..This letter will confirm that the following action was taken by the Board of Appeals at a Regular Meeting held October 24, 1985 concerning your letter dated October 8, 1985: ~..RESOLVED~ that any change of construction concerning the relief granted under Appeal No. 2922 ..'(which was the variance-deck variance) and any construction which would affect the 20% lot coverage limitations and any other limitations of the zoning code, or change which would affect the prior conditions rendered by this Board, will require a formal application to the Board .... So you made a determination that you do not have to come before Page 6 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN (continued): this Board unless you exceed 20% of lot coverage, and unless you violated any other conditions of that original application. So therefore a determination was made, if you do not exceed 20%, you do not have to come before this board. So when you granted the application to allow him to take down the deck, and you knew at that time that the permits were in the background waiting for that determination, and you made a determination in that decision that he could build construction provided ~t doesn't exceed 20%, you have already stated that there, was no reason to Come before this board as long as there was no exceeding 20% of lot coverage. So therefore that determination was made~ and therefore when the deck was taken down, and you dis-varied or un-varied the variances ~here was no longer any necessity to Come before this board and when the building department issued the building permits and construction started, it was done all in accordance with the approval and understanding of what was to be done in this situation. I give you that as the determination made by this board and you are bound by that determination. On October 29th, Mr. Hindermann of the Building Department wrote you an extensive memo as to why. this does not violate any provisions of the zoning code and at the last paragraph says, "...The only remaining factor would be the approval of Mr. Brophy~s request to withdraw the previous variance granted under Appeal No. 2922 so that in the future a building permit will not be mistakenly issued to replace deck, this makes sense .... " So in his opinion, the building department's opinion, there's no exceeding the 20%. The only reason he wanted this determination was that later on we couldn't come back and use that deck area, which would be in excess of the 20%. 'So the building department understood what we were doing, and that memo was in your files when you made your determination. Let's talk about what the size of our lot is. All surveys which you'll see show that the lot is 7,231 square feet. No one deviates from that number. If we use the standard acre, 43000 sq. ft., you will find that this lot consists of .16 acres, or acreage purposes based upon percentages. Page 7 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN (continued): If you look at the assess you will see that this parcel lng of .168 acres, therefore There's being no portion take like that, so therefore as fa we're paying taxes on the ful though it may be subject to s we can build on the whole lot of what 20% is~ That's very the issue of whether there sh footage by reason of the asse assessed for the whole purpos purposes of computation. And thing, it says for ~lot cover~ sariiy coincident with a lot which is occupied or occupied it says the lot as defined in based upon the exterior lines lines for purposes of computi Lastly, he raises the iss whether we have complied with Town has a flood plain map. Government. This is out of t part of a packet that's given The areas which are shaded ar zoned B, et cetera. Based up department has determined tha certification is in their fil definitely certain that we we we filed ~an application Form- which was based upon Permit March llth to comply with the we applied for a permit. And permission needed--and it say because we already had come b to get the variance deleted, permit was filed on March llt on the' same date, the flood p Town of Southold. That is th that we complied with the 31o ent rolls of the Town of Southold, is being assessed as a lot consist- he whole lot is being assessed. away for rights-of-way or anything as the assessment is concerned~ configuration of this lot--even me rights-of-way and th6refore when we make our computations mportant. Because he's raised uld be a reduction of the square sment. Since the lot is being we use the whole lot for ~he ordinance says the same ge - a parcel of land, not neces- r lots shown on a map of record by.. the building'~ et cetera--so the ordinance i~ the total lot of the map or of the property g lot coverage° e about the flood plain. And the flood plain. Wells the t was certified by the Federal e Federal regulations, and it's to you. by the Federal Government. Zone A-4. The other areas are n that, the Town building we are in Zone B~ And that Again to assure and to make e within the Flood Plain of B-4 0 of the T~own Building Department, 4319Z of October 3, 1984 and town's flood plain plan, and we said, where it says any Planning Board and we put ZBA fore the Zoning Board of Appeals o that was put in