Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/12/1991 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OF FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1991 Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer and Members: Dinizio~ Doyen, and Villa Members Absent: Grigonis (due to illness) Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 35-40 persons in the audience. Appl. No. 4033 Applicant(s): Randi Lacalamita Location of Property: 1395 Henry's Lane, Peconic, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-74-1-10 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey produced by Roderick Van Tuyl with no specific date indicating a penned in carport 18 by 35 in the front yard area. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Now we're ready for you. If you would kindly state your name for the record please sir. MR LACALAMITA: My name is Joseph Lacalamita, my wife is the owner of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How close to the I guess that's the northerly property line at its closest point is the carport? MR LACALAMITA: It's approximately midway between the house itself and the street (Henry's Lane). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay, but in .reference to its closeness on the side yard area, how close is it to that property line do you know? MR LACALAM!TA: It's I think three feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Three feet. Could you measure that for us please and let us know on Monday. MR LACALAMITA: Yes I will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. The onlyreason why I didn't measure was I was down early one morning looking and I didn't Page 2 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Randi Lacalamita Southold Z.H.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: want to go traipsing around your property looking for monuments or anything of that nature. Okay? Is there anything you would like to state for the record? MR LACALAMITA: Well, my father-in-law who's a graphic artist did the sketch and on the bottom of the sketch I'm sure you have a copy of it. It said, carport to be settled with blacktop driveway. I got a copy of it with notations that it was approved, unfortunately, on the sketch it said that it was going to be with a blacktop driveway. Unfortunately he didn't read this green piece of paper that said that it had to be in the back the yard. Well if it was to be put in the back of the yard it would be feasible because it's too narrow to drive four vehicles. He never intended to bangle or break the law and the structure cost over, close to $4~000~ and we're seeking relief because it's a little expensive to tear it down, so we're looking for relief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long has it been up? MR LACALAMITA: Since May. CHAIR~kN GOEHRINGER: This past May? MR LACALAMITA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOE~IRINGER: And you're planning never to enclose it? MR LACALAMITA: Never to enclose it no% CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:. And it presently houses approximately four cars? MR LACALAMITA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. And you will call us and tell us how close it is to that closest property line on the side. MR LACALAMITA: How soon will we know because they're anxious to know? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Probably in about a week or ten days. MI{ LACALAMITA: Very good. I'll call you back and you want to know from one property .... CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I want to know from the front monument on Henry's Lane, how close it is and i want to know how close it is to that closest property line, which is really like the Page 3 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Randi Lacalamita Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: northwest side. MR LACALAMITA: Very good. That's it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's it. MR LACALAMITA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else have any other questions for this gentleman? (He's gone). I'm sorry we had a discussion concerning the individual setbacks myself and the Board since the hearing. I had no idea he was leaving. I'm sorry I apologize. I UNIDENTIFIED): Do you want us to call him back? CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: No that's alright. MEMBER DOYEN: No unless someone had a question. CHAIRMAN GOE~I{INGER: I mean I think he pretty much answered all our questions. Did you have any questions? MEMBER VILLA: The only question I had was, did I hear him say he couldn't drive to the backyard? MEMBER DOYEN: It seems that he did say that. CHAIRMAN GOEB-RtN~ER: Well I think the property falls away in the back. MEMBER DOYEN: He's got a 21 foot offset on that side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah I know. Alright well we're going to get the approximate side yards that this thing and the front yard that this thing is off so we'll make a determination at that point. MEMBER DINIZIO: What was submitted to the building department? MS KOWALSKI: That was what was submitted to the building department. MEMBER DINIZIO: This, right here? MS KOWALSKI: That yes and I have another one. MEMBER DIHIZIO: I'm wondering how he could have approved that. Page 4 July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Randi Lacaiamita Southold Z.B.A. MS KOWALSKI: And this. Do you have a copy of the building permit. CHAIRM~kN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So okay. CHAIRPLAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else who would like to speak in behalf of this