HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/26/1990 HEARING 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD :
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING :
Town Hall
· 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
Sep%ember 26, 1990
7:30 P.M.
//
OCT I 2. 1990
11971
11
12
13
14
BEFORE :
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER,
Chairman.
15
16
17
18
19
2O
BOARD MEMBERS:
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI~ /~6nFT'
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
21
22
23
ALSO PRESENT:
LINDA KOWALSKI,
Board Secretary
~ I 24
25
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN:
welcome everybody here. This is our
regularly scheduled meeting of
Town Zoning Board of Appeals.
2
We would like to
the Southold
We would like
to welcome Mrs. Kowalski. She has not been
with us for the year. She is on my right,
and your left.
MS. KOWALSKI: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We would like to
welcome everybody here tonight. The first
hearing on the agenda is Appeal Number 3961,
in behalf of Venetia McKeighan.
(Legal Notice read off record.)
(Time noted: 7:33 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the
survey, dated September 20, 1965, indicating
a one-family dwelling, located somewhat in
the center of the property, closer to
Pond than to Bayview Avenue. I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area.
The nature of the application is for a
gazebo on the road side of the house.
We ask if there are any applicants
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
3
here.
MS. McKEIGHAN: Venetia McKeighan.
THE CHAIRMAN: How far from -- I
should have mentioned this to you --
MS. McKEIGHAN: I have it here. I
did get a letter. It will be 30 feet from
the south line, 60 feet from the north line,
30 feet from the house, 70 feet from the
street.
THE CHAIRMAN: How large is the
gazebo?
MS. McKEIGHAN: It was going to be 10
by 10. After I heard a new price today,
may be down to 8 by 8.
THE CHAIRMAN: The purpose of it is
mainly an aesthetic reason?
MS. McKEIGHAN: No. The reason, my
mother is 84 and living with me. She is
housebound, but she can walk in the yard.
She doesn't like it in the back because the
back is a lot more windy and it is a lot
cooler than in the front, where the sun
comes and the house shields her from the
wind. I thought she could go out and sit
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
there and it would be a place for her to go.
Now she walks down the driveway and there is
nothing to do but turn around and go hack.
I thought if I could have a gazebo, she
could sit there and in the front also
neighbors could see her and come over and
talk with her.
THE CHAIRMAN: will it be lighted in
any way?
MS. McKEIGHAN: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: The foundation is very
simply the base of the gazebo. It is
probably out of pressure-treated wood and
sits right on the lawn.
MS. McKEIGHAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate
height, do you have any idea?
MS. McKEIGHAN: I did ask them and I
did submit that. I think they are like 12
feet high.
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll look in here. It
has been some time since I've looked at the
file.
MS. McKEIGHAN: I think it is 12.
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
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you.
to have a decision for you probably
5
We hope
tonight.
So if you give us a call in the morning --
MS. McKEIGHAN: Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of the
application? Anybody against the
application? Any questions from Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
(Time noted: 7:36 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Harold Gordon, Appeal Number 3962.
It is a variance for a deck addition to
existing residence with insufficient side
yard setback. The legal notice reads as
follows:
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
6
(Legal Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
survey, dated January 6, 1972, by Alden
Young, indicating a parcel just under an
acre with a frame bungalow probably a little
closer to the west side than it is to the
center of the property. Attached to this
existing frame bungalow is a deck which
surrounds it on two sides partially. The
nature of this application is to reduce the
side yard from 10 feet to 8 feet, on the
deck side which is the closest portion to
that side of the property. I have .a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties.
Doctor, would you like to say
anything for the record?
DR. GORDON: Yes. Dr. Harold Gordon,
124 Hickory Avenue.
We wish to enlarge the size of this
deck you just mentioned. Since it is used
right now it is an existing deck. We wish
to enlarge it, since it is uncomfortable and
its use is restricted for that reason. It
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
is inappropriate to build a deck or
it in any other manner.
I am informed my neighbors don't
any objection. So I hope you will see
favorable action on it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
say the height above
deck
presently?
DR. GORDON:
THE CHAIRMAN:
7
enlarge
have
Doctor, what would you
the ground is on that
I would say three feet.
In closing it will
still be a pole structure ho]ding it up,
will it be cement block foundation?
DR. GORDON: Well, the house is
or
Anybody that
application?
members?
presently on cement blocks. So we may very
well skirt the whole thing around in the
same manner.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you
so much.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of this application?
would like to speak against the
Any questions from any Board
(No response.)
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN: Taking this out of
order, I did have a discussion with Dr.
Gordon and he is in need of getting started
on this project. In that light, I make a
motion granting this application as applied
don't have any other specific
Do you?
No. I'll second.
Granted as applied.
for. I
restrictions on it.
All
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
(Time noted: 7:40 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3966, in behalf of
(Legal Notice read off
THE CHAIRMAN: I have
survey dated September
a survey of Lot Number
Peter Bloom.
record.)
a copy of a
27, 1988, indicating
17 of this file map,
8
and showing a one and a half story frame
home approximately 36 feet from Old Shipyard
Lane or Road, and a flag patio in the rear
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
9
of this dwelling which is at ground level.
The nature of this application is to
encompass that flag patio and put a raised
deck along the entire rear of the house, and
a partial deck around the west side of the
house adjacent to the garage. The deck in
size as proposed is 11 feet by 33 feet, 6
inches. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map
and surrounding
would like to
indicating this
properties in the ~rea.
Is there somebody that
speak?
MR. GRATHWOHL: My name is Kenneth
Grathwohl. I am here by proxy to Mr. Bloom.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have been down
there and we have seen what Mr. Bloom wants
to do. I don't remember exactly how close
to the rear property line -- which of course
is really the side property line --
(Interruption)
MR. GRATHWOHL: The rear property
line is approximately a foot and a half.
The existing garage, which has a CO, is one
foot off the line.
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
grade
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRATHWOHL:
10
What about the height?
Fourteen inches above
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going to
disturb the original hedge along --
(Interruption)
MR. GRATHWOHL: Nc, the hedge will
not be touched.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the property
line is the steel fence inside that hedge.
MR. GRATHWOHL: According to the
survey, it says, "hedge on line." There is
no indication, no corner markers or
anything.
THE CHAIRMAN: You will not be
extending to the garage?
MR. GRATHWOHL:
the garage.
THE CHAIRMAN:
No. We will be shy
So basically, your
plan here is about right on the dollar.
MR. GRATHWOHL: Probably.
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very
much.
Is there anybody else that would like
L
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
11
to speak in favor of the application?
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application? Any question
from any Board members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming
in. I hope to have a decision for you
shortly.
(Time noted: 7:45 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Appeal Number 3964, in behalf of Kenneth
Minnick.
(Legal Notice read off the record,)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy and a
set of plans, Presently on the property is
a one-story frame home of ranch style, the
parcel of approximately 139 by 273 plus. I
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
have a copy
indicating this
in the area.
Is there
be heard?
MR.
would
12
of the Suffolk County Tax Map
and surrounding properties
somebody that would like to
MINNICK: Kenneth Minnick.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you
like to say for the record before I
interrogate you?
MR. MINNICK: Well, the reason why we
have requested this was we recently met a
couple, that is a Section 8 couple. We have
known them for about a year and they were
having trouble with housing. We thought
that, gee, maybe if
go into it.
In the long term,
parents that are living
it was feasible we would
we both have
out here that are
retiring or are retired and in the future,
at the rate that the taxes are going and
expenses out here, we figured they are going
to have to part with their home eventually
to survive. So we figured we have a place
where they could live too, and we thought we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
'~1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
would do a seasonal rental for them, too.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem I
have with the application is that there was
no provision in the original special permit
to allow for an addition to the dwelling
itself. You have to utilize the existing
footprint of the existing dwelllng.
MR. MINNICK: Yes. That was
explained to us, but it was suggested we
apply and convert the garage into an
accessory apartment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you do that?
MR. MINNICK: We could, but that
wasn't -- we wanted a separate entity. We
wanted an apartment that had vision from the
existing dwelling so there would be some
kind of personal setting for anybody that
lived in it. That's why we connected it
with the breezeway. So it would be a
separate unit.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only one we ever
granted is a utilization of a two-car
garage.
MR. MINNICK: We had thought possibly
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
we would put in for an expansion, an
addition to the house which would be
connected by the roof
line and later apply.
Then it would be an existing footprint.
THE CHAIRMAN: The problem is the law
reads it has to have a valid CO, before
January 1, 1984. The purpose of that was to
utilize all the existing structure first
before we go into actually creating these
apartments in newer structures -- dwellings,
I should say.
Where do we go from here? I know
there is a need for affordable housing.
Tell me.
MR.
that, too.
housing
and even get the money to do this
We had checked and found out that
MINNICK: We had looked into
We looked into low-income
loans and things like that, to try
project.
there was
always something missing. We couldn't apply
for it. After all avenues were exhausted
and we couldn't get grants, our last resort
was to try and go this way. But, like I
said, the whole purpose -- right -- is for
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
family, ultimate immediate family, when you
can't afford to live anymore to have a
place.
I didn't want to do it in the
existing dwelling, if at all possible. That
is why I am asking for the consideration on
the separation. The ~roperty we are located
on is residential and agriculture. If we
did modify the existing garage and applied
for a dwelling within it, then we would have
to do a separate garage and we would still
be encompassing the same amount of land at a
later date. To do another two-car garage
would take up the same amount of space as
the addition would.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would be unkind of
me to have you leave here thinking you are
half-way there or something in the nature,
which you are not. We really can only let
you utilize the garage. We have no problem
with you constructing
attached to the house
house, as long as
or the front yard.
another garage, either
or detached from the
it is not in the side yard
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
At this point,
offer to you is that
inclined to grant the addition
16
the only thing I can
if the Board is not so
that you want
-- do you want us to
MR. MINNICK:
THE CHAIRMAN:
something?
consider the garage?
No,
Why don't you say
MRS. MERRY MINNICK: We could have
put an addition on the house, but then it
would not have been legal to rent it to
anyone.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MRS. MINNICK:
went this way.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I don't know how to
That is correct.
That is the purpose we
I understand that, but
explain this to you. It
is not the way you should have gone. They
should have told you you had to utilize the
existing footprint meaning the existing
house structure, because I assume it was
built prior to 1984.
MRS. MINNICK: Yes, it was before
that.
MR. MINNICK: Yes. The house was
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
built before 1984.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have a valid CO on
the house attached to it before January 1,
19847
MR. MINNICK: It was completed in '79
-- the CO.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the house then
qualifies.
MRS. MINNICK: We met all the
requirements except the fact that you could
not legally rent and if we put an addition
on you could not legally rent it in that
area.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Tell
me what I can do, other than I am telling
~ou we cannot give you the addition. We can
possibly grant you a conditional permit
based upon the fact that you have been
utilizing the existing attached garage. You
don't want to use the garage?
MR. MINNICK: No. We don't want to
pull anybody's leg and play the game and go
with the wet bars. We figured that is not
the purpose of all the zoning laws. We
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
figured we'd try it.
If the Board feels that
it couldn't
be granted because of, like you say, the
existing footprint, then it must be the
Board's decision to find that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will tell you this.
We will review it with the Town Attorney
before we make a decision to see if there is
any possibility, and the law may be changed
in the future. We have no idea. We haue
had some pressure in reference to that.
When I say "pressure," I am talking about
people asking for additional things. As of
to date, the only thing we have granted is a
conditional relief, or what we refer to as a
conditional special permit for the utiliza-
tion of the garage.
Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application? Any questions from any Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
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
19
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 7:55 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3967, in behalf of Kim Campbell.
(Legal Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: ! have a copy of the
site plan and a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating a parcel of 4.3 acres
which is on the water. The site plan
indicates a proposed garage in the front
yard area. Our Fishers Island consultant
and member of the Board, Mr. Doyen, has
brought us pictures from Fishers Island
indicating the approximate placement ~f this
particular proposed garage.
Is there anybody that has an interest
in looking at them in the audience?
Seeing no hands, is there anybody
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
representing Ms. Campbell concerning this
garage -- from Fishers Island? Is there
anybody that would like to speak in favor of
the application?
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application?
Do you have anything you would like
to say for the record, Serge?
MR.
architects
electricity in
for storage --
DOYEN: No. I did inquire of the
and they said there would only be
the garage and it was only
the garage for storage.
THE CHAIRMAN: The approximate size
of the garage is 16 by 24 -- approximately
16 feet in height, of hip roof construction.
Hearing no further comments, I make a
motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted:
7:58 p.m.)
1
2
3
$
~0
12
14
15
17
20
23
24'
25
21
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Frank Curran, Appeal Number 3963.
(Legal Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
sketch of the survey indicating an existing
house set fairly close to Haywaters Cove,
surrounded by somewhat a bulkhead seawall
type of situation. The nature of this
application is a construction of a 20 by 30
foot storage building on the easterly side
of the property, approximately 3 feet from
the easterly side yard -- actually property
line -- and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Would you
MR. PETER
Chairman,
like to be heard?
STOUTENBURGH: Yes, please.
and members of the Board,
am mostly here to answer any ~uestions and
to make sure that if there is any paper work
missing in your records, I could give you
copies of it.
In terms of the past, almost every
project they have done has had to come
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
%¸>
22
before the Board because of the awkward size
of the land that they made their home on
some time ago. One thing that was never
constructed was the utilities space, since
maybe ten years ago they converted their
garage into a bedroom for the expanded
family.
We had gotten an approval from both
your body and the Trustees for a swimming
pool complex in the front yard, I think two
years ago or so, and we had run into
problems with the DEC stating that the only
place they really felt we could do any
building was pretty much exactly where we
asked for this storage facility. It is in
the side yard, and we are not asking to
reduce the rear yard setback from the
bulkhead any further than what the house is
from the bulkhead presently, which was also
I think the request at the time from the
DEC. The variance that we had gotten in the
past was, I believe, 800 and something feet.
We are looking for a building envelope of
approximately 600 this time.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
23
THE CHAIRMAN: That variance at that
time dealt with an existing lot coverage.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you are
going to be 200 square feet under the
existing lot coverage.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: What we had asked
for, at that time, yes. It had requested a
reduced front yard, as well, which we are
not asking for at this point. The property
narrows too much as we get towards the front
of that.
So we are looking or they are looking
for a 3-foot setback from the side yard
property line, the same reduced distance
from the bulkhead and looking for a, hope-
fully, variance of 25
of lot coverage.
THE CHAIRMAN:
proposed -- I'm sorry
percent approximately
Existing distance
-- proposed distance
of the -- let's just use the phrase distance
from the garage or proposed garage to the
bulkhead is what?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight point five.
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
24
THE CHAIRMAN: Eight point five.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Which is what the
house is off the bulkhead at the closest
distance.
THE CHAIRMAN: I notice you want to
build 3 feet to the easterly sideline. Does
that include the overhang?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: It doesn't include
the overhang. The building they have looked
at has less than -- I would say less than a
foot of overhang. It is probably less than
that. It is a minimal amount of overhang.
THE CHAIRMAN: What about water
runoff?
MR.
STOUTENBURGH: I spoke with the
Trustees when we met them on the site, and
they had some confusion. Hopefully, at
their meeting tomorrow we will get our
letter of approval from them. They
indicated that at the meeting.
All runoff is going to be contained
on a drywell on the site or however they
request it. We also have no porous surface
inside the building so that it would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
'/1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
contained.
THE CHAIRMAN: What about height?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Height is a story
and a half. They are looking for storage
above, although it will not be a total two-
story structure. It will be something along
the line of a salt box. I think the plans
we had sent in with it are from a very
similar structure we did,
Nassau Point. It is just
has two-thirds height
THE CHAIRMAN:
from Anderson on
a salt box which
on one side.
What are you talking
about, maximum 167
if you don't
all right.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
that you have --
That's something, again,
have it with you, Peter, it is
think the plans
THE CHAIRMAN: It is shown here as
19-9 on that side.
All right. The only other problem we
have is a rather new one and I don't think
it has ever been done any other place in
Southold. We are, however, all firemen on
this Board and I don't know if you sat
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
:21
22
23
24
25
through these hearings on Carol Road.
We started out on Carol Road,
26
over by
the Sound Beach Motel and we started with
one garage on the lot and we kept on going
down the line as people moved out and
converted the houses from seasonal dwellings
to year-round. Most of them had heat in
them, anyway. The nature of this Board's
policy is not to close up side yards, as one
usually does. The restriction on this, if
the Board is so inclined to grant it, may or
not be to have two existing garage doors;
one in front and one in the back.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don't think that
is a problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: We do that mainly for
two reasons. I am from Mattituck, Jimmy is
from Greenport, Serge is from Fishers
Island, and Charlie is from Southold. We
find that it is very easy to fight a fire if
you can open the garage door and pull a hose
through the garage door rather than try to
wind it around, and that is exactly what we
did on Carol Road and every one of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
existing garages we granted.
the restriction on this.
MR, STOUTENBURGH: I
that's fine from the customer's
from what he told me.
THE CHAIRMAN:
an overhead garage door.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Is there
distance between the two buildings
27
So that may be
would assume
standpoint,
It doesn't have to be
also a
that
could be suggested -- one or the other?
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you are
going to be able to get it there. Usually
the distance is 8 feet, and I don't think
you are going to get it.
The other concern is the opposite
side of the dwelling. It is completely
fenced with a four-foot fence and you just
cannot drag two and a half and three foot
hoses over a four-foot fence.
this may be a consideration.
at this particular time, but if you -- on
the 20-foot -- how large a door are you
putting on this, 8 feet -- 10 feet?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight foot is
As I said,
I don't know
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
22
23
24
25
28
minimal. It's quite often 9 foot for
aesthetic reasons. They may go down to 8.
THE CHAIRMAN: We would not -- on the
back side of the building -- we would not be
requesting anything larger than 8 feet. It
does not have to be overhead. It could be
swinging.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I'm sure that's
fine, that or 8 foot. Between the two would
be given an option.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't have any other
questions, as long as you allow us to put a
restriction on it that it is only to be used
for storage purposes.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don't think
there is a problem. The house is big
enough.
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much
for coming in.
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?
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN:
MR. DINIZIO:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
8:09 p.m.)
The next hearing is a
recessed hearing from July 25th, at which
time new maps were submitted and I now have
before me a new map indicating a requested
set-off of now three houses on a private
road off of Fox Avenue in Fishers Island,
indicating three existing dwellings that
probably have pre-existed zoning. We have
seen them personally, all three of them.
The first lot is approximately 40 by 120,
Lot Number 2 is 44 by 120, and Lot Number 3
is 16,714 square feet or 85 by -- or 85 by
combination of about 180. And they have
existing CO's.
We ask the attorney if he would like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
to speak in favor of the application?
MR. HILL: Michael Hill, 208 Roanoke
Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I am appearing
in behalf of Thomas and Allison Sargent.
Recognizing that you have all seen
the area, I would also like to present to
the Board a video tape of the area.
(Applicant's counsel handing video
tape to the Board.)
MR. HILL: It is narrated by Mr.
Sargent so any com~ents are his. It was
done in the cold days in January. I guess
the snow wasn't on the ground.
In addition to the facts submitted in
the application, I would like to point out
that initially it had been thought that the
Town of Southold's laws were going to be
changed so that when we came here in a
voluntary merger, as we had here, it
wouldn't be necessary for us to go to the
Planning Board. We have had at this point
the filing of an application with the
Planning Board for the subdivision.
Assuming that that subdiuision is granted
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
and we are going to need variances, we made
an application for here as additional
economic hardship -- assuming they would
give us a subdivision in order to comply
with any setbacks which I think are
impossible on these particular plots.
The houses that are existing would
have to be moved. The cost of that is
prohibitive, to say the least. There is no
change in the character of the neighborhood
at all. The houses there are all built very
close to the front line. They are all very
close together and these houses have existed
in that condition, the three houses on these
properties, since the inception of zoning.
As I said the last time to you, by a
court decree, a third lot was merged into
this. It was originally a two-lot
subdivision and the houses are going to just
exist as they are, no changes -- one
driveway added to the premises and that is
shown on the video tape by my client, posted
out where that is going to be, and otherwise
there are no changes to the property.
!
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem I
have is with continuing with the use,
whatever, with the garage apartment. This
Board may put a time limit. I realize the
lady that is presently living in it is 84
years old, or something of that nature. I
have no idea whether she will stay, but that
may be a recommendation of mine in reference
to putting a time limit on the existence of
the garage apartment.
MR. HILL: How many years?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am estimating 10 at
this point, and only bearing in mind she has
probably lived there for a fairly long
period of time, according to Mr. Sargent,
.although he said she is in good health. We
have done this
knowledge.
That may be
once before in Orient, to my
a recommendation. I
you to leave here thinking you
that there is a
don't want
have three valid CO's,
possibility -~
MR. HILL: My only question is
strictly hypothetical and hopefully if we
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
33
encounter any problem -- let's suppose this
particular woman lives in excess of ten
years, can we come back at that time for an
extension?
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, sure.
MR. HILS: Hopefully, we will all
still be here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HILL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody that would like to
speak against the application? Any
questions from the Board?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing this hearing and reserving decision
until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
in favor?
8:14 p.m.)
The next application
!
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is in behalf of James, Peter and Chris
Meskouris. This is a rather unique
application in the respect that we have
opened half of this application before and
had recessed it, which was 3951, and I will
open 3957.
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a letter from
the agent of the applicant, who is Mr.
Fitzgerald, in the file. I have a copy of
the survey,
(phonetic),
34
produced by Anthony Lowendowski
dated 1/29/90, indicating a lot
of approximately 75 by 167 plus or minus. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map.
Would you like to be heard, Mr.
Fitzgerald?
MR. JAMES FITZGERALD: I would be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
I don't have anything to add to the
information in the application.
is interesting.
one, Jim, is the
assume that's the
THE CHAIRMAN: This
What was different on this
fact that the deck -- I
most easterly parcel --
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
MR. FITZGERALD: Thirty-seven, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: (Continuing) -- is not
as encompassing as the other two. In other
words, it doesn't encompass both sides of
the property line.
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: However, it does
encompass the entire west side of the
portion -- westerly portion of the lot where
the house is located.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I assume the decks are
the same as the decks that exist on the most
westerly lot.
MR. FITZGERALD: Number 35.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the nature of this
application as modified and as we discussed
with the Town Attorney is for the reparation
of each one of these individual houses --
dwellings which presently have existing CO's
on them and were merged when purchased.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: By a father and two
sons.
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
36
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who all have separate
families.
MR. FITZGERALD:
THE CHAIRMAN:
you would like to say?
MR. FITZGERALD:
anything else.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes.
Is there anything else
No. I don't have
Is there anything Mr.
Meskouris would like to say?
MR. PETE MESKOURIS: I don't know if
you are familiar with the area. I imagine
you are,
but when you step out of the house
you go right into sand. I would appreciate
it if we are allowed to have the deck.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application? Any questions from any Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
for coming in.
(Time noted:
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you very much
8:20 p.m.)
I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct transcript of the
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
26, 1990, according to my stenographic
of September
notes.
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NM YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING :
OCT I 2 1990
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
September 26, 1990
7:32 P.M.
11971
11
12
13
14
BEFORE :
GERARD P.
GOEHRINGER,
Chairman.
15
16
17
18
19
20
BOARD MEMBERS:
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI -/6me~
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
21
22
23
ALSO PRESENT:
LINDA KOWALSKI,
Board Secretary
,~ ,,] 24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
(Excerpt of Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals hearing, September 26,
1990.)
appeal,
appeal
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Number 3955.
from the last
8:22 p.m.)
The second to last
It is a recessed
regularly scheduled
hearing. It is in behalf of Dominick
Sblendido and A. Auricchio.
We ask Mr. Cardinale if there is
something he would like to add to this. I
do want to address a specific problem we
had, that we never had before.
Mr. Cardinale, are you familiar with
the problem we have from the prior hearing?
MR. PHIL CARDINALE: Yes, I am.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready to
address the Board?
MR. CARDINALE: Yes.
Good evening, gentlemen, and the
female member of the Board as well.
I am aware of the problem because one
of the secretaries of the Board called me to
advise me my remarks were not able to be
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
transcribed, because the Court Reporter was
not here and I guess the machine didn't
work. Therefore, I will have to be somewhat
more complete than I would otherwise be then
in today's representation.
The applicants, Dominick and Ann
Sblendido are present here, as is Angela
Auricchio.
You want to stand, please?
(Applicants standing.)
MR. CARDINALE: As I indicated last
time, Dominick and Ann are husband and wife.
Angela and Ann are sisters.
the residence involved here
a little bit of background,
They have owned
since 1977. As
they are in
their early sixties and they are
anticipating using the house, which they
have used as a second home,
home at some point and that
extensive renovation was commenced.
Another note is that during this saga
I am about to address, between March 16,
1989 and today, some 18 months later, they
have been unrepresented up through 8/1/90
as a year-round
is why the
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
which, as I go through this, you will see
was the point at which I entered the
situation and asked Mr. Lessard to issue a
disapproval so we could come before this
Board.
I hope that this presentation this
evening will shed more light and less heat
on this matter than the original hearing
did. My representation to you is based upon
a review of the Building Department and ZBA
files.
Incidentally, I reviewed your file
this afternoon. There is apparently going
to he a supplemental memorandum submitted by
Marie Ongioni, the attorney for the adjacent
neighbor Mr.
opportunity
read it.
Toher, which I have not had the
to respond to since I haven't
So I would like that opportunity
to respond in writing a few days after this.
I also consulted, of course, with my
clients, with the builder, with the Building
Department personnel, with the surveyor, as
you requested I do, and I have that survey
for you showing the lot coverage.
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
consulted with the Town Attorney, Mr.
Arnoff, in regards to some of the remarks I
am going to make tonight.
I reviewed at length the applicable
code provisions since the last time we were
here. I think that was on July
presentation I am going to make,
25th. The
and the
this in 10
is a brief
5
good news is I believe I can do
minutes, is in four parts. One
recitation of the facts that got us here
which I don't think are greatly in dispute.
The second is a more interesting part, and
that will address the questions or issues
properly before this court, and the law
regarding that.
You recall, Mr. Goehringer, that one
of the things that did get transcribed was
my remark that I was surprised by the
opposition and that I believed it to be very
wide-ranging and I had serious questions as
to what the court could in fact do in this
instance under its authority, under the
statute. I am going to address that in the
second part of my remarks.
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
6
The third part will be a rebuttal of
the inaccurate statements of the opposition,
specifically the neighbor adjacent, Mr.
Tober, through Ms. Ongioni.
that I have and will submit,
the lot coverage surveys.
-- last two months ago --
according to the surveyor
As a preview of
in a moment,
As I suspected
the lot coverage
is now 13 1/2
percent which is far below the 20 percent
permitted of this lot. So Ms. Ongioni's
allegation that it was 28 percent is wrong,
as a number of her other allegations are.
Finally, I would like to briefly
review the equities involved here. In
regards to the facts, November 25th, 1977,
Ann, her sister Angela, and her husband,
Dominick, purchased the property. There was
a husband involved of Angela but he had
passed away. They have resided weekends,
vacations, su~ers, as I indicated earlier,
up to March of '89. On March 16, '89, more
precisely a few weeks before that, they
retained Argyle Construction to obtain a
building permit in regards to this matter
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and to build a renovation which would
include essentially doubling the size of
this house.
Construction commenced sometime after
March 16, '89. I think it was in June or so
on the plans, which were submitted, which
were accepted, where a building permit was
issued and which were in your file as
Exhibit Number 1 and which clearly show two
kitchens which, incidentally, it could and
will be argued does not necessarily mean
that was an error on the part of the
Building Department, to issue a building
permit, even showing two kitchens.
THE CHAIRMAN: What date was this?
MR. CARDINALE: March 16, 1989.
Thereafter, construction co~enced,
as I indicated, without incident until
12/5/89 when a Stop Work Order was issued.
The Stop Work Order of 12/5/89, which is in
your file, indicates to the owner "You are
notified to suspend all work at the
location." The basis of the Stop Work Order
is "No foundation inspection, no second
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
survey, nothing built as per plan submitted,
appears to have insufficient front yard
setbacks, cannot build a two-family dwelling
in an R-40 zone."
The conditions under which the work
may be resumed:
One, submit a new survey showing all
setbacks and houses within 300 feet on the
same side of the street, which would be
relevant to Section 100-230 which provides
for relief automatically for, as you know,
lots where the setback within 300 feet is
less than that which would otherwise be
required.
The second condition was to -- now
this, mind you, was nine months after the
initial permit -- new plans show all details
stamped.
The third condition for resumption
eliminates the two-family dwelling.
Fourth, pay the new fee. Failure to
remedy same may constitute an offense.
The builder, according to your file,
met on December llth with the Building
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
Department personnel. Incidentally, Victor
Lessard got a lot of grief last time.
Victor Lessard is not really much on the
file. Muoh of it is other members of the
Building Department; Mr. Fischer (phonetic),
Mr. Horton (phonetic), Mr. Lessard. There
is a number of people involved in this file.
They met and there is a notation, on 12/12
the Stop Work Order was lifted and
permission to resume construction was given.
That was not given just for the fun
of it or for no reason. It was given
because in the file, at the request of the
Building Department, was submitted by my
clients a statement, which is in Marie
Ongioni's papers, that they would not use
the residence and had no intention of using
it as a two-family residence. That they in
fact did submit plans, which you have as
Exhibit 2 from the last hearing, which did
something more than simply restate the
original plans. It interrelated this house,
in a very meaningful way because the
Building Department was legitimately
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
concerned that this house should be
interrelated since it had some indications
of a two-family structure.
They insisted apparently that there
be an interrelation of each ~loor between
the two parts o~ this home -- hallways, in
other words, and most significantly, if you
walk through this home now with these plans
they insisted the bedroom -- all the
bedrooms in the upstairs area are all
interrelated. There is just a big hallway,
and this was required as was the exclusion
of the kitchen which had already been
approved.
As a condition of going forward, my
clients agreed to this, presumably.
Remember, they were unrepresented because
the contractor urged them to do so, and they
gave the statement of non-use to family.
They changed their plans to interrelate both
floors and they addressed the other issue,
which was the issue o~ setback, by
indicating that they would provide the
setback survey, showing the setbacks of the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
home within 300 feet, which survey they did
in fact obtain, and it did in fact establish
that they needed in order to get this big
round stoop, which you will see on the
plans, approved to get a variance because
the big round stoop was 18 feet from the
front line. The average, depending on how
you calculate my clients' setback, at 18 as
proposed or at 26, is either 26 or 28 for
the other houses.
If you notice the plans, the house
simply stayed on the same line as the
existing or renovated portion of the home.
So that actually, with the exception of the
stoop, they do not need a setback from the
front yard because they were not, under
Section 100-242, increasing any nonconfor-
mance. We were building on the same line
except for the stoop. So it was agreed they
would submit this setback survey, and if
necessary, they would seek the variance and
they would not do any further construction
on the stoop. And they lived up to that.
Nothing happened much between
I
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
12
In any event,
which is, I believe,
make an inspection.
we are now at 5/14
Mr. Horton comes out
Incidentally, we are
to
December 12, when the Stop Work Order was
lifted on the condition just indicatad,
until May, except that; one, it became
clear that the setback, the smallest setback
possible for the stoop would be 26 to 28
feet, not 18. So they would need a variance
for that, for the stoop.
And also in the file there is a
January 5 stop appearance ticket indicating
that they should come to court on January
5th, which is referred to in Marie Ongioni's
paper work, for failure to obey a Stop Work
Order. It was never signed. It was never
issued and, apparently, what it was was
sitting in the file because ii they hadn't
gotten together on the 12th -- llth or 12th
~- to agree to lift the Stop Work Order, it
would have been issued. So to say there was
no compliance between 12/12 and the next
Stop Work Order on 5/29 is inaccurate, based
upon what I have seen in your file.
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
13
now around $176,000 into this construction.
Mr. Horton notes that at the point where
they pulled out the second kitchen, and if
you look at the plans, the whole back of the
house was going to be a kitchen with the
exception of two bathrooms in between, that
when they agreed to make the second kitchen
into a great room, in December, they --
according to Mr. Horton, which is a
reasonable observation, when he got out
there on the 14th he was suspicious because
there was plumbing in the wall in the great
room facing out towards the backyard which
could be utilized for the sink and/or for a
kitchen. It was the plumbing set up for the
sink.
Mr. Horton discussed it with the
builder and with the clients -- with the
builder, I know at least -- and the clients
came to me after that discussion and they
said to me in about late in May, early June,
"We need a variance for a wet bar because
that's what we want to put in. We want to
put a sink in and a bar overlooking the
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
39
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
window, looking out into the backyard."
So, I said, "Well, unless something
has changed in Southold Town, you don't need
a variance to put in the sink for the wet
bar," meaning a bar with running water.
Under the circumstances, I didn't doubt the
Building Department had good cause to be
concerned that they might be permitting this
and that it may thereafter illegally be made
into a kitchen.
So the gist of it was, when I spoke
to Victor, I said, "Victor, what are we
doing?"
He said, "Number one, you've got to
get m setback anyway because the variance
28. Number two, go to -- I am
any further into this -- go to
find out if you can have a wet
shows 26 or
not getting
the Board and
bar."
I said, "Victor, I am not going to
the Board and asking them if I can have a
wet bar with a sink because I know I can
have a wet bar with the sink in the great
room, but I wilm ask them to interpret
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
15
whether a second kitchen originally proposed
necessarily makes this a two-family
dwelling."
There is some law on this which I
will get to in a moment. The gist of it is,
now we are at 5/29 on the facts, and I asked
him to please issue a notice of disapproval
so I can get going
It is in your file
following:
on the variance. He did.
and it indicates the
Under Article 3A, Section 130.3 and
Article 23, Section 100-230A, construction
has insufficient front yard setback. Also,
under Article 3A, Section 100-30A2,A1 (100-
3lA), a permitted use one-family detached
dwelling not to exceed one dwelling on each
lot. (A two-family dwelling is not a
permitted use.) Action required by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Hence, we are here. We needed the
setback. We knew
December, when we
We just didn't go
not
that since late in
got the setback survey.
in for it because we were
working on the stoop. We agreed not to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
16
work further. Now we are in here and, in
fact, Victor I think really, I would add,
was going to permit the construction to
continue if we pulled out the plumbing on
that wall. Instead of doing that, because
of this second Stop Work Order and the back
and forth, we elected to come in to put two
questions before this Board:
1) May we please have a variance for
the stoop, because it is 18 feet from the
line instead of 26 to 28 feet of the
neighbor's.
2) May we have an interpretation of
the indicated section from this Board as to
whether a second kitchen necessarily means
that a house which is interrelated on both
floors and which is now and has been used
for the last 15 years by two sisters, does
that necessarily mean it is two family?
When we finally got to the hearing,
on 7/25, my clients were quite surprised at
the confusion about what it was we were
seeking. My first remarks were we are not
seeking a permit for the two-family home.
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
We were not
apartment.
17
seeking an accessory use for an
We are seeking a variance for
the stoop and we are seeking an interpre-
tation of an interesting legal
had already discussed,
question
by this time,
which I
with Mr. Arnoff.
The issues that I believe are
properly before the Court are, I believe,
the following:
The questions which the Board
which
zoning
you are
aware of, is that the Board's power and
properly made -- has before it. You may be
relieved or you may not. You may believe me
or you may not, but I believe if you consult
with your Town Attorney, he will agree that
despite what the revoked -- building permit,
tear down the house, cut it in half,
contingent urges that it is not within the
purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
under these facts which I have just
indicated, to do that.
If you look at Section 100-271,
is the empowering portion of your
statute, the indication there, as
well
L
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
authority is to hear and decide appeals from
and review any orders, requirements,
decisions or determinations made by the
Building Inspector; to grant variances, as
the ones we are seeking; to grant exception
which we are not seeking; and to interpret
any order, decision or determination of an
administrative officer by determining the
meaning of any prevention or of any
condition or requirement under the chapter.
The point I am really desperately
trying to make clear to you is that we have
no real problem to speak of with the
Building Department. We are asking you to
give us a variance or not give us a
variance, as you see appropriate under the
law as I will address it in a moment, and to
give us an interpretation positively that we
may put that kitchen in or negatively that
we may not, and in doing so I believe you
must reach the issue of whether a second
kitchen necessarily makes a home a two-
family dwelling.
Now, the logic, the way I approach
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
19
this logically is -- and incidentally, the
notice of disapproval from the Building
Department which was requested by me, and
which is dated May 29, and the Stop Work
Order that followed the next day, defines
our problem. Our whole problem is that
after this whole saga which you know about,
we requested on 5/29 the long awaited and
the not surprising order to get our stoop
variance and that this one-family detached
dwelling has to have only one dwelling unit,
and there was an interpretation of the
Building Department that putting a wet bar
in on that wall where the original kitchen
had first been approved would be not proper
-- much less a kitchen. It is our position,
which I will advance further, that a kitchen
itself is proper.
How are we going to get out of this
Stop Work Order which indicates, inci-
dentally, the June 1st order, construction
has insufficient front yard, not being
constructed as per plans, plumbing installed
for second kitchen? We have to get your
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
20
approval for the second kitchen or take out
the plumbing4 Incidentally, if you don't
give us a second kitchen, would you please
let us know that we can put a wet bar in
there, which I am defining as a bar with a
sink in it with running water which many,
many great rooms have in many houses; and
finally, an okay from the principal Building
Inspector, in other words Victor, to look at
it and to make sure he would be happy with
what we are doing. If we decided not to go
forward with the stoop and if we decided
further not
the wet bar, we
construction.
to challenge on the kitchen or
could have continued
Now I am sitting here in October.
That may have been the wiser choice, since
we have been held up four or five months.
The petitioner's application, incidentally,
indicates as you know and should know that
what I was seeking was a variance for
insufficient front yard and an
interpretation to permit second kitchen,
interpretation of ordinance sections
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
21
regarding second kitchen in one-family
dwelling.
If you look at your two notices, that
would probably explain to you to some extent
why everyone is in an uproar. We are not
seeking a permit for a two-family dwelling.
We never have been. I believe that is part
of the reason why everybody is so upset, in
addition to the fact they don't like the way
the house looks and it will look better when
we put some trees around it. We do not seek
nor have we ever sought the two-family
permit.
We do seek the following,
and here is
the case: a variance. You know that we
have to establish for the front yard
variance practical difficulty, unnecessary
hardship, and that the relief would not be
inconsistent with the neighborhood. It is
our position that practical difficulty
standards is met by the fact that this is
pre-existing nonconforming lot. That
are dealing with a small allotment of
in an undersized lot,
space
that the next-door
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbor has in fact an 18-foot setback.
are seeking the same setback, that the
average within 300 feet is 26 to 28 foot
22
We
Finally, unlike what
Marie Ongioni's paper work,
ride and look at the house.
is indicated in
please take a
In fact, if you
want to see the house, please ask for the
key. We will be glad to let you go inside,
something the architect never did although
he wrote a three-page letter to you.
setback -- that we are not even seeking a
setback here for the line of the house. We
are seeking a setback for the circular
stoop, so that it is less offensive, so to
speak, and the house actually remains back
at the 28-foot level.
Secondly, in regards to unnecessary
hardship, the unnecessary hardship, the best
argument is the whole saga which I
delineated in the first part. This whole
saga of $146,000 worth of expenses and
constant cooperation with the Building
Department to do whatever they ask us to do,
I believe established unnecessary hardship.
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
The new houses in that area,
particularly on the bay side and the
renovations are quite lovely, are quite
large, and if you look at the house I want
you to realize that that house has 1,400
square feet on each side of it, so to speak.
This whole house is 2,800 square feet. This
is not a big house. I have been in it. It
looks pretty big sitting there because there
is nothing on this lot but this house and
some construction debris, but 2,800 square
feet is not a big house.
Incidentally, Marie Ongioni argued
this was an illegally issued or improperly
issued permit. I believe that is
So that is the argument on the
inaccurate.
variance.
If you look at the community,
they have larger homes than 2,800 square
feet on lots of similar or lesser size,
although the picture you have from Ms.
Ongioni are smaller homes which also exist.
There are some very nice big homes on the
bay side -- across from them.
Now let's get to the question of
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
interpretation.
interpret that
24
Why do I think you ought to
the second kitchen does not
necessarily make a two-family dwelling?
Well, for one thing, it would help I think
if you looked at the definition of "dwelling
units" in your code. That is interesting.
It says -- and this indicates I believe that
Victor Lessard and the Building Department
were in fact doing their job in indicating
that a dwelling unit is defined as a
building or an entirely self-contained
portion thereof .... you can look at 100-
13.
The point is that this is not a
building or an entirely self-contained
portion thereof, this second dwelling. It
is a totally interrelated home. Who is
going to build a two-family dwelling, with
interrelated bedrooms with one big hallway?
Who is going to build a two-family dwelling,
with a connection on both floors which
people walk through? If you want to get in,
as the opposition suggests, to how this
could easily be made an illegal two-family
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
25
dwelling, then we will have to have the Town
Building Department police all over town
because you can do that with any building.
In fact, as you know, if they just
put a door, and then two doors when the got
inside, this whole entire problem would not
be before your Board because that generally
is the way people who want to be sneaky do
it.
The point is, this is an interrelated
building on both floors, by direction of the
Building Department when we filed our new
plans. So despite the fact that these two
older sisters, who want separate heat and
separate water and separate electric, if
they can get it put in that doesn't make it
a two-~amily dwelling. That is one thing I
would ask you to look at.
I also bring to your attention the
Riverhead Zoning Board of Appeals decision
in the case o~ Wilmont (phonetic) issued in
July o~ this year. What happened there, Mr.
Wilmont had a house in which there were two
kitchens with the pre-existing use. He
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
';'1
2:2
23
24
25
26
requested, as I am doing, a single-family
CPU. The Building Department has to go in
to see. They see the second kitchen. They
say no, we can't give you a CPU for a
single-family dwelling when you have two
kitchens. They go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to get an interpretation of whether
they can or cannot do that. The decision,
Pat told me, of that Board was the
following: That a second kitchen does not
automatically mean a two-family dwelling.
Issue the one-family Certificate of Pre-
existing Use. We got it in '77, a one-
family Certificate of Pre-existing Use, and
we want now a one-family Certificate of
Occupancy. We don't want a two-family. We
never have.
Finally, I would like to mention that
it seems on a matter of law and equity that
all of you sitting here and standing here
know that there are one-family homes sitting
in this town which legally have two
kitchens. There are kitchens off the bay,
on Nassau Point. There are kitchens off of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
27
pools. There are rec room kitchens. Yet
these houses are nonetheless one-family, not
two-family homes, because they are
interrelated.
My point, of course, is that Mr.
Lessard and the Building Department
correctly insisted on interrelationship of
this house. That they were connected. That
the bedrooms were all together. That there
was one hallway and that
not whether or not there
The third thing
is the indicator,
are two kitchens.
wanted to do --
technically, I
are limited to
requesting and
do not have to do this. You
considering what I am
considering what I am asking
you to interpret,
down buildings on me.
on that, technically I
and you can't start taking
If you are convinced
do not have to rebut
the inaccuracies in the paper work from Mr.
Tober. However, I cannot resist.
I will submit, at this time, the
survey from Peconic Surveyors demolishing
the argument advanced that this new
renovated dwelling has 20 percent or more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
39
2O
21
22
23
24
25
lot coverage. It just isn't so. It is
wrong. Ms. Ongioni, I believe, is also,
behalf of Mr. Tober, whose motivation I
28
on
leave to your consideration, but I note this
Board can sufficiently differentiate what
some boards call, quote, religious objection
as opposed to real objection to a particular
project. There is a motion involved here.
I don't know why. She is wrong on that
point. The lot coverage is 13 1/2.
As to the argument about setback,
attached to my application, petitioner's
application, here is the setback survey.
What happened here, and what happened
properly under 100-242, quoted in Ms.
Ongioni's own paper work, is that the
Building Department correctly permitted my
clients to simply extend the existing
setback line front and back on this
residence by sufficiently adding a second
part to it.
If you look at 100-242 and read it
carefully, it supports that. Nothing in
this article shall be deemed to prevent the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
29
remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of
the nonconforming building containing a
conforming use provided that such action
does not create any new nonconformance or
increase the degree of nonconformance with
regards to the regulations pertaining to
such building.
If you look at the old survey in
Marie Ongioni's papers, if you look at the
new survey you will see that we don't do
anything but simply -- and, incidentally, if
this is wrong and I for one know of many
instances where exactly the same thing
happened -- we simply extended our front
line and extended our back line. We have
not run into any sideline problems.
Therefore we stayed within the same building
envelope as we were originally in. And this
is particularly so, with the exception of
the stoop. We consider that under that
particular section, 230. We have a setback
not of 50 feet -- not of 30 feet, but of the
average within 300 feet. So on that issue
she is, I believe, also wrong.
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
30
On the side of this house, this house
is smaller than it would be. Significantly
smaller than it could be. It is 2,800
square feet. So they are wrong on that,
tOO ·
There is in your file, the only
notification I saw was a letter dated August
25th, from George Yorkey (phonetic), a New
York City architect, who admits he was never
in the house -- presumably saw it either
from the street or trespassing on the
property, and yet presumes to advise you to
tear it down. If Marie Ongioni is simply
wrong, as I have indicated, and you believe
this to be true, this man is simply
ridiculous and I am sure you will treat that
letter with the care that it deserves.
None of that is important if you
believe, as I believe you will, that your
authority under the statute is limited.
Even if these arguments have had some merit,
which they do not, the permit for the
reasons indicated was never improperly
issued. There was no lot coverage issue, no
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
and no
setback issue, other than the stoop,
oversize issue.
As to other remarks about whether we
met the standards for the variance, I
believe we have as I indicated earlier. The
confusion in the papers, as I studied them,
is simply this: She is talking about a
variance for a two-family house. We have
not reached that standard because we never
wanted a two-family house. We reached the
standards for the setback on the stoop.
As to the question of interpretation
leave it to your
I have
of the codes, I
consideration.
Finally,
introduced you to the
is a hardship. They had enormous expenses.
The kindest thing you recall said about them
earlier here was their house was a
monstrosity and they were animals for having
torn down the trees in front of it. They
heard it.
applicants.
earth people,
The saga has
They are real simple, down-to-
trying to retire out here.
been 18 months. I believe that
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
7'7
32
The use is going to be the same as it
has been since 1977. The title is in a
~amily of two sisters and a husband. The
house is totally interrelated on the new
plans, both floors. The size is as
indicated; 2,800 square feet. They have
acted in good faith in the last 18 months,
which is what the Building Department told
them to do. We have spent a lot o~ money,
$167,000 in the process. To suggest that
this is a self-imposed hardship, as
suggested by some of the opposition,
although some of them tempered it with, "It
is really the Building Department's
problem," to suggest my clients created a
self-imposed hardship is
in the facts.
Thank you for
THE CHAIRMAN:
confuses me about this
it actually looks like a
because of the two doors.
totally outrageous
listening to me.
The only thing that
application is that
two-family house,
I want you to
think of that, Mr. Cardinale. I am going to
ask you about it at the end of this hearing,
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what you can do about that particular
architectural view.
MR. DINIZiO: Can I ask a question?
Because you explained to us just exactly
what we are supposed to be considering here,
I just want to make it clear that I am
considering that we are supposed to make a
determination on the determination that
Victor Lessard for the Building Department
has said, by looking at these plans and
inspecting that house, that they interpret
this to be a two-family dwelling.
MR. CARDINALE: I am glad you stated
that. That is not what they said. If you
would speak to your Building Department and
Mr. Lessard, he will confirm what I said to
you tonight. They have no problem with the
plan as it exists so long as we did what we
promised to do, which was interrelate these
two floors.
They have no problem except they do
not want plumbing, as you walk in what is
now called the great room, on the back wall.
The contractor put plumbing in there, and
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
34
they don't want plumbing in there.
Our response is, it is not a kitchen.
It is a wet bar. Victor has been around
long enough to respond to that, "Right.
Tell it to the Zoning Board of Appeals."
is concerned, legitimately, if you permit
plumbing on that line it can be altered
later to a kitchen. The point is that if
you took that stance on euery case in the
Building Department, you would never permit
a wet bar -- that is a bar with a sink -- in
any great room, and to deny my clients %o
have a wet bar in their great room is
unfair.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would we use the
phrase "great room" to mean then also?
MR. CARDiNALE: Yes. I do encourage
you and I am sure my clients would be glad
to have you get inside.
THE CHAIRMAN: By raising that
question that Mr. Dinizio just did, I am
afraid it appears that we are not going to
be able to close this hearing because we
might have to get Mr. Lessard back again and
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
discuss it with him on the record.
Certainly conversations with the Building
Department concerning this hearing are not
germane to everyone in the audience who is
here for this hearing. So that's where the
problem is.
MR. CARDINALE:
question, I asked Mr.
reach him this afternoon without success.
was in here at 4:30. He was out on the
road.
The other thing I will
In anticipating that
Lessard -- tried to
.I
state, which I
am sure you will confirm, is that I said to
him -- and this really is a problem because
we haven't been able to build since June
1st, that we are coming into cold weather.
The house is unprotected. I said, "what the
heck do I have to do to get the Stop Work
Order lifted?"
He said, "What you've got to do is
don't work on the stoop until you get a
decision, and pull out the plumbing."
I said, "If I pull out the plumbing
and I get approval for the kitchen and wet
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
bar, t just wasted a few hundred dollars."
So my point is, I don't want to get
my clients in a bigger jam than they already
are. If I withdrew this application, I
could go back to the Building Department and
tell them, "I am taking out my kitchen -- my
kitchen plumbing -- for my wet bar, which
you are concerned about this kitchen, and I
will forget this circular stoop."
My position is we have complied in
every other way, and the Building Department
believes we have complied. I believe he
will verify that.
THE CHAI~4AN: In answer to your
what we had was the exact
question, Jim,
updated plan, which there was only one copy
from the Building Department. It was lent
to us from the Building Department's file
from the last meeting, and our prior
secretary had returned it to the Building
Department the morning after the hearing.
So we don't have the exact, most updated
plans.
That's possibly it. Maybe yuu can
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking at,
submitted?
!4S. KOWALSKI:
Number 2.
shows
MR. CARDINALE: There is, in fact, an
interconnection between all the bedrooms,
and if those plans do not show that, they
should. I am surprised. I didn't look at
them carefully. You may be correct.
There was one other thing I wanted to
mention, which is that Victor indicated --
well, in regards -- I guess I stated what he
indicated. So I'll just leave it at that.
I thought I was going to advance, Mr.
Dinizio, you are correct that the confusion
that brought out the neighbors I believe was
MR. CARDINALE: Which plans are you
Number 1 or Number 2 I
MR. CARDINALE: That is the one that
the great room on the lower floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
furnish us a better copy of the plans.
MR. DINIZIO: Our plans don't
indicate that the upstairs is separate, in
that it has a wall. It appears to be a
wall.
1
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'19
2O
2'1
22
23
24
38
greater anger than necessary, and what
concerned this Board, is if you look at --
not my application but the notice of
disapproval of May 29th, Victor indicates
the section why you can't have the two-
family. He doesn't indicate his underlying
reason for stopping the work. ! am telling
you the underlying reason is because of the
plumbing in that wall. He wanted it cut.
! said to him, "Couldn't I put a wet
bar even?"
He said, "No, not even a wet bar
unless ycu get the Zoning Board of Appeals
to approve it."
I said, "That's ridiculous. I'll go
for a kitchen and see what they say."
THE CHAIrmAN: Ms. Ongioni, pursuant
to my discussion with Mr. Cardinale, you did
read rather a lengthy memorandum. Are you
prepared to do that again?
MARIE ONGIONI: I am not. I am
making that a part of the record. I don't
want to take the Board's time once again
tonight. In view of the lost time, last
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~9
2O
21
22
23
24
25
time, I am not going to go through the
entire memorandum with you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. ONGIONI:
record, I don't think
through it once again.
We do appreciate it.
Since it is part of the
it is necessary to go
I have a
supplemental
submit now. It
previous one.
(Above-mentioned memorandum submitted
memorandum I would like to
is much shorter than the
I would just like to
Hopefully, I will hold
to the Board.)
MS. ONGIONI:
make a few points.
the
are not present
took ill last week.
to the ten minute parameter that Mr.
Cardinale suggested before.
First I would like to advise
Board that my clients
tonight, as Mr. Tober
He had a heart attack and he was
hospitalized in the middle of last week, in
Manhattan, in St. Luke's Hospital. That is
why their presence is not here tonight.
However, I do believe there is quite
a bit of community opposition and I believe
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
40
they are in the audience, and although I do
not know them by name I would like to remind
the Board of petitions submitted by uarious
community members at the last hearing.
I will not reiterate the points made
in the earlier memorandum submitted in July.
I will say though that in response to one of
Mr. Cardinale's points, there was an error
in the calculations regarding the lot
coverage and I withdrew the application that
the lot coverage exceeds 20 percent. It
does not. The multiplication was
the building, 58 by 56,
or thereabouts. So the
allegation in the earlier memorandum is
withdrawn.
However, I believe that the Board
still needs to review the totality of the
circumstances here and the building in its
entirety in determining what this really is.
As one of the opponents indicated at the
last meeting, there is every indication that
this is a two-family dwelling. I know that
this is not before the Board now. The only
based upon
instead of 56 by 24
lot coverage
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
41
two issues which are before the Board are:
1) whether or not a second kitchen
should be allowed; and
2) the front yard setback.
In my opinion, I urge the Board to
reach that
requests
whole.
entrances. You have two fuel tanks.
have duplicates of so many essential
services that are in the dwelling.
that the conclusion is that this is,
a two-family dwelling.
conclusion that both these
are secondary to the project as a
In viewing the site, you have two
You
I submit
indeed,
I would also like to point out, it is
within this Board's jurisdiction and, in my
opinion, to revoke the building permit. I
refer to the Board, to the same section with
which Mr. Cardinale referred the Board to,
which is a section of the Town Law, a
section of the Southold Town Code, Section
100-271, and it states that this Board has
the power to hear and decide appeals from
and review any order requirement decision or
determination made by the Building
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Inspector. I submit this
the determination made by
Inspector can, indeed, be
reviewal could indeed
his decision to issue
to the Board,
the Building
reviewed and that
result in annulling
a building permit and
42
that
New York State Town Law, has the power to
make such determinations. And in the memo I
submitted tonight, I refer you to two cases:
1) Second Department Case, Matter
of Village Green Center, Inc. versus Reidy,
249 NYS 2d 440 (2nd Department 1964). This
case indicated that a Zoning Board of
Appeals is empowered to revoke a building
permit issued to an applicant and the Board
possesses such authority.
There is another case, which is a
Third Department case. So based upon that
case law, it is my belief it is within the
power of the Zoning Board of Appeals to make
such a decision. As a matter of ~act,
to, in fact, annul the building permit.
So, contrary to what Mr. Cardinale
has advised the Board, it is my opinion that
this Zoning Board of Appeals according to
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
believe that this Board has
building permit in the past.
Now, as far as whether or not this
a two-family residence, the applicant
indicates that is not before this Board.
Well, that may not specifically be before
this Board, but the inescapable conclusion
is that this has all of the elements of a
two-family dwelling. It has six bathrooms.
It has two dwelling units which are mirror
43
indeed revoked a
While Mr. Cardinale
an interrelationship
is an
images of each other.
may indicate there is
between the two dwelling units, if it
open hallway that, in my opinion, was an
accommodation to give the appearance of a
one-family dwelling. The hallway could have
easily been closed. There are two front
entrances, which clearly indicate there are
two totally separate dwelling units.
Once again, the case law has
indicated that the test of whether a
dwelling is a one or two-family residence is
its design, and t refer to the case of
Matter of Stafford versus Incorporated
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
village of Sands Point. Justice Shapiro,
this case, believes one must consider both
design and nature of occupancy as a twofold
test and he did not believe that the case
before him met that test.
I would submit to this Board that
facts exist in this application.
similar
Here we have a two-family unit, although
sisters; two heating systems, two ~lectrical
systems; two entrances and stairways.
Whether or not a second kitchen should be
added to this dwelling is really irrelevant,
because it is a two-family dwelling.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could I
just ask you
to give us copies of those cases that you
are stating?
MS. ONGIONI: If you would like me
to, I will do that. They are cited in the
memo.
It doesn't have to be
THE CHAIRMAN:
tomorrow.
MS. ONGIONI: I have copies in my
office, and I will get them to you.
There is one new issue which I would
44
in
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
like to bring to the Board's attention.
There is a possible violation of the wetland
statute here. It appears that the
Environmental Conservation Law could have
been violated. I don't have an exact
dimension between this property and, I
believe, it is Gull Pond Inlet. I have it
attached to the memorandum. Yes, it is Gull
Pond Inlet.
It appears that this property may be
270 feet within the inlet, and if that is so
the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion's approval should have been sought
because the Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 25, Title 4, requires that the
excavation and removal, either directly or
indirectly, of soil, sand or the dumping,
filling, or depositing, either directly or
indirectly, of the same substances or the
erection of any structures within or
immediately adjacent to wetlands that is
within 300 feet. The areas immediately
adjacent to the wetlands are regulated by
NYCRR Part 661 and in Section 661.4(b),
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
~0
~2
~3
~4
~5
~6
~7
~8
~9
20
2~
22
23
24
25
46
stating that adjacent area is defined as
within 300 feet landward of a wetland.
This adds to the totality of the
circumstances involved in this application
since its inception. There have been
numerous violations of numerous
parts of the
I believe it
Town Law and the State Law and
is incumbent on this Board to look very
carefully at this application, and to
perhaps even go beyond what the applicant
has requested. I would like the Board to
consider this as a formal request by Mr. and
Mrs. Tober %hat the building permit be
revoked. If the Board indicates that it
wishes to have a specific application
requesting that relief, I will submit such
application to the Board.
Finally, I understand that this
application is being reviewed by an attorney
who has been appointed to investigate
specific Building Department files. I
believe the attorney is Barry Warren
(phonetic), and I understand that he is
investigating the facts of this file, and I
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
would suggest to the Board that it may wish
to hold a decision in abeyance pending a
finding of that particular investigation.
am not sure if such a deferral would be
mandated, but it might be advisable to do so
at this time,
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. ONGIONI:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Order, Mr. Cardinale,
MR. CARDINALE:
Thank you.
Thank you.
So the Stop Work
is still in effect.
It is, unless I pull
out the plumbing which I think I should have
done four months ago. Let me leave you with
one issue. That is the DEC thing. ! think
you are aware, as I am, that if there is a
street between, the Department of Environ-
mental Conversation loses their jurisdic-
tion. There is a street in between here.
The second thing is, I have been
before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
last ten years for relief for my clients.
appreciate it if you believe you guys have
the right to revoke this permit, that you
let me ]:now because I will be doing worse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
2'5
48
with you than I am doing with the Building
Department, and the whole purpose of going
to you is because I wasn't happy with the
Building Department.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is a
relief agency, to seek relief when someone
is hurting from an administrative order. If
they want to do what they want to do, they
shouldn't piggyback on this application. I
think they would have the right to bring an
Article 78 against the Building Department.
I suppose we are going to have to give you
some law on this, and I will do so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here
that will not be here for the October
meeting that would like to say something for
the record? Anybody in the audience, tither
pro or con, concerning
hearing, or is the any
group?
this particular
spokesperson for a
Yes, Mrs. Sblendido.
MRS. SBLENDIDO: You are saying you
will not have the meeting until the end of
October?
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sort
house?
here.
49
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
MRS. SBLENDIDO: Could we get some
o~ temporary extension to winterize the
I mean, we have got a big investment
MR. CARDINALE:
was referring to
Board's problem.
to Mr. Lessard.
Lessard on the
This is the issue I
earlier. I am aware of the
I assume you want to speak
THE CHAIRMAN: We have to get Mr.
record and in the interim I
have ko discuss it
the Town Attorney.
CARDINALE:
MR.
Sblendido,
home?
with Mr. Arnoff, who is
Right. Mrs.
do you wish to winterize the
MRS. SBLENDIDO: Yes.
rutin~ as soon as possible.
I would like
.h_~ zs four
months now. That's all I ask, a ruling from
someone -- anyone -- because, ycu ]:now --
because i cut down my trees --
MR. CARDIr.;ALE: The only suggestion I
would have, that the Board obviously wants
to keep it open so I can submit a memorandum
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
5O
on the supplemental brief, is it possible to
take Mr. Lessard's deposition instead?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is the question.
I would rather not do that. My question is
to what degree are we talking about
winterization? Are we talking about
the
erection of walls, the installation of
heating elements?
MRS. SBLENDIDO: Can I put one
kitchen in?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe there is a
Stop Work Order on the premises at this
time, Mrs. sblendido, and that is the
problem that exists.
MRS.
getting it
the place?
MR.
able to use it
suppose what I
Lessard about what
indicated earlier,
the house as
plumbing.
SBLENDIDO: How do I go about
lifted, or should we just bomb
CARDINALE: They have not been
That aside, I
to Mr.
as he
this summer.
have to do is speak
he would permit,
to permit construction in
long as we pull out the
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
51
THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further
comments, I recess this hearing to the next
regularly scheduled hearing. In the interim
we will discuss it with the Town Attorney
and in concert Mr. Cardinale will discuss it
with Mr. Lessard and see if the Stop Work
Order is to be lifted or not lifted.
In reference to the question, before
I continue with the motion, Ms. Ongioni, I
discussed that issue concerning an
investigation of this particular permit, and
I think you ara perfectly correct, that the
Building Department file has made its way up
to Hauppauge, or wherever Mr. Warren's
o~fice is, because I believe we requested a
copy of that most updated set o~ plans and
they were non-existing because they were not
in the building.
The Town Attorney mentioned to me
that he had specific questions. Sc you
might want to contact him in regards to that
particular request, i thin]: it is a little
lengthy to go into it, at this particular
time. it will be mentioned in %he decision
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
somewhere
basically
point.
down the road, and that
the situation as I know
it at this
Also, Mr. Cardinale, when you speak
to Mr. Lessard afford him the notion we will
be discussing with him the possibility of
coming to the next meeting so we might speak
to him, not interrogate him, but speak to
him as we did before regarding the questions
that have arisen on this particular project.
We thank everybody
and for coming in again.
recessing to our next regularly
hearing.
for their courtesy
I make a motion
scheduled
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ali
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
in favor?
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
(Time noted: 9:27 p.m.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52A
CERTIFICATION
I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
I am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct excerpt of the Southold
Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on September 26,
1990, according to my stenographic notes.
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD :
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING :
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
Septembe= 26, 1990
7:30 P.M.
~/¢/-
Og' I Z
11971
11
12
13
14
BEFORE :
GERARD P.
GOEHRINGER,
Chairman.
15
16
17
18
19
20
BOARD MEMBERS:
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICKI~h6SeNT-
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
21
22
23
ALSO PRESENT:
LINDA KOWALSKI,
Board Secretary
24
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
2
THE CHAIRMAN: We would like to
welcome everybody here. This is our
regularly scheduled meeting of the Southold
Town Zoning Board of Appeals. We would like
to welcome Mrs. Kowalski. She has not been
on my right,
with us for the year. She is
and your left.
MS. KOWALSKI:
THE CHAIRMAN:
welcome everybody here tonight.
hearing on the agenda is Appeal
in behalf of Venetia McKeighan.
Thank you.
We would like to
The first
Number 3961,
(Legal Notice
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
read off record.)
7:33 p.m.)
I have a copy of the
survey, dated September 20, 1965, indicating
a one-family dwelling, located somewhat in
the center of the property, closer to
Pond than to Bayview Avenue. I have a copy
of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating
this and surrounding properties in the area.
The nature of the application is for a
gazebo on the road side of the house.
We ask if there are any applicants
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
here.
MS. McKEIGHAN: Venetia McKeighan.
THE CHAIRMAN: How far from -- I
should have mentioned this to you --
MS. McKEIGHAN: I have it here.
did get a letter. It will be 30 feet from
the south line, 60 feet from the north line,
30 feet from the house, 70 feet from the
street.
THE CHAIRMAN:
gazebo?
MS. McKEIGHAN:
by 10. After I heard
How large is the
It was going to be 10
a new price today, I
may he down to 8 by 8.
THE CHAIRMAN: The purpose
mainly an aesthetic reason?
of it is
MS.
mother is
housebound,
She doesn't
MoKEIGHAN: No. The reason, my
84 and living with me. She is
but she can walk in the yard.
like it
back is a lot more windy and it
cooler than in the front, where
comes and the house shields her
wind.
I thought she could go
in the back because the
is a lot
the sun
from the
out and sit
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
there and it would be a place for her to go.
Now she walks down the driveway and there is
nothing to do but turn around and go back.
I thought if I could have a gazebo, she
could sit there and in the front also
neighbors could see her and come over and
talk with her.
THE CHAIRMAN:
any way?
MS. McKEIGHAN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Will it he lighted in
No.
The foundation is very
simply the base of the gazebo. It is
probably out of pressure-treated wood and
sits right on the lawn.
MS. McKEIGHAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the approximate
height, do you have any idea?
MS. McKEIGHAN: ! did ask them and I
did submit that. I think they are like 12
feet high.
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll look in here. It
has been some time since I've looked at the
file.
MS. McKEIGHAN: I think it is 12.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. McKEIGHAN:
THE CHAIRMAN: Is
that would like to speak
Thank you very much.
there anybody else
in favor of the
application?
application?
members?
Anybody against the
Any questions from Board
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN:
ME. GRIGONIS:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you.
7:36 p.m.)
The next appeal is in
behalf of Harold Gordon, Appeal Number 3962.
It is a variance for a deck addition to
existing residence with insufficient side
yard setback. The legal notice reads as
follows:
5
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you. We hope
to have a decision for you probably tonight.
So if you give us a call in the morning --
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
32
13
~4
35
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
(Legal Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have s copy of s
survey, dated January 6, 1972, by Alden
Young, indicating a parcel just under an
sore with a frame bungalow probably a little
oloser to the west side than it is to the
center of the property. Attached to this
existing frame bungalow is a deck which
surrounds it on two sides partially. The
nature of this application is to reduce the
side yard from 10 feet to 8 feet, on the
deck side which is the closest portion to
that side of the property. I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties.
Doctor, would you like to say
anything for the record?
DR. GORDON: Yes. Dr. Harold Gordon,
124 Hickory Avenue.
We wish to enlarge the size of this
deck you just mentioned. Since it is used
right now it is an existing deck. We wish
to enlarge it, since it is uncomfortable and
its use is restricted for that reason. It
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
7
is inappropriate to build a deck or enlarge
it in any ether manner.
I am informed my neighbors don't have
any objection. So I hope you will see
favorable action on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Doctor, what would you
say the height above the ground is on that
deck presently?
DR. GORDON: I would say three feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: In closing it will
still be a pole structure holding it up, or
will it be cement block foundation?
DR. GORDON: Well, the house is
presently on cement blocks. So we may very
well skirt the whole thing around in the
same manner.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you
so 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 questions from any Board
members?
(No response.)
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
order,
Gordon and he is
on this project.
8
THE CHAIRMAN: Taking this out of
I did have a discussion with Dr.
in need of getting started
In that light, I make a
motion granting this application as applied
for. I don't have any other specific
restrictions on it.
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR.
MR.
DOYEN:
DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you?
No. I'll second.
Granted as applied.
Aye.
Number 3966,
(Legal
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you very much.
7:40 p.m.)
The next appeal is
in behalf of Peter Bloom.
Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
survey dated September 27, 1988, indicating
a survey of Lot Number 17 of this file map,
and showing a one and a half story frame
home approximately 36 feet from Old Shipyard
Lane or Road, and a flag patio in the rear
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
9
of this dwelling which is at ground level.
The nature of this application is to
encompass that flag patio and put a raised
deck along the entire rear of the house, and
a partial deck around the west side of the
house adjacent to the garage. The deck in
proposed is 11 feet by 33 feet, 6
I have a copy of the Suffolk County
and surrounding
size as
inches.
Tax Map indicating this
properties in the area.
Is there somebody that
speak?
MR. GRATHWOHL:
would like to
My name is Kenneth
Grathwohl. I am here by proxy to Mr. Bloom.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have been down
there and we have seen what Mr. Bloom wants
to do. I don't remember exactly how close
to the rear property line -- which of course
is really the side property line --
(Interruption)
MR. GRATHWOHL: The rear property
line is approximately a foot and a half.
The existing garage, which has a CO, is one
foot off the line.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
'~5
16
17
18
lg
20
21
22
23
2,~
2,5
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRATHWOHL:
10
What about the height?
Fourteen inches above
Is there anybody else that would like
grade.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going to
disturb the original hedge along --
(Interruption)
MR. GRA?HWOHL: No, the hedge will
not be touched.
?HE CHAIRMAN: ! think the property
line is the steel fence inside that hedge.
MR. GRATHWOHL: ~ccording to the
survey, it says, "hedge on line." There is
no indication, no corner markers or
anything.
THE CHAIRMAN: You will not be
extending to the garage?
MR. GRATHWOHL: No. We will be shy
of the garage.
THE CHAIRMAN: So basically, your
plan here is about right on'the dollar.
MR. GRATHWOHL: Probably.
THE C~AIRMAN: We thank you very
much.
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to speak in favor of the application?
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application? Any question
from any Board members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
DOYEN: Aye.
MR.
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you for coming
in. I hope to have a decision for you
shortly.
(Time noted: 7:45 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Appeal Number 3964, in behalf of Kenneth
Minnick.
(Legal Notice read off the record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy and a
set of plans. Presently on the property is
a one-story frame home of ranch style, the
parcel of approximately 139 by 273 plus. I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-//2 ~
12
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map
indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area.
Is there somebody that would like to
be
heard?
MR. MINNICK:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Kenneth Minnick.
Is there anything you
would like to say for the record before I
interrogate you?
MR. MINNICK: Well, the reason why we
have requested this was we recently met a
couple, that is a Section 8 couple. We have
known them for about a year and they were
having trouble with housing. We thought
that, gee, maybe if it was feasible we would
go into it.
In the long term, we both have
parents that are living out here that are
retiring or are retired and in the future,
at the rate that the taxes are going and
expenses out here, we figured they are going
to have to part with their home eventually
to survive. So we figured we have a place
where they could live too, and we thought we
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
would do a seasonal
THE CHAIRMAN:
have with the application is
no provision in the original
rental for them, too.
The only problem I
that there was
special permit
to allow for an addition to the dwelling
itself. You have to utilize the existing
footprint of the existing dwelling.
MR. MINNICK: Yes. That was
explained to us, but it was suggested we
apply and convert the garage into an
accessory apartment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you do that?
MR. MINNICK: We could, but that
wasn't -- we wanted a separate entity. We
wanted an apartment that had vision from the
existing dwelling so there would be some
kind of personal setting for anybody that
lived in it. That's why we connected it
with the breezeway.
separate unit.
THE CHAIRMAN:
granted is
garage.
MR.
So it would be a
The only one we ever
a utilization of a two-car
MINNICK: We had thought possibly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
'~1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
we would put in for an expansion, an
addition to the house which would be
connected hy the roof line and later apply.
Then it would be an existing footprint.
THE CHAIRMAN: The problem is the law
reads it has to have a valid CO, before
January 1, 1984. The purpose of that was to
utilize all the existing structure first
before we go into actually creating these
apartments in newer structures -- dwellings,
I should say.
Where do we go from here? I know
there is a need for affordable housing.
Tell me.
MR.
that, too.
MINNICK: We had looked into
We looked into low-income
housing loans and things like that, to try
and even get the money to do this project.
We had checked and found out that there was
always something missing. We couldn't apply
for it. After all avenues were exhausted
and we couldn't get grants, our last resort
was to try and go this way. But, like I
said, the whole purpose -- right -- is for
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
family, ultimate immediate family, when you
can't afford to live anymore to have a
place.
I didn't want to do it in the
existing dwelling, if at all possible. That
is why I am asking for the consideration on
the separation. The property we are located
on is residential and agriculture. If we
did modify the existing garage and applied
for a dwelling within it, then we would have
to do a separate garage'and we would still
be encompassing the same amount of land at a
later date. To do another two-car garage
would take up the same amount of space as
the addition would.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would be unkind of
me to have you leave here thinking you are
half-way there or something in the nature,
which you are not. We really can only let
you utilize the garage. We have no problem
with you constructing another garage, either
attached to the house or detached from the
house, as long as it is not in the side yard
or the front yard.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
At this point, the only thing I can
offer to you is that if the Board is not so
inclined to grant the addition that you want
-- do you want us to consider the garage?
MR. MINNICK:
THE CHAIRMAN:
something?
put
No.
Why don't you say
MRS. MERRY MINNICK: We could have
an addition on the house, but then it
would not have been
anyone.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MRS. MINNICK:
went this way.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I don't know how to
legal to rent it to
That is correct.
That is the purpose we
I understand that, but
explain this to you. It
is not the way you should have gone. They
should have told you you had to utilize the
existing footprint meaning the existing
house structure, because I assume it was
built prior to 1984.
MRS. MINNICK: Yes, it was before
that.
MR. MINNICK:
Yes. 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
24
25
17
built before 1984.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have a valid CO on
the house attached to it before January 1,
19847
MR. MINNICK: It was completed in '79
-- the CO.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the house then
qualifies.
MRS. MINNICK: We met all the
requirements except the fact that you could
not legally rent and if we put an addition
on you could not legally rent it in that
area.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. Tell
me what I can do, other than I am telling
you we cannot give you the addition. We can
possibly grant you a conditional permit
based upon the fact that you have been
utilizing the existing attached garage. You
don't want to use the garage?
MR. MINNICK: No. We don't want to
pull anybody's leg and play the game and go
with the wet bars. We figured that is not
the purpose of all the zoning laws. We
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
figured we'd try it.
If the Board
18
feels that it couldn't
be granted because of, like you say, the
existing footprint, then it must be the
Board's decision to find that way.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will tell you this.
We.will review it with the Town Attorney
before we make a decision to see if there is
any possibility, and the law may be changed
in the future. We have no idea. We have
had some pressure in reference to that.