there. That A fee was paid for it. And ain permit was issued by the permit for March 11, 1986, showing d plain. But to be sure because I Page 8 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Ap. peals MR. PACHMAN (continued): know Mr. Reuss is not too happy-- MR. REUSS: Ray I see that? MR. PACHMAN: Sure. That's the one you brought in last time. MR. REUSS: The new development and the -- MR. PACHMAN: Yes, that's the flood plain permit. MR. REUSS: I've seen it. MR. PACHMAN: Ok. Since maybe Mr. Reuss is not too content with the ability of the Town to determine which is Flood Zone A-4 and which is B, we had Mr. VanTuyl run a print of that, and he shows that the house, exclusive of the deck is in Flood Zone B, and not in A, and we got a permit for it, so that confirms whether it's in A or B. We've got the appropriate permit, which satisfies that requirement. So we've taken care of all the permits that we need. Now, let's get to the issue of the bloody shirt. Ok. Last time you were given a survey by Mr. Donack of Riverhead, prepared by Mr. Leary-Iat the request of Mr. Leary, excuse me. At the request of Mr. Leary. I called up Mr. Donack and asked him if he gone on the site to make the survey and he said he had. I asked him who had asked him t~o make the survey, and he told me it was Mr. Leary. And I asked him if he had the permis- sion of Mr. Brophy and he said no and he didn't know that it wasn't Mr~ Leary's property. But he went on and did the survey any way' The survey shows that the parcel is 7231 square feet; we all agree on that. It ~hows the house as 1357 sq. ft. and it shows OH, the overhang as 79 sq. ft. The overhang is the deck. And then he shows fnd, 145 sq. ft. and he shows that as being 1581 sq. ft. for a total of 21.9%. But if you look at the survey carefully, he shows on the lower lefthand side, a brick border on top of concrete-black J'fnd," that's probably foundation. And that's the 145 sq. ft. and that's shows as being dirt. I said, sir, what is the purpose of your saying that that's a foundation. He said, well, "I didn't know what it was. Therefore I assumed it was a foundation and therefore I added it into the computation and that's how I got 21.9%." Page 9 ~. Public Hearing _Matter of...PAUL LEARY, ..Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 : Board of Appeals MR. PACHMAN (continued): I said, "Sir, if that was not a foundation, but was a planter or was an on-grade patio, would you have included that in the square footage of the house?" He said, "Obviously not. I would take it out." I said, "Well, if we deduct from your computations 145 sq. ft., what would you come up with?" He said, "Well, the square footage of 145 would be reduced to a total area of 1,581 sq. ft., giving you a gross area of 1436 sq. ft., which computes to 19~8.6~_of the total area-- under 20%." Ok? And here's a copy of his letter. (Mr. Pachman submitted the original July 15, 1986 letter from Sealand Survey and Engineering, signed by Raymond W. Donack, Sr., addressed to Mr. Howard E. ?achman, for the record.) But that's not enough. Because if we look at the survey and compare it with VanTuyl survey, we see that where we have 40 feet, .he has 40.3 feet; and where we have 28 feet, he has 28.2 feet; and where we have 24 feet, he has 24.2 feet; and all around, we find there's a slight discrepancy by a fraction of a foot. I said, "Mr. Donack, tell me why do you measure differently than Mro VanTuyl measures?" He said, "Well, we measure from the shingle." I said, "Oh, Mr. VanTuyl measured from where?" The foundation. When you put a foundation survey in, you measure from the founda- tion. When you frame the house, you measure from the foundation. If it's an existing house, you measure from the shingle. That would give the discrepancy of the fractions of a foot between Mr. VanTuyl's survey and Mr. DOnack's survey~ So the great problem with the discrepancies between the two surveys don't really exist. If you took it to fractions, they're both under 20%, and we do not exceed 20%. But I didn't feel comfortable with that. I decided we needed an arbiter. Let's go to a third surveyor and see what he says. And we went t'o a third surveyor, and we went to a surveyor by the name of Peconic Associates, who are righ~ here in town and ask them to go out and survey this prOperty. The cost of this to my client I tell you is exceeding exbrbitant by reason of this proceeding brought by the Learys, but we're going to do it right, and we're going to have it for the record ~o be right. I asked him to survey this property, and on July 10, 1986, he surveyed the.property. And he shows a 1½-story frame house under construction. He shows the dimensions of the house from the shingle, which are the same, almost identically to Mr. Donack. He shows the raised wood deck. He shows the radius of the steps to the patio--he shows the patio on grade. And he shows that the house addition is 1350 sq. ft., the wood deck is 78 sq. ft. The lot coverage is 1428 sq. ft. The lot area is 7231 sq. ft. And the percentage of 16t coverage is 19.7 Page l0 - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEAR¥, Apf July 17, 1~986 Board of MR. PACHMAN (continued): square feet. And theref~ a matter of record it is MR. REUSS: Would yo MR. PACHMAN: Board first. Sure. CHAIRMAN: He measur, MR. PACHMAN: Yes, s measure by the shingle. you measure by the found MR. REUSS: Do you t (Mr. Pachman gave th of Peconic Surveyors and property of the Brophys. MR. PACHMAN: What d The good book says, "bui Building Area, p. age 1000 aggregate of the maximum building on a lot measur walls. 