application, either for or against? Seeing no hands (TAPE CUT OFF) Appl. No.: 4028 Applicant(s): Richard Oliveri Location of Property: Crescent Ave, Fishers !sland~ NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-6-6-20.5 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (TAPE CONTINUED) That has been again postponed, so we will continue that postponement and I will offer a resolution postponing it without a date at this particular point. ALL IN FAVOR- AYE Appl. No.: 4036 Applicant(s): Ellen Braunstein Location of Property: Corner of Wendy Dr and Pec. Bay Blvd., County Tax Map No.: 1000-128-5-7 Laurel, NY The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey produced by Alden Young, dated October 1, 1975 indicating a one story frame house almost perfectly centered in the property, a little more toward the rear of the property. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. It appears that the application that is before us is for an addition to the rear of the dwelling which is approximately 15 x 15. We would like to ask the agent for the applicant if he would like to speak please. Just state your name for the record if you would? MB REILLY: Norm Reilly, president of A. Reilly and Sons. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This will be a permanent addition to the rear of the dwelling? MR REILLY: That's correct. It's attached. Page 5 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Ellen Braunstein Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of foundation will it be? MR REILLY: It will be according to the building codes of the Town of Southold, State of New York, we'll have a crawl space and it will be framed according to the building codes. CHAIRMAN GOE~I~INGER: And I assume the setback I believe is 35 feet and you will have if the Board is so willing to grant this application, a 25 foot setback so you are looking for a reduction of approximately 10 feet? MR REILLY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRI~GER: What is the approximate offset off the corner of the house? MR REILLY: Approximately 5 feet. CHAIRMkN GOEHRINGER: Okay great. I don't have any other questions, it's a one story addition right? MR REILLY: Yes. It will, slope roof, a~couple skylights and that will be that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have any problems with that? MEMBER VILLA: Yeah, are they going to leave all of that dense landscaping intact back there, you're not going to take any of that. MR REILLY: That's correct, nothing will be touched back there at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have any other questions? I have no problems with this application I'll make a motion to approve it as applied for. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Page 6 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. Appt. No.: 4032 and 4040 Applicant(s) Mary and Peter Blank Location of Property: Peter's Neck Road, Orient, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-32-11part of 2 and 4 also lot 3 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a map produced by Young and Young or Howard Young the most recent date is June 4~ 1991~ Indicating parcel one which is an area which is the nature of this application of 1.6461 acres and parcel two an area of 1.7478 acres and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map this and surrounding properties and for the record this was a condemnation I believe by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and these are the remainder parcels left from that condemnation. Mr. Angel would you like to be heard concerning this? MR ANGEL: Yes I would. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's so nice to see you again. How are you? MR ANGEL: I haven't been here in a while. CHAIRMAN GOEHI{INGER: Yes you haven't. MR ANGEL: Really not since Bob Villa got on the Board. With his pavilion face it's a different setting. Can I, do I speak into the microphone? ~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless anybody complains. MR ANGEL: I prefer just not standing back and addressing you directly in the bank. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can hear it? MS KOWALSKI: I think so. I~ll let you know if I don't. MR ANGEL: I'll speak loudly. Does the audience want, do they hear better if I speak in the mike. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's a microphone right here. MS KOWALSKI: It might be better. MR ANGEL: I'll do whatever you want me to do. Page 7 July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. MS KOWALSKI: You better use the mike, that would be better. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know what you could do, you could pull that table over if you wa~ted to use it. MR ANGEL: Is it better if I speak to the mike? Mr. Goehringer was corree~ this is an application for variances of lots that were in fact reduced in size as a result of condemnations by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the DEC. As I said my name is Stephen Angel I represent the applicant, an attorney in Riverhead and what we're seeking here are a series of variances from your Board. A front yard variance as your Board describes front yards, from about 60 feet to 40 feet and a rear yard variance from 100 feet to 60 feet. A lot depth variance from 400 feet to 40, but the way you measure your lot, the way you define lot depth, did I say rear yard or depth, lot depth is sort of unusual in the ordinance and the nature of our variance here is not going to be as great as it sounds as you see in the survey. And finally a lot coverage varlance, we want to increase the permissible lot coverage in this five acre zone from 5% to approximately 16% and 24% given the remaining parcels. Now Mr. Goehringer identified a survey or a couple of surveys I think that were prepared by Young and Young in this case. We have updated those surveys and I would like to present essentiality the same surveys to you with some additional information on them and they most recently revised today. The first survey which is marked as "A" is a survey of the area showing the building envelope that we are requesting. The ones showing the variances that we are requesting. It has bunch of information on it, which you have on those other surveys but it also includes the 5 foot contour from the Suffolk County Topo. And the precise measurement of the depth of lot as measured by your ordinance. In addition to the other stuff that you see on the one that's already been submitted and with your permission Mr. Goehringer I would like to hand this out. I have a bunch of copies for you, how many would you like? MS KOWALSKI: About six would be great. MR ANGEL: How we produce this. I think Howard is ..... Now I have a survey also prepared by Young and Young which is dela~inate "B" which shows the extent of the building envelope if all setback requirements were adhered to, given the lot configuration we're left with. Or the lot configurations we're left with after the DEC taking and you will see it's dramatically less. If you look at those parcels and they're both shown on Plain "B", parcel one Page 8 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. MR ANGEL, cont'd: originally consisted of 4.1742 acres, parcel two originally consisted of 9.1525 acres all of the land not remaining was taken by the DEC on October 26, 1990. We're left with as you said Mr~ Goehringer parcel being 1.6461 acres and parcel two being 1.7478 acres clearly less then what's required under the 200 square foot minimum zoning requirement in this zone. Now I've mentioned to you briefly what the requested variances are, I don't think that I need to go over with them again. We respectfully submit that in this situation we have a practical difficulty, obviously the difficulty was created by the condemnation for the record we have opposed the condemnation from day one, the Blanks of the many people who were involved in the, as lot owners, condemnation conducted by the DEC were perhaps one of two or three that have actually not sit with the DEC they fought it out and tried to maintain their property and did not arrive at a voluntary_ agreement~ There's no self created hardship by doing this. As I said the DEC took their property there is not even an agreement as to price on their property. That is going to be the subject of a claim in the court of ctaims. The variances that we're seeking I respectfully are not as substantial as they seem at first glance. The property around that is developed on lots are not in the~ certainly are not 5 acres, the ones on Peter's Neck. There are some that are small there. More over the lot sizes themselves that we're left with are surrounded by a tremendous amount of open land that the State has taken~ it used to be part of it. We're not in a situation where by allowing the development of these two parcels you are creating houses on what are going to appear to be smaller parcels~ They-are going to be surrounded hopefully in perpetuity by the large expansive DEC acquired wetlands. It's not going to effect the substantial change in the character of the community, we can't solve ~ne problem other then by getting variances from you. I should point out in this regard that in all their conversations and in all their approach to dealing with the Blanks the DEC has taken a position that what is remaining~ in other words these parcels one and two that you see~ are buildable parcels. They have made payments to Mr~ and Mrs° Blank in accordance with law~ they have to make an advance payment and those advanced payments are predicated on these two parcels being buildable, i~m not saying you are bound by that, but the DEC has treated it as such. It's not like they required or paid for the use of these parcels. They have assumed through purposes of their condemnation that we can get a building permit on each one of these parcels. C~AIRM~ GOEHRIN~ER: Why did they do that Mr. Angel rather than allowing the variances to occur first? Page 9 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. MR ANGEL: They wanted to take the property. Their timetable is their own. They just did it. They were convinced, in my conversations with them, know whether they are wrong or right they were just convincing, based upon unidentified conversations with people in this town that they were going to remain as buildable parcels. They never explained to me why they were convinced of that. Though I have had numerous discussions about the value of property and they have always taken the position, that what remains are two building lots. But as far as waiting fer a variance, I personally think that they have an agenda, they wanted to acquire a whole bunch of properties in Orient. The properties were acquired under funds that were made available back in 1972 on the 1972 environmental bond act. They developed their agenda and they just went ahead with it. I don't think that they made municipal approvals. There wouldn't be municipal approval applications on anything that they did in the Orient positions. CHAIPaVIAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR ANGEL: The other thing that is involved in this application is there's also a 280A application because we are building on a private road. That's a little bit of an interesting question, because