Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/12/1980 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS CHARLES GRIGONIS. JR.. CHAIRMAN SERGE DOYEN. JR. TERRY TUTHILL ROBERT J. DOUGLASS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 2=, SOLITHOLD. L.I., N.Y. 11':::J'71 TELEPHONE (516 765-180g MINUTES SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 12, 1980 A Regular Meeting of the Southold Town Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 12, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the South- old Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Present were: Charles Grigonis, Jr., Chairman; Terry R. Tuthill; Serge Doyen, Jr.; Robert J. Douglass; Gerard P. Goehringer. Also present: Supervisor Pell, Councilmen Murdock & Sullivan, To~n Clerk J.T. Terry. * * * PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2706. Application of JAMES V. RIGHTER, 184 Livingston Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, for a variance to the zoning~ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 and Bulk Schedule, for permission to construct addition with insuf- ficient front and:rearyard setbacks. Location of property: North side of Greenwood Road, Fishers Island; bounded north by F.I. Ferry District, east by Baird, south by Greenwood Road, west by Woolston, more particularly known as ~10 Greenwood Road, County Tax Map Item No. 1000-12-1-part of 13. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:39 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from ~he Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch and copies of the tax map showing this and properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Righter is asking to add two bays, I guess. MR. RIGHTER: MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. RIGHTER: Two bays. Yes, right. They are, I guess, 6' in height and 6' in width. They come out 6' from the building, and then there is a deck on the front that I'm asking for, and I'm asking for a front porch. ~outhold. Town Board of Appeals -2- June 12, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN; Right. Do you have a~ything else that you want to add to what you've already said in your application? MR. RIGHTER: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail righty, thank you. Thanks for reading it, too. After you read it, it looks easy. MR. RIGHTER. I didn't have a typewriter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? Anyone to speak against it? (There was no response.) Do'any of you gentlemen, Bob, Gerry, that you would want to add? Serge? MEMBER DOYEN: No, no questions. Except to say I think it's a very desirable feature, renovation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Terry? MEMBER TUTHILL: It seems that it will enhance the house and harm nobody. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess there is no further testimony. Maybe Serge would offer a resolution granting this as applied for. MEMBER DOYEN: So moved. MEMBER TUTH!LL: I'll second.it. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that the applicant is requesting permission to construct: (a) an addition with insufficient rearyard setback of 20' from the rearline, and (b) an addition with insufficient frontyard setback of 27' from the front line. The Board has found that the property is approxi- mately 100' by 95' with an existing structure approximately 38' by 48' The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant, and feels that the additions will enhance the appearance of this building and the general neighborhood. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Doyen, seconded by Mr. Tuthil!, it was RESOLVED, that JAMES V. RIGHTER be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance, as applied for in Appeal No. 2706, per- mitting the construction of two additions, one with a rearyard ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -3- June 12, 1980 setback of no less than 20 feet and the other with a frontyard set- back of not less than 27 feet. Location of property: North side of Greenwood Road, Fishers Island, New York; bounded north by F.I. Ferry District, east by Baird, south by Greenwood Road, west by Woolston, more particularly known as #10 Greenwood Road, County Tax Map Item No. 1000-12-1- part of 13. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer. Member Goehringer left the room at 7:48 p.m. in order to try and find out whether one of ~he !ocal newspaper reporters ~as on his way inasmuch as he had planned to be present for the p~esentatio~ fox Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of this Board held May 22, 1980. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen and Douglass. (Member Goehringer was not present during the adoption of this resolution.) PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. FL-3. Application of JAMES B. KAMINSKY, RFD ~1, Box 153, Mattituck, New York, for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Section 46-18, for permission to construct proposed lowest floor below ~he restricted base flood elevation in a special flood hazard zone. Location of-property: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Mill Road, east by Fox, south by'King, west by Kaminsky and Mattituck Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-4-4. Member Goehringer returned at 7:50 p.m. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk concerning the fil- ing of same; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a map and survey showing the area and a copy of the ~ax map showing the surrounding area. Gerry, you're familiar with it, this is what they propose to build, right? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -4- June 12, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: And they need, the lowest part of this is 4½' as you have on the map? What would 5' do, can you go to 5' with it? MR. KAMINSKY: I can't go much higher than the building that's adjoining it. If worse comes to worse, we'll have to adjoin the two pieces of property, if you don't approve it. i'm trying to keep it level with the other building. If I make one building higher than the other, everything is going to be -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Topsy turvy. MR. KAMINSKY: Right. I'm just trying to make everything on the same equal level there. MEMBER TUTHILL: MR. KAMINSKY: boxes, that's all. MEMBER TUTHILL: Would that be your unloading platform there? That will be a cooler-storage building for MR. KAMINSKY. building. MEMBER TUTHILL: MR. KAMtNSKY: very high. MRS. KAMINSKY: that's there, too. MR. KAMINSKY: than the dock. Nothing directly off the boat? Well, it will go directly off the boat into the That's what I mean. It has to be a decent level. I~can't go uphill We're trying to keep it level with the dock It can't be much more than about a foot higher MRS. KAMINSKY: We're trying to keep it fairly level with the dock, because it will be a floating dock. MEMBER TUTHILL: Well, that's what I was getting at. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Well, a foot higher would be just five foot. MR. KAMINSKY: It will probably be a foot higher than the dock. MEMBER DOUGLASS: You've got 4'6" in the back now. Your ground is 4'6" now. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I was in conference with Serge, I didn't here what you said. MEMBER DOUGLASS: The way they are now, 5' is just one foot above the bulkhead. Their property where they, on the back of the building, their ground is 4'6" ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -5- June 12, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. KAMINSKY: We're trying to keep it fairly level with the dock. Coming off of there with floating dollies, it would be kind of hard if you have to push them uphill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any others? Does anyone have any more questions on it? Does anybody else wish to speak for this? Is there anyone to speak against this? EDWARD J. LEDOGARfl represent the adjoining property owner, Elizabeth V. Fox. She owns the property to the east-- MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name, please? MR. LEDOGAR: My name is Edward J. Ledogar, I'm an attorney at law. My office is at 60 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, Huntington, New York. I'm here to speak in opposition to this and the next item on the calendar, and perhaps the Board would rather I speak to them at one time, rather than speak individually, or would it prefer that I speak seriatum? MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would speak on each one there, sir, because there is a little different problem there. MR. LEDOGAR: My client owns a parcel of approximately 24 acres which is located in the residential-agricultural, or the highest zone, immediately adjacent to this property. It is improved with a house, just one house, which is used essentially as a summer house. This property for which the-- first of all, I'd like to say my client does not wish to be un-neighborly. They would like to keep peace with their neighbor; however, the property in ques- tion for which the variance is being sought is a legal nonconforming use. It is a commercial fishing station. It has over the recent years according to my client and as a matter of fact I have witnessed this myself, it has grown as a commercial fishing station. In other words the degree of noncompliance has increased, which I believe is not in accordance with the law. The property in question is located in a B-1 zone which is an ordinary business zone. This variance and the next one, will allow the owner of the property to increase the degree of noncompliance, therefore, I believe, I respectfully suggest, that if granting would be contrary to law -- the law has not already been breached with respect to the manner in which this commercial fishing station has grown for the past several years. My client has been hurt by this increase in terms of the unsightly depositing of greater and greater numbers of crates in terms of some increase in odor eminating from the fishing station, commercial fishing station, and in terms of buildings being con- structed on the property. There is a, I think, series of three properties together. One is in the name of King; two are, I think, in the name of Kaminsky. I believe they are all operated in common a~ one single commercial fishing station. If that is not so, then ~$outhold Town Board of Appeals -6- June 12, 1980 perhaps they are operated in close association with one another, or perhaps I should be corrected. MR. KAMINSKY: Different individuals. - MR. LEDOGAR: Three separate individuals? MR. KAMINSKY: That's right. MR. LEDOGAR: Two of them are named, the same name, are they not? MR. KAMINSKY: Two King, and there's two Kaminsky's. MR. LEDOGAR: No family relationship. MR. KAMINSKY: Between King and Kaminsky? None. MR. LEDOGAR: Completely separate-- MRS. KAMINSKY: Between King and King. MR. KAMINSKY: King and King, there is a relationship. MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have to go through this way, because pretty soon we'll get confused and the secretary won't be able to keep track of it. MR. LEDOGAR: I'm sorry. If they are separate operations and separate ownerships, this is news to my client, because they all seem to be working together as one commercial fishing station. Whether they are separate or whether they are one, in neither case are they in accordance with the existing zone. To grant these variances would allow the noncompliance be increased, and the law clearly says that a legal nonconforming use, if there is such a thing there and it is set forth in the building department record in your file, cannot legally be increased. The degree of noncom- pliance cannot be increased. So not only is this variance request- ing a variance from the letter of the law itself, but it is actually going the wrong way from the zoning, contrary to law. I respectfully suggest that it should not be granted, and I urge and hope that even the existing use of this property will be upgraded so that my clients will not continue to be bothered. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that has anything to say against this? Do you have anything more to add? MRS. KAMINSKY: Can I just say something for it, the applica- tion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MRS. KAMINSKY: He's talking about nonconforming uses, and ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -7- June 12, 1980 about it not conforming. We are not running a commercial fishing station, such as he says. It is our own dock, and we bring in our own boat, and we are running a business in that we are unload- ing the boat there from our boat the fish goes off into the cooler and it goes onto a truck, where it's trucked out. If this is nonconforming, it would be the first I would know of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is no further testimony to be offered in this, I'll offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DOUGLASS: I'll second it. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in the matter of JAMES B. KAMIN- SKY in Appeal No. FL-3, and that the hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2703. Application of JAMES B. KAMINSKY, RFD ~1, Box 153, Mattituck, New York, for a Variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct building with insufficient side and rear yard set- backs in a B-1 Zone. Location of property: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Mill Road, east by Fox, south by King, west by Kaminsky and Mattituck Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-4-4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:10 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk, that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a sketch and a copy of the tax map in the previous file. Is there anything further you would like to add other than you have already stated? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? If not, is there someone opposed who would like to speak? EDWARD J. LEDOGAR: Yes. I would like to register my opposition once again. My name is Edward J. Ledogar, I'm an attorney with offices at 60 Broad Hollow Road, Melville. I appear on behalf of the adjoining owner, Elizabeth V. Fox, the owner of property consisting of approximately 24 acres, in a re~sidential zone immediately adjacent to this property to the east. ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -8- June 12, 1980 And also on the south side of Mill Road. I would like to reiterate the objections I ~mentioned with respect to the immediately preceding variance, and also if I may to add the fact that this building is obviously going to be a fish storage warehouse, refrigerated fish storage warehouse, or an icehouse for a commercial fishing operation. This is as far as I know or am able to tell,as far as my client is able to tell, is increasing in the degree of noncompliance to which this property is now dedicated. To the use to which this property is now dedicated. It is, I believe, an illegal increase in noncom- pliance as well as a breach of your building, zoning code. I confer with the findings of the Building Inspector which are in your file, with respect of the sideyards and the fact that it is an existing nonconforming use. This is the most recent decisions that I am aware of, an illegal attempted increase of a nonconforming use. His recent decision with respect to the power of the Board to increase a special permit use or a variance granted, but that is not the case here. You shouldn't be confused with it. This is if the fishing station being conducted right now-is being conducted- is a nonconforming use in accordance with your building department's own findings. To extend that use to increase it is a violation of law, for I ask you to please consider that point very seriously. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak on this? A resolution is in order to- MEMBER DOUGLASS: I make a motion that we close the hearing and reserve decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second the motion. On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in the matter of JAMES B. KAMINSKY, Appeal No. 2703, and that the hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonls, Tuthill, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer. At this time, the Board members asked for a recess at 8:18 p.m. ~, Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- June 12, 1980 The Chairman announced that the members of the Board, at this time would like to express their sincere appreciation for the many, many years of fine, dedicated service provided by Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. for our Town and asked Mr. Gillispie to come forward. The members of the Board, Supervisor ~e!l, Councilmen Sullivan & ~urdock, thanked Mr. Giltispie for giving them the honor to present Mr. Gillispie with a plaque and the following resolution, wishing him much happiness, success and good health in the years ahead: WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Appeals is most grateful to Mr. Robert W. Gillispie, Jr. who has provided this Board and the People of our Town of Southold with his fine, faithful ser- vices as Chairman of the Southold Town Board of Appeals, for more than 22 years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the members of this Board express their most sincere appreciation to Mr. Gillispie for his unselfish efforts and wish him much happiness, success and good health in the years to come, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mr. Gillispie be personally delivered a copy of this resolution, and that this resolution be entered into the permanent records of the Town. The meeting reconvened at 8:23 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2704. Application of LEONARD E. HOWARD, 53 Reutemann Road, North Stonington, CT, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 100-30A, for permission to construct second dwelling on a single parcel. Location of property: North Dumpling Island, Town of Southold, New York; more particularly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-130-1-4. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:26 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk concerning filing of same; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the County Tax Map and a survey showing the buildings on the Island. As it states, it's single and separate ownership, the whole Island, and he has applied for another dwelling on it which I think is primarily going to be the caretaker's dwelling/residence. MR. HOWARD: That's correct. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- June 12, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything that you would like to add, Mr. Howard, to what you have stated in your application? MR. HOWARD: No, I think the application pretty much covers it all. The only purpose for the second dwelling is to protect Mr. Levitt's interest in the Island. He is not going to spend all of his time there, maximum probably four months out of the year, and then again for weekends. Mr. Levitt currently lives in New York City on 54th Street, and he does use this as a vacation home and weekend home. The first building on the Island we have already received an application for -- a build- ing permit. MEMBER TUTHILL: Do I understand, sir, that Mr. Levitt owns the entire Island and there are no other dwellings. MR. HOWARD: That is a little erroneous. Frankly, we own most of the Island. MEMBER DOUGLASS: The Coast Guard owns part of it -- the government. ~MBER TUTHILL: There are no other dwellings on the Island. MR. HOWARD: This is the main residence, and this is the proposed caretaker's cottage. And this is the boathouse, present boathouse. The contractor that's building the struc- ture is using that mainly for storage. At the completion of these two dwellings, it will be coming down. MEMBER TUTHILL: What is being applied for? MR. HOWARD: This one right here (Caretaker's cottage). MEMBER TUTHILL: This caretaker's cottage? MR. HOWARD: Yes. MEMBER TUTHILL: But there are no other-- MR. HOWARD: This little fenced in area along here belongs to the Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard. It's about 37' by 28'. The whole Island, which was owned by the Coast Guard, and they chose to be there. Just this section of the house there used to be thei~ Coast Guard Station, and there was a lighthouse. MEMBER DOYEN: Well, that's not quite correct. That's recent history. No, that was owned by the Federal Government, and there was a lighthouse there and a family lived there perhaps a hundred years or more before the Coast Guard took over the lighthouse. There was a lighthouse keeper there for perhaps a hundred years. And then there was a hurricane of 1938. Southotd Town Board of Appeals -11- June 12, 1980 That removed about a third of the Island. There was about a third more of land there before 1938. MR. HOWARD: Yeah. MR. CHAIRMAN: See, Serge goes way back than most of us. MEMBER TUTHILL: So except for the Coast Guard or federally owned property in there, Mr. Levitt is the owner of the entire other? MR. HOWARD: Yes. This land outside the Coast Guard installa- tion has been through three other owners. They bought it from the Coast Guard. MEMBER DOYEN: You see, the original dwelling that was used as a residence of the lighthouse keeper, the last time I saw it was pretty well vandalized. Almost vandalized beyond the point of being renovated. ~ MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes. MEMBER DOYEN: Is the frame still there? MR. HOWARD: It needs a complete renovation job. It's a substantial building. There's a thick brick wall all around it. ME~ER DOUGLASS: May I asked you a question? What do they use for, where do they get their water from? MR. HOWARD: We're going into desalinization equipment here. It's been approved by the Board of Health. I've been over to Riverhead seeing these people. We do have a sanitary approval from both buildings at the present time. MEMBER DOYEN: I understand the~procedures left something to be desired with the Health Department and their desaliniza- tion. MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes. Yes. MEMBER DOYEN: I understand it was something new to them. MR. HOWARD: No, they've come across it before, from what I understand. MEMBER DOYEN: I thought you had quite some time satisfying all the requirements. MR. HOWARD: Also, %he Department of Environmental Conserva- tion got into the picture. MR. CHAIRMAN: Everybody gets into the act today. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeal -12- June 12, 1980 MR. HOWARD: Oh, I enjoy coming over on the ferry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else? MR. HOWARD: Do you need any more of these site plans? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. We have two of them in here. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak for this application? Is there anyone to speak against it? If not, I would like to offer a resolution -- there is a little question in my mind, it must be in one type or another with the Flood Plain Law-- MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes-- MR. CHAIRMAN: You're aware of it? MR. HOWARD: At the present time, there is an approval pending from the D.E.C. on this, but it has not come yet. MEMBER DOYEN: There is quite some elevation there, so. MEMBER DOUGLASS: No, it's down to 4½' MEMBER DOYEN: 4½'? The bulkhead has quite some elevation on most of the Island. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yeah, but they've got it right down by the breakwater. MEMBER DOYEN: The boathouse used to be-- MR. HOWARD: With this building I have an application with D.E.C. now, for building in an area adjacent to tidal wetlands. They're determining the application as minor. They say as long as we don't put a basement under here, our floor comes 13' above sea level, and it has to be on piers. We cannot have a basement in it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's your tidal wetlands act. MR. HOWARD: Right. MEMBER DOUGLASS: It would be 11' over there. MR. HOWARD: Right. There will be 13' feet here with our lowest floor. MEMBER DOYEN: They tried to get it in a B-zone, but they wouldn't change it. It was originally zoned for residential purposes only, and somebody did apply for a business zone. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you, Mr. Howard. MR. HOWARD: The reason we're making this application is we feel our whole project down there, Mr. Levitt being the ~, Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- June 12, 1980 only land owner over there besides the Coast Guard, we have no neighbors-- MR. CHAIR~N: It almost soundslike you may want to make a couple more lots in there, this last paragraph. MR. HOWARD: Your zoning is an acre, isn't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. HOWARD: So, we'll make two conforming lots. MEMBER DOYEN: This goes to the Planning Board, doesn't it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. This will wind up with the Planning Board. MEMBER DOUGLASS: They're not dividing it now. ~ECRETARY: For imaginery lot lines. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Planning Board should put the line in to separate the two. MR. HOWARD: As a matter of fact~ I started to make up one, and there is one drawn on there now. An imaginery line. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just in case, some time, someone will decide to get rid of part of it or something. MR. HOWARD: Would that help your Planning Board-- MEMBER DOYEN: Yeah, if you want to suggest your own division. SECRETARY: I can leave that with the secretary tomorrow. MR..HOWARD: So, why don't we tear this right off. And this is the way we would subdivide that. Just like that. (Mr. Howard submitted a copy of a sketch showing where the proposed division would be, and asked that it be given to the Planning Board for their consideration for an imaginery lot line.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of you fellows have any further ques- tions, Gerry, Bob? I'll offer a resolution that we close the hearing and reserve decision on it. This will go on to the Planning Board to set up a-- MRS. GOSSNER, ~EAGUE OF WOMEN VOHERS: Can I ask, why is it going to the Planning Board? MR. CHAIRMAN: They're going to make two lots out of the one bigger lot, and we can't subdivide anything. Just to put an imaginery line through it, so if in the future for some reason or other someone wants to sell something, one of the ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- June 12, 1980 other buildings, they will have the lot to go with it. MEMBER DOUGLASS: Both lots are well over 40,000. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved and- MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to RESERVE DECISION in the matter of LEONARD E. HOWARD, Appeal No. 2704, and that the hearing be declared closed. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2701. Application of AUDREY E. WANZOR, by William B. Smith as agent, 220 Mechanic Street, Box 146, Southold, New York 11971, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section 100~31 for permission to construct dwelling with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of property: Corey Creek Estates Lot No. 15, Filed Map ~4923; bounded north by Corey Creek Lane, east by Hammerschlag, south by Corey Creek, west by Facca; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-78-4-17. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:45 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey and copy of the County Tax Map showing the area. Is there anyone here who Would like to add anything to the application? WILLIAM SMITH: I'm William Smith. I don't think there's much I can add to it, than what was in the appeal. Mr. Wanzor is aware of the flood plain and he is building a concrete foundation and concrete floor. Right at the moment I am not quite certain whether the top of the floor is 8-foot above sea level or the other side of the concrete. Is there a determination on that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, Bill, I Was. reading and I heard you in one ear and I didn't follow it all? MR. SMITH: Co~rete floor slab-job houses, on top of a concrete foundation, which will be 8-foot above sea level. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -15- June 12, 1980 Does the top of the floor or the top of the foundation have!~%o!be 8-foot above sea level. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bottom of the floor, right? MEMBER DOUGLASS: The bottom, if it was a timber structure, it would be the bottom of the timbers. If it's concrete it would be the bottom of the concrete. MR. SMITH: He is aware of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Something that wasn't stated in the application, the D.E.C. is kind of forcing you to shorten up your setback. They're requesting 75 feet from the Corey Creek. MR. SMITH: They approved the map that we had up there. That's all been done. That only took four months. MEMBER TUTHILL: We've had this same problem with a lot not too far away from there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MEMBER TUTHILL: It's about the same thing to me as the other one was. It is was it is and you've got to move back from~khe water. MR. SMITH: I had to make up an Impact Statement to the D.E.C. which was with the covering page, it was three pages long. As a matter of fact, I made up two. And then they sent a letter there is no determination, no reason for them to act on it. They did not follow through on the Impact Statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this? Anyone to speak against this? (There was no response.) MEMBER DOUGLASS: Do you have a copy of that D.E.C. letter in there? SECRETARY: We received an oral approval. They were not able to reply by tonight due to the shortage of personnel in the D.E.C. Offices. MR. CHAIRMAN: Serge, Bob, Gerry, any other questions? A motion is in order. MEMBER TUTHILL: I move we grant the variance as applied for. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll second it. I agree with the reasons, and the part that was brought about by D.E.C. requirements; and the tidal waters, flood plain being complied. This would have to be subject to the flood plain requirements regarding elevation. ..Southold Town Board of Appeals -16- June 12, 1980 After investigation and inspection, the Board finds as follows: The subject premises is known as Corey Creek Estates, Lot No. 15, containing approximately 25,000 square feet in area. Applicant requests an insufficient frontyard setback of 35' feet off Corey Creek Lane, due to the limited practical area in which'they are left to build. A substantial portion of the property is covered by upland meadow. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the' granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthill, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that AUDREY E. WANZOR, by William B. Smith as agent, be granted a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance as requested in Appeal No. 2701, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) Approval of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; (2) Compliance with the requirements and regulations of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold. Location of property: Corey Creek Estates Lot No. 15, filed Map ~4923; bounded north by Corey Creek Lane, east by Hammerschlag, south by Corey Creek, west by Facca; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-78-4-17. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 2705. Application of JOSEPH ST. PIERRE, by William B. Smith as agent, 220 Mechanic Street, Southold, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 100-23C, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width. Location of property: 475 Smith Road, Peconic, New York; Indian Neck Park Filed Map ~551, Lot ~14; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-98-4-7. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -17- June 12, 1980 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:56 P.M. by reading the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing, affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adjoining property owners, if any, was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survey of the property and copy of the Tax Map showing the surrounding area. And he has applied for a building permit on a lot having an area of 24,910 square feet. And, do you have something to add, Bill to what you have in your appeal? MR. BILL SMITH: Well, as you know, Mr. Grigonis, we have been around in circles, and I think the Board might realize that when Mr. Cerny sold his house in 1972, and one-acre zoning in December of 1971, no one, not even attorneys at that time were concerned about properties being put together. I doubt very much if even the Building Department for awhile put them together, and when they were asked for a building permit, so that is how this thing came about. And when Mr. Cerny sold his house they ev&dentally used his old C/O and it went with the house when they built it. They built the house in 1963. So, he had no reason to subdivide the property--, he gave the lawyer a C/O on this property, and the title was good and that's all that was necessary. The thing has come up since I had Mr. Boyd, the attorney, look into this, and this is only word of mouth, I do not have it in writing--Mr.' Tasker, your Town Attorney told Mr. Boyd he saw no reason why this should have to be approved by the Planning Board for separation. I don't know if he has been in contact with you about it, but that is his determination, but I still only have his word of mouth. I do not have it in writing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ail right,_ thank you, Bill, unless you have something else. MR. SMITH: I have Mr. St. Pierre with-me. MR. JOSEPH ST. PIERRE: I have nothing to add to it. I would appreciate if they would look favorably on this. I've been coming out to Southold for many years. I have another piece of property out here. I would like to make this a residence of mine, and when I was in to speak to Mr. Hindermann before the deal was made, he felt after looking at the survey at the time, there was no problem with it other than possibly the Department of Health. And we went ahead and closed on the deal, and then this all came about afterwards, which left us with a beck of a hardship. So t hope something certainly can be done about it. I'd sure appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ST. PIERRE: Thank you very much. Southold Town Board of Appeals -18- June 12, 1980 MEMBER TUTHILL: MR. ST. PIERRE: MEMBER TUTHtLL: MR. ST. PIERRE: You want to sell of the lot, is that the idea? No, I would like very much to stay there. You want to build on it? Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that wants to speak for this application? Is there anyone against it? i(There was no response.) Do any of you Board members have any questions? (There was no response.) Things are beginning to run behind, so I would like to offer a resolution closing the hearing and reserving decision. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Douglass, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and RESERVE DECISION in the matter of JOSEPH ST. PIERRE, Appeal No. 2705. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Doyen, Douglass, Goehringer. · , Southold Town Board of Appeals -19- June 12, 1980 PUBLIC HEARING: ADDeal No. 2707. Application of STEPHEN EGGERS, Nassau Point Road, Cutchoque, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Article III, Sec- tion 100-32 for ~ermission to construct swimminqpool in side and front vard~_areas. Location of ~roDertv: 6625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchoque, New York; bounded north by East Club Road, east by Peconic Bav, south by Brac. west by Nassau Point Road. County Tax MaD Item No. 1000-111- 15-7. The Chairman opened the hearinq at 9:07 P.M. by readinq the application for a variance, legal notice of hearinq. affidavits attestina to its publication in the local and official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Buildinq Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk that notification to adioininG ~ropertv owners, if any, was made; fee ~aid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a survev and a copy of the County Tax MaD showinq the surrounding areas. On Survey ~2 is shown the location of the proposed DOO1, the new location. It doesn't qive the distance from the sidevard that I can see anywhere on here. Oh, I see. It's to be located about 5 feet, not the pool itself but I Guess the ~atio around it, 5 feet from the Droper~v l~ne, and it sits just off the corner of the porch in the front of the house~. It's partly in the sideyard and partly frontyard. Is the~e anyone here, I guess there are going to be a lot of people here to speak, to speak for the application? RICHARD J. CRON, ESQ.: Richard J. Cron, Cutchoque, New York. To please the Board, I appear on behalf of Mrs. E~ers, with respect to this particular application. As the Board is well aware of, this is an application for a variance, the variance beinq to construct a ~ool in Dartiallv the side and front yard of the premises in question. I think of the outset it's important that the Board recognize the type of variance that's being sought. The Board is undoubtedly aware of the fact that there are two types of variances that you're dealing with -- one is a use variance and one is an area variance. It's important that the Board understand in this situation that what is being sought is an area variance. The reason for that is because the proof that's required with respect to that type of variance substantially differs from the proof that must be adduced with respect to a use variance. There is no change in the character of the usage of the district, and that's why this is only an area variance. The ordinance, and in particular the provisions of the resi- dential portions of this ordinance, permits a pool as an accessory use in this particular area. The only difference here ~s that we are not able to put it in the rear yard which ~s where an accessory use must be put in an' "A-R~sidence." Now, if you were dealing with a use variance, it becomes Southold Town Board of Appeals -20- June 12, 1980 very important to prove all those things that the application requires, such as unnecessary hardship, uniqueness and no change in the character of the area. However, if you're dealing with an area variance as we are so dealing with here, it is unnecessary that we establish unnecessary hardship. It's unnecessary that we establish uniqueness with respect to this particular parcel, and it's unnecessary basically to establish that there is any change in the character of the area as a result of granting the variance which is being sought. Because implicit in this type of variance is the fact that it's only an area variance, it doesn't change the use of the area, and therefore the character of the area is unchanged. Ail that the applicant must satisfy this Board with respect to the variance that this applicant seeks, is that there is practical difficulty. That's all that must be proved. And I think we're in a position to prove that to the Board this evening. What are the practical difficulties? If one looks at the particular area -- and I was at the property, I examined it very carefully with Mr. Siemerling, who is in the pool- building business. The rearyard from the property line to the bluff is approximately 26 feet, from the building line to the bluff. The pool that is proposed is 16-feet in width. To put this pool approximately 3 or 4 feet from the building line and to construct it 16 feet out, there is no way that