'The t6r~ ~b~ldi balconies--we don't have have a patio and other s When it is on-grade, you is not part of the struc it is not computed. I h to my brother, Fred.' MR. REUSS: If that' MR. PACHMAN: And yo (Six photographs sub area. ") MR. REUSS: Thank yo MR. PACHMAN: On gra ~eal No. 3489 Appeals re third surveyor certifies that as under 20%. have a copy that I might have? I thought I would give it to the d by the shingle also. r. Of course, when it's up, you When you do a foundation survey, tion. link I might have it now? Thank you. board members and Mr. Reuss survey Engineers of July 10, 1986 concerning es the book say? The good book. Iding area." How do you compute it? 9. 100-13 Building area the horizontal cross-section of the ~d between the exterior face of the lg area' shall includ6 ~he following: any. Terraces, patios, decks--we ~ructures above the finished grade. do not compute the 145 sq. ft. It cure. It is not part of the structure-- Lve here photographs which I'll show me, Howard, thank you. 'll see that the deck patio is on grade. itted for the record of the "patio , Howard. e. I don't want to put Mr. Lessard on Page ll - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 Board of Appeals MR. ?ACHMAN (continued): the spot, but I think if you check with Mr. Lessard, he has visited the site, and I think he will testify under oath or not under oath, that the patio is on grade and is not included in the computation of square footage. (M~. Lessard nodded affirmatively.) MR. PACHMAN: In conclusion because the night is late, I think this is a regrettable reaction of one neighbor against another neighbor. It's never friendly. It's never nice, and I assure you on'beh~Tf of myself, I regret the fact that it exists. I think the pursuing of this matter and a continuance of this, cost to my client, and this animosity should stop, and the only way apparently it will stop is by a decision of this board finally certifying and stating at last that everything that was done was correct, that the appeal to this board as to the permits that were issued by the Building Department were issued appropriately, that this board knew when it originally made it~.decision in February to take down the variance, that we were building a house, that there was an addition going on, and that the only requirement was that we do not exceed it by 20%. We do not exceed it by 20%. We followed the same footprint. If the house is not something that the Learys like, we regret that very much. We can't say we don~t like thei'r house. We have to live with it. Their house is closer to Second Street than our house is. They are encroaching further into the roadway than we are, and if they want to build, and they follow their footprint, they will have the right to do it. And there is nothing we can do about it no matter how angry we may feel about it. Of course, they have the right to use their land. We accept that and we honor that. I would hope that they would do the same, and t know this board will act appropriately under the circumstances. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. REUSS: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. When I have in the past taught courses at New York University in the common law tradition and in the importation of the common law into the United States, I had the opportunity to talk to the class at length on ancient methods for settling disputes between persons, and not the most ancient of those but one of Page 12 - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. REUSS (continued): the most popular was the Trial by swearing where we brought forth numbers of witnesses, and the number of witnesses that we brought to swear to our good reputations-generally speak- ing, not having reference even to the crime or the event we were accused of--but to our good reputations--was the determin- ing factor. It makes no sense. The concept there, of course, was that if God was not on our side, he would not have permitted us to bring the largest number of people to the stand and to swear. You have a swearing content of some sort here with reference to these surveys. And to tell you that in our office, we've sat around and discussed it, and we're not all satisfied-- bot~you're in the most amiable position and you're not in the position that I would necessarily want to be. Of course, I have come forward to you, person~ licensed by the State of New York will say that they have gone on the land, that they have looked matters over, and have come up with answers that are different one from the other. Now, if you invite us to go in to seek a further survey, if you invite us to, we will do that. I guarantee-- I should not guarantee that, bu.t it seems to me that if Mr. Pachman can find one to come along tonight in this; situation, we could get one also. Now, I don't know how you're going to