Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-04/19/1990 HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING - In the matter of: Murray Jacobs, Mark and Ellie Gordon Samuel and Rachel Salzman A. Lios Eileen Villani Thomas Collins John C. Perrone Eva Halla Robert and Theresa Turner Elsie Parkin, Applicants 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 April 19, 1990 BEFORE: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ALSO PRESENT: DOREEN FERWERDA THE CHAIRMAN: meetin§ of 'the of Appeals. This is the regular monthly Southold Town Zoning Board The first appeal on the agenda is 3926 on behalf of Murray Jacobs. Legal notice reads as follows: Upon Applicant Number 3926. Variance to Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, disapproved for permission to con- struct an accessory shed in side yard, acces- sory buildings may be located in the required rear yard. Property location: 1180 Sage Boulevard, Greenport; County Tax Map Number 1000-53-5-9. I have a copy of the survey dated March 20, 1975 indicating a one-story frame dwelling approximately centrally located on property line, pending --- excuse me, looking at it from the water side, lef~ side which is approximately north, northwest, I see the proposed storage shed of 10xl41and I will ask the approximate distances of the applicant. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating that and the surrounding property area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Jacobs? MR. JACOBS: Murray Jacobs, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask that you use the microphone? We're taking ~is down. Thank you. MR. JACOBS: It is impossible for me to use the backyard on this property because it is on the water. The only available spot on my property is where I indicated that shed because the rest of it is on a hill and I don't want to excavate for it. There's no foundation for it, no electricity and no plumbing. It's simply on a few blocks. It is a handsome little house and it was a hardship to be without it because I store a lot of things when I come off my boat that won't fit into my small house. I am asking simply because I don't think it will change the environment at all since there are no trees being knocked down. the rules. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm asking for a change in Could I ask the approxi- mate distance to which would be basically, property? MR. JACOBS: Well, its closest property line the end of your it's three feet. THE CHAIRMAN: What's the approximate distance from the water or the high water mark? MR. JACOBS: The high water mark is probably 25 feet, maybe 30. THE CHAIRMAN: What about on the road? MR. JACOBS: I would say that's about 75 feet, but it is on a hill. THE CHAIRMAN: When I was down there, the shed, it is existing? It is there presently? MR. JACOBS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: There are no utilities on the shed at all? The reason why I did see it was because there are not any leaves on the trees. It is more difficult when there are leaves. MR. JACOBS: Was that your red Mercedes? THE CHAIRMAN: No, I wish I had a red Mercedes. Somebody else stopped there I guess. MR. JACOBS: It is a handsome little house. THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't say it wasn't. I have no further questions. Thank you for coming in and giving us those distances. I would ask you however, to recheck them for us, if you would not mind. MR. JACOBS: I'll do it tomorrow and I'll send you a note. I'll be glad to. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? Would anyone like to speak on behalf of this aDpli- cation? (Pause) Would anyone like to speak against this application? (Pause) Are there ~any questions from the Board Members? COLLECTIVE RESPONSE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: No further comments. I make a motion to close the hearing. MR. DINIZIO: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR, GRIGONI$: Aye MR, DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Mark and Ellie Gordon, Appeal number 3927. ?he legal notice reads as follows: Upon application number 3927 - Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved for permission to con- struct an accessory building to tennis court located in front yard; accessories permitted in the rear yard only. Property location: Private Road #7, Fords Road, Southold, County Tax Map Number 1000-87-1-18.4. I have a copy of the survey dated May 7, 1987 by Roderick Van Tuyl (phonetically spelled) P.C. and it indicates the prior appeal to this Board for the proposed tennis court which is Appeal Number 3887 and the nature of the application, that the proposed accessory building back up to what appears to be the sotheast side, tennis court and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating that and the surrounding property in the area. Peter, would you like to be heard? PETER STOUTENBURGH: I'm representing the Gordons~ Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm here to answer any questions. The Gordons, in the previous Appeal, have been granted permission with a five-foot additional set-back from the west property line.which ~ems to work out quite well. The neighbors seem pleased with that and also, reduce the tennis court from 60 feet to 55 feet. The structure they're looking to add to south end court is in furthest from the road closest to their house and will be used as a bath and shower service, sport facility and for storage. Previously the Gordons converted their garage, a couple of years ago, and found a lot of equipment and stuff they're looking to store. The utilities they plan are just water and electricity. It will be put on a slab similar construction to a garage. THE CHAIRMAN: The only restrictions we place on anything of this nature is that the doors to the showers open on the outside, Okay? In other words, well let me just ask you this question. The building is one-story? MR. STOUTENBURGH: It is within the accessory story. THE CHAIRMAN: So if we want to grant the application, if we put restrictions of 12 feet which we construe to be fall within ... MR. STOUTENBURGH: one story, does'that I'm not designing it. It's the architect. I'm assuming because of the width of it, it would make t~building look very ...... I assume your problem with that,at least -/.9 - 8. from the design I have seen...did you get a sketch? THE CHAIRMAN: We may have it here. I think we have. I'm showing 10 feet on the wall. I have it here. I just don't know what the height of the roof is. MR. STOUTENBURGH: We're shooting for 18 feet or whatever the limitations are on that. THE CHAIRMAN: Will you call us and tell us if it's 18 or whatever it is? I don't think there's any way of scaling it. MR. STOUTENBURGH: That's the problem. It is a sketch. THE CHAIRMAN: It only shows the 10 There's no scale on it. feet to this particular point which appears to be above the door. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I can get that informa- tion for you~ THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is it going to be open rafters? MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes, from what I've gotten from the architect and from the Gordons themselves. There's going to be two garages with open and closed screens and breezeway be- tween it and two sort of attic storage above it. No indication of interior finishing with the exception of the bath area and large doors, both of the garages on both ends. THE CHAIRMAN: It is going on 24x607 MR. STOUTENBURGH: 24x55. I can get the information on the height. THE CHAIRMAN: What I was saying before, your restriction is that the shower doors open on the outside to preclude, not necessarily in this case, this is a generalization preventing any type of habitable structure ending up with the subsequent owners. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I can understand that. I mentioned the bath opening out, no access from inside. Is that the same thing as the showers? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. STOUTENBURGH: So long as the bath- room opens ... THE CHAIRMAN: To the exterior of the building. MR. STOUTENBURGH: I believe it does. That's one thing I knew about. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much. You'll send us, you'll give us a yell. MR. STOUTENBURGH I'll get it sent from the architect on his letterhead. THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Against? (no one) THE CHAIRMAN: From the Board Members? (no response) THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no further questions, I make a motion to close the hearing. We will receive the height question from Mr. Stoutenburg. MR. DINIZIO: Second. MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. SA~ICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: The next is an appeal on behalf of Samuel and Rachel Salzman, Appeal Number 3928. Legal Notice reads as follows.: Upn application, applicant Number 3928, variance to the Zoning Ordinance Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, as disapproved for permis- sion to construct addison to an existing dwell- ing, proposed construction will have insufficient front yard setback. Property location: 65 Old Salt Road and 400 Rochelle Place, Mattituck, County Tax Map Number 1000, 144-5-22. I have a copy of a sketch which is dated 1-14-90 indicafingrenovation for this particular dwelling and the nature of this particular application is a 6-foot addition to the front of an existing garage and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and property in the surrounding area. Would somebody like to be heard? (No response) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this applica- tion? (No response) I really should pause ... THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (No response) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion to close the hearing and reserve the decision until later, MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: Second. All in favor? Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: hearing we ever had. Aye This is the fastest -/~ - 12. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is on behalf of A. Lios. It is Number 3920 and the Legal Notice reads as follows: Upon application, applicant Number 3920, Article XXIV, Section 100-244, as dis- approved for permission to construct a deck addition to existing pool; proposed construc- tin exceeds permitted lot coverage and will have insufficient side yard setbacks. Property location: 310 Linda Road, Mattituck; County Tax Map Number 1000, Section 106-1-14. I have a survey from Anthony Lewandowski - 2-13-90, indicating a one-and-a-half story frame house, screened in porch and swimming pool .en- closed by a fence with pretty much of a Ground level deck around swimming pool, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in the area, and I believe you'd like to be heard, Mr. Bohn? MR. BOHN: Robert Bohn. I don't know what the next thing is but the deck, the ques- tion here is it's 70 or 80% below ground level. That was ~e idea of constructing it, so is the pool. The pool area was excavated out about three and 13. half feet below grade at one end and at grade at the other end. There was an approved permit for the pool in the side yard. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, Notice of Disapproval reads, construction exceeds permitted lot coverage. This we discussed one Saturday morning when you came in to see us. Construction exceeded the permitted lot coverage and will bare insuffic±ent side yard setback. Action required by the Zoning Board of Appeals, coverage applied for would be 60% over allowable 20%. Did you do any calcula- tions on this? MR. BOHN: It was done by the Building Department. I don't think that's correct. It's not that much. THE CHAIRMAN: I thought we calculated roughly, but we didn't have it surveyed at that time. MR. BOHN: I 'ordered a new survey. THE CHAIRMAN: This one w~ have here, right? Could I ask you to do this, Mr. Bohn. Could you stop in the Building Department please, sometime within the next two weeks. The disapproval was written by Thomas Fisher but the additional wordage of coverage applied would be the 65% over allowab 14. use. This is by Victor Lessard because he wrote, "Victor" on the bottom. Could you please see how they calculated that 65% so we know exactly what percentage is over as mentioned that day you came in. That was a long time ago. I think it was October, somewhere in that range, 1989. We do have a problem with this lot coverage issue in reference to a percentage basis. It seems 65% is a little in excess of what they're referring to. We'll estimate it ourselves and if you want to get back to us within the next two weeks, we'll address the issue then. MR. BOHN: Do you have the correct-measure- ments on that survey? THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you give them to us right now. I'm sure it's to scale so we'll measure them.~ MR. BOHN: Do you want a copy of this? THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, great. Is that the Original? MR. LESSARD: can't read mine. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. That's not my writing. You Who did that? BOHN: This was the Building Department. 15. Department. THE CHAIRMAN: Well give us all of this and we'll study it and get back to you and if, for some reason we can't decipher this, how it sounds, just let me have your telephone number, Mr. Bohn. MR. BOHN: 765-1119. THE CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask you, do you want to recess this in case we notice additional information? MR. DINIZIO: I have an additional question. I'd like to know when the building permit was issued for this pool? MR. BOHN: I didn't apply. The original permit for a swimming pool was from Norm Reilly, the building permit for the pool. I don't know about the date. MR. DINIZIO: Well was this five years ago? MR. BOHN: NO, it was last year. It's probably just about run out by now. It was around this time last year when the pool went MR. DINIZIO: You say there was a variance -02.7 - 16. to put the pool in the side yard? MR. BOHN: I had nothing to do with the pool. All I did was put the deck on. Okay, the pool was shown on the original permit applica- tion, joined to the house. Then we just put a deck around the pool. That's where I came into it and we found out the permit didn't include the deck. It only included the swimming pool. That's how we got to this point. THE CHAIRMAN: But the deck is not at- tached to the house at this particular point? ~ MR. BOHN: No. It is three feet away. MR. DINIZIO: What's the distance f~om the deck to the fence on the side yard? MR. BOHN: It's about six feet to the side and it's right up to the fence on the front point and about twenty-five feet from the rear. MR. DINIZIO: That's the deck, not the pool. MR. BOHN: That's the deck to the fence. MR. DINIZIO: Okay, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any additional questions? (No further questions) THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to send the Building Department a memo requesting additional information about the pool? MR. DINIZIO: There are definitely some questions as to the lot coverage issue and after we calculate it, I would ~efinitely want to see how they base this lot coverage. THE CHAIRMAN: We'll recess here till the regularly scheduled meeting and we'll hopeful- ly have the additional information at that particular time. MR. BOHN: This whole thing came about because of the excavation. In other words, it's way below grade, It was supposed to be allowable at that time. That's where the hang-up came with the Building Department, THE CHAIRMAN: I think in fairness to you, I could be wrong, but we're trying to figure out how~ey got the swimming pool on the side yard as permitted use because it's not. You're contractgd to put a deck_around but the accessory structure is not permitted in the side yard. That's where the~issue is. Again, the deck is secondary. It is the nature of the hearing, the lot coverage issue but it is secondary to your particular issue. -~3 - 18. MR. BOHN: They still have to deal with the pool? THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to answer that question? MR. DINIZIO: I just have a question how it Got into this location? THE CHAIRMAN: That would be the Building Department. MR. DINIZIO: I have a question on it. I want to know, I intend to ask the question. THE CHAIRMAN: over in Southold last we're questioning it, We had a similar problem Spring. That's the reason because there was a-similar situation. ~this particular case it was a deck and also a pool also got detached from the house, that was one of our concerns, how it Got in the side yard anyway. MR. BOHN: came after but it That I could not tell you. I shows the pool or deck attached to the house. That's in the original applica- tion for the permit. 