you can put that pool in the rearyard with any degree of safety, and yet still comply with the requirements of the ordinance in terms of fencing in that pool. Because the rearyard fence would be on the edge of the bluff, and probably would not exist for very long. The north sideyard has a drop of approximately 15 feet with a very, very small area that would be available to construct a pool in that area, without taking down substantial shrubbery and without substantially increasing or raising a level of that parti- cular area. The only feasible area is the area that is proposed by the applicant, and that is both on the side and front yards where it's set forth next to patio ~2 on that survey. The frontyard itself would not be a feasible area. There are a number of installations such as telephone lines, pools -- not pools, cesspools, I think there is an oil tank. There are a number of water lines and so forth which require changes in that area. I have brought with me this evening two people who are far more expert in the areas dealing with the installations of pools and landscaping. I will first ask Arthur Siemerling, who would say a few words to you about the necessity of put- ting the pool where we have proposed in the application. Mr. Siemerling - Southold Town Board of Appeals -21- June 12, 1980 ARTHUR SIEMERLING: It was Mrs. Eggers' first request or feeling~to have the pool in the backyard where legally it is supposed to be. The survey shows one dimension, but when you pace it off and measure it there are 26 feet between the edge of their back porch and at the top of the bluff. The pool is 16-feet wide, and an average walk-around for a pool, a minimum walk-around is three-feet in width on the side. So a 16-foot wide pool with three feet on either side, and then four feet to the edge of the house comes out to 26 feet. And you've got a 16 by 32 pool with roughly 28,000 gallons of waters-- 10½ tons of water tettering roughly one foot from the edge of a 47-foot high bluff from Peconic Bay. If they were to pu~ a retaining wall, which we would be willing to do, they are going to wreck the environment. There are natural growths or whatnot on the bank up to the top of the hill. It's most impractical as Mr. CrOn said, if you go to the north side of the house, there is roughly a 15-foot elevation from the south side of the residence to the north side. They've got a conventional built-in basement, a full cellar, filled up to the top on the south side of the property, where you walk the roughly 50 some odd-foot length of the house, you drop 15 foot, or there about, and the lower, the north end of the house they have a fully exposed basement. The rule of thumb with a pool, which I believe Mr. Douglass would attest to, we use the rule of thumb, a pool on a farm lot, flat grade -- a swimmingpool is kept 6" above grade for an area roughly 30 feet in diameter of the pool. There is no single location on this property without very substantial diking, railroad tieing or whatnot, that this could be done in other than the location which has been selected. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Siemerling. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? MR. CRON: I would like Mr. Peter Sterling to say a few words regarding the landscaping. PETER STERLING: Ail t can say is~a little bit~mo~e of what Mr. Grigonis has said. On the bluff side, as Arthur says, it is not feasible because of the vegetation. We deal many times, at least once a week, on trying to stop erosion control -- control of erosion. This is a big problem. On the west side of the house, there is a 15-foot drop. Retaining walls would be required to a very, very expensive point. As far as the entrance side of the house, there are LILCO wires at one point where a pool could be set, expensive to move. Directly below is a 500-gallon oil tank, expensive to move, and large oak trees, which in my point of view is not reasonable to take out for a pool. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- June 12, 1980 MR. STERLING (continued): The other point is the telephone wires, an underground water system from the garage which leads up to it. A proposed driveway in the Fall on the west side of the house to go underneath the house, so that would totally disqualify the pool on the west side. So, it's right back, the only possible area is off the southeast corner of the house -- set back towards the garage, the existing garage, and would be the least expensive area to construct a pool. It would be the best looking area for anybody in the near area to look at. As a landscaper I can visualize it more than most people can. It's going to be very, very nicely landscaped. I can say that because we are doing the work. I have the plans. There is going to be totally nothing noise-wise-- there are going to be barriers. There will be additional pines put up in between the one neighbor and so forth which will knock down on noise. There will be totally no hardships in any way. And overall, it's just a good place to put it. MR. CRON: Peter, would you state for the record'your qualifications as a landscaper? MR. STERLING: Well, I've been landscapIng ~ow 16 years. And in Sterling Nurseries as you must all know. I've since started a new corporation, as the place has been sold or is in the process of being sold. And we've worked on a number of pools with Art (Siemerling), and I'm just very used to dealing with the environment in the area, and it's just in my seeing there is no possible other place for the pool to be in. MR. CRON: Have you landscaped pools before? MR. STERLING: We do a professional landscaped business. We do-- MR. CRON: How many landscapes have you worked on in the years you have been engaged in landscaping? MR. STERLING: Well, a couple of hundred at least. As I say, we've been in it for 12 to 14 years. My father carried on for my father for a number of other years. The business itself was 108 years old, so it's been in the family so we do know what we're doing. MR. CRON: Do you have any particular education in addition to experience? MR. STERLING: Oh, yeah. We went to school for horticulture. We went to school for business administration. I'm fully qualified. I know entirely what I'm doing. I'm licensed for construction. MR. CRON: For the record I will also ask Mr. Siemerling to ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -23 - June 12, 1980 state his qualifications in pool-building. MR. SIEMERLING: I've been in the pool business 8 years. We built pools from Wainscott to Orient to Calverton. There have been approximately 175 pools. We are not as large as firms east of here because our populace does not warrant it or allow it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I don't know how Bob let them get in Orient with a pool. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak for this? (There was no response.) If not, I think we have a few people who want to speak against it? Yes, sir. Please give your name. GEORGE BEHRMANN: I'm the next door neighbor to the north and the next door neighbor to the south of Mr. Brac's. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name? GEORGE BEHRMANN: I am George Behrmann. Personally, I do not care if he has a swimmingpool or not. There are other things that are concerned. We talked about a use variance. There's a question in use variance. Nassau Point is a very critical environmental entity. The use of swimmingpools I have questioned for years. I will go back to four or five years ago. I picked up a young lad, gave him a lift, a school boy, and he told me for three days we have been pumping water out of our well to try and fill that swimmingpool. Now, I've reported that to the Nassau Point Association, and for various reasons they did not take the policy of their time, whether we should condemn swimmingpools with freshwater or not. I do not believe that the use of freshwater on Nassau Point is appropriate for swimmingpools. How many tons of water? MR. SIEMERLING: 10~. MR. BEHRMANN: 10½. How many gallons did you say? 28,000 gallons of water. It takes three days to pump that water up from a fragile water table. Now I have spoken to Mr. Eggers. He's a friend of mine, and I said as far as I'm concerned, you can have your swimmingpool-- use salt water. And I know Mr. Eggers is able, capable of having the gentleman over here do all the engineering that is necessary and all the landscaping that is necessary to satisfy myself and I hope to satify Mr. Brac, if he uses salt water. But if he uses fresh water, I do not believe Nassau Point can accommodate one more swimmingpool. Mr. Gardner the President of our Association, and I have expressed my opinion to him, but I don't think one more freshwater swimmingpool should ever be permitted on Nassau Point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak against this? Southold Town Board of Appeals -24- June 12, 1980 MR. WILLIAM GARDNER: Yeah, I'd like to say something if I may. My name is William Gardner; I am President of the Nassau Point Civic Association, and I have been before your Board before, and I think you know that my policy is to have the immediate neighbors take a position on mos~ of the things that come before you. I think that's the important thing rather than the Association. But I feel in this instance that we've got a basic problem here which affects all resi- dents of Nassau Point. If we have one ~main worry on Nassau Point, it's our water supply. It's very important to us. A few years ago the Suffolk County Health Department told us that we had sufficient water in their opinion for 350 homes. At that time we had about 300 homes; we now have about 320 or so. And as mentioned before the testimony tonight, a freshwater pool involves 28,000 gallons. Now I would hate to try to pull that much water up in a period of time from my own well. I'll get into that later. While one pool may not tip the water balance of Nassau Point into a water shortage position; and proliferation of such pools will. As a matter of fact, I've heard rumors that one of my neighbors is thinking of putting in a pool, and this is on a property that has about 1,000 feet of waterfront. Why a pool, I don't know. I recommend that before this variance is granted or considered, that the Planning Board and the Suffolk County Health Department be consulted on the long range effect of this pool and others that may be proposed on Nassau Point. I hope the Board takes that into considera- tion. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else? GEORGE CASE: I'm George Case. I live about three-quarters of a mile from Mr. Eggers on Nassau Point Road. I've lived there for 59 years. I'd like to take a little different twist in my opposition to this. In all those 59 years, the residents of Nassau Point have been extremely neighborly with one another. They have worked at it, and in most instances where we have an application for something like this, the application isn't made until it's been cleared with the neighbors. There have been exceptions; of course there have been exceptions. But generally speaking we have experienced the fact that before a project like this is entered into, the neighbors are approached and some settlement is made so that we don't need a hearing like this. Now, these folks talked about this pool that they have and how this lady can't see through the window to see her baby and all that sort of thing, and it seems to me -- it sounds good-- but it seems to me that Mr. Brac is being put out by this a lot more than the other people would be put out if they didn't have the pool. That's all I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25- June 12, 1980 RICHARD LARK, ESQ.: Mr. Chairman? Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, representing Leo Brac, the owner of the property to the south. Mr. Brac wQ~ld like to make a statement to the Board; however, I would request that you swear him in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you raise your right hand, Mr. Brac? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help you God? (Mr. Brac raised his right hand.) MR. LEO BRAC: I do. Mr. Chairman, before I commence with my statement, I would like to show you a picture. This is pertinent in the case because it was taken this past September of surgery that I had to go for skin cancer. would like every member of the Board to look at it. It was taken right after the operation. Thank you. (Mr. Brac handed the photograph to Member Goehringer. Member Goehringer passed it to Member Douglass. At this point, Mr. Cron interjected.) MR. CRON: If it would please the Board, as long as the Board is looking at it, I'd ask that it be put to evidence before the Board. MR. BRAC: This is part of my own personal record. MR. CRON: No. You've shown it to the Board. I ask that it put in as evidence. MR. BRAC: I had to get a picture, you know, this is my health record. I took this out for the Doctor. MR. BRAC: My mother and father brought me to the North Fork as a youngster 43 years ago. All my summers, weekends and free time has been spent at Nassau Point, with the excep- tion of my time in the service during the Korean War. My home on Nassau Point.is an all yearround residence. It was custom built 12 years ago by Joseph Deerkoski of Mattituck. All material and construction is the finest quality, and anyone who knows construction can see this for themselves. Concerning myself, I love the outdoors and all that goes with it; however, 12 years ago I began having trouble with my skin from the sun. Skin cancer which prohibits my being exposed to the sun at a minimum. This was a severe blow as our new home was being built; my lifestyle for the outdoors came to an abrupt halt. The only thing I do now, I play some golf, which is done very early in the morning; and I return home before noon. The remainder of my day as spent around the house. Any work to be done outside I schedule, it is scheduled when there is a minimal amount of sun an the area. In the house I spend my free time on the porch and in the den area reading, doing some work from the office, and entertaining some friends, which would be directly next to the pool site. Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- June 12, 1980 MR. BRAC (continued): Because this area of my house is on the northerly side 23 feet from the Eggers' property line. I am sure you have been near, around, in or maybe you have your own pool. Noise is the largest by-product. A pool is a fun thing, where people enjoy themselves and raise a little hell. In the evening at night there are floodlights and pool parties, which also generate noise. Please, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against swimmingpools -- in the proper location it's great. But next to a person's living quarters? Gentlemen, this is a frustrating situation. I am just trying to break even in this case. A pool in a proposed location ~9~!d be as if you transplanted a piece of Coney Island next door. Each week I drive over 200 miles to get away from the City and enjoy the Country for some peace and quiet. I'm a good neighbor. I'm truly hurt that my neighbor did not give me any consideration to construct a pool next to my living quarters, when there are suitable alternate sites available that would not cause any relative disturbance. This action was 100% slice of pure selfishness. I could continue on and on, but I am sure that you will be able to see that I am in a helpless position. I cannot move my house, but my neighbor can move my pool to another location. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brac. MR. CRON: If it would please the Board, as long as the witness has been sworn in, do I have a right to cross-examine this witness? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. ~MR. CRON: Mr. Brac, how long have you lived in that area? i~R. BRAC: Twelve years. MR. CRON: And is that when you constructed your home? MR. BRAC: That's when the home was constructed. Yes. MR. CRON: What's the size of your parcel? MR. BRAC: I think it's a 100 by, I guess, 300 some odd feet. MR. CRON: 100 feet being on the road? MR. BRAC: I'm not sure of that. MR. CRON: Well, where's the depth and where's the 100 feet from? MR. BRAC: Well the 100 feet is on the waterfront, on the bay side, and the house, the depth of the property is in excess Seuthold Town Board of Appeals -27- June 12, 1980 close to 300. MR. CRON: I believe you made in your statement you support the fact that your house is constructed within 23 feet of the property line of Mrs. Eggers? MR. BRAC: Yes. MR. CRON: And what's the width of your house? MR. BRAC: I couldn't tell you right now. I didn't build it. Joe Deerkoski would have to tell me. MR. CRON: Do you have idea as to the width? MR. GARDNER: It's about 65 feet, somewhere around there. It's about 65 feet. And what's your sideyard on the other side? When you say the sideyard, what do you mean, MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: MR. BRAC: this, to the-- MR. CRON: The south side. MR. BRAC: What do you want to know about it? MR. CRON: What is your sideyard? What's the width of it? MR. BRAC: I don't understand what you're talking about. MR. GARDNER: Right here. (Mr. Gardner showed Mr. Brac on a map/survey the south sideyard area of Mr. Brac's property.) MR. BRAC: I would say it's at least the standards, whatever the requirements are for the Building Code. I can't remember. It's 12 years. MR. BEHRMANN: 65, 25. It meets the standard. MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: there? MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: MR. BRAC: It's 11.27 feet. Ail right. Along your north side line-- Yes. Do you have any vegetation or trees growing Yes, I have. And are they right on your side line? To the best of my knowledge, they are. Southold Town Board of Appeals -28- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: MR BP=AC: MR CRON: MR BRAC: MR CRON: MR BRAC: MR CRON: right? MR. BRAC: And about what height are they? I would say they are about eight to nine feet. And when were they planted? They were planted about six to seven years ago. And for what purpose did you plant them? For privacy. Did you ask your neighbor if that was all I'll tell you, the neighbor wasn't there at the time when we planted those. MR. CRON: Wasn't that house there? MR. BRAC: Yes. MR. BEHRMANN: only three years. MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: MR. BRAC: MR. CRON: MR. BRAC: Four years. Your neighbor was there Three years. Your neighbor was already there? Yeah. Did you ask them if it was all right to plant? They didn't have any problem there. There was no problem there. MR. CRON: How far towards the Sound do those trees run behind your property line? MR. BRAC: How far? The length of them, maybe, I really-- let's say, a ballpark number, maybe 50 feet. MR. CRON: Isn't it a fact that they also block off some of the view of your neighbor of the Sound? MR. BRAC: Well, no, not from the location where their house is. MR. CRON: In the area where the swimmingpool would be, where that patio is there, that doesn't block any view looking out towards the east? Towards the south rather? MR. BRAC: Did you ever go to a ball game? MR. CRON: I'm asking you the question. Southold Town Board of Appeals -29- June 12, 1980 MR. BRAC: I would say no. They are not deprived of anything. Nothing. MR. CRON: But you didn't consult them when you put them in? MR. BRAC: They weren't there. MR. CRON: They weren't there? MR. BRAC: The Eggers weren't there. MR. CRON: Was somebody else there? MR. BRAC: It was somebody else, but they didn't say anything about it. MR. CRON: Did you consult them? MR. BRAC: Yes, I did. MR. CRON: And they said it was all right. MR. BRAC: Yeah. MR. CRON: And when the Eggers moved in, did you ask them if it was all right with them? MR. BRAC: I mean, should I ask them is my driveway right-- MR. CRON: You feel they should ask you whether you like what they are doing with their property? MR. BRAC: Do you like the way my tie is, you know? MR. CRON: I'm not asking about your tie. You're the one that said your nemghbor hasn't consulted you about any- thzng. MR. BRAC: The trees were there when they bought the property. They have two eyes, they could see the trees. So, if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought the property. MR. CRON: It's all right for you to object what they do. MR. BRAC: I'm not objecting; I'm just telling you. mean I have to say something with respect to the Eggers buying the property. MR. CRON: This noise that you're complaining about zs going to occur right on your property line. If they move that over to the other side, you wouldn't hear any noise, is that your statement? ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -30- June 12, 1980 MR. BRAC: You heard my statement. MR. CRON: I'm asking you. Is that your statement? MR. BRAC: I said you heard my statement. I read it. It's in my record. I said I don't mind swimmingpools; I don't want them next to my living quarters. That's it. MR. CRON: What do you mean by next to your living quarters, Mr. Brac? MR. BRAC: Do you have any idea how far 28 or 23 feet is? MR. CRON: I have a very good idea what it is. · MR. BRAC: How far? MR. CRON: That's 28 feet. MR. BRAC: Can you hear me audibly at 28 feet? MR. CRON: I can assure you you could hear me at 50 feet. MR. BRAC: Yeah. MR. CRON: No further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: You may sit down, Mr. Brac. MR. BRAC: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Dick, you have something? RICHARD LARK, ESQ: Yes, I would like to have Mr. Karl Bonawandt to come forth. Mr. Bonawandt, would you give the name to the secretary? KARL BONAWANDT: My name is Karl Bonawandt; I'm the owner and president of Haven Pools in Huntington, Long Island. MR. LARK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you swear in Mr. Bonawandt. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bonawandt, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help you God? Mr. Bonawandt raised his right hand. MR. BONAWANDT: I do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed. ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -31- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: I've been in the swimming pool business for 18 years. This is my own company. I'm President-Owner for the last 12 years. We have built over 600 pools since our inception, and I have sold over 1,000 pools personally myself. I was called by Mr. Leo Brac to his home, and t was asked if there were any other alternate sites where a pool could be put on his abutting neighbor~ property. I was out last Sunday and physically measured the yard, got out my book, which are standards for all swimmingpool builders for the Town of Southold, and I see that the rear and sideyard setback is three feet. The front of the pool has to be behind the rear line of the house. Forty percent of the yard can be utilized. You have to have a fence around the pool, and then it also says that the pool must be in the rearyard. Can everybody see this? This is the abutting neighbor's property. I'll give you a fair shot--I'll let you look at it. This is Mr. Brac's house (sketch location). This is the abutting neighbor that is applying for the variance (photos A and B). This is the original,pool location, and from what I could read in the hearing, when you answered it, you should that the pool should have an alternate site. They had moved the pool five feet, and moved it forward into the frontyard, well in fact the whole pool is in the frontyard, I think, as my opinion. This blue represents the new area. So the whole pool looks to me like it's in the frontyard. The other alternate sites that I have found through measurements is the pool in rearyard, ample space, or on the other side. Location A, Location B (respectively). This is a location of Location A, which is the bluff. (Photo marked "A.") I could put in a pool 16-foot wide, 32-feet long and be 11 feet from the house, and still be 10 feet from the bluff. This is actual, physical measures. MR. BEHRMANN: May I see the pictures, please? It involves my property now. Ail right, where are you going to put the -- that was the original? MR. BONAWANDT: No, this is where they can put the pool. Right behind the rear of the house. The other alternate spot from a physical location that I had seen last Sunday, was the sideyard. Yes, there is a depression there. But I can put a pool in there, and I don't have to have extensive retaining walls. Now, this again, goes from experience. And that's all. This here pictures the sideyard; that's the view of the sideyard. To put a pool in the sideyard you would have to eliminate two small oak trees (photos marked "B", Exhibit B). And you would have plenty of room and be away from Mr. Brac's property and everything else. The other picture is this, which is another view of Southold Town Board of Appeals -32- June 12, 1980 the sideyard. It shows you plenty of room. (Photo marked "B", Exhibit B.) MEMBER TUTHILL: We've all been down there. MR. BONAWANDT: You've all been down there? I didn't know that. MR. LARK: You stated, you could just put that over so Mr. Behrmann can take a longer look at it. I just wanted to get one thing clarified. You measured the distance from the top of the bluff from the back, from the rear of the Eggers' residence? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: Could you show the Board where you actually measured that? MR. BONAWANDT: We measured it from the extension of the porch. I'm not going to put it behind the porch. Beyond that, north of it, where I~will be 11 feet from the rear house, then 16 feet wide with the pool, and it still gives me 10-foot to the bank. Now my Code says three feet from the rear and three feet from the side. You could even go three feet, but I wouldn't put it three feet from the bank because it's ridiculous. But with t0 feet, I'm perfectly safe. MR. LARK: And that's where you've located A on that diagram? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. Right here. MR. LARK: Ok. Now, how many feet is it from the top of the bank to the rear of the house in that area that you just pointed out to the Board denoted "A"? MR. BONAWANDT: 37 feet. To the edge of the bank. MR. LARK: You stated that you built over 600 pools? Is that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: And where have they been primarily located? MR. BONAWANDT: Ail of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. We're licensed in Nassau County and we're licensed in Suffolk County. I'm also past President of the Long Island Chapter of National Swimmingpools Association. MR. LARK: Have you built any pools near water? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. We've built about 100 of them. ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -33- June 12, 1980 MR. LARK: Do you have any photographs of any representa- tive pools that you built near water? ~. BONAWANDT: Yes. These are not for evidence. (Mr. Bonawandt showed several photographs of pools situated near water.) Do you want to pass it down (to each Board member). They are all on bulkheads, on bluffs. Case Point. MR. LARK: Now. Those pictures, I see you have on that exhibit, you've denoted three pictures with the -- MR. CRON: If it would please the Board, if you're not going to mark those in evidence, I have objection to the Board viewing any such pictures. MR. BONAWANDT: That's up to the President of the Board. MR. CRON: If they are not going to be marked as evidence, I object to the Board's viewing them. MR. BONAWANDT: Let the President of the Board make the decision. MR. LARK: He's just giving these photographs, I presume that they can pick the various pools that he has personally has built in and about water, and to give a representative of pools that he has built. I think the Board can take a look at them if they want. MR. CRON: I still raise the objection that if you are going to view those, then I ask that they be admitted into evidence. F~. CHAIRMAN: Well, he doesn't want to give them up, and I take the gentleman's word -- he is under oath, and if he says he can build them there, it's good enough for me. (The Chairman returned Mr. Bonawandt his pictures of the various pools he has built in and about water.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, sir. Or Dick. MR. LARK: Yeah. You've denoted on that Exhibit Photo- graph "A", and is that a photograph of the site plan that you laid out on that Exhibit? Does that photograph fairly and accurately depict site "A"? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. LARK: Then you have Site, three photographs denoted MR. BONAWANDT: Correct. Southold Town Board of Appeals -34- June 12, 1980 MR. LARK: And then you also have a site, pool site for "B." Is that correct? MR..BON~WANDT: Yes. I.am seven feet from this concrete curb, then 16-feet wide with the pool, and I'm still 14 feet from the property line if I put the pool over there. MR. LARK: Now, those pictures denoted "B," do they fairly and accurately represent that area denoted "B"? M/~.~ BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: Ok. And in the, how many years have you been in the swimmingpool business? MR. BONAWANDT: Eighteen years. MR. LARK: And in the 18 years in the swimmingpool business in Nassau and Suffolk. Counties, have you ever constructed a pool in a frontyard of a residential property? MR. BONAWANDT: Never. MR. LA~K: Have you ever seen a pool constructed in the frontyard of residential property in Nassau or Suffolk County? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. LARK: And does the diagram that you testified from with those labels "A" and "B", oh -- let me ask you a question. You physically measured the measurements as you denoted to the Board on that diagram? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes, I did. MR. LARK: Ok. And does that fairly and accurately repre- sent the layout of the Eggers' property? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: At this time, I'd like -- I believe you have an Exhibit "A". Did you mark that "A", that photograph (of Mr. Brac) that you took? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LARK: The other photographs you returned, you didn't take them. But the one marked "A", did you mark that "A" MR. LARK: Ail right, I request that be marked "A", and that was requested to be submitted in evidence by Mr. Cron, and then I requested this Exhibit that Mr. Bonawandt testified from be marked Exhibit "B". Objectant's Exhibit "B" Southold Town Board of Appeals -35- June 12, 1980 (Mr. Brac's photograph was marked Exhibit "A" per the request of Mr. Cron, attorney for the applicant.) The sketch or blown-up survey showing Mr. Eggers and Mr. Brac's properties, and showing three photographs of Mr. Egger's southerly sideyard, and photograph showing Mr. Egger's rearyard was marked Exhibit "B-Objectant." MR. LARK: Do you have any objection (Mr. Cron)? MR. CRON: I haven't seen them yet. If you are offer- ing them I would like to see them. MR. LARK: It's right here. MR. CRON: Oh. I don't know, didn't you already offer something else? MR. LARK: You wanted this in (Mr. Brac's picture). Am I right? MR. CRON: Right. MR. LARK: And that one will be marked "B." MR. LARK: Mr. Bonawandt, are you familiar with the type of pool that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Eggers, want to put in? MR. BONAW~DT: Yes. They're putting in a vinyl-liner pool. MR. LARK: Ail right. Are you familiar with the con- struction of a vinyl-liner pool? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: Could you tell the Board how it's constructed? MR. BONAWANDT: The vinyl liner basically is a rubber membrane or vinyl membrane, 20 gauge in fitness. The wall is either wood, aluminized wood, steel, aluminum, block or fiberglass. And all the wall does is holds up the membrane in place. To install the pool you over-excavate three or four feet all around the 16-foot side. Put the walls up, dig out the hole to the proper depth. Line it with sand, and then'you hang the liner, start to fill, if the plumbing is in, you fill up the pool with water and as the water rises you backfill the outside of the pool, so that the earth pressure is equal. Basically, that's it. MR. LARK: Ok. And your site "A" as you proposed on that Exhibit, that pool would be in the rearyard of the property, is that not correct? . ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -36- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. LARK: And therefore it would not necessitate any type of variance, isn't that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: No. No. MR. LARK: Ok. Now, if the pool was located in that area, would the construction or the operation and maintenance of it, in your opinion, cause any detrimental effect to the bluff? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. LARK: Why not? MR. BONAWANDT: I'm 10 feet away from the bluff. My earth pressure is downward, not laterally. MR. LARK: Your pressure is downward, and it would not cause any detrimental effect? MR. BONAWANDT: solid, virgin ground. MR. LARK: Ok. I'm 10 feet away from the bluff, and it's I have no further questions. MR. CRON: I would like to question the witness. What's your name again, sir? MR. BONAWANDT: Karl Bonawandt. MR. CRON: When did you make your inspection of this property? MR. BONAWANDT: This past Sunday. MR. CRON: This past Sunday. And you walked in the rear here to make these measurements? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes, I did. MR. CRON: Who accompanied you at the time? MR. BONAWANDT: Mr. Brac. MR. CRON: Was Mrs. Eggers there? MR. BONAWANDT: No one was there. MR. CRON: Did you secure any permission from anybody to walk on Mrs. Eggers' property to make these measurements? MR. BONAWANDT: I was invited by Mr. Brac. Southold Town Board of Appeals -37- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: Did Mr. Brac have Mrs. Eggers' permission to go on it? MR. BONAWANDT: I don't know. MR. BEHRMANN: We're all good neighbors incidentally. We walk on each other's property. MR. CRON: I see that. I see that. But you didn't have Mrs. Eggers' permission at all though to do this? You were invited there by Mr. Brac, and then you walked on Mrs. Eggers' property at the invitation of Mr. Brac? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: Isn't that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: These measurements that you made. Would you designate on this photograph exactly where the 37 feet is that you are speaking of? MR. BONAWANDT: From this point here all the way to the bluff. This is the porch, the extension. MR. CRON: To the edge of the incline where it starts to drop, how far was it from that point? MR. BONAWANDT: About 8 feet to the edge of the house. MR. CRON: In this location here, is any fill required to install that pool? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. CRON: None whatsoever? MR. BONAWANDT: None. In other words you were to reach the 32, 35 feet, say with a three-foot walk around there, whatever is necessary around there, without in any way affect- ing the elevation of that piece of property? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: Is this the first time you ever saw this property? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes, sir. MR. CRON: Have you ever built any pools out here on the east end? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. Southold Town Board of Appeals -38- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: Where particularly? MR. BONAWANDT: In S0uthold. MR. CRON: Where in Southold? MR. BONAWANDT: On the east side here, off the Bay, I have the customer's name in the car if you want me to go out and get it. MR. CRON: No, no. Just describe the area that you built the pool in. MR. BONAWANDT: It's on a hill overlooking the Bay. They have since sold the house and moved to Arizona. MR. CRON: Is that the only one you built? MR. BONAWANDT: Out here, yes. MR. CRON: How far was the pool from the Bay itself? MR. BONAWANDT: 200 feet. MR. CRON: 200 feet from the Bay. So then you haven't built any pools out in Southold Town in a locale similar to where this pool is to be constructed? MR. BONAWANDT: No. But on the South Shore, plenty of them. MR. CRON: You did make a statement however that you determined that the soil is sound, is that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: On what do you base that? MR. BONAWANDT: From experience. MR. CRON: Did you make any test samples of the soil? MR. BONAWANDT: I walked on it. I saw vegetation grow- ing on the side. I saw it was undisturbed earth. MR. CRON: Are you famili-ar with any erosion problems that exist in the Town of Southold? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. CRON: Did you know what this cliff was a number of years back in terms of its distance from the house to the bluff? ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -39- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: Ail I could testify is what I saw last Sunday. MR. BEHRMANN: I will testify it. MR. CRON: Excuse me. I think this witness is being examined, not the gentleman over there (Mr. Behrmann). MR. BEHRMANN: Ail right, but I can -- MR. CRON: I'm not interested in what you want to say. I'm more interested in what he has to say. If I told you, would you accept the fact that we have a substantial erosion problem on the Bay in these areas? M~. BONAWANDT: On the top of the hill or down by the water? MR. CRON: No, on top of the hill and even down by the water. Erodes the entire cliff. MR. BONAWANDT: As I remember, there were a couple of retaining walls I think down there, weren't there. Concrete retaining walls? MR. CRON: I don't know what you observed. I'm saying would you accept the fact that if I told you that there was substantial erosion in areas such as this in the Town of Southold? MR. BONAWANDT: Oh, sure, I'll accept it. you wouldn't - I wouldn't doubt your veracity. shows two bulkheads at the foot of the bluff. I'm sure The survey MR. CRON: Notwithstanding the two bulkheads, if there were substantial erosion, would you accept the fact that that could still occur if I tell you it could? MR. BONAWANDT: Yeah, but the erosion would occur below where the water is, not by the top. MR. CRON: If I told you that this bluff at one time existed 36 feet from the edge of the house, would you accept that as a fact? MR. BONAWANDT: Again, I would not doubt your veracity. MR. CRON: Ail right, in that same area that now exists today is approximately 26 feet, would you accept that if I said that was a fact? ~ MR. BONAWANDT: I don't hold with your 26 feet. I counted -- ~Southold Town Board of Appeals June 12, 1980 -40- MR. CRON: Now, I'm not talking about the same area that you're speaking of, I'm talking about-- MR. BONAWANDT: I'm talking about the pool area. MR CRON: I'm talking about an area from here to here (area between the porch and the bluff). An area on that bluff that's only 26 feet and that at one time was 36 feet. All right? MR. BONAWANDT: That I can't help. I'm just concerned with the pool location. MR. CRON: Right. You said it was plenty safe to con- struct this pool within 10 feet of the bluff. Is that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. I will put a pool in and guarantee it. MR. CRON: Is there a distance between the pool and the bluff where you would not install the pool? MR. BONAWANDT: Yeah. Four feet. MR. CRON: If I told you there was a possibility of erosion where you could lose six feet, would you still recommend that the pool be built in this area? MR. BONAWANDT: Then I would go out and get an engineer to certify that. If I wanted the pool bad enough, I would get an engineer to certify that. MR. CRON: And would you build the pool notwithstanding the fact that it might ultimately be four feet from the bluff? MR. BONAWANDT: If the engineer told me it was sound to build there, I would build it there. MR. CRON: You didn't have an engineer tell you anything with respect to this pool, did you? MR. BONAWANDT: I just told you I'm going on experience. MR. CRON: Not in Southold Town though. MR. BONAWANDT: No, but how about Southampton, East Hampton. MR. CRON: I'm asking you Southold Town. MR. BONAWANDT: Southold is no different than in East Hampton° MR. CRON: You built pools in Southampton? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: Where did you build them in Southampton? ~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -41- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: We're presently building three of them in Westhampton Beach. MR. CRON: Where? MR. BONAWANDT: One on Beach Lane, one on Ogdon Lane, one on Dune Road, one on Library Avenue. MR. CRON: Would you describe the sites of these pools? MR. BONAWANDT: Two of them are right on bulkheads on the canal. MR. CRON: What do you mean on bulkheads on the canal? MR. BONAWANDT: The house is no more than 50 feet from the water, and the pool is no more than -- one pool is 35 feet from the bulkhead on the canal, it's the inland waterway and the other side is Dune Road; and my other pool which is-the house is on Dune Road, is 12 feet from the canal on a bulkhead. MR. CRON: Ok. What is the elevation in each instance where you're putting the pool? MR. BONAWANDT: I am exactly above the water line. One pool I am two feet in water. MR. CRON: With respect to any of these sites that you have mentioned, are any of them similiar to the site that we're talking about here? MR. BONAWANDT: No. They were built up by myself. MR. CRON: Are any of them on a bluff that's 40 feet and 50 feet high? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. CRON: Are any of them on any kind of a high bluff? MR. BONAWANDT: Well, if you want to go out to Abeqogue. MR. CRON: I'm talking about the ones you are building now. MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. CRON: As I understand your location "A", it would be on the other side of this little porch here? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: And how far on the other side from the end of the porch would the pool be? MR. BONAWANDT: Six feet. Southold Town Board of Appeals -42- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: In other words, you would start six feet-- MR. BONAWANDT: Beyond the porch. MR. CRON: Beyond the porch. MR. BONAWANDT: Beyond the north side of the porch. MR. CRON: All right. And it would run then a distance of 32 feet from that point, or would it be greater than that? MR. BONAWANDT: 32 feet, and I would still have to go another six feet before I'd hit the edge of the house. This point for the six feet from the end of the house. MR. CRON: And is it your statement that the drop in elevation commences where in relation to A and B there? MR. BONAWANDT: After the house, she starts to fall down. MR. CRON: With respect to your locale "B"-- MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: Is any portion of "B" in the area that's below that elevation over here? MR. BONAWANDT: Oh, yes. MR. CRON: Would you be able to build that pool attractively at the same price that you would be able to build a pool in area in which the applicant proposes? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: You could? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: That would include filling this area? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. I would think the fill that comes out of the pool we could spread it around. MR. CRON: 15 feet you would have to build up the elevation, is that what you're saying? MR. BONAWANDT: I wouldn't build it up 15 feet. MR. CRON: Well then it would slope down, is that correct? MR. BONAWANDT: I wouldn't build it up 15 feet. MR. CRON: How would the pool slope? ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -43- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: The pool would be perfectly level. It wouldn't slope, sir. MR. BEHRMANN: Are you talking about this side ? Just let me see it and we'll all-- MR. CRON: If you have 13 feet over here, you're telling me that you're going to have it less than 15 feet on the south side, on the north side over there? MR. BONAWANDT: You see the elevation here? Do you see that elevation? MR. CRON: I see that elevation there, right. MR. BONAWANDT: Let's call that zero, all right? The pool site -- MR. BEHRMANN: Indicating photograph B on the Exhibit (B). MR. BONAWANDT: The foundation of the rear of the house and the north side. We'll call that zero. The side location would be minus 8 feet. I would put my pool in level at that point. I would cut part of the grade out here, and take the fill and spread it on the other side and all around on the three sides. MR. CRON: From this point of zero that you have described as the elevation, how far would it drop down on the north side there? MR. BONAWANDT: I didn't have my transit with me. MR. CRON: Well, did you make an estimate on how far it would be? MR. BONAWANDT: It looks like it's about 12 feet. MR. CRON: 12 feet. And you would start at the south side of the pool in what relation to this zero elevation? Where would you start it? MR. BONAWANDT: Minus 6. MR. CRON: Minus 6. MR. BONAWANDT: Which would be level with the ground at this point, and my pool would come out this way. MR. CRON: And if you went 16 feet over there, 16 feet to the north, what would the elevation be at that point? MR. BONAWANDT: It would be about 5 feet out of the ground. And I would take the fill and spread it all around on the outside. Southold Town Board of Appeals -44- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: And that would raise this area higher than what it is now? Right? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. Yes. MR. CRON: Would that have any effect on the aesthetics of the vegetation and so forth in that area there? MR. BONAWANDT: None. I'd be enhancing the property. would be reclaiming the property, because right now they can't do anything with it. You've got a slope. it? MR. CRON: That would also be in a sideyard though wouldn't MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: And that's also an area that's also according to the ordinance prohibited. Right? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. But there are no abutting neighbors there though. MR. CRON: What'd you calling an abutting neighbor. I don't think that's the criteria. MEMBER DOUGLASS: That's frontyard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Frontyard, because there is a street there, a paper street. MEMBER DOUGLASS: There's a paper street there. MR. BONAWANDT: When I saw the survey, I saw that. But at the time when I made the inspections -- MR. CRON: Does the Board look upon that as an actual street even though it's a paper street? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Yes. MR. BEHRMANN: It is a right-of-way with overgrown-- MEMBER DOUGLASS: It's a paper street. It's under frontyard. MR. BONAWANDT: The only logical place i'd put it was rearyard- MR. CRON: The only logical place left is the site that the applicant proposes as well as the rearyard. MR. BONAWANDT: Negative. Negative. Negative. In the rear. You've got all the room in the world right there. MR. CRON: You seem to object to this sideyard. Is that it? .~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -45- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON: Of all the existing terrain qualifications, isn't it a fact that the sideyard has the better qualifica- tions for a pool locale? MR. BONAWANDT: No. MR. GARDNER: No. MR. BEHRMANN: No. MR. CRON: Well, what are your determining factors as to where a pool would go? MR, BoNAWANDT: Privacy, number one. MR. CRON: Whose privacy? MR. BONAWANDT: My customer's privacy. MR. CRON: And if the customer decides that's private enough for them, you would not accept that? Huh? MR. CRON: If the customer who comes to you says, "I am satisfied with the privacy that this would afford~ you would rebut that? You would not accept that? MR. BONAWANDT: Do you mean if the customer wanted it on the side? MR. CRON: Yes. MR. BONAWANDT: I would recommend that it goes in the rear. MR. CRON: And suppose the customer said they were satisfied as far as privacy in that area? 5~. BONAWANDT: In the rear? MR. CRON: No. In the sideyard. MR. BONAWANDT: Well. I'm a pool builder. If they want it there, I would put it there. MR. CRON: Ail right. And what are the other things that you would look for in determining where a locale of a pool should be? MR. BONAWANDT: I would want privacy. I'd want the sun. And I would want wind. Accessibility. The house. Things like that. MR. CRON: But the fact that the pool in the rearyard would be shaded by the house, would that have any bearing on your selection of that as a site? .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -46- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: Yes, it would. But -- MR. CRON: As that as a shaped area, that would not be as favorable an area as the area on the south side where the sun shines all day? MR. BONAWANDT: Well, I could put the pool there-- MR. CRON: Answer my question. Is that so? MR. BONAWANDT: I would say it's more favorable in the rear than it is on the side. MR~ CRON: In terms of shade? If you were looking for sun, sir,- MR. BONAWANDT: If I were looking for sun, it~would probably be on the side. But I wouldn't put the pool there. MR. CRON: The sideyard, And the south side would be where the most sun is, isn't that so? During the day? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: So this locale would be the better locale in terms of sunshine, would it not? The south side of the house? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. BEHRMANN: You're pointing to the wrong side when you said south. MR. CRON: I'm pointing over here. MR. BEHRMANN: That is the east side. MR. CRON: Oh, I'm sorry. Over here. He understands where the south side o~f the house is. I've identified that as being the locale of the proposed pool area. All right. What other areas do we have now. We have the shade, we have privacy. What else do you select? MR. BONAWANDT: When you say the shade, let's pinpoint it then. How many hours during the day would you have that shade? MR. CRON: That's not the point. MR. BONAWANDT: You won't have 12 hours of shade. MR. CRON: If a client of yours comes to you and says, "I want to put a pool in an area where the sun shines," you wouldn't-- MR. BONAWANDT: I would recommend the rearyard. MR. CRON: You would recommend the rearyard. ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -47- June 12, 1980 MR. BEHRMANN: For their child's convenience. MR. CRON: Look, would you-- MR. BEHRMANN: I'm sorry. I'd better get out of this. MR. CRON: tf you want to testify, I'll be glad to cross-examine you. MR. BONAWANDT: Seriously, the rearyard is the only location. MR. CRON: For what reasons? MR. BONAWANDT: It could be put in in conformance with the Town regulations, number one. MR. CRON: Is that the only reason? MR. BONAWANDT: Without a variance. It's accessible. It's in a good location. I don't know what the sun conditions are in the middle of the summer, but I measure around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon there will be shade there. MR. CRON: How about the considerations of the applicant, the party who wants to build the pool? Do you disregard those when you build a pool? MR. BONAWANDT: No, I don't disregard them. Ail I could do is make them my recommendations. If my customer wants to put it on the side, I will sell it to them and put it on the side. MR. CRON: Well, if the customer told you, "I want my pool in the sun most of the day, and the sun is on this area, this side of the house (south side)," would you insist that she put it-- MR. BONAWANDT: I have to tell them they are not in con- formance with the Town regulations. MR. CRON: That's no~ your job now, is it? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes, it is. Because I have the book. MR. CRON: And if she says, "I will seek a variance to get that," what will you say then? MR. BONAWANDT: Go ahead. MR. CRON: Ok. So what other considerations do you give now when you build a pool when you discuss it with an applicant? ~. Southold Town Board of Appeals -48- June 12, 1980 MR. BONAWANDT: Does the applicant got the money to pay for the pool. MR. CRON: All right. Let's assume we established that in the affirmative. MR. BONAWANDT: Uh, basically, you've covered the whole thing. MR. CRON: Aesthetics have something to do with it, too? MR. BONAWANDT: Aesthetics. That's a beautiful spot overlooking that bluff. MR. CRON: Maybe the applicant thinks on the south side is a beautiful spot, too? MR. BONAWANDT: That's their opinion. MR. CRON: Are there any other objective considerations? MR. BONAWANDT: None that I could find. MR. CRON: You say you built a 1,000 pools, huh? MR. BONAWANDT: I said I sold 1,000 pools; I built 600. MR. CRON: You built them all over, huh? MR. BONAWANDT: Only in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. MR. CRON: I think you heard Mr. Siemerling testify'that he has built about 175 pools in about eight years. I think in all the time you built, you've never seen a pool in other than the rearyard, is that so? MR. BONAWANDT: Ask him if he ever put one in the front yard before-- MR. CRON: I'm didn't ask him, I'm asking you. MR. BONAWANDT: I never saw one in the frontyard, if that's what you're leading -- MR. CRON: No, I didn't ask that question. I said you have never seen one in the frontyard, right? You've seen them all in the rearyard, right? MR. BONAWANDT: Yes. MR. CRON: Would it surprise you if I told you Mr. Siemer- ling in the short period of time that he has been in operation has built pools far less in quantity than you have, and has ~ ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -49- June 12, 1980 built a number in the frontyard. MR. BONAWANDT: Good. I would, too, if I could do it to sell a pool. MR. CRON: If you were representing Mrs. Eggers, you would have reasons why to put it in the sideyard, wouldn't you? MR. BONAWANDT: No comment. MR. CRON: No further questions. MR. LARK: Does the Board have any questions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes? MR. BEHRMANN: Uh, the gentleman that just left-- I would like to give him a little history about Nassau Point, if I can get this thing straightened out now. Do you remember 19387 MR. CRON: Before my time. MR. BEHRMANN: Before your time. In 1938 there was a croquet court in front of the Eggers' house, just enough for a croquet court. There was no bulkheading. They lost about 25 feet or whatever it was at that level area where she stated here, in "A". After 1938, the neighbors agreed that something had to be done, and bulkheading was put in for five pieces of property. My property here on this side has the original bulkheading, the original steps that go up since 1938. There has been no erosion. You had mentioned some- thing about erosion here, the problem of pool-building and the security of pool building. This is an ideal site if they want a pool. You questioned, this is the east side not the south side, you questioned, gentlemen -- I'm talking about this (Mr. Behrmann faced the Board showing blown]~up survey with photographs). This is the present fore-shore. In 1938 it was about here, with a level out here something like that and dropped off. At that time the bulkheads were put in and this fore-shore has been uneroded, and my fore-shore to the north of here has been uneroded since the bulkheads have been put in. So the gentleman here talking of the security of engineering -- there is no question that a pool in my mind could not be put in this frontyard (location "B"-Exhibit "E") . Now, there was another question of putting the pool back here (location "A"), and Mrs. Eggers was talking of watching her child. The kitchen is here, there is a little porch over here (to the south end of the building) and there would be no basic observation of a child one year, two years of age, three or four years of age, by five years of age that child isn't going to have anything to do with that swimmingpool. He is going to be right down the steps in the salt water like Southold Town Board of Appeals -50- June 12, 1980 MR. BEHRMANN (continued): his father. His father loves the water, and that child is going to love the water. He will want to have nothing to do with the swlmmingpool. Now, if a swlmmingpool has to be built, this is the place for it to be built, (indicating location "A"-rearyard), it should be a salt water swimmingpool. The water can be precured by pumping and I've had experience with salt and fresh water swimmingpoots . My first experiences were ~n the YMCA where freshwater swimming- pools were, and they were lousy. And I really mean it, and saltwater swlmmingpools, I was in Cobey, Japan, r~ght opposite industrial areas, and we pumped salt water out of 20 feet of sand, and we had the most beautiful salt water you have ever seen. MR. BONAWANDT: $250.00 and we will give him a salt water pump, and they can have a saltwater pool. MR. BEHRMANN: From my standpoint, no freshwater pools on Nassau Point, and they can have a saltwater pool; and if they want to put it here-- that's "if." MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of you fellows on the Board have any questions to the swimmingpool man? MR. BEHRMANN: In fact, she can watch a child very con- veniently from that site (indicating location "B"). MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerry? Bob? Serge? MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess they don't now. MR. LARK: Ok. I would like at this time to call Mr. Lewis Edson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like him sworn in, too? Mr. Lark nodded affirmatively. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Edson, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to present is the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help you God? MR. LEWIS EDSON: (Raised his right hand.) I do. MR. EDSON: Lewis Edson, Main Road, Southold. From 1968 through 1976, I was employed by MacDonald's Corporation as Director of Site Development for the Corporation, and then in northeastern Canada. In June of 1976 opened up First Towne Realty, which I am a licensed broker and owner, with offices · n Cutchogue and Southold. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Lark .. Southold Town Board of Appeals -51- June 12, 1980 asked me to come down and take a look at the subject property with the idea in mind, that if a swimmingpool was put into this location, what effect it would have on the value of Mr. Brac's property (neighbor's property). I surveyed the property; I walked on both pieces. I went through the house. I did an appraisal on Ms. Brac's house which I have and will hand in as an Exhibit along with comparables for the Nassau Point market. 