determine between the two. There really are only two, the one that Mr. Pachman brought here tonight and the one that we brought you last time. The first one that Mr. Pachman placed before you was an ancient survey, of course, an 'old survey-- five years or whatever it might have been, to which various additions have been made. It did not represent accordingly to its terms and the way it was written. They look at the property as it is today. So you really only have the two surveys: the one I gave you last time, and the one that you got tonight. I don't know how you're going to handle that. I have no advices to give you in that regard. Mine seems to be prettier. Mine seems to look nicer to the eye--I don't know what to say beyond that. I think that wetre correct. The problem is an engineering one in that regards. A problem for arthitects. I wish you all good luck with reference to it~ Insofar, and of course the Chairman asked and it was indicated then that tonight's survey from Mr. Pachman is a measurement by the shingle, as is, apparently because Mr. Pachmsn says it's so. I'll go along with that. Well I don't know if it's necessarily so. The measurement made in the Sealand Survey is by the shingle. One thing that I think you cannot do is accept all of the conversation that Mr. Pachman Page 13 Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. REUSS (continued): recites. I'm not saying that he can have that conversation with the man at Sealand, Mr. Donack. But ~I'think Mr. Donack should be here this evening to tell you himself as reference to that conversation. They both.measured from the shingles, and one shows an overage, coverage above 20%, one just under 20%. Just a little bit under as a matter of fact. Not a great deal. A question came up with reference to grade, and you were given some pictures, and I just have the one pictures, plus I~ll tell you, I've been sneaking around and trying to be on adjacent property--or on easements as much as possible in doing that. I want to give it to the board. MR. PACHMAN: finished. I'd like to comment on that when you're MR. REUSS: Sure. t hope you will. This is before all that shrubbery went in. Mr. Pachman's picture has an awful lot of shrubbery on it, and as you'll see, that's before the shrubbery went in. It's not on grade. You made me take an oath the first evening that I was here, and I'll tell you now, under that same oath, and by extens'ion of the oath, having, looked at this very recently, my feeling is that it is as much above grade today as it was above grade when this photograph was taken. If you'll look at the pictures that were given you tonight, particularly the ones taken from the interior of that patio itself, you'll see the probability that those photographs do show~-I'll put them over here--I can see the drop. And it does exist. And I'll tell you it does exist, and I'll tellyouitdoes exist and I tell you that by the same oath that you made me take the first time I was here. Of course it does say dirt for that patio on the survey that we submitted~ but you know when I was last here~ I did tell you that had been filled in and I produced for you pictures that it was indeed a concrete patio. I made some notes here with reference to Mr. Pachman' s remarks. I' 11 try and cover them and to the extent he then feels inclined to say that I have slurred over something and not answered or attempted to answer something that he said~ then I' 11 per- haps be back to you. But let me see ifI can zero in on a couple of things. Page 14 - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals MR. REUSS (continued): With reference to the SEQRA requirement, the fact of the matter is that you did require a SEQRA submission with reference to the rescission of the prior variance with reference to. the deck. I think it follows from that, that there is a necessity for a SEQRA finding with reference to the instant situation as it exists. You know, we come again to the question of swearin9 contest. Would Mr. Pachman have it be that way? Do you think that issues as to whether or not a public controversy exists is decided because one party or the other brings a group of people down with them. And there not be a public con- troversy existing in a situation, in a community? Perhaos you have to decide what a community is. You mean all of the People of the Town of Southold are rolling in the streets and trading punches, I don't think you have ever had that kind of controversy. CHAIRMAN: It's been close. lVjR. REUSS: You have been close? I'm glad I wasn't invited out for that one. But we have had--we have a situation in New Suffolk, and in that little portion of New Suffolk, insofar as that subdivision is concerned in which there is for the public as it exists at that spot a true and real public controversy. Now~ if we were to pack the rows with people, it would be no less, no more a public controversy. It would be more visible--as Mr. Pachman would define the words public controversy, but it would still be something more than private. As a matter of fact~ when we act outside the law, when we act contrary to the law, we act in a public fashion and not a private fashion-- the offense is to the law as publicly promulgated for the good of the public at large. Law is not private, and it is public. And when it is violated, there is a controversy that is indeed public and should be the subject of a SEQRA statement of one sort or another. 