'That was the only 'reason it was granted, as long as it was attached by six feet to the house. MR. DINIZIO: YOU would have other problems with that also. MR. BOHN: When I came in, at that point it was after the pool was finished. MR, DINIZIO: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you go back to the Building Department, send them a memo and we'll reschedule ~is for a regularly scheduled meeting. We'll re-advertise it in reference to time. We'll send you a notice. You were notified this time? MR. BOHN: Sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybod5 else that would like to speak on behalf of the appplication, either pro or con? (Collective response: No.) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no questions, I make a motion to recess this hearing until the next scheduled meeting. MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: Second. All in favor? Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in behalf of Eileen Villani, Appeal Number 3921. Legal Notice reads: Upon application of the applicant, Eileen Villani, variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239B, for permission to construct deck addition to existing one-family dwelling, proposed construc- tion will be within 75 feet of water or wetlands. Property location: Private Road 925 Wood Lane, Peconic, County Tax Map Number 1000, 086-06-10. The survey I have before me is dated November 6, 1989 and in behalf of Surveyor, Howard W. Young, it indicates a one-story frame house and garage and to add a deck of varying distances along the rear of the house adjacent to the waterfront. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding property in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? (Robert Kozakiewicz - phonetic spelling) MR. KOZAKIEWICZ: I'm here on behalf of Eileen Villani. I believe the notice may be misleading, "to construct." Permission to con- struct a deck, existing one-family dwelling and pursuant to April, 1985 or shortly thereafter, her husband and son constructed a deck. Recently she discovered the problem and got Notice of Disapproval from Mr. Lessard and went to the Board of Trustees. I think the letter is all part of the record befor~ the Board. We recently also sent you a notice from the D.E.C. indicating a letter of No Jurisdiction from them based upon the fact the bulkhead in question has been there since or prior to September 20,1977. The house, when purchased in 1985 was in the present con- figuration as it existed, and would be within the 75 feet of the bulkhead as it was. I spoke to Mrs Villani and she could not be here and she indicated to me that she wished to make known to the Board that at that time she didn't realize the consequences inasfar as the Town Board with the 75 foot setback, and the survey does show, with respect to setback, we have 39.8 feet wood bulkhead and 45.8 ... so we're looking for a variance on approximately 50% in this case. THE CHAIRMAN: Does she plan to have a roof on the deck at all? MR. KOZAKIEWICZ: No, THE CHAIRMAN: So the deck will remain open? MR. KOZAKIEWICZ: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any changes or modifications to the deck? MR. KOZAKIEWICZ: She tells me, no. She indicated there would be none. THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any additional lighting placed around the deck? MR. KOZAKIEWICZ: No, I didn't ask her that particular question. I don't believe so. THE CHAIRMAN: Well thank you for coming in. I have no further questions. Are there any questions by any Board Members? (Collective response: No.) THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody in the public like to speak either pro or con concerning the last application. (No response) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I'll make the motion to close the hearing and reserve decision till later. MR. DINIZIO: Second. MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal on the agenda is Applicant Appeal Number 3919, Legal Notice reads: Upon application of applicant Thomas Collins, variance to the'Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239 4.B, for per- mission to construct a deck addison to a one- family dwelling, proposed construction will be less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Property location: 305 Dawn Drive, East Marion, County Tax Map Number 1000, Section 35-5-20. I have a survey from Howard W. Young, the most recent date, May 31st ... I'm sorry, September 6, 1989, indicating a one-story frame house and garage somewhat centrally located. The nature of the application is three-phase deck which extends to the southeast property line pretty much east, comprising different variations of 16.3xi2 feet; 8.0x5'; 10.8x7' and attached and graduated as it goes down to the water. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding prop- erty area. Would anyone like to be heard? Sir? 24. MR. BOWMAN: My name is Charles Bowman, President of Land Use Company and I'm representing Mr. Collins. The situation here again, is the deck is partially constructed. completed. There's still some Mr. Collins was unaware of the setback requirement. There is It is not yet decking missing. need for a 75' property in ~e area that has structures closer than the 75'. I'm sure upon your inspection, you'll see most property developed right to the bulkheads with the lawn to the bulkhead where the existing deck would be 49' rather than 75' from the bulk- head. But certainly it is our opinion that it would conform to the neighborhood. Also, it would not have any detrimental effect on Dawn Lagoon. We're here after being advised by Mr. Lessard we should be here. So we hope you'll consider this. THE CHAIRMAN: We'd like to ask two questions, somewhat similar to the last hearing. Will, at any time, there be either gazebos or any roofing placed on any one of these three tiers? MR. BOWMAN: No sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any lighting that would be other than shielded to the property? MR. BOWMAN: No, sir, not that I'm aware of. THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any further extensions on the deck? MR. BOWMAN: No sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who.would like to speak in favor of the application? (No response) THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (No response) THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no hands, I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision till later. MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: MR. DOYEN: MR. SAWICKI: Second. Ail in favor? Aye Aye Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal Number 3930, John C. Perrone. Legal Notice reads as follows: Applicant Appeal Number 3930, Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-10lB, for permission to occupy and use as a billiard parlor for commercial -.3/- 26. recreation. Property location: Main Road, State Road 25, Mattituck, County Tax Map Number 1000, Section 122-6-31. The special exception reads: Occupancy for use of billiard parlor for commercial rec- reation, fully enclosed, using normal acces- sories incidental hereto associated with~is activity. Varying the occupancy for this use consists of four units, total area 36x80.4 within Building Number 1 closest to Main Road. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in the area. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Cuddy? MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy for applicant, John Perrone who is at my side. I would first ask that you accept into the record the disclos- ure affidavit. Mr. Perrone's wife, Polly Perrone is now employed by the Planning Depart- ment. I'll hand that up to you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: Mr. Perrone is a Mattituck resident who would like to open a billiard parlor on his property which is commonly known as Mattituck Commons. It is on the north side of Main Road opposite a §as station in the business area. The property is surrounded by businesses. The site was approved about a year and a half ago by.the Planning Board, consisting of three buildings. This building that's nearest to the road, is approximately 2900 square feet and he proposes to install 12 billiard tables and to operate it under his direction. In other words, he will be there. goin§ to lease the property. He's going to control it. He's going to supervise it. He intends that no one under sixteen will be permitted on the premises. He intends to operate it on a basis from Tuesday through Sunday and he would operate it from hours of ... approximately, I would say twelve to twelve during the weekdays. He would operate it weekends from one p.m. to two a.m. Friday, Saturday and $gnday. This is an area that has abundant parking for this type of operation because all the other places are closed during the heavy He's 28. hours that his billiard parlor would be operating. He's going to ~nvest approxi- mately forty thousand dollars in getting the tables and set-up and he'll have a snack bar but no alcohol, so that's no problem. He's set conditions that there be no alcohol at these premises. He's local and he's going to be in there full time. I would submit to the Board that this probably is as decent an operation as you could get. I believe that it conforms to all the requirements that are set forth in 263 and 264 of the Code. I don't envision that there would ~e any adverse effect on the surrounding area or upon the businesses or property. I'd ask the Board to approve this application. THE CHAIRMAN: Can I have the Sunday hours? MR. CUDDY: One p.m. to two a.m., I'm sorry, one to twelve and the Friday and Saturday hours are one p.m. to two a.m. THE CHAIRMAN: For the record, there is no school in close proximity except for the Laurel Elementary School? 