Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/12/1989 HEARINGAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of'Appeals MAIN ROAD-CITATE ROAD 25 ~OUTHDLD, L.I., N.Y. 11g71 TELEPHONE (516) 765 1809 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3809. Application of STEPHEN AND DONNA GRZESIK for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition to dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback. Location of Property: 62215 (309) North Road, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 40, Block 1, Lot 3. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:33 p.m.and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated February 6, 1987 in behalf of Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating the approximate placement of the house on the property and the nature of this application, which is basically a rearyard variance. A reduction of the rear yard, which therefore necessitates a variance, of approximately 6 ' by 30'. And a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding, properties in the area. Is there somebody to be heard in behalf of this application? Isn't this Peter Stoutenburgh's? There he is now. (We almost missed you.) Hi. How are you doing? You're on. PETER STOUTENBURGH as Agent: Basically I am here to answer any questions and to see if there are any problems with the papers that have been filed. I am sure since you have been up there Page 2- Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3809 - STEPHEN GRZESIK MR. STOUTENBURGH, continued:) you noticed the size of the parcel and major need that they happen to have to extend the family room and enlarge the kitchen area. The kitchen happens to be to the northwest facing the garage, and while we are doing it better entranceway to that side of the house, and extend the deck out and square it off. CHAIRMAN: So it's not all addition. In reference to living area. MR. STOUTENBURGH: It's only half for kitchen and the other is just for deck for that part of the house. CHAIRMAN: Which side is which? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Do you have a set of plans there? C~_AIRMA/~: I may have. No-- all I have is the building permit (application). MR. STOUTENBURGH: Towards the garage there's the kitchen area, which they were to move for the dinette area-- CHAIRMAN: Ok. And the rest of it is deck. MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok, great. MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck's here? CHAIRMAN: The deck is on the east side. Good. Thanks. I don't have any questions. We'll see what develops during the hearing. Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Appeal No. 3809. Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? I don't really have any problems with it, Peter, and what we are going to be doing tonight is trying or attempt to vote on as many of the applications as we can based upon the impending Master Plan, which of course has been passed but has not been filed with the Secretary of State. So I'll offer that as a resolution. BOARD SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: To approve, correct? CHAIRMAN: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI: As is? CHAIRMAN: As is, with no further rearyard reductions. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. BOARD MEMBES: Ayes. This resolution was duly adopted (see official findings and determination filed with the Town Clerk's Office under separate cover). Prepared by -~.~ ~ ~ f~~ ' '~I~fnda Kowalski','Board Secretary Southold Town Board o£ Appeals N~AIN ROAD- STATE RF1A~) ~-5 S~UTHOLO, L.l,, N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GDEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES D[NIZ[O, JR. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3810 - ANTHONY AND ROSEMARY BOLLETINO for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory tennis court, swimmingpool and fence enclosure(s) in the frontyard area. Location of Property: North Side {~16705) Main Road, East Marion, Ny; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 23, Block 1, Lot 14.6. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:43 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated January 8, 1985 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. indicating Lot #3, I assume of a Subdivisionor a Minor Subdivision which 59,563 sq. ft. Approximate placement of the tennis court at its closest boundary is approximately 70 feet from the Main Road, 26 feet from the westerly property line, and 87 feet from the easterly property line. And the average is approximately 80 feet because it's 93 or 81, more toward the west side, and the approximate placement of the pool somewhat equally distant between the tennis court and the easterly property line, approximately 11 feet from the (north)easterly property line. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard in behalf of this application? J. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN, ESQ.: Good evening. My name is Kevin McLaughlin, and I'm here this evening on behalf of Anthony and Rosemary Bolletino. You've pretty much gone over the dimensions of the tennis court and the swimmingpool and enclosure that we're seeking to be put in the front yard. Basically we don't Page 2 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Applo No. 3810 - ANTHONY & ROSEMARY BOLLETINO MR. McLAUGHLIN, continued: have any choice as to where we want to put a tennis court and swimmingpool on this property. It's a long, fairly narrow lot. The house is set back approximately 50 or 52 feet away from the rear property line. There isn't much room on either side, so if we are going to have a tennis court and swimmingpool, it's going to have to be located in the front yard. My clients intend to have the nature vegetation that is presently existing on the front of the parcel remaining. We don't see how this is going to be any change in the character of the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood. These are accessory residential types of activities that we are seeking to be able to have. There is a tennis court, I believe, two or three lots to the west of the subject lot on which this Board granted a variance five or six years ago to Mr. Metalios. This variance we are asking for isn't going to put any additional burdens on the Town of Southold or any of the three sources and we think that in the interests of justice, this variance should be granted. CHAIRMAN: Two questions, Kevin. The lot is 59,553 sq. ft. At 20%, we talking lot coverage of approximately 12,000. The tennis court in itself is 6600, approximately--I just did some rough numbers. I don't know what the house is, but maybe you can furnish us with some sort of an idea on what the house is with reference to square feet. Also, is the pool going to be enclosed with some sort of -- when I say enclosed, I'm not referring to enclosed with a structure, I'm referring to a raised deck around the pool -- which would add to the lot coverage over and above the 16' by 32' without the little jog that's in there for the platform areas. So we're getting up there in reference to 20% of lot coverage. Ok. Apart from the front yard variance. The other issue is the 11 feet from the east property line. Is there any particular reason why they have decided or have suggested that they put the pool ll feet from that property line -- not put it equally distant in between the tennis court and the east property line. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't think they would have any problems moving it somewhat to the east so that it would be in the middle of that enclosed area. I don't know what the square footage of the house is. I'll have to furnish the Board with that information. I don't believe that they're intending a raised deck around the pool. And I don't believe that they're intending any artificial lighting as far as the tennis court goes either. CHAIRMAN: And we are also talking about a 10-ft. high fence here, right? Page 3 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Applo No. 3810 - ANTHONY & ROSEMARY BOLLETINO CHAIRMAN: I don't remember if in granting the prior (Metalios) application, if we requested the applicant not to use any wind screens around the pool, but that's another consideration which we might have. And that's the-- MR. McLAUGHLIN: The prior variance didn't have a pool. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me. I meant around the tennis court. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have that with me. BOARD SECRETARY L. KOWALSKI showed the Chairman the Metalios decision (in the file for reference). MR. McLAUGHLIN: The conditions which I see imposed were three: no lighting, no enclosure of the court and/or deck area, and tennis court and deck areas constructed pursuant to site plan specifications submitted to this Board. I think they actually gave you a full-blown site plan with plantings and all that with that particular application. We certainly have every intention of screening the westerly side near the pool to provide us with privacy and to prevent any problems with the neighbors to our easterly line. CHAIRMAN: Do you see the way that jog is to the easterly side around the pool? It appears that the fence enclosure is basically around the pool and around the tennis court, which basically involves lot coverage. So that's an issue you're going to have to address to us, because as I said we're getting exceedingly close here to the 12,000; that's almost another tennis court and that is considered under the lot coverage issue. So maybe you want to, in giving that to us, exclude that from and just put the fence which is required by the State Building Code just around the pool itself and not show the entire enclosure the way it's shown. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Ok. CHAIRMAN: So you'll get back to us on the square footage of the house. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. I also have a copy of a notice to adjacent property owner that was returned to me by Jean Thayer indicating she has no objection to the application. CHAIRMAN: I trust where this construction is to exist there is no problem with any environmental issues such as phragmites or any type of -- it's not wet, is it? MR. McLAUGHLIN: No. After I went out and looked at the site myself, I did contact Mr. Bolletino, and he did indicate to me that he was not going to be disturbing the area where the phragmites exist. Page 4- Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3810 - ANTHONY & ROSEMARY BOLLETINO CHAIRMAN: Which are closer to the road. MR. McLAUGHLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN: Ail right. I thank you. So we'll close this hearing pending that. We thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody to speak against this application? Any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: My only comment was the phragmites. CHAIRMAN: What we'll be doing is, any decision that will be forthcoming we make subject to that not being disturbed and possibly an evaluation from the Trustees to make sure there is nothing else there, where the construction is going. Is that all right? MEMBER DINIZIO: Fine. CHAIRMAN: So I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision, pending the information from Mr. McLaughlin. The hearing was declared closed, pending receipt of the information requested from Mr. McLaughlin. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE I~OAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TR3~NSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3817 - DORIS K. BROWN for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory building in the frontyard area. Location of Property: Private Right-of-Way located off the north side of Bergen Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 112, Block 1, Lot 17. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:48 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated November 9, 1972. We have a parcel of property which appears to be approximately'5.2 acres and on a long right-of-way from Bergen Avenue, which leads to the parcel, then to the Long Island Sound. And we have a house that's constructed approximately almost on the lip of the bluff and we have the nature of this application which is a barn, which is to be constructed equally distant approximately a little more toward the east property line between the house and the end of the south side of the property, which is where the right-of-way basically starts. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody who would like to be heard? JOSEPH BROWN: I'm Joseph Brown. My mom owns the land and I'm the builder of the (proposed) building. It's quite remote and virtually unseen. The land in question for the building is in a wooded hollow, which has never been used for anything. It's Page 2- Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3817 - DORIS K. BROWN JOSEPH BROWN, continued: overgrown with catbriar and all the big trees. We had a new neighbor just to our east and he has almost finished construction. There has been nobody for 40, almost 50 years, and now there's a house just built, and they are very familiar with this and have told me they have no qualms about it. The other party is the farmer who has inherited the land, and I doubt that it affects him. He can't be seen from the farm, which is quite distant from below the level of this building. And the other person I think has the same situation and is virtually unseen. CHAIRMAN: What type of utilities would be placed in this building other than electricity? MR. BROWN: Well actually not even that, as far as I'm concerned. I think I should at times run an over-the-ground cable for light possibly to have access to what's in there. It's going to be basically storage, 30 x 40 is the basic dimension. Two story, 8 ft. headroom below and 6'6" to 10 ft. headroom above, to the peak of the building. CHAIRMAN: What do you mean by below, are you going to put a basement in it--is that what you're referring to? MR. BROWN: It would just be the ground floor. I think we would have a slab on it. And upstairs would be simply furniture storage and light-weight items, and downstairs would be various things I can run in, equipment, tractor, mowers, the stuff that usually lays out and rusts. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Yes, that is a tough driveway to get up. MR. BROWN: I'm lucky I got here tonight because the mud tonight, I'm telling you. The new owner of the new house by the way is applying a hard surface to the road which is a mile long and it will be a god-send for many years. CHAIRMAN: We thank you, Mr. Brown. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONI$: Seconded. ALL IN FAVOR: Ayes. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. We hope to have a decision for you tonight. Respectfully submitted, APPEALS I~OARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board o£ Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHI'ILD. L.I.. N.Y. llCJ?l TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. NO. 3816 - WILLIAM AND THERESA PARK for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for approval of addition to accessory building with insufficient setbacks from property lines. Location of Property: Westerly Side of Bennett Lane and the South Side of Pine Neck Road, Southold, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 70, Block 9, Lot 1. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:52 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey dated August 11, 1988 indicating a one-story frame house and wooden building partly located to one side and the nature of this application, a small additional shed on the rear of the 14.6 ft. by 22.6 frame garage. I also have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Is there anyone that would like to be heard? How do you do. MRS. THERESA PARK: I just need the extra six inches to accommodate a 42" lawn mower rather than ( ). CHAIRMAN: How long has the addition been on there? MRS. PARK: Probably 15 years. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one). Jim, do you have any? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no. CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion to grant the application as applied for. Seconded by Member Dinizio and duly carried. Prepared by Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeal MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 ~I'IUTH[3LD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TRAlqSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3820 - GUNTHER AND KAYLA STOTZKY for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for permission to construct addition at rear of existing dwelling with an insufficient rearyard setback. Location of Property: East Side of Osprey Nest Road, Greenport, NY; Cleaves Point, Section One, Lot No. 6; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 35, Block 6, Lot 33. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawioki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey showing which appears to be June 13, or June 18, 1973 or 1978, indicating probably a 1-1/2 story frame just showing the foundation, but looking at the premises that would appear correct. It's approximately centered on the property. The nature of this application is a 13 by 17 ft. addition off the rear of the house reducing the rear yard to 27 feet, and I have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? How do you do tonight? OTTO SCHOENSTEIN (Builder/Agent): Otto Schoenstein, and I intend to do the building construction if this is granted. The building an one-story building. The grade goes off so that the foundation is a bit high in the rear. If there are any questions, I could answer them. The Stotskys were not able to make it. CHAIRMAN: What's the purpose of the addition? Is it living area to be added to the house, or is it deck? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: No, it's living area added to the house. It would be a study. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Matter of GUNTHER AND KAYLA STOTSKY January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting (93820) CHAIRMLAN: I see. And will there be any garage underneath this or anything of that nature? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN: No. Will it be on piers or will it have a full foundation? MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Two steel columns to support it. CHAIRMAN: So it'll actually be free hanging, almost. Right. So the foundation will not surround the MR. SCHOENSTEIN: CHAIRMAN: I see. entire-- MR. SCHOENSTEIN: CHAIRMAN: Well, we thank you very much, Mr. MR. SCHOENSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would No foundation below the grade. Schoenstein. like to be heard in behalf of this application? Anybody like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from any Board Members? (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? AYES: Ail. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. We hope to have a decision for you shortly. Prepared by Linda F. Kowalski, Board Secretary m²o²  @@€€€€€@@€@@€€€€€€€€€€@@@@       @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@€XXX^€¤L1§X^€ =†X_€ßeX_€n àX_€Ûd’X_€Go&VX_€¤P1§X_€=‡X`€YE(WX`€«•2ˆX```€°_3Y€ ¸jY€0 ¿Y€ŸÅ¯Y€K ­Y\ W]€Œ!uY\ W]`€!uY] WW€)s"ÛYW WV€ð@YWV [€Y }YWX Z€bÉ ”YX [€„ñŽYY V[€ú%4YY V[`€ú&5YY [€‰^YZ VY€Ò!Y[ VY VX€ ¶MY\ VZ€°Ô®Y^ Y€»ªóY_ V\€Á¤›YV€àeYV€n áYV€Ûe“YV€Gm&VYV€¤N1§YV€=–YW€áeYW€n áYW€Ûf“YW€Gn&VYW€¤R1¨YW€=–YW V^€yæDYX€âeYX€n áYX€Ûh“YX€Gt&WYX€¤S1¨YX€=–YY€ãeYY€ÇYY€n áYY€Ûk“YY€Gs&VYY€¤W1¨YY€=–YZ€äfYZ€n áYZ€Ûp”YZ€Gw&WYZ€¤\1©YZ€=—YZ Y€‚çYZ`€=—Y[€åfY[€n áY[€Ûo”Y[€Gx&WY[€¤Z1¨Y[€=¢Y[ Y€œÚJY\€æfY\€n âY\€Ûq”Y\€G|&XY\€¤b1©Y\€=¢Y]€çfY]€n âY]€Ûs”Y]€G}&XY]€¤c1ªY]€"=£Y] [€´²!Y] [`€´´!Y^€èfY^€n âY^€Ût”Y^€Gz&WY^€¤]1©Y^€&=—Y_€éfY_€n âY_€Ûv•Y_€G&XY_€¤d1ªY_€$=—Y`€YD(WZ€6iZ€žNƒZ€ K_ZV€êfZV€JßZV€SØ èZV€n âZV€Ûw•ZV€G€&XZV€¤_1©ZV€(=—ZW€ëfZW€n âZW€Ûx•ZW€G&XZW€¤`1©ZW€*=˜ZX€ìgZX€n ãZX€Û{•ZX€Gƒ&XZX€¤g1ªZX€)=˜ZY€îgZY€n ãZY€Û|•ZY€G„&YZY€¤k1ªZY€/=¥ZZ€ïgZZ€n ãZZ€Ûz•ZZ€G†&YZZ€¤h1ªZZ€.=¥Z[€ðgZ[€n ãZ[€Û~–Z[€G‡&YZ[€¤j1ªZ[€1=¥Z\€ñgZ\€n ãZ\€Û¤šZ\€G‹&Yÿn²p² € @€        €   @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ Page 2 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE (MR. [UCAS, continued:) in this area and with their research, they've discovered they need to have a point out here -- a dealership-- to service their customers, and also to provide sales to the people in the area. We've been with Ford Motors Company for a long time, and we feel that we can service this area properly. We also have an interest in the area; we want to -- we plan to live here. CHAIRMAN: Do you have another dealership somewhere? MR. LUCAS: No. We manage one now. CHAIRMAN: I see. MR. LUCAS: There's myself and my father. My father is the manager of the place for 34 years, and I've been involved in the business for about 15. So we have a lot of experience. We feel that the building is going to bring jobs to the area--not only with the building of the dealership but also employment upon and opening and operating it. I've been working with the Town probably for some 18 months now, with the Building Department, Planning Department, your Zoning Department, to locate a piece of property that's suitable that zoned properly and located properly so that we will service the area properly and also be an asset to the area. And we ( ) found a test piece for that in Southold. We worked with the Planning Board diligently to meet their every requirement as far as landscaping and setbacks and we had a relatively small building on a large piece of property. We also have worked with them with a colonial-type of look which has taken some doing and expense on our part so that we would blend in with the commercial projects and businesses in the area. The only thing I can do is to invite you to any questions that you may have or suggestions that yo~ may give us to build this properly. CHAIRM3~N: Well, I've spent some time looking at the site plan as well as my fellow Board Members. I should point out for the public, by the way, we are missing two Board Members tonight. One is out of state and the other one, who, as Mr. Grigonis to my left, been on the Board for some 34 years. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Thirty-two years. CHAIRMAN: Thirty-two years. His (Mr. Doyen's) wife is terminally ill and it's an absolute shame, and he is unable to be with us. And he's our member from Fishers Island. But we are normally a five-member Board. We have only one basic problem. The movements in the site plan, we've looked at--we have not discussed amongst ourselves, but we do have a tremendous problem with the sign. And we think at this particular point it would behoove us to make a decision in the near future on this particular application without the sign and Page 3 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER, continued: invite you to come back for the sign. We have in the past denied other applicants, who have similar dealerships, signs of this nature and some of it is the magnitude of the sign and some of it is the height of the sign. And I think we would, rather than hold up your project, deal with that at a later date. And that's basically the only real problem with have with it. Ok? And I know you spent an enormous amount of time trying to get everybody to conform to what the situation is here. The real question the Board has at this time, and I'm not speaking for my other two members, is how many people do you intent to employ and basically what percentage of the building is really showroom and what percentage in the building is really going to be repair? Can you answer those for us? MR. LUCAS: The showroom is approximately 35 feet by 80 feet, so if you're looking at the front of the building, the showroom is to the west of that and will go back. And about 90 feet facing the south, part of that will be glass, but that will be strictly for service convenience, so it will appear as a showroom, but it's for service entrance. It's convenient to people coming and going for servicing parts. So the remainder of the building will be for the shop area. CHAIRMAN: What portion of the building will have a cellar, any portion of it at all? MR. LUCAS: We're planning on putting a cellar under the parts department, which will be about 2,000 sq. ft., possibly a little bit more, but the reason we are doing that is, one, for noise--to keep the noise down because we intend to put compresses and mechanical stuff that makes noise in the basement so that there isn't any type of noise pollution for the workers, nor for the area, and also we want to put a waste-oil tank down there, in lieu of putting it in the ground which is not visible and some times undetectable, we want to put it down there so that we do have an eye on it so that if there is some type of seepage, we can take care of that problem. CHAIRMAN: How many bays do you anticipate in the garage? MR. LUCAS: I don't know what floor plan you have there but-- CHAIRMAN: I just have an ( ) floor plan, it really doesn't show. MR. LUCAS: Ok. Our idea is probably to have about ten. We've designed it with a minimum amount of overhead doors. One of the doors is for loading the parts, and there's an entrance door Page 4 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE HOWARD LUCAS, continued: from the rear and exit door going out. But you're not going to have a door for every day. We will be one door "enter", one door "exit." So the aesthetics to the building are going to be greatly enhanced for that reason, and we designed it with angled parking, angled stalls you know as a safety thing from the town, so the people who are working in the building would also be eased of traffic flow in and out of the building. It kind of reduces our stall but we feel it's going to help the overall function of the dealership. Probably 10 or 12. CHAIRMAN: The actual construction of the building is what, cement block? MR. LUCAS: It will be block, right, and there will be glass in the front for the showroom. And we plan to have a mix of decorative block to make the showroom area and the service area attractive to blend in with the roofing and the mansard. It will all be very consistent throughout all four sides of the building, you know, what we believe is equally attractive. We've worked very hard with architects to conform with some of the existing structures out here. CHAIRMAN: Well, we thank you very much, Mr. Lucas, for giving us a lot of information and we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. MR. LUCAS: Ok. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? MRS. SALMON: Opposition. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one minute, ma'am. In favor? JIM GRAY, JR.: Good evening. My name is Jim Gray, Jr. I'm a builder-developer. I own the real estate sales agency out here in Southold, so I'm a businessman also. I've been involved with developing a number of different sites all over the Island, and one of the characteristics of them is they never look like an industrial building, which is what their main function is today. I've been involved with the Lucases now for about a year and a half in helping them to design and work with the different departments to put this building and this project together. And one of the things that I've been most impressed with having worked with a nun~ber of different owners and clients, who put these structures together, they've been more intent on meeting the needs of the surrounding areas, and the departments that they're working with. Than their own particular interests. A lot of owners and times, this is what they want, you know, and Page 5 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE MR. GRAY, continued: that's all they want. They're not flexible at all. I've found these people to be exceptionally flexible and you know their outlook in what they are doing in studying the area and the overall impact of the project has a very positive note to it, from just the local people that I've talked with, you know, being in business out here. This is what I've had to say. Thank you. Is there anybody else like to speak in favor? Ok, ma ' am? LAURIE SALMON: Hi. My name is Laurel Salmon and I live on Horton's Lane. Our home is the first house north of where this dealership is to be located. And we are here to ask that you do not grant this Special Exception, and the main reason is that Horton's Lane is mainly a residential area, and a car dealership we feel won't fit into this area. The road is not suitable for it. Every time it rains or snows the road is flooded--it turns into a one-lane highway. As a matter of fact, I have a picture here--tonight, if you went there you would see, and it hasn't rained that much. Also, the Horton's Lane and County Road 27 is a very congested intersection where many accidents occur, and this would add to the traffic, we believe. I've spoken to quite a few residents on the Road and they agree with the letter-- I also have a copy of a letter sent here to Mr. Portalano on this proposal, where the Planning Board reviewed their proposal and did not believe that it was suitable for this area. I have copies of a letter that goes into more detail and I'd like to give a copy to each of you Board Members. I also have the picture. (Copies and picture submitted.) CHAIRMAN: Your house-- MRS. SALMON: There's Markel's and then there's my house. CHAIRMAN: And how big is the property that your house is on? MRS. SALMON: it is. It goes 2-1/3 acres back. I'm not sure how wide CHAIRMAN: Ok. Is there anybody else to speak against this application? Yes, sir. Page 6 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE MIKE DAVIS: Good evening. My name is Mike Davis. I have the third parcel to the north by Horton's Lane, next to the Salmon's. And I agree wholeheartedly with what Mrs. Salmon said. We're basically a residential area. I have 3-1/4 acres there, and the reason I built my house there is to be into a rural area, and with a car dealership, if anybody really saw it--I have never met Mr. Lucas. I've got nothing against Mr. Lucas. But that is not in my opinion a place for a car dealership, and if he's worked with the Town and if that's the Town's opinion of where a car dealership should go, I think there should be talk about that, in my own opinion. We do have problems with the Road. Some with water. We have one business there already. And when they have their functions there, it's a one way road through there and both have people parking on our front yards--we've never complained. We've put up with it because we've known Mr. Markel and we let it go about that. But with the added traffic and everything, we don't feel that it's that well suited for its dealership. I've got nothing against Mr. Lucas, but it's just in my opinion not the spot. And I didn't build there to live next to a car dealer. And I feel that you go to the special -- if you grant this, there's other properties in the neighborhood for sale. You're setting a precedent for other people to come in because they're going to say, "You have an established car dealer here. Why can't we go to another business right across the street because you have one right here." And which in turn would be, I feel, a drop in our property value because it's our -- it's an investment for us, what we have, and it's going to be dropping it, and what in turn you're doing, you're forcing us in. Because then wise businessmen would, you know, get out while the going is good. And I've lived here most of my life and I got a family, the same as the Salmons, and we are opposed to it for that reason. We are not against Mr. Lucas or anything like that, but we feel it's not the right spot for a car dealership. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak against this application? MARGARET CONWAY: I'm Margaret Conway and I am also against the car dealership on Horton's Lane. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Page 7 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE DAN ROSS, ESQ.: Good evening. Dan Ross of Wickham, Wickham and Bressler for Dick Mullen in opposition to the application. The opposition is based on various grounds. Many would fall into the planning field and I would bring to the Court's attention as has been brought-- the strong opposition stated by Planning Board Chairman in his August letter, a copy of which is in the file. He pointed out some that it was the strong opinion of the Board that the location is wrong for a car dealership--he referred to it as being not appropriate. The concerns were that the visibility is poor on Horton's. That a car dealership would be better located on an east-west artery road. These are concerns that seem obvious on the face of the application. The residential nature of the area has been dealt with by people who are very concerned with that. A second issue, which is a side issue, but I think the Board should consider, is the fact that the application is not made by the owner of the property, and I think it should -- in light of this Board's past decisions regarding applications by contract vendees, the Board should consider that aspect. But more important are the restrictions set forth in 100-70B(4), which I'm sure if the application were granted it would be subject to those restrictions, and I believe one of those restrictions requires that the storage of gasoline or flammable oil in bulk be placed underground. And we have on the record tonight that that is not the plan. And on that basis alone, we see that the plan as presented to the Board cannot fit within the Special Exception on that basis. On that basis, the application should be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else to speak against the application? MRS. SALMON: May I make one point? On the map as it shows, on the map, it shows the car dealership and then it says Rakowicz, there should be another piece of property on there. Because the way it stands now, it looks like the car dealership is actually closer to County Road 27 than it is. Rick's Seafood is on the corner. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I see what you're saying. MRS. SALMON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything in rebuttal that you would like to say, Mr. Lucas? MR. LUCAS, SR. We didn't start only 18 months ago. We started probably about four years ago looking for properties out here. At that particular time, we weren't awarded the commitment from Ford Motor Company to be able to start a commitment as far as putting it up on a particular piece of property. But Ford cannot allow us, because of the contracts they have with other Page 8 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 -~LUCAS/HUSSIE MR. LUCAS, SR., continued: dealerships, mainly Riverhead Ford--we can't go any further west than the Town of Southold in the township. So we're really caught up in this one. We have looked at pieces of property in Mattituck, in Greenport. We looked at pieces of property around here. We had another deposit on a piece of property that didn't go through. And there's really very few if you think of it that is zoned for the zoning that we need that is suitable for our dealership. My son spent probably at least one day a week out here looking for properties, going to real estate people, and trying to find a place suitable; and this is really the only one that is suitable enough. We tried on an east-west as you suggested. There's a piece of property in the Town here on the fork that was not only too expensive but was too small because Ford has requirements as to how many feet we need and what kind of building we need to do the kind of job that they feel would be as suitable. We had a piece of property on an east and west, but the man has decided to do some building on his own. He checked on three other pieces of land that are on the east-west on the North Road, or what Road you call it. They were too small. They were less than two acres, which is too small for the type of building that we need. And really, I don't know if you do have a piece--I would be very, very willing to listen to somebody about it, but I really don't think there's another piece in this Town; and we really don't want to go out to Orient Point because we don't feel that we would be able to get enough business out there. But in this Town or in Greenport that would be suitable for the size that we need and the type of property that we need. As far for the storage of flammable liquids, we're not going to have any gasoline on the premises; and if that means anything to the Board, we can bury it underground--but there are so many regulations today to bury something underground that to have a 275 gallon tank in a cellar, which most people who have gas heat have the same type of tank in, we're going to have one tank for taking the fuel, oil out--which is motor oil; and one tank for draining it, and I think it no more dangerous to do that than to have your oil burner oil delivered in a similar tank. There's not going to be any large quantities of oil, and as I said, we're not going to have any gasoline on the premises. So it's really not only flammable liquids--you're not going to have a body shop on the premises. No lacquer thinners or anything like that in flammable. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. DAVID MARKEL: May I ask you a question? What exactly are-- CHAIRMAN: You have to state your name first. DAVID MARKEL: My name is David Markel; I own the property next door. I have a question exactly what they're applying for here. Page 9 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3802 - LUCAS/HUSSIE CHAIRMAN: A Special Exception. MR. MARKEL: In other words, they don't have the proper zoning now and they want to change? CHAIRMAN: No, no. The founding fathers of this Town in the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance--and this gentleman to my left was a part of that process in 1956, 1955, when they started. And they adopted zoning in 1957. They saw it fit that not only one set of people in the Town that the Town Board so in their wisdom appointed, the Planning Board, they wanted to have the Zoning Board involved in any one of these applications. So the Planning Board does the site plan and the Zoning Board does the Special Exception, which is basically a permit, Dave, that is a matter of right, ok--as long as you meet certain specific requirements. So basically that's what they're seeking -- a Special Permit from this Board. There are other Boards involved, as I have mentioned. MR. MARKEL: In other words, they have the correct zoning, but they still need a Special permit. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. GRAY, JR.: I heard that the drainage was mentioned as a possible problem. The drainage on this site is all self-enclosed. It will have no impact whatsoever on Horton's Road as it presently stands. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other comments on this hearing? Yes, Mrs. Conway. MARGARET CONWAY: The end of Horton's Lane and 48 already is a death trap. I think any added traffic of any kind is really going to be someone's tragedy. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MRS. SALMON: My feeling though about them not being able to buy property, where they want to buy it, and as to how much they want to buy it is their problem. But somebody goes to buy a house, they may not be able to find exactly what they want to pay for or exactly where they want to be either, but you buy what you can afford, and you live with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other comments? (None) Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes. R,e.spectfully submitted, ~ ~o~s~l, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Appeals ..... ~r N1AIN Ri'lAID STATE I~OAD ~ SOUTHOL~,L~P~N~<~8)l;~1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWlCKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3912 - PETER AND JANICE STEIL for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for permission to locate accessory swimmingpool in the frontyard area. Location of Property: East End Road, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 5, Block 2, Lot 7.4. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. {Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions and Joseph H. Sawicki (out of state)}. Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 35 persons in the audience during the hearing. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:27 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the site plan and rendering in the file reflecting this particular rather large home on this piece of property in Fishers Island and the proposed pool as indicated in the frontyard area. It appears that the property is fronted on at least two sides, if not a little more than two sides by road, which necessitates this application. We did get a call from the architect and (he was going to fly from Massachusetts to Long Island but) because of poor flying conditions, he did not. And we also had the same situation from our Board Member from Fishers Island, apart from the other situation, and we therefore do not have anybody tonight that is going to officiate at this hearing. So if there is anybody that would like at this site plan, they are very welcome to--just let me know, and you know, we'll recess for a couple of moments. Anybody in the audience? Page 2 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3912 - STEIL CHAIRMAN: I should mention for the record not only on Fishers Island but you'll see at least one other application before us tonight that has a swimmingpool in the side yard. There are times when these, when because of either topography or the nature of the road require this Board to grant such application. Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor of the application? (No one). Anybody like to speak against the application? (No one). Questions from Board Members. (None) Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ALL. The hearing was declared concluded (closed), pending deliberations and decision at a later time. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of'Appeals .... APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3815 - ALFRED FALKOWSKI for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 100-93, Bulk Schedule, for permission to locate new principal building in this C-1 General Industrial Zone District with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 8595 Cox Lane and the South Side of Oregon Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 83, Block 3, Lot 4.6. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a similar copy to the print that was given us in the prior application for the Special Exception from Sambach Associates dated 10/4/88 indicating a proposed one-story office building -- office and storage -- of approximately 60 by 200, approximately 50 feet from the property line on the west side of Cox's Lane, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard, Mr. San~bach? MR. SAMBACH: I have here a notice that an adjoining property owner has no objection. (Form returned with notation of no objection by Roy A. Schelin and Kenneth Dickerson for the file. I My name is Warren Sambach and I represent A1 Falkowski of Daval Tent and Party Services. The purpose of the building is to store as many items of tents and party services, and he has a small office area in the building. The requirement for a 150-ft. setback would be taking away too much land; and as I read in the paper tonight -- in the possibility of the Master Plan going ahead which will allow a 50-ft. setback. The area in front of the building will remain with trees. The trucks and cars for the building would be in the back. The entrance Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. Matter of ALFRED FALKOWSKI (Variance) January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting 93815 MR. SAMBACH, continued: would be off of Cox Lane. We have a 50-ft. side yard from Dickerson's property, and the balance of the property will remain as is for the present time. Mr. Falkowski is here if you want to ask any questions. CHAIRMAN: What about the other paraphernalia that would not not be stored within the interior portion of the building? Such as the -- ALFRED FALKOWSKI: Alfred Falkowski. The reason we proposed the building going 50 feet is so we could have everything else in the back. That's why we have written in the plan a 10-ft. grass area behind the building. The only doors on that side of the building are some exit doors, 42" exit doors, and then there's 40 ft. of trees which will be left there as it is now. So all the trucks and all the in-and-out workings of the company will be done in the back of the building, which we felt would enhance the area for the residence on the other side of Cox's Lane. Also in keeping in line with the area, to the south of the driveway which borders us -- Dickerson's driveway -- is a landscaper whose building is about 40 feet from the road. To the south of that is a building which was granted permission to build 50 feet from the road, so it doesn't make sense for us to be singled out and have to go 150 feet back. And it also doesn't make any sense for us to do that and then put all our trucks in the front. And then also in keeping in line with the Master Plan of the Town, that property is designated for a 50-ft. setback, and in light of what I read in the paper also, I at this point don't see any reason to delay it any further. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing #3815 Matter of ALFRED FALKOWSKI (Variance) Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? (None) The only question I had, Mr. Falkowski, is the possibility of additional screening other than just the woods in front. Are you anticipating any plantings of any greenery in any way across the front of the building? MR. FALKOWSKI: We haven't made any plans for that, but if it's something that's required even though with the woods and stuff there, I mean--there is a piece slightly further to the south of us that has just been completely leveled, so I certainly think by allowing 40 feet of trees in a 10-ft. grass area, where I mean we can certainly throw some shrubs or something in there. But our purpose is not to go in and tear the area apart. We're certainly trying to allow what we feel is proven so no one has any objections. Because certainly if you ride down that road, you'll know the area that I'm referring to and, you know, there wasn't a lot left there. We'll work to keep it looking nice. Our aim is to have a nice area. CHAIRMAN: Ok. Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. AYES: Ail Members. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in. I hope to have a decision for you tonight. MR. SAMBACH: Thank you, gentlemen. Prepared by Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONtS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH B. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZ[O, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeal MAIN ROAD- BTATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 705 1809 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 Appl. NO. 3814 - Matter of RYCK KOKE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-32 for approval of accessory swimmingpool with fence enclosure in the sideyard area. Location of Property: 245 Kimberly Lane, Southold, NY; Paradise By the Bay Subdivision Lot No. 2; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 70, Block 13, Lot 20.2. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge J. Doyen of Fishers Island (due to poor flying conditions) and Joseph H. Sawicki (out of state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 25 persons in the audience at the time of this hearing. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:35 o'clock p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I also have a copy of a survey indicating Lot No. 2 produced by Peconic Surveyors and the most recent date is September 1, 1988, indicating a rather large one and one-half story house and garage, and to the west of that an inground swimmingpool, approximately 20 by 40 ft., eight feet from the property line, at its closest point, and enclosed with a wooden deck, and a fence toward the road side. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard in behalf of this application? Mr. Bruer? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Gentlemen, Members of the Board. Rudolph Bruer, on behalf of Mrs. Koke. The pool was originally put in, I guess early Spring, after a building permit was applied for. I believe the building permit was applied for April -- I'll get the exact date -- April of 1988, I believe you have it in your file, some indication of that application. You'll notice that the denial of the application came in Page 2 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke September. The reason for the construction of the pool in the side yard originally was that Mrs. Koke along with a neighbor, who bought the old LaMorte Residence, had agreed to purchase the lot in between. And I don't know if you have before you a copy of the subdivision map, do you really? SECRETARY: There is one in the file. MR. BRUER: The original one or just the small one? CHAIRF~N: Yes, I have it. MR. BRUER: I have a better one. CHAIRM3%N: Ok. MR. BRUER: (Showing copy of entire Map of "Paradise By the Bay" Subdivision prepared for John E. Rath by Young & Young during 1976). This is the adjoining lot and this is the house in question. You will notice on that map and at the location of the old main house, the old Rath house, on that map there is a 10-ft. right-of-way that exists for the benefit of the property owners to the rear to go to the beach area. When Mr. Corra- nacchia--excuse me-- when Mr. Mohring bought the property from Mr. LaMorte, it was agreed that that right-of-way could be moved, and it was agreed at that time since Mr. LaMorte and Mr. Mohring owned 100% of the property and they agreed that they could put that right-of-way, if it was so desired in the future between Lot No. 2 and No. 3. Lot N~mber -- it is now the intention of Mr. Corranacchia, who owns that property, to put the right-of-way between Lots 2 and 3. When the construction of the swimmingpool started as well as the construction of the Koke house, Mr. Koke and Mr. Corranacchia had agreed amongst themselves that each of them would buy one-half of that Lot No. 3, that the right-of-way would be in the middle of it, and at that point with the swimmingpool being where it was, it would not be any problem with respect to the side yard area because they were going to merge that lot with the tennis court on it. The tennis court doesn't show on any of these maps, but I believe you have all been out there and have seen it. With that in mind, it would not have been any problem with the side yard. It was also the intent at that time to potentially attach the decking of the pool with the house, which I believe according to the Building Department would have made that a legitimate sideyard pool because it would have been an extension and part of the house. That did not work out that in September, Mr. Mohring and Mr. Corranacchia reached an agreement wherein Mr. Corranacchia bought the entire lot and the problem of the right-of-way came in and we are now faced with the Page 3 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke MR. BRUER, continued: swimmingpool problem being in the sideyard and the sideyard variance with respect to the deck. The hardship here is that the Kokes acted in good faith. There were verbal assurances from the Building Department that they pool could be built and it was built, and it was built by an independent contractor that if anything else, he should have known if there was a problem. The Certificate of Occupancy for the house was issued in June of 1988, I believe the swimmingpool had been constructed. I think you have in your file indications of the Building Inspector that it was there and no violations were issued, nor stop work orders, whatever. In fact the pool was built then --was built for the purposes of the Kokes being in there in the summer, and I believe they were in there at the issuance of the C.O. in June of this year (1988). The hardship would be that if the Board made the Kokes remove the swimmingpool, or move it to a different area. It's impractical to put it anyplace else. You don't want it in the front yard. If you were to put it in the rear yard, we probably would have to be back here anyway because we would probably be within 75 feet of the water, and as an additional problem, we have a situation where that area and those lots down there, and the one to the left, is filled area. All that land there is pretty well filled, putting a swimmingpool that size there would have pushed against the deadmen there, and we would have had problems--probably environmental problems, leakage possibly and whatever. Now the important thing is that if you look at the lots, and I have some pictures--I know you have been there--and would like you to have for your file, showing the lot No. 3, which as you probably can agree, will never be built on--well never is a big word, but based upon its present construction there is a very, very heavy swimmingpool up there by the LaMorte old property - old building - reconstructed and there's a large pool home, and then there's a tennis court, covering approximately most of that lot. Let me show you the pictures. This first picture here is an aerial view of the property prior to the construction of the Koke house, and you can see the fill that was put in there. Page 4 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke MR. BRUER, continued: Ail right, here is the picture taken from the Koke pool showing the tennis court and the area, I guess you've said to the west, up toward the Lodge-- CHAIRMAN: South. MR. BRUER: South, yes. This is looking from the Lot #3, as you can see there is a very large foundation there, which is going to be a brick patio in there-- yes. CHAIRMAN: You must excuse me, Mr. Bruer, I'm not reflecting this particular application. I'm reflecting the fact that -- and I guess I should verbalize this because very rarely do I get to this particular point. But it appears that there are certain times when the organization that grants these applications -- and I'm not referring to myself -- but actually continues to allow people to continue a process of excavating and placing in the ground certain improvements, refuses to realize that they are not permitted in the side yard. And I'm -- when I went down there, of course, I ended up with the Corranacchia house first, ok, only because the Koke's weren't home to get a view from it from up on top and I did notice the amount of activity that has been going on there and that also is in the side yard, and you know, I can see that as being the next problem before us tonight. MR. BRUER: Well, to give Mr. Corranacchia his due -- everything that he is doing there is reconstructing something that was there before. CHAIRMAN: I know. MR. BRUER: It's not something new. The swimmingpool there is an old swimmingpool-- CHAIRMAN: Existing, right. No, go ahead. MR. BRUER: And the tennis court was put there when that was a 22-acre estate. CHAIRMAN: I know the tennis court was there, and I know the swimmingpool was there. But we're talking substantial improvements I still construe to be in the side yard area, but that's neither-- go ahead. Page 5 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke MR. BRUER: Not to belabor the point here, I have a number of pictures, I'll just submit them in mass and ask that the Board please look at them with respect to their decision, and here's a few others. (Gave photographs for the record.