Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/27/1990 HEARING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : HEARING, : Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 June 27, 1990 7:35 P.M. BEFORE: GERARD P. GOE~RINGER, Chairman BOARD MEMBERS: CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN~ JR. JOSEPH H. SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO, JR. ALSO PRESENT: DOREEN FERWERDA, Secretary GAIL ~C~PEN Official Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 34 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Welcome everybody here. This is the regular monthly meeting of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. The first hearing on the agenda for the evening is in behalf of Frances Frisbie, Appeal Number 3949. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon application of the Applicant 3949, Frances Frisbie, variance to the Zoning Ordinance~ Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), as disapproved, for permission to construct an accessory building in the front yard area. Accessory buildings may only be located in the required rear yard. Property Location: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 118, Block 5, Lot 2.1." I have a copy of a survey indicating a parcel approximately 2.25 acres, with a large home that is on the water. The nature of this application is a proposed shed which is presently under construction, which lies landward and almost directly in the center of the lot -- contiguous to the tennis court. I have a copy o~ the ~u~ol~ ~oun~y Wax ~ap indicating this and surrounding properties in 1 the area. 3 Would somebody like to be heard? 4 MR. OLSEN: Gary Olsen. I am an attorney, 5 having my office on Main Road, Cutchogue. I 6 7 8 9 10 represent the Applicant herein. I don't really have too much to add, other than what I said in the application. I think you did ~- if you drive down Nassau Point Road you will see that a majority of the waterfront parcels have 11 a similar situation, in that the front yard is 12 13 14 basically the area between the house -- this is considered between the house and the water -- and the rear yard for all practical purposes 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 becomes the area between the house and the roadway. As you drive down Nassau Point Road you see many houses have accessory buildings between the house and the road than those that don't. This particular parcel, you can drive it and not even know it is wooded. There is a tennis by there. It is very court now located 23 25 between the house, with the Town's approval, between the house and the roadway and the shed, the proposed shed, would be located on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~4 25 4 westerly end of the tennis court. It would not be visible really from any adjoining parcel nor from the roadway, and I respectfully submit it would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. In fact, it probably would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood if the variance was granted than if it was not. There is a practical difficulty to put this shed, which would be used for storing tennis court facilities and lawn equipment and so on, to put it in the rear yard which would be the water side property. It creates a real practical difficulty for this particular appli- cation. This property has been developed some time ago, after the house was already there and it would ruin the view to have the shed between the house and the water. As I say, to put it in this proposed location, no one's going to even know it is there, and it is not going to change the character of the neighbor- hood. In addition to what I submitted to the 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 5 Board, I do have a letter from Mr. Sanford Hanauer indicating he has no objection to the application. I submit that as an exhibit. I also have received a letter, dated June 22nd, 1990, from the Southold Town Trustees, indicating that this application is not within their jurisdiction. So I submit that to you, also. I also have a survey, which is a little different than the one I submitted in the application, from VanTyle, which has elevations put on it indicating that the proposed location of this shed is towards the road side of a 15- foot elevation and accordingly there would b~ no Department of Environmental Conservation jurisdiction. So I also submit that to you, and I submit it. I will submit a letter from -- well, it is really a flier, from the Department of Environmental Conservation indicating that their jurisdiction does not extend for any structures built beyond a 10-foot contour. THE CHAIRMAN: The size of the shed is 10 by 12, and it is approximately four feet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 6 from the property line. Is that correct? MR. FRISBIE: That's right. MR. OLSEN: Will there be any utilities in the shed, such as electricity and water? MR. FRISBIE: THE CHAIRMAN: one story, no higher. MR. FRISBIE: No. The shed is going to be Not to exceed how high? Six feet in height. MR. OLSEN: For the record, let the record show that Mr. Richard Frisbie is present answering the questions. THE CHAIRMAN: When you say six feet, Mr. Frisbie, it is the lowest point assuming the peak of the roof would be eight feet. MR. FRISBIE: You're right. Six is the lowest of the roof. limit. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. FRISBIE: So we would set a Nine feet. Nine feet would be plenty. That would give plenty of room. MR. OLSEN: For the record, I would also like to indicate the Frisbies also own the adjoining property to t~e south. THE CHAIRMAN: They do? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 MR. FRISBIE: Yes. These two parcels have been divided with the Planning Board's approval. THE CHAIRMAN: So where is Mr. ~anauer living? MR. FRISBiE: He is on the other side. MR. OLSEN: The north side. THE CHAIrmAN: Very good. We thank you very much, Mr. Olsen. MR. OLSEN: Thank you. THE CHAI~4AN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Do you have any problem with it? MR. SAWICKI: No. THE CHAI~V~N: I make a motion to grant this as applied for with the following: To grant this as applied for with the restriction purposes and that feet in height. MR. that it only be used for storage the building not exceed nine FRISBIE: Thank you. That's great. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ;~4 25 THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal Enterprises, Inc. The follows: - You're very welcome. is in behalf of MGH legal notice reads as "Upon application of Applicant 3948, MGH Enterprises, Inc.-Orient By The Sea. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-31 C.9 (e), as disapproved, for permission to construct an off-premises sign. Property Location: County Tax Map No. Lot 01." 66040 North Road, Greenport, 1000, Section 40, Block 04, The location of the sign is the Geier property. of the property except it is to the side, the east side of the Geier property. There is a parcel approximately 10.4 acres. The original sign was a four by six. The application has requested that the sign be approximately 72 square feet. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. MR. HASSE: Bob Haase. The sign was supposed to be 32 square feet. I do not have the approximate locatien 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .,34 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Instead of 72. know why I couldn't read that. Do you want to continue? I don't Do you have anything you would like to say for the record? MR. HAASE: I guess it just speaks for itself. THE CHAIRMAN: What location are we talking about -- on County Road 48, in reference to the depth of the placement? You have some large trees there. MR. HAASE: Quite honestly, I don't know. The sign man has been doing all the leg work and I thought it was all on the -- THE CHAIRMAN: I don't see that here, but you could get back to us on that aspect. Okay? What is the reason for the increase in the size of the sign? MR. HAASE: Well, we have two businesses going on the same sign and we felt that the sign wouldn't be big enough to stand out and people wouldn't be able to see it. It would be too small. THE CHAirMAN: ~re you the owner of the restaurant? 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22. 23 25 10 ~ MR. HAASE: My family, my father is. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ketcham called me at home regarding this, at the time, and he did mention to me that his property was business. This property was business property. It was business property at one time. It is now a hamlet density property, which is not business property. I will admit to you we did grant a sign in a similar location, in the immediate area which also lost its business value or evaluation in reference to zoning, and~_ we did that because there was a sign there prior to this. We are going to have to take a long hard look at this one and see what we can do, but would you have Mr. Ketcham call our office and indicate ~o us what the Exact location of the sign will be on the Geier property and I assume you have permission f~om the Geiers to put MR. HAASE: THE CHAIRM~AN: be lighted. MR. HAASE: THE CHAIPJ~AN: the sign up? Yes. And the sign will not Yes. It will just be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ,24 25 11 a double-faced sign. MR. HAASE: Single faced one way. THE CHAIRMAN: Going east only. MR. HAASE: Yes, right. THE CHAIRMAN: And the elevation above the ground is another thing I want to know also. I think the Code reads four feet. That's basically it. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody that would like to speak against the application? Any question from Board members? MR. DINIZIO, JR.: I have a comment. I guess it really wouldn't be fair to let you go without letting you know. I really have no problem with the sign. I have a problem with the contents of the sign and that it may be miles away from the location that it is telling the people to go to. I just wanted you to know I had that particular problem. I don't know if it is grounds enough not to grant it. ~o we will have to look into it. ~ ~ust an wanted you to know that was my way of thinking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 I don't think it would be fair comment basically. Thank you. have. THE CHAIRMAN: 12 to you not to That is all I Hearing no further questions, and reserving decision until MR. SAWICKI: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: I make a motion closing the hearing later. Ail in favor? Aye. MR. DOYEN: MR. MR. THE Appeal Number 3947. Aye. SAWICKi: Aye. DINIZIO: Aye. CHAIrmAN: The next appeal is The appeal ia in b~half of James Mark. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon Applicant No. 3947, James Mark. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one-family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient front yard setback. Property Location: 450 Parsons Boulevard, East Marion, County Tax Map NO. 1000, Section 37, Block 1, Lot 18." I have a copy of the site plan done by Warren Sambach, Consulting Engineer, recent date is -- looks like 5/11/90, indicating the additions which I will question Mr. Sambach about in a second, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. 10 Would you like to be heard, sir? 11 MR. SA~V~BACH: Yes. Warren Sambach, 12 13 14 representing Mr. and Mrs. James Mark. Under the original Zoning Code Residence A, the front yard setback of 25 feet would be 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,4 25 required. setback and only five feet can be added to existing residence. The proposed extension to the front of the existing residence will have a 37-foot setback, which would be more than the required under the old Code. The unique setting of the original residence due to the elevation of the property and the existing landscaping will not interfere with the proposed front yard, the proposed front extension will not change The new Code R-40 requires a 50-foot the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~4 25 14 the character of the neighborhood. There are other residences in the neighborhood with less front yard setbacks than the property in question, and they have not changed the character of the neighborhood. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. James Mark I respectfully ask consideration be given to allow the proposed extension encroachment on the front yard setback. THE CHAI~;~N: On the proposed con- struction, which protrudes 16 feet four inches into the front yard area, is that a two-story addition? MR. S~BACH: That will be a garage underneath and the porch there now will be extended out. You want to call it a two-story extension, it could be. THE CHAIRMAN: So, in,other words, what it is is just pushing that screened-in porch out above the garage and utilizing the present screened-in porch for year-round living pur- poses. MR. SAMBACH: Right. THE CHAIrmAN: Very good. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 MR. S~V~BACH: existing kitchen to existing porch to the kitchen, and then in 15 We want to have the the dining room, the front of the kitchen will be the screened-in porch over the garage. THE CHAI~4AN: What is the timeliness on this? When do you want to do it? MR. S~BACH: ASAP. THE CHAIrmAN: We thank you very much. We hope to have a decision for you in two weeks. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody that would like to speak against? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. SAWICKI: Second. MR. S~4BACH: Thank you. THE CHAIRF~N: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: behalf of Matthew Kar. 16 The next appeal is in This is Appeal Number 3946. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon Application No. 3946, on behalf of Matthew Kar. Variance to the ~oning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 B, as disapproved, for permission to construct an addition to a one-family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient rear yard setback. Property Location: 155 (Pvt. Road #6) Birch Drive S, Laurel, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 128, Block 4, Lot 4." I have a copy of a survey, dated June 28, 1988, indicating a one-story frame dwelling wi~h screened porch located approximately in the center of the property, skewed a little. I have a copy of a Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. the parcels to be This is a unique situation because in the area are extremely small. Is there somebody here that would like heard in behalf of Mr. Kar? MR~ KAR: Gale Kar. I am Matthew's wife. 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 17 We bought the property a couple of years ago, and it was basically a summer bungalow. We spent six months renovating it, winterizing it. It has got a little more than feet for the addition. We have had a plan drawn, plan. The plans were approved. 900 square submitted the The foundation was put in. The foundation inspection was performed without any problem. The next inspection was a tarring inspection around the cinder blocks. At that point the inspector stopped the work, saying we did not have a sufficient rear setback. THE CHAIrmAN: Rear yard setback? MRS. KAR: I guess there was a discrepancy as to where the front of the house was, because it is a unique neighborhood. We do have a water view, and most of the houses -- we consider that the front of our house. If that was the case, then apparently we would have made all the setback requirements. So the work has been stopped and I have some pictures here. There are 10 homes in the community going from Peconic Bay Boulevard to the water. We are 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 18 -' kind of in the middle. Even with the addition, we have got more space in between our house to the other pro- perty lines than any of the other houses. It is just the way it works out. The houses have been there a long time. Some people are within one foot of the property line rear yard. I guess another point is that our rear yard is next to an open lot. The person that is behind us also owns the property behind us. So she owns all the property going from the boulevard to the bay. So our rear yard really is in the place where there are no homes there. I have a letter from both of our neighbors, saying that they really want us to continue. They want us there. We are the only year-round residents in the community and that, I guess, is all I c~n say. THE CHAIrmAN: Please don't let me close the hearing without asking you the approximate size of the addition. MRS. KAR: Well, it is -- MR. KAR: 16 by 20. MRS. KAR: 16 is going out towards the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 L~4 25 rear yard. THE CHAIrmAN: And 20 is? MRS. KAR: Because the house on an angle, we are closer on one THE CHAI~N: And that is boulevard, that addition? MRS. KAR: No. No, it is not. addition is east, heading east. would be the side yard. is situated side. towards the That The boulevard THE CHAIRMAN: Come up here and look at this. MRS. KAR: Sure. This is the corner. THE CHAI~4AN: straight line. MRS. KAR: THE CHAI~V~N: feet. This is the problem. It is drawn in as a That is correct. It is 16.0 feet by 20 MRS. KAR: No. I have here -- I have the plan. THE CHAI~4AN: I cannot here. I think it is more than -- read it off of MRS. KAR: We've got 12 plus 10 plus 15. THE CHAI~4AN: This is the whole addition. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4. _ 25 Here is the existing house. 20 is the addition I I can't gather it from MRS. KAR: No. (indicating). This am sorry. THE CHAI~V~N: that. MRS. KAR: This is the existing house. MR. KAR: No. It is not. This is the addition right here, 16 feet by whatever it is. MRS. KAR: It is 37 feet by 16. T~E CHAI~4AN: So it goes across the entire rear of the house. MR. KAR: No. THE CHAIrmAN: This is the problem. I show 34 in reference to this, and I was over there at 7:30 in the morning and I was not going to come to your house at 7:30 in the morning. I am showing the existing house as 34. MRS. KAR: No. You know why that is -- that 34 plus 12. This screened-in porch is no longer there. That was the first renovation. THE CHAIRMAN: So the addition is 16 MRS. KAR: No. The addition is 37 and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 34 25 there 21 the house was 46. So it is 37. THE CHAIP~AN: So 37 -- the showing of 37 feet is correct. MRS. KAR: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: is to us. MRS. KAR: You see how important that It is 22 without the porch. THE CHAI~%~AN: We did run into problems doing a deck at the last meeting in the same situation. So that is the reason we are a little strict about the matter, at this par- ticular point. MR. KAR: You saw how close the other homes -- THE CHAIRMAN: We granted the smallest lot that has ever been granted by this Board across the street, which I think was 3~300 square feet. That is the one next to the house, that actually bisects the garage. We will have a decision for you very shortly. We thank you see if anybody objects that? MRS. KAR: for coming in and we will to it. Do you have a time frame on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 a4 25 MR. KAR: some other jobs, 22 The builder is going to have and if we don't get moving we may be put back to way in the fall. MRS. KAR: We already financed it. THE CHAIRMAN: the addition? MR. KAR: It five feet further Our neighbor is a foot. here that shows we have several are right on the property line. behind us, (phonetic) is a vacant lot. property another What is the setback with is 11 feet, which is still than any of them on our block. Gale has a picture houses that The people they were given space by the Conkli~._ -- by our neighbor on the side. It They set their fence on the foot, because their foundation is on the property line. So they gave them six or eight inches. We have letters from our neighbors, from Mr. Conklin and Mr. that state they would love to have the addition there for us to be there year-round. THE CHAIrmAN: Do you know what the approximate distance is between these two? MR. KAR: I would venture to say from there, it is probably maybe 15 or 18 feet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: side yard. MR. KAR: are still much the community. 23 We are referring to the Something like that, but we further than all the homes in It is unique because of the situation there, like you said. THE CHAIRMAN: We have not established the time frame yet. We still are waiting on it. Is there anybody else that wants to see the pictures? Thank you very much. MR. KAR: Would you like to keep the letter? THE CHAIRF~N: MR. KAR: We have a letter from Ms. Condon (phonetic). She owns the other two pieces of land there. THE CHAI~V~N: We thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is %here anybody that would like to speak against the application? I have just one more question. MR. KAR: Sure. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ;;~ 25 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it 16 by 37? MR. KAR: It is 16 feet out. I know that for sure. THE CHAIRMAN: Give us a call tomorrow. We will see if we can deal with it tonight. MR. KAR: Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. GRIGONIS: Second. THE CHAI~4AN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. ~.~iRo SAWIE/{I: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal Number 3944, in behalf of Anthony Mercore!la. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon application, Applicant No. 3944, Anthony Mercorella. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-33, as disapproved, for permission car accessory garage in the Proposed construction only permitted in the to construct a two- front yard area. 1 2 3 25 required rear yard. Property Locati6n: 2260 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, County Tax 4 Map No. 1000, Section 145, Block 04, Lot 04." 5 6 7 8 We ha'd an application for a deck, which I think is presently constructed -- approximately two meetings ago. ts there somebody that would like to be heard? MRS. MERCORELLA: Maria Mercorella. 10 We just finished. We are in the process of 11 12 13 14 reconstructing our home. Hopefully, my husband is going to retire. We would like to build a garage for our home but the house is situated with water on both side~ as you can see. 15 16 17 18 § 20 25 Peconic Bay Boulevard bounds one side and Edgemere Park Road (phonetic) bounds the other. So the front is, you know, not really on Peconic Bay Boulevard. It is on Edgemere, but that is really not the question. If we put it in the rear, it will be near the lake and the Department of Environ- mental Conservation won't allo~ us to build within 75 feet. If we put it in the rear, Peconic Bay Boulevard is the front. If we put it on Edgemere and the rear is Edgemere Road, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~4 25 26 then Brushs Creek is the road and that also poses a problem with the Department of Environ- mental Conservation. We have a little building there, but we can't replace or put it on that side. We have cesspools all around that. The land near the lake slopes frDm the house, and when we rebuilt the house the land was very soft over there. So we had to put all fill in, and that was the south side. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason why you didn't think of attaching it to the house, on that side where the MRS. MERCORELLA: I there and we have windows~ where the cesspool goes. TF~E CHAIRMAN: size of the garage? MRS. MERCORELLA: it. THE CHAIRMAN: cutout is basically? have a bedroom and that is also What is the approximate I really don't remember Give us a call with that. You've got to tell us what the distance is, from Edgemere Bay Boulevard, Park and the distance from Peconic and you will tell us where you are going to have the doors open. Are they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 going to open towards the road of Edgemere Park -- or Edgemere Avenue? MRS. MERCORELLA: No. No, towards the house, probably, because we would like to put a driveway in. So that you go into the driveway, ~hen into the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: Take one of these copies out of here and mark that up with the size and where the garage doors are going to go, and the'distances between both, and give us a call or bring it back in. If you call us tomorrow, the phones may not be operating. We are going to be across from the Supervisor's office. So you can always get them over there. By Monday or Tuesday we should be operating. MRS. MERCORELLA: You want the distance from both roads. THE CHAIRMAN: I want the distances from both roads and where the garage is going to be put. I want to know if it is one story, or two stories, and what the approximate height is. definitely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - ~ 28 THE CHAIRMAN: to the peak and what kind of utilities you are having. MRS. MERCORELLA: Just utilities that I want to know how high we need for storage, because we have no base- ment there and we have no attic in the house either. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. MERCORELLA: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands, I make a motion closing the hearing pending receipt of the following information. MR. DOYEN: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINiZIO: Aye. indulgence. We are going to take an approximate 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 two-minute recess, that as a motion. MR. SAWICKI: THE CHAIrmAN: MR. MR. at this point. I offer So moved. All in favor? GRIGONIS: Aye. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (Recess taken: 8:13 p.m.) (Hearing resumed: 8:17 p.mo) THE CHAI~V~AN: I need a motion to reconvene. MR. SAWICKI: So moved. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The next Appeal Number 3951, is in behalf of James, Peter and Chris Meskouris. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon Applicant No. 3951, in behalf of James~ Pete~ & Chris Meskouris. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.3, Article XXIII, Section 100-239d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 30 A. (2). Proposed construction will not meet side yard setbacks and will exceed the per- mitted lot coverage and will be within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Property Location: 1350 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 106, Block 1, Lot 36." I have a copy of the survey, produced by Peconic Surveyors, dated, 'revised 11/18/89, and revised to date, May 4, 1990. For the record, the lot is approximately 10,545 square feet, and a photocopy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding pro- the area. Fitzgerald, would you like to be perties in Mr. heard? MR. FITZGERALD: Just to say Iam here to answer any questions you may have. I think all the information is in the application. THE CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that the Meskouris own approximately three houses in this particular area. the ~nt~r house~ MR. FITZGERALD: This is, I think, Yes. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 31 THE CHAIRMAN: We did grant for them a deck, which was just above the above-ground level last year. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding this is a similar type of deck. MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Not any major changes in reference to contour of elevation, or anything of that nature. MR. FITZGERALD: I think that is correct. MR. JAMES MESKOURIS: Yes. The deck will be off the door of the house. Maybe it will be a six-inch drop. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea what the lot coverage figure is that we are over? MR. FITZGERALD: I think it is about 27 percent, Jerry. THE CHAIRMAN: Twenty-seven percent total. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, including the THE CHAIRMAN: If we are talking about 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~19 2O 21 22 23 .2,4 25 32 a deck and we are discussing the elevation factor above grade after this deck was finished. what would we be discussing above existing grade? MR. FITZGERALD: How wide would it be? THE CHAIrmAN: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: I would say six to twelve inches, depending upon which side of the lot. THE CHAIRMAN: in the past hearings, It was extremely difficult because we didn't know what the finished product was going to be. were stone and cement block walls. MR. FITZGERALD: It Lot 35 and this one, which Th¸ is still there between is 36. T~E C~AIRMAN: occurred that is different between and the other, is that at the time Now the only thing that this one the Meskouris owned these two. They now presently own these or, I guess, they were just acquiring them at the last time. I don't know what basic effect that has on this. All I know is the Town ~tt~rney asked me t~ r~e~ t~e hearing. I have no idea what the reason is, but you are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 33 welcome to call him and ask him. We think it will not be a lengthy recess. I know these people want to get going with that project, and this is not something that, in my particular opinion, is out of the ordinary in reference to this particular area. I will honestly say that I did go down there and look at the other deck to the house, to the west. I thought it was very nicely done. I have seen it during construction, because there was a question on the deck and I did meet with Mr. Meskouris' brother, Chris, last summer. I did go down the~e and look at it. So I will be discussing this with the Town Attorney within the next couple of weeks. We will make every attempt to find out what his reasoning was on it. We do have three merged houses, at this time, to my knowledge. Is that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: There are three lots, which are still separate lots, which are owned by the same people. THE CHAIR~N: I think that is his que~-t~rn, J~m, I think the question is t~ere may be three separate CO's, but they are now 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 all merged because they belong to the same people. You understand what I mean? MR. FITZGERALD: are saying. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand what you That's where the problem is. So we have what we would assume to be a hardship created by purchase, where they pur- chased three parcels, not all at the same time but they purchased three parcels, and all three are merged into three parcels. Are all merged into one parcel although there are three separate CO's on it? MR. FITZGERALD: And three separate deeds. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, which means that somewhere along the line eventually you are going to have to come back here. Unless the law merger situation has changed, which I think we are working on at this point, it may or may not require it. MR. FITZGERALD: As far as you know, is it too late to do anything about that now? For instance, if the middle tot were u~e~ ~ one more or one less than the current owner, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2-4 25 35 would that satisfy the requirement? THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question I think the Town Attorney wants to talk to us about and maybe we can come back with a recommendation. I mean the next time around, concerning that situation. My question is, I don't know what effect that really has on this deck application. Quite honestly, I don't think it has any. Each one stands on its own merits, except they are merged property at this particular point. MR. FITZGERALD: Does the recess mean there will be another session of public hearing about -- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. This will probably occur sometime in the middle of July. MR. FITZGERALD: Two weeks from now. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Two to three weeks from now, and hopefully we will be able to square this thing away. I am sorry about this, but there is nothing I can do. I have to yield to his recommendation. We did discuss ~his with him. Do you have any questions? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 36 I don't understan~ You want to explain to MR. J~ES MESKOURIS: what's going on. THE CHAIRM3%N: Jimmy what I said? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. MR. JAMES MESKOURIS: Is that automatic because three T~E CHAIRMAN: It is something the families own three lots? No. It is not automatic. Town Attorney asked us to do, so h~ could look into the matter based on the fact that you have two or three merged lots at this particular time. MR. J~ES MESKOURIS: It happened acci- dentally, because we were actually living in one and when the second one came up we just automatically bought it together because one of us could not afford to buy it by ourself. So it just happened that way. Eventually, we want to separate. Eventually, my brother will take one. I will take the middle, and my parents will take the other -- if we have to put it in a separate name -- I don't know. do that. When you purchased it, you have three 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 separate CO's. That's the problem. The Town Attorney asked me to recess it. He wants to look into it and, hopefully, we can rectify it within the next couple of weeks. Thank you very much for coming. Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anybody that would like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I recess to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MR. SAWICKI: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS~: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAW--ICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal, Appeal Number 3952, in behalf of Bruce Blasko. The legal notice reads "Upon Applicant No. 3952, Blasko. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section t~-~ ~ ~, for permission to have an accessory apartment. and Teresa as follows: Bruce & Teresa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 38 Proposed accessory apartment in an existing one-family dwelling will contain less than 1,600 sq. Location: ft. of livable floor area. Property 23 Middleton Road, Greenport, County 14, 1989, by R. VanTuyl, P.C., indicating a two-story frame house, approximately 29 feet from Middleton Road, which appears to have a second story which is probably the accessory apartment, or the proposed or existing accessory apartment, and a copy of the Suffol~ County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody that would like to be heard? York, a rather unusual request. I am not looking to build anything. Everybody wants to build everything. We've already been built. Mrs. ~ampbe~, the l~r~±~ ~m~ne~ o~ ~ p~upei-ty, did all the construction back in 1967 and '68, MR. BOYD: Edward Boyd, Southold, New for the application. Good evening, gentlemen. I am here on Tax Map No. 1000, Section 40, Block 5, Lot 9." I have a copy of a survey, dated August 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~4 25 39 got her building permits and Certificate of Occupancy. Rightly or wrongly, Mrs. Campbell was renting out the accessory apartment for a period of eight or nine years. She never heard of any complaints. I don't believe the Town ever heard of any complaints. The reason we are with this application is of the structure itself. here before you tonigh~ because of the size If it were not for the fact we were dealing with 1,395 square feet, the application for the accessory apart- ment would meet the present Town Code and every single point. But, unfortunately, the Blasko home, formerly the Campbell home, is 205 square feet under what is required by the Accessory Housing Law for the total livable area of the premises. The upstairs apartment, which is intended to be the new accessory apartment, is 100 percent habitable. It is large enough in standard. The downstairs is certainly large enough under any standard for livable purpose. My cli~n~, Mr. and Mrs. Bla~ w4%~ ~it ~e~e in the rear of the room this evening, are very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 40 anxious that this be approved. It would not change the character of the neighborhood one iota. I would urge you to please give serious thought. It is creating another housing space in the Town of Southold. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boyd, what is the approximate square footage of the second story of the house? MR. BOYD: Six hundred somewhat -- it is on the plan from Mr. Brown, both the first and second floor on there. I think the first floor is 700 something, and upstairs is 600 something. THE CHAIRF~N: I just did not remember from our last -- MR. BOYD: Right on there, two drawings. The drawing on the left, underneath it has a square footage layout. THE CHAIrmAN: 637. Okay. I think I met with you sometime in February or March, and we discussed this on a Saturday morning. It was at that point that I mentioned to you ~hat possibly t~i~ s~eci~l ~e~mit could ~ altered, not necessarily in this particular case, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 but the entire permit aspect could be altered. So that we don't -- we are not requesting 1,600 square feet for the total dwelling area. At the time this particular accessory permit was placed in our Zoning Ordinance, the pur- pose was to create affordable housing. The purpose of it was to create it for houses 1,600 square feet or more, and presently that fits. It is very difficult for us because we cannot bury that square footage, as I mentioned to Mr. Boyd, and the nature of this appli- cation is what he is requesting to do. I think probably the best thing, at this point, is to discuss this with the Town Attorney prior to continuing the hearing. I think that is what we will do, and come back and see what his opinion is concerning it at this point. I think that's what we will do, and come back and see what his opinion point. MR. BOYD: can be buried by is concerning it, at this I believe the square footage this Board in the matter of the variance, the same as variance would be granted. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 THE CHAIRMAN: Robert Tasker (phonetic). who was the Town Attorney until approximately sometime in early it couldn't. Now, 1988, his opinion was that of course, we are going with this guide, or that opinion, to date and we will just have to ask the legal opinion from our present Town Attorney. MR. BOYD: If that is the case, then, the Board of Appeals would be constrained by all such requirements in the Town Code and you gentlemen would be out of business as well as the applicants who come before you because of hardship. I submit it is a particular purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant relief from strict terms of the Town Code. THE CHAIRMAN: The only thing we have that has been altered in the Accessory Apartments Law is that either you are required to have a CO on the dwelling, prior to January 1, 1984. We did have one applicant that could not meet that particular requirement. However, ~ ~li~ a~k £ox ~n a~f~vit from th~ ~uilding Inspector, who submitted that the house was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,34 25 43 ready for the CO on January 1, 1984 but, because of the New Year's Eve or the New Year's holiday, he could not inspect the premises and, therefore, could not issue the CO. Tha~ is the only thing we have buried so far. I understand what you are saying. MR. BOYD: I trust that your conference with the Town Attorney will indicate that there is nothing more about the affordable housing law than any of the other zoning laws that you do grant variances to as part of your everyday operation of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think it would be remiss for me to sit down without addressing the survey of Mr. VanTuyl and the proposed site plan here. I see he has got proposed parking located in the front yard and that, certainly, would not be the intention of Mr. and Mrs. Blasko because the cars would be placed in the rear yard. This was just a setting forth of Mr. VanTuyl that there was sufficient square footage avaita~t~f~r~ch~parking, ~at locate where it would be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the present dwelling being rented as a two-family, at this time? MR. BOYD: Pending, we have pending the approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much, Mr. Boyd, for coming in and continuing with the hearing. We will recess for the next regularly scheduled hearing. Bear in mind we have discussions with the Town Attorney. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody that would like to speak agains the application? Any question from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a ~otion recessing the hearing to the next regularly scheduled hearing. MR. GRIGONIS: THE CHAIRMAN: MR. GRIGONIS: MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: MR. DINI~IO: THE CHAI~V_AN: Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The next appeal is in 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2.4 25 45 behalf of Jacque Kasaba, Appeal Number 3950. The legal notice reads as follows: "Upon Applicant No. 3950, Jacque Kasaba. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III A, Section 100-30 A.4 (100-33), Article III A, Section 100-30A.3, Article XXIV, Section 100- 244, as disapproved, for permission to con- struct a deck addition to dwelling and accessory pool. Proposed accessory structure not permitted in the front yard area and pro- posed construction will exceed permitted lot coverage. Property Location: 80 Lakeside Drive & 675 Cedar Point Drive, Southold, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 90, Block 3, Lot 14." I have a copy of a site plan prepared by Briarcliff Landscaping, 5/1/90. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there anybody that would like to be heard? MR. SCHWART: Christopher Schwart, Inc. I am a general contractor. First of all, I thought that was the side yard. We were assumia~ that wa~ t~e ~ide yard. THE CHAIRMAN: You have the front yard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 46 there. Is this the side yard or front yard? MR. SCHWART: I would not hazard to guess what was side yard or what was front yard. That is up to the evaluation of the Building Inspector. It certainly piece of property. Okay. is a unique Proposed construction: Accessory structure use shall be located in the rear yard area. He is not indicating. He is not indicating if that is a side yard or a rear you can see, we The back yard It would be yard. He is not telling. As have no other place to put it. there behind us has a wood deck. too close to the road. What we consider the side yard is about the best location for it. THE CHAIRMAN: We are talking on Lake- side Drive. What is the closest point that the southwest corner of the pool would be to Lake- The closest point in feet, 11 feet. Now I am going side Drive? MR. SCHWART: it would probably be by this survey. It appears to be a lot longer, a f~rehe_r ~j~uce actually, but I am ggin~ by the survey. We staked it out. It was something 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 .24 25 like line? 16 fee%. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. SCHWART: and ran a string. -~3 - 47 Did you find a property We found one in one corner It was around 16 feet, I guess, by comments off the survey. THE CHAIRMAN: The figure you gave me is with the deck or without the deck? MR. SCHWART: The deck is just to get out of the house, because there is like a three- foot drop. It is just to get out of the house, down to the pool area. The deck around the pool area is just going to be brick and sand. THE CHAIRMAN: level. MR. SCHWART: THE CHAIR~N: It is going to be ground Ground level. What is the approximate elevation for both grades? MR. SCHWART: The pool will be -- since it is going to be brick and sand, it probably will be eight inches. You can't bring it up too much more. on the survey, is that to Cedar Point Drive? .( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~24 25 MR. SCHWART: THE CHAIRMAN: line, to Cedar Point Drive. MR. SCHWART: That is correct. is the closest point to that corner. be building the pool in an L-shape. 48 That is correct. That is to the property That We will THE CHAIP~4AN: The next issue is the fence will not exceed four feet in height around the pool. MR. SCHWART: The fence will not. No. It is four feet, black chain link. THE CHAIRMAN: What about the evergreen and ground cover? MR. SCHWART: Well, this is Frank's deal here. He goes crazy with this. We don't really know. This was just for the customer. They told me they are probably not going to go with all of this, just some of it. THE CHAIP~N: You want to let us know before we close this hearing. I know this does not concern the pool, but if we are talking ground cover that exceeds four feet in height, m~ t~ave all front ya~ area ~ theT~. I~ ~3h~ what we are putting on here as a restriction? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 yard. the MR. SCHWART: THE CHAIRMAN: Front yard -- okay. Because it is all front MR. SCHWART: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: In fact 90 percent of lot is front yard. MR. SCHWART: Right. When you asked the question in the beginning if we are dealing with one side or two sides of the front yard, then definitely the other side is rear yard. So the portion that extends out to the northeast is probably the rear yard. That is to the best of my knowledge, but I am not going to guesstimate if the front of the house is on Lakeside Drive, where you walk into -- in by the garage. THE CHAIRMAN: I do concur with you that this gentleman does have a hardship in the respect of this particular property and, as long as Briarcliff is aware of the fact that that's what is permitted in the front yard area. This would be a four-foot fence. They don't want anything else, an~ t~ MR. SCHWART: And the ground cover, yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 50 THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much for coming in. We hope to have a decision for 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? Any questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. GRIGONIS: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWTCKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is Appeal Number Inzerillo. The legal notice reads "Upon Application No. 3953, 3953, in behalf of Peter and Cheryl as follows: in behalf of Peter & Cheryl Inzerillo. Variance to the Zonin90~dinanc~, Article III A, Section t~--~ A.3, Bulk, Area and Parking Regulations, as 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 51 disapproved, for permission to construct a deck addition to existing one-family dwelling. Proposed construction will have insufficient side yard setbacks and excessive lot coverage. Property Location: 505 County Tax Map No. 1000, Lot 17." Re a two-story within four have a copy of a VanTuyl, dated June 27, frame house feet of the 7th Street, Greenport, Section 48, Block 01, survey produced by 1975, indicating fairly close to or south front property line on a Mrs. MRS. lot of approximately 41 by 100.5. Inzerillo, how are you tonight? INZERILLO: Fine, thank you. you may have. the fan-shape I am here to try to answer any questions I would like to explain that patio that exists on the survey in the back yard is no longer in existence. It was brick laid~in dirt, and we had removed that a few years back. Also, as to the side line, coming up to the side line with the deck, we are not going out any further off the side of the ho~e ~han the ~rigina~ bac-k ~ort~h that was there. We are just going to continue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2.4 25 on to that original into the back yard going back rear of the house. THE CHAIRMAN: the size of the back porch? MRS. INZERILLO: foot. THE CHAIRMAN: MRS. INZERILLO: -3?- 52 size and work backwards 12 feet off the Excuse me. What was I believe it is four I believe it was less. It was just enough that it covered the entire swing of the back storm door. It was very small to begin with. THE CHAIRMAN: Did you measure from where you want to go to your property line? MRS. INZERILLO: Yes, we did. It is three feet. That is conservative estimate. THE CHAIRMAN: If the Board so grants your application, and we said that you could go as close to three feet, plus or minus, at its closest point, can you live with that? MRS. INZERILLO: Yes. Will you give me an THE CHAIRMAN: approximate size? MRS. INZ~RILL~ deck here. The deck is I have a t~p7 t~rh~ 12 by 22, plus the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 53 piece going off which is 10 by whatever the difference is on that side. THE CHAIRMAN: The only thing I do have from you and the only thing that I did not ask you about, because I forgot last Friday evening when I was over to see you, was the actual lot coverage. The total lot coverage. The Building Inspector denied you for total lot coverage. You are allowed 20 percent of the total lot coverage of the lot. I don't know how much you are over. MRS. INZERILLO: I don't know either. THE CHAIP~N: I am going to ask you a favor. Could you call the Building Inspector, Mr. Tom Fischer, and ask him what his calcu- lations are and just let us know. We hope to have a decision for you in two weeks. do it tomorrow. Can you do it Monday? nothing that has to be done within the next day or so. is. You can It is Just let us know what the percentage You heard the other hearing. This 9~ttt~m~n ~-a±~ he mas 27 percent over, meaning he was seven percent over the 20 percent required 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 54 coverage. Ail the lots in the area have excessive lot coverage. Ail the lots in the area have excessive lot coverage. These houses were built around 1594 to 1906. They are all excess lot coverage, throughout the entire area. When you point out to the neighbor to your north, it appears that that person is about 90 percent which, I would say, is only about 10 percent of the lot that is covered and that is probably the driveway and portions between the pool and the house. We understand you have a hardship in the area. We just want to know the percentage. We just want to know the measurements. MRS. INZERILLO: morning. THE CHAIRMAN: MRS. INZERILLO: you. THE CHAIRMAN: that would like to cation? I will do that tomorrow This will remain unmoved. Yes, definitely. Thank Is there anybody else speak in favor of the appli- t~ there ~Tm/body tha%~D~ld like speak against the application? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2.4 25 Seeing no hands I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. MR. GRIGONIS: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIrmAN: The next appeal behalf of Ralph and Patricia Pugliese. legal notice reads as follows: is in The "Upon Application No. 3831, Ralph & Patricia Pugliese. Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-30B (14), for a Winery for the Production, Storage Property Location: County Tax Map No. Lot 12.1." survey, which was and the Retail Sale of Wine. 34876 Main Road, Cutchogue, 1000, Section 097, Block 01, I have a copy of the the original plan by R. VanTuyl, dated December 15, 1987, indicating a one-family dwelling and a rather large barn area on two acres, on Main ~ /n~t~e, ~hich is basically nature of this application and we continue with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 25 the rest of it. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating surrounding properties in the area. I will ask Mr. Moore: Would you like to be heard? MR. MOORE: Let me give you a revised survey subdivision map at the request of the Planning Board. We have redone this now to a 22-acre piece of property, by way of running a 10-foot strip of land. up is the question about located on the property, The issue that comes the winery being and working on grapes primarily grown on the premises. The Planning Board suggested, and we go along with it, to run a 10-foot strip clear up. (Discussion held off the record) MR. MOORE: Originally we had composed a three-foot lot subdivision, with the lot winery being located on a two-acre piece of property. At the Planning Board's request, we are going to make that a two-lot subdivision with the winery now being located on the same parcP~l m~ ]~n~ on ~hic~ the ~xz~pes w~r~ gro~n to avoid any problem with respect to the require- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ~4 25 57 ments in our Zoning Code. THE CHAIRMAN: This 10 feet is deeded. MR. MOORE: Right. It will be the entire parcel. It would begin down on the Main Road and clear alone the 10 feet. It is not a right-of-way. It is deeded. So that parcel, in fact, would be 22 acres in size. You can have this one. THE CHAIrmAN: Wonderful. Let the record show that I also have a map from R. VanTuyl. It appears to be June 22, 1990, the most recent date. The how large? MR. PUGLIESE: feet by 60 feet. plan. size of the barn is I believe it is 63 I believe I submitted the MR. MOORE: I have got a site plan prepared by Mr. VanTuyl,.amended May 31, 1990, showing the proposed winery and it doesn't show the dimensions of the building, the scale map I will get that figure THE CHAIrmAN: Give it to us. give ~s the height ~f ~rhe ~il~i~g, mate height of but with to you. Also the building, to the peak if Vou 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know so we can incorporate that in the decision. MR. PUGLIESE: you have it. THE CHAIRMAN: It has been a Excuse me. I believe I may have it in here. long time since I reviewed this. MR. PUGLIESE: make sure. THE CHAIRMAN: I Mr. Pugliese. I've got We just sent it, to think you are right, it. That only gives us one dimension, 67 feet. us the other dimension. MR. PUGLIESE: you. THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't give I will provide that for On-site parking is going number of parking spaces. I think you have a copy of that, I believe. It just shows, it is a very ~impt~ ~ro~drare, more than adequate parking. I think the piece of property was to be dealt with by the Planning Board. MR. MOORE: Right. I think we are going to have more than enough parking there. This was done, the site plan which was done just by way 'of example, not intended to limit the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 59 previously located for the use of the winery. It is located on State Route 25, as are many of the other wineries in town. Mr. Pugliese points out to me the speed zone in that area is 35 miles an hour. So we are not going to have people speeding by. The proposed winery is located behind the residence, well off the property. Again, as many of the wineries, it is an agricultural building that will be converted, as were the others, assuming the use is granted by the Board for the winery. It has been used in the past as trucking, in the more recent past, with Mr. Pugliese's grapes being grown to the nDrth. We think we have satisfied the criteria of the Code that would properly locate it, with the Board's approval, to operate a nice relatively small winery. Mr. Pugliese is not going to operate on the size or scale, for example, of Pindar. He has fewer grapes and would be operating a smaller facility in size. TH~ ~HAIRMA~: Is ~his p~imarity s~a~e grown wine? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PUGLIESE: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: One hundred percent. right. square site plan. tonight? MR. MOORE: an unscated one. THE CHAIRMAN: Ail I have in front of me, Mr. Moore, a footage figure, 395 square feet on the You didn't bring a ruler with you Not a scaled one. Not even Well, I ask you to scale it off for us in reference to size so we have all of that tonight, depending on the-lateness of the meeting tonight. I know this gentlemaz is in dire need of this special exception. to. MR. MOORE: THE CHAIrmAN: We will be more than happy I am not guaranteeing it, we'll take care of it within a week or so. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody that would like to speak against the application? Any questions from any Board members? ~-~rin~ ao furrY%er q~es~i~ns, I ~ak~ ~ motion closing the hearing pending receipt of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the size of the building for the winery. MR. GRIGONIS: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. ~V~R. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in behalf of Charles Zahra, Application Number 3701, particular hearing is the basis of a judge's order, and that is the purpose of this hearing. I will read the notice as it was in the paper. It says: "Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXV, Section 100-243, Article XXV, Section 244, for permission to continue to use the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. Property Loc~tion: 140 Pike Street, Mattituck, County Tax Map No. 1000, Section 141, Block 4, Lot 5." I just want to mention two things for the audience. Building. The which really has a minor This was the former Coffeepot issue still at hand on this, bearing on this par- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ticular hearing, is the pipe the Building Inspectors of this Town are requesting the update on from its present construction. That is not the natural nature of this application, at this point. What we are here tonight for is to continue a non-conforming use which the Applicants concur, and did concur at the last hearing which we had, that this use of the apartment did continue during the period of time that the North Fork Bank owned the property and Charles Zahra took title, at that particular time, and I can reme~lber quite vividly at that hearing that we did swear all the parties in. I will not swear the parties in tonight. However, I will ask you that I would like to reserve decision on that if, for some reason, I think it is needed. We ask Mr. Bressler if he would like to continue. MR. BRESSLER: Erik Bressler speaking construction which Wickham, Mattituck~ New in favor of this application. Wickham & Bressler, Main Road, York 11952. As a procedural~ matter, Mr. Chairman, 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 I believe we should take up several issues before we get into the meat of this matter. First, let me express my pleasure at being back here in front of the Board to continue this hearing after a somewhat lengthy hiatus which, in no way, do I attribute to the members of this Board individually. Nonetheless, we are back here on this application which came before the Board some number of years ago, never mind exactly how many, and is now back before this Board as a result of the decision of Judge Tanenbaum rendered November 17, 1988, which is now back before the Board by order of Judge Tanenbaum according to his decision for the hearing concerning the status of the second floor apartment as a non-conforming use. The Board will recall, or it might not recall, but if it reads the decision it is familiar with the fact that at the time of the last decision there were two issues raised by the Board which gave the Board pause with respect to granting or not granting the relief sought by Mr. Zahra. I might add, at 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this point, the relief except with respect to here tonight, the Board will by the Supreme Court and Mr. 64 sought by Mr. Zahra, the items which are recall was granted Zahra was put back to work pending a resolution of this issue and he did, in fact, go back to work pursuant to the Court decision for a period of time. Unfortunately, without getting into the details, Mr. Zahra was again stopped by the Building Department, again put back to work by the Court, and was again stopped by the Building Department and that is where the matter stands now. stayed from going forward. THE CHAI~AN: that, Mr. Bressler? MR. BRESSLER: He is now stopped and What is the reason for Well, Mr. Chairman, if you will recall when Judge Tanenbaum issued his decision in November, of 1988, Mr. Zahra went back to work. We had anticipated, at that time, that the issues of the non-conformance of the apartment, at least with respect to the matters within the jurisdiction of this Board, ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 would be heard in a timely manner. Unfor- tunately, that was not the case. In any event, Mr. Zahra went forward and he proceeded to work from -- well, this decision was from November of 1988 to approximately the beginning of 1989 he pro- ceeded to perform work on the premises, and the Building Department duly went out, examined his work, found it to be satisfactory, and issued a satisfactory inspection report. Mr. Zahra framed the foundation -- had appropriately been approved. He sheathed. He rough wired. He rough plumbed. He insulated. At that point the Building Department took it upon them- selves, unfortunately, to refuse any future inspections. This instituted a trip back to Judge Tanenbaum who, we believe, quite correctly ruled that: No, the Building Department had to go back and they had to inspect. He ordered them to go back and inspect %~ithin 20 days He was concerned about, again, the second floor primarily with Review, with of his order. the status of respect to the State Board of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 respect to the Class THE CHAIRMAN: block? MR. BRESSLER: THE CHAIRMAN: What class is that? MR. BRESSLER: 5 construction. Class 5 is what, cement Cement -- wood. What is cement block? We will look it up for you in our State Building Code here. In any event, he was permitted to go ahead and go ahead he did. with the fact the building is be sheet rocked, result of that decision. However, we felt that we would be per- mitted to go ahead with the first floor completed, get somebody in there, and get this building making money again. However, that was not to be the case. We basically agreed, which the Judge and his decision reflected the fact, that pending the determination of the State Board of Review, the upstairs was to be sealed and not worked on. As the Board is no doubt familiar that the shell is now complete, insulated, this is ready to and we are ready to go as a The Board is no doubt familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 with this fact since, when it tried to obtain permission from us to go in the building and look, on my advice I said no, pending a con- ference with the Court, not because I didn't want you to but because the Court ordered it sealed. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BRESSLER: I found that unbelievable. As a result, a telephone conference was held with the Court and the Judge indicated that, no, he did not intend any regulatory agency to be kept out. But I want to make it clear to the Board, based on what I believe to be a very unhappy experience with certain agencies in the Town, I felt it was the wiser thing to do to get the Judge to okay that at least verbally, which he did, and we have no problem with you going in there. I just want the Judge to say that's okay. THE CHAIrmAN: I just want you to know that I have to further extend this hearing because now I have to and come back. MR. BRESSLER: interesting point. recess it, go look at it, Which brings up an What exactly would you like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 to see? I mean, thing. THE CHAIRMAN: want to see it. MR. BRESSLER: we don't have stairs or any- That's fine. I just There is some insulation. There is rough electrical, but it is not finished. It is obviously not habitable space. You are certainly welcome to come look at that, now that the Judge said okay. THE CHAIRMAN: We'll make an appointment. MR. BRESSLER: No problem. Just please be careful. So there we were. The building with the tops sealed off, and my requesting to come before this Board for the hearing. I certainly don't intend to go down to the State Board of Review if you tell me that I can't have an apartment. That's an absolute exercise in futility, notwithstanding whatever other people think. Unfortunately, the Town felt it was appropriate to file a Notice of Appeal, from Judge Tanenbaum's decision, which they did. The Board is probably aware this works an automatic stay again. My clients and I can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no longer vacate the stay, inspect. THE CHAIRMAN: right now? MR. BRESSLER: in Brooklyn, and it for quite a exercise any remedies except to to get them in there and Is that what is pending There's an appeal pending is not going to be heard period of time which is causing a ~evere hardship on Mr. Zahra. A fact well known to everyone, I am sure, during the summer months appeals heard again until the of common knowledge. are not going to be fall. That is a matter So the answer to your question~ is it wQuld certainly be at least Type 4. It may be something else, but Type 5 is defined as that type of construction which the walls, partitions, floors and roof are all or partially of wood or other combustible material. The block with some type of conforming roof, it would be Type 4 or better. So here we are waiting for our court date in Brooklyn on the appeal. The Building Department has refused to inspect. The building sits there. We can't go to the State 1 2 3 4 5 $ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 Board of Review, until we get a decision from this Board as to whether or not we are going to even be using it as an apartment. I think that fairly well sums up the this case. Here we are, and the back to the original point, procedural posture of two issues getting the two issues which originally gave the Board pause were the application of Section 100-116D and E. I note in the Board's notice of this particular hearing, that the section cited appears to relate to Code provisions under the new Code. I think we are dealing with 100-118D and E. As the Board correctly perceived at the time of the application, and if Mr. Zahra satisfied those requirements, that he has satisfied all of the applicable provisions of the Code since the building permit was issued at that time and if complies with the 100-118D and E, I think he is in ~here, and I think that that is the subject' of the hearing tonight. If that is not the Board's feeling, please indicate to me since that's what we are prepared to address. THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the area that 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concerns the non-conforming? MR. BRESSLER: 100-118D is applied to the two-year rule, which the Board noted in its decision. In Paragraph 9 of the decision, dated April 14, 1988, 100-118E, which is in Paragraph 8 of the decision of the same date, deals with the reconstruction and structural alterations of the non-conforming building. So I gather the answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is yes. conforming sections. by the then, he Code. Those are the non- Those are the ones cited Board, and if Mr. Zahra satisfied them, has satisfied the requirements of the THE CHAIRMAN: Would you call our present Town Attorney, during the period of this recess, so that we can readvertise this hearing? I reflect the Town Attorney, not the assistant. You may speak to the assistant, but I would call Harvey and ask him if we are addressing it under Section 100-118D. Under Section 244 we are addressing it, at this point. MR. BRESSLER: I think, pursuant to' the Court's decision, that's what we are addressing. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think that is only prudent. phone number. THE CHAIRMAN: Not to confuse I will get his the public, we had a change in the master planning between the period of time that this particular application had come before us and subsequently to that it was held up and we are presently back here by Court Order reconvening this hearing. So basically we are not dealing with the new master plan, and Mr. Bressler is reflecting the section of the old master plan which is dated back to 1971. MR. BRESSLER: definitely so since, Yes. I believe that is for example, with respect to Section 100-118D if the Board finds, and we are sure the Board will base on the evidence that there was no discontinuance for the two- year period, then there is no discontinuing, and that is the end of that, and 100~118D is satisfied and there is no need to look any further simply with E if that is satisfied. We are in under the old Code, and there is nothing to look at under the new Code because we satisfied it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 With respect to Section 100-118D the Board states, in the decfsionrendered April 14, 1988, that based on personal knowledge of the Board and conversations with family members of the prior owner, and I take it that the Board meant by that statement the Langers (phonetic), and not the North Fork Bank, it appears that the use of the premises may have been discontinued for a period in excess of two years and then the Board is going to discuss the implication of that fact under Section 100-118D. I think we can set this ~o rest very certainly, at the present time, which I am handing out an affidavit from Joseph Langer and June Langer. As the Board is no doubt aware, these were the owners of the property prior to the North Fork Bank and I presume that these were the family members to whom the Board was referring. THE CHAIRMAN: I spoke to the daughter, Edith, with. MR. substance who I attended school ~ith and graduated BRESSLER: Joseph and June state in that they purchased the property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1,4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 74 in March, of 1988, from Caprice and Company, Inc. (phonetic), and they operated the Coffeepot Luncheonette from that date to the day that the property was sold to ~he bank on July 6, 1984. They also resided in the apartment above the restaurant, time. THE CHAIRMAN: during that period of Excuse me, Mr. Bressler. You gave me the wrong date. as the first date. purchase it? MR. ERESSLER: You gave me 1988 When did they actually March of 1977 until July 6, apartment during that time frame. entered into the agreement to sell 1984 and they also resided in the Then they the premises and they requested from the bank and were given an approval from thereon to continue to reside in the upstairs apartment to mid-November. THE CHAIRMAN: Of 1984. MR. BRESSLER: Right. This approval was then extended and their son resided in the apartment until January, until January of 1985. (Discussion held off the record) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRESSLER: Based upon that affi- davit and the timing of Mr. Zahra's acquisition of the property, and I believe those facts are in the record before the Board -- you can correct me, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the only person that will not speak tonight is Stephen Tsontaukis, who was the engineer, because he has since passed on. MR. BRESSLER: So what we have, Mr. Chairman, is a situation where we had occupancy from the earlier 1985, and if you run that on the two-year period you run into 1987. I believe the Board has in its possession a copy of the building permit. I will hand up another one. It is significant, of course, to note the date is October 27, 1986, a period of substantially less than two years. THE CHAIRMAN: Subsequent to that it was uninhabited. MR. BRESSLER: Subsequent to the issuance of the building permit it then, of course, was not as renovations were underway. You cannot leave someone in possession while you I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 76 are performing renovations on the building. THE CHAIRMAN: I did not mean necessarily inhabited on a daily basis. I mean somebody was in the building doing -- MR. BRESSLER: Yes, from the issuance of the building permit someone was actively in the building thus, of course, indicating the intent to renovate the building and not to discontinue the use. I believe that the time period was established by the affidavit resolving the issue under 100-118D. Although I can appreciate the Board's comments in the decision that clearly there was an issue since particularly you, Mr. Chairman, live in the area. We are aware there was a time period during which someone did not reside in the building. THE CHAIRM3%N: So we can assume that is the reason that the building was boarded up, or during the period of time that the building was boarded up, was that period of time that you have mentioned where the Langers had moved out and the bank had taken the property over by title. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRESSLER: THE CHAIRMAN: to work on the building, mentioned. MR. BRESSLER: That is Then Mr. at the correct. Zahra started date you just Yes, when Mr. Zahra obtained the building permit and, of course, closed shortly after. He obtained a building permit and then, of course, actively commenced the work that had to be done, whatever else had to be done, in order to get the work done. So with respect to 100-118D, I believe that that issue has been resolved. Are there any questions about that particular issue, anything else I can address or any other documents that the Board needs? THE CHAIRMAN: In reference with resolving the 100-118D two-year issue, I would have to research the records again and I will reserve decision on that until the next hearing. MR. BRESSLER: I believe that the Board already has in its possession a copy of the C~ contract of sale, the deed, the building permit, and now the affidavit of the Langers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 I think from the documentation point of view that establishes the issue. Now the second issue before the Board tonight is 100-118E, which is the non- conforming issue with respect to the structural alterations. Now let me preface my remarks by again reminding the Board that notwithstanding the fact we are talking about non-conformity here, at no time do we concede that actual non-conformity existed based on the fact that the CO was issued with respect to the building at the time it was acquired by Mr. Zahra. Not a certificate of pre-existing use, but a Certificate of Occupancy. It may very well be argued that's wrong, but it is not the issue. THE CHAIRMAN: A Certificate of Occupancy for an apartment above a restaurant. MR. BRESSLER: That is absolutely correct, and for the Board's review we will hand up the Certificate of Occupancy for this particular structure. THE CHAIRMAN: of Occupancy that This is the Certificate this gentleman received prior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to taking title MR. BRESSLER: correct, Mr. Chairman. 79 to the property. That is absolutely This is a Certificate of Occupancy, dated February 16, 1978, and I would like to contrast that Certificate of Occupancy with certain other certificates that the Town issues in connection with occupancy. Specifically, I am handing up a Certificate of Occupancy, dated October 28, 1980, relating to 180 Pike Street. This Certificate of Occupancy conforms substantially to the requirements of the business establishment building prior to April 23, 1957, which the Board is well aware of is the date of the inception of zoning in this Town. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BRESSLER: don't know? Where is 180 Pike Street? Oh, my goodness. You This. is called a Certificate for a non-conforming premises, relates to 180 Pike Street. THE CHAI~%~N: Bressler? ~R. BRESSLER: of Occupancy which I think Where is that, Mr. This one says to William 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and Grace Fiore. This one says it does not conform to the present Building Code of the Town of Southold for the following reason: An apartment is not allowed over a business in a B-1 zoned district. I hand up these three documents to contrast what was done here, what might have been done. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bressler, could you just tell us what the approximate size is in square footage of the apartment, at the time of either the issuance of this Certificate of Occupancy or the time Mr. Zahra had taken title to this piece of property? MR. BRESSLER: Yes, I can. We'll get the plan and we will give you a very good estimate. It just so happens we had occasion to ask ourselves this question, before coming down here, and based upon the plan produced by Mr. Tsontaukis, who's unfortunately no longer with us, it is approximately,~ Mr. Chairman, 750 square feet give or take. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that include the knee wall or is that the finished product? MR. BRESSLER: That basically represents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the space of the finished product. With respect to 100-118E, certainly the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy would be the first point that I want to make, that we don't believe Section 100-118E applies since we are not dealing with a non-conforming use. Assuming that we are, 100-118E is a rather peculiar section. I am sure this Board has not been called upon very often in the past to interpret 100-118E. In fact, I have never heard of an application involving a 50 percent value actually coming before the Board. Indeed I have seen many examples where this particular section was avoided in one way or another by variance and agencies of government. So I am somewhat at a loss as to why we are here in particular. I am not going to, at this time, burden the record with numerous examples. I am sure the Board is aware of them around town, where it can be said this rule is honored in breach probably 100 percent. I don't believe 100-118E applies to this situation for the simple reason a calculation ~. of the fair value of the building and a cal- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 82 culation of what Mr. Zahra has done to the building, and a review of what the Board's statement was in Paragraph 8 reveals that we don't fall under that particular paragraph. The Board needed that. The evidence would tend to show that the Applicant is endeavoring to renovate and structurally alter his non- conforming building to an extent exceeding the aggregate cost of 50 percent of the fair market value of the building. With all due respect, for the life of me, I reviewed the records three times and I cannot find anything in the records that would lead to that conclusion, and there is just nothing there. The issue was not addressed in the prior proceeding. There is no testimony taken. gave no evidence on Board is, at this point The building inspectors it. So my question to the there is no deter- mination it happened. The Building Department has not asserted it happened. There ~s no evidence in the record that it happened. How would you like to proceed, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIrmAN: Well, let's start out with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asking you, how large MR. BRESSLER: plan is approximately 83 is the apartment now? The apartment on the 875 square feet as approved by the Building Department. THE CHAIrmAN: Does that include the stairwell going up towards the hallway you have up above, or will it go right into the apartment? MR. ZAHRA: The stairwell would be considered part of the downstairs. The landing would be considered part of the downstairs square footage. upper portion of it. MR. BRESSLER: That 870 does include the These are Mr. Tsontaukis' calculations as shown on the plans. MR. ZAHRA: You want me to bring them up? THE CHAIRMAN: No. I have a copy. So you are showing approximately 870, did you say? MR. BRESSLER: feet. THE CHAIRMAN: square feet more. MR. BRESSLER: a little bit less. To be exact, 876 square So roughly about 125 More or less. Probably The plans necessitate, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doing this calculation, ruler and measure 115. THE CHAIRMAN: 10 by 12 larger. area. that we get out our it physically. It may be It is basically a room MR. BRESSLER: You mean the increased Well, you're right, as did the area. Howeve~ the dimensions are slightly different because it is 16 long and we estimate it to be seven or eight wide, but then when you take out the area of the stairwell which I included it probably comes down 80 square feet maybe. THE cHAIRMAN: footage that has seven room. MR. ZAHRA: Yes, THE CHAIRMAN: when I come up there. MR. BRESSLER: see habitable space, to a difference of That is usable square and a half foot head. as per plan. That's what I would see You would. You would not at this point, but it could be made habitable. What else would the Board like to know about that issue, except for me to state and Mr. Zahra to reiterate he had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 85 no intention of reconstructing or structurally altering it to exceed an aggregate cost of 50 percent of the fair market value of the building. He did not, and he has not. I don't know what else you would like to know, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: again, Mr. Bressler, I will review the file and if I have any questions concerning it at the final hearing I will go over it. I appreciate the square footage it gives, and in the interim and we will go from there. MR. BRESSLER: recessed, I take it. questions, we will be happy issues. I will look at it The hearing will be If you have any other to answer those THE CHAIRMAN: We would have it tonight but we haven't looked at where the problem is. building. MR. BRESSLER: I think it is important to note that what was done here has been a large cosmetic improvement but the Board, I am sure, is aware there was a substantial building addressed the building, We want to look at the L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 86 there in the first instance that had aignifi- cant value particularly as a non-conforming use. What basically has been done has been a cosmetic job and repair to the upstairs apartment as mandated by the Building Depart- ment -- bring it up to Code, he was told, and he did which brings up another point which I want to address. I don't believe that this by nature of a variance hearing tonight -- it is my under- standing that this hearing and the recessed hearing are more by way of a reviewing of the outstanding issues with respect to the original application which was a reversal of the determination of the building inspector and if it should go that route I think we would be prepared to address the other issues; the issues of the variance of the hardship and everything else, but I don't think, and on the record, it warrants that. Let me state one other thing for the Board which might put your minds at ease on this issue. I state for the record, Mr. Zahra reiterates he has not done that. There is no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence he has done that. of violating that rule. why we are here but, Mr. 87 No one accused hi~ I am not quite sure Chairman, you may be aware of the fact that in the State Building Code Rules and Regulations there are regu- lations which relate to renovating and recon- structing buildings and that rule states that during this six-month period you may renovate or reconstruct up to 50 percent of the value measure. Should we, unfortunately, have to go down to the Board of Review, we are going to have to demonstrate to them that that rule has not been violated, and we are prepared to do that. That section is Subchapter E of the Code of Rules and Regulations, Book 9-B of the Executive Law Subtitle Z, Subchapter E, Part 231 deals with additions, alterations, and repairs and I think that this issue is probably a subject to be brought up before that Board if at all. It has been my understanding, quite frankly, that the way this matter has been handled in this Town up to date, if there is an issue they ship it down to the Board of Review. I don't think that issue is before you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 I think the issue of the classified building is going there anyway. So we will reserve any comments with respect to those issues until you determine, Mr. Chairman, what you want to do at the next hearing. Now Mr. Zahra wants to say a few things. I don't want to prolong this unduly. There has. been an issue circulating around, swelling around this case from the very inception. It has remained largely unanswered, and I think remained unanswered in the mind of the Board. I am just going to give Mr. Zahra a moment to try to resolve that, before we recess this tonight. I think he can shed some light on the continuing difficulties this Board had with the application. MR. ZAHRA: My name is Charles Zahra. I reside at 1830 Pike Street, Montauk. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, on September 22nd, 1987 I was issued an Order to Remedy Violation. This stated: Stop all work, non-conformity with the provisions of the plans or specifications of the building permit at once. I don't understand what the apartment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 issue has to do with this Stop Order, this original Stop Order. I don't know why we are here. I feel as a matter of law it should have been tossed out a long time ago. This was the issue and we continually strayed from it. There are some things I am going to mention here today, that might strike a vein in some people that are not here tonight. I was hoping it was not going to have to resort to this, and I was also hoping I would get my day in court but three and a half later I still have not gotten my day in years court. I would just like to commend the Court, as long as they are not counterproductive. I think it is important that the Board as well as the public be aware of what took place here. There are some things in the law that are left better to the observer and this may be one. I went to the Building Department to review records after receiving the Stop Order. It was also assumed I was trying to harass. I am not. I was trying to defend myself. I was told I did something wrong. I wanted to know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 what it was, and I wanted to be prepared to do what was necessary to defend myself. Prior to the beginning, around November 4, I started trying to access files from the Building Department. I was continually turned down. Finally we submitted this letter, under 45-6 of the Southold Town Code, requesting we be allowed to inspect the records of the Building Department. I took it down November 4. I gave it to the Building Department. This is about after three, four, five tries. I finally got access to the records. We began copying several, using the Town machine. At the end of the day, I told the girl that was handling it that I would be in tomorrow, the following day, November 5th, with my own machine to copy records. I was told I would not be allowed to. I felt I was entitled to, from what I read in the laws. On the morning of November 5th, I went into Riverhead to the North Shore Business Products, and I purchased a copying machine, approximately 8:30 -- quarter to 9:00 in the morning. I have a copy of the bill here. I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 91 handing it to the Board. It came to approxi- mately $913. That's on November 5th. When I went to the Building Department with the machine, I was told to "Get the hell out of here." That the machine was -- I am going to scan through this. It is a conversation between Victor Lessard and myself. I am handing it up to the Board. I was told I was impeding the traffic, and if I did not remove it, I would be removed. So I respected his wishes and I removed the machine. I asked him what law that this was under, that I had to remove the machine. He said, these are his words, "That is the Sunshine Law, my friend." Mr. Lessard speaking: Under the Sunshine Law, you will come in and inspect what you want, write down what you want on a piece of paper. Myself speaking: It does not say this under this law, to write it down. Mr. Lessard: Don't assume Myself: My interpretation, says inspect. Your interpretation is that. I would like to know whose interpretation of anything. Mr. Lessard, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Code is that? Mr. Lessard: That is mine. Myself speaking: That is Mr. Mr. Lessard speaking: got it right from the horse. Lessard's. Absolutely. You Okay. Myself speaking: I said, "Okay." Mr. Lessard concluding the conversation said, "Having said that and having said your machine is interfering with the flow of traffic in here, kindly remove it." November 5th, again. With all the motions going on, I did not realize at the time that my permit was revoked on that same day. November 5th. November 5th, 1987: Second Order to Remedy, Your building permit under Number 15428Z issued October 27, is hereby revoked. Reason: Not following plans. Did not comply with the Stop Work Order -- of which was already thrown out of court. I think in viewing this and comparing the days one will see, and again I leave it to the observer, why my permit was In my mind it was because I was rights, under the revoked. exercising my Freedom of Information, which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a Constitutional right. all I have to say on that. up. That is basically I hand this material THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this appli- cation, that may not be here at the next hearing? MR. AMMIRATI: Frank Ammirati. I am here representing my wif~ Dianne, and myself, who are the owners of Ammirati's Cupboard across from Mr. Zahra's building. We are in favor of granting Mr. Zahra permission. It has taken far too long. This Town has pro- longed this action much too long for Mr. Zahra's building to open. It is our opinion that an unoccupied building leads to a demoralization of the Town's pride and does nothing to promote the tourism in the area. Being in close proximity to the Town dock area, an indoor restaurant is in desperate need, and asked for time and time again, some- thing I cannot give. We hope that the past problems are behind Mr. Zahra, and that the Building Department and the Appeals Board here -- 1 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that a compromise is reached here and no further delays please. Thank you. I also signed a petition. I went to the neighbors across the street from Mr. Zahra's building. It is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace this has taken that longo I am a business owner. I know what people need. People come into Town. They look for something, and Mr. Zahra's building I think would be appropriate for these people who want to sit down off the boat and have something to eat. That's all. THE CHAIRMAN: MR. BRESSLER: cannot come back. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there's only one last item that Mr. Ammirati alluded to. There are a significant number of people that Mr. Zahra and his friend have contacted in connection with this application. Mr. Zahra will be handing up to the Board petitions signed by individual citizens in the approximate amount of 1,400. As well, a letter from the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce urging this Board to grant his approval and get this project under- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 95 way. This Board well knows the hamlet is in need of a restaurant, and this Board knows that the Town is in need of the housing that would be provided by this apartment. So Mr. Zahra will hand up these petitions, at this point, and that is all we have at this juncture. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. ZAHRA: I would like to say ne other thing, Mr. Chairman, with handing up this petition. It has been a very uplifting experience speaking to individuals in the Town and finding out I am not alone. I must have heard at least 1,000 horror stories from people who have been put through similar situations, that you are well aware of, and the rest of the Town. I think it is high time we asked our political leaders to take action and do something about this. This costs thousands of dollars, not to just me but to all the taxpayers of Southold Town. THE CHAIRMAN: Who are you reflecting this suggestion on? MR. ZAHRA: To your political leader, the Town Board. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ?m/ 96 THE CHAIRMAN: And slanted to whom, to do something about what? MR. ZAHRA: To take action, to stop the illicit goings on in the Building Department from -- if you want me to be specific -- THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I want you to do. MR. BRESSLER: Specifically, Mr. Chairman, to grant the application with respect to the apartment and to permit the project to proceed. The delays are unconscionable and that is reflected in the language of the petition. MR. ZAHRA: I would like to thank the people of the Town of Southold for supporting me so well. I had no idea I would receive very well responses. Of the 1,400 names, we had less than 10 turn-downs. That was only the people that just moved in the area several months ago; one or two people that thought by signing it there would be retribution. It is said to think there are people who think that way, but they do. Thank you. THE CHAIk~N: Thank you. Hearing no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further comments at this point, and only because we are going to get on with the next hearing, I will recess this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. In the interim, we will make an appointment with Mr. Zahra to see the apartment, or the open construction of the apartment if we know there is no apartment there. At this point, we will see floor beams and insulation. That's what we assume we will see, and we will reconvene the hearing and tell the Town Attorney. I want you, Mr. him now. Not tonight. him, you know, within the next week or make sure that that is exactly what we dealing with. If you have anything else MR. Chairman. procedure, or the building? THE CHAIRMAN: MR. Bressler, to contact I want you to contact so and are ZAHRA: I have a question, Mr. I am just curious. Is this a normal standard procedure, to enter Every time. ZAHRA: I have been before the Board myself on occasions, when we were before you on the bed and breakfast. I don't recall you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 going into that building. THE CHAIRMAN: Which one was that? MR. ZAHRA: Bed and breakfast on New Suffolk Avenue. The Applicant was myself. THE CHAIRMAN: I did not enter that premises. That is the only one we did not enter. We did enter the one on Pike Street, however. Offering that as a resolution -- MR. GRIGONIS: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (After a brief recess, said proceedings resumed) THE CHAIRMAN: I need a motion to reconvene. MR. SAWICKI: So moved. THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor? MR. GRIGONIS: Aye. MR. DOYEN: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. 1 2 3 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 99 MR. DINIZIO: THE CHAIrmAN: Appeal Number Partners. It Aye. The last appeal is 3915, in behalf of Jordan's is a reconvening hearing from the prior meeting. We will ask Mr. Tsunis, is there anything he would like to add? MR. TSUNIS: Parkway, Hauppauge, New York. I will be very brief. John Tsunis, 801 Motor I just would like to mention tothe Board that subsequent to the last hearing, I submitted some affi- davits. There was a question as to a para- graph on my margin that indicated that property was to be developed as residential lots. At that time, I indicated I never saw that par- ticular phrase. Apparently someone, either in the title company or the County Clerk's Office, put that language in there. There was a technicality required by a regulation in the County Clerk's Office to record the deed on the vacant piece of land. It was at no time submitted to me. I never saw it. · h~ir affidavit by t~e vice pr~i~ent of the bank, which issued the mortgage, indi- 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 cated at no time was it ever indicated or suggested or planned to be developed as a residential use. I would like to report to the Board, also, that I received a letter from one of my tenants terminating the lease that he executed, because of the long delay and asking for his deposit back. I have lost at this point in time McCrory's and I have pleaded with my last remaining tenants to please bear with me until I have a determination from this Board, until they terminate theirs and they are willing to do that. Mr. Chairman, I think the facts are absolutely crystal clear in this case; that the hardship in this particular application is apparent in that basically $826,000 has been expended on a piece of property that was properly zoned at the time of acquisition. That was approved by the Planning Board. A site plan was approved, Board of Health permits were issued, and due to some reason, at the Building ~epartment w£thi~ t~ %k~=n~f ~uthD! a building permit was not issued because 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,24 25 101 municipal water would not be granted to me. I patiently waited. I patiently waited, even for three years when I begged and pleaded that I would drill my own well. That I took a test hole and that it was clean water, and that I was denied a permit even though I could drill my own well and get clean water. Subsequently after much persuasion, a permit was issued and indeed it was issued because I could drill my own well and get my own water and when municipal water was avail- able I agreed I would tap into water system. Subsequent to that, Greenport sent me a letter. in effect, congratulating me. the municipal the Village of Their letter said, The project is on its way, and if I could see my way clear to give them water they would expedite water to me. I submitted that letter to the Board. Approximately %hree years later I have a building permit that was subsequently revoked, because the building inspector advi~d ~ thr~e or four m~th~ after I ~a~ issued the permit that the property was rezoned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 102 I was unaware of it. Obviously the building inspector was unaware of it, although the Town delayed issuing the building permit for that three-year period until that zoning was, in fac~ changed. $826,000, my family's money, Mr. Chairman. I now have an appraisal for $150,000. I suggest to you that is not a reasonable rate of return. I suggest to you that would devastate any family on Long Island, to sustain that kind of loss. The law as applied in this particular instance, I think, is very unclear. I agree with the Board that the use variance should be very sparingly used, but this application cries out for relief, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully leave it in the Board's hands. Thank you. THE CHAI~V~AN: that would like application? Is there Is there anybody else to speak in favor of this anybody that would like to speak against the application? MR. TOW~WS~Ng~ J~e~h ~n~end, Jr. I was on the Town Board at the time the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~4 . 25 103 zoning was changed. The zoning was changed because of the potential disastrous results that could happen by having a shopping distict outside the limits of the Village of Greenport downtown shopping district. It was one of the major goals on the master plan, to preserve the world of nature of this area and one of the ways to do that is to prevent a commercial sprawl and the resulting deterioration of the That is the reason that action was downtown. taken. That is not your particular concern. I understand. You are looking for hardship. You have to determine there is a hardship, but this matter has come before the Board, the Town Board, and they were net granted relief from the Town Board. It sounds to me that relief might more the legal delays by probably be granted through process, if there was unnecessary the Building Department or site plans were approved and subsequently withdrawn or whatever happened. I am not really familiar, but it seeks to ~a~ tl~at a case fo~ ~_~n~l hard- ship has not been made. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 104 If, however, this Board determines ther~ is a hardship I would hope there is some other relief that would be given. I don't know what it is. It has been so long since I have been involved in this. I don't know what your powers are, but if relief is to be granted in some other area, for instance, in a multi- family housing or something where there is a more demonstrated need, I think it would be both to the Town's benefit and to the Appli- cant's benefit. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tsunis. MR. TSUNIS: Board is aware, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Townsend. My response to that, Townsend, I don't know so the where you heard that information. I never applied to the Town for a change of zone. I inquired, in disbelief, whether or not the land was rezoned while I was awaiting for three years for my building permit, when I was told, in fact, it was. Also, I thought I did receive a building permit and I relied on that building ~e~mit. I put 29,090 ~q'ua're f~ of cement in the ground. No one said a thing. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ,3,4 25 ~/~ 105 I was told that the building permit was revoked, because the zone was changed. The Building Department -- I don't know if the Building Department knew if, in fact, that was changed or not. I certainly did not. I can tell you that forthrightly. When I inquired of the Town Attorney and members of the Town Board, they directed me to this Board to seek administrative relief. THE CHAIRMAN: This was after the building permit was revoked. MR. TSUNIS: Yes, sir. It was incredulous to me after three years of waiting with the proper zoning in hand, with site plan approval, with Planning Board consent, with Board of Health approval in hand I am waiting for the building permit and I cannot drill a well to get water on my own property. It is incredulous to me that I am delayed, and it absolutely appears to me and my Counsel that the delay was deliberate for three years. It is incredulous to me that that ~appe~e~, ~n~ ~it~ I brought it to the exclusive attention, they directed me to this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..24 25 106 Board for administrative relief because it is a unique circumstance concerning this property. It is an abomination what happened to my family here. I absolutely did not go to the Town Board. I came to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief and I applied for the use variance, as I was directed by the Board and the Town Attorney at that time. So that's what happened. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Townsend wants to just reflect on that. Would you step up, at this point, because there are two other issues I have to bring up concerning the closing of this hearing. MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you. I would like to respond to that and the changes on the master plan, which were talked about at great length at several meetings. They were advertised, according to the requirements, in the local papers several times. It is not that I don't have compassion for Mr. Tsunis but~there was an error on his part, whether the zoning was changed all the time he 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 was waiting for his approval whatever it was. 107 for the water or There were letters sent to the Planning Board trying to get an extension of his site plan. I would be interested to know, and I think this Board should know, what steps he took to preserve his application. MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good point because I was concerned about that. The Town of Southold does not require extensions for the site plan approval. I inquired many, many times. Once a site plan approval is approved, it is approved and there is nothing necessary in addition to perfect it. Unless to do. that rule THE CHAIRMAN: and after has changed. There was nothing I think it is three years that you have to go back for readdressing. MR. TSUNIS: zoning was not issued My gripe is not that the changed. My gripe is that I was a building permit pursuant to all the r~=guletio~ in effect for tha~ ~frre~--yeaT period. However, a permit was subsequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 ~//3 108 issued based upon my original plea to drill a well. If that building permit, Mr. Townsend, was issued originally, I would not be here now. I would have complied with everything. Only because of this three-year municipal delay, whether it was on behalf of the Village of Greenport for not giving municipal water -- I heard I was Number 4 on the list for three years -- or because the Building Department did not issue a building permit even though I requested to drill my own well. That is the hardship I am facing here. There was som~ roadblock. Why for three years I could not get it, and all of a sudden I can get it? That is the question. That's my hardship. MR. TOWNSEND: To the extent the Building Department caused you to lose that money, have you taken them to court for that? Are you pursuing Article 78? MR. TSUNIS: Legally speaking, Mr. Lessard advised you have to execute all administrative remedies before any civil or z~uy kir~ of action is taken a~ai~st th~ Uillaq of Greenport, the Town, or any individual who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 may have willfully or, acted in violation of my rights or the law. So that's why I am here. T~E CHAIRMAN: Before I continue, for one reason or another, want to make you aware of the fact that is a final hearing for verbal testimony. I this What we are doing is very simply sending the site plan back to the Planning Board for a last perusal to make sure it is still in order. I will close the hearing with no more oral testimony. At the next regularly scheduled meeting, you are very welcome to come if you so choose to, and I am just going to look at it at that point. I don't want them to give me information that I can't accept and be put into this file. When I close the hearing that is usually the case, Mr. Tsunis, and that is why I don't want that to happen. MR. TSUNIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I really don't know if the site plan -- now you are telling me it was three years. I was never advised of this three-year period. This i~ ~he first ~ D~z~r.i~D.f~. All I ~ tell you is it was pursuant to Code. I did not Frankly, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 ask for any kind of relief whatsoever. I built only what the Board permitted me. Obviously the site plan is defective. THE CHAIRMAN: Why is it defective? MR. TSUNIS: properly. However, 110 Because it was not zoned if it was interpreted or refused pursuant to the pre-existing Code, if the interpretation is that I was refused because I expended hundreds of thousands of dollars, because I was refused because I have everything in order except the building permit because someone didn't issue it to me, for one reason or another, that was out of my That would be a very curious control -- or that I could have effectuated -- that was asked of me to effectuate now. THE CHAIRMAN: Right. If there so comes a point where the Planning Board said no, the site plan is not in order, then I will let them tell us why it is not in order and we will have to reconvene the hearing. MR. TSUNIS: case. ~t~E C'~T'~.4~,N- ~Z~ .a.r,= .ac, t: cl~si~ t~e I will hearing for that particular reason. 