29. MR. CUDDY: That's right. THE CHAIRMAN: So that's no particular problem. There's no sale of alcohol so that should not be a particular problem. We have placed restrictions on o~her food establish- ments that are closest to the school in the past. But I don't foresee any problem in that respect. Thank you very much for coming in. MR. CUDDY: Thank you, THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak in favor of the application? (Collective response: No.) THE CHAIRMAN: Would anybody like to speak against the application? (Collective response: No.) THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions from any Board Members? (Collective response: THE CHAIRMAN: I'll make a motion to NO.) Hearing no questions, close the hearing and reserve decision until later. MR. DINIZ%O: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all for coming in. All in favor? 30. MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: Aye Aye The next appeal number is 3914 and the Legal Notice reads .... could I just ask somebody to close that back door? ...Thank you. Appeal applicant, Eva Halla, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Sec- tion 100-244, Bulk and Parking Area, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4, building setbacks from water or wetlands, for permission to' construct a one-family dwelling. Property location: 55 Glen Court, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 083-01-01. The survey I have before me, produced by Roderick Van Tuyl (phonetic spelling) the most recent date, September ... January 4,1990. We have a very interesting application here in that the applicant is requesting a zero lot line based upon the top of the bluff to Glen Court, which is simply at this particular point a paper street and the application is a request that the deck be approximately 65 feet from the top of the bluff or what we refer to as the lip of the bluff. I have a zero lot line right adjacent tO Glen Court with a 15' setback on the west ~ide, 33' on the east side. I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding property in the area. Mr. Lark? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road Cutchogue. The first thing I'd like to hand up would be a single and separate ownership search which is 244 Section. Should you re- quire it, I hand that up as an exhibit. I thought the Chairman was going to read the application. The application is a part of the record, sworn by Mrs. Halla, on January 26, 1990. However, I would like to cover a couple of highlights for the Board since, as Mr. Goehringer said, this is a unique application. Mrs. Halla cannot be here tonight because ~ she lives in Levittown and is ill. However, her builder, Mr. Dempsey is here and he can answer any questions since the application you have before you, she was working in 32. concert with him to try to conform this house to the existing topography and surrounding neighborhood and existing houses there. There was indicated in this application or petition that Mrs. Halla, your petitioner is under contract to Mr. Dempsey. However, it was contingent upon getting the building permit. One of the key pieces to keep in mind here is that this is a lot on a single, separate ownership since February 13, 1970 when she and her husband purchased it. The map is a filed map called the Map of Birch Hill which was filed some years prior, I believe 1965. So one section of the zoning code which we'll cover in a minute, says we can go back to the '65 code. So I'll just point that out. In the interim, her husband died so she is the sole owner and she no longer has any need or intent to 'build on the property and that's the reason she's selling to Mr. Dempsey. But her original intent was to build the home. her husband passed away in '83 so she's decided to sell the lot. The lot you have on that map before you is 100' width and it runs to the, really, foot of the bluff. It has a legal depth of 205' but when looking at th~ file ma~ there's another 50 feet interior that's owned by the Beach Association. That's why you see in the north, the separate search is owned by the Associ- ation. The lot does not go to the high water mark. It goes basically, to the bottom of the bluff with a legal 205 feet from the roadway as indicated in the map. The area, since the filed map, I don't know how to define, "substantial," but the neighbors have found in that area over the years, the bluff erodes at approximately 1 foot per year, the top of it. That's approximate. If you go back to the early surveys and I know from my own experience, living in the neighborhood, that's about right on average, about 1 foot per year it is receding. So what you have here today, you have 151 feet useable property on the westerly side and 134 feet on the easterly side. The bluff runs on a bias to the front of the property on the roadway so that's why you have the difference in footage, the.zoning in effect at that time, the file map when she bought. However, that was a kind of misnomer because the zoning required 12,500 square feet. As the maps are, they're half-acres, 20,000. That's what the Health Department was requiring in those days but the front yard in those days was 35' and the rear yard 25' It had required 20,000 for the Health Department. In houses along the bluff no problem. There are those days there were other in that area and there was two houses to the east owned by Mrs. Bryant that got variances from the Board of 25 feet, some ten or fifteen years ago when the houses were constructed but they did not have the erosion problem or the shallow lot depth that this lot now suffers. Now the property as you know, is zone R-40. It becomes a non-conforming lot under the existing zoning ordinance in all respects, width, depth, front and side yard requirements, in order to con- struct any kind of home, and I stress that, any kind of home, on the property. Also another sectior under the zoning code which you're familiar with is you have to have a setback of 100 feet from the top of the bank so you don't have to go past 6th grade to realize you can't conform or build even a dog house on the property, much less anything else when you take it into the zoning. I want to digress here because when the zoning was passed, they passed Section 100-244, sub-section (a) states the policy. Sub-section (b) talks about single and separate, so this meets the requirements that it's a single and separate. The end of sub-section (b) they talk about what relief can be granted and then the zoning law goes over to section (c) which is a little bit confusing. It says that in the case of a single, separate owner- ship,non-conforming lot in that sub-division, approved after April 9, 1957, which we have here, relief of all front, side and rear yard area di- mensions shall be granted to the extent that the front, side and rear side area dimensions were re- quired at the time the map was originally filed. That is, as I indicated, 25' in the rear, 10' on the side and 35' in the front. You can construct a house with that. With that section, you will have to determine if it will give us relief from 100'. But even if you do determine it and after consultin§ with the builder and everything, we stil~ come here and apply for a variance,it is still felt that for a variance for zero front feet because, again, as you indicated, of the erosion problem on the bluff, you'd be kidding yourselves to try and force a home up toward the bluff. This was pre- sented to the Association and when it was .explained to them, they heartily endorsed it and they own the roadway. It wasa private road as well as a beach and they heartily endorsed the house be built on the road, right on the road. What it is intended to do, and have as a part of that application, is never