5Vith reference to the house being in its original footprint~ I invite you to take the earlier surveys, submitted by Mr. Pachman here~ which goes back again a number of years and showsithe additions and so on, and compare it with the survey that he submits tonight. And to conapare it with the Sealand Page 15 - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY , Appeal No. 3489 July 17~ 1986 - Board of Appeals lVlR. REUSS (continued): Survey which we submitted last, ~ime that we' were here~ and'-you will see that the footprint is indeed not the same. Pictures that you had given tonight with reference to the question of footprint by the way were taken at the front of the house and not at the rear which is at the core of the controversy. It is the rear of the house where much of the foundation work was done~ and where the problem arises--not at the front, which is the point of taking of the pictures that you saw. You also were shown as though it were necessarily meaningful~ to this controversy~ and of course it has its--it's important to consider--I don't mean to say that. The July 7th last year foundation survey ,with reference to the property indeed. One of our points is that that foundation survey has been deviated from~ result- in an ~ overage insofar as lot coverage is concerned. That survey done in preparation for the work is not proof as to what the work is after it has been done. It may be proof as to what was anticipated to be done--it may be proof as to what should have been done~ but it is not proof as to what has been done. And what has been done is the wrong of which a complaint is made. The deck is not flush with the ground was my next note~ but I think I went over that question. I know I did. IVlr. Pachman says that when you made your decision to allow the dis-variance~ if that be the word~ whatever is descriptive of what you did- to allow the dis- variance~ then at that time you made a determination to allow that has happened since that time. I' m not 9oing to go over all of the documents that were submitted which brought to the effect certainly ~ which come down to the fact that you said at the time~ meant to say~ seemed to say~ did say~ that in allowing the dis-variance~ you were not allowing anythin9 else. As a matter of fact~ Mr. Chairman: on the date of November 7~ 1985~ and I suppose this is Exhibit "O" before you that I've already given you with my documents~ you said~ accordin§ly~ any new construction will require an application to this Board. Now that didn't 9© to lot coverage or anythin9 because before that~ you said~ and you wrote that to lVlr. Brophy~ Mr. Chairman ~ "...Enclosed for your perusal is a copy of a recent request from Mr. Paul Leary~ an adjoinin9 property owner~ requesting revoking or nonissuance of any building permit concerning your property and our response thereto. Accordingly~ any new construction will require an application tothis Board .... " You did it on November 7th of last year. So I don't think and Page 16 - Public Hearing tVlatter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17, 1986 - Board of Appeals lV~R. REUSS (continued): I don't think it can- even be logically thought that at the time that you allowed the dis-variance that you were and that you meant to-that you did allow that which has happened to the property since, that you gave any~ affirmative approval for that--for the things that have happened other than the removal of the deck~ When l~r.--as I read your minutes at that time, when Mr. Leary was here~ and he got up to say that the necessary step that will come after the removal.of the deck will be a building at the rear~ I think you folks up there said, "Now wiat a minute. That' s not before us." And I think the other side said, "That's not before the board. So cut it our Paul Leary and sit down. What are you pushing for. It' s not here." And now tonight we hear from tVir. Pachman that apparently his feeling is that when you did allow the dis-variance, you took the further step and allowed the kind of construction and destruction and demolition and building and totally new building that ha~ ~osez, on~he~e. I don't believe that you did. Nor do I see by the way--I have to say this--any rule at law, and I suppose Mr. Pachman will show it to me some time, and I' ll try and show others thenthan there is some other rule that' s contrary to it, but that' s what law is all about too. I don't know of any rule that says that you can build on a whole lot because you pay taxes on the whole lot. That' s not correct, h~hether you can count a whole lot towards determining your building area simply because you pay taxes on it. We have no right to act with reference to our property as though there was no law simply because we pay taxes on it. Those are taxes for the support of our schools and for government generally and for highways and for the expenses of government and for the salaries of government. That' s what taxes are for. They' re not a license fee to do what we want with our