Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/26/1991 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR ~EETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer and Members: Dinizio, Doyen, Grigonis and ~illa Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 22 oersons in the audience. Appl. No. 4054 - WILLIAM A. HANDS,JR. The Hearing opened at 7:30 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. The application as mentioned in the legal notice is a 10' addition by approximately 33' to the rear of the service station and the combination dwelling area. I have a copy of a survey that was dated November 29, 1990 by Roderick VanTuyl P.C. indicating in dotted lines the proposed aodition and I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is Mr. Hands available? How do you do sir. Maybe you might want to use the mike once and maybe someone has some questions. Is there anything you would like to state for the record? MR. HANDS: I don't have anything to state really. Mk. Villa and Mr. Dinizio as far as I know were the only two people from the Board down to view the property. CHAIRMAN: I was down and I did't see you. I was in a blue Camaro and I apologize. I was in a bit of a rush. I had to run up to that private road just to the east and had little time left and I apologize. Is this addition going to be a one story addition as the back is now? MR. HANDS: It is a Gne story addition and the roof is going to be raised. CHAIRMAN: How much higher will the roof be? MR. HANDS: The roof presently is approximately 10' What we want to do is go to the peak of the building which is 20' and being it down'to 14'. I think its going at 14' CHAIRMAN: 14' it is 'and the smallest at the end of the 10' addition Page 2 - Appl. No. 4054 William A. Hands, Jr. Hearing Transcript of September 26~ 1991 MRo HANDS: Put two 12~ doors in for a legal bulkhead. CHAIRMAN: Will~ there be.any s~orage above that? MR. HANDS: No, it is open. We have storage above the existing building which we may utilize through this addition but that's down the road. CHAIRMAN: What is your timeliness on this? Do you need a decision as quickly as possible. MR. HANDS: We would appreciate it because Obviously our need for it is fairly immediate. We would like to do it this winter° Obviously once you people have approval we would get going° CHAIRMAN: We thank you for coming in and we will do the best we can for you within the next two weeks. I don't know if we will get to it tonight depending upon how late the meeting goes. Thank you again. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or this application, anyone like to speak against the application? Questions from Board members? Hearing no further questions, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. Seconded. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Applo No, 4049 MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH CARPENITO. The Hearing opened at 7:35 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of the site plan indicating this particular addition which is a garage area in the front yard or garage in the front yard area approximately 15' x 22' and it was produced by Sambach Associates~ most recent date is 7/18/91 and t have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Sambach how are you tonight? MR. SAMBACH: Good evening. CHAIRMAN: What w~uld you like to state for the record? 'Page 3 Appl. No. 4049 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Carpenito Hearing Transcript of Spetember 26, 1991 MR. SAMBACH: Once again I'm here before you in reference to Gardiners Bay Estates whereby many homes were constructed before any zoning wa$~in effect. Houses were buil~ on the property without regard'to sideyard or frontyard setback so consequently any additions we have to come before you. According to the deed restrictions garages have to be attached to the house, they cannot be built separate from th~ house. The proposed attached garage will be added to the front part of the existing structure shown on the plot plan. I have submitted some pictures to you showing the foliage along the east side of the property line between Carpenito and James Fisher's property. This foliage will screen the proposed garage from the adjoining property. Dogwood Lane is a 50' wide roadway which has not been developed and the residence and the propsed garage is well set back from Dogwood Lane. On behalf of my client, Mr. and Mrs. Carpenito, we respectfully re- quest consideration be given to the variance for the frontyard and sideyard setbacks. CHAIRMAN: Is this a one story structure? MR. SAMBACH: Yes sir, that's right. The same as the house, the same pitch. The roof pitch would be the same as the house. CHAIRMAN: At its closest point it is approximately 5' from the property line? MR. SAMBACH: I believe that is what it s'hows on the plan. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason why you didn't choose to move it over a little bit farther. Is it because it would cover the front of the house? Is that the main reason? MR. SAMBACH: Probably it would have covered the front of the house. CHAIRMAN: Is there any reason, why we are going with 15' rather than a normal 12 or 13' garage? MR. SAMBACH: Just to get a little bit more space. We could go to 13' CHAIRMAN: I'm just asking the question because... MR. SAMBACH: Like while he is here he would like a 15' garage. If you will notice there is two g6rage, doors, one in the front and one is the back and that's to put his boat in and push it through to the back yardi Page 4 - Appl. No. 4049 Mro and Mrs. Joseph Carpenito Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 CHAIRMAN: You don't see that too often, except over on Carroll Road. We will ~do the best we Qan. We thank you for coming down. Are there any questions the Board has for this gentleman? MEMBER VILLA: The only problem I had is you talk about the foliage on the side and I paced off the 15' and you~eright in the bushes. A lot of those bushes really aren't on your property or your applicant's property° MR. SAMBACH: No, they belong to Jim Fisher. MEMBER VILLA: What I was going to say was the window in the house is located in probably three or four feet from the side of the building. It would seem that you could either do two things narrow the garage or shift it over in front of the house a little bit. I'd like to see about 8' from that side line if it could be gotten. Is that where you protect the bushes more? Do you have any objection to making it smaller. MR. SAMBACH: No objection. CHAIRMAN: Again we are talking 3' at its closest point so now we down to 12'. Do you want to move it over a little bit farther so as to cover up to that window or do you want to start right at the corner of the house? MEMBER VILLA: It wouldn't be, the window is in three or four feet. MR. SAMBACH: We cannot go more than two feet. We don't want to block that window. CHAIRMAN: We thank you again. We'll deal with it. MR. SAMBACH: Thank you gentlemen. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application, anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE Page 5 - Appl. No. 4053 Douglas Morris Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 Appl. No. 4053 - DOUGLAS MORRIS The Hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. ~ The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I Have a survey here from William R. Simmons, Jr., most recent date is June 27, 1991. This application is a proposed deck in the rear yard area. It is showing us - we will ask the applicant. I see 40' mentioned here and we will ask that question, I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone here representing the Morris'. How do you do sir. ERNEST RICHTER: I'm the contractor for the Morris'. CHAIRMAN: Could you just give me an idea - is that 40' showing the distance from the bulkhead to the proposed dec or what is that thing. ERNEST RICHTER: To the edge of the steps. CHAIRMAN: This deck will be raised approximately how high above the grade? Even with the glass sliding doors? ERNEST RICHTER: It is approximately 2'. CHAIRMAN: Unroofed? ERNE~ST RICHTER: Unroofed. CHAIRMAN: Just a complete open deck. ERNEST RICHTER: That's all. CHAIRMAN: The house looks beautiful. It is a beautiful spot. We will do the best we possibly cam for you. We thank you for coming ~n sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Anyone like to speak against the application? Hearing no further hands or discussion I ~ake a motion closing the hearing and reserving the decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Page 6 - Appl. No. 4052 John and Evelyn Keating Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 Apple No. 4052 - JOHN AND EVELYN KEATING The Nearing opened at 7:45 p.m. ~ The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIPJqAN: This survey is Peconic Surveyors, most recent date November 5, 1987 indicating the older cottage frame house on the property somewhat centrally located and skewed toward the water and the other information that is mentioned on the survey and I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard, Hello Ms. Moore, How are you? MS. MOORE: Very good~ thank you. I've grown a bit since the last time I saw you. We are here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs° Keating. The Keatings purchased this property back in 1973. They obtained at the closing Certificate of Occupancy for the existing bungalow and relying on that CO were able to obtain financing throughout the term of their ownership. In June of 1988 this Board granted a variance for the construction of a new home with the intent to demolish the existing structure and to rebuild a new home there~ All in accordance with the approved appeal that you just mentioned. In January of 1989 unfortunately for the Keatings amendments were made to the Southold Town zoning code which required proof of Single and Separate ownership for building permits although the Code does not specifically state that a single and separate search has to go back to 1957. That is the interpretation that has been given. An unecessary hardship is created by the interpretation of the zoning code onto to the Keating'~parcel~ Because of the history of this parcel it is somewhat unique. Back in October of I924 Celia Poey ac- quired title from Phillips for this and the adjacent property, both were owned as one parcel. In 1968 Celia Poey had two children~ She conveyed, she split the parcel and conveyed one to her dauther, Margaret Lovejoy~ and the an adjacent vacant parcel to her son, Cortlandt Poey. Mr. Poey is still alive and he is a practicing lawyer in his eighties se we were able to speak to him and find out what had occurred. He told us that everything was above board, it was very open, that the split was done with the permission of the building inspector at the time, Mr. Terry. Apparently in 1968 the zoning code excluded from the minor subdivision regulations transfers orsubsplits that were within family members and since that was the case with this parcel, the aplit was permitted. The parcels exceeded the minimum lot sizes at the time and they obtained CO's for this existing residence and ultimately MR. Poey built a home on the adjacent parcel and obtained a CO. The Keatings are under contract to sell the property and the contract will be terminated if they are not able to obtain this variance and the Board is unable to recognize the validity of this parcel. Clear'dollars proof can be shown here because there is a contract for the sale of this parcel for $202,000. That's a substantial amount of money that would be lost if this property is not recognized. Southold Savings Bank has also loaned on this parcel back in 1989 with the strength of CO that was in existence at the time. Again, the hardship is unique because of t~e history of th~s parcel. The variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the area. The prop~ed.house is a summer Page 7 - Appl. No. 4052 John and Evelyn Keating Hearing Transcript of September 26~ 1991 MS. MOORE' continued: which has this £urrent CO. It would be replaced with a home that would meet all the New York State fire prevention and building code requirements so the home that would be replaced there would be of much better and larger stature than what is there presently. Recognition of this parcel as a validly created parcel would ~ot only be legally appropriate in this case but in the interest of justice. Because of the time restraints we have on the contract and the fact that they have been very cooperative in allowing us to extend the ~eriod of time for closing, we would respectfully reouest that the Board consider this appeal and if at all possible grant it this evening so we can go back and hopefully close title. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Anyone like to speak against the application. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later and call us tomorrow morning. MS. MOORE: We will call you tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN: ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Appl. No. 4051 - WILLIAM AND JOAN FISHLINGER The ~earing opened at 7:50 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: The site plan is based upon a survey by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. dated July 8, 1991 and it includes some extensive landscaping and decking area and steps, etc. to the rear of this particular dwelling unit and I have a copy of Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding pro- oerties in the area. Is there someone who would like to be heard? Mr. Cichanowicz/ How are you sir? MR. CICHANOWICZ: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN: A beautiful piece of property ~ did see on Sunday. morning rather early as the sun was coming up. A magnificient spot. What would you like to add to the hearing. MR. CICHANOWICZ: Well the biggest hardship ~n my client's interest is the fact that the house is now located very close to the dwelling and water and they may not have a sizable area that they can enjoy that beautiful view that they have there. A variance would allow them to extend their living area and enjoy the bauty of that little creek there. · Page 8 - Appl. No. 4051 William and Joan Fishlinger Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 CHAIRMAN: This area in the center, is this a deck or is it ground level or what. How much elevation are we going to have there. MR. CICHANOWICZ:..~ The deck that is ~ttached to the house would be approximately 18" above grade or at a level that you would be able to come out of the house onto a level deck. From that point the stairs constructed down the bluff would be all above grade or following grade without disturbing any major soils at all and the deck at the bottom where it starts to join the bulkhead again would be sitting on top of grade, not disturbing any grade except where you see on the plan away from the water edge there is a small retainment just to allow just a little extra size of the deck amenity of the area, if that is feasible by the Board here. CHAIRMAN: Can you give me an idea on square footage. You don't have to do it tonight about the upper deck, how much that would be total square footage in the lower deck because in dealing we that we have to deal on the basis of the decision at the writing and it it is somewhat difficult to do. Can you give us some idea in reference to square footage. It is a detailed site plan but it does not include - we could scale it off but I~d rather have you do it because of all kinds of curves and movements. MR. CICHANOWICZ: It is approximately 1000 sq. ft. overall between the bulkheads. CHAIRMAN: What would you say the upper one is - about 800 sq.ft. MR. CICHANOWICZ: No. It is actually kind of deceiving because of curves and shapes . The upper is about 650 to 700 sq.ft, and the balance is down below. ~ CHAIRMAN: That deck down below will be even with the bulkhead. MR. CICHANOWICZ: It will be placed on top at a level that will be about 6'~ above. There is an existing walkway now that comes out from the bulkhead. This deck will be constructed so as to thel~'a~t¢ould disturb what's underneath would be basically the top of the bulkhead or at that particular grade. It would be one step down to the catwalk that would take you out to the CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much for explaining that to us. Anyone else. who would like to speak in favor of this application. Anyone