to develop that road but rather give an easement of 25 feet ... I'm sorry, ...25 feet apiece on each of the adjoining lot owners, they're not to construct anything there but it would be-land- scaped easement because the road, as you all know, was constructed back in 1965 and has fallen into disrepair. There are trees and shrubs and Weeds and there is no road there at this time. It's very unsightly, so the Association endorsed §ranting the driveway which was what Mr. Dempsey wanted to construct on his 25 feet on the side half of it. And then on the other half would be put landscap- ing which would blend in with a hi§h ante- bellum home. This sits on a lot on the south which was originally the estate owned by Lupton (phonetic spelling.) That seems to be a reason- able solution because they did not want Mr. Demp- sey or anyone else to construct a home any closer to the bluff. Of course,, all the builders would like to put the homes on the bluff because they can sell so rapidly but it is a fact, and the circumstances of erosion and all the problems they have there, it is not a simple matter of just bulkheading the bottom. If the Board goes there to see the many thousands of dollars spent by property owners. The east, they bulkheaded the bottom, bulkheaded the middle, bulkheaded the top this winter. It still comes back a foot per year no matter what's done over there. By allowing plant vegetation to grow, it slows down the erosion problem with the exception of course, of a hurricane or excessive rain. Then it all goes to a mud slide and that's where we get the average of a foot per year. So, by putting it up by a roadway, al- though it requires zero variance, it does make sense in this situation. The Association and neighbors all endorse it because they think that it's a reasonable way of solving the problem. It does give a 65 foot setback from the bluff, not 100 foot but again, rather than try to enforce a section of the code which allows 25 foot rear yard which we could have obtained at the time, it seems a lot of sense to do it this way. I won't comment on the house. If you have any questions, you can ask Mr. Dempsey. He's here. I won't take up much more of your time. It is a Catch 22 situation but with this type of home that he's constructing with a deck and the rear end and rear yard of the property which would still be 65 foot, the north end of this, from the bluff which I have submitted to the Health Department and they have approved. I think you have a letter in the file indicating installation where the septic tank and cesspool and water would be. That has been approved. THE CHAIRMAN: You concur, the zoning existed in 1970 and basically is the same zoning that you would have today in reference to the setback concerning the area of Section 244? 39. (_ MR. LARK: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: These were what, again? MR. LARK: As I indicated, we had not changed the code till '71 or '72 and the map was filed in '65 and you. had a 35 feet yard front and a 25 feet rear yard ... THE CHAIRMAN: Is the map on the excepted list? MR. LARK: It is not the excepted map. It is a file map that meets the requirements of 244. THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I ask that question is because I have trouble understand- ing it in total, a law, you can superimplant prior side yard and rear yard and front yard up to the present day standards. We still have, under those sections, relief from un- divided lots so therefore, with this type of problem, how you can superimplant old zoning on top of the present zoning. MR. LARK: That's why I pointed out the section. I'm not sure that 244 Section (c) supercedes what I read in b) Section. I'm really not sure on it but it all became academic after talking to the Property Owners' Association and realizing the erosion problems and the type of homes constructed there in rel&tionship to the neighborhood. So he woul~ not put 850 square foot house but he does pro- pose to put up there, as you have in the appli- cation a house that has got 2252 souare foot,-front of 1768. He's also confonted with 1600 square foot covenant restriction problem. We have a lot of problems to overcome and so it was decided to go in for zero front yard area, then if the Board felt that 244 section didn't, apply to 239 section, then to ask for a variance of 100 foot. So we're moving back from 100 foot end up as to 65 feet. THE CHAIRMAN: The only other thing ! wanted to mention was the issue of 1600 square feet. Are there any other houses in the sub- division that are less than 1600 square feet? MR. LARK: No. THE CHAIRMAN: So the Association amends the 1600 square feet stay? MR. LARK: Yes, they're all larger, as a matter of fact. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail right, I guess we'll talk to Mr. Dempsey. MR. DEMPSEY: John Dempsey. The only question is, of course, which has been pretty much answered is, why a particular configuration of a house is, after reviewing the property with Dick, is there a limitation, the configuration? In other words, why, having that piece come out toward the road which I don't know what figure you're referring to or letter. It's really a reverse "L",... the lower ~ortion ~f-the "L" is a garage area, I'm not set on this particular house. I have flexability. I just have a house and I figure I would settle in this community and on this piece of property. THE CHAIRMAN: So, in other words, the garage could be ... (inaudible)'.... would-be decreased on the east side? MR. DEMPSEY: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. LARK: We do have a part of the appli- cation. He has a building plan layout and proposed elevation and he wanted a house with a garage because it fits in with the neighborhood. He felt that by puttin§ it on the roadway, that way he could landscape what is now a paper street to give access. There was a resolution rather than go to a separate, detached garage, drive straight in, then that requires a further variance and more construction on the property. THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason I wanted to mention that Mr. Lark, is we're talking specifically about easement, not abandonment of road. It is strictly an easement there. I know the road, most construc- tion there is a driveway and then it's landscaped. To my knowledge, these are private roads. They're owned by associations. If the Domlaski (phonetic) farm was developed, there was no ingress going to this particular area. MR. LARK: That's correct. To show how adamant they are, the speculators named, bought to cut out four lots, legal as sections, down Oregon Road through the farm lots. They approached the Association and practically offered lifetime paving and all kinds o~ money and everything else but when the Association looked at it, they were adamant, not to allow anybody else in and out of there. As a practical matter when you look at Diminski's (phonetic) piece, on the excavation .,. that's why Mr. Dempsey pushed the house as far to the west as he could because it's a tremendous ride straight up there which, you have a lot of excavation. How do you handle that? The original subdivision was 65 and it was probably not proper that they allow these properties in Greenport. The only other thing is what about the disturbance of land in the front and the rear of the house which would be between the deck and the top of the bluff? MR. LARK: He built the house on the bluff. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you understand the ques- tion? Are you clipping the bluff in any way? Well, are you proposing to clip the bluff? MR.DEMPSEY: I'm sure you would like me to say "No." Obviously, I would like to obtain as nice a view as I could for the homeowner on the type of growth that is in there. Now there are not any substantial trees. Most of them are locust and wild cherry and poison ivy. THE CHAIRMAN: You have to say poison ivy? I had poison ivy already this year. MR. DEMPSEY: There's black cherry, some locust trees. Until 1970 that was cleared. That had been cleared by the original developer in 1964 and '65 when he did the subdivision. He cleared that. Believe it or not, that was used by a skeet range. That lot was cleared, so the trees that you have there really have grown since about 1973 give or take a year and not very big. THE CHAIRMAN: We're definitely going to have to investigate that a little more. The only other investigation I'm going to request, I will attack that from the water side which I have not done till this point. We'll ask Sloane Water Conservation to go down and evaluate the bluff and we'll do that within the next two weeks. The reason we have not gone down is that the property line does not extend to the high water mark but in this, particular case, I mentioned this is a unique application so we make application tomorrow to Sloane Water to let them go down and evaluate the bluff. MR. LARK: I suggest to the Board that we recess till the next regularly scheduled meeting and wrap it up till that point. THE CHAIRMAN: During that time, a couple of us, well we'll all §o down and attack it. I'm going to do it from the water side. My only concern is the top of the foundation may possibly give us an elevation factor from either the front corner of the house ... but where at the top of the foundation we would approximately be where we could get an idea exactly where we're going. MR. LARK: You mean the road side, the actual house, not the garage? THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we're talking right here (indicating) this point right here, the top of the foundation. Okay, three feet'above g~ade right now. MR. LARK: Okay, to gain flexibility there, to raise it or lower it? THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that we've had this application for a little while and it is necessary' that we deal with it on this particular basis. MR. LARK: When they build on the water, they like to get a foundation high, out of the ground because of the view. They push you. I also questioned it. That's the answer they gave me. -~/- 46. So what they said, three feet, I'm sure that's what they have in mind to get it up as high as they can. THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a normal height for a foundation, five foot in and three foot out. Do you have a pretty even grade at that particular point? MR. DEMPSEY: Yes it is...only when you get closest to the water. When you go west by Diminski,it goes right up. You have to look this time of year. You can see clear. In the summer time it's covered and you can't see as you can THE CHAIRMAN: I have not been down. there I'll go back and attack it from the water since, side. MR, LARK: When you get to the bluff, it is ... it seems to go level but when you come back toward the mansion the hill starts to... I~ think '~he original subdivider actually cut a ro~d in,.. ,it has compounded. That's a hell of a problem they're living witlh. 'Th~s erosion has to stop, this erosion ............ so that's why he was tucking the house as far west as he could get. -..~ - 47. He originally wanted to put it on the east. Then when he realized he was nestling in it, so to speak ... THE CHAIRMAN: much. Very good. Thank you very Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (No response) Is there anybody who would like to speak against this application? (No response) Are there any questions from the Board Members? (Collective response: No) THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions I make a motion to recess this hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting and we'll do a further investigation and refer the matter to Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation. MR. DINIZIO: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye 48. THE CHAIRMAN: Appeal Number 3922. Upon Application of Robert and Theresa Turner. Legal Notice reads as follows: the Applicants, Robert and Theresa Turner, Appeal application number 3922, Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30 A.4, Bulk and Parking Area, for permission to construct an attached swimming pool to house. Property location: 1525 Albo Drive, Laurel. County Tax Map Number 1000,-126-03-17. I have a copy of the survey dated January 24, 1989 indicating from Roderick Van Tuyl,p.c. an above ground swimming pool. Proposed depth area approximately 7 plus or minus feet from the west property line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map. Would you like to be heard, Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER: Robert Turner, 1525 Albo Drive, Laurel. The existing pool as it is now, if I were to move it, would block the entrance to the basement door so that's the reason for the variance. THE CHAIRMAN: You're proposing to deck around that stairway? MR. TURNER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: It is in existence, an in-ground pool? MR. TURNER: Yes. That's not necessarily the application. THE CHAIRMAN: You can do that ... only this matter, 7½ feet of this ... I'm sorry 7 feet is toward a particular property line, Is that correct? MR. TURNER: It is more like 3½. The pool is 3½ into the side yard but it is 7 feet from the property line. There's not going to be any change. The pool stays right where it is. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you putting a deck around this side of the pool? MR. TURNER: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, the deck will only be as you're showing here, toward the eas~ side of the property or more directly in the center of the house? MR. TURNER: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: So that part of the pool would be exposed as it presently is? changes, any additions? MR. TURNER: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, no railroad ties or anything of that nature changing it? MR. TURNER: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank.you very much. Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (no response) THE CHAIRMAN: to apeak against this THE CHAIRMAN: Will there be any more Members. a motion to till later. MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone who would like application? (no response) Any questions from the Board (Collective response: No.) Hearing no further questions, I'll make close the hearing and reserve decision Second. All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming in. I hope to have a decision for you shortly. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is on behalf of Elsie Parkin, Number 3925. The legal notice reads as follows: Appeal Number 3925, Elsie Parkin.l Variance to the Zoning Ordinance,Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Bulk and Parking Regulations Property location: County Tax Map Number in this Division of land. 7575 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, 1000-104-04-27. I have a copy of the map dated Janua~24, 1990, Roderick Van Tuyl, p.c. Lot Number 1 being 37,500 square feet with road frontage approximately 125 feet; lot number 2 which is a lot that includes 27,'400 sq.feet which is approximately 128 feet road frontage, Skunk Lane and Bay Avenue. This is the Suffolk County Tax Map of this and the surrounding area. Is there anybody that would like to be heard on behalf of this application? KAREN HAGEN: Karen Hagen, Wickham, Wickham and Bressler. can't be here. What I'd like (Phonetic) Applicant regrets she She has a work-related meeting. to say about the application, we have been in a similar situation in the past where two houses on one lot, the practical difficulty being that it is difficult and burdensome two houses on one lot, in terms of selling, renting and keeping up the property. And I'd like to stress that the size of the lot in comparison to the surrounding lot on the same zoning is large to subdivide property and would enable the neighbor- hood to have a lot of similar size to surrounding lots and would also be easier for property ©wners to keep up their P.C.O.'s. I submit for the applicant, there has been an access for more than thirty-three years, both dwellings occupied since prior to the zoning code. This is the former Petruchi (phonetic) houses and I assume there was an active C.O. on both these houses. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes has Mrs. Parkin owned the MS. HAGEN: parce~ since 1971. there are. property? Since 1971. She How long owned both She and her husband obtained both parcels in 1971. It was deeded to her alone, in 1976. THE CHAIRMAN: These houses are rented? Or does she live in one of them? MS. HAGEN: She lives in the smaller one and rents out the larger one. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Hagen. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application? (No response) Is there anyone who would like to speak against the application? (No response) Would any of the Board Members like to ask any questions? (Collective response: No) Seeing no hands, and no questions from the Board Members, I make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision until later. MR. DINIZIO: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: that I recessed, Aye We have one more hearing a hearing from a prior meeting. I'd like to run out for a second and grab a little more water. We'll recess. So move. Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye MR. DOYEN: Aye MR. SAWICKI: Aye MR. DINIZIO: Aye (Recess of the Agenda for April 19, 1990) (Last hearing on April 19, 1990 Agenda, Robert Ochenreiter and Edward Lenceski, Number 3908 - See separate transcript, same date.) CERTIFICATION I, Myrtle Kiefer, do hereby certify that I am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript according to my official stenographic notes. Date Grand Jury Reporter SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : HEARING, In the Matter of : ROBERT OCHENREITER : and EDWARD LENCESKI, : : Applicants : 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 April 19, 1990 BEFORE: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, Chairman. BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, SERGE DOYEn, JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. JR. ALSO PRESENT: DOREEN FERWERDA (HEARING RE-CONVENED) THE CHAIRMAN: The final appeal of the evening, recessed from last meeting on behalf of Robert Ochsenreter and Edward Lenceski, Number 2908. It's probably the first time I've pronounced it correctly. This particular recess was requested for Mr. Moore. So I'd ask, Mr. Moore, if you'd like to proceed. MR.MOORE: Good evening, William Moore, Suite 3, Clause Commons, Main Road, Mattituck. I apologize. There's been a lot of work that was going on. When we were done, when we ended, there was a request by the Zoning Board of Mr. Lessard tha~ he provide it specific vacant land C.O.'s list on the tax property part. So if I may just simply request those pieces of information which are in your file already, become an official part of the record. I have nothing more to add. That was work I was going to get together and submit. I'm glad Mr. Lessard has already done that and got it in to you. Do we have a clean copy of this to put in the file? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have it. Thank you. For the record, I have sent Mr. Lessard a memo requesting him to come tonight, to just continue one other discourse that we were dis- cussing and he did come and we appreciate that. Could I ask you to use the microphone, Mr. Lessard? We were discussing lots built on single, separate ownership as opposed to lots bought on merged parcels of vacant land C.O.'s at the last meeting. It is my understanding that, at that time I was talking to you, cussing the single and separate used the'word, by name, "Bogus," that we were dis- searches. You referring to single, separate searches that you received in the past. Is that correct? MR. LESSARD: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Concerning lots, I assume that you had ~equested single and separate searches on, is that correct? MR.LESSARD: Yes, title searches. The only difference between a regular search and a single, separate search they're really searching the property around to make sure that it was not part of any other parcel. That's my understanding of it. THE CHAIRMAN: My question to you, was there single and separate searches of this particular parcel and did you receive them, to your knowledge? MR. LESSARD: Not that I'm aware of. The only thing I could say to this is, there was a title guarantor at the closing and there was a lawyer for the seller and a purser for the bank and I'm sure they all did their homework. Of course, there's nothing guaranteed in that either because no one ever questions the title search for single and separate because it was the exemp- ted list. That's what this is all about. It was 1966...you have a copy. It was '66 or '67, what- ever it was. I have it here. I have one dated here May 24, '66. That's the one I gave you. I don't know if I received it from you or the Town Clerk from me. That was from me, you requested it last time. I thought I had given one to Jim. Apparently I didn't. THE CHAIRMAN: There's one other question which escapes me at this particular time. Do you have any questions? MR. DINIZIO: Just the property tax record. I looked through all of them and the only one I could.find that really actually divides the lot to build a house, it seems, correct me if I'm wrong that most of those contain, if there was something with a lot line, it was just the neighbors got together and divided up a lot that was between them to expand the lot. MR. LESSARD: Yes, it is horrendous. Under that subdivision they got away with murder in that one. MR. DINIZIO: But there's no other instance where the lot was actually taken off another piece of property was separate and a house built on it~ I don't believe, if you researched under ... MR. LESSARD: Well first off, it is hard to trace back through the present. Assessor's - cards but Walter, there's a good chunk of this subdivision, but to get it up to my generation, if you would, the Kray's (phonetically spelled) divided up the property and sold it to the Olivers, the Komisky's (phonetically spelled) and they were in the same subdivision but away from the problem. So I didn't go too much into it. I know there was lots bought and sold. Komisky's, then Fred Kray had three or four of them. Frank Oliver had at least three and the thing that amazes me in this whole thing, in researching this, you have to keep in mind what we're after here. You see, we're going out and creating another can of worms. It's not going to answer it. So I did it but I didn't do it. I didn't put that much time into it. What I did find out is the subdivision is filed with the County in 1927 and the Town went into zoning in 1957 and from that I could tell the first piece of property to go single and separate. Again, you have not got that much research. Now Zahra here, the subdivision, I'm not picking On Zahra or anybody else. I don't want to start with that nonsense. Here with that subdivi- sion, that was excepted by the County and went into zoning before we ever put the exception list. The first thing that happened, instead of buying lots according to the subdivision that's hacked out between two lots and as you go down through the process, the immediate neighborhood, because they didn't want to go 86 lots. It's a hell of a lot of lots. We started the other side, Ocean Ryder, I hope I said that right, that property originally belonged to Rodney Cox who died in '66 and his widow go~ married again and Ocean Ryder bought two lots vacant, one the house was on it, in 1972 or whatever it was. So there was no problem there but then you see another notation where in '73, I think May of '73, apparently George Taylor here I'm guessing, he could probably tell you better plus offer some kind of situation where he bought maybe, three-quarters of the next lot to him. Okay, no lot line changes, no nothin§, just by deed apparently filed with the County. Then you have two lots after that, that involve the Lenceski's. They come along in 1985. They want a house. Fine. They buy two lots but in buy- in§ two lots here, I could never understand all this~time, nobody stays in the subdivision. They bought two lots like everybody else but then bought thirteen feet on the east and ten feet lot on the west. Now you can't blame these people. They bought what was offered to them. And then we go down to Clancy which is next door. Stacy, I think the guy's name is, he buys this lot and he gets in a push and shove with Mrs. Zahra where he sells that, dumps it to Gastar (phonetically spelled) who builds a house on it and sells it to Clancy. I would never be the one to go out and tell you where all these lines are but this was a continuous prac- tice right along. I did what you said. I got hold of John Wickham. I don't know what the hell is going on, what you people were doing back in the 60's and 70's and I said, "How do you handle the subdivision?" and he said,~ "Whatever it called for at ~at period of time. If a person hacked off a piece and filed it and the County didn't object, it was fine with them." And I said, "You've got to be kidding me?" and he said, "Hell, no. How do you think Schoolhouse Road was developed? They just hacked off every time they needed another lot." So, you know, you people are faced here with a problem procedure. How are we going to stop if or should we stop it or should we recreate a whole bag of worms. I would not want to be in your shoes. I can tell you that right now. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. LESSARD: MR. DINIZIO: Are you all done? I'm not finished. I still think maybe I'm missing something but I'm searching but still didn't find anything. THE CHAIRMAN: I have not found anything in these records that would go to the extreme of splitting~,a lot and putting another house on it and actually issuing a C.O. for that. These don't say that they list a lot and put a house on it, that that actually really happened here. What I was basically looking for, I think you said that it is common-practice to go to those excepted lists and do that. What I'm basically looking for in this done? MR. LESSARD: development is where was it I didn't have time to re- search all those vacant land lists. I gave, I don't know how many houses were on them but they were contiguous lots. THE CHAIRMAN: Were houses on them or not? MR. LESSARD: I don't know as far as this particular ... I don't think the Board should be separating one against the thirteen. This particu- lar subdivision for whatever you are looking, you should look under Kominsky or to Lesko (phonetic- ally spelled.) I think another lot went to Acardi (phonetic) or something like that. That's just one example again. Frank Oliver, too, he hacked off pieces for his daughter, Pamela and then another lot to somebody else and I think the fourth lot went to the fellow that fixes washing machines. I don't know his name, Raynor? THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. LESSARD: You may have a problem. I didn't want to create a whole damn cloud here. I was trying to keep it so we would not lose sight of the fact what we were here for in the first place. Anything else I can help you with or I didn't answer? MR. DINIZIO: I'm still somewhat confused. I took to those basically~ as being a layman. I would probably say I don't understand fully, as most people do, but it just came to me, if I black out the names,okay, what would pop up to me is that these two here would still have been unusual compared to the rest of them. What I was basically looking for, if situation to this amongst area ... there is an identical the houses in the general MR. LESSARD: (interjecting) You're asking for a long shot, Jim. I think what we're looking at here, I talked to Mr. Wickham, I hate to keep using his name. I talked to him. I said to him, "John, you're talking of putting subdivisions, the exception list, how do you take them off? Does the Town Board pass some legislative action, resolution, to remove these and another one to put new ones when they're developed? We just took them off, they were just taking up space?" You have to put yourself back in the late 60's and early 70's and you've got a whole different ballgame than what you're looking at today. You people have to make a decision because they were doing this and that was the past prac%ice... How the hell do you legally stop this stuff? Who's going to be penalized because you say, "Stop," and then the next day somebody steps into something. That's not my problem. That's yours. I'm glad I'm not sitting up MR. DINIZIO: MR. LESSARD: MR. DINIZIO: thing confuses me. there. That's what I'm searching for. I've probably confused you. Well certainly the whole I still would like, if you could show me, a situation similar to this one. MR. LESARD: I'll try, Jim. I was away and things have been crazy. I'll try. That's the best I can tell you. MR. DINIZIO: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The only other thing I have ... I remember the question, I don't remember if it was before this particular hearing actually commenced but when the application was filed with us or during the time between the two hearings, certainly, it was not between those two hearings, but back before this, I went to your department and requested an application for vacant land C.O.s. Now it is my understandin§ presently, that the Building Department land C.O.s. MR. LESSARD: is not granting any more vacant (Interjecting) The resolution passed. Nobody is getting any of them any more. MR. DINIZIO: I went to the Legislative Hearing last week and we were told at that time, it did pass as you concurred. MR. LESSARD: When I received the applica- tion it clearly stated that it requests a single and separate search. THE CHAIRMAN: For the applicant to go before your department, okay ... with the request to see if this particular lot did stand and was not merged with any other parcel. Now my only problem with that, I really don't understand why we didn't get a single and separate search on this one. You're clearly stating you thought there may have been one, you were not really sure at that time. Are there any single and separate searches that you have received that you immediately threw out because they were, using your phrase, "bogus?" Or anything you showed to us to indicate that they did not specifically ... they were not germaine to the issue? MR. LESSARD: When you say, "bogus" title search, the way that was done, part of the time they would give the history of the property back to before zoning. Then you would get a report. The second page of the lot to one side, the third page, the lot to the other side, okay. Then you would get a report the bottom title search indicated there was no 'contiguous property. Now the thing that makes that "bogus" is that that is not so because if you can, in relation to the second and third page, in front of That's what put a time frame of all three pages you, you can see that it's contiguous. I mean by "bogus" title search. To 14. answer your question about the title search on vacant land, I talked to Matt and I talked to Robbie. Before Matt I talked to Jay Schondebare (phonetically spelled) and I said to him, "How am I supposed to handle the subdivisio~ that were stamped and approved by the Planning Board. They never merged." And he said, "Well do they merge or don't they merge?" Okay, I said, "Well, you know as well as I do that people come out and buy lots if they stand a chance, and grab one on either side for their kids. They do that. How do you want to handle that?" He said, "Okay fine, forget the title search"he said, "for all improved sub- divisions that are approved by the Planning Board, all those on the excepted list." With that, what I had in mind, anytime one of those came up, I would not get a title search for it. I would make sure that we had a signed subdivision and I have a copy of every subdivision that ever happened. THE CHAIRMAN: Planning Board? MR. LESSARD: Yes. fiddler's hoot if I try to Planning Board. You mean signed by the It is not worth a collect by the County That's bogus. THE CHAIRMAN: Clerk's Office? MR. LESSARD: Filed with the County Yes. We don't know if it was ever filed...I won't discuss it. The hell with it. It has nothing to do with this. THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have any other questions, Jim? MR. DINIZIO: No. THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to say anything? Mr. Moore, do you have anything further? MR. MOORE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else in the com- munity? Any other applicants? MR. LENCESKI: We just have two additional exhibits that we'd like to add. We have one for Mr. Moore to examine and one for the Board. Basic- ally, it's a chronological summary of the dates I have that I was here at the first two hearings. There were objections made by the Counsel involved in the Inland Homes. Both questioned our timeli- ness in filing the petition, also our jurisdiction- al choice of who we filed to and this more or less answers the questions. It shows we did not file untimely and we applied to the proper jurisdiction as directed by Mr. Schondebare, (phonetic) Town Attorney at that time. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further ques- tions o~ comments ... Mr. Zahra, you have some- thing to say? MR. ZAHRA: The name, Zahra, was mentioned tonight~ It appears that Mr. Lessard may have thought, I'm speculating, that this person was related to me and that's why he came in defense of using it. I want to clear it for the record that it just became known to me that that lady lives on that street, this past week. I believe her name is Sara Zahra and there's no relation whatever. I don't know if I'm standing up here in her defense or mine. MR. LESSARD: we had. THE CHAIRMAN: That was not the point that We thank the audience, appli- cants and attorneys and Mr. Lessard for coming in and for everyone's courtesy. I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: Second. Ail in favor. Aye. MR~ DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (Completion of Agenda Regular Meeting by the Appeals Board Members, Thursday, April 19,1990.) I, Myrtle Kiefer, Official Court Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcript of the meeting held on April 19, 1990, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold, New York. Date Court Reporter