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 certainly ask them is it present time, plan. ~/~ 111 in order at the based upon the original site I do want you to know that I do under- stand your plight, and before I say what I finally want to say, I just want to make sure that everybody else remembers there is no more verbal testimony after this hearing. We are going to close the hearing and the matter at the next regularly scheduled hearing assuming we have the report back from the Planning Board, which we will send them a letter over tomorrow. Are there any questions from anybody? MR. TSUNIS: Mr. Chairman, one other issue, in case it means something to the Board. I had a land loan on this property for a very long period of time. The bank demanded the last month that I reduce that land loan by $100,000 due to the pending uncertainty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tsunis, at the last hearing on the way out you said to me, "I app~t~," ~c~ ~ome degree, ~I appreciate Courtesy." That this Board has run a good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 34 25 112 hearing and a fair hearing, and so on and so forth. I don't know if you remember the conversation. MR. TSUNIS: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: You are truly a gentleman and so is your.staff and so are the people, good woman and gentleman who have come before us. I will truthfully say that there was a real degree of professionalism in the way things have been presented in this hearing. The only thing that bothers me to this particular degree, at this point, is that you have not shown me or the other four members -- this gentleman here and the gentleman to his left having been on the Board since the inception of the zoning, since 1958 -- prior to the zoning they have been on this Board -- you have not shown me that this property cannot be used for the professional office park or business park. That is the only thing you have not done to this date. I am saying it would be unkind of me to because you have not. I am only speaking of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 113 me. I am not speaking as a member of the Board, at this point. MR. TSUNIS: First of all, let me just touch on one thing. At the last meeting, also I think the meeting was stopped midway because some personnel from the Incorporated Village of Greenport requested we explore any alter- natives or any avenues, or whatever. I said I would be open to that. A meeting was scheduled last week. Someone was ill in the Village of Greenport and could not attend. There was no meeting, although I believe both parties tried to effectuate that. I would also assume that the various municipal agencies would sit on the sidelines, as well, and wait to see what the decision is in this case. Speaking to the fact that cannot be used as a professional office -- THE CHAIRMAN: Or business office. MR. TSUNIS: I believe if you would review the record, someone from my staff had testified that we advertised the property for ~ perio~of tim~ an~l~ ~-f-i~ '~ca~ ai~een out in the field contacting people. His name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .2,4 25 114 was Stuart Kramer. I can also attest to it, because besides being an attorney I am a developer and I work to lease my property. Except for some interest by a chiropractor and perhaps a dentist, the request for professional office space in this area is devoid of any demand. I also believe that the way the Code is written as RO, residential/office, I don't believe offices as a matter of right must be built there. I think a special permit must be obtained. The fact of the matter is all I can build there, asd a matter of right, is maybe four houses. I appreciate the courtesy of bringing this to my attention. If it was ambiguous or it was not strictly touched upon, let me say this: In all due candor, Mr. Kramer unfortunately is not here tonight. I can tell you I am a real estate broker, as well. My office has endeavored to unearth any kind of tenant that was permitted in the permitted ~Dn(ng ~nH ~r~£essional ~ffic~ ~ on~ of things recommended by the Planning Board. It 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 ~/~- 115 was very difficult to obtain any interest, whatsoever. The sincerest interest was in a building that was developed in a residential type of fashion. If you remember, the rendering of it could be used as a professional office. I would beat the bushes to try to get it. It certainly was appealing to the McCrory Stores, a local chain of small supermarkets on the North Fork, Shop With Us, who now terminated their lease, and the~local Chinese restaurant who is hanging on up'until this time. I will not say I will not endeavor to seek and try to obtain that type of use, but the life blood up until this period of time was the retail uses. Frankly, I am not here to hurt anybody. I am not here to hurt the downtown people, bu~ frankly, a new building with a parking lot in front of it is a very attractive thing. I submit to the Board that it would be observed over a period of time. It is bringing in new ~%s~ hem ~an~. It is ao~ confli~t/n~. It . is a service or retailer that does not exist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,24 25 116 out here. It would better serve the public. It would increase your tax base. It would put some people to work who need it. I mean, I am not going to stand here and say that there is not a lot of money at stake to my family. There certainly is, and the only way to recoup is to be permitted to proceed with an approval that was existent but in reality was denied because the permit was being held for three years and unreasonably so. I make no bones about it, at this point, but to speak to your issue -- I hate to belabor the point. The hour is late. I want to be courteous to everybody else, but this is very important. There were no offices interested in this location, or I would suggest to any strange office use anywhere in the Town. I can verify that personally, from my own personal experience. If that is a question that was left slightly ajar or we did not touch on it, I thought Mr. Kramer did. Rest assured, you can take judicial n~tice if it i~ available to the Boa~ 29,000 square feet of professional office is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 lg 2O 21 22 23 .24 25 impossible. It is time cannot be done. THE CHAIRMAN: 117 for Chapter 11. It Thank you. We will then submit this back to the Planning Board for their viewing of the site plan and we will close this hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting, assuming we have the decision back from the Planning Board. We will not take any more oral testimony. If somebody wants to reduce something to writing, you may. The only problem is you have to come in and review the file, if you want to rebut the information that will be reduced to writing. We had three hearings. We exercised a tremendous amount of time, and we find it has been done very well. A VOICE: There is something, if you want to submit something in writing. THE CHAIRMAN: No problem. You are welcome. The record is still open if you choose, the record tonight. It will be closed and I don't want A VOICE: THE CHAIRMAN: to do that. Wh~ will the T~t~crrd~ ~lDsed'= Hopefully we will close it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .2.4 25 on July 25th. MS. WADE: Randi Wade, ,~3 ~ · 118 Greenport. I want to comment the Southold Town Attorney told Mr. Tsunis he should come before this Board to seek relief. I think that is probably the correct way to go. Before I spoke to a Southold Town Councilman who told me they wouldn't be able to decide on the zoning until you have denied him a variance. So it wo~ld be appropriate for you to deny him the variance. Having spoken to a Southold Town Councilman, they were upset at the thought that a year and a half ago, after a long council deliberation, they passed the master plan and this was a specific issue. They appointed a board to effectively rezone. This was upsetting to them. They thought that really wouldn't be the right way to go, and I hope you agree with them. Also, Mr. Tsunis, as I said to you outside, I do hope you will pursue other ways. If there is anything that any of us can help you withj we would love to seek some kind of residential relief for you. I am sure 7 $ 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 2~ ~4 25 119 a compromise can be worked out. MR. TSUNIS: I will be happy to turn the land over to you for the money I have in it without profit. MS. WADE: When you said that the professional office space value would be nil, so would retail space. If you look at the vacancy rate of Greenport, except for the supermarket, the retail stores you would want to put in would be in direct competition with the stores downtown ~and would cause them hard- ship. So I do not see why you would be granted a variance for that. Also, you mentioned that a letter was sent saying that the Greenport Village would help you out with sewer and water once ~ou started to put in the cement. You also told me outside that the Deputy Mayor had said to you that that person from Greenport was not authorized to send any letter to you making any offer of any kind. So I wish us all luck in working out a good compromise. T~E CHAI~d~AN~ Ra~di, y~ jus~c the question to the Board. It has to be to Mr. -( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .,34 25 Tsunis. MS. WADE: 120 I wish him and all of us luck in working out a good compromise, and I certainly hope you deny this application. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: I am hoping the Village of Greenport gets back to you during this interim period, between now and the 25th, and that you submit something to us on the 25th which says that you are gonig to do something else, or whatever, as a result of the meeting -- the last meeting. In any case, we will close the hearing. Hopefully, we will close it on the 25th, and anything you want to reduce to writing you are very welcome to. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to comment I think you have been more than fair to all parties concerned. You have been very thorough. I appreciate all the time this Board has offered to my family and in our application. Thank you very much. ~ CHAI~V~tN: Thank you. Hearing no further questions, I make a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 121 motion I- MR. Mr. few things DINIZIO: I have a question. Tsunis, I just want to go over a to make it perfectly clear. You say you spent $900,000. You paid $700,500. in this property. Roughly that much. That is your investment You can divide it into four lots legally under the zone and get -- approximately how much per lot are you saying? MR. TSUNIS: I stand by what the record says. I believe it was $150,000 for whatever I could subdivide it for. MR. DINIZIO: That pretty much takes care of your hardship, as far as residence is concerned. What I am saying is you spent far too much already, and you would not be able to get your investment back if you sold the four lots -- MR. TSUNIS: MR. DINIZIO: do. That's the point. -- as you can legally MR. TSUNIS: I believe you will see cancelk~dc~c~ ~ ~erification ~f a~at 826,000. The appraiser indicated it is worth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2:~ ~.4 25 122 somewhere around one hundred fifty. If somebody wanted to be kind and double it to 300,000, I would suggest rate of return. MR. DINIZIO: it is not a reasonable I would say the same thing. I would have said that had you let me. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you. MR. DINIZIO: The only other thing that remains in my mind, the same thing the Chairman alluded to, is that office space or that this could be used as office space. I did a little investigating myself because I don't feel it was offered and I don't feel that aspect was covered as thoroughly as it probably should have been, at least not to my mind. I did read the testimony. It is a lot, and perhaps I missed it. What I did was obtain a zoning map of the Village of Greenport which is in close proximity to this. I live in the area, although ~ I don't live in the Village of Greenport. I also got a copy of their Code which states the z~ing i~ which offi~e~pac~ ia pt~r~ri~cte~. There are t%~o zones, one as retail/commercial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. .24 25 123 and the other is general commercial district. Of the Town area, not including the residences, basically Front Street -- Main Street -- I estimate that at least five percent of that roughly could have office space in it. The old Bohack building, I just can't think of the name of it now, is currently empty with just one store in the front. That is next to the movies. There is also an auto supply shop behind the gas station that is empty. There is Sterling's. We all know the plight of that. There is the old Grant's building. I have not been inside, but there is space available in that building. There is an empty lot next to Mills. I guess what I am getting at here is if you were to try to use that office space, you are right; you could no% use it for office space for that reason, in my mind, but you would not get a decent rate of return for it. But if you don't make that clear -- I don't think you made that clear to me anyway. So t hav~c~ iTrV~j-a~ ~n~r~iz own. MR. TSUNIS: I appreciate your effort in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. ,~4 25 investigating that. MR. DINIZIO: like to say, and I answer. When you advertise for office 124 One more thing I would don't know how to get this space, are you searching for a comparison between an amount of money you are asking as opposed to an amount of money someone could rent that space for in Greenport? I don't know if that is obtainable. MR. TSUNIS: Well, it is a function not only of supply and demand but, again, what would be an economic rate of return on the dollars invested. I have to tell you that three people from my office traveled out many, many times from Hauppauge and knocked on doors out here. I probably brought some of these problems upon myself, in that it may have rallied some of the real estate merchants in the Town of Greenport to come out and oppose me. Perhaps some whispers were made in certain areas of the Village and Town Government that may ~dversety ~ff~t thcG~ ~e~pl~. I can u~ stand what they may have done, but all the 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23. 25 125 while the retail aspect of the development was very strong and all I can point out to you is, yes, there are a lot of empty stores down in Greenport. They are old. They don't have any parking. I had a proposal for the new building, very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. You would think you are in a new beautiful area of Southold that was 150 years old because I developed two other shopping centers along these same lines. One is a historic district in Mount Sinai. I was patted on the back. It is an expensive building, because I have committed to the funds. I have got national tenants. There are many stores that are looking to come out to Greenport. I think that is good for the Town. MR. DINIZIO: All I am trying to say, I am trying to just get the office. You have as I see it, uses for that land that you can have and that you have to prove that you can't use for your hardship in order to get your u~e va~ianc~o One is ~e~i~ep~e, an~ Ib~ii~e even at $300,000 you haven't proven a hardship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ..24 25 126 in that case. The office space. Ail one has to do is look at the vacant stores in Greenport that could be used for business. I point that out. MR. TSUNIS: I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the site plan provided for office space in that development. So there is a big development of professional space as well as retail. So it wasn't strictly retail developments. Again, just very quickly, I understand the problem of the vacancies in downtown Greenport. This is not going to be a white elephant on the highway. I submit, there are clear as bell executed leases and letters of intent. It is simply because it has parking and it is new. It is unfortunate the people found it a detriment, but I don't think my family should be burdened by the fact, we are enjoying something that was properly before the Board; that we took a site plan that was approved by the Town and that we legally could have proceeded if I only had gotten a b~itding Dermit w~ich, in my opini~n and I believe my counsel's opinion, was much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 127 more unreasonably or arbitrarily denied me by some severe problem. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tsunis. MR. TSUNIS: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further co~ents, we reserve the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting for the pur- pose of evaluation from the Planning Board. We will accept no more oral testimony on either side. Both partie.s should call us prior to the next hearing to see i.f there was anything added to the record, that they might want to add. Thank you. MR. SAWICKI: THE CHAIRMAN: /~R. GRTGUNIS: Second. All in favor? Aye. MR. DOYEN,: Aye. MR. SAWICKI: Aye. MR. DINIZIO: Aye. (Time noted: 10:47 p.m.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CERTIFICATION I, Gall Roschen, an Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes taken on June 27, 1990. 128 9 10 11 GA-IL ROSC~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25