property any more than the Parking ticket that one pays constitutes a license to park illegally or overtime at a meter. It does not and there' s no relevance at all to the fact~ it' s not relevant nor is it proper to state that because we pay taxes with reference to the whole of a lot that we can do with the shole of the lot that' which we please. With reference to the £[ood plain and the questions there-- Now tVjr. Pachman says that he is in "B" (flood plain). And he says he got a permit approval for that, and that' s that new development permit that you have there. It really doesn't refer to the "B" or "A" bit at all-- it doesn't say in that permit you are in a flood area "B". It' s not a determination of that all. It says you have a ND Permit. That' s what it Page l? - Public Hearing lV~atter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 8489 July l?sl986 - Board of Appeals Iv[R. REUSS (continued): says. But the issuance of that ND Permit which Mr. Pachman would have you think today was issued because this property is in the "B" zone is be-lied by the very application on which that permit was,Sssued. Because he also handed up to you tonight a document entitled, "Application for Development Permit in the Town of Southold," and I gave it to you the last time. But I didn't point this out to you the last time because I didn' t notice it until after I got back to my office the next day. They say they' re in Flood Zone "B", but yet when they applied for what Fir. Pachman calls a permit to construct--a permit finding them to be in Flood Zone B, on March II, 1986, and signed by Peter Brophy on behalf of Frank and IVlary Brophy, and filled out for his signature, and certainly because it' s an official record, certified by Town Clerk Terry and asked FIRlVt s Flood Insurance Rate lVtap Zone Designation, Peter Brophy in applying for the permit says that the Zone is A-4, Elevation 8 feet. So it is not only the lViap with the markings on it that counts', a party litigant, a party to the matter himselfs by his agents filed with the Building Department a statements which stands as a public record and,proof:to the effect that the property is--and perhaps what is more importantly was considered by the Brophys an area A-4 and not an area B with reference to this Flood Plain. And in spite of the fact that they themselves felt it was an A-4~ and I believe it to be partially in A-4s they felt it to be in A-4, and in spite of that fact, they have acted as though it were in B. And I think that is reason enough for you to grant the application of Paul Leafy. I think that you should grant the application of Paul Leary because it is a lot wrong here. It is cumulative and I think that it is the kind of thin9 that you are in a posi- tion to say and should say, will not take place within the Town of Southold. Thank you. FiR. PACHlViAN: Firstly, the decision of this Board that the building of this property is appropriate is a decision of the Board dated November226.~ 1985, was the date of the application, but the decision was dated February 25s 1986, and page 2s subdivision 8 said: "...It should be noted that future. construction, including bedroom ~ additions, decks, roofs, patios, accessory buildings: et cetera, are restricted, to the maximum permitted 20% of lot coverage requirement." You said it. Twenty percent. It' s in your decision-- decision he did not appeal--the decision which~.-we~then had the permits unfroze~ and for which we are buildfng:]:orr~. To argue the issue about A-4s B, Page 18 - Public Hearing Matter of PAUL LEARY, Appeal No. 3489 July 17~ 1986 - Board of Appeals iVlR. PACHMAN (continued): we werettold we were in A-4. We went to the Building Department and they say~ "You not in A-4~ you're in B~my friend~ you don't need an A-4 applica- tion. You' re a B. We' llggive you the permit for B. We certify B." %re thereafter went to the surveyor- he. certifies B. Building Inspector says we are in B. Surveyor says we' re in B. We thought we were in A-4. We made a mistake. (Nero0 c&t_~:a$,? We were corrected. In ending this thing because it is in agony and we' re all falling asleep-- I think it reminds me of a little story~ which I think would be appropriate to end. When I entered law school in 1949 ~ we took one of the first courses in oral presentation~ and it said~ when you have the facts~ you hammer away at the jury. And when you have the law~ you hammer away with the Judge. And when you have nothing~ you hammeraaway at the table'. Good night. klR. REUSS: The only person to have hit the table tonight really violently is IVlr. Pachman~ so I take it that that is his admission that he has neither law nor facts on his hands. I thank youi for the consideration you have given all of us: and look forward to a wise and judiciou~s decision. Thank you. klR. CHAIRIViAN: Hearing no further comment~ I' 11 make a motion closing (concluding) the hearing. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Second. This resolution was duly adopted. The hearing concluded at ll:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Pp. 1-18 (Leary Hearing) rrmsotrmom ?oW ? / Town Clerk, Town of Southol~l Linda F. Kowalski~ Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals