HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/01/1990 HEARING 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TO~N OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF AFPF~ALS
COqIHTY OF SUIPFOLK : 8TATR OF H~d YORK
....................................
To.n Hall - ~-~u,
53095MaXn Road
P.O. Box 1179
8outhold, Hew York 1197!
November 1, 1990
7:30 P.M.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
BKFORE :
BOARD
GF, R~RD P. C, OK~RXHGF.,R,
ChaXrman.
C~ARLKS GRXGONIS, JR.
8[~RGRDOYEH, JR.
JOSEPH H. 8ANXCKI - Absent
3AMl~8 DIHIZIO, JR.
21
22
23
ALSO PRESENT:
LIHDA KO~&LSKI, Board Sec~etar~
~: ~ 24
:25
1
2
3
4
§
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIPJ4AH: This is the regularly
scheduled meeting of the $outhold Town
Zoning Board of Appeals. #e welcome
everybody here.
The first hearing on the agenda is on
behalf of Andrew Burkard, Appeal Humber
3969. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
· HE CHAIRI~AH: I have a copy of the
survey, dated August 10, 1988, produced by
Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., indicating a one-
family dwelling almost perfectly centered on
the property, with a garage in front of the
house attached, extending 48 feet to the
property line on the front yard. I have a
copy of t~e suffolk C~unty Tax Hap
indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area.
Is there somebody that would like to
be heard? Could you please use the mike.
How do you do, sir?
MI/. BURKARD:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Andrew Eurkard.
Is there anything you
would like to say for the record?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
MR. BURKARD: Nell, the only thing
was in doing this house I changed the garage
around and for aesthetic reasons, instead of
having a garage door face the street, I
changed it to the other way and put a window
in and in doing so I didn't realize that I
encroached on the 15 feet and that really is
basically what happened.
THE CHAIRMAH: Do you have a
breezeway in between the house?
MR. BURKARD: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRHAN: That also probably
adds a little bit to the footage which is
-- I think it is 7 foot, 7 inches, but that
breezeway is a part of the foundation and
the garage, that was also poured at the same
time that happened.
MR. BURKARD: You know, I -- not
realizing when I turned the garage it was
instead of 23 feet one way, it was 20 feet
-- 20 feet the other way and I lost a foot
and they surveyed it.
lost a few that way.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I think they may have
Ne have a unique
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
situation in the respect
4
-- I looked around
to the left and to the right of me to
measure the houses on each side and, of
course, there aren't any to the left and
right of me.
MK. BURKARD: There is nothing out
there, really.
THE CHAIRMAN: So we will see how
it's going at the hearing. I am sure you
want to continue construction.
MK. BURKARD: What is the process
now?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, normally we
won't make a decision tonight. We will wait
until the special meeting on Noven~er 15th,
but possibly we will ~iscuss it with the
Board after the hearing and see if we can do
something for you. Thank you so much for
coming in.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor o~ this application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application? Any questions Erom Board
members?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~R. DINIZIO: No.
THE CH~IR~I~N: In light of the
situation and the fact that winter is
coming, I make a motion approving this as
applied for.
THE CH~IR~I~:
I4R. GRIGONIS:
Second.
&Il in favor?
Aye.
~R. DOYEN: Aye.
HR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIlt~iIL~: Granted.
(Time noted: ?:34 P.~.)
THE CNAII~N: The next appeal is
Number 39?4, in Behalf of Donald L. Oeani.
The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CH&IRNM~: I have a copy of the
sketch of a survey with the name cut off of
the survey, but indicating a lot on the
corner of Bayview Road and Reydon Drive, and
approximately 150 by 219.85~ and the next
lot in -- 150 by 238.40. I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax ~ap indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area.
5
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Is there anybody that would like to
be heard on this application?
MR. OSANI: Donald Osani.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything you
would like to say?
MR. OSANI: Yes. I pretty much have
everything there. These two parcels have
been separately approved already by the
Suffolk County Hoard of Health. They were
originally separate parcels that the Hoard
merged somehow, because the owner never knew
it was merged.
THE CHAIRMAN: You bought both of
them?
MR. OSANI: I am in the process of
buying bg~h.
THE CHAIRMAN: They are approximately
34 to 35,000 square feet each.
MR. OSANI: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems the square
foot it gives -- and for some strange
reason --
MR. OSANI: I have a better survey
here. The surveyor, by the way, is Peconic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
Surveyors, right here in town, the one that
surveyed it.
MR. DINIZlO: They are on the
application.
THE CHAI~: ! have a letter Erom
the Planning Board ~hich states that the
Planning Board -- dated October 17, 1990
-- the Planning Board is in favor of the re-
separating of the two undersized lots that
have been merged in this R-40 zone. The
lots in question are 84 and 87 percent of
the required lot size, thus are marginally
undersized.
Thank you so much.
MR. OSANI: Thank you.
' THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of the
application? Anybody that would like to
speak against the application?
What is your time limit on this? Are
you looking to close in a very, very short
period of time?
MR. OSANI:
limit, no, sir.
There is no special time
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
THE CH~IRH~q: If we render a
decision around the 15th of November, that
should be okay?
HR. OS~I: Yes. Sure.
THE CH~IRI4~N:
for coming in.
I make a motion reserving decision
until
We thank you very much
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 7:38 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of!virginia Olg~ Lee, &ppeal Number
3980. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRI4~N: I have a copy of a
sketch of a survey. It appears to be dated
October 22, 1982, by Roderick Van Tuyl,
P.C., indicating Lot Number 91 o~ the
original subdivision shown, which there is
placed a one and a hale story frame home of
later.
HR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CH~II~4~N: All in favor?
HR. ORIGONIS: Aye.
I
8
9
10
1'~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
'5 feet or less to Inlet Way, which is a
private road within that subdivision. The
nature of this application is a deck which
is being extended to the north of the
present dwelling. I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Is there anybody that would like to
be heard?
MS. LEE: I am Virginia Olga Lee,
The original house was built in the forties,
I guess, and the side of the house next to
the road is not in alignment to the road.
So when the deck was added to it, the corner
of the deck was closer to the road. I was
not aware of this tradition, at the time. I
have some photographs, if you would like to
THE CHAIRMAN: Surely. Yes.
(Ms. Lee handing above-mentioned
photographs to the Board.)
MS. LEE: The deck is 7 foot 2 by 25
foot 10.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 3ust for the
g
!
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lO
record, the pictures that were presented are
pictures indicating the deck and in its
present status which has a sun visor type of
roof over it with columns for the purpose, I
assume, of sun protection.
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 Board
members?
Hearing no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor?
MR!.'DINIZIO: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIOONIS: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
for coraing in, ladies. We hope to have a
decision for you in the near future.
(Time noted: 7:44 p.m.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Donald Swahn, Appeal Number 3978.
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
The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CH&IP~N: I have a copy of a
survey, dated February 19, 1968, by Van Tuyl
and Sons, indicating the nature of this
application, the Park &venue side house --
approximately 100 by 200 in size, with a
one-story frame house on it, almost centered
on the property -- 105 feet from Park
Avenue; and a one-story frame home almost in
the center or skewed a little bit more to
the west side on Peconic Bay, in the nature
of an easement-type of right-of-way through
the first parcel, assuming the Board is
going along with this particular decision or
appl[ca%[on, of approximately 1.39 acres.
That would be approximately 100 by 400, that
parcel -- 100 by 475 -- and I have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Hap indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area.
Is there anybody that would like to
be heard in behalf of this application?
HR. P~RKEN: Jay Stanley Parken.
Ail I know is that Donald and Dorothy wish
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to subdivide, split this particular property
off. The northern end of the property he
built for his father and mother many years
ago, back in the forties, and while I do not
know whether he contemplates sale, there
would be some time in the future when he may
want to move out of -- he just wants to --
the property lots as you know very well are
very, very, very long. They are about 825
feet, and he shares a 130 foot lot with vern
Drew (phonetic spelling), who lives next-
door about --
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think it would
be beneficial to have him come to the
hearing? We can recess the hearing, if you
want to, ~ti~ they come back.
MR. PAI~KEN: I don't know, Jim. If
there is anything more to add to this, it
seems to he something in order. There are
-- as you are probably very familiar --
along Park Avenue -- this kind of situation
where people have built smaller cottages on
Park Avenue. They have two pieces on --
then two parcels on the one property.
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:
CO's on both houses?
MR. PARKEN:
THE CHAIRMAN:
the houses are?
MR. PARKEN:
Are there existing
I understand there are.
How old would you say
I think he acquired this
one -- acquired the piece of property
somewhere around 1948 let's say. His
parents lived in Jersey at the time. They
were quite aged. He brought them in to
Mattituck and built the little cottage for
them, as did his neighbor next-door Eot the
same reason. So that house, let's say, was
built in the 1950's. His parents died --
passed away in the sixties, and he has been
renting ~hat cottage ever since that point
in time. That's all ! can give you, Gerry.
Gerry, ! don't whether he could add
much more. I rather doubt it.
THE CHAIRMAN: We want to thank you
very much.
MR. PARKEN: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
would like to speak in favor of this
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
application? Anybody that would like. to
speak against the application?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
closing the hearing and reserving decision
until later.
NR. DINIZIO: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
HR. ORIOONIS:
HR. DOYEN: Aye.
HR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(?ime noted: 7:50 p.m.)
THE CHAIRHAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of Valerie M. Kramer, Appeal Number
3971. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
TH~'CHAIRMAN: ~ have a copy of the
survey, most recent date September 5, 1989.
It appears it is a Van Tuyl survey
indicating a parcel of approximately 110
feet on Manhanset Avenue and guite irregular
in reference to size, with approximately 30
feet on Robinson Road and approximately 50
feet on the diagonal of Sterling Creek. I
have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax 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
15
indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area.
Is there anybody that would like to
be heard in behalf of the application?
MR. KRAMER: John Kramer. I am
Valerie's husband. I just wanted to add, we
bought the
buildable.
other lots
lot with the expectation it is
In the last 25 years all the
similar size have been getting
building permits.
only three vacant
subdivision shown.
THE CHAIRMAN:
lot, Mr. Kramer?
I think this is one of
lots left in the
When did you buy the
I think,it was 1980.
THE CHAIRNA~: ~nd the nature of the
size of the house you are anticipating
putting on, I see it is 1,962 square feetl
is that approximately the situation?
house?
half.
MR. KRAMER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is a two-story
MR. KRAMER: Approximately one and a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
"/4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any w&y of
shimmying in that house in reference to
width, so that we could get a little more
distance from the bulkheads?
MR. KRAMER: As you can tell from the
map, it is a triangular lot and -- there is
not very much face there. I don't think we
are doing anything that is -- you know, more
recently there was a house built right on
the -- not a house, but something right on
Manhanset, right on the water.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was the nature of
a lawsuit before this Board.
MR. KRAMER: If I go any further
back, then I am going onto Manhanset, which
is a very!busy street. I am saying the
triangle gets bigger towards Manhanset, and
I want to get it towards Robinson. So I am
losing the apex in getting tighter towards
Robinson.
THE CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't have any
objection to that. I would rather see you
shim the side yards more if you've got to
Robinson. My concern is the 21 feet from
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
17
the existing bulkheads right now. In other
words, if you are holding -- you have a 10-
foot side yard at this particular time to
the north --
MR. KRAMER: Yes, it ia approximately
to the north.
THE CHAIRMAN: Heaning closer to the
north side.
MR. KRAMER: Closer to the west.
Hoving it down further may give us greater
distance for the diagonal, for the bulkhead.
Well, it is a tiny parcel and Manhanset is a
very busy road. I would like to stay as
much off that as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: I couldn't agree with
you more.
MR. KRAMER: I don't think we are
going to do anything to the bulkhead. It is
new and it would be ecologically sound and
certainly aesthetic.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you do me a
favor? Could you reduce the side yard and
give us a sketch, reducing the side yard on
the south side, which is the side closest to
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
the water and to the Troyan (phonetic
spelling) property, to 12 feet, moving the
house closer to Robinson's Road and see if
we can get an idea what that would look like
in reference to distance from the bulkhead?
MR. KRAMER: How much closer would
you want that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you are 16 1/2
now. Reduce it to 12 and bring the house
closer to Robinson Road. Maybe we could get
a better distance from the bulkhead, moving
it towards the west, sliding it all this
way.
We will leave the hearing open until
the special hearing we are having on the
15th and ~ you give it to us before then we
can take a look at it and we can run back
down. I will be there Saturday. I will
take more measurements when I go down there.
MR. KRAMER:
that out?
THE CHAIKMAN:
We can get an idea.
Do you want me to stake
~t is not necessary.
I am just concerned
that we are trying to maximize as much
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~0
23
25
distance from the bulkhead, as much as we
possibly can.
MR. KRAMER: Okay. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody that would like to
speak against the application? Questions
from Board members?
I make a motion reserving the hearing
to the next regularly scheduled special
hearing on November 15th.
MR. GRIGONIS: Becond. ·
THE CHAIRMAN: Ail in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
D N Z o: iye.
(Time noted: 7:58 p.m.)
T~ CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3976, on behalf of Marian and Thomas
Santacroce. The legal notice reads as
follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a
survey showing a two-story house. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2O
nature of this application is a ground sign
in the northwest corner approximately, which
is the corner of Shipyard Lane and Main
Road. I have a copy of the Suffolk County
Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area.
Who would like to be heard in behalf
of this application?
I
sign.
THE CHAIRMAN:
reference to size?
~tR. SANTACROCR: Thomas Santacroce.
would like to have perndssion for the
How big is the sign in
MR. SANTACROCE: Approximately -- I
don't have my paper work with me.
TH~' CHAIRMAN: That's all right. You
have always give us a call tomorrow. We've
got 23 by 46. I assume that is in inches.
MR. SANTACROCE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a lighted
sign, nor does it have iridescent or
incandescent letters that light up at night?
MR. SANTACROCE: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a sign that
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reflects a business which is presently
located in Riverhead.
MR. SANTACROCE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And what is the
purpose of this sign, other than for
advertising purposes?
MR. SANTACROCE:
THE CHAIRMAN:
you very much.
MR. SANTACEOCE:
THE CHAIRMAN:
That's it.
Ail right. We thank
Thank you.
Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody that would like to
speak against the application? Questions
from Board members?
H~aring no further questions, I make
a motion closing the hearing and reserving
decision until later.
MR. GRIGONIS:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Second.
Ail in favor?
MR. GKI~ONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MK. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 8:03 p.m.)
21
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Novemben__l, 1990 ZBA Hearings
22
THE CHAIRIng: The next appeal,is on
behalf of Petrol Station Ltd., Appeal Number
3972. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: ! have a copy of a
survey, dated January 12, 1987, by John
Metzger, Land Surveyor, indicating the
nature of this application which is, I
assume, Lot Number 4, which is 25,603 square
feet, containing a one-story frame house.
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?
IdR%'McLAUGHLIN:' Good evening. My
name is Kevin McLaughlin, Esquire. I am
here in behalf of the Petrol Station, as !
think our application indicates.
We are basically here at the
direction of the Planning Board. We filed
an application for the minor subdivision.
The Planning Board, upon reviewing that
subdivision, decided they would prefer to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
36
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see the
the lot
23
lot line o~ Lot Number 4, which is
closest to the road, to coincide
with the existing zone line within the RO
District and the R-40 District. They
requested that we come before this Board to
obtain a variance to allow us to have that
undersized lot. That is basically why we
are here these evening.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the nature o~
the existing garage at the lot line?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: It is just ~or
storage right now.
THE CHAIRMAN: What will happen to it
if the lot line continues through? Will it
be destroyed or moved Erom one side to the
othe=? You will leave it where it is? It
is with the encroachment on --
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Probably, unless we
have problems with the sale of the next lot,
but otherwise we will
THECHAIRMAN:
this house, the former,
record, if you know?
MR. McLAUGHLIN:
just leave it there.
Who is the owner o~
owner for the
I think I have a
} I
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deed here that probably would indicate --
will be happy to provide that
you. I don't seem to be able
deed right now.
THE CHAIRMAN:
lived in or rented?
MR. McLAU~HLIN:
24
I
information to
to find the
Is the house presently
It is presently
being used for a real estate office.
Correct?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:
~es.)
(Nodding
THE CHAIRMAN: Kevin, the right-of-
That's why I'm having
I will go back down
this time, and make
subdivision.
THE CHAIRMAN:
trouble finding it.
there and measure it
way into the property is not clearly
definedl is that correct?
MR. HcLAUGHLIN: Not clearly defined?
TH~'CHAIRMAN: 'In other words, is
there a driveway which actually extends into
these four lots?
HR. McLAU~HLIN: Not that is
proposed. That is part of the minor
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
sure I know exactly where the parcel starts
and stuff. Thank you very much.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of this application?
Anybody that would
application?
MB. SAWABTYNOWICZ:
Nancy Bawastynowicz, and !
like to speak against the
Oood evening.
have a petition I
would like to hand to the Board. That is
the original and copies.
(Ms. Sawastynowicz handing copies of
petition to the Board.)
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: "We the
undersigned do not want an area variance for
Lot Nmnber 4 which does not contain the
minimum'lot area required. Tax Map Number
1000-109-01-23. Owner's names: Petrol
Stations, Ltd. at Cutchogue.
The purpose of zoning is to protect
our Town from being overdeveloped. To allow
the minimum lot size requirement to be down
zoned will set a precedent for other
developers.
To quote from Southold Town Code,
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
Residential Office (RO) District.
'The purpose of the Residential
Office (RO) District is to provide a
transition area between business areas and
low-density residential development along
major roads which will provide opportunity
for limited nonresidential uses in
essentially residential areas.'"
We feel to down zone this lot will
make a tremendous problem there because in
the summertime you cannot get out on the
road ~rom Alvah's Lane now, and the people
of the surrounding area -- ! have 100
percent of them signing this petition.
That's all ! would like to say.
Thank
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else that
would like to speak against the application?
Any comments?
MS. SAWASTYNOWICZ: ! have a
notarized letter Zrom one of the neighbors.
You don't want me to read it?
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
(Ms. Sawastynowicz handing letter to
1
3
4
§
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Board.)
MR. McLAU(~HLIN:
27
As far as the
argument for the undersixed lot, basically
we don't care whether that lot was
undersixed or not. Our original application
to the Planning Board was for a larger lot
there. However, they felt that the lot
should coincide with the existing lot line.
At this rate, we have more than sufficient
area for the minor subdivision we have in
mind. The other lots are all, if you will,
oversixed. They are all well in excess of
the minimal lot requirement for these lots.
We are simply here because the Planning
Board feels that this front lot should have
a l~t line thai is coexisting with the
zoning line there.
THE CHAII~MAN: That is an R-40 zone.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: In back of the RO is
the R-40 zone. That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: In effect, Lot Number
1 and 2 could be reduced in size.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Could be -- sure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that what 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
...... 28
originally had submitted to the Planning
Board?
M~. McLAUGHLIN: Actually, what we
submitted was a three lot -- originally, the
minor subdivision application we filed with
the Planning Board showed Lots 1 and 2 to be
approximately two and a half acre lots. But
again, while Lot 4 simply is an undersized
lot and that is what was proposed. That's
why we are before you tonight. The rest of
the lots are well in excess and I don't see
that there is going to be any difference
between the amount of traffic, whether or
not this Lot 4 is as continued and as
applied for or whether or not you move the
lot line ~ack any further. You are still
going to have the same use there, whether or
not there are 1,500 square feet to it or not
-- 15,000 -- excuse me.
THE CHAIP~4AN: In the past, we have
had some discussion with the Planning Board
in situations like this. If you would allow
me to recess this hearing to go to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, I would like to
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
29
meet with the Planning Board and ask them
specifically why they chose to go this
route. We know the reason why they chose to
go this route but I would like to meet with
them, either formally or informally, if you
wouldn't mind, rather than me close the
hearing tonight.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: We have no
objection.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. ! think that is
what ! am going to do at this point. Thank
you very much.
Yes?
DOROTHY OVISINAK: They would have to
make a right-of-way for this; am I correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. OVISlNAK: You know we have had
quite a few accidents already by Alvah's
Lane and it is very bad there now, and to
make a right-of-way into this is going to
only cause a major problem there especially
with Manor Hill (phonetic spelling) and I
just feel, at this time, I don't think it
would be feasible to make a right-of-way.
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
hope the Board will
consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN:
take this into
Thank you very much.
3O
businesses.
THE CHAIRMAN:
further comments
motion recessing
Thank you.
at this hearing,
this to the next
scheduled hearing which we will have an
information discussion with the Planning
Hearing no
! make a
regularly
MS. BAWASTYNOWICZ: I would like to
say one more thing. When you are asking
about what is in that house, there is also
another business on that property of ~n
architect in the barn. There are two
businesses in that lot. I think that is
illegal in the code. I would like to Board
to look into that, too.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: For the record, we
have received site plan approval for the
architectural firm that is in the garage.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are two existing
CO's on t~e property?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I believe so. There
are two existing CO's for the two separate
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
Board on this.
Nit. HRIOONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRI~N: All
NR. HRIHONIS: Aye.
~iR. DOYEN:
HR. DINIZIO:
THE CEAIItH~q:
in favor.
everybody,
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRH~N:
Aye.
Aye.
Thanks very much,
for coming in.
8:15 p.m.)
The next appeal
is in
behalE of Betty J. Copin, &ppeal Number
3977. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CH/tlR~I~N: I have a copy of the
survey, dated June 15, 1976, by R. Van Tuyl
and Sons] indicating a one and a half story
or two story frame home, approximately
centered on the property. The nature of
this application is a new two-car garage,
approximately 54 feet south of this
particular dwelling, approximately l0 feet
from the southerly property line -- I have
south, actually southeasterly p~operty line.
I have a copy of the Suffolk county Tax Hap
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
indicating this and surrounding properties
in the area.
MR. CURT MEYHOHFEIt: #e had seen a
garage in the paper, before August 1st, and
I came down to the Building Department and
had no line -- no distance from the property
line at that point and our intent was to put
the garage up in the fall. And I checked,
and August 1st they came in with a property
line and we would just like to put the
garage where we had originally wanted it,
which was 10 feet from the property line.
THE CHAII~%N: How were you going to
get into the garage is the question. That
is a rather dangerous turn, on Alhertson
Lane. Ho~' are you --
M~. MEYHOHFEH: The guard rail was
put up some time ago and they were working
on the railroad bridge. Prior to that they
didn't have one there. I brought a picture
in. Basically, I am not one hundred percent
sure as to how I was going to get in there,
because the property had been subdivided by
same and there are two parcels now.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
$3
THH CHAIRMAN:
the --
MR. MEYHOEFER:
from the driveway and
You mean taking
The existing garage
just coming in front
of the house and then going across and then
down the side.
THE CH&II~l~t~: I would have no
objection to that, being perfectly honest,
but I would have an objection to taking the
guard rail out. I think that is going to
cause a problem. It is a fairly dangerous
area, not in reference to the fact that you
get a tremendous amount of traffic on the
road, but I have been down that road when
there was ice on the road in the wintertime
First I would like to take down --
take a section of the guard rail out. I
spoke to the Highway Department and they
didn't seam that that would be ~oo much of a
problem. Then for a basic -- the property
is very pretty and I don't want to lose
anything from there. So I was thinking
maybe a circular driveway from the front of
the house down the side.
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
and I think from a hazard point of view you
are better off leaving the guard rail in.
MR. MEYHOEFER: Fine, fine. We have
no problem even swinging around the back of
the house using the existing driveway and as
it comes over to the side, ~ust goes right
around the back of the house and comes up
and goes into the garage. We have no
problem with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Which way are the
doors going to be facing?
MR. MEYHOEFER: They would be facing
east, towards the road. The have to face
that way for the simple fact that they have
a -- looking at this, there is a tree that
was broug~ back from %he west coast which
is a redwood tree and it is 25 years old and
only God can make a tree and I hate to move
it or take it down. The only trees we have
been moving or taking down are ones that
have been destructed by storms.
THE CHAII~MAN:
MR. MEYHOEFER:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
Thank you.
Just one other
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question. How tall
to actual ridge?
35
is the garage from grade
MR. MEYHOEFER:
hand, I put in for 25 feet, but
It is a kit and off-
I believe it
in the house, and this otherwise -- the
other piece was -- that was split is rented
from time to time and we try to have those
people have at least their privacy.
THE CHAIRMAn: What is the greatest
amount of utilities that would be in the
building?
MR. MEYHOEFER:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. MEYHOEFER:
THE CHAIRMAN:
building is 24 by 32?
MR. MEYHOEFER:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Electric.
Just electric?
Right.
The size of the
Yes, sir.
The type of roof that
would be on that would be barn type?
MR. MEYHOEPER: Storage, because we
can't store anything. There is no basement
is somewhere around 22.
THE COURT: And upstairs the
structure will be used for what, storage?
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
36
MR. MEYHOEFER: No. To match the
coinciding building, it would be apex.
THE CHAIRMAN: ! thank you so much.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application?
Anybody that would like to speak against the
application?
MS. ONGIONI: ! am Marie Ongioni
(Esquire), 218 Front Street, Greenport.
represent the adjacent property owner,
Marie Cassidy.
Mrs. Cassidy asked me to make an
appearance in her behalf in opposition of
her application. I prepared a memorandum,
which I would like to submit to the Board at
this time!.`
(Ms. Ongioni handing above-mentioned
memorandum to the Board.)
MS. ONGIONI: I am not going to
reiterate the contents of the memo. That is
now part of the record and the Board will
have the opportunity to review it carefully,
! am sure. Essentially, my client objects
to this, to the granting of this variance;
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
37
number one, because this is in essence a
self-imposed hardship. Primarily, this
particular parcel had been one large lot in
1976. The owner applied to this Board for a
variance to set off the backyard of the lot
and also to create an access road from
Albertson Lane in order to reach the
interior lot which doesn't have any front
road frontage. So essentially, this is a
second variance for this particular parcel.
If both applications had been made
simultaneously in 1976, it would seem to me
that the Board would have ~ound that this
particular garage could have been located
elsewhere on the parcel so that the code
requirements would have been met, because
that backyard was set oil 14 years ago and
the applicant is now before this Board
the variance ~rom the side yard setback.
That in itself is a self-imposed hardship.
Additionally, it appears that this
garage, even with the configuration of this
lot, the garage could be located elsewhere
on the property which would comply with the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
38
codes and would obviate the need for this
Board's granting a variance. In addition to
the fact that this is a self-imposed
hardship, the applicant has not shown the
practical difficulties which exist in having
to locate the garage at this particular
location. I would submit to the Board that
there are alternatives available to the
applicant that would enable him to comply
with the code.
THE CHAIRMAN: How close is your
applicant's house or dwelling -- is the
principal structure to this property?
MS. ONGIONI: My client's house is
not directly contiguous to this parcel.
Mrs. casskay owns some vacant land adjacent
to this parcel. She had it subdivided about
six or seven years ago and the tax map,
which is attached to the memorandum as
Exhibit 1, attached to the memorandum the
area in question is circled, you will see,
and the Copin lot, the interior lot is shown
and the large parcel -- I guess it would be
to the south of the Copin property, is not
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
now -- that large open space as shown on
this tax map is now four lots -- four one-
acre lots. So the location of that garage
would be very close to that first 40,000
square foot lot and would be to the
detriment of that lot and the future
configuration of the house on that
Also, it is a very large garage. It
is a two-car garage. It has a hobby shop
and a storage space. At the very least, it
would seem the garage could be scaled down
in order to comply with the code.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak against the application?
DO you have anything, sir, in
rebuttal you would like to say?
say.