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. BRUER: I'd just like to point out going with the rest of the application, the application here I believe is unique. I think the area is unique. I think if you take into consideration the existing uses of Lot 93, I think it's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and I think the application should be granted as applied for. With respect to the side yard, the three feet, it's well shrubbed. As I say, there's going to be a 10 ft. right-of-way going along it, right along here, to service the back people, so in effect if this area was ever used, there is still a ten ft. buffer from the pool and it is nicely landscaped. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record, Mr. Bruer, I am going to vote in favor of this particular application, but I am going to inform the Building Department that this is the last application that I will ever vote for after the improvements are in. That's it. I am not -- I've had it. I've had it with it; it has gone too far. And you know, I -- it's beyond the scope of what's going on to have. And this has no reflect upon your application or your client. But it's just gotten way out of hand in this Town. And I am sorry that you are bearing the brunt of my frustrations. But that's just the way I feel about it. Thank you very much. MR. BRUER: Thank you very much. CHAIRF~%N: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Questions from Board Members? Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have a comment on the same vain as yours, Jerry, and that this is the second time -- I've only been on the Board now for three months. This is the second time in this development that this has happened. That wasn't Mrs. Koke's problem. It's not your problem, Mrs. Koke. But it is the second time -- it seems like this particular area, it pops up in here. Either they're building too fast or something wrong. But I just want to get it on the record that what's going on here seems to be going on too fast. Page 6 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting Matter of Appl. No. 3814 - Ryck Koke CHAIRMAN: We thank you. Are there any other comments from any one else? Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. Vote: Ayes: ALL. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. Respectfully submitted, --f/Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES D[NIZIO, JR. Southold Town Board of Appeal MAIN ROAD- STATE ROAD 25 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3806 - DORIS PRICE MOELLER FOSTER for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31, Bulk Schedule, for approval of insufficient lot width (frontage) of proposed Parcel No. 1 in this pending Minor Subdivision. Location of Property: West Side of Little Neck Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 103, Block 9, Lot 13. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:52 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey dated June 30, 1988 indicating the parcel in question. This is a three-lot subdivision. The first lot is 2.4; the second lot is 2.5; the third lot is 3.4. The nature of this application is basically the first lot of which we have 125 feet of road frontage, and they should have 175. And it is a waterfront parcel of property on Little Neck Road in Cutchogue. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Yes. You're on a roll tonight, huh? RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Yes--I haven't been here in a while. Actually, I'm really surprised that I had to come here to the Board because the way the lot was originally designed was that we thought that the road frontage also meant 175 feet at the building line. CHAIRMAN: That's what I thought it meant too. Page 2 - Transcript of Hearing Appl. #3806 Matter of DORIS PRICE MOELLER FOSTER (Variance) January 12, 1989 Regular Meeting MR. BRUER: It seems to say in the Code -- it says: "LOT WIDTH: The average distance between side lot lines taken at the front yard or setback line and measured at right angles to the side lot lines, or along a line parallel to the street." But where you intend to have the building is back 188 feet, and the line has 175 feet width there. There's plenty of area to go through the back, but the Building Department said let it be here. The only thing I can think of is that, to give him credit, maybe they thought that the average setback along the street that we would have to be in that little flag area, which is really not the intent of the developer to where the house should be placed. To deny the application, of course, would be a big setback financially and emotionally for the applicant, who is here. It would be a big setback in that we would only have two lots here, and I think we really, in the spirit of the ordinance, and the size of the property here--really are entitled to the three-lot minor subdivision. We will be complying with the environmental requirements and the other requirements that the Planning Board's going to impose upon us. And I would hope that the Board on the basis of hardship here would grant the application. It is unique. If you look, and you have the tax map of the other properties in the area. We are probably larger than most of them; and if anything, there's one maybe up to the north or whatever it is, is large but it's quite a distance away. Everything else is either two acres, or less. It's not going to change the character of the neighborhood, obviously because we will be conforming. We are larger than the average lot in the area, and it would not change the character. It is unique. And there is a very distant hardship. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. And Mrs. Foster is here. CHAIRMAN: Well we have a problem with the way the lot line is written, and there's, of course, a note from the Planning Board in reference to straightening out that particular line, which is basically -- it's the south line of Lot #1 and that's all we're really -- I'm concerned about. And my question basically is on Lot #2--are you intending to keep those structures on Lot #2? MRS. FOSTER: No. CHAIRMAN: No. Ok. So basically there really shouldn't be a problem of straightening out Lot #1 the south line. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing 3806 Matter of DORIS PRICE MOELLER FOSTER Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MR. BRUER: The idea was when the map was put together -- was that the understanding-- I still think it's the case and I would hope that the Board maybe could straighten out the Building Inspector that it's 175 feet at the building line; and the idea was the way this map is set up to give Lot #2 the 175 feet where it is at the road line and then have the Building Envelope of the Lot #1 back 188 feet, and it would comply. That was the original thought, and that's why the line is the way it is. CHAIRMAN: Well, you really have no problem with the straightening out that line then? MRS. FOSTER: May I just say one thing? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MRS. FOSTER: I sold the two lots to the north -- CHAIRMAN: They're sold already? MRS. FOSTER: The two lots to the north where the deLoiselles live and which was Coleman's. I don't know who owns it now. MR. BRUER: It was a number of years ago. MRS. FOSTER: Yes. That was in the late 1960s. I had no intention of selling the balance. I tried very hard to hold that property and the meadow land because I wanted to preserve it. I have a son who has been unable to work for 2-1/2 years. He has ( ) which is at this point internal. I am forced to liquidate the property. I am trying to be able to stay here. My family has been here for generations. The original idea--we have been more than 1-1/2 years in the process, and the original idea was that I would only have to sell one piece of property. And therefore we were trying to maintain what is called a barn and the stable, which would go to my daughter. It's now apparent because I've been borrowing for this length of time. The interest is eating--it's costing a tremendous amount. And now it is apparent to me that I must sell the two. I no longer care about the stable. I don't care about the barn. I care about my son. I don't care about that line. I only want to get this thing going. Thank you. Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing #3806 Matter of DORIS PRICE MOELLER FOSTER Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 CHAIRMAN: I understand. I've already drawn a line between it and although it misses the barn, it doesn't really miss the shed that's the closest to the road. MRS. FOSTER: Oh that. Excuse me, I have one horse and that's going to go anyhow because I am going to need -- I suppose I am going to need some kind of a permit to build the stable up close to my house on my own property. The part I want to keep. But that stable is going anyhow. And probably the barn is going too. I mean, whoever buys the property won't probably want to put the house there. MR. BRUER: But we will need the variance somewhere here to have the two lots. We won't be able to make the 175 feet. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. You need it actually on just Lot #1. MRS. FOSTER: Lot #1 needs the 175 feet? That's the deep one. That one we need 175 feet on the road? CHAIRMAN: No, no. That's why you are before us. MRS. FOSTER: Oh, I see. I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bruer. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Questions from Board Members? CHAIRMAN and MEMBER DINIZIO jointly examined original print of map. MEMBER DINIZIO: Really the only variance is on this? CHAIRMAN: On the width. MEMBER DINIZIO: Not this? CHAIRMAN: That's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: And the shed doesn't require setbacks? CHAIRM3%N: The shed requires three feet, but if we straighten that line out, we're going to put a statement on there that it has to be removed--taken off, because it's going to hit the shed. MEMBER DINIZIO: And they have no objection to that? CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Do you want to vote on this or-- Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing #3806 Matter of DORIS PRICE MOELLER FOSTER Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MEMBER DINIZIO: Let's vote on it. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer a motion straightening out the south property line for Lot #1 out, ok, provided that it not be any less than two acres, and that if the line falls any closer than three feet to the shed, the building has to either be removed or moved. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it. AYES: Ail. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We certainly hope that everything will work out. Prepared by Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary Town Board of Appeals ..... APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGON[S, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR, JOSEPH H. SAWlCK~ TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT HEARINGS REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Applications of JOSEPH AND BE~£Y HARDY: Appl. No. 3747 - Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section 100-80B, for permission to construct wholesale storage building, accessory to plumbing use; and Appl. No. 3746 - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Bulk Schedule Article VIII, Section 100-81, for permission to construct wholesale storage building for plumbing business use. Location of Property: South Side of Main Road, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 114, Block 11, Lot 5. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 30 persons in the audience. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a Special Exception and a Variance, and we will open both at the same time. RUDOLPH H. BRUER, ESQ.: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I interject? CHAIRMAN: Surely. MR. BRUER: The applicant here in light of the passage of the Master Plan, was it Wednesday? CHAIRMAN: Tuesday. MR. BRUER: Tuesday. We request that this hearing be recessed. CHAIRMAN: That's what we're going to do. I'm just going to open it and just recess it without a date. MR. BRUER: Thank you very much. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:02 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. Page 2 - Transcript of Joint Hearings Matters of JOSEPH AND BETTY HARDY #3737 and Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 %3736 CHAIRMAN: The Application Number for the Special Exception is 3747 and Number 3746 for the Variance. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here that would like to be heard in the Matter of Hardy Plumbing and Heating in Mattituck? It's the former Gionnone Building. Prior to that it was the former Kouros Building. It's just east of Country Time Furniture. Is there anybody that would like to speak in behalf of this application? I know you don't (to Mr. Bruer). I should say does anyone wish to comment? (None) We're going to hold this in abeyance pending the Master Plan and see if it has any particular affect upon it, and only because we have site plan approval involved in here with the Planning Board and so on and so forth. To close the hearing would only cause a hardship to the applicant. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing this without a date. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Seconded. AYES: Ail Members. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. Prepared by Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary Southo!cl Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER. CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING JAMES DINIZIO, JR. REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3801 - WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, Section 100-80B for permission to utilize existing building and premises for assembly and manufacture of classic cars in this 're-Light Industrial" Zone District. Location of Property: North Side Main Road and West Side Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; proposed Lot No. 1 as shown on Map dated October 12, 1988; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 10. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr. and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 35 persons in the audience at the beginning of the hearing. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:04 o'clock p.m. and read the Legal Notice of this hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Young & Young, most recent date 10/12/88 indicating basically a subdivision map of three lots, Lot No. 1 of 1.17748 acres; Lot No. 2 of 1.0341 acres; and Lot No. 3 of 1.3528 acres. The nature of this application is approximately -- really Lot No.1, and that is the nature of the Legal Notice that I have just read. And it includes or encompasses an one-story concrete-block building of approximately 79'4" by 119'9". It lies approximately 67.9 feet from Elijah's Lane and 102+- from the Main Road. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard in behalf of this? KAREN STRETZ, ESQ.: Hi. I'm Karen Stretz from Wickham, Wickham & Bressler for Mr. Baxter. In order to understand what this assembly process entails, I think it would be beneficial at this point to introduce John Giovanelli, who, in the Special Exception application if approved will be the tenant in the Page 2 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. #3801 Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MS. STRETZ, continued: building and will be running the business and assembly the classic cars. CHAIRMAN: Great. Thank you. JOHN GIOVANELLI: The assembly of the cars is just basically "kit." Ok. They're complete. It's just done with simple tools. You know, just the basic--any mechanic out of his garage would have. There's no other than necessary lubricants. There would be no hazardous materials at all. And I believe as far as production schedule is concerned, I can only produce since there will be only one employee, one per month. So, the parking area concerns, you know, would be nonexistent. There is -- the total production area would only amount to say a 500 sq. ft. That leaves me with plenty other space in the building, so. CHAIRMAN: Ail the storage would be inside? MR. GIOVANELLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN: How valuable are these cars? MR. GIOVANELLI: They're approximately anywhere from $28,000 to $35,000 apiece. CHAIRMAN: Now let's assume that you had developed a large inventory of them. Say twelve cars. They would all be stored inside the building until you sell them? MR. GIOVANELLI: Well, that wouldn't happen because of the fact that it's only one per month and I don't plan on -- the nature of the business is work that's being farmed out to me, so it wouldn't be any necessary for storing. They're actually sold before I produce them. CHAIRMAN: I understand. So it's all work in the process. Is there anything else you would like to tell the Board concerning this operation? MR. GIOVANELLt: No. That pretty much covers it all. CHAIRMAN: To what degree is the automobile complete before it comes to you? Is the body on it, or is it-- MR. GIOVANELLI: Yes. It's completely built and ready to run. The engines themselves I'm actually buying them. They've already been tested and everything else. They're just--It's just being assembled. That's it. Page 3 - Transcript of ZBA Hearing Matter of WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. 93801 Regular Meeting - January 12, 1989 CHAIRMAN: So you're basically placing the engine in the vehicle? MR. GIOVANELLI: Right. And then the only thing--it would be lowered on the back of the truck and then the owner would be responsible for filling up the tank of gas and actually driving the vehicle. CHAIRMAN: I see. Ok. I thank you very much. Did you have anything else, Kareno Mr. Baxter, How have you been? Good luck. how do you do? WILLIAM J. BAXTER: I'm fine. We've been operating in that building for over 20 years as a printing and mailing facility and I think this operation from what I gather is less intrusive than what we have been doing and we're set back quite a bit from the road. It seems like a very clean operation, just modest assemblying. There's no painting or anything like that. And it's a fire resistant or proof building with the cement block walls. Concrete composition, ceiling, and I don't think it would create a hazard in any way in connection with this operation. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against it? Questions from Board Members? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming in. We hope to have a decision for you very quickly. --~INDA KOWALSK~I, BOARD SECRETARY Southold Town Board of Appeals APPEALS BOARD MEMI~ERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZlO, JR. TR3~NSCRIPT OF HEARING REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1989 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. NO. 3797 for FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY COMPANY, INC. for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 for approval of insufficient area of two proposed parcels in this pending division of land. Location of Property: West Side of Crescent Avenue and North Side of Central Avenue, Fishers Island, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 6, Block 6, Lot 20.4. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; and James Dinizio, Jr. Absent were: Serge Doyen of Fishers Island, due to poor weather conditions, and Joseph H. Sawicki (out-of-state). Also present were: Linda Kowalski, Board Secretary, and approximately 8 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:10 p.m. and read the Legal Notice of Hearing for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a survey prepared by Chandler, Palmer & King of Norwich, Connecticut, of November 9, 1987, indicating Lot 91 of 1.25 acres and Lot 92 at 1.28 acres, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Lark, would you like to be heard, since you're the only one left except for (Mr. and Mrs. Gossner) in the room. RICHARD Fo LARK, ESQ.: For the record, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue. Good evening, Mr. Goehringer. You didn't read the petition, but I know you all have read it, and you know the property is owned by the Utility Company and you know the reason for it. Because basically they've got a real problem over there in trying to find adequate housing for qualified people on a yearround basis. And, he came down to look around to put some housing up for him, and Mr. Baker, who is more or less their manager and then their operator for many years--they pretty much decided that since they own this property, if they could go ahead and divide it into two parcels as you have indicated MR. LARK, continued: on the survey in front of you, they could go ahead and put up two attractive, modest homes there. It is the intention of the utility company to retain the ownership and just work out a lease basis with their employees. That's what their intent is at the present time. As indicated in the petition before you, it's a request for an area variance. As I said, the petition does speak for itself. I just want to cover for the record just a few reasons. As the Board is aware, at the time of the application it was an 80,000 sq. ft. district; and I submit that the request for proposed Lot #1 of 54,450 sq. ft. and Lot 2 to be 55,000, which is the 1.25 and 1.28 acres as shown on this survey. It's not substantial considering the overall character of this particular neighborhood and it's development. The increased population density, of course, if you want additional family living in the area and should face no ( ) affect on the governmental facilities, such as fire, water and police. Obviously, this Board is aware of the character of the community, there will be no substantial change in the character or to any of the adjoining properties. And in order to -- up to the time of the application, to build the two individual houses since it's not zoned multi-family, an area variance is the only feasible way. And consider everything involved--in particularl, now I understand the Master Plan update, which as I understood it, this was an R-40 District. Was going to be slated for an R-40 DistriCt, so it would be in conformance with that. The one acre. And the Planning Board, when they sent over to you some recommendations, recommended that there be a 75-ft. setback. As to see the wetland area is flagged there. It is a low-marsh area on that one corner of the parcel. It's on Crescent Avenue. That is no problem. I'm in the process now of getting an amended survey to show the building envelope where there will be a 75-foot setback from that wetland area. It won't interfere with the front yards or anything. I checked that out with the surveyor the other day, and he's in the process of doing that. Their other recommendation I responded to. I think you have a copy of the letter in the correspondence. The applicant is unwilling to put any type of covenant specifying affordable housing, as that term is defined in our zoning ordinance. You know the intent of the applicant, and that's still pretty unclear just what we're doing with affordance housing in the town; and so they're unwilling to do that. Page 3 - Transcript of Hearing %3797 Matter of FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY COMPANY, INC. Z.B.A. Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MR. LARK, continued: In the process of the application, I spoke to the Board's Secretary Linda Kowalski; and she brought to my attention that this might have -- this remaining acreage which is on here owned by the Utility Company, might have been part of a larger piece at one time. The deeds that I have, I did check it out, as I promised her I would, and the Utility Company has owned it for many, many years. They took it over from the prior predecessor back in the '60s when there was a reorganization between FIDCO, the Utility Company, the Phone Company, and so on and so forth. So it has been in the ownership of the Utility Company or its predecessors FIDCO for many years. However, Mrs. Kowalski was right. In 1978 as it turned out, the Utility Company transferred two parcels of land. One to a Mr. Anthony Marshall which is now presently vacant and is on the, I guess the westerly side of Crescent Avenue; and another 1.3-acre parcel to a Regina Pyles. I did some research on it. The Regina Pyles piece was -- they had a small paroel up in the northeast corner behind the American Legion, and this added on to them -- enlarged their parcel -- so there was no increase in density. No one knows why Mr. Marshall purchased his parcel because all he has done ever was kept a garden on it. And it has been a puzzlement. After speaking to Ken Edwards, a Member of the Planning Board, I asked him if he knew anything about these transfers since they occurred in 1978, which was applicable that you had to get some type of subdivision approval. He said he was not -- he didn't understand it. The records of the Utility Company didn't understand it. However, when I finally got a hold of Mr. Baker, he indicated that at that time, the Utility Company affairs were handled by a Mr. Philip Matthews over in Southampton and New York, an out-of-town attorney, and might not have been aware of the requirements bringing Fishers Island -- which was done at about ~964 -- into conformance with all the rules and regulations of Southold Town. Because it has been the intent of FIDCO, the utility companies and their other subsidiaries to -- and as you are well aware, of the applications you've had before you -- to make sure that the Island does stay in conformance with all our rules and regulations, and since I have been involved with it, about 1981, that's been a face. I can't speak prior to that as I was surprised - talking to Mrs. Kowalski I couldn't speak prior. So it seems what's going to have to happen is that, and I'm going to speak -- Mr. Baker couldn't be here tonight -- he's in Washington, D.C. on business. When he gets back, now that I know what happened here, and figure it out. We're going to Page 4 - Transcript of Hearing #3797 Matter of FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY COMPANY, ZBA Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 INC. MR. LARK, continued: have to notify Mrs. Pyles and Mr. Marshall, and amend the subdivision application to include a four-lot subdivision, one of which of course would be tacked on to Pyles' existing property, which it was in fact done. And the other one then transferred - get approval, like a four-lot minor, if you would, to Mr. Marshall. Because if he ever went for a Building Permit, and the Building Department did their homework, there could be a problem there. Although it is a 2.4 acre piece. It's certainly large enough in and of itself, and it does have some wetlands on it. And as you know, from the survey, there's a power line that separates the property. That's what it seems to explain-- not the power line -- the water lines and everything. It seems to explain why they use that as a division point. And it's somewhat of an unfortunate occurrence, but I agreed with Mr. Edwards that on behalf of the Utility Company, I would clean the matter up -- as far as the Planning Board was concerned -- since those set-offs, those two lots do appear to be in conformance because the Pyle piece now is 1.4 acres. It was just a little sliver. It's an irregularly shaped piece to beat the devil, with a 32-ft. sort of called piece of land running out onto Mansion House Road -- Drive, rather. But I think that can be straightened out. Mr. Edwards seems satisfied. He was equally as surprised. And hopefully this is the last of them. If this had occurred in the '60s this transfer, it would be well understandable because they never came over here for anything in the '60s, even though zoning was applicable, but as I say -- since '74, '75, Mr. Noyes took over FIDCO, they have been complying. This is one that slipped through the cracks. Mr. Matthews represented him, and he wasn't aware of the zoning or thought that the parcels were large enough when going for a building permit -- I don't know what happened; I just can't explain it. It was done. But it shouldn't affect what we have here for the variance request. And the reason I don't think it's moot, is that the time the application was made and as of this point in space right now, you still have jurisdiction because even though the Zoning Amendments might have been passed the other night, there are still some other requirements that are not effective at the present time. So I still request though in case anything goes wrong with that, any litigation or anything -- so that they can get the houses started this Spring. You know, as soon as the weather clears, that you do approve the variance as applied for. And I have no objection to your putting in the restriction of 75 ft. back from the wetlands -- the building envelope not to go any closer than that. CHAIRMAN: You're going to give us a building envelope? Is that what you're saying? Page 5 - Transcript of Hearing ~3797 Matter of FI UTILITY COMPANY, INC. ZBA Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MR. LARK: Yeah, I didn't have it when that came up, and Chandler & Palmer are not noted for their speed. So I do hope to get that squared aware. I can give you that map as soon as I get it, and as I say, I'~ going to have to now speak to the Utility Company President, explain the faux paux that took place, and the only way that I can clean that situation up, especially for Mr. Marshall is to go back and amend that application for a four-lot minor. I don't think there will be any problem with the Department of Health or anything like that. CHAIRMAN: Where is the fourth lot? Assuming that we granted this application. MR. LARK: Yes. These two lots, if you grant this one, then with these two lots -- the one added to Mrs. Pyles, and then the one that Marshall has. That seems to be what has happened here. And I want to thank ~rs. Kowalski for pointing that out. I'd rather meet the problem head on, then Marshall come in some time in the future, and have it come up at that point. CHAIRMAN: Do you have these reduced to a tax map on your file there or something? MR. LARK: I have a tax map, yes. CHAIRMAN: Ok. We're referring the four lots, or the three lots as presently exist in the subdivision as Tax Map Lot Number 19, which is the one you're referring to as Pyles, which is 1.3 acres. Is that correct? MR. LARK: I have 1.4 on mine, but it could be 1.3 without a survey. Yes. CHAIRMAN: Marshall, which is Tax Map Number 20.5, which is 2.4 acres. MR. LARK: That's what I had 2.4. Right. CHAIRMAN: And then the nature of this application which is 20.4. MR. LARK: Which is 20.4 also. Right. On the Tax Map. That's what I had. That's the parcels I'm referring to. CHAIRMAN: I think maybe what we should do is recess this hearing until Member Doyen is back here, and then pending the receipt of what you're going to give us -- no further verbal testimony. When you get it-- MR. LARK: I have nothing further to add (verbally), right. That'll be fine. And in fact, just so you know, when I spoke to Ken Edwards, I did not speak to Mr. Doyen because his wife is ill and I didn't want to bother him. Ken told me that he did speak to him, and that he was well aware of the situation and Page 6 - Transcript of Hearing #3797 Matter of FI UTILITY COMPANY, INC. ZBA Regular Meeting of January 12, 1989 MR. LARK, continued: thought that that probably was the only feasible way to handle it, just to clear up with a sub-- since the parcels were large enough, just get them legalized, if you would, the Marshall piece -- and the add-on to the P¥1es piece. Apparently Pyles didn't have to come in for a building permit C.O. because the house was already there, and they just added onto their property. So that's why it probably never came up until Linda pointed it out -- "Is this part of a larger piece?" That was an interesting question to me. I said, "I don't think so but I'll look at it." And then we went from there. Ok? CHAIRMAN: Ok. So we'll recess it without it date. MR. LARK: That's exactly the reason why I didn't want to say this is not an academic thing, ok? CHAIRMAN: Ail right. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Against? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing without a date. SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Except for no verbal testimony? CHAIRMAN: Except that there be no verbal testimony and recessed for the written submissions and formal maps that we are going to receive from Mr. Lark. MR. LARK: Right. The new survey. CHAIRMAN: I'll offer that as a resolution. Gentlemen? MEMBER GRIGONIS: Second. AYES: Ail. This resolution was duly carried and adopted. Board of Appeals