I think 280A requires an application for a variance to build on a road that's not part of the official map. If you look at your official zoning map the road is on that map. I leave it to you people to decide whether the 280A application would be necessary in this case. I believe that when my associate John Wagner checked into the necessity of the 280A application there was a subdivision done at the end of Pete's Neck off this road within the last few years, a minor subdivision and I don't believe that that had a 280A application. That doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't, but I want to bring that to your attention. We previously submitted single and separate certificates that go back until 1962, we're led to believe that in 1962 and even prior there to has been thereafter for a few years the town uniformly allowed divisions to these large lots without the necessity, especially where there's only a five lot and four lot subdivision, not be a necessity of minor subdivision frugal. I'm here and the Blanks are here to answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How long has this road been in existence? MR ANGEL: Well the road was created as a separate parcel !n 1962. How long is it physically been there? Page 10 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.Ao CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. ~WrRBLANK: 1938~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how long has it been in actually improved to the point of either asphalt or some sort of hard base surface. MR BLANK: 1955, something like that. CHAIRMJuN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. ~R ANGEL: And there's one thing that by the way John was going to be here tonight, but somebody is ill in his family, he could be here so I'm handling this all by myself. He promised that he'd bring Linda a copy of the Peconic Bay Estuary CEA, the critical environmental area map and a resolution. It is possiblet again I'm not sure, that we fall within that area. I'm not as you can see from looking and I have an extra copy of this map, as you can see from looking at it is not a very paced boundary. CHAIRFLAN GOEHRINGER: We've had that trouble with the flood plain maps, I assure you. MEMBER VILLA: Jerry could I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER VILLA: Mr. Angel, I don't have' a problem with the 40 foot setback from the front? from the road too much, but looking at the parcels, looking at parcel one, just working off this as a one inch equals 100 feet, it would appear that the depth of parcel is about 60 feet plus or minus. The building envelope. Now~ the Trustees will require a 75 foot setback from the wetlands, have the Trustees been approached at all on this? MR ANGEL: No they haven't. The reason, in fact, I'm going to brutally honest with you, I'll just tell you what happened in this application. When we originally drew the~ or asked Howard Young to draw the lines, we suggested a 75 foot setback from the wetlands line and Howey told us, Howeys very familiar with this area. Howey was the surveyor for the DEC on all the acquisions and has been involved in applications representing people on both sides and he suggested the setbacks that we have now because I guess with the DEC taking he was familiar with the DEC approving a setback similar to the ones that you see here. He had made that suggestion to give us more area in which to deal with Page ll July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. MR ANGEL, cont'd: the zoning, more area to deal with placing the structures for a house. MEMBER VILLA: Well I just, I ~as jus~ wondering if your clients would you know if you reduce that 60 foot plus or minus to meet the 75 foot from the wetlands you still have a 35 foot building envelope and most houses aren't 35 feet in depth. MR ANGEL: Which one are you talking about parcel one or parcel two? MEMBER VILLA: Parcel one. Parcel two you even have a greater depth with that one is about 90 feet plus or minus. MR ANGEL: Well needless to say, we like the flexibility, certainly 35 feet to build a house is sufficient, but here you are talking about, we want an area that may be sufficient to place a deck or a pool, we don't know what's going to come in ultimately when an application is made to build a house. We realize that we have ~o make an application to the DEC after we come before you and we have to make an application ~o the Trustees, all of those applications will be made. So if I have a way to, if I can take a position I would sooner have the building envelope as it appears on the survey and then make my application to the Trustees and deal with their setback before that Board. MEMBER VILLA: They are looking down a loaded gu/l, so to speak, because you have already gotten'a variance from us. MR A~GEL: We haven't gotten a variance from them though. MEMBER VILLA: No. I know. But it makes it more difficult. That's why I was wondering if you could live within the existing setbacks without requiring the variances. MR ANGEL: Well to be honest with you, I think that parcel one, there would be a diminution in value in the lot if we went to a 35 foot, if we went to the 75 foot setback. Parcel two is more, is... MEMBER VILLA: Yeah it's 90 feet. MR ANGEL: Is a bigger area, we have more room to play with. Once you get down in this area, I don't know if you have visited the property Bob, you have, it's magnificent property. MEMBER VILLA: Oh yeah. Page 12 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southotd Z.B.A. MR ANGEL: I mean it's one of the two nicest lots I've seen since I've been practicing on Long Island. In my opinion, the constriction of the building envelope in lot number, given by that additional 50 feet, may make a substantial difference in value to the parcel, because you are looking at a parcel that is going to appeal to somebody with means. MEMBER VILLA: Well you are talking about a deck or something, would they be at all adverse to restricting a major, you know a major building where you would require a foundation and everything else to the 75 foot~ MR ANGEL: I haven't laid it out but~ it sounds, we certainly could look at that° The idea of the building envelope since nothing has been designed as yet and we're left with the condemnation facing us that assumes that you guys have done all this is to find out whether we do have the right to build on those lots~ certainly that's an important issue for us in facing the condemnation part. But you know, I mean I can't, we haven't analyzed that setback, but it seems to me that if the house is, if the foundation is sufficient enough for a house and there is more room which could fit deck and other accessory structures could probably be easily livable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: Just as far as size is concerned of parcel one, what is the footage, the road frontage of the buildable lot? I ... MR ANGEL: What is the what? ~ MEMBER DINIZIO: The road frontage of the buildable parcel. There is no measurements on here so I really can't° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, they are Jim, it appears it's a 298 + 146 + 99. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no I'm talking about just this part. MEMBER VILLA: You're talking about the envelope. MEMBER DINIZIO: Just right here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, the envelope. MR ANGEL: We could scale that off. It's 140, 1 inch equals 40 or 1 inch equals 100. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 1 inch equals 1-00. Page 13 July 12. 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. MR ANGEL: What does that look like Bob about 160, 1757 MEMBER VILLA: Probably more then that about 180. MR ANGEL: Okay 180. And the other one's maybe 200. We have no expectation that there would be structures in that entire area. What we've chosen is a building area in which we can impose the structures. I don't think there's any intention of developing a 24% coverage on this lot with impervious materials, you know we would, if you felt it necessar~ to limit the percentage of coverage to something less then that if it fit in this area we would have no objection ~o that. What we want is ..o MEMBER VILLA: That's an area where you could put a house. MR ANGEL: An opportunity, yeah an area where we could put a house potentially a pool if they wanted it potentially a deck. Some area where we can locate those structures, that's what we're looking for. CHAIRFL~N GOEHRINGER: When you referred to the 16% of lot coverage, Mr. Angel, you are referring to lot number one or lot number two? MR ANGEL: 16% is lot, the 16% lot coverage is the total building envelope shown on "A" for lot number one, given the reduced size of the lot. The 25%, and it's slightly more than that, it's shown on the map by the way, the computation, all these computations are Qn that new map. You'll see it on the side, it's 24.7 and 16.8' and it shows it Jerry on the right hand side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. I see it now. I was still going back to the first map. MR ANGEL: If you use this .... By the time Howey prepared this today he put on just about everything. The only thing we don't have on is the flood zone, which I tried to read and is either A6 or B something. C~AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy for you if you want it. MR ANGEL: I have a map too. But as you know, the flood zone questions are going to, they'll have to be determined at a construction phase, if whatever the construction requirements of the particular zone we're just going to have to move them. CHAIRMAN GOE~IRINGER: Right. Does anybody else have any Page 14 - July 12~ 1991 Public Hearing - Mary and Peter Blank Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: further questions concerning this? Anybody in the audience like to speak concerning this application? Seeing no handsr~Mr. Angel, I assume we'll continue with the deliberation~ after this and any other further questions gentlemen? Okay. Hearing no further questions we thank you for your presentation and I'll make a motion to close this portion of the hearing reserve decision until later. We'll extend this hearing until Monday in receipt of information from the Planning Board concerning the subdivision in this area. MS KOWALSKI: Just a written part of the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Written portion. AL~ IN FAVOR - AYE. Appl. No.: 4034 Applicant(s): Anthony and Maria Mercorella Location of Property: 2260 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-145-4-4 The Chairman opened the hearing at $:15 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMA~ GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of the plan~ the placement of the building appears to be in the s~me position as it was in 1990, the difference and the nature of this application appears to be the fact that we are now asking for a second story accessory dwelling for storage purposes. How do you do si~, would you kindly state your name. MR MERCORELLA: Mr. Goehringer, my name is Anthony Mercorella I'm the applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? Is there anything you would like to state for the record Judge? MR MERCORELLA: Yes, we would rather put the preliminary plans together rather