like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, I~ll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Page 9 - Appl. ~o. 3539 Michael Herbert Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 Appl. No. 3539 - MICHAEL HERBERT The Hearing opene~ a~ 8:00 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I have copy of sketch of original plan which shows the house that has been there for many~ many years with really no difference in either situation of the special permits and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties ~n the area. Michael, would you like to say something for the record? MICHAEL HERBERT: Nothing other than to say that the apartments worked out very well. I thank you. CHAIRMAN: No complaints from the neighbors. MICHAEL HERBERT: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN: I thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this apllication. Anyone against the application. I make a motion withdrawing the original Bed and Breakfast application. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Appl. No. 4056 - CONSTANTINOS MARKOTSIS The Nearing opened at 8:00 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: The plan from Proper T Services by James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., August 14, 1991 indicating a one story frame house approximately 20' from the right of way which is Williamsburg Road and the nature of this application is a completed or nearly completed proposed covered deck which lacks the roof area but the timbers are up. When I say the roof area I am referring to the fiberglass roofing except for one or two pieces which is at its closest point 71'2" to the steps or 74'2" to the existing, it appears to be property line. I apologize, the bulkhead and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Fitzgerald. HOw are you tonight sir. Page 10 - Appl. No. 4056 Constanti nos Markotsi s Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't have anything to add to that except that it was ~h6r¢ already and Mr. Mnrkotsis built.it ih good faith and we're to fix it. That's the situation right now. CHAIRMAN: So we are in this particular case, notwith standing the steps, we are about 10" outside of the v~riance area for the deck itself and some 3+ feet if we included the steps. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, so the steps could be moved. CHAIRMAN: I would assume that in dealing with this application I'll make a motion that the deck not be any further enclosed other than what is there in the roofing ~ MR. FITZGERALD: To finish the roof. Nothing solid. CHAIRMAN: That's fair. Making it a habitible portion of the house. We thank you sir. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Against the application. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion to close the hearing reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. Appl. No. 4008 - ALEX HOMAYUNI AND CHARLES KAPOTES The Hearing opened at 8:04 p.m. The iChairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: This was recessed from March 22, 1991 and is in behalf of the appliCants being represented by Ward Associates. I see that gentleman in the rear of the room who appears to be from Ward Associates. Would you like to say something concerning this proposal sir. LARRY FEELEY: I'm from Ward Associates on behalf of the owners. We have stated in the letter of August 29 and I believe you have a copy._. Basically what the owner's position is on behalf of this application is that they believe the lot coverage being 2% of the lot over the allowable ~s fairly minimal in magnitude and they felt the use being two family~ which has a CO prior to, I assume the code change,would permit that use and also that the use being a two family immediately adjacent to the motel uni~Bas a fairly reasonable transition between the motel and the sin~e family d,~ellin§s in the area. As a concession the owners are willing to put a covenant restriction on the water side parcel in order to keep that commonly open as to public access-as.to the view of the Sound. It would not be permitted to be built on other restriction, that t~e owners would be ~illing to place on that. Other than that, I think that is about .all I can say. At the last hearing, I apologize, we were not able to come to, the concern was raised regarding the sanitary system which · Page 11 - Appl. No. 40~ Alex Homayuni and Charles Kapotes Hearing Transcript of September 26~ 1991 LARRY FEELEY: continued has been addressed since then and w~ are currently even modifying the approval that we have already gotten. Recently we spoke to the Health Department two days ago and will upgrading it from a modified one family system to a full-fledged two family sanitary system which was put in the remotest corner we could find ~n the site actually to give us adequate clearance to the well, which was brought up at the last meeting. Therefore, we would mee~ the Suffolk County Health Department requirements for a two family sanitary flow also and permit the permissible distance to the well would be more than adequately satisfying. That's all. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ask you a question. What would happen if we did not grant the 2% lot coverage over. LARRY FEELEY: I believe that is stated here. The coverage was needed for the storage shed which is an 8 x 10 proposed shed which would replace the metal shed they have on the site now. Also, about 6" would have to be taken off the addition which is roughly 10' and therefore decreasing the interior rooms to less ~han 10 on that side of the building. We just felt that was minimal, but it could be done if that was required. CHAIRMAN: The addition itself, I apologize, because as you know, there are many hearings since March and that's why In refreshing my memory here with this thing. The addition itself is approximately 10' off the rear of the house as it actually has two front yards. So if we do not grant the lot coverage of 2% it would mean the removal or the non-existence of a new proposed shed and some surgically carvin~ of whatever that percentage would be away from the house. You're still continuing with the well. The well is going to be utilized on the house - you're not going to hook up to Greenport water~ LARRY FEELEY: We are hooking up to city Water which is available to the whole neighborhood. I believe it is the Kemptner's side, the adjacent parcel. They have a well which they want to and can't even use. The reason we did it was to clear their well. CHAIRMAN: So you're going to be far enough away from them. You're going to be 100' from their well. LARRY FEELEY: 100 plus; I believe it is 140' to our septic. CHAIRMAN: The cess pool system is going to g9, where. LARRY FEELEY: I guess the northwest corner of the site. Like I said, we would be connected to city water. They are now. CHAIRMAN: We think you sir. We will see if there are any questions. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application. Anyone like to speak against the application. Yes sir. Would you kindly state your name for the record. Page 12 - Appl. No. 4008 Alex Homayuni and Charles Kapotes Hearing Transcript of Spetember 26, 1991 MR. KEMPNER: i'm satisfied with the moving of the sewer system. I just heard something now which I object to and this is the covenant and restriction on building on that,-lot 4 because that~is a public beach. CHAIRMAN: You mean other people have rights of way of that beach. MR. KEMPNER: Other people hav6 rights on it and we pay two thirds of the taxes on it with the other people so I don't know if they have a ~ght to give that covenant. I don't know what they gain by doing..it. I think they hurt themselves because sometime in the future they might want to put a little boat shed down there and then they would be restricted from doing ito It doesn't make sense to me. I can also say... CHAIRMAN: They do have title to it though, is that correct. MR. KEMPNER: They have title. I don't know how that works~ CHAIRMAN: They have title to it and you pay for a portion of the tax. MR. KEMPNER: We've paidfor a portion of the taxes and we have beach rights in perputuity. CHAIRMAN: Is that the exact location of the public beach or the beach area through Goldin Lane. Is that what everyboy uses, MR. KEMPNER: That's what the east side of the laneuse. CHAIRMAN: The west side has another. ~ MR. KEMPNER: The west side has the adjacent forty feet. This plot plan is very misleading. . Change tape - some discussion inaudible. MR. KEMPNER: That altitude line now is under water. I would like to see that convenant and restriction removed. MEMBER VILLA: For clarity purposes I think what they're talking about is sterilizing f~r a residence. Residential construction. In other words you wouldn't want a house built there, MRo KEMPNER: It is 40 x 50 lot. How can you build a house there° MEMBER VILLA: You're saying that but we have seen strange things happen. The Courts rule that if it held in single and separate ownership ~mr it's a separate entity it can be built upon. So basically, all they.afe:d~i~g is that they are going to sterilize it so a residential structure cannot be built upon it. I'think the C & R's can allude to that if that is what your concern is. Page 13 - Appl. No. 4008 Alex Homayuni and Charles Kapotes Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 MR. KEMPNER: That's my only concern. At one time there was a very steep Stair there. MEMBER VILLA: Our concern is increased density. We don't want anything else happening there and I think we didn't clarify that. MR. KEMPNER: But if we wanted~to put a deck on the stair that would be something different and we'll have that'option. Because at.one..time there was a very steep.stair and we bad two older women ]ivin9 bn the block and we redesigned the stair and put a little deck on there so they would have a place to stop going up and down. MEMBER VILLA: The C & R~s can be explicit so there won't be any residential construction. CHAIRMAN: We would say no primary structures. MR. KEMPNER: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN: Does any one want to add,to LARRY FEELEY: I didn't think of Mr, Kempner's objection. That is fine with us. We would just like to offer it so that the public view would be m2intained. We do know that the immediate adjacent parcel owned by the Xrg- yrides's'.~ does have a DEC permit for construction so you tell me it couldn't be built on as was stated already and that's why we can offer it. CHAIRMAN: Your applicants do have title'to Lot #4 don't you. LARRY FEELEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions I'll make a motion closing this particular hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Page 14 - Appl. No. 4050 Richard Mullen, Jr~ Hearing Transcript of September 26, I991 Appl. No. 4050 RICHARD MULLEN, JR. The Hearing Op~ned at 8:14 p.m. The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. I have a copy of survey done by Peconic Surveyors PoC. most recent date is August 13, 1991 indicating the front area of this building which was the nature of those two.last decisions and the concrete slab that were installed within the grass area adjacent to state road 25. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would Mr., Bressler like to heard concerning this application? Nice to see you sir, how are you? MR. BRESSLER: I'd like to speak in favor of the application~ ERic'J. Bressler of. Wickham~ Wickha~.~.& Bre~sler, P~C~, Main Road, Mattituck 11952. tf it would please the B~ard~ the technical question tonight is as stated by the Chairman in the legal notice. ~ However, the real question before the Board is whether or not this Board is going to permit Mr. Mullen to have competitive equality ~th similar ~n the area and consequently, whether or not Mr. Muilen is going to have a fair chance to survive in the business context. I think that while we can address the technical aspects of the question, the real questions are as put and that is because the business that Mutlen is in, a~tomobile sales, is a rather peculiar type business. As the Board is probably aware~ much of the activity comes as a result of advertising~ rather looks~ if you will, is key to what the public sees on the lot in front of the showroom and whether or not people are intrigued e~ough basically, to go to this business, go on the property and try to make a deal with Mr. Mullen. What he is asking for tonight is no more or no less than every other dealership up and down the North Fork has and that is an opportunity to display his wares both i~ the showroom and in front of the showroom° I have for the Board's consideration a series of photographs taken of both Mro Mullen's place of business and other places of business which I would like to lay before the Board. The first photograph shows a frontal view looking across Route 25 of Mr. Mullen's business as presently exists. The Board will note that there are two pads in front of the showroom which are occupied by vehicles. Immediately behind is the showroom itself and on careful examination, it can be seen that there is a vehicle within the showroom but it is equally obvious from even a quick look at the picture, those vehicles within the windows of the showroom are ~ot readily visible to passersby. The next ~hotograph is a ~ · Page 15 - Appl. No. 4050 Richard Mullen, Jr. Nearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 MR. BRESSLER: Continued a photograph~t'aken of the Wells automobile dealership in Peconic, also on the Main Road. This is a picture taken looking east coward the dealership and down the Main Road. The Board will please note in this photograph that the Wells dealership also has a showroom with large windows and vehicles' are~ housed, in.side, the showroom. In addition, 'the Well~ dealership has display vehicles on what appears to be a concrete apron between t~ curbed e. dge of the Main Road and the building. The Board will further note that these display vehicles appear to be roughly, the same distance from the actual roadway as Ur. Mullen's. The third photograph is one of what is now the Garsten or one branch of the Gars~en Kinney dealer- ship, what was formerly the Kinney dealership on the Main Road and that would be what is now the easterly of the combined dealership. Again, the Board will note th.at there is a showroom with windows and vehicles inside, but there are also display vehicles parked out on the apron rather closer to the road than either Mr. Mullen's or Mr. Wells' vehicles. The next photograph is one Of P~conic Bay Motors, also on the Main Road in Riverhead and the Board will note'the usual, the window showroom with vehicles inside, although they are readily ascertainable from the photograph and a series of pads with vehicles i~ the front grassy area between the building an.d the Main Road. Again, the distances are not materially different from those~of Mr. Mullen's. The next photograph is one of Herb Obser Motors on Rt. 58 in Riverhead looking from across the street. The building contains large showroom w~indows with vehicles inside. In addition, in the grassy area between the parking area which Mr. Obser is fortunate enough to have, the Board will note that there are two vehicles parked in that grassy area, again much closer to the main highway than Mr. Mullen's vehicles. Riverhead Dodge appears in the next photograph which consists of a large brick building with showroom windows and display vehicles parked in a line 'in front of that building, again very, very close to the Main Road and the picture following that is the Nissan dealership in Riverhead with its new banner still out there, with vehicles again parked out in front, close to the highway. The last two photographs are of Riverhead Motors and the other branch of the Kinney Garsten conglomerate, if you will, and the ~iverhead Motors photograph, shows that there is a large building and there are showroom windows in it and there are a series of display cars oarked out in front next to the Main Road, one of them up on some sort of metal con- traption, and a whole series of them p~arked virtually overlapping the sidewalk on the highway. The Garsten photograph shows a large building with sh6wroom windows again and vehicles parked for display ou~ in front. Certainly no surprises there to any one of the members of the Board who has traveled up and down the Main Road. I think Page 16 - Appl. No. 4050 Richard Mullen, Jr. Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 MR. BRESSLER: continued it is fair to s~y as a result of this, that automobile dealerships have both interior space for display of their wares, as well as exterior pads to highlight one or two, or in some cases, more vehicles to induce customers to come in for a sale~ Thus, Mr. Mullen's request in the first instance, is completely consistent with the normal course of business in the area. Now, getting back to the technical aspect of this particular application, we are dealing with a prior determination of this Board which contain the proviso regarding the vehicles and the building line. I don~t believe that it was the intention of this Board to create a situation where Mr. Mullen would be placed at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Mullen has been at his location for approximately 65 years. During that period of time he has served the Town of Southold and he has done so using the set up that has been demonstrated to the Board as is common to all dealerships, although before this application, ! think it is the previous application, it was fair to say that he had a somewhat smaller, you might even say tiny interior display~ After the last application he got something more akin to what the other dealers have, although it is still substantially smaller than any other dealers showroom. Prior to both applications he had exterior display and what he is looking for now are display pads for two vehicles. As I stated, I don't believe that it was the intention or the focus of this Board on that type of padded display that was of concern. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you a question Mr. Bressler? We also have taken pictures. The Main Road being a fairly busy road I did not measure from the double yellow line or in this particular case what line is out there. To the edge of the property, it doesn't necessarily indicate the width of the main state road 25 at that point but the survey clearly indicates that the curbing which is in front of the building and is basically almost the property line, and therefore the asphalt which is in front of that curbing, is possibly a portion of the main state road. MR. BRESSLER: There is no doubt about that. That asphalt area now in good condition is technically part of the state right-of-way, although I don't believe motorists treat it as such. CHAIRMAN: For the record, when this decision was rendered back in '87, as you know, it is sometimes di.fficult to visualize what an addition is going to look like. The reason for that particular decision and I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking only for the record~ myself~ so as not to impede any type of view at the stop sign area in looking to the east and therefore, that was my main concern. In dealing with the application now and looking at it I notice that since you have that apron in front and you stop you can ~roceed and get a fairly good view to the east before pro- ceeding in an easterly or westerly direction and that is of main concern to this Board in dealing with this application. That is Page 17 Appl. No. 4050 Richard Mullen, JR. Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 CHAIRMAN: continued my main concer~rat this point. I do concur with you that pads don't have a negative effect upon that type of situation regard- less of what they do or don't do for the dealership. I see that they certainly do add an incenti,ve from a business point of view but that is my main concern. Let's see what the concern of the rest of the Board is. MR. BRESSLER: Having stolen my thunder, I suppose there is not much else forme to say. What I was going to say was it was my belief that that was the concern of the Board and that the photo- graphs clearly showed Mr. Chairman what you have just indicated and that it is clear from a view of the site and the photographs that that proble~ is not present because of the unusual configuration of the M~ain R. oad. That's ~asically the thrust of our application and that was Mr. Mullen's understanding and we thought it was the Board's and now know that ~t was at least yours MR. Chairman. If any of the other Board members have a concern other than that or have a lingering concern that there ~s a traffic problem, I don't believe there is based on simple line of sight measurement, we would be happy to address it. I think you summarized the position. Mr. Mullen is here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else have any questions? tf we so Relieve that condition we would probably still put on a restriction that the vehicles to be displayed be unplated so as not to cause a problem with any other organizations within this town in reference to when I refer ~o other agencies within the Town. We know that the purpose of the pads are to display vehicles that are for sale and vehicles that are generally in good condition and therefore, if not new, at best. So mainly, that probably would be a good way of dealing with the whole situation so as 'not to cause a problem with other agencies so they understand that they are new vehicles for sale, they are not anybody elses vehicles placed up there for the purpose of servicing or anything of that nature. MR. BRESSLER: If it gets to that point Mr. Chairman I don't think I'll be here representing. CHAIRMAN: We thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this application, anybody like to speak 'against the application. Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Page 18 -Appl. Noo 4055 Arthur Truckenbrodt Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 Appl. No. 4055' ARTHUR TRUCKENBRODT The Hearing opened at 8:33 p.mo The Chairman read the legal notice for the record and application before receiving testimony. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of a survey ~ndicating this long traveled road leading almost to Long Island Sound and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. This survey was produced by Roderick VanTuylP.Co, dated April 42 1972o The amended date was June 3, 1991. The nature of the application is a shed placed, which appears to be in the side yard area, an addition to the rear of the dwelling which again could be construed to be a different place other than the rear, probably the side yard which is approximately 17' from, we will say, the west side of the property. Would you like to be heard~ noted counselor sir? MR. BOYD: Thank you, that's a very nice introduction. Good evening Mro Chairman~ members of the Board. You have in front of you the application in this particular case° I have no photographs, I 6ave no commercial interest to stand up for, except for the client who finds it necessary to increase not only the sides of his house, but also the storage area. Those of you who have been out there to see this particular location understand that ~opo~a~hiC~lly speaking, it is most unusual with a hugh rock across the way with the road cutting through the middle of the property, etc. I think he was pretty well forced into the locations that he has used there. Obviously, the additions are in place. That's something I can't speak to one way or another. He didn't come to me at that time~ he came to me only after the additions were started and put up. CHAIRMAN: What is the approximate size of the deck. Do you know offhand? MR. BOYD: The deck. No, I don't. That goes back to prior time. CHAIRMAN: I meant the addition. I apologize. MR. BOYD: 15 by 15. CHAIRMAN: The approximate size of the shed.. MR. BOYD: I think 18 by 12, if I'm not mistaken. ~ think that is in the application Mr. Chairman. Page 19 - Appl. No.4055 ~Arthur Truckenbrodt~ Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 CHAIRMAN: I parked about two houses up and walked down when I was there. By the time I got down there it was raining~and everything was mush. I'll be~honest with you. We won't go into that. MR. BOYD: There has been a problem there which I understand from my client has been rectified. There has been quite a number of loads of blend put into the road and compacted. The problem seemed to have arisen from a neighbor who had a swimming pool malfunction of some sort and in order to get to the leak in the pool the con- tractor drained the pool out and the draining went onto the road, and washed some gullies in what had been rather hard packed stuff. You came out there to do your inspection and it may have been the interim period when the first patch was in with soft material but since then the pool contractor has come back and has supplied several truckloads of good hard stuff which has compacted. This is what I hear on information. I have not been there but my client advised me of that early this week when he spoke to me on the telephone. CHAIRMAN: I asked Mr. Dinizio, who I believe was the last person there and he did concur w~th what your opinion ~ ~s at this point. Is that correct? MEMBER DINIZIO~ Yes, it is in good shape. CHAIRMAN: We will see what develops with the hearing. We may call you back up and we thank you for coming in. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application, anybody like to speak against the applica%ion? Can you tell me what facilities are in the shed. ts ~here electricity in the shed? ~R~ BOYD: I don't know. I've been out there only once. When I was there the door to the shed was open. I saw a lawnmower in there and the usual stuff you would find in a shed. There is a little house in front which is simply a cover over a pump. I didn't see anything in the shed that was of any unusual nature at all. Whether there is an electric light running to it or not, I just can!t tell you° CHAIRMAN: Any comment from anyone concerned? MEMBER VILLA: I was just concerned. You go on these and you find that the thing was already built. How do we get to this point all the time. When the applications come to this Board~ many times a deck is built or the addition is'buil~ already. It doesn't make sense. Page 20 - Appl. No. 4055 Arthur Truckenbrodt Hearing Transcript of September 26, 1991 CHAIRMAN: I really can't answer that. BOARD ASSISTANT L. KOWALSKI: :There is a violation on the pro- perty. CHAIRMAN: There is a violation on the property. The applicant is seeking to rectify tha~ violation by the nature of this application, I assume. MEMBER: It seems you got the cart before the horse° BOARD ASSISTANT L, KOWALSKI: When was it built? CHAIRMAN: Do we have any idea when it was built. MR. BOYD: It was begun this Spring some time. I don't know exactly when the violation notice was put on it., I agree it is the cart before the horse. I apologize for it but I wasn't there. I had nothing to do with that aspect. Certainly if he came to me I would have suggested it be done the other way around. Again, if clients always follow things I told them, I would be out of business pretty soon. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again. Hearing no further comment, I make a motion closing the hearing and reserving decision until later. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE. Theresa R (Prepared from tape recording)