When I say "pressure," I am talking about
people asking for additional things. As of
to date, the only thing we have granted is a
conditional relief, or what we refer to as a
conditional special permit for the utiliza-
tion of the garage.
Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application? Any questions from any Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, ! make
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
19
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 7:55 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3967, in behalf of Klm Campbell.
(Legal Notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the
site plan and a copy of the
Tax Map indicating a parcel
which is on the water. The
Suffolk County
of 4.3 acres
site plan
indicates a proposed garage in the front
yard area. Our Fishers Island consultant
and member of the Board, Mr. Doyen, has
brought us pictures from Fishers Island
indicating the approximate placement of this
particular proposed garage,
Is there anybody that has an interest
in looking at them in the audience?
Seeing no hands, is there anybody
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
20
representing Ms. Campbell concerning this
garage -- from Fishers Island? Is there
anybody that would like to speak in favor
the application?
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application?
Do you have anything you would like
to say for the record, Serge?
MR. DOYEN: No. I did inquire of the
architects and they said there would only be
electricity in the garage and it was only
for storage -- the garage for storage.
THE CHAIRMAN: The approximate size
of the garage is 16 by 24 -- approximately
16 feet in height, of hip roof construction.
Hearing no further comments, I make
motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONI$: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 7:58 p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN:
behalf of Frank Curran, Appeal
(Legal Notice read off
THE CHAIRMAN:
/
21
The next appeal is in
Number 3963.
record.)
I have a copy of
a
sketch of the survey indicating an existing
house set fairly close to Haywaters Cove,
surrounded by somewhat a bulkhead seawall
type of situation. The nature of this
application is a construction of a 20 by 30
foot storage building on the easterly side
of the property, approximately 3 feet from
the easterly side yard -- actually property
line -- and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Would you like to be heard?
MR. PETER STOUTENBURGH: Yes, please.
Chairman, and members of the Board, I
am mostly here to answer any questions and
to make sure that if there is any paper work
missing in your records, I could give you
copies of it.
In terms of the past, almost every
project they have done has had to come
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
before the Board because of the awkward size
of the land that they made their home on
some time ago. One thing that was never
constructed was the utilities space, since
maybe ten years ago they converted their
garage into a bedroom for the expanded
family.
We had gotten an approval from both
your body and the Trustees for a swimming
pool complex in the front yard, ! think two
years ago or so, and we'had run into
problems with the DEC stating that the only
place they really felt we could do any
building was pretty much exactly where we
asked for this storage facility. It is in
the side yard, and we are not asking to
reduce the rear yard setback from the
bulkhead any further than what the house is
from the bulkhead presently, which was also
I think the request at the time from the
DEC. The variance that we had gotten in the
past was, I believe, 800 and something feet.
We are looking for a building envelope of
approximately 600 this time.
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
23
THE CHAIRMAN: That variance at that
time dealt with an existing lot coverage.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you are
going to be 200 square feet under the
existing lot coverage.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: What we had asked
for, at that time, yes. It had requested a
reduced front yard, as well, which we are
not asking for at this point. The property
narrows too much as we get towards the front
of that.
So we are looking or they are looking
for a 3-foot setback from the side yard
property line, the same reduced distance
from the bulkhead and looking for a, hope-
fully, variance of 25 percent approximately
of lot coverage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Existing distance
proposed -- I'm sorry -- proposed distance
of the -- let's just use the phrase distance
from the garage or proposed garage to the
bulkhead is what?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight point five.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
THE CHAIRMAN: Eight point five.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Which is what the
house is off the bulkhead at the closest
distance.
THE CHAIRMAN: I notice you want to
build 3 feet to the easterly sideline. Does
that include the overhang?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: It doesn't include
the overhang. The building they have looked
at has less than -- I would say less than a
foot of overhang. It is probably less than
that. It is a minimal amount of overhang.
THE CHAIRMAN:
runoff?
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
What about water
I spoke with the
Trustees when we met them on the site, and
they had some confusion. Hopefully, at
their meeting tomorrow we will get our
letter of approval from them. They
indicated that at the meeting.
All runoff is going to be contained
on a drywell
request it.
inside the building so
on the site or however they
We also have no porous surface
that it would be
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contained.
THE CHAIRMAN: What about height?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Height is a story
and a half. They are looking for storage
above, although it will not be a total two-
story structure. It will be something along
the line of a salt box. I think the plans
we had sent in with it are from a very
similar structure we did, from Anderson on
Nassau Point. It is just a salt box which
has two-thirds height on one side.
THE CHAIRMAN: What are you talking
about, maximum 167 That's something, again,
if you don't have it with you, Peter, it is
all right.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I think the plans
that you have --
THE CHAIRMAN: It is shown here as
19-9 on that side.
All right. The only other problem we
have is a rather new one and I don't think
it has ever been done any other place in
Southold. We are, however, all firemen on
this Board and I don't know if you sat
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
26
through these hearings on Carol Road.
We started out on Carol Road, over by
the Sound Beach Motel and we started with
one garage on the lot and we kept on going
down the line as people moved out and
converted the houses from seasonal dwellings
to year-round. Most of them had heat in
them, anyway. The nature of this Board's
policy is not to close up side yards, as one
usually does. The restriction on this, if
the Board is so incline~ to grant it, may or
not be to have two existing garage doors;
one in front and one in the back.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
is a problem.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I don't think that
We do that mainly for
two reasons. I am from Mattituck, Jimmy is
from Greenport, Serge is from Fishers
Island, and Charlie is from Southold. We
find that it is very easy to fight a fire if
you can open the garage door and pull a hose
through the garage door rather than try to
wind it around, and that is exactly what we
did on Carol Road and every one of the
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
existing garages we granted.
the restriction on this.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
So that may be
would assume
that's fine from the customer's standpoint,
from what he told me.
THE CHAIRMAN: It doesn't have to be
an overhead garage door.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Is there also a
distance between the two buildings that
could be suggested -- one or the other?
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think you are
going to be able to get it there. Usually
the distance is 8 feet, and I don't think
you are going to get it.
The other concern is the opposite
side of the dwelling. It is completely
fenced with a four-foot fence and you just
cannot drag two and a half and
hoses over a four-foot fence.
this may be a consideration.
at this particular time, but
three foot
As I said,
I don't know
if you -- on
the 20-foot -- how large a door are you
putting on this, 8 feet -- 10 feet?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Eight foot is
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
minimal. It's quite often 9 foot for
aesthetic reasons. They may go down to 8.
TH~ CHAIRMAN: We would not -- on the
back side of the building -- we would not be
requesting anything larger than 8 feet. It
does not have to
swinging.
fine,
be overhead.
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
that or 8 foot.
It could be
I'm sure that's
Between the two would
be given an option.
THE CHAIRMAN:
questions, as long as
restriction on it that it
for storage purposes,
MR. STOUTENBURGH:
there is a problem.
enough.
THE CHAIRMAN:
for coming in.
I don't have any other
you allow us to put a
is only to be used
I don't think
The house is big
We thank you very much
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of this application? Is
there anybody that would
against the application?
Board members?
like to speak
Any questions
from
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
29
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
8:09 p.m.)
The next hearing is a
recessed hearing from July 25th, at which
time new maps were submitted and I now have
before me a new map indicating a requested
set-off of now three houses on a private
road off of Fox Avenue in Fishers Island,
indicating three existing dwellings that
probably have pre-existed zoning. We have
seen them personally, all three of them.
The first lot is approximately 40 by 120,
Lot Number 2 is 44 by
is 16,714 square feet
combination of about 180.
existing CO's.
We
120, and Lot Number 3
or 85 by -- or 85 by
And they have
ask the attorney if he would like
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
to speak in favor of the application?
MR. HILL: Michael Hill, 208 Roanoke
Avenue, Riverhead, New York. I am appearing
in behalf of Thomas and Allison Sargent.
Recognizing that you have all seen
the area, I would also like to present to
the Board a video tape of the area.
(Applicant's counsel handing video
tape to the Board.)
MR. HILL: It is narrated by Mr.
Sargent so any comments are his. It was
done in the cold days in January. I guess
the snow wasn't on the ground.
In addition to the facts submitted in
the application, I would like to point out
that initially it had been thought that the
Town of Southold's laws were going to be
changed so that when we came here in a
voluntary merger, as we had here, it
wouldn't be necessary for us to go to the
Planning Board. We have had at this point
the filing of an application with the
Planning Board for the subdivision.
Assuming that that subdivision is granted
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
.
3~
and we are going to need variances, we made
an application for here as additional
economic hardship -- assuming they would
give us a subdivision in order to comply
with any setbacks which I think are
impossible on these particular plots.
The houses that are existing would
have to be moved. The cost of that is
prohibitive, to say the least. There is no
change in the character of the neighborhood
at all. The houses there are all built very
close to the front line. They are all very
close together and these houses have existed
in that condition, the three houses on these
properties, since the inception of zoning.
As I said the last time to you, by a
court decree, a third lot was merged into
this. It was originally a two-lot
subdivision and the houses are going to just
exist as they are, no changes -- one
driveway added to the premises and that is
shown on the video tape by my client, posted
out where that is going to be, and otherwise
there are no changes to the property.
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
32
THE CHAIRMAN: The only problem
have is with continuing with the use,
whatever, with the garage apartment. This
Board may put a time limit. I realize the
lady that is presently living in it is 84
years old, or something of that nature. I
have no idea whether she will stay, but that
may be a recommendation of mine in reference
to putting a time limit on the existence
the garage apartment.
MR. HILL: How many years?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am estimating 10 at
this point, and only bearing in mind she has
probably lived there for a fairly long
period of time, according to Mr. Sargent,
although he said she is in good health. We
have done this once before in Orient, to my
knowledge.
That may be a recommendation.
don't want you to leave here thinking you
have three valid CO's, that there is a
possibility --
MR. HILL: My only question is
strictly hypothetical and hopefully if we
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
33
encounter any problem -- let's suppose this
particular woman lives in excess of ten
years, can we come back at that time for an
extension?
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. HILL:
still be here.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Certainly, sure.
Hopefully, we will all
Right.
MR. HILL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of this
application? An2body that would like to
speak against the application? Any
questions from the Board?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing this hearing and reserving decision
until later.
MR. DOYEN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Second.
All
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
in favor?
8:14 p.m.)
The next application
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
is in behalf of
Meskouris.
application
34
James, Peter and Chris
This is a rather unique
in the respect that we have
opened half of this application before and
had recessed it, which was 3951, and I will
open 3957.
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a letter from
the agent of the applicant, who is Mr.
Fitzgerald, in the file. I have a copy of
the survey, produced by 'Anthony Lowendowski
(phonetic), dated 1/29/90, indicating a lot
of approximately 75 by 167 plus or minus. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map.
Would you like to be heard, Mr.
Fitzgerald?
MR. JAMES FITZGERALD: I would be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
I don't have anything to add to the
information in the application.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is interesting.
What was different on this one, Jim, is the
fact that the deck -- I assume that's the
most easterly parcel --
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
MR. FITZGERALD: Thirty-seven,
THE CHAIRMAN: (Continuing)
as encompassing as the other two.
words, it doesn't encompass both sides
the property line.
MR. FITZGERALD: That
35
yes.
-- is not
In other
is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: However, it does
encompass the entire west side of the
portion -- westerly portion of the lot where
the house is located.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I assume the decks are
the same as the decks that exist on the most
westerly lot.
MR. FITZGERALD: Number 35.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the nature of this
application as modified and as we discussed
with the Town Attorney is for the reparation
of each one of these individual houses --
dwellings which presently have existing CO's
on them and were merged when purchased.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: By a father and two
sons.
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. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Who all have separate
families.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else
you would like to say?
MR. FITZGERALD: No. I don't have
anything else.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything Mr.
Meskouri$ would like to say?
MR. PETE MESKOURIS: I don't know if
you are familiar with the area. I imagine
you are, but when you step out of the house
you go right into sand. I would appreciate
it if we are allowed to have the deck.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application? Any questions from any Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing this hearing and reserving
decision until later.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
32
13
14
1§
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
for coming in.
(Time noted:
Second.
All in favor
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you very much
8:20 p.m. )
of September 26,
notes.
I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
am an Official Court Reporter and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct transcript of the
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
1990, according to my stenographic
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD :
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING :
OCT I 2 1990
Town Hall
· 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York
September 26, 1990
9:30 P.M.
11971
B E F
HARD P. GOEHRINGER,
Chairman3
BOARD
CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR.
SERGE DOYEN, JR.
JOSEPH H. SAWICK~
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
ALSO PRESENT:
LINDA KOWALSKI, Board Secretary
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
(Excerpt of Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals hearing, September 26,
1990. )
(Recess taken at 9:27 p.m., at which
time Mr. Goehringer recused himself from the
hearing, and proceedings resumed at 9:30
p.m. with Mr. Dinizio presiding.)
THE CHAIRMAN: ! make a motion to
reconvene.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Al! in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: My name is James
Dinizio, Jr., and as Gerry explained to you
before, this being a small town, you know we
all have friends and Gerry felt it better
that he not be here for this meeting. So I
am going to conduct it. We will reconvene.
(Time noted: 9:33 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: This is the
application in behalf of village Marine,
Application Number 3938.
(Legal Notice read off record.)
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
MR. DINIZIO: We have a copy of the
zoning map, and the Southold Town Property
Tax Records and County Tax Map.
Does anybody wish to be, heard in
behalf of this application?
MR. CUDDY: My name is Charles Cuddy.
Village
an application for a piece
on the east side of Bay
Avenue, in Mattituck, approximately 150 feet
south of the Main Road. For those who have
some knowledge of the area, it is directly
right in back of the Hess gas station.
The parcel is 23,645 square feet. It
has an existing building on it. It has a
frame building. It has an existing metal
building. It is our intention to replace
the existing metal building, as it is
approximately 1,000 square feet, with the
new building which will be 2,400 square
feet. Also, it will be a metal
In addition,
which is 11
one corner of
we want to place a
feet by 102 feet in length,
the property.
building.
boat rack,
at
3
I am an attorney for the applicant,
Marine. This is
of property that
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
20
21
~3
2§
4
These two additions to the property
-- really, in one case, replacement gave
rise to this application, and without going
back to the Book of Genesis, ! would like to
go back a little bit to the beginning, at
least zoning-wise, and discuss for one
minute what we have and what maybe we don't
have.
This piece of property has been there
for years and years. It has been used as a
marina for years and years. In 1989, the
Town Board legislatively endorsed the use of
this piece of property as being in the M-I
Zone. All the uses we have are permitted
uses. All of the uses we are going to make
are permitted uses. We are not changing any
uses. We are not asking for an extension of
a non-conforming use. We are asking for
area variances based on the small piece of
property, half-acre piece, that we cannot
use properly, we think,
variances.
The variances
begin with one from the bulkhead.
without these
that we are requesting
Our
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
5
present situation is that we are located
approximately 32 to 33 feet back with the
existing metal building, and I refer you to
the site plan map, which ! think you have a
copy of, just to see the distances, but we
are asking that instead of being 32 or 33
feet back from the bulkhead, that in fact we
be 28 feet back from the bulkhead.
So that is the extent of the variance
from what exists and, I think, what existed
is important because this is not a vacant
piece of land we are asking for variances
on. This is an existing parcel. We are
asking, essentially, from the bu]khead that
we have from the metal building, the new
one, a difference of approximately five feet
from what we now have.
We have a front yard that's 37.3
feet. That conforms to the requirements.
We have a side yard approximately that is 3
feet, on what is the northerly side of the
property. We are going to take the new
building and extend it exactly parallel. So
we end up with 3 feet. The requirement of
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
the side yard, as I understand, is 20 feet.
What we are asking for is that we be allowed
to have exactly what we now have. It is 3
feet, and that we are not changing it. It
is very narrow. It is a 3 foot lot. It is
3 feet and we are going to continue in
exactly that.
This large building will have a 20-
foot rear yard. The requirement is 25 feet.
The rear yard backs onto the fenced area and
also backs onto the business zoned piece of
property, so that the variance there is
indeed very slight.
As to the boat rack, the boat rack we
ask that we be given a 10-foot side yard on
one side and a 10-foot rear yard.
Requirement again for the rear yard is 25
but it is a rear yard that extends
feet,
onto a 5-foot metal chain link fence and
also back onto the right-of-way. So
essentially there is no use, except for
vehicles going back and forth, of the rear
yard.
The boat rack will allow us to store
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
boats. We do not intend -- and I say this
most emphatically so there is no question
from anybody in the audience or anybody on
the Board -- we do not intend to bring any
as part and parcel of what we are
new boats
doing.
The reason for doing this is to take
the existing boats -- and the entire area is
essentially cluttered with boats because it
is a small parcel -- to put the boats that
are being repaired inside the building.
They now repair the boats outside the
building. When it gets rainy and cold, to
repair the boats outside the building is
difficult. They want to use the new
building to repair the boats. They want to
store the existing boats they are repairing
on the rack. Therefore, they will clear out
the cluttered area of the boats now. We
cannot take a car and go into the existing
facility, because there are boats all over.
Once that clears out it is their
contention to try to use that area to expand
the parking. It is not shown on the map
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
8
that way and that's not what we requested,
but it is our intention to try to get more
parking spaces, and the parking now is 7
spaces. It has been 7 spaces for a long,
long time. The requirement is much greater.
The requirement is 29 spaces. We would have
no place to have any additional parking,
except if we clear out the boat area. We
are saying simply we intend to put more
spaces there. We don't know how many. We
have 7. We had 7. We are not increasing
the number of boats.
use it as it is.
As far as
We are simply going to
landscaping, there is
minimal landscaping. I would say there is
no landscaping at this site, because it is
basically a building and parking area. We
are a boat storage area at this point. We
will put some landscaping bushes and flowers
along the area that is used for the dock at
this point. That is right at the bulkhead.
Aside from that, there is no place to
landscape at all. We ask for a variance for
that requirement.
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
I would point out to the Board
real practical difficulty in this
9
that
application is that you have a lot which not
only is small, but has a strange configura-
tion. The configuration is triangular in
slope. Because of that, I think the
variances we ask for are not excessive.
I think the variances would meet the
test of practical difficulties. We are not
going to change the character of the
neighborhood. There is no other means to
use it to get the point we want to be at,
which is to have a larger
for the repairs.
further demands
facilities. We
usable building
There is no excessive or
at all on governmental
are going to have variances
for the most part that are not substantial,
certainly in light of what we already have.
They are basically minimal variances
compared to the overall requirements. Some
of them are significant, but not compared to
what we have.
I would ask that this Board encourage
properties to be improved, that they permit
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
10
and grant this particular variance. I would
like to say that if the Board were to reject
this variance, what would happen is you
would have basically the same place you now
have. You would have no improvement in
structure. You would have a clutter of
boats, no better parking. There would be
nothing that would improve the site and I
think that would be inappropriate.
I would say two things in closing.
First, it has been my experience that on
occasions, when site plans are pending, that
you get communications either at the time of
the hearing or after the hearing from the
Planning Board. If that happens, I would
ask for the opportunity to respond to
whatever the Planning Board says that that
may be negative concerning this application.
I want to point out to the Board that
at %he time this application was initially
made, Linda Kowalski, who is the Board
secretary and administrative assistant, was
working with me in my office. She no longer
is, but I want it to be known. From the
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
very time she began working for the Town,
she no longer worked on this application.
I would ask that you approve the
application. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, I can tell
you that I believe today we received
something from the Planning Board requesting
that we hold the hearing open or recessing
it with the idea they could have some input
into what was going on here. I can give you
a copy of that.
So they haven't submitted it yet, but
they did say they intended to comment on
this application.
MR. CUDDY: I would certainly ask
that ! have the opportunity to respond to
whatever they say.
THE CHAIRMAN:
you are willing to go
Certainly, as long as
forward with that.
MR. CUDDY: Otherwise I would have no
reason to keep it open except for that
narrow point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to
respond in writing to that?
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
12
MR. CUDDY: I would prefer to respond
in writing. If there's is in writing -- I
take it they are not here -- that it will be
in writing. ! will respond in writing.
MR. DINIZIO: They haven't made
comments yet. As soon as we get them --
MR. CUDDY: Fine. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cuddy, I have a
few questions but I think I will wait until
after I hear if anybody has any other
comments positive to this application and
negative comments.
MR. GOLDMAN: Robert Goldman. I am
the program coordinator for the North Fork
Environmental Council. I would like to read
a statement into the record.
"The North Fork Environmental Council
is opposed to the granting of bulk and
setback variances to Village Marine.
The applicant has failed to show why
the strict application of the zoning code
would cause hardship necessitating
variances. The applicant has operated the
marina for a number of years. What is the
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
~/S~
13
hardship? We respectfully remind the Board
that the inability of a business to increase
profits is not grounds for claiming
hardship.
The subject property is a pre-
existing, nonconforming site according to
the M-! Zone adopted 1/10/89. The site is
.55 acres. M-I requires at least 4,000
square feet. The granting of further bulk
reductions by the variance would be
completely contrary to the intentions of the
Master Plan. Granting bulk and setback
variances here would be making a bad
situation even worse.
We respectfully remind the Board that
the M-I Zone figures prominently in pending
litigation between NFEC and other parties
and the Town. NFEC has proposed revisions
to the M-I Zone in the course of the
litigation. Relevant to this appeal is
requirement C.(1) (f) and (g) of said
revisions which state:
(f) For each one square foot of
surface water occupied by the marina, there
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
14
should be 1.25 square feet of upland area
available (exclusive of area covered by
setbacks and rgquired landscape area). To
the extend upland area is unavailable to
maintain the 1 to 1.25 ratio described
herein, the ability to use surface waters
shall be limited specifically in this
special exception permit.
(g) The permitted number of boats at
such marina will be limited to one boat per
1,250 square feet of upland area (exclusive
of areas covered by buildings, required
front, side and rear yard setbacks, and
required landscape areas). The special
exception permit shall state specifically
the approved boat capacity for the marina
approved.
NFEC is fully confident that we will
win the suit and that the proposed M-I Zone
will be adopted. In which case, if this
appeal is maintained, it will have to be
reviewed by the Board utilizing new
criteria, partially cited above.
James Creek is included in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Peconic Bay
designated by Suffolk County. The action
proposed by the applicant is therefore the
Type I under SEQRA with a presumption of
significant impact requiring an
environmental impact statement. A long-
form Environmental Assessment Form is
required to be filled out by the applicant
and the lead agency.
NFEC believes that a significant
increase in boat traffic, water pollution,
noise, automobile traffic and wildlife
habitat degradation would occur as a result
of the proposed action. The Board should
initiate a coordinated review of this
appeal/application with all concerned
agencies. The Board should request lead
agency status, issue a positive declaration,
and require that an environmental impact
statement be prepared."
THE CHAIRMAN:
that would like to be
application?
MS.
15
Critical Environmental Area
KOOP: Gertrude Koop. I live on
Is there anybody else
heard on this
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
16
Bay Avenue, in Mattituck.
Mr. Cuddy, I would like to ask you
-- because I know you but I don't know the
name of the marina owner -- when you spoke
of
How high is
tell me in feet.
MR. CUDDY:
MS. KOOP:
this storage rack, you gave foot space.
this thing going to be? Don't
How many layers of boat?
Two, at the most.
There are here tonight
many people who are living in homes that
have been established for quite a few years,
prior to the Village Marina business. When
they developed their property on James
Creek, John Klein (phonetic) had a marina of
a type. At that point, it was a rowboat and
putt-putt motor. Today it is high speed
boats that are dashing in and out and, as
was spoken of before, is causing pollution.
I do not feel that to enlarge this building,
to give allowances to exceed the space
allotments should be done.
Secondly, I think rather than waiving
parking restrictions, I think there should
be a bigger demand on parking restrictions.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
17
If the bank across the street really
enforced their sign, which says, "For
bankers only. Other cars will be towed
away," many of the boaters on Saturday and
Sunday would have a long walk home because
the only place they park their cars is in
the bank parking lot.
If one car is parked on Bay Avenue it
is almost an impossibility to get two cars,
one going in each direction, in and out of
Bay Avenue. It makes a tremendous hazard
and a definite difficulty. I think there
should be a greater demand for demanding
more parking on the property. As Mr. Cuddy
said, they intend to have more than seven,
but good intentions -- you know there's an
old statement that says, the road to hell
was paved with good intentions. And I don't
like to see the entrance to Bay Avenue going
to hell.
Also, we have another marina. Within
the powers of planning, and so on, it was
decided James Creek wasn't worthy of being
used. So they allowed a marina to develop
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
'~2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
on either end. What one didn't pollute, the
other one did. That too, at one time, was
stated it wouldn't be more than 100 boats,
and I am sure the number there exceeds far
more than 100 boats.
I hate to see the same thing
happening up there. I don't think we should
have to look at the storage facility and I
don't think we should have to be
inconvenienced by parking that's a hazard to
all of us. Thank you.
MS. MARRINER: My name is Jeanne
Marriner. I live off the Bay Avenue.
I concur with the statement of Mr.
Goodman and the Environmental Council. I
urge you to consider this very carefully.
There are multiple problems. It is not only
pollution in the creek. It is a definite
traffic hazard in that whole area where the
marina which was -- as Mrs. Koop said --
very small little operation, a little
outboard repair shop and a few rowboats.
was never meant to be a large marina. It
was sited inappropriately. I think the
It
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
lawsuit will prove this.
into
hazards.
hazard.
19
I hope that you will take all this
consideration, and think of the traffic
There is also a potential fire
In fact, that Hess gas station is
right there. Fiberglass boats are highly
volatile. One fire and you could have a
tremendous situation in the neighborhood
that is so congested that people can't get
out of Bay Avenue, and anything further in
this area would just be contributing to more
detriment to the people that live there.
The object of good zoning is to protect the
public's health, safety and welfare.
Please remember that. Thank you.
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: Nancy
Sawastynowicz. I would just like to have
the Board become lead agency and ask for an
environmental impact statement to be done on
this project, because this time they say
they want to make more roads. It will be
more boats, more congestion, more pollution,
all of the above that everybody else stated.
I think it is a serious problem we are
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2~
facing with our bays being polluted, by not
just boaters but the whole environment.
So let's look at this with a lot of
concern. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
MR. CUDDY: If I may, I would like to
respond to some of the comments that have
been made. I am disappointed to a fair
degree, although not surprised, by Mr.
Goldman. I am disappointed because the
whole crux of his remarks directed not
towards this application, but towards some
preconceived agenda that some people have
and the North Fork Environmental Council, to
my knowledge, has not done very much
positive but they have done a lot through
the kind of statements made here that negate
any form of change, any minimum progress.
I bring to the attention of the
people that are here and the Board, once
again, this application does not have to do
with James Creek. We are not putting more
boats in the water, and we are not putting
anything that is going to cause additional
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
pollution. I think to talk in those
has really missed the point.
There is an existing building.
21
terms
There
is an existing site. We can use it exactly
as it is. It can stay that way. That's
what you would end up with. You would not
end up with what I think you intend to,
which is to deny completely. They're asking
you to
to an appeal.
I take exception to
Environmental Council as
here through Mr. Goldman,
legislate here instead of listening
the North Fork
a unit, standing
without either a
resolution showing his authority or giving
indication of what standing they
us any
have. I want it on the record,
their standing, at this point.
think they
I object to
I don't
have any in connection with this
application. Their interest
environmental.
I point out to this
is totally
Board in April of
1989, the Town Trustees -- I am making this
a part of the record -- approved this
application as to the building. At that
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
22
time, it is my understanding they did make
an environmental declaration. This has been
through that process. This is over a year
ago.
I think that I could sympathize with
someone like Mrs. Koop who is concerned
about traffic. I point out to the Board,
think we are going to eliminate part of the
traffic problem. If this, again, was denied
there would be no improvement in the traffic
situation. None at all. So the very
concern she has, that the traffic is bad, is
not going to improve if this is rejected.
If it is accepted I think there may be a
material improvement because you are taking
boats from where they are now parked, or
stored, and you will be putting cars in
those spaces. I think the traffic situation
can be significantly alleviated by approving
the application we seek.
I say this is an upland application.
It has nothing to do with the water. It has
nothing to do with increasing environmental
hazards in this area. The marina is there.
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
It has been
from the proposed
Fork Environmental
23
legislated. Mr. Goldman read
revisions that the North
Council would like to
make to the Town ordinances -- not the
ordinances, but the proposed revisions these
people want to make. I think they are
irrelevant to this proceeding.
I point out to the Board that my
client is here. Mr. Young is one of the
principals of the marina. I said, and I say
it on his behalf, that this is not an
increase as to the number of boats. This is
to try to eliminate
situation. It's nice
outside, because that
problems. He cannot work
He wants to put the boats
increase the number of boats either.
Therefore,
the application.
the
an unfortunate
that it is raining
is one of his
there in the rain.
inside, not
from the Board of Trustees, dated May 10,
19 .)
I ask for the approval of
I am handing up a copy of
resolution from the Trustees.
(Mr. Cuddy handing the Board a letter
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
THE CHAIRMAN:
going to be?
MR. CUDDY:
My understanding is that
the accessory limitations, the accessory
unit to the building or structure can't be
higher than 18 or 19 feet. I don't remember
which one is applicable. It will not be
higher. We are not asking for a variance to
go higher.
I agree there is an aesthetic
question involved. We think we are trying
to clean up the area. It would certainly
not be more than two, maybe end up with
being one, but we can't go higher than the
law allows at this point. For an accessory
structure, we can't go higher than 18 or 19
feet.
shape
THE CHAIRMAN:
of the parcel,
In relation to the
I had a question as to
whether or not the land that is to the rear
of the boat rack is the front yard or not,
in that it is on the right-of-way.
MR. CUDDY: I don't believe the
definition of street or right-of-way makes
24
How high is this rack
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
25
that the front yard. I would point out to
the Board that, first of all, our access to
that is zero because there is a five-foot
chain link fence. But my understanding that
the definitions in the zoning ordinance do
not make that a front yard simply because it
is a right-of-way there.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure you are
going to have a lift of some sort, to lift
the boats out of the water.
MR. CUDDY: They use a ramp, and Mr.
Young can tell you if they are going to use
a particular lift.
MR. DAVID YOUNG: We use it for
storage of new boats only. New boats, boats
that are being serviced. The boats that are
cluttering. The boats there are plenty. We
are not using it in a high and dry marina.
The dry rack will never be used for a
dry land marina situation. They will only
be used in order to store new stock boats
and boats
facility.
for me to use
that are being worked on in the
It is financially inconceivable
it as a marina-type situation,
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
where we are
customer's boats.
THE CHAIRMAN:
of new boats?
boats
launching and retreating
So it is for storage
MR. YOUNG: Inventoried boats, stock
we have inventoried that are for sale
and customer boats that are being worked on.
In other words, if it is a two rack set up
we'll keep the stock inventoried boats on
the second set of racks, up high, which
reduces theft and give us a place to keep
the boats out of the way and the customer
service boats will be kept under them in
that rack -- in that rack place.
THE CHAIRMAN: On the ground level?
MR. YOUNG: On the ground level, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is just really the
ground level and one rack above that, and
nothing above that?
MR. YOUNG: No. You can't do it.
requires about eight foot above.
It
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a launching
MR. YOUNG: Yes, there is a launching
ramp?
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2'1
22
23
24
25
27
ramp. It has been there since we owned the
property, and I assume it has been there
since Mr. Klein owned the property. We use
it for our own use only.
You do haul boats out
Yes.
What do you use, a
A trailer. We have a
forklift on the premises that we use to move
boats, remove motors from boats, remove
boats from the trailer to work on the bottom
of the boat, or whatever.
THE CHAIRMAN: My concern was how are
you going to get those boats onto that top
rack?
MR. YOUNG: We have a forklift that
we own.
THE CHAIRMAN: So it is capable of
lifting the boat up seven or eight feet and
pulling it onto the rack?
MR YOUNG: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: What will you be doing
THE CHAIRMAN:
now to work on?
MR. YOUNG:
THE CHAIRMAN:
forklift?
MR. YOUNG:
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
28
with the boats tied up at the dock for the
winter?
MR. YOUNG: We store all of the
storage boats. We lease a piece of property
in Aquebogue, where we store all of our
winter storage, boats. When we initially
bought the property two years ago, we saw
Marquettes (phonetic) had a very congested
situation in the winter. There was no room
to park. Customers had no access to the
place. We made a decision to utilize a
piece of property in Aquebogue. Every boat
we store, except for the boats that are
being worked on and the boats that are being
sold by us, either by brokerage or the boats
that we own, we keep that all -- we keep on
that property in Mattituck. We lease a
piece in Aquebogue in order to store all the
boats -- th~ customers that are in the water
or that come in that we service, we take
everything to Aquebogue.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is all
have.
MR. YOUNG: Thank 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
29
MR. GOLDMAN: I am a little surprised
Mr. Cuddy would take such exception to the
North Fork Environmental Council's comments
on this application. Mr. Cuddy well knows
we comment on applications in both Riverhead
and Southold. Just for the record, so it is
clear, I do represent the North Fork
Environmental Council. I am duly authorized
to do so, and the Board may inquire of that
with our Board of Trustees. I am authorized
to speak in behalf of NFEC.
I think the point we want to make
more clearly to the Board is that this
application has to be considered a Type I
application under SEQRA. It is a critical
environmental area, so designated by Suffolk
County, 500 feet from the mean high water
mark of the Peconic Bay and its tributaries
of which James Creek is a tributary. There
is a presumption of significance to this
action and that would indicate the need for
an Environmental Impact Statement. That is
the important point that we want to bring
out to the Board.
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 rest of my statement was a
presentation to the Board of what we believe
to be the case and our opinion. We also,
again, re-emphasize we are pointing out to
the Board it has an application under the
SEQRA to assume lead agency status and we
are requesting that you do so. Apparently
when this application was made to the
Trustees, they did assume lead agency status
and requested a short Environmental
Assessment Form and that is contrary to
SEQRA. They should have requested a long
form.
The ball is now in your court. You
have the responsibility and the opportunity
to become lead agency here and we would urge
you do to so.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you.
MS. EVETTE MELLENDER: What I want to
ask -- is there a procedure in the Town if
someone asks for a variance that the
neighbors are to be notified within a
certain area? Because we were never
notified of this, except for the North Fork
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
31
Environmental Council.
I remember many years ago they wanted
to build a pathway through that was going to
come by our house
we were notified.
are "X" amount of
off of the Main Road and
They said that's when you
feet from a home that is
asking for a variance or a business that is
asking for a variance. What I am asking is
should the people on Bay Avenue that are a
certain amount of feet from this have been
notified?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is adjoining
property owners, ma'am, and we have a list
of them.
MS. MELLENDER: It is only adjoining
properties?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I have the
addresses here.
MS. MELLENDER: Could you clarify
that for us, at any future point?
THE CHAIRMAN: We have a list of
adjacent property owners, and then receipts
of certified mail for eight neighbors. If
you would like, I could name them.
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
MS. MELLENDER: It is
that touches on that property?
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. MELLENDER:
32
only property
Yes.
They were sent a
certified letter on this?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I probably
should have stated it at the beginning of
this hearing. There were legal notices
placed in the papers.
Is there anything else? If someone
would like to make comments, step up to the
mike and we can get your name.
MR. RICHARD LUHRS: I had sent Mr.
Goehringer a letter, and I hope that you
received it. I wanted to know that you have
it on file, about my concern and many of my
concerns are the same as the North Fork
Environmental Council. But going back to
this point about not notifying different
neighbors, when was that notification sent?
Very recently?
MR. CUDDY: When the application was
made.
THE CHAIRMAN: May 4th.
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
MS. KOWALSKI:
sent a week before
MR. LUHRS:
than the neighbors who
property line.
MS. KOWALSKI:
33
It's required to be
it is filed.
It doesn't include, other
are adjacent to the
It is not required to.
MR. LUHRS:
THE CHAIRMAN:
people here?
MS. PATROWSKI
receive a letter.
THE CHAIRMAN:
would like to speak?
That's fine. Thank you.
Are any of those
(Phonetic): ! did
Anybody else that
MR. EDWARD BURKE: I live on Bay
Avenue, and the rear of my property is on
James Creek. I am just wondering why they
are going through all this if they don't
want to expand the marina.
I can remember back about 14 years
ago, when Dave Strong was standing here and
he wanted to expand his marina. The people
here were against it. He said that he had a
mini-marina. What that meant no one seemed
to know, but the people up where you are
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
sitting said it means 100 boats maximum in
the water, on the land stored, and that is
the way it was left. They gave him an okay.
No new buildings.
Go down and look at Dave Strong's
now. Maybe 400 boats. The rack that was
only going to be this high (indicating), now
is about five stories. Now I have to look
I don't know what they are going to
at it.
do, but I can tell you what happened before.
It certainly wasn't nice. If they do that
down the end, of course it's all money.
Everything is money.
You people up there are to protect
us, not them. And if we have rules and you
people make variances for everything I don't
think it is fair to the taxpayers and the
people that live along the creek.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody
else?
Hearing
motion to recess
MR. DOYEN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
nothing further, I make
the hearing.
Second.
Until the next
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
regularly scheduled meeting.
to recess
scheduled
to he the
MR.
this hearing until
hearing, which is
end of October.
CUDDY: Can I ask the purpose of
35
We are going
our next
probably going
the recess?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, ! would like to
investigate the North Fork Environmental
Council's letter a little further. I would
like to sit down and read that letter.
MR. CUDDY: Does the North Fork
Environmental Council
the applicant with?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Also, your comments
have a copy to supply
We have this.
about standing
particular meaning. I
a little
I would
time to
has, in my mind,
would like to investigate that
further with the Town Attorney.
like to give you an opportunity next
further bolster your case.
(Court Reporter requested Mr. Cuddy
repeat a portion of the testimony.)
MR. CUDDY: My objection to the North
Fork Environmental Council was:
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a) although he recites this, I have
never seen a resolution. I have never seen
anything from the Council itself that
indicated that the Council had determined
they were taking a stand. I don't know
where Mr. Goldman gets his information from,
but he apparently hands in writings and
makes comments on behalf of them.
My first objection was that I don't
believe that it is sufficient for him simply
to stand and announce that an organization
is something that he is representing at this
letter -- more than
point. I would like a
that.
Secondly -- (interruption)
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I am a
director, and I can tell you he's honest.
MR. CUDDY: You weren't asked that,
number one. Number two, I am asking for
more than a director to sit here. I am
saying I would like to see something in
writing saying that he has done this. You
Gan bring all
here the next
of the Board of Directors down
time. I guess that will prove
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
37
it. If they have it in writing I would like
to see it. I think this applicant has the
right to ask that question. I think the
Board has a right to ask that question.
They oppose unanimously every
application that I have ever made in this
Town. They are there. They oppose it.
The other thing I am saying is I
don't think that they have standing to
oppose an area variance. That's very
different than coming in and saying, "We
want you to do something," in front of the
Town Board, legislatively. It is very
different than coming before the Planning
Board. They're saying that here they have
some reason to take issue.
Some of the neighbors, I understand
their standing. I don't object to that at
all. The North Fork Environmental Council,
I take serious issue with standings they
have to object to the area variance.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. GOODMAN:
to make a request
Thank you.
If Mr. Cuddy is going
to the Board to
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
38
investigate the standing of the North Fork
Environmental Council to appear at public
hearings, I think it might be incumbent upon
him to at least cite to the Board initially
some law or some facts in law, some
precedent in law, where an organization
can't come through its representative and
speak at a public hearing. This is
something absolutely new to me. I have
never heard of anything like this in my five
years in doing this, between the Riverhead
Board, the Southold Board, the Suffolk
County Legislature where an organization was
challenged as tO whether they could come
before a public body or a public hearing.
think Mr. Cuddy will have to submit
something.
I would request that if the Board is
going to follow through on Mr. Cuddy's
request, they request Mr. Cuddy to produce
something that says we can't. This is new
to me.
MR. CUDDY: I don't challenge Mr.
Goodman's right to freedom of speech.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
I0
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. JEANNE MARRINER: I am also
member of the North Fork Environmental
Council, and when I am not able to attend
meetings I am very pleased to have Mr.
Goodman or another NFEC representative
representing my views. We enjoy NFEC
because we all have similar views and I
think that certainly gives them standing.
39
He is representing
members.
THE CHAIRMAN:
standing comes up, I
one thousand plus
When the question of
don't question your
standing. But I would like to, at least, if
someone raises the question about that, I
would like for that particular thing to be
cleared up before I close the hearing. I
would not like to have something that could
not be commented on. I would not want to
have my thoughts not be commented on.
So I would
over, and I would
the Town Attorney
like to read the letter
like to investigate with
the standing of the
organization. It has been raised before, in
other applications before us.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
MR. YOUNG: If there is anybody with
any kind of environmental concern it would
be myself as a marina owner. Without an
environment we wouldn't have a business.
without boating, without fishing, we'd have
nothing. I am very environmentally
concerned. The last thing I want to do is
create havoc on the environment. It is my
livelihood. So if there is any
environmental question or if there is any
problem with any environmental impact in
this project we are trying to do, please let
me know so that I can correct it.
The only thing we really want is to
be able to work indoors in February and stay
warm. We have absolutely nothing other than
that, but to work in a tin ramshackle
building that is big enough to get half a
boat in. In order to make our mortgage
payments we have to have a shop we can
produce work out of
utility bills, hire
viable business
so that we can pay
our help, and have a
in the Town of Southold.
That's it.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
THE CHAIRMAN: At the risk of going
any further, I understand the reason for the
building. The rack I have a lot of
questions about. Do you have parking spaces
there now?
MR. YOUNG: It varies from time to
time. What happens is Monday there is a
flow of boats into the place that are broken
down and they need repair. By Friday and
Saturday, it's out. We have an agreement
with the bank, where we can park customer
vehicles in the bank. The customers are
marina customers. They know about it.
That's why there are cars parked in the bank
parking lot on the weekends. The bank
agrees with us on that. They know about it.
It is fine.
Right now what we would like to do is
make it so that we can park our cars, our
customer cars next to their boat slips. We
are trying to clear that bulkheaded area.
We want to landscape it, plant flowers and
have parking for our customers. There are
only 25 slippings there.
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
:21
22
23
24
25
I understand.
THE CHAIRMAN:
not increasing that.
MR. YOUNG: All we want is
building, where we can go inside in the
winter and a little bit more room in the
You are
workable
yard so we can maneuver what we are doing
there. We've got a good lot situation on a
Monday morning from the broken-down boats.
They flood the yard and we need a place to
put them. This rack system will clear more
room so that we can put the boats on the
back line of the property, and leave that
bulkheaded area along the water clear $o
that the customers can park their cars in
there; pull in the driveway, turn around.
Right now, the only access is you
have to back in with the boats and trailer
and it makes it very difficult. A customer
will pull in there to have his boat worked
on, and he will block Bay Avenue because he
has to back it in. Not a lot of customers
know that. They pull it straight and they
have to back out in the road.
THE CHAIRMAN: How many boats do you
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suppose this rack will hold?
MR. YOUNG: Twenty boats.
THE CHAIRMAN:
top, 10 on bottom?
MR. YOUNG:
room for 10 more.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Twenty boats; 10 on
Right. It will clear
Ten additional?
MR. YOUNG:
You will have room. There
boats in the yard now. It
situation. If you have 10
Ten additional boats.
is only about 20
is a gridlock
on the top rack,
you'll have the other 10 against the fence.
You can maneuver. You have room.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else?
MS. KOOP: I may seem very stupid on
this. I thought the question was: How many
spaces do you have for parking now? I don't
think you just answered that. You said that
there was an agreement with the bank, which
I am sure there was. Do you have parking
spaces back there now?
MR. YOUNG: Not really, no.
MS. KOOP: If you have spaces for 25
!
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
boats and you are only accomplishing 10
boats on top, which makes it a saving of
10
boat spaces in the yard, right?
MR. YOUNG: Right.
MS. KOOP: -- on the ground. In my
mind it would seem you only have room for 10
MR. YOUNG: It's the configuration of
the boats and trailers. It is much longer
than a car.
MS. KOOP: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are going to recess
this hearing until the next regularly
scheduled meeting, which will be some time
at the end of October.
Do ! have a motion?
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GHIGONI$: Aye.
(Time noted: 10:30 p.m.)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
44A
CERTIFICATION
am an Official Court Reporter and that
constitutes a true and correct excerpt
Town
1990,
GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that I
the foregoing
from the Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals hearing of September 26,
according to my stenographic notes.
GAIL ROSCHEN
Official Court Reporter