hardly after remodeling the which is located on the same piece of property and so that we did not consult at length with an architect. But this house, after having dispensed with certain sums of money to remodel it, leaves us short of any storage area. We have no basement because of the wetland situation, we have no attic space because of the height restrictions and we have a half acre of property and we do have a deck, we have considerable garden furniture and I do a lot of gardening and we need to store our gardening equipment and our garden furniture and other Page 15 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Anthony and Maria Mercorella Southold Z.B.A. MR MERCORELLA, cont'd: things we are intending to everyday living in some area other than the house. The house itself when we applied, when we built the house we conformed to the original envelope, the original foot. We didn't apply for a variance with respect to that. So it's a question of convenience~ the story this time and also we want to conform the accessory dwelling to the existing house, so there would be some symmetry. We had previously asked for a, a pull down ladder, but that wouldn't afford us the excessive building to store these rather large things upstairs. Also we intend to buy a boat perhaps and we would like to store that in the garage and that would preempt us from any necessary storage space. Basically that's it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you tell us the purpose of the half bath on the second story. MR MERCORELLA: The half bath is really a, I would want a sink and a toilet basin so that I'm an the garage or in the little work shop that I would like to put in the garage I don't have to run back to the main house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will the building be heated in any way? MR MERCORELLA: No sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. I thank you so very much. Before you sit down, does anybody have any questions from this gentleman? Thank you so much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Appl. No.: 40B5 Applicant(s): Mr. and Firs. Eugene Croasdale Location of Properuy: 595 North Parish Drive, Southold, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-71-1-6 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:20 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch, it's actually a site plan produced by Garrett A. Strang Architects, the most recent date is June 19, 1991 indicating the proposed garage addition approximately 13 feet from North Parish Drive and it appears 16 feet wide and approximately 22 feet deep and approximately 4 feet from the westerly property line. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating Page 16 - July !2~ 1991 Public Hearing - Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Croasdale Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you Mr. Strang? MR STRANG: I'm fine thank you~ yourself? CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Good, thank you. MR STRANG: The application I think pretty much states what we're trying to accomplish here. We have an existing house that was built probably somewhere in the mid sixties, mid to later sixties° It does not have a garage. My client, Mro Croasdale, is not the original owner or the person who built the house, he's purchased it I guess in one of the resent years and is the second or third owner° He has a need for a garage. The placement of the house~ I guess at the time 'it was built it was set with a minimum front yard, now for what reason I can't say. I believe that the front yard, existing front yard was in compliance with the zoning at the time it was built. And we have no real alternative as far as a placement for a garage on this property. There is a driveway there presently where he can park his car on site~ but again we'd much rather prefer to be able to house his car in the garage and since we can't put the garage in the rear yard and there's really no room to place it on the side~ given the side yards as being what they are. We're left with this as our only alternative for the placement of the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's an interesting situation because we have been wrestling with the differences between front yards and rear yards in waterfront parcels for years and the problem that we have is that we a~ways wanted enough area so that if the garage door was closed, the car would at least being outside of the garage would be on the person's property and not hanging out into the road and that's one of the problems that we have here with this particular application~ unless you had a Honda civic~ the car is going to hang out into the road. MR STRANG: Well the reason if you'll note on the site plan did indicate that although the property line is given~ the actual right of way is wider than the actual pavement which is normal in most communities today and the edge of the pavement is depicted on the site plan and there is a 25 foot dimension from the edge of the pavement to the garage if they were parked in the front of the garage, so in essence, although the vehicle would not be totally contained within the property~ it still would not extend out into the public traveled road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay and what is the purpose of the 4 Page 17- July 12~ 1991 Public Hearing - Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Croasdale Southold Z.B.A. CHAIPuWIkN, cont'd: feet from the, I assume that's west.° MR STRANG: The 4 foot side yard on the west is presently as you see noted on the site plan!~there is an existing entry porch which is our intention to become a basic vestibule transition area. There is a door that comes from presently, that comes from this porch and enters into the kitchen area, which is in what I'll refer to as the southwesterly corner of the house, that is the garage, I'm sorry is the kitchen and there is a door from the kitchen out into this area that's noted as a porch, so the 4 foOt is sort of dictated s° that we have 3 feet left over if you will from the existing corner of the house to allow entrance into this area without having to walk through the garage and get to the door to the kitchen. CHAIRMAN GOEPIRINGER: What's the approximate height of the garage wall in that 4 foot setback area. MR STRANG: It would be a normal 8 foot wall, obviously probably one course of block or cell above grade, because 8 inches is mandated by code to be from existing grade to the beginning of framed structure, so we'd be looking at maybe 9 feet to the plate line and then give a little. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: both sides. MR STRILNG: That's right base to the road as I imagine at the present time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don'~ have any other questions. Does anyone else have any questions? Mr. Villa? Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. MEMBER VILLA: I know why you have the three foot offset, but is it really a problem to line up the garage so you'd have a 7 foot offset, I mean we normally require what's it 10 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR STRANG: The side yard would normally be 10 feet in this district, yes. If we were to slide over the other 3 feet that would basically mean you'd have to walk through the garage to get into the vestibule if we go that particular transitional area and into the kitchen, through the kitchen door, so we did shift it off to the side specifically so that you could have a door at that point or opening or someway to get into this transitional area to get into the kitchen without having to open the garage door per say and walk Page 18 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Croasdale ~ Southold Z.BoA. MR STRANG, cont'd: through the garage. MR VILLA: I realize that but you still, even if that we would have to grant a variance~because it would be 7 feet instead of 10. MR STRANG: That's true. Even if it were to be in alignment with the corner of the house we would need a variance still for the side yard and it really, we did look at the possibility of shifting it further to the east which would prevent, would present a difficulty in that we have a window in the kitchen, the only window in the kitchen is basically right on that corner of the house facing the southerly direction and we would then be coming over that window and net allowing any natural light to come into the kitchen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Also the other thing would be of course if the Board would grant any type of alternate relief or this application as it stands, it will clearly state that there would be no closing of any other side yards and the other side yard would be the east side yard. MR STRANG: That's right I don~t see any reason why we would ~ have (microphone not picking up) no further encroachment on the other side that would maintain a 17 foot side yard° CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay° We'll see what else develops, thank you very much for your presentation. Is there anybody else who like to speak either for or against this particular hearing? Seeing no hands I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until la%er. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Appi. No.: 4024 Applicant(s): Ronald Stritzler, M.D. Location of Property: 3055 Soundview Ave, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map No.: 1000-94-1-14 The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:30 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMA/~ GOEHRINGER: One behalf of Dr. Ronald Stritzler it is a hearing that we have postponed from the last regularly scheduled meeting and, Doctor, you have patiently sat there through the major portion of our hearings tonight and you are very welcome to speak, we do have some questions of you. DR STRITZLER: I~m the applicant and I would be happy to ~-~ answer any questions or address the issue of why we selected Page 19 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Ronald Stritzler, M.D. Southold Z.B.A. DR. STRITZLER, cont'd: this however you wish. CHAIRMAN GOE~RINGER: Why don't you address that issue of why you selected that area. DR STRITZLER: For those of you who have seen the property think, would recognize that the contours of the property are very steep and there are numerous trees throughout as well as lawns and gardens and berms that we have worked on for quite a few years now. The particular site that we have chosen one where we have a vegetable garden many years ago and we know it's been level and although there has been some incredible pollination and growth there over the years, it looks a lot like the amazon jungle. There is actually very few trees that have to be taken there as opposed to any other conceivable site 'where there would be more than 24 trees that we have calculated. There, there may be at most 4 and only 2 and obviously both the cost involved in leveling the land and the environmental effect have made this a seemingly the most preferable site. And also there's an issue here that we can punch in right from the road with the equipment necessarily, excuse me, do the tennis court, whereas at , actually any other site the equipment would have to come on our land and would certainly cause some problems in terms of lawns and gardens we have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dr. the approximate size of the court itself, is how wide? DR. STRITZLER: It's approximately 120-feet in length, maybe 140 feet, I forget frankly, by 65~. I'm not, frankly I've forgotten those exact measurements, I didn't look at the dimensions before I came, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. And the fence you're proposing is 8 feet or 10 feet? DR. STRITZLER: 8 feet, it's an 8 feet fence, said by the person to put it up to be "invisible". It's not a chain-link fence by the way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, it's not a chain-link. DR. STRITZLER: It's not a chain-link fence, it is a that is much less visible than a chain-link. C~AIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the court will not be lighted? DR. STRITZLER: It will not be lighted. Page 20 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Ronald Stritzler, M.D. Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we'll go over to my other two gentlemen over there, fellow Board Members, and ask them if they have any questions concerning this application. MEMBER VILLA: My only concern is that it's quite close to the neighbors house~ the neighbors house is very close to his property line and that's why I was wondering if it couldn't possibly be shifted to some extent. DR. STRITZLER: I'm not sure, which house? MEMBER VILLA: Well on the survey it says something about Rodney W. Cane or John Miller I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: John Miller. DR. STRITZLER: That property there, there's no house there, I actually spoke to the man who's actually willing to come here with me to support my presentation actually. So in terms of that particular man, there is no objection. In terms of fixing it~ I wouid, be willing to shift it to any reasonable degree, but the shifting will then involve the knocking down of trees, to a significant number° CHAIRMAN GOEPLRINGER: Any other questions? Dr. we thank you so much for coming in and it's a pleasure meeting you. I was up the other night in between~ the lights were on, not in the house, there were some spot lights on, I did run up with my old pick up and I did look at the area~ It's a beautiful piece of property. Absolutely magnificent. DR. STRITZLER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll do the best we can for you. Thank you again. Hearing no further questions I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. Page 21 - July 12, 1991 Public Hearing - Joan and Richard Zeisler Southold Z.B.A. Appl. No.: 4036 Applicant(s): Joan and Richard Zeisler Location of Property: 700 Jackson's Landing Rd, Mattituck, County Tax Map NOo: 1000-113-~-9 NY The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:35 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey produced by Roderick Van Tuyl P.C. dated July 11, 1991 indicating a proposed garage in the dotted postage stamp area that most surveyors usually use showing approximately 23 feet from the front property line, 9 feet from the southwesterly property line and somewhat falling within the normal conformities of the existing dwelling. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Zeisler would you like to be heard? MR ZEISLER: First of all I just want to say it's Joan not John Zeisler. MS KOWALSKI: Oh. That's a typo. I'm sorry. MR ZEISLER: I'm now calling her Joan. We're moving out here permanently and we really need the garage for just storage space, we're going to have ground. There's going to be no becoming a nuisance. Certainly an accessory building as a garage and a storage space above and on the rear walls. You know the normal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. ! Is it going to be a one story garage? MR ZEISLER: Well it's the same, I'm sorry, here is what it's going to look like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. MEMBER VILLA: It's the same height as all the other buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All the other attached buildings. Okay and what's the approximate size 20 X 20? MR ZEISLER: 20 X 20. And we're not doing any excavating, it's going to be on a slab. Do you want to see a nice picture? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Really nice. I remember when we had the original Flood law variance. Thank you. All those Page 22 - July 12~ 1991 Public Hearing - Joan and Richard Zeisler Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRM3~N, cont'd: portions of those buildings were actually brought in, were they brought in separately or were they built on site. MR ZEISLER: No, they were all built, everything was built on site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everything was built on site. MR ZEISLER: And as I say the DEC will give a letter of non- use decision. We have over the 10 and half feet in the width. We haven't gotten it yet, but they told me on the phone, with the 10 and half feet and where as we have DEC approval for everything else and this is the furthest away from the water so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Thank you very much. You want your get a picture back right. We have a tendency to keep pictures, do want this back? MR ZEISLER: Yeah~ that I need. CHAIRMAN GOEPLRINGER: That's alright as long as I have the site map. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor or this application? Is there anybody who would like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comments, I make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR - AYE. (Hearings transcribed by tape, not present at hearings)