MR. MEYHOEFER:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. MEYHOEFER:
hands of the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I have nothing to
Okay.
I leave it in the
The only thing ! want
to ask you is, would you like to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
represented by counsel or would you
to close the hearing based upon the
40
like me
information we have received? In other
words, I have given you the opportunity to
recess the hearing to the next regularly
scheduled hearing if you would like to be
represented by counsel, bearing in mind
there is an objection to the variance.
HR. MEYHOEFER: I've never done this
before and I really don't know the
procedure.
THE CHAII~Mq: I am opening it up to
you, to try and explain to you from this
point. Certainly if we close the hearing at
this point, we couldn't enter any other
testimony'into the hearing. Would you like
to get back to Mrs. Copin and tell here
there is an objection to this variance, and
n~ybe she would like to seek some legal
assistance concerning this?
MR. MEYHOEFER: In that case, I would
like to get back to Mrs. Copin.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. What we
will do is we will reschedule this for the
I
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
~2
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
2:3
24
2§
41
next regularly scheduled hearing, the 29th
of November. You can come back and tell us
or someone else can come back and tell us
whatever you choose to do concerning the
application.
MS. CAROL CASSIDY: Why isn't Mrs.
Copin he~e?
THE CHAII~IAN: I can't answer that
question. I will direct that to the agent.
Do you have any idea why Hrs. Cop~n
is not here tonight?
MR. MEYHOEFER: She didn't feel it
was necessary for her to be here tonight.
THE CHAIRMAN: Bearing that in mind,
we will reschedule the hearing. I recess
this'hea~ing to the next regularly scheduled
hearing, which is November 29th. We thank
you all {or coming in and for the courtesy.
I offer that as a resolution.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
~. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
(Time noted: 8:30 p.m.)
THE CHAIRI4AN: The next appeal is
Appeal Number 3979, in behalf of Thomas J.
Gorman. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the
survey, from Young and Young, dated June 5,
1990, indicating the nature of this
application which is a frame shed and
aluminum shed equally distanced between the
existing garage which is in the front yard
area and the two-story frame dwelling which
is on Laurel Lake. I have a copy of the
Suffolk County Tax Nap indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
Is! there somebody that would like to
be heard?
MR. KEVIN McLAUGHLIN: I um here in
behalf of Mr. Oorman. Basically, this is a
waterfront parcel, and so the~e is always a
bit of discussion as to what is the front
yard and what is the rear yard. Both of
these sheds have been on this property, I
think one prior to the construction of the
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
43
house in the sixties and one subsequent to
the construction cE the house in the
seventies. I think that if you take a view
o~ the property, you will notice that both
neighboring properties, one on each side,
also have similar sheds on what seems to be
the front yard area, and it is very common
~or sheds to be put in what is deemed to be
the front yard area on the waterfront-type
o~ properties in order so as not to
inter~ere with the view of the water.
hike I said, I think there are -- in
addition to each property on each side
having sintilar situations -- there are many
areas that have sheds or other structures on
what is'deemed to be the front yard.
THE CHAII~MAN: Are there any
utilities in any one of the sheds?
MI~. McLAUGHLIN: No. They are
basically storage -- small sheds.
THE CHAII~4AN: Yesterday I was down
there -- great spot. No question about
that. We thank you very much, Mr.
McLaughlin.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor of the application? Is
there anybody that would like to speak
against the application?
Hearing no further con~nents, ! make a
motion reserving decision until later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
for coming in.
(Time noted: 8:33 p.m.)
THE CHAII~IAN: The next appeal is in
behalf of! ~rene R. Mil'let, Appeal Number
3968. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAII~4~/~: I have a copy of the
survey, dated -- looks like a copy of the
surveyor's -- dated July 24, 1990,
indicating a dwelling of approximately 30 by
60, just inside of the top of the bluff on
this particular parcel, and I have a copy of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
and surrounding properties in the area.
I believe Mr. Fitzgerald is
representing --
MR. FITZHERALD: Jim Fitzgerald,
Property Services.
Mrs. Miller has owned the property
for 25 years and now she would like to build
a house on it in that area, the place which
would make use o~ the property is the
location that is indicated on the drawing
and ~or which we seek the variance. I~ the
house was much ~urther back ~rom the blu~
that magic view o~ the water would be lost
and the front line of the proposed building
was ~bta~ned by drawing a straight line
between the most seaward portion of the
structures on either side o~ the property.
THE CHAIRMAN: So what you are saying
is that the structures on either side have a
similar setback as to the one proposed.
MR. FITZHERALD: yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: I assume there wi1! be
a full basement in this house?
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
.... 46
MR. FITZOERALD: That is correct.
There would be a 12-~oot -- the actual size
o~ the basement is 32 by 44, and the 44-
~oot being parallel to the line in the bluff
and there will be a 12-foot deck which means
that the basement would be -- the concrete
would be another 12 ~eet back from the edge
of the bluff.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. To which side,
the east or west?
MR. FITZGERALD: No. The north side
-- to the seaward side.
THE CHAIRMAN: What you are saying in
that the 30 by 60 that we are looking at
right now is extended -- within that
envelope hh is a 12-f~ot deck -- 12 by 30?
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAIt:
above the house?
MR. FITZHERALD:
the first floor.
THE CHAIRMAN:
any further than what
MR.
That is not elevated
On the same level as
But not to protrude
is presently shown?
FITZHERALD: It would be inside
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
the envelope.
THE CHAIRMAN: Wonderful. Okay. You
did see our letter from the Soil and Water
Conservation?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any
con~uents about that?
MR. FITZGERALD: No. I think it is
obviously a very thoughtful study and the
insteps that are required during the
construction to minimize or eliminate the
potential for runoff into the wrong places
will be taken, of course, and the structural
integrity of the edge of the bluff will be
retained.
THE CHAII~4~N: Do you have any
objection to placing straw bales in front of
the proposed structure?
MR. FITZGERALD: You mean during the
construction?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think it is a good
THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, I know
idea.
1
5
6
7
8
9
30
12
13
15
16
17
~8
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
there is an angle this way that we are --
that the sloping effect is, of course,
towards the road and so there is probably no
reason to address that particular issue in
the decision in the respect that you are
-- probably are in no way going to change
that except there would be no disturbance,
assuming the Board went along with the
established setback. We will go back there
and readdress both next-door neighbors. We
thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Excuse me. Mrs.
Miller is here, by the way.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody'that would like to
speak against the application? Questions
from Board members?
MR. MOORE: Bill Moore (Esquire). I
am representing Dr. Heskel Haddad. Dr.
Haddad just wanted me to inform the Board he
withdraws his opposition to that
application.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any idea
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
49
how close his house is to the bluff?
MR. MOORE: I was up today taking a
look around. The bluff is very -- slightly
-- approximately, say -- guessing -- 15
feet, but there is a concrete patio and the
house -- if I remember correctly -- I would
say 15 feet.
THE CHAIP, MI~N: Thank you. Hearing no
further comments, I make a motion closing
the hearing and reserving decision until
later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIRMAN:
terribly sorry.
MR. SULLIVAN:
live in New Suffolk.
Aye.
Aye.
I'm sorry. ! am
William Sullivan. I
The reason that ! am
speaking is my cousin called me. She
couldn't make it. She is completely
familiar with this whole situation. She was
concerned about the variance, that evidently
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
it is a two-story structure going up.. !
think maybe she feels it might block her
view and she wanted to comply with the law.
What is the law, 100 feet back? That was
one thing.
Another thing was the -- ! didn't see
the survey map, but how close it was to her
property line or something.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am going to give you
time to do that. What we are going to do,
at this point, I am going to lay the file
right down here and let you review it. We
will take a five minute break. You can
review, and any other questions you would
like to add, you will be -- you can add.
MR!.~SULLIVAN: 'That's fine.
MR. FITZGERALD: I can tell you it is
going to be a one-story structure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr.
Fitzgerald, for clearing that up.
MR. SULLIVAN:
two-story structure.
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. FITZGERALD:
! thought I heard a
May you mentioned it.
I might have.
You are going to
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
take a break?
THE CHAIRMAN: with everybody's
indulgence we will take a Eive minute break
so this gentleman can review the file. I
need a motion, gentlemen.
MR. DOYEN: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: So moved. All in
favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Recess commenced at 8:43 p.m., and
resumed at 8:52 P.m.)
We need a motion to
So moved.
said hearing
THE CHAIRMAN:
reconvene.
OR aON S:
(Mr. Sullivan showing document to the
51
Court.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is the 10
feet on the west side of the property. That
is the issue that Mr. Sullivan is
addressing, at this particular point.
MR. SULLIVAN: My cousin had said
they wanted at least 15 feet. I don~t know
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
what the laws are. You have to tell me on
that, but that is an issue for her -- that
one. The 100-foot bit, that's the law. The
variance will have to override that.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is a resolution
on the one side of 2210.
MR. SULLIVAN: Can anything be done
about that?
THE CHAIP. MAN: You are raising that
issue. Sure. We can address that to the
agents.
(Inaudible statement.)
MR. FITZGERALD: This was a
theoretical house, 30 by 60. The house
actually with the deck will 44 by 44 -- with
the deck.' so that would permit more setback
on each side.
THE CHAIRMAN: The house is going to
be 44 By 44.
MR. FITZHERALD: Yes, and the 44 this
way includes 12 feet of deck.
THE CHAIP/~AN: So the 32 by 44 is the
actual size of the house.
MR. FITZGERALD: Of the concrete,
53
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
THE CHAIRMAN: Because we do have a
size yard situation of 20 and 15 for a total
of 35. This is very simply what we refer to
as the postage stamp for the DEC purpose; is
that correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: So in effect, the
house is going to be something like that.
It would have to comply with the side yard,
because you are not denied for the side
yard.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: That would be over 15
feet.
feet, at
much.
THE CHAIP/4AN: It will have to be 20
least 20 feet. Thank you very
MR. SULLIVAN:
THE CHAII~IAN:
that would like to speak on this
application?
Hearing no further comments,
motion closing
Thank you.
Is there anybody else
I make a
the hearing and reserving
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision until later.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
54
THE CHAIRMAN:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much.
8:56 p.m.)
The next appeal is a
Appeal Number 3975, in behalf of Arthur O.
Carlson. The legal notice reads as follows:
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of what
appears to be a minor subdivision at one
time, in which includes this particular lot,
which is ~t Number 5 'of that minor
subdivision, which has a rather large two-
story frame home on the premises at the time
and at least two barns, one of which is on
the westerly line and one on the northerly
line -- property line of the premises. The
accesses for the premises are on Lower Road
and Ackerly Pond Lane, and ! have a copy of
the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this
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
55
and surrounding properties in the area.
Would you like to be heard, Mr.
Carlson, or are you represented by counsel?
MR. CARLSON: Arthur Carlson, the
applicant. This is a family business. It
has been in existence for over 25 years and
-- both working on the water as baymen and
continued on to where we were buying
products and outbuying from other fishermen
-- local Southold Town fishermen --
lobstermen, scallopers.
We created a facility that didn't
exist before in town. The lobstermen that
catch for us, there is no other facility in
town that could handle their products. They
hav~ tO go out of town to sell them, which
would be money going out of town. We take
it out of town and sell it, and bring the
money back into town. The conchs, there was
no market for them until we created a market
for them. They had shops for these. There
are scallop shops, all licensed and
inspected, really by the DEC and the
Department of Agriculture.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,23
24
25
56
Everything is totally cleaned..and
disinfected every working day. There are no
odors. People remark how clean we keep the
place. They wonder how we can do it and we
are -- great financial hardship on myself
and my son's family and many, many baymen if
this was denied. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before you leave me or
leave us, we of course have been up and
toured your facility and you were kind
enough to have Mr. Dinizio come up at the
time when you were processing conchs --
actually steaming them at that time. What
is the earliest possible time that someone
may deliver fish to you?
~.' CARLSON: We are bordered by
Lower Road on the front, with the cemetery
across the street, a farm on the west side,
north side is my son's property, and on the
east side there are three gardens that back
up and touch our fence which is on the
furthest part of my property -- the east
-- a few hundred feet.
THE CHAIRMAN: What would be the
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
earliest possible time that someone may
deliver fish to you,
time?
MR. CARLSON:
57
and the latest possible
Normally they come
during the afternoon or early evening.
THE CHAIRMAN: What would be the
latest time they come at night, past eight
o'clock?
MR. CARLSON: Six or seven o'clock.
We normally close at six.
THE CHAIRMAN: When you process the
fish, do you physically take those fish to
the market to sell them or does someone pick
those up?
MR. CARLSON: What do you mean?
THE CHAIRMAN: Either the lobsters,
conchs or whatever.
MR. CARLSON: We put them in our
truck and deliver them out of town.
THE CHAIRMAN: So there are no
tractor-trailers coming to your site?
MR. CARLSON: You couldn't get a
tractor-trailer in my site.
THE CHAIRMAN: The largest truck used
1
2
3
4
§
6
7
9
10
11
~2
13
14
~5
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be the truck we see there that ,has a
58
box on it, or a pickup truck?
MR. CARLSON: That's it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that particular
truck have a freezer on it or a unit on it?
MR. CARLSON: No. They are all
insulated and we use ice that we make there.
THE CHAIRMAN: So then -- there is no
noise emanating from a truck that would be
stored on the site with a refrigeration unit
on --
MR. CARLSON: Definitely not.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is one other
question. How old is the largest barn which
sits to the west side of the property?
MR. CARLSON: It dates back to the
original part of the house.
THE CHAIRMAN: You merely added on to
the barn?
MR.
years ago,
CARLSON:
yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
A couple of feet a few
I don't think I have
any further questions at this time, Mr.
Carlson, but we will see what develops
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
throughout the hearing.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor oM the application?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Claude Carlson,
Arthur's son and I am in the Eamily
business. We have lived there our whole
lives in the fishing business, working on
the water and dealing with our relatives and
some ~riends in town here. And I am just
trying to go over what he might have missed
that I would like you to know about.
That he did mention we have gone
through the process over the years as his
business has grown, that we have complied
with all regulations, to get all permits
that' are'required when we added our barn
onto -- in the Beginning we got all DEC
permits or agricultural permits. So we
Eollowed all procedures as we thought they
were -- we were supposed to properly.
We ~eel -- I personally
are like Earmers of the water.
the bays and we bring stufE in,
a place to store it in our coolers till
~eel that we
We work on
and we need
we
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
~0
11
~2
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
move it back out of town. We can't keep
lobsters alive without keeping them
somewhere in the cooler, for instance, and
that we are not running any type of retail
business. All we are trying to do is handle
all of our products that we catch ourselves,
in our family -- family members and some of
the ones that we deal with -- some of them
going as far back as approximately 20 years
that have caught lobsters for us. We have
only been at that location 18 or 19 years,
but, you know, we have been in the same kind
of business for our whole lives in this
town.
THE CHAIRMAN: You live on Lot Number
which 'kS a ranch h~use that faces Ackerly
Pond?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Right. So the
barns are in his backyard and they are also
in my backyard.
THE CHAIRMAN:
something to you, do
When somebody delivers
they use the Ackerly
Pond access or the Lower Road access?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: They use both.
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
61
Ne haven't had any problem as far as ! know,
The closest neighbor to us on my side has
been very good friends to us and we have no
complaints.
THE CHAIRMAN: For the record -- so
let me just mention for the record t~at both
accesses are either of sand or they ere
unpaved.
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Gravel.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else
you would like to say?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: No. That's
about it. I just wanted you to realize what
effect this would have on both our families.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the sole
support ~f your income, this business?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: And your father?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Yes, both our
families and our kids in college. This is
our family business we built together and it
just has fallen into place over the years.
THE CHAIRMAN: How many people would
you say you are in contact with that -- or
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
"/4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that avail themselves of your business?
62
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Probably 50 or
60 local people in town, but it is -- every
year it varies. For instance, some years we
handle bait mussels. People catch bait
mussels. They bring them to us. We buy
them and store them. I also have mussels,
the different years. The last few years
have been very difficult because we haven't
had any mussels, any bait mussels because of
the brown tide. Striped bass has been taken
away -- just given back to us this year on a
limited basis.
We have had hard times over the last
few years trying to keep things together in
this business, to begin with. But to answer
your question more fully, there are about 50
or 60 people but over a given year maybe 30
or 40 because we have ten lobster boats that
bring lobsters to us. This year, for
instance, we had a dozen scallop boats. The
other years we had as many as 20 people
scalloping and selling us their products.
As far as conchs go, we probably have about
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
2§
63
eight or ten boats that catch conchs for us
in town.
I would like to mention one other
thing, talking about processing -- is that
originally, we created a market for conchs.
You are not allowed to throw them back
overboard. They are shellfish predators.
They are not supposed to be thrown
overboard. We looked [or the market and
created the market for them originally by
busting them out of the shell. We found by
steaming them for a short time we could take
them out of the shell without going through
the work of busting them. We only pack
shellfish. Lobsters, scallops, and conchs
are our basic business. We don't handle
fish, except for what fishing I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: How would you compare
your operation to a farmer?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: ! would say we
are very similar to a farmer in one aspect
of what we do on our own, but it would be
like having neighbors or other farmers or
relatives that we handle packing their stuff
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
'~0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
to take out of town for sale.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you change the
physical characteristic of the products you
use, that you have?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: No.
TEE CHAIRMAN: Do you slice the
conchs to a point they are sold en masse, in
one piece?
HR. CLAUDE CARLSON: No. We don't
have any kind of final processing type
operation. Ail we are trying to do is
market a product in the bulk form.
THE CHAIR~IAN: So the greatest degree
of processing that you would do would be to
extract the eye of the scallop out of its
shell?
MR. CLAUDE C~RLSON: Exactly, extract
the conch out of the shell.
THE CHAIRI~N: You wouldntt be
extracting lobster meat out of the lobster,
would you?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: No. He don't
want to deal with lobster meat. We ~ust
deal with live lobsters.
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
65
THE CHAIRMAN: We thank you very
much, Mr. Carlson.
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else
that would like to speak in favor of this
application?
M~MBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
THE CHAIRItAN: State your name for
the record, please.
MR. DeMAULA: My name is Anthony
DeMaula. I am one of the original fishermen
that started with Mr. Carlson, when Claude
was still in school playing baseball. Sandy
and I have done business for 25 years at
other locations and at this one here. I
supplied'him with conchs. I supplied him
with lobster mainly, and occasionally fish
when he had special orders.
The fishing industry, as you all well
know, is in kind of a low ebb in our end of
the community here. Mr. Carlson, in his
business, is an absolutely vital part of
this community, as far as fishermen are
concerned. The competitiveness of several
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
buyers -- we have George Braun.
other small markets in Greenport
66
We have
that do buy
the products, but the amount of product that
is handled by Mr. Carlson is relatively too
vast for the local market. George Braun
would probably be the closest thing that
could handle it, but he has his own fishing
boats -- gentlemen that deal with him, and
if you took the people that deal with Mr.
Carlson and kind of turned those loose on
the market here, it would be detrimental not
only to the gentlemen doing business with
these other people because it would cause a
glut in the market and repress our prices.
We all know that this business is a
supply an!d' demand business. It would cause
-- if we had to, we would have to transport.
We would have to lose fishing time by
transporting our product down the Island, to
Connecticut, or other places like that, and
try to develop our own market which is very
difficult when you are a fisherman. You are
either a fisherman or a wholesaler and
dealer like Mr. Carlson. So he has provided
1
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
39
2O
;'1
22
23
24
25
67
not only my family, but many families with a
guaranteed safe market of fish -- a fair
safe market for over 25 years.
For this type of a -- Mr. Chairman,
for this type of a situation to come up,
where he has been a long-standing Business
in this area, is to me a little bit
ludicrous. It is here and we are addressing
it as such. I honestly believe as far as
the hardship goes, it would he of a
tremendous hardship to the men, especially
the lobster Business at this particular
time. Mr. Carlson and his son move a
tremendous amount of lobsters provided by
the 10 -- 12 -- 14 boats depending on the
rime'of year and without his business there
to help us move our products, we all would
be -- we would have some very difficult
times. We either have to lose fishing time
and go peddle our products or we would have
to hire somebody to drive our truck and to
create our own markets. We just couldn't do
that. Fishing or farming and tourism is the
mainstay of Southold Town, and this man has
2
5
6
7
8
9
~0
~2
~3
~4
~5
~6
~7
~8
~9
2O
2~
22
23
24
25
helped the fishing
good market.
68
end of it and to create a
I thank you very much.
THE CHAIPuV~N: Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak in favor cE the application?
MR. WENCZEL: Peter Wenczel. I am a
commercial fisherman and I also am president
of the Southold Town Baymen's Association.
I would just like to speak for both
myself and the baymen in the Town of
Southold, generally, and just say that Mr.
Carlson's business is very important for all
the fishermen in Southold. I personally
have relied on it for 13 years now, and
there are! a lot of people who are in the
same situation.
The conch processing is very
important. It is not something that you can
do yourself. You have to have a facility
set up and get all the permits and all that,
and it is just -- it is essential for
anybody that does that kind of fishing.
The bay scallop processing is
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
69
becoming the same kind of thing. It used to
be a kitchen industry. Everybody used to
shuck at home. Now, because of all the DEC
regulations and the Department of Health
regulations, it is almost prohibitive cost-
wise to set up a shop of our own if you do
it right.
So his operation is very important to
all of us, and I just want to say I think
the variance should be granted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
sir.
Is there anybody else that would like
to speak?
MR. LATSON: Steve Latson. I am
secretary to the Baymen's Association, also
chairman of the Water Revitalization
Association. And obviously, from what has
been said, that Sandy's business is very
important for the fishermen in this town.
And next year when you have the scallops
coming back, it is going to be extremely so.
I think he has the only legal opening shop
left in the whole town.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1'2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7O
From the standpoint of Waterfront
Revitalization, I think it is really
important to start looking at the zoning
code in Southold Town. Currently, ! land my
scallops in the Town creek at my mother's
dock. That is actually illegal. That is
illegal. We have got a ~ot of code
problems. I think starting with the
variance here is a good place to start. We
work on it with the Waterfront Revitaliza-
tion, working'on the problem that the code
doesn't address fishing as being really an
existing industry at this point, but you do
hear about it when the politicians start
talking.
I !think that il about all I have to
say. I think it is really important that
his variance be granted, and I think also it
is really important that you guys get
together with the people and involved with
the conuuittee and start altering the codes
to start helping the fishermen because we
keep hearing about the fishermen and how
important he is; and he is, but really,
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
'71
basically, we are getting shut out of the
town. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody that would like to
speak against the application?
Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: I am F. M. Flynn,
resident of the Town of Southold.
The grievous nature and scope of this
application is such that ! would like to
address it in detail. My purpose is to
create a record for the future should such
be required.
THE CHAIRMAN: How long do you think
this will take you, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: I would say upwards from
five to ten minutes.
Here, again, we are confronted with
yet another transparent attempt to rezone
via variances. What is asked for here can
only be accomplished by means of a rezoning.
May ! remind you that Chapter 100 of
the Town Code Zoning states, as one ef its
purposes, "The gradual elimination of non-
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
conforming uses."
with their creation,
expansion or ultimate approval
Board.
72
This is hardly consistent
proliferation,
by this
Now there is a basic question here.
The legal notice said we are involved with
Lot 13.2. I hear reference now also to Lot
13.4 which is not part of the legal notice.
It.is not part
of this
THE CHAIRMAN:
application.
MR. FLYNN:
Then it is not part of
the legal notice which brought me in here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Lot 13.2 is the only
one that has this particular operation on
it. His son lives on 13.4. I assume that
is the o~e you are raising. His son has a
one-family dwelling on that piece.
MR. FLYNN: It appears to me that
part of the existing operation is on Lot
13.4.
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. FLYNN: At any rate,
really a problem enrolled here.
lot,
that's not
The subject
Lot Number 13.2, is one acre in area in
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
73
an A-C or 2-acre district. It is by Town
Code definition a nonconforming lot.
With respect to use, the applicant
seeks a veritable melange of uses classified
by him as maricultural, to wit:
1) Delivery and storage of seafood.
2) Packaging
3) Freezing and/or preparation of
raw or cooked seafood processing.
4) Shipping
5) Sales for off-prent/ses
consumption.
None of these uses is permitted in an
A-C District.
Mariculture is a permitted use in
MII Districts only, with a two-acre minimum
lot size. Specifically, fish processing is
permitted only as a Special Exception, as
are fish nuarkets.
Each such use requires a plot cf two
acres. There is also a question of the
other uses cited as requiring industrial or
business zoning with their attendant plot
minimums.
f I
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
74
In short, the applicant proposes to
locate a long list of non-conforming uses,
each with its individual plot size
requirements, on a one-acre parcel.
It should be noted that the Town Code
specifically prohibits uses emitting noxious
odors in all districts.
With respect to the above, there is a
possibility, even perhaps the probability,
that were these variances granted, the
subject property would be operated in
conjunction with Lot 13.4 in the same block.
Lot 13.4 is also a nonconforming lot
on which a reputably nonconforming and,
possibly illegal, use is conducted.
Neighbors! already complain about noxious
odors emanating from this lot.
I might add that Lot 13.2 abuts at
least four residences.
What is sought here are multiple
rezonings far beyond the strict letter of
the regulations and the spirit of the Zoning
Chapter of the Town Code.
The spirit of the chapter is clearly
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
75
expressed by the Town Board's limiting these
uses to MI1 Districts. The further intent
or spirit, is ~urther expressed in Section
100-120 o~ the Town Code which states that
Mil use is intended to provide: "a
waterfront location Eot a wide range of
water-dependent and water-related uses which
require or heneiit from direct access to or
location in marine or tidal waters and
which, in general, are located on major
waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island
Sound."
So much Eot MI1 uses.
By law, in seeking a variance, the
burden of proof is on the applicant.
He must submit, for an area variance,
"dollars and cents" proof that his property
is virtually valueless as zoned. This is'
hardly the case in view of the permitted
residential use and the abutting residential
use.
To grant an area variance, the Board
is enjoined by the courts to consider:
1) How substantial the variance is
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
relative to the requirement.
2) Whether substantial change will
be produced in the character of the
neighborhood.
3) Whether the difficulty can be
obviated by some method feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than a variance.
4) Whether, in view of the matter in
which the difficulty arose, the interest of
justice will be served by allowing the
variance.
It is significant that, throughout,
variance is used in the singular. It is
obvious that the courts did not contemplate
a series of variances, the scope of which is
tantamount' to rezonin~s.
I submit that the only difficulty
here arises from the outrageous demands of
the applicant and that such "difficulty" can
be obviated by utilizing the property for a
permitted use.
The substantiality of the variances
sought is obvious in view of their variety,
intensity and obnoxious nature, as well as
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
77
the nonconforming size of the property.
The change in the character of the
neighborhood which the proposed changes
would bring about, should be apparent to all
justice to all
rights to the "quiet
but the most prejudiced.
Justice involves
including the neighbors
enjoyment" of their properties incorporated
in their "Bundle of Rights" and whose
properties would be devalued for the
applicant's profit. These variances would
effectively constitute spot zoning.
Two of the principal uses sought
require Special Exception.
With respect to Special Exceptions,
the Town'code states (in part) that the ZBA
must find and determine:
That the proposed use will not
prevent the orderly and reasonable use of
adjacent properties or of properties in
adjacent use districts.
That the safety, the health, the
welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the
order of the town will not be adversely
I I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affected by the proposed use and its .
location.
That
and promote
78
of the district; the conservation of
property values; effects of traffic; the
availability of water and facilities for the
treatment of sewage and other effluents; the
question of the emission of obnoxious gases,
odors, etcetera; whether the plot size is
sufficient and appropriate for the uses;
the use will be in harmony with
the qeneral purposes and intent
of this chapter. (Chapter 100 - Zoning)
That the use will be compatible with
its surroundings and with the character of
the neighborhood and of the community in
general particularly with regard to
visibility, scale ~d overall appearance.
Section 100-264 of the Town Code
recites matters to be considered by this
Board in granting Special Exceptions. It is
too lengthy to quote here verbatim, but I
commend its study to anyone interested in
the outcome of this proceeding. In general,
factors to be considered are: the character
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
79
whether the proposed site is particularly
suitable for the uses; whether there is risk
of pollution of ground or surface waters,
etcetera.
Here again, these considerations
envisage only a single use and due to the
manifold variance any adverse effects are
obviously intensified.
In conclusion, there is absolutely no
justifiable basis on which to grant these
variances and, in the interest of justice
and to prevent further waste of the
taxpayer's money, I call for a summary
dismissal of this application.
If it belongs anyway, it belongs as a
cha~ge 0~ zone application before the Town
Board. Thank you.
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: ! would like to
ask Mr. Flynn a question -- a couple of
questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before you do that,
let me ask you a question. I don't know ii
you sat in on the prior hearing with the
garage application, but there are certain
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
80
issues that have been raised here concerning
the code and so on and so forth. At the
completion of the hearing for the evening,
would you like us to recess it so you may
seek legal counsel and possibly come back in
the November meeting or December meeting or
whatever -- how long you feel it is going to
take you to address the specific issues that
were mentioned?
First of all, we have afforded to us
a copy of the issues that Mr. Flynn has
before us. So we don't have to wait until
they are transcribed. However, we cm give
you a copy of that so you can talk to your
attorney. That is an issue I want you to
think abo~.
MR. C~RLSON: Can I ask a couple of
questions of Hr. Flynn? I want to know if
he represents someone. What is his interest
in this?
Number two -- before he answers that
-- you people have visited the site. There
are no noxious odors there.
Number three, our water is tested --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
required to be tested by the Department of
Agriculture every two years, We drink that
water in our families. We are not ground
polluting any water. We use very little
water in our operation.
MR. FLYNH: It is obvious that
somebody has to serve as some form of
ombudsman if these applications are not to
slip by unchallenged; two, some of the
neighbors or at least one of the neighbors
-- I should correct that -- has complained
about the emission of odors from that
property; and three, whatever the situation
with groundwater is now, certainly the
possibility for contan~nation is going to be
increase'manifold by the expansion of the
operation of these uses onto another lot.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON:
like to clarify a couple of
just brought up here that I
I would just
things that were
am not sure if
everybody -- there is no possibility of
pollution. We are not using any kind of
chemicals. Everything is natural. We are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
82
taking natural shellfish, taking them out of
the shells for sale out of town, and taking
the shell to the dump.
That is the basis of our operation,
of what we are doing. We are not expanding
anything. We have been doing this ~or many
years and we haven't had any problems.
There were other problems that arised
because of friction between neighbors that
had nothing to do with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have before me the
minor subdivision of Lots 1, 2 and 3. Your
father's lot is Lot Nun~er $, where the
entire operation occurs; is that correct?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: That is correct.
TH~'CHAIRMAN: ~here is no operation
in your garage or on your premises, where
your house is?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: No, my property
goes across the back of his property.
THE CHAIRMAN: So we are limiting
this discussion primarily to your father's
property.
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: Yes. There are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
35
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
no plans of any kind of expansion. All we
want to do is continue what we have been
doing for so many years.
THE CHAII~MAN: Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
MR. FLYNN: May I just comment
briefly about this question of the
identification of the property? Lot Number
13.2 fronts on bower Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
MR. FLYNN: Lot Number 13.4 fronts on
Ackerly Pond Road. The improvements ere on
the lot fronting on Ackerly Pond Road.
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. FLYNN: At least some of the
improvements .
THE CHAIRMAN: No. The only thing
that is on Ackerly Pond Road, Mr. Flynn,
-- so we get this straightened out, because
I had a problem here, too, -- Mr.
Carlson's house -- Mr. Carlson~s
fronts on Ackerly Pond Road. Mr. Sandy
Carlson, who is the applicant before us in
the nature of this application, his house
Claude
son~s house
I I
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
84
faces on Lower Road. The entire operation
-- I have a survey here -- is on Mr. Sandy
Carlson's or Mr. Arthur Carlson's parcel of
property, which I have before me as 13.2. I
mean, we can afford you any copies of the
file or anything.
MR. FLYNN: It doesn't alter the
nature of my objection.
THE CHAIRMAI~: No, it doesn't. I
just want to clear it up with you.
Mr. Carlson, Mr. Arthur Carlson, or
Sandy, we come to the question and I asked
you when you stood up, I personally am not
making any suggestions to you, but you tell
me what you want to do. We can close the
hearing b~sed'on the ~ecord, or we will
allow you to come back and have you bring
counsel with you.
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: How soon will
the decision be made?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if we close the
hearing tonight, we have 60 days from
tonight to make a decision, which would mean
we would he making a decision before
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
Christmas.
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON:
85
I think, Gerry,
we have presented our case very well and we
stated all the facts. You people have
visited the site, and we stand on what we
are doing as neat as we can do it, and it
certainly is a help to the town. I think we
would like to go ahead and close it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a particular
problem in the respect I want to talk to the
Town Attorney regarding this application.
So I might recess it to the next regularly
scheduled meeting for the sole purpose of my
discussing it with the Town Attorney.
MR. DINIZIO: I would like to know
the 'right-of-way that goes to Ackerly Pond,
is that in the deed for your property?
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: Both on our
properties. It is 16 feet right-of-way
going from my driveway, continuing around a
90 degree bend, deeded to both Claude's
property and my property, and enters on --
exits or enters on Ackerly Pond.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just so we have it for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
the record, what initiated this particular
hearing? What caused you to come before us?
MR. CLAUDE CARLSON: A complaint,
wbich is a sour grape thing.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was a complaint
by a neighbor?
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: One neighbor.
THE CHAIRMAN: That's what brought
you to this particular hearing?
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: I could say
more, but maybe I shouldn't.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is counter-
productive, and we thank you, Arthur, and I
will suggest to the Board that we recess so
we might discuss it with the Town Attorney
and then you will be back. So we will see
you back here on the 29th. We will restrict
the testimony to five minutes, and we will
close the hearing and that will be the end
of it.
MR. ARTHUR CARLSON: Thank you.
THE CHAII~: Hearing no further
questions, I make a motion recessing it to
the next regularly scheduled hearing for the
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
87
purposes of limited oral testimony to the
extent of five minutes on both sides after
discussion with the Town Attorney.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN:
MR. GRIGONZS:
MR. DINIZIO:
THE CHAIP/~AN:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you very much,
gentlemen, for coming in.
(Time noted: 9:40 p.m.}
THE CHAIRMAN: The next appeal is
Number 3788, in behalf of Sun Refining and
Marketing.
(Legal notice read off record.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Before us I have a
copy of the site plan from the Sun Refining
and Marketing Company Facility Distribution
Department, from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
dated 12/30/87. There ~ay be an update on
that, and I have a copy of the Suffolk
County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area.
We ask counsel, is that the latest
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
copy we have?
MR. WAGNER:
88
John Wagner (Esquire).
I have a revised plot plan I can hand up to
you tonight. I have numerous copies of it.
(Applicant's counsel handing above-
mentioned document to the Board.)
THE CHAII~4AN: We are ready.
MR. WAGNER: Good evening. ! am John
Wagner, attorney with Esseks, Hefter and
Angel, in Riverhead. I am here tonight in
behalf of Sun Refining and Marketing
Company, the applicants. Sun Refining and
Marketing is the lessee of Ard Trot, Inc.
which is the record owner of the property.
Sun Refining has a longtime lease with Ard
Trot.
I have with me here tonight two
representatives -- two representatives of
Sun Refining and Marketing, Jack Guarneri
and Radcliffe Dwyer. Also present tonight
is the son of the current franchisee of the
subject property. His name is Ed Rafferty
(phonetic spelling) and he will be operating
the future proposed convenience store/gas
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
89
station use. So if you have any questions
as to what might be done there, ! assure you
can have an answer from one of these people
tonight.
The location of the property is at
the northeast corner of Factory Avenue and
Main Road, in Mattituck, and you indicated
you have the tax map already before
The sone classification of the property is B
General Business and the total acreage
the property is 24,139 square feet. And for
your help also, I have a copy of the plain
survey of the property without all the
notations on it. That might be helpful.
(Applicant's counsel handing above-
mentioned document to the Board.)
MR. WAGNER: A little bit on the
history of the property. This particular
parcel that is in question here has been
singularly and separately owned since 1969,
and it is single and separate from the
adjoining property on the north and east,
which currently contains the A & P Shopping
Center.
1
2
3
4
§
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
The character of the neighborhood
property is con~nercial. It is B General
Business zoned for quite a ways on east and
west Route 25. As I said, the property is
surrounded on the north and east by the
A & P Shopping Center which consists of a
variety of retail uses.
At present on the site we have a main
building which is currently containing an
office and motor vehicle repair facility.
Also, out front there are some gasoline
pumps, dispersers, which are used for retail
gasoline sales.
Now the gasoline service station on
the operation has a Certificate of Occupancy
which is dated August 28, 1970, and that use
was sanctioned by a Certificate of Occupancy
to a Special Exception granted in
pursuant
1969.
We are here tonight because the
applicant proposed to do something with the
property, specifically we would like to
convert the pre-existing use now useel for
office and repair work to the convenience
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
91
store. We would like to relocate the gas
pumps on the property and also we would like
to install a canopy over the new relocated
gas pumps.
We have been to the Planning Board
with this proposal. There have been a lot
of little evolutions on the project over the
time. The latest evolution, which you have
before you tonight, which is Revision Number
ll of the pict land -- this revision you see
tonight came about after numerous reviews
with the Planning Board over a month and a
half and also an inspection of the lot by
Victor Lesaard, the Building Inspector.
Ail that we have done, the latest
revision'is to open the entryway on Main
Road a little wider to facilitate tanker
truck access to the property and open the
access way on Factory Avenue to allow the
tanker trucks to leave. We also relocated
the handicapped parking space to the back of
the property, and once again, that is to
promote the movement of traffic through the
site.
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town Code.
approval,
92
When the Building Inspector reviewed
the latest plan and the proposal that we
have, he issued a Notice of Disapproval,
dated October 2nd of this year, and I would
just like to summarize that for you,
briefly, so you can see what we are asking
for tonight of this Board.
In his Notice of Disapproval, Mr.
Lessard points to Section 100-253 of the
This provides for the site plan
and the applicant is presently
addressing that through the Planning Board
channel. He also cites Section 100-102,
which is the bulk parking and area
requirement and specifies that 30,000 square
feet is r~quired for ~ach use.
Now I have had a discussion with Mr.
Lessard as to what is meant by that, and I
believe Mr. Lessard's position is that the
convenience store is an additional use on
the property and requires an additional
30,000 square feet over and above the
gasoline station use which requires 30,000
square feet. So Mr. Lessard believes 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
the site requires
proposal.
93
60,000 square feet for the
Re are going to take the position
that the convenience store, which Hr.
Lessard acknowledged to be a permitted use
in the B General Business Zone, ia in fact a
separate principal uae which we believe
requires the 30,000 square feet per use, but
as proposed it is in fact an accessory use
to the gasoline station which pre-exists on
the property. Because of that analysis, we
contend there ia really only one principal
use on the property under this proposal and
there is only 30,000 square feet of lot size
that would be required under the current
standards. Because we have a p:re-existing
use on the substandard use, we are taking
the position we require no variance from
even the 30,000 square feet requirement. We
take that position pursuant to code zoning
100-244, which protects certain uses on
substandard parcels.
Now I intend to present expert
testimony to establish that the convenience
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
2S
store as proposed is, in fact, an accessory
rather than a principal use. I would like
to request right now that the record o[ this
proceeding be kept open, so that you can
receive this expert testimony. The expert
could not be here tonight. He had another
engagement in Southampton, and I would like
to reschedule him for another night to bring
him back so he can present a detailed report
to you on the phenomena of convenience
stores and gasoline stations.
The next thing Mr. hessard refers to
in his Certificate of Disapproval is the
height of that proposed canopy we would like
to put on the property. He had a question
as to whether it was donforming to the
height requirements of the Zoning Code. Our
position is that it does fully conform and
you can appreciate that when you consider
that the most stringent height requirement
for structures that would apply to the
subject property is found in Town Code
Section 100-33. That section imposes an 18-
foot height limit on accessory buildings.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
95
The Miscellaneous Details and
Elevation Plan which was submitted with the
application shows a canopy height of 17 feet
above the pump mat. If you scale it out,
you can see it is also less than 18 feet
above the ground level. So based upon that,
we conclude the canopy conforms with the
most stringent requirements under the code
and we would like an interpretation from the
Board that there is no height problem with
the canopy as proposed.
Now Mr. Lessard also requires --
refers to the-provisions for the canopy. He
believes that there are two front yards
required for the canopy by virtue of the
fac[ the'canopy is on the corner, and we
appreciate that it is a corner lot and
therefore two fronts yards apply. In this
particular zone they are 50 feet. We
believe that we have sufficient practical
difficulty to demonstrate that we should get
a variance from that standard to permit the
canopy as proposed. The 50-foot front yard
required for this particular parcel imposes
L
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
96
a severe constraint on the parcel, and you
can't really appreciate that until you
actually see it scaled out on the diagram.
5o once again, to help you in this, I
have prepared a map of the existing
conditions on the site, and I have indicated
in red pencil what the 50-foot setback would
be so you can see where the building area is
under the current code. You can see from
observing that applying the 50-~oot setback
from Factory Avenue and from Main Road, the
only buildable area of this site is in the
northeast corner of the site. This is an
area where neither the gas pumps can be
placed nor anything else of value. The
purpose of the canopy is to cover the
gasoline pumps. So it is really impossible
to build a canopy on subject property that
is of any value applying the setbacks.
THE CHAIRMAN: What is the purpose of
covering the pu~ps?
MR. WAONRR: The purpose of the
canopy is for protection from the elements.
People drive up in this day and age where
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
they have to get out o~ their cars and selE-
service and using the pumps and Eumbling
around with the gadgets. It is a rainy day.
It is not very convenient for the customers
to come in and do that. They can appreciate
they might have protection from the downpour
and the canopy is designed not only as a
shield, but as a water collection device.
It does have drainage Eacilities built into
its design that channels water off and away
from the area where the pumping would be
taking place. The canopy is nothing unusual
with this application. There is one right
down the road. In fact, it's a Hess station
on the south side oE the road to the east, a
~ew hundred yards down the road.
On the score of the canopy, I
mentioned before I have some expert
testimony ~or you next time I come and I
would like to tell you also that that expert
will also testiEy that a canopy in this day
and age is a customary accessory structure
to a gasoline station and, again, I would
like to defer to his testimony on 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
98
concluaion, I don't expect you to take it
from me at face value, and once again I
request the record remain open for that
testimony.
THE CHAIR~N:
Are every one of the
pumps under this canopy self-service pumps?
MR. DWYER:
planned. However,
constructed that way.
service if required.
MR. DINIZIO:
necessary?
THE CHAI~:
pumps.
MR. WAGNER:
existing ~ulaber of pumps.
That's the way it is
it does not have to be
We can include full
Is every pump
Meaning the amount of
We have already the pre-
four dispensers in place.
MR. DINIZIO:
configuration.
MR. DWYER:
MR. WAaNEH:
the plot plan,
Ho.
If you look carefully at
you will see dotted lines
They are not in this
MR. DWYER: Currently there are nine
pumps on the site. We only proposed to put
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
12
~3
~4
15
~6
17
~8
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
99
showing the existing pump islands. You can
see there is a designation on there with
"TBR" which means "to be removed." So you
can get an appreciation of the existing
conditions as proposed. You will find, in
fact, under the proposed scenario, the pumps
will be moved further in from the Main Road
than they are currently.
Now I think like I said before, we
acknowledge that to have this canopy, which
we think is necessary to the gas station and
a customary accessory to it, we are going to
need some kind of variance from you. We
believe that the parcel, because it is a
corner parcel, it is uniquely and highly
cons'trained by these current required aching
setbacks.
The area variance, such as what we
are looking for, requires a showing of
practical difficulty. As you know, there is
a landmark case called Wachsberger versus
Miohalis, and this case basically sets the
criteria for an analysis of practical
difficulty on applications of this sort. 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
would like to read through the criteria for
you directly from the court opinion.
In a determination of practical
difficulty the Board should consider:
1) How substantial the variation is
in relation to the requirement;
2) the effect that the variance is
allowed of the increased population density
thus produced on available governmental
facilities (fire, water, garbage, and the
like);
3) wherever a substantial change
will be produced in the character oE the
neighborhood or a substantial detriment to
adjoining properties created;
4~' whether th~ difficulty can be
obviated by some method feasible for the
applicant
and
5) whether in view of the manner in
which the difficulty arose and considering
all of the above factors, the interest of
justice will be served by allowing the
variance.
100
to pursue other than the variance;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
I will just run down these five
factors for you. In regard to the
substantial variation, you can see on the
plot plot plan before you I indicated what
the proposed setbacks are for the canopy.
You will find they are 29 feet both from
Factory Avenue and from Main Road.
Therefore we need a variance from 50 feet
down to 29, or 21 feet for the variance.
This works out to about a 42 percent
variance. However, when you consider that
under Town Code Section 100-244 the
applicant's single and separate
nonconforming lot is automatically entitled
to relief from the dimensions to allow a
fron% yard of 40 feet. The variance appears
less substantial. In viewing it in that
way, we really are requesting 11 additional
feet from 40 feet or 27.5 percent variance.
Now the next factor is the effect of
the increased population density on
available governmental facilities. In that
respect, we contend there is no such effect.
The reason for that, we are dealing with
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
..... 102
just a canopy. This is not a residential or
conuuercial building. It is just a bare
structure. It has no demand of such
services.
The third criteria recited by the
case is substantial change in character of
neighborhood or substantial detriment to
adjoining properties. Again, we contend
there is no such effect. This canopy
effects only the subject property, and the
effect is really a beneficial one in that in
effect it protects customers of the property
from the elements. Because it is a canopy
it has no ground coverage and does not
obstruct the view of vehicles and scenic
views tha~'might exist'. It doesn't
interfere with the surrounding of the corner
of Factory Avenue.
The next criteria is whether there is
feasible alternative methods for the
applicant to relieve the difficulty short of
obtaining a variance. We had no feasible
method. Without this particular variance,
we certainly cannot locate the canopy over
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
the pumps. The canopy is worthless unless
it is over the pumps, and the pumps cannot
be located in that extreme northeast corner
of the property.
The last criteria is whether in view
of the manner in which the difficulty arose
and considering the above factors interest
of justice will be served by the variance.
It should be pointed out here that this
difficulty that we have arises through no
fault of this applicant. It is just the
happenstance that we happen to be on the
corner parcel, that we are burdened by two
very substantial front yard requirements.
In addition, this canopy has no discernable
adverse ~ffects on the public. In other
words, like I said before, it does not
obstruct vision as an ordinary closed
building would do, and in fact, protects
those members of the public from the
elements as they are using the permitted
gasoline pumping facilities on the site.
For all the foregoing reasons, !
submit that the applicant has demonstrated ~
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
104
sufficient practical difficulty under the
standards of Wachsberger to warrant the
grant of the requested variance.
At this point I would like to wrap up
for the evening. I have covered the height,
the interpretation problem, and I have given
you just about everything I have on the
setback requirement for the canopy. When I
come back again I would like my expert with
me and he will testify as to the convenience
store, the lot area requirement, and he also
will give you additional insight into the
accessory nature of canopies to gasoline
stations. So just to conclude, I would like
to request the record be kept open for him
at a late~' time. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone in the audience that
may not he here at the next time that would
like to raise an opinion, a quick opinion
concerning this application? Showing no
hands, I make a motion reserving the hearing
without a date.-
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
C
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
105
THB CHAIRMAN:
MR. GBIGONIS:
MR. DINIZIO:
MR. DOYEN:
(Time noted:
THE CHAIRMAN:
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
10:07 p.m.)
The next hearing, is
in behalf of Dominick Sblendido and A.
Auricchio, Appeal Nun~ber 3955, continuing
from September 26, 1990, and I will ask Mr.
Cardinale if he has anything he would like
to add.
MR. PHILIP CARDIHALE, ESQ: Yes.
Members of the Board, I will try to
be as brief as possible in view of the late
hour. It is our understanding that the
purpose Rf the adjournment of the hearing
was to -- was three-fold. One is to enable
the applicant to provide certain additional
required by the
information to the Board
Board.
I have in my possession -- I had
cited at the last hearing the Wilmott case
recently decided by the Town of Riverhead
-- identical circumstances to the
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
106
application before you, which in effect
states that two kitchens do not a two-family
home make. I have a copy of that decision
provided to me by the Town of Riverhead in
my possession. I would like to hand that up
as an exhibit.
(Applicant's counsel handing above-
mentioned document to the Board.)
MR. CARDINALE: The second purpose,
as ! understand it, for the hearing was to
obtain the presence of the Building
Inspector, Mr. Lessard, for inquiries By the
Board and to confirm the sequence of events
I related to the Board in behalf of the
petitioner at the last hearing. I do not
see Mr. L~ssard present. I will con~nent
upon that in a moment. I will have an
exhibit on that, as well.
The third purpose was to permit
myself and my clients, who are here this
evening, Mr. and Mrs. Sblendido and Mrs. A.
Auricchio, again to address the supplemental
memo which was submitted and subsequent
letter in your file dated 10/22/90 Erom
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
107
Marie Ongioni, attorney for neighbor Tober.
Taking the first purpose first, to
provide certain additional information to
the Board, the Wilmott case which you have
in front of you now is relied upon very
heavily. I would suggest to the Board that
this is an identical case recently decided
By a sister town and not only is the
determination I think intelligent and fair
hut it is also not just the determination
hut the entire approach and mechanics !
would ask the Board to consider following
seriously in this case.
What this decision does -- if you
look at it, it is ver~ brief -~ is they find
that' the'code of the Town of Riverhead
defines a one-family dwelling as such, and
as such the definition does not mention
kitchen or kitchens. They look to see what
the code of the Town of Riverhead defines as
family. They conclude that the definition
does not mention eating arrangements.
They indicate that, as in this case,
the dwelling had a second kitchen installed
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
16
17
18
~9
2O
2!
22
23
2~
25
as part of the family
that because of these
108
room and they conclude
findings that the code
of the Town of Riverhead does not address
the number of kitchens a single-family
dwelling may have or the eating arrangements
of the family and therefore, they determine
that two kitchens do not make a two-family
home and permitted the continuation of the
kitchen.
! ask the Board to approach this
problem which you must after all of the data
given to you which is voluminous -- in a
simpler fashion, look at your own code,
Section 100-13, your definitional section,
the applicable or relevant provisions of the
definition of a one-family dwelling, the
definition of dwelling units and the
definition of family. ! alluded to this
argument last time I was here, but I just
want to flush it out based upon the Wilmott
decision.
A one-family dwelling is defined as a
detached building containing one dwelling
unit only, a dwelling unit ~- defined as a
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
building or entirely self-contained portion
thereof consisting of minimum square footage
containing complete housekeeping facilities
for one family. The entirely self-contained
building, or entirely self-contained portion
thereof, is very critical to this case since
in both the logical and actual sequence of
events here, what principal Building
Inspector Lessard did was ensure that both
floors of the structure, which you will in
fact be inspecting this weekend, are
interrelated. The hallway upstairs where
the bedrooms are is one long hallway.
Downstairs there is an interconnection
between the kitchen area and the great room
area' where we seek to place another kitchen.
The final definition is that the
family which in your code is defined as one
or more persons occupying the dwelling unit
as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit.
More than five persons 18 years of age or
older, exclusive of domestic servants, not
related by blood, marriage or adoption,
should not be considered a 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
110
It is our contention that the
utilization of this property by the two
owners, the sisters and the husband o~ one
sister, since 1977, which will remain the
same, ~its into the definition o~ family and
that the deEinition of dwelling unit is
consistent with what we are seeking since it
is -- there is only one dwelling unit here,
since it is, it must be an entirely selE-
contained unit and the only thing that is
selE-contained here in view oE the
interrelationship between the two parts o~
the home is the entire structure. In other
words, there is no wall between the first
-- within the ~irst floor. There is no wall
within th~ second flo~r.
And to get ahead just ~or the minute
at the end oE a ~ew minutes when I conclude,
it is clear that what you are supposed to be
doing under the Court oE Appeals case -- a
recent case which I will cite, is consider
the actual use, not the potential use o~
this house. I~ we get into the situation
where we are saying we could put a wall here
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
and we could put a wall
into a two-family house,
111
there and make this
madness lies that
way because that could be done in any house
in this town. According to the case which I
will cite, the Court of Appeals case, you
must consider the actual not potential use.
Indeed, to consider the potential use would
be arbitrary and capricious. When you
consider your definition, when you consider
the Wilmott case and the actual use of the
house by the sister owners oE the house for
some 13 or 14 years, I think the analysis in
Wilmott could be followed by you.
In the Wilmott case they insisted on
the covenant that this house would not be
used' as a two-family. We suggested a
covenant to the Building Department in
December o~ last year, which got us going on
the second start oE the building permit and
we would certainly be willing to put it in a
recordable Eorm because there is no
intention to use it
single-family house.
THE CHAIRMAN:
as anything but a
Is there any
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
anticipation to put a second kitchen in?
MR. CARDINALE: Yes, because what we
are here for is the variance of the front
yard stoop and an interpretation that,
contrary to what Mr. Lessard indicates, a
second kitchen does not make a two-family
dwelling. So we seek to have a second
kitchen in the two-family dwelling identical
to the Wilmott situation and identical to
some of the cases like Baskin (phonetic
spelling), cited to you by various -- by
myself and Ms. Ongioni.
The second item the Board asked me to
provide was the availability of the home for
inspection. As ! understand it, the home is
available! %0 you -- (~naudible).
The third area of inquiry was the
square footage of ~he stoop area and
evidence of interrelationship of the kitchen
and great room. Unfortunately, you have the
only set of plans. You have the set of
plans approved in March of 1989 for the
original building permit and you have the
set of amended plans which ! handed up at
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
the Eirst hearing in July, which reelects
the amended plans insisted upon by Mr.
Lessard to Eurther interrelate the two
Eloors oE this house. So I would reEer to
you that, and if I can be oE any Eurther
help I certainly will be.
To get to the second purpose, the
second purpose was to obtain the presence of
Mr. Lessard Eot any inquiry Erom the Board
and confirm the sequence of events which I
related. I understood he would be here.
understood that based upon a letter I sent
on October 20th to him, which I know he
received, which I am handing up as an
exhibit, and concerning which I discussed
-- I~ discussed the letter with him on
October 19th and conEerenced with him in his
oEEice at which time he said he would he
here, and in that letter I indicated that
since this matter has been delayed and that
since my clients are anxious to get going,
they are considering removing, pending the
ZBA Einal decision, the oEEending plumbing
pipes Erom the wall oE the great room in
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
114
order so that the stop work order maybe
lifted -- seeking thereby to define, as I
indicated at the last meeting, that the only
argument with the Building Department in
this matter from the petitioner's standpoint
was that:
1) The area survey shows an average
setback of 26 and we have an 18-foot setback
with the stoop, 30 with the house.
Therefore we needed to get the front yard
variance if we included the stoop in the
plans; and
2) Victor Lessard's concern, as he
legitimately had a right to be, about
whether this was a one or two-family home,
insistin~ 'that even w~th the interrelation-
ship between the -- within the floors of the
home, that we could not pipe for a kitchen
or even a wet bar in the great room and I am
seeking, as you know, an interpretation.
Under the law, ! am permitted to put a
second kitchen as long as it is a one-family
home.
! spoke with him about this letter,
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
115
indicating that request to lift the stop
work order, if we removed the pipes, which
he indicated he would do in June. He
indicated to me October 19th there would be
no problem with -- ii we removed that he
would have an inspection made and that would
alleviate that problem, remaining therefore,
only the problem as to the front yard stoop.
This is the letter of October 2nd.
(Applicant's counsel handing above-
mentioned document to the Board.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. CARDINALB: I
Board has heard from Mr.
don't know if the
Lessard in any
other capacity, but he indicated a
willingness to speak.
THE CHAIRMAN: He is il! tonight.
MR. CARDINALE: And to confirm the
sequence that -- he couldn't do it -- he is
not here -- but to confirm the sequence of
events ! indicated and the issues he was
upset about that led to you.
THE CHAIRMAN: If Mr. hessard was
here tonight I would conclude this hearing
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
on the 15th based upon the fact that we are
inspecting it this weekend. ! will take
full responsibility for my timeliness in
asking our assistant here to call you last
Friday. I should have asked her to call you
last Wednesday and then we would have been
able to schedule it.
MR. CARDINALE: You are anticipating
keeping it open to the 15th?
THE CHAI~MAN: Yes, and with Ms.
Ongioni's permission, ! -- there are
specific questions that she has. ! would
like to give these questions to the present
Building Inspector that's here, and have him
carry them back to Mr. Lessard so he would
be able t'o answer the questions at the next
regularly scheduled hearing.
MS. ONGIONI: That is fine.
THE CHAI~/~AN: And, of course, there
may be issues that we may have. ! have two
or three questions that I would like you to
think about between now and the next
meeting, that I don't understand the purpose
of the two front doors. That is one
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
question.
And the other question I don't
understand is the separate tanks for the
heating system. ~nd the third question I
have is, is there a meter or an interrupt
between the existing electric meter and that
of the second -- and ! can't call it a
dwelling unit -- so I will
interrelated apartment.
MR. CARDINALE:
THE CHAIRI~N:
call it a second
The first part --
The question is: What
is the purpose of the two front doors if
they are interrelated structures? The
second question is the purpose of the two
heating systems, two oil tanks. And nun~ber
thre~, they have -- you have already stated
to me that there is only one eletric meter.
My question is, is there an interrupt
meter between the two so as to calculate the
electricity use in the aecond dwelling
structure? In other words, the opposite
side -- is the wiring segregated from one
side to the other side in some manner or
fashion of which -- to ~- of which the
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
applicant could calculate the electric uses
in the second apartment structure?
HR. C~DINALE: I'll get you those
answers. Rather than give them to you now,
let me give them to you in writing.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no reason to
hit you cold with these things. That is the
purpose of continuing the hearing.
HR. CARDINALE: To sum up and get
these exhibits out of my hand and into
yours, since the second reason for the
meeting will be deferred until Victor
Lessard can answer questions. The third
reason for the meeting was to allow me to
address the supplemental argument and letter
of Octobe!r' 22 which h~s since appeared in
your file.
I would like to spend some time
studying both the cases and the essential
arguments of the neighbor Tober, and I don't
-- I think you suspect, and rightly so, that
there -- since this house is a big house, it
is a two-story house. If not a two-family
house, it is certainly a two-story house and
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
Mr. Tober has a piece directly behind this
piece and the -- a lot, and therefore his
view will necessarily be somewhat affected.
Aside from whatever personal objection he
may have, I want to address the legal
objection.
Ms. Ongioni, Eot the opponent, says
she would like you to consider that this
-- her opposition as an application to
revoke the permit. She would -- and then
she would like you to have the house scaled
down or preferably torn down. She would
also ask you to declare this a two-family
house with or without a kitchen. I have
constantly stated that I had reservations,
and ~ow i state I am convinced that the
Board in this particular instance does not
have the authority to do that ~- the
jurisdiction -- and it is a little bit
complex but here it goes.
We both cited the Town Law, Article
216, Section 267, and the Southold Town
Zoning Code, Article 27, 100-271 -- the same
section. We have the appeal and review
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
120
powers. I conclude that jurisdiction is not
with the Board to reach any issue other than
the stoop variance and the issue of
interpretation of a second kitchen making a
two-family or not. The reason I say this is
even looking at the cases that are recited
by Ms. Ongioni, you cannot -- it is my
quarter, so to speak. ! think it
this
you,
is $160,
application.
This application, as I stand before
~ have the burden of proof as the
applicant in establishing to you that ! am
entitled to the variance and I am asking you
essentially to interpret a code section. If
Ms. Ongioni, on behalf of Mr, Tober, wishes
to make an application, she may have the
status to do that but she cannot do it on my
application because if she were to make that
application the burden of proof would switch
to her. For that reason alone you cannot
allow a piggy-back of her request or
application to consider this motion or
revoke the permit and tear down the house.
in the cases she cites, it was the neighbor
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
who was making the motion, the petition to
the ZBA, not the subject owner.
The second issue I want to address is
this: I don't believe that you will in fact
tell these people to tear down their house.
I don't also believe, aa you have heard,
that the neighbors who have appeared on the
first meeting even wanted that. They all
indicated that would not be a [air
conclusion. I argue that you do not have
the jurisdiction to do that. However, even
if you did -- you could not because the
building permit was not improperly or
illegally granted in the first place.
Although that was repeated numerous times,
it i2 just not true.
The argument advanced is that this
building permit is not legal. They are
really quite straightforward. There are
about four of them. First she argues lot
coverage. Then she withdraws lot coverage
because she says it is 26. It turns out to
be 13.5. Then she says that we need front,
rear or side yard variances we have never
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
applied for because it was never necessary
to apply for any variance except for the
stoop, Ne never applied for the use
variances. The only thing we ever applied
for was an area variance for the stoop. The
reason for this is we did not need any other
variances. The Building Department agrees
with us here. Ny analysis concludes we
don't, Ne see the same section, 100 -- for
opposite purposes -- 100.242 of the code
which says -- ! hate to quote the code to
you -- basically what it says is that as
long as you do not increase the non-
confornu~nce you can go ahead. We did not
increase the nonconformance. If you look at
the surveY', you will see our setbacks remain
the same; front, with the exception o~ the
front stoop, remains the same; back remains
the same; side yard we don't need any
relief. The only relief we needed was the
stoop. That is the only relief we sought.
The other argument she brought up is
the tidal wetlands violation, New York Rules
and Regulations 6614B. First o~ all, if you
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
look at the map and calculate the 50 foot
for the street, it is more than 300 feet.
But even if it were not, again we have a
half-presentation. In the section she
quotes, Ms. Ongioni, defining adjoining
areas under the DEC Rules and Regs, one, it
says 300 feet landward~ two says there is an
exception as evidenced by both a copy of the
regulations themselves, I am handing up, and
the DEC form that everyone who deals with
the DEC has seen, including this Board, that
a review has been made. New York DEC
doesn't have jurisdiction because it is
landward of the substantial manmade
structure greater than 100 feet in length
constructed prior to September 20, 1977.
That is Inlet Lane. So it is more than 300
feet. Even if it wasn't, the DEC is not
involved because of that section which
incidently is directly behind the section
that was quoted to you.
(Applicant's counsel handing above-
mentioned document to the Board.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
& favor,
Ongion~.
it up a
124
Mr. Cardinale, and as well
We would like to conclude -- wrap
little bit so that we have a final
hearing and I would dearly
get out of
MR.
like to see us
here by ii:00 tonight.
CARDINALE: What I am going to do
in this case, and it is perfect timing, is
to conclude at least this presentation and
I'll have another chance to speak to you on
the 15th.
The fifth point is very important to
understand. Maybe you do. The only
variance we ever sought here is the area
variance for the step, period. And it was
the result of that 300-foot setback survey
requestedI by Mr. Lessard in December of
1989, six months, nine months, excuse me,
after the issuance of the building permit.
The code section justifies 26 feet without
the relief of this Board. We are seeking
18. No other variance was ever sought.
The only other thing we sought is
that interpretation. We had -- we make the
argument that practical difficulty,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
unnecessary hardship and consistency with
the neighborhood surroundings. Only in
regards to the stoop, that is the only
variance we are applying for. What is
happening in a lot of the responsive papers,
when we are getting into things like self-
imposed hardship, lack of good faith, we are
talking about the house.
We are not asking for a variance for
the house. Our position is the house is
legal. It doesn't require variances. The
Building Department never said to us to get
this. All that we are requesting, all that
is relevant to the areas of hardship,
imposed or otherwise, or practical
diffkcui(y or consistency with the
neighborhood, is the stoop. All of the
other case law has to do with convincing you
that the proper interpretation of the second
kitchen, under the case law, is to permit
it.
I have a number of cases I was going
to quote. I am going to stop right there,
because I can conclude the next time we meet
1
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~26
by giving you those cases.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are continuing this
November 29th, not on the 15th.
MR. CARDIN&LE: Rovember 29th. okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Hr. Fisher, would you
take this and hand-carry this back to Hr.
Lessard, and ask him please to be available
on the 29th. We will afford you the time
to that. Thank you so much,
when we get
sir.
(chairman handing above mentioned
document to Mr. Fisher.)
some
waive any discussions tonight to -- I have
to admit %~ you what ~he situation is.
will do it on the record. If we go past
11:00, we must pay the Court Reporter much,
much more money. It only makes sense in
this fiscal economy not to do that.
THE CHAIRM~N: MS. Ongioni, I request
forbearance on your part if you could
May I say two words?
Certainly.
I will defer to your
evening because it is very
MS. ONGIONI:
THE CHAIRMAN:
MS. ONGIONI:
request this
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
recessing
hearing.
Courtesy.
MR.
127
late, but my only -- and I will reserve my
con~aents till the next or to submit them to
the Board in advance.
My only concern is that there may be
some participants here tonight who might
like to make a few comments and they may not
be available at the next hearing. ! don't
know if there are any.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone here
that may not make the next meeting?
Seeing no hands, I make a motion
to the next regularly scheduled
We thank everybody for their
DOYEN: Second.
'THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. ORIGONIS: Aye.
MR. DINIZIO: Aye.
(Time noted: 10:40 p.m.)
(Presiding Chairman, Mr. James
Dinizio, in the matter of village Marine,
said hearing commenced outside the presence
of a Court Reporter due to circumstances
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
128
beyond anyone's control.)
HR. CUDDY: I just indicated that we
are here because we are asking for a larger
building and also the boat rack. We needed
setbacks because the lot is a small lot.
The lot is in excess of 20,000 feet. It is
a permitted use. We are not asking to
expand to a nonconEorming use. I think it
is important because the opposition in part
-- and part of it seems to be coming from
the Planning Board. I asked last time that
they corresponded with this Board to have
the opportunity to reply. They did
correspond subsequent to our last hearing.
I wrote this Board. I believe my letter is
part of t~ Board's
I today have been made aware of the
additional letter from the Planning Board
claiming that effectively the proposed plan
with the additional parking violates five
different sections of the code. They are
speaking of Section 100-210, 100-212, 100-
213, 100-214 and 100-215 -- are sections
having to do with landscaping and buffers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
129
The first section is a purpose
clause. It says the purpose is to improve
and beautify, and ! think quite frankly that
is part o~ what our application is.
Section 212 has to do with
landscaping in the front yard. The front
yard is 37 feet. !t is blacktopped. It has
been that way for years. It is next to the
Hess gas station. !~ we put in a grass area
it would probably be about 15 feet by 15
feet. It would seem to me that that's going
to be of no consequence or of no effect
whatsoever.
So the other section talks about
transitional buffer requirements. !t has to
do w~th'~hen there is a lot in a residential
district that backs onto our lot. We are in
a situation where there is a right of way.
That situation doesn't apply to us.
214 is a parking area requirement.
It has to do with landscaping and paved
parking. We don't have paved parking in the
rear or the side of our building. It
doesn't apply to us.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
~2
13
14
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
2~
..... 130
215 has to do with shoreline erosion.
It has to do with vegetation and plantings.
We have a bulkhead which was simply designed
to save erosion. Virtually none of the
things -- and I'm sort of disappointed the
Planning Board would go to the length it did
-- and yet this letter is not germane to the
application. They talk in this letter about
the proposed boat rack that is located in
the transitional buffer area. That is not
true. I have with me tonight, Mr.
Glueckert, the architect, who is going to
address some of the questions about parking.
I have Mr. Young, who would like to
reiterate his concern about the boat rack,
to explaf~ to you why'it is needed.
I would point out simply to this
Board that I am surprised at the opposition.
The opposition is simply saying we should
not have a marina. That is not really the
function of what we are here before as I
understand the Zoning Board of Appeals. It
is a legislative body. It is a quasi-
judicial body. No one here is saying do 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
131
like this or don't I like this. At least, I
hope they are not because I don't think
that's what this is all about.
What this is about is my clients
attempting to take a situation, which is not
necessarily onerous, but oertainly would be
improved upon. He has a building that
requires attention. It also requires
additional size because he doesn't have
additional size. He can't take the boats
out of his yard. If he takes the boats out
of the yard and puts them in the building,
he can then get parking improved and take
the cars off the street. I only see this as
I cannot see this as a ntinus in any
a plus.
If we are defeated in this applica-
tion -- to be permitted to use the property
just as it is -- and I don't see that that
is going to benefit the Town. I would very
much hope the Board considers the ~act this
i~ an improvement. It is not a detriment.
I would ask Mr. Glueckert to address
the parking questions to the Board.
!
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
:21
22
23
24
25
HR. ~LUECKERT: Bruce Glueckert,
(~lueckert and Wieber, ~rchitects.
132
I would like to just point out one of
the paragraphs in the Planning Board's
letter, which indicates certain stall
parking. The stalls do not have a 22-foot
aisle behind them. There are three spaces,
or four spaces, that have a 20-foot backup.
! would like to point out that this is a
small site, odd-shaped site,
to work parking in at a11.
and difficult
managed to put
not a typical retail operation where there
is constant traffic flow on the site. The
cars will! be parked there for the day, most
of the day, and will not be moved and
generally the people who will be visiting
the site will have been to the site before
and will continue to visit the site and will
know the parking layout. Thank you.
Young, who is the
THE CHAIRMAN:
MR. CUDDY: I
Anybody else?
would also ask David
operator of the business.
29 stalls on.
However, if we look at this, this is
4
5
6
7
8
9
~0
~2
~3
~4
~5
~6
~7
'18
~19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
133
NR. YOUNG: My name is David Young.
I operate Village Marine. I would just like
to reiterate what Mr. Cuddy said, that this
is definitely not an expansion. We are only
trying to take down a ramshackle building
and improve the appearance of the yard and
the Village Marine itself, and give us more
room to park in and make it a more
attractive marina.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can ! ask you one
thing? The building itself, is that going
to be used for storage or boats -- mostly
repair?
MR. YOUNG: Just repair.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are not going to
hay& racks in there?
MR. YOUNG: No. No -- building is
just going to be mainly to get us inside.
For instance, this evening we had a boat
that a sign painter was coming in to letter
and it wouldn't fit into the existing
building and the guy came down there. There
was dew on the outside of the boat and he
couldn't letter it.
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's just -- we go through added
expenses. It is very restrictive to do
business in the way the operation is set up
now. It is not 1950 anymore, as far as
134
marinas and in order to make ends meet you
have to do a little bit more. We are trying
to streamline it and make it look better.
THE CHAIR/tAN: More is not
necessarily more boats in the water.
MR. YOUNG: Not at all. We don't
plan on expanding the marina or putting more
boats in the water. We are only doing it to
neaten the yard up. The rack would be in
order to clear along the bulkhead side so we
can have parking for our customers along the
bulkhead,! 'and the building is so that we can
work inside in the wintertime.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else?
MS. MARRINER: Jeanne Martinet.
also am co-chairman of the Peconic Bay
Association Task Force. I am putting some
additional comments because I have had a
chance to review the record. I do not see
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
135
the changes. So this won't apply to the
changes that are not in the record.
As the Southold Town Planning Board
has stated for the record, the Bay Avenue
Village Marine property is already
overdeveloped and parking requirements
cannot be met with off-site parking because
this is always subject to change. Not only
is the property overdeveloped, but the lot
itself is also nonconforming because it does
not meet the requirements of the district in
which it is located. Furthermore, because
it is located in the Peconic Estuary
Critical Environmental Area, it is a Type I
action and requires a long form
envi=onm~ntal assessment to filled out by
the applicant, which has not been completed.
To grant further variances, clearly
runs counter to the expressed purpose o~ the
Zoning Code of the Town of Southold as
stated in Section 100-240 - Nonconforming
Uses and Buildings. The purpose of said
article and section is to "reduce or
minimize impacts of uses and buildings which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'[3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
:2:2
23
24
25
~36
do not conform to the use or bulk
requirement as set forth in this chapter."
(Article XXlV)
Furthermore, Section 100-242, Non-
conforming Buildings With Conforming Uses,
does not provide for the demolition of a
building. It also prohibits the creation of
new nonconformance through remodeling and
reconstruction. The applicant seeks to add
a storage rack which would accommodate 30
additional boats and further add to the lot
coverage. Plus the parking requirements for
the additional boats alone, would, if
adhered to, cover one-half of the entire
property. The storage rack is considered a
structure.'
In addition, it appears that the 20
percent landscaping requirement required has
been completely ignored, thus adding further
to the nonconformity. And the landscaping
is for mitigating purpose, to control runoff
into the tributary of the estuary --
regardless of whether there is a bulkhead or
not. A proper site plan should have
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
provided for approximately 4,000
of landscaping.
The p£oof
137
square feet
required for an area
variance, to be provided by the applicant,
is that:
1) There will be no substantial
change in the character of the neighborhood;
2) the degree of the variance will
bring minimal change to the property;
3) the difficulty cannot be obviated
by other methods such as off-site location;
4) justice will be served by
granting the variance.
The practical difficulties might be
obviated by the applicant moving repair work
to a~ office location such as the one
currently available next to the landfill,
which, as I understand it, was built to
assist local businesses with nonconforming
problems.
I believe the Board of Appeals has
heard many complaints about the traffic and
safety problems at the corner of Bay Avenue
and Main Road. This is fact. There was an
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
....... 138
accident there just this Sunday. There is
someone in the hospital right now.
Therefore, it is neither serving justice nor
is it in the interest of the safety and
welfare of the community to allow further
expansion which will bring increased traffic
hazards.
Under Section 100-271 of the Code --
Powers and Duties of the Board of Appeals,
it states that the Board of Appeals must
consider the effect on the community and
must bear in mind that the burden of proof
that there is no threat to safety rests on
the applicant, who must produce concrete
evidence to counter the negative impact.
I~ 'would appea~ that the only
practical difficulties that exist are those
self-created by the applicant who wants to
further expand development on an already
overdeveloped, over-varianced property. The
New York State Enabling Act ~or Town Zoning
states: "The granting of variances is to be
sparingly exercised." If the ZBA does not
exercise its powers sparingly, the Board
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
'21
22
23
24
25
].39
leaves itself and the Town open to
litigation.
Thank you. I would like to give you
each a copy of the booklet produced by the
Peconic Bay Task Force, which might help you
in understanding what more development on
the waterfront that is not property
mitigated, how it can effect the estuary.
(Ms. Martinet handing above-mentioned
document to the Board.)
MR. FLYNN: F. M. Flynn, resident of
the Town. I have several objections to this
application but due to the lateness of the
hour and in the interest of conserving
funds, if you will accept my objections in
writ'ing,' I will be glad to submit them in
that fashion. I would like to make one
comment, however. This property is a non~
conforming property by definition of Section
100-13 of the Town Code. It has to he
considered in the context of a nonconforming
property.
Now may I submit my objections in
writing subsequent to this evening?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MS. JOHNSON: My name is Sherry
140
Johnson and I am currently serving as the
Program Coordinator for the North Fork
Environmental Council. ! would like to take
this opportunity to reiterate the NFEC's
position on this matter, which was stated at
a previous hearing held on September 26th.
The NFEC is opposed to the granting
of the variances requested by Village
Marine. The site is already in
nonconformance with the M-I District in
respect to lot size and width. A lot of at
least 40,000 square feet that includes a
width of 150 feet is required. The
applicant! ~s asking nsw for further relief
from parking and landscaping requirements
and for increased lot coverage. The
proposed structures will bring the
percentage of lot coverage up to 20.8
percent of the site. The coverage allowed
under the Bulk Schedule is 30 percent, based
on a 40,000 square foot lot, which this is
not. In fact, the Zoning Code itself states
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
141
that "no building shall be used and no
building or part thereof shall be erected or
altered in the M-I District unless the same
conforms to the Bulk Schedule".
Instead of adding further to the
traffic and congestion at this location and
to the further degradation of James Creek,
the NFEC asks you to deny this application.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You will
furnish us with copies of that?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Anybody else wish to
make any comments?
MR. CUDDY: I have several comments.
First is if Mr. Flynn is going to have the
pri~ileg~ of putting something in writing
after the hearing, I would like to respond.
I assume he can do that within a reasonable
amount of time.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to have
it before the next scheduled meeting, which
would be the 15th. That is, any written
cormnent s.
(Inaudible)
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 CHAXRMAN: The 10th, is that
okay, Mr. Flynn?
MR. FLYNN: I will be glad to submit
them in writing within the next week.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable to
you? The 15th will be final comments.
Final comments would have to be in by the
15th, by you or anyone else. Would that be
okay?
MR. CUDDY: Yes. The other point !
would like to make, without belaboring, is
the reason that we are here is because the
lot is
One of
have a unique situation in that we have a
lot that l~as been for'more than 35 years
that size and it is a permitted use. The
legislative body of this Town has said, you
can have a marina at that site, and we are
here because we are trying to do something
we think is improving that marina. That is
precisely the reason the application was
made. Everybody is telling us something
that ! think is self-evident, that the lot
142
smaller than we would like it to be.
the practical difficulties is that 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
is small and doesn*t conform. I
meet the criteria that is listed.
(Inaudible)
I think it is similar in this
application to the Port of Egypt
application.
(Inaudible)
THE CHAIRMAN: If you made an
application to this Board, how many boats
could you store on that property right now?
What would your limit be? Would you have a
limit as to how many boats could be parked
on that property?
MR. CUDDY:
there is a limit
There is physically --
to the size of the lot.
143
believe we
Mr. Young probably would say to you that he
stores "X" number of boats there. I would
say that certainly perhaps he can store more
than 30 boats there.
MR. YOUNa: When we bought the place,
before we bought it the Markowitz (phonetic
spelling) had boats all the way to the fence
where you couldn't drive into the driveway.
What we did when we went through there was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...... 144
-- one of the first things we did was rent
an external piece of property in order to
store boats so we could alleviate the boats
out in the yard. This has been our
direction all the way along.
MR. CUDDY: He doesn't store boats.
What he does is he has boats that they
repair. In other words, there is no storage
that takes place. And I think he testified
last time, he takes the storage boats off
the site.
THE CHAIRMAN: What I was getting at
is if no application was made, he would have
every right to store boats on that piece of
property. That's all I have.
If! 'I don't hear anything more, !
would like to close the hearing. I make a
motion to close the hearing.
MR. GRIGONIS: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
MR. DOYEN: Aye.
MR. GRIGONIS: Aye.
(Time noted: 11:00 p.m.)
* ,
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEAL
NUMBER
3969
3974
3980
3978
3971
3976
3972
3977
3979
3968
3975
3788
3955'
3938
INDEX
APPLICANT
ANDREW BURKARD
DONALD L. OSANX (for GEORGE
BRUDERMANN, JR.)
VIRGINIA OLGA LEE
DONALD and DOROTHY SWAHN
VALERIE M. KRAMER
THOMAS and MARIAN SANTACROCE
PETROL STATION LTD.
BETTY J. COPIN
THOMAS J. GORMAN
IRENE R. MILLER
ARTHUR G. CARLSON
SUN REFINING and MARKETING
DOMiNIcK SBLENDIDO and
A. AURICCHIO
VILLAGE HARINE
145
PAGE
NUMBER
2
5
8
14
19
22
31
42
44
54
87
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I, GAIL ROSCHEN, do hereby certify that
I am an Official Court Reporter and that the
foregoing constitutes a true and correct
transcript of the Town of Southold Zoning
Board of Appeals hearing of November 1, 1990,
according to my stenographic notes.
Official Court Reporter
145A
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
SOUTHOLDTOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
Appeal No. 3939 - Matter of VILLAGE MARINE:
Board Members present were: James D£nizio, Jr., Chairman Pro
Tem; Charles Grigonis, Jr. and Serge J. Doyen. (Absent were:
Members Joseph H. Sawicki and Gerard P. Goehringer, who has
abstained from discussions or deliberations in this matter.)
Also present were: Board Secretary Linda Kowalski, and
approximately 25 persons in the audience.
Chairman Dinizio reconvened the he,aring at 10:48 p.m.
CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: Is there anybody wishing to make any comments
on this, for or against? Mr. Cuddy.
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ.: I'm Charles Cuddy, attorney for the
applicant, Village Marine. When we were here at the last
meeting; this was held over for several reasons, but I would
Page 2 - Appeal No. 3939
Z.B.A. Transcript of Hearing
Matter of VILLAGE MARINE
November 1, 1990
Regular Meeting
CHARLES CUDDY, ESQ., continued:
just briefly like to reiterate what our application is because I
think it's important to know what it is so you know what it's
not.
It's simply an application for setback variances because we
want to build a larger building to house the boats so that we
can repair the boats. It also is an application to permit us to
have a boat rack so that we can take existing boats -- not new
boats, not additional boats, but existing boats there -- put
them in the storage racks. It opens up the area. It permits us
to have additional parking, and in this connection, we've
submitted a revised plan to the Board showing additional parking
spaces and also showing some planters along the bulkheading.
!,
I'm aware and I had asked, and this is one of the reasons I
guess we're having this further meeting -- I had asked to
co~ent on anything that the Planning Board --
(The Court Stenographer returned to the meeting at this time.)
SECRETARY: We should have been waiting for Gail before we
started the hearing.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM:
Mr. Cuddy.
I didn't even realize she was gone. Sorry,
Page 3 - Appeal No. 3939
Z.B.A. Transcript of Hearing
Matter of VILLAGE MARINE
GAIL ROCHEN: Mr. Cuddy, let me just get to the record. Ok,
this is Village Marine.
MR. CUDDY: I just indicated that we were here because we were
asking for a larger building and also the boat rack, and needed
setbacks because the lot is a small lot. The lot is a little in
excess of 20,000 square feet. It's a permitted use. We're
not asking to expand a nonconforming use, and I think it's
important because the opposition in part, and part of it seems
to come from the Planning Board, and I had asked last time that
they correspond with this board and to have the opportunity to
reply. They did correspond subsequent to our last hearing.
I wrote to this Board, and my letter should be a part of the
Board's file. And ~oday I've, beeD made aware of an additional
letter from the Planning Board claiming that effectively the
proposed plan with additional parking violates five different
sections of the code. I would just like to point out to the
Board that the five sections that are spoken of, Section
100-100-210, 100-212, 100-213 ...
(See remainder of hearing transcript prepared by Court
Stenographer under separate cover.}
tLINDA KOWALSKI t/-~-) ~