'I have a bottom-line figure of $182,500 for Mr. Brac's house. That's based on 1,524 square feet on the first floor of living space; there's 304 square feet on the outside porch; the seccnd floor is 1,500 square feet; the two bed- rooms on the second floor are not comPleted; all that's left that has to be done there is sheetrocking, the electricity is all roughed in that section; the bathroom is complete; it's a tile bath onthe second floor; there's a full bath on the first floor; two. bedrooms; living room; family room; kitchen; dining area off the kitchen; and then the outside portion you have a two-car attached garage. The property is about three-quarters of an acre of which I valued at $70,000. I came up with $182,500. So I would like to submit my appraisal as an Exhibit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Exhibit Three/"C." MR. CRON: t presume you are submitting an appraisal on Mr. Brac's property? MR. EDSON: Yes. (Certified appraisal of Mr. Lewis L. Edson, sworn to on the 9th day of ~une, 1980 regarding Mr. Leon Brac's property, 6725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, was marked as Exhibit "C.") MR. EDSON: I took a series of photographs around the area, showing what we have here. This particular shot, number "A", picture "A" on this board (Exhibit "D"), was taken from inside the family room of the Brac house. It points directly out to where the proposed pool will be located. About 33 feet away from the side of this house to where the proposed pool would be. This is the back end, the screened-in porch area (picture "B" - Exhibit "D"), the pool's area would be just on the other side of the black pines. Picture "C" shows the Eggers' house, and the expanse of property. This is the proposed pool site (Picture "D") here. This is picture "D" The proposed pool site. Here is the window that I took this photograph from (Picture "D"). That's.a proximity to that window, is, Picture "E" is the driveway to the Brac house. This would be the location right here of the pool (Picture "E"). Picture "F" shows the approximate area of the two houses and again where the pool would go. Ok? Now, the black delineates the area where the first application was denied; and the blue delineates the proposed application that's before the Board. These were put on by Mr. Van Tuyl at my request. . ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -52- June 12, 1980 MR. EDSON (continued): Here's a shot of the bank behind the Eggers' house (Picture "I"-Exhibit "E"). These are the two bulkheaded areas (Picture "I"-Exhibit "E"), and as you can see the slope is not as great here because of the bulkheading as it is on the Brac property. This is from inside the screened-in porch (Picture "H"-Exhibit ~E").This was taken on the roof (Picture "G"-Exhibit "E"). This is the pool area here on Picture "G". Picture "J" is from the back of the Eggers' house over to the pool area, and again over in to the Brac house with the window that I was pointing out before. And two more shots of the same. Now, after having analyzed the location of the pool and walking around on the property, and going through the Brac house, in my opinion, if the pool were granted in that section, because of the light -- they put night lighting in there -- there's no reason that they won't after awhile-- because of the parties that generally go on around a pool area -- because of the noise factor and its proximity to the living area of the Brac house that the value of the Brac house will be de-valued by 20%, or somewhere in the $35,000 area. It's the same as if there was a proposal for a tennis court, or a racketball court. Or a handball court. It would have that same detrimental effect to the Brac property. Recently, we had a customer on a piece of property over here in Southwood, and right behind this particular house, which was screened by black pines and a lot of landscaping there is a fellow that likes to work on his car, and is notorious throughout Southwood because of the eyesore it has created. Now, when he works on those cars, with the sanders that he was using, and the polishers and everything else, it affected the value of the house. People did not buy it. The house is still on the market. Before that house sells in my opinion, it's going to have to be devalued. It has to be devalued in order to make it a real good deal where somebody is willing to come an and accept the noise and the odor, and pay something less than market value because of that. And another situation on Nassau Point down at the Bridge Lane section, where Trinilodge purchased the house from Mr. Ahmand, and Mr. Gray and Dr. Kunkle and Noey had heard ~hat Trinilodge was thinking .about putting in a tennis court in their frontyard. What they did was talk it out. The three abutters wents to Trinilodge and explained to him that they thought it'6 ~ create a lot of no~se, and the Trinilodges accepted that and decided not to go ahead with it. And that's the way most of these things are resolved. I don't know of any pools in frontyards. You know, Artie says he puts them in. I don't know of any in Southold Town. I don't doubt that there are, but I haven't seen them. But I really think that the valuation of the Brac property going to be substantially harmed to the tune of at least 20% Southold Town Board of Appeals -53- June 12, 1980 by that particular location. And it would be no problem as it has been pointed out in those other two locations. Anything else (to Mr. Lark)? MR. LARK: Just a few questions. real broker? MR. EDSON: MR. LARK: MR. EDSON: MR. LARK: MR. EDSON: MR. LARK: MR. EDSON: MR. LARK: Are you a licensed I am. In what State? The State of New York. And how long have you been so licensed? As a broker? Yes. Since June of 1976. Ok. And are you familiar with sales of property in the Nassau Point area? MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: Since 19767 MR. EDSON: Since 1976, well, I added up to sales since January 1st of 1978, excuse me, January 1st of 1979 through May 15th of 1980; and there were 18 transactions on Nassau Point of which First Towne Realty had four, or 22% of the market. MR. LARK: And are you a principal in First Towne Realty? MR. EDSON: I'm principal and the owner. MR. LARK. Ail right. Did you mark this Exhibit "D"? MR. CHAIRMAN nodded affirmatively: Exhibit "D". (Blown-up survey of the Eggers and part of the Brac property, with six photographs was marked and entered into the record as Exhibit "D" - Objectant's.) MR. LARK: All right. On Exhibit "D" would you testify to the Board, did you take those photographs? MR. EDSON: I did. MR. LARK: Ail right. And what time of the day did you take those photographs? .~ Sou~hold Town Board of Appeals -54- June 12, 1980 MR. EDSON: Some of them I took at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, and others I took at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. MR. LARK: Ok. And do these, how long ago did you take those photographs? MR. EDSON: About a week and a half ago. MR. LARK: Ok. And do those photographs fairly and accurately represent what's purported thereon? MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: Ok. And as I understood you, the "x" that you testified to when you were going around with the various letters on the photographs is the position at which you stood? MR. EDSON: When I was taking the picture, yes. MR. LARK: Right. And looking out according in the area in which you have drawn the line, is that correct? Y~. EDSON: That's correct. MR. LARK: And would the same hold true, that was "D", with the same, is this "E", with the same questions if I asked you about the -- the photographs on Exhibit "E" were taken at approximately the same time? MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: depict? MR. EDSON: And they fairly and accurately show what %hey They do. MR. LARK: Ok. (Blown-up survey of the Eggers and part of the Brac's properties with slx photographs was marked and entered into the record as Exhibit "E" Objectant's.) MR. LARK: Now, you heard Mr. Bonawandt testify here before, is that correct? Were you present? MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: Now, he testified on I believe Exhibit "B" of two possible other site locations, which he denoted as "A" and "B" on that exhibit. ~ere you present when he was doing that? MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: Ok. Now, on one proposed alternate site location "A", if that was to be built in your opinion would that have any Southold Town Board of Appeals -55- June 12, 1980 effect on the Brac property? MR. EDSON: It would have no effect at all. MR. LARK: All right. Now, you heard Mr. Behrmann testify here before, or talk to the Board before. He is the neighbor to the north of the paper street that was talked about. MR. EDSON: R~ht. MR. LARK: If the pool was located in site "A" in the rearyard, would it in your opinion have any detrimental effect on his property? MR. EDSON: No. MR. LARK: And what do you draw that conclusion on? MR. EDSON: Well, because of the terrain in that particular area. The distance between this house and Mr. Behrmann's house which is approximately -- MR. BEHRMANN: Over 100 feet, 150 feet. MR. EDSON: Right. And the property slopes up which is always a buffer. It's heavily vegetated and then you've got the buffer, the natural buffer of the road in there, too. MR. LkRK: Ail right. as to site location "B"? MR. EDSON: No. Would your opinion be any different (north side of the Eggers' house) MR. LARK: Would it have a~y~d~'hrim~nta~Teffect on,the Brac's~p~operty? MR. EDSON: It wouldn't have any detrimental effect to Mr. Brac or Mr. Behrmann. MR. LARK: It would have no detrimental effect, or to Mr. Behrmann, is that correct? MR. EDSON: Right. MR. LARK: Ok. And is the main reason that if the location which is denoted in blue, the proposed pool location, have a detrime-- you testified it would have a detrimental effect on Mr. Brac's property, is that correct? MR. EDSON: A tremendous detrimental effect. MR. LARK: Ok. And a reason for that is because of its proximity to the Brac house? Southold Town Board of Appeals -56- June 12, 1980 MR. EDSON: Yes. MR. LARK: In other words, if it was located either in "A" or "B", it would not have any detrimental effect? Mi{. EDSON: You've got the building there shielding all the noise and from the light. So it would have no effect on the Brac property. MR. LARK. Ok. MR. BEHRMANN: I think "B" would have a little effect on mine. But that's mine. Go ahead. Put it on the record -- it would have a minor effect on mine. MR. CRON: I take it, Mr. Edson, you don't have any objection to in-ground pools as such, right? MR. EDSON: I have no objection to in-ground pools. MR. CRON: Since they might even enhance values of properties rather than de-value them? MR. EDSON: In some cases they do. I've seen a lot of cases where they've de-valued the property, simply because of the toughness of selling houses with swimmingpools. There's a small market for it. MR. CRON: Well, there were some I'm sure that would rebut that, but we won't get into that. MR. EDSON: That's my business. MR. CRON: I think your principle objections were, if I understood you was that the locale of the pool being as such with Mr. Brac's property would afford noise, lights, parties, so forth? MR. EDSON: That's correct. MR. CRON: But you have no basis of knowing whether that would all occur. MR. EDSON: Well, you're going to have the noise with one person swimming. You're always going to have the odor with the chlorine, which I'm presuming is going in there, unless it's a salt water pool. From those two standpoints, yeah. MR. CRON: Well, let me ask you this. Let's hypothetically assume that we would move the pool to one of the locales that you think would be favorable to Mr. Brac's property, all right? Let's hypothetically assume that we have one hell of a boisterous party. We make a lot of loud noise every night, and we put a lot of lights there, and it's a real, real loud affair. Does that Southold Town Board of Appeals -57- June 12, 1980 locale have any effect on Mr. Brac's property? MR. EDSON: If the buyers were knowledgeable of those parties going on there continually, it would affect Brac's and it would affect Behrmann's. MR. CRON: Can we assume that if they would be knowledge- able in those instances, they would also be knowledgeable with the respect to the locale that we would like the pool? MR. EDSON: What was that, Dick? Sorry. MR. CRON: I mean, can we assume that they would have the same knowledge regardless of where the locale was? MR. EDSON: I guess so, Dick. MR. CRON: And then if we did select one of those sites that you had proposed, or this gentleman had proposed, and assuming we made the same amount of loud noise and we put on the same number of lights, I assume that would also de-value Mr. Brac's property. MR. EDSON: It would create a nuisance, Dick, which is going to de-value the surrounding properties. MR. CRON: I think you mentioned some percentage at which it would be tremendously de-valued, I believe those were your words. MR. EDSON: I mentioned the figure 20%. MR. CRON: So regardless of which locale we would select, assuming we had the noise, the lights, and what have you, it wouldn't make any difference would it? MR. EDSON: Well, if you have the pool in site "A"or site "B", on the alternate sites, the noise would just have to be deafening to the point that I don't even think the party-goers could hear themselves-- MR. CRON: Now you have no way of knowing that-- MR. EDSON: I don't have any to know. That's true, Dick, but with the way that the proposed locations are going to be there, you've got the house, which is a natural buffer of noise shielding it from the Brac property. MR. CRON: I understand what you're saying, but I am saying to you that hypothetically assuming that we were to make noise that would affect Mr. Brac, put up a number of lights that would affect Mr. Brac, that would all have a de-valuation on his property, wouldn't it? Southold Town Board of Appeals -58- June 12, 1980 MR. EDSON: Yes, it would. MR. CRON: So, in each instance then regardless of where our locale is, you're assuming that we are going to have lights and noise and so forth, right? MR. EDSON: Only under the instance that you're trying to bring out, but. if you have super big parties there night after night with a lot of lights and a lot of noise, it's going to affect everything. MR. CRON: Let me ask you. How many houses have you sold in Nassau Point that have swimmingpools? MR. EDSON: None that I can think of. MR. CRON: None? MR. EDSON: None that I can think of. MR. CRON: Have you sold any houses that have swimmingpools? MR. EDSON: Not that I can think of, Dick. tahave some listings with them. MR. CRON: In preparing your presentation this evening, did you discuss this with anybody else? MR. EDSON: Mr. Cron- MR. CRON: Mr. Lark? MR. EDSON: Uh, Mr. Lark. MR. CRON: I just want to set the record straight. Did you consult with any other brokers? MR. EDSON: No. MR. CRON: You haven't sold any houses with swimmingpools. You haven't discussed this with any other brokers. How did you reach the determination that there would be a tremendous de-valua- tion in the sum of $35,000? MR. EDSON: From my experience. MR~ CRON: What experience? MR. EDSON: My experience as a real estate broker. And the houses that I have tried to sell -- MR. CRON: But you haven't sold any houses with swimmingpools though? · ~outhold Town Board of Appeals -59- June 12, 1980 MR. EDSON: I haven't sold any houses with swimmingpools. MR. CRON: So your experience now is predicated on sales that had nothing to do with swimmingpools. MR. EDSON: I have not been able to sell houses where they are next to a nuisance, like the Southwood-- MR. CRON: All right. But then you're making the assumption that the swimmingpoo! then generically is a nuisance. MR. EDSON: No, the swimmingpool in that location would be a nuisance. MR. CRON: But it's only a nuisance in that location because hypothetically you are assuming that as a result of that location there is going to be noise and lights that's going to affect the adjoining owner. Isn%t that so? MR. EDSON: That's so. MR. CRON: All right. But I have also established with you that we could have the same situation with respect to any of the other locales that have been suggested. MR. EDSON: Only under the circumstances you presented where they have extremely loud parties, day in and day out. MR. CRON: Fine, let's assume that. Let's assume that. MR. EDSON: Ok. MR. CRON: Then we have the same nuisance, right? MR. EDSON: You're going to have an effect on values some- where there, Dick. MR. CRON: I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Dick? MR. LARK: Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER DOUGLASS: Mr. SteEling wan~s to say something. MR. CRON: Would you members of the Board or anybody have any objection if these gentlemen make any comment? I don't know whether you -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have some more? MR. LARK: I would just like to take a few minutes, I know the hour is getting late, if you could just give me Southold Town Board of Appeals -60- June 12, 1980 MR. LARK (continued): about three or four minutes. I think I'll stand over here. It'll be easier. I'm just trying to tie this thing together -- I think a few preliminary points are in order, so that it might sum up Mr. Brac's opposition to the application of Arthur Siemerling as agent for the Stephen Eggers' tO locate the swimmingpool in this location. As Mr. Cron indicated to you, under the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, a swimmingpool incidental to a residential use is a permitted accessory use in an A-Residential & Agricultural District. However, pursuant to Section 100-32 of the Ordinance, such an accessory use such as this residential swimmingpool must be located in the rearyard of a parcel of land. And as you know the rearyard is defined in our Building Zone Ordinance in Sec- tion 100-13 as unoccupied ground area fully open to the sky between the rear lot line and a lot line drawn parallel thereto. What we have here as Mr. Cron indicated is an area variance, since the swimmingpool is incidental to the residence, and it is permitted in the rear yard and not in the front or in the side yard. Since the application seeks in essence yard relief, in order to locate this swimmingpool it is an area variance as he indicated and the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show practical difficulty to locate the pool in the proposed area. In determining the criteria for practical difficulties, the Courts in New York have come up with some standards to be used by the Board of Appeals in making this determination. And they are basically: (t) how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement; the effect if the variance is obtained on an increased population density, the effect on fire water, and sewage disposal, police, so on and so forth; (3) whether a substantial change will be reduced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detri- ment to adjoining properties; (4) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance; and (5) whether in the view of the manner in which the difficulties arose in considering all of the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. In other words, considering the relevant factors of practical difficulties which the Board must make a deter- mination, and it's a balancing the need, the harm, and the alternative solutions to any potential problem. In other words, it's a balancing of community interests and the right of the owner to the reasonable use of his property. We must keep in mind that this does not relieve the applicant of proving some real injury from the application of the zoning ordinance. And without proof of these practical difficulties, which I just eluded to the Board of Appeals, is without any authority to grant an area variance, and one must be denied where there is a viable alternative to the landowner. There- Southold Town Board of Appeals -61- June 12, 1980 MR. LARK (continued): fore, the standard by which an area variance is to be measured is whether the strict compliance with the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties, and I submit a mere incon- venience resulting from the application of the zoning~ordinance is not sufficient to warrant the granting of an area variance. Now, translated to the facts of this case, what does this all mean? As I stated, a residential swimmingpool is a per- mitted accessory use -- that's admitted. However, it must be in the rearyard, and applying the factors the Board of Appeals should use, those five criteria which I'll go over, I believe that you will have to conclude that this variance should be denied, because the applicant has not nor can I submit cannot show practical difficulties within the meaning of the law. And further there are reasonable alternatives to the pool location, and the applicant has merely shown an inconvenience by the strict application of the Building Zone Ordinance. Looking at the factors then, how substantial the variance is in relationship to the requirement. All right. Here the swimmingpool is required to be in the rearyard as you know. The application calls for it to be in the side/front yard. The original application which I understand you denied a month ago, as denoted in black on the Exhibits has now been moved a few feet to the west, with this new application. So the Board denied it in the area denoted black. Again, I don't know that there has been any substantial change for the Board then to grant it in the area that's denoted blue. The point being is the requirement is much more substantial now to the variation requirement because before it was only in the sideyard. Now it's in the sideyard and the frontyard by definitions of the zoning ordinance. So the application today is more at variance with the Ordi- nance than it was when you denied it a month or so ago. Now, you heard the criteria of whether the substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and substantial detriment to adjoining properties. You have heard Mr. Edson's testimony, and I think his testimony has been pretty much uncontroverted, that the impact of the pool in the area denoted in the blue on the Exhibits will have a substantial affect not only to the neighborhood in general but to Mr. Brac!s property in particular. As a matter of fact, I'll go one step further after hearing the testimony here tonight. If the Board granted the application for the location of the pool in the particular spot as proposed, it could very well be creating a private nuisance. In order for the swimmingpool to constitute a nuisance, it must amount to an unreasonable use of the land, so that it's natural use, that is of the swimmingpool, will constitute an infringement on the rights of Mr. Brac to use and enjoy Southold Town Board of Appeals -62- June 12, 1980 MR. LARK (continued): his property because of possible excessive noise levels, offensive lighting and diminishment of his property values because of the location in that particular spot. Mr. Brac has testified that it will bother him due to his medical condition, testified that he lives in that particular area which immediately abuts which is his den, and as you can see on the photographs where the chimney is, and then the rear screened-in porch in the summertime, and that he is only 23 feet from the property line, and the pool will be another 10 or 15 feet from that area. So he has testified that it will affect him and his living there. And also Mr. Edson testified that it would affect the property values. Now, I think the key here to the whole matter is the criteria that the Board can consider as whether the difficulty can be obviated by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. I think that's one of the primary keys here. Because Mr. Brac testified and Mr. Behrmann stated to the Board, I think, the adjoining nearest neighbors, that they are not against the swimmingpool in and of itself. Mr. Behrmann was against it because of the freshwater use, and Mr. Brac who is an objectant and who I represent is because of the proximity to his house. Now there are suitable alternatives. You have heard the pool expert testify that a pool at the no unreasonable added expense could be located either on Site "A" or on Site "B", and that's really been uncontroverted. He measured it. He looked at it, and in fact Site "A" we wouldn't even be here because it's in the rearyard and it conforms beyond the lot line. And Site "B" it would have to have a variance because of the technicalities, that also being a frontyard, being on the street. But the only neighbor who could object then would be Mr. Behrmann, who is on the other side to the north, and he stated that that would not have a substantial effect on him, and he would have no objection. So- you have ample testimony that the pool can be located in other sites. It's not a postage-stamp piece of property; it's a fairly substan- tial piece of property, and a pool could be located. And I think that's the main key, that the practical difficulty if you would on an area variance can be obviated by complying with the ordinance by locating it, the pool, in the rearyard and if that's not satisfactory to the applicant to make a request on the other side, which I assume who the only person who could possibly object, there would be no objection. Ok. And in view, the last criteria, in view of the difficulties which arose in considering all the factors, whether the interest Southold Town Board of Appeals -63- June 12, 1980 would be served by allowing the variance. I think common sense has to dictate here, and should alert the Board to the difficulties that have been created just by the controversy that the application itself has created. My question to the Board is, and I challenge you, is it worth it to grant the variance with all these problems that will be generated to Mr. Brac, and I think they are real problems. They are real dollar-value, depreciation problems. Mr. Edson testified in his opinion some $35,000. Mr. Brac himself testified that the pool, the site in that location would bother him immensely, and it just seems to me that the granting of the variance does violence to the Zoning Ordinance scheme in the Nassau Point area because it clearly impinges on the right of Mr. Brac, which is the neighboring property owner; and I submit to you when the Town Board wrote the Zoning Ordinance and allowed pools in a residential neighborhood, they put it in the rearyard for a purpose. And I don't think that the applicant has shown sufficient practi- cal difficulty to move it out. There is no question showing convenience. Now, I don't want to belabor all the reasons. I imagine some of the reasons that the applicant had for wanting it in this area are valid in the applicant's mind, but I don't think they come within the standards that have been set down by the Courts and by the guidelines that the Board of Appeals should follow in cases of this nature to overcome the fact that the pool should not be located in this area. There is no question, there might be more convenience for the applicant there, but that's not a standard. I don't think the applicant has met the test for a practical difficulty. And I want to thank the Board for the lateness of the hour, their courtesy and their attention they have shown me. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lark. MR. CRON: I still might like to be heard a few moments. I'm familiar with all of the points Mr. Lark has made with respect to what is supposed to be defined as a practical difficulty. They all come out of Ramppart on Zoning which I am quite familiar with. However, let me say this. My observations as to what has been said and as to what has been testified to.for those who are in support of Mr. Brac's position is one which deals -no~ with a pool, but deals with the personalities who may be using the pool. And I submit that that is nothing to the Board to necessarily consider because it's all hypothetical without any basis in evidence whatsoever. I don't think Southold Town Board of Appeals -64- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON (continued): anybody would object apparently to the pool being there if it weren't used. t haven't heard anybody object to that. I think what they are objecting to is apparently that somebody is going to make a lot of noise and interfere with Mr. Brac's privacy. What has to be established as I said from the outset in terms of laying down ground rules is the fact that you are dealing with an area variance, and all that you must deter- mine as far as that area variance is concerned, and as far as the applicant's position is concerned, is that there is practical difficulty involved. This Board can accept or reject expert testimony. The fact that it is labelled as such, and the fact that it is presented to this Board as such doesn't bind the Board to that testimony. The testimony is in conflict if anything. It's in conflict with respect to what Mr. Siemerling says in terms of problems in the rearyard. It's also in force and effect as to what Mr. Sterling has said with respect to the problems of putting themin a locale that Mr. Brac would like to see the pool located. The Board isn't bound by any of these. The Board has to decide for itself. But you will have to weigh which of the testimony is more valid. It has been indicated to the Board of the tremendous de-valuation of Mr. Brac's property. I submit to the Board that has not been completely and satisfactorily established. You can re-cite an opinion if you wish, but the opinion is not nevertheless binding unless it is based on some real practical evidence and proof. I submit to the Board there is practical difficulty. The practical difficulty being based upon what Mr. Siemerling and what Mr. Sterling has said, that the rearyard is not a practical area in which to install this particular pool. I think the very question of erosion is very important. It's raised in all other instances when somebody wishes something. I think it's a real practical problem with respect to this property. Where this gentleman proposed that the pool be located, there isn't a great deal of area between the end of the pool and the bluff. If further erosion occurs in that area, that's going to be a precarious situation, and no place in which to put a swimmingpool. As far as the north/sideyard location, we submit that because of the elevation in that area that that is not a practical area in which to place the pool. Southold Town Board of Appeals -65- June 12, 1980 MR. CRON (continued): Due to the elevation of the area that we propose as well as all of the other factors that one wishes to i~clude in determining whether one puts a pool in a given area such as sunshine, etcetera, they are the factors that are more prac- tical for the establishment of the pool in the area the applicant seeks. Mr. Brac himself has already established a degree of privacy. He has established trees all along his boundary line. MR. BRAC: Not all along. MR. CRON: Within the area where that pool would be they would be established. To begin with, I'm sure that Mrs. Eggers would also provide suitable screening or I'm sure she would like as much privacy from Mr. Brac and Mr. Brac would like from her. So for all of the reasons that I think are important to the Board, such as practical difficulty, which I think is all you must determine, I think Mrs. Eggers has established the right to relocate the pool in the area that she seeks. I'm not disputing that perhaps you could locate it in other areas. I suppose you could if you wanted to spend the monies, the efforts and so forth. Whether they would be the right areas or the more practical areas to put the pool, we submit no. They are not. The area that Mrs. Eggers has selected is the proper area. And whether it be a front yard, side yard, we have all through Nassau Point -- I see tennis courts in frontyards, I'm sure if we look hard enough there are probably swimmingpools in frontyards. I don't think it makes that much difference. What is important is what effect it has on a particular area. And I think that the effect that Mr. Brac alleges is an over-dramatization of the effect on his property and on his property values. I submit that the applicant has made out a case and would ask the Board to grant the area variance requested. I don't know if the Board would care to hear from -- would you like to make any further statements (to Mr. Sterling). All right, Mr. Sterling would like to make a further statement. MR. PETER STERLING: Sitting here listening with the proposed "A" pool up on the bluff, once you open the ground -- he says it's virgin ground, ok. But once you open the ground at the top of the bluff, it lets water in. This produces pressure on the bank itself, and then Southold Town Board of Appeals -66- June 12, 1980 MR. STERLING (continued): you will definitely get erosion starting at the top. The grass that's there now does absorb the grass and forces it away and uses it up. But as soon as you open a wound, that wLll start erosion, and it very definitely will happen. Now as far as Point "B", I did not bring it up. forgot about it, but I just remembered sitting here. "B"-- the cesspools are there. So that would raise . problem for Point "B". All right. And they are pro] put, continuing Mr. Brac's line of black pine. Very That would be one of the first things done. Thank y, MR. SIEMERLING: Mr. Behrmann, for your informa'~ion, on a two-acre parcel of ground, you made a mention about '~he salt- water pool and the fresh-water pool, and the severit"T of the problem of fresh water on Nassau Point This 16 by !~2 pool holds 28,000 gallons of water. How ma~y neighbors ol yours have domestic underground irrigation systems? Three four within a one-mile? MR. BEHRMANN: Within a slight distance. MR. SIEMERLING: Ok. On a two-acre parcel of l~nd with a two-month period of time in the summertime, a two-~cre parcel of land will absorb 28,000plus gallons of wat,~r. This pool holds 28,000 gallons of water. It's a one-time deal, with roughly 50 gallons a week evaporations. Just o]~e point. Another one. For the other people's relative i]lformation. These people are here on weekends only. Not all yeai~round retirees or whatever. You're excused. That's all. MR. BRAC: I'm still sworn in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. BRAC: I want to say something about the three muskateers over here. They used all our exhibits he~e. This is how well they came equipped. Before that, they w~re doing the fingerpainting in the sky, cut it off a li~tle here, a little there. Hey, wait a minute -- let me ~ake a look -- then the gentleman, the attorney comes over here-- he is questioning inches, feet, yards, everything. I was wondering how are you going to entertain all these facts if I didn't bring the stuff here. ~nd I Point ~nother )osing to definitely. )u. The other thing I wanted to bring up, this pool if it's sitting in the frontyard, I don't care what it is it is going to look like they buried a whale out there. Anybody that drives by on the road-- it's going to be an eyesore and it's also going to be an eye strew of people riding by Southold Town Board of Appeals -67- June 12, 1980 MR. BRAC: (continued) catching the honsys in the pool. Ten feet high? How high is the fence? MR. STERLING: Four-foot fence. MR. BRAC: They can't see. What have you got, midgets in there? MR. STERLING: You're being ridiculous. MR. BRAC: I'm not being ridiculous. You're being ridiculous. (At this time too many people were shouting at one time and the statements were not being understood.) MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold it. You come through here. MR. STERLING: You're standing here calling people names, sir. MR. BRAC: I'm not calling anybody names. MR. STERLING: You did when you stood up. apology. We deserve an MR. BRAC: Let me tell you. You didn't come equipped like I came equipped. I did my best on this thing. To defend myself, and when I said my privacy, I mean my privacy. You don't have to live next door to it. I do. That's why I'm here tonight. Not because I want to, because I have to. The other thing I wanted to say, the gentleman over there said that they are going to be here on weekends. Who is going to watch this pool. Supposing some child comes along and sees that pool and goes into that pool and drowns? Now if the pool is located in another site, it would be something that somebody would not see. That's a thing for anybody to go see. A bunch of guys come by that thing, and they see that thing, they are tanked up. In they go. I'm next door. People are going to start trespassing across my property. That's just -- those things are just part of the picture, part of the big picture. But myself, as I testified, I am a prisoner of Zentar. I'm in the house and anything that transpires, I'm there. I can't go down on the beach. The gentleman if he looked at my property. There are no stairs down to my beach. I haven't been on the beach in 12 years. And I was around for the '38 hurricane. You weren't, but I was. And I saw the erosion factor it did. And there is nothing that's happened since that Smith place has been bulkheaded, or the Eggers' place now. Nothing. If you would look at the quality of the shubbery that's on that bank, I'm sure anybody that knows anything, including yourself, would testify that that thing is solid, deep-rooted material. Southol~Town Board of Appeals -68- June 12, 1980 MR. STERLING: But once you open the top it's shot. MR. BRAC: We're not talking about a grave, we're talking about- MR. STERLING: You're opening the top to put the pool on the top of the bluff. MR. BRAC: The gentleman testified here, he'll put the pool in. He'll put the pool in. He will guarantee it. And you're not a pool man, you're a landscaper. MR. STERLING: Yes, so I know what's-- MR. BRAC: Ail I can say is, gentlemen, I am trying to do by best. I have lived out here as you can see most of my life. I intend to come down and retire here the rest of my life. And I always know the people down here, you get a fair shake, and I never thought I would be in a position like this. Believe me, I just can't understand why it should be that, I don't know. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've heard just about all we can absorb, so. I will offer a resolution that we close the hearing and reservel decision. It will take a while to go through all through this. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to close the hearing and RESERVE DECISION in the matter of the application of STEPHEN EGGERS, in Appeal No. 2707. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthill, Douglass, Doyen and Goehringer. PUBLIC HEARING. Appeal No. 2702. Application of ECCLES PRIDGEN, by Horton Construction Co., as agent, New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk, New York for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections 100-30 and 100-32 for permission to construct second dwelling unit on single lot. Location of property: 2410, 2530 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, New York; bounded north by Great Peconlc Bay Boulevard, east by A. Cardinale Estate and Catalano, south by Peconic Bay, west by Kendel, Smith, Bayuk, Carey, Gannon. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-128-6-14 and 15. The Chairman opened the hearing at ll:20p.m, by read- ing the application for a variance, legal notice of hearing and affidavits attesting to its publication in the local and Southold Town Board of Appeals -69- June 12, 1980 official newspapers, Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, and letter from the Town Clerk, _indicating that notification to adjoining property owners was made; fee paid $15.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone present wishing to speak on behalf of this application? Mr. David Horton was present representing applicant, and the Chairman advised Mr. Horton as follows: MR. CHAIRMAN: We will need a survey from .a registered surveyor showing the buildings on the property, and an imaginery lot .line between the two dwellings giving the area to be applied to each dwelling use. Mr. Horton said he would return with the surveys as requested. MR. CHAIRMAN: Due to the reason we are awaiting surveys of the property, this matter Shall be recessed until the next regular meeting of the Board. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Tu~killt it was RESOLVED, that the matter of ECCLES PRIDGEN in Appeal No. 2702, be recessed until the next regular meeting of the Board pending receipt of surveys showing all buildings on the property, with all setbacks, and an imaginery lot line between the two dwellings, giving the area to be applied to each dwelling use. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -70- June 12, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2704. Application of LEONARD E. HOWARD, 53 Reutemann Road, North Stonington, CT, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 100-30A, for permission to construct second dwelling on a single parcel. Location of property: North Dumpling Island, Town of Southold, New York; more particularly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-130-1-4. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting permission to construct a second dwelling to be used as a "caretaker's cottage," on North Dumpling Island, of which applicant owns 2.3 acres. It has been indicated that applicant does not wish to divide the property into two legal building parcels; how- ever an imaginery lot line has been placed by applicant indicating a separation of area, to be applied to each dwelling use, drawn approximately 46' from the proposed caretaker's cottage and running north and south. The Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that the circumstances present in this case are unique, and that strict application of the ordi- nance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that LEONARD E. HOWARD, be granted permission to construct second dwelling as applied for herein, Appeal No. 2704, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That the subject dwelling shall not be constructed closer than 40' from any waterfronting lot line; (2) That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its recommendations pursuant to Section 1332, Suffolk County Charter. Location of property: North Dumpling Island, Town of Southold, New York, more particularly known as County Tax Map Item No. 1000-130-1-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- Southold Town Board of Appeals -71- June 12, 1980 RESERVED DECISION. Appeal No. 2705. Application of JOSEPH ST. PIERRE, by William B. Smith as agent, 220 Mechanic Street, Southold, New York, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 100-23C, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area and width. Location of property: 475 Smith Road, Peconic, New York; Indian Neck Park Filed Map 9551, Lot 914; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-98-4-7. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds as follows: Applicant is requesting approval of insufficient area and width of a parcel of land known as 475 Smith Road, Peconic, New York, which appears to have been in single and separate ownership prior to the adoption of one-acre zoning (1971). Upon inspection, the Board has found that all of.the lots in the immediate vicinity are substantially less than 40,000 square feet. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Tuthilt, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, that JOSEPH ST. PIERRE, be granted a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Section 100-23C, Article III, Section 100-31, as applied for in Appeal No. 2705. Location of property: 475 Smith Road, Peconic, New York; Indian Neck Park Filed Map 9551, Lot ~14; County Tax Map Item No. 1000-98-4-7. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -72- June 12, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. 2703. Application of JAMES B. KAMINSKY, RFD ~1, Box 153, Mattituck, New York, for a Variance to the zoning ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 for permission to construct building with insufficient side and rear yard set- backs in a B-1 Zone. Location of property: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Mill Road, east by Fox, south by King, west by Kaminsky and Mattituck Creek. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-4-4. After investigation and inspection, the Board finds that applicant is requesting permission to construct a proposed building to be used for storage with insufficient sideyard setbacks of 15' on the south end of the building and 25' at the north end of the building, and with insufficient rear- yard setback of approximately 15' at the nearest point and 20-25' at the farthest point. The subject premises is more particularly known as 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, and existing thereon is a one-story house. The Board finds the circumstances present in this case unique, and that strict application of the ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. The Board believes that the granting of a variance in this case will not change the character of the neighborhood and will observe the spirit of the ordinance. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that JAMES B. KAMINSKY, be granted a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-71 as applied for in Appeal No. 2703. Pursuant to Section 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, this matter is being referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its recommendations. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -73- June 12, 1980 RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. FL-3. Application of JA~S B. KAMINSKY, RFD ~1, Box 153, Mattituck, New York for a Variance to the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold, Section 46-18 for permission to construct proposed lowest floor below the restricted base flood eleva- tion in a special flood hazard zone. Location of Property: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, New York; bounded north by Mill Road, east by Fox, south by King, west by Mattituck Creek and Kaminsky. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-4-4. Upon investigation and personal inspection of the premises, the Board finds as follows: The lot in question has an area of approximately 26,000 square feet. The plot plan submitted to the Board indicates that the area of the lot where the building is to be constructed has an elevation of 4.5 feet above mean sea level. The applicant proposes to construct lowest floor, slab foundation, with 4.5 feet above mean sea level. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates the property is located in a Zone A with an elevation of 11 feet. The Board finds the existing building on the premises also appears to be elevated, the lowest floor, approximately 4.5 feet above mean sea level. Applicants state one of their reasons for requesting this variance at the 4.5' elevation above mean sea level is because a ramp will be installed from the floating dock in order to unload materials directly into the cooler/stor- age building, and the ramp could not be elevated any higher than one foot above the floating dock. The Board also finds that the lot in question meets the standards set forth in Section 46-16A of the Code since it contains an area of less than one acre and is contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. In passing upon this application, the Board has considered all technical evaluations; all relevant factors; all standards specified in the Code; and all of the applicable factors contained in Section 46-15B, subdivisions (1) to (11), inclusive, of the Code. The Board further finds and determines that: (1) There is a good and sufficient cause for the grant of this variance; (2) A failure to grant the variance would result in exception hard- ship to the applicant; (3) The grant of the variance will not result in increased flood heights, or additional threats to pub- lic safety, or extraordinary public expense, or create nuisances, or cause fraud, or victimize the public, or conflict with exist- ing local laws or rules or regulations. · Southold Town Board of Appeals -74- June 12, 1980 On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that JA~iES B. KAi~INSKY, the appli- cant herein, be and he hereby is granted a variance from the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law of the Town of Southold to construct a storage building as applied for, on premises being designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 106 Block 4 Lot 4, with the finished basement floor to be elevated 5.0+'above mean sea level, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant apply for and obtain a Development Permit from the Town Building Inspector, pursuant to the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Law; (2} That this matter be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for its recommendations pursuant to Section 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Section 46-t6F of the Code, the applicant is hereby given notice that the structure for which this variance is granted will be permitted to be built with the lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk result- ing from the reduced lowest floor elevation. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of this Board transmit copies of this determination to the applicant, the applicant's attorney if applicable, and to the Town Building Inspector. Location of Property: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck, New York. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-106-4-4. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -75- June 12, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, in the application of LOUIS and CARMELA RAMUNNI, 691 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, New York 11746, for a Variance to New York Town Law, Section 280A, for approval of access, for property located at the southwest side of Horton's Lane, Southold, County Tax Map Item ~1000-54-7-18, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not hawing a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, in the application of WILLIAM H. GAFFGA, Box 124, Cutchogue, New York 11935, for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Sections: (a) 100-32C for permission to construct swimmingpool in side and/or front yard area; (b) 100-35 for permission to construct fence in frontyard area, for property known as 3820 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -76- June 12, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. it was Goehringer, RESOLVED, in the application of HERBERT W. WELLS, JR., Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70C for permis- sion to erect three signs, at property located at the north side of Main Road, Peconic, New York (1000-75-1-14), that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, in the application of DOLORES STRONG, Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck, New York (by Richard J. Cron, Esq.) for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, Section 100-63 for permission to display and store openly boats and marine items outside of enclosed buildings, at property known as 11455 Main Road, Mattituck, New York (1000-142-2-17), that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon th~ environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -77- June 12, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, in the application of SACRED HEART CHURCH, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 100-70 for permission to erect off-premises-advertising sign in a B-1 Zone, at property known as 8700 Main Road, Laurel, New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. On motion by Mr. Grigonis , seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, in the application of SUSAN HALLOCK, Wells Road, Peconic, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area of parcel due to change in lot line, for property located at the south side of Wells Road, Peconic, New York, that after review of the Environmental Assessment Short Form, which has indicated that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur to the environment, and review of the documents submitted therewith, this Board has determined that this project if implemented as planned is classified as a Type II Action, not having a significant effect upon the environment; and pursuant to the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act, Sections 617.13 and 617.5(a), and the Southold Town Code, Section 44-4, that no further determination or procedure is re- quired in the SEQRA standards of process. This declar- ation should not be considered a determination made for any other agency. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Southold Town Board of Appeals -78- June 12, 1980 On motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. GOehringer, it was RESOLVED, that the next regular meeting of thiS Boardi~be scheduled for Tuesday, July 1, 1980 and 7:30 o'clock p.m., and that the following appeals be scheduled and advertised for public hearings to be held on said date: 7:35 p.m. 7:40 p.m. 7:50 p.m. 8:10 p.m. 8:25 p.m. 8:35 p.m. Appeal No. 2708. Appeal No. 2711. Appeal No. 2709. Appeal No. 2710. Appeal No. 2712. Appeal No. 2713. Vote of the Board: Ayes: hill, Douglass and Goehringer. Louis & Carmela Ramunni. William H. Gaffga. Herbert W. Wells, Jr. Dolores Strong, by R. Cron. Sacred Heart Church. Susan Hallock. Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- On motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Tuthill, it was RESOLVED, to approve the following sign renewal requests for a period of one year from the expiration date noted thereon, SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT AND FUNDING LAWS FOR HIGHWAYS, IF APPLICABLE:' Appeal No. 1088 Walter Teresko Appeal No. 2444 St. Peter's Lutheran Church Appeal No. 2445 - St. Peter's Lutheran Church Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Doyen, Tut- hill, Douglass and Goehringer. RESERVED DECISION: Appeal No. ~2707. Application of STEPHEN EGGERS, Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to construct swlmmingpool in side and frontyard areas. Location of property: 6625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York; bounded north by Nassau Point Road, east by Peconic Bay, south by Brac, west by Southold Town Board of Appeals -79- June 12, 1980 Nassau Point Road. County Tax Map Item No. 1000-111-15-7. Member Douglass offered a resolution approving the variance as requested inasmuch as it was his feeling that the topography of the land is causing a practical diffi- culty or hardship for-applicant, limiting the area in which to place the pool. Mr. Douglass' resolution was not seconded. Motion was made by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Geohringer, to DENY the subject variance, and the fol- lowing are the findings and determination of the Board: Appellant has appealed to this Board seeking a variance to permit the construction of a swimmingpool, a permitted accessory use (100-30C[2]) in the sideyard area rather than in the rear yard as required by Section 100-32 of the Zoning Code. The premises in question is a parcel of land located on the easterly side of Nassau Point Road (Suffolk County Tax Map: District 1000, Section 111~ Block 15, Lot 7), having an area of 41,500 square feet and bounded northerly by East Club Road (an unimproved paper street) 310 feet, more or less; easterly by Little Peconic Bay 152 feet, more or less~ southerly by Tax Map Lot No. 8, 305 feet, more or less; and westerly by Nassau Point Road 105 feet, more or less. There is presently erected on the lot a private one-family dwelling and a detached private garage. The dwelling is set back approximately 128 feet from Nas- sau Point Road. Appellant previously applied to this Board to locate a swimming pool in the side yard between the dwelling house and the southerly lot line (Appeal No. 2690), which was denied. The principal difference between the present appeal and the prior appeal is that in the present appeal appellant proposes to locate the pool approximately 20 feet west of the previous location~ thus it would be partially in the southerly sideyard area and partially in the frontyard area. Appellants' house is so situated on the lot such that the width of the southerly side yard is approximately 30 feet, and the width of the side yard to the north of the house to the southerly line of East Club Road (an unim- proved paper street) is approximately 40 feet. Appellant in his appeal has set forth the reasons for locating the pool as applied for rather than in the rear yard~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -80- June 12, 1980 Ail of the members of this Board have visited the site and are familiar with all of the structures located thereon, ss well as all vegetation, terrain and the bluff adjacent to Little Peconic Bay. The pool is to be 32 feet in length and 16 feet in width, exclusive of aprons. A 5-foot apron is proposed along the southerly side of the pool, which will be five feet from the southerly property line (land of Brac) . Accordingly, the actual pool will be 10 feet from the Brac property line. At the hearing, appellant called Arthur Siemerling, his pool contractor, and Peter Sterling, a landscape contractor, as his witnesses. Mr. Siemerling testified that there was a distance of 26 feet from the rear porch to the edge of the bluff, and that to locate the pool between the rear porch and the bluff would be too close to the edge of the bluff and would cause disturbance of natural growth on the slope of the bluff. He further testified that to locate the pool in the rearyard area would possibly disturb vege- tation on the slope of the bluff and therefore cause it to erode. The principal objector to the proposed location of the pool is Mr. Leo Brac, the abutting property owner, on the South. Mr. Brac stated that he suffers from skin cancer which requires him to minimize exposure to the sun and thus requires that he remain indoors and that his den and porch are adjacent to the appellant's proposed pool. Mr. Brac also produced a real-estate broker, who testified that the location of the pool as proposed by appellant would cause a devaluation of $35,000 to the Brac property. Mr. Brac also produced Mr. Karl Bonawandt, a sw~mmingpool contractor who testified that he could locate the pool in the rear yard area between the rear of the house and the bluff with no detrimental effect to the bluff area. Mr. Bonawandt further testified that he could also locate the pool in the north side yard with minimal removal of vegetation. Mr. Behrmann, a neighbor, testified that the entire shoreline was eroded in the 1938 hurricane~ and thereafter a bulkhead was con- structed along the shoreline and that since that time the shoreline in the vicinity as well as the bluff experienced no erosion. This appeal being an area variance, it's incumbent upon the appellant to prove that a literal application of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties. Appel- lant is not required to prove unnecessary hardship as is the case in a use variance. The courts had held that in determining the question of "practical difficulties," a board of appeals should consider: ~ Southold Town Board of Appeals -81- June 12, 1980 (1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement~ (2) the effect if the variance is allowed, of the increased population density thus produced on available governmental facilities, (3) whether a sub- stantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created, (4) whether the difficulty can be obviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance, and (5) whether in view of the manner in which the difficulty arose and consider- ing all of the above factors, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. Applying the above factors to this case, the Board finds and determines that the variance requested in relation to the Cede requirements is substantial; that if the variance is granted, a substantial detriment to adjoining property will be created; that the difficulty can be obviated by a method feasible to the appellant other than a variance; and that considering all of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by denying the variance applied for. Accordingly, the variance is denied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Grigonis, Tuthili~ Goehringer and Doyen. Nay: Messr. Douglass, Being that there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was declared adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary